Balancing over weak 2-bids

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s74hqj832dq932ck4]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W N E S

2♠ P P ??[/hv]

 

 

There have been many posts about direct seat action over a weak two with many comments about expected last seat action but I haven't seen any real clear cut ideas about the risks, rewards, and ramifications of balancing seat action.

 

This thread is an extension of another with this question: do you expect partner to balance with this hand if you pass in immediate seat with:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s74hqj832dq932ck4]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W N E S

2♠ P P ??[/hv]

 

So I'm posing these questions: What are the comparative risks, rewards, and ramifications of balancing over a weak 2D/H and then a weak 2S bid.

How much hand can partner safely pass before the strain of reopening applies too much pressure and guesswork on fourth seat?

[MickyB]

I expect him to balance if he is a passed hand, and not otherwise. It seems lunacy to require an unpassed hand to bid on muck, because it messes up your constructive bidding when he actually "has his bid".

[Chamaco]

How much hand can partner safely pass before the strain of reopening applies too much pressure and guesswork on fourth seat?

I use Mike Lawrence "Rule of seven", over a weak 2 and/or a preempt: in direct seat, I bid assuming pard can contribute a decent 7 count.

 

With a marginal opener I frequently pass over a weak 2 (and of course a preempt), unless the hand has extras in shape or values.

 

You can find something about Mike Lawrence's approach at the following link:

 

http://www.bridge-forum.com/Archives/Lawrence_lecture.html

 

Your example hand

 

♠ 986

♥ A1065

♦ AK6

♣ A52

 

is to me a huge 15, easily upgradeable to a decent/bad 16 despite the crappy shape, and with this hand, I would double a weak 2 in spades, whereas I'd stretch to bid 2NT over a weak 2 in a red suit.

[awm]

I'd pass in balancing seat with this collection. And yes, I agree with passing on the example hand over 2♠ too. Does this mean I've missed a 4♥ game? Yup.

 

On the other hand, it is also easy to construct many hands where doubling 2♠ (or balancing with this hand) will lead to disaster. Pretty much any hand without four hearts would seem to qualify, in fact. Sometimes you just have to play the odds.

[Guest Jlall]

This one looks like an easy pass.

[mikestar]

Dead easy pass--the "rule of 7" in the direct seat can stretch to a "rule of 10" in the balancing seat. On this hand with a mediocre 10 count opposite, 3♥ isn't making.

[Stephen Tu]

I have a strong opinion that one shouldn't shade balancing actions over preempts as much as you shade balancing over passed out 1 of a suit openings. You shade by a king or so after a 1 bid, but over a preempt I think it should be half that at most. This is because the increased level makes it more dangerous, there is often no room to invite game (and if there is & but you don't accept, you are at the 3 level, a bad risk/reward situation vs. declaring at the 2 level), the partner of the preemptor can be quite strong but misfit, unlike after a pass of a 1 of a suit opening where you know an opponent is broke, and the opponents may already be high enough for you to set them, there is less need to push them higher.

 

Hence it's an easy pass with the given hand, and the strong balanced hand has to double in direct seat if game is to be reached. I dislike doubling with that shape, but with a hand that rich in controls I think the risk of passing is greater than the risk of bidding.

[Finch]

I would quite likely miss game on those two hands as well.

The second seat hand is close to a t/o double. 4th seat I would only double as a passed hand.

[whereagles]

Winstonm: there is no expert standard. Just a few guidelines. These decisions depend more on feeling, experience and luck than in strict requirements.

 

For instance, with the hand you showed, 2nd player can pass, bid 2NT or double. These are all reasonable actions that may, or may not, work well. If 2nd player passes, 4th player can either pass, double or bid 3♥. Again these are all reasonable actions (though 3♥ is a bit too unilateral).

 

As you can see, there are a lot of possibilities. It's a matter of guessing well more than anything else.

[Stephen Tu]

I would quite likely miss game on those two hands as well.

The second seat hand is close to a t/o double

 

Wow, what do you need? I really think that you have to double on this despite the bad shape, otherwise you get robbed blind. You have all the non-spade aces, it's going to be really hard for partner to like his hand enough to balance without any of those. Holding those aces also makes it less likely that LHO will want to double you when you are in trouble. They also give you a better shot at making 3nt since you'll have fast side tricks after running partner's hoped for suit, not having to let the opps in to maybe cash the rest of the spade suit. In short, aces = good.

 

I did a computer sim, on a double dummy basis, giving 1st seat a weak 2 spade preempt, and partner a hand not strong enough to balance. You can make a game a bit over 60% of the time, and a partial (3c or higher, assume can't play in 2nt) about 20% of the time. You can't make anything a bit under 20% of the time. Now in real life you won't do as well, you'll underbid/overbid, bid to the wrong game, and not play double dummy (though this last part is mostly cancelled by them not defending double dummy), but I don't believe that this will be enough to make passing better than doubling.

[Al_U_Card]

Stretching to take action in the direct seat over a preempt is also predicated on pard having to risk taking action when his RHO can have significant values but not have acted.......over the 1 level bid pass-out, 3rd seat is usually broke so pard can have some pretty decent hands; ergo, get in there!