Balancing current theory?

[mike777]

An old buddy recently sent me this email regarding balancing.

 

Your thoughts on balancing in 2011?

 

"Balancing is a whole different world from what it was 40 years ago when a lot of us learned how to play. Once you take out the hands where

 

(1) you or pard would have opened in 2011 but not in 1971;

(2) you or pard would have already intervened in 2011 but not in 1971;

(3) the hands where the opponents have already "self-pushed" via Bergen, a super-accept of a transfer, etc.

 

There are not many chances left to balance. If opps ARE playing Bergen and stopped on the 2-level they probably have only 8 trumps, and they know it, so you are offering them a fielder's choice by balancing.

 

In 2011, I would say that if you add up:

 

(a) the times when you balance and

 

(1) bid and make something

(2) push the opps higher and they go down (or go down more), or

(3) take a good sac over their partial

 

and weigh them against

 

(B*) the times when you balance and

 

(1) go for a number

(2) wake the (bad) opps up and they bid and make game,

(3) help the (good) opps in the play when they bid on

(4) allow the opps to get to a better strain

 

that (B*) outweighs (a) by a fair amount."

[mtvesuvius]

I think the exact reverse, balancing (within reason) is a very profitable and useful practice, especially since people open quite light.

[awm]

I'd say that relative to 1971:

 

(1) The standards for opening and responding have gone down a lot. This suggests that you should balance more often because the opponents are less likely to have "stuff" for their bids.

(2) The standards for overcalling or doubling at the one level have gone down somewhat. This suggests being less eager to balance if they opened 1m and partner couldn't bid.

(3) The standards for overcalling at the two-level have not changed all that much.

 

Overall I think the odds that its your hand after opponents try to pass out the hand in a partial have actually gone up! This suggests balancing more aggressively, especially if their opening bid was in a major (people open lighter in the majors, and it's less likely partner could come in at first opportunity at the one-level). It is also arguably more difficult for them to double even when they've "got you" because the opening does not promise as much as it used to in terms of defense, and because people play an awful lot of doubles as takeout these days.

[Free]

apples and oranges...

[Lurpoa]

One more aspect:

 

Playing Negative Doubles, Balancing is important to to protect partner, if he has a penalty pass.

[Vampyr]

Like others who have responded, I am a huge fan of balancing, but I can't really speak to the comparison with 1971, since I was five years old.

 

Balancing them into game is really annoying, but it is important to have some perspective. If they belonged in game they should have bid it already, and the field or the other table will probably have done so; so you aren't losing anything. True, you have missed the opportunity to make a big gain, but the benefits listed in the OP are too great to give up out of fear of this fairly uncommon situation.