[jdonn]

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

edit: wow han and josh how do you play X in this auction?

What's the difference if I don't want to come back in on this hand regardless. Ok maybe I'm a wimp, but we certainly don't have game any more, and if we don't hit a diamond fit then I can easily see us getting killed with the hearts over us and no one having a fit. I just think bidding is small upside and big downside, both vul at imps.

You meant han, josh, and phil btw

[pclayton]

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 5 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Ok maybe I'm a wimp, but we certainly don't have game any more

I don't agree with this, you just need a good fit to make a game. Imagine if partner bids 3S over the X with 6 spades and a smattering of values.

But obviously it's more of a question of a partscore hand. Giving up on making a partscore in something seems beyond pessimistic to me, partner needs a 5 card suit and not much else (or 3 hearts and a little bit).

Quote

I just think bidding is small upside and big downside, both vul at imps.

I think you don't go for a number all that often and find a making score when you likely wouldn't have beat them a lot of the time. I think you are giving the 1N bid way too much credit and are being overly pessimistic to the point where you are rolling over and dying with a hand that has good potential.

Oh, and you never answered my question. The difference is I want to be able to tell if you feel that you have a t/o X available and are choosing not to use it or feel that you do not have a t/o X and thus are choosing to pass because you have no good way to show your hand.

IF we catch a fit you mean. This is a non-fit auction and I don't see any reason why we should.

Even if pard has a five card suit I expect it will be led and we'll be beat 1N. Maybe lose 2 against +110 or something but that doesn't mitigate the downside of LHO sawing us off.

Game really seems far off to me. Even if I catch a magical ♠Kxxxx across the table we are a long way from 10 tricks.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

Oh, and you never answered my question. The difference is I want to be able to tell if you feel that you have a t/o X available and are choosing not to use it or feel that you do not have a t/o X and thus are choosing to pass because you have no good way to show your hand.

Double is definitely takeout. I'm heavily influenced by the vul and by my heart suit since the king seems useless. Maybe too influenced.

I am still not seeing the good potential you refer to. Partner must have a very bad hand and I'm not sure why we should have any fit at all. I think it once had potential, and that went down the toilet.

Edit: Oh WOW I totally had the vul wrong all this time lol. I take it back.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on May 5 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

Even if pard has a five card suit I expect it will be led and we'll be beat 1N. Maybe lose 2 against +110 or something but that doesn't mitigate the downside of LHO sawing us off.

It's both vul so that would be a push.

Edit: The above edit was meant for this post lol. Did I confuse anyone?

[pclayton]

jdonn, on May 5 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

pclayton, on May 5 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

Even if pard has a five card suit I expect it will be led and we'll be beat 1N. Maybe lose 2 against +110 or something but that doesn't mitigate the downside of LHO sawing us off.

It's both vul so that would be a push.

Edit: The above edit was meant for this post lol. Did I confuse anyone?

?? OP has it adverse.

[inquiry]

1♥

[effervesce]

TimG, on May 5 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 5 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

Textbook 1♥ and later double of 2♣.

Suppose instead you hear (see):

(1♣)-1♥-(1N)-P; P-?

Pass.

[TimG]

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

As far as why we should have a fit, we don't have to but we do any time partner has 5+S, 3+H, or 4+D. Especially given that the only suit they bid was clubs that is a large amount of the time.

Except for exactly 3 hearts, we'd find all that out by doubling 1♣ rather than overcalling and we would do it at a lower level. Yes, I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way.

But, at this point, do we really want to find partner with 3 hearts? After all, he was unwilling to bid 2♥ over 1N.

[gwnn]

TimG, on May 6 2008, 04:08 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

As far as why we should have a fit, we don't have to but we do any time partner has 5+S, 3+H, or 4+D. Especially given that the only suit they bid was clubs that is a large amount of the time.

Except for exactly 3 hearts, we'd find all that out by doubling 1♣ rather than overcalling and we would do it at a lower level. Yes, I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way.

But, at this point, do we really want to find partner with 3 hearts? After all, he was unwilling to bid 2♥ over 1N.

so are you saying now that the main advantage of 1♥ has gone, we should ask for an undo and double?

[jdonn]

gwnn, on May 5 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

so are you saying now that the main advantage of 1♥ has gone, we should ask for an undo and double?

