Should one balance?

[bid_em_up]

First off, sorry if this sounds like it's getting heated.  Again, I'm unhappy with people going mute in direct seat, not with 'bid_em_up'.  But let me go to the crux here:

 

The odds are greatly reduced of partner holding a 3-3-4-3 12 count.  Yes, he may have that hand, but if you can't understand why this is true, then I really can't help you.

 

Well, I guess you can't help me...

 

I have 10 hcp. LHO has around 8. That leaves 22 hcp for my partner and his. That's 11 apiece. I wouldn't expect my partner to say anything with an 11 count without 5 good spades, and I wouldn't expect RHO to bid with an 11 count unless he had some good fit or controls, and he doesn't have the latter. Since if either of them had a 15 count they most likley could find a bid, I'd say the chances of both of them both being in the 8-14 range are pretty good.

 

As far as balanced, well, LHO has 7 hearts, and I have 1. RHO surely would have bid if he had 4 hearts. That leaves 2-4 for partner and 1-3 for RHO. My hand is balanced outside of hearts, LHO hasn't shown shape except for hearts, no reason to think that my partner isn't balanced- he's more likely to be balanced than average.

 

I think a balanced 11 count is exactly what I should expect from partner. May have a little more, may have a little less. It's not that I disagree necessarily with balancing, it's that I think examples of 15 counts or singleton diamonds aren't useful, as those hands are rare enough that they aren't worth considering. On the other hand, the hands in your last example are much more down to earth, if you'll excuse the pun. And if you want to X in hopes that your partner has one of those hands, then I think that's a reasonable thing to do.

Phil, I dont mean for it to sound heated either, sometimes it's just my caustic wit and writing style; other times it's simply frustration.

 

JT, let me try and address this a little better.

 

You say that you prefer partners to be more aggressive in the direct seat. While you may "prefer" this style, I think if you read what others are saying (not just myself), you will find that this "style" is not the preferable method of most players. I believe that most players are less willing to step into a live auction at the three level when LHO has yet to take a call. Note, this is a first seat preempt and you are expecting partner to decide whether or not to act immediately, without hearing what his LHO has to say and knowing that he still has a competent partner that can still protect our side in the passout seat. One of the best things I have ever been told is "you don't preempt a preempt", bidding in the direct seat needs to be based on solid values.

 

Now, in your prior example hand of QJ10x x KQxxx KJxx, this is about the best you can expect RHO to hold and NOT make a call. If he was weaker with a fit, ie, he would/should raise to 4H. If he is stronger than this, he likely would raise to 4H even on a stiff. If he actually has a stiff heart, then partner is holding 4 hearts (possibly even 5). RHO's failure to act, actually increases the the likelihood that partner actually has a better hand than his expected 12 hcp but has no good action in the direct seat.

 

And all of this, of course, is based on the invalid assumption that LHO actually holds 8-9 hcp for his 1st seat preempt. He is actually likely to hold less, imo.

 

x KQJxxxx xx xxx

xx AQJxxxx xx xx

xx KQ109xxx xxx x

x KJ109xxx x xxxx

 

All are reasonable first seat preempts (for some people, anyway). Now there are between 24-27 missing hcp on these hands, yet partner failed to act and so did RHO. Partner's failure to act in any of these cases is either going to be based on the fact that he does not have spades, or that he has a true trap pass of 3H. If he doesn't have spades, and he doesnt have a trap pass, then he must have clubs and/or diamonds, and you have a fit with both of these.

 

You are going to lose the partscore/game battle (as previously shown) even when partner holds spades, but cannot freely bid at the 3 level or when holding a minor where he cannot bid at the 4 level.

 

KJxxxx Axx xx xx is a good example of a hand that does not have a stiff in either minor and yet, cannot justifiably bid 3S directly over 3H. Maybe your style allows for this, mine does not.

 

Kx Axx xx KJxxxx is a "balanced" 11 count where bidding 4C directly is lunacy.

 

I am not by any means claiming that balancing on Axxx x Axx Q9xxx will win ALL of the time. But, you simply cannot sell out to 3H on this holding. It is a long term losing proposition.

