[ArtK78]

Jlall, on Jun 18 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 18 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 18 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

This is definitely a t/o X, can't believe there is a debate about this one.

While I agree (and have so stated earlier in this thread), it is apparent that others choose a different interpretation. So, whether or not we like it, there is a debate about it.

There is also a debate about whether elvis is dead or not. I did not say "no debate exists" I said that I cannot believe that one exists, because in this case just like in the elvis case one side of the debate is so clearly superior to the other side of the debate.

What do you mean, Elvis is dead?

[the hog]

Show me a takeout type hand where:

1) you are prepared to force partner to bid at the 3 level in a non fit auction. (So I doubt this will be a ?4?4 shape).
2) you have not overcalled earlier by either overcalling a decent 4(5) card H suit or 2C. (Or 1NT if your hand qualified for that)

[655321]

Takeout, agree Elvis is dead.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Jun 18 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

Show me a takeout type hand where:

1) you are prepared to force partner to bid at the 3 level in a non fit auction. (So I doubt this will be a ?4?4 shape).
2) you have not overcalled earlier by either overcalling a decent 4(5) card H suit or 2C. (Or 1N if your hand qualified for that)

1= Neither Opener nor Responder has guaranteed much in the way of values here
1m,2m is a min with 6+m or an exceptional 5cm
1S is 6+ HCP

So We could even still have the balance of power on this auction.

Here's some hand types 44 in the Roundeds that I suggest are reasonable 2nd round T/O X's.
Hx-HHxx-xxx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-Hx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-x-HHxxx etc

all of these are 6- loser hands,
that could not make a T/O on the 1st round because they are not 44 in ♠+♥

2= 4 card overcalls are not everyone's cup of tea, and should be an exceptional suit if you do overcall with them (say hhhx).

I can also easily imagine many ?4?5 hands where the quality of the ♣'s is not good enough for an immediate overcall

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 18 2008, 09:33 PM, said:

I can also easily imagine many ?4?5 hands where the quality of the ♣'s is not good enough for an immediate overcall

I'm torn on this one, focused on this idea here.

There seem to be lots of conflicting theories in play here. One is the GP that bidding 2♣ over 1♦ on very little cause is a good idea. However, doing that at the cost of perhaps burying a major for our side as well has an obvious downside.

Initially, I think this is the right view. Double here should probably be a heart-club canape bid. More utility. But...

It is interesting that this seems to parallel, to a degree, an alternative auction of 1♣-P-1♠-P-2♣-? In that sequence, a delayed 2♦ seems to suggest 4♥/5♦, making the use of a double in that sequence to show that hand less important and perhaps more appropriately penalty. However, I wonder how many people actually have discussed needs-of-the-auction meanings to this level of detail. Two auctions that appear superficially identical seem to lead to two wildly different results on a "needs" basis.

One could argue that if the latter club-based auction can be handled via 2♦, freeing double as penalty, then consistency and memory would support the double as penalty in the diamond-based auction. I personally think that this is the wrong way to bid, but it may be the easier way to bid for some.

The depth of analysis gets even more difficult, though. For, one could counter that the parallel to the 2♦ solution for 4♥/5♦ in the sequence 1♣-P-1♠-P-2♣-2♦ is to use a canape 2♥ call in the sequence 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♦-2♥. If 2♥ in this later sequence must obviously show only four hearts (why not overcall 1♥ otherwise?) but distributional values (hence clubs and longer clubs logically), then is not a double to show that shape redundant, or simply a result of not realizing the redundancy that 2♥ must show that same pattern?

The counter to all of this may be that the double is more flexible, allowing a conversion pass, whereas the bid does not. But, then you wonder whether both should apply, one as the more penalty-possible and the other as the more declaring preferent. That seems like a strange nuance for a passed hand, and it limits the merits of not having a penalty option.

All of this, of course, suffers from the inevitable, "So what -- play what is standard so partner understands you" issue. But, what is standard?

So, although some folks see no basis for the debate, but I strongly disagree. In this situation, it seems imminently plausible for a 2♥ overcall to carry the weight of this 4♥/5♣ holding, thereby reducing the value of a takeout double here. If the end result is that the value of the takeout is reduced sufficiently to not merit giving up the ability to strike a penalty hit here, then logic suggests re-thinking the situation, IMO.

