[Phil]

All pairs, very weak field.

1. W/R AT8x AQx JTxx Jx. You open 1♦ (4+), (2♠ preemptive), pard makes a neg x, back to you.

2. All vul. Jxxx Kxxxx xx xx. 1N pass pass ?

[wyman]

#1 I pass.

#2 What are our agreements in direct and balancing seat?

edit: per the "How to be a good forum poster," the S8 made me do it!

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2011-July-27, 12:43, said:

All pairs, very weak field.

1. W/R AT8x AQx JTxx Jx. You open 1♦ (4+), (2♠ preemptive), pard makes a neg x, back to you.

2. All vul. Jxxx Kxxxx xx xx. 1N pass pass ?

Hand 1: There look to be 15 total tricks. If we make 9 tricks, they are down two. If we make eight tricks, they are down 1. AT8x is a decent enough trump holding. I'm gonna convert.

Hand 2: Do I have a bid to show both majors? I do? Great! I still pass.

Here's the thing about this hand.

Let's assume that LHO has a real NT opener and RHO doesn't have enough to make a move... This leaves partner holding a 12-13 count. For whatever reason, partner couldn't bid, which means he has a flat hand. On the one hand, this encourages me to bid (partner probably has three cards opposite one of my majors). At the same time, I'm not sure why I want to contract to take 8 tricks on offense rather than taking seven on defense. Moreover, if we're playing against a weak pair I see no reason to shake things up by taking an unusual action. I think that the field is going to pass here, and I want to be in the field contract.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-27, 12:50, said:

Hand 1: There look to be 15 total tricks. If we make 9 tricks, they are down two. If we make eight tricks, they are down 1. AT8x is a decent enough trump holding. I'm gonna convert.

Or 14 and with partner willing to be at the 3-level, we will be the ones on the high side of the total tricks. Actually there could be 14 trumps and 13 tricks, with my collection.

[mikeh]

1. I'm with the passers, tho this is far easier at mps than at imps...this would be a terrifying pass at imps against a competent player. I suspect that passing is best then as well, but doubt I'd have the nerve to pull it off, especially on the expected diamond lead.

2. Pass. Yes, in a weak field, we can probably do well by being in the auction, but we don't need to win the event on this hand. Now, if they made 2♠ x'd on board one, I'm probably having to show both majors on this one, just to catch up

[wyman]

wyman, on 2011-July-27, 12:47, said:

#2 What are our agreements in direct and balancing seat?

At MP in a weak field pass is probably fine. If we think 1N-AP is likely to be the field auction, it's a pretty clear action.

But, in a vacuum, I think pass is unlikely to be "right". If we don't have a penalty X available in direct seat, maybe I'm supposed to protect with a X here (which should say "I don't have much; I'm just protecting you. Scramble if you don't have a pen X").

And if we do have a pen X available (say Landy or Capp in all seats), coming in is probably right NV, especially if we have a "majors" bid available, since partner leads a minor and blows a trick almost 100% of the time on these auctions, but I'm too scared to do so vulnerable anyway

[jjbrr]

i think bidding is nuts on the second one. the only way you'll get to play 2M is if you don't have a fit.

[VM1973]

I pass both hands.

[wank]

wtp pass on number 2.


pass is too aggressive imo on number 1. we've got nothing in the minors so dummy's values, if any, are well placed. we've got probably got defensive overkill in the heart suit, it being the 1 suit we can trust partner to have and the suit declarer's least likely to have. our spades might only play for 1 trick in defense, but in no-trumps are 2 solid stops with the pre-emptor on lead. if we go off in 2NT (in 50s) we're assuredly not beating 2S.

[awm]

I like pass on both.

The thing about the second hand is, we probably can make two of a major. There is a decent chance opponents will make 1NT. So why not bid? The problem is that partner is not usually going to put us in two of a major. He's marked with a pretty good hand here, and if we had a legitimate balance we might make four of a major. Far too often we will land in 3M going down (maybe even doubled if things aren't breaking). The field will be defending 1NT so I'll trust my partner's defense and defend 1NT also.

[hrothgar]

wank, on 2011-July-27, 15:47, said:

wtp pass on number 2.


pass is too aggressive imo on number 1. we've got nothing in the minors so dummy's values, if any, are well placed. we've got probably got defensive overkill in the heart suit, it being the 1 suit we can trust partner to have and the suit declarer's least likely to have. our spades might only play for 1 trick in defense, but in no-trumps are 2 solid stops with the pre-emptor on lead. if we go off in 2NT (in 50s) we're assuredly not beating 2S.

