Defending Against Two Suited Overcalls

Although not all good players agree, many top competitors have moved away from the “over/under” treatment of bidding two suited hands suitable for Unusual No Trump or Michael's overcalls. The classic approach has been to use two suited bids when the hand has less than 11 hcps, or more than 17 hcps. The theory holds that with the middle range hands (12-16 hcps) you attempt to bid both suits in an effort to give partner a measure of hand strength.

With the significant emphasis on interference in today’s game, and the overriding importance of describing the distribution of the hand, many good players have abandoned the over/under approach after discovering that many times they never got a chance to bid the second suit and fully describe the hand, let alone preempt opponents. Show shape first and then values! The importance of the preempting opponents is hard to overrate at any level of play.

If you don’t think so, try getting to a good contract starting at the three level. Yes, there are defenses to two suited bids, and some pretty sophisticated ones, and not unlike Bergen Raises, there are many ways to play them. I am talking about defenses like “unusual over unusual” in one of its many faces. Even for those who know the conventions, there is often disagreement over what responder’s bidding of overcaller’s suits means … and just when you get that straightened out, a sequence like 1h/2h (Michael's showing spades and an undisclosed minor) comes along and now you know only one of opponent's suits, so 50% of the conventional bids have been swept off the table.

In this post, I will deal only with defending against Unusual No Trump. Many players still play an older style of Unusual 2NT which always shows minors. More modern teaching treats Unusual No Trump as showing the lower of the two unbid suits. So 1c/2NT shows diamonds and hearts and 1d/2NT shows clubs and hearts. After any major opener, 2NT always shows minors. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say that overcaller is a “Modern Millie” playing "two lowest," although it really doesn’t change our discussion of competing after an Unusual No Trump overcall.

If partner's opening bid was a major, Unusual No Trump always shows minors so don't bother to ask questions. If partner's bid is 1 club or 1 diamond, take a peek at their convention card and see if they play it "always minors" or "2 lowest." That information is in the No Trump Overcall section of the card.

The key to finding our best contract is that overcaller has announced two suits, (let’s stick with minors) so we use the three level minor suit responses as part of our constructive bidding. There is no universally accepted meaning of these three level bids, and over time the meanings have changed. Recently, I had a discussion about competing over two suited overcalls with expert Karen Walker, a monthly Bridge Bulletin contributor. Her internet site is a beauty, be sure to visit it at http://www.kwbridge@comcast.net/. In a classic case of “do as I do and not as I have written,” she disclosed to me her most recent approach to this problem. Instead of “Unusual Against Unusual” or “Lower-Lower” as some call it, she called her modified treatment “Lower=New/Higher=Old”, but she still uses overcaller’s two suits to describe responder’s hand. Here’s how it works. Assume an opening bid of one heart and 2NT by LHO:

1. The bid of three clubs (lower suit) shows 5+ cards in the unbid major suit (new suit) and an opening hand. It generally denies a fit for opener’s major. In this case the new suit would be spades.
2. The bid of three diamonds shows a limit raise for opener’s major suit, in this case hearts. Agree with partner whether it can show just 3 card support. Also think in terms of support points.
3. The three level bid of opener’s major suit is a simple mixed raise showing 6-9 points and 3+ card support.
4. The three level bid in the opposite major (in this case spades) shows a six pack and looks like a hand that you would have opened with a weak two spade bid. Maybe KQT854.

The minor suit responses are often switched around, and in fact are shown in reverse in Karen’s presentation on defending two suited hands on her web page. Her change is recent and for what I think is a good reason. When responder shows a 5 card suit in the opposite major and and an opening hand, he will almost always lack 3 card support for partner's major. Suppose opener has 7, AKJ53, K642, 543. As responder you hold KQ6432, 53, J53, AQ. The bidding is 1h/2NT/? Responder’s hand is too good for three spades, so it must be treated as an opening hand with 5+ spades. You gladly bid 3 clubs hoping opener has some spade help or 6 hearts. Alas, the hands do not have an 8 card major fit and Opener needs to have a way to announce this without getting any deeper. Here is the bailout. When responder uses the three club bid to show the five card spade suit/opening hand, opener, if he doesn’t have a six card heart suit, or three card spade support or the stoppers to bid 3NT, can still bid three diamonds as an “escape” bid which says “pard, we have a problem, please do something intelligent.” Not perfect, but at least an early warning. Here a bid of three hearts or three spades has to be to play, either of which might be the only contract to make.

Here are some other bids to consider. Three no trump needs no description, that is good minor suit stoppers and to play. The responses of 4 clubs and 4 diamonds are splinters in those suits looking for slam in opener's major if there is no duplication of values.

Responder can also “double” which shows 10+ hcps (balance of power) looking to double one or both of the minor suits. Double generally denies the availability of one of the other bids shown above. Opener should usually pass to give responder an opportunity to double any suit advancer bids. If advancer bids the suit responder wanted to double, then responder whacks it again when it comes around. That’s penalty. If responder does not double, then competitive bidding should continue, since either we defend against their contract doubled or we play the hand.

Not a perfect result, but if you are going to let opponents play three of a minor (with a high fit probability) when we have the balance of power, reach for the jelly beans cause this ain’t going to be a pretty result!

Notice two things. You probably do not currently have a specific defense against two suited overcalls, or if you do, either you or partner will not remember it correctly. Secondly, it is very irritating to opponents when you start bidding their suits. This is a two way lesson. First, have a defense, maybe like the one suggested above or any other one that works for you. Second, use two suited overcalls as often as you can, if you bid again, partner will surmise that you really have something!

What if the two bids don’t show minors? We are nothing if we are not flexible. Bidding overcaller’s lowest suit always shows the new suit and bidding the higher of opponent’s suits shows a limit raise for partner’s opening suit. Just take your time and calmly get this adjustment correct. If you get a tempo call, be polite and deny everything!

How about those occasions where there is only one known suit? First, this comes up a lot less frequently (only 12.5 % of the time), so get the “two known suits” drill down first. Then read Karen Walker’s “Defense Against Two Suited hands (Part 3).” Wait long enough and I probably will blog about it!

Support Doubles and Redoubles

Many partnerships play support doubles without ever really having discussed standards. The purpose of this memo is to suggest standards for my fussy readers. who obsess on correctness and take all the adventure out of bridge. Support doubles and redoubles must be marked on your convention card and are alertable (join the club if you have a few “failure to alerts”.)

The essentials of every support double are partner must have opened 1club, 1 diamond or 1 heart and responder must have made a major suit response at the one level. You may make a support double on a minimum hand, but if you have both a minimum hand and only 3 small cards in support for partner, you may want to consider “pass”. Both Mike Lawrence and Eric Rodwell have said pass is an option with that holding.

It does not matter what opener’s LHO does in the auction as long as responder can bid his major suit at the one level. The sequence 1c/x/1s/2h is still a support double, the double showing 3 card suport for spades. Basically we ignore interference by LHO unless it prevents partner from showing his major suit at the one level. So 1c/1h/1s/2h/x is still a support double. Since responder chose not to make a negative double over opponents heart overcall, we know he has a 5 card spade suit, but he will still be happy to find opener with has 3+ card support. If opener had 4+ card support he would not make a support double. He would have bid some number of spades depending on the strength of his hand. With 4 card support, whether opener makes a simple bid, jump in partner’s suit or jump directly to game is based on the same considerations if there had been no bid on opener’s right.

In all situations where a double would show support, if RHO doubles responder’s overcall (it would always be for take-out) instead of making an overcall, a redouble of RHO’s double would show the same level of support as a support double. So, 1c/p/1s/x(take out for hearts and diamonds)/xx is a support redouble showing 3 card support for spades.

At what level does double of advancer’s bid cease to be a support double. Mike Lawrence suggests that as long as partner can still bid 2 of his suit after the double, it is always a support double. Thus doubling a cue bid by advancer (1c/1h/1s/2c/x) is still a support double showing 3 card support for spades. Mike Lawrence also does not have any trouble with 1c/1h/1s/1NT/x being a support double. He notes that while many old style player’s would say this double is for penalty, he prefers to treat it as a support double. In is nice to have a rule that is always consistent: responder can still bid 2 hearts in the above sequence.

So here is the rule. The double or redouble of RHO’s bid by opener shows support for responder’s bid major so long as responder can rebid his major at the 2 level. Effectively this means playing support double through bids of 2 hearts by RHO. This avoids partner having to play at the 3 level with only a 7 card fit.

What happens when the bidding gets higher than that? Say the auction goes 1c/1d/1s/3d/? Suppose as opener you held (i) KQxx, AQxx, x, Axxx, and the bidding proceeded as above. Here you have a nice 5 losing trick count hand and clearly would have made some kind of game try, but the bidding got too high for you to do so. Contrast this with (ii) QJxx, KQxx, xx, AJx, a 7 losing trick count hand, little defense against 3 diamonds and good support for partners bid major. With both hands you want to bid 3 spades, in the first case to invite partner to game and in the second solely to compete against the diamond contract. How does partner know what you want?

The opponents have taken away your bidding spade. At this point bidding 3 spades is compeititive and shows a hand like (i) above. The invitational bid disappeared. A double on the other hand is a penalty double, and may be the right call with hand (i) if the vulnerability is favorable, but my vote wold be to bid 4 spades. While only a 15 hcp hand, it had only 5 Losing trick Count (you read that blog, didn't you). Partner must have no more than 9 LTC for his 1 spade response, and making 10 tricks with a total of 14 LTC is a high probabliity.

The Law of Total Tricks and Other WMD's

This is a special blog for my non-life master readers. It’s not likely to make me a hit with my partners and other highly regarded bridge players of my acquaintance, but then I can’t figure out how to publish this anonymously so here it is. Whether you are a beginner, novice, aspiring intermediate or in some other ascending category, you have to stop whatever you are doing right now and start pulling some cards out of the bidding box that are not green. You cannot – let me say that again – you cannot let good opponents freely engage in constructive bidding. This is what they do best. Leave them alone and they will get to an optimum contract 99% of the time. That is their specialty. You need to compete in the bidding.