[the hog]

foo, on Jun 19 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 18 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

Show me a takeout type hand where:

1) you are prepared to force partner to bid at the 3 level in a non fit auction. (So I doubt this will be a ?4?4 shape).
2) you have not overcalled earlier by either overcalling a decent 4(5) card H suit or 2C. (Or 1N if your hand qualified for that)

1= Neither Opener nor Responder has guaranteed much in the way of values here
1m,2m is a min with 6+m or an exceptional 5cm
1S is 6+ HCP

So We could even still have the balance of power on this auction.

Here's some hand types 44 in the Roundeds that I suggest are reasonable 2nd round T/O X's.
Hx-HHxx-xxx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-Hx-HHxx, xxx-HHxx-x-HHxxx etc

all of these are 6- loser hands,
that could not make a T/O on the 1st round because they are not 44 in ♠+♥

2= 4 card overcalls are not everyone's cup of tea, and should be an exceptional suit if you do overcall with them (say hhhx).

I can also easily imagine many ?4?5 hands where the quality of the ♣'s is not good enough for an immediate overcall

The hands shown would be a 1H overcall for me and everyone I play with. Good HH is certainly worth a 1H bid.

On the others i don't think it is reasonable to force toi the 3 level when the opps haven't a fit.

Your Hx hands in Ds would be a 1NT overcall if in the 15-17 range.

[matmat]

elvis had takeout?

[foo]

The_Hog, on Jun 18 2008, 11:38 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 19 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

Here's some hand types 44 in the Roundeds that I suggest are reasonable 2nd round T/O X's.
Hx-HHxx-xxx-HHxx,  xxx-HHxx-Hx-HHxx,  xxx-HHxx-x-HHxxx etc

all of these are 6- loser hands,
that could not make a T/O on the 1st round because they are not 44 in ♠+♥

2= 4 card overcalls are not everyone's cup of tea, and should be an exceptional suit if you do overcall with them (say hhhx).

I can also easily imagine many ?4?5 hands where the quality of the ♣'s is not good enough for an immediate overcall

The hands shown would be a 1H overcall for me and everyone I play with. Good HH is certainly worth a 1H bid.

On the others i don't think it is reasonable to force toi the 3 level when the opps haven't a fit.

Your Hx hands in Ds would be a 1NT overcall if in the 15-17 range.

As I said, 4cM overcalls are not everyone's cup of tea. There is no denying that they are more risky than their more traditional 5+ card brethren.

Especially in "next higher strain" AKA "+1" auctions like
(1C)-1D, or (1D)-1H, or (1H)-1S
We do not take any space away from the opponents, so we'd better have a darn good reason to overcall.

When in addition to the above our suit is shorter than traditional, we need some serious extras in both overall values and suit texture to justify a 4cM overcall.

At least two of my expert class partners would be horrified if I overcalled (1m)-1M, with a 4cM unless
a= The suit was exceptionally good. hhxx is not good enough unless it is AKxx. Ahhx or Khhx is more what they are expecting. Basically, I want this suit led more than any other when pard is on lead.
b= I have a hand that the whole world would open the bidding with.
c= no other bid better describes my hand.

As for forcing to the 3 level, when neither opponent has shown a good hand it is reasonable to play pard for at least 2 good cards. 6 losers - 2 cover cards = good chance of making a 3 level contract if We have a fit.
The OP bidding makes the chance of a 62 D fit reasonably high, which means We rate to have a fit as well.

I agree with you about the 1N overcall =if= D= Hx is either Ax or Kx. Call me a chicken or old fashioned or whatever, but I still think one should have a stop for a 1N overcall and Qx or worse is not it. In fact, Qxx is still less stopper than I want in a 1N overcall.

[jdonn]

Anyone trying to make a penalty double here deserves to find out responder was about to bid more. Takeout for sure.

