[junyi_zhu]

It's always a contradiction in balancing style. Some like sound overcalls
and aggressive balancing, others like aggressive overcalls and don't
like balancing much.
When you hold something like:
SAxxx Hxxx DAxx CKxx,
even the most aggressive players wouldn't double RHO's 1S opening.
However, when the bidding goes like this way:
1S p 2S p
p ?
It's quite a sound way to reopen the bidding since partner
is rated to be short in S and has some value. What would you
bid now?
double? Isn't that a penalty double for something like this?
SKQJTx HAxx DAxx Cxx?
There is one way to distinguish this two hand types. All we need
is a out of date convention called "Fishbein double".
Fishbein was designed against opponents' preempts. A double
shows balanced hands and willing for penalty. A suit contract right above
the preemptive suit is take out. It doesn't work well, because you just
lose too much: you lose the possibility for partner to pass your take
out double. You can't bid the suit above naturally.
However, a Fishbein like convention works perfectly in balancing auctions:
Here, a double would be penalty. 2NT: take out.
3C/D/H: natural.

Over 1H p 2H p p
double: penalty.
2S: take out.
2NT: minors.
3C/D: natural.

Here, you should try to make light overcall 1S over opener's 1H as much as
you can to avoid the later balancing problem.
So with SAKxxx Hxxx Dxx Cxxx, my suggestion is to overcall 1S.
Thus, you wouldn't have a tough balancing decision later. The principle is that
if you feel like balancing 2S over 2H, you should bid 1S directly.

If you know your opps play standard minor suit raise, you should also make
light overcall 1H over 1D to avoid later balancing problems if you want adopt this structure.

[Rado]

Hi Junyi,
Thanks for the useful proposal. Just one additional opinion:
after 1S-p-2S-p-p-?, or 1He-p-He-p-p-?
DBL might be played 2 way- either heavy penalty, either very light take-out (e.g. 1444 with 8-9 points or similar). Partner looking at his length in opps suit will know which type of double you hade) giving the opportunity 2sp contract to be penalized by both defender (especialy with today's aggresive 2Sp raises with Tx only :-)))))
This will free the Fishbein for hands with 3-4 cards in opps suit (usually small) as per your original exmple.

Please note that such 2 way double positions may appeared in many other sequences, which may worth a separate thread for discussions if enough people interested.
Best Regards, Rado

P.S. will be great fun if opps opened 1SP with 6 cards and raise to 2Sp with 5 fit :-)))))))

[luis]

I don't think that a balancing double of a supported suit at the 2 level can be a succesful idea.
Let's discuss three frameworks for 1s-p-2s-p-p balancing:

Framework a) by Junyi:
Dbl = penalty
2n = takeout
3x = natural

Framework
Dbl = takeout
2n = 4-4 in the minors
3x = natural

Framework c)
Dbl = takeout
2N = natural and to play
3x = natural

Framework d)
Dbl = takeout with 4 hearts
2N = takeout without 4 hearts
3x = natural

Framework e)
Dbl = Strong penalty double OR takeout with sp shortage
2N = Takeout with 2/3 spades
3x = natural

More options?
Which one do you think is better and why?
There're many advantages and disadvantages in each option.

Thanks to Junyi for the subject it's very interesting.

[Rado]

Hi Luis,

In view my previous post on this topic I must vote for e). Actually with most of my live partners we play :
g)
DBL= pure penalty or pure light take-out
2NT= any 2-suiter (4+4+ up to bad 5-5 for direct bid)
suit=natural

Another interesting topic in connection with our discussion is how the 4th hand act:
1Sp-p-2Sp-? 1He-p-2He-?
Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen proposed OBAR bids which stands for Opponents Bid And Raise where the 4th hand actions are with balancing strength as minimum (preliminary balancing) . The idea is worthing especially when 4th hand has 1-2 cards in opps suit and may see that will be hard for partner to protect if 4th hand passes with less than normal overcall strength.
Regards, rado

[luis]

I like the idea of Larry Cohen so I agree that after 1s-p-2s the 4th hand can bid exactly as if he were balancing after 1s-p-2s-p-p

Two different framworks can be better but that would be just too much to remember....

[junyi_zhu]

two way double is a good idea, rado. I don't really like Larry Cohen's Pre-balancing idea though. The major flaw is that the bidding hasn't ended at that point. So it's not really a balancing seat. opener may hold balanced maximum and cause serious damage to the pre-balancing bidders. Also, partner would almost always pass you since the range is very wide. Sometimes, you may be out of bid with a really
decent hand. I am just wondering what would Larry Cohen bid with Sx HAKxxxx DKQxx Cxx over 1S p 2S£¿ 4H?
he only need such a normal looking dummy to have good chance in 4H:
SQxxx HQxx DAx Cxxxx£®
If he bids 3H with much less, partner would usually pass his 3H unless he holds an excellent hand. Pre-balancing might be good for MP, but for IMP, I think it has a lot of systemic problems.