Most competitive bidding takes place when one side does not have the 26 hcps required for game. The odds show that each side will hold 26 points about 10% of the time, so that 80% of the time it is a matchpoint battle for part scores. Now you may not always have the cards to compete when you and partner hold 15 hcps total, but then there are times when you need to sacrifice even when they hold 26 hcps, so the saying that “matchpoints is a part score battle” is well justified by the odds.

If you are going to compete, you need some weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) and you need to use them as often as possible, and sometimes even when you think it is a total embarrassment.. Bidding today is not you mother’s bridge of the 20th century, it is guerilla warfare. Go watch some Texas Hold’em Poker on television and you will get in the right frame of mind. I was watching a teenager at a final table the other night playing for about $1,000,000 in real money, and in an interview he explained that the game is simple: “if they check, you raise, if they raise, you re-raise, if they raise back, you go all in.” Do you think you can translate that to bridge?

A good starting point is always following the “Law of Total Tricks.” If you are not consistently following the Law, you are already backing up. This is not a new concept; it was first introduced by a French bridge theorist Jean-Rene Vernes in 1966 and later republished in an article by the Bridge World in 1969. It did not take on any real popularity until Larry Cohen popularized it his books To Bid or Not to Bid and Following the Law in the 90’s. Cutting through all the arithmetic, it simply says “count the number of trump you think you and partner have in your best suit and bid for that number of tricks in that suit.” It is a rule for competitive bidding that gives aspiring players an edge, since you do not need to do anything other than count cards. This article assumes that when partner takes a bid, makes an overcall, weak 2 bid or weak jump shift or preempt, you can get a reliable count on his suit holding.

I am aware that from the beginning certain bridge experts have been claiming the Law does not work in certain situations. In fact, two world class players published a book “I Fought the Law of Total Tricks” which seeks to undercut the Law and explain why in certain specific situations it is not as reliable as advertised. If you are inclined to buy it, write to me, mine is for sale at a significant discount. Most of the experts hate the Law, since they dwell in a place where only years of experience and impeccable powers of reasoning can resolve the game’s competitive bidding enigmas.

Although it is commonly referred to as the “Law”, of course it isn’t a law, simply a rule of application that will be right more than it is wrong. The Bridge World analyzed a number of hands from World Bridge Competition and found a very small standard deviation, most of which can be explained by easily remembered adjustments. First, it doesn’t work as accurately with square hands. That doesn’t mean that it won’t work, it just is not as efficient. The answer, subtract one from your Law count if you are 4333. The other most common cause of variance is that it works better when you have no honors (Ace excepted) in opponent’s suit; so again reduce your Law count if your holding in their suit is KJx or something similar. Even if you don’t remember the adjustments, don’t let it concern you – they are better learned by experience anyway. The time to be really bold is when you have some good distribution. Often these hands will play better than the law projects

How about high card points? The Bridge World concluded that the law works most reliably if the point count difference is no greater than 15-25. They also advised using it only when vulnerability is favorable or equal. Maybe at the World Competitive level those things make a difference, but at club games I would not worry about points or vulnerability. Even good opponents are not predisposed to double your “Law” bid because they assume you are stealing: they are predisposed to take another bid to a level where they are no longer protected by the law, because they do not want this brash pair of novices stealing a contract from under their noses.

This last tendency leads to another part of the Law that is often not as well understood as it should be. While the Law states that the number of prospective trump should determine your competitive level, it also applies in the same manner to your opponents. If the bidding goes 1s/2s, you know they have an 8 card fit and are fully “Law” protected at the 2 level. If -110 is where you yearn to be, just pass with your 8 card fit. If on the other hand you have a known 8 card fit with partner in a suit subordinate to opponent’s suit (in this case clubs, diamonds and hearts), bid to the 3 level anyway in seeming violation of the law. Why? Because even though the law does not protect you, it does protect them at 2 spades, and that makes a 3 level competitive bid worthwhile. In most cases they will give you a disdainful look and swat you like a fly as they dance their way to the 3 level. Now we got the Law back on our side!

A discussion of other WMD’s will be continued in future blog posts. In the meantime, don’t sit quietly unless you’re sitting at my table.

The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Conventions

Do you own a copy of the bridge book 25 Conventions You Should Know (1999) by Barbara Seagram and Marc Smith? How About the 2003 Sequel 25 More Conventions You Should Know? I admit to owning both of them, as well as many others. I am proud to say that I can recite all 50 of them in alphabetical, ascending or descending order, and at the same time juggle 3 golf balls. I noticed too late that the title of the Seagram and Smith series was conventions you should “know”, they didn’t say anything about “playing” them. All of this assiduous application of talent failed to lead me to the real secret of winning bridge: understanding the importance of the “Secret Move.”

Now the “Secret Move” is not as secret as you might think. It origins have been lost in the convoluted development of the game of bridge, but certainly documented traces of it can be found as early as the year 2000. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the ABTA (American Bridge Teachers Association) I am going to put it on the internet for all my readers to view. In preparation for the secret move you need to gather together all of the convention cards that you currently use with partners, straighten out all the folded corners, put them neatly in a stack with the most complex at the top and…. Are you ready for this…..? (drum roll) the Secret Move is to put them all in the nearest trash can, preferably on garbage day so they cannot be retrieved when you get withdrawal symptoms.

Well that may be a little dramatic, but unless you are an expert (self proclaimed does not qualify) or are on the cusp of bridge greatness, your bridge game, the weekly results, your attitude and your enjoyment will definitely improve if you will only simplify your systems and conventions, so give some thought to the Secret Move! Like most everything else that appears on this blog, this is not original thought. I have some pretty good authority that agrees with me.

In a published interview in 2000, Eric Rodwell (49,649.59 master points) commenting on this subject, said:
“There is a lot to be said for just plain vanilla “bid-what-you-think-you- can- make” bridge. There are a lot of tactical advantages- not allowing opponents in, not giving them extra information, not giving them extra opportunities to overcall or double. All are big advantages of natural bidding, like 1NT-2NT-3NT. Just in general there are a lot of potential downsides to playing artificial conventions. The main ones are not having thought through the sequences thoroughly enough to see when you are benefiting and when they are necessary.”

In the August 2000 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Zeke Jabbour (29,498.72 master points) said:
“What methods you use do not matter. What matters is how well you use them. What systems you play doesn’t matter. What matters is how well you play it. The convention doesn’t matter. What matters is the agreement and how well you understand it. How complicated your methods are doesn’t matter. What matters is how comfortable you are with them.

In the February 2001 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Zia Mahmood (13,665 master points) said:
“It is very important to emphasize that except at the very highest levels it does not matter what you play. Sound bridge and good judgment are enough to win.”

In his October 2008 Newsletter. Larry Cohen (23,328.81 master points) said:
“I am a staunch advocate of “less is better.” My observation is that at every level of the game players are using too many conventions. Too often I see players (from beginner to world champion) misusing or forgetting their methods. Everyone would benefit if they would just KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid). If I had to choose 4 conventions, this would be my list: Stayman, Blackwood, Negative Doubles and Weak 2-Bids. If you made me chose 4 more, my list would include Jacoby Transfers, DONT over opponents Opening 1NT, Weak Jump Shifts in competition and 4th Suit forcing to game. I could live happily with those 8.”

Glen Ashton, a Canadian Bridge theorist and editor of Bridge Matters advised:
“Select methods that your partnership likes, understands, and remains comfortable with, methods that give your partnership confidence, non- complex methods that come up often and are mostly successful when they do. Methods that are easily practiced, remembered and used. In other words methods that help you play well and win.

Here I think is the litmus test. If your systems or conventions are causing you to be out of tempo, require that you review conventions and responses on the drive to the bridge club, are subjecting you to that familiar refrain from partner at the end of the auction “failure to alert” or are creating tension in what should be a wonderful afternoon of pleasure, then back off, apply the “Secret Move” and start all over with treatments, systems and conventions that you are very comfortable with. Also remember there is a difference between knowing conventions and subjecting yourself to the ultimate test of using them under fire.

If you have to make choices, focus on knowing how to describe your hand when there is competitive bidding and understanding the meaning of partner’s double. Today, there is an inverse relationship between opponent’s master points and competitive bidding, and if they are still enrolled in week 6 of the “Introduction to Duplicate” series, get your defensive shoes on, cause you ain’t going to play a hand. You will soon be on a first name basis with all of the Phil Helmuth’s of duplicate bridge. They are “all in” all of the time.

To bridge game directors, I would suggest a true test of duplicate bridge. Once a month limit your player’s to Larry Cohen’s top eight conventions, and let’s find out who can really bid and play the cards the best! Don’t be surprised if the names are familiar!

"The Principles of Logical Bidding"

I would like to feel qualified to write on this subject, sadly I am not; but that’s OK, because a guy named Allan DeSerpa already has already done it and done so superbly. If you read this bridge blog you will know that I rarely recommend bridge books. I am going to stick my neck out in this case and recommend a book entitled “Principles of Logical Bidding” by Alan DeSerpa (1997). What, you never heard of him? Neither had I until I saw a reference to his book in a footnote discussing the fascinating subject of "reciprocal suit fits." What, never heard of that either? That’s why, even in this crappy economy, I am going to recommend a purchase of something you can’t eat or wear. I guarantee you if you only read and understand the first 22 pages you will be a better bridge player.

From time to time I run across bridge books that are real sleepers. Here we have a book by an academician – Allan DeSerpa is a Professor of Economics at Arizona State University. While this is by no means his only book, it is really the only bridge book that he has ever written other than a bridge novel, the Mexican Contract. He not only suffers from not being a big time bridge professional, he didn’t have a big publishing house behind him; the book was apparently self published. Now self publishing is not new to the bridge world, but usually these books are more about vanity and weak on content. I guarantee you, if it is content you want, Alan DeSerpa delivers it in spades.

The book starts out by building a solid base for logical bidding, and then heats up once you get your feet on the ground. It is a good book for novices and intermediates who are seeking to improve their understanding of the game and there is plenty of “food for thought” for the advanced player. The forward is written by Marty Bergen. He says “Although Allan’s writing style is easy going, the logic is tight and the pace is fast. Be prepared to ponder the inferences and be willing to reread when the going gets tough.”

