balancing with a major

[rbforster]

Favorable Matchpoints, you're in balancing seat after the opponents preempt 3♣:

 

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sakxxxhj98xd8xxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP

(3♣)-P-(P)-?[/hv]

Do you bid, and if so, what?

[cherdano]

Did you mix up the minors? Why should I make a submin balance with 3 small diamonds?

[rbforster]

Did you mix up the minors? Why should I make a submin balance with 3 small diamonds?

Yes, sorry. They bid 3♣, not 3♦ like I mistakenly put initially. You can take back your pass if you want :).

[jdonn]

I have to admit I pass. It seems to me like the kind of hand where we can probably make something a lot, but in those cases partner will bid even more and we will go down. Also my hand is bad enough that I'm not that comfortable if partner makes a penalty pass. But I'm open to being talked into doubling.

[ochinko]

At IMPs or another vulnerability I would pass but here I am supposed to be allowed a bit of creativity.

 

Double is out of the question as partner could pass it not knowing that he is expected to provide more tricks in defense than me.

 

4♦ caters to a very specific ♥ holding from partner. This leaves me with 3♠ crossing fingers that partner passes, or opps don't double us, or we go down only one.

[Hanoi5]

Being MP's I'd rather reopen. Doubling, just in case my partner has the clubs.

[pclayton]

I'm supposed to pass this. But I keep reopening and keep getting good results.

 

1. Sometimes they are making 3♣ and we are making 3♠ (or -50) is a good spot.

 

2. Sometimes pard is passing for +200 or +500 (yeah I know he expected 800 but that's life).

 

3. I'll cringe as pard bids 3N on his square 13. But - guess what, LHO doesn't have an entry and we roll it.

 

4. If pard bids 4M, I'm pretty happy to put this down.

[rbforster]

I made the marginal double, hoping in light of the favorable colors that either partner could sit for it or that if we declared, we'd either make or go down one. Faced with a 3343 12 count, my partner tried an "inventive" 3N call with Jxx as his stopper. This didn't work out too well as one can see from the layout below:

 

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=stxxhqtxdakqxcjxx&w=sxxhxxdxxcaqtxxxx&e=sqjxhakxxdjxxxckx&s=sakxxxhj98xd8xxcx]399|300|Scoring: MP

(3♣)-P-(P)-X

(P)-3N!-AP

 

K♣ lead and continued[/hv]

They made 3N on the run of the clubs and two high hearts. I suppose -250 was better than -670 since 3♣X makes the same 9 tricks. 3♦ or 3♠ are probably down 1-2 undoubled.

 

When I saw partner's hand, I would be inclined to just bid 3♦. I didn't think his hand was anything more than was already expected by balancer so didn't justify any special action, especially with no stopper and no useful shape.

[pclayton]

I made the marginal double, hoping in light of the favorable colors that either partner could sit for it or that if we declared, we'd either make or go down one. Faced with a 3343 12 count, my partner tried an "inventive" 3N call with Jxx as his stopper. This didn't work out too well as one can see from the layout below:

 

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=stxxhqtxdakqxcjxx&w=sxxhxxdxxcaqtxxxx&e=sqjxhakxxdjxxxckx&s=sakxxxhj98xd8xxcx]399|300|Scoring: MP

(3♣)-P-(P)-X

(P)-3N!-AP

 

K♣ lead and continued[/hv]

They made 3N on the run of the clubs and two high hearts. I suppose -250 was better than -670 since 3♣X makes the same 9 tricks. 3♦ or 3♠ are probably down 1-2 undoubled.

 

When I saw partner's hand, I would be inclined to just bid 3♦. I didn't think his hand was anything more than was already expected by balancer so didn't justify any special action, especially with no stopper and no useful shape.

I would never balance with a partner that bids like this.

 

Then again, I wouldn't play with him either.

[cherdano]

You expect 12 hcp when balancing over a 3-level preempt? This seems really really wrong.

 

I like the 3N bid much better than the double.

[rbforster]

You expect 12 hcp when balancing over a 3-level preempt? This seems really really wrong.

A priori you figure the preempter has about 5-7 points typically, that leaves an average of 12 each for the other hands.

 

From my balancing perspective, some of the better hands partner will have bid over 3♣ (so he's a bit weaker conditional on his pass over 3♣), but since we're the ones with major length and club shortness, he'll need a considerably better hand in terms of shape and/or values to have made a bid so this doesn't limit the upper end of his range as much as it would if we had club length for example.

 

From overcaller's perspective, with 3 clubs he knows we've got shortness for our double and hence could be on minimum acceptable values or better. My hand was a little below this standard (as the results of the poll show), but probably most people would balance with 10-11 as a minimum, a stiff club, and takeout shape. So if overcaller figures that we have about 12 points, then his 12 points are about average conditional on the remaining points besides the preempter being evenly divided.

 

Does this make sense?

[cherdano]

No, to start with I don't know anybody whose preempts are limited to 5-7. Also, Having 3 clubs doesn't guarantee that you have a club singleton, and the minimum for balancing with a doubleton club is much higher.

Also, if the a-priori average for balancing doubler is 12 points, and the double shows at least12 points, this makes his expected average given that he doubled substantially higher than 12 points.

[han]

I once used the words a priori at a bridge club, shortly after I moved to the US, the opponents just stared at me. I wish I could stare at Rob_F now.

[rbforster]

No, to start with I don't know anybody whose preempts are limited to 5-7.

Ok, but do they preempt with more strength as often as they do with less? Certainly KQJTxxx and out is a fine preempt in almost anyone's book. I don't think there are too many out there who will require that side K or Q too, and for hands with more like 8-9 points and a good suit, they may be judged to be "too good" to preempt with lest partner take you for a typical weaker hand and miss a good game. And many people will preempt with QJT9xxx or KQTxxxx and some shortness, both of which are on the low end in terms of strength.

 

if the a-priori average for balancing doubler is 12 points, and the double shows at least12 points, this makes his expected average given that he doubled substantially higher than 12 points.

That's true a priori, but there are several factors in this auction that point towards the points being more evenly divided especially from overcaller's perspective -

 

1) overcaller's got 12 points, so there aren't as many available for the other hands to have

 

2) partner of the preempter did not bid, so he won't have lots of extra strength

 

3) partner balanced with a double and an average of 1.5 clubs, rather than bidding a suit or 3N. It's unlikely his hand is so strong it needs to start with a strength-showing double, which means that of the available balancing options, double is the one most likely to be on the lighter end.