It’s been about 5 years since I wrote my first blog post in 2005. In that time frame I posted about 120 times so I am entitled to post a holiday letter to my readers, all of whom I consider friends and family. It is not driven by exciting news and developments, I wish it were otherwise. It’s these crummy cheap cards that Alla buys me. My hand writing has deteriorated so much that I could hardly scribble Merry Christmas on them without running out of space. Maybe my Palmer Method (remember the ovals and push pulls) and the economy will return about the same time.
Alla and I continue to spend seven months of our year in Florida. It is hard to believe that we have lived in this paradise for 12+ years. About the only thing that has changed is the weather. When we first moved here we gleefully threw away all of our winter wardrobes. For the past 5 years it seems that we spend much of our time and money restoring the caps, coats, gloves, turtlenecks and sweaters. Last week we bought space heaters and for Christmas we are exchanging long silk underwear. How glamorous. We would come full circle if we could only once again experience the joys of paying New York State Income Tax!
The remaining 5 months of the year (usually May through September) we spend in ---- no, not Hawaii but in exotic Pittsford, New York. Hard to believe that we escaped and then got lured back, but to be honest we both love it. Back with family, old friends, new friends and roads often driven. My big event of the week is shopping at Pittsford Wegman’s grocery emporium. The deli area itself is the size of most super stores and loaded with the imported delicacies that can chew up your social security check in no time flat.
I am pleased to say that I think I have played my last round of golf. It was much akin to a mercy killing. I now enjoy the memories without any regrets and without aching joints. My golf scores were competing with my blood pressure and threatening my LDL. The good news is that Alla has become the family golfer and is now experiencing some of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. I must say that she handles it better than I ever did. Just as the sport did for me, it has introduced her to many friends and hours of pleasure spent with them.
My spare time these days is spent reading and sharing books with friends, engaging in mild exercise and playing duplicate bridge when ever my main job of going to doctors, dentists, therapists and pharmacies permits. Through my bridge activities I have met many new wonderful friends. It is also an outlet for my creative writing since for the past 5 years I have written a Bridge Blog that is read by many faithful readers throughout the world. Sixty years ago I took high school typing to avoid Chemistry. Probably the only good decision I made in the first 18 years of my life.
I also have an interest in genealogy and have 4 family histories in various stages of completion. I spent much of last summer tracking my Hazen and Miller families during their decades in Wisconsin throughout the middle 1800’s. I didn’t set foot in the state, but with the internet and historical records it felt like I was living with them every day. This experience also gave me the opportunity to meet many new friends, historians, fellow genealogists and unknown relatives via the internet and correspondence.
Well, I am already on page 2 and have not mentioned my two Norwegian Forrest cats yet. I am reminded by Axel who has just perched himself above my keyboard, tired of being ignored. His brother Virgil, who is not quite as gregarious, camps out in my bedroom, waiting for me to feed him a cat treat. They are both in the 14-15 year range and whatever part of my social security check that Wegman’s doesn’t get is direct deposited with our various veterinarians. I am hoping that Obama will extend health care to cats. Maybe it’s in the Health Care Bill that nobody has read.
Stay healthy, drink quality beverages and give everyone you love a big hug.
Tommy Solberg
tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Double Trouble
This post is about taking a second bid after you have made a take out double. Noted expert Max Hardy (RIP) stated:
“After making a take out double be careful not to get too excited when partner bids a suit you have suggested. Remember that partner’s call is a simple raise of a suit that your take out double has suggested. If your original call has shown all of your values you have no license to bid further even through you are pleased with what you have heard from partner. Perhaps the most common bidding error is a restatement of the same values that a take out bidder has already shown.”
Actually, if this post ended right here it would rank among my most important. Have you ever heard “don’t bid the same values and hand twice!
I am not known for brevity, so I’ll pursue more definitively what it requires to double and then bid? Expert Marshall Miles in Competitive Bidding for the 21st Century (2000) states “the best rule (for simple overcalls), although it is not always easy to apply, is that you shouldn’t be so strong that you are likely to miss game if partner fails to take action.” Max Hardy says “the (double and bid) auction shows a hand with fine values whose bidder feared that an overcall might be passed and game missed.” These are sensible rules, but you have to know the minimum level at which partner will protect you if you make a simple overcall.
In most practical discussions of ”double and bid” requirements we find that the hand should be one that has a strong suit that you would like to bid but is too strong for a simple overcall. Every time you fill out a convention card you take a position on simple overcalls in terms of high card points. The convention card asks you for the hcp range of your simple overcalls. Realizing that it can’t simply be a fixed number, the ACBL adds the work “usually.” So if you write in 8 to 16 (not uncommon) that means that normally your double and bid action starts at 17 hcps. “Normally” performs an important function, it allows you to apply discretion, the essence of duplicate bridge.
You can often tell the sophistication of bridge players by their “double and bid” action. A beginner will say “I do it whenever I feel like taking another bid in the auction.” The novice will profess to hold to the 17 standard, but slip and slide a little. If a 15 or 16 comes along they start worrying that partner won’t know that they have more than 8 hcps and just crank up another bid. Then we have the intermediates who never double and bid without 17, but of course they are prone to counting distributional points even though they have no known fit. If you are a “slipper and slider”, don’t blame partner if he puts you in game with a good 6 or 7 hcps.on hands with only 17 hcps. Here are some examples hands that experts feel warrant double and bid action:
Marshall Miles: AJ5, AJT763, AQ, K7. With K874, K9, 9865, 654 there is a good play for game, but partner will surely pass if you make a simple overcall. Double and bid hearts. Good suit and 19 hcps.
Max Hardy: A6, AKJ975, AQ6, 83. With K543, T2, K872, 654 you don’t want partner to pass. Sound the alarm, double and bid hearts with these 18 hcps.
Wednesday Night Game.com: Void, AJT965, AK6, A943. I can hear the snarls now, only 16 hcps! Remember we mentioned “Usually” and “discretion?” Just picture pard with 843, K842, 732, 652. Four hearts is cold but you will never hear from him if you start with an overcall,
Allan DeSerpa, author of Principles of Logical Bidding (1997), explains that when you double and bid, you have to be prepared to show your suit if the opponents bid and raise. If you do not, they will bury your suit. Suppose you have this hand: AJx, AJ432, Ax, AJ, with 19 hcps. The opponents bid and raise spades. Do you want to bid 3 hearts on your own in the auction at any vulnerability? If you do, make sure you have an understanding partner. In matchpoints it could just be a board, but in IMP’s it could be a long drive (or even a bus ride) home.
I was watching the finals of the Australian National Team Matches on BBO recently. It was a pair of grizzled veterans against a pair of juniors. A club was opened on the right and one of the oldsters held AQT2, AQJT5, QTx, xx. Opener wanted to bid his heart suit but he was worried about losing the potential spade fit, so he took his chances and doubled. Opener’s partner bid 3 clubs, so to stay in the auction overcaller now bid his hearts!! The commentator stated that he didn’t have the values for the bid and that there is a new and better way to show this hand without overstating it. Bid hearts first and then double when the club raise comes back around. This would have resulted in finding the spade fit at the 3 level instead of playing 4 hearts going down.
I grabbed my keyboard and in what looked more like polish than English asked what the “bid and double” required. The commentator said it shows a good hand, a good suit and a tolerance for the other unbid suits. I later jumped to a web site that I really like called WednesdayGame.com. In an overcall discussion I saw this hand as an example with one club opened on the right. The hand in 2nd position held AK632, AQ72, Q975, void.
The commentating expert said that overcaller had a good suit but should overcall 1 spade rather than double. He said the hand is a good hand but still an Ace or King short for “double and bid.” The auction went 1c/1s/2c/p/p/x. It was said that the double following the overcall completes the description of overcaller’s hand, 5 spades, a good hand and support for the unbid suits. So maybe if you don’t have enough to double and bid, you can bid and then double. Double trouble, discuss it with your partner.
I realize that there may be “conventional” ways to alleviate some of these problems such as “top and bottom cue bids” and "equal level conversion doubles.” Maybe I will explain one or the other some time, but they are really at a level beyond the scope of my intended readership.
The final situation to be discussed is a matchpoint issue that comes up in competitive bidding. Assume that you have made a take out double of a 1 spade opener with this hand x, Qxxx, Qxx, AKJxx. Following a pass by responder and advancer bids 2 clubs! and Opener now bids 2 spades. For sure overcaller wants to compete to 3 clubs, even on the law of total tricks, but how does partner know that your 3 club bid (a double and bid situation) is only competitive and not this hand: void, KQxx, KQxx, AKJTx? For some the answer is a cue bid of 3 spades, but now you have taken up a lot of space and a level higher. A second double might work, but it has risks of clarity. Does it show both a club fit and a big hand? Not really.
In this situation I prefer a partnership agreement that if overcaller bids 2NT (Alert) over 2 spades, it is a relay asking advancer to rebid clubs at the 3 level to play. If instead, doubler bids 3 clubs over 2 spades, it shows the big hand with a club fit and game interest.
Thanks to my loyal readership and my new readers as well, including Jay who just joined us from Thailand.
“After making a take out double be careful not to get too excited when partner bids a suit you have suggested. Remember that partner’s call is a simple raise of a suit that your take out double has suggested. If your original call has shown all of your values you have no license to bid further even through you are pleased with what you have heard from partner. Perhaps the most common bidding error is a restatement of the same values that a take out bidder has already shown.”
Actually, if this post ended right here it would rank among my most important. Have you ever heard “don’t bid the same values and hand twice!
I am not known for brevity, so I’ll pursue more definitively what it requires to double and then bid? Expert Marshall Miles in Competitive Bidding for the 21st Century (2000) states “the best rule (for simple overcalls), although it is not always easy to apply, is that you shouldn’t be so strong that you are likely to miss game if partner fails to take action.” Max Hardy says “the (double and bid) auction shows a hand with fine values whose bidder feared that an overcall might be passed and game missed.” These are sensible rules, but you have to know the minimum level at which partner will protect you if you make a simple overcall.
