[phil_20686]

---

1D was basically natural but limited to 15 I think.

Your overcall style is fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here.

What is your choice?

[whereagles]

We must have a fit here. Dbl seems ideal, but I'm not sure pard will be anxious to bid hearts on a 5332, so I think I'll just bite it and bid 3♥

[jallerton]

 phil_20686, on 2014-August-01, 06:42, said:

Your overcall style is fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here.

In that case, why do you play 3♥ as forcing here?

[Stephen Tu]

 whereagles, on 2014-August-01, 09:50, said:

We must have a fit here. Dbl seems ideal, but I'm not sure pard will be anxious to bid hearts on a 5332, so I think I'll just bite it and bid 3♥

If partner isn't anxious to bid hearts on 5332 he needs a refresher course on responding to responsive doubles.

[gszes]

There is a ton of potential here but the big contracts of 4h and 3n may not
be easily reached if we x. 3N might not be so great if p is weak anyway so it
seems we should try to emphasize our major suit game and worry about club only
if neither major appears to be appealing.

3h

[MrAce]

Auto dbl

[mikeh]

I think this is an auto double, as Timo suggests. Partner will always bid 3♥ with Hxx in hearts, unless he has a decent 6 card spade suit. He may well choose 3♥ with as little as xxx in hearts, tho this would depend on his hand.

The slightly more interesting question is what do we do over 3♥? I think we have to raise...after all, most hands containing 4♥ will offer excellent play, since the odds are he will hold short clubs. Indeed, if he were to bid 3♥, I would try 4♦ even tho I expect to miss slam most times it is there. I hold too many Aces for him to be able to co-operate often.

Unfortunately the difference in playability in hearts of a 9 card fit as opposed to an 8 card fit is huge, not merely because of trump issues but also the increased likelihood of club issues.

Over 3♠ I pass. Over 4♣ (which won't happen) I cue 4♦. Over an even more improbable 3N I pass.

Over Pass, I lick my chops.

Wild horses couldn't make me bid 3♥

[nige1]

 phil_20686, on 2014-August-01, 06:42, said:

1D was basically natural but limited to 15 I think.
Your overcall style is fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here.
What is your choice?

---

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 9, 4♠ = 8, 3♠ = 7, 4♦ = 6.

[jogs]

Double. Shows hearts, clubs, and spade tolerance.

The real problem hand is
♠ 3
♥ AJ852
♦ A3
♣ AJ1054

No spade tolerance. Hearts too weak for 3♥. Not willing to go to 4 level with clubs.
Would pass.

[jallerton]

 nige1, on 2014-August-01, 17:22, said:

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 9, 4♠ = 8, 3♠ = 7, 4♦ = 6.

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 0, 4♠ = 0, 3♠ = 0, 4♦ = 0.

Why do you give such high marks to bids which commit your side to playing in a 5-2 fit?

[nige1]

 jallerton, on 2014-August-02, 04:10, said:

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 0, 4♠ = 0, 3♠ = 0, 4♦ = 0. Why do you give such high marks to bids which commit your side to playing in a 5-2 fit?

Obviously, just my opinion. I give 0-5 for calls I don't think would work, 6-9 for calls that might well work (even if I wouldn't choose them) and 10 for what I'd probably bid.

[helene_t]

I don't believe 3h should be forcing.
Anyway, there is no LA to double

[jallerton]

 nige1, on 2014-August-02, 05:24, said:

Obviously, just my opinion. I give 0-5 for calls I don't think would work, 6-9 for calls that might well work (even if I wouldn't choose them) and 10 for what I'd probably bid.

By giving 9 marks to 3♥, you imply that you consider it to be almost as good a call as double; or perhaps that it might work well almost as often as the call to which you give 10 marks (double).

Do you really think that 3♥ might work well as often as 90% of the time that double will work well?

I give 0 to the alternatives because I struggle to construct any hands on which making any of these bids will gain over double, whilst it is easy to think of layouts where double will gain. As Helene says, there is no LA to double.

[helene_t]

You can construct a hand on which 6♣ would work. That's not a reason for giving anything above 0 to 6♣. If you want to use the scale as the do in the Master Solvers' Club, any mark above zero should mean that it could be argued to be the best call under certain circumstances.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2014-August-02, 04:10, said:

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 0, 4♠ = 0, 3♠ = 0, 4♦ = 0.

Why do you give such high marks to bids which commit your side to playing in a 5-2 fit?

You are being far too generous to the other choices. Where does it say that you are not allowed to give negative marks?

[nige1]

 jallerton, on 2014-August-02, 12:21, said:

By giving 9 marks to 3♥, you imply that you consider it to be almost as good a call as double; or perhaps that it might work well almost as often as the call to which you give 10 marks (double). Do you really think that 3♥ might work well as often as 90% of the time that double will work well?

No. Nor do I think double will work 100% if the time that 3♥ will work. When I consider several alternatives, I don't give fractional marks.

 jallerton, on 2014-August-02, 12:21, said:

I give 0 to the alternatives because I struggle to construct any hands on which making any of these bids will gain over double, whilst it is easy to think of layouts where double will gain. As Helene says, there is no LA to double.

Helen_t's and JAllerton's judgement may be better than mine and we're all entitled to our opinions.

 helene_t, on 2014-August-02, 12:45, said:

You can construct a hand on which 6♣ would work. That's not a reason for giving anything above 0 to 6♣. If you want to use the scale as the do in the Master Solvers' Club, any mark above zero should mean that it could be argued to be the best call under certain circumstances.

That's roughly my criterion for marks of 6-9. I award 0-5 to bids I considered but feel, on reflection, are unlikely to work.

 lamford, on 2014-August-02, 13:16, said:

You are being far too generous to the other choices. Where does it say that you are not allowed to give negative marks?

Whatever turns you on. Celebrate free-speech

[dake50]

Whatever turns you on. Celebrate free-speech -- nige1

*** In an 'expert' forum?? Any speech goes??
At least insist on evidence for "free speech" as if an expert were commenting in an expert forum.
Or is "expert" meaningless to posters?

[jogs]

 helene_t, on 2014-August-02, 07:01, said:

I don't believe 3h should be forcing.
Anyway, there is no LA to double

I agree 3♥ is better non forcing in contested auctions. But it doesn't matter what I think. Most Americans play ambiguous(or undiscussed) bids in contested auctions are forcing.

[PhantomSac]

 jogs, on 2014-August-02, 18:11, said:

Most Americans play ambiguous(or undiscussed) bids in contested auctions are forcing.

Cite? I have never heard of bid-bid-bid-bid being forcing in any circumstances unless one of the first 2 bids was a preempt. Seems pretty silly even after a 2 level overcall, but lol after a 1 level overcall.

[Free]

 nige1, on 2014-August-02, 05:24, said:

Obviously, just my opinion. I give 0-5 for calls I don't think would work, 6-9 for calls that might well work (even if I wouldn't choose them) and 10 for what I'd probably bid.

Time for a reality check...