How good is your hand?

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s32hj8743daj9ck74]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣ p p 2♠

p ?

 

2S is constructive and invitational - what do you do now?

 

[/hv]

[Guest Jlall]

close one, NV I think I'll pass but could easily miss a low HCP game if pard has the right cards (6 solid spades and the DK for instance).

[Winstonm]

close one, NV I think I'll pass but could easily miss a low HCP game if pard has the right cards (6 solid spades and the DK for instance).

This has always puzzled me about truly gifted players - when it comes to close calls such as this it seems the options are either 2 or 4: what about 3? Seems to me that the 7 imp loss is more likely to be avoided if we invite partner's participation in the auction rather than making a unilater decision - 3 rates to make almost as often as exacly 2 and keeps 4 in place. Or would 3S bid a better hand?

 

Winston

[pbleighton]

"This has always puzzled me about truly gifted players - when it comes to close calls such as this it seems the options are either 2 or 4: what about 3? Seems to me that the 7 imp loss is more likely to be avoided if we invite partner's participation in the auction rather than making a unilater decision - 3 rates to make almost as often as exacly 2 and keeps 4 in place. Or would 3S bid a better hand?"

 

I would pass too. 3S would be invitational for me, and opposite a not strong hand, this hand isn't good enough for an invite - although it is close. Red at IMPs I would invite.

 

Peter

[mcphee]

Passing is out of the question, I think you are far too good to pass. I think I would bid 3C and hope to hear 3N or 4S either of which delights me. I'd like to bid 2N but fear wrong siding the NT when unable to run 6 S tricks.

[pclayton]

Very close! Part of this issue may be how you play 2♠. If its 12-15, then I think you should move. If its 11-13, I think its a pass.

 

And its hard to tell what our game is - 4♠ / 4♥ or 3N....

 

But say 2N is non-forcing and invitational (I can see an Ogust application here). Are there hands that pard would accept that make a good game?

 

1. AKJxxx, Axx, Kxx, x is a non-fitting max. 10 tricks looks likely in hearts or spades.

 

2. AQJxxx, KTx, KQx, x is really non-fitting. We need some really good luck in spades or hearts.

 

3. AKQxxx, xx, xx, Ax is also great.

 

4. KQTxxx, AQx, xx, Ax is great for 4♥, so-so for 4♠.

 

I think I'll try 2N, since there are too many hands where game is excellent.

[pbleighton]

"Very close! Part of this issue may be how you play 2♠. If its 12-15, then I think you should move. If its 11-13, I think its a pass."

 

Agree. I assumed 11-bad 13 because of the description of the bid as "constructive and invitational".

 

Peter

[mikeh]

This has always puzzled me about truly gifted players - when it comes to close calls such as this it seems the options are either 2 or 4: what about 3?  Seems to me that the 7 imp loss is more likely to be avoided if we invite partner's participation in the auction rather than making a unilater decision - 3 rates to make almost as often as exacly 2 and keeps 4 in place.  Or would 3S bid a better hand?

 

Winston

At the risk of attributing to Justin reasoning that he would not accept, I don't think that experts routinely take the position of game or pass in these situations. However, I suspect that many experts make the 'middle' bid a little less frequently than would the average player (including experts who have a different view), because they expect partner to accept invites aggressively. So they want to be heavy to invite, and yet both experts and others would need approximately the same strength to force to game. Thus experts who bid this way will tend to invite on a narrower range of hands than would most others. This is especially true when non-vulnerable, as here.

 

It may also be that the expectation for the reopening bid is different: see below.

 

I think the bid is close. I would give up on looking for a ♥ game: I think that any attempt to reach ♥ will create unnecessary complications. I also reject any effort to reach 3N, unless partner can suggest it. For me, it is close between 3♠ and pass.

 

I choose pass, because most hands that offer a good play for game would start with double, not 2♠. Note that a balancing double followed by a new suit is a lot different from a direct double followed by a suit: especially after a 1♣ opening: there is zero risk that I will unduly preempt partner's AKJxxx Axx Kx xx hand: I would double with that and then bid a minimum number of ♠.

[han]

Pass seems clear to me. Note that even the perfect hand that Justin gives makes game on a finesse at best (in the case that partner does not have 3 hearts). Given that there are 18 missing HCP's west could easily have the diamond queen.

 

 

I don't think that you need to be an expert bridge player to understand that frequent invites is theoretically wrong.

[mike777]

Pass

1) P needs a 5 LTC hand to make game.

2) I am going to estimate only 9 tricks in "FTL"

13-5+1=9 tricks

13=total tricks

minus 5=estimated combined 2 shortest suits.

