[mike777]

Jxx, T9x, Axxx, AKx


This is an email hand sent to me, the bidding starts out:

(1s)=p=p=x
p=?

imps.

[jillybean]

2N, I'm not thrilled with my ♠ but I think this is the best description.

[nigel_k]

3♦

[qwery_hi]

2S; perhaps partner can bid 2NT, or clarify his hand further.

[BillPatch]

1 nt. I tend to reopen light. Also the Bridge World bid.

[Hanoi5]

Count me in the 2NT train. It's ugly but it's probably the best way to get to our most likely game.

1NT, 2♠ would be my second/third choices.

[jillybean]

nigel_k, on 2011-May-09, 20:26, said:

3♦

Won't partner put you with a good 5 or 6+ diamonds for this bid and unless he can bid 3N he is now stuck with raising ♦ or passing?

[rduran1216]

i think 2S is very clear.

[gwnn]

1NT, bid what you think you can make. Bridge is nice. Double on first round is not bad and now would have avoided this sort of, but obviously passing isn't unfathomable so we need a bid for these hands (and what if we had had AQx of clubs? AJx?). This is one of the classic situations when 1NT can't always have a stop.

[Lurpoa]

mike777, on 2011-May-09, 18:15, said:

Jxx, T9x, Axxx, AKx


This is an email hand sent to me, the bidding starts out:

(1s)=p=p=x
p=?

imps.

Yes indeed, an interesting problem, which you need to discuss with you partner.
It all depends on how weak the re-opening double can be.



I don't think SAYC or BWS2001 are defining that minimum, but I believe that 10H (2points less, than a direct double) are widely accepted.

10 good points, because the reopener also promesses 2 Defensive tricks, in case you want to convert his double to penalty.

So the answers to the balancing double, should be as for a direct double, plus 2 points..

Widely accepted are:
1NT= 9 -12, with stop
2NT= 13-14, with stop

cue-bid = at least game intrest and creates a force until a suit is bid twice or gmae is reached.



With those agreements: 1NT seems to be the best description.....

[gnasher]

I don't like 1NT because of the risk of wrongsiding 3NT. 2♠ would describe the hand-type, but overstate the values - I expect partner to balance with a 2434 9-count. 3♦ might be right on values, but the suit is inadequate.

That leaves 2♦, which is slightly conservative, but is likely to play as well as 1NT if this is a partscore hand. Even if your style is to make offshape doubles in the direct seat, it shouldn't apply in the balancing seat, because such hands can overcall 1NT instead.

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on 2011-May-10, 07:17, said:

I don't like 1NT because of the risk of wrongsiding 3NT. 2♠ would describe the hand-type, but overstate the values - I expect partner to balance with a 2434 9-count. 3♦ might be right on values, but the suit is inadequate.

That leaves 2♦, which is slightly conservative, but is likely to play as well as 1NT if this is a partscore hand. Even if your style is to make offshape doubles in the direct seat, it shouldn't apply in the balancing seat, because such hands can overcall 1NT instead.

I agree, and I wonder why no one else mentioned 2♦.

The simple way of looking at this - partner made a takeout double; my longest suit is diamonds, so I bid diamonds.

It is a slight underbid, but partner is balancing, and does not promise the usual strength for a takeout double.

[Fluffy]

I know I'd bid 1NT, but I play too many matchpoints. Even if partner doubled on direct sit it would be close to just bid 1NT still.

A language question: I think its the first time I see "overcall" used for a bid made in the balancing position, I though overcall was meant to be on direct sit, is it correct on both positions?

[whereagles]

In my book 1NT here is 10-12, so that's my bid.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2011-May-10, 07:17, said:

I don't like 1NT because of the risk of wrongsiding 3NT. 2♠ would describe the hand-type, but overstate the values - I expect partner to balance with a 2434 9-count. 3♦ might be right on values, but the suit is inadequate.

That leaves 2♦, which is slightly conservative, but is likely to play as well as 1NT if this is a partscore hand. Even if your style is to make offshape doubles in the direct seat, it shouldn't apply in the balancing seat, because such hands can overcall 1NT instead.

This is the second thread where it seems to me you are going overboard with trying to right-side NT when you have Jxx in their suit.

Let's look at partners possible holdings, and how much of and advantage it is to play from partner's side:
- Partner has no honor: there is a small advantage (RHO having HHxxx and leading high, LHO having Hx, and we have 9 top tricks or can strip squeeze RHO) - but really, the main advantage of not bidding NT here is avoiding 3NT altogether.
- Partner has Hx: Playing from partner's side is a big advantage when he has Ax and LHO has no honor, a big disadvantage if LHO has Hx and he guesses wrong, a disadvantage if LHO has Hxx (not so likely, also depends on spots). Kx is an advantage if LHO has Qx.
- Hxx: No difference with Qxx. With Kxx: an advantage if opener has ♠AQ, (smaller) disadvantage if he has ♠-A-empty (we will put up J and now can't lose the lead to either opponent). With Axx: Depends a bit on partner's guessing skills but overall a fairly big disadvantage.

