BBO Discussion Forums: Balancing / Pre-Balancing after Opp's 1M - 2M auctions - BBO Discussion Forums

All White, Matchpoints
You hold : ♠Kx ♥x ♦T9xx ♣KJ9xxx
Situation 1: If auction goes 1H - P - 2H - P - P to you, will you balance?
Situation 2: If auction goes 1H - P - 2H - to you, will you pre-balance?
In general, any helpful comments on what the strength of a pre-balance should be, especially at UnVul at matchpoints?
Thanks!

I don't like 3♣ in any circumstance. Neither opponent has bid spades, so that puts partner with a few. They may have an 8 card fit that stacks badly for them, with partner having 4. Partner has probably no more than 2 clubs, and this looks like a poor sacrifice even if the opponents do make their 2♥. I would quite expect the opponents to double, knowing they have most of the strength and they have bid their hands.

In the pre-balance seat, opener may have a stronger hand and you have given him not only a possible juicy penalty, but a route map to making 4♥.

In any of these situations I go more by distribution than strength, and this looks bad.

Call me old fashioned, but in the first situation, a 6 card club suit with holes, 2nd seat, equal vuln doesn't look like a tempting opening pre-empt to me. I might balance with it, there again I might not.

In the 2nd situation, I don't fancy the pre-balance personally. It may pay some dividends sometimes though.

3♣ the first time around (over 1♥) or not at all. It is far more dangerous to come in having passed initially.

In situation 1, you are in pass out sit and sitting behind the opponent's strong hand. By passing out 2 ♥, the opponents are limiting their strength. This marks partner with some values and both sides with nearly equal shares of the HCP. Since they have a fit, you and your partner likely have a fit also. So reopening the auction with a 3 ♣ bid is a reasonable risk. It might buy the contract or push the opponents to a 1 level higher contract which might be defeated.

Situation 2 is different. Your LHO's strength is still unknown and your values are sitting in front of the strong hand. So pre-balancing is more dangerous unless you have solid values. Additionally, if the opponents buy the contract, your partner will make the opening lead. If you pre-balance, your partner should be more likely to lead your suit. KJ9xxx is not necessarily something that you want partner to lead. I'd like something stronger like ♠ Ax ♥ x ♦ 10xxx ♣ KQJxxx to pre-balance here. This improved hand looks like you'll have 6 or 7 tricks no matter what the opponents hold. It's also something you don't mind partner leading and has good defensive values in case you defend. So with the actual hand you posed, the best course is to pass and hope partner can find a reopening double.

You've posed a good example for the BBO posters opinions. Part of the art of good matchpoints is learning when and how to compete.

rmnka447, on 2015-March-12, 11:00, said:

Are you sure you want to pass a 1♥ opening with this?

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-12, 11:45, said:

Situation 2 was 1 ♥-(P)- 2 ♥-?

Coming in with a 3 ♣ pre-balance after BOTH opponents have bid and partner passed seems OK with this hand.

But directly over 1 ♥ - ?, certainly a 2 ♣ bid would be right.

Maybe I played too much junior bridge, but my style of balancing / pre-balancing is that if I am all-white at matchpoints, I would almost pre-balance all hands just as if I am in the balancing seat.
Whether it is aggressive or somewhat insane, I think it is never right to let opponents play 2M with 9 trumps. If the auction goes 1M - 2M - AP, it means your partner has some strength. He might be stuck with 11 points and a balanced hand, and unable to complete. If opener has a much stronger hand, they will find their game anyways.
The upside of pre-balancing 3♣ including:
1. 3♣ is a making contract. This can easily be right if parnter has the right 9-11 HCP and 3 club support. P is very likely not to be able to balance anything, so if it gets passed out in 2H, even -2 is a good score for them.
2. 3♣ will go down. However, often times neither opponents has a penalty double; thus -50 or -100 are good scores vs. -110. Even they do, if you can hold it to -1, it is still a good score. It it goes down 2, opponents might have a game, so it is possibly not bad. and more often they will compete to 3♥ and possibly go down 1 due to bad breaks etc, which is a win for us. Also, sometimes opener competes to 3M voluntarily, and responder is holding some 9HCP and unsure what to do. Does opener just want to compete in the part score or is he showing some extras? This sometimes pushes them to a unmakeable game.
3. It is also a gain if 4♥ is ice cold and we might have a good save in 5♣. Without pre-balancing there is no way to find it.

