[eagles123]

love all MP 2H p p

2h is a standard weak 2

AQ62
??
Q532
9532

what does the ?? need to be in order to X

thanks

Eagles

[JanisW]

eagles123, on 2018-June-26, 04:07, said:

love all MP 2H p p

2h is a standard weak 2

AQ62
??
Q532
9532

what does the ?? need to be in order to X

thanks

Eagles

the K of ♣

On a more serious note, unless the ?? were the A♥ I would not consider to X and probably not even then.
The pass by my righthand opponent is quite frightening. If he were weak with some ♥s he would've bid 3/4♥ so he either has some strength or no ♥s, which either leaves my P with ♥ length and the hand is a misfit or weak and righty is waiting to pull the trigger on us.
Yeah, we migfht miss somethng profitable, but we might also score -300 in 3♣X-2 when +50 was available for 2♥-1

regards
JW

[Tramticket]

Love-all. Matchpoints. I'm not passing.

[P_Marlowe]

Nothing.
You have the right to borrow a King, if you had a King more,
outside hearts, you would make the T/O in direct seat without
blinking
If you dont want to make the T/O bid 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Any honor in heart is basically useless, and may even stop
you from getting in. If you dont have an honor, than partner may
have the honor, increasing the chances, that he is sitting on a
penalty pass, but if you have the honor, the chance that partner
is sitting on the penalty pass decreases.

[steve2005]

Tramticket, on 2018-June-26, 05:33, said:

Love-all. Matchpoints. I'm not passing.

I am not falling into your trap. having hearts strength wont help you here. Why even ask only point counters like the Walrus care?

[FelicityR]

Distribution is everything, but even at matchpoints there are some hands that are not worth balancing. Only with the ♥A would I balance.

The hand has just one tenace, no intermediates, and any strength in an opponent's hand is likely to be over your partner. You have already been warned of potential bad breaks by the weak two bidder.

[Winstonm]

I would balance. We know where 7 of 13 hearts are located, so the strong assumption is that opponents hold at least an 8-card fit, and when the opponents are comfortable in their contract, I need to try to get them to move.

[ggwhiz]

Do the passers also play a balancing 1nt is 15-17? Do they ever win at matchpoints by regularly selling out to 2 of a major?

Passing here is for pairs that aim for results between 48-52%. I gladly trade my occasional lumps for the higher upside.

[JanisW]

I totally agree with not selling out to 2♥ cheaply.

If it came around to me like that

---

I'd consider doubling, hoping to push them into 3♥ or play 2♠. Because both opp have limited their strength and there is a known fit I have a lot of more safety for my action in the pass-out-seat.
Much more so if it went 1♥ - P - P - ?

In the actual example the passer is only limited to the point, where he would've forced the bidding with 2NT.
The deal may totally look like that (though certainly max for East)

---

where 2♥ makes, where do we play?

Or that

---

Here we'll play 3♦X, which will be so much fun

In my opinion you should be sound in balancing after a weak2, because one opp is almost unlimited, which makes all the difference.

regards
JW

[Winstonm]

JanisW, on 2018-June-26, 10:06, said:

I totally agree with not selling out to 2♥ cheaply.

If it came around to me like that

---

I'd consider doubling, hoping to push them into 3♥ or play 2♠. Because both opp have limited their strength and there is a known fit I have a lot of more safety for my action in the pass-out-seat.
Much more so if it went 1♥ - P - P - ?

In the actual example the passer is only limited to the point, where he would've forced the bidding with 2NT.
The deal may totally look like that (though certainly max for East)

---

where 2♥ makes, where do we play?

Or that

---

Here we'll play 3♦X, which will be so much fun

In my opinion you should be sound in balancing after a weak2, because one opp is almost unlimited, which makes all the difference.

regards
JW

Keep in mind that it is matchpoints. A bottom for -110 is the same shape 0 as a bottom for -1400.

[ahydra]

Well, that, and I don't think East is really doubling 3D on 2-3 tricks, not unless his partner signalled with his feet that he had the DK.

I think the OP hand with a small heart is pretty close to a balancing X, but I'd like a little more, say Q10xx clubs. From my experience, against all but top experts you're likely to get a better result by doubling as they'll probably take the push to 3H or you'll go -50/-100 vs -110.

ahydra

[Winstonm]

ahydra, on 2018-June-26, 17:57, said:

Well, that, and I don't think East is really doubling 3D on 2-3 tricks, not unless his partner signalled with his feet that he had the DK.

I think the OP hand with a small heart is pretty close to a balancing X, but I'd like a little more, say Q10xx clubs. From my experience, against all but top experts you're likely to get a better result by doubling as they'll probably take the push to 3H or you'll go -50/-100 vs -110.

ahydra

I wonder what Justin and some other top players would do at imps with this hand. To me, it feels just a bit light for balancing action at imps, but that doesn't mean I think I am right.

