[hanp]

Phil, on Aug 19 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

The problem with passing isn't that we expect LHO to be so dense to pass it.

Why would it be dense to pass when we have just a normal opening bid? Partner passed and RHO made a guesspass with an unlimited partner. Unless we have serious extras or strong spades, we probably can't be sure we are beating 2S.

It seems rather dense to double 2S when we have no reason to think that the opponents are in their best contract, and also no reason to think we are beating 2S.

[cherdanno]

I believe it is standard that 2N asks for partner's minor and shows game interest, while 3♣ is pass/correct and denies game interest. In particular, bidding 3♣ and 3♥ over 3♦ just shows a hand with longer clubs than hearts than diamonds.

[pooltuna]

jillybean, on Aug 19 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

(1♠) 2♠ (P) ?

---

I would start with 2NT(presummably asks for partner's minor) and over 3♦ try 3♥

[cherdanno]

I think we are MORE likely to get doubled if we pass 2S than if we bid 3C. The odds seem pretty good that LHO has good spades, and extras. With that he should be able to double 2S, over which his partner may help doubling our runouts, whereas he might not be able to act over a directly 3♣.

[Phil]

hanp, on Aug 19 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 19 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

The problem with passing isn't that we expect LHO to be so dense to pass it.

Why would it be dense to pass when we have just a normal opening bid? Partner passed and RHO made a guesspass with an unlimited partner. Unless we have serious extras or strong spades, we probably can't be sure we are beating 2S.

It seems rather dense to double 2S when we have no reason to think that the opponents are in their best contract, and also no reason to think we are beating 2S.

Well, pick a side.

What exactly is wrong with doubling 2♠ even if it is their best spot, if we can beat it LOL? Do we love our RHO so much as to say, 'wow great judgment for sitting for 2♠ with J-6th, I won't x you'. I don't think AKQTx + a card is really an unusual layout here and it certainly isn't 'serious extras'.

Or are you concerned by doubling that the opponents can run to a better spot, that partner can't double after the opponents wriggle out (assuming they can even find their 'best spot')? Obviously if we run with the 6214 hand, then that's a sign of weakness, and we are getting doubled (except maybe in 3♣. Even if the Michaels bidder has extras (assuming the 1♠ opener doesn't) why shouldn't that hand sit for 2♠ x'd?

[Phil]

TylerE, on Aug 19 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

it's often very helpful to know both suits immediately, since when appropriate you can immediatly boost the preempt. Also very help for hand evaluation, not usual to have an invite (or even direct signoff in 2/3M) vs one minor, and a GF oppoiste the other.

I will say I don't agree with Tyler a whole lot, but years of playing specific two-suited overcalls have taught me the same thing.

[TylerE]

Man, I just realised how out of it I must have been when I wrote that...

(Currently at 41 hours into what's probably gonna be about a 75 hour work week, which I'm *not* used to.)

[hanp]

Phil, on Aug 19 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

Well, pick a side.

What exactly is wrong with doubling 2♠ even if it is their best spot, if we can beat it LOL? Do we love our RHO so much as to say, 'wow great judgment for sitting for 2♠ with J-6th, I won't x you'. I don't think AKQTx + a card is really an unusual layout here and it certainly isn't 'serious extras'.

I don't understand your post. I wrote:


Why would it be dense to pass when we have just a normal opening bid? Partner passed and RHO made a guesspass with an unlimited partner. Unless we have serious extras or strong spades, we probably can't be sure we are beating 2S.

It seems rather dense to double 2S when we have no reason to think that the opponents are in their best contract, and also no reason to think we are beating 2S.

Of course, if we have great spades or a good hand, then probably we can expect to beat 2S and it is not dense to double 2S.

[barryallen]

Phil, on Aug 19 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

hanp, on Aug 19 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 19 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

The problem with passing isn't that we expect LHO to be so dense to pass it.

Why would it be dense to pass when we have just a normal opening bid? Partner passed and RHO made a guesspass with an unlimited partner. Unless we have serious extras or strong spades, we probably can't be sure we are beating 2S.

It seems rather dense to double 2S when we have no reason to think that the opponents are in their best contract, and also no reason to think we are beating 2S.

Well, pick a side.

