[Winstonm]

---

Every bid is standard treatment. IMP pairs. Bid? Pass? Other?

[smerriman]

When I first saw this I figured it was an easy pass at this vulnerability.. but having thought about it, a red ace and singleton spade and we're probably making game let alone being a good enough sacrifice.. now I have no idea what to do.

I think I pass anyway but I'm going to be wrong whatever I choose.

[Douglas43]

I wish I had been a bit more aggressive earlier (say 3S as a try for 3NT with a solid minor). Reluctant pass I suppose at this score

[Winstonm]

smerriman, on 2021-August-29, 23:36, said:

When I first saw this I figured it was an easy pass at this vulnerability.. but having thought about it, a red ace and singleton spade and we're probably making game let alone being a good enough sacrifice.. now I have no idea what to do.

I think I pass anyway but I'm going to be wrong whatever I choose.

Yes, it appears simple at first glance but a little more thought and you realize this could be a double game swing.

[akwoo]

Given the form of scoring, I bid. Sure bidding loses 2 IMPs or 7 IMPs most of the time, but it could win 14 IMPs.

[mw64ahw]

I guess it depends what strength the 4♠ is. I tend to play it 5+♠ preemptive. That means partner could have tricks to contribute so I'm not passing. If West is strong enough to make game then going down the odd trick won't hurt.
I once had a similar hand and ended up in 6♣X making.

[mikeh]

Too dangerous to pass

We’re going to be very unlucky to catch nothing useful in dummy. LHO might have ‘got’ us by jumping with only 4 card support and a stiff club, as one example, and we catch something like Qx KJxxx xxxx xx in dummy, but we might catch x xxxxx Qxxx Jxx, down 1, usually, into their 480, or a little better…say a red ace, and the diamond onside.

Or anything in-between

Bidding wins when we make 5C or when we fail by one and 4S makes. We win big when both games make.

We basically break even when we fail by two, doubled, and 4S makes.

We only lose big when we go for 800 or more, and we’d need to buy very badly for that to happen

Edit: or if both fail. I think that very unlikely, but not impossible


Tbh, my tendency in real life is to pass, but I’m increasingly forcing myself to bid these days, and think/hope I’d bid here. One needs an understanding partner when one goes 800 or more.

Oddly, this is a tougher decision at mps. 500 might be a disaster whereas at imp pairs, it’s usually a small loss, especially since many such layouts lead to 450 or 480 for 4S.

[LBengtsson]

I am bidding, bidding, bidding 5♣ even at red/white at imps. west had far more options available than a direct 4♠ bid with a good hand. partner needs just ♦Q for it to, I hope, just -1. only a queen. I can not see us taking 4 tricks against a 4♠ contract with a poor hand, and if he has a better hand 5♣ might just make.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2021-August-30, 10:49, said:

Too dangerous to pass

We’re going to be very unlucky to catch nothing useful in dummy. LHO might have ‘got’ us by jumping with only 4 card support and a stiff club, as one example, and we catch something like Qx KJxxx xxxx xx in dummy, but we might catch x xxxxx Qxxx Jxx, down 1, usually, into their 480, or a little better…say a red ace, and the diamond onside.

Or anything in-between

Bidding wins when we make 5C or when we fail by one and 4S makes. We win big when both games make.

We basically break even when we fail by two, doubled, and 4S makes.

We only lose big when we go for 800 or more, and we’d need to buy very badly for that to happen

Edit: or if both fail. I think that very unlikely, but not impossible


Tbh, my tendency in real life is to pass, but I’m increasingly forcing myself to bid these days, and think/hope I’d bid here. One needs an understanding partner when one goes 800 or more.

Oddly, this is a tougher decision at mps. 500 might be a disaster whereas at imp pairs, it’s usually a small loss, especially since many such layouts lead to 450 or 480 for 4S.

Yes, my first inclination was a pass but I forced myself to slow down and then bid 5C.

[smerriman]

<snip mistake of mine>

mikeh, on 2021-August-30, 10:49, said:

We basically break even when we fail by two, doubled, and 4S makes.

Aargh, I've made this mistake before. I've had it drilled into my head that down 2 is something to avoid at all costs at this vulnerability, but you're right; it's actually only a small loss at IMPs. And the gain of when it makes far outweighs that. So I've changed my mind (of course, too late).

[nige1]

Winstonm ' Every bid is standard treatment. IMP pairs. Bid? Pass? Other? '
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Over 1♠, I like Douglas43's suggestion of a conventional 3♠ stop-ask, which describes the hand well and better consults partner's opinion. Now, after LHO's 4♠, I guess...
1. Pass = Pusillanimous but, as team-mates like to point out, it's usually easier to make 4 tricks than 11.
2. 5♣ = NAT. Reasonable punt. Well bid

---

[Winstonm]

Partner's hand:

Spoiler

---

Opening lead small club.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-30, 15:12, said:

Partner's hand:

Spoiler

---

Opening lead small club.