Plus one=estimated combined 22-24 working hcp.

3) we are nv

4) invite heavy, accept lite.

[luis]

3♦ values in diamonds and invitational.

[whereagles]

This depends on partnership requirements for what a balancing jump overcall shows. "Constructive and invitational" is far too vague for me to make an appropriate judgement of my hand.

[tysen2k]

This depends on partnership requirements for what a balancing jump overcall shows. "Constructive and invitational" is far too vague for me to make an appropriate judgement of my hand.

Same here.

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakj1064hk10dq1074cq]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Balancer's hand. Range discussion was invitational and worth 14-16.[/hv]

[Kalvan14]

Over a 14-16 range, this hand is worth an invite. IMHO, 2N is probably the best solution.

[han]

"constructive and invitational" = 14-16 ??

[awm]

Can anyone explain why it's standard for a balancing jump to 2♠ to show an intermediate (or better) hand? Besides the confusion that this treatment seems to create for partner (mostly because people don't play intermediate jump shifts in other positions and have trouble evaluating their hands) what is the advantage?

 

I'm sure we would all balance over 1♣ with a hand like:

 

KQJxxx

Kxx

xxx

x

 

Doesn't it make more sense to bid 2♠ with hands like these, where your minimum strength increases the odds that opener has extras and might want to compete? This also nicely deters partner from making an unfortunate call in a search for a game contract that isn't there (for example a jump to 2NT on a balanced 13-14) and partner's evaluation problem is made easier since the balancing 2♠ looks a lot like a vulnerable preempt.

 

Just something I've always been confused about...

[han]

Adam,

 

I have never seen your suggestion before, but I suspect that it is quite playable (as long as you have the range well defined). You could have a problem with hands like AKJ10xx AJx xxx x, this is quite a good hand for a simple balancing overcall and not good enough to double first. The jump to 2M works well for these hands I think.

 

 

I also have never seen the range 14-16 before, and I'm not sure why one would want to jump with such strong hands. It seems to me that with a 15 pts and a good 6-card suit you can just double first. What is the reason for this treatment Winston?

[mikeh]

Adam raised an interesting point.

 

I have given it a little thought and would be pleased to read other points of view.

 

It seems to me that we use intermediate balances out of habit more than anything: certainly that is true for me :P

 

Having now thought about it a bit: I suggest that maybe we should distinguish between balances in suits higher ranking than opener's and those lower ranking.

 

I see Adam's point about using a reopening 2♠ as, say, the values for a vulnerable weak two bid, with the bigger hands shown by double.

 

However, assume an opening of 1♥ and we hold, in 4th chair, a good 3=1=6=3.

 

If we double, we run the risk of getting overboard if partner has an unsurprising hand with long ♥ and close to an overcall of 1♠.

 

If we reopen with a simple overcall, we run the risk that partner will have to hold back out of a realistic fear that we have a more normal minimum balance, especially if his holding in our suit is dubious.

 

 

So I see a real need for intermediate jump overcalls in a suit that we could not bid at the one-level: and a stronger need in the minors than in ♥.

 

Personally, I am going to stick with intermediate in all cases (I'm too lazy to try to persuade my partners to change to an untested theory), but I will try to watch for hands that could be treated differently and by that means build up a sort of database from which to drawa conclusions.

[han]

I see Adam's point about using a reopening 2♠ as, say, the values for a vulnerable weak two bid, with the bigger hands shown by double.

 

I'm not sure if this was Adam's suggestion, but I don't think that it will work. You will be doubling on far too many hands and you won't be able to show the really good ones.

[Al_U_Card]

Seems to me it was just a logical way of differentiating the hand types

balance with a bid<balance with a jump<balance with a double and then bid

[Winstonm]

It's not good to lump too many bids into the "double" umbrella in 4th seat. To use a jump to show an opening weak 2 bid seems less valuable because partner did not act so is less likely to hold a hand and there is no one left to preempt other than opener. By using a jump to show a certain goodish hand with a good suit, you can eliminate that hand from double and bid - any time you can eliminate a hand type you have narrowed the range of possible hands that any bid might show.

 

For example, how would you bid these two hands in passout?

 

AK9xx, xx, Axx, Kxx

 

AKJ10xx, xx, AQxx, x

 

If you double and bid spades with both, and partner holds: xx, Axx, xxxx, AJxx, how does he know when to move? He should get interested knowing partner holds hand 2 but not so much with hand 1. When you can eliminate the pressure of what suit should be trump then you only have to decide how high to bid.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it.

