[inquiry]

000002, on Jan 3 2007, 08:28 PM, said:

1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠？

is it really frequent that we have a game in here ?
i think we are recreant to give up.

to Inquiry:"if they can master two club ruffs (if leader is xx Axxx xxxxxx x) you are down four."
i don't believe anyone will penalize 2♠--- with this hand ---in the living world.

regards 000002

I never suggested they would double... down four would be, well, punishment enough. But I am not afraid of 2♠ being hurt, i am afraid of 3♠ or 4♠ being hurt if I raise. The hands Glenn shows for 1♠ overcall are nice, so nice, I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over).

[glen]

inquiry, on Jan 3 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

The hands Glen shows for 1♠ overcall are nice, so nice, I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over).

Yes, the "the auction is not over" on those hands - the opponents will usually bid above 2♥ before the 1♠ bidder has a rebid, either 4♥, or a blocking 3♥, or a real or pseudo game try.

[000002]

yes, u r right "I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over). "

but i doubt,IN RED , my partner will reopen without my cooperation dbl.
I believe 2♥ is the final contract in the fact---- unless my partner has 6cards ♠.

regards 000002

[Winstonm]

officeglen, on Jan 3 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

Partner could have something like:

Scoring: IMPs

---

or

Scoring: IMPs

---

or

Scoring: IMPs

---

or with the minor suits flipped, and we could have decent play for game. These hands are not that uncommon.

I doubt anyone - with the possible exception of hand 1 - would not balance after 1H-1S-2H-P-P

Now, after the balance, if you still want to bid 3S at least you have expressed your values and partner won't expect too much.

[Winstonm]

000002, on Jan 3 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

yes,  u r right "I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over). "

but i doubt,IN RED , my partner will reopen without my cooperation dbl.
I believe 2♥ is the final contract in the fact---- unless my partner has 6cards ♠.

regards  000002

Yes, but at the same time you could easily have this:

Scoring: IMP

---

This is a pretty normal hand all around, yet 2S, against good defense, goes down 2 for -200 while 2H will either make or go down 1 depending on the club guess. So 2H is where you want to be. Against good players, they won't take the push to 3H and will take their chances against 2S.

[glen]

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

I doubt anyone - with the possible exception of hand 1 - would not balance after 1H-1S-2H-P-P

As I noted in a posting above, one could very well not see 1H-1S-2H-P-P.

[000002]

to Gentleman winstonm:)

OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣.


regards 000002

[the hog]

000002, on Jan 4 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

to Gentleman winstonm:)

OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣.


regards 000002

He's got a point you know - make Ds 4-2

[glen]

The_Hog, on Jan 4 2007, 05:09 AM, said:

000002, on Jan 4 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

to Gentleman winstonm:) OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣. regards 000002

He's got a point you know - make Ds 4-2

Can't make the ♦s 4-2 in the NS without changing the South hand in question. So on the normal hand given, we might go -200 instead of -110 if we pass. If we bid we might get a game swing. Imo, what really helps here is a LOTT-at-the-3-level respecting partner, so if it goes 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠-3♥, s/he does not bid 3♠ just because they have 5♠s and short ♥s - if they would tend to bid 3♠ with those hands on that auction then the risk of bidding 2♠ increases dramatically.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Jan 4 2007, 05:09 AM, said:

000002, on Jan 4 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

to Gentleman winstonm:)

OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣.


regards 000002

He's got a point you know - make Ds 4-2

-110 versus -200... which would you choose?

[Winstonm]

officeglen, on Jan 3 2007, 10:46 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

I doubt anyone - with the possible exception of hand 1 - would not balance after 1H-1S-2H-P-P

As I noted in a posting above, one could very well not see 1H-1S-2H-P-P.

That is true and I see your point; however, if the opps have those kinds of hands they will be based on distrubution, meaning your suits aren't breaking and you won't make game anyway.

Note the difference in making games if the advancer held: xxxx, xxx, Qxx, Axx.

[Halo]

It used to be argued that raising on hands like this just helped opponents to envisage their shape and bid close games.

Nowadays we attach much more importance to competing, but this hand is still marginal and I think I would just pass and let it go.

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Jan 5 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

I would prefer defending 3H personally. And I am quite confident that the guy with 9 points and 2 spades is going to bid it. I don't agree that good players will always sell to 2S when it's right, no players are that good. Good players tend to bid over 2S when their opps have 9 trumps.

I agree totally. In isolation, looking at this hand only, I'd want to defend 3H.
But how can you assume a 9-card fit for opponents? It could as easily be an 8-card fit - and if they have good discipline, they won't bid 3 over 2 with only an 8-card fit. If they have a 9-card fit, someone will most likely have a stiff spade and then they will probably make 3H.

So once again, to me it seems all I accomplish by bidding is giving the opponents more winning options than they would have by me passing.

[glen]

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

But how can you assume a 9-card fit for opponents?  It could as easily be an 8-card fit - and if they have good discipline, they won't bid 3 over 2 with only an 8-card fit.

I believe you are wrong about them not bidding above 2♠ with just an 8-card fit. To quote Larry:

Larry Cohen, on p107 2Bid or not 2Bid (book title and thread title), said:

Try not to let the opponents play at a level equal to their number of trumps.  If they have an eight-card fit, and are at the two level, they are in very good shape - the LAW tells them that.  We want to try very hard to never sell out on the two level, if we believe that they have eight trumps. ... If we have eight trumps, and they have eight, and the points are relatively "evenly" distributed, we can't afford to let them play at the two level.

Note that "never sell out". Thus I suggest it is quite likely that we will see further bidding over 2♠.

