[akwoo]

This is a spinoff from the super-accepts thread.

(1) We all know some 'balancing wizards' who almost never pass after (1X) - P - (1Y) - P - (2Y) - P - (P) -

(2) I don't know players who almost never pass after (1N) - P - (2R) - P - (2M) - P - (P) -

Even at lower levels of aggression - I generally see much more aggressive balancing in case (1) than in case (2), even if we're not talking about 'always bid' levels of aggression.

Why the difference?

In both cases, the opps are showing roughly 16-24 hcp. (With a weak NT, case (2) could be as weak as 12!) Case (2) is perhaps more likely to be on a 7 card fit, but only if the opps in case (1) rarely raise on 3, and I don't hear balancing wizards ask about my (partner's) raise style.

Is it just that non-experts who don't think through these considerations for themselves have been taught (1) but not (2)? Or is there a good reason out there?

[wank]

people who raise on 3 normally do so with an unbalanced hand. it's pretty rare to find pairs raising on weak NTs with 3 card support, which are the hands where protecting is least desirable.

[kenberg]

I like the question(s) a lot.

The OP mentions non-experts. I qualify, so let me make a point. I play with one partner somewhat less than once a week in f2f bridge and I play online from time to time. If an opponent were to ask me, aftet 1♦-1♥-2♥-Pass, about my f2f partner's style of raising, I think the correct response would be "We are allowed to raise on 3, but partner does it less often, perhaps make that far less often, than i do". Beyond that, I don't think I could say anything without making it up. With my online partners, the honest response would be "I have no idea".

A similar situation arises with transfers. After 1NT-2♦-3♥ I have to hope he remembers that, unlike how he likes to play, I like this to be, and I think we have agreed to it, that this is a strong super-accept not the minimum balanced one. So after 1NT-2♦-2♥-pass responder could well have four hearts in his hand.

The point: At the non-expert level it is often not realistic to expect the opponents to give a detailed description of system. Typically we mean to write all this down sometime, but I also mean to fix a broken screen sometime.

Now I am trying to think if I am less inclined to balance over your (2) than I am over your (1). Maybe. In both auctions, say 1♦-1♥-2♥-Pass, and 1NT-2♦-2♥-Pass, I have the strong hand on my left. But in the second case, assuming a strong NT, the strong hand is stronger. This may slow me down if have a suit such as KJxxx. Also, in the first case, there is at least some reason to think that left hand opponent has his values in diamonds and hearts. No guaranteee, but reason to think maybe so. In the other auction he has a 15-17 count somewhere. This will play a role in deciding.

I am somewhat off the reservation in that I am not an enthusiastic balancer. I of course do it, but not as often as many. Yes you drive them one step higher, but sometimes you get doubled and sometimes the info you give them allows them, after taking the push, to play the hand one trick better, For example if I sucker pard into leading my suit into my KJxxx. But I do balance and yes, I think I balance less often against (2) than against (1). Maybe I need to think about this.

[blackshoe]

The first thought that occurred to me when I read the OP was "fear of the 1NT bid". Maybe that's wrong, I dunno.

[Mbodell]

I think it is 3 issues:

1. The degree of fit is more wide ranging. Yes some people raise on 3, but the odds favor 8+ more on the 1-1-2 than the transfer.

2. The opponents know the strength and degree of fit, you don't, and one of the opponents is balanced with a fair amount of points, so it is more likely that you will be X when you bid.

3. In the 1-1-2 auction, especially with light openers, it might still be your hand. Maybe even your game. In the (strong) nt opener, that is much less likely.

[rhm]

wank, on 2014-February-22, 05:05, said:

people who raise on 3 normally do so with an unbalanced hand. it's pretty rare to find pairs raising on weak NTs with 3 card support, which are the hands where protecting is least desirable.

I raise a 1♠ response on

♠QTx
♥xx
♦AKxx
♣Axxx

and believe this to be common practice at least among American experts.
In fact I find a 1NT rebid with such a hand strange.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

akwoo, on 2014-February-21, 21:49, said:

This is a spinoff from the super-accepts thread.