That's not overly conclusive, and also a bit simplistic as I didn't give partner any spots. But I still think the cost of wrong-siding 3NT by bidding 1NT does not outweigh the cost of missing 3NT altogether by bidding 2♦. (How much does partner need to bid on with ♠Hx and 2434 over 2♦?)

[nige1]

mike777, on 2011-May-09, 18:15, said:

imps. Jxx, T9x, Axxx, AKx
(1s)=p=p=x
p=?

IMO 2♠ = 10, 1N = 8, 3♦ = 6, 2♦ = 4, 2N = 3.
2♠ is aggressive but IMO, at teams, you should consider possible games, opposite say
♠ xx ♥ AJxxx ♦ KQx ♣ Qxx

[jillybean]

I don't understand 2♦ or 1N at all. Partner doubled, I have an opening hand and I am making the minimum, forced bid available.
2N or 2♠ seem right.

[gnasher]

cherdano, on 2011-May-10, 09:15, said:

This is the second thread where it seems to me you are going overboard with trying to right-side NT when you have Jxx in their suit.

Let's look at partners possible holdings, and how much of and advantage it is to play from partner's side:
- Partner has no honor: there is a small advantage (RHO having HHxxx and leading high, LHO having Hx, and we have 9 top tricks or can strip squeeze RHO) - but really, the main advantage of not bidding NT here is avoiding 3NT altogether.

Good point - avoiding 3NT when it's silly is a significant advantage.

Quote

- Partner has Hx: Playing from partner's side is a big advantage when he has Ax and LHO has no honor, a big disadvantage if LHO has Hx and he guesses wrong, a disadvantage if LHO has Hxx (not so likely, also depends on spots). Kx is an advantage if LHO has Qx.

Yes, the main time it gains is when partner has Ax or in particular A10. It's not very likely that LHO has a spade honour, so I'd regard Ax as a likely gain. But when we have that gain, it's a big gain - this doesn't look like the sort of hand where we have eight or nine fast tricks, so a second spade stop will often be essential.

If partner has Kx, it means that they can't play three rounds of the suit. That may allow us to endplay RHO (though for that to be any use we would need to have a lot of fast tricks).

Quote

- Hxx: No difference with Qxx. With Kxx: an advantage if opener has ♠AQ, (smaller) disadvantage if he has ♠-A-empty (we will put up J and now can't lose the lead to either opponent). With Axx: Depends a bit on partner's guessing skills but overall a fairly big disadvantage.

I don't regard it as at all likely that partner has Hxx, because he didn't overcall 1NT. If he does have Hxx, I expect him to be too strong for 1NT, so 3NT will be comfortable from either side.

Playing it from partner's side may also gain:
- By concealing partner's hand. Since I have mainly aces and kings, which they'll assume we've got anyway, there's less value in concealing my hand.
- When RHO leads something other than spades. If LHO has three spades, he will know that a spade lead is right, whereas RHO may be uncertain about this.

Quote

That's not overly conclusive, and also a bit simplistic as I didn't give partner any spots. But I still think the cost of wrong-siding 3NT by bidding 1NT does not outweigh the cost of missing 3NT altogether by bidding 2♦. (How much does partner need to bid on with ♠Hx and 2434 over 2♦?)

How much would you like him to have? If he has Kx AQJx Kxx QJxx, I expect he will bid, and we will reach 3NT played from his side, making on an endplay. If he has Kx AJxx Kxx Qxxx we'll miss a 25-point game which probably isn't making. If he has Kx Axxx KQx Qxxx we'll miss a 26-point game which probably is making, so I agree that my approach isn't guaranteed to work.

However, it fails only when he has specifically a takeout-double shape, not four diamonds, not enough strength to bid again, and the right hand to make 3NT from the wrong side. That's quite a small set of hands.

[peachy]

1NT. I don't like it much, but it is right on values/HCP and denies a heart suit, so far so good. Everything else takes too much room and could jack our side too high. I don't want to punish partner for balancing, and if he has more, he can always bid again.

[whereagles]

jillybean, on 2011-May-10, 12:04, said:

I don't understand 2♦ or 1N at all. Partner doubled, I have an opening hand and I am making the minimum, forced bid available.
2N or 2♠ seem right.

It is widely accepted that responses to a balancing double go up 2-3 hcp with respect to the responses to a direct dbl. E.g. if

1x dbl pass 1NT

shows, say 7-10, then

1x pass pass dbl
pass 1NT

shows 9-12 or thereabouts. Just what you have.