Last night I was having a friendly IMP game at Bridge Base on Line with an on line partner, Cara. At BBO there is little time to discuss detailed bidding sequences even if you happen to be a key board whiz and know all the "new age" texting shortcuts. Me? Given 10 minutes, I might be able to find a cell phone, but don’t bet the farm on it. Even when I try to communicate on line, the words seem to lack vowels, sentences lack verbs and only the Turks understand me.
Most of the time you are playing some form of SAYC. It ranges from very basic to complete, but most often they don’t bother to tell you. The full description of two over one game force is exactly “2/1” and you are on your own from there. These factors combine for very limited use of conventional bids other than Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. One of the areas where you don’t expect issues are 15-17 no trump opening hands, but when Stayman, transfer and no trump raises are inadequate to describe responder’s hand, you have to figure out how you showed distributional hands before you had partnership agreements and a convention card to guide you.
Responder hands with more than 8 major suit cards fall in this category. We need to find our best fit and tell opener about our strength. Will all who know how to do it please raise their hands right now? You are excused from this blog. Remember, no short cuts, you need to do it the old fashioned way.
Today most advanced players would use the Smolen Convention to show the 5-4 major hand with at least invitational values. In a previous post I discussed Smolen, but do you remember how you bid this hand before you had the conventional crutch? Absent any agreement, I would recommend starting with Stayman! Yes, I said Stayman not Transfer! If partner bids either major, it is a happy day no matter which major it is. If partner bids 2 diamonds, you next bid your 5 card major. Bid it at the 2 level if your hand is invitational (7-8 hcps), and bid it at the 3 level if you have a game forcing hand. So with KJxxx, QJxx, xx, xx, after 1NT/2c/2d/ a second response of 2 spades should show this 5-4 invitational hand. If the majors are reversed, the second response would be 2 hearts. For opener it is pass or bid a major or 3NT game with a max.
If you make responder’s hand KJTxx, KJTx, x, xxx, you want to make a game forcing 2nd response, so after Stayman, bid the 5 card spade suit at the 3 level. It will be disappointing if pard is 2-3-4-4, but with 2 tens and the 5 card suit, I still like my chances at 3NT. So with 5-4 in the majors “Stay with STAYMAN.”
The hand I actually anguished over was AQxxx, KTxxx, x, xx. Yummy yummy! I was all set to respond 3 spades, with most of my regular partners that shows 5-5 in the majors, game force. Then I suddenly remembered that I had no agreement on the 3 level responses, and I was expected to show this holding by a SAYC bidding sequence. Does anyone remember what it is?
Well, with 5-5 you start with Transfer, but which suit do you transfer to. Start with transferring opener to hearts if you have an invitational hand like AJxxx, JTxxx, x, xx, since that enables responder to rebid 2 spades after the transfer acceptance and show invitational values. With the game force hand, it doesn’t really matter what suit you transfer as long as your 2nd response is at the 3 level. I like the discipline of transferring your best major in case opener has 3 card support for both majors and needs to make a choice. On a bad day opener might bid 3NT, confessing that he had opened a 2-2-4-5 hand, but with that hand opener is expected to have a stopper (or at least a half stopper) in the majors, so there should be a play for 3NT. So when you are 5-5, "Start with Transfer".
How did it all work out in the heat of battle? Well, I got it right, but didn’t know it until the next morning when I looked it up. Cara had no trouble understanding my jump rebid was forcing and put me us in 4 hearts, which made in a breeze thanks to her great declaring skills.
Just when you think you have it all worked out, you are dealt 6-4 in the majors. There may be some advantages in searching for the 4-4 major fit as trump, but only when partner has exactly 2 card support for your 6 card major. This is too much of a dream world for me. Assume you bid 2 clubs and opener responds 2 diamonds showing no 4 card major. Is your on line partner (or any partner for that matter) now going to figure out that a 2nd response of 4 hearts is really an attempt by you to make a Texas Transfer to spades. You will know it a was a poor decision when opponents start rudely typing "faster, faster" and you wonder if partner lost her connection. Of course you can always bid 4 spades and even on line they can figure that out, but now you have the 1NT hand on the table and the lead coming up to the weaker hand. Save your self some grief and just make a Texas transfer to start with. At least you will not summarily be removed from the table by your own partner.
The next time you come on line at BBO be sure to designate me as a “friend”. My screen name is “tommylee” and I would enjoy playing a few hands with any of my readers.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Super Duper Acceptance
Almost everybody who can sort cards knows about Jacoby Transfers in no trump bidding. Usually after a 1 No Trump opener and a Jacoby Transfer, partner will dutifully accept the transfer by bidding the indicated major at the 2 level. From there the bidding proceeds in three directions. Responder either passes, invites or bids game. Responder’s strength requirement for each of these three options is a little fuzzy depending on whether the game is matchpoints or IMP’s, the vulnerability and just how gosh darn mad you are. Almost equally familiar is the concept of “Super Acceptance”. If you asked 100 people in a 25 table game about super acceptance, 99% would say raise to the three level if you have a max and 4 trump and the other guy would be looking for a partner..
Most players today know the name Marty Bergen, a wonderful bridge theorist who brought aggressive competitive bidding to the forefront in matchpoint bridge. He gained bridge immortality by his innovative way of dealing with major suit raises known as “Bergen Raises”, probably second only to Stayman in terms of popular conventions. Since Better Bidding by Bergen was published 24 years ago, there are many players in the game today who have never even seen the book, much less read it. Marty may not have been the father of “super acceptance”, but he was one of the first to write about it. It may come as a surprise to today’s players that Marty had a somewhat different take on Super Acceptance borne out of his championing of the Law of Total Tricks.
In a recent e-mail to me Marty reiterated his position: Jump to the 3 level in the major if you have a “bad” opening 1NT hand, bid 2NT with 4333 and a “max” and bid any doubleton you hold if you have a “nice” hand and 4432. Notice Marty did not seek to define the term “bad”, “nice” or “max”. Marty would place greater value on Aces and Kings and discount Queens, but to avoid subjective arguments, let’s assume they mean roughly 15-16 and 17 to the unwashed. When I asked about the premise for what I call “Super Duper Accepts” (also known as Bergen Super Accepts), four letters came rolling back on my screen, LOTT!!! After all, we have 9 trump so we need to be at the 3 level, why wait? Hold onto that thought for a moment.
The problem arises when responder has a hand that he intends to transfer and pass. Modern thinking on this technique holds that you transfer anytime you have a 5 card major and it can be done with 0 points. Earlier this week I held AKQx, Q752, KQT, 85. The bidding went 1NT/2h(transfer)/3spades(super accept). I thought I would give Marty’s theory a try. Partner’s hand was J7643, T8, 75, QJ72. As you can see, we lose 5 tricks off the top, down 1 on a hand that every other pair made +110. Certainly the fault is not with partner in making the transfer.
The problem I see with the application of the LOTT is that it is a competitive bidding guideline. By the time responder passes the 2 level transfer bid, the auction is only competitive if opponents will balance by bidding 2 spades (in the case of hearts) or double or a make 3 level bid. This may be standard balancing procedure at professional levels, but when was the last time you witnessed this at the club level. Even with skilled amateurs you don’t see much balancing in these sequences, and if opponents don’t compete, you often are just one level too high.
Confused by this, I asked another nationally renowned bridge theorist, Danny Kleinman, to look at my hand and tell me what went wrong. In short order Danny told me “Tommy, your hand was not good enough to make a super acceptance.” His “idiots guideline” for me was revalue your hand as a supporting hand and if you have 4 supporting trump and the hand has now grown out of your no trump range, then super accept. Thus if you have 17 and a doubleton, you revalue to 18 and super accept. Otherwise be content with a standard acceptance.
You may have been wondering about Marty’s recommendation to bid your doubleton suit when you have 4 card trump support and a “nice” hand. This is pretty clever since the no trump opener is now the short trump hand and the additional trump will be of value only if the hand has a ruffing value. By locating the doubleton for responder, you enable him to better gauge the value of the 4th trump. It may look like this is on the slippery slope to wrong siding the hand, but Marty solved that as well with his concept of “retransfers.” Upon hearing the doubleton bid, responder simply transfers again and now opener bids the major. Everything back to square.
Lets take a final look at Marty’s recommendation to bid 2NT when you have 4 trump, 4333 and a max. This is the opposite of the 4332 hand, it may have a 4th trump, but the hand has no ruffing value. It will probably make the same number of tricks in no trump as it will in a major suit even with a 9 card fit. The 2NT bid is a clear warning to responder about playing a suit contract and the last chance to get off the train by passing 2NT if responder has one of those “transfer and duck” hands.
