[jillybean]

Anyone to blame?

---

My tendency as East is to bid on these hands but I know that's not popular with a super strong hand. Correction. Super or strong hand

[mycroft]

Whether you double with that hand strongly depends on how much weaker it could be that you would bid 3♣ - or how much weaker it could be that you would double with 4027 or 4036 (knowing you can "double and bid clubs" if we don't have a spade fit).

I believe strongly in "sound action after a preempt" - and there are years of experience showing that others here, whose opinions I respect, believe differently. I think both are playable, but again - only if partner is on the same page. Talk about preempts :-).

For me, I'm really only one card over a minimum overcall (okay, one card and the seventh club, probably). I don't think I'm underbidding this hand too much with 3♣, especially if I'm as willing to Leeeroy Jenkins it as much as the double people are when the hearts get raised (which I am).

Those that would overcall 3♣ with this hand and with the same hand without the two kings (or with AQxx - xx AQTxxxx) get in when the gettin's good, but must struggle on what hands to bid game (or slam) on.

It really is a question to me of what "losing results" I want when they preempt. I've made my decision; I'll play what partner wants if they're insistent, but I strongly prefer "sound action". Which does mean, yes, that the experts who "[I]'d be shocked at what they preempt on at favourable" will eat me alive with +100s into +140 and +150s into +620. But I tend not to go -50 or -100 in a hopeless games.

One issue I have, independent of your agreements, is that void. Where are all the hearts? If Lefty has them, your next opportunity is 2♥-X-4♥-p; p (or 2♥-X-4♥-X; p). So you're effectively committing to bidding 5♣ next round if you double. If he doesn't, then partner has them, and, well, this happens. You could have the "best" of both worlds, I guess, after 2♥-X-3♥-X; p, (if you play that as penalty) too!

[akwoo]

I really don't like passing as West with those terrible heart intermediates. You only get two heart tricks, and maybe some spade ruffs if they aren't partner's tricks, on defense, and you'll get them when declaring also.

This hand is a prime example; 2HX-2 doesn't even beat 3N making however many tricks.

Change my hearts to AQT87 and I'd pass as West.

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2026-May-18, 21:14, said:

I really don't like passing as West with those terrible heart intermediates. You only get two heart tricks, and maybe some spade ruffs if they aren't partner's tricks, on defense, and you'll get them when declaring also.

This hand is a prime example; 2HX-2 doesn't even beat 3N making however many tricks.

Change my hearts to AQT87 and I'd pass as West.

And your obvious bid is 3♣, here we go.
I kibitzed this hand so can’t comment on E W’s reasonings

[mikeh]

It’s impossible for me to assess blame or even be confident there’s a lot of blame to assess. While I understand the showing of both hands, it destroys anyone’s ability to be objective.

While hardly foolproof, and tedious to do, probably the only way to discover how readers think would be to post the two hands separately as bidding problems several months apart. Doing it close together or, even worse, concurrently gives the game away.

With that in mind, here are my obviously influenced thoughts:

East: despite what mycroft says, I think the east hand is extremely strong for a 3C overcall. For example, I can’t imagine any good player not overcalling with, say, AQxx void xx AQ10xxxx.

That doesn’t mean that double is the best choice. There are options.

4C would be out for most experts and many others because leaping Michaels is a very useful and deservedly popular call…4C would show a powerful black two suited hand, forcing to game.

But that leaves 3H as asking partner to bid 3N with a heart stopper. Obviously we’d all like to hold solid clubs for that call, but as we all know, you can’t always get what you want.

It’s not that double is horrible, but I think 3H is better. Both actions have flaws. Double will often find south raising and rendering 3N unreachable. Double may also find partner passing, as it did here (we’ll get to wests choices in a moment) but even with my void, seeing the double converted for penalty would, for me, be a risk that won’t occur often and might work out well.

But is 3H the best choice? If we rule out double and if 4C is unavailable, how about 5C? One common approach is that one does not preempt over a preempt so 5C shows a powerful hand with very long and strong clubs.

In isolation I’m not crazy about 5C here but consider that on many layouts, when we have a heart void, south may be bidding 4H over any other action we take and then, if we’ve not shown or implied long clubs, are we not going to be tempted to bid 5C anyway? Doubling then doubling, for example, virtually guarantees a much different shape than we have.

So I think it’s a toss up between 3H (likely my choice) and 5C (the choice I’d like to make, seeing west’s hand). Which would I actually do? I can’t say.

Move to west.

As akwoo points out, the hearts spots aren’t good for defending. That isn’t enough to say that pass is a mistake. We’ll surely score some spade ruffs or pitch diamonds on partner’s high spades then ruff a diamond or two. I’d expect +500 most of the time and we’d need to bid and make slam to do better. Assuming matchpoints, +500 will usually be a great result unless slam is likely.

And that’s the problem. It’s not as if we are ‘all hearts’. We have an opening hand, albeit the heart queen is likely useless (though we might get a heart lead if we declare) and we have three first round controls. Give partner something like Axxx x Kxxx Axxx and we have a (remote) chance at 920. And partner will almost always have a stronger hand than that.

