[mishovnbg]

You are at beginning of high level imp tourney. Will you reopen? Please make vote only if you are advanced or better player and if you like explain your vote.

South:

Scoring: IMP

(1♠)- P - (2♠*) - P
P -?
* was alerted as preemptive raise

---

[Fluffy]

I was in a doubt between 75% & 50%, being the player that balances 100% of the times gives opponents the chance of making 'psickic' pre-emptives, the more I think about the more I think I should not balance.

If balancing I use 2NT to show I only agree to 2 of the remaining suits.

[Free]

I wouldn't balance with this hand. If you don't overcall 2♥ with this, don't come in the bidding any later as well. If partner had something he'd have probably bid. There's too much you can lose imo when V vs NV. When LHO had less than now he'd probably bid 3♠ instead of 2♠ (assuming this is preemptive as well), so game is not so close imo. If RHO has a strong hand and he passed now, you'll go down for a few Doubled, it's not worth it...

[paulg]

It's now a tough decision which is why I really should have doubled on the previous round - I have opening values and support for the other suits.

Now it's a pure guess and I probably have to pass as my long suits are weak.

Paul

[the hog]

X

Would have given some consideration to X on the first round. Certainly would not have overcalled 2H

[Flame]

I gave it 25 for double 75 for pass.
double is only good if we can get to 4h and make it, even if we have 4h its far from sure that we will get there , or stay at 3h when 4h is too high, there are many problems with bidding on , starting with what im going to do over partner expected 3c call.
As for the ODR it doesnt seem high, my Q10 of spade is a negative total trick factor. having most of my high card in my short suit is also lowering the ODR.
another importent fact is the 2sp bid, with this vulnerability most players would bid atleast 3sp with 4 card support, and might even bid it with a nice 3 card supprt, so the 2sp also tells us of the low total trick potential of the hand.
The chances to go down doubled are very high after this bid when both opponents discribed their hands to each other and they know they dont have to look for game.

[robl]

Fluffy, on May 2 2004, 11:45 AM, said:

I was in a doubt between 75% & 50%, being the player that balances 100% of the times gives opponents the chance of making 'psickic' pre-emptives, the more I think about the more I think I should not balance.

If balancing I use 2NT to show I only agree to 2 of the remaining suits.

When *balancing* against 2Sp I play like this:

X is a classic takeout or a two-suiter with hearts and minor
(2NT both minors)

Partner knowing this will bid 2NT everytime with longer dimonds than clubs and thus giving partner a chance to show 4+H and 5+C.

This gives you more opportunities to catch opponents in 2Sp X.

/Robert

[1eyedjack]

I voted 25% for balance, 75% for pass.

I don't see us making game, or bidding it if it is making, and vulnerability seems to be wrong for a partscore fight ... only the right action if they make exactly 2♠ and we make exactly 3 of our suit. In a high level event I would expect them to double us in 3♣ on many occasions that it is right to do so.

Opps are missing ♠QT of their suit, but they will not appreciate how much waste paper it is for us.

In favour of X? There is a chance partner has a 5th ♣ if that is the suit he chooses. Swap the minors and I am more inclined to balance, as partner is slightly more inclined to a 5th ♦ if he chooses that suit over any other. But that is such a small factor. I assume that in this position 2N from partner says payable in 2 suits rather than Lebensohl.

[hrothgar]

I'm normally an aggressive balancer, however, I prefer a pass with this hand.
Too dangerous to scramble at the three level. I don't think that partner's will be able to figure out the relative lengths of my red suits.

I prefer a flawed takeout double on the previous round.

[Poky]

Balancing = 15% ( i voted for 25%).

Many bad features:
- ♠Qx (defensive oriented hand)
- bad suits
- only 2 clubs (have to pass 3♣)

If I think this hand has competitive prospects I would Dbl the 1♠ opening right away (intending to pass 2♣).

[mikestar]

Balance 0%:

Partner doesn't have shape, or is weak, or has wastage in spades.

Just too much risk. I have some sympathy for an action on the previous round, but I would have passed. 2S making whatever it makes might won't be horrible at imps and may be a big gainer if they balance at the other tables and it's wrong.

This post has been edited by mikestar: 2004-May-03, 16:23

[luis]

balance 0%
I double in my first turn.

Overcalling 2h in the first turn is a bad idea and balancing now will probably lead to some sort of disaster.

[Antoine Fourrière]

Balance 75%, with double. After all, I have nine red cards, the LAW says you need less to bid three over two than to bid three over three, the deal may belong to us simply on power, partner may have the ♠K reevaluating offensively my ♠Q, they may bid one more for perfectly acceptable reasons...
I don't intend to pass 3♣. I hope that double followed by 3♦ is more heart-oriented than 2NT followed by 3♦, but I have never thought about it before.

[Fluffy]

robl, on May 3 2004, 11:14 AM, said:

When *balancing* against 2Sp I play like this:

X is a classic takeout or a two-suiter with hearts and minor
(2NT both minors)

Partner knowing this will bid 2NT everytime with longer dimonds than clubs and thus giving partner a chance to show 4+H and 5+C.