If you currently have only one flavor to your super accept, I think you might consider Bergen’s technique of bidding the doubleton with 4432 and nice hand and bidding 2NT with a max and 4333. As for three level jumps, I think Danny Kleinman’s idiots rule suits me best. If you promise you will always balance over the passed transfer, I may change my mind. :-)
Most players today know the name Marty Bergen, a wonderful bridge theorist who brought aggressive competitive bidding to the forefront in matchpoint bridge. He gained bridge immortality by his innovative way of dealing with major suit raises known as “Bergen Raises”, probably second only to Stayman in terms of popular conventions. Since Better Bidding by Bergen was published 24 years ago, there are many players in the game today who have never even seen the book, much less read it. Marty may not have been the father of “super acceptance”, but he was one of the first to write about it. It may come as a surprise to today’s players that Marty had a somewhat different take on Super Acceptance borne out of his championing of the Law of Total Tricks.
In a recent e-mail to me Marty reiterated his position: Jump to the 3 level in the major if you have a “bad” opening 1NT hand, bid 2NT with 4333 and a “max” and bid any doubleton you hold if you have a “nice” hand and 4432. Notice Marty did not seek to define the term “bad”, “nice” or “max”. Marty would place greater value on Aces and Kings and discount Queens, but to avoid subjective arguments, let’s assume they mean roughly 15-16 and 17 to the unwashed. When I asked about the premise for what I call “Super Duper Accepts” (also known as Bergen Super Accepts), four letters came rolling back on my screen, LOTT!!! After all, we have 9 trump so we need to be at the 3 level, why wait? Hold onto that thought for a moment.
The problem arises when responder has a hand that he intends to transfer and pass. Modern thinking on this technique holds that you transfer anytime you have a 5 card major and it can be done with 0 points. Earlier this week I held AKQx, Q752, KQT, 85. The bidding went 1NT/2h(transfer)/3spades(super accept). I thought I would give Marty’s theory a try. Partner’s hand was J7643, T8, 75, QJ72. As you can see, we lose 5 tricks off the top, down 1 on a hand that every other pair made +110. Certainly the fault is not with partner in making the transfer.
The problem I see with the application of the LOTT is that it is a competitive bidding guideline. By the time responder passes the 2 level transfer bid, the auction is only competitive if opponents will balance by bidding 2 spades (in the case of hearts) or double or a make 3 level bid. This may be standard balancing procedure at professional levels, but when was the last time you witnessed this at the club level. Even with skilled amateurs you don’t see much balancing in these sequences, and if opponents don’t compete, you often are just one level too high.
Confused by this, I asked another nationally renowned bridge theorist, Danny Kleinman, to look at my hand and tell me what went wrong. In short order Danny told me “Tommy, your hand was not good enough to make a super acceptance.” His “idiots guideline” for me was revalue your hand as a supporting hand and if you have 4 supporting trump and the hand has now grown out of your no trump range, then super accept. Thus if you have 17 and a doubleton, you revalue to 18 and super accept. Otherwise be content with a standard acceptance.
You may have been wondering about Marty’s recommendation to bid your doubleton suit when you have 4 card trump support and a “nice” hand. This is pretty clever since the no trump opener is now the short trump hand and the additional trump will be of value only if the hand has a ruffing value. By locating the doubleton for responder, you enable him to better gauge the value of the 4th trump. It may look like this is on the slippery slope to wrong siding the hand, but Marty solved that as well with his concept of “retransfers.” Upon hearing the doubleton bid, responder simply transfers again and now opener bids the major. Everything back to square.
Lets take a final look at Marty’s recommendation to bid 2NT when you have 4 trump, 4333 and a max. This is the opposite of the 4332 hand, it may have a 4th trump, but the hand has no ruffing value. It will probably make the same number of tricks in no trump as it will in a major suit even with a 9 card fit. The 2NT bid is a clear warning to responder about playing a suit contract and the last chance to get off the train by passing 2NT if responder has one of those “transfer and duck” hands.
If you currently have only one flavor to your super accept, I think you might consider Bergen’s technique of bidding the doubleton with 4432 and nice hand and bidding 2NT with a max and 4333. As for three level jumps, I think Danny Kleinman’s idiots rule suits me best. If you promise you will always balance over the passed transfer, I may change my mind. :-)
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Reopening Doubles
There was bridge before negative doubles. If you played bridge in the 1950’s, and are still alive to tell about it, you will remember after the sequence 1s/2c/, a double of the 2 club overcall was a serious event intended to teach discipline to any who would make the call with anything less than a solid suit and an opening hand. It was not a negative double, an optional double, a BOP double or a DSIP double, it was for penalties and woe onto opener if he took the double out. These first round doubles are probably what brought about bidding boxes, because the always came out with a serious growl.
In 1957 Al Roth first wrote about the idea of a negative double and it became part of the Roth-Stone system. At the time the double was called “Sputnik” after the famous Russian satellite. As the negative double gained popularity it also became necessary to prevent the proliferation of cheap overcalls since responder could not double for penalty. If, instead of the perfect negative double hand, you had a stack of good cards in the overcalled suit (a hand that you would have previously inspired a penalty double) you not only could not double, but with 5 or 6 cards in overcaller’s suit, you most likely had no suit to bid. Out of this dilemma was born the so called “automatic reopening double.”
Last Thursday I was dealt 9, K54, AJT8, A9842. When my RHO opened 1 spade. I decided to make a 2 club overcall, non-vul against vul opponents. I suppose some might double and others make an Unusual NT bid, but I thought 2 clubs best described my hand and was good lead direction. Now the bidding went pass, pass, pass, so the reopening double must not be “automatic” after all. This experience led me to believe that even among experienced bridge partnerships, there may be no definitive agreement on the standard to be applied to the reopening double. I asked several players about this and got a variety of comments. Here is a sampling.
(a) It is automatic, no questions!
(b) You do it if you have the right hand.
(c) You do it if you have a doubleton, single or void in the overcalled suit.
(d) You do it because your partner expects you to.
(e) You do it unless you have a minimum opening hand.
(f) The double shows extra values, so pass without them.
(g) You do because you don’t want to give up the hand.
What this indicates is that if you have not discussed this issue with your regular partners, now may not be too soon to do so. Oh, did I say that my LHO held K4, J, KQ42, KQJ753! His partner opened a 11 hcp “Rule of 20” hand and decided if there was an exception to the term “automatic”, his hand was it. Since he also had a single club, it was an ill fated decision.
Setting aside all the well intended advice I received, I decided to see what a real expert would say. In August of 2006, Karen Walker wrote an article in the Bridge Bulletin about this very subject in her series “12 Habits of Highly Effective Bidders.” Karen may lack the glitz of some of the top Bridge Super Stars, but she is very solid, reliable, sensible and an excellent writer. Her web site is always one of my first stops.
Karen rejects the concepts of “automatic” or “always double with shortness in overcaller’s suit.” She also rejects the concept of doubling “for partner” pointing out that except for rare occasions where partner has a monster trump stack, partner is not in a position to make a unilateral decision about whether to leave the double in. He needs to know whether opener’s hand is suitable for joining a defense.
Ideally opener should have not only shortness in the overcalled suit, but also support for the unbid suits and 2½ quick tricks. When you put this all together, a good guideline is that “if you were sitting behind overcaller and he opened rather than overcalled, would you make a take out double?” If so, make a reopening double, and if not pass or take some other appropriate action.
What if opener has a void in the overcalled suit, is that ideal? Hardly! First, the void gives opener extra length in the unbid suits, so the slow quick tricks like KQxxx may not be winners. Another reason is that when opener gets in, partner expects him to lead a trump through declarer. It is hard to lead a void (a certain director call) and the failure to lead through declarer often means that partner is going to ultimately get end played in the trump suit.
Do you pass with all hands that do not meet the “acid test” of a double? Obviously not. If you have a distributional hand such as 6-4 or 5-5, you are probably better off declaring, so you need to make a descriptive bid. If you have a strong single suited hand that is close to an opening 2 club bid (4 losing trick count), you can jump in your suit to show the strength. If you have a real good hand (again 4 LTC) without any clear direction, you can always make a cue bid forcing responder to describe his hand.
Assume partner has reopened the bidding, how do you know when to pass for penalties? Mel Colchamiro in his book “How to Play Like an Expert ….” advocated applying the Rule of 9 in determining when to leave in partner’s take out double. Since opener’s hand often looks like a take out double hand, I would apply the Rule of 9 to the reopening double as well. Her it is! Leave the double in if the total number of cards you have in overcaller’s suit + the total honors you have in that suit + the level of the contract equal 9.
So if the contract is 2 clubs doubled and you are sitting behind the overcaller with KQxxx, whack it! 5+2+2=9. Are you Smarter than a 3rd Grader?? Arrest your partner if he doesn’t show up with 2 1/2/quick.
To see some example hands where you should not make a reopening double see www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/negativedoubles_main,htm
In 1957 Al Roth first wrote about the idea of a negative double and it became part of the Roth-Stone system. At the time the double was called “Sputnik” after the famous Russian satellite. As the negative double gained popularity it also became necessary to prevent the proliferation of cheap overcalls since responder could not double for penalty. If, instead of the perfect negative double hand, you had a stack of good cards in the overcalled suit (a hand that you would have previously inspired a penalty double) you not only could not double, but with 5 or 6 cards in overcaller’s suit, you most likely had no suit to bid. Out of this dilemma was born the so called “automatic reopening double.”
