18 bal, balancing

[benlessard]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq3hj5dakj74ck85&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d2cpp]133|200[/hv]

 

Imps

[nigel_k]

2NT. It's too much to pass and I think there are more bad things than good that can happen if I double.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

we have a 5 card suit, we can bid it.

I am not passing, the alternatives are X or 2NT, although I am not sure i would really

consider 2NT at the table, even whne I happen to play it as natural.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cascade]

I too would try 2♦

[dake50]

Partner didn't negX. If he has a Major, he has only 5 points.

If X can escape 2H to 2Nt, that seems ok.

However, I fear any act awakens opponents to their 4H fit.

[gszes]

2d

 

Not a miracle worker by any means but it seems a shame

to let opps play a nice simple 2c when we can at least try

and make their life more difficult (if they somehow find 4h

dont balance so much against these underbidders:)). This

is an underbid but not by too much and we need a bit of

caution at imps when p may be broke.

 

The problem with 2n natural is even if you find p with 6/7

balanced hcp they will go to 3n and you will have trouble

making it. If p cannot bid over your 2d (which has to

show extra values) then game chances are slim and maybe

just maybe your side can set 3c if they venture there.

[ArtK78]

While it was not the first thing that I though of, I agree with 2♦.

 

Partner's failure to act over 2♣ indicates that he has one of two sorts of hands:

 

(1) A hand too weak to act, regardless of distribution; or

(2) A penalty double of 2♣.

 

Given our hand, the chances that partner holds (2) are slim and none, and slim just left town. In any event, if he does have that hand, when we bid 2♦ he will take an action (probably 2NT) and we will get where we have to go. We may have lost the opportunity to get a very large penalty, but they might have been able to run elsewhere in any event.

 

If partner has (1) then 2♦ is probably as good a place as any to play the hand. If partner has a long major and short diamonds he may bid it over 2♦.

[Winstonm]

I am in agreement with 2D and I will defend against 3C.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

While it was not the first thing that I though of, I agree with 2♦.

 

Partner's failure to act over 2♣ indicates that he has one of two sorts of hands:

 

(1) A hand too weak to act, regardless of distribution; or

(2) A penalty double of 2♣.

 

If partner has (1) then 2♦ is probably as good a place as any to play the hand. If partner has a long major and short diamonds he may bid it over 2♦.

 

The balancing DBL is part of th Neg-DBL convention ...

 

If partner does not have (2), he might bid his major: 2S or 2H ( if 2H then you have to decide if it is long ♥ or correct to 2NT ) .

[wank]

to the people bidding 2d, your parternships must have very low standards for what comprises a negative double, because back on planet earth whenever partner has something like a flat 7 or even 8 count he passes 2c and 2d

[mikeh]

I don't understand 2♦. Have you all missed an Ace in your hand count? Or maybe miscounted your diamond length?

 

Partner can have a variety of hands, including hands with as many as 9 or even 10 hcp and no call. He might have a long(ish) major, unable to double because he can't handle the other major and has inadequate diamonds. This is especially true if he has long hearts.....we bid 2♠ and he is committed to the 3-level opposite a minimum no-fit hand, and if we bid 3♠, he is committed to the 4 level if he can't pass.

 

So it is simply wrong to assert that he either has the (near impossible) penalty pass or a weak hand.

 

To me the real issue is whether we double, planning on bidding notrump next, or just bid notrump now.

 

I was surprised, when reflecting on this, that I didn't have a clear idea in my mind of the difference between 2N, otoh, and double then notrump, oto.

 

I think, but am unsure, that I'd prefer double with at least 3=3 in the majors, lest partner jump to 3M. I'd be stuck over 3♥, for example. I think, therefore, with no great confidence that I should bid 2N here. If partner now shows hearts, at whatever level I am going to be ok with my support even tho my clubs suck played from his side. I'd love to play system on here, but I don't think that is in my repertoire, let alone standard.

