Middle Cards Make a Difference

Here are 3 eight card combinations. In order to maximize your chances for taking 4 tricks in the suit, the hands each must be played a different way. In the first example you have the J1098, all great middle cards. In the second, you have just the J10. In the third you have just the J9. This is a very practical exercise since 8 card suits are very common. Can you play each combination of cards to maximize your chances? Assume entries are not a problem. My suggested answers are below. If you have a better answer, let me know.

North
K*****K*****K
9*****7*****9
7*****4*****6
4*****2*****5
South
A****A****A
J*****J****J
10***10***4
8*****3***2



Hand 1: Declarer should start by playing the Jack from his hand. If West covers with the Queen the job is done. If West doesn’t cover, let the Jack ride anyway. The chance of a successful finesse is 50% and the chance of finding the Queen either single or double with East is only 16%.

Now place your self in West’s seat holding Qx. Do you cover on the lead of the Jack? I had this problem last Friday. I reasoned that if South had the 10 to back up the Jack, then he was going to finesse and we were not going to get a trick in the suit. On the other hand, if South did not have the 10, the only way we could get a trick was if partner held 10xx and I covered the Jack. Covering is correct only if you can promote a trick in partner’s hand. In this case I had everything to gain and nothing to lose by the cover. Unlike our example, declarer did not have the 10; he was hoping I would duck so he could smother the 10xx in partner’s hand.

Hand 2: The difference from hand 1 is that declarer does not have the 9. Here declarer should play small from his hand to the King (protecting against a single Queen in either hand) and then play small from dummy to his hand finessing the Jack if East does not play the Queen. Playing the hand in this order would guarantee you all the tricks if West holds the Queen single or if East holds the Queen and the split is not 5-0.

Hand 3: Here you are missing the 10. Go to the dummy with an outside entry and lead small to the hand putting in the Jack if East does not produce the Queen. If the Queen is West you are always going to lose it, but by inserting the Jack you guarantee that you will to lose to 10x or 10xx in the West. To win all the tricks you need the finesse of the Queen to work (50%) and the suit to split 3-2 (66%), so the odds of both being successful is .66 x. 50 or 33%.

Advances to Overcalls (Part 2)

This post will deal with advancing partner’s overcall when you have a limit raise or better. This is the same type of hand that would make a limit raise if partner had opened the bidding. Remember you are a supporting hand, so take that into consideration in your hand evaluation. I will limit this discussion to advancing a major suit overcall. Since in my earlier post I occupied the double raise with a preemptive style hand, I need a different solution for better hands.

Let’s get started. The bidding has gone: 1h(LHO)1s(partner)/p(RHO)/your bid? You hold Kxx, xx, Axxx, KJxx. Good 3 card support, 11 hcps that appear to be working points and only 2 cards in opponents bid suit. This isn’t even a test! With three card support and a limit raise values you cue bid openers suit, so your call is 2 hearts. While this cue bid is well understood by most players, it wouldn’t hurt to review it with partner. Let me tell you why.

Some good players insist that the cue bid is simply a “tell me more” bid and can be made with limit raise values and 2 card support. The problem is that they want to use this same bid with 3 or 4 card support. When they don’t have 3+ card support, they are looking for a possible no trump contract. Whenever you expand a bid to do “double duty” you lose the important element of certainty and precision bidding becomes less precise. If you are my partner and make a simple cue bid, I want you to have exactly 3 card support (not 1, 2 or 4) and limit raise strength.

What do we do with the same hand and 4 card support. We use what is called a “power limit raise.” For an unpassed hand this can be 10-14 points, and for a passed hand usually 11-12 points. Thus, with Kxxx, xx, KQx, KJxx your bid would be 3 hearts and not 2 hearts. Why are you safe at that level? It’s the old Law of Total Tricks. We now have 9 trumps, so we will compete to the 3 level in any event, so why wait? Why not use the bid to send a message that cannot be misunderstood?

Overcaller will have to make an analysis of whether the two hands combined can make game. Overcaller is now the captain of the ship. The overcall could be anything from a lead directing overcall of 8-9 hcps (or worse) all the way to 16 hcps. If opener simply rebids the suit at the lowest level, that is where he wants to play the hand. If opener wants to play at a game level, then he must bid it.

