A Balancing Situation

[jdeegan]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sj1097h1087d653cq83]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♠-P-1NT(forcing)-P

2♣-P-P-Dbl

P-???[/hv]

:) MP's against average opponents with competent partner. LHO's 1NT response was forcing. Early in the session. What do you do with this discouraging collection?

[han]

I think that partner will more often bid 2H when hearts are significantly better than 2D when diamonds are much better. So I'm bidding 2D.

 

If they double me with confidence then I might pull to 2H.

[inquiry]

A cheerful 2♦ automatic spoken with as much confidence and in the normal tempo as possible. Don't sit there and think about this one. Act now. The problem is partner has a very good hand, lets hope it is good enough.

[Guest Jlall]

A cheerful 2♦ automatic spoken with as much confidence and in the normal tempo as possible.

this is very underrated, good post.

[jdonn]

Definite 2♦, if nothing else it's lowest so in case they double us we have some chance to reach other contracts. I fear our only fit may be in spades, but not much I can do about that.

[P_Marlowe]

2H.

 

If it makes, it will score higher.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

I bid 2♥, just by reflex. I have some weird reasoning...

 

1. I like my T87. If RHO has, say, 1-4-4-4 distribution, the T87 could be essential.

 

2. They're less likely to double if it puts us in game. I know, it's MPs, but nobody likes to discuss a -670 with partner. Experts will double 2♦ and 2♥ equally, I think, but hopefully you're not playing against experts.

 

BTW, nothing on God's green earth would make me run in this auction. It's a poker thing- if you're thinking about running the opponents may pick that up. Think about how you're going to post here about your +670, and all the experts who are going to compliment you on your steely nerve and excellent play. Let them pick that up with table feel and see what they do.

 

Of course, that only applies in face-to-face....

[whereagles]

2♦ is better than 2♥ because there's a high chance pard will bid 2♥ over 2♦, to which you'll pass :blink:

[han]

Partner will bid 2H over 2D? Give me a hand where partner would pass over 1S-1NT, then double 2C and then bid 2H please!

[jdeegan]

:D Thank you for such excellent responses. To summarize your lessons:

 

(1) the safety and flexibility of a 2♦ call slightly outweighs having superior spot cards in hearts

(2) bid cheerfully - never telegraph any distress

 

These are subtle points, but they represent valuable bridge lessons for players trying to learn the game.

 

On the actual hand, my partner - an excellent player who recently won a National pairs event with a non-pro partner - decided on 2♥ and was not quite poker-faced. My RHO, with a recent club championship to her credit, found a matchpoint double with:

 

x

A9xx

10xxx

A10xx

 

The defense was opponent-proof for -200 versus their part score.

 

The entire hand:

 

 

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sa62hj543dakj9ckj&w=s3ha962d10875ca1042&e=skq854hkqdq2c9753&s=sj1097h1087d643cq86]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♠-P-1NT(forcing)-P

2♣-P-P-Dbl

P-2♥-Dbl-P

P-P[/hv]

[pclayton]

I'd be willing to guess we take the same number of tricks in hearts as diamonds.

 

LHO has a 'free' double of 2♦, whereas 2♥ has a greater downside.

[han]

LHO has a 'free' double of 2♦, whereas 2♥ has a greater downside.

Phil, this is MPs. 2DX is likely the same score as 2HX, so that argument doesn't work. I agree that it is a valid argument at IMPs.

[whereagles]

Partner will bid 2H over 2D? Give me a hand where partner would pass over 1S-1NT, then double 2C and then bid 2H please!

sorry, misred it

[jdonn]

Partner's double was nuts by the way, I have mentioned a lot lately this vul is awful for competing at mps. Even -100 could be awful if you gave up -90, and from partner's perspective 2♣ could be down 2 for +200 in which case his double is sure to lose (unless we pass it).

[awm]

Partner's double was nuts by the way, I have mentioned a lot lately this vul is awful for competing at mps. Even -100 could be awful if you gave up -90, and from partner's perspective 2♣ could be down 2 for +200 in which case his double is sure to lose (unless we pass it).

