Balancing at IMPs

[awm]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skt76hat863d2ca93]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

LHO opens 1♠ and this is passed to you. Unfavorable at IMPs. Partner is fairly conservative at these colors (but not unreasonably so). Do you balance? What's your call?

[whereagles]

Pass.

 

Pard is weakish with something like a 1444 or 1255 shape. There might be a partscore for you side, but since finding it involves a bit of guessing, at imps it's probably better to pass.

[pclayton]

Pass. We don't have game and passing looks like the best way to get a plus.

[Double !]

I selected Pass, but I think it's important to know how likely partner is to make a light takeout double over 1 spade with good shape on this hand. The hand has pluses (such as 2 bullets) and some minuses including a possibly poorly placed spade king. 2 hearts could be right, but double is not a consideration. I can think of an argument for 1NT, but I don't anticipate much support for the bid. Could be wrong. I try to not risk going for telephone numbers, especially versus a partscore, at imps. I also wonder what the other person holding my cards might be likely to do?

 

The decision is easier for me if not vul because I like 13-16 1NT overcalls NV, so partner's pass rules out some hands.

 

DHL

[neilkaz]

At the moment we have 4 passers, 4 1NT bidders, and 2H bidder and no one but the passers have spoken.

 

I voted to bid 2H here and have a very slight preference for it vs passing inspite of putting my head on the chopping block and having a likely offside K of S.

 

I have 4 card in the opener's suit, so there's a decent chance that PD is short and has some H for me.

 

I really don't care for 1NT here with a stiff D and 5 playable hearts. Also, if I bid 1NT I alert the opps to what I hold in their suit, making what ever number of spades they may settle in easier to play and potentially keeping them from bidding 1 level too high over what ever level of H we can play.

 

.. neilkaz ..leaning towards 2H rather than passing.

[kenrexford]

I am inclined toward what I will call the "ELC 1NT." If partner corrects 1NT to 2♦, I will make an "Equal Level Conversion" call of 2♥. Otherwise, I will play 1NT, probably.

[the hog]

Close between pass and 1NT for me. Probably Pass as my ex pd was a very aggressive overcaller, and its hard to see where tricks are going to come from here. especially with a likely D lead.

[willow23]

A 2♥ bid is not ideal suit quality ...but gets my vote in balancing position there.. :unsure:

[Finch]

2H seems normal.

[mikeh]

I cannot imagine passing, altho, obviously, it could work out.

 

2♥, as Frances says, seems 'normal'.

 

I don't understand why we cannot have game (while we probably don't, 'cannot' is a huge overbid) and partscore swings are not to be sneezed at. If we're going plus against 1♠ (and I'd bet we are not, against a competent declarer), we rate to go plus in our contract more often than not.

[helene_t]

This depends on our agreements about 1NT since I see no alternative. I use to play 1NT as slightly better than this one but if partner want me to bid 1NT it's ok with me.

[Free]

2♥ seems ridiculous, so it's between 1NT or pass. I prefer defending on this hand, since partner will probably have some ♠ length as well.

[awm]

Well the passers win on this hand. Of course it's not clear what the right action is in the long run, but the full hand was:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sq98h92dkt74cqjt4&w=saj542hkqj5dack82&e=s3h74dqj98653c765&s=skt76hat863d2ca93]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

I balanced with 2♥ and played there. LHO found the lead of the spade ace, spade ruff, diamond to ace, spade ruff... and I lost a club and three more trumps for three off. Fortunately there was no double, but -300 does not score well at IMPs. At my teammates table west opened a strong 1♣ and they eventually wound up in 3♦. This can be set on best defense but south did not find a club lead (tough from Axx) and they ended up with 130.

 

Passing 1♠ will get +50 or -80 depending on the play and defense. 1NT will make easily, but the opponents will probably back into a diamond partial (likely result -110 and win 1 imp for your side).

[joshs]

I performed an independant poll on this hand, but only got 2 responses so far. Personally I am a passer, and If i was going to bid it would be 1N not 2H. This hand is going to play terribly in hearts with the spades over you and RHO probably able to overruff dummy (if he has trump support at all). Meanwhile, 1S may not be a thing of beauty for them. If we have game, its because partner has 2 or 3 spades and not the right hand for a takeout x or a minor suit overcall. In which case, NT is our likely game. The main gain of balancing is when the opps can make exactly 1S, and nothing else, and we can make what we bid (and manage to stop there).

