[gwnn]

Scoring: XIMP

1♣-1♦-2♥-x
p-3♦-p-p
?

---

2♥ was a wjs, usually below responding values (3-6 or thereabouts).

partner is good and opps are prone to bid somewhat unsoundly sometimes.

[Apollo81]

No, IMP scoring. They could conceivably make an overtrick even.

[helene_t]

Agree with Noble. I don't think I would double at matchpoints either although it would make more sense there, of course.

[skjaeran]

There's absolutely no reason to expect them to go down. Since I hate -670 or -870 at IMPs I'll just pass this.

[ArtK78]

One of the main reasons why one plays weak jump shifts is to serve as a warning that the bidder has virtually no defense.

You have been warned.

Pass.

[mikeh]

Agree with all of the above. Just because the opps sometimes bid unsoundly doesn't mean that they are going down here, and, indeed, I'd expect them to make a significant percentage of the time. Obviously, if I knew that clubs were the equivalent of 3=2=3 around the table, I should be doubling, but on most other club breaks, they are making at least 3♦.

[ArcLight]

One thing to keep in mind is the risk/reward ration.
If you double them and set them a trick 2 out of 3 times, and the third time they are doubled into game, you are losing in the long run.

[dcvetkov]

I agree with almost all of it, but expect this contract to go down 1, or maybe 2 w/o the double. The dont rate to have super great fit, and possibly only 8 trumps. Double will tip them about how to play the trumps, although he will still need to guess right. If you can count on partner to provide one trick,,,k of ♥, or slow spade, its not difficult to see 5 or 6 tricks, and club ruff is not that unlikely and even some trump promotion may be possible.
I think I would pass at IMP, but dbl at MP for elusive 200. I can live with occasional 670 at MP

[P_Marlowe]

Only if you really need IMPs.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

I expect down 1 to be the most common result, which is certainly not the hopes of which doubles at imps are made...

[whereagles]

Doesn't 3♥ seem to have a chance? If pard has KQJxxx it's 9 tricks. If he has a bit less, you shouldn't come to less than 8.

Of course, this assumes pard has a decent WJS, with ok intermediates.

[gwnn]

Scoring: XIMP

---

1♣-1♦-2♥-x (see my note on unsound bidding by opps)
p-3♦-p-p-
p

+300 and +8.5 imps but somehow I feel bad when they pull that on me, 3 down Vul undoubled. My gold star pard told me "if you never risk, you never win" and "you *do* have 4.5 defensive tricks and it's an almost sure misfit" and replied "it's OK you shall learn" to my "ugh I guess I was a chicken for passing it out". But I wasn't really convinced so I wanted to hear some your opinion also. Thanks!

[gwnn]

BTW who passes on W's hand? I "learned" in the Junior Board Review Session that 1♦ is a very good bid because it's the most disruptive bid over 1♣.

[655321]

gwnn, on Feb 1 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

BTW who passes on W's hand? I "learned" in the Junior Board Review Session that 1♦ is a very good bid because it's the most disruptive bid over 1♣.

Yes, 1♦ doesn't rate to achieve much here.
I do like a 2♦ bid though.

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on Feb 1 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

Doesn't 3♥ seem to have a chance? If pard has KQJxxx it's 9 tricks. If he has a bit less, you shouldn't come to less than 8.

Of course, this assumes pard has a decent WJS, with ok intermediates.

KQJxxx is too good for a weak jump shift, IMO.

A weak jump shift should be a hand with a long suit but otherwise not good enough to reply to a one bid.

The hand given in this problem is a weak jump shift.

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Feb 1 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

+300 and +8.5 imps but somehow I feel bad when they pull that on me, 3 down Vul undoubled.

I don't understand. Surely this was an excellent result?

[gwnn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 1 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 1 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

+300 and +8.5 imps but somehow I feel bad when they pull that on me, 3 down Vul undoubled.

I don't understand. Surely this was an excellent result?

+800 would have been better

call me young and restless

[mikeh]

gwnn, on Feb 1 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

BTW who passes on W's hand? I "learned" in the Junior Board Review Session that 1♦ is a very good bid because it's the most disruptive bid over 1♣.

Unlearn this as soon as possible It is quite the silliest 'lesson' I have ever heard.

1♦ over 1♣ is the LEAST disruptive bid there is, not the most.

Any overcall in the next higher ranking suit consumes minimal bidding space. After all, what were the chances that LHO was going to bid 1♦ had you passed?

So how, exactly, did your call change responder's position?

It does have some impact.

For example, it gives him a negative double, thus allowing him to show 2 suits when, had you passed, he'd only be able to show one of them. This can actually help him especially if they play a style in which opener rebids 1N over a 1♥ response with a balanced hand including 4 spades.

It gives him a cue-bid. Maybe they play inverted raises without competition, and he has an in-between hand: not shapely enough for a jump raise and too weak for a single raise. With inverted off in competition, he can cue with an inverted raise, jump with a preempt and make a single raise with the inbetween hand.

This is only a partial analysis, but I hope that you can see that the 1♦ overcall is hardly disruptive.

Contrast this to a 1♠ overcall of 1♣... think about the havoc that this can create on mundane (in the absence of the overcall) responding hands, especially those with diamonds and not enough to bid 2♦. Contrast this to the situation that truly is the maximal disruption available absence a jump: overcalling 2♣ after a 1♦ opener.

[gwnn]

Yea Mike... That was pretty much my reaction auch... I'm not quite sure what he (Rich Reisig, supported by pretty much everyone on the lesson) meant with that. Perhaps involving partner in competing in diamonds? I have no idea. The comment was indeed partly facetious, but the 1♦ overcall was really their choice of calls.