In most practical discussions of ”double and bid” requirements we find that the hand should be one that has a strong suit that you would like to bid but is too strong for a simple overcall. Every time you fill out a convention card you take a position on simple overcalls in terms of high card points. The convention card asks you for the hcp range of your simple overcalls. Realizing that it can’t simply be a fixed number, the ACBL adds the work “usually.” So if you write in 8 to 16 (not uncommon) that means that normally your double and bid action starts at 17 hcps. “Normally” performs an important function, it allows you to apply discretion, the essence of duplicate bridge.
You can often tell the sophistication of bridge players by their “double and bid” action. A beginner will say “I do it whenever I feel like taking another bid in the auction.” The novice will profess to hold to the 17 standard, but slip and slide a little. If a 15 or 16 comes along they start worrying that partner won’t know that they have more than 8 hcps and just crank up another bid. Then we have the intermediates who never double and bid without 17, but of course they are prone to counting distributional points even though they have no known fit. If you are a “slipper and slider”, don’t blame partner if he puts you in game with a good 6 or 7 hcps.on hands with only 17 hcps. Here are some examples hands that experts feel warrant double and bid action:
Marshall Miles: AJ5, AJT763, AQ, K7. With K874, K9, 9865, 654 there is a good play for game, but partner will surely pass if you make a simple overcall. Double and bid hearts. Good suit and 19 hcps.
Max Hardy: A6, AKJ975, AQ6, 83. With K543, T2, K872, 654 you don’t want partner to pass. Sound the alarm, double and bid hearts with these 18 hcps.
Wednesday Night Game.com: Void, AJT965, AK6, A943. I can hear the snarls now, only 16 hcps! Remember we mentioned “Usually” and “discretion?” Just picture pard with 843, K842, 732, 652. Four hearts is cold but you will never hear from him if you start with an overcall,
Allan DeSerpa, author of Principles of Logical Bidding (1997), explains that when you double and bid, you have to be prepared to show your suit if the opponents bid and raise. If you do not, they will bury your suit. Suppose you have this hand: AJx, AJ432, Ax, AJ, with 19 hcps. The opponents bid and raise spades. Do you want to bid 3 hearts on your own in the auction at any vulnerability? If you do, make sure you have an understanding partner. In matchpoints it could just be a board, but in IMP’s it could be a long drive (or even a bus ride) home.
I was watching the finals of the Australian National Team Matches on BBO recently. It was a pair of grizzled veterans against a pair of juniors. A club was opened on the right and one of the oldsters held AQT2, AQJT5, QTx, xx. Opener wanted to bid his heart suit but he was worried about losing the potential spade fit, so he took his chances and doubled. Opener’s partner bid 3 clubs, so to stay in the auction overcaller now bid his hearts!! The commentator stated that he didn’t have the values for the bid and that there is a new and better way to show this hand without overstating it. Bid hearts first and then double when the club raise comes back around. This would have resulted in finding the spade fit at the 3 level instead of playing 4 hearts going down.
I grabbed my keyboard and in what looked more like polish than English asked what the “bid and double” required. The commentator said it shows a good hand, a good suit and a tolerance for the other unbid suits. I later jumped to a web site that I really like called WednesdayGame.com. In an overcall discussion I saw this hand as an example with one club opened on the right. The hand in 2nd position held AK632, AQ72, Q975, void.
The commentating expert said that overcaller had a good suit but should overcall 1 spade rather than double. He said the hand is a good hand but still an Ace or King short for “double and bid.” The auction went 1c/1s/2c/p/p/x. It was said that the double following the overcall completes the description of overcaller’s hand, 5 spades, a good hand and support for the unbid suits. So maybe if you don’t have enough to double and bid, you can bid and then double. Double trouble, discuss it with your partner.
I realize that there may be “conventional” ways to alleviate some of these problems such as “top and bottom cue bids” and "equal level conversion doubles.” Maybe I will explain one or the other some time, but they are really at a level beyond the scope of my intended readership.
The final situation to be discussed is a matchpoint issue that comes up in competitive bidding. Assume that you have made a take out double of a 1 spade opener with this hand x, Qxxx, Qxx, AKJxx. Following a pass by responder and advancer bids 2 clubs! and Opener now bids 2 spades. For sure overcaller wants to compete to 3 clubs, even on the law of total tricks, but how does partner know that your 3 club bid (a double and bid situation) is only competitive and not this hand: void, KQxx, KQxx, AKJTx? For some the answer is a cue bid of 3 spades, but now you have taken up a lot of space and a level higher. A second double might work, but it has risks of clarity. Does it show both a club fit and a big hand? Not really.
In this situation I prefer a partnership agreement that if overcaller bids 2NT (Alert) over 2 spades, it is a relay asking advancer to rebid clubs at the 3 level to play. If instead, doubler bids 3 clubs over 2 spades, it shows the big hand with a club fit and game interest.
Thanks to my loyal readership and my new readers as well, including Jay who just joined us from Thailand.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Finessing to Eliminate a Guess
A common card combination we see almost every time we play bridge is something like A432 opposite QT65. You need to play this for 3 tricks. We all learn early that the correct play is Ace and then small toward the Q-10. If your opponent follows with a small card on the second lead, then you are left with a guess as to the location of the King so your chances are 50-50 of getting your 3 tricks.
Louis Watson’s Play of the Hand at Bridge (1933) remains the classic reference for playing the bridge hands correctly. In a sub-part dealing with advanced finesses, Watson displays a hand that is somewhat similar to the one discussed in the above:
QT98 (Dummy/North)
A742 (Declarer/South)
Again the object is to take 3 tricks. Assume no bidding or prior play that suggests the location of specific cards. If you apply what you know from the first example you would lay down the Ace and then play low to the queen-ten, again subjecting yourself to a guess on the location of the King. What Watson has done is add some middle cards his hand to create finessing positions in each hand instead of just one. Q-T in the dummy which we can use to finesse the jack and A-7 in the hand over the King once the Jack is played. If you start with the Ace you will give up one of these critical finessing positions so don’t lay down the Ace. If you remember just that, you will dramatically increase your chances for 3 tricks. But this is Watson’s hand and he wants you to start by leading the Queen from the North hand. Here is a summary of his explanation:
Scenario I: First, give East Kx and give West Jx. You can distribute the 5th card to either defender. West has the King and it makes no difference whether he covers or not. If he covers you play the Ace and you have the three tricks you need by simply smoking out the Jack. If West doesn’t cover the Queen wins, and since there are only 3 cards left in the suit after trick one, and you cannot lose more than 1 trick. Scenario II: Now switch the location of the King and Jack. If West has the King and captures the Queen, you are down to 3 cards missing the Jack. The next time South gets the lead he runs the 10 through East finessing the Jack. Scenario III. Give KJx to East. East can cover or not, but he will still only gets one trick in the suit. Scenario IV. Give West KJx. In this case we cannot prevent West from getting two tricks. We have three winning scenarios and one losing scenario. By leading the Queen first you have eliminated the guess on the finesse and increased your chance of making 3 tricks in the suit from 50% to 75%.
Hugh Kelsey in his book Bridge Odds for Practical Players (1980) has a little different take on the same combination. It is the same idea, but he says that if you start with the 10 from the North hand rather than the Queen, you increase your chances by another 2% to 77%. This is because you will win 3 tricks not only when the array breaks 3-2, but also when when East has KJxx as well. As usual, he is right.
Mike Lawrence recently gave this age old problem a different approach on his excellent web site Bridge Clues http://www.bridgeclues.com/. His co-host is Anne Lund, a bridge expert, director and teacher from California. If you have not visited the site, I urge you to do so. There are both bidding and play problems at 3 different levels and they change daily. Mike suggests rather than leading the Queen or ten from the dummy, that you start from the South hand and lead a small card toward the Queen.
We have now changed the orientation a little because declarer will win three tricks any time both honors are in the same hand and also when East holds the King and West holds the Jack. It will lose if East holds the Jack and West holds the King. But let’s examine that winning scenario a little closer.
You are West and hold Kxx. When I lead small toward the QT98 what are you going to play? Well I hope you didn’t go up with the King. If you ducked my plan is to put in the 10 which your partner will win with the Jack. I will now lose two tricks since you still get your King. If you popped the King, I am ducking and your partner’s Jack gets smothered on the next trick. You turned my 75% chance into a 100% chance. You screwed up the only combination that wins for you.
Let’s make the cheese a little more binding! You hold Kx and partner holds Jxx. I lead small to the Queen. You are one helluva bridge player if you ducked smoothly and held onto your King. If you go up with the King same result, wine into vinegar. If you duck it is correct for me to put in the ten which loses to pard’s jack. Now I finesse pard for the King the next time I get in (also the percentage play) and you smile and win with your stiff King. Fixed Again!!
A couple of observations. If you play small to the queen you are no worse off since against perfect defense you can win three tricks only 75% of the time. It is human nature to take tricks when offered and preying on natural instincts is often winning bridge. If you go into the tank with the Kx declarer might figure it out and drop your King doubleton on the second lead even though the a priori odds on the play are less than 3%. So don’t turn a 3% play into a 100% play either. Did I mention it is a tough play???
This may be a bit hard to follow in prose, so get out 13 cards and set them up in any of the hypothetical arrays that I have suggested. If I am wrong, feel free to write either Watson or Kelsey in Bridge Heaven. Please don’t bother Mike Lawrence. If you have figured out some 4-1 distributions or 5-0 distributions that produce nightmares, that is not what this blog post is about. The residue will split 2-3 2/3rds of the time and I am going with the odds. Did you catch that memory hook?
