[pbleighton]

In the current balancing thread, jdonn just wrote:

Quote

Partner's double was nuts by the way, I have mentioned a lot lately this vul is awful for competing at mps. Even -100 could be awful if you gave up -90, and from partner's perspective 2♣ could be down 2 for +200 in which case his double is sure to lose (unless we pass it).

This is something I've been wondering about recently. Although in general I'm a very aggressive bidder, especially in terms of opening bids (10-13 NT all vuls, etc.), I've never been that aggressive competing for partscores vulnerable, even at matchpoints. I'll make light one level overcalls, but that's about it. I hate balancing when vulnerable. I do it sometimes, and am relieved whenever it works out.

I know that a lot of posters in the Forums are aggressive balancers. Many are better players than I am. I'd like opinions perhaps with examples) on how vulnerability and scoring affect your decisions, especially in bread-and-butter *normal* situations.

Thanks,

Peter

[awm]

At MPs it seems that the best vulnerabilities to compete are:

(1) White/White: if they are making, even down two (-100) could be a win. If they are going down then making something our way is almost always better.

(2) Red/White: Occasionally our going down one will be bad even if they were making (-100 to -90). However, if they are going down we are usually better off making our own contract, and many of their making contracts do in fact hurt more than -100.

(3) White/Red: If we can set them two tricks, it's better not to balance. Even if we set them only one, some of our partials (i.e. 2m making) score less than this. However, if their contract is making we will usually do well to compete over it.

(4) Red/Red: If their contract fails our -100 or -200 could easily outscore our result making our own contract. Similarly, if our contract is down two or down one doubled it is a likely bottom board.

[hrothgar]

For me, the single most important consideration in deciding whether to balance is whether or not this is a fit auction

I Am FAR more likely to balance over an auction like (1♥) - P - (2♥) or even (1♠) - P - (2♠) than I am in an auction like 1♣ - (P) - 1♥ - (P) - (1NT)

Turning to vulnerability:

You need to be VERY careful white versus white. Good opponents are going to be looking for 300s...

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on May 29 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

You need to be VERY careful white versus white. Good opponents are going to be looking for 300s...

Could you elaborate on this comment? It is both widely accept and easily provable that neither vul is the best vulnerability for competing for partscores at matchpoints. If your implication is that your opponents will thus double you more often in the expectation you are stretching, then I guess your experiences are a whole lot different than mine.

[han]

hrothgar, on May 29 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

You need to be VERY careful white versus white. Good opponents are going to be looking for 300s...

Ok, this is absurd. It is absolutely clear that you can be more aggressive at white/white than at any other favorability. If you go for 300 after they double you, well, you would have gone for at least 200 when vulnerable so then it would have been a poor score anyway.

Good opponents are also more likely to bid one more at white versus white, which can turn your minus into a plus.

And what does being careful mean anyway? I have never heard "so and so are such a tough pair to play against at matchpoint, they are so careful about balancing".

[han]

Darn, Josh was faster. I hope my post was more enjoyable to read.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on May 30 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 29 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

You need to be VERY careful white versus white.  Good opponents are going to be looking for 300s...

Could you elaborate on this comment? It is both widely accept and easily provable that neither vul is the best vulnerability for competing for partscores at matchpoints. If your implication is that your opponents will thus double you more often in the expectation you are stretching, then I guess your experiences are a whole lot different than mine.

In my experience, there are lots of folks who are (primarily) focused on their own vulnerability. They are very aggressive bidding/balancing when they are white. They are a lot more conservative when they are red. I don't think that they pay nearly enough attention to the opponent's vulnerability.

+300 is very nice opposite a part score
+500 will beat any non-vulnerable game

Admittedly, you shouldn't be designing you're bidding system to miss NV games in the hopes that the opponent's will make a bad balance, however, I think that the basic principle holds.

In theory, the same holds true if the vulnerability is red versus red

+500 is GREAT compared to a part score.
+800 beats a vulnerable game.

However, as I noted originally, the opponents tend to be a lot more sane when they are red

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on May 30 2007, 03:26 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 29 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

You need to be VERY careful white versus white.  Good opponents are going to be looking for 300s...

Ok, this is absurd. It is absolutely clear that you can be more aggressive at white/white than at any other favorability. If you go for 300 after they double you, well, you would have gone for at least 200 when vulnerable so then it would have been a poor score anyway.

You might think this is absurd. Some might disagree...

I didn't start thinking about this until I saw Meckstroth make some comments about looking for opportunities to penalty double people White versus White.

I think that the key point here is that you can take some liberties white your NV, however, most people take too many and good pairs will be looking to capitalize on these types of mistakes.

[jdonn]

You certainly know that

'neither vul is the best vulnerability for balancing for partscores at matchpoints' (our main point, and the response to the question the thread actually asked)

and

'most people balance too often at neither vul at matchpoints' (your main point)

do not contradict each other. In fact putting them together, the real lesson seems to be that most people balance too much, which I believe to be correct.

[han]

If that's what Richard intended then I agree, and those two indeed don't contradict eachother. It's not easy to interpret your post like that Richard, if you only write a post against balancing when white vs white.

