problem hand after pre-empt

[a***@yahoo.co.uk]

Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).

North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6

South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5

5 card majors, NS vuln

N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S

Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.

My questions are:

1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?

2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

[ais523]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a
weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game
going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show
this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner
has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and
double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an
invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me
potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we
missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although
given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with
that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely
support in this situation?

Most natural bidding systems use the cue as constructive support and the
direct raise as shapely support, but direct raises are often treated as
potentially weak. So bidding 4S would show a distributional hand that
wanted to be in game, but possibly as a sacrifice, and 4C would show the
sort of hand you have here.

My normal definition for the cue once your partner has bid is "the
equivalent of 10+ HCP and a fit with the suit that partner showed"; as
your partner has a spade extra, a useful singleton, and 18 HCP, that
gives the partnership 28 HCP and a 9-card fit, which is nearly always
worth a slam invite. Which one would depend on partnership style for
slam invites.

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there
a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've
tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue
bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or
fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is
something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with
them.

What you've posted is pretty close to the standard for natural bidding.
(To keep things simple, I normally play that the cue bid /always/
promises a fit with partner, but this needs a different artificial
sequence for "fishing for 3NT", e.g. double followed by cue.)

Support doubles are a convention that some partnerships use, used by
opener after responder makes a (1-round forcing) change of
suit, and opener's RHO bids (it doesn't matter what opener's LHO did).
They show exactly three cards in responder's suit (with any other
action denying three cards in responder's suit). The basic idea is that
a change of suit by responder doesn't guarantee any particular length,
and thus distinguishing between a 3- and 4-card raise of responder can
be helpful, and some partnerships consider this more useful than the
possible alternative uses of the double. (Support redoubles also
exist, which is the same situation except that opener's RHO doubles
instead of bidding.)

[Co Wiersma]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

1 : I do not know
2 Your approach seems perfect to me
Support doubles I do only know as double by opener
3 : North seems to underbid in the extreme
The north hand screams for slam

Co Wiersma

[[e-mail]]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

Are you certain that your 3S actually shows support, rather than false preference?

Suppose the south hand was

xx
QJxx
QJxx
Axx

Must it pass over 3C?

If it doubles and gets a 3D reply, is it supposed to pass? Bid 4D?

Carl

[i***@gmail.com]

Your first problem was you lied on your first bid. A negative dbl shows support for other suits, not support for partner. Usually, it denies support.

You have lost bidding space, so you cannot show everything. You have a nice hand but with no shape. Normally, your hand is invitational to game, so you have to make a decision. 4S seems the right choice. Normally, a jump to 4S would show a distributional hand with lots of support, but not in this situation. If you had a stronger hand, I would recommend a q-bid of 4C, but that is an overbid.

[kingfish]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

If a direct 3S shows a limit raise hand (or close) this is your best action, even with 6.5 losers. If Double, followed by 3S shows this hand, then you are forced by system to follow that procedure. My preference is a direct 3S.
Over DBL, Opener is sort of fixed, and can select from 3D or 4S, 3D is very reasonable, and leaves partner room to call 3H, which opener would happily make a slam move over. By using DBL to show doubt, you are ahead of the game, and partner can easily bid 5C over 3S, which means that all of your queens are working, and you have an easy 6S call. Cue bidding 6C on this hand would be extreme, just accept slam.

[Co Wiersma]

Post by kingfish

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

If a direct 3S shows a limit raise hand (or close) this is your best action, even with 6.5 losers. If Double, followed by 3S shows this hand, then you are forced by system to follow that procedure. My preference is a direct 3S.
Over DBL, Opener is sort of fixed, and can select from 3D or 4S, 3D is very reasonable, and leaves partner room to call 3H, which opener would happily make a slam move over. By using DBL to show doubt, you are ahead of the game, and partner can easily bid 5C over 3S, which means that all of your queens are working, and you have an easy 6S call. Cue bidding 6C on this hand would be extreme, just accept slam.

How can opener bid 3D with such a strong hand?
Is 3D forcing? And if so, what is opener to do with 11 points and spades
as well as diamonds?

Co Wiersma

[[e-mail]]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by kingfish

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

If a direct 3S shows a limit raise hand (or close) this is your best action, even with 6.5 losers. If Double, followed by 3S shows this hand, then you are forced by system to follow that procedure. My preference is a direct 3S.
Over DBL, Opener is sort of fixed, and can select from 3D or 4S, 3D is very reasonable, and leaves partner room to call 3H, which opener would happily make a slam move over. By using DBL to show doubt, you are ahead of the game, and partner can easily bid 5C over 3S, which means that all of your queens are working, and you have an easy 6S call. Cue bidding 6C on this hand would be extreme, just accept slam.

How can opener bid 3D with such a strong hand?
Is 3D forcing? And if so, what is opener to do with 11 points and spades
as well as diamonds?
Co Wiersma

When you open with

AKxxx
xx
KJxx
xx

you must give up getting a good result after a pre-emptive overcall.