This book, while focusing on bidding, is not about a new bidding system, but rather a book about why you make certain choices in bidding and why those choices are supported by hard logic. The author doesn’t say “Do this and don’t ask questions”, he says here is what I think and here is a logical explanation of why I think my choice is better than other choices you might consider. Even if you know what to do, he explains, in a patient professorial manner, why he makes his choices, so you will have more than rote memory to fall back on in tight situations.

At the beginning you can go at a normal pace as he introduces simple (but important) propositions that form the groundwork for sound bidding, but as he goes on, you will find that you have to slow down and often reread, since there is more there than meets the eye right off the page. This is one of two bridge books I read this summer, much of the time, reading and then rereading, to make sure I not only got the answer, but also understood the logic and the process. It is hard for me to see how any aspiring player would not benefit from this book.

I had occasion to speak with Dr. DeSerpa and he has copies available that he will sell for $8 plus $3 shipping or a total cost of $11. That’s gasoline to your favorite club game and an entry fee (if you don’t live in South Florida). You can order your book directly from Dr.DeSera by e-mailing him at acd@asu.edu .If you encounter any problems, get back to me.

More on Overcalls (Because we need it)

In Duplicate some of the least productive boards occur when opener and responder have no competition. Most of the bids are well known, often used and over the years have become well defined. Constructive bidding can also occur between Overcaller and Advancer, but bad results frequently prevail because the bidding sequences are less familiar. The problem usually starts with Overcaller and ends with Advancer.

A direct overcall has a multitude of purposes, but the principle purpose should be to engage in constructive bidding when the hand is "ours." You don’t have to nag me about the defensive benefits of getting into the auction, but it’s putting the cart before the horse if your overcalls are so bad that constructive bidding cannot occur. Simple overcalls already have a mega wide range (8-18 hpcs). You might overcall with (i) xxx, KQTxx, Kxx, xx, and also this (ii) Ax, AQTxx, KQx, Kxx. Through out this post I am going to refer to Losing Trick Count (LTC) as I think it is a better measure of strength and playability when partners have an 8 card fit. If you don’t know this hand valuation system, you are doing yourself a disservice. In the March 2007 blog archive you will find a two part post on LTC,

Here is Tommy’s thought #1 (fortunately most experts agree with me) : Do not overcall if you have a hand that has more than 8 LTC! Pass up hands like xx, KQxxx, xxx, xxx. Go back, read it again and tell me how partner is ever supposed to differentiate between this overcall and example (ii) above. Sensible communication has just been thrown out the window and this hand can only have a good result if everybody ignores you.

You are probably looking at example (ii) and saying why not double first and then bid. Here is Tommy’s thought #2: Much unnecessary damage is created by doubling and then bidding when a simple overcall will not have any risk of losing game going hands. If partner has any 3 card support and as much as 5 hcps (9 LTC) he is going to take a bid. If he has a bust or even as much as 5 hcps without a fit, how are you going to feel about bidding your heart suit at the 3 level. The key is don’t be afraid to make a simple overcall with a really good hand and save the double and bid treatment for the monster hands with no more than 4 LTC.

Moving to Advancer’s side, the key to good constructive bidding is the “cue bid” which describes an invitational hand or better. Almost always this hand will have 3+ card support and will have no more than 8 losing tricks. The cue bid by Advancer asks Overcaller a simple question: Do you have opening hand values? If you rebid your suit it says “NO”. If you make any other bid it says “Yes.” A useful understanding is that any suit bid other than the overcalled suit is a “help suit” game try, since a presumed fit has been announced by the cue bid.

Now we can see the importance of maintaining discipline with overcalls and advances. If Overcaller's answer is "Yes", we know he probably has no more than 7 losing tricks. Now, if Advancer has extras and no more than 7 losing tricks in his hand, the two hands have 14 or fewer total losing tricks and taking 10 tricks in our 8 card suit is most likely. If Advancer had a minimum cue bid, 8 losing tricks, he can bid overcaller’s suit at the 3 level and this is “Stop.”

The use of the cue bid is effective because all other bids at the 2 level are non-forcing and all raises are pre-emptive (Law of Total Tricks). Since cue bids strongly imply at least 3+ card support we need bids to deal with very good hands with no support. Cue bidding when you have no fit can lead to many problems. Consider other bids such as 1NT (which does not require a minor suit stopper). If your RHO takes a call over the overcall, a responsive double can work well to show the hand. If you cue bid without support, it should show a good 6 bagger and no more than 6 losing tricks. Without a fit, you need that type of power.

Just so you don’t go away empty handed, here are a couple of ideas you may not thought about. There is not much use for the jump shift by Advancer so a common agreement among better players is that a jump shift by Advancer shows a splinter bid, 4 card support, shortness in the bid suit and about 7 LTC. Another useful bid is the “jump cue bid” to show 4 card support without shortness. Now we can differentiate between a single cue bid (3 card support), the jump shift (showing the "splinter") and the jump cue bid (4 card support and no shortness).

I hope you enjoyed this review. Good basics will get you more results than one more convention.I would like to acknowledge the valuable insights that were provided to me about overcalls and other good bridge by Alan DeSerpa's excellent book, The Principles of Logical Bidding.

Western Cue Bids

If you are as old as I am (as far as I know none of my readers are) you may remember that old child’s game called “button, button, whose got the button.” In bridge, it is “stopper, stopper, whose got the stopper” also known as Western Cue Bid.

The purpose of the Western Cue Bid is to ask partner if he has a stopper in a suit bid by the opponents. Thus, we find a prime requisite for the Western Cue Bid is that it will only be used in competitive auctions. One more definitional issue before we move on. “What is a stopper?” There is some authority that when originally conceived it was the practice to use Western Cue Bid to find partial stoppers. For example, when opener has Jxx in a suit, a partial stop would be Qx held by partner. I think today it almost universally asks for a full stopper in the suit, meaning Qxx or better, but I always verify that criteria with partner. The objective or goal of the bid is to find a no trump game when no fit is immediately apparent. Thus, any bid of opponent’s suit at a level higher than 3NT means something else, usually showing a control and slam interest.

A Western Q bid auction might look something like this: 1c/1h/2d/p/2h. The 2 heart bid asks partner if he has a heart stopper and indicates a willingness to play a no trump contract. Since no one has bid spades, the heart cue bid also implies a spade stopper. If all is well in paradise, and partner has a stopper, he can bid 3NT with a game going values or bid 2NT with an invitational hand. If the response is 2NT, then opener will need 15+ hcps to continue to game. Notice that in this instance the auction enabled the Western cue bid to be made at the 2 level with a minimum balanced hand since responder showed 10+ with his 2 level free bid. Most of the time 23 hcps will make 2NT.

If the auction goes 1c/1h/2c/2h/3h, this is also a Western Cue bid even though both opponents have bid the suit. The difference is that opener must have the 15+ hcp hand since he is forcing partner to 3NT or a bail out at the 4 level. With Western Cue bid hands, the prelude will usually be that opener and partner have not found a suit fit and for that reason are searching for a no trump contract.

Other Western Cue Bid auctions could be 1c/x/xx/1h/2h or even 1c/p/1d/x/p/1h/2h. No matter what your understandings may be for constructive auctions, in competitive auctions Western Cue Bid is always "asking", never "telling". There is an important reason why it is asking. If partner has the stopper, he will be the no trump declarer and thus the lead will be coming up to the stopper hand. A problem common to most stopper showing bids is that the hand gets played wrong sided and the lead comes through the stopper hand. Not a good thing if the stopper is Kx.

Here is a final cue bid auction, but a frequent one. 1c/1h/2d/p/3c/p/3h. Here we have responder making the Western Cue bid. Either partner can institute the Western cue bid, but the activating partner becomes the “Captain” of the hand and has the responsibility to make sure that the auction doesn’t get out of control. In this case responder may have something like Axx, xx, AQxxx, Kxx and hopes partner has a heart stopper and can bring in the entire 6 card club suit at 3 NT. Western Cue bids are often used when one of the partners has a long running minor suit.

What about stopper showing when opponents open a weak 2 bid. Well this has nothing to do with Western Cue Bids, but the best solution is Lebensohl over Weak 2 Bids. I will write about this very useful treatment in a coming blog.

Is a Western Cue bid alertable? Well, no, since you are not supposed to have to wake up your opponents when you have just bid their suit! In fact, if you do alert, you will probably get a director call. That does not mean that you can’t mark Western Cue Bid on your convention card. I want partner to review our card before each game and putting the treatment on the card will serve as a reminder.

This would not be a blog authored by me if I did not heap a little scorn on useless overcalls, particularly minor suit overcalls with weak hands. I will say again, as I have in the past, that there is a cost to every overcall. Most often it is setting up a negative double or locating honors, suits and distribution, but in the case of a successful Western Cue bid auction, without the overcall, it may be impossible to find the stopper and the no trump game, or worse yet, we may have stumbled into 3NT without a stopper. Thanks guys!

New Minor Forcing (NMF)

NMF primarily addresses how to find an 8+ card fit when responder has 5 cards in his first bid major suit and declarer has 3 card support. Eight card fits are important since they will out perform no trump contracts a majority of the time. Let’s start with that simple fit finding objective.

The bidding goes 1d/1s/1NT/2c. When we play NMF the bid of two clubs, (a new minor) is forcing for one round. Opener cannot pass, he must bid. Openers options will be described later.

What are the clues that it is NMF? (i) partner has opened (generally with a minor) (ii) responder has bid a suit at the one level (in this case spades) (iii) opener has rebid 1NT showing a balanced 12-14 hcps and responder now bids an unbid minor.

There is one NMF sequence where partner will not have opened a minor – 1h/1s/1NT/2m. As long as the rebid is 1NT, the bid of the minor is still NMF. Since a minor has not yet been bid, it’s your choice. Pick your better minor. While in NMF the bid minor does not necessarily show a suit, in this case you minor implies a stopper since you had a choice between the minors. If there is no major suit fit, bidding the better minor may be helpful information in finding a no trump contract.