Louis Watson’s Play of the Hand at Bridge (1933) remains the classic reference for playing the bridge hands correctly. In a sub-part dealing with advanced finesses, Watson displays a hand that is somewhat similar to the one discussed in the above:
QT98 (Dummy/North)
A742 (Declarer/South)
Again the object is to take 3 tricks. Assume no bidding or prior play that suggests the location of specific cards. If you apply what you know from the first example you would lay down the Ace and then play low to the queen-ten, again subjecting yourself to a guess on the location of the King. What Watson has done is add some middle cards his hand to create finessing positions in each hand instead of just one. Q-T in the dummy which we can use to finesse the jack and A-7 in the hand over the King once the Jack is played. If you start with the Ace you will give up one of these critical finessing positions so don’t lay down the Ace. If you remember just that, you will dramatically increase your chances for 3 tricks. But this is Watson’s hand and he wants you to start by leading the Queen from the North hand. Here is a summary of his explanation:
Scenario I: First, give East Kx and give West Jx. You can distribute the 5th card to either defender. West has the King and it makes no difference whether he covers or not. If he covers you play the Ace and you have the three tricks you need by simply smoking out the Jack. If West doesn’t cover the Queen wins, and since there are only 3 cards left in the suit after trick one, and you cannot lose more than 1 trick. Scenario II: Now switch the location of the King and Jack. If West has the King and captures the Queen, you are down to 3 cards missing the Jack. The next time South gets the lead he runs the 10 through East finessing the Jack. Scenario III. Give KJx to East. East can cover or not, but he will still only gets one trick in the suit. Scenario IV. Give West KJx. In this case we cannot prevent West from getting two tricks. We have three winning scenarios and one losing scenario. By leading the Queen first you have eliminated the guess on the finesse and increased your chance of making 3 tricks in the suit from 50% to 75%.
Hugh Kelsey in his book Bridge Odds for Practical Players (1980) has a little different take on the same combination. It is the same idea, but he says that if you start with the 10 from the North hand rather than the Queen, you increase your chances by another 2% to 77%. This is because you will win 3 tricks not only when the array breaks 3-2, but also when when East has KJxx as well. As usual, he is right.
Mike Lawrence recently gave this age old problem a different approach on his excellent web site Bridge Clues http://www.bridgeclues.com/. His co-host is Anne Lund, a bridge expert, director and teacher from California. If you have not visited the site, I urge you to do so. There are both bidding and play problems at 3 different levels and they change daily. Mike suggests rather than leading the Queen or ten from the dummy, that you start from the South hand and lead a small card toward the Queen.
We have now changed the orientation a little because declarer will win three tricks any time both honors are in the same hand and also when East holds the King and West holds the Jack. It will lose if East holds the Jack and West holds the King. But let’s examine that winning scenario a little closer.
You are West and hold Kxx. When I lead small toward the QT98 what are you going to play? Well I hope you didn’t go up with the King. If you ducked my plan is to put in the 10 which your partner will win with the Jack. I will now lose two tricks since you still get your King. If you popped the King, I am ducking and your partner’s Jack gets smothered on the next trick. You turned my 75% chance into a 100% chance. You screwed up the only combination that wins for you.
Let’s make the cheese a little more binding! You hold Kx and partner holds Jxx. I lead small to the Queen. You are one helluva bridge player if you ducked smoothly and held onto your King. If you go up with the King same result, wine into vinegar. If you duck it is correct for me to put in the ten which loses to pard’s jack. Now I finesse pard for the King the next time I get in (also the percentage play) and you smile and win with your stiff King. Fixed Again!!
A couple of observations. If you play small to the queen you are no worse off since against perfect defense you can win three tricks only 75% of the time. It is human nature to take tricks when offered and preying on natural instincts is often winning bridge. If you go into the tank with the Kx declarer might figure it out and drop your King doubleton on the second lead even though the a priori odds on the play are less than 3%. So don’t turn a 3% play into a 100% play either. Did I mention it is a tough play???
This may be a bit hard to follow in prose, so get out 13 cards and set them up in any of the hypothetical arrays that I have suggested. If I am wrong, feel free to write either Watson or Kelsey in Bridge Heaven. Please don’t bother Mike Lawrence. If you have figured out some 4-1 distributions or 5-0 distributions that produce nightmares, that is not what this blog post is about. The residue will split 2-3 2/3rds of the time and I am going with the odds. Did you catch that memory hook?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Surviving with Queens and Jacks in No Trump
Queens and Jacks, even if they are supported by other non-honor cards, are not very valuable in suit contracts, since tricks that can be won only after 2 or 3 leads of the suit often disappear. In no trump contracts, these middle cards take on more value as they can become stoppers in the suit and produce a trick. The following discussion assumes entries are not a problem.
1. Assume you are declaring a no trump contract. You hold QJx in a suit and dummy has xxx.
(a) What is the probability this holding will provide a stopper in the suit and produce a trick if opponents lead the suit?
(b) Does it make and difference if opponents do not lead this suit and force you to lead it?
(c) If your contract was dependent on this combination producing a trick would you still bid it?
2. Assume again you are declaring in no trump. You hold Qxx and when the opening lead comes down you see Jxx in the dummy.
(a) Is this combination any different that the first combination in result?
(b) If so, is it more or less vulnerable if opponents lead the suit?
(c) If your contract was dependent on this combination producing a trick would you still bid it?
3. Does the fact that declarer hold 6 cards in the suit have any practical significance in either case?
Here is the discussion of each issue:
1. The holding of QJx in any hand will produce a guaranteed stopper except where the A and K are both sitting behind the QJx. Thus, if held by declarer (always South), it is a winner when East holds AK (25%), or when the A and K are split between the two defenders (50% since they can split 2 ways) but loses to AK West (25%). Thus it is a guaranteed stopper and will produce a trick 75% of the time. With this holding it does not make any difference if opponents lead the suit or if declarer is forced to lead the suit, the probabilities remain the same. With a 75% probability I want to be in the contract every time. It’s like asking if you would like a 75% game. If West holds the AK, hopefully your disappointment will be shared by many others.
2. In the case where Qxx is in one hand and Jxx in the other, the situation changes somewhat. Note that if opponents lead this suit, it will produce a trick 100% of the time as long as declarer ducks on the hand to first play to the trick. With this holding you are happy to have the suit played on opening lead. That is the good news. The bad news is that if declarer if forced to play this suit it becomes a 50% proposition and will not produce a winner when the A and K are divided between the opponent’s two hands. If you merge the two probabilities you still have a 75% chance of making a trick, so I still want to be in the contract.
3. Note in each case you had 6 cards in the suit. One of the concerns is opponent’s holding in the suit will split 5-2 and they may be able to run 5 tricks before you get your track shoes on. The defenders will hold a 5+ card holding only 1/3 of the time and only 1/6 of the time will opening leader have that holding. This provides some additional element of safety. You probably noticed that QJx opposite xx will also produce a stopper and a trick 75% of the time. But now you only have 5 cards in the suit and the odds of one of the opponents holding 5+ cards in the suit has doubled.
If the suit is not led on the opening lead, this information can be helpful in planning your further play. Do you take the opportunity/risk to set up a trick in another suit for an overtrick or should you take your tricks and run. With QJx only one holding of four can hurt you. With Qxx opposite Jxx, two holdings of four can doom your contract. Do you run the risk for an overtrick? If the scoring is IMPs, whether a game or part score contract, I would take the guaranteed plus score and not take any risk for an overtrick. In matchpoints I would try for the overtrick with either a 75% or 50% chance of success. The odds feel right to me.
What if there is an overcall and partner makes a Western Cue bid? Do you treat QJx as a stopper? What about Qxx? We ask questions, you decide!!
If you are defending and sense that declarer may have one of these holdings it is seldom right to lead the suit unless you see your tricks are going away. When you declare, you may have sensed that it is often advantageous to put opponents in the lead and let them solve your problem. Now you know why.
1. Assume you are declaring a no trump contract. You hold QJx in a suit and dummy has xxx.
(a) What is the probability this holding will provide a stopper in the suit and produce a trick if opponents lead the suit?
(b) Does it make and difference if opponents do not lead this suit and force you to lead it?
(c) If your contract was dependent on this combination producing a trick would you still bid it?
2. Assume again you are declaring in no trump. You hold Qxx and when the opening lead comes down you see Jxx in the dummy.
(a) Is this combination any different that the first combination in result?
(b) If so, is it more or less vulnerable if opponents lead the suit?
(c) If your contract was dependent on this combination producing a trick would you still bid it?
3. Does the fact that declarer hold 6 cards in the suit have any practical significance in either case?
Here is the discussion of each issue:
1. The holding of QJx in any hand will produce a guaranteed stopper except where the A and K are both sitting behind the QJx. Thus, if held by declarer (always South), it is a winner when East holds AK (25%), or when the A and K are split between the two defenders (50% since they can split 2 ways) but loses to AK West (25%). Thus it is a guaranteed stopper and will produce a trick 75% of the time. With this holding it does not make any difference if opponents lead the suit or if declarer is forced to lead the suit, the probabilities remain the same. With a 75% probability I want to be in the contract every time. It’s like asking if you would like a 75% game. If West holds the AK, hopefully your disappointment will be shared by many others.
2. In the case where Qxx is in one hand and Jxx in the other, the situation changes somewhat. Note that if opponents lead this suit, it will produce a trick 100% of the time as long as declarer ducks on the hand to first play to the trick. With this holding you are happy to have the suit played on opening lead. That is the good news. The bad news is that if declarer if forced to play this suit it becomes a 50% proposition and will not produce a winner when the A and K are divided between the opponent’s two hands. If you merge the two probabilities you still have a 75% chance of making a trick, so I still want to be in the contract.
3. Note in each case you had 6 cards in the suit. One of the concerns is opponent’s holding in the suit will split 5-2 and they may be able to run 5 tricks before you get your track shoes on. The defenders will hold a 5+ card holding only 1/3 of the time and only 1/6 of the time will opening leader have that holding. This provides some additional element of safety. You probably noticed that QJx opposite xx will also produce a stopper and a trick 75% of the time. But now you only have 5 cards in the suit and the odds of one of the opponents holding 5+ cards in the suit has doubled.
If the suit is not led on the opening lead, this information can be helpful in planning your further play. Do you take the opportunity/risk to set up a trick in another suit for an overtrick or should you take your tricks and run. With QJx only one holding of four can hurt you. With Qxx opposite Jxx, two holdings of four can doom your contract. Do you run the risk for an overtrick? If the scoring is IMPs, whether a game or part score contract, I would take the guaranteed plus score and not take any risk for an overtrick. In matchpoints I would try for the overtrick with either a 75% or 50% chance of success. The odds feel right to me.
What if there is an overcall and partner makes a Western Cue bid? Do you treat QJx as a stopper? What about Qxx? We ask questions, you decide!!
If you are defending and sense that declarer may have one of these holdings it is seldom right to lead the suit unless you see your tricks are going away. When you declare, you may have sensed that it is often advantageous to put opponents in the lead and let them solve your problem. Now you know why.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Game Tries-- Are you Game or Do You Just Smell That Way?
