[pclayton]

mikegill, on Feb 28 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

1) 2♥, not close to a pass - where are our 6 tricks coming from?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is where are our 8 tricks coming from?

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Feb 28 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

mikegill, on Feb 28 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

1) 2♥, not close to a pass - where are our 6 tricks coming from?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is where are our 8 tricks coming from?

Qx K10xxx xx QJxx

Jx AK10xx xx Jxxx

Want to defend?

and I didn't even give partner a stiff diamond

[pclayton]

Apollo81, on Feb 28 2008, 08:08 AM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 28 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

mikegill, on Feb 28 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

1) 2♥, not close to a pass - where are our 6 tricks coming from?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is where are our 8 tricks coming from?

Qx K10xxx xx QJxx

Jx AK10xx xx Jxxx

Want to defend?

and I didn't even give partner a stiff diamond

No stiff diamond? How generous...

Pard doesn't have spade support, and doesn't (probably) have 6 hearts. Somehow we have to come up with 13 cards here, but I would say that 5 clubs is just as likely as 2 spades.

The first hand you gave happens to have a prime ♠Q and a nice ♥10 that is going to stop the promo. 2♦ looks like -180, unless pard's diamond spot is significant, or spades are 3-3. It's close enough not to worry about it either way.

The second hand is about the best argument for 2♥ you can come up with. Not only does pard have zero duplication in clubs, but we have all of the heart toppers. Maybe I should be thinking about 3♥, since with a little luck in a dummy reversal (or ruffing clubs) I can wrap 4.

Since we are producing hands, how about these:

x, Axxxx, xx, KJxxx
xx, Axxx, xxx KQxx
xx, Kxxx, xx, KJxxx

[Edmunte1]

1.2♥, maybe 2♠ is an option
2. 3♣, i disagree with double.

[gnasher]

pclayton, on Feb 28 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

mikegill, on Feb 28 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

1) 2♥, not close to a pass - where are our 6 tricks coming from?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is where are our 8 tricks coming from?

Who said they were expecting to make eight tricks? Even if we're only making six tricks in 2H, we're unlikely to be doubled, so it would still be better than -180.

[pclayton]

gnasher, on Feb 28 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 28 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

mikegill, on Feb 28 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

1) 2♥, not close to a pass - where are our 6 tricks coming from?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is where are our 8 tricks coming from?

Who said they were expecting to make eight tricks? Even if we're only making six tricks in 2H, we're unlikely to be doubled, so it would still be better than -180.

Lose 2.

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Feb 29 2008, 05:05 AM, said:

mikegill, on Feb 28 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

1) 2♥, not close to a pass - where are our 6 tricks coming from?

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is where are our 8 tricks coming from?

Partner judged it was worth competing at this level he does not expect us to be passing 2♦ with J10xx and a minimum sitting under the 2♦ bidder.

[mikeh]

On the first hand, I think that pass is the best call. I used to automatically pull these hands, and then regret it.

The opps occasionally step out/get unlucky in their overcalls and we owe it to ourselves, and our teammates to nail them when it happens.

One caveat: if partner is the type to negative double with 3 spades and short(ish) diamonds, I'd pull, but a passed hand shouldn't (imho) bid that way.

Yes, we can see a terrible score if they make, but why should they? As for the argument that they have half the deck.. yes they may, and they may have a nice fit as well, but the fit may be in clubs, and they ain't getting there

On a good day, this could be bloody. Picture LHO with a sound overcall: xx Kxx AKQxxx Kx and partner with xx A10xx 9xx AJxx... we have given LHO a moose of a 2♦ bid, with nothing wasted in spades, and he is getting killed.

[awm]

Agree with David Burn.

I think most passed hands with five hearts are bidding 2♥ over 2♦, don't you? It's not forcing after all, by a passed hand. If partner has at most two spades and exactly four hearts, that means either diamond length (in which case 2♦X will be bloody) or club length (in which case it's a true misfit and we can hope that partner's clubs are pulling full weight on defense opposite our singleton). Obviously I will give up the occasional -180 or even -380, but those numbers will often be replacing the -200 I get from basically any other call (so a small loss, not a big one). On the other hand 2♦X going down could be a big plus score.

[gnasher]

awm, on Feb 28 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

Obviously I will give up the occasional -180 or even -380, but those numbers will often be replacing the -200 I get from basically any other call (so a small loss, not a big one). On the other hand 2♦X going down could be a big plus score.

You're not vulnerable, so -200 is unlikely.

[han]

awm, on Feb 28 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

I think most passed hands with five hearts are bidding 2♥ over 2♦, don't you?

No I don't, I think that would show a decent suit and about a 10-count.

[benlessard]

2H
3C

1st 1 is obvious.

The problem with the 2nd is that 3Nt might be a much better contract then 2D X or 4S. At the table i would have X, but after thinking more on this one im pretty sure 3C is best.

[benlessard]

With today overcall im passing more and more of these X and i like to play that our X show some length in opps suit so that we can passes unless we have shortness. However playing standard method partner X should really suggest doubleton S and 5/6H. So playing standard i would not X with your partner hand and i would surely not pass 2D with ur hand.