[joshs]

Scoring: IMP

---

RHO opens 1C
You overcall 1H
LHO bids 3C (premptive)
Partner x's (responsive)
RHO Passes

Now what? What do you bid here? If you bid 3D, what do you bid next if partner bids 3S?

[awm]

I'll bid 3♦. While this hand is a bit better than a minimum overcall, the ♣Q is likely wasted and the overall shape is not exciting. If partner bids 3♠ I will raise to 4♠; I think 3♠ here should be a non-forcing call but I have a partial fit for spades and fairly prime values, as well as being about a king better than I had to be for 1♥.

[han]

I agree with Adam, and I think that both 3D and 4S are fairly clear (although a case can be made for passing 3S). Perhaps later comments will convince me otherwise.

[mikeh]

3♦ seems clear: I had to strain to even come up with an alternative, and I suppose that would have to be a bizarre pass.

Over 3♠, I pass.

I reject the idea that I am stronger than I need to be for a vulnerable 1♥ overcall. My Qx♣ are a negative value: they contribute nothing (in all likelihood) to our offensive potential and they are cards that the opps do not hold: thus they hold compensating values somewhere else, where they are bad news for our side: compare this hand to Ax KQxxx Axxx xx: that is an extra values overcall, whereas my actual hand is not.

With my actual hand, KQxxxx xx Kxx xx needs trump 3-2, the ♥A onside and either ♥ 3-3 or a very unlikely red suit squeeze (virtually impossible on the auction if ♥ are 4-2. While the ♥ A is very probably onside, there is still way less than a 35% chance of making and this is (for me) a prototypical hand for the auction. Make the hand significantly stronger and he should bid 3♠

(KQxxxx xx KQx xx is, I think, a 3♠ bid opposite a vulnerable overcall... but I concede this is a style issue and if this is your idea of a prototypical double/3♠ hand, then raise to game)

Give me my alternative hand: Ax KQxxx Axxx xx, and 4♠ is now a favourite to come home opposite the hand I expect. Opp KQxxxx xx Kxx xx, I have chances on a 3-2 ♠ break even if the ♥A is offside.

Having said all of that, if you are a partnership that makes really weak vulnerable overcalls, then I can see raising to game, because then you may have the extra vlaues that such an auction requires. However, if you play that method, you either reach too many poor contracts or partner has to pass hands with which I would bid (ie he cannot afford to bid double and then 3♠ with KQxxxx xx Kxx xx, and I'd like him to )

[awm]

I think this is mostly a style difference between mikeh and myself, which may explain part of his claims not to do well at matchpoints (assuming he plays this style there as well).

While I wouldn't overcall on KQJxx of hearts and out, I think it is 100% clear to overcall at all red with:

Ax KQJxx xxxx xx

Despite the balanced pattern and "only" ten points, I would never even consider passing with this hand with a one-level heart overcall available. Yet opposite his example hand of KQxxxx xx Kxx xx, I would be lucky to manage one down in three spades, with two down a lively possibility (let's assume opponents are good enough to hold up a round in hearts). I would treat a direct 3♠ bid over 3♣ as forcing (I think this is standard) and if partner holds KQxxxx xx KQx xx I don't see any game with much play opposite my example hand.

So I guess I expect partner to be about 2-3 points stronger on these sequences than Mike does, to compensate for my overcalling about 2-3 points lighter.

[kfgauss]

mikeh, on Apr 17 2006, 07:36 PM, said:

(KQxxxx xx KQx xx is, I think, a 3♠ bid opposite a vulnerable overcall... but I concede this is a style issue and if this is your idea of a prototypical double/3♠ hand, then raise to game)

This is a rather cramped situation. I play 3S forcing here and wouldn't be sure what to do with this hand. Do you also play 3S forcing and simply think this hand is worth forcing on (given the lack of space), or do you play 3S NF, and if so, what's your rule for when such bids are NF?

------------------------------

I was a teammate in this match, so I'm not going to comment, but the bidding was also of interest at our table. What's your bid/plan over (1C) 1H (P) 1S; (P) ? (You play 1S as NF Constructive, and anything else relevant as "standard" for a 2/1 partnership.)

Andy

[joshs]

mikeh, on Apr 17 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

3♦ seems clear: I had to strain to even come up with an alternative, and I suppose that would have to be a bizarre pass.

Over 3♠, I pass.

I reject the idea that I am stronger than I need to be for a vulnerable 1♥ overcall. My Qx♣ are a negative value: they contribute nothing (in all likelihood) to our offensive potential and they are cards that the opps do not hold: thus they hold compensating values somewhere else, where they are bad news for our side: compare this hand to Ax KQxxx Axxx xx: that is an extra values overcall, whereas my actual hand is not.

