[gwnn]

1♥-1♠-2♥-p
p-3♠

If your answer is yes, please give an example.

[helene_t]

You have a good hand with too little defense to risk doubling 2♥. Presumably a void ♥ and stuffed spades.

If you play intermediate jump overcalls I think the answer is no.

[ArtK78]

Is this auction possible? Other than the fact that it is a legal bid, it makes absolutely no sense.

Why would anyone overcall 1♠ and then, when the auction comes back to them at the two level, bid 3♠? If the player was going to preempt the first time, he should have done so. Now that the opponents have had a good opportunity to exchange information so that they know that they do not want to be in game, this player bids one level higher than necessary.

Would 2♠ buy the contract? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is there a risk that by bidding 2♠ and then 3♠ if needed that the opponents would bid on to 4♥? I suppose that is possible, but it is certainly not likely. The opponents were willing to stop bidding at the two level.

I do not believe that it makes any sense whatsoever to bid 3♠ over 2♥ in this auction. And I hope that whoever did so went down one when the opponents could not make anything.

[vang]

why not? good ofensive hand, requiring one quick trick (or two, depending on vul) from part or some luck.
kqjxxxx x x akxx

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Nov 9 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

1♥-1♠-2♥-p
p-3♠

If your answer is yes, please give an example.

Um, sure. A hand with the shape for an immediate 3♠ overcall, but too strong.

AK87654 x Axx xx minimum, AK87654 x AQx Qx as a max.

Why, how would you bid these?

[jdonn]

It makes perfect sense. Let's say AKT9xxx Ax QJx x. It would be clearly wrong to double first, it would be a totally random shot to bid 4♠ first, and 2♠ now is an obvious underbid but 4♠ is the same random shot it would have been a round earlier. There is no guarantee of going plus with the 3♠ bid but I can't think of another reasonable way to bid this hand or similar ones.

[ArtK78]

Too strong for a 3♠ bid over 1♥? Then why not either double the first time and then bid spades, or bid spades the first time and then double? Why jump in spades if you have power?

If you do not think this hand is suitable for double then bid or bid then double, then just bid 2♠ the second time. You may be able to play it there.

If the 3♠ bid makes any sense at all, it is that you have more of a preemptive hand. And if that is what you have you should have bid it the first time.

[han]

Absolutely.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Nov 9 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

Quote

Too strong for a 3♠ bid over 1♥?  Then why not either double the first time and then bid spades, or bid spades the first time and then double?  Why jump in spades if you have power?

I gave you two examples, jdonn gave another almost identical one. How would you bid them?

Double then X would show 5 spades in my book. X then spades is a monster. Did you see the earlier thread where people are considering bidding a slam with a 3 count across an X-then-suit, and they were laughing at me for saying my partners would do that with a mere 6 control 15 count (minimum)?

I don't see any reason to let the opponents pass info via 2NT or 3 of a minor. I have a 7 card suit, and the count to make the 3 level safe. I don't see any advantages to walking the dog here.

[MFA]

The modern style is very wide range overcalls.
So this auction is routine ( ), invitational of course!

[gwnn]

I made the call at the table on AKT8xx void Kxx ATxx. Obviously you can say double is much nicer on this hand (all white imp's if it matters), but partner shocked me with "this sequence should not exist". He's a better player than me by a mile so I thought maybe maybe he's right totally.

I made 4 when partner had x Jxxx Axx Jxxxx

[mike777]

gwnn, on Nov 9 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

1♥-1♠-2♥-p
p-3♠

If your answer is yes, please give an example.

KISS

I am going to assume a hand with around 8 playing tricks but minimum hcp....DO I have around 2?

[mike777]

gwnn, on Nov 9 2007, 07:47 PM, said:

I made the call at the table on AKT8xx void Kxx ATxx. Obviously you can say double is much nicer on this hand (all white imp's if it matters), but partner shocked me with "this sequence should not exist". He's a better player than me by a mile so I thought maybe maybe he's right totally.

I made 4 when partner had x Jxxx Axx Jxxxx

this is close but if IMPS...I just bid 4s if you bid 3spades....Bid Game Baby!

[joker_gib]

A good inv hand with ♠ that doesn't want to dbl (not much HCP's, no support for one of the other suits...)

[jdonn]

I think you have to double on the second round, you are just too good for the minors if partner is long in one of them. The actual hands shows that. In fact my second choice on that round is 3♣. 3♠ really should be a hand that is completely oriented toward spades.

[helene_t]

I would have doubled 2♥, I think you have enough defense to risk p passing, and your spades are not good enough to insist on that strain.

Btw I think you should have made only 9 tricks against good defense.

[P_Marlowe]

Yes, the auction exits.

Simply speking, you my have made tactical decision
at your first turn to bid not to bid 4S,
but you are willing to compete up to 3S, say you hold
7 spades and and outside trick.
One may debate, if your tactical decision was fine or
not, but you have made it, maybe to give you a chance
to listen to the bidding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

Agree 100% with both of Josh's posts.

[karlson]

I agree that we have to double (or 3c, though I like double) on the second round given the auction.

But it seems that double followed by 2s is also a reasonable approach with this hand (a minimum, sure). The upside is that it's easier to convince partner that spades are very playable opposite small doubleton or even stiff. And of course it still keeps other strains open for partner to suggest.