Last Thursday I was dealt 9, K54, AJT8, A9842. When my RHO opened 1 spade. I decided to make a 2 club overcall, non-vul against vul opponents. I suppose some might double and others make an Unusual NT bid, but I thought 2 clubs best described my hand and was good lead direction. Now the bidding went pass, pass, pass, so the reopening double must not be “automatic” after all. This experience led me to believe that even among experienced bridge partnerships, there may be no definitive agreement on the standard to be applied to the reopening double. I asked several players about this and got a variety of comments. Here is a sampling.
(a) It is automatic, no questions!
(b) You do it if you have the right hand.
(c) You do it if you have a doubleton, single or void in the overcalled suit.
(d) You do it because your partner expects you to.
(e) You do it unless you have a minimum opening hand.
(f) The double shows extra values, so pass without them.
(g) You do because you don’t want to give up the hand.
What this indicates is that if you have not discussed this issue with your regular partners, now may not be too soon to do so. Oh, did I say that my LHO held K4, J, KQ42, KQJ753! His partner opened a 11 hcp “Rule of 20” hand and decided if there was an exception to the term “automatic”, his hand was it. Since he also had a single club, it was an ill fated decision.
Setting aside all the well intended advice I received, I decided to see what a real expert would say. In August of 2006, Karen Walker wrote an article in the Bridge Bulletin about this very subject in her series “12 Habits of Highly Effective Bidders.” Karen may lack the glitz of some of the top Bridge Super Stars, but she is very solid, reliable, sensible and an excellent writer. Her web site is always one of my first stops.
Karen rejects the concepts of “automatic” or “always double with shortness in overcaller’s suit.” She also rejects the concept of doubling “for partner” pointing out that except for rare occasions where partner has a monster trump stack, partner is not in a position to make a unilateral decision about whether to leave the double in. He needs to know whether opener’s hand is suitable for joining a defense.
Ideally opener should have not only shortness in the overcalled suit, but also support for the unbid suits and 2½ quick tricks. When you put this all together, a good guideline is that “if you were sitting behind overcaller and he opened rather than overcalled, would you make a take out double?” If so, make a reopening double, and if not pass or take some other appropriate action.
What if opener has a void in the overcalled suit, is that ideal? Hardly! First, the void gives opener extra length in the unbid suits, so the slow quick tricks like KQxxx may not be winners. Another reason is that when opener gets in, partner expects him to lead a trump through declarer. It is hard to lead a void (a certain director call) and the failure to lead through declarer often means that partner is going to ultimately get end played in the trump suit.
Do you pass with all hands that do not meet the “acid test” of a double? Obviously not. If you have a distributional hand such as 6-4 or 5-5, you are probably better off declaring, so you need to make a descriptive bid. If you have a strong single suited hand that is close to an opening 2 club bid (4 losing trick count), you can jump in your suit to show the strength. If you have a real good hand (again 4 LTC) without any clear direction, you can always make a cue bid forcing responder to describe his hand.
Assume partner has reopened the bidding, how do you know when to pass for penalties? Mel Colchamiro in his book “How to Play Like an Expert ….” advocated applying the Rule of 9 in determining when to leave in partner’s take out double. Since opener’s hand often looks like a take out double hand, I would apply the Rule of 9 to the reopening double as well. Her it is! Leave the double in if the total number of cards you have in overcaller’s suit + the total honors you have in that suit + the level of the contract equal 9.
So if the contract is 2 clubs doubled and you are sitting behind the overcaller with KQxxx, whack it! 5+2+2=9. Are you Smarter than a 3rd Grader?? Arrest your partner if he doesn’t show up with 2 1/2/quick.
To see some example hands where you should not make a reopening double see www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/negativedoubles_main,htm
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Bergen, Jacoby, Hardy, Joe Sargent and Concealed Splinters
I played with a real bridge savvy guy yesterday. It cost me $6.50 to sit down, but as tuition goes it was surely cheap. I am sure if he started counting his master points after Board 24, he would still be running the total. My partner is named in the title to this blog, can you identify him? Hint: Oswald Jacoby and Max Hardy have both played their last card, and Marty Bergen is retired.
One hand that we defended reminded me of importance of partnership understandings in defining the hand characteristics of Bergen Limit Raises, Jacoby 2NT and Splinter responses to major suit openers. I think your bidding skills and partnership communication will vastly improve if you start with the proposition that each of these responses should be narrowly defined and distinguishable.
Start with the easy one, the Bergen Limit Raise. For most pairs today that response is 3 clubs. It shows 10 to a bad 12 points, 4 card support and no singleton or void. Since responder’s hand may have little or no ruffing value (4333 is really ugly) it is highly invitational , but not forcing. If you are opener, even with a bad hand do not pass 3 clubs. I already did that in the finals of a Regional knockout – nobody on our team was entertained. The bar tab was a killer!
Move forward to the Splinter bid. If differs from the Bergen Limit Raise in that the splinter must have a single or void. It should also show 10 to a bad 12 points, but because of the shortness it is a game forcing bid. If you have a void rather than a single upgrade your hand a little. The splinter is shown by making a triple jump in the short suit. If your short suit is a single honor, do not show the hand as a splinter, downgrade it to a Bergen Limit Raise. In order to make a good hand valuation opposite a splinter, opener must be able to assume that all of your points are “working points.” For more detail on splinter valuation, see my earlier blog on splinter bids in the archive.
Most often the splinter bid will be at the 4 level so we have eaten up a lot of bidding space. This is what makes it so important that the bid be narrowly defined. Opener is not handcuffed, but he must count on you being within the defined range in making the slam/no slam decision. If opener bids anything other than 4 of the major, he is showing slam interest. There is no science involved if responder has 10 points one time and 17+ points another.
The Jacoby 2NT response also shows 4 card support, and it will have game forcing strength. It may resemble an overgrown Bergen Raise or an overgrown Splinter. It will be a minimum of a good 12 hcps, but the bid is unlimited in strength. In both the Bergen Limit Raise and the Splinter bid, opener is in charge of the hand and makes the crucial decisions. With the Jacoby 2NT bid, responder takes over the hand and is the "Captain of the Ship". Opener describes his hand strength and distribution and responder puts all 26 cards together and makes the final contract decision. Since responder is the decision maker, it really doesn’t matter that he has a singleton or void, or 12 or 22 points, he simply takes that into account in his hand analysis.
One of the problems of the Splinter bid is that you are giving information about responder’s hand distribution and the defender’s can read your smoke signals. The defender’s are being told where they should not expect tricks. A lead of the splinter suit will most often give declarer a “tempo” which may be all the hand needs to make the contract. Both Bergen and Hardy discussed the use of “concealed splinters” in connection with the Bergen Raise complex. With a splinter hand, responder jumps to the 3 level in the opposite major. Thus, 1h/3s or 1s/3h shows a concealed splinter raise. If opener has a big hand and wants to investigate slam, he asks for the shortness by bidding one step up (3s over 3h and 3NT over 3s). Responder then shows the short suit.
If the bidding is: 1s/3h(splinter)/3s(where?)- then 3NT(short clubs) or 4c(short diamonds) or 4h(short hearts).
If the bidding is:: 1h/3s(splinter)/3NT(where)- then 4c(short clubs) or 4d(short diamonds) or 4h( short spades).
That obviously has achieved no advantage over the traditional method, but if opener has no slam aspirations, he can simply bid game in the major directly, and then the location of the splinter has not been disclosed to the defenders. This also opens up all the direct four level calls in the unbid sits for whatever use you wish to make of them. One idea might be to have them show a void as opposed to a singleton. Another choice may be to show a good secondary 5+ card suit along with 4 card support.
After our opponent’s Jacoby 2NT sequence yesterday, the dummy came down with AT76, Q6, AJ8652, x. Do you like that 2 NT bid? Partner held QJ9543, K7, K7, A92 and did a fast arrival of 4 spades. The King of spades was offside, but it shows the dangers of getting the wrong hand in control. Just when you think you have clarified everything, a hand like this comes along. I’ll take criticism on this, but I am splintering that hand. Preferably a concealed splinter! Maybe 6 spades down 1. I would have had company!
One hand that we defended reminded me of importance of partnership understandings in defining the hand characteristics of Bergen Limit Raises, Jacoby 2NT and Splinter responses to major suit openers. I think your bidding skills and partnership communication will vastly improve if you start with the proposition that each of these responses should be narrowly defined and distinguishable.
Start with the easy one, the Bergen Limit Raise. For most pairs today that response is 3 clubs. It shows 10 to a bad 12 points, 4 card support and no singleton or void. Since responder’s hand may have little or no ruffing value (4333 is really ugly) it is highly invitational , but not forcing. If you are opener, even with a bad hand do not pass 3 clubs. I already did that in the finals of a Regional knockout – nobody on our team was entertained. The bar tab was a killer!