No offense intended in the title. My first disclosure is that I made a game try yesterday afternoon accepted by my partner and we both ended up like Peking Duck on a spit. Here is my hand so you can savor it. AQJ9xx, xx, AK, xxx. The auction was 1s/2s. Your bid Oswald! Here are the understandings of the partnership: 2nd suit game tries (a/k/a help suit tries) and in a competitive auction a re-raise asks about the quality of trump support.
Many experts (including Ron Klinger and Mel Colchamiro) and countless bridge teachers have advised their readers and students to follow the rule of 5-6-7. Bid game with 5 Losing Trick Count (LTC), make a game try with 6 LTC and pass with 7+LTC. In fairness to Mel, he later enunciated a different and safer rule for 5-4-2-2 hands but that is not germane to my hand. My hand is a 6 LTC hand, so I started looking for a way to invite.
I didn’t have a second suit (you can’t use 2nd suit help suit on a 3 card suit) and I wasn’t particularly interested in partners trump quality since I was 50-50 to pick up the King even if partner didn’t have it. This gave me pause for thought, but I apparently need a longer pause and more thought. I decided that given the limitations of our agreements it might be reasonable to use the re-raise as an omnibus game try asking partner to simply evaluate the quality of his raise. Standing ready to absolve partner of any blame if she did not figure this out, I bid 3 spades, partner bid 4 and we learned to make perfect circles on our personal scorecards.
What observations will help avoid this huge embarrassment the next time?
1. When I couldn’t find the right bid I should have passed. My hand also demonstrates that there are times when “Help Suit” will not help and trump quality is not the primary concern. We (and I think most regular partnerships) needed a more flexible agreement on game tries.
2. My hand met all the prominent tests for a game try, 6 LTC, 3 ½ Quick tricks, 5 controls and a good 6 card suit. Actually, the “don’t blame me refrain” is somewhat weak. For one thing, half my points and 3 of my controls were in a 2 card suit. You want your controls and touching honors in suits in which you have length so you can make tricks from little cards. Second, even with a 6 card suit, I had the worst possible distribution: 6-3-2-2. Third, if I visualized the hand that partner would need to have to make game, it really boils down to controls, Ace, Kings and singles and voids. Queens and Jacks are worthless. Although a short suit game try (asking partner where he had shortness or 2nd round control) might have been better that was not our agreement. Even if our bidding had more precision, my game try was too aggressive for matchpoints.
3. Partner never saw an invite that she didn’t want to accept and it didn’t help that it was the last set of boards. We suffered the ultimate indignity of going down 2 in 4 spades when the field was making 2 spades. At least we played it well! This brings me to another point. You need an understanding with your partner about who does the stretching to reach games. In matchpoints (in spite of my bid) I prefer sound game tries by opener so that responder can stretch a bit on hands that smell like game. This strategy will keep us at 2 of the major on high risk trials. The bottom of the barrel is to be in 3 of a major down one because nobody else thought your hand was worth a try. If the scoring is IMPS, I think the understanding should be just the other way around. Games are a big premium (particularly vulnerable) and you can’t get there if you don’t try. David Berkowitz recently reiterated a comment that Jim Jacoby make to him about IMP game tries: “Don’t make them vulnerable, just bid the game.”
4. Another way to add more certainty to game tries is to use "semi- constructive" major suit raises. With this understanding partner does not raise the major unless he has a really good 7+ to 10 hcps. With lesser hands and 3 card support he first bids 1NT (forcing) and then supports the major at the 2 level. This helps prevent useless game tries since you know in advance that partner does not have a strong raise. The argument against this is that 2 of the major is more preemptive than 1NT and forcing opponents to enter at the 3 level has its virtues in competitive auctions. Choices, Choices!
Steve Robinson, a well known bridge expert, conducts a bidding survey among his expert friends every other month. It is published on the District Six web site http://www.districtsix.org. Recently he asked 20+ bridge professionals about game tries and as you can imagine he got some support for every kind of game try known to the bridge world. There were two consistent themes.
Very few experts like 2nd suit game tries for the very simple reason that they give the opponents too much information about the opening lead and defense. Eric Compton said “Disclosing your hand at IMP’s is losing bridge.” Larry Cohen said “I don’t like to tell.” Marty Bergen said “the very last thing declarer should do is tell the enemy which suit he is weak in.”
I have to say that the re-raise system we used did not give away any information t our opponents or to each other for that matter!!
What has evolved at advanced levels are two way and three way game tries where one of the options is to ask responder to further describe his hand. Many of these trials ask responder in what suit he would accept a game try. Responder bids his positive responses up the line and the major suit at the 3 level as a rejection of the trial. This discloses nothing about opener’s hand and only gives information about the dummy. Not much of a gift!
One such system would have the next bidding level after the raise ask responder for a suit in which he would support a trial. (Ex. 1h/2h/2s or 1s/2s/2NT). In the heart example 2NT is a surrogate bid for spades so there is no overshoot. If 1s/2s/2NT, then if responder bids 3 diamonds it says he accepts in diamonds but would not accept a trial in clubs.
If this were a two-way system, then any bid other than the next level by opener asks a different question. In many systems that is a short suit trial, again revealing nothing about opener’s hand. So 1h/2h/3c might ask about 2nd round control of clubs. Alternatively, 3 clubs could be a 2nd suit game try if that’s your agreement.
This is an advanced topic and for some of my readers may have to be put on the shelf for later. But there is something that all of us can take from this post. If you see 1s/2/s and then some other bid by opener, ask what the bid means. Players are notoriously bad about alerting their game tries. If the game try is a second suit game try (which it will be in most club games) start thinking how you can use this information and responder’s further bidding to direct your opening lead and defense.
Many experts (including Ron Klinger and Mel Colchamiro) and countless bridge teachers have advised their readers and students to follow the rule of 5-6-7. Bid game with 5 Losing Trick Count (LTC), make a game try with 6 LTC and pass with 7+LTC. In fairness to Mel, he later enunciated a different and safer rule for 5-4-2-2 hands but that is not germane to my hand. My hand is a 6 LTC hand, so I started looking for a way to invite.
I didn’t have a second suit (you can’t use 2nd suit help suit on a 3 card suit) and I wasn’t particularly interested in partners trump quality since I was 50-50 to pick up the King even if partner didn’t have it. This gave me pause for thought, but I apparently need a longer pause and more thought. I decided that given the limitations of our agreements it might be reasonable to use the re-raise as an omnibus game try asking partner to simply evaluate the quality of his raise. Standing ready to absolve partner of any blame if she did not figure this out, I bid 3 spades, partner bid 4 and we learned to make perfect circles on our personal scorecards.
What observations will help avoid this huge embarrassment the next time?
1. When I couldn’t find the right bid I should have passed. My hand also demonstrates that there are times when “Help Suit” will not help and trump quality is not the primary concern. We (and I think most regular partnerships) needed a more flexible agreement on game tries.
2. My hand met all the prominent tests for a game try, 6 LTC, 3 ½ Quick tricks, 5 controls and a good 6 card suit. Actually, the “don’t blame me refrain” is somewhat weak. For one thing, half my points and 3 of my controls were in a 2 card suit. You want your controls and touching honors in suits in which you have length so you can make tricks from little cards. Second, even with a 6 card suit, I had the worst possible distribution: 6-3-2-2. Third, if I visualized the hand that partner would need to have to make game, it really boils down to controls, Ace, Kings and singles and voids. Queens and Jacks are worthless. Although a short suit game try (asking partner where he had shortness or 2nd round control) might have been better that was not our agreement. Even if our bidding had more precision, my game try was too aggressive for matchpoints.
3. Partner never saw an invite that she didn’t want to accept and it didn’t help that it was the last set of boards. We suffered the ultimate indignity of going down 2 in 4 spades when the field was making 2 spades. At least we played it well! This brings me to another point. You need an understanding with your partner about who does the stretching to reach games. In matchpoints (in spite of my bid) I prefer sound game tries by opener so that responder can stretch a bit on hands that smell like game. This strategy will keep us at 2 of the major on high risk trials. The bottom of the barrel is to be in 3 of a major down one because nobody else thought your hand was worth a try. If the scoring is IMPS, I think the understanding should be just the other way around. Games are a big premium (particularly vulnerable) and you can’t get there if you don’t try. David Berkowitz recently reiterated a comment that Jim Jacoby make to him about IMP game tries: “Don’t make them vulnerable, just bid the game.”
4. Another way to add more certainty to game tries is to use "semi- constructive" major suit raises. With this understanding partner does not raise the major unless he has a really good 7+ to 10 hcps. With lesser hands and 3 card support he first bids 1NT (forcing) and then supports the major at the 2 level. This helps prevent useless game tries since you know in advance that partner does not have a strong raise. The argument against this is that 2 of the major is more preemptive than 1NT and forcing opponents to enter at the 3 level has its virtues in competitive auctions. Choices, Choices!
Steve Robinson, a well known bridge expert, conducts a bidding survey among his expert friends every other month. It is published on the District Six web site http://www.districtsix.org. Recently he asked 20+ bridge professionals about game tries and as you can imagine he got some support for every kind of game try known to the bridge world. There were two consistent themes.
Very few experts like 2nd suit game tries for the very simple reason that they give the opponents too much information about the opening lead and defense. Eric Compton said “Disclosing your hand at IMP’s is losing bridge.” Larry Cohen said “I don’t like to tell.” Marty Bergen said “the very last thing declarer should do is tell the enemy which suit he is weak in.”
I have to say that the re-raise system we used did not give away any information t our opponents or to each other for that matter!!
What has evolved at advanced levels are two way and three way game tries where one of the options is to ask responder to further describe his hand. Many of these trials ask responder in what suit he would accept a game try. Responder bids his positive responses up the line and the major suit at the 3 level as a rejection of the trial. This discloses nothing about opener’s hand and only gives information about the dummy. Not much of a gift!
One such system would have the next bidding level after the raise ask responder for a suit in which he would support a trial. (Ex. 1h/2h/2s or 1s/2s/2NT). In the heart example 2NT is a surrogate bid for spades so there is no overshoot. If 1s/2s/2NT, then if responder bids 3 diamonds it says he accepts in diamonds but would not accept a trial in clubs.
