[kgr]

IMPs

---

4♠ was too high. Both DBLs were take-out (We don't play natural 1NT overcal, so West's DBL could have been with a 1NT hand).
Both East and West are minimal for their last non-pass, but what bid is/are (most) wrong?

[Fluffy]

IMO East is below the minimum for a double that would be 8 balanced at this level for me.
My father says that responsive double of a minor should have 4-4 majors, and one of a major should have 4-4 minors, I am not convinced but it would solve your problem here as East would have to bid 3♥.

West could also double 4♣ and then bid 4♠, that would be an offer to play in 5♦, but it is not much better.

[mikeh]

East overbid by a considerable amount.

When in these situations, it helps to remember that partner is not barred by a pass. If we belong at the 3-level or in game then the odds are that he can bid (double) again. Meanwhile, if he has a minimum hand, which is more common than extras, bidding risks a bad outcome AND also a bad outcome if he has extras, since he'll bury us, as he did here.

[ahydra]

Am I the only one who overcalls 1D here? Works out nicely on this hand. Whether or not there's interference, partner can show spades when and only when he can show spades over an X.

ahydra

[kgr]

ahydra, on 2013-July-31, 14:57, said:

Am I the only one who overcalls 1D here? Works out nicely on this hand. Whether or not there's interference, partner can show spades when and only when he can show spades over an X.

ahydra

I didn't think of this before (too much viewing the rest of the auction),...but we play that 1♠ shows 4c♠ with longer ♦s. West's hand is very good for it, but not too strong. I have to check with my partner why he didn't bid that. Maybe he found DBL more flexible and/or his hand too good (with the 3c♥).

[kgr]

I was East and I agree that I'm too weak for my DBL and I should have 4-4 majors.
Additional questions:
- Would 3♥ (iso DBL) by East show about the same strength than DBL?
- Can West bid 4♦ iso 4♠ or is 4♠ clearly better?

[Fluffy]

ahydra, on 2013-July-31, 14:57, said:

Am I the only one who overcalls 1D here? Works out nicely on this hand. Whether or not there's interference, partner can show spades when and only when he can show spades over an X.

ahydra

I think it is a big mistake to overcall diamonds, I even double with 3361 pattern which is a bit extreme, but the point is Majors are the important thing, and offering 3 strains (9 cards description) is a better way to start than offering just one if we only have one bid.

Double also shows your strength better.

[Zelandakh]

Just read this read, coincidentally just after the recent thread with the good 3352 hand. Deja vu, especially the last comment from Fluffy! Funnily enough I had the same reaction to this one before reading the comments - double is ok but I prefer 1♦. I do not think this hand is quite as clear as the other one though, partly because of less hcp strength and partly because of the shape.

Having a speciality gadget to show the 9 pointy cards all at once and not using it seems crazy on this hand. It is not like partner cannot introduce a 5 card heart suit over 1♠ if they have a few values, or indeed over a second round double from us without those values.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2013-July-31, 22:38, said:

I think it is a big mistake to overcall diamonds, I even double with 3361 pattern which is a bit extreme, but the point is Majors are the important thing, and offering 3 strains (9 cards description) is a better way to start than offering just one if we only have one bid.

Double also shows your strength better.

I disagree fundamentally with this.

a) you will play in 4-3 fits often at high level if opps preempt, or miss a lot of 4-4s
b) it depends what the lower range of your 1♦ over 1♣ is.
c) it depends how much you need to X over 1♣-1♦-3♣-P-P

Much of this is a matter of agreement, for us, this hand is not much above minimum for 1♦ over 1♣ as 1♦ has no preemptive effect, so we play it very sound and bid 2♦ on rubbish, thus we can respond to 1♦ more or less as if we'd opened it. On this hand we probably play 3♦.

[kenberg]

I was also reminded of the other thread with the 3=3=5=2 pattern. But here I have four spades. I start with a double. That's assuming I don't have a gadget available, if I do have the gadget i imagine I use it.

Anyway, many tables will begin Pass-Pass-1♣-X and that's how it would begin if i were West.

Now I also believe that after (3♣) a double shows four cards in both majors. Fluffy says his father agrees, but he Fluffy is not so sure. Very reasonable, one could argue it either way. This hand would be an exhibit for those saying that it should promise 4-4. I can't claim that it is clear you would make 4♠ even if the deuce of diamonds became the deuce of spades, probably you aren't. With luck you have three spade tricks, five diamonds, the ace of herta and a club ruff. But they probably have four tricks first.

It seems to me that E is a bit light for his responsive double even if he is 4-4, and when he is not 4-4 this is a further defect and he should decline to use that call even if system allows him to make it.

[rmnka447]

I'd bid 1 ♦ on this hand. But this type of hand is part of an ongoing, unsettled discussion within our KO team. The concern is that by overcalling rather than doubling you may lose a good major fit especially a 4-4 ♠ fit.

I think the quality of the ♦ suit tips the scales toward the overcall. If the hand had a more nondescript ♦ holding like, say, ♠ A10xx ♥ KQx ♦ AJxxx ♣ x, I'd double. But for me the initial dominant feature of the hand is the ♦ suit.