bid_em_up

Disagree all you wish, but..... How can you expect to reach good contracts if you don't make correct bids? Bidding 2C and then 3C is MORE likely to induce partner into now correctly bidding 3N. And thats my point.

Huh? Was it not yourself said in post #3? Now you say that bidding over a weak 3♣ with the 15-17 clearly borders on overexuberancy? Hum.. well, since bidding over a weak 3♣ with the bal 15-17 clearly borders on over-exuberancy, I thought cherdano was mentioning the 18-19 hand :) Mikes point is....bidding 2C then 3C will ENCOURAGE when he holds the 15-17 hand, not discourage. The 15-17 hand should pass an immediate preemptive raise of 3C. If the 15-17 hand gets happy/overexuberant, it is their problem. Your objective should be to make the correct bid on YOUR hand. If partner gets carried away, thats their problem. If its a regular partnership, you explain why they need to pass. If its a random player, you move on knowing you made the correct bid. The given hand is either a pass or 3C. Nothing else even comes close.

And btw, as long as we're on a correcting other peoples spelling binge, I'm not positive but according to the WBF website (along with a bunch of others), its.... Hemant Lall, not Hemanth. ;) (I suppose Justin can verify which it actually is).

Well, whether you like it or not you are in the balancing seat, so if you bid, you balance. On a different note it is interesting to see that everyone seems to be worried about making game either way (pass or 2♣). Would anyone consider the danger of going for a large number if you bid? Roland I'm not overly concerned about going for a large number (at least not at the two level). If opener doubles me, it is takeout and would have to be left in by RHO. RHO has already passed 1♠ so is relatively broke (and probably has spade tolerance). It is unlikely that he will be willing to defend. (yes, he may hold 5 or 6 clubs as well....its just unlikely). It will be almost impossible for RHO to double if it goes 2C p p. He has no idea how strong his partner really is. It can always happen though. Here, I would be more concerned with either 1) opponents finding a heart fit, or 2) partner getting carried away in competing, and THEN going for a number. I dont like the stiff heart K, so its close as to whether I balance or not. It somewhat depends on my opposition (and my partner). So, I voted sometimes. jmoo.

Yes, there are pairs who use pass here to say "I want to defend this contract". Mikeh treats the pass of XX this way, I think. See the thread here. I play it this way also in my established partnerships. However, it is not the norm.

Where did I ever call it a penalty double? Geez. Stop assuming stuff that isnt written. If queried, I would explain it as "values/competive" exactly as you state.

Sorry Mike, it just rubbed me the wrong way. As a "star", your opinion, by its very nature, will carry more weight than most other posters on these boards. When I see this: "Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call." written by you, I read it as saying, "I think that balancing here is as dumb as bidding 7N blind" or "anyone who balances here might also open 7N blind" and there is a world of difference in the two calls. One is a decision that can be based on experience/logic and there are merits to either side (balancing or not) and can be discussed/argued rationally. Bidding 7N blind is just plain silly and might work 0.000001% of the time, if that frequently. It was the comparison of the two that annoyed me, and not that you think pass should be automatic. My experience has been that it pays to balance in these situations based on LOTT principles. Now if I was playing vs. Benito, or Lauria, or possibly even yourself <_<, of course, I would pass......but, for us normal folks.....it is unlikely the opposition will have the methods available to them to actually double us for penalties, and for both players to be absolutely certain that the double is penalty. At matchpoints, I think this becomes even more of a factor, because balancing either works.....or it doesnt. 50% one way or another. If it loses, you lose one board, but....you are probably not getting many mp's for 1N making 1 or 2 anyway. If you are beating 1N, you will have to beat it by at least 3 tricks undoubled, since you are probably making whatever two level contract you bid. If partner leaves the double in, you are almost always winning the board, regardless of whether they sit or run. But if you can buy the contract at the two level undoubled.....you rate to win a bunch of mp's, even if you go down one or two. It is only if you get doubled and go down two or more that you have a problem.

I dont play multi, so I dont pretend to know the "correct" answer. In the few times I have encountered this sequence at the table, the opponents have always explained as "Pass or Correct".....so thats what I voted for. <_< It makes more sense that it should be to play, as they should have some forcing method to find out openers suit.

edit: In auctions two/three, this makes sense, as your side is known to hold values and have not totally limited your hands, while their side consists of a preemptor and a passed hand. In auction one, imo, pass is non-committal, but it should also imply spade tolerance (2 or 3). You would double with spade stiff or void, and bid 5♠ with 4 spades. However, I would not expect partner to let them play 5H undoubled if I pass, since we have two unlimited hands in this auction, so in that since, yes it is forcing.