With the simple cue bid there is some bidding room, so it would be possible to make a game try of some sort. Since advancer has already narrowly described his hand, it has always seemed to me that inviting game by jumping to 3 spades over the 2 heart cue bid is putting too fine a point on it, and most likely is overcaller simply shifting the burden of judgment to advancer. If that nevertheless happens, advancer should only bid game if he has extras that he has not fully described with the cue bid.

A more constructive way to invite game is for overcaller to make a game try much in the same way that he would if he had opened the hand and partner made a simple raise. Certainly if overcaller bids any suit other than the agreed upon suit, that should be a game try of some sort.

If there is a game prospect, it will likley materialize because there is a secondary fit, and the game try should direct itself to searching for that opportunity. We need to find key honors in advancer’s hand that will complement a secondary suit in which I may have one or more scattered honors. For this reason I prefer what is known as “second suit help.” Overcaller may have Qxxx in the club suit. By bidding 3 clubs over the 2 heart cue bid, Overcaller is asking advancer if he has some help in the club suit. Generally Qxx or better is considered help, so I am asking advancer to bid 4 spades with help in clubs and to bid three spades if he does not have help. In my example, advancer's clubs are KJxx so he bids 4 spades. Note that this game try does raise the bidding one level and should not be make on long shot hands.

If you know Losing Trick Count you can use it to help make your decision. My rule is 6-7-8. I rebid the suit with 8 LTC, invite with 7 LTC and bid game with 6 LTC. If you want to know more about LTC, Ron Klinger has a good book on the subject.

With the power limit raise your choices are very limited. You must either bid 3 of the major, which advancer will pass, or bid game. Since this is a stronger hand with better distribution (hopefully) and a 4th trump, I would bid game if I had a 7 LTC hand. Hopefully, advancer will also have a 7 LTC hand and we will be safe at the 4 level.

As with all bidding discussions, it is important that you and partner agree on how you will proceed after a cue bid by advancer. The completion of sequence and stopping at the correct spot is where “art” takes over.This is how I do it. If you have other thoughts, bring them on. All comments are encouraged.

Garbage, Garbage, Garbage

A friend asked me whether I used Garbage Stayman. I admitted to “Garbage Stayman” but not to “Trash Stayman.” Both conventions are artificial treatments after partner opens 1NT and responder bids 2 clubs planning to pass any further bid by opener. Although most players do not distinguish between the two conventions, Garbage Stayman by definition is limited to hands that have a 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0 distribution. Trash Stayman extends the distribution to hands that are 4-4-3-2, and this significantly reduces the chances of an 8 card fit and at the same time substantially increases the overall risk of a bad result. Since I do not advocate the use of Trash Stayman, I will confine my remarks to pure old Garbage Stayman.

As the name Garbage implies, that is what your hand should represent. If your hand, combined with partner’s hand, has a significant chance of making 1NT, then you do not want to disturb the no trump contract to play what might be a 6 card suit at the 2 level (the dreaded 3325 distribution). If you have as much as 6 hcps, just pass. Partner will make 1NT or more about 65% of the time. On the other hand if you have 3 points or less, partner will make 1 NT only 7% of the time. So now we know that the biggest risk is to have too much! The best Garbage Stayman hand is when partner does not even have an entry to your hand.

Garbage Stayman is a defensive bid and not an offensive bid. You don’t care whether you get the bid or not, you just want to consume opponent's bidding space since they likely have more than 50% of the hcps. When responder passes opener’s Stayman response, the opponents now know that they are being "handled" on the deal, but by then there is no way they can recover and find their fit.

As a broader general rule, you should open 1NT as often as you can, since most partnerships have handcuffed themselves with unrealistic requirements in order to compete in the bidding over a 1NT opener (even without the intervention of Garbage Stayman). Even if the opponents hold 23 hcps, if they are at all divided between them, they are going to end up being spectators. When the Standard American no trump opening range becomes 14-17, remember that you heard it first from me! At the moment, only students of bridge probabilities seem understand this.

