Balance or not?

[akhare]

MPs, all white, playing limited openings (10-15), pard deals and opens:

 

1♠ - (P) - 1N (semi-forcing) - (2♣) - P - (P) - ?

 

You hold:

 

Q

KJT87

J87XX

TX

 

X isn't explicitly defined, but the general agreement is that low level doubles are for takeout.

[mikeh]

I pass.

 

They are in a low-scoring partial, such that our ending up in the wrong spot could cost more than defending when they make.

 

Picture partner with some 5=2=3=3 12 count. Or even 10 count! Where's he going over a double?

 

If I knew I'd guess his long(er) red suit, I'd bid, but my crystal ball/hand-reader is off warranty and no longer reliable.

 

I also think we need to allow partner to trust us to have a more suitable hand for a double: we are minimum with little defence and no tolerance for his major. If I double on this, how will he know what to do next time, when I hold, say, Qx AJxx Qxxx Qxx?

 

Having said all that, if our goal is to score big, and we're willing to risk zeroes in our search for tops, I'd act. Me, I prefer to play down the middle in most auctions, and hope to out-defend, out-declare the opps, and reserve my bidding 'wins' for different situations than this. Of course, I never claimed to be any good at mps :P

[nige1]

MPs, all white, playing limited openings (10-15), pard deals and opens:

1♠ - (P) - 1N (semi-forcing) - (2♣) - P - (P) - ?

You hold: ♠ Q ♥ K J T 8 7 ♦ J 8 7 X X ♣ T X

X isn't explicitly defined, but the general agreement is that low level doubles are for takeout.

IMO Double = 10, Pass = 8, 2♥ = 6, 2♦ = 4. One or two-level, at pairs, giving the pot another stir is often the percentage action. Partner has denied four cards in red suit but could still have three,

[CSGibson]

2♥. If they compete further, at least I get the lead I want. X is too risky, partner will be likely to leave it in on lots of hands, playing me for more defense than I have. Plus, matchpoints, hearts scores more than diamonds, and both are equally likely to be right.

[gszes]

p non 2s rebid gives us good reason to believe we can find a decent 53 fit and our 55

distribution is just plain too good to ignore. P realizes we are in PO seat and may be

lighter than normal so I am not overly concerned about p converting to penalties.

 

If p happens to raise to either 3d or 3h we have a very excellent hand for them in fact

we might even consider 4h (though 5d is so far away we would not raise). we will be

more than happy to sit for 2h or 2h and even belatedly raise to 3 level if necessary

(even over a x by partner).

[quiddity]

2♥

[the_clown]

2♥. Double risks a 2♠ response from partner which I cant stand.

[mike777]

I will try pass given pards failure to act nv over 1s or 2c.

 

but I never seem to get these right.

[MrAce]

If all the low level doubles are take out by default as OP stated, i would definetely dbl.

 

I don't think pd should bid 2♠ with 5 when he has any 3 card red suit. Only downside that comes to my mind is when he has something like 5224 and not good for defense but i will risk it. It is often less risky than letting them play 2♣. To me 2♥ puts all our eggs in 1 basket and totally throws out our chances to find our ♦ fit if they sit on it. And they will often sit on it if 2♥ is bad place for us to play.

 

I don't even remember when was the last time my pd opened and i had legit response values and i let them play 2♣ when my club holding is xx.

[Fluffy]

If all the low level doubles are take out by default as OP stated, i would definetely dbl.

 

I don't think pd should bid 2♠ with 5 when he has any 3 card red suit. Only downside that comes to my mind is when he has something like 5224 and not good for defense but i will risk it. It is often less risky than letting them play 2♣. To me 2♥ puts all our eggs in 1 basket and totally throws out our chances to find our ♦ fit if they sit on it. And they will often sit on it if 2♥ is bad place for us to play.

 

I don't even remember when was the last time my pd opened and i had legit response values and i let them play 2♣ when my club holding is xx.

There are other downsides when partner jumps, or doubles later expecting more values in our hand.

[MrAce]

There are other downsides when partner jumps, or doubles later expecting more values in our hand.

 

 

What more values are you talking about Gonzalo ? In another topic you responded 2♥ and then 3♦ in your second bid with 5-5 hand and only 11 hcp vs a 1♠ opener in 2/1 gf system. I am in competition and in pass out seat here and if i pass they will play 2♣ in a MP game, does that mean anything to you ? I hope it does ....

 

Isn't there a middle way between passing and playing game ? I can live with 2♥ but passing is a little too passive action here at MP imo. My only concern is, as Chris satted, double may lead to playing in diamonds when heart part score is as good or even better.

 

It would actually be good to know if pd would have bid with all 5♠+4 red suit and very minimum hands or if he bids with only top range of minimum hands or better.

[straube]

What more values are you talking about Gonzalo ? In another topic you responded 2♥ and then 3♦ in your second bid with 5-5 hand and only 11 hcp vs a 1♠ opener in 2/1 gf system. I am in competition and in pass out seat here and if i pass they will play 2♣ in a MP game, does that mean anything to you ? I hope it does ....

