[Jinksy]

---

IMPs. Opps are BBO randoms, so we don't really know what their system is. Say if it matters, obv. Both NS are BBOFers, but unpracticed partnership.

What's your call (and how close is it)?

[mike777]

I will try 3s...which should be less than 3c but show 4s and some shape?
3c would promise a true full limit raise

Granted 2s here can be a prebalance but still I will push at vul.

AKxxxx...xx...Kx..xxx


has some play

[phoenix214]

I feel pass is too light, so either 3S or 3C.

The bid although more depends on how optimistic i feel but in my opinion is it is close between these two, although 3C could be a strech.

[ggwhiz]

2♠ is a VERY large bid on these colours. I'm raising to 3♠ but would choose 4♠ ahead of pass.

[MrAce]

4♠

[Dinarius]

I'm passing on the basis that the contract is ours at the moment and I want to be (reasonably) sure of making it.

At this Vul, for his free bid, I expect 6 losers tops from South with opening values. So, opposite my 8/9 loser 4 count, I expect 2 Spades to make, and probably 3, but not necessarily 4. So, why bid when I don't have to? Partner hasn't doubled followed by a Spade bid (much stronger) after all? And that's the key point for me. He holds the boss suit, so he could have doubled first.

If East competes - but, how? He's denied pretty everything by bidding 1NT over 1♣ - then I think I defend. What can they play in after all? I may even double.

So, yes, Pass.

D.

[cherdano]

Dinarius, on 2015-August-28, 08:06, said:

I'm passing on the basis that the contract is ours at the moment and I want to be (reasonably) sure of making it.

At this Vul, for his free bid, I expect 6 losers tops from South with opening values. So, opposite my 8/9 loser 4 count, I expect 2 Spades to make, and probably 3, but not necessarily 4. So, why bid when I don't have to? Partner hasn't doubled followed by a Spade bid (much stronger) after all? And that's the key point for me. He holds the boss suit, so he could have doubled first.

If East competes - but, how? He's denied pretty everything by bidding 1NT over 1♣ - then I think I defend. What can they play in after all? I may even double.

So, yes, Pass.

D.

Hi Dinarius,

You might want to try constructing possible hands for partners, rather than relying on loser count. I think you will see that there are many hands where game is good.

[Dinarius]

But, isn't that the point? "Constructing" is no better than LTC.

Partner has made an immediate bid, not doubled first. For me that's the key point.

Look at it another way...

If you bid an immediate 3 Spades with this hand, are there many hands that you can "construct" on which partner will NOT be carrying on to 4? And, in that case, are you confident of making 10 tricks, given that he hadn't doubled first?

That said, at IMPS, it's very close to 3 Spades. At match points, it's a definite pass.

I'm still passing.

Can't wait to see his hand and decide what I think of his bidding. 😊


D.

[sfi]

Dinarius, on 2015-August-28, 08:40, said:

That said, at IMPS, it's very close to 3 Spades.

It is IMPs.

[BillPatch]

In some systems the offensive bidders have guaranteed a club fit; in many others it's implied. Thus, despite the unfavorable vulnerability, this is a prebalancing situation, so the two spade overcall does not show a huge hand. Responder is limited and opener has not promised extra values, so overcaller should have at least constructive values. Thus I expect about an opening hand with a five card suit and 7LTC as a minimum, and also many hands with 6 LTC. Vulnerable at IMPs I want to be in game opposite the 6 LTC hands. While I have only two proven cover cards, an extra trick may be developed by ruffing a second loser in clubs, or dropping a trump queen, or some combination using the JTxx plus value in diamonds. I will make a weak game try by advancing 3♠.

While making the game try will increase the possibility of going down in a part score. 3♠ preempts 3♣ by the opps, either as a contract or encouragement for 4♣. 3♠ is relatively safe since we have a 9+ ♠ fit.

[mr1303]

I initially thought this was a WTP 3S, and then I thought, and I thought, and realised that 4S is going to have play any time partner has his bid. 2S shows a fair hand at this vulnerability. So I bid 4S

[BillPatch]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-28, 21:15, said:

In some systems the offensive bidders have guaranteed a club fit; in many others it's implied. Thus, despite the unfavorable vulnerability, this is a prebalancing situation, so the two spade overcall does not show a huge hand. Responder is limited and opener has not promised extra values, so overcaller should have at least constructive values. Thus I expect about an opening hand with a five card suit and 7LTC as a minimum, and also many hands with 6 LTC. Vulnerable at IMPs I want to be in game opposite the 6 LTC hands. While I have only two proven cover cards, an extra trick may be developed by ruffing a second loser in clubs, or dropping a trump queen, or some combination using the JTxx plus value in diamonds. I will make a weak game try by advancing 3♠.