[pclayton]

officeglen, on Jan 5 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

But how can you assume a 9-card fit for opponents?  It could as easily be an 8-card fit - and if they have good discipline, they won't bid 3 over 2 with only an 8-card fit.

I believe you are wrong about them not bidding above 2♠ with just an 8-card fit. To quote Larry:

Larry Cohen, on p107 2Bid or not 2Bid (book title and thread title), said:

Try not to let the opponents play at a level equal to their number of trumps.  If they have an eight-card fit, and are at the two level, they are in very good shape - the LAW tells them that.  We want to try very hard to never sell out on the two level, if we believe that they have eight trumps. ... If we have eight trumps, and they have eight, and the points are relatively "evenly" distributed, we can't afford to let them play at the two level.

Note that "never sell out". Thus I suggest it is quite likely that we will see further bidding over 2♠.

Right! There's a bidding big difference between 3♥ over 2♠ and bidding 3♠ move 3♥.

[Winstonm]

officeglen, on Jan 5 2007, 08:46 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

But how can you assume a 9-card fit for opponents?  It could as easily be an 8-card fit - and if they have good discipline, they won't bid 3 over 2 with only an 8-card fit.

I believe you are wrong about them not bidding above 2♠ with just an 8-card fit. To quote Larry:

Larry Cohen, on p107 2Bid or not 2Bid (book title and thread title), said:

Try not to let the opponents play at a level equal to their number of trumps.  If they have an eight-card fit, and are at the two level, they are in very good shape - the LAW tells them that.  We want to try very hard to never sell out on the two level, if we believe that they have eight trumps. ... If we have eight trumps, and they have eight, and the points are relatively "evenly" distributed, we can't afford to let them play at the two level.

Note that "never sell out". Thus I suggest it is quite likely that we will see further bidding over 2♠.

I believe you are misinterpreting the message - Cohen was talking about defensive bidding, about pushing on to the 3 level in order to take a slighter minus than the -110 or to go +50 if the opps pushed on - also, Cohen's book was highly slanted to matchpoints, as that was the Cohen/Bergen specialty - winning major matchpointed events.

In the following book, Adjustments, he said about imps (I must paraphase):

"Erik Kokish was the coach. One auction started, 1S-2H-2S-3H-P-P-P. I thought to myself, These guys are well coached, not bidding three over three with only eight trumps."

My point being that Cohen was emphasizing the defensive bidding aspect, and how good players, well-coached, would behave to this "push".

My simple point is that with a 9-card fit the oppenents will bid to the 3-level and will most likely make; however, with only an 8-card fit they will not necessarily do so unless there are compensating values, such as distribution or extra high cards.
Good players at imps don't automatically take this push - they judge from their cards what action is best. My problem is with such a poor hand, whatever they decide to do will be right - only on rare instances would I think that I would go plus when the opps got it wrong and bid 3H and didn't make. So why give them the option?

If they have extra distribution, they will problably make - if they have extra high cards, they have two good options: setting your 2-level contract or bidding and making their own contract.

I think all of us would agree that Queens are overvalued in the HCP concept while Kings and Aces are undervalued - in isolation, without an auction, this hand with its poor shape and poor texture is probably worth 4 1/2 to 5 points. In the context of the auction, with the heart Q of dubious value, it may be worth less.

I appreciate differing opinions ard my opinion may be wrong, but to my thinking partner will not be happy about me putting down in dummy a hand that in essence is not much more than: xxxx, xxx, Qxx, Qxxx. Just my opinion, though.

[glen]

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2007, 09:34 PM, said:

I believe you are misinterpreting the message - Cohen here was talking about defensive bidding

If by "defensive bidding" you mean the other side opened, the example on page 121 is clear - after 1♦-1♠-Double-2♠-?, Larry says "But you can't leave your opponents in their eight-card fit on the two level", and has opener competing to 3♥ via a good-bad 2NT with xx KJTx AKxxx xx.

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2007, 09:34 PM, said:

not bidding three over three with only eight trumps

Your 3-over-3 comment relates to whether overcaller will bid 3♠ over 3♥, but not a 3♥ bid over 2♠.

[Winstonm]

officeglen, on Jan 5 2007, 09:46 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2007, 09:34 PM, said:

I believe you are misinterpreting the message - Cohen here was talking about defensive bidding

If by "defensive bidding" you mean the other side opened, the example on page 121 is clear - after 1♦-1♠-Double-2♠-?, Larry says "But you can't leave your opponents in their eight-card fit on the two level", and has opener competing to 3♥ via a good-bad 2NT with xx KJTx AKxxx xx.

Yes, that is right. But notice what Cohen is doing here - he is opening and competing on an 11-count and surely does not believe his side has the balance of power. Again, his thrust is matchpoints. Part of Bergen/Cohen philosophy was - in my view - almost a defensive type of offensive opening, if that makes any sense whatsoever. Stealing was a big part of their arsenal, so often, although they opened the bidding, had no reason to believe they held the balance of power or that it was "their" hand. And if you look at the hand shown, it is highly offensive in nature. Had the hand been: K10x, xxxx, AJxxx, Kxx - well, that would have been in the next book on "adjustments".

Perhaps that is part of the problem - if the opponents do open light there may be more reason to raise the overcall as it makes it harder on them to judge if they have a substantial balance of power: however, if opener is known to be of the more "sound" type and his partner holds something like: QJx, Kxx, Kxx, xxxx he is much more apt to pass and take his plus in 2S?

[glen]

Winstonm, on Jan 5 2007, 09:56 PM, said:

however, if opener is known to be of the more "sound" type and his partner holds something like: QJx, Kxx, Kxx, xxxx he is much more apt to pass and take his plus in 2S?

Which person is passing: the person with the sound opening, a ♥ fit, a singleton ♠, and that does not know responder is a 3-3-3-4?