All News

A Nice Hand.

Welcome to the world of overcalls, reopening doubles and avoiding the axe! There are a number of questions that could have been posed around today’s hand. In our problem from Friday, we looked at the deal from the view-point of the overcaller as to what action you would take after your rather strong overcall. We also asked the Panel whether they would have overcalled in the first place. We could equally have asked opener what they would have done in the pass-out seat. All will soon be revealed.

 

You elect to make a simple overcall. You have quite a good hand for your bidding so far. Are you going to take any further action? If so, what?

We told the Panel that our system included Intermediate Jump overcalls (certainly at adverse vulnerability). Thus, would they have called 2 given that option? Showing no love of that convention are:

Michael Cornell “ Pretty well agree with 2- haven’t played intermediate for about 30 years. So, don’t understand them any more.”

Michael Ware “agree with 2. I have always found intermediate jumps both inaccurate and unsafe.”

Peter Newell “ agree with 2. It’s too good for an intermediate jump. It’s more like a strong jump.  So, my second choice would be double and bid diamonds.  However, getting my suit in at a low level and catching up later is often better than bids that aren’t very descriptive.”

One good reason not to make an Intermediate Jump overcall is because the hand is too strong. Another is that the diamond suit is very average. Nevertheless, we have:

Kris Wooles: “I would have bid 3.” 

Pam Livingston: “What now? Push undo and bid 3 the first time per our agreements:-)

I would be tempted to bid 2 if I held three hearts to allow partner more room to bid them if they had 5 but otherwise stick to the agreement. Just made it easier for opponents to get their second suit across.”

Bruce Anderson “Don’t agree with 2. I would bid 3 given that we are playing intermediate jump overcalls. The hand is good for that bid, but not much better than would be expected at this vulnerability. I would not double with a singleton heart.”

Nigel Kearney “Prefer 3. The hand is strong enough to double and bid diamonds but I wouldn't double 1 with a singleton heart if I have any possible alternative. I don't normally play intermediate jump overcalls but this ought to be in range. There's no point in them being 12-15 with a six-card suit because that's what 2 suggests.”

But:

Stephen Blackstock “I don’t understand the methods. How does this pair show a strong jump overcall (which this undoubtedly is)? If it’s too good for 3 directly, I would have expected double, then diamonds to show this hand type. I can’t think of anything to do but double, then convert clubs (or a 2NT Lebensohl) to diamonds. But without knowing their overcall structure, I really have no idea.”

That seems to make it 4-4 in respect of an immediate 3 (with no preference given by Matt Brown). It gives me great pleasure in giving a big thumbs up for 2 with my casting vote. The hand’s no Intermediate Jump with comments about the singleton heart making double really unpalatable.

What now, though? I was rather surprised by the inaction of:

Matt Brown “Pass: Partner is able to smell the auction and compete if they want to knowing we have extra values (if it goes Pass Pass to him, or LHO simply corrects. I think bidding 3 is poor when we have just been told that the diamonds are likely to be breaking badly and if they double us for -1 (or don't double and we go -2...) then -200 or worse will be a terrible board.”

Michael Ware “Pass: My first instinct was to double but it’s not safe at all. Why didn't RHO reopen with a double? Probably because they are void and partner couldn't raise....  LHO couldn't muster 2 or make a negative double. So, good chance they were trapping.”

Might it not be our partner who is waiting with decent length, maybe strength in hearts? It is not that you have a bad hand.

Others do not give up though I am a little surprised that some would insist on diamonds if partner responded to their double with 3.

Nigel Kearney “Double. Often, I would have a fourth club but if partner chooses clubs, I think that will play better than diamonds more often than not.”

Michael Cornell “Double:  to show a good hand but I will bid 3 over 3.”

Peter Newell “Double: showing strength and shortage and implying some clubs. I will convert partner’s club bids to diamonds at the 3 level to show this type of hand, as more normally, I would be 5/4 or 6/4 shape.”

Bruce Anderson “Double: That is saying I am very good for my initial bid and must have at least tolerance for clubs. If I only had diamonds, I would bid them again. It is unlikely West had a penalty pass given my high card strength.”

It sounds like Bruce and Nigel would give some thought to passing 3, if that be partner’s choice. Expecting some disaster to happen but still there is:

Kris Wooles “Double: Partner may have clubs and weak diamonds. Given the fact these hands are posed as bidding problems, who knows what fiendish layout exists!”

The next problem would be what to do when partner bids 3 after your double. They know you have at least 5 diamonds and have 3 or 4 clubs. Yet, you must be strongish. What would they bid with two diamonds and four clubs? Then, you are much safer in diamonds. That was not true this time, though. The” fiend” was about to strike those who repeated their diamonds:

 

Well, would you have reopened 2 with a double on the East cards? You are not brimming with tricks. Also, West would feel why double 2 when you get to double 3!

The double of 3 came with undue haste! West was obviously very excited at the prospect of defending this contract, East less so…but partnership trust meant they had to pass…and collected 500 from down 2.

Michael Ware and Matt Brown were right…well, kind of. 2 could not be beaten but 500 scored much better for East-West. Although it looks to be quite a tough contract, we are told that you can make 3. Even 1 down undoubled would score well at Pairs for North-South.

Too strong for an Intermediate Jump and yet not worth a second bid, at the 3 level? An interesting argument. How would you have handled the South hand and what would have been your result?

Did your nice hand turn to:

Low Level: High Stakes

 2 was a Michaels Cue-Bid, showing at least 5 spades and at least 5 cards in a minor suit. As to strength, well, we presume North would have noticed the vulnerabilty before bidding. Your partner's double showed value with your double being for penalties.

So, what would you lead? Pairs is the game. Oh, game is the result if this contract makes!

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items