Normal Everyday Hand

[kfay]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=skjxxxhakjdac109xx&w=s109xxh8xxxxd10xcjx&e=sqxhxdkj98xxxcakx&s=saxhq1097dqxxcq8xx]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♦-P-P-Dbl

2♦-2♥-P-2♠

P-3♦-P-3♥

P-3N-All Pass[/hv]

 

This hand was played at my local club last night.

 

It kind of brought up a lot of questions for me about standards, etc. What would a 2♠ bid by the balancer here look like (aside from for sure a 6th spade), are standards lowered for double+bid suit by balancer or opposite a partner who made a free bid?

 

What do you think of the auction here? 3N was easy enough to make, but on a different night maybe 4♥ would have been way better.

 

Thoughts in general?

[aguahombre]

It kind of brought up a lot of questions for me about standards, etc.  What would a 2♠ bid by the balancer here look like (aside from for sure a 6th spade), are standards lowered for double+bid suit by balancer or opposite a partner who made a free bid? 

 

What do you think of the auction here?  3N was easy enough to make, but on a different night maybe 4♥ would have been way better.

 

I can't picture a lower standard for double+suit bid by balancer opposite the free bid. He already didn't balance with 1S, and that bell has already rung.

 

Seems as if balancer did it just right. On the "Add a King" theory, balancer is a bit too strong for 1S. He then bid his 5 bagger to clarify strength and show doubt about what trump should be (because of no 2S balance). Next he showed great 3-card support for hearts.

 

Nice auction.

[mikeh]

I don't think you can adjust the standard for double and bid based on whether or not advancer made a free bid...after all, the decision as to whether to double then bid or just bid has to be made without knowing that LHO would bid or that advancer would even be making a free bid, since if LHO passed, advancer has to bid (unless of course he converts).

 

Since the purpose of double then bid is to allow you to show your suit plus strength, you need to do it regardless of the free or forced nature of partner's bid.

 

As it is, I agree with the auction as posted...in particular, I like the slow path to 3N, so that N could judge to leave it in because he also possessed a stopper.

 

For me, a balancing jump can be as low as a good 13 with a good 6+ suit, ranging up to a decent 16. Beyond that, I double and bid....unless my hand is such that I really, really don't want to see it go all change.

 

Altho last time I did this (a week ago today), I had a diamond void and had I reopened with a double, partner had AQ109xxx, and neither opp would have run since the diamonds were Kxx opener and Jxx dummy. I had A1098xxx of spades and 7=2=0=4 shape.

[kfay]

This thread didn't receive a lot of attention but a recent response by Michael Rosenberg in MSC (August 2010, Problem {b}) made me think of it... here's the hand:

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sjha2da109643cak63]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(1♦)-P-(1♠)-P

(P)-?

 

East and West are experts but a new partnership. What call do you make?[/hv]

 

Obviously a funny auction and the panel goes on to wonder whether it's a psyche or RHO just made a mistake or something.

 

Rosenberg's response reads: "Double. South should pretty much make the same call as after '(1♠)-P-(P)-?' The hand is a little too strong for two diamonds, so double then three diamonds over partner's two hearts or three spades over his three hearts."

 

If I'm reading this correctly it seems that Rosenberg DEFINITELY has a lower standard for doubling and bidding, since this hand seems pretty bottomish to me, maybe I'm wrong. But if partner bids 3♥ over my double I'm in a world of pain since my ♦ suit is a POS. Where do our tricks come from? 4♥ would almost certainly be better, but partner still needs a fair number of hearts.

 

Probably doubling gives us the best chance to get to game, and maybe even the right game. So he could be right... For my part I'd just balance and unimaginative 2♦ over (1♠)-P-(P)-

[peachy]

Direct 2S and Dbl followed by spade bid are about same stength, but a direct 2S has excellent suit quality and 6+ long. HCP upper limit for Dbl followed by spades is a little higher.

[Cascade]

I don't change my standard for double and bid in 4th seat. My overcalls just become a little wider. Playing weak jumps in direct seat the intermediate hands with six-card suits are taken out from near the top end though obviously.

[Cascade]

This thread didn't receive a lot of attention but a recent response by Michael Rosenberg in MSC (August 2010, Problem {b}) made me think of it... here's the hand:

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sjha2da109643cak63]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(1♦)-P-(1♠)-P

(P)-?

 

East and West are experts but a new partnership. What call do you make?[/hv]

 

Obviously a funny auction and the panel goes on to wonder whether it's a psyche or RHO just made a mistake or something.

 

Rosenberg's response reads: "Double. South should pretty much make the same call as after '(1♠)-P-(P)-?' The hand is a little too strong for two diamonds, so double then three diamonds over partner's two hearts or three spades over his three hearts."

 

If I'm reading this correctly it seems that Rosenberg DEFINITELY has a lower standard for doubling and bidding, since this hand seems pretty bottomish to me, maybe I'm wrong. But if partner bids 3♥ over my double I'm in a world of pain since my ♦ suit is a POS. Where do our tricks come from? 4♥ would almost certainly be better, but partner still needs a fair number of hearts.

 

Probably doubling gives us the best chance to get to game, and maybe even the right game. So he could be right... For my part I'd just balance and unimaginative 2♦ over (1♠)-P-(P)-

For me a natural bid in the opponent's suit is always reasonably constructive - sometimes they will actually have their bid.

[kfay]

This thread didn't receive a lot of attention but a recent response by Michael Rosenberg in MSC (August 2010, Problem {b}) made me think of it... here's the hand:

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sjha2da109643cak63]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(1♦)-P-(1♠)-P

(P)-?

 

East and West are experts but a new partnership.  What call do you make?[/hv]

 

Obviously a funny auction and the panel goes on to wonder whether it's a psyche or RHO just made a mistake or something. 

 

Rosenberg's response reads: "Double.  South should pretty much make the same call as after '(1♠)-P-(P)-?'  The hand is a little too strong for two diamonds, so double then three diamonds over partner's two hearts or three spades over his three hearts."

 

If I'm reading this correctly it seems that Rosenberg DEFINITELY has a lower standard for doubling and bidding, since this hand seems pretty bottomish to me, maybe I'm wrong.  But if partner bids 3♥ over my double I'm in a world of pain since my ♦ suit is a POS.  Where do our tricks come from?  4♥ would almost certainly be better, but partner still needs a fair number of hearts. 

 

Probably doubling gives us the best chance to get to game, and maybe even the right game.  So he could be right... For my part I'd just balance and unimaginative 2♦ over (1♠)-P-(P)-

For me a natural bid in the opponent's suit is always reasonably constructive - sometimes they will actually have their bid.

This comment makes very little sense to me.

 

Firstly, I was mostly questioning Rosenberg's decision to double with this hand over the auction (1♠)-P-(P)-?. This has nothing to do with bidding 2♦ here.

 

Secondly... did you look at the auction? How can Expert East have any holding consistent with 'actually having their bid' LOL

[Cascade]

1. 2♦ is the obvious alternative to doubling 1♠

 

2. I think 2♦ will show a reasonable good hand

 

3. Who knows what the pass of 1♠ means - it could be a mistake or any sort of psyche. Probably it is a psyche.

 

4. Even if he psyched he might have diamonds in which case I still need to be cautious about bidding diamonds.

[nigel_k]

On the original one I think the auction was fine.

 

On Rosenberg's one I agree that it's too good for 2♦ and would bid 3♦. It's not perfect but the alternatives are worse. If I was in direct seat over a 1♠ opening and a king better I would prefer double though 2♦ would also be ok.