With my actual hand, KQxxxx xx Kxx xx needs trump 3-2, the ♥A onside and either ♥ 3-3 or a very unlikely red suit squeeze (virtually impossible on the auction if ♥ are 4-2. While the ♥ A is very probably onside, there is still way less than a 35% chance of making and this is (for me) a prototypical hand for the auction. Make the hand significantly stronger and he should bid 3♠

(KQxxxx xx KQx xx is, I think, a 3♠ bid opposite a vulnerable overcall... but I concede this is a style issue and if this is your idea of a prototypical double/3♠ hand, then raise to game)

Give me my alternative hand: Ax KQxxx Axxx xx, and 4♠ is now a favourite to come home opposite the hand I expect. Opp KQxxxx xx Kxx xx, I have chances on a 3-2 ♠ break even if the ♥A is offside.

Having said all of that, if you are a partnership that makes really weak vulnerable overcalls, then I can see raising to game, because then you may have the extra vlaues that such an auction requires. However, if you play that method, you either reach too many poor contracts or partner has to pass hands with which I would bid (ie he cannot afford to bid double and then 3♠ with KQxxxx xx Kxx xx, and I'd like him to )

Your lack of good suits, excellent defensive values including potential wastage (Qx in clubs and the heart K opposite what is likely to be 1 or 2 cards), and lack of a major suit fit is what makes Pass tempting, despite having only 2 clubs....

[mikeh]

Several points:

I would never dream of passing 1♣ with Ax KQJxx xxxx xx at any form of scoring or any vulnerability.

But only a point counter (rather than a bridge player) would think that Ax K9xxx Axxx Qx is a much better hand than this. And I don't think Adam is a Walter the Walrus clone, based on other posts.

And I do play that 3♠ over the 3♣ bid is forcing and I do think that KQxxxx xx KQx xx is a weak hand for that bid. The reality is that preempts work and that there is no 'right' answer here: only a balancing of risks based on style. For me, a 1-level red overcall at imps is NOT the same as a 1-level overcall at mps, red or white. Thus, when cramped by a 3♣ preempt, I will, as advancer, have to make a force-non-force decision based on what I can expect... knowing that no matter which way I go, I could and often will be disappointed.

What I believe we have to do is to decide the minimum strength and shape with which we will double and then correct to 3♠. For me, I would certainly do it with KJxxxx xx Kxx xx... but that is as weak as I would like to go.

We then have to have an upper limit, else partner will be unable to make an intelligent, informed decision about passing or raising. If we will double and bid on my example, is that in the same family of hands as KQxxxx xx KQx xx?

I think that it is very close. If you decide that these are the same family, then double and bid 3♠ and your partner will assume that you have an inbetween hand and bid/pass accordingly.

For me, the KQxxxx xx KQx xx is just a touch too good to include within the double/3♠ family, so I overbid with 3♠ initially.

And I agree that opposite Ax KQJxx xxxx xx, I am way too high, but it is not as if 3♠ is perfect either.

And if partner has Ax AQJxx xxxx xx, I will be happy to have reached game while playing the other style, opposite KQxxxx xx Kxx xx, 4♠ is a poor contract: the opps should be able to win a ♣ in the correct hand to get a ♦ through even if the majors behave.... if you say, I'd pass 3♠ with that and raise with Ax K9xxx Axxx Qx because the latter is a better hand, then we definitely are speaking different languages.

All in all, a tough problem, and while I know my answer, I do not pretend that it would always work on any given hand.... any more than I think that the other approach will always work.

BTW, if preemptive raises did not cause these problems, no-one would play them

[pclayton]

3♦ looks fine. Its nice to have extras once in awhile.

Pass wouldn't occur to me, except maybe BAM, assuming they are vul. Pard needs the A♠ and not much more to give us a likely beat.

I recognize we may have a perfecto 3N opposite: KQxxx, x, Kxxxx, Ax but we aren't finding it.

[whereagles]

3♦ to the responsive double, followed by 3NT after pard's 3♠.

I'd prefer to have better clubs for this, but no one is perfect.

[Free]

3♦, no real alternative imo

[luis]

3♦
then 3NT

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh has started to address the issue that is being overlooked: what has partner actually shown? In particular, is 3♠ forcing?

There are two ways of getting to 3♠:
i) double 3♣ then bid 3♠
ii) bid 3♠ over 3♣

By analogy with disturbed bids opposite an opening, the former is weak with spades and the latter forcing as has been mentioned here. If the partnership here is playing these methods, then 3♠ is not a particularly strong bid and I pass. (3♦ on the first round is pretty obvious).