As a general rule, you shouldn't’t add any artificial bid to your repertoire unless it has more pluses than minuses. With Garbage Stayman the pluses for me are (i) the bid serves a need and I do not have an existing bid to do the job, (ii) the prerequisites of the bid are easy to recognize (4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0), (iii) the bid relies on stuff I already know (Stayman), so I don’t have to clutter my overstuffed head with new material and (iv) I don’t have to rely on partner to know what I am doing ( I have turned him/her into a puppet). The biggest minus, or maybe this is even a plus, you almost never have occasion to use it!

Advances to Overcalls (Part 1)

Now that we have established criteria for overcalls (smile), we can discuss responses to overcalls (in bridge jargon “advances”). To keep my posts manageable, I will do this in several parts. Part 1 will deal with the raising overcaller’s suit with hands that are good enough to invite game or make game forcing bids.

In large measure I base my raises in the bid suit on the Law of Total Tricks. The Law of Total Tricks, as explained to us by Larry Cohen in his book “To Bid or Not to Bid” in summarized form suggests that when we have a fit we compete in the bidding to a level equal to the number of combined trump held by our partnership. Thus, if we have 8 trump, we compete to the 2 level, 9 trump to the 3 level, 10 trump to the 4 level etc. Notice that Larry does not say with 8 trump we can take 8 tricks for a successful 2 level contract, he says that should compete with opponents to that level. Also note that he does not say that it works all the time, just that it usually is correct to follow the Law. Finally, he notes that you reduce the suggested level by 1 trick if your hand has unfavorable valuation factors or if the hands appear from the bidding to be “square” (evenly divided in suits).

Opponents open: The bidding goes 1h/1s/2h/? It is your bid. Your hold:
(i) Kxx, xxx, AQxxx, xx or (ii) 10xx, xx, Axxx, Qxxx or (iii) KJx, xx, xxxxx, xxx or (iv) Qxx, xx, xxxxx, xxx or (v) Qxx, Qxx, xxxx, xxx. The traditional notion before the development of the Law of Total Tricks was that you respond to overcalls the same way you would have responded if partner had opened the bidding. If that makes sense to you, and you want to be conservative, then you would raise hands (i) and (ii) to two spades and pass with hands (iii), (iv) and (v). Many respectable players would agree with that approach

If I held the above hands, I would raise to 2 spades with each of the hands except hand (v). My total table experience tells me that it is more dangerous to pass on hands like (iii) and (iv) and hope you can beat opponents heart contract than it is to make the raise. In short, I advocate following the Law. Even though hand (v) has more hcps than hand (iv), it is better to raise with hand (iv) and pass with hand (v). Note that hand (v) is as square as bridge hands get and that 50% of my hcps are in opponent’s suit. I therefore adjust it down one trick, and I no longer meet the Law requirements.

Observe that all of my hands have less than less than 10 hcps. If I have 3+ cards in partner’s suit and 10+ hcps, those hands are outside the scope of the Law and will receive a different treatment discussed in Part 2 of this series.

Since overcaller (my partner) will have agreed with my approach to suit raises, he should not attach any expectations to my hand other than I guarantee 3 supporting spades and I guarantee that I do not have invitational values. If partner is considering doubling a high level heart contract, he will know that he may take 1, and at most 2 tricks in his spade suit. If partner should hold 6 spades for his overcall rather than the minimum 5 spades, he will feel comfortable competing to the 3 level. If partner is defending, he will have an absolute count on the spade suit and will be well on his way to figuring out the best defense.

Does vulnerability factor into the decision? I can say that I am more circumspect when our side is vulnerable against non-vulnerable opponents. Raising with hands (i) and (ii) are still easy decisions and most of the time I would raise with hand (iii). With hand (iv) I now pass. But reflect on this, is the crisis more imminent when you have 3 hcps or when you have 9? That’s how you need to think in competitive bidding.

What to do about the hand where you have 4 or 5 card support? Follow the Law and bid to the appropriate level. The double and triple raises are strictly Law bids and are pre-emptive. The double raise should be weaker hand than the single raise, and the triple raise should be weaker than the double raise. Remember to adjust square hands down 1 trick. If your distribution is 4333, you may still want to raise only to the 2 level. That 4th trump may have no ruffing value.

A final word about raising partner’s suit. Decide immediately the level to which you are ultimately willing to compete. Once you make that decision, bid to that level immediately so you put maximum pressure on your LHO. When you are furthering the preempt, think “fast arrival” to eat up maximum bidding space ASAP.

You be the judge: Do you follow the law?

Three Words on Overcalls: "Cheap is Expensive"

This is a continuation of my theme that it is essential that your partnership have standards for bidding sequences. Each partner should be entitled to have expectations of what a bid (or pass)represents and should be entitled to rely on that expectation. It is particularly important if your treatment varies from Standard American bidding. I can live with cheap overcalls or I can live with disciplined overcalls, but I can't live without understanding what my expectation should be. If partner makes quality overcalls, I favor that, since now we will be able to do some constructive bidding. If partner makes cheap overcalls, I can live with that. Constructive bidding just went out the window and I will limit myself to "Law of Total Tricks" raises. But.... if it's one thing one time, and another thing another, we will get exactly what we deserve: bottom or low average boards.

The players who make undisciplined overcalls primarily justify them on two grounds. First, that they have some preemptive effect on responder. If the sequence is 1c/1s or 1d/2c, that may be true. Yet, too often you see the same kinds of hands that overcall 1d/1h, and bids like that have no preemptive effect at all. The other thing I hear is that it is important to get any 5 card suit on the table in case you find partner with a fit. Well, that is pretty much nonsense and can hardly justify any risk at any vulnerability. If the opponents have as much as 8 cards in their bid suit, the odds of us finding a 9 card fit in their suit is about 11%. If we don't find a a 9 card fit, it is not likely that we will be able to effectively compete. And guess what....when we don't have a fit in our overcalled suit, who has the cards and values in that suit?

In my opinion there are only two reasons to make an overcall, either you want to make a good lead directing bid or you have a suit and values to suggest a possible contract in that suit or at least competitive bidding. If the overcall is lead directing, it can only be justified if you have a suit that you want partner to lead at his first opportunity. If your suit is KJxxx or worse, what is the point of suggesting to partner that he lead the suit. Almost any other lead would be more constructive. If you don't have values or a lead directing call, what is the point of overcalling?

I think that many players do not understand that purposeless overcalls have several hidden costs. They can cost you tricks on defense, they can get you into bad doubled contracts, they tell declarer that you have at least 5 cards in that suit and that helps in getting a count on the suit and hand, they can help declarer locate key cards both in your hand as well as in partner's hand, and worst of all they give responder the opportunity to make a negative double showing both distribution and points without moving the bidding up a notch. Every time I play with my partner, Howard Christ, he says "The Pass Card is the most under used card in the box." He is not the first good player to suggest that.

If you own the blog, war stories are permitted. I was playing in a regional knockout with my pal, Rob Landham. Rob opens 1 club, my RHO bids 1 diamond. Holding AQTxxx in diamonds, I pass in tempo. Rob, bless his heart, reopens the bidding with a double and it is passed out. As we were collecting +800 and a bunch of IMPs on a meaningless hand, overcaller was getting a fast lesson from his partner on overcalls. They never survived that hand, it was all downhill from there. The partnership trust and confidence was gone and so were our opponents.

So, take my view, or create a better one of your own, but make sure your partner knows what to expect. Bridge is a partnership game, and as partners, all we have to rely on is each other.

Sniffing Out Opponents' Opening Leads

This is a continuation of the topic about the habits of highly effective bridge players which was posted on January 26, 2007. When we left Toonerville, we were discussing how to identify opponents holding from the opening lead.

The starting point is the standard lead table that is on every convention card. If opponents do not make any changes to the “leads” section, then by default they are representing to you that they have no understanding about opening leads that differ from those shown on the card. The most common change is to modify the lead from AKx. Even though the convention card continues to show the lead of the King as standard from AKx, most modern players lead Ace from AKx.

Assuming you see no material changes in the opening lead section of the convention card, here are a few general rules that you can use to sort out opening leads. First, I will deal with leads against suit contracts and then point out differences in leads against no trump contracts.

Suit Contracts:

1. If the lead is a medium sized non-honor card (6-9), generally this indicates shortness (doubleton or single) in that suit or is a 4th best lead. Looking at your 26 cards you should be able to tell. If the partnership leads top of nothing in a suit contract from 3 or 4 small cards, the convention card must be modified to disclose that.

