[Little Kid]

Scoring: IMP

1♣-(1♥)-PASS-(PASS)
?

---

[pooltuna]

Little Kid, on Dec 29 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♣-(1♥)-PASS-(PASS)
?

---

Protect your partner!!

[mikeh]

double

Partner will not bid 2♦ without at least 5...ok...with a horrible 3=4=4=2 he might...but he almost certainly doesn't have a horrible 3=4=4=2, since where are the hcp?

Most of the time he will either be converting or scrambling to 1N (which maybe I should pull but I won't) or to 2♣ OR he has an in-between hand with 5+ diamonds and not enough to bid 2♦.

if he sits, I'm happy....while minimum, what I have is good.

BTW, I like a gadget my current partner taught me: double of a 1♥ overcall shows 4+ spades and 1♠ shows 'values to want to bid but no other convenient, descriptive bid'....thus 6-10 hcp, not right for a raise, denies 4 spades, denies a 1n bid and so on. It's a bit like the original idea of a sputnik double which wasn't tied to a specific suit or suits the way it is nowadays.

If we used that, then that would eliminate one problem hand type....responder with say 2=3=5=3 6-10 count and choosing diamonds.... he would already have bid 1♠ and would be passing our 2♣ in comfort.

[MFA]

pass - eezz

[655321]

I would pass too.

Having Hx in the overcallers suit is not ideal. Ax is not as bad as Kx, but it does mean that partner is less likely to have a penalty pass of 1♥. And either partner is weak, or he wants to defend 1♥X.

I guess it is relevant whether partner was able to show values but not spades (via double or 1♠, whichever is your agreement). If not he can still have some values, and double would be more appealing.

[rogerclee]

Pass seems completely bizarre to me. If partner has a penalty pass of course we want to double, because we are happy to defend 1Hx and can still be on for 3N. If partner doesn't, it's not like we're going to instantly go for a number, and it's not like they judge perfectly; often we will end up pushing them to 2D or 2H or something, which is fine, given that I expected them to make 1H anyway (under the condition that partner did not have a penalty pass). I guess I just don't see what's scary at all about doubling, while I am really scared partner has a big hand with hearts stacked.

[fred]

I would certainly Pass, but I should note that I am a big believer in the "never trap Pass with a strong hand" principle.

Well not actually *never* but close enough to make me feel very comfortable about Passing here.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Jlall]

I would definitely pass. It is usually right to pass with Hx and a balanced min imo.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Dec 29 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

I would definitely pass. It is usually right to pass with Hx and a balanced min imo.

ty for this post.

[jdonn]

I pass. 11 count, bad spades, heart honor, no diamond support. I love to protect partner, but it's a lot more likely to me that the opponents have missed game here than that we have missed anything worthwhile.

[whereagles]

Depends on who LHO is.

If he's reliable, pass.
If he's the sort of person who'd overcall on 5 to the jack and out, dbl.

[Phil]

I actually passed this hand in 2nd seat yesterday and reopened with a x.

Defense to 1♥ x'd was, er, suboptimal.

[P_Marlowe]

1S.

Well, maybe X, but never 2C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[barmar]

Why 1♠? Hasn't partner practically denied a 4-card spade suit by his failure to make a negative double? And your spade suit isn't even very good.

[dellache]

Pass.

[nigel_k]

Double.

I have a perfectly respectable opening bid, at least on defence. If partner is not trapping, I still expect to do better most of the time by competing than letting them play 1♥. We're only at the one level and my hand is not that different from what partner will expect for a reopening double.

[fred]

nigel_k, on Dec 30 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

If partner is not trapping, I still expect to do better most of the time by competing than letting them play 1♥.

Strongly disagree. Consider these questions and assume partner is not trapping:

- How likely is it that you can get a plus playing in notrump?
- How likely is it that the deal belongs to the opponents in notrump?

Then ask yourself the same questions for each of the four possible trump suits.

I think you will conclude that the opponents own notrump, spades, and hearts. Either side could own diamonds. We own the clubs

Then consider:

- Given that the opponents own all the strains that matter, it sure would be nice if we had a HCP advantage! How likely do you think that is?

Then consider:

- How likely is it that our side belongs in game?
- How likely is it that the opponents belong in game?

Then consider:

- How likely is it that Pass will lead to a disaster?
- How likely is it that DBL will lead to a disaster?

Of course I don't know the exact answers to these questions or how one might go about trying to add them up, but the answers are so one-sided that the implication seems clear to me (and hence my strong disagreement with your statement).

The standard bearers for DBL like to claim "If I DBL, the opponents might subsequently guess wrong in the bidding", but they tend to forget:

1) If you DBL your side might also subsequently guess wrong in the bidding.
2) The opponents may have already guessed wrong in the bidding - DBLing can nullify an opponent's misguess that has already happened.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

Thanks Fred. Your posts here are among the very best resources on the net for learning to think about all aspects of the game. I am gonna read more archives now

[jonottawa]

Double.

Partner expects me to do this, so I oblige. It's slightly -EV if pard doesn't have a trap and mandatory if pard does, so I do. Partnership harmony and +800 are good things.

This forum needs an optional 24-hr mask function where the stars (especially Fred) can make a post that shows up as a post but doesn't reveal itself for 24 hrs (or whatever an appropriate time frame might be.) These 'me too' posts make me throw up in my mouth a little.

[aguahombre]

And, when a beautiful presentation of concise logic for a particular action (whether written by a "star" or not) is followed by out-of-hand disregard for same, rather than any relevent explanation of why they disagree, it upsets ones tummy, too.