[sfbp]

I'm not in the least pissy. But as usual the piss-artists focused on the one error they could see - my bid, which wasnt even the subject of my original post.

As you recall, the "error" I made should have led to a good result (except that partner misplayed the hand - tant pis).

I'm not patronizing anyone Richard - however I find your remarks contemptuous and worthy of contempt.

I never asked for help with my bidding. I asked what PARTNER should bid with his 19-point hand.

The question is: can we honestly justify having such a wide range for overcalls? More to the point, is there any need to?

As to your point about imprecision, I'd say that 7-19 is much more imprecise than a nice courtesy raise guaranteed to be less than 9 HCP.

The bid I referred to makes you sound like the Unlucky Expert - especially since you obviously haven't read the book - at least in a while. Take a look at the section following page 58. The chapter is about "the points you lose bidding" and the section in question "Underbidding of small hands".

Sneer all you want, this is one of the greatest books ever written on Bridge, and his other opus, Design for Bidding, a close second.

Bah Humbug!

[sfbp]

inquiry, on Jun 21 2006, 06:01 AM, said:

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.

Well - the contract doesn't depend on the lead at all.

However the lead was the ♠K

A small ♣ from hand at trick 2 and RHO takes the Q with the Ace and returns a ♠.

Good luck!

[hrothgar]

>I never asked for help with my bidding. I asked what PARTNER should bid with his
>19-point hand.

You were looking for a way to place the blame for a bad result on partner. Accordingly, you focused attention on the initial 1♥ overcall rather than the 2♥ advance. My view of the ensuing discussion suggests that most of the players agree with the 1♥ overcall and dislike the 2♥ advance.

>The question is: can we honestly justify having such a wide range for overcalls?
>More to the point, is there any need to?

To some extent, this is an issue of style. Traditionally, Europeans prefer to use a double to limit the strength of an overcall. North American's are often willing to overcall with much strong hands. (Kokish would be an obvious example). Personally, I think that both styles are playable, but you need partnership agreement.

>Sneer all you want, this is one of the greatest books ever written on Bridge,
>and his other opus, Design for Bidding, a close second.

I wasn't sneering at Simon. His book has stood the test of time rather nicely. However, your decision to use this as a reference to back your bidding decision seemed rather amusing.

[sfbp]

hrothgar, on Jun 21 2006, 08:20 AM, said:

You were looking for a way to place the blame for a bad result on partner.  Accordingly, you focused attention on the initial 1♥ overcall rather than the 2♥ advance.

More rubbish!

I was pleased with the auction as evidence I made a reasonable bid. It's perfectly possible to bid a 18 point game with no suit longer than 5 and no voids - and no competition to help the partnership evaluate, either.

However my surprise at landing in a makeable contract has nothing to do with my surprise at partner going outside what I consider the parameters for overcalling.

Furthermore, despite your comments, I do not believe that there is a overall difference between Europe and USA on this issue. Foremost in the 1♥ camp were some European and Australian players. Some of those on my side of the debate are conservative players from North America.

I consider 1♥ a "blame transfer". If it doesn't work out, you can always blame partner. Especially if he overbids his hand after a negative double

[inquiry]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 10:10 AM, said:

However the lead was the ♠K

A small ♣ from hand at trick 2 and RHO takes the Q with the Ace and returns a ♠.

Play for split ♥ honors (or west with both).

ruff ♠
♥ACE
King-Jack of ♣-throw ♦
♦AK
♦, planning on ruffing. If East ruffs with honor, pitch spade
ruff 4th ♦ and take ♥ hook. If ♦ 3-3 (not likely), the ruff third and play ♥King.

This wins 2♣, 5 trumps in hand (with the finesse ), 2♦ and 1♦ ruff,

or

2♣, 4 trumps in hand (di 3-3), 1♦ ruff, 3 ♦

or

2♣, 4 trumps in hand, 2♦, 2♦ ruffs - should opener have 4♦ and both top hearts.

