[straube]

We open all 11s and most distributional 10s in the context of a strong club system.

I've always thought that if partner has passed, that I need a smidge (like a point or two) more to compete. For example,

P 1S dbl ought to show more than...

1S dbl

I'd also think that

P 1S 1N ought to show more than

1S 1N

I'm thinking of...
1) safety
2) supporting partner's ability to compete to higher levels
3) not giving away information when we have less chance for the bid

An opposing viewpoint might cite
1) It's safer to bid earlier than try to balance because partner could be very weak
2) partner won't and shouldn't bid too much because he's a passed hand

Interested if there is a consensus here on this. Also, are there references that discuss it? I know Lawrence has a book on passed hand bidding, but I don't have a copy.

[aguahombre]

Too many factors involved, IMO, to debate what you said. Whether in or NOT in context of a forcing club system, we must make decisions about what a 3rd-seat action should look like.

Some of us believe that ---because we might open crap elevens in first seat ---our 3rd-seat openings should be better if in a major; we take liberties with weak-2's to compensate. Our overcalls are what they are.

This affects whether we even need Drury at all, for instance ---and whether a passed hand NT in response to a major is still a 1-round force; and whether a 2/1 response by a passed hand can still be a force for one round; etc, etc, etc.

We admit to being old fashioned in our agreements about 3rd-seat openings and the responses. On the other hand, we listen to the post mortems of our opponents with satisfaction when they start with "But, you (or I) were a passed hand".

Also related are the times when a passed hand responds 1/1 and gets dropped there...losing the race to 1NT or missing a good game; or allowing us to compete easily for a part score in suit.

This ramble might seem to border on hijack, but it does bear on your contention.

[JLOGIC]

I mean, it wouldn't really change my takeout doubles much at all. Maybe theoretically there is a hand so borderline that I would double opp an UPH and not opp a PH (well, actually in theory I'm sure such a hand exists), but that is a pretty fine line.

I would definitely pass or double some hands that I would overcall 1N with opp an UPH though if partner was a PH. 1N overcalls are dangerous and the payoff is generally getting in in order to bid game/not get shut out.

[straube]

Found this link...

http://www.bridgewin...ner-overcalling

The writer seemed to affirm that a NT overcall should be more solid opposite a passed hand. I wasn't sure if he meant that other overcalls should also be sound. At the end, someone commented that counter-intutively, borderline actions (doubles?) have more upside opposite passed hands than unpassed hands. I don't think I agree with that, but...

[dake50]

To my mind, the biggest change is the 1C(F1)
when partner is a passed hand.
Often 1C knows we seek a partial. Get in there.
Often 1C sees game only if maxpass. Not 1D neg.
Often the 1C question is "have you a trick?"
ie. would not raise but not worthless.
I like semi-force transfer responses instead of GF positives.
Let rebid show. Let jump accept be game invite to 6-ish; GF if 8+.

[straube]

dake50, on 2011-April-26, 22:47, said:

To my mind, the biggest change is the 1C(F1)
when partner is a passed hand.
Often 1C knows we seek a partial. Get in there.
Often 1C sees game only if maxpass. Not 1D neg.
Often the 1C question is "have you a trick?"
ie. would not raise but not worthless.
I like semi-force transfer responses instead of GF positives.
Let rebid show. Let jump accept be game invite to 6-ish; GF if 8+.

We're not talking about strong club auctions. We're talking about doubling or overcalling when partner is a passed hand.

[MrAce]

straube, on 2011-April-26, 20:45, said:

An opposing viewpoint might cite
1) It's safer to bid earlier than try to balance because partner could be very weak
2) partner won't and shouldn't bid too much because he's a passed hand

Thats my point of view.

[han]

With a passed hand partner I would overcall with all vulnerable holding xxx xx xx AQJxxx. I would not if partner were an unpassed hand.

[straube]

han, on 2011-April-27, 02:53, said:

With a passed hand partner I would overcall with all vulnerable holding xxx xx xx AQJxxx. I would not if partner were an unpassed hand.

How about your doubles and NT overcalls? Sounder or lighter?

[han]

Yes, both are more sound. I remember holding a hand recently where I decided that there was little point doubling 1S as partner was a passed hand and I might have doubled had he not.

[straube]

Thanks. This makes sense to me. Overcalls can be lighter but the doubles and NT ought to be sound. The difference being (probably) that the overcalls can have law protection (which your example hand had) and partner ought not go nuts without a fit, but NT and dbl don't have that same law protection.

[awm]

The difference is more about shape and suit quality.

Opposite a passed hand, you are often competing for a partial or trying to direct a lead or sacrifice. It becomes safer to make marginal overcalls with a very good suit (like a two-level overcall on a "sound weak two") because partner is less likely to push for game and you want the suit lead. It becomes riskier to overcall with fairly flat hands and/or mediocre suits because your chance of being doubled for a number just went up (partner less likely to have a good hand) and your chance of finding a good game that you would miss otherwise just went down (partner less likely to have a good hand).

This applies to doubles somewhat too -- doubling with "perfect shape" but light values may be safer opposite a passed hand, whereas making an off-shape double on a flat hand with mild extras becomes less appealing.

Since notrump overcall hands are (usually) flat by definition, having them be more sound opposite a passed hand is sensible.

You can construct hands where I would pass opposite an UPH and overcall opposite a PH (the ♣AQJxxx and out hand is a good example). You can also construct hands where the opposite is true (perhaps Axx x AQxx KJ9xx).

[cherdano]

JLOGIC, on 2011-April-26, 22:22, said:

I mean, it wouldn't really change my takeout doubles much at all. Maybe theoretically there is a hand so borderline that I would double opp an UPH and not opp a PH (well, actually in theory I'm sure such a hand exists), but that is a pretty fine line.

How about off-shape doubles (or slightly off-shape, say a stopperless 3334 over 1♠) where the main concern is gettting stolen if you pass?

[JLOGIC]

Agree with everything hanp said.

Cherdano, I guess I would pass some of those, but if I had 13 or whatever I'd still double, there is value in getting in when it might be your hand for a partial and I hate trying to guess later whether to bid or not. I don't really view a takeout double as a risky proposition, if we have any fit we are unlikely to get doubled and go for a number.