[NickRW]

X for me too. I think this hand is too good to make a direct overcall. It is true that game is unlikely, but by no means impossible.

Nick

[han]

OleBerg, on Jun 11 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

I agree also.

X and then diamonds should show long, strong diamonds and 3 (or more rare 4) clubs, while diamonds and then double, would be more like 5-4.

Well I disagree with this and I bet that Justin does as well. At some point a hand just becomes too good for making a simple overcall.

I doubled and was lucky enough to be allowed to bid only 4D next. Partner raised to 5D which made.

[joker_gib]

Jlall, on Jun 11 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

I would X, I don't understand why nobody on the forums will X

hum !

Did you read my post ?

[kenrexford]

What was partner's hand?

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

What was partner's hand?

xxx Jx Txxx Qxxx.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 12 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

What was partner's hand?

xxx Jx Txxx Qxxx.

See -- that's what I'm talking about. Partner has garbage with extra diamond length. 5♦ apparently makers because diamonds split 1-1. The double followed by 4♦ means that the opponents in two bids reached the three-level on their own (or even 4♣, I suppose).

So...

When 5♦ is right, partner will raise 3♦ to 4♦.

[Halo]

joker_gib, on Jun 12 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 11 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

I would X, I don't understand why nobody on the forums will X

hum !

Did you read my post ?

Can't expect anyone to read everyone's post - might become a forum.

[han]

Ken I did something weird and tried to show my hand. Don't tell mikeh.

[CSGibson]

Jlall, on Jun 11 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

I would X, I don't understand why nobody on the forums will X and bid on any hand (the last one was AQx AKJxxx Kxx x over 1S which is even more clear than this one).

It's weird that the expert community as a whole and meckwell are completely opposite on this issue, but I think that people are going way too far at this point.

I would like a better suit, and not to have KQ tight to double then bid in a minor. Something like saying: Partner, if you have two tricks, we have game somewhere, and if you have one trick we might have a play for game. This hand falls short of that evaluation.

You are right that it seems the pendulum has swung further toward heavy overcalls. I believe that to be a result of more aggressive preemptive action. People hate to make a blind guess, and if you can at least tell partner what your suit is before the opponents get to the 5 level, then maybe they can do something semi-intelligent over the expected preemption. Or maybe I'm living a pipe dream.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 12 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

Honest question, which is stupid since I think you are trolling with your 3D overcall, but would you expect partner to raise a 3D overcall with garbage and some diamond length red against white? I would definitely expect a pass.

Fair question.

It depends on style and approach, IMO. If the partnership theory is to bid 3♦ fairly liberally, then no.

However, I have actually been holding baclk on something. As you mentioned, this is a red-on-white sequence. If a 2♦ overcall of a 1♣ opening is weak, weak, weak, but intermediate if red-on-white, which I assume that you play, then why is this sequence not an "intermediate" auction?

This is the real problem here. I actually believe that a jump to 3♦ at these colors in this sequence shows an intermediate hand. This seems rather obvious. It has been humorous to see how many people describe the call as if it was psychic, or misleading, or not describing my hand to partner. I believe that it shows my hand fairly well, at these colors.

So, the "trap" is set because everyone apparently expects 3♦ in this sequence to be a weak bid. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Get pounded for 800 for no apparent reason. I'd rather have partner expect this type of hand and pound them accordingly.

Would partner, then, raise diamonds with the actual hand, when the opponents are competing in the major? He should.

[cherdano]

This hand is way too strong for an intermediate jump shift by any definition of that word I have seen, and (more importantly) not pure enough.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 12 2008, 11:14 PM, said:

This hand is way too strong for an intermediate jump shift by any definition of that word I have seen, and (more importantly) not pure enough.

You are at the three-level, not the two-level, in an auction where the opponents have opened and raised.

Hence...

I think you need more strength and more shape.

I'll agree that usually one would expect more of a COV, with better diamonds. Unfortunately, you were not dealt this.

So, do you underbid the hand wildly (2♦), overbid the hand wildly (X...3♦), or hit about right (3♦)? If people think this is between a 2♦ call and a X...3♦ call, then, um, 3♦ directly seems right, as "intermediate" seems to mean between weak and strong.

[kenrexford]

[edit -- wrong post]

[benlessard]

I dont like X. If the bidding return to me at 3M wich is not unlikely (W vs R for them) ill be screwed. 3D is showing 8 tricks but this hand is too much defensive and not enough offensives values. But if i hit partner with a D honor he will know i have extra length or pts elsewhere.

All is remaining is 2D but this do not do full justice for the hand. In my partnership we dont care about ODR so ill bid 3D. But with a normal partner ill bid 2D.

Quote

but would you expect partner to raise a 3D overcall with garbage and some diamond length red against white? I would definitely expect a pass.

Of course i would expect a raise. The overcaller also knew he was R vs W when he bid at the 3 level. Passing with 3D or 4 diamonds wouldnt crossed my mind after a R vs W 3 level overcall.