[pbleighton]

One of my pds relayed the following to me, that many world-class players "never allow their opponents to play below 2NT". Allowing for poetic exaggeration, is this true, and would you recommend this approach to someone at my level (strong intermediate, above average club player)?

I think that this would mean that after 1D-P-1NT-P-P-?, you would double with Qxxx-xxx-xx-xxx, and bid 2S with Qxxxx-xxx-x-xxx, well under the "king below" standard which most people (including me) seem to use as the criterion for balancing.

How aggressive should you be after (say) 1D-P-1NT-P-P-? and 1H-P-2H-P-P-?, NV/Vul and IMPs and MPs?

I am an aggressive bidder, and would like to "push the envelope" on balancing, but I don't want to be stupid.

Peter

[Free]

Peter, first of all, your hands contain only 12 cards, so by now I'd already called the director.
Anyway, I never heard of the rule but I frequently use it. Dbl should mean both Majors (or something like 4-3-1-5), bidding 2M only promisses 4, but can have 5 or 6. Also I'd advise to never say "never". If you're Vulnerable against NV, you shouldn't balance on 3-level imo, but in all other cases (and certainly when NV) you should try so.

I'd say never let them play below 2♠...

[inquiry]

"never allow their opponents to play below 2NT"

Several modifications to this need to be made. First the obvious one...

"never allow their opponents to play below 2NT undoubled "

The reason for the "never" allow the opponents play below 2NT is based upon the law of total tricks. If they stop, the hcp are roughly split evenly and you want to compete. The unstated assumption is that if the oppoenent have found a fit like we will have a fit. The odds favor you having an 8 card fit if htey have a fit, and explains this rule. So for example,

1♠-P-2♠
P-P-?

Here the balance is fairly automatic, however,

1NT-P-2♥-P
2♠-P-P-?

Here, however, they maybe in a 5-2 fit and if WEST is the creative type who will bid 1NT with 1-4-4-4 with singleton King, they maybe in a 5-1 fit. Balancing is more risky. I still tend to balance with in frequently here, but it is riskier. Then there is auctions like,

1♠-P-1NT(Force)-P
2♠-P-P-?, or

1♦-P-1♠-P
2♣-P-2♠-P
P-?

There is no evidence of a fit in the first auction for them and probably surely no fit in the second. I balance much less aggressively on these two auction.

So maybe the rule should be...

"never allow their opponents who have found a fit to play below 2NT undoubled "

[pbleighton]

Ben, what about the auction 1D-P-1NT-P-P-?, where they haven't found a fit, but where you can always play at the two level? Would you give me two examples of hands which just barely qualify for balancing when NV, one for overcalling 2S, and one for a takeout double of 1D? What more would you need vul?

Peter

[the hog]

( 1C/1D) P (1NT) P
P

The above 2 auctions are ones on which you should really strive to balance.
The reason being that there is an extremely good chance you have a major suit fit.
(1S) (P) 1N (P)
(P)
otoh is a highly dangerous auction on which to come in. Best read on this is Lawrence's book on balancing.

In both the above auctions I would balance on
Qxxx Kxxxxx xx xx or similar at imps and MPs
at MPs even Qxxx Kxxx xxx xx or similar.

[inquiry]

(1♦)-P-(1NT)-P, (P)-?

This is a dangerous situation. First, they may or may not have a fit. Second, if the 1NT bidder has a 10 point maximum and the 1♦ bidder has a 14/15 point pass, you could be walking into a trap. But on the other hand, bridge is a bidder’s game, and I am like to bid. I am even more likely to balance at matchpoints than at imps.

Bid or not bid may depend upon how aggressive you partner is typically over 1NT on this auction. Also remember, you are probably not short in ♦ with modest values yourself because you didn’t double over 1♦. I still like to balance in this position, if I am short in ♦. It is also useful if you have some sort of conventional agreement here. Misho and I use Dbl to show a minor one suiter or a major two suiter (4-4 is ok). And 2♣ and 2♦ as dont (yes inspite 2♦ is a “cue-bid”), and 2♥/♠ as one suiter. Partner also uses this same scheme direclty over the 1NT response.

To show hands I would/wouldn’t balance on would give away trade secrets (truth, too lazy to think about what a minimum such hand is), but I am very aggressive if I have two suits with concentration of hcp and/or good intermediate cards in those suit. In general, however, the longer I am in ♦, the less likely I am to balance, because my partner should have been short in ♦ and yet didn’t bid directly over 1NT.

[mishovnbg]

.........................................Hi Peter....................................
When I read many years ago J. Ruben's book, about the balancing he wrote: "The art of giving 800 while fighting for score". The balancing is very relative to the system and the style of the opponents. It is bad idea to balance free against precision and players who like to use optional doubles and tactical underbids . Especially at IMPs! At MP if you not fight for every score, you will simple lose and 800 is similar to -110 .
......................................................................Misho

[cnszsun]

inquiry, on Feb 1 2004, 10:36 PM, said:

(1♦)-P-(1NT)-P, (P)-?

In general, however, the longer I am in ♦, the less likely I am to balance, because my partner should have been short in ♦ and yet didn’t bid directly over 1NT.

If i have a 4 or 5 cards major and longer ♦, i'm more likely to balance in this case, just because my partner will be short in ♦ and more cards will be in majors.
Partner has not bid over 1NT, maybe he has no enough strength and he is not in balance seat yet. Of course, that may depends on your partner's bidding style.

