[mike777]

Fwiw2

If you want your partners to open aggressively,
As responder don't make thin invites on 9-11 range hands without great distribution that really "boosts" the value of the hand.

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2024-October-31, 10:41, said:

And okay, "you have to do something". At matchpoints, it's probably right.

I'll ask again since Mike doesn't want to answer - what are you doing?

[mycroft]

mike777, on 2024-October-31, 12:59, said:

Fwiw2

If you want your partners to open aggressively,
As responder don't make thin invites on 9-11 range hands without great distribution that really "boosts" the value of the hand.

I don't really care about partners opening aggressively; I don't want them to decide they have to misbid their off-shape 16s to avoid missing cold games.

Whether it's 1NT on a stiff ♥K, or jumpshifting because "well, last time you passed a clear invite", I want partner to trust that I will look for game with a potential 26 HCP and not fool around. Even if it means getting to the 3 level on a (fit auction!) 21.

Or, you know, play a limited opener system that doesn't have to bid the same way with a 3=5=1=4 11 count as a 1=5=2=5 17 count.

[mycroft]

Zelandakh, on 2024-October-31, 17:37, said:

I'll ask again since Mike doesn't want to answer - what are you doing?

Me? I'm passing. I've seen Gavin Wolpert get away with bad 2-level overcalls, but I've seen Meckwell get away with bidding every 24 HCP game that flies by, and I don't do that either because I don't play as well as they do.

But Mike is probably correct that on average, a 2♦ call is both effective and matchpoint EV+. It's just so awful when it's wrong. And if partner isn't completely onboard with eating the zeroes when they happen and taking the (mild, but frequent) plusses when they happen, it's not worth the hassle.

Every time I say something like this, I get comments from good players (who I trust! Who I believe are right, for their partnerships!) that "if you think this is enough to hurt a partnership, you must be a lot more sensitive than you should be". And yeah, maybe it's true. But I hear the griping from 3 of 9 opponents today when their partner did something "obviously stupid", and wonder: "what if they did something dangerous but EV+, and went for a number this time?"

[Zelandakh]

 mycroft, on 2024-October-31, 18:25, said:

But Mike is probably correct that on average, a 2♦ call is both effective and matchpoint EV+. It's just so awful when it's wrong. And if partner isn't completely onboard with eating the zeroes when they happen and taking the (mild, but frequent) plusses when they happen, it's not worth the hassle.

It is not just the times when it goes horribly wrong that hurt pairs that make 2 level overcalls on balanced hands with a weak suit; rather it completely changes the way partner has to respond. When I make this overcall, I want partner to feel confident in raising on most hands with 3+ card support. If this a standard overcall then that has to change. So in the end you get hurt on both ends, not only going for the odd telephone number but also being unable to compete effectively in many part-score scrambles. Conceding the idea that this action is EV+ is giving way too much credence to a single hand over the gathered experience of more or less every strong player who has graced these forums over the years. It is just a little disheartening that so few good players remain to keep the level of disinformation down in threads of this type.

[DavidKok]

 Zelandakh, on 2024-November-01, 12:24, said:

It is just a little disheartening that so few good players remain to keep the level of disinformation down in threads of this type.

Ouch, and here I thought I was helping.

Regarding this thread in particular - the helpful answers are all there. In general I am not a fan of the pattern "1) ask a question, 2) get the answer, 3) get a worse answer, 2, again) double down and explain why the worse answer is worse". It's boorish, and if people want to shoot their own foot off by not following the helpful advice, why not let them?

[mycroft]

Quoting out of order, because.

Quote

Conceding the idea that this action is EV+ is giving way too much credence to a single hand over the gathered experience of more or less every strong player who has graced these forums over the years. It is just a little disheartening that so few good players remain to keep the level of disinformation down in threads of this type.

Wow. Do you play this kind of "set-em-up" game all the time, or just here? You asked somebody who said, *twice*, "I wouldn't do it, but I can see where it might be an advantage to get in on more hands than 'standard practise', because matchpoints." to justify why he felt that way, and then come down with "a single hand" (no, I didn't even look at the whole deal, I was thinking of the agreement) and "level of disinformation" in response to the reasoning.

It feels like you just wanted to say "clearly you don't know anything", and were waiting for someone to jump into your trap, and it didn't really matter what the response was, because [unnamed, and some no longer alive (and I miss them!)] experts are clearly on your side (but, you know, no actual quote. That would take work).

Well, I did. Congratulations. You succeeded.

Having said that:

 Zelandakh, on 2024-November-01, 12:24, said:

[I]t completely changes the way partner has to respond.

Argument *clearly* needing evidence.

Quote

When I make this overcall, I want partner to feel confident in raising on most hands with 3+ card support. If this a standard overcall then that has to change.

Why? What's wrong with partner raising on pretty much any 3? Remember, "about half the points", "favourable at matchpoints" - the MP Death Score isn't in play, the suit is sound if not AK, if the TT is only 16, you still could be in the black, you're not going to get "trump-doubled to death", partner could have the Axx KQTxxx you would expect him to have (and the opponents don't know that) - and it's not like raiser is playing it!

Quote

So in the end you get hurt on both ends, not only going for the odd telephone number but also being unable to compete effectively in many part-score scrambles.

Conclusion begs the question. Also, what about the part-score scrambles you don't get to compete effectively in because you pass throughout and don't find your fit?

Now, you could very well be right. Frankly, you very likely are right. As you said, decades of experience. Of course, many people with those decades of experience play most of their bridge in "long-match IMP-scored games against experts" and train their clients not to make risky calls *the client will have to play* (and, when giving advice to people like us, treat us as (bad)client-skill. Because we are). The opponents of we mortals (and definitely OP's mortals) Just Aren't That Good, and favourable at MPs is a whole world away from even all-red at MPs (never mind all-red at IMPs).