Start rethinking then. Balancing here rates to work more often than not. Your side has 1/2 the deck (approximately). Now try thinking in LOTT terms. The odds are your side also has an 8 card trump fit somewhere. Do you really think its correct to defend under these circumstances? It cant be. While you can't read a lot into partners failure to bid over 1N, you can draw some inferences......he does not hold a hand that would qualify for a bid otherwise. So, he can still hold a hand that is 5-5, or has a 6+ card suit but wont show it holding only his expected 5 hcp. You may also still have an 8+ card fit somewhere. If you pass, you will (normally) be gaining at most +100 vs. your anticipated 110/130/140. This is going to lose more frequently than it wins. Additionally, the aces and kings are suit oriented and primed for playing, not defending. For years, I passed this hand in the balancing position with average results. Over the last two years, I have begun balancing after 1N p p on almost any hand holding 10+ hcp. The results have been overwhelmingly favorable. Of course, there will be a few times where it does not work out well, but that comes with the decision to make any call. But I will take a few -100/180/300/380 vs. a LOT of -50, +110, +130', +200, +300, +500 all year long and be way ahead at the end of the year. I dont think anyone said that an X in passout was penalty. It can, however, be converted to penalty and will be frequently with a competent partner. As a side note to you personally, Mike, while you may be a "star", it doesn't mean your opinion is the correct one. Please be a little more considerate before saying stupid crap like this: Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call. There is a HUGE difference in the two situations and you damn well know it. To imply otherwise is complete and utter hogwash. And while pass may seem automatic to you....you provide no real basis for your assumption/opinion. Whereas, I can show several good reasons why either bidding or doubling MAY be correct (I also noted that I would do so, knowing that it may turn out poorly). Pass MAY also be correct (and it can also work out poorly), and I wouldn't fault it.....but I sure as hell wouldnt be as quick to bash someone with idiotic statements like the one you made there if they chose to balance. (edited after reading mikes response below) <_< Now, of course, this is JUST MY OWN OPINION, and I am not a "star". But I also know from experience that it works. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

The answer to this question is somewhat dependent on your partnership style (and system) on bids in the direct seat over 1N, and what you know by partners failure to make a call already. Assume for a moment, you play Cappelletti. You know partner does not have a major/minor hand, does not have both majors and does not have a one suited hand (or if he does, the suit is so bad, he refused to bid it). So he is most likely balanced. You can draw similar inferences from whatever NT defense you play. What do you know about RHO? Probably less than 8 hcp, and will not have both majors (no stayman), and its unlikely they have a 5+ card major (no transfer). Now, you have 14 hcp, and the NT bidder has 15-17 which means 29-31 hcp are accounted for. Now where is partner going to go, if you double? In 4/5 instances, there is no problem. If partner bids spades, he almost has to have 5+. Good partnerships will, imo, bid 2♣ on a 4-3-3-3 hand if they are pulling the double. If they are not 4-3-3-3, and do not have a 5+ card suit, they will have two four card suits, and would have bid the lower one first. So 2♠ denies a lower 4 card suit and must be 5+. I'm not afraid of playing 2S in this instance either. And I would love to be able to defend 1N doubled, if possible. I have found that it is almost never correct to defend 1N undoubled when we are both not vulnerable. If we manage to beat it two tricks, we are +100 vs. our likely 110 and losing at MP. If we are in 2x -1 (or -2), it will beat their 90 or 120, because in most cases, they will not be able to double us. So now, the only decision for me is....do i bid 2D (I play that calls are natural in balance for this reason) or do I double? If my hand was Kxx AKx xxxx Axx, I would double without a problem. If the diamond suit was any better, I would bid 2D with no problem. Here, because double give us the best shot at all of our alternatives, I will double......knowing that it could possibly turn out badly. jmoo.

Why does it appear (to me anyway) that everyone thinks that this line only includes Kx xx on the right? It includes ANY doubleton spade, doubleton heart on the right. If righty ruffs the 3rd heart small, you overruff, ruff a club in dummy, and play a 4th heart, pitching your losing diamond. If righty ruffs the 3rd heart with the K, well obviously, you pitch your diamond.

so it is.....not awake yet.

To add to Frances line #1: Line 1: Ace of diamonds Ace of trumps Hearts Line 1 needs: - Singleton SK (12.4%) or - hearts 3-2, plus i) Kx of spades with the doubleton heart (14%), or ii) Kxx spades on my right with the doubleton heart (7%) iii) singleton spade with the doubleton heart (11%) This line also wins whenever: iv) xx spades xx heart onside (its not clear if Frances was including this in (i) above) v) the hand with 3 hearts also holds 3 spades. Overall, this has to be the winning percentage line.