If this were a two-way system, then any bid other than the next level by opener asks a different question. In many systems that is a short suit trial, again revealing nothing about opener’s hand. So 1h/2h/3c might ask about 2nd round control of clubs. Alternatively, 3 clubs could be a 2nd suit game try if that’s your agreement.
This is an advanced topic and for some of my readers may have to be put on the shelf for later. But there is something that all of us can take from this post. If you see 1s/2/s and then some other bid by opener, ask what the bid means. Players are notoriously bad about alerting their game tries. If the game try is a second suit game try (which it will be in most club games) start thinking how you can use this information and responder’s further bidding to direct your opening lead and defense.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Mike Lawrence Visits the Blog -- OOPS!!
In a recent blog I noted that I was reading Mike Lawrence’s book The Complete Book on Overcalls, a 2009 overhaul after 30 years in the marketplace. In the blog post I noted that Mike stated “Good matchpoints is almost never good bridge. You have to learn to play badly.” That was simply his way of emphasizing that matchpoint competitive bridge has changed and the conservative advice from “back in the day” is often not effective in today's matchpoint battlefield.
In my light, lively and rollicking writing style I stated “Gee Mike, I have been saying that for some time, you reading my blog?”
It is really humor and not a cheap shot, just an absurdity aimed in my own direction. The funny thing is that I got an e-mail from Mike Lawrence yesterday saying that he had visited my blog for a “look.” He said “I did not go through more than a couple of items but it looks like you have done a lot.” Fortunately he took no umbrage at my weak humor, so “all's well that ends well.”
For those who may not know Mike’s accomplishments, he may be the one of the most celebrated bridge competitors ever. He is a member of the Bridge Hall of Fame, a member of the original Dallas Aces, and has won 3 World titles and 18 National titles. When they have credentials like that you can engage in humor (if you only pick on nice guys).
This may be a good point to reiterate my advice on competitive bidding. Yes it has changed, yes it has gotten much more aggressive, yes it lets some of us stragglers back in the game. Here is the kicker: It is not an “automatic game leveler.” Initially you will benefit from a more aggressive stance, but that advantage will disappear if you do not back it up with an effective risk reward system that tells you “when hold them, when to fold them and when to get out of Dodge.” Rely on intuition and windage? That will work about as good as it did last time. It may be a time to join me in a little study and get new standards that will refine your competitive risk reward analysis.
Mike did say that he has new software coming out on November 15 which analyzes 333 frustrating moments in the bidding. Apparently it is not just cutting edge stuff and relies, in large measure on common sense. Less cutting edge and more common sense sounds appealing. The cost $33.95 with postage. You are on your own, since I have not seen it prior to its release.
In my light, lively and rollicking writing style I stated “Gee Mike, I have been saying that for some time, you reading my blog?”
It is really humor and not a cheap shot, just an absurdity aimed in my own direction. The funny thing is that I got an e-mail from Mike Lawrence yesterday saying that he had visited my blog for a “look.” He said “I did not go through more than a couple of items but it looks like you have done a lot.” Fortunately he took no umbrage at my weak humor, so “all's well that ends well.”
For those who may not know Mike’s accomplishments, he may be the one of the most celebrated bridge competitors ever. He is a member of the Bridge Hall of Fame, a member of the original Dallas Aces, and has won 3 World titles and 18 National titles. When they have credentials like that you can engage in humor (if you only pick on nice guys).
This may be a good point to reiterate my advice on competitive bidding. Yes it has changed, yes it has gotten much more aggressive, yes it lets some of us stragglers back in the game. Here is the kicker: It is not an “automatic game leveler.” Initially you will benefit from a more aggressive stance, but that advantage will disappear if you do not back it up with an effective risk reward system that tells you “when hold them, when to fold them and when to get out of Dodge.” Rely on intuition and windage? That will work about as good as it did last time. It may be a time to join me in a little study and get new standards that will refine your competitive risk reward analysis.
Mike did say that he has new software coming out on November 15 which analyzes 333 frustrating moments in the bidding. Apparently it is not just cutting edge stuff and relies, in large measure on common sense. Less cutting edge and more common sense sounds appealing. The cost $33.95 with postage. You are on your own, since I have not seen it prior to its release.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Mixed Raise Response to Overcalls
I hate to write about the history of bridge bidding, since it is rarely is germane, but on this topic it may help you understand where we are heading today and why. Since in Bridge, my actual history does not extend into the 20th century, I may be a poor one to write this, but my hearsay sources are good.
Back when cards were still shuffled, responding to partner’s overcalls with supportive hands was quite simple. They actually resembled the responses you would make to opening bids, so life was much easier. If you had 3+ card support and 6-9 hcps you raised partner’s overcall. If you had the same hand with limit raise values you jumped in his suit. If you bid a new suit, it was forcing one round. If you bid 1NT, you took the smile off partner’s face. Well, that part never changes.
That all worked well “back in the day”, so why make any changes. Here are my own observations. At that time, overcalls were really overcalls, you could actually lead partner’s overcalled suit and not give up a trick on defense! One level overcalls were expected to have at least 10 hcps, 5+ cards in length and a good suit with honor strength. Even a “space eater” like 1d/2c was expected to be an opening hand equivalent and probably a one loser suit. A 1NT overcall showed at least 16+ hcps and a double stop in opponent’s bid suit, and jump overcalls were as strong as overcooked morning coffee, you could take them to the bank for direct deposit. In that environment simple tools for searching for games worked well because overcalls were so disciplined. Actually, in the overcall seat “trap passing” with a big hand was a prominent strategy, and lead to light third seat openers.
The first development was “Sputnik.” If you know what Sputnik is in bridge terminology, it’s well past the time to give up the game. No, I am not referring to the Russian satellite, it’s actually the system we call "negative doubles" today. Alvin Roth invented it and claimed that it was the beginning of the space age of bridge. He was not too far from wrong, and many of his ideas form the basis for the 5 card major system we play today. As a result of Sputnik, everybody gave up their penalty doubles of overcalls (the primary policeman of sloppy overcalls) and joined the space age. At this point the pent up frustration of not being able to overcall on "pure crap" broke loose!! Overcalls started down the slippery slope and we may not have seen it all yet.
As overcalls got less disciplined (more diverse as my partners prefer to say) it became more important for advancer to be able to better describe the shape and strength of his hand to put overcaller in the driver’s seat. If advancer can precisely describe his hand, then overcaller can call the “shot”: Go or No Go.
A further development was the popularization of the “Law of Total Tricks.” Although Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen did not develop the theory, they put it on every bridge player’s menu. No longer did 1c/1s/p/3s mean a limit raise, it meant that we had 9 trump between us and a hand not good enough for a limit raise. The sequence 1c/1s/2c/2s no longer guaranteed anything other than 3 card support for spades. Since the LOTT changed the jump raise to make it preemptive, the cue bid in opener’s suit was put in play to show a limit raise or better with support. This is where most of my readers find themselves today.
It bothered bridge theoreticians that the Law of Total Tricks would have you raising a 1 spade overcall to three spades with QJxx, xx, xxxx, xxx and also raising to 3 spades on QJxx, xx KQxx, xxx. The first hand is clearly preemptive, but the second hand has some very constructive values as a supporting hand. Enter the Mixed Raise which I first read about in Larry Cohen’s “To Bid or Not to Bid-The Law of Total Tricks”. The Mixed Raise in competition is shown by a jump cue bid on the 3 level. So, 1c/1s/p/3c shows the Mixed Raise.
The first two requisites of the Mixed Raise are 4 card trump support and at least one doubleton. The more distribution the better, do not use it on 4333 hands. The final issue is points. Since the Mixed Raise is by definition less than a limit raise (which remains a simple cue bid) I prefer 7 to 9 support points. Examples might be 7654, A987, 6, QT87 and QJ98, A5, JT42, 763. Since partner did not double and then overcall, he could have as much as 16-17 hcps for his overcall. The jump cue bid is self alerting. If partner passes your cue bid, you know what to do. If partner just bids 3 spades, that shows no game interest. If partner bids game, well “you done good.”Pray he declares well.
With the uncertainties of overcalls in today’s competitive bidding, it becomes important to “slice and dice” advancer’s hand to define it as tightly as possible. Talk this over with your partner and add it to your arsenal. Even if partner gets confused and can’t remember what the double cue bid means, it has to be supportive and he has to bid something, so hopefully he will rebid spades and this will not end up in a bidding disaster. With 4 trump you wanted to compete to the 3 level anyway.
If you have a big storage tank, there are more slices and dices. If you want the full entree menu, write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Back when cards were still shuffled, responding to partner’s overcalls with supportive hands was quite simple. They actually resembled the responses you would make to opening bids, so life was much easier. If you had 3+ card support and 6-9 hcps you raised partner’s overcall. If you had the same hand with limit raise values you jumped in his suit. If you bid a new suit, it was forcing one round. If you bid 1NT, you took the smile off partner’s face. Well, that part never changes.
That all worked well “back in the day”, so why make any changes. Here are my own observations. At that time, overcalls were really overcalls, you could actually lead partner’s overcalled suit and not give up a trick on defense! One level overcalls were expected to have at least 10 hcps, 5+ cards in length and a good suit with honor strength. Even a “space eater” like 1d/2c was expected to be an opening hand equivalent and probably a one loser suit. A 1NT overcall showed at least 16+ hcps and a double stop in opponent’s bid suit, and jump overcalls were as strong as overcooked morning coffee, you could take them to the bank for direct deposit. In that environment simple tools for searching for games worked well because overcalls were so disciplined. Actually, in the overcall seat “trap passing” with a big hand was a prominent strategy, and lead to light third seat openers.
The first development was “Sputnik.” If you know what Sputnik is in bridge terminology, it’s well past the time to give up the game. No, I am not referring to the Russian satellite, it’s actually the system we call "negative doubles" today. Alvin Roth invented it and claimed that it was the beginning of the space age of bridge. He was not too far from wrong, and many of his ideas form the basis for the 5 card major system we play today. As a result of Sputnik, everybody gave up their penalty doubles of overcalls (the primary policeman of sloppy overcalls) and joined the space age. At this point the pent up frustration of not being able to overcall on "pure crap" broke loose!! Overcalls started down the slippery slope and we may not have seen it all yet.