[Trpltrbl]

mishovnbg, on Feb 2 2004, 05:00 AM, said:

.........................................Hi Peter....................................
  When I read many years ago J. Ruben's book, about the balancing he wrote: "The art of giving 800 while fighting for score". The balancing is very relative to the system and the style of the opponents. It is bad idea to balance free against precision and players who like to use optional doubles and tactical underbids . Especially at IMPs! At MP if you not fight for every score, you will simple lose and 800 is similar to -110 .
......................................................................Misho

I think you guys take, Bridge is a biddersgame, a little bit to far. I have come in auction at 3 level with 3 card suit opposite a pd with a passed hand. But to balance with some of the hands you guys gave, I think I should all of you become a member of my Rubberbridge club. I need a whole bunch of new things and some of you are very willing to make me rich I see

Mike

P.S. I agree with Misho for all that didn't get that

This post has been edited by Trpltrbl: 2004-February-02, 20:49

[Free]

Mike just likes rubberbridge and quoting I've noticed... I on the other hand like to play against lots of pairs (or in team play) and compare with other people, gives me more satisfaction if I get good results. And to get the maximum out of some hands, you'll need to bid! And getting an 800 is not the end of the world, as long as it doesn't happen too much .

[Trpltrbl]

Rubberbridge is the only true form of bridge left, where people rely on their playing and defending skills and evaluation of their hand. Commonly known as bridgejudgement. Most of the best bridgeplayers over the length of the game were and still are rubberbridge players. Maybe because it is a way of making money or because it is purest form of bridge. And comparing in this field on BBO is sometimes a joke, if you make 3 NT and you win 7 Imps or so, it's not because you were so good, it's because there are people in 6 and 7 NT going down a bunch, and a lot of time not even X-ed. And playing in big live tournaments is a lot better, especially in topbrackets, but as soon as we are done with that we all go running to a table with few decks a cards and start playing rubberbridge.

Mike

[the hog]

What a load of nonsense! Some of the worst Bridge I have seen has been at the rubber table. eg on lead against 6N holding AKxx in a suit and leading fourth highest of your longest and strongest!!

[Free]

Rubberbridge destroys the greatest thing in bridge: there's no need for luck to get good scores! In rubber, if you get the slam hands, you score bigtime, if opps dont get them, too bad. In rubber, you may play 6NT+1 and get the cash, in imps or MP's, you can get a bottom because everybody else bids 7... Rubberbridge might be fun, but is not good bridge at all, the competition is missing!!

About scores on BBO, you have a point. Sometimes you play a 3NT+2 like everybody else, and there's 1 funny guy who plays 6NT (with an AK outside or something), his opps blunder like hell and he makes it. And all tables get bad scores. I watch the movie sometimes of funny contracts, and it's unbelievable what some people do at a table! But isn't that the reason why we play tourneys with good players?

[Trpltrbl]

The_Hog, on Feb 3 2004, 05:21 AM, said:

What a load of nonsense! Some of the worst Bridge I have seen has been at the rubber table. eg on lead against 6N holding AKxx in a suit and leading fourth highest of your longest and strongest!!

Must have been a game for less then pennies with a bunch of 90 year olds, and same stuff happens at clubgames where bad competition excist. I am talking about good games. And I know I am right, of the last many Bermuda Bowl winners they are very very few players that don't play rubberbridge. And if that is the level of rubberbridge you play in, don't bother.......

Mike

[Trpltrbl]

Free, on Feb 3 2004, 08:16 AM, said:

Rubberbridge destroys the greatest thing in bridge: there's no need for luck to get good scores! In rubber, if you get the slam hands, you score bigtime, if opps dont get them, too bad. In rubber, you may play 6NT+1 and get the cash, in imps or MP's, you can get a bottom because everybody else bids 7... Rubberbridge might be fun, but is not good bridge at all, the competition is missing!!

About scores on BBO, you have a point. Sometimes you play a 3NT+2 like everybody else, and there's 1 funny guy who plays 6NT (with an AK outside or something), his opps blunder like hell and he makes it. And all tables get bad scores. I watch the movie sometimes of funny contracts, and it's unbelievable what some people do at a table! But isn't that the reason why we play tourneys with good players?

Rubberbridge is a luck game, I agree, but how come very good players always win ? And there is also something called Chicago with russian scoring which takes big part of luck away.
The following method of scoring Chicago originated in Russia. It eliminates some of the luck of the deal by introducing an element of IMPs scoring.
On each deal, there is a target score which depends on the number of high card points held. The cards are played in front of the players, as in duplicate. At the end of the play, the high card points held by each side are counted, according to the following scale:
each ace: 4 points
each king: 3 points
each queen: 2 points
each jack: 1 point

There are 40 points in all. The team which held more high card points finds its target score, which depends on whether they were vulnerable or not, from the following table

High Card Target
Points Not Vul. Vulnerable
20 0 0
21 50 50
22 70 70
23 110 110
24 200 290
25 300 440
26 350 520
27 400 600
28 430 630
29 460 660
30 490 690
31 600 900
32 700 1050
33 900 1350
34 1000 1500
35 1100 1650
36 1200 1800
37 1300 1950
38 1300 1950
39 1300 1950
40 1300 1950

The difference between the target score from the above table and the actual score is then converted to IMPs, using the standard IMP table. The total IMP scores over a series of hands are totaled to give an overall result.

For example, suppose we are East-West, and on the second deal of a Chicago we bid three hearts and make 10 tricks. We then count our high card points and discover that between us we had 24. We were vulnerable, so our target score from the table was 290. We actually scored 170 (90 for the contract plus 30 for the overtrick plus 50 for the part score). So we are 120 points short of our target. Therefore using the IMP table, our score for this hand is minus 3 IMPs.

Mike