[whereagles]

MickyB, on Jan 29 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy

I think I remember a hand in SJ Simon's cut for partners where a similar 2♥ butt-in was not made because of 'safety reasons', only to find out, after letting 4♠ through, that the side was cold for SEVEN hearts.

[MickyB]

whereagles, on Jan 29 2007, 11:09 AM, said:

MickyB, on Jan 29 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy

I think I remember a hand in SJ Simon's cut for partners where a similar 2♥ butt-in was not made because of 'safety reasons', only to find out, after letting 4♠ through, that the side was cold for SEVEN hearts.

There's a reason why you've only see that occur in a book.

Anyway, my main reason for not overcalling 2♣ is not safety, but that pard will expect me to have a better hand so we will get too high too often.

[mike777]

hmm that sounds like safety to me but who knows.....

[helene_t]

Agree with Peter. It's quite normal not to act at IMPs unfavorable with the West hand. Actually, I think I would have passed at any scoring/vulnerability allthough I would consider 3♣ at IMPs favorable.

[FrancesHinden]

MickyB, on Jan 29 2007, 12:33 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jan 29 2007, 11:09 AM, said:

MickyB, on Jan 29 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy

I think I remember a hand in SJ Simon's cut for partners where a similar 2♥ butt-in was not made because of 'safety reasons', only to find out, after letting 4♠ through, that the side was cold for SEVEN hearts.

There's a reason why you've only see that occur in a book.

Anyway, my main reason for not overcalling 2♣ is not safety, but that pard will expect me to have a better hand so we will get too high too often.

I once defended a 3H contract (one off) with neither partner bidding when our side was cold for 7C.

[Edmunte1]

You can't win them all. It's important just to win more than you lose. In IMPs the efficiency of one action can be calculated by making the win/lose raport:

IMP's won X percentage of success

IMP's lost X percentage of failure

For example you bid a 40% vulnerable game. Let's consider the other table stops in part score. Then, the win/lose raport will be:
Win: 40% X 10 IMP= 4
Lose: 60% X 6IMP =3.6. So it's better to bid than to pass

In your case, i definitely will pass. Overcalling 2 of a minor should show a good hand or a very good suit, especially vulnerable.

[jtfanclub]

I suppose that if 3♣ is lunacy the first time around, then 3♣ the second time around is extra lunacy with chocolate sprinkles?

1♠-P-1NT-P
2♥-3♣

The good news is, logically, it must show the hand I have, I think. If I were stronger, I'd say 2♣ the first time. If I had a better suit, I'd say 3♣ the first time. If I only had 5, I'd not show it at the 3 level. In addition, both opponents have limited their hands, so I don't have to worry about partner showing up with a Yarborough.

The bad news is, if they have a penalty X, they'll find it. If I did it the first time, I might get lucky even if it's a bad bid.

So, I don't suppose anybody else would consider a pre-balance in this situation?

[starfruit]

For those who thinks that this isn't enough to overcall, what "extras" do you think will merit an direct overcall?

1)a ♣KQJT98 suit instead?

or. . .

2)a 6-4 playing shape? like
♠x
♥xx
♦Axxx
♣KQxxxx

or. . .

3) a combination of both the above?

[Winstonm]

starfruit, on Jan 29 2007, 09:20 PM, said:

For those who thinks that this isn't enough to overcall, what "extras" do you think will merit an direct overcall?

1)a ♣KQJT98 suit instead?

or. . .

2)a 6-4 playing shape? like
♠x
♥xx
♦Axxx
♣KQxxxx

or. . .

3) a combination of both the above?

I think you are overlooking a key issue - spot cards. The extra shape helps. of course, but the spot cards are the real key.

3
43
A742
KQ6532

Verses

3
43
A1087
KQ10972

Although both can be counted as 6-loser hands, the second is far superior and that would be about my dead minimum to get involved.

[neilkaz]

Winstonm, on Jan 29 2007, 08:46 PM, said:

starfruit, on Jan 29 2007, 09:20 PM, said:

For those who thinks that this isn't enough to overcall, what "extras" do you think will merit an direct overcall?

1)a ♣KQJT98 suit instead?

or. . .

2)a 6-4 playing shape? like
♠x
♥xx
♦Axxx
♣KQxxxx

or. . .

3) a combination of both the above?

I think you are overlooking a key issue - spot cards. The extra shape helps. of course, but the spot cards are the real key.

3
43
A742
KQ6532

Verses

3
43
A1087
KQ10972

Although both can be counted as 6-loser hands, the second is far superior and that would be about my dead minimum to get involved.

Just commenting that I am in total agreement with Winston's thoughts here.

[Codo]

jtfanclub, on Jan 30 2007, 05:33 AM, said:

I suppose that if 3♣ is lunacy the first time around, then 3♣ the second time around is extra lunacy with chocolate sprinkles?