What exactly is wrong with doubling 2♠ even if it is their best spot, if we can beat it LOL? Do we love our RHO so much as to say, 'wow great judgment for sitting for 2♠ with J-6th, I won't x you'. I don't think AKQTx + a card is really an unusual layout here and it certainly isn't 'serious extras'.

Or are you concerned by doubling that the opponents can run to a better spot, that partner can't double after the opponents wriggle out (assuming they can even find their 'best spot')? Obviously if we run with the 6214 hand, then that's a sign of weakness, and we are getting doubled (except maybe in 3♣. Even if the Michaels bidder has extras (assuming the 1♠ opener doesn't) why shouldn't that hand sit for 2♠ x'd?

I don't believe there is anything wrong with that logic, is there any where to run to? One small caveat I would add if the 2♠ bid shows ♥ + another, give North 5♣ + 6♠ and pass becomes a viable alternative? As the subsequent 3♣ bid over the X should be self explanatory and a possible viable option.

On the actual hand, I would bid 3♥ without any hesitation over the 2♠,
- in the hope that the ♥ division is favourable and causes the opposition to bid on.
- we should be guaranteed a 5-2 fit at worst.
- if 3♣ is the correct contract, can you see it being left there?
- ♦ will always have the last word against ♣, even opening a possible route to slam?
- we are white against red.

[hanp]

In case my earlier posts regarding phil's density is misunderstood, I would not pass with the Jxxxxx xx x Qxxx hand. The spades are too weak and our potential if partner has clubs is too great. When partner has diamonds as expected, we may still be better off in 3H or 4H than in 2S.

Change the hand into QJ10xxx xx x xxxx and I would pass.

[jillybean]

TylerE, on Aug 19 2010, 02:27 PM, said:

Hands like this make me unhappy with the standard 2 suiter calls.

With bid_em_up I play:

2M: 2 highest unbid (e.g. ♥ and ♦ here)
2N: 2 lowest unbid (minors over 1M, ♥+unbid minor over 1m)
3♣: Lowest unbid minor + the higher unbid major.

So over 1♠, 2♠ is ♥+♦, 2N is ♣+♦, and 3♣ is ♣+♥.

Sure, you give the weak 3♣ bid (Which I rarely miss) and it's often very helpful to know both suits immediately, since when appropriate you can immediatly boost the preempt. Also very help for hand evaluation, not usual to have an invite (or even direct signoff in 2/3M) vs one minor, and a GF oppoiste the other.

Thanks, we are going to try this.

[hanp]

I think the bid_em_up structure is worse than standard ghestem, you don't have a forcing way to bid the highest and lowest suits. Before you play it you should also know that Ghestem is one of the conventions that is most often forgotten by one of the players and very often leads to difficult UI problems.

Also, sure it can be nice to know which suits partner has, especially when the opponents raise to 3M or higher. But for this hand it is really not a big deal since 3C is fairly obvious imo.

[TylerE]

hanp, on Aug 21 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

I think the bid_em_up structure is worse than standard ghestem, you don't have a forcing way to bid the highest and lowest suits.

Umm, double? Just because a bid shows a certain combination doesn't mean you ALWAYS have to bid it, regardless of range...

[jdonn]

hanp, on Aug 21 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

I think the bid_em_up structure is worse than standard ghestem, you don't have a forcing way to bid the highest and lowest suits.

"Worse than standard ghestem" is not exactly a ringing endorsement!

[jillybean]

hanp, on Aug 21 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

I think the bid_em_up structure is worse than standard ghestem, you don't have a forcing way to bid the highest and lowest suits. Before you play it you should also know that Ghestem is one of the conventions that is most often forgotten by one of the players and very often leads to difficult UI problems.

Also, sure it can be nice to know which suits partner has, especially when the opponents raise to 3M or higher. But for this hand it is really not a big deal since 3C is fairly obvious imo.

What do you use?

[hanp]

I play Michaels.

[gwnn]

you can use

2M=other Major+clubs
2N=minors
(nothing)=other Major+diamonds

or

2M=other Major+diamonds
2N=other Major+clubs
(nothing)=minors

in both of these you retain a natural 3♣ bid. I agree with hanp that Ghestem or some variant thereof is superior to the bid_em_up structure, but we've already discussed this once and bid_em_up didn't agree with my assessment of the dangers of making some of the two suited calls non-forcing.

[hanp]

I blame gwnn. Your explanation must have been unclear because nobody would play bid_em_up's structure otherwise.