 

Addendum to already long post:

 

Adam said, "My general tendency is to be aggressive with shortness in the enemy suit and conservative with length. This tends to avoid disasters when we both have moderate length in their suit. If you gave me a second heart instead of one of those clubs I would pass." and this really is the final deciding factor. Your shortness combined with RHO's failure to raise, increase the chances of partner actually holding the trap pass as well. If the hand was Axxx xx Axx Qxxx, pass becomes a much closer choice.

[jtfanclub]

EDIT TO NOTE- I had not read bid-em-up's last reply when I wrote this (it takes me a while to write these). I'll write a separate reply to that.

 

Then you are simply trading risk in balancing for risk in direct actions.  Most people prefer to see what preemptor's partner does before deciding whether to take the risky action.

 

IMO it is clear to double on the given hand.

It's not a question of getting doubled, in my mind. The only times I can remember going down doubled are from a 5♠ phantom sacrifice. This isn't an auction where responder can count on even one defensive trick from opener.

 

Here's the risk, from bid_em_up's examples:

 

A. Kxx KJx Kxxx Jxx

B. KQx xxx KQx K10xx

 

Now, take a the current © A9xx x Axx Q9xxx and compare it to a more typical (D) A9xx x A9xx AQ9x

 

How do you intend to bid this after the X, so that with the two aces and queen you get your 100 at 3♥X and 150 from 4♣ when partner has the 10 count, but get 630 at 3NT and 1370 at 6 clubs across the 14 count?

 

If I pass the 10 pointer, and X with the 14 count:

A across C= +50 (down 1)

B across C= +100 (down 2)

A across D= +600 (3NT=)

B across D= +1370 (6♣=)

 

If I X with both, and partner thinks I have the 10 count:

A across C= +100 (down 1 doubled)

B across C= +150 (4♣ making 5)

A across D= +300 (down 2 doubled)

B across D= +170 (4♣ making 6)

 

If I X with both, and partner thinks I have the 14 count:

A across C= -100 (down 1 at 3NT)

B across C= -100 (down 1 at 6 clubs)

A across D= +600 (3NT=)

B across D= +1370 (6♣=)

 

You can see the problem, I hope. If your partner assumes that you have the 14 count, you may as well just pass, because partner will take you too high. On the other hand, if you're going to have partner assume you have a 10 count, you're either going to have to find impossible rebids or miss all sorts of games and slams when you do have that 14 count.

 

Forget the hands where the most likely result is a part-score battle. Even if you end up slightly ahead for the X, you'll lose when your X is more serious but not strong enough to find another bid after a minimum response.

[awm]

A few holes in this analysis:

 

With Kxx KJx Kxxx Jxx opposite, it's not clear we make 3NT even opposite the 14-count. I count 2♠+1♥+2♦+2♣ is only 7 sure tricks, with good chances for another minor suit trick. In any case 3NT is far from certain. I'd probably pass and take the money, which is +100 or +300 opposite the 10-count and +300, +500, or +800 opposite the 14-count (probably 500 or 800 if 3NT was making).

 

With KQx xxx KQx KTxx opposite, we are going to be in game. I'm not bidding 4♣. We will get to 5♣ opposite the 10-count when partner rejects my slam try, and 6♣ opposite the 14.

 

So my results are more like:

 

Double with both

A opposite 10-count is +100

B opposite 10-count is +600

A opposite 14-count is +500

B opposite 14-count is +1370

 

Double only with 14

A opposite 10-count is +50

B opposite 10-count is +100

A opposite 14-count is maybe +600 (pd can bid game more aggressively if I always have 14)

B opposite 14-count is +1370

 

Similar calculation, same hands, different result.

[jtfanclub]

With KQx xxx KQx KTxx opposite, we are going to be in game. I'm not bidding 4♣. We will get to 5♣ opposite the 10-count when partner rejects my slam try, and 6♣ opposite the 14.

OK, short one.

 

How do you intend to bid those hands so that you reach 5♣ across the 10 count and 6♣ across the 14 count? It could simply be that my methods aren't good enough to differentiate between the marginal and typical X's, and that's why I resist Xing on this hand so much.