Hesham. sceptic's reply said "you may be a sex pest" (not you are). You, in this sense, meant anyone signed into BBO (not you specifically). He was providing a reason why it is not a good idea to have your gender included on your profile. I seriously doubt that it was intended as a personal assault on you, but instead just a poor choice of phrasing his sentiment. The second time it is used (I am now convinced....) appears to me as sarcasm. Again, he is attempting to show why this is not a good idea. I think his choice of wording was not the best, but I also think you have made some invalid assumptions regarding the nature of his response. I believe that your suggestion is not a good one, but that is simply my own opinion. Someone else may like the idea.

It did not gain. It tied. Had you just played bridge and not bid the slam (as you stated that your gut feeling was the slam would fail), then you would have gained. <_<

I think you should rebid 2N (or 3N) over 2S (not 3H). If partner had 4 hearts, wouldnt he have shown them over 2D? You have stops in all the side suits, show them. (This, of course, assumes that in Fantunes, 2N/3N have no other special meanings....I dont play it, so I dont know if it does or not). Now 3D (or possibly 4C splinter; should agree diamonds) by partner would set diamonds as trumps. Problem solved. Jmoo.

I think you said this backwards (even if unintentionally). I would expect an abnormally high number of hands of 16+ hcp to HELP the strong clubbers, while the 9-12 hands will hurt them. Not the other way around (as it appears you stated). Likewise, an disproportionally high number of opening bids by the opponents (preemptive or otherwise) will tend to reduce the overall effectiveness of the strong clubbers as well, imo.

I would have bid 3D directly over 3C. Since I evidently forgot to, I will bid it now. I cannot be certain that we have enough tricks to beat 3C (althought its tempting to leave the double in).

And unfortunately, if the smallest of problems can never be fixed, how can one hope for the larger problems to ever be corrected?

I realize that I'm in the minority here, but I am more concerned with the possibility of 3N going down, than I am about the overtrick(s) in 3N. Especially when partner can be 2-5-4-2 or 2-5-2-4 as explained by the original poster. I'm bidding 4♥.

As others have said, do not pass the X, thereby converting it to penalties. 1♦ is the best call, imo, for several reasons. It will right-side any major suit or NT contract. It will not overly excite partner. It will not cause partner to misjudge a major suit fit. It will allow you to PASS 1H or 1S if you choose to do so (I would, the minimum count and flat distribution is enough to deter me from the raise), whereas bidding 1H or 1S is almost certainly going to get you raised to 2M, which may not be makeable. (And if it is, 1M+1 still scores the same as 2M, last time I checked.) If forced to make a second choice of call, it would be 1N, not 1H or 1S. The hand is flat with no ruffing values, it contains scattered values, and it has some semblence of a club stop (10xxx). 1N is certainly more descriptive of the hand than either 1H or 1S is, imo.

I dont, but I know for a fact that one of my partners wishes frequently that he could have another version of himself as his partner. I'll leave the puns/jokes about this to others. B)

No dashes? Whats this world coming to? What's next? Removal of the lowly underscore? Please please please, I beg you, whatever you do, dont eliminate my underscore. I would lose my whole identity. Then who would I be? I know that "bidemup" is already taken as an ID by someone else. Would I then turn into a doppleganger and become him? Her? Ayyyyyy. My head hurts just to think about it. (Of course, thinking about anything is prone to making my head hurt.) B)

First, I would have cuebid 4♣ or 4♦ with this hand (instead of 4♠) confirming it is our hand, now pass would be 100% forcing. Having failed to cuebid, pass over 5♦ on the given auction should be forcing. 2♦ is limited, 3♦ is limited, and you voluntarily bid game over this (and the 2♠ raise can be pretty much any hand containing 3+ spades for some people). You are not taking an advance sac, you are bidding with the expectations of making, which creates a forcing pass situation. I would expect to make 5♠ opposite any hand that had a legitimate 2♠ bid more often than not (I wouldnt even rule 6♠ out of the question yet). But.....whenever you are unsure how partner is going to treat a forcing pass....double is usually best. If you are not willing to play at the 5 level, the immediate double is best. In this case, I'm willing to play 5♠ if partner bids it instead of doubling 5♦. If partner manages to cuebid the A♥ over the forcing pass, I will bid 6♠ and fully expect to make.