[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jun 25 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

3♥ for me also.
4♥ is a very close second.
2♥ is not even considered.

OK, so...what hand would be bad enough for 1 heart followed by 2 hearts, but too good for a direct two heart bid?

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Jun 25 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 25 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

3♥ for me also.
4♥ is a very close second.
2♥ is not even considered.

OK, so...what hand would be bad enough for 1 heart followed by 2 hearts, but too good for a direct two heart bid?

Oh -- wait one second. I just realized that we are red-on-white. In that case, I would overcall 2♥ the first time.

That makes a world of difference, as now any jump in hearts makes little to no sense. I cannot imagine a hand where I'd overcall 1♥ and jump to 3♥, as any "weird" hands would feature a spade fit now or a side minor.

1♥...2♥ would show a hand not good enough for an intermediate jump overcall. I cannot fathom this hand being deemed insufficient.

As for the idea of 2♥ showing a weak hand, red-on-white, I'm not that crazy about -500 scores.

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on Jun 25 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

I liked our auction on this hand.

I liked the auction too but I was very unsure of my 2nd bid.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Jun 25 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

As for the idea of 2♥ showing a weak hand, red-on-white, I'm not that crazy about -500 scores.

Seems a long time since you where a junior, when it comes to age and inclination.

[jdonn]

jillybean2, on Jun 25 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 25 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

I liked our auction on this hand.

I liked the auction too but I was very unsure of my 2nd bid.

Do we get to see all the hands?

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Jun 25 2007, 07:29 PM, said:

I'd have bid 3♥ initially. This is a great hand.

x2

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jun 25 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jun 25 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

OK, so...what hand would be bad enough for 1 heart followed by 2 hearts, but too good for a direct two heart bid?

I see this misconception all the time.

By overcalling 1H and rebidding 2H you do NOT necessarily show a hand that was "too good" for a 2H overcall. There are lots of other factors, namely suit quality and hand flexibility, that could cause you to overcall just 1H with 6 and a not-so-great hand.

Huh. Now I'm just confused.

Is there a good source for figuring out when to overcall vs. jump overcall in a sequence like this? It sounds like I have my reading cut out for me. I've been working hard on competitive auctions when we open, but it's become clear from this thread that I know even less about competitive auctions when they open than I thought.

Do you agree with Ken that this is a 2♥ bid the first time, given the seat and vulnerability?

[mikeh]

My initial reaction, when I saw the hand and partner's 1♠ bid, was that if I knew that my next call ended the auction, it would be 4♥.

That's enough to make this a clear 3♥ call. 2♥ is not constructive... I'm entirely with Justin that this is not an inconsistent position.

[foo]

jtfanclub, on Jun 25 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

I'd want at least 3 of the top 4 ♥ honors for a 3♥ bid in this situation.

OK, I give up.

Why would you rather have KQJ8xxx than AKTxxxx?

I'd bid 2♥, but for a reason not mentioned so far (maybe because it isn't true). Partner's a passed hand, so I would bid 2♥ over 1 club with a 6 card suit and anything less than an full opening count. By slow bidding it like this, I'm already showing game interest across a maximum passed hand.

Because KQJxxxx will play for less losers opposite a stiff or void more often than AKTxxxx will.

Opposite a stiff, you can take the safety play of hooking the T with AKTxxxx to keep control. Not an option opposite a void.

OTOH, opposite a stiff =or= void KQJxxxx is more likely to play for 1 loser.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 09:49 PM, said:

Because KQJxxxx will play for less losers opposite a stiff or void more often than AKTxxxx will.

Opposite a stiff, you can take the safety play of hooking the T with AKTxxxx to keep control. Not an option opposite a void.

OTOH, opposite a stiff =or= void KQJxxxx is more likely to play for 1 loser.

To play KQJxxxx for one loser, opposite a void, you need to catch a 3-3 split. To play AK10xxxx for one loser, opposite a void, you need to catch a 3-3 split, or QJ opposite xxxx. Am I missing something?

Besides that, AK10xxxx will play for only one loser when the suit is 3-3, no mater what happens on the side.

In contrast, KQJxxxx may play more likely for two trump losers, as the opponents may be able to get in early enough to capitalize on side-suit shortness for twop or even three tricks from the the trump suit, even if the suit splits 3-3.

If a stiff is on dummy, you do have the possible advantage of picking up a stiff Ace to your right. In contrast, you can often create an extra trick by leading toward AK10xxxx if the pip in dummy and/or a stiff pip in LHO's hand can convert the highest pip below the 10 to the functional equivalent of the nine. In other words, AK107xxx gains a trick when dummy has the 8 or 9 and LHO a stiff 8 or 9, or AK108xxx gains when dummy or LHO has the 9.

Further yet, whereas KQJxxxx has little to no in throw-in capability, AK10xxxx offers much more control over a throw-in of one or either opponents. It is a much more flexible position.

KQJxxxx offers less in the way of elopement, whereas AK10xxxx offers a great chance for a an elopement parallel to a Devil's Coup. You could force RHOP with QJx to split, and then elope your way down to A10, catching the second hook en passant. You cannot really pull that off with KQJxxxx.

AK10xxxx might enable an incomplete throw-in (you force a split, and then throw RHO in to lead bad option #1, bad option #2, or a trump, giving you ability to take that second trump finesse). KQJxxxx offers no such option.

KQJxxxx offers little in the way of a bar to the lead of that suit as a passive lead, whereas LHO might not have a friendly lead into AK10xxxx. It may be psychological aversion (Qxx(x)/Jxx(x)), but effective nonetheless.

I'm sure there are more reasons to prefer AK10xxxx to KQJxxxx, but I'm starting to get too close to Ottlik thinking.

[jtfanclub]

Uh, never mind. Ken covered it.

[jdonn]

Most of that analysis involves differences that are so neglibile lol. If that's how it is then don't be unfair, if we are going to consider QJ doubleton why can't we consider singleton A onside when we lead toward KQJxxxx?

Other parts are ridiculous. Elopement? So you want one dummy entry to lead toward the suit, then 4 more to ruff things?? I see! How about 3 more so you can take a raincheck on dummy entries for the next few boards too?

Also to be fair, if you are considering those suits you should consider KQJ and another point outside with AK to make it equivalent high card points. I mean call me simplistic, but is it so shocking that 7 high card points with a ten is slightly better than 6 highcard points without a ten? Would you rather have AKTxxxx with an outside Qxx or KQJxxxx with an outside Kxx? It's not really a fair fight to just compare suits in a vacuum, it's like asking do you prefer KJTxxxx or QJTxxxx.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jun 25 2007, 10:46 PM, said:

Most of that analysis involves differences that are so neglibile lol. If that's how it is then don't be unfair...
Other parts are ridiculous. Elopement? So you want one dummy entry to lead toward the suit, then 4 more to ruff things?? I see! How about 3 more so you can take a raincheck on dummy entries for the next few boards too?

Also to be fair...

I mean call me simplistic, but is it so shocking that 7 high card points with a ten is slightly better than 6 highcard points without a ten? Would you rather have AKTxxxx with an outside Qxx or KQJxxxx with an outside Kxx? It's not really a fair fight to just compare suits in a vacuum, it's like asking do you prefer KJTxxxx or QJTxxxx.

If someone makes a grand, nonsensical pronouncement that is obviously and patently absurd, like I occasionally (often?) do, is it not good BBF form to completely bury that nonsense in as many ways as theoretically plausible? LOL

For the record, though, buried in there somewhere I was "fair" insofar as I did mention stiff Ace onside.

[foo]

...and please bear in mind that I was explicit that the suit quality matters far more if the hand is light on HCP for what a bid traditionally shows than if it "is up to snuff.".

♥AKTxxxx and a side A + the ♠K is a =much= better hand than the one given.
(With that, I'm bidding 4♥ in this auction.)

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 11:06 PM, said:

...and please bear in mind that I was explicit that the suit quality matters far more if the hand is light on HCP for what a bid traditionally shows than if it "is up to snuff.".

AKTxxxx and a side A + the ♠K is a =much= better hand than the one given.
(With that, I'm bidding 4♥ in this auction.)

I really feel like I am stalking you. And, despite how it seems, I have found your posts to be quite refreshingly good and thoughtful, for the most part.

But, I'm really laughing hard at this one.

So, AK10xxxx can be a better holding than KQJxxxx if you have an extra Ace on the side of the AK10xxxx suit. I'd have to agree. AK10xxxx with an extra Ace is much better than KQJxxxx without an extra Ace.

[foo]

The =point=, as I can tell you well know from reading your posts and your book, is that one has to "play the hand in your head" along the most likely lines given your hand and the auction thus far to evaluate what the percentage bid is.

Thus far, this is a =misfit= auction.
If you are going to make bids promising to take more tricks, you'd best have more "starch" than you'd need in a Fit Auction.

Kx.AKTxxxx.xxx.J is not a great hand for this auction.
While I completely agree with the "bid 2.5 ♥'s" comments, the reality is we can't.
The misfit nature of the auction thus far argues for erring on the conservative side as the percentage action.

Unless the ♥'s are self-sufficient. Which they are not.

[Fluffy]

I would also bid 2♥.

what I wonder is what am I gonna bid the day I have

♠-
♥AJ1092
♦J62
♣Q8642

[skjaeran]

Fluffy, on Jun 26 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

I would also bid 2♥.

what I wonder is what am I gonna bid the day I have

♠-
♥AJ1092
♦J62
♣Q8642

An initial pass is definitely possible vulnerable, though I'd overcall.
Over 1♠ you've got two possibilites:
Either a somewhat misdescriptive 1NT (too weak, wrong handtype) or a natural 2♣ (I guess the latter is out, it's natural in my methods). Some might pass 1♠ probably, but that's out for me - it shows 4+♠'s and is forcing.