balance?

[straube]

unfav imps. Assuming dbl is takeout, which hand balances (if any)

 

edit: 1S P 2S P P ?

 

A xx Kxxx Kxx Axxx

B x Kxxx Kxxx Axxx

C x KT9x K98x Axxx

D other-you create

E Pass any hand not good enough to dbl the first time. This is imps!

[bluecalm]

And what is the bidding so far ?

[straube]

And what is the bidding so far ?

 

LOL. I forgot to add that

 

1S P 2S P P ?

 

2S is a simple raise

[awm]

unfav imps. Assuming dbl is takeout, which hand balances (if any)

 

edit: 1S P 2S P P ?

 

A xx Kxxx Kxx Axxx

B x Kxxx Kxxx Axxx

C x KT9x K98x Axxx

D other-you create

E Pass any hand not good enough to dbl the first time. This is imps!

 

I would've doubled initially on hands B and C. It pays to get in early on this type of hand rather than late; I think B is a good example of a minimum double.

 

Given the scoring/vulnerability, I would not balance on hand A (although at NV it's certainly a prototypical balancing double).

 

The hand type where would most frequently balance here is probably a decent 3451-type. This is hard to show in direct position (not playing equal level correction) but fairly safe to double on here. Double-then-correct cannot be a strong one-suiter, because that hand would've acted over 1♠.

[straube]

I would've doubled initially on hands B and C. It pays to get in early on this type of hand rather than late; I think B is a good example of a minimum double.

 

Given the scoring/vulnerability, I would not balance on hand A (although at NV it's certainly a prototypical balancing double).

 

The hand type where would most frequently balance here is probably a decent 3451-type. This is hard to show in direct position (not playing equal level correction) but fairly safe to double on here. Double-then-correct cannot be a strong one-suiter, because that hand would've acted over 1♠.

 

Would you go so far as to say partner should expect an equal level conversion hand after hearing the double? For instance, with a decent 3-4-5-1, I dbl and partner bids 3C and should I pass expecting 6 clubs? Or can I have a 4441 that wasn't strong enough to double 1S?

[bluecalm]

I have no idea. Some good players I know insist on playing dbl as showing at least 5-4 here on the argument that no normal t/o hand is good enough if it didn't double before.

On the other hand partner can easily have:

xxx xx AQxxx QJx or:

xxxx QJxx AQJTx x

 

and we have our +110/140/170 take. On the other hand:

KJ3 QJ3 T832 QT7 and it will be 200 or 500/800 if one of them can double.

We need a parlay here to win imps:

-they have exactly 8 tricks in spades (most of the time they have 9 they will be able to bid 3S or double us)

-we are making 9+ tricks somewhere

 

If we are correct we win 6imps. If we often break even but also could lose 5imps (neither side makes anything) or 11+ imps (they get us). It's difficult to say what are exact probabilities but my intuition enhanced by some simulations is that pass is a winner.

[bluecalm]

I would've doubled initially on hands B and C. It pays to get in early on this type of hand rather than late; I think B is a good example of a minimum double.

 

I would love to play this style but it requires a lot of partnership understanding imo.

[akhare]

I am with the others on this one.

 

Basically, a preemptive strike with B/C is best instead of trying to guess later. True, it's a point or two lighter than what pard might expect, but it's vastly better than coming in over 2♠ and at least one of the Ks in the AKK ranks to be well placed.

 

The other alternative is to simply P and continue to hold your silence assuming they raise to 2♠.

 

IMO, either option ranks to be better than coming in late at that vul...

[mtvesuvius]

I double quite aggressively in direct* seat, partially because my judgement on balancing is so bad.

 

I'll attempt to show how bad I am at judging balancing by passing now on all of these. Like AWM said, 3451 is possible, as is 1435 with a 9 count or so. With hands B and C I would have doubled immediately.

 

I haven't gotten too many bad results doubling aggressively here, but partner certainly needs to be in on the joke.

[straube]

I am with the others on this one.