In response to the "ask question. Get good responses, Get bad response, get it explained as bad response (so the OP is not misinformed), go off into the weeds of 'how bad is this, really?', go off topic somewhere else" quote - History of the World since *at least* rgb in 1990, and definitely on BBF since forever.

[mikeh]

Late to the thread

I was initially looking at the OP issues, and frankly didn’t th8nk I had much, if anything, to contribute. Now I see that the discussion morphed into whether west should act over 1H, favourable at mps.

I’m regarded by most who know me as conservative…my regular partner is FAR more aggressive but I’d not pass. I might pass at imps, but never at mps. Passing would be routine 50 years ago, but passing this hand, at favourable, is incredibly poor. MPs is frequency based. Red, even equal, different story but white…ugh. Actually, I’m sitting in an airport lounge in BA, coming home, and I gave the hand to my partner, knowing what he’d bid (and me also). We’d both bid 1N! Ostensibly 15-18. Get doubled, run to 2D.

I don’t care about EV…I know the concept but it, to me, is akin to what I see as an elevation of metrics over judgement. I just can’t see giving up here, and passing makes later bidding suicidal. The opps don’t often…in my experience don’t usually…go right on these hands.

Caveat: im more of an imp player than a mp player, but I have won a few Regional Open Pairs, lol, so I’m not hopeless.

Btw, we do tell the opps that, while 1N is assumed to be 15-18, we upgrade….indeed we upgrade in many instances. Here, the Q109xx suit warrants an upgrade imo. Were I 3343 I’d pass.

[DavidKok]

Fwiw I would pass with the West hand, but I think it's close. I also play 15-18 NT overcalls but only upgrade infrequently, and consider this hand not worth an upgrade. Of note is that partner will raise me to game after my 1NT overcall with a 7-count with a 5 card suit and an entry - all my values are positioned well, so even if I have a minimum the 22 HCP game tends to play better than expected. With this hand that raise strategy might cost, and I'm happy defending or entering the auction later.

[mikeh]

MPs we don’t stretch to thin games. That’s why I’d bid on this hand. I’m not worried about partner raising with a seven count.

[AL78]

 DavidKok, on 2024-November-05, 02:32, said:

Fwiw I would pass with the West hand, but I think it's close. I also play 15-18 NT overcalls but only upgrade infrequently, and consider this hand not worth an upgrade. Of note is that partner will raise me to game after my 1NT overcall with a 7-count with a 5 card suit and an entry - all my values are positioned well, so even if I have a minimum the 22 HCP game tends to play better than expected. With this hand that raise strategy might cost, and I'm happy defending or entering the auction later.

I would pass as well not that I have any authority at bridge though. I don't get why you can upgrade the diamond suit based on QT9 to five but not downgrade Qx doubleton, which on the actual layout turns out to be worth nothing. Overcalling works well here because partner has a near perfect hand with fantastic four card support for your diamonds but just because an action works doesn't make it right.

[mikeh]

 AL78, on 2024-November-09, 17:58, said:

I would pass as well not that I have any authority at bridge though. I don't get why you can upgrade the diamond suit based on QT9 to five but not downgrade Qx doubleton, which on the actual layout turns out to be worth nothing. Overcalling works well here because partner has a near perfect hand with fantastic four card support for your diamonds but just because an action works doesn't make it right.

Since I’m the player who upgraded, not David, I’ll address the issue. Although I doubt that I can make my explanation particularly persuasive.

I upgrade Q109xx because the spots, that are given zero weight in the 4321 count scheme, make the holding far better than Q9xxx…not upgrading would be silly imo.

I don’t downgrade Qx in clubs because nobody’s bid clubs yet and in my partnerships, as I think it normal for expert partnerships (including the many who are better than my partnership is) to upgrade generously and downgrade infrequently.

Why does this approach seem to work? That it works appears obvious given that high-level bridge is a true test of ideas, especially ideas about bidding. Since the great majority of (at least) NA top pairs bid aggressively, despite playing against expert defenders, one has to infer that it’s a winning approach…in the long run.

My thinking about why this is? Because defence is far harder, even for experts, than is declarer play. So an expert declarer will prevail more often than a double dummy approach would suggest, even against his peers.

Bridge is a game of mistakes. When I started playing, the prevailing philosophy was to avoid mistakes…thus almost everyone bid conservatively, especially when an opp opened.

These days the prevailing philosophy is to pressure the opps into making mistakes, even at the risk of getting a terrible result once in a while. Overcalling 1N maximizes the pressure on the opps…compare to passing which puts zero pressure on. As for 2D, I’d rather pass than bid 2D. I think it a hideous action, and is not only very dangerous but is easy to deal with as an opponent. You’d get away with it here because of partner’s diamond fit, but that is merely a fortunate happenstance.

[harikannan]

@mikeh: "Although I doubt that I can make my explanation particularly persuasive."

You are, to me, the most persuasive expert on bbo forums sharing not only the logic behind your choice but also teaching the way i must structure my thoughts while making decisions. I am very thankful to you and others who take the effort to pose / comment on problems that help intermediates like me immensely.

[mike777]

Fwiw
Just now Grue in Madeira open teams bd#8
Overcalled 1NT on 13.
Both nv
I note his partner was passed hand.

QJ.AJ6.QJ743.Q42

P-1H-1NT-P
2H-P-2S-pass out.

[Flem72]

Dunno, y'all, standard courtesy raise --good 8-9, 4+C -- has a lot going for it so long as 2C can be up to 17ish: What if opener could rebid 3D with x KJxxx AKx AQxx?

[mike777]

Good points
Playing more solid Invites rather than courtesy raise I will miss those games when they come up.

Flip side you put at risk losing
6 Imps