[lamford]

You have ♠ AQT9x ♥ x ♦ 10x ♣ JT9xx and it is IMPs, and your side is vul. It goes (1D) - 1H - (3D) to you. 3D is PRE. Do you take any action?

You have ♠ Kxx ♥ AJ9xx ♦ Q ♣ Axxx and it is IMPs, and your side is vul. It goes (1D) - 1H - (3D) - Pass - (Pass) to you. 3D is PRE. Do you take any action?

They may be, but need not be, the same deal. It is the final of a national team event, so reasonable standard.

[mikeh]

I would pass on the 1st one. I'd bid if I reversed the reds, of course. It is close

I'd double on the 2nd one, altho it's tough to be sure that I am not being influenced by the probability that the hands match.

As is almost always the case, posting two hands (even with the disclaimer) makes it impossible to be objective. Indeed, imo, anybody who claims they are being objective in this sort of scenario isn't very familiar with basic psychology. If you really wanted to know what the bbf community thought, you'd post one hand, wait a couple of weeks, or more, and then post the other, preferably under a different name.

[mfa1010]

Agree with mikeh. Pass on the first one, and reopening double on the second one.

[dake50]

I'm bidding 3S on the first hand. Partner did make a VUL overcall.
Don't have to like it, just do it.
Cue bid 4D on the second. With 2xA +SK +D-single, encourage partner now.

[the hog]

dake50, on 2014-February-10, 18:01, said:

I'm bidding 3S on the first hand. Partner did make a VUL overcall.
Don't have to like it, just do it.
Cue bid 4D on the second. With 2xA +SK +D-single, encourage partner now.

Partner made a vulnerable overcall on the one level!
I would pass the first one and double on the second.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2014-February-10, 12:47, said:

As is almost always the case, posting two hands (even with the disclaimer) makes it impossible to be objective. Indeed, imo, anybody who claims they are being objective in this sort of scenario isn't very familiar with basic psychology. If you really wanted to know what the bbf community thought, you'd post one hand, wait a couple of weeks, or more, and then post the other, preferably under a different name.

No, all you do is post the hands with conflicting pips, so that all the smarty-pants can work out that they *can't* be the same hand.

[helene_t]

phil_20686, on 2014-February-11, 04:34, said:

No, all you do is post the hands with conflicting pips, so that all the smarty-pants can work out that they *can't* be the same hand.

Or, as Csaba once did, posting them in different spoilers, one to be opened by people with even birth days and one for those with odd birthdays.

[lamford]

mikeh, on 2014-February-10, 12:47, said:

I would pass on the 1st one. I'd bid if I reversed the reds, of course. It is close

I'd double on the 2nd one, altho it's tough to be sure that I am not being influenced by the probability that the hands match.

As is almost always the case, posting two hands (even with the disclaimer) makes it impossible to be objective. Indeed, imo, anybody who claims they are being objective in this sort of scenario isn't very familiar with basic psychology. If you really wanted to know what the bbf community thought, you'd post one hand, wait a couple of weeks, or more, and then post the other, preferably under a different name.

I guess I screwed up in the way I presented it at least. They were the same deal, and my partner passed on the top hand, as did I on the bottom hand. I had no idea what the probability that the hands would match would be but the majority confirm the view of my team-mates that my hand should act again.

[jogs]

lamford, on 2014-February-11, 12:23, said:

I guess I screwed up. They were the same deal, and my partner passed on the top hand, as did I on the bottom hand. I had no idea what the probability that the hands would match would be but the majority confirm the the view of my team-mates that my hand should act again.

Easy to reopen when we see both hands. At the table I would probably pass. Did your teammates present your opponents the same problems?

[kuhchung]

I would've passed with both hands but I suck. If the DQ were elsewhere I would double.

[gszes]

a lot of this decision needs to be based on your partnerships agreements vs overcalls opposite non passed hands. If you make a

lot of "lead director" overcalls it is not safe to bid here. If you overcall with an opening hand or better this hand has to make some noise.

