[Rebound]

You hold: (MP all white)
Kx
AKx
9xxxx
Axx

and 1NT was passed around to you in 4th seat.
In my regular partnership, a double in this position is balancing so one's hand need not be this strong.

So, what do you do with this hand? Are any of pass, bid, or double obvious? Also, do you consider it foolish to be unable to double for penalty in this situation at any form of scoring (not that I'm suggesting a penalty double with the given hand)?

I've deliberately left my own views out of the equation so as not to appear foolish
But I think the question of how best to handle this hand, at matchpoints in particular, is valid.

[whereagles]

Pass for 2 reasons:

1. You don't have the majors
2. You're ok with any lead pard makes

[pbleighton]

"Pass for 2 reasons:

1. You don't have the majors
2. You're ok with any lead pard makes"

A third reason:

You have a flat hand, suitable for defense.

Peter

[bid_em_up]

The answer to this question is somewhat dependent on your partnership style (and system) on bids in the direct seat over 1N, and what you know by partners failure to make a call already.

Assume for a moment, you play Cappelletti. You know partner does not have a major/minor hand, does not have both majors and does not have a one suited hand (or if he does, the suit is so bad, he refused to bid it). So he is most likely balanced. You can draw similar inferences from whatever NT defense you play.

What do you know about RHO? Probably less than 8 hcp, and will not have both majors (no stayman), and its unlikely they have a 5+ card major (no transfer).

Now, you have 14 hcp, and the NT bidder has 15-17 which means 29-31 hcp are accounted for.

Now where is partner going to go, if you double? In 4/5 instances, there is no problem. If partner bids spades, he almost has to have 5+. Good partnerships will, imo, bid 2♣ on a 4-3-3-3 hand if they are pulling the double. If they are not 4-3-3-3, and do not have a 5+ card suit, they will have two four card suits, and would have bid the lower one first. So 2♠ denies a lower 4 card suit and must be 5+. I'm not afraid of playing 2S in this instance either. And I would love to be able to defend 1N doubled, if possible.

I have found that it is almost never correct to defend 1N undoubled when we are both not vulnerable. If we manage to beat it two tricks, we are +100 vs. our likely 110 and losing at MP. If we are in 2x -1 (or -2), it will beat their 90 or 120, because in most cases, they will not be able to double us.

So now, the only decision for me is....do i bid 2D (I play that calls are natural in balance for this reason) or do I double? If my hand was Kxx AKx xxxx Axx, I would double without a problem. If the diamond suit was any better, I would bid 2D with no problem. Here, because double give us the best shot at all of our alternatives, I will double......knowing that it could possibly turn out badly.

jmoo.

[han]

Is "pass" not in your vocabulary?

I don't believe in rules like "always double 2NT-p-p" or "never pass out 1NT all white". I'll act when my hand suggests acting, and pass when my hand suggests passing, as I think this one does. I also think that the field will pass out 1NT, another reason to defend.

[SoTired]

Pass (assuming opener is strong 1N) - and I don't care what style or conventions we play. This hand is in front of strong opener and has no distribution and no good suit.

I would much prefer to bid with something with a singleton, with almost any strength if we are playing the right conventions. The weaker the better because that puts partner's strength behind opener.

[mikeh]

Pass seems automatic. If this is even close to a bid, then I have to seriously rethink everything I thought I knew about the game.

I would not, for a moment, read into partner's silence, any meaningful inference about his shape. I have 14 hcp, in Aces and Kings. LHO has, on average, 16. Thus rho and partner rate to hold about 10 hcp between them. The odds are that partner lacks the hcp to make a bid not matter what his shape is. We can almost rule out freakish shapes since, with LHO and us being balanced, if partner has a freak, so too does rho and rho would be unlikely to pass 1N with a freakish hand. But he (edit: he = partner, not rho) might be 4=4=1=4, or some 5432 or 6331 etc, etc. Unless you are suicidal and fraticidal, one doesn't make really sick 2-level overcalls of a strong notrump at equal.

Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call.

And as for a penalty double in 4th chair: I see NO basis for that treatment. Note that you are not on lead (so you lack the tempo advantage that direct penalty doublers have) and your are under the strong hand, not over (so you lack the positional advantage)...the frequency of holding a penalty double hand in these circumstances is incredibly low, and there are far more useful applications of the double card in this seat than penalty.

[han]

You must have meant:

http://dictionary.re...2&q=fratricidal

[pclayton]

Competing over 1N is all about shape and ODR. The latter isn't bad, but the former sucks.

So I pass.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Feb 13 2007, 01:17 PM, said:

Pass seems automatic. If this is even close to a bid, then I have to seriously rethink everything I thought I knew about the game.

I would not, for a moment, read into partner's silence, any meaningful inference about his shape. I have 14 hcp, in Aces and Kings. LHO has, on average, 16. Thus rho and partner rate to hold about 10 hcp between them. The odds are that partner lacks the hcp to make a bid not matter what his shape is. We can almost rule out freakish shapes since, with LHO and us being balanced, if partner has a freak, so too does rho and rho would be unlikely to pass 1N with a freakish hand. But he (edit: he = partner, not rho) might be 4=4=1=4, or some 5432 or 6331 etc, etc. Unless you are suicidal and fraticidal, one doesn't make really sick 2-level overcalls of a strong notrump at equal.

Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call.

And as for a penalty double in 4th chair: I see NO basis for that treatment. Note that you are not on lead (so you lack the tempo advantage that direct penalty doublers have) and your are under the strong hand, not over (so you lack the positional advantage)...the frequency of holding a penalty double hand in these circumstances is incredibly low, and there are far more useful applications of the double card in this seat than penalty.

Start rethinking then. Balancing here rates to work more often than not.

Your side has 1/2 the deck (approximately). Now try thinking in LOTT terms. The odds are your side also has an 8 card trump fit somewhere. Do you really think its correct to defend under these circumstances? It cant be.

While you can't read a lot into partners failure to bid over 1N, you can draw some inferences......he does not hold a hand that would qualify for a bid otherwise.

So, he can still hold a hand that is 5-5, or has a 6+ card suit but wont show it holding only his expected 5 hcp. You may also still have an 8+ card fit somewhere. If you pass, you will (normally) be gaining at most +100 vs. your anticipated 110/130/140. This is going to lose more frequently than it wins. Additionally, the aces and kings are suit oriented and primed for playing, not defending.

For years, I passed this hand in the balancing position with average results. Over the last two years, I have begun balancing after 1N p p on almost any hand holding 10+ hcp. The results have been overwhelmingly favorable. Of course, there will be a few times where it does not work out well, but that comes with the decision to make any call. But I will take a few -100/180/300/380 vs. a LOT of -50, +110, +130', +200, +300, +500 all year long and be way ahead at the end of the year.

I dont think anyone said that an X in passout was penalty. It can, however, be converted to penalty and will be frequently with a competent partner.

As a side note to you personally, Mike, while you may be a "star", it doesn't mean your opinion is the correct one. Please be a little more considerate before saying stupid crap like this:

Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call.

There is a HUGE difference in the two situations and you damn well know it. To imply otherwise is complete and utter hogwash.

And while pass may seem automatic to you....you provide no real basis for your assumption/opinion. Whereas, I can show several good reasons why either bidding or doubling MAY be correct (I also noted that I would do so, knowing that it may turn out poorly). Pass MAY also be correct (and it can also work out poorly), and I wouldn't fault it.....but I sure as hell wouldnt be as quick to bash someone with idiotic statements like the one you made there if they chose to balance. (edited after reading mikes response below)

Now, of course, this is JUST MY OWN OPINION, and I am not a "star". But I also know from experience that it works. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Rebound]

Thanks for all your replies, as always. In the actual case, I passed. I agree with the sentiments above. The reason I asked is it seems we got fixed on this one and I wondered if it was due to some unclear thinking about this hand on my part but it turns out to have more to do with LHO shaving the 1NT opener - we were the only table, I believe, where 1NT was opened in 1st seat.