Now let’s jump to responder’s side. Responder cannot use NMF unless he has at least 11 hcps since opener has limited his hand to 12-14 by rebidding 1NT. There is no maximum on responder’s NMF bid. In the vast majority of cases responder has 5 cards in his first bid major and wants to find out if opener has 3 card support. Yet, like its first cousin, 4th suit forcing, NMF has great flexibility and in end result is nothing more than a request for opener to further define his hand

In the sequence 1d/1s/1NT where responders bid is one spade, it is possible that responder has a hand like KQxxx, KQxx, Ax, xx. In this specific auction responder is interested in whether opener has a three card spade suit or a 4 card heart suit that opener could not show since responder’s first bid was 1 spade. Let’s now give opener Kxx, Axxx, KQxx, Jx. Does opener show his 4 card heart suit or does he show the 3 card spade suit? There are differences of opinion about the priorities. Ignoring all conflicting opinion, I play that opener’s first priority is to show the unbid 4 card heart suit, and then by rebid show the 3 card spade support if responder indicates no fit for hearts. Note that this issue only arises when responders first bid is 1 spade.

If opener does not have a holding to make a positive major suit response to responder’s NMF bid, then opener shows the hcp range of the hand as a minimum (12-13) by bidding 2NT or a maximum (14 hcps) by bidding 3NT.

If opener does have a major suit fit for responder, the same principle of showing the range of the hand applies. If you have a fit and 12-13 hcps, show the fit on the 2 level (2 hearts or 2 spades), and if you have a maximum of 14 hcps show the fit on the 3 level (3 hearts or 3 spades).

What if the bidding goes 1d/1s/1NT and you hold Kxxx, xx, x, QJTxxx. This hand will not play well in no trump and you really want to play the hand with clubs as trump at the cheapest level. Two clubs would be NMF, so with this hand you bid 3 clubs. This is a clear signal to opener to stop bidding and put his hand on the table.

NMF is also “on” when opener rebids 2NT. So 1c/1s/2NT (18-19)/3d is NMF. If responder has already made a 1 level response, he has enough to use NMF. Partner now bids 3 of a major to show 4 hearts or 3 spades and 3NT to show neither. If responder finds a major fit, he bids 4 of the major and if not passes 3NT.

The important thing about NMF is that when opener has a minimum hand he makes a minimum response at the 2 level (up to and including 2NT) and when he has a maximum he makes a jump response at the 3 level (up to and including 3NT)..

There are a number of optional more sophisticated treatments that can be used in connection with NMF, but this represents all the basics. Don’t forget that the NMF and its responses are alertable.

Opening Leads Against Suit Contracts (Part 3)

In suit contracts I mark one change from the standard leads shown on the convention card.. If I have a suit headed by the AK, KQ, or QJ, I lead the Ace or Queen if I want partner to signal me with attitude (high card asks for a continuation and low card asks for a shift) and I lead the King when I want partner to give me his card count in the suit led (high-low for an even number and low high for an odd number). The short hand name for this is “Ace is for Attitude and King is for Kount.” Get it? Did I just invent this. No, it is recommended in a short monograph by two leading bridge experts. The book is Defensive Signaling (Masterpoint Press 2000) by bridge experts David Bird and Marc Smith. This book is out of print and not available from the publisher, but a few copies are available used at Amazon at $7.60.

Selecting an opening lead at a suit contract is much more complicated than leading against a no trump contract. When opponents reach a suit contract unmolested it is necessary to base your lead on the type of defense you decide to employ. Since we have not bid, we need to listen to the opponents’ bidding to gain insight. We listen to what they bid, the sequence in which they bid it and take what inferences we can from their failure to make certain bids. Propped up by the bidding and a view of our 13 cards we select from one of 5 primary lines of defense.

There is an excellent discussion of the 5 Primary Lines of Defense in How the Experts Win at Bridge (1996) by Burt Hall and Lynn-Rose Hall. This is an excellent read for Intermediates. Here’s an overview of their listing:

Force Declarer to Lose Control of the Hand (“Pumping Declarer”)
Go Active When Tricks Can Disappear
Remain Passive When Your Tricks are Safe
Cut Down Declarer’s Ruffing Power
Creating Trump Tricks (Upper Cuts and Trump Promotion Plays)

Since we are going to discuss leading trump and trump tricks separately, we will concern ourselves here with the first 3 defenses.

1. Forcing Declarer. This is an awesome defense. You may not recognize it by name, but I’m sure you know how it feels. It ain’t fun to lose control of your trump suit and not be able to draw trump to cash side suit winners. Worse yet, sometimes opponents actually draw your trumps and cash all their side suit winners. How does opening leader know to start a forcing defense. You sense that partner has long trumps since you are short in trumps and they sound like they are on a 7 or 8 card fit. It can also be reversed, you can have long trump, it works both ways. Finally, if you hear declarer bid two suits he probably has shortness somewhere in his hand and may be vulnerable.

How do you force declarer? You lead your longest and strongest suit and keep leading them at every opportunity. If partner has bid a suit, you can lead that suit rather than your own. The object is to make declarer trump your long suit winners in his hand and cut down on his trumps. Note that forcing declarer to trump tricks in the dummy only works if dummy has the long trump. This most often occurs where there has been a transfer after a no trump opeing bid. Ideally you sense a situation where dummy has 3 small cards and declarer only one or two cards in your suit. If the trump suit are divided 1-3-4-5 (WNES), declarer only has to be forced to trump only once to get him down to our size, and if you can force him again, he loses control. This is also an explanation why it is bad to lead trump when you either have trump length or a trump singleton. You are usually helping declarer maintain control of the hand. You don’t always know on the opening lead that a forcing defense is going to work, but usually there is little to lose by starting out with that in mind. If it sounds like a forcing defense will work, it pays to make aggressive leads to get it started, even leading away from tenaces may be worth the risk.

2. Going Active. Make aggressive leads so you can get your tricks before they go away. It is particularly important in matchpoints to get your tricks so that declarer doesn’t get an overtrick. Sometimes you only get one chance to “cash.” So what does it sound like when your tricks are about to disappear? How about this auction 1h/2c/2h/4h. The trump suit sounds solid and responder didn’t make a 2/1 club suit bid on thin air. To me this sounds like declare may be ready to draw trump and play clubs to pitch losers from his hand. It is worth a risky lead to get a trick if you have one or can quickly promote one. Aside from laying down your tricks or leading honor sequences, it is worth the risk of under leading a suit of Kxx or QJx or even Qxx (as I did recently). Another time to get active is where opponents bid two suits and you can see from your hand that a key honor in the side suit is "on side" or that the side suit is going to break favorably for declarer. Another “go active" sign is when opponents make a slam try and then back off. It usually means they are close to slam and loaded and you should thing about grabbing your tricks or starting to set up a quick trick in some suit.

3. Remaining Passive. Make safe leads when your tricks are safe and will not go away. The best indicator of staying passive is when you do not find a reason to go active. You don’t want to be snatching winners, breaking suits for declarer or otherwise solving his problems for him if there is no urgency. Often there are two lines for declarer to attack a suit or contract, and you want to make him guess. With less experienced players, when they have to solve the problem for themselves, they often get nervous and make a needless mistake. Indicators of a passive approach are (i) no evidence of a side suit strength, (ii) dummy very weak and declarer very strong (2NT/3NT), (iii) a misfit hand or (iv) defending 6NT or a Grand Slam. Good passive leads are partner’s suit if he has bid one, honor sequences, top of nothing in a long suit or as a last resort, lead through dummy’s strength and not up to declarer.

You don’t have to worry too much about finessing partner since his high cards are likely to be finessed anyway. What you want to avoid if you can is under leading an unsupported honor and finessing yourself. If you have to underlead an honor, prefer a King to a Queen. Partner needs to have only one of two cards to promote a 2nd round trick for you.

Leading doubletons is probably the most abused lead by novices. Don’t do it unless you have reason to believe that it is going to be effective to produce a trump trick that you will not get naturally. Unless partner has bid a suit or otherwise indicated power in a suit, the likelihood of you getting a quick ruff from a doubleton lead is remote and the damage you can do is irreparable. One of the usual by-products is that you give declarer a “tempo”, since it is not an attacking lead. He will be grateful that you gave him time to get his house in order! Leads from doubleton honors are even more ridiculous. You would have a better chance with the lottery. A positive indicator to lead from a doubleton is where you have the top honor in trump so that you will get in again to lead the suit a second time before all your trump are pulled.

Are you left in doubt? Well, leading trump is coming up next.

Opening Leads Against No Trump Contracts (Part 2)

The bidding of no trump contracts has become so simple and precise, even novices have astoundingly high success rates. Although you can hope that opponents will misplay the hand, they are odds on favorites to make the contract. In no trump contracts, usually the matchpoints are won or lost on the opening lead. It boils down to whether you are going to give opponents an extra trick on the opening lead by finessing partner, finessing yourself (even worse), starting a suit in which opponents have length or giving declarer a “tempo” so that he has time to develop a different side suit before you knock out his single stopper.

The natural advantage declarer has in a no trump contract is that he has a big hand and the lead is often coming up to his AQx and KJx tenaces. Sometimes a "give away" is unavoidable, but you can minimize your exposure two ways. First, don’t make speculative "squirrelly" leads that are long shots in the hopes of finding partner with specific cards that he is not likely to hold. This is sure to put a smile on declarer’s face. Second, look at the hand and ask yourself what are other players going to lead from the mess you are looking at. Even if the lead turns out to be awful, if everybody else makes the same choice, you get an average board. This technique is referred to as “swimming with the fishes” and works quite effectively.

Honor leads in no trump are not common and almost invariably they are from a sequence of honors, a broken sequence (KQTx) or from an interior sequence (KJTx). If partner leads a King in a no trump contract, it is a command for you to unblock with any honor you may hold in the suit. For example, from AKJxx you would lead the King asking partner to jettison any honor he holds. So holding Qx or Txxx, he is asking you to play the honor under his King.

What do you do if you hold two honors but they are not in a sequence such as AQxx or KJxx. If opponents are in a contract of 3NT, start your analysis with the thought that they have roughly 2/3rds of the hcps. Who is most likely to hold the KJ or the AQ in those two examples. You got it, the opponents, and most of the time it will be the declarer. The moisture you see on declarer’s chin is drool and not sweat.

