[Poky]

Scoring: IMP

---

1[sp] 2[di] 2[sp] 3[di]
3[sp] Dbl Pa 4[di]
Pa Pa Dbl All Pa

Who is to blame for the horrible result (and how may %)?

Rate the bids: 2♦, 3♦, Dbl, 4♦ (0-10).

TY, Poky

[helene_t]

Probably dbl was meant as penalty but read as action.

But the 2♦ overcall was extremely unsound. ♠Q and ♥AKQ make it unlikely that opps have game, so even -200 would be a bad result. And if partner has no tollerance for diamonds, -500 is quite realistic.

West must either pass or overcall 1NT. I'm not and expert in card evaluation so I could easily be wrong, but I think this hand has too little trick-taking potential for 1NT. So pass.

[Fluffy]

2♦: 4/10
3♦: 2/10
X= 1/10
4♦: 7/10

[FrancesHinden]

2D: 1/10 Might work, but horrible. And Qxx in spades the worst holding.
3D: 10/10 Impeccable

Dbl/4D: Seems to be a partnership issue. I play double as penalties here, in which case Dbl = 5/10 (aggressive but might work; clear at MPs) and 4D = 0. However, if dbl = game try then Dbl = 2/10 (why?) and 4D = 8/10.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I voted for double, but since the question was raised in Adv.
and Expert, I feel there is some crucial information missing.

Do you play Good-Bad 2 NT or Bad-Good 2 NT, i.e. was the
raise to 3D purely competitive or did it show some values?

If the raise was purely competitive, as it seems, the Dbl of 3S
is just hanging partner, if it shows values, well then the raise was
the culprit.

One may debate aboute the 4D escape bid, because the hand holds the
Ace of spades, i.e. sure trick, but probably 4D was bid, because this player
feared, that partner may have expected more for the 3D call.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Probbably I would not have bid 2D, but this is another partnership
issue as well.

[Chamaco]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 28 2005, 10:02 AM, said:

Hi,

I voted for double, but since the question was raised in Adv.
and Expert, I feel there is some crucial information missing.

Do you play Good-Bad 2 NT or Bad-Good 2 NT, i.e. was the
raise to 3D purely competitive or did it show some values?

If the raise was purely competitive, as it seems, the Dbl of 3S
is just hanging partner, if it shows values, well then the raise was
the culprit.

One may debate aboute the 4D escape bid, because the hand holds the
Ace of spades, i.e. sure trick, but probably 4D was bid, because this player
feared, that partner may have expected more for the 3D call.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Probbably I would not have bid 2D, but this is another partnership
issue as well.

Agree with Marlowe here. To rate the bids, the interpretations are needed.

1. I would not bid 2D with this hand; I would expect more distribution and /or a better/longer suit.With AKQ in hearts, I would have doubled, not the best bid in the world, but avoids other problems.

2. 3D is purely competitive, the way I play it. So Double, even intended for penalties, is hanging pard.


In this view, 2D and 4D seem reasonable to me, and I do not like at all the 2D and DBL bids (DBL being much worse).

[flytoox]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 28 2005, 09:49 AM, said:

2D: 1/10 Might work, but horrible. And Qxx in spades the worst holding.
3D: 10/10 Impeccable

Dbl/4D: Seems to be a partnership issue. I play double as penalties here, in which case Dbl = 5/10 (aggressive but might work; clear at MPs) and 4D = 0. However, if dbl = game try then Dbl = 2/10 (why?) and 4D = 8/10.

I think 2D is not that bad. I admit this is not an excellent overcall, but it is certainly not the worst.

About a year ago there is a similar hand on this board and I remembered Fred said he would overcall 2D or dbl if playing equal level conversioin. He even asked Justin to ask Hamman's opinion and Hamman says he will dbl. Apparently he is playing ELC.

I thought 2D is bad before that. Since ppl like Fred and Hamman consider to compete with this kind hand, perhaps we should think about it before pass.


I really dont like dbl. As for 3D. Since I like to hear pd's raise, I wont blame it.


Just my 2 cents.

Hongjun

[mgtusi]

2 ♦ : 3/10

3 ♦ : 0/10

DOUBLE : 0/10 at IMPS, 10/10 at MP

4 ♦ : 0/10


As you understand, this sequence is not my style

[whereagles]

Dbl was for penalties (with fit, dbl = pen), and East doesn't have extreme enough distribution to pull it out. That being said, I would have pulled out had I seen pard's hand.. lol

[FrancesHinden]

flytoox, on Jul 28 2005, 05:32 AM, said:

About a year ago there is a similar hand on this board and I remembered Fred said he would overcall 2D or dbl if playing equal level conversioin. He even asked Justin to ask Hamman's opinion and Hamman says he will dbl. Apparently he is playing ELC.

I thought 2D is bad before that. Since ppl like Fred and Hamman consider to compete with this kind hand, perhaps we should think about it before pass.

It didn't have Qxx in RHO's first bid suit.