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Feb 13 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 13 2007, 01:17 PM, said:

Pass seems automatic. If this is even close to a bid, then I have to seriously rethink everything I thought I knew about the game.

I would not, for a moment, read into partner's silence, any meaningful inference about his shape. I have 14 hcp, in Aces and Kings. LHO has, on average, 16. Thus rho and partner rate to hold about 10 hcp between them. The odds are that partner lacks the hcp to make a bid not matter what his shape is. We can almost rule out freakish shapes since, with LHO and us being balanced, if partner has a freak, so too does rho and rho would be unlikely to pass 1N with a freakish hand. But he (edit: he = partner, not rho) might be 4=4=1=4, or some 5432 or 6331 etc, etc. Unless you are suicidal and fraticidal, one doesn't make really sick 2-level overcalls of a strong notrump at equal.

Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call.

And as for a penalty double in 4th chair: I see NO basis for that treatment. Note that you are not on lead (so you lack the tempo advantage that direct penalty doublers have) and your are under the strong hand, not over (so you lack the positional advantage)...the frequency of holding a penalty double hand in these circumstances is incredibly low, and there are far more useful applications of the double card in this seat than penalty.

Start rethinking then. Balancing here rates to work more often than not.

Your side has 1/2 the deck (approximately). Now try thinking in LOTT terms. The odds are your side also has an 8 card trump fit somewhere. Do you really think its correct to defend under these circumstances? It cant be.

While you can't read a lot into partners failure to bid over 1N, you can draw some inferences......he does not hold a hand that would qualify for a bid otherwise.

So, he can still hold a hand that is 5-5, or has a 6+ card suit but wont show it holding only his expected 5 hcp. You may also still have an 8+ card fit somewhere. If you pass, you will (normally) be gaining at most +100 vs. your anticipated 110/130/140. This is going to lose more frequently than it wins. Additionally, the aces and kings are suit oriented and primed for playing, not defending.

For years, I passed this hand in the balancing position with average results. Over the last two years, I have begun balancing after 1N p p on almost any hand holding 10+ hcp. The results have been overwhelmingly favorable. Of course, there will be a few times where it does not work out well, but that comes with the decision to make any call. But I will take a few -100/180/300/380 vs. a LOT of -50, +110, +130', +200, +300, +500 all year long and be way ahead at the end of the year.

I dont think anyone said that an X in passout was penalty. It can, however, be converted to penalty and will be frequently with a competent partner.

As a side note to you personally, Mike, while you may be a "star", it doesn't mean your opinion is the correct one. Please be a little more considerate before saying stupid crap like this:

Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call.

There is a HUGE difference in the two situations and you damn well know it. To imply otherwise is complete and utter hogwash.

And while pass may seem automatic to you....you provide no real basis for your assumption/opinion. Whereas, I can show several good reasons why either bidding or doubling MAY be correct (I also noted that I would do so, knowing that it may turn out poorly). Pass MAY also be correct (and it can also work out poorly), and I wouldn't fault it.....but I sure as hell wouldnt be as quick to bash someone with idiotic statements like the one you made there if they chose to balance.

Now, of course, this is JUST MY OWN OPINION, and I am not a "star". But I also know from experience that it works. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Wow.. I hit a sore point here, I guess. I have no doubt at all that balancing might work... and that it is a heck of a lot more likely to work than would opening 7N blind. I guess some of us are not used to hyperbole

Is balancing the percentage action? Are we assured of an 8 card fit? Will we always find it? Will it play better than defending 1N? Will it prompt the opps to find their fit (if we have one, so do they... if we scramble to 2♦, rho with 4=4 in the majors and a 6 or 7 count may well compete)?

I THINK I know the answers... I think that the pass is the percentage action. Do I think that my having a 'star' on BBO makes my opinion infallible? If I were infallible, I wouldn't be playing the game nor would I be reading or posting to this forum.