[gnasher]

Ax AQxx xx J10xxx or x Axxx AQx QJxxx or x Axxx AQxx KJxx. If you would either pass throughout or make a first-round overcall with each of these, you probably have no need for a takeout double of 2♦.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 19 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

use a canape 2♥ call in the sequence 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♦-2♥. If 2♥ in this later sequence must obviously show only four hearts (why not overcall 1♥ otherwise?) but distributional values (hence clubs and longer clubs logically), then is not a double to show that shape redundant, or simply a result of not realizing the redundancy that 2♥ must show that same pattern?

That's an interesting idea.

Playing 2♥ as takeout and double as penalty, you get a larger plus when you have a penalty double of diamonds, but sometimes go minus instead of plus when partner has a pass of a penalty double and nowhere to go facing a takeout 2♥. Playing double as takeout means that you get a plus score when there's one available, but occasionally it's not as big as it might have been.

I like plus scores, so I'm going to stick with takeout doubles.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Jun 18 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

1♦ - P - 1♠ - P
2♦ - Dbl = ?

CAn we back up?
what does an overcall of 1d look like?


I guess we are fascist if we ask.

[foo]

mike777, on Jun 19 2008, 02:21 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 18 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

1♦ - P - 1♠ - P
2♦ - Dbl = ?

CAn we back up?
what does an overcall of 1D look like?

It depends on a few things.

1= Overcalls =in front= of pard are different from overcalls once pard has passed.

2= The conditions of contest matter. There are overcalls that one would make at MPs that one should never make at IMPs. State of the match considerations apply as well.

3= How much space you deny the opponents matters. (1D)-1H is a sounder overcall than (1m)-1S and a more easy going one than (1C)-1D (The latter being the soundest overcall in Bridge).

For the rest of this, I will ignore the situation specific modifiers and just talk about classic up-the-middle direct overcalls of 1D.

All other things being equal, when you overcall you have some combination of the following reasons for it.
A= You think the board may belong to Us even though They Opened.

B= You have a suit so good that even if the board does not belong to Us you feel it rates to be a safe place for Us to play or if We defend your hand says it wants pard to lead this suit in preference to any other lead.

C= You want to make Their auction more difficult by taking space away from them.

So a classic direct overcall is a 7- loser hand with either
a= an opening bid and an acceptable suit in it or
b= less than an opening bid but an exceptional suit in it.
These are usually in 5+ card suits that pass the "Suit Quality" test for the level of the overcall.
Suit Quality= number of cards in suit + number of honors in suit
AJxxx= suit quality of 7, KTxxxx= suit quality of 8, etc

Here's the main point.
IF PARD IS AN UNPASSED HAND
A direct overcall is a 5-7 loser hand (with 4- losers, your hand is good enough to X then bid or cuebid)

If you have less than an opening bid, it is in a suit whose suit quality is at least equal to the number of tricks you are bidding (7 for a one level overcall, 8 for a two level overcall, etc). In this case, this should be your best suit and the one you want pard to lead in preference over any other based on your hand.

If you have an opening bid, a direct overcall promises a suit with quality no worse than =1= less of the number of tricks you are bidding (so a SQ of no worse than 6 for a one level overcall, no less than 7 for a two level overcall, etc).

If pard is a passed hand, be a bit more cautious unless you are Balancing.

As usual, any call you make should be the best description of your hand feasible from the choices you have available. Do not overcall when pass or X is a better description of the hand. Do not overcall in a suit when NT is a better description of the hand. Etc.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Jun 19 2008, 02:12 AM, said:

Ax AQxx xx J10xxx or x Axxx AQx QJxxx or x Axxx AQxx KJxx.  If you would either pass throughout or make a first-round overcall with each of these, you probably have no need for a takeout double of 2♦.

IMO After
(1♦) _P (1♠) _P
(2♦) ??

• 1. ♠ Ax ♥ AQxx ♦ xx ♣ J10xxx: _P = 10, 2♥ = 5
  
• 2. ♠ x ♥ Axxx ♦ AQx ♣ QJxxx: _P = 10, 2♥ = 5, _X = 5.
  
• 3. ♠ x ♥ Axxx ♦ AQxx ♣ KJxx: _X = 10, _P = 9.

Arguably 2 & 3 are optional rather than takeout doubles. Ken Rexford sensibly proposes that 2♥ here should logically be Canapé