Well, granted it's proving very debatable, but if you think acting now is too dangerous then I'd say 1♥ has worked very well by showing you that before it was too late. It told you the heart strength is over you and that your side probably has the minority of the strength. In other words, if you think passing now is right then you are glad 1♥ put you in a position to make that judgment.

[TimG]

gwnn, on May 5 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

TimG, on May 6 2008, 04:08 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

As far as why we should have a fit, we don't have to but we do any time partner has 5+S, 3+H, or 4+D. Especially given that the only suit they bid was clubs that is a large amount of the time.

Except for exactly 3 hearts, we'd find all that out by doubling 1♣ rather than overcalling and we would do it at a lower level. Yes, I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way.

But, at this point, do we really want to find partner with 3 hearts? After all, he was unwilling to bid 2♥ over 1N.

so are you saying now that the main advantage of 1♥ has gone, we should ask for an undo and double?

No, which is why I said "I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way" and moved on to the situation at hand. But, I do think it is something to think about.

[TimG]

jdonn, on May 5 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

gwnn, on May 5 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

so are you saying now that the main advantage of 1♥ has gone, we should ask for an undo and double?

Well, granted it's proving very debatable, but if you think acting now is too dangerous then I'd say 1♥ has worked very well by showing you that before it was too late. It told you the heart strength is over you and that your side probably has the minority of the strength. In other words, if you think passing now is right then you are glad 1♥ put you in a position to make that judgment.

I expect that doubling would have put us in the same position, though usually with a little less of an inference about hearts, after either 1♣-DBL-1N or 1♣-DBL-RDBL (or even 1♣-DBL-1♥ with an even stronger inference about hearts). And, partner would be in a position to compete to 2♠ or 2♦ without intervenor taking further action which commits the partnership to the two-level without a known fit (as in 1♣-1♥-1N-P; P-DBL).

[655321]

A lot of discussion for what is really a 1♥ WTP.
An initial double is not an option for me.

I would also double back in when 1NT comes back. Bidding (hoping for good things to happen) works much more often than passing (fearing bad breaks and misfits). But at least this decision - after a 1♥ overcall and 1NT response - is an interesting problem, with real alternatives.

[gwnn]

TimG, on May 6 2008, 04:26 AM, said:

No, which is why I said "I realize that we could not have predicted that the auction would unfold this way" and moved on to the situation at hand.  But, I do think it is something to think about.

You didn't really just leave that point (1H vs double) alone. You yourself used the word "but", which implies a logical connection. Your reasoning seems to be that:

-1H is good if we can find 3 hearts
-if partner has 3 hearts, then we're not sure we want to play 2H now
-so the advantage of 1H has withered now
-so maybe we should go back, smile at opps and double 1 round earlier

which is a messy entangled logic between the two situations

[TimG]

Well, we are talking about two things that are related. There seems to be a strong majority for 1♥ on the first round. I'm not as convinced as others that it is cut and dry, but putting that aside, now that we have gotten to:

1♣-1♥-1N-P; P-? are we sure we want to play 2♥ when partner has three hearts? After all, he was so weak that he could not muster up a raise over 1NT despite his 3-card support? Justin said that finding 3+ hearts would be a good thing, I am not so sure.

Is that worded better?

[TimG]

TimG, on May 4 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

V/NV, IMPs, P-P-1♣ to you holding ♠AQJ ♥K98xx ♦KQ9x ♣x.

Double or overcall 1♥?

Suppose they opened a natural and limited 2♣ instead of 1♣. Would this change your overcall vs double choice?

[jdonn]

TimG, on May 9 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

TimG, on May 4 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

V/NV, IMPs, P-P-1♣ to you holding ♠AQJ ♥K98xx ♦KQ9x ♣x.

Double or overcall 1♥?

Suppose they opened a natural and limited 2♣ instead of 1♣. Would this change your overcall vs double choice?

It would make me more likely to double in general, the higher the auction begins. But I would still consider this a clear overcall. There is one way, and one way only to find a 5-3 heart fit if it exists, and that is a huuuuuuge factor.

[Apollo81]

Obvious 1♥ on the first round. I would double once 1N gets back to me, frankly I'm surprised there are so many passers.