[whereagles]

sfbp, how can you ask pard to pass when he has 16-17 hcp, maybe more? Surely he must at least make a game try, no?

Maybe one could point out that, since opps are both bidding, the deck probably splits 20-20 and pard's raise is thus likely to be rather sub-par... This might be true, but in practice we all know people get enthousiastic with big hands and one must antecipate that.

[sfbp]

whereagles, on Jun 20 2006, 11:04 AM, said:

sfbp, how can you ask pard to pass when he has 16-17 hcp, maybe more? Surely he must at least make a game try, no?

Maybe one could point out that, since opps are both bidding, the deck probably splits 20-20 and pard's raise is thus likely to be rather sub-par... This might be true, but in practice we all know people get enthousiastic with big hands and one must antecipate that.

Well, that's one reason it might be smart for him to X to begin with

The observation about XX on 9 points is entirely in accord with the idea that there are only 40 points in the deck.

Advancer generally has very little. 9 is (by advancer standards) a LOT.

So

a. he KNOWS that I have a max of 8
b. he knows that I know he will X on 17 or more (well as of a couple of days ago we are mostly agreed on this point)

Pointwise it only gets tricky when he has 17 and and I have 6 +/- 2.

As you say, once everyone is bidding, we can reevaluate somewhat, especially in the light of a fit, which on this hand is what the 2♥ bid reveals.

I would have been delighted to pass 3♥. Only question is with what you and I consider a maximum overcall (say 16) and I have the same 2, are we already too high?

But now opponents have a little more and they may bid. As I pointed out above, second (and/or third) actions by the overcaller are extremely unusual.

Let's hear it for bidding up bad hands in advancer's seat!

[awm]

A few points here:

(1) At one time it was probably right to assume that after an opening and response opponents have at minimum half the values. This makes certain actions reasonable, for example raising on very little (assuming partner will know you have a bad hand) or avoiding a natural notrump overcall in sandwich position. But in the modern game a lot of people open very light hands and respond on virtually nothing. In part, this style has been effective because so many people's competitive bidding is based upon assuming their opponents have cards. In any case I think a raise on this sequence needs to promise a modicum of values, rather than trusting that partner will "know" from opponent's bidding that you can't have a game.

(2) There are many reasons to make an overcall. Notably these are: to compete for the partial, to direct a lead, to disrupt opposing bidding, and to try and reach a game. These various goals require overcalling with a wide range of hands. Partner's 1♥ certainly accomplishes all of these goals. Note that a double could be markedly less successful, and there are in fact many auctions where double could come to grief -- for example suppose the opponents raise diamonds preemptively to the three level. Do you now bid hearts (could go for a number with only five of them), double again (surely this isn't penalty, is it?), or simply sell out when you could easily have a nine card heart fit and a cold game? What if LHO redoubles and partner bids 2♠ (preemptive), isn't this a total disaster?

(3) Raising an overcall can be seen to have similar goals to making the overcall. With the hand in question, you are unlikely to win the partscore battle especially at unfavorable (opponents have the values unless partner is very maximum, and in this case partner may well bid on), you're certainly not directing a good lead (you don't want to see a heart lead from a mediocre holding), and you certainly don't want to be in game. Only "trying to obstruct opposing bidding" makes any sense, and it's not like you are doing this with any great degree of safety or to a level that will really force a guess.

Partner's overcall is a reasonable action on a tough hand. I wouldn't say the same for the 2♥ raise.

[hotShot]

sfbp, on Jun 20 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

I mean what happens if I pass? They play in 1S or 1NT down 1, undoubled and even doubled then that's only 100. And what is partner to do now?

Your LHO will bid something (or your side is allowed to play 1♥X), with the result that you will have another chance to bid. You can bid 2♥ then. This way your partner knows that you are weak even for the low expectation he has.

So no way that opps will play on 1 level, even when you pass now.

[1eyedjack]

I would have overcalled 1H, but partly for reasons not yet mentioned (I may be mistaken - a three page thread is easy to miss something):

If I start with double and then bid Hearts I am showing a strong jump overcall in Hearts. I have the strength for it but I don't reckon that I have the Hearts for it.

The alternative is to double and bid NT - but partner will expect more Spades and fewer Hearts. I don't mind lying about the minor suit length. I don't have a huge aversion to lying a bit about major suit length. But lying about both majors AND when there is an acceptable alternative ...

[HeartA]

sfbp, on Jun 20 2006, 02:11 AM, said:

His contention: I dont want to X because you might jump to 4 spades.

In my system, there is no such call as 4S. The only choices are 1) 1S, the weakest and forced bid; 2) 2S, 8-11, depending on the quality/strength of ♠ and other honors; 3) 2D, game forcing (or forced to 3 level of agreed major); 4) 3S, 7+ (could be decent 6) S, weak hand. The last option was adopted with agreement only.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

One heart.

Regards,
Robert

[the hog]

Anything apart from 1H seems bizarre to say the least. I don't want to cope with high level S bids by my partner. (Maybe the heat is getting to me here in Thailand.)

[whereagles]

hoggie, you're back man. How's stuff in thailand? Hope you're doing fine.

[whereagles]

awm, on Jun 20 2006, 06:30 PM, said:

(1) At one time it was probably right to assume that after an opening and response opponents have at minimum half the values. This makes certain actions reasonable, for example raising on very little (assuming partner will know you have a bad hand) or avoiding a natural notrump overcall in sandwich position. But in the modern game a lot of people open very light hands and respond on virtually nothing.