[coyot]

Well, the only questionable bid is 2♦. Other bids on that line are terrible.
3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.
Dbl on 3♠, no matter how meant, suicide. I mean, if you expect partner to have 4card support, you might be lacking the ace, therefore making 3heart tricks and one trick on the side - either trump or club.
4♦ was IMHO another blunder, because when my p. doubles 3♠, this simply must be penalties. And, if I know that my 3♦ bid was bad, 3♠x will probably make, but 4♦ will go down even more

[hotShot]

dbl after an agreed fit, should be penalty, East holds ace of trump which is the savest trick, now west will have to produce 4 tricks to prove his bid right.

1) East should not run, so 4♦ is very bad.
2) dbl is lunatic, because you'll need lots of luck to get 3 tricks in ♥ and Q♠ and you still need partner to bring an additional trick.

[helene_t]

I don't think 3♦ is against the LOTT. Opps are almost certain to have eight spades and likely to have nine. Partner is likely to have six diamonds - when he makes a two-level overcall at IMPs, he says he will be very happy with a doubleton support and not too depressed with a singleton support, even if doubled. So if 2♠ makes, 3♦ cannot be more than one down if the LOTT is accurate, and is most likely to make. And even then, they might not double. Of course, 2♠ could be plus one while 3♦ is down two doubled, so 3♦ is not 100% LOTT-safe, but in most cases it will ok.

I can immagine a t/o dbl with the West hand if you play ELC. A friend of mine recently asked a number of experts how to bid in the same situation with
♠J7
♥K53
♦AQ963
♣K93
Being one spade shorter, pass is less attractive with this hand, and also the diamond suit is better. The panel was divided between dbl and pass.

[coyot]

hotShot, on Jul 28 2005, 06:00 AM, said:

2) dbl is lunatic, because you'll need lots of luck to get 3 tricks in ♥ and Q♠ and you still need partner to bring an additional trick.

Yep... if partner has Kxxx in diamonds and KQ in clubs, you're doubling on the hope that declarer has both spade honors .

If partner has Axxx in diamonds, you're doubling on the hope that he has a side trick.

All that at IMPs where the gain is +100 and the loss -590 (comparing +200 to +100 if undoubled and -730 to -140 if undoubled.)

[P_Marlowe]

coyot, on Jul 28 2005, 05:53 AM, said:

3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.

Hi,

if you cite the LOTT, please cite it correctly

According to the law, it is ok, to go to the 3 level
with your 8 card fit, if they have a 8 card fit in a
higher ranking suit.
=> The law is of with -1, but this is ok.

What you should not do, is outbidding the oppoents
on the 3 level, if you hold only a 8 card fit, because in
this case the law may be off -2.

If you look at the hand of the 4D bidders, you have one
pos. adjustments, shortage in their suit, and one neg.
adjustments, the Ace of spades, since the number of
pos. and neg. is the same, you should follow the law.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Poky]

whereagles, on Jul 28 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

Dbl was for penalties (with fit, dbl = pen), and East doesn't have extreme enough distribution to pull it out. That being said, I would have pulled out had I seen pard's hand.. lol

So, what do you bid with:
♠x
♥KQx
♦KQ10xxx
♣AQx

[coyot]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 28 2005, 06:20 AM, said:

coyot, on Jul 28 2005, 05:53 AM, said:

3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.

Hi,

if you cite the LOTT, please cite it correctly

According to the law, it is ok, to go to the 3 level
with your 8 card fit, if they have a 8 card fit in a
higher ranking suit.
=> The law is of with -1, but this is ok.

What you should not do, is outbidding the oppoents
on the 3 level, if you hold only a 8 card fit, because in
this case the law may be off -2.

If you look at the hand of the 4D bidders, you have one
pos. adjustments, shortage in their suit, and one neg.
adjustments, the Ace of spades, since the number of
pos. and neg. is the same, you should follow the law.

With kind regards
Marlowe

If you want to cite LOTT correctly, do it. Look at the vulnerability. Defending their +110 by +200 is BAD

[mgtusi]

Poky, on Jul 28 2005, 06:38 AM, said:

So, what do you bid with:
♠x
♥KQx
♦KQ10xxx
♣AQx

Double at IMPS and double at MP

[Free]

There isn't even a single decent bid from EW imo, so why bother?

[P_Marlowe]

coyot, on Jul 28 2005, 06:46 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 28 2005, 06:20 AM, said:

coyot, on Jul 28 2005, 05:53 AM, said:

3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already.

Hi,

if you cite the LOTT, please cite it correctly

According to the law, it is ok, to go to the 3 level
with your 8 card fit, if they have a 8 card fit in a
higher ranking suit.
=> The law is of with -1, but this is ok.

What you should not do, is outbidding the oppoents
on the 3 level, if you hold only a 8 card fit, because in
this case the law may be off -2.

If you look at the hand of the 4D bidders, you have one
pos. adjustments, shortage in their suit, and one neg.
adjustments, the Ace of spades, since the number of
pos. and neg. is the same, you should follow the law.

With kind regards
Marlowe

If you want to cite LOTT correctly, do it. Look at the vulnerability. Defending their +110 by +200 is BAD

Hi

, ... well, you could be right, vulnerability may also be
a factor.

But playing IMP's I dont care, if they double 3D and it goes -1
for 200, because most of the time they will sweat blood and
water, because 3DX= is a real nice score to bring back.

Playing MP, you are right, but then the stress for the opponents
will be also great, and sometimes, they do not get the defence right.

With kind reards
Marlowe