response after pd's balancing 1S

[yaohung]

[hv=pc=n&n=s654hajt5dkqt6ct4&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hpp1s2c]133|200[/hv]

 

Please select your call. If you are interested in this topic, provide the reason: why and why not.

[benlessard]

2H WTP

2H is a overbid normally but since opener rebid im going to bid 2S with a lot of weaker hands here, so i need to split my range. If opener had passed i think 2S is enough. I dont believe in doubling and bid with a normal 15 in balancing seat.

[whereagles]

2S. This is just about the par raise opposite a balancing overcall.

[Hanoi5]

The spades are kinda ugly, partner might re-open with a four-card suit. My hearts (and diamonds) seem well placed but, if partner has club values they don't seem well placed. I think I'll underbid 2♠ in this hand.

[gszes]

for a ten count I have a pretty decent hand

hearts sitting behind heart bidder with

rest concentrated in my 4 card dia suit.

There is also the tiny chance our

(admittedly less than robust) spade support

might yield a club ruff. Hard to imagine

not wanting to at least invite p to bid game

and let them decide if the bidding has made

their hand better or worse.

 

If they balanced light we are no worse off

than we would be if we made a simple raise

buttttttttt if they had a good balance

game is probably a good shot especially

double dummy. After lho pass and rho pass

I think the odds of p having a decent

overcall have increased dramatically.

 

I vote for 2h

[yaohung]

Since north pass in the first round，2d response should be a fit showing and better describe call. I am very surprised 2s which is clearly underbid received many votes. 2H still keep the door open for 2S and show 10+ counts which should not be overbid for a passed hander.

[phil_20686]

I found this tough. On the one hand I have a reasonable hand with hearts well placed and fitting honours. Also spade length rates to be on our left on the auction which is quite likely 54. The club shortage rates to be useful. On the other hand lho is like short in hearts and could be ruffing, and the diamonds are not so good with length likely on the left. Also you have three small in the trump suit with is worth a downgrage. Also partner is in the protective position. Partner likely has club legnth under the bidder.

 

I voted for 2H because I dont think that this shows an amazing hand. I do not subscribe to the borrowed K theory here. If partner has less than an opening hand he has a 2S bid. its less than sensible for him to apply that theory to a simple raise. Also. If partner makes a further invite I can pass. I still have space. All round 2h feels like a sensible choice, despite some negative factors.

[benlessard]

2d response should be a fit showing and better describe call.

If you can make a direct overcall of 2D with 7-8 pts i agree. But for most players 1H/2D is a sound overcall so passing and bidding 2D should show 7-10 pts without a S fit IMO. Also for many a fit showing show a 5 card length side suit so that with Ax they have hope for making 5 tricks not 3.

[gnasher]

I think a second-round 2♦ should be natural, showing something like xx AJx KQ10xx xxx.

[RMB1]

What is double here?

[Free]

I have an invitational hand with 3 card fit, 2♥ wtp.

[gnasher]

What is double here?

 

I think it's 2-5 in the pointed suits, but more like Qx AJx K10xxx xx.

[bluecalm]

I have an invitational hand with 3 card fit, 2♥ wtp.

 

+1. We have very good values in hearts and clubs. We don't need that much for a game especially with likely spades honors no declarer's right.

 

I think it's 2-5 in the pointed suits, but more like Qx AJx K10xxx xx.

 

Yeah, again +1, but I can imagine doubling with Qx AJxx KTxx xxx. 2 spades are more important than 5 diamonds.

[diejowae]

X ( double ) Responsive; see for partner 44 in red suit may 3-cards♠ 8-10hcp good in red suit. How you card distribution partners?; If OPP pass after your double. Partner: Pass : Penalty; 2♦/2♠: to Play; 2♥: invite 4♠ 5+ good cards ♠and shingleton♥; 2NT: invite 4+ cards♠+ good stopper in♣not lenght.

[aguahombre]

Those who think 2S is an underbid, remember the hand is actually XXX AJTX QTXX XX. Partner borrowed the diamond King when she balanced, and is keeping it throughout the auction; including to decide whether she will make another move when we raise to 2S.

[gnasher]

Those who think 2S is an underbid, remember the hand is actually XXX AJTX QTXX XX. Partner borrowed the diamond King when she balanced, and is keeping it throughout the auction; including to decide whether she will make another move when we raise to 2S.

 

I think that second-seat overcalls have been so debased that there's no difference between a second-seat overcall and a fourth-seat overcall, certainly at the one-level. Hence I've stopped lending and borrowing kings.

[Phil]

What is double here?

 

The same if RHO would have bid 2♥ - penalty.

 

Neither penalty nor responsive are anything near universal and for many partnerships, the definition might fall under its metarules.

[aguahombre]

I think that second-seat overcalls have been so debased that there's no difference between a second-seat overcall and a fourth-seat overcall, certainly at the one-level. Hence I've stopped lending and borrowing kings.

That is one approach; the other is not to debase 2nd-seat overcalls. So, we just have different contexts. Either 2S or 2H is best, depending on which of us is choosing.

 

Actually, it seems like the 2nd seat doubles are the really debased calls which would lead to stopping the borrow/lend thing.

[Phil]

BTW, this looks like a WTP 2♥ call.

[gordontd]

I think that second-seat overcalls have been so debased that there's no difference between a second-seat overcall and a fourth-seat overcall, certainly at the one-level. Hence I've stopped lending and borrowing kings.

Would you consider this hand good enough to UCB in response to a debased second-seat one-level overcall?

[gnasher]

Would you consider this hand good enough to UCB in response to a debased second-seat one-level overcall?

Yes, though I realise that this is a bit inconsistent.

[gordontd]

Yes, though I realise that this is a bit inconsistent.

I expect that what we might last week have considered to be inconsistency, this week we see as the superior judgement of a Gold Cup winner :)

[mfa1010]

I think that second-seat overcalls have been so debased that there's no difference between a second-seat overcall and a fourth-seat overcall, certainly at the one-level. Hence I've stopped lending and borrowing kings.

I agree.

Having kings is a luxury when it comes to one-level overcalls. :)

[aguahombre]

Having kings is a luxury when it comes to one-level overcalls. :)

And having somewhere near t/o distribution has become a luxury when it comes to t/o doubles, so probably the borrowing concept should be dead in today's "balance" theory.

[Phil]

Yes, though I realise that this is a bit inconsistent.

 

Why? It just means you are rejecting partners game overtures more frequently. Regardless of overcalling styles its important to differentiate between a simple raise and a limit raise.

 

Now if you choose to start debasing cue bids... :)