[gwnn]

KQx
Jxx
Qx
ATxxx

All white imps RHO deals+opens 3♦. Pard reopens with a double.

[jillybean]

4♠

[Trinidad]

4♦. wtp

Rik

[Apollo81]

4♣

Ill just go for a plus. This is exactly the sort of hand where you can have 26 pts and no game makes. Besides, it's a balancing double so we don't have to drive to game as aggressively anyway.

[ASkolnick]

I pass. I am not going to guess which 4-3 fit to play in or get to 5C. I have the QD which is a horrible card for offense and my partner shows an opening hand. Sometimes I go -530, but I will bet you I will go +300 often enough to make this right.

[Echognome]

I like 4♦, although I don't think it's a WTP hand. Yes partner is balancing, but it's not as if he's a passed hand (where I think it'd be a clearer 4♣). There just seems to be too great odds he's 45 in the majors and we want to get to our 5-3 fit. Even a 4-3 fit might work out fine.

[kfay]

I considered pass, 4♣ and 4♦ on this hand. Pass is first to go for obvious reasons.

It really looks like I'm screwed here. I think I'll bid 4♣ because it seems far fetched that enough is going to work here to let game roll. I'll regret this if partner has a 5cM. But we're NV.

[rogerclee]

I think partner probably does not have a 5 card major on this auction, so I will just go the low road and 4♣ this.

[Echognome]

rogerclee, on Jun 17 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

I think partner probably does not have a 5 card major on this auction, so I will just go the low road and 4♣ this.

Why not? If partner is 4=5=1=3 or 5=4=1=3, what do you want him to do in the balancing seat? What if he is 5=3=1=4 or 3=5=1=4? It's not the same as if it had gone (1♦) - Dbl - (P) - ? where it is much less likely for him to have a 5cM.

[rogerclee]

Echognome, on Jun 17 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 17 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

I think partner probably does not have a 5 card major on this auction, so I will just go the low road and 4♣ this.

Why not? If partner is 4=5=1=3 or 5=4=1=3, what do you want him to do in the balancing seat? What if he is 5=3=1=4 or 3=5=1=4? It's not the same as if it had gone (1♦) - Dbl - (P) - ? where it is much less likely for him to have a 5cM.

Because it gives the opps 10 diamonds.

I didn't say it was impossible. I just meant it made a reasonably unlikely situation even less likely to occur.

[Echognome]

rogerclee, on Jun 17 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 17 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 17 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

I think partner probably does not have a 5 card major on this auction, so I will just go the low road and 4♣ this.

Why not? If partner is 4=5=1=3 or 5=4=1=3, what do you want him to do in the balancing seat? What if he is 5=3=1=4 or 3=5=1=4? It's not the same as if it had gone (1♦) - Dbl - (P) - ? where it is much less likely for him to have a 5cM.

Because it gives the opps 10 diamonds.

I didn't say it was impossible. I just meant it made a reasonably unlikely situation even less likely to occur.

Don't forget that partner could be sitting there with a good hand. What other choice does he have passout seat or not? Sure the lower limit on the double is less, but there's no reason the upper limit is also less. He could even be 4=5=2=2 or 5=4=2=2 right?

[rogerclee]

Echognome, on Jun 17 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 17 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 17 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 17 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

I think partner probably does not have a 5 card major on this auction, so I will just go the low road and 4♣ this.

Why not? If partner is 4=5=1=3 or 5=4=1=3, what do you want him to do in the balancing seat? What if he is 5=3=1=4 or 3=5=1=4? It's not the same as if it had gone (1♦) - Dbl - (P) - ? where it is much less likely for him to have a 5cM.

Because it gives the opps 10 diamonds.

I didn't say it was impossible. I just meant it made a reasonably unlikely situation even less likely to occur.

Don't forget that partner could be sitting there with a good hand. What other choice does he have passout seat or not? Sure the lower limit on the double is less, but there's no reason the upper limit is also less. He could even be 4=5=2=2 or 5=4=2=2 right?

I usually bid the major if I'm (45)22, unless I'm strong, but then I'm bidding over 4♣ anyway.