OK, I am sure you can remember a time when opponents bid a no trump game without a stopper and partner held those key cards. Try to remember that bridge is a game of percentages and that you want to develop a habit of making leads and plays that will work most of the time. Under leading a tenace at no trump is a long term loser. Equally unappealing is leading either honor. You want this suit led by your partner and through declarer and you need to develop patience and have confidence that partner will make the lead. If partner does not have an entry, this defense is not going anywhere anyway. Even if partner can not or does not lead this suit, it is better to force declarer to break the suit.

Well, after all that advice you may still decide you must lead either suit. By all means lead from the KJxx, a far superior lead than from AQxx. The reason: If you lead from KJxx there are two cards that can protect you, the A or Q. When you lead from AQxx, there is only one card partner can hold to avoid disaster, the King. So the odds are 2:1 by way of comparison.

Other than honor sequence leads, when defending no trump contracts, generally stay with the time honored rule of 4th best from the longest and strongest. First, you are not likely to defeat a no trump contract by your preponderance of high card points. It is not Aces and Kings that doom most no trump contracts, it’s the 2’s, 3’s and 4’s in that long suit you were able to develop before declarer got 9 tricks. So you need to get started on that right away. Second, when you lead 4th best, partner can employ the Rule of 11 and obtain some idea of declarer’s holding. I follow this rule pretty religiously if I have a 5+ card suit. Experience has taught me that leading from 4th best when you only have 4 cards in the suit headed by a single subordinate honor (Queen or Jack) often gives away more tricks that it gains. Look for something else.

If you don’t have any entries back to your hand after your opening lead, it is pointless to work on your suit, it will never materialize. When I have that kind of hand, I try to lead something that looks like it might help my partner, often an unbid major. If the bidding has gone 1NT/3NT, it sounds like opponents do not have an interest in majors. Since they lack interest in majors, that should be where our interest lies.

If partner has bid a suit, and the opponents bid a NT contract right in his face, you have a tough decision. I generally lead partner’s suit, even if I have a singleton. Better to lose a board than to lose a partner. If I have bid a suit and they bid a NT contract in my face, if I am on lead I will generally not lead my suit unless I have an honor sequence of some kind. Without a sequence, it is better to hope that partner can get the lead and lead your suit through declarer. So, the fact that partner did not lead his bid suit does not indicate lack of interest in the suit, he just does not want to lead it up to declarer.

Here are some “Don’ts”:

1. Don't leada short suit unless partner has bid it or directed the lead.
2. Dont lead a suit opponents have bid, particularly one bid by declarer.
3. Don't lead Aces or other high honors that are unsupported.

In the next blog post we will cover leads at suit contracts. Does anyone want to “guest author” this? Warning: It must fit on 20 pages single spaced!

Opening Leads (Part 1)

More than half the time, selecting the correct opening lead will make or break the contract. Put another way, most contracts make at least one overtrick because of faulty leads and defense. What’s the easiest way to pick up your game? Learn a few simple rules about opening leads and adhere to them. Note that I didn’t say anything about memorizing the exhaustive opening lead tables that are so common, nor did I imply you needed to be a genius. As quixotic as experts would like to make this, there is a process that will enable your partnership to function efficiently and score better. First you must determine the suit to be lead. Second, and more important, is that you must determine the card to be led in the suit you have selected. Your choice of card will tell partner about your length and strength in the suit.

You are not left to guessing as there are standard lead disciplines that have been developed over time. If you want to be more successful in selecting the right card, just follow 6 simple rules:
1. Lead the highest ranking card from touching honors except lead the King from AKx(x)(x) and the Ace from AK doubleton. (See later discussion).
2. Lead the Second highest card from a broken sequence such as KQTx or KJTx.
3. Lead the 4th best card from a 4+ card suit headed by an honor.
4. Lead the highest card from three small cards (see later discussion).
5. Lead the lowest card from 3 cards to an honor (see later discussion).
6. Lead high from any doubleton.

Let me emphasize that these are standard leads, and partners can choose to make non-standard leads as long as the variance is fairly disclosed to the opponents. Marking the change on the convention card will do. The most common exception to standard leads today is the lead of an Ace from AKx+ and lead King from Ace King doubleton. Don’t ask me why, I don’t understand it, but if that is what your partner wants to do, just humor him. There is also a thriving controversy about what card to lead from 3 small cards. While many stay with the standard and lead the highest card, an equal number lead the lowest card. If that is not bad enough, some partnerships use MUD, middle card, then up and then down. Here briefly are the considerations.

When you lead the top card from three small it is impossible for partner to know if you hold 2 or 3 small cards in the suit. The trade off is that he knows that you do not have a card higher than the card lead. Guess what, so does the opposition! When you lead the small card from 3 small cards, partner will know that you do not have a doubleton, but he will be uncertain about whether you have an honor in the suit since you also lead small from three or four to an honor. In an effort to side step this uncertainty (and add even more uncertainty), some partnerships use MUD, but the downside about this is that you do not know whether it is from a doubleton or three cards until the second card is played. You also forfeit the discipline of the lead of a low card (5 or under) guaranteeing an honor in the suit. Each has their own supporters and none is perfect all the time. You and partner need to decide what to do and mark your card if it is not “top of nothing.”

If partner has bid a suit, you are hopefully going to lead it. If it turns out to be a rotten lead, get a new partner. Who asked him to overcall on KJxxx? Lead low from 3 cards and high from two cards to give partner a count in is suit. There are variations on this scheme as well, but this basic rule will work.

If partner doubles a conventional bid by opponents, this means he wants you to lead that suit. This opportunity often happens on Stayman and Transfer bids in no trump bidding. What if partner doesn’t double a conventional bid? As usual, there are strong inferences to be taken from silence, and in this case lead any suit other than the conventional bid he did not double. Here you may have to woodshed partner to train him to do the right thing.

If partner makes a takeout double, it usually means he has something in the other three suits. If you are on lead and have an honor in any of the unbid suits, lead that suit as it is reasonable to assume that partner will be able to help you out with a supporting honor. That gets you off to an aggressive start. If you have a hopeless hand without any defensive possibilities, and you lead any of the three unbid suits, you likely will finesse one of partners honors. Make declarer figure it out and work for it. Now is the time for a passive lead like trump.

With the next post we will cover leading at no trump contracts. Following that I will cover leads at suit contracts, then trump leads and leading against slams. If you want a reference work for definitive information on opening leads and the play of the hand I recommend Easley Blackwood’s The Complete Book of Opening Leads (1983) or the all time classic, Louis Watson’s The Play of the Hand at Bridge (1933). Both are good references, but a substantial workout to read cover to cover. Just rereading the six rules and getting on the same page with partner may produce quicker results.

Michaels Cue Bids Revisited

After Stayman, Blackwood and Transfers, Michaels Cue Bids and Unusual No Trump are probably the most common conventions. They are used by most rubber bridge players, and have now become part of the consensus Standard American Yellow Card system (SAYC) as well as more advanced systems. Today I’m going to focus on Michaels Cue Bids developed by well known professional, Mike Michaels. In yesteryear, an immediate cue bid after an opening by opponents showed a monster hand and was forcing to game. Since today we can first make a take out double and then bid to show an unbalanced hand in the 17+ range, or overcall 1NT or 2NT to show big balanced hands, the cue bid has been recruited to show hands that have 5-5 distribution.

While some partnerships may permit a Michaels bid to be made on a 5-4 hand, I prefer sticking with the original concept of 5-5, even when it involves both majors. If you want to change Michaels to some combination of 5-4, you definitely need to discuss it with your partner. The risk is with equal support, partner may take a preference for your 4 card suit and you end up singing the wrong song.

With 5-4 distribution and a hand worth an overcall, I would recommend overcalling your 5 card suit, and if it does not misrepresent your hand strength, show the 4 card suit on the second bid. It is convenient to do when your 5 card suit is the higher ranking suit and your 4 card suit is lower ranking, since then you can give partner a simple preference without reversing the bidding. The thing to avoid is reversing the bidding on a modest hand. If your 5 card suit is lower ranking than your 4 card suit, you just have to eat the four card suit. This may be the justification for permitting 5-4 Michaels, and would work best if limited to five hearts and four spades.

Let’s get the bids out of the way:
(a) a cue bid in a minor (1c/2c or 1d/2d) shows both major suits.
(b) a cue bid in hearts (1h/2h) shows 5 spades and an undisclosed 5 card minor suit.
(c) a cue bid in spades (1s/2s) shows 5 hearts and an undisclosed 5 card minor suit.

The traditional strength requirement to make a minor suit cue bid (showing both majors) is 7+ hpcs. If the cue bid shows a major and minor, I would raise the requirement to about 10+ hcps, since you often end up at the three level playing a minor suit. You must watch the vulnerability and adjust your strength up or down. With equal or favorable vulnerability, I might substantially lower those requirements. With unfavorable vulnerability, I would be at the top. The most important thing is that you have the majority of your points in your two 5 card suits. Singleton or doubleton honors in your short suits are often worthless.

Here are the responses:

(a) If the cue bid is a minor (showing majors) a simple response to the 2 level in a major can be made on weak hands if you have 3+ card support. It is not a constructive bid. A direct raise to the 3 level is generally regarded as invitational with 3 or 4 trump. "Invitational" in this sequencing surely means a hand you would have opened had partner not made a cue bid. A bid of 2NT shows a balanced hand, stoppers in the minors and opening no trump values (15-17). A cue bid by advancer (1c/2c/p/3c) is a game force. You have a very good hand and plan to get a new partner if this one stops bidding short of game.

(b) If the cue bid is a major (showing the opposite major and a minor) and you have support for the major suit indicated, the responses are essentially the same as shown in (a) above. If you do not have support for the major (singleton or doubleton) and have at least 3 card support for both minors, you can ask partner to show his minor by bidding 2NT. When partner shows his minor, you can then decide how to proceed using “judgment.” (We never seem to be able to abandon that word, do we?)

Often partner’s Michaels bid will set the stage for a sacrifice. If the bidding goes 1h/2h/4h/?, it does not sound good for the home team. If you have exceptional support for spades (4+ cards) or if you have great minor suits, you may want to make a save. In spades you would simply bid 4 spades. If you have great support for the minors and little defense, you may want to save in a partner’s minor. You bid 4NT asking partner to bid 5 of his minor. Your hand may look like xx, xx, KJxxx, xxxx. If partner has as much as AQxxx, x, Qxxxx, xx, you may be able to hold it to down 2. In match points this strategy can be very effective, as opponents heart game looks pretty solid. At IMPs, 5 level saves are much more problematical, and running up the white flag is most often the best.