2, It the lead is a small card (2-5) it frequently is a signal that opening leader has some values in the suit.

2. Unless the convention card is marked to disclose the lead of an Ace from Ace/King, the lead of a King guarantees holding either the Ace or Queen. If you are lucky enough to have an opponent that leads a King from any other sequence you should rejoice!

3. Good players rarely lead an unsupported Ace in a game level suit contract, so if you see the Ace, you should expect the King to accompany it. Unaccompanied Aces are sometimes lead against part score contracts, and it often means that leading the other suits is unattractive. Finally, good players do not underlead an Ace in suit contracts, so if the suit is led and you don’t see the Ace, it is on your right.

4. The lead of a Jack or 10 is one of three things in standard leads. It could be from a doubleton, but honor doubleton leads are rare unless partner has bid the suit. More likely the card led is either supported by the next lower card, or the lead is the start of an interior broken sequence such as KJ10x or Q109x. Note, if there are two touching cards higher in an interior broken sequence (like KQ10) the standard is to lead from the top (the King).

5. There is one overriding factor in this discussion. If the opening leader’s partner has bid a suit, often opening leader will lead that suit. If you see an Ace, King or Queen led, most often that is the highest card he has in partner's suit. If you see a low card led, it is unlikely that opening leader has a high honor in that suit, but might have a Jack or ten. If opening leader has not supported the suit he will usually lead low from 3 or 4 small cards to make sure that partner does not think he has led from a doubleton. If he has supported the suit, the lead will usually be a high card since opening leader would not have supported partner holding only 2 small cards.

6. As a general rule, opening leader’s partner is more likely to have a good suit if he made an overcall and may have more holes in the suit if he opened the bidding with it.

7. Most players do not lead trump if they have a singleton trump. Nor do they lead trump if they have length in trump. A trump lead almost always indicates 2 or 3 trump and no significant trump cards. If you are missing an honor in trump, look for it in the other hand. If you are looking for honors in other suits, suspect opening leader. One of the reasons he leads trump is to get rid of the board's trump so he can score his outside values. Another reason is that with his honor holding in other suits, leads of those suits are unattractive. So, all other things being equal, he is a top suspect to have missing honors.

No Trump Leads

1. The lead from 3 or 4 small cards is just reversed from suit contracts. From 3 or 4 small cards, the standard is to lead from the top in no trump contracts.

2. Most leads are 4th best, but when there is a reason, you often see the lead of a non-honor card in a major suit of less than 4 cards. The reasons for this are (i) the opening leader has nothing in his hand to promote or (ii) the opening leader has a 4 card suit with a secondary unsupported honor (Qxxx)and knows it it a poor suit to lead or a tenace that he didn’t want to lead away from (A/Q,K/J or even Q/10) and (iii) almost invariably the opening leader does not have a 5 card suit to lead. Often you see these unusual major suit leads either because of a negative Stayman response or the failure of responder to use Stayman. Leading from fewer than 4 cards in a minor suit is rare absent indications (such as lead directing doubles of artificial bids) from partner.

3. Honor leads are identical to honor leads in suit contracts, except that the lead of a King usually is a request to partner to unblock the suit by throwing his highest honor card. This lead is not good news for declarer! In no trump contracts players frequently underlead Aces, so the Ace is not marked the way it is in a suit contract. Occasionally you will also see the lead of the Queen from AQJxx(x). Hold up on the King as long as you can and and once you spend it, take all your finesses away from your LHO.

Assume an opponent makes a lead that is inconsistent with the partnership’s card and you are disadvantaged by reliance on the lead disclosure. What do you do now. Call the director! Are you likely to get relief? Unfortunately not, since the opening leader’s partner is going to swear on a stack of bibles that they have no understandings contrary to the disclosure on the card and it was just ignorance on the part of the opening leader who made a dumb, but fortunate mistake. Disgusting, but this is not a perfect world. Still calling the director is the thing to do, since you make a record of the event and may prevent a recurrence.

Actually, most opponents are ethical about leads and disclosure, most often your reliance is not misplaced. That being the case, if you have a framework for analysis, you will be able to smell out most leads through a process that is manageable even for normal people.

