Discussion III
I made a reference on an earlier page about the would-be enlightener who did a dissertation on balancing for novices where the opening bid is one diamond, not vul, going from there, to fourth hand after two passes. Yikes! I consider that sleazy and unethical. Not one reference to any dangers, not one reference to the two level or three level, to vulnerability. And the writer is purporting to enlighten these benighted novices? Gimme a break!
The thought occurred to me that I might word my antipathy in a different manner, to wit: There's a very narrow window between a biddable hand at your first opportunity and a costly balancing bid opposite a passing partner. Very narrow, I would say. A smidgin stronger and you've got a bid your first time around. A smidgin weaker and you do well not to step into the auction opposite a passing partner. I would then go on to say that this window doesn't exist at all on the great majority of hands (competent bidding all around), and trying to find it will bring more grief than pleasure unless you're very, very good.
I am indeed, not even convinced that Mike Lawrence is so good that he can boast a good record on balancing. I only know that he's written a book on the subject. Let's for the sake of argument say that he participated in each balancing bid (though I doubt it). I'd still want to ask how many he'd partcipated in that didn't go well.
I'd even go so far as to say that I don't think you'd miss much if you eschewed balancing bids altogether. There are lot of bidding mishaps that occur all the time, ten times as many, twenty times as many, as missing a valid, productive balancing bid. I think any budding player would do well to pay attention to the more obvious and more frequent mishaps. Let the balancing bids wait until you get real, real good.
Myself, if I may interject a personal note, I tend to be (mildly) aggressive at the 1 or 2 level. Now I'm finished (except for forcing bids) if I feel I've bid a tad aggressive already. You don't get hit at the one or two level all that often. I can't remember the last time I got zonked at such a low level. The three level (on skimpy hands) gets dangerous, as I've pointed out elsewhere, for two factors suddenly come into play: you're just that much likelier to go down than at the one or two level, and you're just that much likelier to invite a double. So there.
So I rarely feel a need to balance.