[Cascade]

Scoring: MP

1♦ PASS PASS DBL
PASS 1♥ PASS 1NT
...

---

[Jlall]

A little worse than off beat, not insane though.

[jdonn]

It is most definitely not my style, I don't like it. But I agree that insane would be going too far, since it's at least easy to see how it's possible for 1NT to work better than raising hearts.

So I think I agree with something inbetween offbeat and insane.

[dellache]

I would rate both DBL (when do we bid a balancing 2NT ?) and 1NT ridiculous, which might be between offbeat and insane. 1NT usually shows 14-16 in this pos no ?

[Jlall]

dellache, on Oct 27 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

I would rate both DBL (when do we bid  a balancing 2NT ?) and 1NT ridiculous, which might be between offbeat and insane. 1NT usually shows 14-16 in this pos no ?

Most people I know have a balancing 1N range of about 11-15, and X then 1N is 16-18, and balancing 2N is about 19-21. Maybe this is a regional thing.

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

dellache, on Oct 27 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

I would rate both DBL (when do we bid  a balancing 2NT ?) and 1NT ridiculous, which might be between offbeat and insane. 1NT usually shows 14-16 in this pos no ?

Most people I know have a balancing 1N range of about 11-15, and X then 1N is 16-18, and balancing 2N is about 19-21. Maybe this is a regional thing.

I'm used to balancing 1NT with 11-14, x..1NT 15-18 and a balancing 2NT 19-21.

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Oct 27 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

I'm used to balancing 1NT with 11-14, x..1NT 15-18 and a balancing 2NT 19-21.

Exact same for me. Over a major my 1NT is 12-16 (heavier than most), X then notrump (which must often be 2NT, ergo the rearrangement of ranges) 17-18, 2NT 19-21.

[dellache]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

dellache, on Oct 27 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

I would rate both DBL (when do we bid  a balancing 2NT ?) and 1NT ridiculous, which might be between offbeat and insane. 1NT usually shows 14-16 in this pos no ?

Most people I know have a balancing 1N range of about 11-15, and X then 1N is 16-18, and balancing 2N is about 19-21. Maybe this is a regional thing.

So much for my comment.
Maybe not so regional, because in the old (rather good) book from Mike Lawrence, "The complete book on balancing" he suggests balancing 2NT with 17-19.

Actually I would :
- balance 1NT with (9!)10-13 on 1m Pass Pass ; (then 1NT rebid is 14-16).
- balance 1NT with 11-14(15) on 1H
- balance 1NT with 11-15(16) on 1S

This was more or less the scheme suggested by Lawrence and I think it works quite well !

The idea is that on 1S, bidding DBL with 15 HCP is dangerous because afterwards you need to bid 2NT on any 2X by pard.

On 1C, the problem is really different : 1NT will be available on most of the rebids of pard. So you can allow to balance 1NT with as low as 10HCP, which I think is usually a good thing to do.

Well, I think you can choose from different ranges. But actually, I would find it suspicious (in terms of efficiency) if your ranges are the same after 1C/1D/1H/1S.

Cheers.

[Jlall]

Balancing with a double on all balanced 14 point hands is just asking for trouble. Even over a club. For instance you're going to be doubling with some hands that have a doubleton major and 14. Often when you're that weak, LHO is going to bid again, and partner is going to compete.

For instance 1D p p X 2D 2S p ? would be a disaster if you had just 14 points and 2 spades. If partner is supposed to always not jump and always pass in competition, it becomes tough to sort out your ranges and compete when it's right.

The whole point of doubling and bidding with good hands and also regular takeout X hands is because the ranges are so far apart, and the strong hands are so strong they can control the auction despite being off shape even if partner bids like you have a takeout double. If you mix ranges so that 14 point balanced hands have to double and so do normal takeout doubles, the ranges are becoming too close, and the "strong" hand is not strong enough to control competitive situations. Partner must either underbid and undercompete when you have normal shape, or over compete if you have a "strong" balanced hand.

