Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think the answer (even after eliminating the “always” which virtually guarantees that the answer is “no”) might depend on what strength the responding hand is.

Very weak vs. game invite vs. game force vs slam try (or slam force) strengths might have different answers.

Also, 4=4=0=5 vs. 4=4=5=0 might produce different answers for very weak (below game invite strength) hands.

Also, form of scoring might be relevent.
At IMPs, for example, with extra points beyond minimum GF but not enough for slam interest, 3NT might be a safer contract than 4M when a 4=4 major suit fit exists, while at matchpoints 4M might be favored to often produce an extra trick in such cases.
July 12
Craig Zastera edited this comment July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't know, but I think partner's 3NT on this auction is somewhat analagous to 1m-1M-3NT where the *expectation* for opener is a small singleton in responder's suit.

Same here–I see no reason at all to suppose responder has Hx in s–with a hand like that he likely should be bidding more slowly and probing for the best strain rather than leaping to 3NT which IMO asks opener to pass unless he has a truly unusual distributional hand.
A 6th and a stiff do not IMO qualify as “truly unusual”.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see why he need have even a doubleton . He just says he thinks he can make 9 tricks in NT.
Maybe he holds AJTx-void-QJxxx-AQxx
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 advance *is* the invitational call.
Pass is the non-invitational call.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not have overcalled, or even seriously considered it.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were going to bid, it would be 1NT, not double.
But given partner is a PH, and we're VUL vs. not, and this is IMPs, I think pass is prudent (i.e. chicken).

BTW, in our methods, over my 1NT overcall, partner can remove to 2 or 2 for play, which makes the overcall somewhat safer.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get the initial double at all.
I'll admit that call would not even occur to me.

The choice at first turn is between 3 (natural, NF) and Pass. I consider this hand to be slightly on the weak side for even 3, but might choose that.

Double suggests desire to penalize them in (2MX) doubled in at least one major, perhaps both.
Here, I have nothing in either major, only 7 HCPs, and a fit for partner's suit.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that I'm not going to defend (1X), the choices are a quick but blunt jump to 3NT, or starting with a double to explore alternative strains.

If I double first, I likely will have to cue-bid next round as that is the only way to GF after starting with a double (negative doubles are designed primarily for less than GF hands, so with GF values, next round cue-bid will be necessary unless strain for game is clear).

Since I've got only one stopper and reasonable “tolerance” for s, as well as fringe possibilities of playing in a minor suit game, I think it is better to start with double just in case partner has something interesting to say that might cause me to choose a final contract other than 3NT.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose pass, so the meanings of 2NT vs. 3 are not critical this time.

But FWIW, I play “good/bad 2NT” on this auction, so 3 would show values while 2NT would be a “bad” hand (necessarily with s on this exact auction since other suits could be shown at the 2 level).

So if I were going to bid, I would choose “value showing” 3 since I've got a pretty good hand in context (having passed twice already).
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But does it show this good a *hand*?

Although many methods and agreements are possible, one reasonable set might include:
redouble followed by jump to 3 shows
an invitational hand with a good long suit,
e.g.: xx-xx-xxx-AKQJxx

Certainly, it would be good to have some way to show that hand type. If playing transfers, just transfer to 2 (i.e. by bidding 1NT), then raise to 3.

But without transfers, XX followed by 3 jump seems reasonable to me.

With less narrowly constrained good hands with long s, XX but then only 2 (forcing) to leave room for exploration.

Further, this seems consistent with auctions without interference where 1-3 would be a natural invite (but passable) whie 1-2 would be GF and include a much wider range of possible hands (both in terms of length/strength and overall hand strength).
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No inconsistencies because I believe he is talking about 2 after first re-doubling. Forcing.

But 2 directly over 1-(DBL) is not forcing.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand is a very marginal opener in 1st/2nd seat.
Depends on partnership style.

It does count to 22, but has a “weak quack” in each red suit.
Therefore, I would not open in 1st/2nd, but I suspect many/most would.

In 3rd or 4th chair, though, I would open.

But (1 level) overcall minimum requirements are not as high as for (1st/2nd chair) opening bids.

Here, with the boss suit, I think it is percentage to overcall as we might be able to outbid them at the same level for a + score.

Also, RHO's opening was in 3rd chair, so could easily be based on a worse hand than we have.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But if we can't, I may not be there at all.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The main consideration in deciding whether to pre-empt vs. overcall 1 is whether our side can have a game.

Here, the answer is obviously “yes”–we could easily have a game.
Axx-xxx-xxxx-Kxx for example would be enough for 4 to be excellent and that is far from an opening bid.

Therefore, overcall 1.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even after agreeing that partner's 2 is natural (and NF), this advancing hand is not easy to bid.

Suppose, even, that partner had opened 1 and we had the auction 1-1-2-? without competition.
It would not be clear how responder should continue.
On *that* auction, 2 would be 4SF (probably to game), so would not even be a possibility.
July 10
Craig Zastera edited this comment July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
s is hardly “their suit” since the (1) opening promised only 2 s.

Many (including me) play that a direct 2 overcall of their (1) opening is natural and NF.

It is also common after (1x)-P-(1Y)-2x/2y, to play both 2x and 2y as natural and NF.

After (1m)-DBL-(1M)-2M, advancer's 2M is generally played as natural and NF.

So I would disagree with your claim that “usually” bidding “their” suit is forcing.
July 10
Craig Zastera edited this comment July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming partner had no way to show minor 2-suiter with one bid at his first turn, I would suppose that is what his sequence shows. I consider his 2 NF.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Cappelletti’s pamphlet it says that 1 response after 1-(dbl)- is natural, forcing, and shows 5+ s.
We allow responder to make this bid even with a decent 4 card suit.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't understand why you'd want to use 2 as the strong raise instead of 2<M-1>, i.e. just the normal “transfer” into opener's major?
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When 1NT response is forcing, you can afford to play 1M-2M as “constructive” because weaker hands with 3 card support can start with a forcing NT, then bid 2M next.

But when 1NT is only semi-forcing (as is common opposite 3rd seat 1M openings even when playing 1NT forcing opposite 1st/2nd seat 1M openings), it is no longer feasible to play the single raise as “constructive” because weaker raises (say 6-7 points) cannot start with 1NT because that might end the auction.

Instead, those hands must raise to 2M immediately even if they would not have done so opposite a 1st/2nd seat 1M opening.

The compensation is that Drury 2 is available after 3rd/4th seat 1M to show stronger raises.

It is a close call whether OP hand is good enough for Drury.
I think that it is not, quite–I would treat it as a maximum for 2 simple raise. Partner can always make a game try over that if he has a decent hand (and that would be facilitated by having a comprehensive game try structure available after 1M-2M).
July 9
.

Bottom Home Top