Balance?

[wyman]

MPs r/r.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sk9642ha643dt9c87&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1d2cdp2dpp]133|200[/hv]

 

Do you ever have enough to balance with this shape but not XX? If so, how much more do you need?

[Free]

A 5=5=0=3 would be lovely. I suspect North's Dbl shows both Majors, so looking for a Major part score isn't attractive imo. You don't have fillers or finesses in the Majors to compensate for bad breaks, and the ♣ holding is too poor to play 3♣.

[wyman]

Just to clarify: North's X tends to show both majors, but if he has diamonds, it's not unheard of to X with only one major to seek a better MP score. Also 1D is 3+.

[JLOGIC]

Of course you have to balance with this.

[whereagles]

Maybe, but I'll pass. They're not even playing NT...

[aguahombre]

would not be surprised if we collected 200 for staying out and would have collected a minus for further competition.

 

Opener might easily have had to rebid a 5-bagger, for instance. And where would the neg doubler have gone over 2D with, say, a minimum 4-4-2-3 response?

[mfa1010]

would not be surprised if we collected 200 for staying out and would have collected a minus for further competition.

 

Opener might easily have had to rebid a 5-bagger, for instance. And where would the neg doubler have gone over 2D with, say, a minimum 4-4-2-3 response?

If partner has four diamonds and enough goods to bring 2♦ down 2 opposite our hand then there is a good chance that he will pass 2♦X.

 

I think we have a rather clear balancing double.

[aguahombre]

If partner has four diamonds and enough goods to bring 2♦ down 2 opposite our hand then there is a good chance that he will pass 2♦X.

 

I think we have a rather clear balancing double.

That is quite true, and if he doesn't have that hand and we double, we could be headed for a bad board. I will settle for 100 each on their undertricks, and no undertricks our way.

 

BTW, I am not sure that when our side has shown one suit (partner's 2c overcall) and their side has suggested at least two of the other three suits, a double by us from either side can be a convertable takeout.

Edited July 7, 2011 by aguahombre

[wyman]

Thanks. I doubled at the table, but I thought it was pretty close.

 

edit: The results don't really matter because the whole auction was from outer space, but I'll include them so no one who contributed feels slighted. Pickup partner had overcalled 2C with 83/KQ8/A4/J108432, and RHO had made a negative double here with QJ10/9752/K876/A9. Pard passed, and they made 4, slightly worse than going for 500 in 3Cx, which is considerably worse than the field result of -130.

[Tataie]

Insta pass for me.

Not worth the risk. You can lose some imp sometime but someother time you ll go down for huge numbers.Risk>>Benefit

[wyman]

You can lose some imp sometime

 

No, I can't. DUCY?

[billw55]

I will go to great lengths to avoid defending 2 of a minor undoubled at matchpoints. And this hand doesn't really seem like great lengths.

[jogs]

I will go to great lengths to avoid defending 2 of a minor undoubled at matchpoints. And this hand doesn't really seem like great lengths.

 

Why? It's not at all unusual for that two of a minor to make four.

I think most players reopen too often. Much safer to allow partner to make 'undisciplined' overcalls.

[xxhong]

I also don't see why one has to reopen here. Reopening with minimum hands can be bad in many ways, in addition to pushing them to games, suffering a huge penalty, another problem is that if they compete further and buy the contract, you offer more information for them to take more tricks. This is bad both for MP and IMPs. If one can't take immediate light actions, one should usually stay away from the bidding IMO.

Why? It's not at all unusual for that two of a minor to make four.

I think most players reopen too often. Much safer to allow partner to make 'undisciplined' overcalls.

[JLOGIC]

Thanks. I doubled at the table, but I thought it was pretty close.

 

edit: The results don't really matter because the whole auction was from outer space, but I'll include them so no one who contributed feels slighted. Pickup partner had overcalled 2C with 83/KQ8/A4/J108432, and RHO had made a negative double here with QJ10/9752/K876/A9. Pard passed, and they made 4, slightly worse than going for 500 in 3Cx, which is considerably worse than the field result of -130.

 

1) 2C overcall is fine to me, pass is also ok, whatever.

 

2) The negative double is fine to me also.

 

3) If partner knew the X was t/o, he would bid 2H for sure not 3C. This will lead to 3D most likely, so I don't agree with your analysis

[JLOGIC]

I also don't see why one has to reopen here. Reopening with minimum hands can be bad in many ways, in addition to pushing them to games, suffering a huge penalty, another problem is that if they compete further and buy the contract, you offer more information for them to take more tricks. This is bad both for MP and IMPs. If one can't take immediate light actions, one should usually stay away from the bidding IMO.

