do you balance ?

[temp3600]

You hold AT8x - Q98 - 98xx - A9, no one vulnerable at IMPs, and the bidding goes :

(1♦) - p - (1NT) - p

(p) - ?

 

Opponents' 1♦ promises at least 4, or 3 with 4=4=3=2 exactly. 1NT denies a 4-card major.

 

What do you do now ?

 

Bonus question : More generally, what kind of hands with no 5-card suit and less than 14 HCP would you pass 1♦ and subsequently balance with after this sequence ?

 

Michael

[joker_gib]

Pass

 

Without 5 card suit, I must be short in ♦ and accept all other suits to balance.

 

Alain

[Winstonm]

Without shape and a compelling reason to do so, there's no sense in giving the opponents the option of whacking us for -500 against nothing on for them.

 

To balance here with a double would to me mean a hand unsuited to a first round t.o. double: AQxx, KJxx, AJxx, x.

 

Winston

[pigpenz]

this would be more of a problem at matchpoints

[pbleighton]

I would have bid 1S the first time.

 

Now I must pass.

 

Peter

[mikeh]

pass

 

seems clear, even at mps I'd pass: but I'd feel worse about it. At imps, I have no worries: doesn't mean I am not going to lose on the board, but so what? Pass looks like the percentage action.

[hrothgar]

White versus white is a bad time to stick my nose in a no-fit auction.

Pretty easy pass...

[MickyB]

I'd have said white vs white was the best time - you are still gaining a couple of imps if one contract makes and the other is one off. Are you concerned that they may have hands just shy of looking for game NV, that would have bid more strongly vulnerable?

[hrothgar]

I'd have said white vs white was the best time - you are still gaining a couple of imps if one contract makes and the other is one off. Are you concerned that they may have hands just shy of looking for game NV, that would have bid more strongly vulnerable?

White versus white is one of the most attractive times for penalty doubles

+500 outscores a game

+300 is a great score

 

Plus the opponents do silly things non-vulnerable...

[Fluffy]

Pass now, and the only thing I Can find wich I would reopen having a 5 card suit is a major with 9xxxx, that I didn't liek to bid first round.

[Blofeld]

I'd have said white vs white was the best time - you are still gaining a couple of imps if one contract makes and the other is one off. Are you concerned that they may have hands just shy of looking for game NV, that would have bid more strongly vulnerable?

White versus white is one of the most attractive times for penalty doubles

+500 outscores a game

+300 is a great score

 

Plus the opponents do silly things non-vulnerable...

While I agree that white on white is one of the most attractive times to make penalty doubles, the reversal doesn't follow - we shouldn't be most worried about penalty doubles when white/white.

 

If opponents were perfect, then no time would be particularly more attractive than another to try to take penalties, as they'd adjust their style to keep your expected score to a minimum. This breaks down because opponents misjudge things, and in particular tend to be too aggressive when white/white. However, when we're looking at this hand and asking what to do, we should be regarding the vulnerability as pointing us towards acting (cf. Mike's arithmetic). On the other hand, we should possibly be taking it less seriously than many people do (the people who go overboard and make white/white a nice time for blood).

 

That said, I'm going to pass here and I can't think of many hands I'd bid on. Perhaps double should be penalty of diamonds here?

[Winstonm]

I'd have said white vs white was the best time - you are still gaining a couple of imps if one contract makes and the other is one off. Are you concerned that they may have hands just shy of looking for game NV, that would have bid more strongly vulnerable?

White versus white is one of the most attractive times for penalty doubles

+500 outscores a game

+300 is a great score

 

Plus the opponents do silly things non-vulnerable...

Great post! I've tried to argue this concept in the past with no avail - white verses white is NOT a safe vulnerability. At imps, the opponents will not be stretching to bid close games and are more than willing to bypass an iffy +400 for a virtual certain +300. And when that -300 goes up to -500 verses a +120 from your teammates, it's awfully difficult to explain the reasoning of this loss - what were you trying to gain?

 

Winston

[Al_U_Card]

I will pass thru-out and wonder why pard led the CQ or J and when I overtake, should I switch......

[Double !]

PASS:

 

re question 2: FWIW, I play 13-16 1NT overcalls not vul to help reduce the number of times that I am faced with the dilemma of what to do given a similar auction in the "balancing seat". I have had success with this method.

DHL

[mikestar]

... Perhaps double should be penalty of diamonds here?

Exactly. Kaplan defined this double as a diamond trap hand in Competitve Bidding in Modern Bridge and no one has covinced me that it should be for takeout. No new suits have been bid, so if you have the right shape for double now, you had it on the last turn and if you were to weak to force partner to bid at the 1 level you are too weak to force him to bid at the 2 level on a non-fit auction.

[Kalvan14]

... Perhaps double should be penalty of diamonds here?

Exactly. Kaplan defined this double as a diamond trap hand in Competitve Bidding in Modern Bridge and no one has covinced me that it should be for takeout. No new suits have been bid, so if you have the right shape for double now, you had it on the last turn and if you were to weak to force partner to bid at the 1 level you are too weak to force him to bid at the 2 level on a non-fit auction.

The only real difference is tha you are now in the balancing seat. So, a double does not promise a trap pass in diamonds. It is a t/o.

However, the points are a bit short, and distribution is quite unappetizing.

At IMPs it is a clear pass. At MP, it depends. It will be a spur-of-the-moment decision

[temp3600]

Thank you for your replies.

 

Michael