All News

Balancing Thoughts.

I thought today’s problem concerned the question of whether we should balance rather than how. The Panel raise an interesting approach to the art of balancing. Take a look.

 

1NT was 12-14 with South transferring to hearts. We have a decent hand and if our partner held at least 4 cards in either black suit, then the chances are good that we could make a part-score or at worst give away a small minus, as our side is not-vulnerable and we are playing Pairs.

What is worrying is the length of our red suits. We would not want to double and hear partner with just 4 diamonds, bid 3. So, should we balance or just defend quietly? 

I did expect more answers like:

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: for me- too many hearts for my liking. Could be wrong but it’s only one bad board!”

Andy does not seem too convinced by his answer. Indeed, the rest of the Panel do bid because they feel they should:

Peter Newell “Double: could work out badly but we may have a fit somewhere and are not vulnerable.  Yes, I have a doubleton diamond, but I don't think partner should bid 3 with a 4 card suit. If partner has 4-3 in the minors, I would expect partner to bid 2NT, pick a minor. In favour of double is we may make something, may push them up, and we may go down undoubled 1 or 2 and they make 2. There are times where we will be able to make game. While pass could be right, I think it is rather conservative. I'm not a 2 fan on a weakish 4 card suit.”

That 2NT response is surely a safeguard against hearing 3 unless partner has at least 5. 2? There’s a thought.

Bruce Anderson “2: there is an obvious risk in balancing with a 4- card suit. It may not work out well but it is Pairs and our opponents are in at least a 5/2 fit so there is a reasonable prospect of partner having 3 or more spades, and something in terms of high cards given South has not bid again.

The problem with doubling is that partner holding a 3253 or 3352 shape might well bid 3 and we will probably be too high. This is a hand where a 4/3 fit could play quite well, and on lucky day partner will have 4 spades.”

 

If we do have a 4-3 spade fit, why not let partner make that choice? Here is another reason why we will not play a 4-2 3 contract by doubling:

 

Stephen Blackstock “Double:  It's hard to see any real option. Pass is unthinkable. If East has a balanced opening, we may have game on, though admittedly hard to bid after this start. Of course, we may find that 2 is down while we have no good place to play, but there are many positive things that could happen, too. Perhaps 2 is making and our part score is -50 or -100. Note that 2NT from East now would be "pick a minor", so with 3433 he should prefer 2 or 2NT to 3.”

So, that seems to allay our worries over reaching a poor contract. We just have to bid here.

Kris Wooles “Double: Take out. Seems normal?”

Nigel Kearney “Double: It's not ideal with three small hearts and two diamonds, but I can't afford to be frozen out with a hand this strong.”

Michael Ware “Double: Although I normally will not double with 3 of their suit, the vulnerability and matchpoints have sucked me into the balance.”

Anthony Ker “Double: If my partner has spades, life is good. If she has clubs we'll be OK. And if she bids diamonds, I'll just have to hope she's got lots of them.  Pass is feeble.”

Steph Jacob “Double: I say double, as having not doubled initially over 2, partner should get the message I’m showing spades and clubs.”

Yes, but you might have a diamond suit not worthy of a double. Now, here is an interesting thought: 

Nigel Kearney “Most people use the immediate double to show diamonds, but I think it is better to use it for an unspecified strong-ish hand - the sort of hand that might have doubled 1NT. Waiting until the next round could be too late and commits you to possibly playing at the three level with no known fit. If I had doubled last time, then I could pass happily now when partner doesn't act.”

Stephen Blackstock “ It is useful to play a double of an opponent's Stayman or transfer bid as saying I would have doubled 1NT. That allows better shape and values definition of subsequent actions.”

Leon Meier “ I would have doubled 2, which I believe shows a hand which would have doubled 1NT without any meaning towards diamonds.”

Wayne Burrows “ I am going to abstain. I would not be in this position. 

 I am sure, like many others, prefer to play double of a transfer response or even Stayman to the opponent's weak no trump as a good hand and not lead directing, as it would be over a strong no trump. This is because over a weak no trump, we much more often have a very good hand and need to be able to communicate that to partner. Therefore, I would have doubled on the previous round. This hand is close to minimum but I am happy with a minimum when we are not vulnerable and my hand is playable at the two level in spades if partner happens to fit there. If I double then, partner might have already made a take-out double or bid a suit on the second round with the encouragement of a double on the previous round, which I think of as a call to action. And if not, then I can happily pass unless 2xx comes back to me when I might need to scramble. 

Notwithstanding the possibility of 2xx coming back to me, it is also much safer to enter the auction on the previous round as North-South's methods need to be optimised to finding their fit and so we will not as often get caught if we have overstepped as with an entry to the auction now.”

 

Wayne is the only one of the above who specifies that this change of approach to a double one round earlier (of the 2 transfer) applies specifically after a 12-14 opener. It is certainly less likely that your side will have game after a stronger no-trump opening. Certainly, the double of Stayman can show this type of hand, a hand you would have made a penalty double of 1NT. It is interesting that we can double the transfer basically with a hand that would have doubled 1NT and when we do not, but make a take-out double later, that your hand is limited to lesser strength.

What feels strange to me is the comment that it is safer to double the transfer when the strength of the opener’s partner is unknown. Doubling in the balancing seat does feel safer though exploration for game is harder…and where opener jumps to 3 of responder’s suit with 4-card support, even harder still.

Wayne says this style is safer because “ there is a real possibility that the auction will end at 2 when partner has very modest values.”
West      North      East     South
                 1NT       Pass       2
x               ?

and North’s bid (when holding 3 or 4 hearts) will save East-West bidding above 2 when East does not want to.

Maybe the actual deal is an exception because there seems a very real chance of East-West being penalised if North does redouble 2 :

 

 

Perhaps South will save their opponents by bidding 3 though North is likely to make a penalty double of 2 first.

No method is perfect and this use of the double of the transfer of a weak no-trump does have merit. Back though to the take-out double of 2. The bidding is likely to be:

West                    North             East                South
       1NT               Pass               2

Pass                      2                Pass               Pass

x                           Pass              2                 3

All Pass

 

North may risk 3 because it is Pairs though 3 looks a safer place. West should be careful not to bid their hand twice, especially because have seen that their partner may only have three trumps. 3 should receive a double and -800, no great balancing act, even though the very favourable North-South cards enable 10 tricks to be made in either red suit. Most North-South would play this board in part-score. 

 

What does seem almost unanimous is that some action is required on the West hand. As to when one acts depends on your agreements.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items