[jdonn]

Oh I'll definitly fess up to that, when I balance in real life it's about 94% the opponents had missed a game. My learning is way ahead of my application.

I should add the other 6% of the time, I balance into a suit and partner had 6 of their trump suit.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Balancing at MP when they have a fit is the meaning of life. If you are not doing this often you will simply lose at MP. You put so much more pressure on them. They have to defend more, they have to judge pass/double/bid decisions more, etc. Most people don't X. If we are operating on the assumption that they will always get the decision right we are destined to lose, so lets just assume they're going to make a lot of mistakes because of the pressure we apply when balancing, and often they won't have a right answer anyways.

I understand the fit vs non fit issue. Let's say the auction goes 1S-P (you)-2S-P-P-P-?. What is your call at matchpoints at different vulnerabilities with these hands:
1. xx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxx
2. xx-KJxx-KQx-Qxxx
3. xxx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxx
4. xxx-KJxx-KQx-Qxx
5. x-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxxx
6. x-KJxx-KQx-Qxxxx

Peter

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on May 29 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

I understand the fit vs non fit issue. Let's say the auction goes 1S-P (you)-2S-P-P-P-?. What is your call at matchpoints at different vulnerabilities with these hands:

1S-P (you)-2S-P
P-P-?.

Let me be the first to say that after this auction, i would be looking for a lead, because I doubt they will let me take my pass back......three passes end the auction.

[the hog]

pbleighton, on May 30 2007, 08:38 AM, said:

Quote

Balancing at MP when they have a fit is the meaning of life. If you are not doing this often you will simply lose at MP. You put so much more pressure on them. They have to defend more, they have to judge pass/double/bid decisions more, etc. Most people don't X. If we are operating on the assumption that they will always get the decision right we are destined to lose, so lets just assume they're going to make a lot of mistakes because of the pressure we apply when balancing, and often they won't have a right answer anyways.

I understand the fit vs non fit issue. Let's say the auction goes 1S-P (you)-2S-P-P-P-?. What is your call at matchpoints at different vulnerabilities with these hands:
1. xx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxx
2. xx-KJxx-KQx-Qxxx
3. xxx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxx
4. xxx-KJxx-KQx-Qxx
5. x-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxxx
6. x-KJxx-KQx-Qxxxx

Peter

1. pass
2. X
3. pass
4. x
5. x
6. x

[han]

pbleighton, on May 29 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

I understand the fit vs non fit issue. Let's say the auction goes 1S-P (you)-2S-P-P-P-?. What is your call at matchpoints at different vulnerabilities with these hands:
1. xx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxx
2. xx-KJxx-KQx-Qxxx
3. xxx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxx
4. xxx-KJxx-KQx-Qxx
5. x-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxxx
6. x-KJxx-KQx-Qxxxx

Peter

This is not easy!

6 is the clearest, I would balance at any colors without any doubt.

2 and 5 are next. I think I would balance at all but red vs white. Actually, I suspect that I would balance with 2 but not with 5 at unfavorable, but I think that it should be the other way around. Call me what you wish.

1 and 4 I would balance only when white.

3 I would never ever balance with.

[inquiry]

Quote

I understand the fit vs non fit issue. Let's say the auction goes
(1S)-P-(2S)-P
( P)- ? 

1. xx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxx Pass at all conditions

2. xx-KJxx-KQx-Qxxx I will double at all vuls

3. xxx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxx I will pass at all vuls

4. xxx-KJxx-KQx-Qxx I will pass vul, and will double not vul

5. x-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxxx I will double at MP at all except us vul and them not vul.

6. x-KJxx-KQx-Qxxxx I would have doubled 1♠, so this hand is not a possible holding for me. That is, i couldn't be balancing with this.

[jtfanclub]

Hannie, on May 29 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

1. xx-Q9xx-K10x-Jxxx

I don't know why, but whenever I balance with hand 1 they bid and make game.

Probably just me.

[dcvetkov]

Jlall, on May 29 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

Since Josh has never balanced in his entire life (except when the opps can make game) it's no wonder he thinks people balance too much.

Balancing at MP when they have a fit is the meaning of life. If you are not doing this often you will simply lose at MP. You put so much more pressure on them. They have to defend more, they have to judge pass/double/bid decisions more, etc. Most people don't X. If we are operating on the assumption that they will always get the decision right we are destined to lose, so lets just assume they're going to make a lot of mistakes because of the pressure we apply when balancing, and often they won't have a right answer anyways.

That being said balancing vs 1N and 2m and on non fit auctions does not usually make sense. Balancing with values in their suits does not usually make sense. People do way too much of this kind of balancing.

This is a good post Justin as always

People bid a lot more now, but also balancing with some ridiculous hands, and getting away with it... Like u said, most people dont double.

I think you cant call yourself an expert until you can live with doubling close contracts at MP. ( and be ready to live with occasional -530). But not trigger happy

Previous post about 300 wasnt that crazy as some said.. Lot of balancers are getting -100, instead of being axed, and most favorable scenarios is when they are vul... -1 gets u 200 vs your contract making for 110 or 140

"Matchpoints" from Kit Woolsey was a great book... I plan to get it reread it some day