 

Winston

[han]

Winston,

 

I think I agree with you, but you seem to be making a case against yourself:

 

To use a jump to show an opening weak 2 bid seems less valuable because partner did not act so is less likely to hold a hand and there is no one left to preempt other than opener.

 

No one left to preempt except opener... that's good right?

 

For example, how would you bid these two hands in passout?

 

AK9xx, xx, Axx, Kxx

 

AKJ10xx, xx, AQxx, x

 

If you double and bid spades with both, and partner holds: xx, Axx, xxxx, AJxx, how does he know when to move? He should get interested knowing partner holds hand 2 but not so much with hand 1.

 

I don't get your point. Are you playing that the jump to 2♠ is *stronger* than double followed by 2♠ over 2♣?? That seems impossible, what do you do with 5-2-3-3 hands that are quite a bit better than hand 1?

[awm]

Honestly it wouldn't occur to me that I should double first in passout seat with 14-15 hcp and the "wrong" shape for a takeout double, just to show strength.

 

How light do people balance? My expectation is that when the auction goes 1m-pass-pass to me and my hand isn't particularly good, partner usually has something like 11-14 balanced. This is the main "opening strength" hand that can't find a call over 1m. Of course it's possible partner has a long club suit with poor spots and didn't want to bid over 1♦, or that partner has freak length in opener's minor, but "weak notrump" openings are probably a lot more common than these.

 

If I don't think we are likely to have the majority of the strength if partner holds 11-14 flat, then I'm passing (unless maybe I hold a really good long suit, which I much prefer to bid at the two level!). I see no need to balance with 6-7 points and a flattish hand. Maybe other people do -- I remember my partner declaring 1♥ in a pairs event and my RHO (with a 4441 19-count) being furious that his partner didn't balance with 1♠ on AQxx of spade and out.

 

Anyways, taking this approach, while my balancing doubles may be a bit light with "perfect" shape (I would double 1♦ with a 4414 8-count in balancing seat), my "power" doubles are not much different than they would be in direct seat. I'm happy to balance at the one-level with hands worth something like 8-16 hcp (obviously shape comes into this too).

 

So most of these example hands like AKJTxx Axx Qxx x and the like are 1♠ bids for me. I can rebid 3♠ later (although I believe a 2♠ rebid should show values -- something like 11-14 since I didn't balance with a preempt). I'd much rather preempt when it seems likely opener has the values for another bid; this puts a lot of pressure on especially when opener has 18-19 balanced, since passing could sell to 2♠ making when they have the majority of the strength, and bidding could go for a number if responder has nothing.

[Winstonm]

Winston,

 

I think I agree with you, but you seem to be making a case against yourself:

To use

a jump to show an opening weak 2 bid seems less valuable because partner did not act so is less likely to hold a hand and there is no one left to preempt other than opener.

 

Why would we want to preempt opener?  It is a frequency issue.  It is playable to use a jump as weak but this is basically assuming one of two things: partner has a good hand that could not act over 1X, meaning he usually holds that suit, or that opener has a big hand and we have to annoy him.  Seems to me much more likely that opener has a normal opener and partner has a smattering of cards that couldn't act and it is better to show the picture bid to help solidify the trump position - good suits and decent to goodish hands. 

No one left to preempt except opener... that's good right?

Not to me.  A first seat preempt has the advantage of fooling 2 opponents and only 1 partner so the odds are 2/1 in favor of acting.  In passout, there is only 1 to fool and he has already stated part of his case with his opening bid.  Instead of trying to shut him out from further bidding, it is my opinion that I would rather engage in constructive bidding of my own as I have less equipment than opener in this regard.

For example, how would you bid these two hands in passout?

 

AK9xx, xx, Axx, Kxx

 

AKJ10xx, xx, AQxx, x

 

If you double and bid spades with both, and partner holds: xx, Axx, xxxx, AJxx, how does he know when to move? He should get interested knowing partner holds hand 2 but not so much with hand 1.

 

I don't get your point. Are you playing that the jump to 2♠ is *stronger* than double followed by 2♠ over 2♣?? That seems impossible, what do you do with 5-2-3-3 hands that are quite a bit better than hand 1?

 

Not stronger but a different hand - the jump emphazises the suit whereas double and bid shows the hand without the good suit.  I play this way: balancing without doubling shows around 9-12 and doubling and bidding shows around 13-15ish.  With the two example hands, I'd reopen with 2S with the 6-card suit and then double followed by 2S with the more balanced hand - more or less the same strength but totally different hand types.  From about 16 ish on up, I'd double and either jump or cue bid. 

Winston

Maybe this makes better sense.