[maris oren]

---

---

IS N overcall of 2♠correct orshould he have bid 1 ♠?

[DavidKok]

I prefer 1♠, but 2♠ is not crazy. The hand is in the correct strength range for 2♠, and is certainly a very aggressive hand. The only downside of 2♠ is that we might belong in hearts, and bidding 1♠ followed by 2♥ might get us to hearts. Also, since we have both majors, we have decent chances of winning the partscore battle so I'm not too eager to jump about.

If the fourth heart were a small diamond this would be a picture perfect 2♠ bid. And a single flaw is perfectly acceptable for a preempt, so 2♠ is still a very accurate bid. But I like 1♠ even more. That being said, you do need good agreements to slam the brakes if partner gets all enthusiastic after hearing 2♥ if you bid both suits. Without agreements to that effect 2♠ is probably the percentage bid.

[Douglas43]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-19, 06:51, said:

I prefer 1♠, but 2♠ is not crazy. The hand is in the correct strength range for 2♠, and is certainly a very aggressive hand. The only downside of 2♠ is that we might belong in hearts, and bidding 1♠ followed by 2♥ might get us to hearts. Also, since we have both majors, we have decent chances of winning the partscore battle so I'm not too eager to jump about.

If the fourth heart were a small diamond this would be a picture perfect 2♠ bid. And a single flaw is perfectly acceptable for a preempt, so 2♠ is still a very accurate bid. But I like 1♠ even more. That being said, you do need good agreements to slam the brakes if partner gets all enthusiastic after hearing 2♥ if you bid both suits. Without agreements to that effect 2♠ is probably the percentage bid.

Good summary by David. Despite the gappy spades, I'd bid 2♠ and apologise if we miss 4♥

[Douglas43]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-19, 06:51, said:

I prefer 1♠, but 2♠ is not crazy. The hand is in the correct strength range for 2♠, and is certainly a very aggressive hand. The only downside of 2♠ is that we might belong in hearts, and bidding 1♠ followed by 2♥ might get us to hearts. Also, since we have both majors, we have decent chances of winning the partscore battle so I'm not too eager to jump about.

If the fourth heart were a small diamond this would be a picture perfect 2♠ bid. And a single flaw is perfectly acceptable for a preempt, so 2♠ is still a very accurate bid. But I like 1♠ even more. That being said, you do need good agreements to slam the brakes if partner gets all enthusiastic after hearing 2♥ if you bid both suits. Without agreements to that effect 2♠ is probably the percentage bid.

I agree with David. Good summary. I like to pre-empt so would bid 2♠ and apologise if I'm wrong

[mycroft]

Agree with David, but I lean harder on 2♠ than 1 for one simple reason - partner's a passed hand. If we belong in 4♥, it's a miracle - and 4♠ is likely to take the same tricks[*]. If they belong in 4♥, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, I'm happy to make that decision vs 3NT as hard as possible. I like it if partner push-raises to 3♠ and stops the stopper-ask cue; I like it if partner push-raises to 4♠ and goes -100 into -130, or -300 into -600.

But I take a lot of liberties opposite passed hands - both weak and strong. More than most I would expect.

I expect if hearts plays better, it's 2♥ vs 2♠, not 4; and 2♠ might just win the battle in ways that 1♠, then 2♥ after they find their fit at the 2 level, won't.

[*]The "play in the 4-4 rather than the 5-4" is because you can get a pitch. In an 18-HCP game contract, the chance you get that pitch before they take the tricks is somewhat lower than in the 32-HCP slam.

[Winstonm]

Because of the previous passes I like 2S

[P_Marlowe]

Winstonm, on 2021-December-20, 14:17, said:

Because of the previous passes I like 2S

yes, partner passing makes 2S a lot more attractive.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2021-December-20, 11:40, said:

Agree with David, but I lean harder on 2♠ than 1 for one simple reason - partner's a passed hand. If we belong in 4♥, it's a miracle - and 4♠ is likely to take the same tricks[*]. If they belong in 4♥, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, I'm happy to make that decision vs 3NT as hard as possible. I like it if partner push-raises to 3♠ and stops the stopper-ask cue; I like it if partner push-raises to 4♠ and goes -100 into -130, or -300 into -600.

But I take a lot of liberties opposite passed hands - both weak and strong. More than most I would expect.

I expect if hearts plays better, it's 2♥ vs 2♠, not 4; and 2♠ might just win the battle in ways that 1♠, then 2♥ after they find their fit at the 2 level, won't.

