[ArtK78]

Thank you all for a very interesting discussion.

Unfortuately, my partner did not balance with 4♠ on the South hand, resulting in a 25% score for -680. But the 4♠ balance might not be the end of the story on this hand. The full hand is as follows:

---

As you can see, NS are cold for 12 tricks in spades if you play the opening 3♥ bidder for 10x of clubs. And EW are making 12 tricks in hearts on any lead but a club. The lead at our table was a spade.

It would be interesting to see how the bidding and play would have proceeded had my partner balanced with 4♠.

[whereagles]

rhm, on 2014-October-21, 16:20, said:

1. Assume West would double 3♠. what will he do with such a hand if you pass? (...)

2. That balancing is safer here is a mirage and shows muddled thinking. The likelihood that East West have a heart fit does not come from West raise. It comes from looking at your void and East preempt.

1. For starters, he could pass 3♥. Good players do that on a misfit.

2. Obviously, if LHO has a singleton heart and is faking an honest raise to 4♥, I'll be down an extra -300. But to be honest it's been YEARS since someone tried that bluff on me. In a more normal scenario I'm pretty confident balancing here should be at least as safe as direct overcall, if not safer. Even considering the "in quick, out quick" principle.

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2014-October-22, 14:52, said:

1. For starters, he could pass 3♥. Good players do that on a misfit.

2. Obviously, if LHO has a singleton heart and is faking an honest raise to 4♥, I'll be down an extra -300. But to be honest it's been YEARS since someone tried that bluff on me. In a more normal scenario I'm pretty confident balancing here should be at least as safe as direct overcall, if not safer. Even considering the "in quick, out quick" principle.

Really? I vote for the obvious balance and not the direct 3S, here...as it seems you do as well. However, If LHO has a stiff or even void in hearts, there is nothing in my hand to make me believe it might have been a 4H bluff. And, a 4H raise with 3 tricks opposite a vul 3H opener..with no trump support...occurs much more often than you suggest.

Of Course, I will pay off, big time if LHO has that hand. But it aint a "bluff".

[mikeh]

rhm, on 2014-October-21, 16:20, said:

I am a frequent balancer and I would bid 4♠ with the South hand but I much prefer 3♠.
That balancing is safer here is a mirage and shows muddled thinking.
The likelihood that East West have a heart fit does not come from West raise. It comes from looking at your void and East preempt.

Rainer Herrmann

This is muddled thinking...the last part.

When West raises he has either any of a very wide range of hands with hearts or he has a good hand, with or without hearts, and the shorter the hearts, the stronger the hand. So the fact that he raised increases the likelihood that he has hearts, simply because with hearts he will raise very often and without less often.

Arguing that the raise showed a heart fit is wrong. Arguing that it is irrelevant to our expectations that he has a heart fit is equally wrong. You know better.

[gnasher]

When RHO opens 3♥ we already know that 91% of the time they'll have a 9+ card fit, and 67% they'll have a 10+ card fit (assuming that RHO has a seven-card suit). How much do you want these figures to go up before it becomes safe for you to bid?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-October-23, 01:36, said:

When RHO opens 3♥ we already know that 91% of the time they'll have a 9+ card fit, and 67% they'll have a 10+ card fit (assuming that RHO has a seven-card suit). How much do you want these figures to go up before it becomes safe for you to bid?

I think that should read "South already knows" rather than "we already know", as others do not seem to know it. It is a bit like poker. There are many hands where you would like to limp in but cannot do so here as West is more likely to double 4S if you bid it immediately. Fortunately, in bridge, we can check and then limp in. To pass twice here would be the limp action.

[MrAce]

I already wrote my reasons why we should be better overcalling 3♠ than 4♠ in previous reply. I was gonna let it go there but I am just having hard time to understand the concerns that says "if I bid now pd will next smash them, and we won't like the result"

With all due respect, this is the most ironic comment in this topic so far. First of all why shall we not like the result? Pd will be doubling 4♥ probably with a trump stack, or at least 2 sure tricks, which in worst case they make a doubled 4♥, what a big deal! Now let's look at the other side of the coin-you pass now, pd has a heart stack and you stick your nose in with the idea that they have a big fit...bidding 4♠ with K high 6 card suit, vulnerable, Booja -1100 instead of -790 or -800 -500 instead of +200 or +500. This is what I fear much more than them making doubled 4h.

I mean I am assuming pd is aware that he is sitting right in front of the long hearts and that his double will tell tails to declarer about how to play the hand. Just like all logical people I expect him to double with the anticipation of setting them at least by 2 tricks. He will not have spade fit either in most cases. It may not be the case of course but all of this reduces the odds of redouble and/or overtricks. And good luck to those who prefer 4♠ later than sooner, when they catch that kind of hand with pd. Obviously both approach can go wrong. But I just don't understand why those who advocates getting in later, conveniently skip the page where getting in late was wrong and do not mention the what kind of scores they can get and point fingers to early bidders with the concern that pd may double. It will be much uglier than pd smashing them. But for some reason people have this "doubling them to a making contract" fobia. Which is understandable but, we are not doubling them in a partscore after all.