1♠-P-1NT-P
2♥-3♣

The good news is, logically, it must show the hand I have, I think. If I were stronger, I'd say 2♣ the first time. If I had a better suit, I'd say 3♣ the first time. If I only had 5, I'd not show it at the 3 level. In addition, both opponents have limited their hands, so I don't have to worry about partner showing up with a Yarborough.

The bad news is, if they have a penalty X, they'll find it. If I did it the first time, I might get lucky even if it's a bad bid.

So, I don't suppose anybody else would consider a pre-balance in this situation?

I had never bid 3 Club after 2 ♥ but must confess that your arguments are convincing. RHo may have a real good hand, but is not game forcing and loaded in the majors, so the penalty double will come from the very limited lho or it won´t come, which makes it less likely.

[cherdano]

Codo, on Jan 30 2007, 09:22 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jan 30 2007, 05:33 AM, said:

I suppose that if 3♣ is lunacy the first time around, then 3♣ the second time around is extra lunacy with chocolate sprinkles?

1♠-P-1NT-P
2♥-3♣

The good news is, logically, it must show the hand I have, I think.  If I were stronger, I'd say 2♣ the first time.  If I had a better suit, I'd say 3♣ the first time.  If I only had 5, I'd not show it at the 3 level.  In addition, both opponents have limited their hands, so I don't have to worry about partner showing up with a Yarborough. 

The bad news is, if they have a penalty X, they'll find it.  If I did it the first time, I might get lucky even if it's a bad bid. 

So, I don't suppose anybody else would consider a pre-balance in this situation?

I had never bid 3 Club after 2 ♥ but must confess that your arguments are convincing. RHo may have a real good hand, but is not game forcing and loaded in the majors, so the penalty double will come from the very limited lho or it won´t come, which makes it less likely.

Noooooooo. Opener's hand is not limited. He may double in again with any hand in his top range. Responder can double for penalty. What does it help that you described your hand well? So partner knows before putting down dummy that it will be -800?

This is a non-fit auction, bidding 3♣ is much more dangerous than a direct 3♣ IMHO.

[whereagles]

jtfanclub, on Jan 29 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

I suppose that if 3♣ is lunacy the first time around, then 3♣ the second time around is extra lunacy with chocolate sprinkles?

1♠-P-1NT-P
2♥-3♣

You're right. It's downright insane. Overcalling 1 level higher on a shaky suit when opps have already exchanged a LOT of information and the auction hints at a misfit is fraught with extreme danger.

There's another hand in SJ Simon's book where Futile Willie passes 1♠ with a similar hand and butts-in 3♣ later, only to go 1400 down on normal play. If he had bid 2♣ right away, Ms. Guggenheim would have bid over it.

My rank of bids:

(1♠) 2♣ = frisky, but livable.
(1♠) 3♣ = you must be nuts, but you might actually get away with it!
(1♠) pass + 3♣ = either you have a death wish or you're used to win at euromillions

[Codo]

cherdano, on Jan 30 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

Noooooooo. Opener's hand is not limited. He may double in again with any hand in his top range. Responder can double for penalty. What does it help that you described your hand well? So partner knows before putting down dummy that it will be -800?

This is a non-fit auction, bidding 3♣ is much more dangerous than a direct 3♣ IMHO.

Of course openers hand is limited. He opened, but he did not jump. 2 ♥ is passable.
And of course this could be a non fit auction, that is why 3 Club is dangerous.
RHO may look at x,x,Kxxx,AJTxxxx and his double will end the auction-
But at least this time it did not happen.
If you look in your hand, there is a good chance, that they and we will have a fit.
And a third thought: I doubt that many people are well prepared against this late entry. Do they play penalty doubles already? Would a 3 Heart bid from responder be inviting or competetive?

[FrancesHinden]

Codo, on Jan 30 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

And a third thought: I doubt that many people are well prepared against this late entry. Do they play penalty doubles already?

Oh yes. I've had some truly big penalites on this auction against nothing.

[mikestar]

You simply can't win them all. At match points you have to find a bid, but this hand is just too flawed to act at unfavorable at IMPs If you catch opener with a good hand, you can lose too much blood and if you catch partner with a good hand (as you do on the actual hand), you will get to a game and go down rather frequently. At any other vulnerability, I would bid 3♣ in a heartbeat--though the poor spots would make me nervous at both vul. In no case do I like 2♣: it's simply too likely to get us too high if partner has some cards.

[han]

I would pass with this hand. I would bid with x xx Axxx KQxxxx, I don't need the spotcards (although I'd prefer to have them). If partner has a good hand plus fit then I'm not afraid of getting too high, this hand should play well.