While making the game try will increase the possibility of going down in a part score. 3♠ preempts 3♣ by the opps, either as a contract or encouragement for 4♣. 3♠ is relatively safe since we have a 9+ ♠ fit.

In yet other systems the offensive responder denies as many as 4 clubs. All the authorities presenting in Standard American with four card majors recommend the 2 club raise here with a minimum hand with 4 clubs. With 5 card major systems, many authorities prefer to use inverted minor raises. in which a weak hand with club support requires 5 to make a raise(to 3) more balanced raises used the 1NT response.

If their methods deny the 4 card raise, they frequently will not have an eight card fit, so this is not a pre-balancing situation, so the two spade overcall should show substantial extra values, probably one LTC better than the pre-balancing hand. Since hands with 4 diamonds may bid one diamond rather than 1 NT, if they play inverted minors, 4 card support is implied by the NT bid, so against the normal ACBL player, who uses this common convention--pre-balance. If their convention card fails to specify--ask!

[MrAce]

mr1303, on 2015-August-30, 01:11, said:

I initially thought this was a WTP 3S, and then I thought, and I thought, and realised that 4S is going to have play any time partner has his bid. 2S shows a fair hand at this vulnerability. So I bid 4S

One can rarely go wrong by bidding 4, with 10 card fit and a singleton

BillPatch, on 2015-August-28, 21:15, said:

While making the game try will increase the possibility of going down in a part score. 3♠ preempts 3♣ by the opps, either as a contract or encouragement for 4♣. 3♠ is relatively safe since we have a 9+ ♠ fit.

10+ not 9+. Look at vulnerability. You may of course construct hands with 5 spades but then he will have reasons to bid 2♠ with only 5, which is very rare but even then the reasons he has is enough to make game.

[BillPatch]

MrAce, on 2015-August-30, 06:56, said:

One can rarely go wrong by bidding 4, with 10 card fit and a singleton




10+ not 9+. Look at vulnerability. You may of course construct hands with 5 spades but then he will have reasons to bid 2♠ with only 5, which is very rare but even then the reasons he has is enough to make game.

I still see 9+, and I do see the vulnerability. In Lawrence's and Bergen's systems this is a fit auction, so the normal stringent requirements to make a two level vulnerable overcall should be relaxed. Lawrence, in his first Overcalls] book, noted that this was a fit auction, so a direct overcall required approximately the values of a minimum 5 card major opening bid to overcall here. By 1984 the traditional support negative 1NT response was rare enough that Lawrence did not consider it for this auction. He did mention that four card major systems were more difficult to overcall against because some fit auctions did not always deliver the "Legal" 8 card fits. Maybe this is just another incidence of that. Lawrence did recommend tightening up requirements against those players who showed extra HCPs with their 1NT response on this auction.

I am pretty sure that my suggestion to dramatically tighten up overcall requirements against the traditional one NT response was theoretically justified. But, since most traditionalists require the extra values for this 1NT response, it probably is best to follow Lawrence's suggestion about when to tighten up requirements.

[phil_20686]

I think you just have to bid 4S on this hand.

You do need to know a bit about theri system, as the style of the 1NT is obviously quite important. If it basically promised 4C and rho didnt compete to 3C then you can be virtually certain that partner has three clubs and there is a reasonable chance that he has 4. Its als important if they have a weak 3C bid available and if they are expected to make it with 5 clubs at these colours.

Vul vs not 2S shows a pretty decent hand with you having passed over 1C, and everything about the hand makes it look good. The four small spades and the NT bid indicate that its pretty likely any spade finesse is working. The K of hearts is improved by being over the opening bidder, and the club singleton is improved by the lack of a 3C bid indicating partner has some clubs. You wouldn't be unhappy at all to hit partner with AKxxxx xx x Axxx., and that is barely a 3C bid and makes the opposition actions look very strange, since they have a 26 count and a club fit and someone has a singleton spade.

I really fell pretty strongly that hands that are consistent with this auction are often good in 4S.