Downside:
You've entered a somewhat misfit auction and opener with some ♣AQx takes out some red card and says "nope".

In general, this is a minimum for me in the pre-balancing seat. I would also pre-balance a lot of less distributional hands with a good 9-11HCP.
Please correct me if I am wrong, maybe I am just dreaming too many good things.

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-12, 08:44, said:

BINGO!

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-12, 08:44, said:

How many believe this nonsense?
It is far more dangerous to step into a misfit deal than one where opponents show this is not the case.
Yes LHO might still hold a good hand in context with club values, but it requires a parlay.
I can understand that some believe an immediate 2♣ overcall to be safer (I am not convinced), but claiming that balancing is more dangerous than an immediate jump to 3♣ shows you are playing too much against weak opponents.

Rainer Herrmann

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-12, 11:45, said:

I agree. I'd have overcalled 2 Clubs on the first round.

gqc6, on 2015-March-12, 18:04, said:

> "I think it is never right to let opponents play 2M with 9 trumps"
What leads you to believe that they have a 9 card fit?

> "This can easily be right if parnter has the right 9-11 HCP and 3 club support"
What makes you think 3 clubs is likely? How about the more likely 4441, or 4432?

> thus -50 or -100 are good scores
Not as good as +50 in my book.

My philosophy is since it's never right to let opponent play 2M with 9 trumps, and they may have 9, so I must pre balance aggressively.
Also holding 7hcp and partner fails to act over 1h, I think we are not likely to beat 2h. They easily sell the contract to 3c or compete one level too high.

gqc6, on 2015-March-13, 05:59, said:

The first is a 3 clubs and the sekond is a pass. The first is for me obvious and i am sure and it works against all opps i say. First they have often reach the best contract for them. Only if it lies bad, or bad decleare and/or both wery weak (but then our pd will have much points).. So the normal (all i say is my own truth) is 110-140 i will say about 70% it is that result. Sometimes say 10-15% they do 4(but not many will find) and mabye 10-15% they ke 7 or less (extremly rare rare 5 or less eaven 6 is very rare)... This is my experience, what i beleve that i had observed... Can be wrong (say so if u think else) but anyway it must be my truth and truth is what i will be directed by..
Therfore it is clear that if i do 3 cl or take 8 tricks or 7 with no X a 3 cl is obvious.. further when bidding 3 cl opps can sometimes bid 3 H and it is obvious that it must be better for us they play 3 h insteead of 2 h. Some times they find for ex a NT contract or they can see that teir cards matchhes and sometimes they find a better contract than 2 h because we let them and give information.. But this is seldome more often they will play a one down in 3 h..
What can happen then. Say that we do 3 cl (i think around 20%) ie some factors is in our favour, and often it is so even if we are defending).. For ex the K of spades i right (ie if they play h the finesse misses) or the cl Q is at E and so on.. Those factors are also the tricks in the defence... With certanty, mathematically we know that if we do 3 clubs it is right always as long they dont go 3 down or more (and this is not usuall i my world)..
The most likely result i would say is that we do 8 tricks ie -50.. And i think that in that case they do 2 h or more i say 70% of cases(still my truth/my experience).. So when we take 8 or more tricks it is clear that balance is right. When we take 7 tricks it is often a bad lie of cards and they allmost allways do teir 8 or more tricks.. And often it is not bad break in trumf more bad place hounnours (and mabye bad play from us, or good def).. In those cases it is not so easy for them to X (better players x more often then)...
This i think is a clear proof for me and i am sure on that 3 cl is right in case 1.
In case 2 we se that it may be a bad lie for our kings and further it isnt sure on the same way that they are in the right contract, they may have a borderline hand and have a guess (a problem) if we pass... They may do wrong.. Bidding 3 cl take away this problem(their problem) (although it can be that a new one arise) and they can perhapps X.. In this case the opener ar not limeted as he is in the first case. If he gots say AQ in cl and a medium strong hand he can sometimes beleve at 2 or more down...Furthermore since the opener gets some information he can better judge how many hearts they do (handevaluation is better)...
The ground for all is the "math" and it says 1 down is good, 3 tricks or more is good.. 7 is good when not X if x it is bad..And if we do 9 or 10 tricks it must bee right to bid since they will allmost allways do more than 5 tricks (+150 to us) Here in opposite to the first case
1)THEY MAY NOT BEE IN THE RIGHT CONTRACT/MAY NOT BE SO SURE...2)IT IS MORE LIKLEY THEY TAKE 6 OR MORE TRICKS in this case (ie a mathematical fact against us since it is the bad outcome for us, ie it happens more frekvently for us)3)THEY CAN EVALUATE BETTER TEIR HAND AND CAN decide better the right level.(this is true for ex 1 also but it doesnt change anything in practice so often ).
Is it anything better then bidding in case 2 than in 1.. Yes we can say it is lead directing but i dont think it is worth so much here anyway so it compensate for the negative aspects...So it is therfore pass for me..
They may be more to say but for me it is enough to feel sure on what is right here!
Think like this mabye: is it likley 2 heart is a good contract for opps? Prob u say yes in case one.. Is it likley that 3 clubs is very wrong if no it must be better than 2 hearts.(or is it likley 3 clubs is as good or better for opps than 2 hearts, what do u think when u are in opps situation are u often pleased to play 2 hearts or do u in generall prefere that opps bidding 3 clubs?) .In case 1 we have the power to end the bidding, ending it in that contract.. Do we like it? then pass.. If not find something better (3 clubs)...
Thx for this problem, a very good one worth workinng/thinking at.. It may be other factors that i dont see here that matters..

