[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-October-06, 12:09, said:

If partner guarantees a real overcall like AQJxx, xx, xx, Kxxx 3♠ is fine, but if he can overcall on the sort of tat he has, then you can't afford to bid it.

1♠ is perfectly normal overcall.

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2016-October-06, 16:10, said:

1♠ is perfectly normal overcall.

All I'm saying is that IF that's a normal overcall for you, then you don't want to bid 3♠ on the other hand particularly at this vul, it isn't for me but I'm aware I require more than most people.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2016-October-06, 16:10, said:

1♠ is perfectly normal overcall.

Cyberyeti, on 2016-October-06, 16:17, said:

All I'm saying is that IF that's a normal overcall for you, then you don't want to bid 3♠ on the other hand particularly at this vul, it isn't for me but I'm aware I require more than most people.

I do not require more, I require different.
West hand is a model hand how an overcall should not look like, not at any colors, but crazy when red against white.
The overcall takes up no space.
You have the worst possible holding in opponents suit.
In other words the hand has a very low ODR ratio full of quacks
It's not even clear you want spade led.
Jump raises as mixed are fine, but not opposite such overcalls.
I am not surprised nothing is on for opponents.
It's not bad luck it's simply bad Bridge

miamijd, on 2016-October-06, 12:35, said:

Sometimes you just have bad luck.

There's nothing wrong with the 1S overcall.
No, you just got fixed by a poor South player (or else a gambler). South doesn't have a 1H opener in anyone's book. North's X of 3S isn't a penalty double; it's cards. There is no way South ought to pass with a stiff spade; he needs to bid 4C.
So South made two awful bids that worked out for him. Good for him; I'll take my chances against his type any day.

Cheers,
mike

Some people should just take lessons in basic hand evaluation before posting here.
I am not saying I am endorsing all actions taken by South, which were no doubt aggressive and influenced by the favorable vulnerability.
But just compare the South hand with the West hand.
KNR values the South hand more than 4 points higher than the West hand.
If you can not see the difference, don't post.

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

rhm, on 2016-October-07, 05:20, said:

If you can not see the difference, don't post.

Your whole post was interesting and informative, and then you throw in this snide personal slap at the end for no reason.

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2016-October-07, 05:20, said:

I do not require more, I require different.
West hand is a model hand how an overcall should not look like, not at any colors, but crazy when red against white.
The overcall takes up no space.
You have the worst possible holding in opponents suit.
In other words the hand has a very low ODR ratio full of quacks
It's not even clear you want spade led.
Jump raises as mixed are fine, but not opposite such overcalls.
I am not surprised nothing is on for opponents.
It's not bad luck it's simply bad Bridge

You spell out exactly what I've been trying to say in my posts.

[alok c]

That was my point also.If the understanding is they can overcall in vulnerable condition with West's hand then East's was an overbid otherwise West's call was totally gross.

[Kaitlyn S]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-October-06, 12:09, said:

If partner guarantees a real overcall like AQJxx, xx, xx, Kxxx 3♠ is fine, but if he can overcall on the sort of tat he has, then you can't afford to bid it.

I had originally voted for "no blame" but the other posters have convinced me that at these colors where the opponents are just itching to double, that you should not be in 3S on these cards, and who is to blame depends on the pair's agreed overcalling style.

In this auction, East can raise to 2S, and while the Law of Total Tricks indicates competing to 3S, the auction will warn you that bidding 3S is unwise.

So my vote for "equal blame" should really be "other"; I can't assign blame without knowing the pair's overcalling style.

[rhm]

alok c, on 2016-October-07, 08:22, said:

That was my point also.If the understanding is they can overcall in vulnerable condition with West's hand then East's was an overbid otherwise West's call was totally gross.

My point is that this is not a matter of partnership understanding or agreements.
Do not understand me wrong.
I do not argue that overcalls at the one level have to be strong.
But if you have agreements that overcalls can look like this, in particular when red, you are playing losing Bridge.

Rainer Herrmann

[nullve]

I voted that West is more to blame.

Although I agree with most of what Rainer said, I think the ♥Q (bad total trick-wise) is largely weighed up for by the ♠QJ (good total trick-wise). What noone has mentioned yet --- maybe because they have a different experience with LoTT than I do --- is that that the 5T(332) shape, like 4T(333) shape but unlike 4T(432) shape, is worth roughly -1 total tricks. So when basic LoTT actually gives the correct answer on this deal, it may have something to do with the fact that NS has a double fit, which is a standard +1 total trick adjustment.

