[babalu1997]

When I overcall, I have a list of suit quality I adhere to. Some of my partners, fprmer and current, disagree with it.
When I issue a takeout double in direct seat, I have tolerance for all unbid suits. Some of my partners, former and current, disagree with it.

I decided a while ago not to say anything about their bidding, they will not listen to me anyway and this teaching/ preaching business is not good, and I will prod along until I have a bad hair day and walk away.

But I overcall as I will, and i will answer to the takeout double as if the partner has the right shape or playing strength.

On the hand below, AJ9xx for me does not qualify as an overcall, the shape is not right for a takeout double, so i passed, but when the opps bid and raised, I balanced in direct seat. Later the partner complained that I did not overcall. The scoring was matchpoints and 5 diamonds was a good sac. But then, who is supposed to bid the 5 diamonds?
Whether I overcalled or balanced, it was still upt to him to bid the 5 diamonds, the overcall and the balanced do not promise any difference in strength.

---

And speaking of overcalls vs takeout doubles, here the partner had a nice overcall of hearts, but made a takeout double, I did not like the values he had for a takeout double, but at the table I had no way of knowing since we had not agreed to lebensohl, we found a contract in hearts, to a poor score. I remainded silent but hope that the result might teach him not to issue these takeiut doubles anymore.

I might be wring, but I read books and I have never seen anyone teaching such an ugly takeout double.
the bidding went
3diamonds-dbl-4clubs-p-4 hearts, all pass (I could not fit it into the diagram)

---

and I think in a way, that is one reason why one loses at bridge.

[helene_t]

On the first hand, I don't understand why you didn't bid 1♦. It's a lot safer to introduce a suit at the 1-level before the opps have exchanged information that may help them decide whether to defend or not, than to do so at the 3-level after they have exchanged that information. You have a good suit and decent values, no reason not to overcall.

Having passed first, you need to double 2♥, you have the perfect hand for that. I assume the 4♥ bid was by East rather than South. I agree South needs to sacrifice then, holding 5-card support, although his lack of a singleton may worry him. As it happens, 5♦ is of 3 so the sacrifice is too expensive, but South should expect more shape for your 3♦ bid. At matchpoints it probably won't matter much as defending 4♥ will be close to a bottom also. Not that it matters much at IMPs.

On the second hand, I would pass (3♥ being my second choice), but double is not crazy. Obviously dbl takes him too high if North bids clubs (as you did), but 3♥ risks playing in a silly heart contract when a much better spade contract might be available.

One important thing to note about the second hand is that dbl followed by 4♥ does not show a hand too strong for an immediate 4♥ bid. This is different from if he had doubled 1♦ and then converted partner's 2♣ to 2♥. Equal level conversion applies against preempts. His bidding shows primarily a more flexible hand than a direct 4♥ bid, it does not show a stronger hand. His hand is too weak but not much too weak, and it would be a minimum 3♥ overcall anyway. (I suppose you are aware of this since you didn't make a slam try, in fact I think your hand is close to a slam try over partner's 4♥).

[BillHiggin]

Partnership agreement alarm!

When a partnership has a fundamental disagreement, there needs to be a resolution. Absolutely the worst possible outcome is for each member of the partnership to declare victory and proceed each according to their own ideas. Even if we could say that one opinion was clearly much better than the other, agreeing to the poorer opinion will still work out much better than having no agreement at all (or a known disagreement).

[TimG]

babalu1997, on 2010-November-08, 08:30, said:

The scoring was matchpoints and 5 diamonds was a good sac.

---

Aren't there 2 losers in spades, 2 in hearts, and 2 in clubs? Even if the defense only gets 1 spade trick, that's 5 tricks. Down 3 or 4 isn't a good sac.

[hotShot]

In the first board, I would overcall 1♦ and my partner with ♦ fit, will raise the ♦ according to the LOTT.
So the bidding would be:

---

Now West has to decide if his hand is good enough to bid 4♥. If he doesn't show the ♥ fit, East has no reason to to bid 4♥.
So our partnership might get away with 4♦X-2, probably a good score.

I could decide to dbl showing 2 places to play, with similar success:

---

We would also have a chance to find a ♠ fit this way.