Likewise, I think balancing with 2N with 17 is asking for a disaster. Partner hasn't shown anything, and LHO could be very strong. Not to mention you will miss 4-4 fits when partner has to pass 2N. These are serious problems, you are just forcing to too high of a level without enough of a hand to justify it.

I also think that being able to balance with balanced 9 and 10 point hands is not really a benefit at all, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.

[dake50]

I use xfers to T/O double, so 2D->2H by tenaced hand. No insane bid trying to declare.

[Cascade]

I like something like 11-14 over a minor and 12-16 over a major.

[dellache]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

Balancing with a double on all balanced 14 point hands is just asking for trouble.  Even over a club. For instance you're going to be doubling with some hands that have a doubleton major and 14. <1> Often when you're that weak, LHO is going to bid again, and partner is going to compete.

For instance 1D p p X 2D 2S p ? would be a disaster if you had just 14 points and 2 spades. If partner is supposed to always not jump and always pass in competition, it becomes tough to sort out your ranges and compete when it's right.

The whole point of doubling and bidding with good hands and also regular takeout X hands is because the ranges are so far apart, and the strong hands are so strong they can control the auction despite being off shape even if partner bids like you have a takeout double. If you mix ranges so that 14 point balanced hands have to double and so do normal takeout doubles, the ranges are becoming too close, and the "strong" hand is not strong enough to control competitive situations. Partner must either underbid and undercompete when you have normal shape, or over compete if you have a "strong" balanced hand.

Likewise, <2> I think balancing with 2N with 17 is asking for a disaster. Partner hasn't shown anything, and LHO could be very strong. <3> Not to mention you will miss 4-4 fits when partner has to pass 2N. These are serious problems, you are just forcing to too high of a level without enough of a hand to justify it.

<4> I also think that being able to balance with balanced 9 and 10 point hands is not really a benefit at all, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.

Hi Justin, I've put reference numbers in the above quote, and will answer 1 by 1.

It is almost a matter of religion I think : I never had any problems in any event playing this style over a passed out 1m. Anyway, I found your remarks interesting, so I had a look in my database of 750000 boards.

A few statistics :

750000   Boards
5518    lead to 1C pass pass (I didnot study 1D, and 1C is 3+C)
1477    #4 has a notrumpish 10+ count (I excluded 4342, 3442, 44xx which may dbl)
314     10-11 HCP
466     14-16 HCP
247     17-19 HCP

Now responding your remarks (I suppose now that West is notrumpish) :
<1> Only 9 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P X 2C when #4 has 14 HCP. So I would say this is statistically irrelevant. (Actually, I have many more problems when I open 1C (nat or 15+ BAL) and oppos interfere at the 2-level). Hence I really don't think doubling with 14-16 BAL poses a problem (if #1 doesn't bid 2x, this is easy).

<3> Only 6 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P 2NT missing a major fit (#2 has less than 6 HCP). In those cases, you actually never make 2NT, but you also never make 3M. You score one more trick in Major. This is also statistically irrelevant.

<2> What about a bloodbath ? Playing 17-19 and looking at the results of the 2NT contract double dummy, West should double with 17+ hcp. There are 17 such cases in 750000. In 3 cases 2NT-X makes ! In 6 cases you go down 3. let's say it's again not really relevant (and do they always defend perfectly ?)

<4> Balancing with 10-11 (or excellent 9). 314 cases in 750000. 50 times you bid game and make. 34 times you bid game and fail (double dummy). In reality, I guess there will be a slip in defense more often. It looks like a gain of about less than 300 imps in 750000 boards. 1 imp every 2500 boards. 1 imp every 1000 boards maybe if you study also 1D (actually, 0.001 imp/board is usually the limit for which I think something might be relevant). The other boards where you stay in 1NT are very uncertain : 1C and 1NT are both difficult to defend, statistics given by the sim don't really show an advantage in defending 1V versus playing 1NT. The vulnerability is also an important factor. I don't have any strong conclusion on this point.