[jdonn]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 10:34 AM, said:

Furthermore, despite your comments, I do not believe that there is a overall difference between Europe and USA on this issue. Foremost in the 1♥ camp were some European and Australian players. Some of those on my side of the debate are conservative players from North America.

While trying to avoid the other portion of this debate, you are definitely wrong about that style issue, despite what a few people here have offered as their opinions. It is well established and known that European experts double instead of overcalling on strong hands MUCH sooner than American ones. One good example I know of is there is a hand in the book on Viking club where Helgemo doubled a 1♠ opening with something like - AKQxxx xxx KQxx where it wouldn't occur in the wildest dreams of a North American expert to do anything but bid 2♥. Neither is necessarilly wrong, those are simply the styles in the countries of the players.

[sfbp]

Quite so! Full marks Dr. D.

Scoring: MP

---

[mcphee]

Many players double with hands they feel are too strong to make the simple overcall. I personallydo not fall into that group. I very much dislike t/o dbls that contain good 5 card majors and shortness in the other major. My feeling is they lead to greater problems later. Another problem I see with this sort of hand is to dble runs the risk of partner being unable to judge his D lenght should he have any, not impossible when RHO is 4-4-3-2 11 or 12 count. Dble and to bid your own suit to me indicates a hand that has 8 playing tricks. Also the advice given to partner is you are short in the suit opened.

When I overcall I expect partner to raise with support whiwch I would welcome with this sort of hand. It is true at times with very good hands you may miss a game, but is far more rare than problems encountered with the extreme off shape dble, and this is extreme.

The view graph recently showed an example of a hand that could o/c in D or make a t/o dble. The o/c was a huge winner, the t/o dble a big loser when the opps pre-empted.

[FrancesHinden]

"Europe" is a much less homogenous place bridge-wise than America. I would say there is a growing trend in English circles to overcall rather than double on strong hands - stronger than this example hand, even. In general, it is the slightly older players who continue to double first, as that was a far more common approach 20-30 years ago.

When I learnt bridge in the early 90s, it was still common in English books on the game to say that pretty much any 16+ hand should double rather than overcall (other than a 1NT overcall). The common adoption of weak jump overcalls has pushed a number of weaker hands out of the simple overcall and pushed the lower limit up.

[kenberg]

The right line of play depends on the lie of the cards, and my guess as to the lie of the cards depends on the early defensive play. So it matters how this starts, in choosing how I play if not in the final result. If diamonds are 5-1 this will be tough, but the spade beginning suggests diamonds are 4-2 (no guarantee). With this in mind, I ruff the spade at trick three, cash the clubs throwing a diamond, play of the AK of diamonds and lead a third diamond. if E started with something like Jxx of hearts, I think I am going to make this. Maybe not. But that's my line. Anyway, I think we have exhausted the pros and cons of 1H versus double (anyone still trying to decide please raise their hand), so a change of focus may be in order.

Ken

[han]

Nice to see you posting again Ron, and right on the mark in my opinion. Stephen, Simon would sue you for abusing his great book like this.

[sfbp]

Hannie, on Jun 21 2006, 11:02 AM, said:

Nice to see you posting again Ron, and right on the mark in my opinion. Stephen, Simon would sue you for abusing his great book like this.

I don't see why

If you recall he suggests bidding 7♠ on

---

Even you, Han, can see the elements of similarity to the hand I held.

Advancers of the world unite!

[jdonn]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 01:07 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jun 21 2006, 11:02 AM, said:

Nice to see you posting again Ron, and right on the mark in my opinion. Stephen, Simon would sue you for abusing his great book like this.

I don't see why

If you recall he suggests bidding 7♠ on

---

Even you, Han, can see the elements of similarity to the hand I held.

Advancers of the world unite!

Have you ever heard the term "comparing apples and oranges"? Or should I say apples and onagers?

[kenberg]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 10:47 AM, said:

Quite so! Full marks Dr. D.

