Chamaco

Alright, I did double. Pard passed with: T93-KQ74-Qxx-KT3 We could have set the contract by 1, but I made a mistake defending that allowed to make. However, I felt the contract was way too close to defend it Xed at IMPS, and I was wondering whether my balancing double should have promised more strength than the hand I actually had i always thought that in such a sequence (I was a passed hand), a double in the bal seat could come as well from my sort of hand. My doubt were augmented by the fact I was playing with a real expert: e.g. , a player who has had national achievements in Italy and is regular partner of an ex world champion. Hence I posted here just to have some feedback on wheher my assessment about the suitability for balancing double here should be reconsidered...

Team match We are NV vs VULN. You are dealt, 1st seat: KJxx-T-Txxx-Axxx YOU....LHO.....PARD......RHO Pass...1C......Pass........1H Pass...2H......Pass.........Pass ? Do you balance or not ?

Cards, cooperative, usually showing 5 cards and a 10 count or so and at least xxx in opps suit 2) is out of the question. In case 3) I pass. BTW, if the agreement is that opener can be THAT light, then I do believe that a NFB should be more something like 8/9-12, and that the requirements for doubling to show a max are more strict.

2 thoughts about this: 1) I have more than once brought up the K&R evaluator for evaluating balanced hand. Yet I was told more than once that K&R does a decent job for unbalanced hands, but not for unbalanced hands (for which there is apparently a better hand evaluator available, but forgot which one) .... 2) It is different to evaulate this hand without other info, and with additional info... Here, we know that: a. opp overcalleed in clubs (so out values in clubs cannot be reall reevaluated, but still, tey do act as stopper) b. even more important, pard opened. If pard openerd, and we hold all the quacks, he certainly is rich in controls, and many of thses quacks will receive power from the AK of opener, hence they should not be downgraded. Shortly, had pard not opened, this hand would be poor, but once pard opens, most of the quacks get complemented by his values. For exactly the above reasons (e.g. in 1st seat we don't know if oard has useful values to complement the quacks), it is more reasonable to pass this hand in 1st seat than downgrading it to a 2NT bid after pard opens.... :)

Specifically, 1♦-1♠-1NT could be used to include hands with 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts that could not reverse, as well as 1=4=4=4 hands. This is especially useful if your style is to respond light even to a 1D opening limited to 14. I usually use the 1NT bid as a "catchall bid" for hands that cannot rebid naturally clubs or diamonds NOR have the distributional strength to reverse naturally higher than 2D. As a consequence, opener's rebid of 2C GUARANTEES 5 diamonds and 4/5 clubs, as well as the 2D rebid by opener guarantees 6+ diamons (exceptionally a GREAT 5 bagger). ============================= All in all, not such a big deal, but it's useful to be able to show 4 hearts, and it is VERY useful to be able to discriminate whether pard has a canapè ghand in the minors or whether he has longer diamonds.

Ovviamente va accordato col p, ma per quanto mi riguarda uso 10 :wub: Dipende moltissimo dallo stile di apertura, naturalmente... Mah, secondo me il problema c'è di piu' quando il valore NON viene definito, perchè l'apertore non sa mai che pesci pigliare: - quanto avrà il mio compagno per il conre ? - ha contrato pseudosputnik per i nobili con 8-9 oppure ha 10 + ? - e poi, parlando di quali pesci pigliare, srà meglio il pesce palla, il pesce spada o il pesce martello per picchiare il p ? Ah, quante domande irrisolte, e allora, caro ardf, "Kant che ti pass" ! :)

4 small in opps side suit (spades here) is usually a warning: as we have length without honors in the sidesuit, usually dummy has AKQJx or similar and declarer is short. That means he can discard quickly losers on spades if we lead passively (e.g. a trump) We need to cashout the side suit winners and not play a waiting defense. So I'll go with the club Knave

I vantaggi a difendere cntratto si evidenziano soprattuto nei casi in cui manche non sia certa. Se a 4 nobile o 3SA siamo -1, qualunque contratto contrato (concediamoci quest'alliterazione..) in cui gli avversari vanno sotto è grasso che cola.... In altre parole, è la premessa su cui non sono d'accordo: capiterà assai spesso che i contranti, a senz'atout abbiano solo 8 prese e NON 9 (oppure che abbiano solo 9 prese inn un nobile) Specialmente qualora non abbiamo un fit massiccio, e quando l'apertore ha aperto leggero, sono elementi che mi fanno propendere per difendere perchè aumentano le probabilità che la manche sia al limite. Cerro, a volte segneremo 500 anzichè 600, a volte addirittura 300 anzichè 500, e talvolta ce le stamperanno, ma capita... Credo che nel complesso la scelta % sia il passo, ma proseguirei volentieri la discussione in.. Kantina :)

I am on the same wavelength, and here is more or less my lines of thoughts. Comments are appreciated ! While I understand that some support to DBL, this sounds strange to me *when the bidding has gotten so high*. If a hand cannot DBL for takeout at his first turn, and doubles for takeout at a later round, this is usually just a competitive double. How many times do we want to us a takeout double to compete at the 4 level (usually a partscore) when pard did not show any sign of life ? Many times this just means handing opps the axe, to decide whether to double us, or, alternatively, going down undoubled but 3S was also down. Hence, I lean towards treating these 3 level balancing doubles differently from 2-level balancing double, e.g.: if my pard had an available bid at the 3-level (say opps had a HEART fit and not spades), the I would use DBL as T/o, but from 3S and higher, I think that hands that will benefit from competing at the 4+ level will be less frequent than hands that indeed want to punish. Both hand types (T/o and penalty) will probably be rare though.

