[OleBerg]

Partner deals at White vs Red, MP:

Pass - (1♦) - 1NT - (Pass)
2♣ - (Pass) - Pass - (Double)
2♦ - (Pass) - ?

♠QT/♥J7/♦K97/♣KQJ1042

Do you agree with the bidding so far?

What do you bid now?

[Mosene]

Pass and keep passing and hope that partner guesses my psyche. Maybe I am reading the problem wrong. Did someone overcall a natural 1nt with that hand?

[OleBerg]

Mosene, on Oct 15 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

Pass and keep passing and hope that partner guesses my psyche.  Maybe I am reading the problem wrong.  Did someone overcall a natural 1nt with that hand?

Indeed. 3rd hand favourable. No big deal.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Oct 14 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

Mosene, on Oct 15 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

Pass and keep passing and hope that partner guesses my psyche.  Maybe I am reading the problem wrong.  Did someone overcall a natural 1nt with that hand?

Indeed. 3rd hand favourable. No big deal.

Yeah no big deal. No big deal that you have a 12 count and have no reason to believe your opponents have game. No big deal that you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field. No big deal that the opponents have opened the bidding and already have a head start describing their hands. Not a big deal at all.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Oct 14 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

Mosene, on Oct 15 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

Pass and keep passing and hope that partner guesses my psyche.  Maybe I am reading the problem wrong.  Did someone overcall a natural 1nt with that hand?

Indeed. 3rd hand favourable. No big deal.

Yeah no big deal. No big deal that you have a 12 count and have no reason to believe your opponents have game. No big deal that you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field. No big deal that the opponents have opened the bidding and already have a head start describing their hands. Not a big deal at all.

Like the headline say, it wasn't me, and I don't think I would have the imagination for it. And bridgewise my imagination is normally quite vivid. But I dont really consider it a big deal. (I assume you dont agree with the bidding so far.)

But what is more important: I dont consider the "Dont go against the field" argument as valid.

[Lobowolf]

I don't see "3rd hand" as a valid supportive reason for the bidding. Maybe it's just my connotation, but I view "3rd hand" actions as situations where the only hand that hasn't passed yet is the opponent behind me, thus justifying my taking some liberties (including openings, preempts, and psyches). When RHO opens the bidding, the fact that my partner went first doesn't help justify any goofy actions on my part.

Back to the original question "what now?" I'm passin'.

[mikeh]

I really don't understand why this type of hand is posted in the expert/advanced forum.

Anyone who overcalls 1N on this hand, which is worth far less than its point count, even with that club suit, because of the major suit length, the lack of a promotable diamond spot and the lack of any aces, is simply masterminding... taking partner out of the hand entirely.

I don't think that this type of problem advances anyone's understanding of the game.

And then we have 2♣... I assume it was stayman of some kind (especially given the 2♦ runout)...

We expose the psyche by passing... wtf did partner think we had? Long diamonds? A long major?????? A balanced yarb??????????

And in the face of this, partner pulls to 2♦?

I pass. And I pass again if anyone doubles us.

Partner has 4=4=5=0 or the like. If I'm wrong, let him sue me...

Bidding 3♣ here is confirmation either that overcaller is a bridge idiot and/or that he thinks his partner is one.

[awm]

Pass is a big favorite. Partner has something like 4450 most likely. I have three diamonds and I'm not doubled yet.

Not that fond of the 1NT psych (see Josh Donn reply) but having done that it's not time to give up the hand yet.

[pclayton]

Between this hand and the 3424 8 count in 3rd, it is clear that I am way to old for this game.

1N? I don't get it.

[Echognome]

pclayton, on Oct 14 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

<snip>...it is clear that I am way to old for this game.

Are we talking about the same game of bridge where I saw more motorized at nationals than I'd expect at a convention of the AARP?

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Oct 14 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

But what is more important: I dont consider the "Dont go against the field" argument as valid.

Agree with you if you have clear reason to believe some action is a favorite. Completely disagree with you regarding taking a totally random action that will lead to some large amount of bottoms.

[crazy4hoop]

Question 1: No, this is too strong to psych 1NT, not to mention the other reasons other posters have mentioned as to why this might not be such a sound action.