 

Isn't there a middle way between passing and playing game ? I can live with 2♥ but passing is a little too passive action here at MP imo. My only concern is, as Chris satted, double may lead to playing in diamonds when heart part score is as good or even better.

 

It would actually be good to know if pd would have bid with all 5♠+4 red suit and very minimum hands or if he bids with only top range of minimum hands or better.

 

Partner will show a 4-cd red suit if he has one. He'll show a 6th spade if he has one. He would double with something like 5341.

[PhilKing]

I think the passers may have just misread the problem. It looks like a completely obvious take-out double. Lacking four cards in a red suit, pard will just bid his lower 3-card red and pass if 5224 (and also with some 5323 hands with a suitable club holding). He will jump exactly never given that he passed over 2♣.

 

I understand 2♥ - it's a decent matchpoint punt, but double has more ways to win.

[mike777]

Hope to see the full deal posted if possible.

 

A very interesting thread.

[straube]

Hope to see the full deal posted if possible.

 

A very interesting thread.

 

.......AT42

.......Q642

.......K964

.......9

J9765..........Q

A53............KJT87

A3..............J8752

K84............T6

.......K83

.......9

.......QT

.......AQJ7532

 

I know that passing the double was wrong. OTOH, I could have been stitched with J9765 A5 A3 K842. I basically think that the most important message of this balancing double should be at least high card parity and the second message should be takeout. I shouldn't have to cater to weak 5/5 hands.

[MrAce]

.......AT42

.......Q642

.......K964

.......9

J9765..........Q

A53............KJT87

A3.............J8752

K84............T6

.......K83

.......9

.......QT

.......AQJ7532

 

I know that passing the double was wrong. OTOH, I could have been stitched with J9765 A53 A3 K842. I basically think that the most important message of this balancing double should be at least high card parity and the second message should be takeout. I shouldn't have to cater to weak 5/5 hands.

 

Passing double with Kxx ♣ and expecting hcps from DBL in pass out seat seems like a consistent bad logic. Ironically when you, yourself, called it a BALANCING action.

 

You try to construct a hand, a hand where you wanna be stitched vs a balancing double. At the same time you want 2♥ to look better than double. You could not find one, so you constructed a 14 cards hand :) You could have used the one that i used earlier (5224) but then again that might have defeated 2♣. Can you also please provide us what would be outcome of letting them make 2♣ w/o double when your side has decent chances in 2♥ ?

[straube]

I meant to give your example of a 5224. I've corrected it.

[MrAce]

I meant to give your example of a 5224. I've corrected it.

 

5224 is possible, so is 5134 5314 while 5332 is very unlikely due to auction. It comes down to 5323 and 5233 hands. I am not even mentioning the hands where it is also possible that pd has decent 4 card clubs or 5 card clubs.

[PhilKing]

[x] The opposition always have seven clubs when they overcall.

 

[x] The spade ace is always in dummy.

[straube]

[x] The opposition always have seven clubs when they overcall.

 

[x] The spade ace is always in dummy.

 

We were asked for the layout. I gave the layout.

[rmnka447]

2 ♥. It only promises 5 ♥ and not much else in values. The problem with Dbl is that partner may respond like it's a nondescript 9-11 count.

 

I'd expect overcaller to have 6 good ♣s and a descent hand -- might be more playing strength than HC values. Overcalling a forcing or semi forcing NT in 4th seat requires a modicum more strength because the opening side will be looking at 23-24 value on a lot of hands.

[nige1]

Hope to see the full deal posted if possible. A very interesting thread.

.......AT42

.......Q642

.......K964

.......9

J9765..........Q

A5............KJT87

A32.............J8752

K84............T6

.......K83

.......9

.......QT

.......AQJ7532

I know that passing the double was wrong. OTOH, I could have been stitched with J9765 A5 A3 K842. I basically think that the most important message of this balancing double should be at least high card parity and the second message should be takeout. I shouldn't have to cater to weak 5/5 hands.

We were asked for the layout. I gave the layout.

IMO, if that really is the layout, then West should probably bid 2♦ but all players should have noticed the red suit disparity. Although it is interesting to see the actual deal, simulations are more useful for discussion purposes. As PhilKing implies, we should try to avoid becoming result-merchants. Here for example, I think that a take-out double is more flexible than other calls and has a higher frequency of gain.

[straube]

IMO, if that really is the layout, then West should probably bid 2♦ but all players should have noticed the red suit disparity. Although it is interesting to see the actual deal, simulations are more useful for discussion purposes. As PhilKing implies, we should try to avoid becoming result-merchants. Here for example, I think that a take-out double is more flexible than other calls and has a higher frequency of gain.

 

Damn it all. In fixing my example hand, I mistakenly started fixing and then messed up the initial layout. I was 5323 as I initially posted. I've since corrected this. Sorry.

[wank]

[x] The opposition always have seven clubs when they overcall.

 

[x] The spade ace is always in dummy.

 

yes sometimes they'll only make +1