I pass: 1. I do not see a source of tricks in NT (pard won't be superstrong for his bidding, so even with diamonds running, he won't have much more) , and 2. communications in hearts might be a problem, as pard is likely to hold a void.

...è difficile perché lui ha sempre ragione... :wub: Beh allora in questo caso... HAI TORTO ! ;)

Come on Ben, pull out the story behind this poll, it can't be that trivial, of course most human beings would bid 1H.... ;)

This is a matter of style, I guess. While I won't argue with the style you describe, I prefer to stick to the following: 15 balanced = frequent offshape t/o double (unless too much wasted), passing any minimum response 16-17= double then 1NT 18-20 = double then 2NT (regardless of whether it's a jump) I won't claim it never backfires, but not a disaster either, especially at MP. At IMPS Team, I confess that sometimes I miss the natural 1NT. :)

I don't know whether it is standard or not, but with such a GF 2-suiter for responder, I JUMPbid naturally the 4th suit (3H over opener's 2C rebid).

Ciao a tutti ! Fra un mesetto come sapete ci sarà il Festival di Montegrotto e immagino che parecchi amici di BBO saranno li', o almeno coloro che non preferiranno il raduno che si terrà in quei giorni a Senigallia (chiedete a Francyit per quello). Pensavo che sarebbe carino se ci fosse un modo per conoscersi, magari con un punto di incontro "sponsorizzato" da BBO (basta il logo, mica soldi!). In ogni caso, chi viene, se legge questo thread, post pure qui la sua partecipazione ! ciao Mauro

Opps are void in clubs and are likely to have a massive heart fit. I am not sure a heart is best here. I voted a diamond through dummy's strength, but upon reflection I am reconsidering the lead of the spade Ace : with most values marked in dummy, we might just need to develop tricks in spades.

Hi Mike, a question here on neg Xs in such sequences: what are opener's obligations in responding to pard's competitive t/o X at the 2 level, if holding: a ) 4333 shape + maximum hcp content + HHx in opps suit and the 4 bagger is a minor. Go for blood (penalty pass) or run to the minor? b ) a minimum hand in hcp + 4333 shape + 4 small in opps suit. Penalty pass despite xxxx in opp suit or run to a 3 card suit ?

A BBO tshirt with the nick printed on would be COOOL!! ;)

1) cue, hearts are agreed 2) serious, hearts agreed 3) kickback (or EKB) 4) either NT probe or advance cue for spades 5) cue for diamonds, slam interest

Alright but then again, how do you open the following ? :) AKJ-AQx-AKJx-AQx or AKQxxx-Ax-AKQx-x

Quello che volevo dire è che, secondo me, quando il fit non è "massiccio", molto spesso si realizza di piu' difendendo 1NT contrato anzichè dichiarando... E comunque non ti rivelerò mai come si fa la quote, perfido Ardf.... :rolleyes:

A has a minimum reverse. The number of spades is unclear, 3S might simply be a totally artificial squeeze cuebid to checkback for a club control as a NT probe. A might have a void or singleton spade. B shape is not so clear, but he should have 5+ spades without values club in clubs. 3H should be only a notrump probe. 4D is not necessaily a slam try, could be only a GF game that: - has no club stopper for NT - wants to keep 4S in the picture if A has belated spades support - has diamond support/tolerance. A typical hand for B: AJxxx-KJx-Txx-xx Not strictly. B has probably a fit for diamonds but he is likely to be looking to play 4S 3H set a GF. Don't know. If I had to guess a potential disaster, that would be that A misinterpret the 4D bid as slam interest rather than simply a way to keep 4S in the picture, and we end up in 6D down 1/2 when 4S was making. Another possible disaster is that B interprets the 3S bid as showing tolerance instead of a club stopper checkback.

IMO East's splinter is marginal but a barely acceptable minimum. The requirements for a splinter fall within the shaded area of partership discussion. However, East's 4D goes beyond my imagination LOL ... With a marginal opener, AJTx in opposite shortness and, above all, xxx in spades, keeping the auction alive is criminal, unless... well, the only justification for west, IMO, is *if* he was used to play UNLIMITED SPLINTERS (stronger than here) that commit responder to cuebid even if he has no slam interest. A bad agreement in my view but I have seen so many play that way that it would be not a surprise to know that west's choice was affected by such a reasoning.

Wow that's cool ! About 2 years ago I posted a similar hand (6322 with even worse 6cM suit), and asked to the forum posters if they would agree with my choice of opening it 1NT (to avoid rebid problems etc etc). I was literally buried by a pile of disapproving replies (except Cascade who quoted the only time he opened 1NT with a 6cM, his pard xferred to that major!!!!) :blink: Nice to see a World Class player considers it among the alternatives ;)