You may have heard of “over/under Michael’s.” In this scheme, with 5-5 hands you use Michaels with hands in the 8-10 range and with hands over 16 hcps. If the hand falls in the middle with 11-15 points, you attempt to bid both suits and forgo Michaels. This attempt at showing the size of the 5-5 hand is just a bunch of crap a far as I am concerned. With 11-15 hcps, you often do not have the bidding room to show both suits and your story never gets told. Most good players today realize the importance of showing the distribution of the hand as soon as possible by playing what I have earlier described, known as “Continuous Michaels.”

In Frank Stewart’s bridge column last Sunday he showed a world class Norwegian pair at work. Geir Helgemo sitting south held KJTxx, KJTxx, xx, x. East opened the bidding one club. For whatever reason, Geir bid 1 spade thinking he would bid hearts next to describe this hand. The bidding went 1c/1s/2s (limit raise or better for clubs)/3s (weak preemptive raise)/ 3NT/4 h/p/4s/x. Well, he finally got to describe his hand, but he was at the 4 level before the opportunity presented itself. What is wrong with a Michaels Cue bid of 2 clubs to describe the hand. It puts partner in the picture instantly and lets him be the “captain of the ship.” The only downside I can see is that it would have deprived Geir of the opportunity of going -1100 and the loss of 15 IMP’s.

A final caution. I had a hand last Friday where my LHO made a 2 club cue bid over my one club opener. We ultimately prevailed and played a game contract in a minor suit. The trump broke 4-1, but I was able to pick up the entire trump suit with Kxxx in east’s hand. The Michaels Cue bid told me that my LHO opponent had only 3 minor suit cards and that the outstanding major suit honors were likely to my left. The play of the hand was somewhat contorted, but fully justified by the information I had been gratuitously given. Michaels Cue bids and Unusual No trump always give opponents information. Be sure it is worth the price!

Searching for Major Suit Fits

This is more for my novice and intermediate readers, but I hope that there will be something for all readers to enjoy or criticize. Opening 5 card majors takes all the risks out of missing 8 card major suit fits. Even with a minimum hand (5+ hcps) and 3 card support, you should squeeze out a raise for partner. Even the constructive raise people will get there sooner or later if opponents don’t get in their way. Flip that suit around giving opener 3 cards in the major and responder 5, and reaching the best contract can sometimes be a problem. Let’s set the stage and then look at some solutions.

Opener holds Qxx, Qxx, AQxxx, Kx. The bidding goes 1d/p/1s/p/? Before we get to the heart of the problem, let’s do a little review on opener’s rebid options. As you sort through the possibilities, you might let your mind drift through 1 NT, 2 Diamonds or 2 Spades. This is no mindblower (a specialty of my blog), but let’s look briefly at those choices.

There are refugees from the 4 card major days who like to raise responder with 3 card support since they have spent a bridge lifetime playing 7 card fits. As a modernist, I prefer my partners to raise me only with 4 cards unless there is not better bid or and the 3 cards are a little chunky. The bid of 2 spades is out simply by not meeting either exception.

I find the bid of 2 diamonds equally unappealing. First, I think rebidding a minor should show a 6 card suit. Second, the diamond suit is not a good quality suit. Third, there is major difference between rebidding 1NT and rebidding 2 diamonds. Two diamonds holds out the potential for a hand that may have from 11-16 hpcs and is unbalanced. This does not represent opener’s hand.

The most important thing that opener can do in this auction is to limit his point count and show a balanced distribution by bidding 1NT. Opener tells his complete story at the one level and responder now is the “Captain of the Ship.” This is an important concept in bridge. As soon as either partner can do so, he should fully describe his hand, and from that point the other partner (with unknown values) calls all the shots.

We may have one problem. There may be an 8 card major fit between the hands that is yet unrevealed. I can hear all the “3 card raisers” saying didn’t we warn you about that? Enter “New Minor Forcing” or its first cousin “Check Back Stayman.”

If responder’s initial response is a 5 card major and he has 11+ hcps, he can use one of these conventions to ferret out 8 card major fits. In my bidding sequence both conventions would bid 2 clubs over 1NT asking opener if he has 3 card support for responder’s bid major or 4 card support for an unbid major. The bid is a one round force, but not a game force. If responder has 11 hcps and opener has 12 hcps, we want to be able to stop in part score in our best contract. Even if opener has neither 3 card support nor the opposite four card major, you will usually be safe playing 2NT with 23 hcps. This explanation is intended only as an introduction to these conventions, but you can see their usefulness. They are right up there with Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. See the literature for more detail or e-mail me for a more detailed summary.

There are sometimes opportunities to find these 3-5 fits from opener’s side. If the bidding went 1d/p/1s/2c/?, partnerships playing “Support Doubles” have other options. With the intervening overcall by opener’s RHO, opener can now double that overcall to show 3 card support for spades. If opener has 4 card support for spades, he bids 2 spades. A pass or any other bid would indicate no support. If opener made a support double, then responder with a 5 card major rebids that suit at the appropriate level. At this point neither partner has limited the strength of his hand, so if responder has game force or invitational values, he better not make a minimum bid. In the heat of battle it is often easy to miss the support double until you have done so once or twice :) . One of my favorite themes is that in any competitive auction there is a cost to intervening. In this case, if RHO had not overcalled 2 clubs, opener would not have the opportunity to make his support double and finding the 8 card fit would have been problematical. See the literature for more detail on Support Doubles and Redoubles or e-mail me for a more detailed summary. And “Oh by the Way” all of these conventions are alertable.

But suppose the opponents don’t accommodate you and responder doesn’t have the 11 hcps to use NMF, and yet has 5 cards in his bid major. Let’s give him something like KJxxx, xxxx, Jx, Qx. In early May, I had hands like this twice. Both of my partner’s were old bridge hands who did play in the 4 card major days (50’s and before). I passed 1NT and my partners in each case said “why didn’t you bid 2 spades?” I explained that my modern bridge education taught me that rebidding a suit by responder shows 6 cards in the suit and is to play. They just shook their heads as a polite commentary on “form over function.”

When I am uncertain of my ground, I often check with my bridge teacher, Pat Peterson, to see if I got the lesson correct or had wax in my ears that day. After an e-mail inquiry, Pat wrote me back:

“I (Pat) have a very good mentor who is a world class player and has won in highest level competition who says it is RIGHT for responder to rebid a 5 card major when you have too few points to make a NMF bid. The reasoning behind this is that partner must have at least 2 of the major to rebid 1NT (find another partner if he doesn’t) so you are better in a 5-3 or 5-2 fit than in 1NT. I must say I do this routinely and usually it is right. There are occasions where 1NT is better, but (sigh) such is life.”

That's good enough authority for me!! Note that with the hands I have given you 1NT is not a good contract and playing in spades will bring home +110-140 depending on the diamond finesse and suit breaks. Even if it turns out that partner holds QT, Qxx, AQxxx, Kxx and we play a 7 card suit, the play in spades is still superior. A good measure of bridge ability and experience is the willingness of a player to play a 7 card fit. It doesn’t seem to bother better players and some revel in it.

Opening 1NT with 5 Card Majors

A bidding question in this morning's Frank Stewart Bridge Column got me thinking about opening hands with 5 card majors with a bid of 1NT. In an early 2007 blog, I noted that Jeff Meckstroth (2007 ACBL Masterpoint leader) told me to open all 5332 hands 1NT (15-17) even if they contained a five card major. This advice was given without qualifications or exceptions. The advantages to the partnership are too significant not to do so. Among those mentioned were:

(a) The chance to limit your hand to a narrow point count.
(b) The chance to tell partner your hand is balanced or semi-balanced (no single or void).
(c) A clear signal to responder that he is the “Captain of the Ship.” Opener can now sit back, pop a brewski and relax,
(d) One No Trump is preemptive making it difficult for opponents to make a cheap overcall.
(d) The ability of the partnership to use the well understood Stayman and Transfers as well as a narrowly defined invitational bid. It’s a big plus to eliminate partnership confusion.
(e) Avoiding difficult rebid problems for opener.
(f) Establishing the no trump bidder as the most likely declarer so that the lead comes up to his tenaces and not through his Kx stopper.

The list goes on and on, but when you have Meckstroth’s advice, you don’t need reasons. Not all experts are as aggressive about this as Meckstroth, but there are few experts who today would disqualify a hand for a 1NT opening based solely on the presence of a 5 card major. Common qualifiers are not to open hands with 5 cards in one major and two cards in the other to minimize the risk of a transfer to the 2 card major. Others specify that the doubleton beheaded be headed by a Jack or better. While on a perfect day I would rather meet these conditions, their absence would not prevent me from opening 1NT with a 5 card major. In the long run (and after all bridge is a game of long run probabilities) you miss too many benefits waiting for the perfect 1NT opener.

Back to Frank Stewart. The hand he gives you is AQJ95, A6, KT, QT98.
Without comment or discussion he opens this 1 spade, partner bids 1NT, opener rebids 2 clubs, responder now bids 2 spades, showing a doubleton spade and 6-9 hcps. What does opener do now. I have no problem with the answer. Frank says to bid 2NT since we have a max and partner could have as much as 8-9 hpcs. All of this eventually gets us where we belong, whether part score or game in no trump.

That’s what is right about this analysis, but what is wrong. First, we have succeeded in wrong siding the hand. The 17 point hand is going down on the table in full view. Second, an ancillary part of the first comment is that the lead is coming through the strong hand. Instead of opener’s nice tenaces in 3 suits threatening opening leader, they make the lead very easy and we probably lose a trick. Finally, with all this descriptive bidding (don't you just love it), we are over informing the opponents about the distribution of the hands. Why wouldn’t opponents lead a diamond or heart? If I were defending and partner did not, I would send in the frontal lobotomy team.

