balance or not?

[Stephen Tu]

Both vul, IMPs.

You hold ♠xxx♥Kxxx♦x♣AJT8x

 

partner opens,

1♣-(1♠)-dbl-(p);

1nt-(p)-2♣-(2♥);

p-(p)-?

 

3♣ or let it go, and why?

[SteveMoe]

I'm passing. They might not have better than a 5=2 ♥ fit. My ♥K is badly placed on opening lead in our putative ♣ contract. Partner's ♠ cards feel similarly compromised. Besides we rate to have 20-21 HCP so strength is evenly split. On offense, my ♦ shortness is deceiving (unless a dummy reversal is in hand ruffing ♦ in the long ♣ hand doesn't add tricks. Their lack of fit also implies they will not "take the push" to the 3-level. Besides, I like my hand for defending 2♥ opposite partner's opening bid.

[rhm]

3♣

 

I would never dream of doing anything else.

Partner is very likely to hold 4 clubs and if you open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors he might have 5 cards.

Opponents have an 8 card fit in diamonds, but their bidding suggests the diamonds are 4441 round the table. RHO should be 64 in the reds with good hearts.

Hard to say, who can make what, but I do not think we can beat 2♥. They might even have game in a red suit, but even if I doubt that 3♣ will push them there.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Free]

Partner's ♠s are in front of overcaller and our ♥s are in front of LHO. I don't think we'll make more than a few trump tricks, so it's a very clear pass imo.

[the_dude]

Where are the diamonds? Seem likely to be 4441 around the table, meaning partner very likely has a stiff heart. (I'm not sure what your opening bid tendencies are with 4-4 in the minors).

 

You didn't list your heart spots (I'm assuming they stink) ... or say anything about your opponents ... but in my experience players making this call know what they are doing. I'm letting not them play in a decent 2H spot when we have our own 9 card fit and half the deck.

[MrAce]

Anything but 3♣ escapes me by a mile.

[aguahombre]

If bidding 3C is right...and sometimes when it is wrong....partner would have bid 3C. I have shown hearts and club support. Why would I consider showing that again?

[gszes]

first let me express surrpise that we did not bid 3c after p 1n bid (we had a nice

forcing 2s bid available or 2n) 3c is a distributional limit club raise, Having failed

to bid 3c immediately we have to bid 3c now but it is actually a tad scarier now

that the opps got that nice easy 2h bid in.

[rhm]

If bidding 3C is right...and sometimes when it is wrong....partner would have bid 3C. I have shown hearts and club support. Why would I consider showing that again?

You have not shown 5 good clubs in a distributional hand.

 

You could have

 

1) better hearts

2) longer hearts

3) only 4 clubs

4) a balanced or semi balanced hand

 

Partner in second position does not know that. For all he knew you might be sitting there with a hand which might have wanted to double 2♥.

You are also fairly strong for taking out 1NT into 2♣. Partner is not expecting such a good hand.

Anyway your considerations in the pass-out seat when contesting a part-score are different ones:

 

1) Is 2♥ likely to make?

2) How likely is 3♣ to make?

3) How risky is 3♣?

 

My answer

 

1) Likely

2) Fair. Our major suit honors are not well placed, but we do have a nine or ten card fit and distribution, which makes a profitable double unlikely.

3) I deem it extremely unlikely that both 2♥ and 3♣ can be beaten. On the contrary it looks to me quite possible that both contracts will make. 4♥ or 5♦ could make, but with 2 defensive tricks (against 4♥), I am not too worried that 3♣ will push opponents into a making game.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

My partner would know 100% that I am unbalanced and have at least 5 clubs. But we always play MPs, IMPs can be a bit different.

[aguahombre]

You have not shown 5 good clubs in a distributional hand.

Then show the hand with a 3C bid on the previous round. When you do what the OP is asking about, you are what they call walking the dog. And when you do so, you run the risk of being foiled by some break in tempo by partner; in fact, that might be where this thread is going.