Jump Raise to Game in a Major

Well, the double jump raise to game in a major surely doesn't represent today the hand your mother used to hold. Many can remember when that bid showed responder had an opening hand, but with sometimes as few as three card support. Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen changed all of that with their explanation of the Law of Total Tricks and the implementation of Bergen Raises. While the "Law" has been under some attack lately by Mike Lawrence, experience has shown that it is still a good guideline and that on distributional hand it works more often than not. In the context of the double jump raise, the "Law" would say that if partner and I have 10 trumps between us, we need to compete to the 4 level. Thus, today the bid most often shows a hand with 5 card trump support.

I have been moved to do this post by three recent experiences. First, two weeks ago I had this sequence with a new partner. His hand came down with xxxxx, xxx, Q, AKxx. the hand fit like a glove and we made 6 spades with my 14 hcp hand which was AKxxx, x, AKxxx, xx. Although partner was neither right or wrong in his bid, it did show the need for us to adopt a standard for this bid. I did not expect that he would have the hand he put down (the operative word is "expect"). After the session we talked out the sequence and reached agreement that his hand bid was really too strong for this bid with the 2 quick tricks outside the trump suit and the single queen of diamonds. In our little partnership we agreed the bid would show 5 trump and not more than 1 quick trick outside the trump suit. In essence, we agreed to go with the Law of Total Tricks and take up opponents bidding space with poor hands with a wealth of trump.

The next week with the same partner we had the same sequence. Again I had a very good one spade opener (4 losing trick count) that needed only a couple of key cards outside of trump to have a real play for 6. I went into the tank wondering if partner really remembered our discussion of last week. It finally came down to the fact that I had to trust my partner and not try to outguess him. I passed this nice hand and partner put down Jxxxx, x, xxxx, Qxx. I could not help exclaiming "excellent partner." Even with this cow dung we easily made our game and 6 spades was never close.

When I picked up the February Bridge Bulletin, in Eric Kokish's column "Our reader's Ask", the first question was about a jump raise to game on JTxxx, xxx, xxx Jx. The vulnerability was unfavorable and the game was at IMPs. Opener had slightly better than a Rule of 22 opening hand (11 points, 9 cards in two suits and in his case 3 quick tricks), and in final result the hand went for -1100. Although Eric ultimately said that responder's bid was one that he could not support under the given circumstances, he was careful to point out that it all boils down to the partnership's understandings and expectations.

If you and partner agree to strictly follow the Law of Total Tricks in your double jump raises with weak hands at all vulnerabilities, then the 4 spade response is correct and within expectations. The bidding in that case is correct and only the result is wrong. That should not cause recrimination at the table, but may cause you to re-examine the partnership's standards. Even as a strong "Law" advocate, I don't want to bid 4 spades ("red vs. white") with that hand, and particularly at IMPs where I might be sent to the partnership desk by my team. I am not going to pass on that hand, but I see nothing wrong with a weak jump raise to 3 spades to add a measure of safety. Yes, you have one more spade that you haven't told partner about, but as Eric Kokish points out in his comment, "there is only so much 'law' protection you can get from the 9th and tenth trumps."

Now that we know what to do with the hand that qualifies for the double jump raise, what do we do with the awkward hands that have 5 trump, and have that AK outside, but not Jacoby 2 NT values? We bid 1NT forcing, and at our next turn we bid 4 spades. Now partner will be able to perfectly picture our hand and act accordingly. If you don't play 1 NT forcing, simply make any temporizing forcing response, and then bid 4 spades at the next opportunity. This is not as neat and shows the facility of the 1NT forcing bid.

The thrust of my post is not what I would bid with the hand or what Eric Kokish would do. It all boils down to you and partner developing a set of expectations for the jump raise response so that opener will know what to do with his hand. If one time responder has the hand I first described and the next time has the hand that I described second, opener, as the captain of the ship, is literally going to be "lost at sea".

The concept of having partnership understandings and expectations is much broader than the example that I discussed. As Eric Kokish states, most everyday bridge disasters are not the fault of the lack of experience or the lack of ability, but rather the lack of good understandings with partner.