[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

1♣ p p 2♠
p ?

2S is constructive and invitational - what do you do now?

---

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Jan 18 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

close one, NV I think I'll pass but could easily miss a low HCP game if pard has the right cards (6 solid spades and the DK for instance).

This has always puzzled me about truly gifted players - when it comes to close calls such as this it seems the options are either 2 or 4: what about 3? Seems to me that the 7 imp loss is more likely to be avoided if we invite partner's participation in the auction rather than making a unilater decision - 3 rates to make almost as often as exacly 2 and keeps 4 in place. Or would 3S bid a better hand?

Winston

[pbleighton]

"This has always puzzled me about truly gifted players - when it comes to close calls such as this it seems the options are either 2 or 4: what about 3? Seems to me that the 7 imp loss is more likely to be avoided if we invite partner's participation in the auction rather than making a unilater decision - 3 rates to make almost as often as exacly 2 and keeps 4 in place. Or would 3S bid a better hand?"

I would pass too. 3S would be invitational for me, and opposite a not strong hand, this hand isn't good enough for an invite - although it is close. Red at IMPs I would invite.

Peter

[mcphee]

Passing is out of the question, I think you are far too good to pass. I think I would bid 3C and hope to hear 3N or 4S either of which delights me. I'd like to bid 2N but fear wrong siding the NT when unable to run 6 S tricks.

[pclayton]

Very close! Part of this issue may be how you play 2♠. If its 12-15, then I think you should move. If its 11-13, I think its a pass.

And its hard to tell what our game is - 4♠ / 4♥ or 3N....

But say 2N is non-forcing and invitational (I can see an Ogust application here). Are there hands that pard would accept that make a good game?

1. AKJxxx, Axx, Kxx, x is a non-fitting max. 10 tricks looks likely in hearts or spades.

2. AQJxxx, KTx, KQx, x is really non-fitting. We need some really good luck in spades or hearts.

3. AKQxxx, xx, xx, Ax is also great.

4. KQTxxx, AQx, xx, Ax is great for 4♥, so-so for 4♠.

I think I'll try 2N, since there are too many hands where game is excellent.

[pbleighton]

"Very close! Part of this issue may be how you play 2♠. If its 12-15, then I think you should move. If its 11-13, I think its a pass."

Agree. I assumed 11-bad 13 because of the description of the bid as "constructive and invitational".

Peter

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

This has always puzzled me about truly gifted players - when it comes to close calls such as this it seems the options are either 2 or 4: what about 3?  Seems to me that the 7 imp loss is more likely to be avoided if we invite partner's participation in the auction rather than making a unilater decision - 3 rates to make almost as often as exacly 2 and keeps 4 in place.  Or would 3S bid a better hand?

Winston

At the risk of attributing to Justin reasoning that he would not accept, I don't think that experts routinely take the position of game or pass in these situations. However, I suspect that many experts make the 'middle' bid a little less frequently than would the average player (including experts who have a different view), because they expect partner to accept invites aggressively. So they want to be heavy to invite, and yet both experts and others would need approximately the same strength to force to game. Thus experts who bid this way will tend to invite on a narrower range of hands than would most others. This is especially true when non-vulnerable, as here.

It may also be that the expectation for the reopening bid is different: see below.

I think the bid is close. I would give up on looking for a ♥ game: I think that any attempt to reach ♥ will create unnecessary complications. I also reject any effort to reach 3N, unless partner can suggest it. For me, it is close between 3♠ and pass.

I choose pass, because most hands that offer a good play for game would start with double, not 2♠. Note that a balancing double followed by a new suit is a lot different from a direct double followed by a suit: especially after a 1♣ opening: there is zero risk that I will unduly preempt partner's AKJxxx Axx Kx xx hand: I would double with that and then bid a minimum number of ♠.