Oh, another thing. Lets assume that LHO does not have a big fit, nor enough values to raise his pd with short hearts. What does this leave pd with? If pd has a 3 NT bid he will, but he will also have a lot of hands where he has hearts and looking at an opener hand, thinking that his hand is ruined after 3♥. Which may be more than enough for us to make 4♠ but he will PASS. I won't cherry pick hands because I know we all can construct hands. Note that I am not saying "we should necessarily bid 3♠" nor saying "we should not bid 4♠ later". I prefer the former. But some of you started to talk like as if this is a perfect/textbook example of passing and then bidding 4♠ hand, and that bidding later is safer, which is NOT imo.

[ArtK78]

MrAce, on 2014-October-23, 05:47, said:

I already wrote my reasons why we should be better overcalling 3♠ than 4♠ in previous reply. I was gonna let it go there but I am just having hard time to understand the concerns that says "if I bid now pd will next smash them, and we won't like the result"

With all due respect, this is the most ironic comment in this topic so far. First of all why shall we not like the result? Pd will be doubling 4♥ probably with a trump stack, or at least 2 sure tricks, which in worst case they make a doubled 4♥, what a big deal! Now let's look at the other side of the coin-you pass now, pd has a heart stack and you stick your nose in with the idea that they have a big fit...bidding 4♠ with K high 6 card suit, vulnerable, Booja -1100 instead of -790 or -800 -500 instead of +200 or +500. This is what I fear much more than them making doubled 4h.

I mean I am assuming pd is aware that he is sitting right in front of the long hearts and that his double will tell tails to declarer about how to play the hand. Just like all logical people I expect him to double with the anticipation of setting them at least by 2 tricks. He will not have spade fit either in most cases. It may not be the case of course but all of this reduces the odds of redouble and/or overtricks. And good luck to those who prefer 4♠ later than sooner, when they catch that kind of hand with pd. Obviously both approach can go wrong. But I just don't understand why those who advocates getting in later, conveniently skip the page where getting in late was wrong and do not mention the what kind of scores they can get and point fingers to early bidders with the concern that pd may double. It will be much uglier than pd smashing them. But for some reason people have this "doubling them to a making contract" fobia. Which is understandable but, we are not doubling them in a partscore after all.

Oh, another thing. Lets assume that LHO does not have a big fit, nor enough values to raise his pd with short hearts. What does this leave pd with? If pd has a 3 NT bid he will, but he will also have a lot of hands where he has hearts and looking at an opener hand, thinking that his hand is ruined after 3♥. Which may be more than enough for us to make 4♠ but he will PASS. I won't cherry pick hands because I know we all can construct hands. Note that I am not saying "we should necessarily bid 3♠" nor saying "we should not bid 4♠ later". I prefer the former. But some of you started to talk like as if this is a perfect/textbook example of passing and then bidding 4♠ hand, and that bidding later is safer, which is NOT imo.

With all due respect, I believe that you are way out there on this one.

A direct overcall of a preempt should show a good hand - not a distributional one. It should have defensive values. This hand has one defensive trick.

It almost falls under the category of a preempt over a preempt.

If partner doubles, he will likely be very disappointed in your hand.

[gnasher]

I'm way out there too.

Actually, I'm even further out, because if my partner doubles 4♥ it will be for takeout (or responsive, or DSIP, or whatever you want to call it), and he'll probably be delighted by the consequences.

[mikeh]

Timo

Not all of us who pass and then bid had, as our primary concern, that we overcall, LHO raises and partner doubles, whether that be penalty, which I am old-fashioned enough to think is the better treatment, or responsive.

The fact is that if we overcall many things could happen, and some of them are very good for us and some are not.

On the bad side, it could go all pass and it turns out to be a misfit and we are down 200 into their 100 or so, and we have just given away 7 imps

Or partner could raise, expecting a better hand/suit and now LHO, who couldn't double 3♠, has an easy double of game and we go 500 against their 140 or our +100 and we lose another bunch of imps

Or partner could have a very good hand and push a level too high on a hand where, had we passed, partner would balance and we'd get to game, making, to lose another 12 imps

Or, if partner learns to expect this kind of overcall, he will pull in a bit and we'll miss some good games in the future because he will be catering to this kind of hand.


and so on and so on.

Of course it is wrong to look only at the bad things that could happen, but what almost invariably happens in these discussions is that those who advocate for a particular course of action focus on why their choice is right rather than why it may be closer than they want to acknowledge and that those who disagree have good arguments.

There are clearly many reasons why overcalling could work out. I have no problem accepting that overcalling with this hand would be the systemic choice for some players, including some very good players. Make my spades KJ109xx and I think I would overcall....it is that close. KQ109xx and I think everyone with a pulse would overcall.