Move forward to the Splinter bid. If differs from the Bergen Limit Raise in that the splinter must have a single or void. It should also show 10 to a bad 12 points, but because of the shortness it is a game forcing bid. If you have a void rather than a single upgrade your hand a little. The splinter is shown by making a triple jump in the short suit. If your short suit is a single honor, do not show the hand as a splinter, downgrade it to a Bergen Limit Raise. In order to make a good hand valuation opposite a splinter, opener must be able to assume that all of your points are “working points.” For more detail on splinter valuation, see my earlier blog on splinter bids in the archive.
Most often the splinter bid will be at the 4 level so we have eaten up a lot of bidding space. This is what makes it so important that the bid be narrowly defined. Opener is not handcuffed, but he must count on you being within the defined range in making the slam/no slam decision. If opener bids anything other than 4 of the major, he is showing slam interest. There is no science involved if responder has 10 points one time and 17+ points another.
The Jacoby 2NT response also shows 4 card support, and it will have game forcing strength. It may resemble an overgrown Bergen Raise or an overgrown Splinter. It will be a minimum of a good 12 hcps, but the bid is unlimited in strength. In both the Bergen Limit Raise and the Splinter bid, opener is in charge of the hand and makes the crucial decisions. With the Jacoby 2NT bid, responder takes over the hand and is the "Captain of the Ship". Opener describes his hand strength and distribution and responder puts all 26 cards together and makes the final contract decision. Since responder is the decision maker, it really doesn’t matter that he has a singleton or void, or 12 or 22 points, he simply takes that into account in his hand analysis.
One of the problems of the Splinter bid is that you are giving information about responder’s hand distribution and the defender’s can read your smoke signals. The defender’s are being told where they should not expect tricks. A lead of the splinter suit will most often give declarer a “tempo” which may be all the hand needs to make the contract. Both Bergen and Hardy discussed the use of “concealed splinters” in connection with the Bergen Raise complex. With a splinter hand, responder jumps to the 3 level in the opposite major. Thus, 1h/3s or 1s/3h shows a concealed splinter raise. If opener has a big hand and wants to investigate slam, he asks for the shortness by bidding one step up (3s over 3h and 3NT over 3s). Responder then shows the short suit.
If the bidding is: 1s/3h(splinter)/3s(where?)- then 3NT(short clubs) or 4c(short diamonds) or 4h(short hearts).
If the bidding is:: 1h/3s(splinter)/3NT(where)- then 4c(short clubs) or 4d(short diamonds) or 4h( short spades).
That obviously has achieved no advantage over the traditional method, but if opener has no slam aspirations, he can simply bid game in the major directly, and then the location of the splinter has not been disclosed to the defenders. This also opens up all the direct four level calls in the unbid sits for whatever use you wish to make of them. One idea might be to have them show a void as opposed to a singleton. Another choice may be to show a good secondary 5+ card suit along with 4 card support.
After our opponent’s Jacoby 2NT sequence yesterday, the dummy came down with AT76, Q6, AJ8652, x. Do you like that 2 NT bid? Partner held QJ9543, K7, K7, A92 and did a fast arrival of 4 spades. The King of spades was offside, but it shows the dangers of getting the wrong hand in control. Just when you think you have clarified everything, a hand like this comes along. I’ll take criticism on this, but I am splintering that hand. Preferably a concealed splinter! Maybe 6 spades down 1. I would have had company!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Response to Bidding Quiz
In my last blog I showed two hands that were forwarded to me for a bidding opinion. To stimulate some interest, I asked my readers to comment on their own technique for opening these hands. The two obvious opening calls on each hand were either one spade or a forcing 2 clubs. While the responses included all 4 possible answers, the preponderance of elevated thought opened both hands 1 spade.
Hand One: KQ432, Q, AQ32, AKT. Open it 1 spade. For those who auger for 2 clubs, I ask “Where’s the beef?” I don’t see a forcing bid on tricks or on hcps (a bad 20). There are 4 LTC hands that I would open 2 clubs, and I think the modern trend is in that direction, but this is not one of them. If partner can’t muster up some kind of supporting bid (2,3 or 4 spades) or 1NT forcing, where are we going on this hand. If responder has as much as 6 hcps and sits on his hands, I’m heading for the partnership desk. I am assuming that we play jump shifts as forcing so there are no rebid problems.
I also think there is a risk in placing too much emphasis on Losing Trick Count before anyone has put their hand on a bidding box. While Ron Klinger did not invent LTC (it has been around since at least the 1930”s), his book, The Modern Losing Trick Count (1987) is today considered the unchallenged authority on the subject. At page 13 he states:
“The LTC can be used after a trump fit has been established. It is not designed for no trump hands and is quite unsuitable for misfit hands. Thus, it is vital that you do not envisage the LTC as replacing point count. It is used as an adjunct to point count when a trump fit comes to light. After the trump fit is known, the LTC will give a more accurate guide to the potential of the partnership hands.”
There is also this about LTC that is often forgotten and that is that there is a disconnect between the concept of losing trick count and winning tricks. A hand that has 4 LTC often does not have 9 Winning Tricks. Try this test out on either hand.
Jeff Rubens in his classic book on hand valuation, The Secrets of Winning Bridge (1969) states one of the principles of hand valuation: “PRINCIPLES OF HONORS WITH LENGTH: Other things being equal, honors are more valuable in your long sits than in short suits. The longer the suit in which the honor is located the more valuable the honor.” In an example he shows a hand Axxxx, xxxxx, AK, K and notes that the single club King is unguarded and as such loses much of its value.
Other features that show hand weakness are only 4 ½ quick tricks and only 6 controls. This may be more significant when compared with hand two which is stronger and has 5 Quick Tricks and 7 controls. I am keeping a list of those who voted to open this monstrosity with 2 clubs so I can protect myself!
Hand Two: AQxxx, AKT2, AQJ, 2. A much tougher case. I know good players (and some other self styled experts) who would open this two clubs. 4 LTC, 5 Quick Tricks, 7 controls and good defensive values, but still it fails to meet time honored standards. I am going to show my traditional values and reputation for foot slogging stodginess and open this one spade. I can hear the rhetoric now that I am risking getting passed out. That may be true, but not passed out in a probable game. I prefer not to dilute opener’s standards and rather rely on responder not to be shy if he has anything that looks like a plausible response. My odds of getting a response out of partner go up considerably when I only hold 20 hcps as opposed to 24-26, so the traditional danger of opening at the one level is mitigated.
I also think the communication will be better if the hand is opened 1 spade. The bidding structure and responses of a forcing 2 club opener are not what you call eloquent. Two diamonds “Waiting” or 2 hearts negative always leave you wondering. Even if responder bids his “controls”, opener may be left guessing about the club suit. With a singleton club, if exploration is warranted, wouldn’t you rather get into a cue bidding sequence? I think doing that successfully is more likely if you open 1 spade.
I am not saying that every 2 club opener has to be a crushing brute, only that it should represent some considerable guaranteed trick taking assets. I think there are some instructive examples of these types of hands in Max Hardy’s Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century (2000) at page 175-176.
One final caveat. If you are looking for expert bridge opinion you at the wrong web site.
Hand One: KQ432, Q, AQ32, AKT. Open it 1 spade. For those who auger for 2 clubs, I ask “Where’s the beef?” I don’t see a forcing bid on tricks or on hcps (a bad 20). There are 4 LTC hands that I would open 2 clubs, and I think the modern trend is in that direction, but this is not one of them. If partner can’t muster up some kind of supporting bid (2,3 or 4 spades) or 1NT forcing, where are we going on this hand. If responder has as much as 6 hcps and sits on his hands, I’m heading for the partnership desk. I am assuming that we play jump shifts as forcing so there are no rebid problems.
I also think there is a risk in placing too much emphasis on Losing Trick Count before anyone has put their hand on a bidding box. While Ron Klinger did not invent LTC (it has been around since at least the 1930”s), his book, The Modern Losing Trick Count (1987) is today considered the unchallenged authority on the subject. At page 13 he states:
“The LTC can be used after a trump fit has been established. It is not designed for no trump hands and is quite unsuitable for misfit hands. Thus, it is vital that you do not envisage the LTC as replacing point count. It is used as an adjunct to point count when a trump fit comes to light. After the trump fit is known, the LTC will give a more accurate guide to the potential of the partnership hands.”
There is also this about LTC that is often forgotten and that is that there is a disconnect between the concept of losing trick count and winning tricks. A hand that has 4 LTC often does not have 9 Winning Tricks. Try this test out on either hand.
Jeff Rubens in his classic book on hand valuation, The Secrets of Winning Bridge (1969) states one of the principles of hand valuation: “PRINCIPLES OF HONORS WITH LENGTH: Other things being equal, honors are more valuable in your long sits than in short suits. The longer the suit in which the honor is located the more valuable the honor.” In an example he shows a hand Axxxx, xxxxx, AK, K and notes that the single club King is unguarded and as such loses much of its value.