[the_clown]

Surely X, correcting 2♥ to 2N

[JLOGIC]

 

I was surprised, when reflecting on this, that I didn't have a clear idea in my mind of the difference between 2N, otoh, and double then notrump, oto.

 

 

Same, I also think X would have more tolerance for majors but maybe 42 is possible (so partner can correct 2N to 3S with 4-4 weak, and if partner bids 2S over the X we have located a fit immediately)? Or 33 like you said. Dunno.

[Winstonm]

I don't understand 2♦. Have you all missed an Ace in your hand count? Or maybe miscounted your diamond length?

 

Partner can have a variety of hands, including hands with as many as 9 or even 10 hcp and no call. He might have a long(ish) major, unable to double because he can't handle the other major and has inadequate diamonds. This is especially true if he has long hearts.....we bid 2♠ and he is committed to the 3-level opposite a minimum no-fit hand, and if we bid 3♠, he is committed to the 4 level if he can't pass.

 

So it is simply wrong to assert that he either has the (near impossible) penalty pass or a weak hand.

 

To me the real issue is whether we double, planning on bidding notrump next, or just bid notrump now.

 

I was surprised, when reflecting on this, that I didn't have a clear idea in my mind of the difference between 2N, otoh, and double then notrump, oto.

 

I think, but am unsure, that I'd prefer double with at least 3=3 in the majors, lest partner jump to 3M. I'd be stuck over 3♥, for example. I think, therefore, with no great confidence that I should bid 2N here. If partner now shows hearts, at whatever level I am going to be ok with my support even tho my clubs suck played from his side. I'd love to play system on here, but I don't think that is in my repertoire, let alone standard.

 

Mike,

 

I certainly respect your bridge abilities so I am only stating my opinions, here. To me the issue is of hand quality, or evaluation. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not want to back in with a double because then I am compelled to bid 2N if partner bids the expected 2H - in light of this auction, I don't think my hand is worth its full 18 count with Jx as part of that 18, and with the Kxx situated to the right of the known club length. I evaluate this hand to be worth no more than 16 at this point in the auction.

[benlessard]

Assuming you double partner will jump to 3H... what do you do now ?

[mikeh]

Assuming you double partner will jump to 3H... what do you do now ?

3N. What else?

 

This is why I chose 2N, tho I admit it was close to double. See Justin's post to similar effect about the double/2N issue.

 

I certainly can't pass 3♥: even with the possibly wasted club K (can't partner hold Qx, as one example) I have too much to pass. He can correct 3N to 4♥...no way I doubled with a stiff heart...I'd have bid 3♦ or 2♠ rather than double...and he can't correct 4♥ to 3N when that is right. I suspect we might have trouble agreeing on his possible hands for pass then 3♥, this being a surprisingly little discussed aspect of bidding theory. But choose whatever hands you feel fit, based on a 5 card heart suit, and I think you'll find that 3N is better (maybe only less bad) than 4♥ while with 6 hearts, the converse seems likely to be true.

[quiddity]

Partner can have a variety of hands, including hands with as many as 9 or even 10 hcp and no call. He might have a long(ish) major, unable to double because he can't handle the other major and has inadequate diamonds. This is especially true if he has long hearts.....we bid 2♠ and he is committed to the 3-level opposite a minimum no-fit hand, and if we bid 3♠, he is committed to the 4 level if he can't pass.

 

I'm not saying that I would bid 2♦ (I think it's a hard problem), but a couple of questions for you:

 

1. Would you reopen 2♦ with a minimum hand and presumably short majors opposite a partner who couldn't make a noise over 2♣? What values would be necessary to reopen?

 

2. Which of those 9-10 hcp hands are unable to take a call over 2♦? Which hands with a long(ish) major are unable to bid that major over 2♦?

 

Granted, LHO might make life more difficult by taking another call but it's not like 2N is risk free.

[gnasher]

I'm not saying that I would bid 2♦ (I think it's a hard problem), but a couple of questions for you:

 

1. Would you reopen 2♦ with a minimum hand and presumably short majors opposite a partner who couldn't make a noise over 2♣? What values would be necessary to reopen?