 

Basically, a preemptive strike with B/C is best instead of trying to guess later. True, it's a point or two lighter than what pard might expect, but it's vastly better than coming in over 2♠ and at least one of the Ks in the AKK ranks to be well placed.

 

The other alternative is to simply P and continue to hold your silence assuming they raise to 2♠.

 

IMO, either option ranks to be better than coming in late at that vul...

 

I agree, but I'm starting to think that pass and dbl ought to show equal level conversion when vulnerable but possibly a 1444 when nv. Why the distinction? Because when vulnerable, partner's 3C bid ought to be a strong preference for clubs. When nv, partner's 3C bid is just a simple preference.

 

Do I have that right, awm?

[Phil]

Didn't think people balanced any more in this auction :)

[nigel_k]

I would balance on 2 and 3 though I agree they are enough for an initial double.

 

Regarding the ELC issue, we have both double and 2NT available so just need to divide the possible hands between those two calls. Partner is unlikely to pass the double when we have a singleton and will almost never pass when we have more than one, so that isn't really a consideration.

 

I think double then pull 3♣ to 3♦ shows better hearts and 2NT first instead of double shows better diamonds. The main issue is the heart/club hands: whether you double or bid 2NT or may do either, and what partner is supposed to do with diamonds when preferring clubs to hearts. I doubt there is any standard or logical answer to this. You need an agreement.

[CSGibson]

I would have doubled initially on 2 & 3 with partner an unpassed hand, and on all three if partner was a passed hand, just to avoid this decision. I would balance on all 3 not having made an initial X (especially if I had the agreement with partner that 2N after the balancing double is 2 places to play).

[straube]

I would have doubled initially on 2 & 3 with partner an unpassed hand, and on all three if partner was a passed hand, just to avoid this decision. I would balance on all 3 not having made an initial X (especially if I had the agreement with partner that 2N after the balancing double is 2 places to play).

 

We have that agreement.

 

I understand about bidding to avoid a later decision, but it looks like you're willing to double back in with a hand that didn't meet your initial dbl standard. I feel less bad now.

 

My hand was #2 and I caught partner with some drek like KJTx xxx Jxx Qxx. Bad partner! Though he did scramble for -800.

 

Still wondering if vul should promise the ELC hand while nv should not promise that. I suppose it's a matter for partnership agreement.

[CSGibson]

We have that agreement.

 

I understand about bidding to avoid a later decision, but it looks like you're willing to double back in with a hand that didn't meet your initial dbl standard. I feel less bad now.

 

My hand was #2 and I caught partner with some drek like KJTx xxx Jxx Qxx. Bad partner! Though he did scramble for -800.

 

Still wondering if vul should promise the ELC hand while nv should not promise that. I suppose it's a matter for partnership agreement.

 

Partner has to pass with that hand IMO. Your chances of beating the hand are better than your chances of scrambling intelligently.

[mike777]

pass and pass.

 

as a non expert.

 

interesting thread

[jogs]

I would've doubled initially on hands B and C. It pays to get in early on this type of hand rather than late; I think B is a good example of a minimum double.

 

 

 

I doubled with x Kxxx Kxxx Kxxx. The auction went

1S - X - p - 3H, p - 4H.

4H could only be beat by expert defense. RHO was not up to it. Partner was surprised I bid 4H. I said either you have the aces or RHO has the aces. Since LHO has nothing on this auction.

[straube]

Partner has to pass with that hand IMO. Your chances of beating the hand are better than your chances of scrambling intelligently.

 

I agree though we're not beating it on this particular hand. He chose 3C and I'm glad I didn't have a 1-4-5-3 pattern. Gets to my point about whether my dbl should show 4H/5D when vulnerable. He played it very well to hold it to down 3.

[whereagles]

hand A and x Qxxx Kxxx Axxx are pass + dbl later. Others are 1st round dbls to me.

