[ron]

Scoring: MP

---

LHO deals and opens a strong NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H is passed around to you-- act or not?

[kfay]

Sure I'll bid 2♠.

Whenever I pass out on this auction my regular partner always is critical it seems. Usually he's been right.

[MarkDean]

I would pass. Qx of hearts is ugly, and no guarantee either side has a fit. And every once in a while partner takes me seriously.

[the hog]

Pass. This is a pile of rubbish.

[rogerclee]

I pass, white at matchpoints is still bridge.

[gwnn]

eek, a bit too much. they usually find their cold games or their 800's if I bid here.

[helene_t]

2♠.

[Codo]

pass
second choice pass
third choice leaving the table.

[P_Marlowe]

Sure.

Being green vs. red, this is a wtp.
Being green, I would bid.,
Being red vs. red, most likely I pass
Being reg vs. green, I would pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe,

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on Sep 29 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

Sure.

Being green vs. red, this is a wtp.
[.....]
Being reg vs. green, I would pass.

On partscore hands, green/green makes it more attractive to balance than green/red. Suppose balancing gives us +110 (or 140) while passing gives us 100 when they are green and 200 when they are red.

[kenrexford]

White on red, at MP, I would have bid 1NT-P-2♦-2♥! with this hand (Michaels). Give them the problem immediately, not now.

[pclayton]

One of the first questions you should ask when deciding to balance is "have the opponents found a fit"?

It is unclear whether or not they have. While they could have a 5-4 fit, they could just as easily have a 5-2.

I will pass.

[jdonn]

I don't know they have a fit. I don't know I have a fit. I don't know if they have game. I have Qx of hearts. I don't even want a spade lead if I push them higher. What is this problem doing here?

I will say this till the day I die. At matchpoints, don't get 0 matchpoints on a board! Bidding might get you a bottom, passing will not. Sure bidding probably worked since the hand is here. I'm pre-un-resulting.

[mikeh]

I agree

There are circumstances in which it pays to try to win the board in the bidding... a double trying to collect 200 when the opps have outbid you on a partial, for example. But my approach to mps, for the most part, is to stay in the boat in the bidding and try to score mps in the play. I think that you have to accept that there will be hands on which the opps will score better than average, so long as they don't hand you a gift... and trying to always turn those into opportunities for a good board will too often take that 40% result and turn it into a 0%.

And it is extremely easy to see how that could happen here. Everything about the hand, including the texture of the spade suit, screams pass.

So what if 2♠ would, on this hand, hit a home run?

In the major leagues, those who lead their team in home runs usually lead their team in striking out. And they strike out a lot more often than they hit the home run. That approach makes sense in baseball, but not at mps.

[fred]

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

One of the first questions you should ask when deciding to balance is "have the opponents found a fit"?

It is unclear whether or not they have. While they could have a 5-4 fit, they could just as easily have a 5-2.

I will pass.

Another question that is relevant: if you do balance is partner allowed to raise you?

If the answer is "no" then you will never get to what could easily be a cold game if you happen to have a "normal" hand for your balance.

If the answer is "yes" then balancing with this hand is suicide. Either partner will raise you and you will go down (probably doubled) or you will be doubled in 2S when partner does not have enough to raise you. That won't be much fun.

My personal opinion is that balancing with this hand will lose far more often than it will gain and the concept of bidding the round before (as Ken suggests) is really out there (no offense intended Ken). Bids have ranges and, if this hand fits into your range for Michaels over the transfer, then your range is (far) too wide for you to reasonably hope that your partner will able able to judge accurately.

Quote

I will say this till the day I die. At matchpoints, don't get 0 matchpoints on a board! Bidding might get you a bottom, passing will not. Sure bidding probably worked since the hand is here. I'm pre-un-resulting.

I agree 1000% with this quote from Jdonn. Bidding on this hand is a top or bottom action. The way to win at matchpoints is to play down the middle and expect opportunities to present themselves such that your superior judgment and card play result in average plus boards. You will also get your fair share of tops by just sitting there and waiting for the opponents to screw up. You will get some average minus scores when your opponents do something good, but you will rarely get a zero.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

fred, on Sep 29 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

My personal opinion is that balancing with this hand will lose far more often than it will gain and the concept of bidding the round before (as Ken suggests) is really out there (no offense intended Ken). Bids have ranges and, if this hand fits into your range for Michaels over the transfer, then your range is (far) too wide for you to reasonably hope that your partner will able able to judge accurately.

I agree generally with your observations. However, at these specific colors, in this specific seat, I think there is more to be gained from interference than from constructive bidding. (Plus, that Qx in hearts persuades me -- my intervention will result in a one-trick set a lot when they reject 8-ever-9-never to finesse into my Queen.)

The "large range" problem actually is solved by balancing with a 2♠ bid after the transfer is completed. If I will bid 2♠ immediately, or 2♥ as Michaels, white on red with garbage, then a delayed 2♠ is the constructive bid.

That may be backwards, but I think it actually makes more sense at these colors in the long run.

[hatchett]

I am beginning to understand why you have been voted bridge theorist of the year Ken, having read this thread and the jump shift with 5 card support thread.

[ron]

Thanks for your replies. I passed, but wondered whether bidding had merit. Yes, it turns out 2S would have worked this time, but I would have posted regardless.

What changes in high cards would get the passers to bid?

[rogerclee]

ron, on Sep 29 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Thanks for your replies. I passed, but wondered whether bidding had merit. Yes, it turns out 2S would have worked this time, but I would have posted regardless.

What changes in high cards would get the passers to bid?

Give me QJTxx of spades instead and I would balance.

[pclayton]

ron, on Sep 29 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Thanks for your replies. I passed, but wondered whether bidding had merit. Yes, it turns out 2S would have worked this time, but I would have posted regardless.

What changes in high cards would get the passers to bid?

My issue with being presented this a problem is that if you are a bridge player, it is patently obvious to pass with this pile of drek. So when we see this in a thread we can suspect that bidding would have worked out, so you will get some genius support for action, since they will be vindicated.

I'd love it if the poster would have had instead said; "Yeah I balanced, but this time my RHO had a soft 8 count and my LHO had a 17, doubleton heart and some spades". Pard put down a quacky 11 (or so) and we went for 1400 NV.