Scoring: MP

---

Now I am confused. Are you saying my line of play won't work? I was assuming it would not work since it hardly seemd to require any double dummy analysis. It was:
Ruff the spade trick 3.
Clubs pitching a D
Top Ds
lead a D.
Now it is true that I didn't say what I would do next but I plan to ruff when dummy pitches, lead a spade back to my hand, lead another D and ruff it
Lead dummy's third heart to my AK.

I see the full hand appears before my line but I guess I was writing.

The hand has two top diamonds, two clubs after the ace, hopefully four hearts. You need two ruffs. This seems to be the way to get them.

What am I missing here? I was expecting something exotic.

[sfbp]

jdonn, on Jun 21 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

Have you ever heard the term "comparing apples and oranges"? Or should I say apples and onagers?

Are you incapable of making a direct statement?

Apples and oranges generally don't feature in my bidding box, Josh. Looks like they might be a welcome addition to your Hainanese Chicken Rice, though.

[sfbp]

kenberg, on Jun 21 2006, 11:22 AM, said:

I was expecting something exotic.

Ah, so it's a simple play for 4 hearts is it? Too bad my overbid caused it

[jdonn]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 01:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 21 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

Have you ever heard the term "comparing apples and oranges"? Or should I say apples and onagers?

Are you incapable of making a direct statement?

Apples and oranges generally don't feature in my bidding box, Josh. Looks like they might be a welcome addition to your Hainanese Chicken Rice, though.

My statement was as direct as your comparison deserved, but since you ask allow me to clarify my question.

When you bring up the xxx Kx xxxx xxxx hand, what does the auction (maybe not identical since it's from memory, but it was along these lines)

1♦ p 2♣ 2♦
3♣ p 3♦ 4♣
5♣ p 6♣ 6♦
p ???

Have to do with the auction

1♣ 1♥ DBL ???

Or is this the logic being used:
'Simon recommends making a certain bid on a certain terrible hand on a certain auction. I can thus use him to justify making a wildly different bid on a completely different terrible hand on a wildly different auction.'

My second direct question: Why so much pride in this brilliant bid that reached such an awful game, that even on this exceedingly friendly trump layout it was not makeable on sound defense (either defender starting to play trumps before losing the lead) and in fact went down on even worse defense at the table?

Well I should clarify, I'm not sure it can be set, but I am sure it's an awful game. On something like overtake spade lead with ace, play a low heart at trick 2, at best declarer has to decide whether to hook and play for QJ of hearts onside, or go up and play for heart honors split but diamonds 3-3 where ducking would prevent a diamond ruff.

[sfbp]

Have you tried running this contract through Deep Finesse or GIB? Perhaps you should engage brain before putting mouth in gear.

I am not proud of the cold game reached. However the majority conclusion that 1♥ is right on partner's hand seems not to vitiate my strange bid of 2♥, but in the circumstances to reinforce it. Perhaps this should lead us to reevaluate our strategies - but no, I forgot, you know best always.

Have a nice trip (don't fall toooo far).

[jdonn]

Maybe this is why I don't make direct statements more often. Because they get completely ignorred. I'll try again:

1) What do those auctions have to do with each other and how can one be used to justify the other?

2) You are indeed proud of reaching that game, even if you say you aren't. Just read your prior posts!

I apologize for a misanalysis, which I managed to correct almost immediately. If you would like to ask my boss to install Deep Finesse on my machine at work, you have my 100% support.

[kenberg]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 01:25 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jun 21 2006, 11:22 AM, said:

I was expecting something exotic.

Ah, so it's a simple play for 4 hearts is it? Too bad my overbid caused it

I am not saying that I would be delighted to be in 4H on the combined hands, only that I don't see another way to count to ten, so I play the way I indicate. I see it as "easy" only in the sense that I see nothing else. So we do it, it works, we are all geniuses. Or it goes down and we explain what a stupid bid partner made. That's life at the table.

Some guys like to be beaten with whips, I play bridge.

Ken