[han]

Hand 5. All red, matchpoints.

AQJxxxx - Kxx 10xx.

1H - pass - pass - ??

[hrothgar]

2♠

The heart void and extra spade make up for the missing HCPs

[Phil]

2♠.

2♠ seems normal to me, even though I am a spade long and a king light. 4♠ is silly; 3♠ is a little too much. 1♠ isn’t really a lie, but why not try to preempt them a little and show the spade length?

[mike777]

4s

very close second choice 2s.

[Echognome]

3♠. Seems about right on playing strength. I actually answered this before seeing the options below. To me it was a question between 2♠ and 3♠. I do not see 1♠ or 4♠ as options.

[whereagles]

Echo the Echo: 3♠ is just about a perfect description of the hand.

[cherdano]

Perhaps 3S is a better description but I just don't want to go down. 2S.

[Fluffy]

1♠

I don't think this will be a popular choice
Partner rates to have a couple of pieces in the minors, but that leaves us with 4 losers still, if 3♠ is the same strenght than 2♠ with higher ODR then I'd try that, but I didn't ever talk about it with anyone.

We have not enough to blast game, yet partner will often missevaluate his heart holdings. The only solution I've found is to bid 1♠ and see what comes next. If partner bids 1NT I go low with 2♠, if he bids 2 or 3 (NT) then we probably make 4♠ on power despie the wastage, and if he makes a penalty double of 2 or 3♥ I'll bid spades again and hope he reevaluates now.

[Free]

1♠, I have a nice hand, no need to jump at the moment.

[P_Marlowe]

2S - I think the hand is 1 trick too weak for a 3S bid.

2S showes a min opener with 6 spades, sounds like a reasonable describtion
of the hand in question.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

Hand 5.

Hand 5. All red, matchpoints.

AQJxxxx - Kxx 10xx.

1H - pass - pass - ?? 

Nigel: 2S
Fred: 3S
Josh: 3S
Adam: 1S
Ben: 2S
Michael: 3S
Paul: 2S
Gonzalo: 1S
Frances: 2S
Roger: 2S
Justin: 2S
Hanoi: 1S
Vincent: 2S
Andy: 3S

After this hand we all know how the experts play 1S, 2S and 3S and life will be better.

Paul: 2S. Shows an intermediate hand with spades, seems about what I have.

Frances: 2S. Decent opening bid, 6 or more spades. Seems to describe the hand perfectly.

Roger: 2S, seems like we are well within range, and I don't think there is enough tactical upside to 3S, it is just an overbid.

Justin: This seems perfect for 2S.

Now that has been cleared up, what does 3S show?

Andy: 3S. Shows a similar hand to 2S, but with more playing strength and less defence. 4S just invites a stupid result if partner has too much of his strength in hearts.

Michael: 3S. Close to bidding 4S, since it is often bad to have a surprising distributional asset (here: H-void) and then leave a delicate decision to partner.

Fred: 3S. My second choice would be 1S, but I think that 3S is a fairly accurate description of my hand. There is no reason to bid 4S as I expect that partner will usually raise me to game if we belong there and he may be inclined to try 3NT instead (which could easily be the best spot).

If this is what 3S shows then why not bid it? We combine showing our hand with great preemption. Vincent seems to agree with these definitions of 2S and 3S but still bids 2:

Vincent: 2S. Whatever you bid at matchpoints, it's a bit of a gamble. 2S shows more hcp, but a 3S doesn't tell the story either.

Gonzalo (who bids 1S) and Nigel (who bids 2S) think that 3S may be best but they don't have a clear agreement.

At the extremes:

Adam: 1S. For me, 2S is a weaker hand than this (basically shows six spades and the weakest hand where I would balance). Bidding 4S is an option but with RHO already passed and them being red, I don't think going slow is likely to help opponents all that much... and it might help me avoid a bad game.

Hanoi: I bid 1S. A jump here would show a better hand, probably with better side values.

Inquiry: 2S. Too strong for 1S, so 2S by default.

At the table LHO had a 20-count with 5-5 in the red suits. You can make 4S but they have a cheap sacrifice in 5H. Maybe 3S will make it difficult for them to find it. Many panelists seem to be afraid to go down in 3S though, and opt to bid only 2S. All red at MPs, that may well be best.

Scores:
2S = 100 (7 votes)
3S = 80 (4 votes)
1S = 60 (3 votes)

[Hanoi5]

If I had re-checked 'The Complete Balancing...' by Lawrence before answering I would have gotten 80. 2♠ is intermidiate, some 11-15 and although this hand looks that good there are only HCP's in two suits and a void in a suit partner is expected to hold length and strength. 3♠ is said to be (in that book) a long and good suit/hand that'll take 9 tricks in front of 10-11 random HCP's. I think this fits that description.