Other features that show hand weakness are only 4 ½ quick tricks and only 6 controls. This may be more significant when compared with hand two which is stronger and has 5 Quick Tricks and 7 controls. I am keeping a list of those who voted to open this monstrosity with 2 clubs so I can protect myself!
Hand Two: AQxxx, AKT2, AQJ, 2. A much tougher case. I know good players (and some other self styled experts) who would open this two clubs. 4 LTC, 5 Quick Tricks, 7 controls and good defensive values, but still it fails to meet time honored standards. I am going to show my traditional values and reputation for foot slogging stodginess and open this one spade. I can hear the rhetoric now that I am risking getting passed out. That may be true, but not passed out in a probable game. I prefer not to dilute opener’s standards and rather rely on responder not to be shy if he has anything that looks like a plausible response. My odds of getting a response out of partner go up considerably when I only hold 20 hcps as opposed to 24-26, so the traditional danger of opening at the one level is mitigated.
I also think the communication will be better if the hand is opened 1 spade. The bidding structure and responses of a forcing 2 club opener are not what you call eloquent. Two diamonds “Waiting” or 2 hearts negative always leave you wondering. Even if responder bids his “controls”, opener may be left guessing about the club suit. With a singleton club, if exploration is warranted, wouldn’t you rather get into a cue bidding sequence? I think doing that successfully is more likely if you open 1 spade.
I am not saying that every 2 club opener has to be a crushing brute, only that it should represent some considerable guaranteed trick taking assets. I think there are some instructive examples of these types of hands in Max Hardy’s Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century (2000) at page 175-176.
One final caveat. If you are looking for expert bridge opinion you at the wrong web site.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Short Bidding Quiz to Start Summer
It seems that I always need recertification as an expert authority on bidding. Since I have repeatedly denied any bridge expertise on this blog, I will turn to my real experts, my readers, to help me out. A reader sent these hands to me and asked how I would open the bidding. It is your turn to bid, you are in first seat, the game is match points, your card is Standard American or 2/1 and vulnerability is not an issue.
Here are the 2 hands:
Hand 1
KQ432
Q
AQ32
AKT
Hand 2
AQxxx
AKT2
AQJ
2
The first thing I always do with bidding questions is to make sure that there are 13 cards. Half the hands I get have 12 or 14, just waiting for me to pontificate on the bidding and not notice the card issue. I have gone for that for the last time. I also received assurance that this is not a trick question, that the selection should boil down to one of two possible bids. I saw a hand like this opened last week with 2 No Trump, and the result was a disaster, so I don’t think that is one of the choices. Now that is the end of the coaching, its your bid and you do not want to start “out of tempo.”
A long story or explanation is not necessary, but your pithy comments will be appreciated. If you are a bridge player you probably do not see an issue, a more opinionated bunch I have never run into. So if you just want to give it a hip shot and a “What’s the Problem”, that will be O.K. as well.
I am in Rochester, New York on my summer leave from the Florida heat, so don’t use your address book to e-mail your response. Send your answers and opinions to me at tommy@rochester.rr.com .
Have a nice summer.
Here are the 2 hands:
Hand 1
KQ432
Q
AQ32
AKT
Hand 2
AQxxx
AKT2
AQJ
2
The first thing I always do with bidding questions is to make sure that there are 13 cards. Half the hands I get have 12 or 14, just waiting for me to pontificate on the bidding and not notice the card issue. I have gone for that for the last time. I also received assurance that this is not a trick question, that the selection should boil down to one of two possible bids. I saw a hand like this opened last week with 2 No Trump, and the result was a disaster, so I don’t think that is one of the choices. Now that is the end of the coaching, its your bid and you do not want to start “out of tempo.”
A long story or explanation is not necessary, but your pithy comments will be appreciated. If you are a bridge player you probably do not see an issue, a more opinionated bunch I have never run into. So if you just want to give it a hip shot and a “What’s the Problem”, that will be O.K. as well.
I am in Rochester, New York on my summer leave from the Florida heat, so don’t use your address book to e-mail your response. Send your answers and opinions to me at tommy@rochester.rr.com .
Have a nice summer.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Rosencranz and Expanded Advances
My recent blog was intended to introduce Rosencrantz Doubles and Redoubles as responses to overcalls when Advancer (overcaller’s partner) has 3 card support. In what I thought was a “free toss”, I quickly dispatched advancer’s other supporting options as either a cue bid to show limit raise hands or a law of total tricks preemptive bid to show weaker hands with 4+ card support. “Incomplete and over generalized” says my Rochester, New York, partner Carol Van Der Voorn. “You wouldn’t make the same bid with 4 card support and 0-6 hcps as you would with 7-9 hcps, would you?”
Now even with a blog to flog with, you don’t want to mess with Carol. Three reasons: her beliefs about good bridge bidding are more than a little entrenched, she’s always ready with proof and citations and she is mostly right. I confess, I was trying to end the unrelated Rosencrantz discussions without putting too fine a point on “other supporting bids.” No such luck, back to the drawing board.
Let’s set up an auction: 1c/1h/x/? Here are the first two hands for Advancer: (i) xx, Qxxx, Qxxxx, xx and (ii) Ax, QJxx, xx, Jxxxx.
All my novice readers are on testosterone overload, so I think they would have no trouble bidding 3 hearts on hand (i). It is the new bridge that “the less you know the more important it is that you bid.” I was a guest in a novice game recently and I think I declared 1 hand! Hand (ii) is a little more troublesome. The usual choices are bidding 2 hearts, cue bidding 2 clubs (to show a limit raise and support) or preempting to 3 hearts..
Now if those are your only choices, I think in the long run with hand (ii) you will wish you had preempted by bidding 3 hearts. The hand is too weak for a cue bid and you run the risk that overcaller will misread your hand and run away with the auction. If you make the simple supporting bid of 2 hearts, as sure as God made green tomatoes you are going to hear opener bid 2 spades. Another sign of modern bridge, the pass and double cards are missing from the box, so everybody takes the push. Now without the “boss suit”, it will be hard to ever regain control of the auction.
The Mixed Raise
There is another choice for hand (ii) that I neglected to mention. The bid is some something called a ”mixed raise” which is shown by a jump cue bid in opener’s bid suit. It is a bid that is both preemptive and constructive, requires 4+ trump, generally has one defensive trick and will fall in the 7-9 hcp range. Mixed Raises usually have 8 or 9 Losing Trick Count.
Let’s look at a few more examples: (iii) Axx, Kxxxx ,xx, JTx (iv) Kxx, KJTx, Jxxx, xx (v) KJ43, KJ65, xx, xxx. All of these would be suitable for a mixed raise to 3 clubs in the example sequence.
Most of you play "Bergen" raises when you are responding to a major suit opening. The mixed raise has nothing to do with Bergen Raises, but note that all of the mixed raise hands look very much like the same hands that make a 3 diamond response playing Bergen Raises.
If overcaller has a standard overcall with 7 Losing Trick Count, he will simply bid 3 hearts and that ends the auction. If overcaller bids any other suit below 3 hearts it would be a game try. If Advancer has an 8 LTC hand he should accept and bid 4 hearts and with 9 LTC return to 3 hearts. Overcaller may bid 4 hearts directly with a strong overcall or excellent distribution. Remember that overcaller and advancer need to have a combined LTC of 14 or less to have a reasonable play for game.
The Fit Showing Jump
If you want a bid for every occasion, there are other supporting bids that Advancer can make. Now we are moving from intermediate play to the advanced category. Fit showing jumps show 4+ card length in overcaller’s suit, a good 5 card suit of your own with 2-3 working honors and 10-11 hcps.
The hand might look like this xx, KTxx AQxxx, Jx. Assume the same bidding sequence 1c/1h/x/?. To show the “fit showing jump” you jump in your 5 card suit, so in our sequence the bid would be 3 diamonds. You might say, well I could have made a simple cue bid on that hand. True enough, but with the fit showing jump you are passing additional vital information to overcaller. If overcaller holds the King of diamonds, his hand just got a whole lot better. Light contracts are made on double fits.
The Splinter
Surely you didn’t think I was done. The bidding is again 1c/1h/x/?. As advancer you hold xxx, QJTxx, AKxx, x. A cue bid could be made to do the job, but again it doesn’t really show the power of this hand, much of which lies in the single club. While it technically has only 10 hcps, the honors in sequence supporting each other and the singleton, make it a very strong playing hand in support of hearts. With this hand I think it is correct to show the splinter by bidding 4 clubs. Against any kind of disciplined overcall, this hand should have a good play for game.
So now if you combine the two ways to show 3 card support with Rosenkranz, the standard preemptive raise, the cue bid to show the limit raise, the Mixed Raise shown by the jump cue bid, the Fit Showing Jumps shown by jumping in your own 5 card suit and the Splinter Bid showing support and shortness, I believe you have a full menu to show your support for partner’s overcall. Now all you need is a graduate student at MIT for a partner!