Carl

[Fred.]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The original Roth-Stone use of the Negative Double was to deny the
11 HCP necessary to make a free bid. Thus, 3S would have shown a
limit raise, 4S a strong but limited raise, 4C hand too strong for
4S, and your sequence a weak raise. If partner took it this way,
the sign off at 4S was reasonable.

Playing coop or penalty doubles at that time, 3S would have been
competitive, 4S would have been a limit raise to just game going,
and 4C too strong a hand for 4S.

More contemporary use is that described by ais523 where the cue bid
promises has at least the values for a limit raise and enough HCP
that your side does not want the opponents to play the hand undoubled.
Then 3S would be competitive, and 4S would be distributional without
enough HCP to guarantee ownership of the hand. The thinking here is
that in a competitive situation it is more important to clarify who
owns the hand than it is too give opener more precise offensive values.
Sometimes you may bid a trick too high and go down, but this is at least
partially offset by the times you bid a trick too high and the opponents
take the pseudo-sacrifice.

Fred.

[Hotzenplotz]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The x is a poor call. What would you do if partner bid 34H. YOu are after all showing a heart suit. Just bid 3S.

[a***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The x is a poor call. What would you do if partner bid 34H. YOu are after all showing a heart suit. Just bid 3S.

Correct to spades.

[Hotzenplotz]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The x is a poor call. What would you do if partner bid 34H. YOu are after all showing a heart suit. Just bid 3S.

Correct to spades.

This achieves what precisely? Isn't it better to show you have primary S support?

[a***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The x is a poor call. What would you do if partner bid 34H. YOu are after all showing a heart suit. Just bid 3S.

Correct to spades.

This achieves what precisely? Isn't it better to show you have primary S support?

3S = competitive, don't go to game unless you are very good (something like a weak raise or weak jump raise).
4S = decent hand with support, we have game even if you are minimum.
Cue = slam interest with support.
X then support, something in-between 3S and 4S i.e. invitational.

That was my thinking anyway. It appeared to me that piling everything from distributional support with a few HCP up to a flat invitational 10-bad 12 HCP hand into one bid would make it very difficult for partner to know what to do with a mid-range opening hand, so I tried to improvise.

[[e-mail]]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The x is a poor call. What would you do if partner bid 34H. YOu are after all showing a heart suit. Just bid 3S.

Correct to spades.

This achieves what precisely? Isn't it better to show you have primary S support?

3S = competitive, don't go to game unless you are very good (something like a weak raise or weak jump raise).
4S = decent hand with support, we have game even if you are minimum.
Cue = slam interest with support.
X then support, something in-between 3S and 4S i.e. invitational.
That was my thinking anyway. It appeared to me that piling everything from distributional support with a few HCP up to a flat invitational 10-bad 12 HCP hand into one bid would make it very difficult for partner to know what to do with a mid-range opening hand, so I tried to improvise.

Under what general theory does double-then-preference show support rather than tolerance?

That is, how can you improvise that way without discussion?

Carl

[a***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The x is a poor call. What would you do if partner bid 34H. YOu are after all showing a heart suit. Just bid 3S.

Correct to spades.

This achieves what precisely? Isn't it better to show you have primary S support?

3S = competitive, don't go to game unless you are very good (something like a weak raise or weak jump raise).
4S = decent hand with support, we have game even if you are minimum.
Cue = slam interest with support.
X then support, something in-between 3S and 4S i.e. invitational.
That was my thinking anyway. It appeared to me that piling everything from distributional support with a few HCP up to a flat invitational 10-bad 12 HCP hand into one bid would make it very difficult for partner to know what to do with a mid-range opening hand, so I tried to improvise.

Under what general theory does double-then-preference show support rather than tolerance?
That is, how can you improvise that way without discussion?
Carl

There are times when something comes up that hasn't been discussed, and because you have to do something, it comes down to an educated guess as to what to do. I've said what my line of thinking was, of course partner may not think along the same lines, but that happens sometimes. In the event there is no evidence that had I given direct support, partner would have started slam investigation, so even if we weren't thinking alike, we are unlikely to end up in worse position, simply because a double is forcing and I can support spades next time, ending up in the same place as if I had just bid spades immediately.

[[e-mail]]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

The x is a poor call. What would you do if partner bid 34H. YOu are after all showing a heart suit. Just bid 3S.

Correct to spades.

This achieves what precisely? Isn't it better to show you have primary S support?

3S = competitive, don't go to game unless you are very good (something like a weak raise or weak jump raise).
4S = decent hand with support, we have game even if you are minimum.
Cue = slam interest with support.
X then support, something in-between 3S and 4S i.e. invitational.
That was my thinking anyway. It appeared to me that piling everything from distributional support with a few HCP up to a flat invitational 10-bad 12 HCP hand into one bid would make it very difficult for partner to know what to do with a mid-range opening hand, so I tried to improvise.