As overcalls got less disciplined (more diverse as my partners prefer to say) it became more important for advancer to be able to better describe the shape and strength of his hand to put overcaller in the driver’s seat. If advancer can precisely describe his hand, then overcaller can call the “shot”: Go or No Go.
A further development was the popularization of the “Law of Total Tricks.” Although Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen did not develop the theory, they put it on every bridge player’s menu. No longer did 1c/1s/p/3s mean a limit raise, it meant that we had 9 trump between us and a hand not good enough for a limit raise. The sequence 1c/1s/2c/2s no longer guaranteed anything other than 3 card support for spades. Since the LOTT changed the jump raise to make it preemptive, the cue bid in opener’s suit was put in play to show a limit raise or better with support. This is where most of my readers find themselves today.
It bothered bridge theoreticians that the Law of Total Tricks would have you raising a 1 spade overcall to three spades with QJxx, xx, xxxx, xxx and also raising to 3 spades on QJxx, xx KQxx, xxx. The first hand is clearly preemptive, but the second hand has some very constructive values as a supporting hand. Enter the Mixed Raise which I first read about in Larry Cohen’s “To Bid or Not to Bid-The Law of Total Tricks”. The Mixed Raise in competition is shown by a jump cue bid on the 3 level. So, 1c/1s/p/3c shows the Mixed Raise.
The first two requisites of the Mixed Raise are 4 card trump support and at least one doubleton. The more distribution the better, do not use it on 4333 hands. The final issue is points. Since the Mixed Raise is by definition less than a limit raise (which remains a simple cue bid) I prefer 7 to 9 support points. Examples might be 7654, A987, 6, QT87 and QJ98, A5, JT42, 763. Since partner did not double and then overcall, he could have as much as 16-17 hcps for his overcall. The jump cue bid is self alerting. If partner passes your cue bid, you know what to do. If partner just bids 3 spades, that shows no game interest. If partner bids game, well “you done good.”Pray he declares well.
With the uncertainties of overcalls in today’s competitive bidding, it becomes important to “slice and dice” advancer’s hand to define it as tightly as possible. Talk this over with your partner and add it to your arsenal. Even if partner gets confused and can’t remember what the double cue bid means, it has to be supportive and he has to bid something, so hopefully he will rebid spades and this will not end up in a bidding disaster. With 4 trump you wanted to compete to the 3 level anyway.
If you have a big storage tank, there are more slices and dices. If you want the full entree menu, write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Sunday, October 24, 2010
A Playing rule -- Everybody Loves Playing Rules
I hate to divert my energies from competitive bidding. We'll be back to that topic shortly. But speaking of competitive bidding, I was just reading Mike Lawrence’s 2009 rewrite of his legendary book, The Complete Book on Overcalls. This revision has been 30 years in coming, but it was long overdue. Mike was always an advocate of very disciplined overcalls, and very slow to change his mind about principles that had worked for him 30 years ago. His new revision does make some concessions to the need to compete in matchpoints, but he stops short of jumping on the Bergen-Cohen bandwagon.
The rewrite is a good and necessary one and will reestablish the book to it’s former prominence. But do you think his heart was really in this project? Here’s a quote from page 16:
“Good matchpoints is almost never good bridge. You have to learn to play badly. Things that are theoretically wrong, at matchpoints work a high percentage of the time.” Gee Mike. I’ve been saying that for some time now, you reading my blog?
Now for a little dancing music. In the heat of battle, as declarer it is frequently difficult to figure out the best way of playing card combinations. You are counting cards, counting points, reviewing the bidding and calculating the odds, my gosh, even back in the old law office they gave us yellow pads. There are so many Mnemonic (thank God for spellcheckers) assists in the bridge universe that Ron Klinger wrote an entire book about them in 1998 titled Better Bridge with a Better Memory – How Mnemonics Will Improve Your Game. According to my count there are Bridge Rules numbered from 1 to 23. Since you already know the Rule of 11, let’s start with the Rule of 12.
The Rule of 12 is a rule that you can put into play immediately. Hardly a hand goes by that you do not have to make some decision about finessing. How many times have you had a finessing layout, and wondered if it is safe to start the finesse by playing a high card, (often a Ten or Jack) and letting it ride or whether it is prudent to start with a low card and re-enter. Well if there wasn’t risk, we wouldn’t give it another though; who likes to burn entries getting back to take the finesse a second time, or worse yet, have your re-entry trumped by opponents.
Assume you are declarer and you in the dummy ready to finesse:
*****QTxx
*****AJ64
Also assume you have one more dummy entry, but you would rather not use it at this time. Is it safe to play the Q, and if successful, play a small card to the Jack or is there risk in that line of play?
Rule of 12 to the rescue. Here is the Rule: Add the cards you hold in the suit and to the number of cards in both hands that are sequential and if they equal 12 then it is safe to start with the high card. If not, there is some risk associated with starting with the high card.
In the above case we have 8 total cards in the suit and 3 sequential cards so we fail to meet the Rule of 12. What is the risk? Suppose I show you the rest of the suit.
*****QT52
9876 *******K
*****AJ43
The 9 promotes to a trick if you start with the Queen or Ten. Note that if I give dummy the 9 and put the 5 in West’s hand, we would meet the rule of 12 and it would be safe to roll the Queen.
Is this distribution probable? Not probable but possible, and when it makes a difference and you play it correctly it is guaranteed a good board. Many players just play the higher card hoping for the best.
The rule works in the same way whether the suit is 7, 8 9 or 10 cards in length. Add to the length of the suit the number of sequential cards. Do they equal 12? If the suit is AJT3 opposite Q92, lead the 2. If the short holding is Q98 lead any card, your total is 12.
What if you don’t have an entry back to the dummy? Lead the top card and hope this is not a computer hand.
The rewrite is a good and necessary one and will reestablish the book to it’s former prominence. But do you think his heart was really in this project? Here’s a quote from page 16:
“Good matchpoints is almost never good bridge. You have to learn to play badly. Things that are theoretically wrong, at matchpoints work a high percentage of the time.” Gee Mike. I’ve been saying that for some time now, you reading my blog?
Now for a little dancing music. In the heat of battle, as declarer it is frequently difficult to figure out the best way of playing card combinations. You are counting cards, counting points, reviewing the bidding and calculating the odds, my gosh, even back in the old law office they gave us yellow pads. There are so many Mnemonic (thank God for spellcheckers) assists in the bridge universe that Ron Klinger wrote an entire book about them in 1998 titled Better Bridge with a Better Memory – How Mnemonics Will Improve Your Game. According to my count there are Bridge Rules numbered from 1 to 23. Since you already know the Rule of 11, let’s start with the Rule of 12.
The Rule of 12 is a rule that you can put into play immediately. Hardly a hand goes by that you do not have to make some decision about finessing. How many times have you had a finessing layout, and wondered if it is safe to start the finesse by playing a high card, (often a Ten or Jack) and letting it ride or whether it is prudent to start with a low card and re-enter. Well if there wasn’t risk, we wouldn’t give it another though; who likes to burn entries getting back to take the finesse a second time, or worse yet, have your re-entry trumped by opponents.
Assume you are declarer and you in the dummy ready to finesse:
*****QTxx
*****AJ64
Also assume you have one more dummy entry, but you would rather not use it at this time. Is it safe to play the Q, and if successful, play a small card to the Jack or is there risk in that line of play?
Rule of 12 to the rescue. Here is the Rule: Add the cards you hold in the suit and to the number of cards in both hands that are sequential and if they equal 12 then it is safe to start with the high card. If not, there is some risk associated with starting with the high card.
In the above case we have 8 total cards in the suit and 3 sequential cards so we fail to meet the Rule of 12. What is the risk? Suppose I show you the rest of the suit.
*****QT52
9876 *******K
*****AJ43
The 9 promotes to a trick if you start with the Queen or Ten. Note that if I give dummy the 9 and put the 5 in West’s hand, we would meet the rule of 12 and it would be safe to roll the Queen.
Is this distribution probable? Not probable but possible, and when it makes a difference and you play it correctly it is guaranteed a good board. Many players just play the higher card hoping for the best.
The rule works in the same way whether the suit is 7, 8 9 or 10 cards in length. Add to the length of the suit the number of sequential cards. Do they equal 12? If the suit is AJT3 opposite Q92, lead the 2. If the short holding is Q98 lead any card, your total is 12.
What if you don’t have an entry back to the dummy? Lead the top card and hope this is not a computer hand.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Table of Contents for Tommy's Bridge Blog
In the past 5 years I have posted to my Bridge Blog about 115 times. It started out as sort of a joke among my bridge friends and just grew from there. The blog was a personal outlet for my life passions; research, writing, learning and teaching. It was a shock to me that I was accumulating readers not only from North America, but other parts of the World as well. I would like to say that some of them were experts, but alas, only a few, and most readers were struggling to make headway just like me. When my counter was working, I was getting about 100 hits a week, not what you would call a commercial success. My archived blogs have always been a workout to find. I never did anything about it since some of my early posts are best forgotten and having them conveniently buried in a difficult process seemed a blessing. What they can't find they can't criticize!
One of my early readers was Jim Logsden from Texas. Even though I have never met Jim, he has read every one of my blog posts and actually created a table of contents or index for his own reference. Jim recently surprised me by sending me his table of contents. It is an impressive job and it occurred to me that it might be useful to to other readers, so I am posting his table of contents. Now about assembling these into a book ---- not a chance! You can stop worrying about any further proliferation of my little musings and meanderings.Think about it as my major contribution to better bridge.