(1) We all know some 'balancing wizards' who almost never pass after (1X) - P - (1Y) - P - (2Y) - P - (P) -

(2) I don't know players who almost never pass after (1N) - P - (2R) - P - (2M) - P - (P) -

Even at lower levels of aggression - I generally see much more aggressive balancing in case (1) than in case (2), even if we're not talking about 'always bid' levels of aggression.

Why the difference?

Appearances are deceptive.
Of course the scenarios are different:

After (1X) - P - (1Y) - P - (2Y) - P - (P) -

you balance (as a rule) if you have support for the two remaining suits and shortage (or length) in the raised suit.

(1N) - P - (2R) - P - (2M) - P - (P) -

It is hard to balance unless you have support for all three unbid suits, which will be much rarer. Among others you need to be short in the transfer suit.

Quote

In both cases, the opps are showing roughly 16-24 hcp.

That is true, but that does not mean every combined strength between 16 and 24 is equally likely.
Bridge is a game with incomplete information and (weighted) probabilities matter a lot in bidding and play.
When opener opens with a strong notrump he has roughly 3 HCP more than a minimum opening and on average the remaining hands will have 1 HCP less.
So on average his partner will have only one HCP less than say after a weak notrump.
In other words the chance that the combined strength will be 16 is far less when responder passes after the transfer of a strong notrump than after a weak notrump and the corresponding chance that the combined strength is say 23 HCP is much higher after a strong notrump.
This makes balancing after opener has shown a minimum opening more attractive. You are more likely to have the balance of strength.
To say this with other words:
After a weak notrump on average opener will hold 13 HCP and his partner 27/3 = 9 HCP, that is they will have an expected combined strength of 22 HCP
After a strong notrump opener will hold 16 HCP and his partner 24/3 = 8 HCP, that is they will have an expected combined strength of 24 HCP.
Of course responder will not always pass when he holds 8 HCP and a 5 card major, but probabilities still make make it likely that responder is close to the average HCP he is entitled to.

Rainer Herrmann

[awm]

I'm not sure this is even true in my partnerships; I feel like in the auction starting with 1m, I had a good opportunity to get in cheaply over 1Y and, having not done so, will rarely balance. The 1nt auction I am less likely to bid over the transfer directly (its a level higher and with potentially a stronger hand behind me) but I actually think I'm more likely to balance!

[ArtK78]

This really boils down to a very simple concept.

On (1), the opps are likely to have an 8+ card fit and little more than 1/2 the deck in HCP, so balancing is likely to be right.

On (2), it is not unlikely that the opps have only a 7 card fit. They have somewhere between 15-24 HCP. Balancing may be right, but it is less likely, as defending may very well be correct.

[Zelandakh]

Before we talk about what hands to balance with on auction 2 we must first ask on which hands we would pass the 2R response. Not everyone uses the same defence here and there are certainly differences to consider between a strong and weak NT. However, assuming your defence has either X or 2M on the first round as a good takeout, presumably you have a second round double available as a light takeout, which facilitates balancing action. If you only have an ability to show "values" on the first round, which some defences to a weak NT use, then your second round double will need to keep full value and you essentially give up on light balancing.

[mycroft]

rhm, on 2014-February-23, 02:53, said:

I raise a 1♠ response on

♠QTx
♥xx
♦AKxx
♣Axxx

and believe this to be common practice at least among American experts.
In fact I find a 1NT rebid with such a hand strange.

Rainer Herrmann

Yes, and either this side has an 8-card spade fit or we have an 8-card heart fit (possibly both!) So, should we not compete? It may be ugly, but ah well. I would raise on this hand as well (playing a strong NT). But we're still safe-ish.

Reverse the red suits and we as interferers are in more trouble, but there it is.

A lot of the difference boils down to "frequently 5-2; even when not, responder knows 'exactly' what to do."