Maybe the truth is that I DO have to rethink my approach to the game (at least to mps) if the consensus of experienced players is that balancing is correct here. I've certainly had to rethink major aspects of my game over the 30+ years I have struggled with it. There are many 'truisms' I used to believe in that I no longer do: I was a devoted user of Fl*****y for many years... heck, I even used to think that mini-roman was a neat gadget

So when I say that pass is automatic for me, and I couple that comment with a statement about having to rethink if I am wrong, that is NOT a personal attack on anyone who disagrees. And, sorry, but i don't smoke, so I won't be honouring your clsoing advice/command

Finally, I do sometimes pepper my posts with descriptions of my view of a particular call suggested by someone else: I use words like 'idiotic', 'insane', 'fraticidal'. While maybe it is difficult to tell, and maybe I should be aware of this and so avoid this language, my comments are my opinion of the merits of the call under discussion: not my opinion of the poster who advocated that call. If I think that the poster is (in bridge terms, not life terms) an 'idiot', I will either never mention it or I will address the person by private mail. Intelligent people can violently disagree (well, verbally violent) about a call without automatically considering the other party to be unintelligent or unworthy in some manner.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Start rethinking then. Balancing here rates to work more often than not.

Your side has 1/2 the deck (approximately). Now try thinking in LOTT terms.  The odds are your side also has an 8 card trump fit somewhere.  Do you really think its correct to defend under these circumstances?  It cant be.

The three cases where it's right to defend...
1) You get doubled and go down otherwise.
2) Your bidding allows them to find their fit.
3) They weren't making 1NT, and the total tricks is 13 or less, usually because the partner of the 1NT has length tricks but no entries to them.

But what I'm seeing is that there is only one case for when they should allow you to take the contract from them at two of a minor, undoubled....

1) They weren't making 1NT.

I can't think of any other case where the opponents should just let you take the contract. They should double, find their own fit, or bid 2NT. And it should be fairly easy for responder to figure out which is correct. In fact, if you guys seems to have found a fit, there's no case they should let you play undoubled it at the two level, period. It's MPs, so doubling you into game, who cares? If responder thought they could make 1NT, he should never pass.

If you aren't getting X'd on a regular basis, your competition hasn't figured this out. Yet.

[bid_em_up]

Sorry Mike, it just rubbed me the wrong way.

As a "star", your opinion, by its very nature, will carry more weight than most other posters on these boards. When I see this:

"Yes, balancing MIGHT work. On occasion, opening 7N before looking at your hand will work as well: that doesn't make it the best call."

written by you, I read it as saying, "I think that balancing here is as dumb as bidding 7N blind" or "anyone who balances here might also open 7N blind" and there is a world of difference in the two calls. One is a decision that can be based on experience/logic and there are merits to either side (balancing or not) and can be discussed/argued rationally.

Bidding 7N blind is just plain silly and might work 0.000001% of the time, if that frequently. It was the comparison of the two that annoyed me, and not that you think pass should be automatic.

My experience has been that it pays to balance in these situations based on LOTT principles. Now if I was playing vs. Benito, or Lauria, or possibly even yourself , of course, I would pass......but, for us normal folks.....it is unlikely the opposition will have the methods available to them to actually double us for penalties, and for both players to be absolutely certain that the double is penalty.

At matchpoints, I think this becomes even more of a factor, because balancing either works.....or it doesnt. 50% one way or another. If it loses, you lose one board, but....you are probably not getting many mp's for 1N making 1 or 2 anyway. If you are beating 1N, you will have to beat it by at least 3 tricks undoubled, since you are probably making whatever two level contract you bid. If partner leaves the double in, you are almost always winning the board, regardless of whether they sit or run.

But if you can buy the contract at the two level undoubled.....you rate to win a bunch of mp's, even if you go down one or two. It is only if you get doubled and go down two or more that you have a problem.

[awm]

I'd pass without much thought on this one. My observation has been that I normally get fairly good results from defending "normal" contracts, and I wouldn't want to risk my average-plus board for what's basically a tossup.