When a suitable minimum gives a play for slam and partner is unlimited on the upside, opting to settle for 500 or so is a bit timid even at matchpoints and, imo, definitely wrong at imps.

But this discussion doesn’t resolve the issue. It’s one thing to say that maybe west should consider a slam. It’s another thing entirely to decide how best to do that.

3N basically rules out 6C on most hands. 3C is non forcing even playing lebensohl…3C is constructive, not forcing. While here it would work wonderfully, suggesting that west should bid 3C just shows that one has seen the east hand.

4C is, in my partnerships, forcing and I think that standard, given that 3C is constructive. The problem is that the suit is pretty weak for the call and it might not lead to a good slam even if, seeing both hands, slam is good. The follow ups are likely to be difficult for any but very experienced partnerships (obviously this is not likely the case in the actual hand).

I slightly prefer 3H as west: creating a game force, expecting 3S from partner and now 4C. On the hand, 3H would be magic! Which may be unconsciously influencing my thinking.

At the end of the day, I don’t think that either player did anything horrible but that both players had better (in theory and overwhelmingly in practice) choices.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-May-18, 22:33, said:

And your obvious bid is 3♣, here we go.
I kibitzed this hand so can’t comment on E W’s reasonings

Our posts overlapped. 3C by west would be a horrible action…a gross error.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2026-May-18, 22:46, said:

Our posts overlapped. 3C by west would be a horrible action…a gross error.

Yes, I see obviously bidding both hands, 3♥ will get us there, but who is making that call

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I can understand X, and I can understand Pass.
Alternatives to the T/O X are hard, ..., we play the cue as Michaels, and 4C as Leaping Michaels,
and 5C burns a lot of ground, I think I would have bid 3C, but given what I am bidding on every other
day of the week 3C with, I am very very heavy for the call ...
With regards to responding to the T/O, ..., I can see myself Passing, partner rates to have lots
of spade weakness, the vul is also not in favor of bidding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

The initial X looks fine either as a takeout or to subsequently bid Clubs.
Pass by West feels short-sighted with a 5-card suit, those controls, shape and the opposition being non-vulnerable.
There should be an eight-card fit with partner having a opening hand so combined modified losers put you in slam territory.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, there is a parallel post mortem, partner's hand was:

AKJxxxx
VOiD
KQx
Axx

Your limit was game, your partner bid and didn't take 500 out of 2♥x for a top

The pass of the double was not so terrible and a big spade suit is more likely than a big club suit given the disparity in your holdings.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-May-19, 08:03, said:

OK, there is a parallel post mortem, partner's hand was:

AKJxxxx
VOiD
KQx
Axx

Your limit was game, your partner bid and didn't take 500 out of 2♥x for a top

The pass of the double was not so terrible and a big spade suit is more likely than a big club suit given the disparity in your holdings.

That’s not a double for me.

In any event, it’s just silly to posit specific holdings for partner. Not only are you almost always going to be wrong in some significant regard but you are very likely unconsciously making up hands to justify whatever point you thought relevant rather than cater to the hugely greater body of likely hands.

I learned many years ago that a good starting point for advancer, following a takeout double of 1x, was to assume that doubler held Axxx Axxx Axxx in the side suit and stiff in the doubled suit, or a similar range of strength and shape…and make one’s initial bid on that basis, bearing in mind that of course doubler will almost never have that precise hand.

Thus, as advancer on the OP, I’d assume something akin to Axxx x KJxx Axxx, bearing in mind that one needs slightly more to double 2H than one needs to double 1H.

Btw, what would I bid with cyber’s hand? 4S. Where I 6=1=3=3, same hand, I’d double then bid spades. So we get a bad board. So what? Building bidding schemes based on improbable hands opposite is a good way to become or remain a bad bidder.

[jillybean]

---

What would this show?

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2026-May-19, 08:26, said:

That’s not a double for me.
Thus, as advancer on the OP, I’d assume something akin to Axxx x KJxx Axxx, bearing in mind that one needs slightly more to double 2H than one needs to double 1H.

Btw, what would I bid with cyber’s hand? 4S. Where I 6=1=3=3, same hand, I’d double then bid spades. So we get a bad board. So what? Building bidding schemes based on improbable hands opposite is a good way to become or remain a bad bidder.

When I have 5 hearts and 5 clubs, the chance of partner having an unbalanced hand too good for an overcall rises. The chance of him having 5+ spades reduces unless he's too good to overcall. I think good hand with spades is quite likely given my void.

The hand you gave is at least 500 if you guess to start with the right ace with nothing beyond game on your way much of the time.

[HardVector]

To me, this hand highlights the problems with the "modern" desire to make overcalls on sketchy values. A 3 level overcall to a preempt should show a really good hand, which describes the posted hand. If you bid 3c, you should be encouraging partner to bid on and try for game with 9+. Instead, because people like bidding on trash at the 3 level, a partner with 9-11 points is put into a quandary on whether they should bid or not, validating the preempt. If you bid 3c, and partner with values bids 3s, you will find the spade game. Meanwhile, you also keep in play the idea of making a lot of clubs or 3n if partner is so inclined.

But, we have a partnership in which 3c is a gross underbid, so you have to start with a double planning to bid 4c (blech)....and there you go. Missed grand slam.