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.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 3, 2008
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