I'd bid 2♦ with xx KQxx KQJxxx x, because I have a poor hand for defending 2♣, an awful hand for playing 2♠, a good hand for playing 2♦, and a good hand for playing 3NT if partner happens to have the values for game.

 

2. Which of those 9-10 hcp hands are unable to take a call over 2♦? Which hands with a long(ish) major are unable to bid that major over 2♦?

It's awkward to double or bid 2M on shapes like 2434, 4234, 2524, 2533. With a 10-count I'd act anyway, but a 9-count might pass, depending on the honour location.

 

These shapes are, of course, less likely when we have ♣Kxx.

[mikeh]

I'm not saying that I would bid 2♦ (I think it's a hard problem), but a couple of questions for you:

 

1. Would you reopen 2♦ with a minimum hand and presumably short majors opposite a partner who couldn't make a noise over 2♣? What values would be necessary to reopen?

 

2. Which of those 9-10 hcp hands are unable to take a call over 2♦? Which hands with a long(ish) major are unable to bid that major over 2♦?

 

Granted, LHO might make life more difficult by taking another call but it's not like 2N is risk free.

1. that depends on my club holding: with club length of any significance, such that I can rule out a penalty double, then I would need more than a minimum if I were indeed, say, 2=2=6=3.

 

2. rather than me set out examples, it might be more useful for you to create some hands and work it out for yourself. If you can't...if all the examples have you bidding earlier or over 2♦, then you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the game. I am not being sarcastic: I really think that working this sort of thing out for oneself is the best way to try to understand the point. I would be happy to comment on any examples you post. Bear in mind that opener wil not have a fit for at least one major when he reopens with 2♦.

 

Edit: while I thought the problem was 'difficult', that had nothing to do with 2♦ as an option: frankly it wouldn't occur to me at the table, and I have seen nothing here that persuades me that it is even remotely a good answer to the problem: as I said, I think the issue is double then notrump or 2N, and I opt for the latter.

[mikl_plkcc]

I don't fill safe bidding any number of NT.

 

If East gains the lead, he will immediately lead a diamond if he has one, and West will run all 6 ♦s in his hand immediately.

 

X is not an option either, as there is an unbid doubleton.

 

The only sensible action to me is 2♦, pretending that I have 6 ♦s.

[benlessard]

This was a hand told to me

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq7hj6dakj85ck85&n=st53hkt8532dq62c6&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d2cppdp3h]266|200[/hv]

 

South should bid 3nt and north correct to 4H.

 

I think 4H is making and 3 NT went down, I would have bid 2D on round 1 with north hand but I agree that passing and jumping might be better. Anyway... tough hand. (it look like 4H could go down if west underlead his K of S despite seeing AQX on dummy at trick 2(not an easy play to find) It wont work if East has 3D.

[quiddity]

2. rather than me set out examples, it might be more useful for you to create some hands and work it out for yourself. If you can't...if all the examples have you bidding earlier or over 2♦, then you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the game. I am not being sarcastic: I really think that working this sort of thing out for oneself is the best way to try to understand the point. I would be happy to comment on any examples you post. Bear in mind that opener wil not have a fit for at least one major when he reopens with 2♦.

 

My point was that the vast majority of the hands you're worried about (maximums, hands with long majors) can act over 2♦. I think it is somewhat difficult to think of counter examples. Maximums with 2+ diamonds might raise, if nothing else. Any hand with 6+ cards in a major can bid it. Any hand with 5 spades and some points could make a negative double and rebid spades. Many hands with 4-3 or 3-4 in the majors and 8 points would double, especially when LHO has a 2♣ overcall and we have ♣Kxx.

 

IMO you are way overrating the chance of missing game. It must be far more likely to catch partner with a bad hand than to catch him with a game-going hand which can't act.

 

edit: btw, I don't see how you could "not understand" 2♦. The hand was worth 1.5NT when we started and clearly it has gotten worse. Even when partner has 7-8 we are less likely to make 3NT when LHO has a long suit and a side entry. How can it be so crazy to take the low road and still give ourselves a shot when partner has the 6+ card major (IMO the most likely hand where game is available)?