The sekond case is not that clear as the first and it is more depending on opps, they have to take advantage of the 3 club bid and "punnish" and take advantage of a 3 club bid... A bad player cant do that to same degree so then 3 clubs is more attractive against them. Also if bad playing it talks for a 3 club bid i think..(it is allmoast always good for scoore if opps do misstakes but i think it is will gain more in case 2)

rmnka447, on 2015-March-12, 11:00, said:

I like this post I agree w all arguments also!

gqc6, on 2015-March-12, 02:13, said:

I have become a friend of intervening after situation 1, but with this hand I wouldn't.

I don't believe opponents have a 9-card fit. Because if they have and do not make an invitational move, my partner should have opening strength and bid something. The more likely scenario is, opponents have an 8-card fit, partner has 4 cards in their suit and didn't bid for this reason. So I pass and let opponents struggle.

Take ♦x and give ♥x, so I bid 3♣. It may seem paradox but 2♥ now has a better chance of making.

Take ♣x and give ♠x, so I may double, perhaps partner loves to pass. If partner bids 2♠, I can pass, and there's still a chance one of the opponents raises to 3♥.

The only excuse that would justify a pass out of 2♥ in situation 1 is that I fear that the opponents might now bid a game. Other than that, 3♣ is absolutely clear.

I would not bid in situation 2. Partner is still there if 2♥ is passed to him.

As for bidding over 1♥, I might preempt 3♣ if I was in the mood to do so. It is a high variance action. Bidding 2♣ would never occur to me.

Call me naïve, but maybe partner in the 'do you prebalance' scenario might be able to look at their hand and figure out what we have (stiff heart, short spades [no double] and skewed minors [no unusual 2NT]). So, if partner can play either minor I would expect a balance from that side.

I agree with other who pass the hand out that I'm afraid of giving the opponents a 'second bite at the apple', either allowing them to find a spade fit and/or a game on very thin power but with exceptional distribution.

In passout seat, it looks automatic to balance. There is certainly a risk of -300, but letting the opponents rest in 2H is an even bigger risk.

However, the second 'pre-balancing' situation is very different. If you bid 3C on this hand, how is partner supposed to know that we're just messing around and not making a serious overcall. Looking at some sharp cards and a fitting club honour, he might push on to a doomed 3NT. Looking at a couple of defensive tricks, he might make a speculative double of 4H.

deleted