[pclayton]

Matchpoints, red on white.

♠A9xxx, ♥Ax, ♦xx, ♣QJTx

Pard is dealer and opens 1♦ (playing weak NT's), and RHO overcalls 1N - which is part of overcall structure - showing a takeout double, but could be as lite as an 8 count at these colors.

You double showing points and LHO jumps to 3♥, which is a LOTT type bid and wide ranging. It could be weak with 5 or 6 hearts or strong with 5 good hearts.

Pard doubles which you play as showing a hand with 15-17 balanced. RHO passes.

Your call?

[the hog]

Yes, this is one reason why the double of 1NT may not have been ideal. Rather than go searching for possible penalties it might have been better to try and bid your hand constructively - a Ruben's advance perhaps would be nice here.

Anyway I am bidding 3S, and "yes", I expect this to be 100% forcing. With Ace third in H I would have bid 3NT, but Ax does not really inspire me with the confidence that I can shut out the H suit.

[mike777]

3s now seems clear. Agree with Hog, 100% forcing. Cannot let them play at their LOTT level at this vul.

1) agree with first double

[han]

I agree with 3S. Since we have shown values and partner has shown extras I think it should be played as forcing.

I believe Rubens advances are played when partner overcalled (hence the word "advances). How do you play transfers here Ron? I don't have a forcing way to show spades so I have to double 1NT.

[Codo]

I would hate a system where opener and me are not able our shape below 3 Heart. Okay I know he is balanced but do I know more?

I guess with a good heart stopper he had bid 3 NT instead of X? So the chances to survive 3 NT are small.

But luckily I have a 5 card spade suit, so 3 Spade now is easy.

But do you have any idea what to do with:

♠Ax, ♥A9xx, ♦xxx, ♣QJTx

and with

♠Ax, ♥A9xxx, ♦xx, ♣QJTx

after 1 ♦ (1NT) X (3♠)
X?


I really would change my system and bid my suits direct (or with Transfer)

[FrancesHinden]

Surely a better approach after the 1NT overcall is what everyone else is suggesting:

x is like a redouble after 1D x ?
You bid suits natural and forcing if you have a suit you want to bid. So in this instance you bid 2S, not double.

If we were at favourable, the double has more going for it. But we are at red and we have a hand close to a game force opposite a normal opening bid, we aren't planning to defend 2H.

[Gerben42]

Quote

You've started playing negative free bids or something? I also think that is a silly convention, having to X with your forcing hands instead of bidding suits sucks.

The problem is that because you have no special agreements over this convention which you face for the first time, you simply treat it as a strong NT, after which 2♠ would be NF.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I play Neg. Free Bids, i.e. I would not be able
to bid spades forcing, hence X is ok.
The X should have the same meaning as XX,
i.e. it should set up forcing pass, how high is
up to you.

Since we are red vs. green and playing MP,
i.e. 500 vs. 600 does make a big difference,
I would go with 3S, which is forcing.
Playing IMP's I would most likely pass and take
my money.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

WARNING: SPOILER FOLLOWS - DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT POSTED OR VOTED YET.

Quote

Maybe people play this hopeless convention because their opponents make silly bids like X over 1N. This is such an easy 2S bid. Anyways now that I have gotten myself into this it looks like I have to bid 3S.

I'm not going to debate the merits of Overcall Structure here. While there are other pairs that play it in Southern California besides us, Harvey and I were EW here. Anyway, this was against an experienced NS pair.

Should a 2♠ call be forcing over 1NTO? I don't play it that way, but I do play transfers here, just as I play transfers over takeout doubles.

The 1st double is hardly unreasonable. If pard holds a strong NT without a spade fit, the opponents could be in big trouble. I would agree that 2♠, and 3N over pard's double is a very logical sequence.

The double over 3♥ was very slow and I called the director as East. Here's the entire hand:

Scoring: MP

---

South tried 3N (!?), and I called the director. The director ruled later that because of the vulnerability, that not sitting for the double was indicated. I thought (and still do) that either 3♠ or pass look like logical alternatives. Its hard to parse a 3N call and tell if its a LA or not in this context. 3♠ probably leads to 5♦ which is about an average board.

South didn't hook diamonds into my stiff Q and scored up 11 tricks.

Give North a more mundane: Kxx xx AKQxx Axx and 3N is in serious jeopardy, but 4♠ looks frigid. Make the 3rd spade a club, and defending 3♥ looks appealing.

I'm still kicking myself for not trying 4♥ over 3N. Its a nice sac, but 4N is also excellent.

Fortunately this result didn't matter. We had a 225 in the evening and won the event by a little over a board

[Gerben42]

Quote

Fortunately this result didn't matter. We had a 225 in the evening and won the event by a little over a board 

What is "a 225"? Doesn't your percentage depend on the number of pairs present?

[pclayton]

Gerben42, on Jul 9 2007, 06:42 AM, said:

Quote

Fortunately this result didn't matter. We had a 225 in the evening and won the event by a little over a board 

What is "a 225"? Doesn't your percentage depend on the number of pairs present?

Not in a normal 13+ table section that isn't matchpointed across the field.

It was a single section (thats the state of pair games in the US unfortunately) of 16 tables.

There was a time where events weren't matchpointed across fields and a 156 average was a very common barometer.

[helene_t]

Wow, I must be crazy, I'm the only one who passes.

Anyway, that 2♠ should be forcing as Justin says makes a lot of sense. Didn't think about that, for me it would have been an automatic double. Learned something new today.

Next time we'll have a prepared defense against this silly 1NT overcall.

[bid_em_up]

Gerben42, on Jul 9 2007, 09:42 AM, said:

Quote

Fortunately this result didn't matter. We had a 225 in the evening and won the event by a little over a board 

What is "a 225"? Doesn't your percentage depend on the number of pairs present?

A 225 is the score represented in MP's, probably on a 12 top, 156 being average.

So a 225 in one session would be 225/312 = 72.12% for that session.

3♠ certainly looks like a LA to me.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jul 9 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

3S is an LA but that is irrelevant. The slow X suggests a pull rather than a pass, but it does not suggest anything about what might be best to run to. Why would a slow X indicate bidding 3N instead of bidding 3S? It doesn't, so there is no adjustment.

I have a hunch this is what an AC would tell me.

The fact that he guessed 'right' with 3N isn't germane.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Jul 9 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 9 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

3S is an LA but that is irrelevant. The slow X suggests a pull rather than a pass, but it does not suggest anything about what might be best to run to. Why would a slow X indicate bidding 3N instead of bidding 3S? It doesn't, so there is no adjustment.

I have a hunch this is what an AC would tell me.

The fact that he guessed 'right' with 3N isn't germane.

I really dont understand this logic.

If the slow X suggests a pull rather than a pass....

then isn't any action other than pass taking advantage of the UI?

After all, if partner had doubled in tempo, you would likely leave it in, would you not? (ok, maybe you wouldn't....but the BIT makes it clear to act, imo)

So what does it matter whether the guy bid 3S or 3N? The fact remains he took advantage of the UI.

Can anyone explain this faulty logic to me?

[FrancesHinden]

bid_em_up, on Jul 9 2007, 09:43 PM, said:

I really dont understand this logic.

If the slow X suggests a pull rather than a pass....

then isn't any action other than pass taking advantage of the UI?

After all, if partner had doubled in tempo, you would likely leave it in, would you not? (ok, maybe you wouldn't....but the BIT makes it clear to act, imo)

Yes, but the voting in this thread indicates that pass is not a logical alternative.

Once you decide there is no alternative to bidding over the double, the slowness does not obviously suggest 3NT rather than 3S.