Jumps in the balancing sear

[Ant590]

(1♥) - pass - (pass) - ?

 

What is "standard" for

• 2♥
  
• 3♥
  
• 2♠
  
• 3♠
  

here?

[ONEferBRID]

2♥! is Michaels ( makes no sense for it to be natural "behind" the 1♥ opener).

 

2♠ = 12, 13 to 16 hcp w/ good 6 card suit ; it is neither preemptive nor strong-jump-shift.

 

I don't have a clue for 3♥ or 3♠.

[kenrexford]

I'm far from the authority on "standard," but I think:

 

2♥ = Michaels (spade and a minor), values

3♥ = invites 3Nt with a heart stopper

2♠ = intermediate, six-card suit

3♠ = long, values

[jdonn]

2♥: Michaels, a decent hand.

3♥: Stopper asking for 3NT, ie long running minor.

2♠: Intermediate with a good 6 card suit.

3♠: The most interesting one. I believe it looks like a 3 level preempt but on the very very sound side. Something like KQJTxxx x AJx xx looks right to me.

[peachy]

All balancing seat jumps are intermediate or strong, obviously, because there is nobody to preempt (they were settling in a one-level contract). I don't have any idea what 3H could be but stoppr ask is a possibility.

2H Michaels

3H asks partner to bid 3NT with H stopper

2S 12-16 or so with a good suit, a descriptive bid

3S strong one suiter, need some quick tricks to make game.

[A2003]

I'm far from the authority on "standard," but I think:

 

2♥ = Michaels (spade and a minor), values

3♥ = invites 3Nt with a heart stopper

2♠ = intermediate, six-card suit

3♠ = long, values

Is the alert and full disclosure required after the bid made.

 

My guess: Am I correct?

2♥ = Not required. Reason: Cue-bid

3♥ = Not required. Reason: Cue-bid

2♠ = Not required. Reason: Natural.

3♠ = Not required. Reason: Natural.

[rbforster]

Some people play the balancing cuebid as a strong takeout (too strong/distributional to want partner to sit for a takeout double).

[gwnn]

as usual when nothing interesting to say I will just quote another thread

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=32298

 

1H-p-p-3S is interesting though. I'd take it as 2H-p-p-3S at the table. Probably misguided.

[Fluffy]

Not willing to reopen the old post, but I beleive the cuebid stands out as michaels.

 

strong shapy take out is so very strange, I haven't found it when reopening a weak 2 ever, and if I cannot cope with it against a weak 2 don't see the need for a natural 1M opening.

 

The any 2 suiter is even easier, the auction rarely turns violent on this kind of board, so bidding just one suit at the 2 level and then maybe the other at the 3 level (or stay low at the 2 level if partner is weak) rates to work much better than bidding your suits up the line at the 3 level with a wide ranged strenght.

 

And if the auction gets violent, you are much better placed with a known suit than with any 2 suits, specially if the known suit is a major.

[Jlall]

Michaels is certainly standard, but I prefer for the balancing cue to also include a GF minors hand.

 

The difference is that 2N in the passout seat is natural, so if you have no way to show the minors you might be stuck on very strong hands if you don't want to double because you have so much shape.

 

The way I play it still leaves you with strong-but-not-super-strong minors hands though, but I feel like bidding 2H on those also makes everything very difficult to sort out, especially if the opps bid some more (not that unlikely). Playing my way it is easy even if the auction gets competitive because your hand is strong enough to deal with further bidding, even if partner is bidding on the assumption that you have S+minor.

 

I would take a reopening 3S as extremely strong and no desire to defend so it can't double. AKQTxxx x xx Axx seems like a good candidate.

[1eyedjack]

I had a real chuckle over Simon Cocheme's article in English Bridge a couple of months back, with some old but good bridge jokes, such as "how do you defeat an Irish slam?" Answer: "Cash your two aces and wait for your trump trick." Anyway this thread reminded me of the article because of one that had passed me by through the decades, and that was the definition of the "Polish cue bid", being a jump cue in the opponent's suit to mean "I have a stopper. Have you a running minor?"

[whereagles]

I have those defined as

 

1♥ pass pass ??

 

2♥ = michaels

3♥ = stopper ask

2♠ = 10-13 6 cards

3♠ = 10-14 7 cards

[gwnn]

10-14 but sometimes it's an aceless 6 count? :P

 

something's fishy.

[whereagles]

10-14 but sometimes it's an aceless 6 count? :D

 

something's fishy.

nobody's perfect. not even me :rolleyes:

[awm]

I have a very strongly held belief that balancing jump overcalls should be weakish. Obviously this is not "total garbage" -- what I mean is that they should show approximately the weakest hand on which I would balance.

