[Jinksy]

MPs, scratch partnership:

---

An ok game at IMPs I suppose, but at MPs we don't want to be in it, esp after W's overcall.

[wank]

north doesn't have a double. wouldn't he be far happier defending 2h than playing 2s or 2nt?

[aguahombre]

The negative double by North not only should show the other two suits (or length in Diamonds) but also somewhere near the values to compete to the 3-level. North has the first, but not the second.

South's 4S (or some equivalent toy) rebid opposite a real negative double would be automatic.

[steve2005]

 Jinksy, on 2015-June-13, 17:25, said:

An ok game at IMPs I suppose, but at MPs we don't want to be in it, esp after W's overcall.

I disagree, the overcall improves North's hand considerably, their Kings are basically Aces. The problem is their still way too short to be inviting partner to play at the 3-level with such poor minor suits.

[Jinksy]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-13, 19:17, said:

The negative double by North not only should show the other two suits (or length in Diamonds) but also somewhere near the values to compete to the 3-level. North has the first, but not the second.

South's 4S (or some equivalent toy) rebid opposite a real negative double would be automatic.

I would have agreed thoroughly with this until recently, but I've seen some threads where eg Justin advocated making neg X's after 2/1 overcalls on (IIRC, don't remember exact details unfortunately) what looked to me like unremarkable 5 counts. Maybe those were emphasising an unbid major?

[Jinksy]

 steve2005, on 2015-June-13, 20:41, said:

I disagree, the overcall improves North's hand considerably, their Kings are basically Aces. The problem is their still way too short to be inviting partner to play at the 3-level with such poor minor suits.

I meant looking at the NS hands together.

[steve2005]

 Jinksy, on 2015-June-14, 03:02, said:

I meant looking at the NS hands together.

South has his bid, has no reason to be ashamed of 4♠ unless partnership agreement is to do high-level negative doubles on 6 pts

[helene_t]

 Jinksy, on 2015-June-13, 17:25, said:

An ok game at IMPs I suppose

No, IMPs nonvulnerable is very similar to matchpoints. And this contract basically requires that opps make a mistake. Even if ♠K is onside doubleton you still need diamonds to be 3-2 so that you have an entry to the dummy and don't suffer a diamond ruff.

IMHO the negative double was a tad too aggresive. But it is also a bit unlucky that South's singleton heart is a burden (since it mean that ♥K is not an entry).

[KurtGodel]

The negative double is crazy, why bid with wasted values in the opponent's suit, no tolerance for partner's first suit and rubbish minor suit holdings? The comment made that the kings sitting over the overcaller were 'basically aces' is proven wrong on the layout! The kings are sitting over, so they can both score, that doesn't really stop the opponents cashing their aces though.

[Jinksy]

 helene_t, on 2015-June-15, 03:10, said:

No, IMPs nonvulnerable is very similar to matchpoints. And this contract basically requires that opps make a mistake. Even if ♠K is onside doubleton you still need diamonds to be 3-2 so that you have an entry to the dummy and don't suffer a diamond ruff.

IMHO the negative double was a tad too aggresive. But it is also a bit unlucky that South's singleton heart is a burden (since it mean that ♥K is not an entry).

Yeah, I hadn't even noticed the D problem. At the table, W wasn't above cashing his three aces and exiting to start off with, so I didn't have much thinking to do in the play.

[billw55]

Interesting. I would make the negative double, but only bid 3♠ as south.

[MrAce]

4♠ by south is normal.

This does not mean N's double was awful. It is a bit light but if he had

K
xx
Kxxxx
xxxxx

It would work just fine.

[aguahombre]

 billw55, on 2015-June-15, 12:23, said:

Interesting. I would make the negative double, but only bid 3♠ as south.

That is circular. Opposite someone who would make the negative double committing to the 3-level without the hand to match the bidding, you indeed might only bid 3♠.

[billw55]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-15, 14:33, said:

That is circular. Opposite someone who would make the negative double committing to the 3-level without the hand to match the bidding, you indeed might only bid 3♠.

Working as intended

Yes, these two (mis)understandings are compatible with each other.

[kenberg]

After the X by N, I as South would bid 4S. For example, if you trade the diamonds K for the diamond A in the N and W hands, the contract has good chances (looking at NS) and makes as the cards would then lie.

As to N, the heart K turns out to be absolutely worthless although Kx after an overcall on your right often has some value. Still, I would pass. Or at least I think that I would. Most likely I will get a chance to come in later, and if I don't that may be fine.

EW can and will make 3H, and NS can and will make 3S so NS have to find there way to their contract and they have to double 4H if it is bid. It's a bit delicate. But starting with a pass by N seems right to me.

Of course doubling with the N hand and bidding only 3S with the S hand would work also, but I have consulted my Northern clone and we prefer the other way.

[rmnka447]

There's lots of distribution for North, but few points and little trick taking potential. It's not nearly enough to make a call when the next bid is likely to be at the 3 level. Pass is clearly indicated.