[kgr]

Is 4♠ scoring 0, at least 1 expert says it is close to 4♠...so 4♠ should score 0.5...but maybe you rounded that to 0 and that seems correct.
Actually I don't remember what I said on this hand. I doubted between all choices and 4♠.
I wonder if more experts would bid 4♠ if it was IMPS's?

[gwnn]

Han, looks like inquiry bid 2♠?

[y66]

han, on 2011-June-02, 17:59, said:

Hand 5. All red, matchpoints.

AQJxxxx - Kxx 10xx.

1H - pass - pass - ?? 

Andy: 3S. Shows a similar hand to 2S, but with more playing strength and less defence.

This seems like a very clear, useful agreement to have for 3S here. Will adopt this.

[awm]

When I chose 1♠ on this hand, I knew this would not be a majority choice. I have a very strong preference to play these 4th seat jumps differently than what seems to be standard. Since part of these polls is apparently advocating our preferred styles, I will say a little more about this. Suppose we compare the following two hands which we might hold in balancing seat:

(1) ♠AQJTxx ♥x ♦Qxx ♣xxx

(2) ♠AQJTxx ♥x ♦AQx ♣xxx

The standard style seems to be that hand (1) will balance with 1♠, and that hand (2) will balance with 2♠ intermediate. I think it is much better to play the opposite style; I'll list some reasons below:

Opener may take another call, which might buy the contract or help them push us up. This is much more likely to be an issue when I hold hand (1), since my weaker hand tends to imply more strength in opener. Jumping to 2♠ applies some pressure, and may cause opener to sell when he would find a call over 1♠ (or to potentially go for some numbers if he bids at the three level on the same hands).

When I hold hand (1), it is quite likely that partner has around 13-14 hcp (I have 9, RHO is very weak, LHO might have extras but is often around the 12-16 range). Partner's hand probably includes a bunch of hearts (like four of them, maybe five) and perhaps not that many spades. What do I expect partner to do with such a hand when I balance 1♠? Well, 1NT seems quite wimpy on 13-14 high, and I'd expect a 2NT bid. This is really not what I want to hear when I hold hand (1), and the laws will not permit me to correct 2NT back to 2♠. Of course, if my balancing 2♠ shows a weak hand then partner can simply pass on his 13-14 hcp misfit and allow us to play 2♠. Note that this is not an issue at all with hand (2), since I am accepting a 2NT invite quite happily.

In the vast majority of my partnerships, I play natural weak two bids in the majors. My partners have a great deal of experience in bidding over a weak two bid. They have a good feel for what they need for game, when to pass on an otherwise decent hand, and so forth. We have discussion of methods like ogust and shortness asks. On the other hand, my partners generally have no feel for bidding over an intermediate two bid (which I don't play in any established partnership). Generally I would expect worse results simply due to "mistakes" by playing a method that almost never comes up like this. I have seen even very established expert-level partnerships miss game (or overbid to one) because they were not quite on the same page about just which hands qualified for a 4th seat intermediate two. I find it much more effective to let the balancing jump show the weakest hand where I would balance (thus resembling a vulnerable weak two bid) and to balance at the one-level on the intermediate hands. This puts us "in book" to use a chess term, where we are more likely to make good decisions.

[Foxx]

Lone voice for double here.

You can double, planning to make a minimum spade bid next. Double keeps the minors in the picture if partner has ♠x and a six-card minor suit, and it keeps a penalty of hearts in the picture.

But then again, the last time I doubled with this kind of hand, it was an absolute calamity, so maybe I should just shut up and listen.

[mfa1010]

Foxx, on 2011-June-03, 20:16, said:

Lone voice for double here.

You can double, planning to make a minimum spade bid next. Double keeps the minors in the picture if partner has ♠x and a six-card minor suit, and it keeps a penalty of hearts in the picture.

But then again, the last time I doubled with this kind of hand, it was an absolute calamity, so maybe I should just shut up and listen.

I don't think we should keep anything in the picture before we have convinced partner about our very long and strong spades. The thought of partner passing 1♥X is frightening. I don't think that that would be right often. Double then spades will typically be something like a 17-count with 5 spades. That is not a good description for our hand.

[benlessard]

2S My comments were in balance bid what you can make and i prefer 2 to 3 and 4S is a joke.