 

Our minimum is zero, how is this hand minimum? The reason to reopen is that it could easily be our hand for something. partner has indicated values, we have a good hand with a fit for something, it is all the usual reasons to compete.

[aguahombre]

 

3) If partner knew the X was t/o, he would bid 2H for sure not 3C. This will lead to 3D most likely, so I don't agree with your analysis

True, on the given hand, if pard was in tune, your side could find a 4-3 fit in 2H which will not be disastrous, but the resulting 3D competition will lead to breaking even with Passing 2D. This is one of the good things which can happen --breaking even.

 

There might be a lot of, say, 2-3-3-5 overcall hands, and opponent layouts on this particular neg double auction where we can't get back to even. And, if breaking even is our goal, we were already there.

[Finch]

Just to give JLOGIC some support, I also think double is completely clearcut. I don't expect partner to be 2335 very often but I also know he's not going to be able to act over 2D without his length in the majors. Maybe you are just overcalling on hands that I wouldn't, but at matchpoints I don't see how defending 2D can be right. I wasn't far off acting over RHO's double on the previous round.

 

I'm playing an aggregate match tomorrow. I'd probably pass at aggregate, but I think it's close.

[MrAce]

 

I'm playing an aggregate match tomorrow. I'd probably pass at aggregate, but I think it's close.

 

What is an aggregate match ?

[Vampyr]

What is an aggregate match ?

 

Scored by total points.

[MrAce]

Scored by total points.

 

Thanks

[wyman]

1) 2C overcall is fine to me, pass is also ok, whatever.

 

2) The negative double is fine to me also.

 

3) If partner knew the X was t/o, he would bid 2H for sure not 3C. This will lead to 3D most likely, so I don't agree with your analysis

 

Wow. I guess I need to rethink things quite a bit.

Agree 100% with (3), although we make -1 hearts, so if they judged to saw it off, that would be -500 also. And even -200 would have been a bottom, so they could afford to drop a trick on defense. It's more likely that this will beget 3D though, you are right.

Re: (1), would you overcall 2C with this over 1S, or do you just like doing it over 1D for preemptive reasons? Are you overcalling with this at IMPs? For me this isn't a vulnerable 2C call, but maybe I need to reconsider.

Re: (2), I'd tend to just make a limit raise in diamonds with this hand. Is the X a MP decision, or would you do this at IMPs as well?

[han]

I can't speak for Justin but I think the negative double is completely automatic.

[xxhong]

If this hand is a passer over partner's 2C overcall (possible if you play quite aggressive 2C overcalls), I don't see why I have to bid more over their nonfit 2D rebid later. If you want to bid something over partner's 2C in your style (possible if you play quite sound 2C overcalls ), I don't see why you should pass over the negative double (this allows more information exchange for opps, which may allow them to compete or double you easier in latter bidding rounds). This is quite incoherent IMO to first pass then later double for takeout.

Also, 2D making is only -90 and 2H down 1 is -100. So it is just not my cup of tea to reopen here even in MP and I never think it is a clear cut to double. Also, things can go really bad sometimes when they can double your possible 4-3 fit in 2H with a 5-1 split, which is not a remote possibility at all. The final point is that this double offers more information if they declare and averagely, they may declare more accurately, which also may cost you MPs.

Our minimum is zero, how is this hand minimum? The reason to reopen is that it could easily be our hand for something. partner has indicated values, we have a good hand with a fit for something, it is all the usual reasons to compete.

[Finch]

If this hand is a passer over partner's 2C overcall (possible if you play quite aggressive 2C overcalls), I don't see why I have to bid more over their nonfit 2D rebid later. If you want to bid something over partner's 2C in your style (possible if you play quite sound 2C overcalls ), I don't see why you should pass over the negative double (this allows more information exchange for opps, which may allow them to compete or double you easier in latter bidding rounds). This is quite incoherent IMO to first pass then later double for takeout.

Also, 2D making is only -90 and 2H down 1 is -100. So it is just not my cup of tea to reopen here even in MP and I never think it is a clear cut to double. Also, things can go really bad sometimes when they can double your possible 4-3 fit in 2H with a 5-1 split, which is not a remote possibility at all. The final point is that this double offers more information if they declare and averagely, they may declare more accurately, which also may cost you MPs.

 

Well, the difference between bidding directly over 2C and protecting later is the same as for any protective auction - it shows fewer values. If you bid at once, partner may play you for more and you get too high. Saying that protecting is 'incoherent' is a bit much: it's saying that you should never protect a potential misfit auction which is far too strong a statement.

 

p.s. as it happens, I probably would have bid had RHO passed over 2C.