[ASkolnick]

I think 2S is actually quite clear on the 2nd round of bidding.

We can argue about the merits of a takeout double from west. I understand it when it works, but it can also blow up in your face in competitive auctions.

I think the chances of you going for 500 are extremely small since all of your trumps are sitting behind the trump length. So, when you exit your hand, you will always have potential to score your small trumps. Its not like you are sitting with K98432.

On this auction, partner still rates to have some values, and I think there is a good chance they have a fit.

[TimG]

Balicki held ♠KQT73 ♥43 ♦QJT9 ♣94 at none vul in second seat in a close Vanderbilt match. He saw this auction:

Pass-Pass*-1♥-Pass
1♠-Pass-2♦-Pass
2♥

and he came in with 2♠. He played it there and made an overtrick.

* I wonder what a 2♠ opening bid would have shown.

[Fluffy]

doubling 1♦ is ok, but only because he has extra strenght, you are a bit offshape for the double, and you need some extra strenght to compensate.

Passing 2♣ is something that wouldn't happen with me as east.

[petergreat]

kgr, on Mar 16 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

(1♦)-p-(1♠)-p
(2♣)-All pass
I could have presented this as a bidding problem for E or for W and also for N.
How could EW have avoided this disaster (You will not like this, but 2♠ by E the first round would have shown ♣ and ♥ 2-suiter).

=.=

This is absurd.

West shouldn't bid X, unlike how some players said, because of the 3-3-3-4 and no spade values. 14 pts isn't everything.

North has no reason at all for bidding 1♠. I would bid 1NT!

Assume that North is bidding 1♠ anyway, I would look 'huh?', then pass.

When it goes 2♣ West can't bid unfortunately, I agree wit his pass.

When it gets passed to East I think I would double, I think it is competitive. Partner must have some points (declarer is minimum, responder is minimum...) and can either pass for penalty or bid 2♥. You are unlikely to get to 2♠ unless you knew North had only three spades, which presumes some cheating on your part

[dburn]

jdonn, on Mar 17 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

For another drill we can spend time wondering what all the bids mean when we find out defending 2♣ in what might not have been a fit was our best spot. But there is only so much heart I can put into this discussion when we both appear to think both players should have acted and merely differ in extent of blame.

I find your suggestion about a direct 2♠ being weaker decidedly bizarre.

You may be right. I say only that if I had

♠KQJ10xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kx

I would consider it more effective to bid 2♠ over 1♠ immediately than to pass for the duration of the auction and watch partner lead a non-spade against 3NT (or any other contract, for that matter). With another ace, I would be content to pass at my first turn, then bid spades at my second, because I do not anticipate the auction being at an inconvenient level when my second turn comes.

Your mileage may vary, but the main point I was trying to make is that if you and your partner have agreed to play that an immediate 2♠ is natural, you do still need to have a good idea of how strong it is. Would you raise it with, say, an ace and a king and a couple of spades?

One more drill: if you open one of something, and partner responds 1♠, and the next hand bids a natural 2♠, what is your double? This may seem a simple question, but not all that long ago I watched a pair of champions conduct exactly this auction, and the double was explained (but not intended) as "three-card spade support". Presumably 3♠ would have shown four-card support.

[MFA]

dburn, on Mar 20 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 17 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

For another drill we can spend time wondering what all the bids mean when we find out defending 2♣ in what might not have been a fit was our best spot. But there is only so much heart I can put into this discussion when we both appear to think both players should have acted and merely differ in extent of blame.

I find your suggestion about a direct 2♠ being weaker decidedly bizarre.

You may be right. I say only that if I had

♠KQJ10xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kx

I would consider it more effective to bid 2♠ over 1♠ immediately than to pass for the duration of the auction and watch partner lead a non-spade against 3NT (or any other contract, for that matter). With another ace, I would be content to pass at my first turn, then bid spades at my second, because I do not anticipate the auction being at an inconvenient level when my second turn comes.

Your mileage may vary, but the main point I was trying to make is that if you and your partner have agreed to play that an immediate 2♠ is natural, you do still need to have a good idea of how strong it is. Would you raise it with, say, an ace and a king and a couple of spades?

One more drill: if you open one of something, and partner responds 1♠, and the next hand bids a natural 2♠, what is your double? This may seem a simple question, but not all that long ago I watched a pair of champions conduct exactly this auction, and the double was explained (but not intended) as "three-card spade support". Presumably 3♠ would have shown four-card support.

I definitely understand your point.

As I see it, it's a very narrow target if a direct 2♠ should be weakish. Because for safety we would then need a very good suit or it would become suicidal. We wont get dealt exactly HHHHxx with minimal outside values that often.

If a direct 2♠ shows a good hand we can let outside strength compensate somewhat for lack of trump quality. Partner will know that fitting trump honours are golden. This kind of hand will be frequent.

Also some of us would want to balance in less than ideal suits, if they subside at the 2-level. The actual hand or Balicki's hand. We can't do that if a delayed bid shows a strong hand and these hands are too soft to enter with directly since partner might have a complete bust (and responder might have 6 spades that he were about to rebid...).

[petergreat]

I disagree about using direct 2♠ as spade suit. How often do opponents bid 1♠ with three spades and 4 points? Suppose they bid correctly nearly all the time, it is very unlikely that you will hold 6 spades...a heart-minor two suiter is far more common.

[jdonn]

petergreat, on Mar 20 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

I disagree about using direct 2♠ as spade suit. How often do opponents bid 1♠ with three spades and 4 points? Suppose they bid correctly nearly all the time, it is very unlikely that you will hold 6 spades...a heart-minor two suiter is far more common.

If you have spades there is nothing you can do if 2♠ isn't natural. If you have hearts and a minor you have several other options. Further you won't want to go to the 3 level with hearts and a minor when you don't have to. It's not just about frequency of the hand type.

They don't have to bid 1♠ with three spades for you to want an overcall to be natural. The majority of players of all levels will willingly respond 1♠ on four small on certain hands (for some on almost all hands).

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Mar 21 2009, 06:52 AM, said:

They don't have to bid 1♠ with three spades for you to want an overcall to be natural.

Sometimes it's right even when they have six. This is a real hand:

Scoring: IMP

1♣ pass 1♠ ?

---

Not withstanding the 6-0 break and the 4-1 heart break, 2♠ is down only 2 against a game. A 2♠ overcall has several other ways to gain: by removing an entire level of bidding and taking the opponents into unfamiliar territory, you might well persuade them to play the wrong game or at the wrong level.