 

The comments I recieved were:

Marc Umeno "Y I balance" (He didn't say with what). Marc still thinks pass is a 4 letter word.

 

Alex Kolesnik was close to my opinion:

 

"

I do not balance. 5 reasons:

 

1) if partner is short in spades, he doesn't have much, since he didn't bid or double

 

2) if partner isn't short in spades, we will go plus, and are very unlikely to have a game

 

3) if partner isn't short in spades, they may have a big diamond fit, which they may find if I balance

 

4) if I bid 2h, partner may take me seriously and put me in game, which is unlikely to make because of the bad spade position (both my king and length are poorly positioned

 

5) I am very unlikely to lose a lot of imps by passing, but I am much more likely to lose a lot of imps by bidding

"

[mikeh]

By a strange coincidence, I was dealt precisely this hand earlier today. I balanced 2♥ (to be consistent with my earlier post). Partner raised to game and tabled:

 

Qx KQx xxxx KQJx and I scored +620. At the other table, my hand passed and ended up +50.

 

I guess that we really can't draw many conclusions from individual hands, can we? :)

 

PS I just checked with two good friends, both current Canadian Team champions and one is a Grand Life Master and the other will be in a few years... only has 8000 mps... both unhesitantingly bid 2♥... one commenting that 'we might get taken away, but we have to bid'

[mike777]

By a strange coincidence, I was dealt precisely this hand earlier today. I balanced 2♥ (to be consistent with my earlier post). Partner raised to game and tabled:

 

Qx KQx xxxx KQJx and I scored +620. At the other table, my hand passed and ended up +50.

 

I guess that we really can't draw many conclusions from individual hands, can we? :)

I wonder how many, if any players, would x at unfav vul with that partner hand?

[fred]

I would bid 2H, but I have some sympathy for Pass.

 

Pass has a lot more going for it if the vulnerability is reversed.

 

I think this problem is hardest at equal vulnerability.

 

I don't like 1NT or DBL regardless of the vulnerability. 2H and Pass are the only options in my view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

Well I'm glad to have some good company in bidding 2♥. My reasoning was something like this:

 

(1) We might have a game in hearts. For example some hand like:

 

Axx

Kxxx

Kxxx

xx

 

This is not a particularly "maximum" hand for partner, who could have up to 14 high. It's not a particularly "perfect fit" in that the diamond king is opposite the singleton. But yet this is well worth bidding game at IMPs (it's cold on a 2-2 heart break and has some chances otherwise especially if the dummy includes ♠9). Partner could easily have a better hand than this (say ♦A instead of king, or ♣K instead of or even in addition to the diamond king). Partner certainly would not bid on this hand over 1♠.

 

(2) Despite the previous point, this is probably a partscore deal. Opponents almost surely don't have a game and we only have one if partner has a remarkable heart fit. So what are the tradeoffs:

 

If both 1♠ and 2♥ make, then balancing wins 5 imps.

If both 1♠ and 2♥ are one off, then balancing loses 4 imps.

If one of 1♠ and 2♥ makes and not the other, balancing is either win 2 or lose 1.

 

So if these situations are about equally likely, then balancing is a win. But it seems to me that most hands contain 15 or more total tricks and so it's probably substantially more likely that at least one of 1♠/2♥ makes than that both go down.

 

(3) Of course there's a small risk of 2♥ down multiple tricks. But even two down is probably only lose 3 because opponents probably make 1♠ (or something in any case). On the other hand bidding and making game in hearts is a huge win. Which is more likely, 2♥ down two or more, or 4♥ making? I don't think the odds can be substantially in favor of two or more down.

 

(4) It's actually quite difficult to penalize 2♥ here. RHO has virtually nothing and probably won't want to force to the three-level with a double, and LHO's double is takeout (which RHO with nothing may not want to convert).

 

Of course my reading of the odds could easily be wrong. They certainly were wrong this time, on this hand. :)

[mike777]

To reopen in 2 of a lower ranking suit, Lawrence recommends at least 10 useful HCP and at least a 5 card suit headed by QJ9xx or 2 Aces and a six card suit or 9 useful hcp and a suit such as KQJ9x.....he downgrades hands with spade hcp or length on this auction.

 

As for partner's hand Lawrence feels strongly it is ok to make a direct takeout x with only 3 cards in the other major if you have 13 useful hcp.