If p had x vs overcalled 1h I do not think anyone would have trouble with acting over 3d. This hand needs some caution (due to the

singleton heart) but the two black suits are robust with all those nice intermediates. We are also at max power for what p might expect

from us given the bidding but our distribution is much better than average. I think this hand calls for x as passing now with this good of a

hand puts way too much pressure on p if the bidding were to go 3d p p.

I would p with the 2nd hand after 3d p p but I also would have started with x vs 1h so who knows:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[jogs]

This has happened to me many times.

(1♦) - 1♥ - (3♦) - BIT pass
pass - ?

Now I feel obligated to pass.

[gordontd]

jogs, on 2014-February-11, 20:08, said:

This has happened to me many times.

(1♦) - 1♥ - (3♦) - BIT pass
pass - ?

Now I feel obligated to pass.

That should depend on your hand. Perhaps you should get your partner to use consistent tempo over jumps, and then you won't be limited by it.

[gnasher]

I'd double on advancer's hand. The chances of there being a black-suit fit are good. Even if partner is 2632 we may still survive. It will be quite hard for them to double a black suit when they don't have any trump pips, and they don't know that I have a doubleton diamond.

I'm not sure about acting again with the overcaller's hand. It's true that I have extra values and a diamond shortage, but those empty suits aren't very good for offence, and ♦Q may win a trick in defence.

The biggest problem with acting on either of these hands is that you won't always reach the best fit. If you double as advancer, you won't know what to do if partner bids 3♥. If you double as overcaller, advancer won't know what to do with 4=2 in the majors.

[gwnn]

About the hand: I'm not sure, sorry! I thought I would pass from advancer's side and reopen with a double from overcaller, but this was just my first impression. I am more or less convinced by gnasher at this point.

Extra question: How would the bidding continue if advancer doubles? I imagine overcaller might bid 4♦ and then advancer bids 4♠, passed out?

[lamford]

jogs, on 2014-February-11, 13:56, said:

Easy to reopen when we see both hands. At the table I would probably pass. Did your teammates present your opponents the same problems?

Our other three results (it was teams of 8) were 2D+2 by us, so obviously the pre-emptive raise to 2D had a deadly effect, 2S+2 by opponents, so it does not look like we gave them a rough ride, and 5Dx-3 by our other EW, presumably sacrificing correctly over 4S, but I do not have the auction. Datum over all 16 tables including other matches was NS +106.25, the two hands at the start of the thread being NS.

[lamford]

dake50, on 2014-February-10, 18:01, said:

Cue bid 4D on the second.

I thought about that, but decided it would show something like a 4-6-0-3 20-count.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2014-February-12, 06:43, said:

2S+2 by opponents, so it does not look like we gave them a rough ride.

We made it almost impossible for them by passing throughout. They bid 1♥-1♠-2♠, which was completely normal. The diamond opening and preemptive raise tends to make diagnosing a perfect fit much easier.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2014-February-12, 03:54, said:

The biggest problem with acting on either of these hands is that you won't always reach the best fit. If you double as advancer, you won't know what to do if partner bids 3♥. If you double as overcaller, advancer won't know what to do with 4=2 in the majors.

This brings us back to the unpopular take-out double over 1♦ with 4-5M. I am in the minority camp that does this, and it makes partner's decisions here much easier, since he knows we almost never have four spades.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-February-12, 08:45, said:

We made it almost impossible for them by passing throughout. They bid 1♥-1♠-2♠, which was completely normal. The diamond opening and preemptive raise tends to make diagnosing a perfect fit much easier.

Well, North might have moved over that, particularly playing 2NT as a WET (North asks which is the lowest suit South would accept a short-suit game try in), South bids 3♣, North 3♥ (singleton) and South now has an easy 4♠. Is this not standard for a pick-up partnership?