[mr1303]

S: KTx
H: KQJxx
D: 9X
C: XXX

After the sequence 1D 1S 1NT (12-14) 2S from the opposition, partner balances with a takeout double.

How many hearts do you bid? 2NT would offer 2 places, so you can't bid a "good" 3H?

Sorry for not using the hand generator - I'm away from my computer.

[sfi]

Partner could have doubled 1NT with a genuine takeout hand, so they are likely to be weak and/or offshape. Vulnerability and scoring method both are considerations here, but I would look to give partner a lot of leeway and bid 3H most of the time. Vul at IMPs I will at least consider 4H, but even then probably not.

[DavidKok]

I think this hand is a lot weaker than it looks. Partner almost certainly has short spades for the takeout double, and the opponent with long (5+ but usually 6) spades is sitting over our KTx. I think it is more likely that we have 8 tricks in hearts than that we have 10. With a strong hand partner might have acted earlier.

[AL78]

A flat hand and both opponents bidding constructively, 3♥ is plenty, and that could easily go down. Partner isn't going to have that much for his double, he probably has 4-5 in hearts and clubs and doesn't want to defend 2♠.

[Cyberyeti]

AL78, on 2022-February-07, 04:35, said:

A flat hand and both opponents bidding constructively, 3♥ is plenty, and that could easily go down. Partner isn't going to have that much for his double, he probably has 4-5 in hearts and clubs and doesn't want to defend 2♠.

Why, what does partner do with a x, Axxx, xxxx, AKQJ ? he might double 1N but it's dangerous if dummy was about to bid 3 when you had a 4342 yarborough, 1Nxx +1 or wherever partner takes out might not be pretty.

I wonder what 2N-3♣-3♥ means

To David - aren't we over the spades ? otherwise why didn't we bid 1♥ over 1♦

[helene_t]

DavidKok, on 2022-February-07, 03:26, said:

the opponent with long (5+ but usually 6) spades is sitting over our KTx.

I think the aution was

---

so we are sitting over their spades. If we were sitting over the 1♦ opener we might have bid 1♥ in first round, and besides, Mark used the expression that partner "balances".

[mr1303]

Helene's interpretation of the auction was correct.

FYI I was North in the auction. The posted hand was South. It was IMPs but I forget the vulnerability.

[DavidKok]

Ah, I see. I missed the final pass in the original description.

I'm sure there are hands where we can make something nice (very sneaky of you to give partner ♦xxxx opposite our ♦xx), but note that if e.g. the hearts split 3-1 the opponents are favourite to have 9 or 10 tricks in spades. I don't think we're winning the auction after this start. Spades outrank hearts (I think) and if the opponents have extra shape and/or values for the auction to date we are most likely outgunned.

Playing partner for a perfect hand is losing bridge, and in a balancing situation doubly so. By not acting on the first two rounds of the bidding we have given up most of our chances to explore game. It is much more profitable to, conditional on passing for two rounds, be able to compete for partscores than to aim for the slim games. If you want to look for a game make a better agreement on what double of 1NT means on this auction (many play that it is takeout of spades). IMP scoring is focused heavily on game bonuses but the 6 IMP double partscore swings and the 4 IMP "3X-1 versus 2X=" swings do add up. Just give up on game in this situation, and in return partner can balance much more freely. Over time that will pay dividends (not to mention the negative inferences - that one time partner doesn't balance you know the contract might be in jeopardy).

On this exact auction you could opt for bidding 2NT (two places to play) and pull 3♣ to 3♥, showing stronger hearts than the direct 3♥. However, if partner picks 3♦ you'll have shown a heart-club two-suiter. Partner's failure to act over 1♦ suggests some length in that suit, so I think this risk is too high.

[AL78]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-February-07, 05:22, said:

Why, what does partner do with a x, Axxx, xxxx, AKQJ ? he might double 1N but it's dangerous if dummy was about to bid 3 when you had a 4342 yarborough, 1Nxx +1 or wherever partner takes out might not be pretty.

I wonder what 2N-3♣-3♥ means

To David - aren't we over the spades ? otherwise why didn't we bid 1♥ over 1♦

Yes you might have game on if partner has that pinpoint precision perfect hand, but the chance they have something worse than that where a partscore is the limit is much higher. I do not advocate making actions that require a perfect hand opposite, otherwise you will be disappointed most of the time.

[Cyberyeti]

AL78, on 2022-February-07, 08:45, said:

Yes you might have game on if partner has that pinpoint precision perfect hand, but the chance they have something worse than that where a partscore is the limit is much higher. I do not advocate making actions that require a perfect hand opposite, otherwise you will be disappointed most of the time.