This assumes that 2NT is natural...

[whereagles]

1. Weak field? Pass on the spot.

2. The field who will have the same problem and will pass 100% of the time. No need to go random here. Just pass and hope to out-defend the field.

[Phil]

I held both of these hands.

1. I thought this was an interesting problem. A lot of out points are stuffed into hearts, which isn't good, but those spade spots are nice. I passed. Pard held void Jxxxx K9xx AKxx, which was just enough. LHO's "preempt" was KQ9xxx Kx A QTxx. Partner claims he could make 4♥ - do you believe him?

2. I would normally pass this hand (and if I posted I would be discussing -200), but it was a small game and though WTH? I've seen a lot of good results come from getting in on hands like this. Partner held Kxx ATx AKx xxxx, so 2♥ played fine. 120 was the result at most tables - the defense needs an early shift to hearts against 1N to hold it to 7 tricks. LHO has Ax Q9xx QJxx AKx.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2011-July-28, 08:43, said:

2. I would normally pass this hand (and if I posted I would be discussing -200), but it was a small game and though WTH? I've seen a lot of good results come from getting in on hands like this. Partner held Kxx ATx AKx xxxx, so 2♥ played fine. 120 was the result at most tables - the defense needs an early shift to hearts against 1N to hold it to 7 tricks. LHO has Ax Q9xx QJxx AKx.

What was the auction? More specifically, how did you ever manage to stop in 2♥?
Parnter has six controls and couldn't manage to find a raise?

[Phil]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-28, 08:54, said:

What was the auction? More specifically, how did you ever manage to stop in 2♥?
Parnter has six controls and couldn't manage to find a raise?

....

2♣* - 2♦**
2♥ - pass

2♣ = majors
2♦ = equal length

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2011-July-28, 09:01, said:

....

2♣* - 2♦**
2♥ - pass

2♣ = majors
2♦ = equal length

I'm skeptical....

I think that partner needs to bid more aggressively - maybe raising 2H to 3H or conceivably directly over 2C.

[wyman]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-28, 09:16, said:

I'm skeptical....

I think that partner needs to bid more aggressively - maybe raising 2H to 3H or conceivably directly over 2C.

Sure, partner has controls, but he has a flat 14 opposite a partner who is likely to balance aggressively with shape at MP. His hand would also be better if we switched his diamonds and spades.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-28, 09:16, said:

I'm skeptical....

I think that partner needs to bid more aggressively - maybe raising 2H to 3H or conceivably directly over 2C.

If partner needs to bid more aggressively, the given hand should have passed out 1NT. When the opps have opened a strong NT, we won't have a game unless there is an extreme fit and distribution. I don't know whether I would have trotted out the major 2-suiter balance with the given hand, but I do know I wouldn't do it a second time, if partner made a 3-level move holding only 3-card support and a pancake.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-28, 09:32, said:

If partner needs to bid more aggressively, the given hand should have passed out 1NT. When the opps have opened a strong NT, we won't have a game unless there is an extreme fit and distribution. I don't know whether I would have trotted out the major 2-suiter balance with the given hand, but I do know I wouldn't do it a second time, if partner made a 3-level move holding only 3-card support and a pancake.

If you aren't going to raise with the hand in question, just what do you need in order to raise?

Partner is promising distribution.
You have three card support for both his suits and first and second round controls up the ying yang...
If you aren't raising with this hand, then, practically speaking you are never raising and I don't think that this is playable.

Equally significant, let's assume that I'm sitting across from the NT opener.

I know that Phil will make a vulnerable balance on a crappy four count.
How long do you think its going to take me to start pysching passes with good hands?

A style where you balance on this type of crap might work in a weak field where people don't know you.
It's not going to work against decent players who know what you're doing.

Back at MIT 10 years ago or so there was a player named Binkley.
Binkley would balance on anything, hence the development of conventions like BOTP (the Binkley Oriented Trap Pass)

We'd have auctions like the following

1S - (P) - 2S* - (P)
P**- (2N) - P - (3C)
X***

2S = constructive
P = Binkley Oriented Trap Pass. Either a minimum opening OR a balanced rock crusher
X = Balanced Rock Crusher

[aguahombre]

Analogous to the trap of the person who always doubles 2NT when passed out. But, I don't think Phil will bid in fourth chair with all hands; so, bring on Binkley.

What do I need to invite game? 4+support and control-laden NT opener. And the invite would be 2NT, so that partner can respond in the corresponding minor with crap and longer in the major --and 3M with a respectable balance.