[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

1S-P-P-?

---

Playing with a fine player whom I have not played with in over 20 years, I found myself with the balancing hand in a team match. Although I didn't care for the hand's shape, I did like the controls and the 3 aces and was not fond of the weakish spade holding for NT.

I would think normal action would be to raise the 1N balance from the usual 11-14 to more like 13-15 over 1S, but this hand seemed a bit much for 1N and not enough for double followed by NT. I finally settled on double.

After LHO's pass, partner bid the expected 2H. I didn't see any future in bidding more so I passed and LHO chimed back in with 2S. Partner bid 3D, now.

Now I liked my hand more and chose a 3S call to attempt to steer partner into rebidding a 5-card suit (this may have been expecting miracles though). I would have passed 4D. LHO doubled and partner passed. I guess I could have redoubled now, but instead chose to try for game at least and bid 4H - luckily, this went unpunished.

Partner played well and we escaped for down 2.

Where did we fall apart here? Obviously, looking back I wish I had reopened with 1N - but I didn't.

[pclayton]

Many play a balancing 1N over a major as 11-16 for this reason.

[Winstonm]

pclayton, on May 6 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

Many play a balancing 1N over a major as 11-16 for this reason.

That seems like too wide of spread to me - what do you do as responder with 8-10 and a decent 5-card minor, knowing where the HCP are located? I understand that balancing is imperfect, but that seems a little too imperfect.

[pclayton]

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 6 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

Many play a balancing 1N over a major as 11-16 for this reason.

That seems like too wide of spread to me - what do you do as responder with 8-10 and a decent 5-card minor, knowing where the HCP are located? I understand that balancing is imperfect, but that seems a little too imperfect.

Range Stayman helps a lot:

2♣ starts as usual.
---> 2♦ = 11-13 with no 4cM
---> 2♥ / 2♠ = 11-13 with
---> 2N = ANY 15-16 hand; then 3♣ starts the ask over.

There may be better methods too. But 11-16 is fairly standard.

[Winstonm]

pclayton, on May 6 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 6 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

Many play a balancing 1N over a major as 11-16 for this reason.

That seems like too wide of spread to me - what do you do as responder with 8-10 and a decent 5-card minor, knowing where the HCP are located? I understand that balancing is imperfect, but that seems a little too imperfect.

Range Stayman helps a lot:

2♣ starts as usual.
---> 2♦ = 11-13 with no 4cM
---> 2♥ / 2♠ = 11-13 with
---> 2N = ANY 15-16 hand; then 3♣ starts the ask over.

There may be better methods too. But 11-16 is fairly standard.

Hadn't thought of this - but I think this is actually part of Roman, Little Roman, or Blue Team but I can't recall which. The Italians in one of those systems used a wide-latitude opening 1N with a size-ask response. If memory serves, I think it was 13-16 range 1N with 17+ opened 1C.

Still with 11-16, I see that 2D and 2H/2S show 11-13.
What do you do with 14?

Just kidding - add or subtract accordingly, I know.

[han]

What Phil says is fairly standard and has been recommended by many mainstream experts.

[Halo]

Hannie, on May 6 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

What Phil says is fairly standard and has been recommended by many mainstream experts.

I like this and I'm going to agree it with all my partners. Advantages look to outweigh the disadvantages by a long way.

[mikeh]

I play this range-ask, and we call in Rigal.. I don't know if Rigal was the original inventor.

This is a tough, tough hand, and I think I'd reach 3N:

While Axx in ♠ argues for downgrading, the controls and that ♣10 in a long suit would get me to double and bid 2N: which shows, for me, about 16-18... with 19-20, reopen 2N and with 10-15, reopen 1N. Partner has just enough to raise me to the losing spot.

So we overbid to another hopeless game: it wil often be a push and when it isn't... well... next board, please.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 6 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1S-P-P-?

---

Playing with a fine player whom I have not played with in over 20 years, I found myself with the balancing hand in a team match. Although I didn't care for the hand's shape, I did like the controls and the 3 aces and was not fond of the weakish spade holding for NT.

I would think normal action would be to raise the 1N balance from the usual 11-14 to more like 13-15 over 1S, but this hand seemed a bit much for 1N and not enough for double followed by NT. I finally settled on double.

After LHO's pass, partner bid the expected 2H. I didn't see any future in bidding more so I passed and LHO chimed back in with 2S. Partner bid 3D, now.

Now I liked my hand more and chose a 3S call to attempt to steer partner into rebidding a 5-card suit (this may have been expecting miracles though). I would have passed 4D. LHO doubled and partner passed. I guess I could have redoubled now, but instead chose to try for game at least and bid 4H - luckily, this went unpunished.

Partner played well and we escaped for down 2.

Where did we fall apart here? Obviously, looking back I wish I had reopened with 1N - but I didn't.

I think this is a very very tough hand.
Imps at NV so I doubt I am going to lose the match on this one.

I understand x or 1nt on this one.

What happened at the other table?

[Winstonm]

Quote

What happened at the other table?

I don't know but for sure it wasn't 4H?

We lost a bit on this board, I think, but won the match by 1 imp. Perhaps that last board that made the difference is worth a post as well.

[whereagles]

Range stayman is good, but I think pard got a bit too enthousiastic here (though I see his point)

[Fluffy]

You were unlucky not to have a fit mainly, also it can be argued that passing first and then bidding 3♠ is inconsistent, maybe a pass is more correct.