Under what general theory does double-then-preference show support rather than tolerance?
That is, how can you improvise that way without discussion?
Carl

There are times when something comes up that hasn't been discussed, and because you have to do something, it comes down to an educated guess as to what to do. I've said what my line of thinking was, of course partner may not think along the same lines, but that happens sometimes. In the event there is no evidence that had I given direct support, partner would have started slam investigation, so even if we weren't thinking alike, we are unlikely to end up in worse position, simply because a double is forcing and I can support spades next time, ending up in the same place as if I had just bid spades immediately.

My question was precisely what was educated about your guess that double-then-preference shows support rather than tolerance.

Carl

[Co Wiersma]

Post by ***@verizon.net
My question was precisely what was educated about your guess that double-then-preference shows support rather than tolerance.
Carl

I think both should presume preference
And I still think the north hand is strong enough for a slamtry after
preference

Co Wiersma

[[e-mail]]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by ***@verizon.net
My question was precisely what was educated about your guess that double-then-preference shows support rather than tolerance.
Carl

I think both should presume preference
And I still think the north hand is strong enough for a slamtry after
preference
Co Wiersma

when you say "preference" do you mean tolerance? That is, possibly 32?

Carl

[Co Wiersma]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by ***@verizon.net
My question was precisely what was educated about your guess that double-then-preference shows support rather than tolerance.
Carl

I think both should presume preference
And I still think the north hand is strong enough for a slamtry after
preference
Co Wiersma

when you say "preference" do you mean tolerance? That is, possibly 32?
Carl

Yes?

[Hotzenplotz]

snipped

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
There are times when something comes up that hasn't been discussed,

snipped

Very rarely in a good partnership, and particularly not such an obvious and common sequence.
I think the x was poor and would not expect to see this hand in dummy.

[KWSchneider]

This is a 3S bid. X promises 4hearts. So when opener pulls to 4H, what is your plan? Bid 4S? To me that shows a much stronger hand than you have.

[[e-mail]]

Post by KWSchneider
This is a 3S bid. X promises 4hearts. So when opener pulls to 4H, what is your plan? Bid 4S? To me that shows a much stronger hand than you have.

Is it really playable that 3-level X promises more than 3 hearts? Really? That forces a pass with the majority of 10-pt hands.

Carl

[Hotzenplotz]

It is certainly playable unless you are a master of Moysian fits.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Hotzenplotz
It is certainly playable unless you are a master of Moysian fits.

Playable didn't refer to declaring.

If you cannot double with 10 hcp balanced, 2=3 in majors you are forced to pass. Does that lead to good results most of the time? Or even 45% of the time?

Carl

[f***@googlemail.com]

Yes. Why do I want to double 3c with 2-3 in thé majors? Unless it’s penalties, which is an uncommon agreement.

[[e-mail]]

Post by f***@googlemail.com
Yes. Why do I want to double 3c with 2-3 in thé majors? Unless it’s penalties, which is an uncommon agreement.

takeout/penalty has never been a valid excluded middle.

when double ceases to be "takeout" at a certain level, it does not become "penalty," it becomes "cards."

how is partner to know it is your hand unless you can say so?

Carl

[Will in New Haven]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Here is a problem hand which happened on an cross-IMP evening, and following this, partner and I agreed that we need a rigorous way of showing various types of hands after intervention (we think the lack of a decent structure is one primary cause of our persistent poor results).
North
AK5432
A96
AK6
6
South
Q96
QJT
Q953
AT5
5 card majors, NS vuln
N E S W
1S 3C X P
3D P 3S P
4S
Unfortunately I had an awkward hand over the 3C overcall. I can show a weak shapely hand with support easily enough (bid 3S), and show a game going or better hand (4S or cue), but couldn't think of a way to show this flat 11 count with support, which wants to be in game if partner has a decent opener. I decided to improvise as best as I could and double, then show support, hoping partner would infer I held an invitational hand with 3 or 4 spades. She couldn't visualise me potentially holding a hand where every honor card is working, so we missed 6S. This was a 5 imp loss as two pairs found the slam, although given what the 3C was bid on I very much doubt they had to deal with that East bid.
1. Is there a way to distinguish between constructive and shapely support in this situation?
2. When it comes to showing support over non-jump overcalls, is there a consensus as to how to treat a direct raise and a cue bid? I've tended to use direct raises as shapely, not strong in HCP, and a cue bid as showing a constructive raise (e.g. invitational or better), or fishing for 3NT, is this a reasonable approach? I think there is something called support doubles as well but I am not familiar with them.

I think I'd rather differentiate between hand types here than strict point count. The Negative Double does not reveal the fit and may lead to a 5C bid coming back around to you when you haven't shown support. A direct 3S bid would be non-forcing and, unfortunately, wide-ranging. So, I would not bid 3S with this much. 4S is a shapely hand, willing to bid game, which is not this hand. I would bid 4C, a game bid based on high cards. We open light in all seats and partner might not make game but will know that our hand has honor cards and can make a good decision most of the time. Also, unlike 4S, the 4C bid creates a forcing pass situation.