Table of Contents
Following are titles and the date of publication for the articles from Tommy’s Bridge Blog. Old posts are found in the Archive in the right hand column of the blog page. Locate the year and month that you want to search and then the title. If you want to print all or a part of a blog post, drag and highlight the material you want to print, and then when you get to your print page indicate you want to print the “Selection”. This table is more or less chronological, and where you see multiple dates that means that more than one blog was written on the same general subject Questions to tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Scrambling 2 No Trump 10-08-10
Sandwich No Trump 9-29-10
This Dummy is No Dummy (Bergen’s Dummy Points) 9-14-10
Revisiting 2 Club Opening Bids (Bergen Analysis) 9-11-10
Pat Peterson Takes Over the Bank 9-6-10
Slammin with Marty Bergen: 8-22-10
Redefining “Two Hearts Trash” – A Systemic Update: 6-15-10
Four Person Team wins Pairs Event: 5-30-10
Defending 1 No Trump: 4-3-10
Storming Norman and 4 Suit Transfers: 3-23-10
Opener Rebid Choices After 1NT Forcing 3-6-10
Tommy Passes 5th Grade Math, but Flunks Matchpoint Duplicate: 3-7-10
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?: 2-28-10
Give Respect, if Respect is Due: 2-24-10
A Tribute to Ina Mills: 2-21-10
Majoring in Majors on Bridge Base Online: 12-6-09
Reopening Doubles: 7-28-09
Super Duper Acceptance 8-11-09
Bergen, Jacoby, Hardy and Joe Sargent and Concealed Splinters
Bidding Quiz and Response: 6-22-09; 6-29-09
Rosencranz Doubles and Redoubles and Expanded Advances: 4-29-09; 5-5-09
The Road to Match Point Success: 4-12-09
Matchpoints and Major Suit Fits: 4-5-09
Where’s Tommy?: 4-4-09
Defending Against 2-Suited Overcalls: 12-3-08
Support and Maximal Doubles: 11-19-08
The Law of Total Tricks and Other WMD’s: 11-10-08
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Conventions: 11-7-08
The Principles of Logical Bidding: 10-28-08
More on Overcalls (because we need it): 9-18-08
Western Cue Bids: 8-25-08
New Minor Forcing (NMF): 8-3-08
Advice from Larry Cohen: 5-3-08
Forcing 1NT: 5-5-08; 3-16-10
Opening 1NT with 5 card Majors: 5-31-08
Major Suit Fits: 5-29-08
Michaels Cue Bids Revisited: 6-17-08
Opening Leads: 6-29-06; 7-3-08; 7-10-08; 7-21-08
Balancing in the Pass Out Seat: 4-21-08
Searching for Major Suit Fits 5-29-08
Opening 1NT With 5 Card Majors 5-21-08
OBAR the Pre-balancer – Not the Tentmaker 5-12-08
1NT Forcing to Hell and Back 5-5-08
Free Advice From Larry Cohen 5-03-08
Bridge by the Numbers: 4-15-08
Take Your Finesses in the Right Order to Maximize 3-29-08
Bidding NT hands with Interference: 1-13-08; 2-24-08; 3-2-08
Interfering Over 1NT Opening Bids: 2-1-08
Negative Doubles: 11-21-07; 11-24-07; 12-2-07; 12-29-07
Combined Bergen Raises: 2-18-08; 3-12-08: 6-6-10
Frank Stewart—Do You Sometimes Wonder? 2-8-08
Mel Colchamiro’s Rules of 23: (need 23 hcps for 2NT) 11-17-07
Getting Life and Bridge in Balance 11-11-07
Cue Bids and Control Bids: 11-6-07; 11-11-07
Weak Jump Shifts: 10-21-07; 10-26-07
The “X” Factor – Do You Have It? 7-03-07
Pre-Emptive Bidding (parts 1-4) 5-23-07, 5-29-07, 6-14-07, 6-19-07
Best Bridge Book of 2007: 9-30-07
Probabilities in Bridge: 8-28-07; 9-6-07; 9-7-07; 9-12-07; 9-23-07
Finding Opportunities to Make a Hand: 9-18-07
Awareness at the Bridge Table: 8-15-07
Responding to Weak 2 Bids: 7-8-07; 7-18-07
Preemptive Bidding: 5-23-07; 5-29-07; 6-14-07; 6-19-07
Responding to Partner’s Overcall: 2-14-07; 2-16-07; 2-24-07; 3-3-07; 5-5-07
The Murder on Sanchez Avenue (A bad day for Tommy) 5-12-07
Bridge Ruling: 4-29-07
Rate Yourself as a Partner: 4-13-07
Jacoby 2NT: 4-10-07; 8-11-09
Smolen for 2NT Opening: 4-5-07
Culbertson’s Valuation by Visualization 3-28-07
Discussion of Inverted Minors: 3-26-07
Losing Trick Count: 2 Posts (both Dated 3-18-07)
Smolen Over 1NT: 3-11-07
Middle Cards Make a Difference: 2-27-07
Garbage Stayman: 2-20-07
3 words on Overcalls- “Cheap is Expensive” 2-14-07
Interpreting Opponent’s Opening Leads: 2-8-07
Major Suit Jump Raises to Game: 2-4-07
Common Traits of an Effective Bridge Player: 1-26-07
Splinter Bids: 1-15-07; 6-30-09
Comments by Jeff Meckstroth (of Meckwell fame): 1-8-07; 1-10-07
Balancing –Avoiding the Death Zone: 12-25-06
One of my early readers was Jim Logsden from Texas. Even though I have never met Jim, he has read every one of my blog posts and actually created a table of contents or index for his own reference. Jim recently surprised me by sending me his table of contents. It is an impressive job and it occurred to me that it might be useful to to other readers, so I am posting his table of contents. Now about assembling these into a book ---- not a chance! You can stop worrying about any further proliferation of my little musings and meanderings.Think about it as my major contribution to better bridge.
Table of Contents
Following are titles and the date of publication for the articles from Tommy’s Bridge Blog. Old posts are found in the Archive in the right hand column of the blog page. Locate the year and month that you want to search and then the title. If you want to print all or a part of a blog post, drag and highlight the material you want to print, and then when you get to your print page indicate you want to print the “Selection”. This table is more or less chronological, and where you see multiple dates that means that more than one blog was written on the same general subject Questions to tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Scrambling 2 No Trump 10-08-10
Sandwich No Trump 9-29-10
This Dummy is No Dummy (Bergen’s Dummy Points) 9-14-10
Revisiting 2 Club Opening Bids (Bergen Analysis) 9-11-10
Pat Peterson Takes Over the Bank 9-6-10
Slammin with Marty Bergen: 8-22-10
Redefining “Two Hearts Trash” – A Systemic Update: 6-15-10
Four Person Team wins Pairs Event: 5-30-10
Defending 1 No Trump: 4-3-10
Storming Norman and 4 Suit Transfers: 3-23-10
Opener Rebid Choices After 1NT Forcing 3-6-10
Tommy Passes 5th Grade Math, but Flunks Matchpoint Duplicate: 3-7-10
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?: 2-28-10
Give Respect, if Respect is Due: 2-24-10
A Tribute to Ina Mills: 2-21-10
Majoring in Majors on Bridge Base Online: 12-6-09
Reopening Doubles: 7-28-09
Super Duper Acceptance 8-11-09
Bergen, Jacoby, Hardy and Joe Sargent and Concealed Splinters
Bidding Quiz and Response: 6-22-09; 6-29-09
Rosencranz Doubles and Redoubles and Expanded Advances: 4-29-09; 5-5-09
The Road to Match Point Success: 4-12-09
Matchpoints and Major Suit Fits: 4-5-09
Where’s Tommy?: 4-4-09
Defending Against 2-Suited Overcalls: 12-3-08
Support and Maximal Doubles: 11-19-08
The Law of Total Tricks and Other WMD’s: 11-10-08
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Conventions: 11-7-08
The Principles of Logical Bidding: 10-28-08
More on Overcalls (because we need it): 9-18-08
Western Cue Bids: 8-25-08
New Minor Forcing (NMF): 8-3-08
Advice from Larry Cohen: 5-3-08
Forcing 1NT: 5-5-08; 3-16-10
Opening 1NT with 5 card Majors: 5-31-08
Major Suit Fits: 5-29-08
Michaels Cue Bids Revisited: 6-17-08
Opening Leads: 6-29-06; 7-3-08; 7-10-08; 7-21-08
Balancing in the Pass Out Seat: 4-21-08
Searching for Major Suit Fits 5-29-08
Opening 1NT With 5 Card Majors 5-21-08
OBAR the Pre-balancer – Not the Tentmaker 5-12-08
1NT Forcing to Hell and Back 5-5-08
Free Advice From Larry Cohen 5-03-08
Bridge by the Numbers: 4-15-08
Take Your Finesses in the Right Order to Maximize 3-29-08
Bidding NT hands with Interference: 1-13-08; 2-24-08; 3-2-08
Interfering Over 1NT Opening Bids: 2-1-08
Negative Doubles: 11-21-07; 11-24-07; 12-2-07; 12-29-07
Combined Bergen Raises: 2-18-08; 3-12-08: 6-6-10
Frank Stewart—Do You Sometimes Wonder? 2-8-08
Mel Colchamiro’s Rules of 23: (need 23 hcps for 2NT) 11-17-07
Getting Life and Bridge in Balance 11-11-07
Cue Bids and Control Bids: 11-6-07; 11-11-07
Weak Jump Shifts: 10-21-07; 10-26-07
The “X” Factor – Do You Have It? 7-03-07
Pre-Emptive Bidding (parts 1-4) 5-23-07, 5-29-07, 6-14-07, 6-19-07
Best Bridge Book of 2007: 9-30-07
Probabilities in Bridge: 8-28-07; 9-6-07; 9-7-07; 9-12-07; 9-23-07
Finding Opportunities to Make a Hand: 9-18-07
Awareness at the Bridge Table: 8-15-07
Responding to Weak 2 Bids: 7-8-07; 7-18-07
Preemptive Bidding: 5-23-07; 5-29-07; 6-14-07; 6-19-07
Responding to Partner’s Overcall: 2-14-07; 2-16-07; 2-24-07; 3-3-07; 5-5-07
The Murder on Sanchez Avenue (A bad day for Tommy) 5-12-07
Bridge Ruling: 4-29-07
Rate Yourself as a Partner: 4-13-07
Jacoby 2NT: 4-10-07; 8-11-09
Smolen for 2NT Opening: 4-5-07
Culbertson’s Valuation by Visualization 3-28-07
Discussion of Inverted Minors: 3-26-07
Losing Trick Count: 2 Posts (both Dated 3-18-07)
Smolen Over 1NT: 3-11-07
Middle Cards Make a Difference: 2-27-07
Garbage Stayman: 2-20-07
3 words on Overcalls- “Cheap is Expensive” 2-14-07
Interpreting Opponent’s Opening Leads: 2-8-07
Major Suit Jump Raises to Game: 2-4-07
Common Traits of an Effective Bridge Player: 1-26-07
Splinter Bids: 1-15-07; 6-30-09
Comments by Jeff Meckstroth (of Meckwell fame): 1-8-07; 1-10-07
Balancing –Avoiding the Death Zone: 12-25-06
Friday, October 8, 2010
Scrambling Two No Trump
Scrambling 2NT is a tool for taking risk out of balancing and pre-balancing (making a double in the direct seat). The bid is conventional and has nothing to do with playing any level of no trump. One of the fears of balancing is that when you double as a balance or pre-balance, partner will bid one of his 4 card suits and it will turn out to be one of your 3 card suits. Now, I would rather play a 7 card trump suit than let opponents play 2 of a major with a fit, but not if it is not necessary.
