[whereagles]

I think I would prefer an immediate 3♦, to follow up with dbl later to show a good hand in context.

As it is anything can happen, from 4♠ going down to 5♦ making. It's a bit of a guess and I'll take the push to 5. Pass can easily be right, though. Certainly if opps are joking and have but 8 spades total.

[MFA]

whereagles, on Jun 9 2010, 01:38 PM, said:

I think I would prefer an immediate 3♦, to follow up with dbl later to show a good hand in context.

Initially we also have to cater to our own contract. There are no guarantees that the opponents will bid again.

AQ in partner's suit and an ace is really huge. Give partner a spade stopper and ♦Kxxxxx. That was already 8 tricks towards 3NT and he should have much more than that.

[mikeh]

MFA, on Jun 8 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

I disagree with double. ♥Axxx is not important in comparison to our strong support. Not a surprise that the auction explodes as it often does when we have unshown support.

I play transfers and would have bid 3♣ as a good raise.

Without transfers I would have bid 3♠. My hand is very suitable for 3NT, so underbidding with 3♦ is certainly out.

I wish I had thought of 3♠. Partner will usually hold 6 diamonds and KJxxxx and a spade card still isn't enough, so we can expect to have play for 3N if he can bid it, and even if it fails, it may be a good save against 3♠.

I'd like to take my call back and bid 3♠

I don't play transfers here: do you use 2N to transfer to clubs? I admit that giving up a natural 2N may not cost very often, but I still prefer it (even tho I am a big user of transfers in lots of auctions)

[cherdanno]

- I think the case for 3♠ originally wins, although I don't hate double as much as others.
- I really can't understand saving now. Is it our lack of aces, or our extreme shape that drives us to the 5-level opposite a 2-level overcall? We are a strong favorite to take two tricks against 4S, and so does partner (who would be more inclined to jump to 3♦ at these colors if he had no defense).

[quiddity]

MFA, on Jun 9 2010, 05:08 AM, said:

quiddity, on Jun 9 2010, 12:32 AM, said:

For a second opinion on making a responsive double with exactly this hand type, see: http://thegargoylechronicles.blogspot.com/...0/board-19.html

His actual example is not so good. I have never had opponents who bid so timidly. Both of them had a clearcut second bid. It's not realistic that we have this nice and quiet auction to 4♥ with twenty total tricks, lol.

The point is not that it worked out for him in practice on that deal. The point is that Martin, who strikes me as a decent player, chooses to double with exactly that hand: a balanced 10-count with AKx in a suit that partner overcalled at the 2-level. And his argument makes a lot of sense: if the opponents continue to bid, partner will tend to do the right thing. He will defend with a balanced hand, which is what we want because we are balanced and have several defensive tricks.

[gnasher]

In this type of sequence I play 2NT as a raise. That has less overhead than agreeing to play transfers, though I'm sure transfers are superior.

[Phil]

Gwnn what actually happened?

[Double !]

cherdanno, on Jun 9 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

- I think the case for 3♠ originally wins

Agree with Arend on this point. Don't see the point of the resp X in the first point. Even if you find a heart fit, opps have already established a spade fit, hence can always out-bid you. 3S (to a lesser degree 3♦) comes closest to describing your hand as quickly as possible. Then you're in a better position to rely on partner's decisions.

DHL

[jdeegan]

I have to join the camp that wonders why I doubled at my first turn to bid. It seems an easy 3♦ bid to me - a 3♠ Q bid seems a bit much with 3-4-3-3 distribution even with 2.5 quick tricks. Chances of a ♥ fit seem very remote since pard did not double - automatic with almost any 1-4-6-2 or 1-4-5-3 shape or the like because of equal conversion. Time now to pass - elementary bridge as partner is 'good for' only one trick and I have only two.

[Phil]

In general, I still like double The auction doesn't always get away from us, and this is a good start to describe a 3 card limit raise. Initially, while I like my chances to get to 3N, pard will move over a 3♦ rebid by me (if we have the chance), and over 3♥, I can then try 3♠, so I do not see why a direct 3♠ is necessary to reach 3N.

[gwnn]

partner overcalled on x xx KJxxxx Axxx (I think-the numbers following are accurate). 5Dx goes for 300, 4S makes, I doubled and we didn't take our diamond trick so -990. I don't get why people say 'partner is good for only 1 trick', is it really normal to play partner for something this light? I don't want to insist how well I bid and how right I am- I just want to understand the logic.

[Fluffy]

my style seems to be far from forum standard, but I would rather bid 3♦ with that hand.

[hanp]

Doubling twice with prime support, maybe not a good time to complain about partner's overcall.

[gwnn]

I asked a question, I wasn't complaining.

[Codo]

Somehow you deserved your partner. I hate his overcall and your doubles.

[gwnn]

Fine, but could you explain why the second double is so bad?

[Codo]

Because it did not work.

1.You have about one trick in diamonds and one in heart. To beat them twice, so that the double earns, partner needs to have three tricks outside diamonds... How likely is this? 0,2 %?

3. You never showed your support, so partner is never in a position to judge well whether 5 Diamond or 4 Spade is the best contract. Okay, now it is too late for 5 diamond, but if they had forbidden me to pass, I had bid it.

[gwnn]

It was matchpoints, +200 is a good score, better than +100

[MFA]

I don't see a problem with the 2♦ overcall. I think it's fine. That hand has potential if it hits a fit and we are NV vs VUL. I'd much rather bid 2♦ with that than some of the solid 5card suits we have had recently. Those hands had no future, this one does. We are delighted if partner can raise.

Regarding advancer's hand. If we never support partner with a fit we are taking a position. None of the two doubles are unlikely as such to work out well, but sometimes it just explodes when partner is minimum and unbalanced and we don't support, and on this layout it just did.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I pass: I would not have doubled earlier: aiming for a 4=4 heart fit is too narrow a target. I would have raised diamonds, thus confirming for partner that he can save if he has extreme shape. As it is, he made a 2/1 overcall on a poor suit, so he rates to have defence.

I tend to agree that aiming for 4-4 hearts is too narrow a target. Do you think double should promise 5♥ then ? I am not sure but I think probably yes.