[microcap]

Here's a catastrophe from last night that i need help with....as usual, I will give you the first problem, followed by a second one after I get a bunch of responses.

You are playing a very good team.

You open 1♠ holding:

Scoring: IMP

---

.

LHO overcalls 2♥, partner passes, RHO passes, now back to you.

What action do you take if any?

[helene_t]

dbl.

if partner bids 3♦ (whether directly or via leb) I pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont pass.

It is either X or 3C, I would go with X.
X has the adv. that we can still play 2S,
if partner is broke.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[brianshark]

Dbl to give partner every chance to nail them for penalties. 3♣ seems a bit committal to me. If we end up in a bad 3♦ contract, so be it.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

dbl.

if partner bids 3♦ (whether directly or via leb) I pass.

ditto

[kenrexford]

3♣ for me. I can commit.

BTW (warning -- systems observation -- ignore if offends), this type of auction happens to be one where a Roman 2♠ (maybe played in conjunction with Multi?) pays dividends. If I can open 2♠ to show a spade-club two-suiter and minimal HCP opening values (maybe 10-14?), I will have bid my hand already, having opened 2♠. Sure, I just preempted the opponents out of what may be a lucrative double of 2♥, but then again I may have vaulted them into a more luctrative 3♥ or a 2♠-X-XX problem.

[brianshark]

Lol, well obviously if you happen to be playing a convention which describes your hand perfectly you are better off.

[microcap]

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

You hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you do?

[helene_t]

It's hard to be objective but I think I would bid 2♠. Maybe pass at matchpoints.

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

It's hard to be objective but I think I would bid 2♠. Maybe pass at matchpoints.

Yes, I agree, even with the comment, that it is
hard to be objective ...

But I think 2S is right, the X did not promise any
add. strength, and do we really wnat to defend
2H oppossite a weak NT?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[y66]

2S. I'm too chicken to pass at IMPs.

[han]

Partner has an obvious pass.

[microcap]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 10 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

It's hard to be objective but I think I would bid 2♠. Maybe pass at matchpoints.

Yes, I agree, even with the comment, that it is
hard to be objective ...

But I think 2S is right, the X did not promise any
add. strength, and do we really wnat to defend
2H oppossite a weak NT?

With kind regards
Marlowe

Not that I disagree with your point, but we were in fact playing a weak NT. The reopening doubler cannot have a weak balanced hand.

It may not change anyone's opinion.

[kenrexford]

brianshark, on Dec 10 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

Lol, well obviously if you happen to be playing a convention which describes your hand perfectly you are better off.

What I meant to say was not so much that "X convention solves X problem." Rather, I personally like to keep tabs on recurring problems where some tool helps to resolve it. If the problem comes up frequently, then this is sometimes a motive for considering the convention. Obviously, there are losses to adding something. But, my reason for posting this was that perhaps someone reading this thread does not know about Roman 2-bids and would benefit from the suggestion that this tool does exist. Maybe in a different sequence (4th Seat opening?) they might like that idea.

[kenrexford]

microcap, on Dec 10 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

You hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you do?

Ugh! My 3♣ call is a disaster for poor partner. I suppose he should pass, but 3NT seems (unduly?) tempting for him.

Had I doubled for him, then he seems to have a fairly clean pass. 2NT is much better than 3♦ as his second option, IMO.

[H_KARLUK]

I borrowed 3 ♥ (♠+x minor) Rest partner's biz to decide 3♠/NT etc.

[gnasher]

microcap, on Dec 10 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

You hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you do?

I think he should pass. 2♠ would be more attractive if there was reason to think it would make. The cost of going down in 2♠ when you had a plus score available isn't that much less than the cost of conceding -470.

[mtvesuvius]

I would have started with a double: There is no reason partner cannot be 2-5-5-1 or something of the like. Now... With the responding hand, I will always pass at matchpoints, and this looks like a pretty good plus position in 2♥, even at IMPs. If I bid, I am going to have to make a guess (and I always guess wrong ). If I do not trust my partner's defense, I bid 2♠.


AJK

[peachy]

Dbl. Reopening with 3C - which I assume would be some people's choice - takes away the chance to play in 2S if partner is weak, or 2HX if partner had trap. When there was no heart raise, the trap becomes more of a live possibility.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 10 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

brianshark, on Dec 10 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

Lol, well obviously if you happen to be playing a convention which describes your hand perfectly you are better off.

What I meant to say was not so much that "X convention solves X problem." Rather, I personally like to keep tabs on recurring problems where some tool helps to resolve it. If the problem comes up frequently, then this is sometimes a motive for considering the convention. Obviously, there are losses to adding something. But, my reason for posting this was that perhaps someone reading this thread does not know about Roman 2-bids and would benefit from the suggestion that this tool does exist. Maybe in a different sequence (4th Seat opening?) they might like that idea.

If by this you mean that you track hands on which posters have had problems.. then your approach will erroneously validate your idiosyncratic methods. We rarely see hands on which normal bidding works well... certainly not posted by people who usually bid 'normally'. A hand will be posted (usually) precisely because standard methods don't afford an easy answer. Weird methods may or may not apply... but standard ones don't.. therefore we will get a disproportionate number of hands that seem to validate unorthodox methods.

This is analogous to one of the real dangers facing those who develop and espouse new treatments.. read virtually any book on unusual bidding methods and we find page after page of examples where the touted methods work wonderfully.. few authors are able to be sufficiently objective as to post pages and pages of examples where the touted methods lead to poor outcomes.. the forums operate to select hands on which unorthodox will work more commonly than standard and the non-objective author's mind will operate in a similar fashion.