On the other hand I've heard some pretty good players claim that balancing over 1NT is virtually "mandatory" and I'm sure they'd bid here. I think it depends on how much you trust your defense and partner's opening leads...

That said, this hand has a lot of negatives, including weakness in the long suit (you will not make as many tricks in diamonds as you might expect if the opponents have all the high ones), the fact that the long suit is a minor (more likely opponents have "lost" a 4-4 major fit due to the 1NT call which they may find if you balance), and the fact that our values are poorly placed in front of the notrump bidder (if opponents end up defending doubled you may go -2 despite having some values).

[mikeh]

I just finished a Dealmaster Pro simulation: assuming that opener held a balanced 15-17, with no 6 card minor and, if a 5 card major, not 5422. I allowed east to hold a poor 5 card major (Jxxxx as an example) but not with a 4 card side suit (else I assume a transfer) and no clear runout to a 3-level minor and no more than a soft 8 count.

I ran a sample of 28 hands, but had to eliminate some due to their violating the above constraints.

In all cases, I assumed that NS would find their best spot, even tho in many cases that would be problematic indeed: what does one have S reopening, as an obvious question? Thus, if he reopens a natural 2♦, most of the time that's where he plays, doubled or otherwise, but I assumed that NS could find 2♣ when that was right.. as well as a fairly common scenario in which the best spot was 2♥. 2♦ was rarely the best spot.

So by allowing NS to double-dummy the bidding (at least, in terms of finding the best spot) while also allowing EW to make what seems to me to be fairly easy doubles, when right (but not if close), I think I was leaning over backwards to favour bidding.

The result: on 13 out of 20 hands, NS did better, often much better, by passing. Several of the balances ran into -300 or even -500, without double dummy defence. Several of them made +110 or +140, only to find that normal defence (4th best from longest and strongest, esp. if N held ♣ or ♥s) led to +150.

Of course, there is an element of subjectitivity to this exercise and it may well be that a sample of 20 hands is inadequate. If anyone else gets different results... well, I'm still not claiming to be infallible

[cherdano]

bid_em_up, on Feb 13 2007, 11:24 AM, said:

Now where is partner going to go, if you double?  In 4/5 instances, there is no problem.  If partner bids spades, he almost has to have 5+.  Good partnerships will, imo, bid 2♣ on a 4-3-3-3 hand if they are pulling the double.  If they are not 4-3-3-3, and do not have a 5+ card suit, they will have two four card suits, and would have bid the lower one first. So 2♠ denies a lower 4 card suit and must be 5+.  I'm not afraid of playing 2S in this instance either. And I would love to be able to defend 1N doubled, if possible.

If you really pull with 4333, then you shouldn't call your double penalty, but "values and competitive" or something similar. It seems clear consensus to always pass penalty doubles of 1NT with balanced hand, no matter how weak.

Quote

I have found that it is almost never correct to defend 1N undoubled when we are both not vulnerable. If we manage to beat it two tricks, we are +100 vs. our likely  110 and losing at MP.  If we are in 2x -1 (or -2), it will beat their 90 or 120, because in most cases, they will not be able to double us.

I can't believe this holds against good opponents. I remember several instances of doubling opponents AT IMPS after they competed over our 1NT in the last two weeks alone.(*)
Opponents will know as well that it is matchpoints, and will be eager to double you. Of course, in most club games you will just never get doubled.

Arend

(*) It always strikes me with some surprise when, say, weak NTers claim they can't remember when they went for a number the last time, when I can well remember the last time I got a number from playing against weak NTers. I play against weak NT pretty rarely...

[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Feb 13 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

If you really pull with 4333, then you shouldn't call your double penalty, but "values and competitive" or something similar. It seems clear consensus to always pass penalty doubles of 1NT with balanced hand, no matter how weak.

Where did I ever call it a penalty double? Geez. Stop assuming stuff that isnt written.

If queried, I would explain it as "values/competive" exactly as you state.