The Evidence

[Cascade]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sq72hkqtdj85cq876&w=skj3h976dq743cak4&e=st9864h54dak96cj9&s=sa5haj832dt2ct532]399|300|Scoring: MP

(2♥*) ?[/hv]

 

* Hearts and another weak.

 

There was a another thread very recently about takeout doubles with 4-3-3-3 hands.

 

Are you worth a takeout double here?

 

Would you balanced with the east hand?

[helene_t]

No.

 

No.

[Phil]

I might double 1♥. No way I'm doubling 2.

[Lobowolf]

I wouldn't double 2♥ or 1♥ with the east hand. I would bid 2♠ with the east hand against all but the very best opponents.

[kenrexford]

No.

 

Eh, sure.

[WesleyC]

I'd usually double 1H with the West hand but definitely not 2H. At MPs, I'd balance 2S as East (and end up playing 3S).

[gnasher]

I would bid 2♠ with the east hand against all but the very best opponents.

I'm not sure that the best way to cope with strong opponents is to let them play the hands at a low level.

[gnasher]

I think that doubling 2♠ with the West hand is dreadful; doubling 1♠ would merely be awful. The East hand is a minimum for a balancing 2♠.

[gwnn]

I'd double 1♥ for sure and 2♥ never. I'd pass it out in 2♥ from East (and wouldnt pass it out in 1).

[Codo]

I would never double, but I would reopen with 2 spade at mps with the east hand.

[oxyde]

West : pass

East : 2♠

Whatever the scoring is.

 

To let opponents play fitted at the 2 level is a clear losing strategy on the long term.

And those who are afraid of being doubled are also afraid to double a partial at IMPs.

IMPs and MP are not that different for such situations. As long as you have a reasonable chance of making your contract, you should bid.

 

Only if 2♥ were facing a passed partner, I would reconsider balancing that one because they may be missing a game.

[Cascade]

West : pass

East : 2♠

Whatever the scoring is.

 

To let opponents play fitted at the 2 level is a clear losing strategy on the long term.

And those who are afraid of being doubled are also afraid to double a partial at IMPs.

IMPs and MP are not that different for such situations. As long as you have a reasonable chance of making your contract, you should bid.

 

Only if 2♥ were facing a passed partner, I would reconsider balancing that one because they may be missing a game.

Who says they are fitted necessarily when they open 2♥?

 

You can only tell this from looking at all four hands.

[rd6789]

No, not X'ing

 

Yes, 2♠ balance at pairs

[Cascade]

I hate the idea of 2♠ but maybe that just means I don't play enough pairs - or at least concentrate on it enough.

[rd6789]

What is it that Eric Kokish says of pairs - it's not really bridge, or words to that effect ;)

[oxyde]

Who says they are fitted necessarily when they open 2♥?

 

You can only tell this from looking at all four hands.

Of course you don't know.

 

But you have some "evidences" as you are short and weak with no honnor.

 

Your partner is supposed to have some values there. So :

- either your partner is also short and they have a fit (if they have a 9 cards fit we mathematicaly have a 8 cards fit somewhere [most probably ♠...])

 

- or he has no stopper as he could have found a NT bid (yes, provided he his strong enough, but we are weak). So worst case is 4 small ♥, but in such a case they have a concentration of ♥ honnors and the Law should be adjusted with 1 total trick more => I guess balancing will also probably be right.

[oxyde]

Do you balance 1♥ with East hand ?

 

As partner is more inclined to have a stronger hand at the 2 level, then it should be right to balance with same hands.

[Fluffy]

I am sure I'd reopen 2♠ at MPs, maybe even at IMPs.

 

partner woud then bid 3♥ to show a great raise wich we quickly reject.

[ArtK78]

Never double over 1♥ or 2♥ with the West hand.

 

East might balance over 2♥; however, I don't see why he would get the chance - North should bid 3♥. That will buy the contract.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sq72hkqtdj85cq876&w=skj3h976dq743cak4&e=st9864h54dak96cj9&s=sa5haj832dt2ct532]399|300|Scoring: MP

(2♥*) ?[/hv]

 

* Hearts and another weak.

 

There was a another thread very recently about takeout doubles with 4-3-3-3 hands.

 

Are you worth a takeout double here?

 

Would you balanced with the east hand?

While this meets my criterion for a TOX of 1♥. It does not meet my criterion for a TOX of 2♥ and no I would not balance with the East hand

[Lobowolf]

I would bid 2♠ with the east hand against all but the very best opponents.

I'm not sure that the best way to cope with strong opponents is to let them play the hands at a low level.

Definitely agree. Having said that, this hand isn't outstanding for balancing (though it's not horrid) in that we're red, the opponents haven't shown a fit, and the HCP strength isn't great. If we were white, or if the auction had gone something like: 1♥-(P)-2♥-P; P back to me, I'd balance all the time.

 

On the given hand, I think that despite the flaws, non-expert opponents will do the wrong thing (whether it's over-competing, under-competing, or failing to make a matchpoint double) often enough to make balancing a long-run winner.

[Cascade]

Who says they are fitted necessarily when they open 2♥?

 

You can only tell this from looking at all four hands.

Of course you don't know.

 

But you have some "evidences" as you are short and weak with no honnor.

 

Your partner is supposed to have some values there. So :

- either your partner is also short and they have a fit (if they have a 9 cards fit we mathematicaly have a 8 cards fit somewhere [most probably ♠...])

 

- or he has no stopper as he could have found a NT bid (yes, provided he his strong enough, but we are weak). So worst case is 4 small ♥, but in such a case they have a concentration of ♥ honnors and the Law should be adjusted with 1 total trick more => I guess balancing will also probably be right.

If your partner is short then presumably partner is also not that strong since there was no action directly over the 2♥ opening. If this is the case we are two weak hands venturing into a vulnerable battle field. This doesn't sound like the potential for a good score whatever form of the scoring.

 

Partner short and weak => danger

 

Partner short and moderate/strong => why didn't partner take some action => I don't think these hands exist. Maybe some of the moderate hands we will survive

 

Partner long and weak => danger - too much chance of no fit

 

Partner long and moderate => some danger that we have no fit especially when we are introducing a bad suit

 

Partner long and strong => why didn't partner act - again I don't think these hands exist when it is PASSed to us or at least not many of them

 

While I have highlighted the danger of balancing I am not sure that it isn't right it is just a matter of weighing up the dangers with the benefits - we do have a makeable contract; we push them one higher and they can't make.

[Cascade]

Never double over 1♥ or 2♥ with the West hand.

 

East might balance over 2♥; however, I don't see why he would get the chance - North should bid 3♥. That will buy the contract.

South showed only five hearts so at 3♥ we are contracting in only a 5=3 fit. Our good trumps indicate bidding but only 10 HCP and our bad distribution suggest not bidding.

 

Personally I am reasonably conservative raising especially when only an eight card fit is likely (some actually play these 2Major openings are never six) and I have a 4-3-3-3 distribution.

[benlessard]

West is pass WTP and east is borderline 2S.

 

You can assume that if south will open a weak 2, most east will bid 2S so you will get field protection. While if south is 54 (and you play in a Weak 2H field) than you are looking at a dangerous situation of being fixed by an offbeat method.

 

The risk that you endup in 3S is very high. But still 3S down 1 might be better than -111/ -140.

 

 

The "stay fix" adage is clearly not for MP.