[*]The "play in the 4-4 rather than the 5-4" is because you can get a pitch. In an 18-HCP game contract, the chance you get that pitch before they take the tricks is somewhat lower than in the 32-HCP slam.

Quite. I would not bid 2♠ opposite an unpassed hand.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2021-December-21, 05:10, said:

Quite. I would not bid 2♠ opposite an unpassed hand.

Mycroft and I are divided by a common language, but I think he is saying that he would.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2021-December-20, 11:40, said:

Agree with David, but I lean harder on 2♠ than 1 for one simple reason - partner's a passed hand. If we belong in 4♥, it's a miracle - and 4♠ is likely to take the same tricks[*]. If they belong in 4♥, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, I'm happy to make that decision vs 3NT as hard as possible. I like it if partner push-raises to 3♠ and stops the stopper-ask cue; I like it if partner push-raises to 4♠ and goes -100 into -130, or -300 into -600.

But I take a lot of liberties opposite passed hands - both weak and strong. More than most I would expect.

I expect if hearts plays better, it's 2♥ vs 2♠, not 4; and 2♠ might just win the battle in ways that 1♠, then 2♥ after they find their fit at the 2 level, won't.

[*]The "play in the 4-4 rather than the 5-4" is because you can get a pitch. In an 18-HCP game contract, the chance you get that pitch before they take the tricks is somewhat lower than in the 32-HCP slam.

The most likely reason 4♥ makes and 4♠ doesn't would be that you're off a heart ruff in spades, but not a spade ruff in hearts (do you open Ax, Qxxxxx, Ax, xxx ?) but yes it's a pretty small target, auto 2♠ for us.

[Winstonm]

P_Marlowe, on 2021-December-21, 03:43, said:

yes, partner passing makes 2S a lot more attractive.

Not only parter but your LHO could not open and 2S forces a call at the 3-level which may be too rich for that hand.

[DavidKok]

I'm not too concerned about 4♥, I'm more concerned about 2♥ or 3♥ being par. If it goes (P)-P-(1♣)-2♠; (X/2NT/3m)-? partner will never compete while holding hearts, when that might be right. If we take the slow route we can still get to 2♠. But I do think 2♠ immediately is a fine bid.

[mycroft]

No, I agree with Vampyr, well at least mostly. I'd think about bidding 2♠ if partner wasn't a passed hand, but almost certainly wouldn't do it. With one of my regular partners, it would be a violation of partnership agreements; with the rest, it would just be "my fault if I was wrong". Which I don't mind - I'm very happy to take the blame for whatever I choose to do - but "when in doubt, make the call that doesn't lose the postmortem" applies.

Passed hand, though - "he has 13 cards, some of which are spades".

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-December-22, 09:59, said:

No, I agree with Vampyr, well at least mostly. I'd think about bidding 2♠ if partner wasn't a passed hand, but almost certainly wouldn't do it.

Thanks, so my vision of you leaning harder on the sturdier crutch was off the mark
I think you're right about partnership trust and expectations being a major factor here: with one partner I would probably follow my instinct to bid 2♠ (he understands and will not punish me in the auction or postmortem) but with another one no way.

[mycroft]

Missed David's last post in transit.

I agree - if 2♥ (or 3♥) is par, we're not finding it over 2♠. But after 1♠ and competition (which he's assuming over 2♠, and is more likely at the 1 level), if they have a fit, you're not playing 2♥ either. You might not even get a chance to bid hearts, for example:

• p-p-1♣-1♠; 3♣, passing much more information than 3♣ over 2♠;
  
• p-p-1♣-1♠; 2♣-p-3♣. Sure, if partner doesn't pass, you are ahead. For instance, 2♠ (you're never finding hearts, but not likely to matter) or X. But pass is still very likely;
  
• p-p-1♣-1♠; X-p/2♠-3♦.

And that's not even when dealer bids 2♠ over 1♠ (sure, 3♠ over 2♠, but that's also harder to comfortably do, and has to put both "I have a good club raise" and "I'm hoping for a spade stopper" into the same call).

I'm not saying that 2♠ is clearly right; it's not. This hand, 1 could be correct, for many reasons (who knows, partner may have a "couldn't open 2♦" hand, especially if our system's 2♦ opening isn't natural, and our best spot is in diamonds!) But this looks like a preempt auction to me, not a "win the constructive" auction. In other words, I'm going to try to beat the field/par by having them guess wrong rather than leaving me the opportunity to guess right.