Do something now? Would you have bid earlier? If so, what?
IMPs: 72-AJ87-95-AQ972
#1
Posted 2017-August-13, 21:08
Do something now? Would you have bid earlier? If so, what?
#2
Posted 2017-August-13, 21:38
diana_eva, on 2017-August-13, 21:08, said:
Do something now? Would you have bid earlier? If so, what?
1-Yes, DBL
2- Yes, 2♣. This is the overcall you should consider a lot over 1♦ opening because it screws up their auction a lot.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#3
Posted 2017-August-15, 03:37
Imo bidding initially is insane. Agree with Timo that you should strive to overcall 2C over 1D where possible but doing it with a flat hand and a bad 5 card suit is asking for -1100
#4
Posted 2017-August-15, 04:08
With a passed partner this 2♣ bid is usually lead directional at best, but there's a simple rule to follow here too.
A passed partner bids up to the appropriate limit of LOTT taking vulnerability into consideration: any further action is at the discretion of the overcaller always.
#5
Posted 2017-August-15, 19:10
diana_eva, on 2017-August-13, 21:08, said:
Over 1♦, I rank
- 1N = ART. Raptor by agreement. Over 1m that can be 3 cards or less, this can show either m + either M. Might be unsound but still fun.
- Pass = NAT. Safe
- 2♣ = NAT. Disruptive but too courageous for many, with a poor 5 card suit, vul, at imps.
- 1♥ = NAT. Prefer a better suit, even if your style is to overcall 4 card suits.
- 2N = ART. UNT. Misdescrptive and foolhardy
Over 2♦, I rank
- Double = T/O. by agreement (Without agreement, the danger is that partner might treat it as penalty)
- 2♥ = NAT. If you overcall freely, at the 1-level, on 5 card suits, partner might be able to read this.
- Pass = NAT
#6
Posted 2017-August-16, 01:37
nige1, on 2017-August-15, 19:10, said:
- 2♣ = NAT. Disruptive but too courageous for many, with a poor 5 card suit, vul, at imps.
broze, on 2017-August-15, 03:37, said:
.....and a bad 5 card suit is asking for -1100
AQ972 is neither a poor nor a bad 5 card suit. It is not a good suit for sure, but imo "poor" "bad" are overstatements. It is a normal suit with 2 top honors and not disappointing spot cards.
When you guys use both "5 card" and "poor/bad" in same sentence, you are overstating your point imo because you already mentioned that it is a 5 card suit.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#7
Posted 2017-August-16, 05:08
There is a VERY strong chance the auction is about to die out and partner may have a flawed hand to back in (think 4 hearts and xx in clubs as an example). The fact that lho is a passed hand increases the chance p has a reasonable holding. 2H is off mark and should be saved for hands that were unable to take action the first time around (K432 876432 Q Kx). Having 2 possible places to play greatly reduces the risk factor.
#8
Posted 2017-August-20, 11:58
If partner finds a raise to 3 ♣ over LHO opponent's negative double, the opponents will have to sort it out at the three level.
#9
Posted 2017-August-21, 16:54
rmnka447, on 2017-August-20, 11:58, said:
If partner finds a raise to 3 ♣ over LHO opponent's negative double, the opponents will have to sort it out at the three level.
Same for me!
#10
Posted 2017-August-22, 08:59
nige1, on 2017-August-15, 19:10, said:
Over 2♦, I rank
- Double = T/O. by agreement (Without agreement, the danger is that partner might treat it as penalty)
I'm glad someone mentions that possibility. I would go further and say I would expect it to be for penalty unless you have agreed it is for T/O (since you have already had an opportunity to make a T/O double of ♦ and you are not in the protective seat).
IMPs, all vul:
Do something now? Would you have bid earlier? If so, what?