[Cyberyeti]

---

You are vulnerable, opps are not

W deals and opens 1♥, partner overcalls 2♦ (sound), E bids 4♥, your choice ? please make your choice before looking at the spoiler, and indicate what double would mean for you.

Spoiler

What do you do if partner doubles or overcalls 2N (minors any strength) instead of bidding 2♦? (W still bids 4♥ )

Edit: I should also add "What do you do if the 2♦ overcall is not necessarily particularly sound", but since the consensus so far is pass anyway it may not matter.

[Tramticket]

Pass. My values are "soft". Double would be second choice showing values. 5♦ looks a stretch.

Spoiler

I'm not sure what any strength means? Is there a minimum for a vulnerable Unusual No Trump for you?

After the raise to 4♥, I am more inclined to bid 5♣, but it is still an ace-less hand and passing is probably wiser

[pescetom]

I pass. Partner's double would have meant 4-card ♠ and lacking that I don't want to get into a dubious 5♦ at this vulnerability and with this defensive looking hand.

[broze]

Double seems clear to me. In most of my pships this is defined as values but p is expected to bid if he has a singleton heart or other clear course of action. He will usually pull with 4S. If p had doubled instead of bidding 2D I would probably still double expecting p to bid a four card spade suit unless very defensively oriented.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2020-January-20, 08:43, said:

Pass. My values are "soft". Double would be second choice showing values. 5♦ looks a stretch.

Spoiler

I'm not sure what any strength means? Is there a minimum for a vulnerable Unusual No Trump for you?

After the raise to 4♥, I am more inclined to bid 5♣, but it is still an ace-less hand and passing is probably wiser

I can't answer your question in the spoiler as I opened the heart, whatever a random club player thinks it is

[FelicityR]

Sometimes I trust the opponents to bid properly, even when pre-empting us. Pass. The hand isn't even worth a weak 1NT opener so getting involved, especially vulnerable, looks decidedly the wrong decision.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-20, 08:05, said:

Edit: I should also add "What do you do if the 2♦ overcall is not necessarily particularly sound", but since the consensus so far is pass anyway it may not matter.

"Sound" means different things to different people. For me, a sound over-call is a six-card suit headed by two top honours and "opening values" (we will open most 10-counts with a six-card suit, so I guess that means 10+ points). 5♦ facing (say) AXX X KQXXXXX JXX would be one-off on top and needing further luck to avoid more losers. An "Unsound" hand will have less than this and be an easy pass.

FelicityR, on 2020-January-20, 10:03, said:

... so getting involved, especially vulnerable, looks decidedly the wrong decision.

If anything I am more inclined to bid vulnerable (if teams?) - they do give bonuses for vulnerable games and QXX X AKXXXX AXX looks like a game that I want to be in. If this is what is meant by "Sound", then I'm bidding on!

[KingCovert]

Haven't read the spoiler yet, but, I think I have a "good" hand, but not a "great" hand for declaration purposes. Partner should rate for shortness (0/1) in hearts, but, it seems a very real possibility that we're going down in 5D, and I think it's rather likely that I could take 3 defensive tricks myself. Since double would probably be takeout for most people, I guess I would pass.

For those that think that partner's double of 1♥ shows 4♠. It does, but, if partner were 4252, are you really advocating for a double over 2♦? We may have a spade fit, and if so, defending would probably not go so well. If responder were, say, 4513, and Opener had the A♦.... Well, they're probably making that 4♥ contract...

The problem is, double is probably only correct when partner has spades, and wrong when partner doesn't. At least, at this vulnerability anyways.

[pescetom]

KingCovert, on 2020-January-20, 11:54, said:

For those that think that partner's double of 1♥ shows 4♠. It does, but, if partner were 4252, are you really advocating for a double over 2♦? We may have a spade fit, and if so, defending would probably not go so well. If responder were, say, 4513, and Opener had the A♦.... Well, they're probably making that 4♥ contract...

The problem is, double is probably only correct when partner has spades, and wrong when partner doesn't. At least, at this vulnerability anyways.

Not sure I follow you here. My partner knowing that double of 1♥ shows 4-card ♠ would do just that with with 4=2=5=2, not bid 2♦ which suggests more diamonds or less spades.

[apollo1201]

I X: values, no great fit for D, will gladly accept all intelligent actions partner will do (pass, 4S or 5D most of the times) knowing I have more than just 13 nondescript cards. But I would accept that my partner passes the hand. However, if partner’s 2D overcall can be unsound, pass especially at these vulnerabilities becomes quite clear.