Just one small comment. While it is true that in today's game opps might be bidding on.. let's say, not-so-strong-hands, it is also true that usually they'll have their bids. So the reasoning "I have 17, opps are both bidding, so pard's raise is very weak" will be valid in a reasonable share of the cases.

A possible way out for deciding whether or not to raise is bid if you have an honor in hearts or a side singleton, pass otherwise.

On another note, yeah, if it goes

1♦ dbl rdbl 2♠

you'll be in big trouble.. oops

[the hog]

Hi Whereagles and all. Temporarily back as I don't have an internet connection at home and this is from an internet cafe. Probably moving to Laos in the not too distant future. Be interesting as this is a communist country and only just opening up to the West.
Cheers
Ron

[whereagles]

wow. good luck there. Keep us posted

[the hog]

sfbp, on Jun 20 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 19 2006, 01:27 PM, said:

I am in the double camp as I don't want my partner's to raise my 1H overcall on:

xxxxx, Qxx, xx, Qxx.

Winston

That's just about exactly what happened.

I was the partner of the overcaller, and after the inevitable negdbl raised him to 2H. He got excited and bid 4.

Turns out the hand makes 4 double-dummy but he didn't. Sigh.

Whether or not this is evidence for *not* doubling I'm not sure.

His contention: I dont want to X because you might jump to 4 spades.

My reply; if i bid 4S on Txxxxx xx Qxx Ax, you may even make it.

Why worry about the sky falling?

Just read this response. Well 2H is a pretty poor bid under any circumstances, even playing cue raises and having ways and means of showing weak and good raises. I make pretty thin raises, but this hand is just not worth it.

[luke warm]

hello ron... hope you're doing well... laos? sheesh

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Jun 21 2006, 03:35 AM, said:

Just read this response. Well 2H is a pretty poor bid under any circumstances, even playing cue raises and having ways and means of showing weak and good raises. I make pretty thin raises, but this hand is just not worth it.

Ron!!!!

Welcome back... I agree 100% with your view here.

[pclayton]

Hi Ron- hope you can keep the bugs off your laptop dude in SE Asia.

I suppose the internet in a communist country is all 14.4K but free?

[sfbp]

The_Hog, on Jun 21 2006, 01:35 AM, said:

Well 2H is a pretty poor bid under any circumstances, even playing cue raises and having ways and means of showing weak and good raises. I make pretty thin raises, but this hand is just not worth it.

Hmmm - you are way behind the times Ron. Wasn't it S.J. Simon who first put in print (in the late 40's) the concept of hand evaluation not being related to high card strength, but being an elastic thing depending on things like fit.

Simon's famous example was that you should bid a GS on the strength of a 3-point hand, one honour card, the King of ♥, if I am not mistaken.

Don't you routinely raise partner after his 1♠ opener was doubled on Qxx xxxx xx xxxx? Funny, I never thought of the Hog as a timid bidder......... (well, make that Qxxx xxxx xx xxx if you are a 4-card majorite).

I mean, if I believe you could have 19 points, I definitely should raise to a mere 2 on this "pile of junk" or "piece of cheese" as someone called it. How else do we get to a making 21-point game??????? But this wasnt about that - it was about the concept that I dont much like the idea that "just an overcall" (Barry Crane's phrase) can be as wide a range as 7-19.

Well my ♣Q turned out to be pretty useful.

Maybe instead of ranting about this you and the other bright sparks here should be trying to figure out how to make 4♥

Cheers,

Stephen

[inquiry]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 07:34 AM, said:

Maybe instead of ranting about this you and the other bright sparks here should be trying to figure out how to make 4♥

Help us "bright sparks" out and tell us what the opening lead was, and if not a diamond or heart, what the second lead was. After all, the hand plays diffferently with a trump lead as opposed to say two rounds of spades... also, for card placement it is nice if we can see if the negative doubler had a sequence lead in spades or a top from nothing in diamonds, etc.

[cherdano]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 02:34 PM, said:

Don't you routinely raise partner after his 1♠ opener was doubled on Qxx xxxx xx xxxx?

No, I don't (although you don't need to change the hand much to have me raising). Too often partner will misjudge subsequently, and there is no LAW when declarer has no entry to dummy.

[hrothgar]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 03:34 PM, said:

Hmmm - you are way behind the times Ron. Wasn't it S.J. Simon who first put in print (in the late 40's) the concept of hand evaluation not being related to high card strength, but being an elastic thing depending on things like fit.

You might want to focus less on the patronizing little lectures and more on why your partnership screwed up (repeatedly) on a fairly standard bidding problem

From the sounds of things, you weren't particularly happy with the 4♥ contract. Personally, I see three possible solutions to your "problem"

1. Ensure that your partnership has some method to show a constructive raise to 2♥. Members of this forum have already suggested two ways to achieve this end (Ruben's Advances or passing bad hands with 3 card Heart support)

2. Add a lot of complexity after the 2♥ advance to sort out good/versus bad raises (Realistically, you probably need a mixture of 1+2 to achieve a high degree of accuracy)

3. Accept the fact that imprecise methods are going to lead to imprecise results

At the end of the day, the real measure of the 2♥ bid isn't whether or not you can dredge up supporting evidence in an book on Acol from the 1940s. Rather, its whether the partnership is happy with the results. From the sounds of it, you aren't. So don't get all pissy when folks try to help you with your bidding.

BTW, as I recall, Simon spent a lot of time talking about the unlucky expert who constantly made the bids and plays that were technically correct, but never achieved good results. Simon focused heavily on the practical, so it seems somewhat strange to cite him as an authority to support a bid that was "theoretically" correct but lead to a bad result.