[mcphee]

---

---

E opens bidding 1 S you pass as does your LHO and partner dbles

[awm]

I think forcing to game is a bit much, since partner is surely short in spades and could be a bit light for the balancing double. However, 1NT and 2♦ seem like underbids with a full opening hand. This hand will make game opposite many 14-counts (xx AKQx Axx JTxx or Ax AKxx xxx Kxxx offer pretty good play for game). Partner's never going to bid on over 1NT or 2♦ with those.

Pass could be right, but the spade spots are so bad. It seems like opener probably has 4-5 spade tricks and no reason he can't scrounge another couple tricks. Most of the hands where we set, we had game anyway. Give me the ♠T and pass is a bit more appealing.

This basically leaves me with 2NT and 3♦. Since partner doesn't have to have four diamonds for the double, and I don't like playing 4-3 fits at the three-level, I'll go with 2NT.

It's easy to imagine that 2NT is one down, or that we will play 2NT= instead of 1♠X-1 or something. But I'll go with the "textbook" bid on this one.

[pclayton]

On the 'subtract a king when responding to a balancing double', I can essentially choose between 1N / 2N and 3♦.

I think 2N is a bit much but I balance on distributional drek too.

If 1N shows 8-11 in response to a direct double, then 1N should show around 11-14 or so in response to a balancing x. Besides my spade spots suck and if pard has Kx, its important that NT be played from the other side of the table.

Count me in for 3♦. I think its a sensible value bid and gets us pointed in the right direction.

[mikeh]

I have 1♠ stopper and little hope that dummy will provide more: Kx is useless to me, for example.

I have no extra length source of tricks and opener, whose ♠ are likely established at trick one or two, will have an entry in a round suit almost for sure (and may even have the ♦A).

I am not vulnerable: this is the most important factor for me on these imp upgrade/downgrade issues.

3♦ will be awful if passed: give partner a 2=4=3=4 12 count, and this could fare very poorly even tho we have lots of hcp.

So I bid 1N. Give me Q9xx of ♠ and I bid 2N.

My second choice is neither 2N nor 3♦: it is 2♠: if partner has that hypothetical Kx of ♠, 2♠ will rightside 3N. However, 2♠ is more likely to find me bidding over 3♣, and that prospect is too scary.

We can still reach a better denomination after 1N, although perhaps I am deluding myself.

BTW, pass is insane. And that is being kind!

[P_Marlowe]

Take away a King, and what you have is a normal 1NT
response to a take double, although you have max.

And you should take away the King, because partner
made a takeout double in the bal. seat.

Marlowe

[han]

I voted for 3D because I think that 1NT is too light and 2NT is too heavy. Also, my spades are bad and my diamonds are good so if partner has a light double then 3D will likely play better.

[kenberg]

I am one of the (two, so far) 3D bidders. If partner cannot bid 3NT over my 3D, I seriously doubt we belong in 2NT and maybe not in 1NT. We also might not belong in diamonds of course but partner asked my help in choosing a strain and 3D is my best shot. It depends a little on who I am playing with, I guess. My own view is that fourth hand is allowed to pass out one spade if he doesn't actually have anything but I know some folks regard that as heresy.

Ken

[P_Marlowe]

kenberg, on Dec 5 2005, 03:44 PM, said:

I am one of the (two, so far) 3D bidders. If partner cannot bid 3NT over my 3D, I seriously doubt we belong in 2NT and maybe not in 1NT. We also might not belong in diamonds  of course but partner asked my help in choosing a strain and 3D is my best shot. It depends a little on who I am playing with, I guess. My own view is that fourth hand is allowed to pass out one spade  if he doesn't actually have anything but I know some folks regard that as heresy.

Ken

Not argueing with 3D, it is an option, but there are people around, who would
double freely with 4-3 in the minors, hence you may be left playing on the
3 level in a 4-3 fit, diamond may play better, but better than 3 tricks?

Marlowe

[kenberg]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 5 2005, 04:14 PM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 5 2005, 03:44 PM, said:

I am one of the (two, so far) 3D bidders. If partner cannot bid 3NT over my 3D, I seriously doubt we belong in 2NT and maybe not in 1NT. We also might not belong in diamonds  of course but partner asked my help in choosing a strain and 3D is my best shot. It depends a little on who I am playing with, I guess. My own view is that fourth hand is allowed to pass out one spade  if he doesn't actually have anything but I know some folks regard that as heresy.

Ken

Not argueing with 3D, it is an option, but there are people around, who would
double freely with 4-3 in the minors, hence you may be left playing on the
3 level in a 4-3 fit, diamond may play better, but better than 3 tricks?

Marlowe

Indeed it could be bad. But. Possibly partner has a good hand and my show of strength will get us to game. Maybe he bids 3NT, maybe he bids 3S in which case I bid 3N and hope for the best. Maybe 3D is a good contract. Maybe I go down. All possible. All in all, 3D is my bid. I am far from certain it is right, but it's my call.

I very much agree that partner may have only three diamonds. Bad things can happen. On the other hand he presumably is short in spades so the ruff will be in the hand with three trump, and my trumps are pretty good. If he has Axx in diamonds I may be able to handle it.

It's a good point you raise. Partner can be light in the balance seat. Probably the 1NT response should be a little heavier than opposite a direct double. I don't adjust all that much, but perhaps I should.

Ken

[awm]

If 1NT would show 8-11 opposite a direct seat double, then 1NT here opposite a balancing double is quite appealing. Obviously this has advantages.

But if you heard 1♠-X-Pass or 1♠-Pass-Pass-X-Pass, would you really pull out a two-level bid with:

AQxx
xxx
xxx
xxx

It seems like this is a recipe for disaster, playing a 4-3 or even 3-3 fit with no potential ruffs in hand, on a board where you likely hold roughly half the values.

A direct seat double normally shows an opening hand (rarely a bit less with "perfect" 1444 shape). Why scramble at the two-level instead of bidding a perfectly playable 1NT with 6-7 points? This is not the same as an overcall which is often 8 points or perhaps even lighter, where responding 1NT on a 6-count is asking for the red card.

[mike777]

1nt

Mr. Conservative

[Robert]

Hello everyone

This is a normal 1NT 'without' extra values. Partner should not let them play a one bid when 'his' partner normally holds an opening bid 'behind' the opening bidder.

The theory of 'adjusting' your bidding by about a 'king' fits this auction.

I tend to be a very agressive balancer. Partner can have a normal 14-15HCP and what is he supposed to do except 'pass' when holding 4 cards in openers suit and xx in an unbid suit? Doubling 1S with 4=3=3=3 is also not great thing of beauty.

Regards,
Robert

[Kalvan14]

The choice is between 1N and 2N. On a direct take-out double, I would bid 2N for sure. Here I'm more inclined toward 1N. Bidding is cooperative: if pard borrows a king from me for his bid, he must do the same for his re-bid. Which means that with a 14 HCP count or better he should keep the bid open.

[luke warm]

2NT seems perfect to me (well, maybe not perfect, but not bad)... with a good hand and hearts (5 or 6), partner can bid 4H now, knowing i have 2 or 3 but definitely not 4

[whereagles]

1NT is 10-12. That's what I have, so that's what I bid

[Al_U_Card]

The nice D suit makes 1NT a no lose bid..... we know that S will be led and 3NT will be really hard to make so relax and enjoy.

[Fluffy]

I also vote for 2NT, but I hate wrong siding the contract, 3♦ clearly has a point.

[joker_gib]

2NT too.

I can't bid 3♦ with only 4 cards.

Alain

[paulg]

1NT for me ... partner could have a 1444 8-count. If he has more then he can bid again.

Paul