The strident traditionalists like Frank Stewart will resist this, but doesn’t this hand scream to be opened 1NT? I firmly believe it is perfectly acceptable to open 5422 hands 1 NT, particularly where the doubletons are well stopped. It is more often done with a 5 card minor, and sometimes with a 6 card minor, but if you don’t open the above hand 1NT you deserve to be in 3NT and find the AQJxx of diamonds right behind the dummy. Note, this is not part of Meckstroth Rule, and really not a rule at all. Opener has to use some discretion, but most of the reasons to open 5332 hands 1NT still continue to be viable in the 5422 hands. Yes, sometimes opener will transfer me to hearts with this hand, but that’s not the end of the world as we know it either. We take the transfer and hope that opener isn’t scrambling with a bad hand. Even if he is, it may well play better in a suit contract. Bridge is like most of my days, not exactly perfect!

Under the “for what it is worth” category, Frank Stewart makes a living writing about bridge and I do not.

OBAR the Pre-Balancer (Not the Tentmaker)

Date Line: Rochester, New York.
A little over 3 weeks ago I blogged about balancing, “Expiring in the Pass Out Seat.” Opponents open and there are 2 passes to you. There is, of course, another pass out seat that may be more famous in the balancing context, that is having the last bid after 1 of anything/2 simple raise, pass, pass,? So much is written about the need to balance that it should not be necessary to comment on it again. Dig my blog out of the archive and look at the criteria for balancing. The same considerations apply whether you are sitting to the left or the right of the opening bidder; you just have to reverse some of the thinking.

In the matchpoint context, you just cannot let opponents play any contract at the 2 level if they have found an 8 card fit. That’s it, it is that simple, and you need to do something (like balance) unless you have a penchant for suffering. It is a discipline in which there should be no discretion. Make this a competitive philosophy. Larry Cohen, in an article in Audrey Grant’s Better Bidding (January/February 2005) made the oft quoted statement “When I used to Play with Marty Bergen, if he were in the balancing seat (after 1 heart/2 hearts) he would simply close his eyes and bid something in this auction.” Larry even provides a balancing guideline: “If you have shortness in the opponent’s suit --fewer than three cards-- bid a suit or make a take out double. High card points have nothing to do with it.”

Ok, we know when to balance, but when do we not balance. Some authors and experts insist that you need to balance if the opponents' contract if successul will result in +90 to +110. In fact I said that, but you should have known it was pure “horse manure” because I ain’t no expert! Here’s the drill: You do not need to balance in the pass out seat if the opponents have not found an 8 card fit at the 2 level. So if the auction goes 1s/p/1NT/p/2S? This is not a fit showing auction, you can pass. The same goes for the auction 1d/p/1h/p/2d. The auction 1d/p/1h/p/2h is a little tougher. Now you need to figure out if opener would raise hearts with only 3 card support. Older style players tend to do that if pressed when they have some good cards in the heart suit. Other players, equally good, tend to virtually guarantee 4 card heart support. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking responder about his expectation or the partnership understandings. If you get a wishy-washy answer, consider balancing on general open warfare principles!!

There is one untouched subject, what some call “pre-balancing” and others call “balancing in the direct seat.” This is where you make a balancing bid even though the auction will not be over if you pass. For example, opponents open 1 heart, partner passes, responder bids 2 hearts and it is now your bid. I have a personal theory that most bad balancing decisions that you blame on your partner, are rooted in your own failure to pre-balance. Ask yourself “why didn’t partner make a direct take out double or overcall?” If the problem is shape (maybe he had 3 hearts), then you have to help him out, since balancing in the pass out seat is going to be equally unattractive. That means that you have to double or bid right in front of opponent’s unlimited hand. Just do it when it is right.

Notice that Larry’s Guideline qualified your duty to balance in the “balancing seat” by saying it only applied when you have less than 3 cards in opponents' suit. OK, that’s sensible so you are off the hook with 3 cards in their suit, but how do we avoid defending 2 hearts when the balancing seat does have 3 cards in their suit. Well, if the balancing seat has 3 cards in the suit in the and opponents have 8, guess who holds 2 cards in the suit. Partner in the pre-balancing seat, of course. He sat there like an intimidated mouse worrying about the potential big hand hovering over him and now we go for -110 and a bottom shared with all those other teams who are not enlightened.

Marty Bergen had a pneumonic label for these weak pre balancing bids. He called them OBAR BIDS, standing for Opponents Bid And Raise – Balance In The Direct Seat. Larry Cohen first wrote about this in his book To Bid or Not to Bid (1992) (p. 109). The key to your OBAR bid is that you, as pre-balancer, will have 2 or fewer cards in opponents' fit suit (in my example hearts). While you may have to be a little circumspect when vulnerable, Larry suggests that it would be right to pre-balance with 2 spades holding KQT98, 73, JT85, 84 or to double with KT73, 4, KT85, KJ86. Note that in each instance all the points are working points and with the spade overcall he clearly can wants a lead in the suit if opponents end up in 4 hearts. What? You say you are 4-4 in the minors? Bid 2NT asking partner to take a pick, but this needs to be a little better hand since you are committed to the 3 level.

If you agree to use weak OBAR BIDS, you probably need to tell opponents via an alert that partner’s pre-balance may not meet traditional standards. It keeps the playing field level.

Why does this all work? It is something called the Theory of Reciprocal Fits, but it is just the Law of Total Tricks dressed in a little different gown. See Principles of Logical Bidding (1997) by Allan De Serpa, page 9. If they have an 8 card fit, it is very likely that we do also. Partner and I have 26 cards, 5 of which are in opponents' suit. That leaves 21 cards remaining, and we always have an 8 card fit unless the three remaining suits are 7-7-7. As common as that may seem, the odds are over 93% that we have an 8 card fit. The theory doesn’t say you will make your bid, just that it is right to compete by balancing.

In my final Florida Game we finished 1st overall (everybody claimed it was a good-bye kiss – not likely, but it seemed that way). This good result in spite of the fact that we passed out a sequence 1d/p/1h/p/2h for a rotten board. I should have known that my sometimes partner Bob Scarbrough would have 4 card heart support. The compensating justice was that twice we were permitted to play 2 spades when opponents did not step up to their minor fit balance. It does not pay to flirt with Mother Nature, or for that matter the Theory of Reciprocal Fits. Asked about balancing over 2 spades, Larry Cohen says "I don’t like it, but you gotta do what you gotta do!" It helps to play the cards like Larry.

If you want to comment directly, the quickest way to get to me until October will be my Rochester e-mail, tommy@rochester.rr.com. Send sweaters, not e-mail.

1 NT Forcing to Hell and Back

This is my final post as I pack my cats and move to Rochester, New York for the summer. My posts will continue, but on a less frequent basis. Keep checking my blog or you can e-mail me at tommy@rochester.rr.com for instant contact. I will continue to monitor my Florida e-mail as well. Traditionally I have disclosed my own vulnerability to bridge regrets as a final post. Last year it was Murder on Sanchez Avenue. This post could have been entitled Murder at the Italian American Club, the scene of my downfall. I wish everybody a pleasant summer. See you'all in the fall.

I am a heavy user of 1NT forcing when partner opens a major. Sometimes I will actually have something to bid (definitely not support) and want to mark time until partner further describes his hand. On other occasions I often have something that you would gladly pass on in rubber bridge, or maybe even playing IMP’s, but at matchpoints I can't resist testing the will of the opponents to get into the auction.

The first hand that confronted me last Monday was x, xx, QJxxx, Txxxx. Partner opens 1 heart and my RHO passes. It flashes through my mind that opponents are about to freely enter into this auction if I pass. The alternative is to start a sequence with 1NT forcing and see if I can’t slow down the opposition. In my system I would raise with xxx or better, so partner can put aside any thoughts of a 5-3 fit.

I really don’t expect that partner will rebid a minor, but stranger deals have turned up in the newspapers. If partner rebids hearts, I will pass and if he doesn’t, I will simply rebid hearts and we will see if we can buy a major contract at the 2 level with 7 trump. In bridge parlance this later technique is called “taking a false preference” since you really don’t prefer hearts, but you are going to tolerate them and hope to hold our score to -100. This technique doesn’t always work since good opponents will balance over my final pass of 2 hearts, but you do find a few gifts and sometimes the opponents get one level too high. I also thought it was risk free.

Well, LHO passed my 1NT forcing, so that is one turnip out of the way (at least for a while). Now it’s all down hill, or is it? Partner goes into the tank and bids 2 spades, a reverse showing 4-5 and a very big hand (we take reverses seriously) . This is a one round force and I know from experience you don’t keep good partner’s by passing their forcing bids. I admit it, I was trying to “master mind” the hand and things just got out of control. Partner doesn’t want to hear that either, so I just rolled my eyes and bid 3 hearts. Partner apparently forgot we only have a 7 card heart suit, and the next thing I see is the 4 heart card coming out of his bidding box. It is like being on the “Last Train to Clarksville” and this Monkey can’t get off. With over half the deck (partner had 19 hcps) we go down 2 for a low board and opponents can’t make anything. Partner was very charitable; he calmly said to me “When I respond 1NT, I have 6 hcps!” Old school, but I thought better to change your ways than to disrupt a perfectly good partnership.

A few hand later I was dealt xxxx, Kx, x, QJxxxx. Again I hear partner open one heart. OK he said 6 hcps, same idea but better since I have a control in his suit – 1NT forcing. Again my LHO passed and partner goes into the tank again. Now I don’t hear a reverse, I hear three diamonds, a jump shift which is forcing to game. Any thought about bailing out with my club suit is gone; I am not bidding 4 clubs with this hand. Again, I simply sound as discouraging as possible and bid 3 hearts, but my destiny is written in the sand, 4 hearts. As I put down dummy I reassured partner that I had followed his instructions to the letter and had not only my 6 points, but an honor in his trump suit and a single. Well, partner did as well as he could (he did have 20 hcps) but 4 hearts went down. A bunch of part scores made our way, someone made 3NT and someone else made 5 clubs. It turns out that partner’s had included AKx in clubs among other his other jewels.

