balance after opening 1NT

[kgr]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk5hkj94dt93caqj4&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(14-17)2spp]133|200|Teams/IMPs[/hv]

All Red at IMPs (teams) you open 1NT, 14-17.

LHO Follows with 2S natural and this is passed back to you.

Your partner had Lebensohl and Take-out available.

 

Pass or DBL?

[the_clown]

Pass. I opened with a minimum hand and since than my hand got even worse. Partner could have made a takeout double with short spades and some values.

[rmnka447]

Pass, you've already told your story.

 

There's no way to know who has what at the table -- other than that partner didn't take any action directly over the 2 ♠ bid.

 

If I take it right that an immediate double by partner would be for takeout (i.e. negative double), then you've given up the ability to penalize 2 ♠ in favor of competing when partner has enough to compete with no long suit.

 

If you double, you might get lucky and find a spot to land or find pard with a spade stack and beat 2 ♠. But more likely since partner was silent, the opponents will be able to make 2 ♠ doubled or beat you wherever you land.

 

Especially at IMPs and even more so when vulnerable, you can reopen/enter the auction if there's some reasonable place to land. You have no idea if that's the case with this hand. The idea is to avoid taking a big set opposite a part score by the opponents. The dangers of having to scramble to find a decent place to play at the 3 level are huge.

 

Finally, it's also good to reevaluate your hand in light of the bidding. Your ♠ Kx has definitely lost some value with a ♠ bid behind you.

[1eyedjack]

In principle I am happy to stretch to protect, and you have the perfect shape.

 

However, in this case there are a few indicators that argue against:

 

♠K

Minimum values

They have bid the most expensive suit, forcing you to the 3 level

Vulnerability

IMPs

 

So I would pass. Acting only gains if (1) they are making 2S on the nose and you can make 3 of something or (2) partner is sitting there with a penalty double but no penalty double in the armory.

 

That is a small window to hit, and at least in case 2 you would be going plus even if the double was a missed opportunity. Again, your King suggests that this case is less likely.

[kgr]

(This post can be moved to Laws forum by operator if possible)

Behind screens (N-E / S-W):

Tray comes come to South after a long delay. (everyone agrees that it took longer than normal).

South DBLs and that is passed out.

North has:

♠J632

♥AT2

♦K82

♣765

2♠X goes -3 = 800. (Board played in lower division)

- Is it clear (or likely) that tray delay is caused by North & that Souths double is suggested by it?

- Do you correct the score?

[Fluffy]

I would correct the score but the hand is likelly ending on the comitee.

[ggwhiz]

Our patnership style is to re-open with the right shape period and take our lumps when it's wrong. Thankfully we play a lot of speedballs and don't have these kinds of hesitations (comas?) anymore.

 

However in this situation we would pass in a flash or certainly be too embarrassed to sell that notion to a committee.

[quiddity]

Why would the delay likely be caused by North? I would guess that East typically has the more difficult problem.

[ggwhiz]

Why would the delay likely be caused by North? I would guess that East typically has the more difficult problem.

 

There are a few examples in NABC casebooks where the problem was judged to be not with the player bidding over a well defined 1nt bid as opposed to the one bidding over the undefined overcall. I can't find any but recommend browsing through them for anyone interested in the subject

[mgoetze]

In principle, I agree with

Our patnership style is to re-open with the right shape period and take our lumps when it's wrong.

but I believe that

♠K

Minimum values

They have bid the most expensive suit, forcing you to the 3 level

Vulnerability

IMPs

is convincing enough to make an exception on this hand.

[ggwhiz]

100% to the above post is why I would never balance after the tank even if it MIGHT be from lho and would never trot out such a self-serving and non-standard argument in committee.

 

If the tank indeed came from lho and I had a backup example or 3 for this style, I might argue that a re-opening double was a logical alternative but that's for after the fact. If pard tanked (very likely) passing is a clear L/A.

[kenberg]

Most players agree that with xx in spades and a max, you re-open. Quite a few would say that with xx in psades and any count you re-open. But I doubt that it is standard practice to re-open with Kx and a minimum. I'm not saying whether one should or shouldn't, but I think that the agreement to play this holding as an automatic re-open would be at least fairly uncommon.

 

 

It would seem right to me to summon a director and then for that director, before much commenting at all, to take each player aside and ask him to describe exactly what they have agreed to. Perhaps they are both prepared to say unequivocally that their agreement is to re-open on any doubleton spade. Perhaps one or the other will simply say no, usually they would not do this, but an angel advised him that this was the time. Who knows, but I think that it should be asked. And I think that their answers should be filed away for future reference. It could be true, perhaps this is their agreement. but it's damned convenient to have this agreement just when there has been a long tank, whoever it was that tanked.