[broze]

I would protect at MPs and probably sell out at teams but maybe that's too passive. Good hand for a sim I expect.

[FelicityR]

ahydra, on 2018-June-26, 17:57, said:

Well, that, and I don't think East is really doubling 3D on 2-3 tricks, not unless his partner signalled with his feet that he had the DK.

I think the OP hand with a small heart is pretty close to a balancing X, but I'd like a little more, say Q10xx clubs. From my experience, against all but top experts you're likely to get a better result by doubling as they'll probably take the push to 3H or you'll go -50/-100 vs -110.

ahydra

And your comment, ahydra, brings up an interesting point: what if the opponents push to 3♥? Partner is going to expect more than one certain trick with the ♠A if you defend. The 2♥ bidder's partner can still have a decent hand (as demonstrated by JanisW) even though he/she didn't raise to 3♥ or relay with 2NT. I'd rather take a what-most-of-the-room-may-do (in an average club game) matchpoint score by playing safe on one board than risk upsetting the applecart with (what I see as) bordering on slightly risky bidding.

[Winstonm]

FelicityR, on 2018-June-26, 19:41, said:

And your comment, ahydra, brings up an interesting point: what if the opponents push to 3♥? Partner is going to expect more than one certain trick with the ♠A if you defend. The 2♥ bidder's partner can still have a decent hand (as demonstrated by JanisW) even though he/she didn't raise to 3♥ or relay with 2NT. I'd rather take a what-most-of-the-room-may-do (in an average club game) matchpoint score by playing safe on one board than risk upsetting the applecart with (what I see as) bordering on slightly risky bidding.

IMO the discussion to have is what is the purpose of balancing? Basically, it is to compete for the partscore, not to push opponents to a level where we can double them for penalties - only to push them where we might go plus.

Partner has no reason to think, again, IMO, that I can offer any more than AQ defensively. How would I act if I held, KJxx, x KJxx, QJxx? I don't offer as much defense yet I doubt anyone would fail to balance with a double.

[igt3]

I would absolutely balance. It might be that partner can make a profitable penalty pass. Beside us having our own contract.

[JanisW]

---

If you stay put E-W will score +170 once you told E about the singleton ♠ in W they'll score 420 or 590 can't blame P for doubling 4♥

The deal actually is quite a good example that a borrowed ♣K is not as good as if the ♣K were in South

I concede that balancing can gain a lot at MPs

• +50 in3♥-1 vs -110 in 2♥=
  or
• -50 in 2♠-1 vs -140 in 2♥+1

But at IMPs I really think it's terrible.

regards
JW

[Tramticket]

JanisW, on 2018-June-27, 03:09, said:

---

If you stay put E-W will score +170 once you told E about the singleton ♠ in W they'll score 420 or 590 can't blame P for doubling 4♥

The deal actually is quite a good example that a borrowed ♣K is not as good as if the ♣K were in South

I concede that balancing can gain a lot at MPs

• +50 in3♥-1 vs -110 in 2♥=
  or
• -50 in 2♠-1 vs -140 in 2♥+1

But at IMPs I really think it's terrible.

regards
JW

It is easy to construct example to support a case. but I suggest that:

(a) East will not bid 4♥ on your example - even when we do compete.
(b) If East did bid to 4♥, he would be equally likely to find West with the same hand but missing the ♥T9, when 4♥ has no play. if West were my partner, the 2♥ opening might be missing the ♥KT9!

[FelicityR]

Winstonm, on 2018-June-26, 20:15, said:

IMO the discussion to have is what is the purpose of balancing? Basically, it is to compete for the partscore, not to push opponents to a level where we can double them for penalties - only to push them where we might go plus.

Partner has no reason to think, again, IMO, that I can offer any more than AQ defensively. How would I act if I held, KJxx, x KJxx, QJxx? I don't offer as much defense yet I doubt anyone would fail to balance with a double.

I agree entirely with what you say about competing for the part score, but ♠KJxx ♥x ♦KJxx ♣QJxx over the 2♥ bidder's partner is a far stronger hand generally than the ♠AQxx ♥x ♦Qxxx ♣xxxx given. I would balance with the hand you give, Winston, at both Matchpoint Pairs and IMPs.

[PhilG007]

eagles123, on 2018-June-26, 04:07, said:

love all MP 2H p p

2h is a standard weak 2

AQ62
??
Q532
9532

what does the ?? need to be in order to X

thanks

Eagles

Unquestionably it has to be the Ace,the only card that controls the enemy suit