When you decided to balance:

---

Opps already know about their fit, LHO is still unlimited and you had to enter the auction at the 3 level. I'm not sure that you get enough benefit for entering the auction now.

Still, since your LHO is still unlimited your partner should know that you are expecting him to have a much weaker hand.

---

The problem is that indeed South is a little weak, but basicaly it is unfortunate that 3♦ is down (2♥, 2♣, ♦K, club ruff) and your side can't make anything either.

[barmar]

I would never bid at the 3 level with South's hand in the 2nd board, it's not even borderline for me. Since I have length in the opponent's suit, partner should be short. If partner can't reopen, we don't belong in the auction. His bidding shows a total lack of trust in his partner.

But once he doubles, I think you should bid 3♥ rather than 4♣. Your hand is not very strong, and he may be stretching, so you should try to keep the level low. And as you noticed, many people like to double whenever they have the majors, and don't care about minors.

[babalu1997]

BillHiggin, on 2010-November-08, 09:26, said:

Partnership agreement alarm!

When a partnership has a fundamental disagreement, there needs to be a resolution. Absolutely the worst possible outcome is for each member of the partnership to declare victory and proceed each according to their own ideas. Even if we could say that one opinion was clearly much better than the other, agreeing to the poorer opinion will still work out much better than having no agreement at all (or a known disagreement).

Thanks Bill.

People can agree or disagree on how to bid, negative free bid or not, sound openings or not. Take this ELC dble for example, i read about it in Marshall Miles`s book, never discussed it, had no idea if partner used it. As to my overcall, or lack of it, I have heard the arguments , I tend to bid what has given me better results more often.

I think in a strcitly online environment such as where I play, people mostly play like that because they keep multiple partners, and if the game is never going to move on from bbo then they will not invest any time in it.

People have told me they play with rather poor players online because they are their "friends".

I think truly if i want to learn more, i have to switch to a situation where I play bridge vicariously, ie, solving bridge problems from books. That takes veyr long (I can play 9 board games in an hour, but not solve 9 bridge problems in an hour). Taking a partnership to firm bidding agreemnets however, will take even longer.

But i have been told also that it is no good to study books and have no partner to share it with.

[campboy]

hotShot, on 2010-November-08, 11:37, said:

The problem is that indeed South is a little weak, but basicaly it is unfortunate that 3♦ is down (2♥, 2♣, ♦K, club ruff) and your side can't make anything either.

Only one down, I think, since you get either the club ruff or two heart tricks.

[helene_t]

BillHiggin, on 2010-November-08, 09:26, said:

Partnership agreement alarm!

I don't think this topic has much to do with partnership agreements.

On the first hand, it is just plain wrong to bid 3♦. I mean, even if partner expects this kind of hand, he can't bid 2♠ over 3♦ if he happened to have a spade fit and shortness in diamonds. Having passed in first round, double is clear.

On the second hand, it is of course a matter of agreement how much to expect from a double followed by 4♥, and as Barmar says if North expects South to double with this kind of hand, it is probably better to bid 3♥ than 4♣ in response to the double. But these issues are fine nuances and even in a semi-regular partnership this may not have been discussed. At the end of the day, it is a matter of judgment whether pass, dbl or 3♥ is likely to work out best, and whether 3♥ or 4♣ in response to the double is likely to work out best.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 Making an undiscussed prebal. bid like 3D is way more dangerous than 1D
the round before, given the King / 10 of hearts in the North hand, the
prebal. auction is also not really a good idea, since those two cards
are downgrading factors and lead to neg. adjustments for the number of
total tricks.
Personnally you should try to discuss style of overcalls with p, and you
need to agree on one style.
If you cant, stop playing togetether, it wont be a successful partnership
anyway.
#2 What to do with 54 in the majors and 5431 shape (single in openers suit) is
an old topic, lots of heated discussion, in the end, the peoble who overcall
the major are now in the majority, so 1H is the mainstream action.
Given that we have 5 hearts and 4 spades, the T/O has more support, than it
would have with 5 spades and 4 hearts.
And since the hand is not too strong, you could say, that this hand is a "one action
/ one bid" hand, and the T/O will the describe thee hand very well, so X is not
bad, just a style issue.

With kind regards
Marlowe