Now even with a blog to flog with, you don’t want to mess with Carol. Three reasons: her beliefs about good bridge bidding are more than a little entrenched, she’s always ready with proof and citations and she is mostly right. I confess, I was trying to end the unrelated Rosencrantz discussions without putting too fine a point on “other supporting bids.” No such luck, back to the drawing board.
Let’s set up an auction: 1c/1h/x/? Here are the first two hands for Advancer: (i) xx, Qxxx, Qxxxx, xx and (ii) Ax, QJxx, xx, Jxxxx.
All my novice readers are on testosterone overload, so I think they would have no trouble bidding 3 hearts on hand (i). It is the new bridge that “the less you know the more important it is that you bid.” I was a guest in a novice game recently and I think I declared 1 hand! Hand (ii) is a little more troublesome. The usual choices are bidding 2 hearts, cue bidding 2 clubs (to show a limit raise and support) or preempting to 3 hearts..
Now if those are your only choices, I think in the long run with hand (ii) you will wish you had preempted by bidding 3 hearts. The hand is too weak for a cue bid and you run the risk that overcaller will misread your hand and run away with the auction. If you make the simple supporting bid of 2 hearts, as sure as God made green tomatoes you are going to hear opener bid 2 spades. Another sign of modern bridge, the pass and double cards are missing from the box, so everybody takes the push. Now without the “boss suit”, it will be hard to ever regain control of the auction.
The Mixed Raise
There is another choice for hand (ii) that I neglected to mention. The bid is some something called a ”mixed raise” which is shown by a jump cue bid in opener’s bid suit. It is a bid that is both preemptive and constructive, requires 4+ trump, generally has one defensive trick and will fall in the 7-9 hcp range. Mixed Raises usually have 8 or 9 Losing Trick Count.
Let’s look at a few more examples: (iii) Axx, Kxxxx ,xx, JTx (iv) Kxx, KJTx, Jxxx, xx (v) KJ43, KJ65, xx, xxx. All of these would be suitable for a mixed raise to 3 clubs in the example sequence.
Most of you play "Bergen" raises when you are responding to a major suit opening. The mixed raise has nothing to do with Bergen Raises, but note that all of the mixed raise hands look very much like the same hands that make a 3 diamond response playing Bergen Raises.
If overcaller has a standard overcall with 7 Losing Trick Count, he will simply bid 3 hearts and that ends the auction. If overcaller bids any other suit below 3 hearts it would be a game try. If Advancer has an 8 LTC hand he should accept and bid 4 hearts and with 9 LTC return to 3 hearts. Overcaller may bid 4 hearts directly with a strong overcall or excellent distribution. Remember that overcaller and advancer need to have a combined LTC of 14 or less to have a reasonable play for game.
The Fit Showing Jump
If you want a bid for every occasion, there are other supporting bids that Advancer can make. Now we are moving from intermediate play to the advanced category. Fit showing jumps show 4+ card length in overcaller’s suit, a good 5 card suit of your own with 2-3 working honors and 10-11 hcps.
The hand might look like this xx, KTxx AQxxx, Jx. Assume the same bidding sequence 1c/1h/x/?. To show the “fit showing jump” you jump in your 5 card suit, so in our sequence the bid would be 3 diamonds. You might say, well I could have made a simple cue bid on that hand. True enough, but with the fit showing jump you are passing additional vital information to overcaller. If overcaller holds the King of diamonds, his hand just got a whole lot better. Light contracts are made on double fits.
The Splinter
Surely you didn’t think I was done. The bidding is again 1c/1h/x/?. As advancer you hold xxx, QJTxx, AKxx, x. A cue bid could be made to do the job, but again it doesn’t really show the power of this hand, much of which lies in the single club. While it technically has only 10 hcps, the honors in sequence supporting each other and the singleton, make it a very strong playing hand in support of hearts. With this hand I think it is correct to show the splinter by bidding 4 clubs. Against any kind of disciplined overcall, this hand should have a good play for game.
So now if you combine the two ways to show 3 card support with Rosenkranz, the standard preemptive raise, the cue bid to show the limit raise, the Mixed Raise shown by the jump cue bid, the Fit Showing Jumps shown by jumping in your own 5 card suit and the Splinter Bid showing support and shortness, I believe you have a full menu to show your support for partner’s overcall. Now all you need is a graduate student at MIT for a partner!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles
Last week I had an inquiry about Rosenkranz. That would be George Rosenkranz, a world renowned chemist, the founder of a major drug company, a pioneer and leader in the development of steroids and one of Mexico’s leading citizens. He also is a bridge expert, winning 14 North American Championships, writing 11 books on bridge and a major inventor of bridge gadgets. Perhaps he is best known in the bridge world for the popular bridge convention that still bears his name, the Rosenkranz Double and Redouble. Although the conventional bid does not receive that much attention in Florida, in other areas of the country it is almost as routine as Stayman.
In general Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are used in response to an overcall by partner to describe your supporting length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. Let’s first work on Rosencrantz Doubles.
If the bidding has gone 1d/1h/1s, a Rosenkranz Double of the 1 spade bid is purely informational and would promise partner that you have exactly 3 card support for hearts and one or more of the top 3 honors in the suit. By way of contrast, if you bid 2 hearts over 1 spade instead of doubling, it would also indicate exactly 3 cards in the heart suit, but would deny any of the top three honors. If you made a Rosenkranz Double your hand might look like (a) xx, Kxx, Axxx, Jxxx. If you bid 2 hearts you might hold (b) Kx, JTx, Axxx, Jxxx. So already we have passed some useful information to partner.
The Rosenkranz Redouble is closely related, except in this case you right hand opponent has made a negative double rather than bidding 1 spade. So the bidding has gone 1d/1h/x/. Now, if you redouble you are showing three card support to one of the top three honors and if you bid 2 hearts you still show 3 card support but deny a top honor. So with hand (a) above you redouble and with hand (b) you bid 2 hearts.
We have covered 3 card support, what do you do with 4 or 5 card support? Exit George Rosenkranz and enter Larry Cohen. We follow the law of total tricks and bid to the appropriate level. You are now out of the realm of Rosenkranz and you are just upping the ante hoping to preempt opponents or on a good day actually buy the contract. Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are made on limited strength hands that are sufficient to make a single advance of the overcall. The hand should not have more 10 hcps. If you actually have 3+ card support and limit raise or greater values, then you must cue bid opener’s suit to pass this message to your partner. This is just old SAYC.
So now we can see that we have really sliced and diced advancer’s hand and completely described to overcaller the supporting strength, length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. This information may be useful to overcaller in competitive bidding, but let’s face it, when they open the bidding, most likely we are going to be defender’s and we want to get off to a good start without giving away a trick on the opening lead. Visualize that overcaller might hold AQxxx in the overcalled suit. The best defense may to be to grab our heart tricks before they go away. But is it safe to lead? If partner had made a simple raise he does not hold the King so you would not want to lead the suit, but rather wait for partner to lead it. If advancer has made a Rosenkranz Double or Redouble, advancer is marked with the King and you can either safely lead one of your honors or underlead the Ace/Queen if you want partner to lead back through declarer. Note that we also have an exact count on the heart suit.
I should point out that some play Rosenkranz as requiring one of the top 2 honors. That is only a matter of style, but it is good to talk to partner about it. There is more assurance of not making a disastrous lead playing the top 2 only, but you don’t get to use the convention as much. Experience will tell you, and as in most things in bridge, it boils down to trade offs. The use of Rosenkranz needs to be marked on your convention card and the use of the convention is alertable.
My recommendation is to start using Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles and fine tune your personal preference from there. There is very little downside, the convention has a relatively high level of occurrence and is easy to recognize. Partner will be happy to know that you have 3 card support, and even happier if you have one of the top three honors.
To my critics who allege that I never provide any useful stuff, this blog post is my best defense.
In general Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are used in response to an overcall by partner to describe your supporting length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. Let’s first work on Rosencrantz Doubles.
If the bidding has gone 1d/1h/1s, a Rosenkranz Double of the 1 spade bid is purely informational and would promise partner that you have exactly 3 card support for hearts and one or more of the top 3 honors in the suit. By way of contrast, if you bid 2 hearts over 1 spade instead of doubling, it would also indicate exactly 3 cards in the heart suit, but would deny any of the top three honors. If you made a Rosenkranz Double your hand might look like (a) xx, Kxx, Axxx, Jxxx. If you bid 2 hearts you might hold (b) Kx, JTx, Axxx, Jxxx. So already we have passed some useful information to partner.
The Rosenkranz Redouble is closely related, except in this case you right hand opponent has made a negative double rather than bidding 1 spade. So the bidding has gone 1d/1h/x/. Now, if you redouble you are showing three card support to one of the top three honors and if you bid 2 hearts you still show 3 card support but deny a top honor. So with hand (a) above you redouble and with hand (b) you bid 2 hearts.