What is the point to these sad stories? Here it is: When points seem to be missing at the table, consider that the next bid you hear from partner may confirm their location in his hand and that your safe ploy to bail out with a false preference at the 2 level may go right out the window. As much success as I have had with that strategy, I got “snake bit” twice on the same afternoon. The only thing that saved our partnership was my “by the book” hand the second time around. Bad luck? Bad judgment? Maybe some of both, but I am a hard dog “to keep under the porch!” 1NT forcing is tattooed in the palm of my right hand!!

Free Advice from Larry Cohen

Those who read my website will not be surprised that I blow Larry Cohen’s horn, loud and clear. As a bridge professional, I contend that he is arguably (with his partner David Berkowitz) the best in America at matchpoints. So, why haven’t you visited his website (www.larryco.com) and signed up for his FREE Newsletter? Larry is an excellent writer with due care and attention to novices and intermediates who read his material. His words of wisdom are not commands, but always come in the form of suggestions or recommendations, leaving the door open for the reader to think for himself. His critics may say that he is too basic – duh, reaching a common level of understanding for all players without over complication is his objective! Unlike other bridge writers, he doesn’t feel compelled to establish his qualifications through complexity.

In his last newsletter he wrote about responses to minor suit openings. In the preceding Newsletter he had written about opening hands with 1 of a minor. Here is his protocol for opening a hand with 1 of a minor:

(a) 3-3 in the minors, open 1 club to help establish the 1 diamond opening as being from 4+diamonds. So, you are a “better minor” guy, go ahead. Even Larry says that he would open Axxx, xxx, AKQ, 987 one diamond because of the overwhelming strength, but not KQT.
(b) 3-4 open the 4 card club suit.
(c) 4-3 open the 4 card diamond suit.
(d) 4-4 open the 4 card diamond suit,
(e) 5-4 or 5-5 open the 5 card diamond suit.
(f) 4-5 open 1 diamond! Yes, the 4 card suit! Assume you hold x, xxx, AQT5, AQxxx. You decide to ignore Larry’s advice open 1 club. The bidding now goes 1c/1s/? Do you want to rebid 1NT with a singleton? Not me, I value my partner’s too much. Wouldn’t it have been easier with this minimum hand to open 1 diamond so that you can next bid 2 clubs without reversing? It is better to let partner think you have 5 diamonds than it is to rebid 1NT with an unbalanced hand. Actually Larry is much kinder, he says this is what I do, and do whatever you want.
(g) 3-2. Now your holding is always exactly 4=4=3=2. Open 1 diamond, this is the one exception where you will not have the 4+ diamonds. You can’t open a 4 card major. Could you open 1 club with this hand? Yes, some good players do that just so they can be absolutely pure about their 4+ card diamond suit guarantee. Larry says that he would rather not worry about 2 card club suit every time he hears 1 club and then have to “sound off” with that tiresome and annoying announcement “may be short.” How often will the hand have 3 diamonds and 2 clubs and no 5 card major? Larry says it is 3% of the hands, and he is satisfied with being 97% pure on his diamond guarantee.

How many clubs should you assume opener will have when he opens 1 club? Using the above treatment for minors, I think you will find the result surprising. Here are the percentages:

(a) 3 clubs = 17%
(b) 4 clubs = 26%
(c) 5 clubs = 38%
(d) 6 clubs = 15%
(e) 7 clubs = 4%

Partner will have a real club suit (at least 4 long) 83% of the time, and it is more likely to be 6+ than 3. Doesn’t that give you some reassurance and reduce your panic level when partner opens 1 club?

Jumping forward to the next newsletter on responses, Larry talks about Inverted Minors. This is not one of the more exotic inverted minor treatments, just plain vanilla where a single raise is 10+ hcps and support and the double raise is preemptive, not more than 7 hcps. He promises to discuss this subject more fully at a later date, but for now he advises that if you do play inverted minors, fully discuss them with your partner. Here are some of the items that need to be on that discussion agenda.

(a) Is it on after a double or overcall? Larry recommends NO and NO.
(b) Is it on by a passed hand? Larry recommends Yes.
(c) Is the single raise forcing to game. Larry recommends NO.
(d) How high is the single raise forcing ? Larry says that if opener rebids 3 of the minor or 2NT, the responder can pass with a minimum hand.

At the recent Nationals in Detroit, Larry was the top Masterpoint winner among North American bridge professionals, finishing ahead of stalwarts such as Rodwell and Meckstroth. That’s the good news. The bad news is that he barely made the top 10, with many European and other foreign players dominating the tournament.

It is generally agreed among all top professionals that there is very little difference in the quality of the play of the bridge hand or defense, since they are all equally adept and nothing ever really changes. The European and other foreign players simply have better bidding systems and develop a keener sense of both constructive and defensive bidding, and are masters at communication and strategy. Contrary to the stifling influence of the ACBL, in Europe, innovation and change are welcomed as an important part of the development of player skills and the game. The Italians may have gotten wrong sided in WW II, but they have been making up for it ever since.

Expiring in the "Pass Out" Seat

The play of the bridge hand and defense have changed very little over the decades. Once you have learned the basics and obtained a little experience, you skills will be whatever they will be. You may be a “natural” or a “digger”, but the one thing you do not have to worry about is seismic change taking place. Bidding does not demonstrate that same stability; it has changed dramatically since the days of Charles Goren and has moved very quickly since the mid 80’s when Marty Bergen started to preach that “bridge is a bidder’s game.” New bidding concepts are quickly accepted at the expert level, and slowly but surely trickle down to the club level over time. Nowhere is that more evident than in competitive bidding. For this reason, I think an occasional review of your bidding standards is worthwhile to make sure that you haven’t been left in the dust. If you find that opponents are getting good boards against you on low level contracts (either by making them or going down 1 or 2), it may be that you need to see if “yesterday’s bridge” is continuing to work for you. A good place to start is on the important concept of “balancing.”

In this post I would like to restrict my comments to balancing in the “pass out” seat. What agreements do you have with your partner about reopening the bidding? I confess to not having discussed this with all my partners, but if asked, I probably would have replied “have at least 1 1/2 quick tricks to reopen.” In other words AK, AQ/K, KQ/A, KKKK etc. This is an old standard and the benefits are that if opponents outbid you, you will at least have some defense, and partner will know to look for the 1 1/2 tricks in conducting the defense of the contract. In a recent bridge class, Pat Peterson talked about balancing in the pass out seat, and it was then that I realized that she was recommending balancing action that did not always meet this standard. I started to review the bridge literature on balancing in the pass out seat and found that my standard is too conservative and not consistent with competitive bidding as it is taught and applied today by better players.

The following seems to summarize contemporary balancing agreements among most experts:

1 diamond, pass, pass, (?)
(a) dbl= 8+ hcps
(b) 1 of a major= normal 1 level overcall
(c) 1NT 10-14 hcps (does not guarantee a stop)
(d) 2 clubs – normal overcall
(e) cue bid (needs partnership agreement: either Michaels or Game Force)
(f) 2 of major= Good 6 card suit + opening hand (not weak jump shift)
(g) Double and bid 1NT= 15-18
(g) 2NT (needs partnership agreement: either Unusual NT or 19-21 hcps).

1 heart, pass, pass, (?) This is pretty much the same as above except that the 1NT overcall is 12-16. The reason for this is that if you reopen with a double, partner's response will be at the 2 level and you will not be able to bid 1NT showing 15-18. We take up the slack with the opening 2NT bid that now is reduced to 17-19.

The theory of getting into the bidding is based on simple addition. If you give opener 14, and his partner 5 or less for his pass, we have accounted for 19 hcps. If balancer has as much as 8 hcps that leaves partner with an opening hand. Why didn’t partner overcall or double with opening values? The usual reason,is partner simply did not have the correct hand shape to take a call.

Consider opponent’s opening of 1 club and partner holding AT98, K2, 987, AQ32. He has a very nice hand, and yet is handcuffed by his shape. Suppose your cards in the pass out seat are Q765, QJT, QJ76, 3. Alternatively, consider K7532, 763, AJ2, xx. Each of these hands has 8 hcps with the major difference being shape. The experts are going to double with the first hand and bid 1 spade with the second. Are you ready to do that? If not, you need to polish your bidding shoes.

According to expert Karen Walker (http://www.prairienet.org/) the best time to balance is when you are short in the bid suit and have values in the other suits or have a good 5 card suit of our own. Being non-vulnerable is also a huge safety net. The worst time to balance is when you have less than 8 hcps, have length in opener’s suit or are vulnerable. Think about it. What is the worst that can happen if you balance? They double you for penalty? Never happen! They bid to a higher level? Good, maybe we can set them. We find a fit and effectively compete? Even better, we get a positive score. They set us a trick or two? Non- vulnerable we are not likely to get hurt. There are many more positives than negatives.

Now for some last minute decisions you and partner have to make. In the balancing seat is a cue bid Michaels or is it a huge playing hand that you want to force to game? Marty Bergen in More Points Schmoints (1999) says Michaels cue bids are still “on.” Other Experts insist that it has to be a game forcing one or two suiter like KQT9876, AK, AQT7, void. You cue bid since you do not want to risk making a take out double and having partner convert it to a penalty double. Without being authoritative, I prefer the Michael’s approach, mostly because I don’t think that I will ever see the other hand. I also believe that in match points it is critical to show your shape as soon as possible, since you often do not get 2 bids to describe weaker two suiters.

The other issue is the 2 NT balancing bid. It can be played as a strong no trump hand (19+) or as Unusual NT showing 5-5 (or 5-4) in the minors. An alternative, if you want to play 2NT as “Unusual”, would be to show the strong balanced hand by doubling and then bidding 2 NT. Again, the risk is that partner may convert the take out double and you end up defending. Even in the unlikely event that partner should convert the double it may not be the worst thing in the world. How badly do I want to play 2NT against a potentially entryless dummy? Again, from a purely personal style, I think in match points there is some significant competitive value in showing your hand distribution with the one opportunity you are likely to have. I am also persuaded by the frequency at which I expect to hold 19 hcps in the balancing seat.

If you are going to use Michaels and/or Unusual No Trump, the hands should be somewhat better quality than those minimum hands that you might bid defensively in the direct seat. You know, sensible stuff like having your points in the suits that you bid. After all, your intention is not to preempt anybody, it is to find a fit and be competitive. Bottom line, talk it over with your partners.