[han]

Pass seems clear to me. Note that even the perfect hand that Justin gives makes game on a finesse at best (in the case that partner does not have 3 hearts). Given that there are 18 missing HCP's west could easily have the diamond queen.


I don't think that you need to be an expert bridge player to understand that frequent invites is theoretically wrong.

[mike777]

Pass
1) P needs a 5 LTC hand to make game.
2) I am going to estimate only 9 tricks in "FTL"
13-5+1=9 tricks
13=total tricks
minus 5=estimated combined 2 shortest suits.
Plus one=estimated combined 22-24 working hcp.
3) we are nv
4) invite heavy, accept lite.

[luis]

3♦ values in diamonds and invitational.

[whereagles]

This depends on partnership requirements for what a balancing jump overcall shows. "Constructive and invitational" is far too vague for me to make an appropriate judgement of my hand.

[tysen2k]

whereagles, on Jan 18 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

This depends on partnership requirements for what a balancing jump overcall shows. "Constructive and invitational" is far too vague for me to make an appropriate judgement of my hand.

Same here.

[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

Balancer's hand. Range discussion was invitational and worth 14-16.

---

[Kalvan14]

Over a 14-16 range, this hand is worth an invite. IMHO, 2N is probably the best solution.

[han]

"constructive and invitational" = 14-16 ??

[awm]

Can anyone explain why it's standard for a balancing jump to 2♠ to show an intermediate (or better) hand? Besides the confusion that this treatment seems to create for partner (mostly because people don't play intermediate jump shifts in other positions and have trouble evaluating their hands) what is the advantage?

I'm sure we would all balance over 1♣ with a hand like:

KQJxxx
Kxx
xxx
x

Doesn't it make more sense to bid 2♠ with hands like these, where your minimum strength increases the odds that opener has extras and might want to compete? This also nicely deters partner from making an unfortunate call in a search for a game contract that isn't there (for example a jump to 2NT on a balanced 13-14) and partner's evaluation problem is made easier since the balancing 2♠ looks a lot like a vulnerable preempt.

Just something I've always been confused about...

[han]

Adam,

I have never seen your suggestion before, but I suspect that it is quite playable (as long as you have the range well defined). You could have a problem with hands like AKJ10xx AJx xxx x, this is quite a good hand for a simple balancing overcall and not good enough to double first. The jump to 2M works well for these hands I think.


I also have never seen the range 14-16 before, and I'm not sure why one would want to jump with such strong hands. It seems to me that with a 15 pts and a good 6-card suit you can just double first. What is the reason for this treatment Winston?

[mikeh]

Adam raised an interesting point.

I have given it a little thought and would be pleased to read other points of view.

It seems to me that we use intermediate balances out of habit more than anything: certainly that is true for me

Having now thought about it a bit: I suggest that maybe we should distinguish between balances in suits higher ranking than opener's and those lower ranking.

I see Adam's point about using a reopening 2♠ as, say, the values for a vulnerable weak two bid, with the bigger hands shown by double.

However, assume an opening of 1♥ and we hold, in 4th chair, a good 3=1=6=3.

If we double, we run the risk of getting overboard if partner has an unsurprising hand with long ♥ and close to an overcall of 1♠.

If we reopen with a simple overcall, we run the risk that partner will have to hold back out of a realistic fear that we have a more normal minimum balance, especially if his holding in our suit is dubious.


So I see a real need for intermediate jump overcalls in a suit that we could not bid at the one-level: and a stronger need in the minors than in ♥.

Personally, I am going to stick with intermediate in all cases (I'm too lazy to try to persuade my partners to change to an untested theory), but I will try to watch for hands that could be treated differently and by that means build up a sort of database from which to drawa conclusions.

[han]

I see Adam's point about using a reopening 2♠ as, say, the values for a vulnerable weak two bid, with the bigger hands shown by double.

I'm not sure if this was Adam's suggestion, but I don't think that it will work. You will be doubling on far too many hands and you won't be able to show the really good ones.