[MatthiasK]

I agree with the people who think overcalling with the west hand is not a very good idea and very risky. And I would like to add, if overcalling with such hands r vs. w is considered "normal" today, I prefer not being normal in this respect.

[manudude03]

Maybe it's the IMPs player in me, but it seems to me as if passing the west hand can be just as dangerous. Is East supposed to find a double with KTx xx AQxx Jxxx after it goes 1H-P-2H? That strikes me as being extremely dangerous (catch West with a bad hand and now you are seeing a redouble followed by routine penalty doubles), but someone has to do something to get to 2S when the opponents are making 2H.

[Jinksy]

I would guess that Rainer would be intending to protect on that auction.

Still, I need more than sweeping assertions and cast aspersions to feel strongly either way. A bigger risk feels to me like 1♥ 1N / 2♥, where you surely have to pass again as W, and there might be a double part score swing (or, at MPs, missing the chance to go for 100 rather than letting them get 110). Also if I don't bid 1♠, P will be actively deterred from leading the suit vs a NT contract.

[rhm]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-07, 18:20, said:

I would guess that Rainer would be intending to protect on that auction.

Yes, but I would not feel comfortable when vulnerable and I am not sure balancing with 2♠ if a raise to 2♥ is passed round to you is a long term winning decision here.

Quote

Still, I need more than sweeping assertions and cast aspersions to feel strongly either way. A bigger risk feels to me like 1♥ 1N / 2♥, where you surely have to pass again as W, and there might be a double part score swing (or, at MPs, missing the chance to go for 100 rather than letting them get 110). Also if I don't bid 1♠, P will be actively deterred from leading the suit vs a NT contract.

Part-score swings can not always be avoided. The risk is just too high. That is one reason why light openings became popular. The opening side has a big advantage here.
Note, in this example you had a a good nine card fit, there was no trump stack, no trump promotion and yet you payed out and at least I believe this was not a case of bad luck.
It is not difficult to see if there were no spade fit, you might have been caught even in 1♠ for a substantial penalty. Give LHO a singleton heart and 4 or more reasonable spades and playing for penalties becomes quite attractive at these colors. Good players grasp such opportunities.

In this case even though you have the boss suit, it needs an unlikely layout of the remaining cards for you to win the part-score battle.
Why start a fight you can not win and where you are in great danger of paying out too much?

Rainer Herrmann

[SteveMoe]

3♠ is misguided at this vulnerability. East has 9 losers, no shortness and 7 cards in their 2 suits. They haven't found a fit yet. No indicator other than we own 9 trumps says bid to the 3 level. Since we do not know how many total trumps there are when they haven't found a(n implied) fit, the 2 level is plenty.

For those not liking a 1♠ overcall, you will be missing too many opportunities if you always pass here.

[jogs]

ArtK78, on 2016-October-05, 12:10, said:

Bad luck for EW. Perfectly normal.

I play the 3♠ bid by E as a mixed raise - not a preemptive raise. And the E hand is a mixed raise. So I would bid 3♠. If that gets doubled for 500 opposite nothing, that is very unlucky.

That East hand is only a bare minimum mixed raise if West opened. West overcalled. 7+??? Occasionally it's right to allow opponents to play a hand.

[nullve]

SteveMoe, on 2016-October-08, 16:14, said:

They haven't found a fit yet. No indicator other than we own 9 trumps says bid to the 3 level. Since we do not know how many total trumps there are when they haven't found a(n implied) fit, the 2 level is plenty.

East knows that their side has 9+ spades, so opps must have 22+ cards between them in the three remaining suits, which means they have an 8c+ fit somewhere. So East can infer there are 17+ total trumps.

[SteveMoe]

nullve, on 2016-October-08, 18:17, said:

East knows that their side has 9+ spades, so opps must have 22+ cards between them in the three remaining suits, which means they have an 8c+ fit somewhere. So East can infer there are 17+ total trumps.

Yes, we can assume 17. At these colors the cost of a doubled contract does not look good.
We can also assume South is short in ♦ and North short in ♥.

[mikestar13]

More West. While East's mixed raise at these colors is dubious, the overcall on West's quacky piece junk is bad. ♥Qxx in the West hand s a net negative value for this call: absolutely worthless on offense, may well be the defensive trick that sets 4♥ or 3NT--and this is still a lively possibility even if South's hand were a bit better.

[mike777]

great hand to discuss, thank you for bringing it up


given the conditions of contest should west bid 1 spade....should east bid 3s.


As a nonexpertI would pass west but I look forward to what the truly great players say and why?