We have covered 3 card support, what do you do with 4 or 5 card support? Exit George Rosenkranz and enter Larry Cohen. We follow the law of total tricks and bid to the appropriate level. You are now out of the realm of Rosenkranz and you are just upping the ante hoping to preempt opponents or on a good day actually buy the contract. Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are made on limited strength hands that are sufficient to make a single advance of the overcall. The hand should not have more 10 hcps. If you actually have 3+ card support and limit raise or greater values, then you must cue bid opener’s suit to pass this message to your partner. This is just old SAYC.
So now we can see that we have really sliced and diced advancer’s hand and completely described to overcaller the supporting strength, length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. This information may be useful to overcaller in competitive bidding, but let’s face it, when they open the bidding, most likely we are going to be defender’s and we want to get off to a good start without giving away a trick on the opening lead. Visualize that overcaller might hold AQxxx in the overcalled suit. The best defense may to be to grab our heart tricks before they go away. But is it safe to lead? If partner had made a simple raise he does not hold the King so you would not want to lead the suit, but rather wait for partner to lead it. If advancer has made a Rosenkranz Double or Redouble, advancer is marked with the King and you can either safely lead one of your honors or underlead the Ace/Queen if you want partner to lead back through declarer. Note that we also have an exact count on the heart suit.
I should point out that some play Rosenkranz as requiring one of the top 2 honors. That is only a matter of style, but it is good to talk to partner about it. There is more assurance of not making a disastrous lead playing the top 2 only, but you don’t get to use the convention as much. Experience will tell you, and as in most things in bridge, it boils down to trade offs. The use of Rosenkranz needs to be marked on your convention card and the use of the convention is alertable.
My recommendation is to start using Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles and fine tune your personal preference from there. There is very little downside, the convention has a relatively high level of occurrence and is easy to recognize. Partner will be happy to know that you have 3 card support, and even happier if you have one of the top three honors.
To my critics who allege that I never provide any useful stuff, this blog post is my best defense.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Road to Match Point Success
In the process of creating joy and happiness in my life, I find lots of ways to be unproductive. One of my hobbies is reading bridge books. Now that may not seem so unique, since thousands of new bridge books are sold each year, many of which are never opened. I depart from the crowd somewhat since the bridge books that I read are often 40 years old. This is what you do if you can’t play a lick!
There is nothing new about playing the cards. Good declarers and good defenders of yesteryear would be equally good today. The language of bridge is bidding, and the changes that have come in bridge are the development of its language. In no place is that more important than in match point play. The part of bridge linguistics that interests me most is its etymology, the origin and development of the language of bridge. There may be many out there that share that interest, but the only one I know personally is Jim Bailey, one of my partners in Rochester, New York.
The more you read old bridge books, the more you realize that the development of bridge language moves slowly and that change takes place over long periods of time. Players who have learned the game in the 21st century undoubtedly think the style called “two over one game force” (2/1) is cutting edge technology, recently discovered. Not so!
Last summer Jim and I were both reading “Five Card Majors Western Style” written by Max Hardy in 1974. Max was describing a bidding system almost identical to what we today call 2/1, and he attributed it’s development to two Los Angeles players, Richard Walsh and John Swanson, who had been developing it since the 1960’s. A reading of Max Hardy’s many subsequent books on this subject will show that in large measure what Max did for 25 years was tweak an old system and drive it to the fore front of bridge bidding; to the point that competitive bridge in the United States is today synonymous with that system.
The ACBL has about 350,000 members. What you may not know is that the European Bridge Union has more than twice that many members and very few of them know or care about 2/1. Although many systems are used though out the rest of the world, most of them are based on what is generally referred to as a “Big club System” where all strong hands are opened one club to facilitate better bidding with big hands.
In the interest of spreading my wings and learning more about those systems, I am in the early stages of learning to play Precision. I started backwards, first reading “Precision Today” by Brent Manley and David Berkowitz. I quickly realized to understand Precision Today you have to understand Precision yesterday. So, I have gone back to read some of the old books on Precision by C.C. Wie, Terrence Reese, Eric Jannersten and yes, even Charles Goren, all products of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
I am currently reading “Match Point Precision”, largely written by Ron Andersen, who is best known for his book “Lebensohl Complete.” Match Point Precision, last revised in 1978, is a connection between the system as it was developed by Wie, and the high power system that is played today by so many top professionals. Probably of more general interest are Andersen’s comments on the keys to success in match point play.
For starters, he says “The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.” With that introduction, he goes on to say that those who win consistently in match points are those who:
1. Use a comfortable, sound, workable bidding approach.
2. Exercise a fine working knowledge of duplicate bridge at the table. (Not the Monday Morning Quarterback type who always know what they, or more often their partner, should have bid or played after the hand or game is over.)
3. Have the ability to concentrate throughout a game or match. (Ouch, that hits home!!)
4. Use good judgment.
5. Are both opportunistic and observant.
6. Are able to get the most out of both partner and partnership by first and foremost being a good partner.
In concluding, the author mentions a 7th key that is more important than the rest. Making his point, he quotes Kipling who counseled “to meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same.”
So now we see that the one thing in bridge that has never changed is the road to duplicate success.
There is nothing new about playing the cards. Good declarers and good defenders of yesteryear would be equally good today. The language of bridge is bidding, and the changes that have come in bridge are the development of its language. In no place is that more important than in match point play. The part of bridge linguistics that interests me most is its etymology, the origin and development of the language of bridge. There may be many out there that share that interest, but the only one I know personally is Jim Bailey, one of my partners in Rochester, New York.
The more you read old bridge books, the more you realize that the development of bridge language moves slowly and that change takes place over long periods of time. Players who have learned the game in the 21st century undoubtedly think the style called “two over one game force” (2/1) is cutting edge technology, recently discovered. Not so!
Last summer Jim and I were both reading “Five Card Majors Western Style” written by Max Hardy in 1974. Max was describing a bidding system almost identical to what we today call 2/1, and he attributed it’s development to two Los Angeles players, Richard Walsh and John Swanson, who had been developing it since the 1960’s. A reading of Max Hardy’s many subsequent books on this subject will show that in large measure what Max did for 25 years was tweak an old system and drive it to the fore front of bridge bidding; to the point that competitive bridge in the United States is today synonymous with that system.
The ACBL has about 350,000 members. What you may not know is that the European Bridge Union has more than twice that many members and very few of them know or care about 2/1. Although many systems are used though out the rest of the world, most of them are based on what is generally referred to as a “Big club System” where all strong hands are opened one club to facilitate better bidding with big hands.
In the interest of spreading my wings and learning more about those systems, I am in the early stages of learning to play Precision. I started backwards, first reading “Precision Today” by Brent Manley and David Berkowitz. I quickly realized to understand Precision Today you have to understand Precision yesterday. So, I have gone back to read some of the old books on Precision by C.C. Wie, Terrence Reese, Eric Jannersten and yes, even Charles Goren, all products of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
I am currently reading “Match Point Precision”, largely written by Ron Andersen, who is best known for his book “Lebensohl Complete.” Match Point Precision, last revised in 1978, is a connection between the system as it was developed by Wie, and the high power system that is played today by so many top professionals. Probably of more general interest are Andersen’s comments on the keys to success in match point play.
For starters, he says “The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.” With that introduction, he goes on to say that those who win consistently in match points are those who:
1. Use a comfortable, sound, workable bidding approach.
2. Exercise a fine working knowledge of duplicate bridge at the table. (Not the Monday Morning Quarterback type who always know what they, or more often their partner, should have bid or played after the hand or game is over.)
3. Have the ability to concentrate throughout a game or match. (Ouch, that hits home!!)
4. Use good judgment.
5. Are both opportunistic and observant.
6. Are able to get the most out of both partner and partnership by first and foremost being a good partner.
In concluding, the author mentions a 7th key that is more important than the rest. Making his point, he quotes Kipling who counseled “to meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same.”
So now we see that the one thing in bridge that has never changed is the road to duplicate success.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Matchpoints and Major Suit Fits
If you dig back a ways in duplicate bridge, particularly during the days when 4 card majors were opened, from the outset the hand was bid in a manner to end up in no trump almost by default. While you still see 4-4 major suit fits being played in no trump contracts, modern bridge correctly teaches that these hands should most often be played in the major suit fit for the simple reason that they usually make an additional trick in the suit contract. The major reasons for this preference are:
1. The trump suit acts like a stopper if the opponents have a long suit to run or establish before declarer gets his ducks in order.
2. With the 4-4 fit, if either of the partners has a short suit, it can be ruffed in the other hand, and yet, most often, control of the trump suit is maintained.
3. If either hand contains a singleton, it is almost always preferable to play the 4-4 fit in the major suit.
If you are thinking of rejecting the major suit in favor of no trump, consider the following criteria.
1. Hand Strength. The 4-4 fit is almost always superior if the hand has 25-26 hcps, or to put it another way, to consider no trump on the hand, it should have extra values like 29-30 hcps. These extra values are insurance against the opponents running a suit. In the later case, most often both contracts will make 11 tricks.