This gives you more opportunities to catch opponents in 2Sp X.

/Robert

Hi Robert, its an interesting convention, you apply some kind of it against 4♠ as well?

It maybe has a couple of small problems: you give too much info when opponents end in 3♠. And partner its half-blind when his RHO bids 3♠ before you discover what is going on.

[1eyedjack]

robl, on May 3 2004, 06:14 AM, said:

Fluffy, on May 2 2004, 11:45 AM, said:

I was in a doubt between 75%  & 50%, being the player that balances 100% of the times gives opponents the  chance of making 'psickic' pre-emptives, the more I think about the more I think I should not balance.

If balancing I use 2NT to show I only agree to 2 of the remaining suits.

When *balancing* against 2Sp I play like this:

X is a classic takeout or a two-suiter with hearts and minor
(2NT both minors)

Partner knowing this will bid 2NT everytime with longer dimonds than clubs and thus giving partner a chance to show 4+H and 5+C.

This gives you more opportunities to catch opponents in 2Sp X.

/Robert

Just out of interest, using this method where do you end up if partner has 3=3=3=4 shape? In 3♣ in a 6 card fit when you have an 8 card ♥ fit?

Possibly a risk worth taking, even so, but just wanted to be sure.

By the way I cannot see partner ever passing the double. He is most unlikely to have sufficient trump length and when he does you have the trump spots that he would hope to have. Not that that is an argument against the convention, but it does partly detract from the advantages of its use on this particular hand.

[robl]

[quote name='1eyedjack' date='May 4 2004, 06:32 AM'] When *balancing* against 2Sp I play like this:

X is a classic takeout or a two-suiter with hearts and minor
(2NT both minors)

Partner knowing this will bid 2NT everytime with longer dimonds than clubs and thus giving partner a chance to show 4+H and 5+C.

This gives you more opportunities to catch opponents in 2Sp X.

/Robert [/QUOTE]
Just out of interest, using this method where do you end up if partner has 3=3=3=4 shape? In 3[cl] in a 6 card fit when you have an 8 card [he] fit?

Possibly a risk worth taking, even so, but just wanted to be sure. [/quote]
The balancer will correct to the 5+ suit, of course you may end up playing a 5-2 instead of a 2-6 suit if you're unlucky. I learned this convention from a former player in the Swedish national team.

/R

[robl]

Fluffy, on May 4 2004, 12:31 AM, said:

robl, on May 3 2004, 11:14 AM, said:

When *balancing* against 2Sp I play like this:

X      is a classic takeout or a two-suiter with hearts and minor
(2NT  both minors)

Partner knowing this will bid 2NT everytime with longer dimonds than clubs and thus giving partner a chance to show 4+H and 5+C.

This gives you more opportunities to catch opponents in 2Sp X.

/Robert

Hi Robert, its an interesting convention, you apply some kind of it against 4♠ as well?

It maybe has a couple of small problems: you give too much info when opponents end in 3♠. And partner its half-blind when his RHO bids 3♠ before you discover what is going on.

Hi Fluffy,

That's right, one downside is that you don't know if pd has a two-suiter or a takeout and that's a problem when opps bids again. But anyway you have succeded with balancing them up at the 3-level.

/Robert

[mishovnbg]

Hi all and thanks for votes and explanations! I didn't vote myself in this poll.

The reason I did this poll was my opinion that expert almost never will balance if he pass previous round - low ODR, cheap win vs great lose possibility at imp, begining of tourney no need swing yet...

I was wrong! To win at high level tourney you need something more than theoretical evaluation of hand and situation. You need spirit of winer!!!

Will be probably interesting for you to know result of my poll...

All world class players balance 100% with hand in example.

Some of their answers to my questions:

Why you balance? -> Because you can miss game in ♥.

Why you didn't afraid of penalty dbl? -> Because they find fit, we probably have too... Even we didn't have, it is hard for them to dbl us. Even we will go down at 3♥ it is very likeable for them to bid 3♠ and go down, instead of us. Bidding after 2♠ passed is more safe than directly over 1♠!

You still have chance to not find fit (opps 8 cards, you 7 cards) and receive penalty dbl on 4-2 break, because lack of intermediate cards in your long suits?
-> Bridge is game of chances, in example much more to win than to lose. If you don't use your chance when it comes to you, will never receive above average result at high level of competition.

I officially apologize to experts at table for my bad behaviour about their level of play, actually it shows my bad level of decision. Sorry!

Misho

[Flame]

"To win at high level tourney you need something more than theoretical evaluation of hand and situation. You need spirit of winer!!! "
I totally agree with you.
I play alot with my mother, she doesnt know the thorey too well, she never read bidding books, but she get good result, maybe better then my results by bidding agressively and confidenty, im sure my mom would double this without a question, she does it without asitation, this many time lead to her oppoenents overbiding themself and she will ofcourse double them.
Being tehoreticly right is good for one thing, your partner wont be angry at you, this is importent, but maybe not good for the results.

[Trpltrbl]

Ugh, I wouldn't overcall 2♥ directly. Something to be said for X first time around. But I am a bidder, so I will now bid 2NT.

Mike