Unlucky but not abnormal. Good lead, but it’s fairly standard on this sort of auction. Unfortunately we may well have the worst possible outcome….-500 against nothing.

LHO rates to have some shape but h3 could be 5=3=3=2 where they may fail even in 3S

Oh well.

At least it’s imp pairs so we have no unhappy teammates; merely an unhappy partner.

If we could beat 4S I will refrain from suggesting he should have doubled 4S🤪

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2021-August-30, 17:22, said:

Unlucky but not abnormal. Good lead, but it’s fairly standard on this sort of auction. Unfortunately we may well have the worst possible outcome….-500 against nothing.

LHO rates to have some shape but h3 could be 5=3=3=2 where they may fail even in 3S

Oh well.

At least it’s imp pairs so we have no unhappy teammates; merely an unhappy partner.

If we could beat 4S I will refrain from suggesting he should have doubled 4S🤪

It was undoubled so only -200 .

[akwoo]

Here's a reasonable rule of thumb for deciding when to bid on:

At MPs, you bid unless there is a chance both contracts go down.

At IMPs, you bid only if there is a chance both contracts make.

[Gilithin]

akwoo, on 2021-August-30, 22:52, said:

Here's a reasonable rule of thumb for deciding when to bid on:

At MPs, you bid unless there is a chance both contracts go down.

At IMPs, you bid only if there is a chance both contracts make.

So you would not bid 4♠ over 4♥ at green if you were confident of one of the contracts being -1 or -2?

[DavidKok]

A far better 'rule of thumb' is the law of total tricks. If you do not have enough information to base your call on that, it is usually right to bid one more at IMPs. Though very often these difficult calls should have been anticipated earlier in the auction, and solved through cooperative bidding at a lower level. A direct 3♠ on this hand would be a wonderful bid, mostly because it invites partner to the table over their 4♠. North would probably pass, and South can safely pass as well since partner would most likely have taken action with some club support.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-31, 02:47, said:

A far better 'rule of thumb' is the law of total tricks. If you do not have enough information to base your call on that, it is usually right to bid one more at IMPs. Though very often these difficult calls should have been anticipated earlier in the auction, and solved through cooperative bidding at a lower level. A direct 3♠ on this hand would be a wonderful bid, mostly because it invites partner to the table over their 4♠. North would probably pass, and South can safely pass as well since partner would most likely have taken action with some club support.

I may be old-fashioned but the south hand doesn’t match what I’d expect to see for 3S.

Good opponents listen to the auction. 3S says that we expect to have good play for 3N should North own a spade stopper. It’s ok to have a hand where we need a little help or luck in the red suits as well, but that heart stiff is a tremendous red flag to me.

Say the auction proceeds (1S) 3S (p) 3N….all pass

Does anyone think opener is leading a spade from a broken suit when his partner could not double 3S?

I’d like to find opponents who do so.

If they do lead a spade, we need partner to hold a stopper and at least one red ace. More to the point, if they lead a heart, we need partner to hold a heart stopper and another side Ace.

Its important to remember that we are choosing our overcall without any knowledge that responder is about to bid 4S. It’s obvious that 3S is a brilliant call whenever responder bids 4S, but why on earth should we be bidding based on that assumption?

[DavidKok]

For me it doesn't promise 9 tricks opposite a spade stopper, it just expresses a desire for partner to bid 3NT with one. I agree that a singleton heart is a red flag, but partner might well have length. A 'gambling 3NT', except we don't want them to run 5 tricks in the suit bid. By contrast a direct 3NT would show a long (typically minor) suit with a stopper in their suit. The opponents will lead something else, of course, but that might not be enough to stop you from making anyway. And if the side suits really are wide open it might even be a not-terrible sacrifice.
To put it differently, my preferred definition of the jump overcall sacrifices some chances of making 3NT to show more frequent competitive hand types. I'll go down in 3NT more often, but if the opponents do bid on I'm better placed in the auction. And sometimes partner can jump to 5m instead, which is not automatic if I had chosen 2m instead (especially since, definitionally, partner primarily has spot cards in support). I think being able to show this hand type is a parlay bet - we win if the rest of the auction is competitive, we win if partner has support but was worried about the quality, we go even if 3NT was an OK sacrifice and some days 3NT will make despite the non-spade lead. By contrast we lose on the stronger hand types - those have to double first, after which we might face a tough call over 4♠ - and we lose if 2/3/4♣ was the limit of the hand (in theory we can run to 4♣ but those are slim odds, so at the table we're more likely to lose on that scenario).

[Winstonm]

I must have attended bridge school with Mikeh as our thinking about these hands aligns so often. I did not consider 3S with xx, x in the majors and only 7 1/2 tricks in hand. I can be convinced otherwise but I am suspect.

When I first learned the game some book I read urged intermediate jump over calls I still find them useful and I think there is a case for jump over calls being weak, intermediate, and strongish based on vulnerability. This hand being a prime argument as to why.