Question 2: Pass

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

Yeah no big deal. No big deal that you have a 12 count and have no reason to believe your opponents have game. No big deal that you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field. No big deal that the opponents have opened the bidding and already have a head start describing their hands. Not a big deal at all.

Ok, I'll try again:

Valid arguments against overcalling 1NT:

- ...you have a 12 count and have no reason to believe your opponents have game.
- ...the opponents have opened the bidding and already have a head start describing their hands.

Not valid argument against overcalling 1NT:

- ...you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field.

[FrancesHinden]

As everyone else has said, the hand is too weak for a normal 1NT overcall, and too strong a 1NT psyche. (By the way, I'm not a fan of the 'comic' NT overcall against decent players, it's extremely well known and opponents tend to play double as penalties so it has less chance of success than an opening 1NT)

As it is, partner was present at the table when we passed 2C, now I pass 2D- what else?

[suokko]

I believe that going against field in MP is bad practice. My excepted result for defending normal contracts are well over 50% so if I need to do something anti-field it should have very high success ratio. psyching in my option isn't any where near the good enough excepted result.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Oct 15 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

Not valid argument against overcalling 1NT:

- ...you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field.

Given that you have already made that argument, why did you reply to my first post instead of replying to my answer to your argument???

[skjaeran]

Partner saw me passing his stayman response.
Obviously, partner knows what he's doing - easy pass.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Oct 15 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

Not valid argument against overcalling 1NT:

- ...you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field.

Given that you have already made that argument, why did you reply to my first post instead of replying to my answer to your argument???

Josh: You expect to beat the filed as long as you bid to the same contract, so you better bid with the field.
Oles expections isdifferent, he obviously fears to lose MPs when he makes the field bids, so he should carry on to randomize.

[OleBerg]

Codo, on Oct 16 2008, 08:47 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 16 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Oct 15 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

Not valid argument against overcalling 1NT:

- ...you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field.

Given that you have already made that argument, why did you reply to my first post instead of replying to my answer to your argument???

Josh: You expect to beat the filed as long as you bid to the same contract, so you better bid with the field.
Oles expections isdifferent, he obviously fears to lose MPs when he makes the field bids, so he should carry on to randomize.

Spot on.

Well almost. I am far from ther best declarer/defender in Denmark, a fact that I am not ashamed of. Actually I would find it more shamefull not to realise it.

(I am far from the best bidder too, but that has lesser relevance in this discussion.)

So therefore I make no specific effort to bid like the field does. Neither do I make a specific effort not to bid like the field. I simply make what I believe is the best bid, and do not consider what the field is likely to do.

Likewise when I play a contract or defend. I do not consider what the field would do, I símply make what I believe to be the best play.

This was also the reason why I stated my point again. The way I read jdonn's post, it seemed that he argued under the assumption, that an anti-field bid needs a special justification. I am arguing that it doesnt. It only requires the same justification as any other bid; that you believe it to be the best bid. So, unless very specific, special conditions apply, the consideration whether or not a bid is a field bid should not be made.

The most obvious special conditions, is when you need a swing, or when you need to guard against a swing.

But other factors might influence you also. An example:

I frequently face a player, whom I consider to be in the top ten of Danish declarers, while I consider his bidding to have some leaks, especially in competitive auctions. When I face him, I know that if he gets to declare a tricky "field-contract", I might be in trouble. In competitive auctions auctions on the other hand, he might be a little worse off.

So I will make a little ekstra effort, to muddle things up. This doesn't mean that I will bid recklessly, or try to create swings on every board. It does however mean that I sometimes will make a bid I would generally not believe to be the best bid, but nonetheless believe to be the best bid in this particular situation. (And with the bidding-imagination I have, this is bound to be "against the field".)

[OleBerg]

Hi all,

maybe I need to attune my humour a little. I was misunderstood in the "German thread" in the offline forum, and here, my question:

"Do you agree with the bidding so far?"

was only meant to attract a few mild laughs. I find it a little silly to have an opinion on whether you agree with a bluff or not. Of course some bluffs are downright silly, but is there really such a thing, as a bluff you can agree on?

Well, sorry about that. I am definitely happy that most of you takes my posts seriously, even if they sometimes seem a little silly.

For those whom it might interest, partners hand was:

♠J642
♥85
♦AQ8652
♣9

Diamonds were 3-1