[Fluffy]

I'd pass and then double with all three, don't feel very confident on the first one and maybe I would just pass. Who doubles partscores at IMPs anyway? :P

[phil_20686]

If partner unpassed I would pass then dble on all 3. If partner is passed I would double initially on all 3. Biggest danger on doubling light, especially with a singleton, is that it goes 3S to partner and he has to lump 3N for a few off expecting a decent hand. Alternatively, partner becomes too timid about lumping 3N as your dbles are too wide ranging. This is obviously not a problem once partner has passed. Do not agree at all with those who see no point in doubling after partner has passed. The nuisance value whenever partner can bid at the 3 level is quite large. Oppos do not always to the right thing, and while it helps the opps play the hand, if you get a response it normally helps you find the best lead.

 

Had a decent example the other night:

 

All red, held AT9 xx Kxxx KJ98

 

P 1H x xx

3C p p x

 

and oppos were confused about the meaning of dble now, and missed 4S. 3C drifted one off, which was a bit unlucky really, partner has AQxxxx clubs and a ten count or so. Realise better opposition would not make this kind of mistake, but it still might have been tough to reach the best strain after parther has produced 3c, when it was trivial in an uncontested auction.

 

Agree in this example that your partner should have floated 2Sx with KJT9 spades, but if his spades were worse I would try to scramble with 2N. You are very likely to have a 5 card suit for your dble. Most likely doubling shape is 1-4-5-3 or similar IMO. Disagree with thouse who would dble with 3-4-5-1 and similar, I use 2N here for two places to play and could be 54, and prefer to preserve dble as 3 suited hands so that partner is better placed if he has a 6 card minor and responder gives it 3S over the dble.

[Free]

I'd Dbl with B and C immediately because I want to describe my hand while I can and while it's safe. Passing first with 4 controls and perfect shape is just lazy imo.

 

Now, I don't like the vulnerability, so I guess I'll just pass. If I had a 4=1=4=4 and the auction went 1♥-2♥ I'd probably Dbl because we don't commit to the 3-level.

[phil_20686]

On the other hand:

KJ3 QJ3 T832 QT7 and it will be 200 or 500/800 if one of them can double.

We need a parlay here to win imps:

-they have exactly 8 tricks in spades (most of the time they have 9 they will be able to bid 3S or double us)

-we are making 9+ tricks somewhere

 

If we are correct we win 6imps. If we often break even but also could lose 5imps (neither side makes anything) or 11+ imps (they get us). It's difficult to say what are exact probabilities but my intuition enhanced by some simulations is that pass is a winner.

 

Disagree strongly with this analysis. 3 over 3 decisions are the hardest part of bridge after 5 over 5 decisions IMO. Even at the top levels it is not at all uncommon for pairs to decide wrongly. Also, in longer matches, it helps to build pressure if they feel like they can never have an "off" moment in an easy contract. Further, you often get help with the lead and play vs 3S from partners defence, such that often you can often get more tricks defending 3s than you would have defending 2s. A lot of boards where 2S can go off will not be beaten at the table as the normal lead is not right or defence has too many options to reliable get it right. I do not think double dummy situations will intelligently evaluate how likely the opposition are likely to get this right. I can recall at least one hand where I felt it was "clear" to compete to 3S (and others agreed) but drifted a quiet 3 off when we could beat 3c when both pairs had mirrored hands.

[phil_20686]

I'd Dbl with B and C immediately because I want to describe my hand while I can and while it's safe. Passing first with 4 controls and perfect shape is just lazy imo.

 

Now, I don't like the vulnerability, so I guess I'll just pass. If I had a 4=1=4=4 and the auction went 1♥-2♥ I'd probably Dbl because we don't commit to the 3-level.

 

I think its wrong to characterise it as "lazy". It will really put partner under pressure if he has say KQT QJx AT9x Jxx, and has to decide to risk 3N here. Even over 2S pretty sure no one on the forum has a way to show an invitational balanced hand. Either you punt 3N and accept it goes off whenever partner has dbled light, or you bid 3D positive and subside there, sometimes in a 4-3 fit, when 3N was a claimer opposite a normal 13 count t/o dble.