Hey, this was great. I had heard about 'borrow a king' for balancing, but hadn't realised that partner needs to subtract a king to offset, which makes complete sense.
Thank you, wasn’t aware of concept of borrowing points from partner. Wanted to know if there would be any adjustment for points held by doubler or her partner in suit bid by opponent (spades in this case) while deciding on a counter?
I generally don't adjust balanced hands. Unbalanced hands definitely get adjusted based on the auction. I would say that in particular in an auction like this, spade values wouldn't be that useful for south. However, while we might discount the jack of spades (probably useless), there is value in the doubleton. I would definitely not make an adjustment (either up or down) to the south hand. The north hand is behind the spade bidder and has to factor in the good position with the understanding that partner is short in spades and needs values in the other suits. On this hand (which we will see next week as we look at the defense), North's spade values are worthless and they might well downgrade the hand as a result.
Question: would you still make this balancing double with the same hand if the vulnerability situation were reversed? It feels borderline to me in that spot.
That's a great question! The trouble with this situation is we don't know who has the points. It could be partner or it cold be East. If it's East and we balance at unfavorable vulnerability, we could get hammered for a very bad result. If we evaluate the hand in terms of losers... Let's say partner has four hearts. If they have the QJT of hearts and the king of clubs, I'm probably down 2 in 4h, which isn't a great result over a part-score, even undoubled. But, if you add the queen of clubs and the queen of diamonds to that scenario, I am making 4h. If East has significant strength, they are probably short in spades. Which is bad news all around. But even with two spades, I would expect them to bid with a strong hand. We just don't know. The whole point of the preempt is to put us to a guess. So well done, West. I agree with you, the moment we are vulnerable (even at equal vulnerability), the bid becomes a lot less appealing. My short answer to your question is: nonvulnerable I'm always balancing with this hand. Vulnerable, I'm going to give it a lot more consideration and I think choosing not to balance is perfectly reasonable. Losing 200 in a part-score battle is bad news. But, I tend to bid on the aggressive side. I will still probably balance here.
been playing for a while, but this was new to me also. revelatory! thanks a lot for it! great lesson.
You're welcome!
Hey, this was great. I had heard about 'borrow a king' for balancing, but hadn't realised that partner needs to subtract a king to offset, which makes complete sense.
Thank you!
It's all very well to say the opponents can make 3S, but if you don't show us the rest of the hands it's impossible to judge that.
Check out the next video, "Attack a Discarding Dummy 8.28.23" This video is the same hand defending 3s.
Thank you, wasn’t aware of concept of borrowing points from partner. Wanted to know if there would be any adjustment for points held by doubler or her partner in suit bid by opponent (spades in this case) while deciding on a counter?
I generally don't adjust balanced hands. Unbalanced hands definitely get adjusted based on the auction. I would say that in particular in an auction like this, spade values wouldn't be that useful for south. However, while we might discount the jack of spades (probably useless), there is value in the doubleton. I would definitely not make an adjustment (either up or down) to the south hand. The north hand is behind the spade bidder and has to factor in the good position with the understanding that partner is short in spades and needs values in the other suits. On this hand (which we will see next week as we look at the defense), North's spade values are worthless and they might well downgrade the hand as a result.
Question: would you still make this balancing double with the same hand if the vulnerability situation were reversed? It feels borderline to me in that spot.
That's a great question! The trouble with this situation is we don't know who has the points. It could be partner or it cold be East. If it's East and we balance at unfavorable vulnerability, we could get hammered for a very bad result. If we evaluate the hand in terms of losers... Let's say partner has four hearts. If they have the QJT of hearts and the king of clubs, I'm probably down 2 in 4h, which isn't a great result over a part-score, even undoubled. But, if you add the queen of clubs and the queen of diamonds to that scenario, I am making 4h. If East has significant strength, they are probably short in spades. Which is bad news all around. But even with two spades, I would expect them to bid with a strong hand. We just don't know.
The whole point of the preempt is to put us to a guess. So well done, West. I agree with you, the moment we are vulnerable (even at equal vulnerability), the bid becomes a lot less appealing. My short answer to your question is: nonvulnerable I'm always balancing with this hand. Vulnerable, I'm going to give it a lot more consideration and I think choosing not to balance is perfectly reasonable. Losing 200 in a part-score battle is bad news. But, I tend to bid on the aggressive side. I will still probably balance here.