[benlessard]

Never thought of passing 1D, now that i thought of it, simply awful. Risky for no reasons. I simply dont understand why people have problem with a 2D bid, if partner is balanced we will always play 3nt and if not hes got 5C except 4414.

When partner got 5C and a stiff D 6C is always a possibility whne he doesnt we will play 3nt with np.

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2011-August-14, 02:56, said:

I do not disagree that you represent the mainstream American style

I thought this was mainstream everywhere, not just in America. It's certainly mainstream in England. Are you saying that where you play it's not mainstream?

Quote

, where partner has to find a bid after over-caller, even if nothing fits.

That isn't true. If responder has a hand that isn't suitable for any action, he passes. Usually such hands are also hands where he doesn't mind defending undoubled opposite a minimum with length in the overcalled suit, or he thinks this so unlikely that he's prepared to take the risk.

Quote

The trouble with this approach is that partner is frequently balanced and often responds in notrump (for want of anything better), when it would be far better if opener would play notrump and over-caller would have to lead and some hands are simply unbiddable with this approach.
For example change responder's hand slightly to ♠AQJ,♥AQx,♦xxxx,♣xxx and you have a hand for the BW MSC. That is also the major reason why some play that 1♠ after a 1♥ overcall denies ♠s.
And all this only because partner is not allowed to pass with values.
Consequently I do not subscribe to the concept that opener shows 18-19 if he balances with 1NT after having been over-called at the one-level followed by two passes.
With KJx Qxx Kxx Axxx I balance with 1NT (we alert) and have never come to cropper, but with a lot of good scores our way.

If I take your two example hands and make them consistent, AQJ AQx xxxx xxx opposite Kxx Kxx Kxx Axxx, it seems likely to me that your approach will lead to 3NT-1, whereas passing out 1♦ will probably lead to a small plus score against 1♦.

I think it's admirable that you didn't cook your example hands to prove your point, but I do think that they support the argument that passing out an overcall as opener when you have a balanced minimum and length in their suit is safe.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-August-14, 08:35

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-August-14, 08:32, said:

I thought this was mainstream everywhere, not just in America. It's certainly mainstream in England. Are you saying that where you play it's not mainstream?

I took it to mean that he is from America and thus has enough experience there to say it's the mainstream style there, but he cannot comment on the mainstream styles in other places since he does not know them.

Though I will admit I have often written it to mean that, and was worried that it would seem like I was implying what you took it as.

[xxhong]

looks like a good hand to bid 1S as a transfer to NT, after 1NT, you can bid 2D to show the strength of this hand.

Playing standard method, I think 2D is the only bid, I don't like a 3NT bid because you still may belong to clubs if partner holds a singleton in D.
Like Kxx Kxx x AKxxxx, where 6C is very good.

joe3nt, on 2011-August-07, 07:31, said:

It's Imps.

The vulnerability on this one should not matter - it's the logic which I am after.

In second seat, your partner opens 1C, and with a 1D overcall on your right, you hold this hand:

♠ AQ7
♥ AQ
♦ Q943
♣ 9843

What do you now do, and why?

Joseph