Help
Over the short diamond a 2♦ call would have been natural, overcall strength. We X and then bid 3 diamonds to show this hand. What should we do now?
Page 1 of 1
Sectional A/X Swiss hand 5 Everyone bids the red suits, your call now
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,871
- Joined: 2007-April-22
- Location:Santa Clara, CA
Posted 2012-July-02, 23:03
Over the short diamond a 2♦ call would have been natural, overcall strength. We X and then bid 3 diamonds to show this hand. What should we do now?
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,866
- Joined: 2008-July-13
Posted 2012-July-02, 23:13
i don't have a heart stop so i'll just bid 4♣ - perplexed as to why this isn't a poll option
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,739
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2012-July-02, 23:15
2d
abstain, we are told 2d is natural
option 2 is x and then x as takeout over 2h.
--
in any event hate 3d here.
abstain, we are told 2d is natural
option 2 is x and then x as takeout over 2h.
--
in any event hate 3d here.
#4
- Alchemist
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,764
- Joined: 2004-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Beside a little lake in northwestern Montana
- Interests:Creator of the 'grbbridge' LaTeX typesetting package.
Posted 2012-July-02, 23:36
I like the very maximum 2D on the previous round Given where we are now I feel forced to bid 4C but don't like it.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,092
- Joined: 2008-December-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North Texas, USA
- Interests:Mountain Biking
Posted 2012-July-02, 23:49
Doubling and bidding 3♦ with this is adjective bridge.
Hi y'all!
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 642
- Joined: 2007-October-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Redmond, WA
Posted 2012-July-03, 11:05
Mbodell, on 2012-July-02, 23:03, said:
Over the short diamond a 2♦ call would have been natural, overcall strength. We X and then bid 3 diamonds to show this hand. What should we do now?
I don't see why this hand doesn't qualify for "natural, overcall strength" 2D the first time.
#7
- AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,840
- Joined: 2009-September-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wellington, NZ
Posted 2012-July-03, 12:23
jeffford76, on 2012-July-03, 11:05, said:
I don't see why this hand doesn't qualify for "natural, overcall strength" 2D the first time.
That's one huge overcall... 17 HCPs, 5 losers, nice shape, and what do you know, opponents even bid our singleton (though I guess we didn't know that when we X'd). Your average 2D overcall has 7-8 losers, so we'll end up hiding a good amount of playing strength if we only get to bid once. I guess some might treat it as a max overcall but I'm in the X-then-bid camp.
Now the "obvious" bid is 4C (and pray partner doesn't pass with 5m cold - he shouldn't do). 5D is the more practical alternative, but partner hasn't yet promised any diamonds!
ahydra
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,871
- Joined: 2007-April-22
- Location:Santa Clara, CA
Posted 2012-July-04, 17:29
Looks like people preferred 4♣ and/or didn't like to double than bid with this hand. As discussed in the hand 2 thread this ended up a director call for the failure to alert/announce the 1♦ call until the end of the auction at 2♥. Partner did tell the director before seeing the dummy or result that he would have X and then bid 3♦ with the correct information, and the director ruled 3♦ making 5 for +150 but didn't think 5♦= was appropriate.
#9
- VIP Member
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,971
- Joined: 2009-November-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:Houston, TX
Posted 2012-July-04, 20:21
I agree with everyone who said this hand should have overcalled 2♦ previous round.
I will bid 4♣ now.
I will bid 4♣ now.
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#10
- Group: Members
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 2011-August-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:France
- Interests:Other card and board games, theoretical computer science (complexity and games theory)
Posted 2012-July-06, 12:25
Mbodell, on 2012-July-02, 23:03, said:
We X and then bid 3♦ to show this hand.
I so strongly disagree with this bidding in a natural system that I assume it is conventional and therefore will need clarification about exactly what it shows.
- These exact 13 cards ? Obvious pass, as partner has the captaincy
- A strong hand with ♦ ? Then 4♣ : it best describes the hand.
- A strong 2-suiter ♦/♣ ? Probably 3♠.
Tired of red/black ♠♥♦♣.
♠♥♦♣ For 4 suits, why not 4 colors ? ♣♦♥♠
♠♥♦♣ For 4 suits, why not 4 colors ? ♣♦♥♠
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,871
- Joined: 2007-April-22
- Location:Santa Clara, CA
Posted 2012-July-06, 13:24
jbaptistec, on 2012-July-06, 12:25, said:
I so strongly disagree with this bidding in a natural system that I assume it is conventional and therefore will need clarification about exactly what it shows.
- These exact 13 cards ? Obvious pass, as partner has the captaincy
- A strong hand with ♦ ? Then 4♣ : it best describes the hand.
- A strong 2-suiter ♦/♣ ? Probably 3♠.
I was trying to represent partners hand in an auction that could have happened with correct information, but didn't. I mean that we have already chosen to show our hand through X and then 3♦ (to show a hand too strong to overcall 2♦ as natural overcall), so you are stuck with that even if you don't like it. Given that, what do you do now. I wasn't the one who actually choose to X and then bid 3♦ and I'm not sure I like that choice, but I think it is close and don't think it is outrageous. A minimum favorable overcall might be the same shape without the ♠Q and the ♣AJ, so you have a lot of extra strenght; however, obviously AKxxx is not the diamond suit you'd like to have.
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,366
- Joined: 2012-March-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Illinois
- Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer
Posted 2012-July-09, 01:49
Like just about everyone else, I'm bidding 4 ♣ and wondering why 2 ♦ wasn't an option.
Even though you have 17 HCP, this looks like one of those hands where it's right to "underbid". The problem is with a good but not great 5 card suit doubling and rebidding your suit may get you too high if Pard doesn't have a fit. Sometime this may cost you if the auction dies following the overcall. But more often than not, you'll get a second bite in the auction and have the chance to show your full values then.
Even though you have 17 HCP, this looks like one of those hands where it's right to "underbid". The problem is with a good but not great 5 card suit doubling and rebidding your suit may get you too high if Pard doesn't have a fit. Sometime this may cost you if the auction dies following the overcall. But more often than not, you'll get a second bite in the auction and have the chance to show your full values then.
Page 1 of 1