While this point certainly has merit, it seems somewhat inconsistant with the previously expressed view that you really need a natural 1nt call in sandwich position.

 

The point is, suppose opponents have some auction where it goes 1x-pass-1y where 1y shows some values in "old-fashioned" bridge but a lot of players today bid 1y on garbage. You're in fourth seat and you have something like 17 hcp balanced. Should you bid or pass? There are certainly valid arguments either way.

 

It seems clear that passing the 17-point hand could lead to getting robbed blind, and that this situation is even worse than over 1♣-p-1♠ (where at least partner could've overcalled a five-card heart suit in 2nd seat without needing full opening values). Of course, bidding could also lead to a poor matchpoint result, or even going for a number if responder passed on a misfit with a decent hand.

[mike777]

:rolleyes: Thank you for such excellent responses.  To summarize your lessons:

 

(1) the safety and flexibility of a 2♦ call slightly outweighs having superior spot cards in hearts

(2) bid cheerfully - never telegraph any distress

 

These are subtle points, but they represent valuable bridge lessons for players trying to learn the game.

 

On the actual hand, my partner - an excellent player who recently won a National pairs event with a non-pro partner - decided on 2♥ and was not quite poker-faced.  My RHO, with a recent club championship to her credit, found a matchpoint double with:

 

x

A9xx

10xxx

A10xx

 

The defense was opponent-proof for -200 versus their part score.

 

The entire hand:

 

 

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sa62hj543dakj9ckj&w=s3ha962d10875ca1042&e=skq854hkqdq2c9753&s=sj1097h1087d643cq86]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♠-P-1NT(forcing)-P

2♣-P-P-Dbl

P-2♥-Dbl-P

P-P[/hv]

edit.

[jdonn]

Partner's double was nuts by the way, I have mentioned a lot lately this vul is awful for competing at mps. Even -100 could be awful if you gave up -90, and from partner's perspective 2♣ could be down 2 for +200 in which case his double is sure to lose (unless we pass it).

While this point certainly has merit, it seems somewhat inconsistant with the previously expressed view that you really need a natural 1nt call in sandwich position.

I have no idea how you are equating one to the other. I would make that 1NT bid a lot less frequently at this vul also, which is the main reason I hate the double on this hand. Neither vul I would feel a lot differently.

 

While of course it's possible they are stealing from me, I just accept it and go with what to me are the clear odds. I would take solace in knowing the opponents are using an inferior strategy, since if it's a partscore hand then THEY are the ones overcompeting at the wrong vulnerability.

[Guest Jlall]

I think partner had a normal X of 1N to begin with, he certainly has a balance but you're less likely to find a game now.

[jdeegan]

Partner's double was nuts by the way, I have mentioned a lot lately this vul is awful for competing at mps. Even -100 could be awful if you gave up -90, and from partner's perspective 2♣ could be down 2 for +200 in which case his double is sure to lose (unless we pass it).

;) The situation you mention was, indeed, the case here. However, I think partner's hand was way below expectations. With four, much less five, cards in one of the red suits, LOTT favors us at the two level. If pard had had four good clubs, she might have passed for +200 for us.

 

I wanted to bid over RHO's 1NT, but I couldn't stand clubs. Plus, I had no time to think, as a slow pass is the worst possible bid in that situation.

[jdonn]

I agree saying it was "nuts" was too strong since it could have worked, but I still very much don't like it, mostly because of the vul and defensive hand. I agree with Justin I like doubling 1NT a lot more than 2♣.

[P_Marlowe]

LHO has a 'free' double of 2♦, whereas 2♥ has a greater downside.

Phil, this is MPs. 2DX is likely the same score as 2HX, so that argument doesn't work. I agree that it is a valid argument at IMPs.

... but even playing MP, lots hof people hesitate

to play 2HX, given the setting, the opponents

do not belong to this group, but ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe