Balancing Decision

[hrothgar]

You hold

 

[hv=s=skq5hk5dajt96ct32]133|100|[/hv]

 

LHO opens 1♥

Two passes to you...

[hotShot]

I don't like it, but i think this call for a reopening dbl.

[awm]

I don't really like a double here. Too often partner will put us in a 4-3 fit with the lead coming through my heart king. In practice I'd probably choose 2♦ (I like to bid my suits) with 1NT a close second. The diamond call has the advantage of putting a little pressure on opener in case he wants to bid again, and also keeping us out of a 4-3 black suit fit most of the time. Either of 2♦ or 1NT has a good chance to "right-side" the eventual contract and protect my tenaces.

[mike777]

2D, 1nt is close.

 

Having LHO on lead may give me one extra trick.

[joshs]

You didn't mention vulnerability and form of scoring....

 

There are, of course 3 possible bids: x, 1N and 2D.

 

x is the most conservative of the 3, and the least likely to get you to game, and is anti-positional.

 

1N is the most agressive of these. 3N is the most likely game but you will need partner to have help in hearts (preferably Qxx) or help in diamonds. If partner lacks both, you can easily go down quite a few in NT, which would be bad if red. On the other hand if partner has a balanced 12-13 count and didn't bid over 1H partner likely has some help in hearts.

 

2D is the compromise, and gets partner to focus on his diamond holding. If partner raises diamonds or cue bids you will bid 3N next

 

My tendancy is to bid 1N at imps. At mps the decision is really close. White/W I would x (or bid 2D and then x) since competeing the hand is my primary objective. Vul/Vul I would probably bid 2D and then sell out (in deference to the diamond 9!) but the calculus does vary some with partner's overcalling tendancies. In the other vuls its so close that my decision would change depending on who I was playing with..... I do think all 3 bids seem reasonable. For the record, I almost always x with this shape but this exact hand seems to be an exception.

[fred]

I tend to balance with 1NT on all hands in which I think 1NT is a realistic possibility (for pretty much the same reasons that I tend to open 1NT on borderline hands).

 

My judgment suggests that 1NT is more than realistic on this particular hand. In fact, I would consider 1NT here to be close to automatic and I would not give seroius consideration to either of the other options. However, given that everyone else so far either selected one of the other options or thought this was a close call, it would appear that my characterization of 1NT as "automatic" is not appropriate.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[HeartA]

I don't really like a double here. Too often partner will put us in a 4-3 fit with the lead coming through my heart king. In practice I'd probably choose 2♦ (I like to bid my suits) with 1NT a close second. The diamond call has the advantage of putting a little pressure on opener in case he wants to bid again, and also keeping us out of a 4-3 black suit fit most of the time. Either of 2♦ or 1NT has a good chance to "right-side" the eventual contract and protect my tenaces.

I second that.

[hrothgar]

I tend to balance with 1NT on all hands in which I think 1NT is a realistic possibility (for pretty much the same reasons that I tend to open 1NT on borderline hands).

 

My judgment suggests that 1NT is more than realistic on this particular hand. In fact, I would consider 1NT here to be close to automatic and I would not give seroius consideration to either of the other options. However, given that everyone else so far either selected one of the other options or thought this was a close call, it would appear that my characterization of 1NT as "automatic" is not appropriate.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

At the table I chose a 1NT balance

Even more reason to rethink your position...

[foo]

I vote with Fred. 1N is automatic by me here.

 

1N is the best description of your hand. I assume it turned out badly since you are asking about it.

 

a= Don't Result

b= Are you playing a decent structure over a Balancing 1N?

[Kalvan14]

1N is automatic for me too. 11-14 HCP, balanced with stopper in hearts.

IMHO, this is the standard treatment, and I'd use it even in a casual partnership: I'm quite surprised by the lack of unanimity.

[hrothgar]

I vote with Fred. 1N is automatic by me here.

 

1N is the best description of your hand. I assume it turned out badly since you are asking about it.

 

a= Don't Result

b= Are you playing a decent structure over a Balancing 1N?

Sorry, there wasn't any ulterior motives...

I wasn't particularly unhappy with the way the hand turned out. I posted this because I thought that it was interesting:

 

I expected people to advocate Double, 1N, and 2♦ (I considered all three bids before settling on 1NT). I wanted to see how strongly different people felt about the various bids.

[hrothgar]

1N is automatic for me too. 11-14 HCP, balanced with stopper in hearts.

IMHO, this is the standard treatment, and I'd use it even in a casual partnership: I'm quite surprised by the lack of unanimity.

In the US at least I believe that the standard range for a balancing NT over a major is 10-16 or so...

[dogsbreath]

hi

1nt for me. It's the only bid that partener will understand in the balancing position.. will expect 4-card + Spades for a X and more shape for a 2D bid

Rgds Dog

[Free]

I also find 1NT automatic... wtp? 10-14 balanced :rolleyes:

[whereagles]

What a balancing 1NT shows is a bit muddy, but 11-14 is a decent statistical average. This hand certainly qualifies for the bid.

 

2♦ puts all eggs in one basket and besides, it's not as well-defined as 1NT when it comes to range. The only advantage is it makes it harder for LHO to bid clubs and easier for pard to compete, should LHO act anyway.

 

Dbl is ok, but if pard had 5 spades, he might have bid 1♠ already. Also, there's a real chance that dbl sees RHO leading a heart through the king at trick 1 :rolleyes:

 

For all these reasons 1NT seems clear, although 2♦ is a good alternative if you need some unilateral action.

[helene_t]

b= Are you playing a decent structure over a Balancing 1N?

Maybe, but unfortunately partner didn't play the same structure :rolleyes:

 

After LHO's 2♥, partner responded 2NT. What should that mean?

[Echognome]

b= Are you playing a decent structure over a Balancing 1N?

Maybe, but unfortunately partner didn't play the same structure :-)

 

After LHO's 2♥, partner responded 2NT. What should that mean?

The same is if it had gone 1NT - (2♥) - 2NT, adjusted for point counts in the meaning. (i.e. as Lebensohl or Rubensohl) At least that's the way I play it with all of my partners.

 

It's just too difficult a game not to try to group parallel situations together, even if there are better uses.

 

Playing in the land where weak NT reigns, I also play (1NT) - Dbl - (2x) - ? as if partner opened a strong NT and RHO intervened.

 

 

On the given hand from Richard, I can understand all of X, 1NT, and 2♦. I like 1NT as it right-sides the hand immediately. Even if I don't get a heart lead, I am likely to gain a tempo. I also want to put the opening bidder on lead.

[joshs]

I polled 3 of my regular partners:

Clem Jackson Voted for 1N

Marc Umeno and John Pendergrass voted for x

 

I submit this as further evidence that this decision is close...

 

In my opinion, if partner has a weak NT you will get to 3N, probably from your side, no matter what you do (If partner has QTxx or Q9xx of hearts you might wrongside it). The main question is what works best when partner is weaker....

 

On the other hand, bidding 1N immediately does provide less information to the opponents and thats an advantage, if you in fact belong in some number of NT.

[P_Marlowe]

1NT.

 

I even hold a stopper.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

I find it amusing that there was a marked shift towards 1N after Fred posted his view that it was automatic :(

 

However, I am not suggesting that the subsequent posters were influenced by that post, since I had decided on 1N before reading the other suggestions :)

 

To me, 1N is virtually automatic: it right-sides the contract on so many hands, and we can take some (small) inference that partner has 3 or 4 ♥ since RHO did not raise. We are, of course, dreaming of Qxx in partner's hand.

 

Once the opener bids 2♥, 2N can logically (I think) be either natural or a lebensohl-like move, asking balancer to bid 3♣, likely to be passed, given my minor suit shape, or competitive with both minors. There will be hands on which any of these would be useful....

 

 

One can argue relative frequency of use and cost/benefit of the methods, but it seems to me that if one has NOT discussed this sequence (and only experienced partnerships are at all likely to have done so) then it should be treated as natural, and invitational: not because I think that that is the most viable treatment, but because of my belief that whenever an untried partnership encounters this type of situation, having the 'agreement', whether explicit or tacit, that any ambiguous bid be natural is easiest.

 

I actually happen to have, in a couple of partnerships, the agreement that 2N as a form of lebensohl is the default meaning in competitive situations, but that is an exlicit agreement, and not one I would mentally impose upon a partner without discussion.

[Echognome]

One of the meta-agreements I have with my regular partners is that 2NT in competition is (almost) always artificial. There are some notable exceptions such as 1x - P - P - 2NT. But, most of the time it is either Lebensohl-like, two places to play, or scrambling. So partner is on the lookout whenenever a new situation arises. I don't know if its ideal, but it seems to work out fine.