Would you risk a x here? Low level double of 2d overcall
#1
Posted 2020-June-13, 04:44
#2
Posted 2020-June-13, 05:06
If you showed 5 I think your partner should seriously consider bidding 2♥ (if he didn't bid 2♦ first time), unless E is a complete idiot, you're not going to have a trump holding much better than the one you have and there is a danger you have a lot of points in hearts for very few defensive tricks.
#3
Posted 2020-June-13, 08:38
fraiseap, on 2020-June-13, 04:44, said:
Quite frankly, no. You found partner with a very good 1NT maximum rebid in Acol, with good controls, and the contract still made. High card points do not necessarily translate (as Cyberyeti says above) into defensive tricks.
The other consideration to take into account is do you have enough to double if the opponents run to 2♠ which could possibly happen on a hand similar to this? I have to give credit to West for believing his partner's bid and not running with a void in his partner's suit after you double.
#4
Posted 2020-June-13, 13:34
#5
Posted 2020-June-14, 07:02
If you play X as value showing w/o clear bidding and transformable by partner should they have 3 good or 4 trumps, that is correct.
If your X is pure penalties, maybe a cue bid will allow discover sth. The unfortunate thing being that if you end up in a number of H, partners stopper unless it is the A is probably going to be finessed on the opening lead then ruffed given you have 3 and RHO repeated his D despite knowing a strong NT hand with a stopper behind him.
At the end maybe 2NT inv. or 3NT (the strong suit and the CQ compensate the 8 HCP only) are best. Only goes down because they can freely run 5S but resulting for resulting, E would likely lead a D. 4H also needs inspired defense (underlead S to ruff twice).
#6
Posted 2020-June-14, 09:48
Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-13, 05:06, said:
If you showed 5 I think your partner should seriously consider bidding 2♥ (if he didn't bid 2♦ first time), unless E is a complete idiot, you're not going to have a trump holding much better than the one you have and there is a danger you have a lot of points in hearts for very few defensive tricks.
Thanks, 1H only promises 4 cards so I had the option of rebidding hearts to show the 5th card. Obviously would be better in retrospect
#7
Posted 2020-June-14, 09:51
I have some sympathy for you, ... I looked at the hand and asked myself, what would I do,
..., double is ok. I may be in the same spot as you.
Maybe the spade shortage can tell you, that they have a secondary spade fit (if openers rebid
denied 4 spades), which may mean they have a 2nd source of tricks. This still leaves the question,
what to do, 2H sounds to weak, overbidding is likely to get you to high. all in all: next board.
Playing IMPs, be happy it was not game, although the overtrick still hurts.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#8
Posted 2020-June-14, 14:52
That's because +50 and +100 will be worth about the same number of matchpoints (others playing your cards rate to score either +110 or -100), but -90 and -180 will be different (because others holding your cards might be -100). So you gain very little if the double is correct but lose a lot if it's wrong.
If the vulnerabilities are reversed, then there is a big difference between +100 and +200 (+110 is in between) while there's a smaller one between -90 and -180 (-50 isn't in between), so I'd think seriously about doubling.
#9
Posted 2020-June-14, 15:20
fraiseap, on 2020-June-13, 04:44, said:
IMPs or MPs???
Suppose you were able to beat 2♦ by a trick for +100. Would you be happy about that? If E/W was vulnerable, at least you would be +200 for down 1. I think you probably need +300 for a good score in many hands.
Assuming East heard the bidding that North has a strong notrump and South had enough to respond over interference, do you really think you are going to get rich against a 2 level contract?
#10
Posted 2020-June-14, 16:11
Some play 1NT as specifically 15-16, and in that case South can just bid 2♥, or even pass. But opposite 15-17, he has to do something positive.
Btw, I don't think it's playable that 1NT promises a diamond stopper, although you will have one most of the time. You have to bid 1NT with
Axx-AQ-xxx-AQxxx
#11
Posted 2020-June-14, 16:14
As such, I think you have to bid 3H, rather than double.
Should North take the double out? It depends on what it is defined as. If it is not strictly penalty, then there is maybe an argument for taking it out with that wonderful KJx support for hearts, as partner being a passed hand means they are unlikely to provide 3 more defensive tricks.
ahydra
#13
Posted 2020-June-14, 18:44
At matchpoints in a good game in ACBL-land, where the field is playing strong NT and I'm thinking the auction at most tables is going 1N-(3D), I'll bid 2H. Let's say half the field sells out to 3D and half the field drive to a game. If I bid 2H, I score 50% if game makes and 100% if game fails. If I drive to game, I score 75% if game makes and 25% if game fails. At those odds, game has to be 75% for it to be worth bidding. I don't think it's 75%. (Actually, it's probably more like 1/3 selling out, especially since some tables will go 1N-(2D) or 1N-(X*) or 1N-(2C*). Then 2H is 33% if game makes and 100% if it fails, and game is 67% if game makes and 17% if it fails. Now game is worth bidding at 67%, which I still don't think it is.)
It's probably worth playing Lebensohl here, which would mean 3D is game forcing, denies a stopper, and asks partner to show a 3rd heart or a 4th spade. (Or whatever you play instead of Lebensohl.)
#14
Posted 2020-June-15, 08:46
johnu, on 2020-June-14, 15:20, said:
Suppose you were able to beat 2♦ by a trick for +100. Would you be happy about that? If E/W was vulnerable, at least you would be +200 for down 1. I think you probably need +300 for a good score in many hands.
Assuming East heard the bidding that North has a strong notrump and South had enough to respond over interference, do you really think you are going to get rich against a 2 level contract?
I should have said the scoring was IMPs
#15
Posted 2020-June-20, 12:20
Many of the comments above seem to be quite blind to the way modern English Acol works. If you read bridge books from, say, the 40s and 50s, then this double is 100% a penalty double. But you would be hard pressed to find too many top pairs that play it that way these days. Sure, we can discuss what to do for a pair that insists on such an agreement (I would probably just bid a conservative 2♥) but it completely misses the point. Similarly I daresay there are several posters who think that a competitive/DSIP double here should have spade tolerance. And there are indeed some systems for which that would be highly beneficial....but if we are talking modern English Acol then the lack of spade support is actually a good thing and not a negative!
In short, this is not a difficult hand if you understand the bidding system and play it in a modern way. If that is not the case, the answer is to improve the methods and not to make up a call based on getting the right result on a specific hand.
#16
Posted 2020-June-29, 06:45
Zelandakh, on 2020-June-20, 12:20, said:
Maybe they're neither English or modern, but better players than I in the Acol Club will open a 4 card minor rather than a 4 card major on hands too strong for a weak notrump. Though why they wish to defer partner's gratification at discovering the "Holy Grail of Bridge" until the third round of bidding after their notrump rebid and Checkback is unclear to me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IMO, fraiseap was a bit unlucky. As the cards lie, 2♦X makes, even on the best defence of 4 rounds of ♣s. In hind-sight, contra-indications for a penalty double include
(a) the good 5-card ♥ suit and
(b) ♣Qxx support.
Here, IMO, double should just be competitive. North, with ♥KJx, should bid 2♥. You would still do well to reach the 4♥ game, with 10 top tricks.