CONCLUSION : imo, 10-13, 11-14 or 12-15 will produce different results. I now very much doubt that one range is better than the other in practice. I'm sure that's definitely not where matches are win or lost.

[Jlall]

dellache, on Oct 28 2009, 04:55 AM, said:

<1> Only 9 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P X 2C when #4 has 14 HCP. So I would say this is statistically irrelevant. (Actually, I have many more problems when I open 1C (nat or 15+ BAL) and oppos interfere at the 2-level). Hence I really don't think doubling with 14-16 BAL poses a problem (if #1 doesn't bid 2x, this is easy).

This is only one auction. My general point was that if the auction gets competitive, it will be hard for your side to judge what to do very often because you have such a wide range of possible hands. I do not think simulating how often this exact auction comes up is really relevant.

For intance take an auction like 1C p p X 1S 2H 2S/3C ? When do you bid 3H? If you pass with 4 hearts ever, can partner ever compete, fearing that you have a weak balanced hand?

Can partner even freely bid a major at the 2 level? If not, maybe RHO will bid something and you will have missed out on competing. Can he jump to the 2 level with a hand that won't make game opposite a balanced 14 count?

An auction like 1C p p X 3C or jumping to 2x would be very bad for you also.

Pretty much any auction where LHO bids something and RHO raises can be bad for you. Etc Etc.

I do not think that the auction getting competitive is an irrelevant scenario, and when it does you will obviously have a harder time judging the auction well if your X can contain weak balanced hands with a doubleton in the major. Perhaps you don't consider 14 to be weak, but I consider it too weak to be able to bid NT later if the auction gets competitive, when partner might be competing with pretty weak hands. If you take away partners ability to compete with these pretty weak hands you will be losing something also.

Quote

<3> Only 6 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P 2NT missing a major fit (#2 has less than 6 HCP). In those cases, you actually never make 2NT, but you also never make 3M. You score one more trick in Major. This is also statistically irrelevant.

Yes but you will be able to stop in 2M on those cases. Why did you ignore the point that you have to play 2N rather than 1N? Surely that is a more frequent loss and not statistically irrelevant. Also, what about when responder has a weak hand with a 5 card suit. Can you stop in 3 of that suit? If you can, you probably would have been able to stop in 2 of that suit if opener could have doubled and bid 2N.

Sorry, but I'm really going to question your use of simulations to try and figure out problems like this. You cannot simulate every possible situation, but these simulations don't mean anything since you are ignoring a lot of stuff imo. Lots of people try to simulate "everything" and I think that some situations are very good for simulation (like do you invite with the 6 card heart suit opposite a 1N opener) and some are very poor (like auctions involving competitive situations).

[jdonn]

The reason I play 1NT is 12-16 over a major is I hate doubling with even 15 or 16 and having to rebid 2NT, it's too risky. I can't really believe someone is arguing to do it with 14!

[dellache]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

The reason I play 1NT is 12-16 over a major is I hate doubling with even 15 or 16 and having to rebid 2NT, it's too risky. I can't really believe someone is arguing to do it with 14!

I don't know who you are talking about i was talking about balancing over 1♣.

[jdonn]

dellache, on Oct 28 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 28 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

The reason I play 1NT is 12-16 over a major is I hate doubling with even 15 or 16 and having to rebid 2NT, it's too risky. I can't really believe someone is arguing to do it with 14!

I don't know who you are talking about i was talking about balancing over 1♣.

My bad.

[dellache]

Jlall, on Oct 28 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

dellache, on Oct 28 2009, 04:55 AM, said:

<1> Only 9 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P X 2C when #4 has 14 HCP. So I would say this is statistically irrelevant. (Actually, I have many more problems when I open 1C (nat or 15+ BAL) and oppos interfere at the 2-level). Hence I really don't think doubling with 14-16 BAL poses a problem (if #1 doesn't bid 2x, this is easy).