Over 2NT, minors, I would try 5C but we’ll probably lose 3 major tricks. Or 2 but partner then has xx A KQxx AJxxx and we were cashing 2C against 4H. In all cases, it proves that both contracts can make or be very close to, which implies bidding is not a too expensive insurance at IMPs (still 6, though).

Last, over a TOX, I fear X would deny 4 spades so I’d bid 4S but wouldn’t be surprised to struggle a lot facing a 31(54). If partner pulls an X to 5m, then they probably have the hand to justify that, but 4S when they have 4 is probably easier. And if they pass the X, we won’t get too rich while 4S could be a reasonable shot. What is the expert treatment of a re-X on that bidding?

[KingCovert]

pescetom, on 2020-January-20, 14:18, said:

Not sure I follow you here. My partner knowing that double of 1♥ shows 4-card ♠ would do just that with with 4=2=5=2, not bid 2♦ which suggests more diamonds or less spades.

I don't think most players would agree that 2♦ shows any more than 5 diamonds. Of course, you may have more. But, typically, 5 is the minimum number.

The problem with doubling is when you catch your partner holding a bad 3235 hand. Or worse, a bad 3325 hand. Now what? Takeout doubles show 3 cards in each unbid suit. If you don't have that shape, don't bid them. It's just bad bridge. If you have a strong hand, this is a different story, but, then it's not really a takeout double is it? It just looks like one. If I had to pick one rather garbage agreement that novice players should correct before any other, it would be offshape doubles such as this example. At least, without any set of agreements around them that facilitates them. I won't dismiss them entirely without applying context.

If your partner can't make a balancing double themselves, or cannot balance with an unbid suit, how effective is this takeout double with such a hand really going to be? Now, how often are you going to run into a train-wreck doubling without clubs? Am I really gaining enough on average to risk a bad board? Possibly, but, I'll erode partnership trust in the process. It's just not worth it.

If I had 4162 shape, I certainly would not double. So, not doubling doesn't deny 4 spades. So, I'm not just going to randomly double with all hands that have 4 spades. If I don't trust partner to balance, then I'm bidding 2♦ with 4252 shape, if I do, then I'm passing. Depending on the suits and my strength of course.

[TylerE]

KingCovert, on 2020-January-20, 15:59, said:

The problem with doubling is when you catch your partner holding a bad 3235 hand. Or worse, a bad 3325 hand.

We are told patnership overcall style is "sound". So partner shouldn't have a "bad" hand...and even if they do I expect to beat 4!S a good percentage of the time.

If we don't beat it? You take your -5 imps and next hand.

4♠ and 5♦ are without merit. It's either Pass or X. X has _a lot_ of upside. If they're down 2, Xing wins 5. If they're down 3, +8.

[pescetom]

KingCovert, on 2020-January-20, 15:59, said:

I don't think most players would agree that 2♦ shows any more than 5 diamonds.

I agree and I'm not suggesting that. But I think for some (certainly for us) if it is only 5-card there will usually not be 4-card spades.

[helene_t]

I don't pick any poison, I just make a very comfortable X. Even if we play unsound overcalls. An overcall never denies a good hand, so even if it may be unsound, pass is still too risky for me.

[eagles123]

I would X also

[Cyberyeti]

Follow up question, what would you do if 5♥ was bid rather than 4 ?

[eagles123]

still X

[TylerE]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-20, 17:36, said:

Follow up question, what would you do if 5♥ was bid rather than 4 ?

Slam the X on the table harder.

[KingCovert]

TylerE, on 2020-January-20, 16:33, said:

We are told patnership overcall style is "sound". So partner shouldn't have a "bad" hand...and even if they do I expect to beat 4!S a good percentage of the time.

If we don't beat it? You take your -5 imps and next hand.

4♠ and 5♦ are without merit. It's either Pass or X. X has _a lot_ of upside. If they're down 2, Xing wins 5. If they're down 3, +8.

Please read the posts before arguing. I was not talking about a double of 4♥, but rather, a double of 1♥. Also, we were told that partnership overcalls are NOT sound. Either way, you're just very wrong.

[KingCovert]

pescetom, on 2020-January-20, 16:40, said:

I agree and I'm not suggesting that. But I think for some (certainly for us) if it is only 5-card there will usually not be 4-card spades.

Perhaps in the sequences 1♣ - 1♥ (by opp) - X: You could double with just about any hand with 4♠. But, I think over an opening bid of 1♥/1♠, you actually should have proper takeout shape AND exactly 4 of the other major.