 

Take an auction like 1♣-Pass-Pass. Suppose that I have a hand with 6♠ which is roughly the minimum where I'd want to balance (probably something like an eight-count). Almost inevitably, one or both of the following is happening:

 

(1) Opener has a big hand. This means opener will want to bid again over my balancing call, and this might help the opponents get to a better spot than 1♣. In order to give opener as much of a problem as possible, it's advantageous for me to balance 2♠ rather than 1♠ in this case.

 

(2) Partner has opening strength, but no good call over the opening bid. In this case partner will often try 2NT over my 1♠ balance, which is likely to be a lousy partial. I'd much rather play in 2♠. By playing (and using) a minimum balancing jump, I warn partner not to try for game without a fit and reach the better partial.

 

So when I have a minimum balance with 6♠ I'd much rather bid 2♠ than 1♠. On the other hand, if I have an intermediate balancing hand (like say 12-15 points) then:

 

(1) There is some possibility that I simply buy the hand in 1♠, which is always a win.

(2) We won't miss games -- partner normally has a 1NT call or something when we have game.

(3) If opener bids again, at least I feel relatively safe to rebid 2♠ later, or confident if partner doubles for penalties since I have a real hand.

(4) I don't run into trouble simply because partner doesn't have much experience bidding opposite the "intermediate jump" (which we basically never play normally) and misjudges the auction.

[jdonn]

Actually Adam I think you have a decent point there. I have always agreed with you on this when it comes to 4th seat weak two bids (they should be the worst such hands you would open) and the logic is partly different here but partly the same.

[hanp]

I agree that this is a good idea of Adam. However:

 

(2) We won't miss games -- partner normally has a 1NT call or something when we have game.

 

I double this. You will miss games.

 

(4) I don't run into trouble simply because partner doesn't have much experience bidding opposite the "intermediate jump" (which we basically never play normally) and misjudges the auction.

 

 

I don't buy this either. By playing something unusual that comes up very infrequently you will get into trouble more often than by playing what has been standard for decades.

[whereagles]

I don't run into trouble simply because partner doesn't have much experience bidding opposite the "intermediate jump" (which we basically never play normally) and misjudges the auction.

Well, a "weak" bid by 4th seat (say p-p-p-2♥) is usually an intermediate hand anyway, so it's actually mnemonic to play balancing jumps as intermediate.

 

By the way, the rest of the post is pretty nice indeed. You do make a good case for playing it as weakish.

[bill1157]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa92hq83dkt94ckq9&w=s53hajtdqj732caj2&e=s8h976542da65ct63&s=skqjt764hkd8c8754]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♦-P-P-3♠

P-4♠[/hv]

 

played this hand last night. (I was north)

 

Bill

[awm]

I'm not concerned so much about partner forgetting our methods.

 

The issue is that knowing when to bid and when to pass over partner's 2♠ call is important. Most good 2/1 or standard american players have a lot of experience bidding opposite partner's weak two bids, because everyone plays them, they come up a couple times a session, etc. Assuming even a small amount of partnership experience, I expect a good partner to make pretty good decisions over my weak twos.

 

But most of us have very little experience bidding over partner's 2♠ call which shows 12-15 points. Yes, it is "standard" to play 2♠ this way in the auction P-P-P-2♠ or 1m-P-P-2♠. But these sequences come up extremely rarely. Most partners will not have a lot of experience bidding over such a 2♠ call, simply because they only play it in balancing seat and that doesn't come up all that much. So my concern is that partner will misjudge due to lack of experience with the method, not that partner will "forget" what we are playing. A range of something like 8-11 is basically the top end of a normal weak two range, so partner won't go wrong often.

 

Yes, some of you will scoff at this and bring up that some people play intermediate twos regularly, that good players should be able to judge well despite the rarity of the convention, and so on. All I can say to this is that I have seen several instances in the past few years where very good players in a very established partnership had a balancing jump overcall like this come up, and failed to reach an excellent game because of this lack of experience. Had they balanced at the one-level, I'm sure they would've had no issues on those hands.

 

As for missing games, I frequently overcall 1♠ in direct seat with 12-15 points and six spades. I can't recall the last time I missed a game due to being passed out there. Partner usually bids with 8+ points, or with less and a good fit, and game seems pretty unlikely if partner has less than that. After all, my hand looks a lot like a 1♠ opening and 2♠ rebid, and partner usually passes my 2♠ rebids with less than 8 points and less than three spades. I really don't see myself missing a game this way. Obviously I can always miss games some other way, but the situation doesn't seem like it would be much better if I had balanced 2♠ to show the same point range -- in fact it's probably worse because of partner's aforementioned likely lack of experience with intermediate 2♠ calls.