This is only one auction. My general point was that if the auction gets competitive, it will be hard for your side to judge what to do very often because you have such a wide range of possible hands. I do not think simulating how often this exact auction comes up is really relevant.

For intance take an auction like 1C p p X 1S 2H 2S/3C ? When do you bid 3H? If you pass with 4 hearts ever, can partner ever compete, fearing that you have a weak balanced hand?

Do you really think you'll be *much* better placed if you have 15HCP ? Even on 3C ?

Quote

An auction like 1C p p X 3C or jumping to 2x would be very bad for you also.

But 1C p p X 3C would be very good for those who have 15HCP ? Come on...

Quote

Pretty much any auction where LHO bids something and RHO raises can be bad for you. Etc Etc.
I do not think that the auction getting competitive is an irrelevant scenario, and when it does you will obviously have a harder time judging the auction well if your X can contain weak balanced hands with a doubleton in the major. Perhaps you don't consider 14 to be weak, but I consider it too weak to be able to bid NT later if the auction gets competitive, when partner might be competing with pretty weak hands. If you take away partners ability to compete with these pretty weak hands you will be losing something also.

Listen, I'm not arguing that I will feel happy when I happen to double 1C with a "nice" BAL 14HCP, and the sequence comes back to me like a boomerang at the 2 level. Of course you may be better placed on SOME deals (how many in reality ? very few I think, I can't remember one case since 1990, but I don't play many boards a year ) if you translate my suggested zones 1 or 2 points up. OTOH, you may want to recover some games when your pard has (13)14(15 bad)HCP and couldnot act in 2nd seat. That's when being able to balance with (10)11 comes into the picture. The difficulty consist in estimating how many games you will miss playing your style, and how many times I will be much less placed (we are talking about 1-2 Hcp zoneshift, not 3-4) because auction comes back at the 2 level. To do that you need to estimate as best as you can, and frequency is one of the keypoints.

Quote

Quote

<3> Only 6 boards in 750000 will lead to 1C P P 2NT missing a major fit (#2 has less than 6 HCP). In those cases, you actually never make 2NT, but you also never make 3M. You score one more trick in Major. This is also statistically irrelevant.

Yes but you will be able to stop in 2M on those cases. Why did you ignore the point that you have to play 2N rather than 1N?

If you pay me to produce an exhaustive 4 pages report each time I feel like doing a sim, I may do that next time. Reading the end of your post, the probability of this happening seems to be more or less equal to having me elected as the next pope.

Quote

Also, what about when responder has a weak hand with a 5 card suit. Can you stop in 3 of that suit? If you can, you probably would have been able to stop in 2 of that suit if opener could have doubled and bid 2N.

I guess you meant 1N .

Quote

Sorry, but I'm really going to question your use of simulations to try and figure out problems like this. You cannot simulate every possible situation, but these simulations don't mean anything since you are ignoring a lot of stuff imo. Lots of people try to simulate "everything" and I think that some situations are very good for simulation (like do you invite with the 6 card heart suit opposite a 1N opener) and some are very poor (like auctions involving competitive situations).

Are you being too affirmative ?
Maybe you could think about this in a different manner ?
Let's say you have 1000000 boards in DB and the problem you try to figure out occur 0,05% of the time. That's 500 boards to look at. It would take you more than a lifetime to have such a sample set at the table. What I do when I feel like doing a "sim-session" is to have a visual look at all those 500 boards (take about 1 or 2 hours), and imagine what may happen during the bidding. Most of the boards pose no problems at all, and I'll usually figure out what will be the important events (they compete and you are stuck, you get too high, you miss too many games, and so on). Then I try to sum up all those things, and evaluate the REAL frequency of all those events. Then I make up my mind.

You cannot really share the results of such of sim-session with others without having them looking at all the boards. So what you must do next is try to present the results in a synthetic manner, and probably, sometimes, a simplistic manner. Obviously, you don't like it. Maybe others do. If that's not the case, I promise I'll keep them for me. That will save some bandwith.

Cheers.