2. Holding in Short Suits. The absence of middle honors (queens and jacks) in your short suits is a favorable factor in playing the suit contract. When your short suit is made up of Qx, opposite KJx, then the suit produces a natural trick and the value of the ruff goes away. Same thing with Jx opposite QT9.
3. Holding in 4 Card Side Suits. This issue is much like 2. above, but with a different face. If your 4 card side suit contains Queens and Jacks, the ruffing value is frequently wasted because you often end up ruffing out 3rd and 4th round natural winners. If your side suits are headed by Aces and Kings and otherwise have empty values, the shortness in the other hand will be useful in ruffing out losers in the suit.
4. Trump Holding. I know it seems like the 4-4 fit always faces a 4-1 split in the suit, but it only happens about a third of the time. But that is often enough. If the 4-4 trump suit contains good intermediate honors like KTxx opposite QJxx, the 4-1 split by itself will not create a loser. Conversely, if the suit is Axxx opposite Kxxx, the 4-1 split will always cost you an additional loser in the trump suit. Thus, if you reject the 4-4 major contract in favor of the no trump contract, it is best to do so when you suit has weak intermediate honors.
These criteria come from bridge expert Kit Woolsey in his book Matchpoints (1982). He says that unless you have 3 of the 4 criteria, play the 4-4 fit in the major suit, but it is better to have all 4 present. If you don’t want to draw subtle distinctions, stay with what your teacher told you! Play the 4-4 fit in the major.
The 5-3 fits in majors have the same considerations, but in that layout the shortness, if it is to have trick saving value, has to be in the hand with the short trump. Not as convincing a case, but still probably right. It also makes the case for playing the 4-4 fit as trump even if you have a 5-3 fit in the other major. The rule is pretty well known, but the reason often escapes even better players.
If the supporting hand is 4342 (three trump), with the doubleton it is almost always better playing the 5-3 fit than no trump. I fought that rule for a long time arguing that the possibility of doubleton vs. doubleton evened things out, but I am grudgingly giving up that position. In these cases, the hand with the 3 card support is probably in the best position to set the final contract. Even if the hand is 4333, no trump will only be the superior contract if the combined hands have all suits stopped and contain extra values.
Now don’t come to me with your tales of how two novices got all the matchpoints playing a hand with an 8 card major suit fit in no trump. More often than not, it is a case of the experts defending giving the hand less than an expert defense.
1. The trump suit acts like a stopper if the opponents have a long suit to run or establish before declarer gets his ducks in order.
2. With the 4-4 fit, if either of the partners has a short suit, it can be ruffed in the other hand, and yet, most often, control of the trump suit is maintained.
3. If either hand contains a singleton, it is almost always preferable to play the 4-4 fit in the major suit.
If you are thinking of rejecting the major suit in favor of no trump, consider the following criteria.
1. Hand Strength. The 4-4 fit is almost always superior if the hand has 25-26 hcps, or to put it another way, to consider no trump on the hand, it should have extra values like 29-30 hcps. These extra values are insurance against the opponents running a suit. In the later case, most often both contracts will make 11 tricks.
2. Holding in Short Suits. The absence of middle honors (queens and jacks) in your short suits is a favorable factor in playing the suit contract. When your short suit is made up of Qx, opposite KJx, then the suit produces a natural trick and the value of the ruff goes away. Same thing with Jx opposite QT9.
3. Holding in 4 Card Side Suits. This issue is much like 2. above, but with a different face. If your 4 card side suit contains Queens and Jacks, the ruffing value is frequently wasted because you often end up ruffing out 3rd and 4th round natural winners. If your side suits are headed by Aces and Kings and otherwise have empty values, the shortness in the other hand will be useful in ruffing out losers in the suit.
4. Trump Holding. I know it seems like the 4-4 fit always faces a 4-1 split in the suit, but it only happens about a third of the time. But that is often enough. If the 4-4 trump suit contains good intermediate honors like KTxx opposite QJxx, the 4-1 split by itself will not create a loser. Conversely, if the suit is Axxx opposite Kxxx, the 4-1 split will always cost you an additional loser in the trump suit. Thus, if you reject the 4-4 major contract in favor of the no trump contract, it is best to do so when you suit has weak intermediate honors.
These criteria come from bridge expert Kit Woolsey in his book Matchpoints (1982). He says that unless you have 3 of the 4 criteria, play the 4-4 fit in the major suit, but it is better to have all 4 present. If you don’t want to draw subtle distinctions, stay with what your teacher told you! Play the 4-4 fit in the major.
The 5-3 fits in majors have the same considerations, but in that layout the shortness, if it is to have trick saving value, has to be in the hand with the short trump. Not as convincing a case, but still probably right. It also makes the case for playing the 4-4 fit as trump even if you have a 5-3 fit in the other major. The rule is pretty well known, but the reason often escapes even better players.
If the supporting hand is 4342 (three trump), with the doubleton it is almost always better playing the 5-3 fit than no trump. I fought that rule for a long time arguing that the possibility of doubleton vs. doubleton evened things out, but I am grudgingly giving up that position. In these cases, the hand with the 3 card support is probably in the best position to set the final contract. Even if the hand is 4333, no trump will only be the superior contract if the combined hands have all suits stopped and contain extra values.
Now don’t come to me with your tales of how two novices got all the matchpoints playing a hand with an 8 card major suit fit in no trump. More often than not, it is a case of the experts defending giving the hand less than an expert defense.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Where's Tommy?
That’s the question that many of my readers have asked as I have not made a blog post since November 2008. Reports of my demise are largely rumor. Three things are going on that have impacted my availability.
There is, of course the economy, and getting my own little sand box in order has taken up a lot more time than I wanted to give it. I can’t imagine that some of my readers were not similarly distracted. I hope that is behind me for a lifetime.
I have also been suffering with a very painful case of bursitis. There are many bursae located throughout the body, little fluid sacks located near major joints. The ones that are troubling me are located near the Greater Trochanter (otherwise known as the hip bone) which have become inflamed. This is usually caused by some overuse problem, and will only get better when the overuse is corrected. In my case the irritant is sitting for any prolonged period of time. In order to get ahead of this problem I have had to give up most of my desk and computer time and severely limit my bridge and driving. With therapy and rest I have just started to feel some relief, and hope I will have it behind me soon. In the meantime, it is nice to be making some positive headway. It took a long time.
Last, but not least, I got an e-mail last September asking me if I would learn and play the Precision system of bridge. My challenges are not always wisely undertaken, and in this one I bit off a bunch. I have two partners in this venture with me so that together we play about 10 games a month. Since the Precision System is a stand alone system not based on any other major bidding system, it has been pretty much going back to square one. We all decided to base our play on a style used by David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen and outlined in a book entitled Precision Today of which Berkowitz is a co-author. The nice thing is that we are all on the same page with a given source of reference. The worst thing is that we often do not know what page we are on and often seem lost in the index.
We try to take our lumps in style and remember why we did it in the first place—intellectual curiosity. After about 6 months we are just getting our heads above water. Perhaps in a future post I will outline what we feel are the systemic advantages. At the moment, I doubt that Meckstroth and Rodwell are feeling the earth tremors. My next post will go up soon entitled “Double the Pleasure with Double Finesses.” Thanks for waiting around for me.
There is, of course the economy, and getting my own little sand box in order has taken up a lot more time than I wanted to give it. I can’t imagine that some of my readers were not similarly distracted. I hope that is behind me for a lifetime.
I have also been suffering with a very painful case of bursitis. There are many bursae located throughout the body, little fluid sacks located near major joints. The ones that are troubling me are located near the Greater Trochanter (otherwise known as the hip bone) which have become inflamed. This is usually caused by some overuse problem, and will only get better when the overuse is corrected. In my case the irritant is sitting for any prolonged period of time. In order to get ahead of this problem I have had to give up most of my desk and computer time and severely limit my bridge and driving. With therapy and rest I have just started to feel some relief, and hope I will have it behind me soon. In the meantime, it is nice to be making some positive headway. It took a long time.
Last, but not least, I got an e-mail last September asking me if I would learn and play the Precision system of bridge. My challenges are not always wisely undertaken, and in this one I bit off a bunch. I have two partners in this venture with me so that together we play about 10 games a month. Since the Precision System is a stand alone system not based on any other major bidding system, it has been pretty much going back to square one. We all decided to base our play on a style used by David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen and outlined in a book entitled Precision Today of which Berkowitz is a co-author. The nice thing is that we are all on the same page with a given source of reference. The worst thing is that we often do not know what page we are on and often seem lost in the index.
We try to take our lumps in style and remember why we did it in the first place—intellectual curiosity. After about 6 months we are just getting our heads above water. Perhaps in a future post I will outline what we feel are the systemic advantages. At the moment, I doubt that Meckstroth and Rodwell are feeling the earth tremors. My next post will go up soon entitled “Double the Pleasure with Double Finesses.” Thanks for waiting around for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