[mikeh]

 

edit: btw, I don't see how you could "not understand" 2♦. The hand was worth 1.5NT when we started and clearly it has gotten worse. Even when partner has 7-8 we are less likely to make 3NT when LHO has a long suit and a side entry. How can it be so crazy to take the low road and still give ourselves a shot when partner has the 6+ card major (IMO the most likely hand where game is available)?

 

 

You and I disagree here on just about every aspect of the hand and I doubt that you'll be persuaded by anything that doesn't accord with your thinking....and I know that I've still seen no persuasive argument for treating this 3=2=5=3 18 count the same way I'd treat many minimum hands (see Andy's example). I am usually one of the most pessimistic bidders in any event in which I play, yet the 2♦ bidders make me seem like a wild man. Weird. Oh well.

[quiddity]

You and I disagree here on just about every aspect of the hand and I doubt that you'll be persuaded by anything that doesn't accord with your thinking....and I know that I've still seen no persuasive argument for treating this 3=2=5=3 18 count the same way I'd treat many minimum hands (see Andy's example). I am usually one of the most pessimistic bidders in any event in which I play, yet the 2♦ bidders make me seem like a wild man. Weird. Oh well.

 

Well, I will try one more time since I still don't know where we disagree.

 

Which hands will bid game over 2N but pass over 2♦? IMO the vast majority of such hands will be balanced 6-8 counts, with more 6-counts than 8-counts.

Are we a favorite to make game opposite that range? IMO, no we are not.

Is there a decent chance that 2N will turn a plus into a minus? IMO, yes there is.

 

Do you disagree with any of these opinions? Are there other considerations which make 2NT more attractive?

[mikeh]

I fear that I am simply inviting you to post reasons why you think I am wrong. That's one of the characteristics of the game: we can each cling to our point of view on this case since it is very difficult to demonstrate empirically which is the better approach, and even when the arguments on one side are the more powerful, many of us are unable to accept that and will rationalize away anything that contradicts our point of view. I like to think that an awareness of that propensity helps mitigate its effect, but I'm not naïve enough to claim that I am immune to it.

 

Let's assume my partner reopened with 2♦. Here a couple of hands on which I would pass twice...once over 2♣ and again over 2♦.

 

 

Kxx Kxxxx xxx Qx.

 

On a club lead against 3N, I win the Q, and hook the diamond. I will play LHO for the heart A if need be. I have an excellent play for 3N and will be in 3N if I reopen with double, then notrump, or 2N.

 

 

Kxx Qxxxx Qx Qxx

 

I have 9 tops on the vast majority of hands

 

I think your notion of passing and then bidding a 5 card major, when partner promised an unbalanced hand short in at least one major, is bizarre. If my partner were to pass and then bid 2M over my 2♦ I'd expect something like QJxxxxx or a decent 6 card suit. He expects me to pass with as little as a stiff, else we are bidding misfitting hands with no significant combined values to the 3 level, which really is crazy.

 

Note I am giving partner the club Q and you may argue he isn't favourite to hold that card...and you'd be right. However, you would be very wrong, indeed, to say that he cannot hold the hands I have given you, at least in any partnership of which I'd want to be a member.

 

If your point is that bidding 2N caters to a small group of hands, I'd agree with you. They happen to be a very important group of hands.

 

It is possible to construct hands with nothing in clubs on which doubling (intending to bid notrump) or 2N works out better than 2♦ but they are also relatively uncommon, and I suspect that the hands I'd offer as support for that statement would merely trigger more frustrating exchanges as you nitpick by claiming that you'd do something else (which I am sure you would deny would in any way be influenced by knowing what opener's hand was...and I wouldn't call you a liar but I'd probably think you were mistaken)

 

I'm done on this thread, no matter what you put up. I don't think I've persuaded you and that's ok with me. I'm comfortable that my approach works for me and I am reinforced by the apparent agreement of the better players who have posted on the topic.