However, the analogy is not necessarily completely valid as the balance of strength is different, the opponents have had more space to describe their hands, and the 1♥ overcaller's suit lengths are slightly better defined than after an opening bid (that is, it's easier to raise partner's suit, particularly if it's a minor, and less important to look for another fit).

As it happens, we've recently been discussing these auctions and have agreed that when everyone is bidding, a new suit above partner's suit is natural and non-forcing; a new suit below partner's suit is natural and forcing (usually based on a fit - we just pass with a weak hand and a lower suit if 2NT lebensohl isn't available). The logic behind this is that when everyone is bidding it's vital to get spades in particular into the game as soon as possible. Putting them off for a round can be fatal. In addition, you aren't that likely to have a forcing hand with spades that can't do something else (e.g. bid game).

(This logic is the same as the arguments for and against NFB, but it's just the balance between the pros and cons is different.)

So with my usual partner I raise 3S to 4S because he's shown a forcing 3S bid.

Arguably, you could play these new suits as forcing when they have made a pre-emptive raise and non-forcing when they are have shown strength but that leads to all sorts of possible real-life, rather than theoretical, problems. (What is 'strength'? What if they don't know what they are playing?)

[luis]

I would like to interview those who pass 3♠ because I need to know how did you get to a such elaborated parnership agreement as being able to pass 3♠ with 2 cards after a responsive double vulnerable and still get a good result.

I confess I would be puzzled by 3♠, I'm sure pd would be puzzled too, and I'm sure neither of us would pass in case we have some vulnerable game, how bad can it be to bid 3NT and play 3NT, 4♥ or 4♠ compared to 3♠, after all you have shown 5 hearts, 4 diamonds and not 3 spades.

Luis

[FrancesHinden]

p.s. there are times to bid 3NT on Qx, but I'm pretty certain this ain't one of them.

[joshs]

Without discussion, I would assumed tha 3S directly is forcing, and this sequence is non-forcing. Probably 8-11ish with 6 spades, or 11-14ish and only 5 spades, if I had to guess a range.

[HeartA]

3D and then pass over pd's 3S. CQ is a wasteage, and HK is questionable, plus no good fit for ♠.

[joshs]

Thanks for answering. I was curious if anyone would make the bid that I really wanted to make at the table, but chickened out, which is pass! Both 3N and 4S will also make.

Partner had KQJxx x QJ9x Kxx

Spades were 3-3, and dummy had nothing (3C was bid on xxx xxx xx JT98x). Best defense will take 3 spades, 2 clubs, 1 heart, and 2 diamonds, for 1100.

No I don't think 1100 is in the realm os possibility against a sane 3C bid, but you have a lot of cards that might take tricks on defense, and few cards that will only take tricks on offense (E.G. This hand has a very LOW ODR ratio). Yes partner mught have 5 or 6 diamonds and pass works out poorly, but again partner might have only 3 diamonds and 5 or 6 spades and pass works out very well. Anyway, I was just curious if anyone found the pass...

BTW, at vul/vul at mps, I think pass is clear! This, of course was imps, so the calculation is different.

[mike777]

joshs, on Apr 18 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

Thanks for answering. I was curious if anyone would make the bid that I really wanted to make at the table, but chickened out, which is pass! Both 3N and 4S will also make.

Partner had KQJxx x QJ9x Kxx

Spades were 3-3, and dummy had nothing (3C was bid on xxx xxx xx JT98x). Best defense will take 3 spades, 2 clubs, 1 heart, and 2 diamonds, for 1100.

No I don't think 1100 is in the realm os possibility against a sane 3C bid, but you have a lot of cards that might take tricks on defense, and few cards that will only take tricks on offense (E.G. This hand has a very LOW ODR ratio). Yes partner mught have 5 or 6 diamonds and pass works out poorly, but again partner might have only 3 diamonds and 5 or 6 spades and pass works out very well. Anyway, I was just curious if anyone found the pass...

BTW, at vul/vul at mps, I think pass is clear! This, of course was imps, so the calculation is different.

Ok since no one else asked why is partner not bidding 3s but bidding x with 5 decent spades?

I can understand passing the x as one option but making the x seems a bit tough.

[Codo]

mike777, on Apr 19 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

Ok since no one else asked why is partner not bidding 3s but bidding x with 5 decent spades?

I can understand passing the x as one option but making the x seems a bit tough.

Maybe Joshs Partner had the idea of showing a gameforcing hand with 5 Spades and 4 Diamonds? Just in case, he will find Josh with some 2542 hand, where 3 NT is the right game? Unluckily, his pd had been on another wavelength and believed, that 3 Spade was not a choice fo game, it was just spades, not good enough to bid direct.
But Joshs Part had been very lonely with his idea- at least in this forum.