[Echognome]

Interestingly enough, suppose that RHO is 2=2=7=2 (you can then shift around a card as desired), that leaves 8 spades, 8 hearts, 4 diamonds, and 6 clubs, making both LHO and partner 4=4=2=3 on expectation. So although I agree that our greatest expectation of combined length is in clubs, it seems that our gains from bidding 4♣ are outweighed by the game bonus if 4M happens to make. However, I do agree that if partner is equal length in the majors, we're going to play in hearts.

[MickyB]

Quote

4♠


--------------------
Only bid 3card suits when youre opening 4432!

Lol.

Horrible problem, though. Guess I bid 4♦.

[mike777]

Very tough, as usual I would just punt with the cuebid. Cuebid or double if option choice often with tough bidding problems.

[cherdano]

4♦ for me.

[jillybean]

MickyB, on Jun 17 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

Quote

4♠


--------------------
Only bid 3card suits when youre opening 4432!

Lol.

Horrible problem, though. Guess I bid 4♦.

Errr that should be 4♣

[andy_h]

Hmm a toss between 4D and 4C. It's always tough since partner's strength can be a bit wide for a balancing X and we are at a high level not able to distinguish the middle hands. Ah well, I know what kind of hands me and my partner will reopen-X on so I will go with 4C though i am really tempted with 4D. Good thing (?) it's NV.

[Trinidad]

Just a question for the 4♣ bidders: How is partner going to decide whether to bid 5♣ when you have 12 HCPs and could have 0?

My way to deal with preempts: Assume partner has about 7 points. Then bid to the level that you can make. But that means that a responder needs to be active if he has considerably more than his assumed 7 points. So, IMO, 4♣ is for hands with say 9 or less points.

Obviously, this is slightly different since this is a balancing auction. But the difference is small. After all, the fourth seat doesn't know how the points are distributed and he doesn't know of a fit (other than that the preempter doesn't need much from his partner to have a fit). This auction is very different from, say, 1♠-Pass-2♠-Pass; Pass.

Since the level is relatively high, balancing vs preempts can be very costly if the deal turns out to be a misfit. This is especially true at IMPs. The traditional "borrow a king from partner" rule for balancing doesn't hold for balancing against preempts. You cannot borrow a king on top of the 7HCPs that you already borrowed. Then you start to get very close to the range of hands that partner cannot have anymore.

An additional difference in the balancing auction is that responder is limited. When responder forces to game, his values are precisely known (too little to act in second seat, enough to force to game: about 10-13). Partner will not get us over board.

The only risk in bidding 4♦ is that we are already over board. There may be two causes for that:

1) We are unlucky. It happens.
2) Partner doesn't know what a balancing bid at IMPs looks like. That can also happen, but not in a long lasting partnership.

Rik

[mikeh]

Good problem.

I am pleased to see few votes for pass.... we might be defending for +300 while on for a slam.... LHO's silence doesn't mean he lacks diamond length... white v white, why would he raise with 4333 shape and weakness?

As for the calls: 4♣ has the advantage of showing our suit, and it not a huge underbid given that we have 10 working hcp. Certainly, it is sufficient if we wish to bid clubs.. we can hardly justify 5♣

No major suit bid appeals.. especially since we are guessing as to relative lengths.. we might even pick a 3=3 fit.

We can avoid this and assure ourselves of the maximal major suit fit via 4♦... provided that we are assured that partner, with 5=4=1=3, as an example, will bid 4♠ and not 4♥... I think he should.

Since our alternative is to bid 4♣, requiring 10 tricks, and 4♣ offers minimal upside, and conveys none of our power (such as it is, this is not a wonderful hand), 4♦ seems to be best.

It usually gets us to the right major suit game if there is one... I wouldn't panic if he chooses 4♥.. that may well be the better game, or may be equivalent to 4♠.... It gets us to game rather than a minor partscore, and it maximizes the chances of reaching a slam... of course, partner may get too carried away... the slam we reach may not be very good... compare this hand to KQx QJx xx A10xxx... and why shouldn't partner play us for that hand rather than the 12 count we hold?


I think the downside risks of 4♦ are outweighed by the upside, compared to other calls.. so 4♦ it is, and I hope I have an understanding partner.