[Phil]

IMPs, red / white

Q6x KQ8x Q4xx 87

(1♦) - 2♣ - (pass) - ?

[ArtK78]

Pass.

While game is possible if partner has a very heavy overcall, there is just no call that fits this hand. 2♦ and 2NT are both overbids and could easily turn a plus (or small minus) into a minus (or larger minus). 2♥ could strike gold, but is likely to be very dangerous.

[ahydra]

This is where you wish you could strike the "must have been made by an opponent" bit of Law 19A

I think I'm going to have to reluctantly pass as well. The only alternative I consider is 2D but that really should have five cards.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

Pass. This hand is one of the many reasons opener should not be "required" to re-enter (usually with a double) as many posters seem to believe, although I welcome him to do so.

I don't understand Ahydra's concept of what 2D would mean on the first round by advancer.

[ahydra]

I normally play advances as "encouraging but NF". I think it's the "NF" bit of that that makes me want to have five cards.

Is it better to play them F1, do you think?

ahydra

[aguahombre]

ahydra, on 2012-June-18, 10:02, said:

I normally play advances as "encouraging but NF". I think it's the "NF" bit of that that makes me want to have five cards.

Is it better to play them F1, do you think?

ahydra

I think it is probably more useful to have 2D be not natural when they have opened 1D and partner has overcalled; a cuebid suggesting more than just a courtesy raise of Clubs. It is not the same as when overcaller himself bids their suit naturally on the second round.

[ahydra]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-18, 10:52, said:

I think it is probably more useful to have 2D be not natural when they have opened 1D and partner has overcalled; a cuebid suggesting more than just a courtesy raise of Clubs. It is not the same as when overcaller himself bids their suit naturally on the second round.

UGH, I totally missed 1D there by opener! No wonder you were a bit confused... Yes, 2D would be a good club raise.

OK, applying the same theory to 2H - does it promise four or five cards for you?

ahydra

[rmnka447]

You do have some values but Pass is right.

Q432 with the suit bid behind you loses some value. It may even not be stopper at NT. You have tolerance for partner's suit but not a good fit.

Since partner didn't double, it's unlikely that partner has enough for game (i.e. double and bid ♣s). Partner might also have doubled instead of bidding 2 ♣ with something like ♠ Kxx ♥ Axxx ♦ x ♣ AJxxx, so there is some reduced likelihood of a ♥ fit.

[CSGibson]

pass. 2nd choice would be 3♣, 3rd 2N, but both of those are very very distant.

[655321]

I really hate the pass with this 9 count opposite partner's vulnerable 2 level overcall.

I would bid 2NT, but 2♦ and 3♣ are also plausible.

aguahombre, on 2012-June-18, 09:06, said:

This hand is one of the many reasons opener should not be "required" to re-enter (usually with a double) as many posters seem to believe

Pretty sure you won't find anyone, let alone 'many posters', who believes that opener is required to re-enter without looking at their hand.

[aguahombre]

655321, on 2012-June-18, 17:13, said:

Pretty sure you won't find anyone, let alone 'many posters', who believes that opener is required to re-enter without looking at their hand.

I didn't think so either, until I read their posts.

[JLOGIC]

hes back!

[MrAce]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-18, 17:27, said:

hes back!

He never left, he is just observing .

Like you, he is also my most fav poster

[Phil]

Even more favorite since he agrees with my 2N bid! I bought OK in 3N ATx JTx Q AQT9xx. Opps defended like retards but the layout saved them -200.

[lalldonn]

I like the Q4xx, it's one of my favorite suit combinations.

[aguahombre]

The ops were probably confused when they figured out you both had the diamond queen.

[CSGibson]

655321, on 2012-June-18, 17:13, said:

I really hate the pass with this 9 count opposite partner's vulnerable 2 level overcall.

You and I play with really different partners, perhaps. The ones I play with like to overcall 2♣ aggressively, even vul, just to put their ops in the "awkward negative double" spot.

[655321]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-18, 18:15, said:

You and I play with really different partners, perhaps. The ones I play with like to overcall 2♣ aggressively, even vul, just to put their ops in the "awkward negative double" spot.

Mmm, maybe, but this sounds like one of those irregular verbs: I like to overcall 2♣ aggressively, even vul, just to put the ops in the awkward negative double spot, but he routinely makes vulnerable 2 level overcalls with his 5332 12 counts because he doesn't know any better.

Anyway, just my opinion obviously, but if you play a style where you have to pass partner's vulnerable 2 level overcall at IMPs, with an ordinary 9 count for fear of getting too high, something is wrong somewhere - not only will you miss games when partner has a good hand, but you will sometimes go for numbers when he has a bad one.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-18, 18:09, said:

The ops were probably confused when they figured out you both had the diamond queen.

Stiff J in dummy.

[JLOGIC]

655321, on 2012-June-18, 18:55, said:

Mmm, maybe, but this sounds like one of those irregular verbs: I like to overcall 2♣ aggressively, even vul, just to put the ops in the awkward negative double spot, but he routinely makes vulnerable 2 level overcalls with his 5332 12 counts because he doesn't know any better.

Anyway, just my opinion obviously, but if you play a style where you have to pass partner's vulnerable 2 level overcall at IMPs, with an ordinary 9 count for fear of getting too high, something is wrong somewhere - not only will you miss games when partner has a good hand, but you will sometimes go for numbers when he has a bad one.

Calling this an ordinary 9 count is unfair imo, it is quite a poor 9 count with no ace, no club filler, no ten or 9 no fit, and not even a good diamond holding like Q98x which is obviously much better than Q432. I think considering this more like an 8 count and thus passing is pretty reasonable even though I'm with you that 9 counts should usually (almost always) be bidding over a vulnerable 2C overcall.