Doesn't need to be that perfect, but if you invite, he doesn't have to bid game. The question is how do you invite ? This is why I wondered about 2N-3♣-3♥ particularly if the diamond is 4+ where partner is unlikely to bid 3♦.

[mycroft]

I want my partner to balance, so I don't hang partner even when I have a great hand. Almost all cards I have would be in partner's hand if I didn't have them (and vice versa).

It would be interesting to know what other options the opponents had over 1NT. XYZ? NMF? Nothing? The less scientific they are here, the more likely that cards are in the opponents' hand and not partner's.

I am happy to play the "get the opponents to the 3-level" convention, knowing that it sometimes means +170 (or even -420, but I try to avoid that. Knowing the rest of their system will help me decide if this is a "never balance against them" pair, whether because the spades are 2-3-5-3 around the table, or whether 1NT bidder is going to "raise" to 3 spades only to find partner saying "well, if he can bid 3, I have a little extra, 4".)

I'm sure we miss some perfect games. I'm sure that without this style, we'd be -100 (or -200, or -300) a lot more - either that or -110 a lot more.

[AL78]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-February-07, 08:59, said:

Doesn't need to be that perfect, but if you invite, he doesn't have to bid game. The question is how do you invite ? This is why I wondered about 2N-3♣-3♥ particularly if the diamond is 4+ where partner is unlikely to bid 3♦.

It is a good question. I was wondering if it was worth worrying about, as how often are you going to have game on when both opponents have shown values in a constructive auction? Having said that, it is possible game is on if both opponents are stonking minimum for their bids and/or there is a good chance of a double fit, so maybe it is worth thinking about. Is there any possibility of coming up with a Lebensohl style construction to show direct bids as values/invitational and going through 2NT to show rubbish? That does lose the use of 2NT as two places to play.

[mr1303]

---

This was my hand (the take-out doubler's) - pips might not be exact, but everything relevant is correct.

A club lead would have beaten 4H, but IIRC the club lead didn't stand out, and on a trump lead and slightly less than optimum, but not terrible defence let it through with an overtrick.

[helene_t]

mr1303, on 2022-February-06, 22:34, said:

2NT would offer 2 places, so you can't bid a "good" 3H?

Any particular reason why we can't show a weak hand with hearts via 2NT?

There may be other auctions where it is a problem that
2NT-3♦
3♥
is ambiguous (could be rounded suits or just hearts), but here it doesn't matter, doubler is just going to pass 3♥.

By the way, reverse scrambling is sometimes a bit better:
2N: one place to play, weak
3♣: clubs and a red suit
3♦: red suits:
3♥: hearts (invitational)
It distinguishes ♥+♣ from just ♥ (doesn't matter here) but also solves one problem with regular scrambling, namely that
2NT-3♦
doesn't say whether doubler prefers diamonds to hearts, only that they prefer a red suit to clubs.

[Cyberyeti]

AL78, on 2022-February-07, 17:26, said:

It is a good question. I was wondering if it was worth worrying about, as how often are you going to have game on when both opponents have shown values in a constructive auction? Having said that, it is possible game is on if both opponents are stonking minimum for their bids and/or there is a good chance of a double fit, so maybe it is worth thinking about. Is there any possibility of coming up with a Lebensohl style construction to show direct bids as values/invitational and going through 2NT to show rubbish? That does lose the use of 2NT as two places to play.

Both opps have not shown constructive values, how do you bid a 7123 3 count opposite a 1♦ opener if you don't play WJS ? I would suggest most people bid like this, and this sort of hand is quite likely given opener has not raised spades and partner is short in them.

Also the cards are very likely to sit well for you, x, Axxx, Kxxx, AQJx has decent chances to make an overtrick given the say 12:5 points split between the hands meaning the minor suit cards are likely to go well for you and the likely spade lead.

[bluenikki]

mr1303, on 2022-February-07, 20:45, said:

---

This was my hand (the take-out doubler's) - pips might not be exact, but everything relevant is correct.

A club lead would have beaten 4H, but IIRC the club lead didn't stand out, and on a trump lead and slightly less than optimum, but not terrible defence let it through with an overtrick.

Maybe one's methods should be altered to make this a suitable double of the 1NT rebid.

Carl

[Cyberyeti]

bluenikki, on 2022-February-08, 08:37, said:

Maybe one's methods should be altered to make this a suitable double of the 1NT rebid.

Carl

Possibly, my methods allow me to overcall 1♥ on this which would also remove the issue.