[MrAce]

ArtK78, on 2014-October-23, 06:29, said:

With all due respect, I believe that you are way out there on this one.

Now I understand why Justin said " we can not convince anyone" when Andy wrote more or less the same thing I did.

ArtK78, on 2014-October-23, 06:29, said:

If partner doubles, he will likely be very disappointed in your hand.

Oh, he won't be thrilled to to see a delayed 4♠ when he is holding x AT9xx xxxx Kxx
He won't be very happy too with the result when he holds Axx ATxxx KQx xx when 3♥ comes to him all passed. (change ♥ A tp ♣ K and you are close to making slam)

But for some reason, everyone seems to be obsessed with them bidding 4♥ and pd doubling, and that they will make. Actually there are other and much better reasons for passing 3♥ but none of you mentioned them because you all seem to stuck with "they can make 4h doubled" scenario.Funny as it is, I am having hard time to construct hands where a reasonable pd has a double of 4♥ and they make. Most of the time they will be off imo. And this is IF a very BIG IF, you play that double for penalties.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2014-October-23, 09:22, said:

Timo

Not all of us who pass and then bid had, as our primary concern, that we overcall, LHO raises and partner doubles, whether that be penalty, which I am old-fashioned enough to think is the better treatment, or responsive.

The fact is that if we overcall many things could happen, and some of them are very good for us and some are not.

On the bad side, it could go all pass and it turns out to be a misfit and we are down 200 into their 100 or so, and we have just given away 7 imps

Or partner could raise, expecting a better hand/suit and now LHO, who couldn't double 3♠, has an easy double of game and we go 500 against their 140 or our +100 and we lose another bunch of imps

Or partner could have a very good hand and push a level too high on a hand where, had we passed, partner would balance and we'd get to game, making, to lose another 12 imps

Or, if partner learns to expect this kind of overcall, he will pull in a bit and we'll miss some good games in the future because he will be catering to this kind of hand.


and so on and so on.

Of course it is wrong to look only at the bad things that could happen, but what almost invariably happens in these discussions is that those who advocate for a particular course of action focus on why their choice is right rather than why it may be closer than they want to acknowledge and that those who disagree have good arguments.

There are clearly many reasons why overcalling could work out. I have no problem accepting that overcalling with this hand would be the systemic choice for some players, including some very good players. Make my spades KJ109xx and I think I would overcall....it is that close. KQ109xx and I think everyone with a pulse would overcall.

I know all of this, and I agree. But why are you telling this to me? I am not the one who claims pass is wrong, or claims "we must bid 3♠" I am just against the idea that passing and then bidding 4♠ is safer or auto. I am against "i do not bid 3♠ now because later pd will be disappointed with my hand" reasoning. Simply because they skip the "bad scenario" for passing and then bidding while they show the bad scenario (and imo the very least in priority if you read my post above, them making doubled 4♥ as oppose to your list) for bidding early

I accept passing and 4♠
I accept bidding 3 immediately
I accept passing and then passing too,

But of course I prefer one over the others and I do not claim my choice is safe/auto/clear/obvious. So my argument is not against those who passes and and then bids/passes. I am just arguing the "pd will be disappointed" or "he will double them" reasoning. There are all kinds of scenarios, as you said, that can make pd happy or unhappy.

[PhilKing]

Just overcall and let nature take it's course.

Hand strength is way, way less important in these positions than hand type, and you basically have a hand that says "bid".

I have quite a few examples in my files that illustrate the difference between the "pass-then-bid" and the "loose overcall" style, and I will try and dredge them up when I get the chance.

[MrAce]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-23, 09:33, said:

Just overcall and let nature take it's course.

LOL

I think you just gave me a new siggy quote!

[aguahombre]

LHO, the wildcard, is just as dangerous if we overcall directly as he would be if we wait and balance. However, CHO is dangerous also if we overcall directly.

[ArtK78]

Funny thing. Playing in a BBO ACBL IMP pair game the other night, I held Axxxx -- xx QT9xxx. After passing in first seat at all vul, the bidding proceeded (2♥) - P - (4♥) back to me. I trotted out 4♠. It went (P) - P - (5♥). My partner, holding

KQJT
AKJ82
JT74
---

found a double for 1400.

I won't trouble you by reproducing the EW hands, as it would make you sick.

Had I not bid 4♠, I would not be 100% comfortable with sitting for my partner's eventual double of 4♥. And perhaps he would pass out 4♥ out of fear of a pull to 5♣.

So, what is the moral of this story?

[whereagles]

good question.. you tell me

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on 2014-October-23, 11:56, said:

good question.. you tell me

Spades outrank Hearts?

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2014-October-23, 11:50, said:

So, what is the moral of this story?

It doesn't matter how badly you play as long as the opponents play worse?

[chasetb]

ArtK78, on 2014-October-23, 11:50, said:

So, what is the moral of this story?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left?