[hokum]

---

Are you bidding? If so or if not, what would change your mind?

[lycier]

No，I would pass.
However,passing or bidding,it depends on your agreements on how to open weak two bid.
Assume that you play weak two bid,if you think this hand is too weak to open weak 2♥,so it would be unreasonable logic thought to make a balancing bid.
If you think this hand should open weak 2♥,here there is not any balancing issue left.
I think this is a issue about whether opening weak two bid instead of balancing after strong 1nt.

[MrAce]

I am definitely bidding. Not even gonna ask scoring.

[diana_eva]

I'd bid too, at any vul/scoring. The only time I'm not bidding is if partner is a passed hand.

[mike777]

I will try pass.

I think I would pass in all cases.

[WesleyC]

Bidding here is absolutely clear.

Partner will never punish you for an aggressive balance because they heard you pass in 2nd seat.

[steve2005]

WesleyC, on 2015-June-09, 09:05, said:

Bidding here is absolutely clear.

Partner will never punish you for an aggressive balance because they heard you pass in 2nd seat.

It's not partner you have to worry about punishing you it's west. At MP even -1X is -200 and a bottom

[MrAce]

steve2005, on 2015-June-09, 09:31, said:

It's not partner you have to worry about punishing you it's west. At MP even -1X is -200 and a bottom

Oh... to me this is losing bridge.

Pd has anywhere between 11-16 points. This is if (a big IF) you are playing X for penalty. Otherwise pd has 11-20 hcp. Pd also has a balanced hand since he did not act.
Possibility of this 2♥ being punished by opponents is less than the possibility of NT opening being punished. Much less actually.
I'd go as far as calling pass a crime at MP, because most of the time you see pd leading a ♦.
This is the best position available. Our values are in the hand behind NT opener.
It may sound off to you, but if you added about 8-10 more hcp crumbles to my hand, I would not be as comfortable as with this hand to take an action.

[Jinksy]

Auto 2♥ for me. Swap diamonds and spades and I'd hesitate slightly longer at MP, for fear of pushing them into 2S (but then probably still bid it).

[Winstonm]

2H for me, any type of scoring.

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2015-June-09, 11:01, said:

Oh... to me this is losing bridge.

Pd has anywhere between 11-16 points. This is if (a big IF) you are playing X for penalty. Otherwise pd has 11-20 hcp. Pd also has a balanced hand since he did not act.
Possibility of this 2♥ being punished by opponents is less than the possibility of NT opening being punished. Much less actually.
I'd go as far as calling pass a crime at MP, because most of the time you see pd leading a ♦.
This is the best position available. Our values are in the hand behind NT opener.
It may sound off to you, but if you added about 8-10 more hcp crumbles to my hand, I would not be as comfortable as with this hand to take an action.

Why does partner have a balanced hand?

Would you act opposite a passed hand partner, red, with say Jxxx x KJxxx AQx?

I wouldn't.

Now, you may well survive a balance opposite that type of hand, but I think you are overstating matters when you infer that partner has a balanced hand.

I think the strongest argument for a balance is that partner clearly has some decent values, that most of them will be well-positioned on offence, and that if we pass he is very likely to make a lead that works out poorly.

At mps, the desire to avoid a lead that costs a trick makes balancing clear to me.

At imps, the issue is less clear, since it is possible that N is sitting there with a hand on which a lucrative penalty double is clear.

20 years ago I would have said this is a wtp pass at imps: these days I opt for a balance, but I don't think it to be as clear as some of these posts suggest. While I have reason to hope for +110 into their +120, for 6 imps, there is a chance of -500 into their 120/150 or, more frequently, -200 into their 120 or so.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2015-June-09, 13:08, said:

Why does partner have a balanced hand?

Would you act opposite a passed hand partner, red, with say Jxxx x KJxxx AQx?

I wouldn't.

Now, you may well survive a balance opposite that type of hand, but I think you are overstating matters when you infer that partner has a balanced hand.

I think the strongest argument for a balance is that partner clearly has some decent values, that most of them will be well-positioned on offence, and that if we pass he is very likely to make a lead that works out poorly.

At mps, the desire to avoid a lead that costs a trick makes balancing clear to me.

At imps, the issue is less clear, since it is possible that N is sitting there with a hand on which a lucrative penalty double is clear.

20 years ago I would have said this is a wtp pass at imps: these days I opt for a balance, but I don't think it to be as clear as some of these posts suggest. While I have reason to hope for +110 into their +120, for 6 imps, there is a chance of -500 into their 120/150 or, more frequently, -200 into their 120 or so.

Why are you giving the worst hand possible to pd? Of course he can have this. But if this is your concern you should not leave the house at all.
And I am the one overstating?
Cmon Mike, give me some loving for bidding 2♥!!!

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2015-June-09, 13:56, said:

Why are you giving the worst hand possible to pd? Of course he can have this. But if this is your concern you should not leave the house at all.
And I am the one overstating?
Cmon Mike, give me some loving for bidding 2♥!!!

Hey, I voted for 2♥ myself! How much love do you want?

My point really was that one cannot safely infer a balanced hand, especially when we don't know what agreements we have for overcalling. Minor suit hands are generally not catered to in most defences to 1N, unless they are exceptional, and can afford to force to the 3-level. We hold 9 major suit cards, so there is good reason to expect partner to hold a lot of minors, and he could easily hold a fairly good unbalanced hand simply because he can't show it safely.

[monikrazy]

I envision a lot more bad results not balancing at both IMPS and MP then balancing. Some defense to NT systems will have greater risks than others in this spot.

[KurtGodel]

I think I would probably pass at IMPs, although that could easily be wrong; it seems to me that more so than ever that double part score swings determine matches. At pairs I think I would balance, although it obviously not without risk. I think either way it is probably closer than a lot of people here are saying.

[wank]

i'd rather bid at imps than MPs.

we might make game, opps are less likely to double and -200 is only a minorly poor score.

[SteveMoe]

2♥ Auto

[nige1]

hokum, on 2015-June-09, 02:25, said:

Are you bidding? If so or if not, what would change your mind?

---

IMO 2♥ = 10. Pass = 9. As Lycier implies, your earlier pass protects you.

[mikestar13]

I will bid at any vulnerability, but it is close if vulnerable. It is an obvious bid at neither vulnerable--at favorable, you can't hold this hand unless you don't know how to preempt.

[alok c]

pass.