Let’s set the stage in the “classic” balancing auction: The bidding goes 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/? The good news is that “trusty partner” has balanced and they are not playing 2 spades. The bad news is that it is your turn to bid. Suppose you hold xx, Axxx, Kxxx, Qxx. Since hearts is the major, many players are just going to bid 3 hearts and hope. The minute you do that partner will hold xxx, Kxx, QJxx, Axxx. Some may decide to bid their 4 card suits up the line and hope for a fit in diamonds. The minute you do that partner will have a hand like xxx, KJxx, QJx, Axx. Yes, you could fall into an 8 card trump suit if doubler’s hands were reversed, but bridge is, by and large, a perverse game and justice is rarely served. There must be a better way!
Enter Scrambling 2NT. The Scrambling 2NT bid is used after partner makes a double in the direct or balancing seat and you hold two 4 card suits. The bid of 2NT is designed to find an 8 card fit. It asks doubler to bid his 4 card suit or if more than one to bid them up the line. In my first example, after 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/2NT, doubler will bid his 4 card diamond suit and we will play 3 diamonds. In the second example, doubler will bid his 4 card heart suit and we will play 3 hearts. Yes, if doubler has four hearts and four diamonds, we will be playing our diamond fit rather than our heart fit. Forget about it! Our objective is to jolt opponents out of their 2 level spade fit and find an 8 card fit of our own at the 3 level. Put greed behind you and take the guarantee. Your master point profile will appreciate it.
Let’s spin it around and look at it in a pre-balance format. This time the bidding goes 1s/p/2s/X/p/?. You hold Kxx, xxx, Kxxx, Kxx. Note again the 2 four card suits, with a random chance of making the correct choice. Here again bid Scrambling 2NT to search for a 4-4 fit. If doubler in the direct seat has xx, Axx, AQxx, Qxxx, he will bid his 4 card club suit up the line to start the scramble. Since you do not have 4 clubs, you bid 3 diamonds showing your four card diamond suit, and hopefully we play it there in our 8 card fit. We may go down one, but in balancing that is pure gold. For sure we aren’t going -110 or worse.
Note that in each of these examples doubler’s partner does not have a 5 card suit. In fact, if he has have a 5 card suit he must bid it and not use Scrambling 2NT. Scrambling 2NT has a good negative inference. When we scramble we are either 4333, 4432 or on very rare occasions 4441. Helpful information in either the bidding or the defense. Since partner's square hand will not play as well as a distributional hand, you may want to think twice before competing further.
I can’t believe that I have gotten this far and nobody has pointed out to me that we have given away the natural bid of 2NT. Why would b we ever want to play no trump when they have found an 8+ card fit and will be on lead. Hopefully, this idea makes no sense to you as well. Nirvana, we have found a vacant bid and put it to good use.
The Scrambling 2NT bid is alertable. Just say that partner is asking me to further define my hand looking for a fit. This is not overly complicated. Think of the Scrambling 2NT as being like a responsive double. You are passing the bid back to partner to make a choice since your choice is not clear. One of the major benefits of the bid is that it will enable your partnership to make more aggressive doubles knowing that you can find your 4-4 fits safely. Yikes, if I balance any quicker I will be out of tempo.
Talk this over with partner in advance, not while the director is passing out the boards. It takes a moment to digest, but with minimum thought it pretty much sells itself.
This is my last post from Rochester, New York. On October 13 Axel, Virgil, Alla and I fly to Florida for the winter. Axel and Virgil are my two cats who do my proof reading. Looks like it doesn’t it. Rochester is a wonderful bridge town and I will miss my many friends who have made me feel so much at home. I look forward to seeing all my old bridge buddies in Citrus County, Florida. I can only hope that majority of them feel the same way.
Let’s set the stage in the “classic” balancing auction: The bidding goes 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/? The good news is that “trusty partner” has balanced and they are not playing 2 spades. The bad news is that it is your turn to bid. Suppose you hold xx, Axxx, Kxxx, Qxx. Since hearts is the major, many players are just going to bid 3 hearts and hope. The minute you do that partner will hold xxx, Kxx, QJxx, Axxx. Some may decide to bid their 4 card suits up the line and hope for a fit in diamonds. The minute you do that partner will have a hand like xxx, KJxx, QJx, Axx. Yes, you could fall into an 8 card trump suit if doubler’s hands were reversed, but bridge is, by and large, a perverse game and justice is rarely served. There must be a better way!
Enter Scrambling 2NT. The Scrambling 2NT bid is used after partner makes a double in the direct or balancing seat and you hold two 4 card suits. The bid of 2NT is designed to find an 8 card fit. It asks doubler to bid his 4 card suit or if more than one to bid them up the line. In my first example, after 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/2NT, doubler will bid his 4 card diamond suit and we will play 3 diamonds. In the second example, doubler will bid his 4 card heart suit and we will play 3 hearts. Yes, if doubler has four hearts and four diamonds, we will be playing our diamond fit rather than our heart fit. Forget about it! Our objective is to jolt opponents out of their 2 level spade fit and find an 8 card fit of our own at the 3 level. Put greed behind you and take the guarantee. Your master point profile will appreciate it.
Let’s spin it around and look at it in a pre-balance format. This time the bidding goes 1s/p/2s/X/p/?. You hold Kxx, xxx, Kxxx, Kxx. Note again the 2 four card suits, with a random chance of making the correct choice. Here again bid Scrambling 2NT to search for a 4-4 fit. If doubler in the direct seat has xx, Axx, AQxx, Qxxx, he will bid his 4 card club suit up the line to start the scramble. Since you do not have 4 clubs, you bid 3 diamonds showing your four card diamond suit, and hopefully we play it there in our 8 card fit. We may go down one, but in balancing that is pure gold. For sure we aren’t going -110 or worse.
Note that in each of these examples doubler’s partner does not have a 5 card suit. In fact, if he has have a 5 card suit he must bid it and not use Scrambling 2NT. Scrambling 2NT has a good negative inference. When we scramble we are either 4333, 4432 or on very rare occasions 4441. Helpful information in either the bidding or the defense. Since partner's square hand will not play as well as a distributional hand, you may want to think twice before competing further.
I can’t believe that I have gotten this far and nobody has pointed out to me that we have given away the natural bid of 2NT. Why would b we ever want to play no trump when they have found an 8+ card fit and will be on lead. Hopefully, this idea makes no sense to you as well. Nirvana, we have found a vacant bid and put it to good use.
The Scrambling 2NT bid is alertable. Just say that partner is asking me to further define my hand looking for a fit. This is not overly complicated. Think of the Scrambling 2NT as being like a responsive double. You are passing the bid back to partner to make a choice since your choice is not clear. One of the major benefits of the bid is that it will enable your partnership to make more aggressive doubles knowing that you can find your 4-4 fits safely. Yikes, if I balance any quicker I will be out of tempo.
Talk this over with partner in advance, not while the director is passing out the boards. It takes a moment to digest, but with minimum thought it pretty much sells itself.
This is my last post from Rochester, New York. On October 13 Axel, Virgil, Alla and I fly to Florida for the winter. Axel and Virgil are my two cats who do my proof reading. Looks like it doesn’t it. Rochester is a wonderful bridge town and I will miss my many friends who have made me feel so much at home. I look forward to seeing all my old bridge buddies in Citrus County, Florida. I can only hope that majority of them feel the same way.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Sandwich No Trump
Experts tell us that 80% of duplicate bridge is effective bidding. I would agree with that and go one step further – 80% of effective bidding is competitive bidding in part score auctions. If it were not for competitive bidding, we would all be sleeping at the bridge table. What challenges are there in the 1s/3s/4s auction or 1NT/3NT auctions. Sure you can spice them up with Bergen Raises and Stayman and Transfer, but this is not exactly this sort of stuff that gets the blood rolling down your opponents personal score card. We need some real battle, a chance to be a hero or alternatively be carried out on our shield in utter disgrace. Enter Competitive Bidding.
Early this Spring I had the chance to teach a few classes to novices and intermediates. I had my choice of material and I chose competitive bidding. I saw my audience week after week at club games letting me and others play part score contracts resulting in +90 or worse +110. As I have said before, that is the “death zone” so you need to do whatever you need to do to get opponents out of that comfort zone.
Oscar Wilde said “Nothing Worth Learning Can be Taught.” I actually discovered that effective competitive bidding is teachable, and that it is not that hard to do. Mostly, you need faith and to quit sitting on your fingers. Some got all the nuances, but others just discovered that never letting opponents play a hand is an effective strategy onto itself. In these competitive auctions we learned to move opponents out of their comfort zone and to fall in love with -100, the great equalizer.
After just 3 weeks, life in the old game was not the same. I had created a bunch of “Bridge Terrorists” who routinely aggravated the better players. When I heard comments like “How can she make that bid” or “He didn’t have the cards he was supposed to have” or “It was a colossal fix”, I knew my terrorists were at it again. What a joy!
I have already covered most of the important competitive bidding tactics in other blog posts. Among them are preemptive bidding, balancing in the pass out seat, balancing in the direct set (OBAR BIDS), Unusual No Trump, Michaels, D.O.N.T. over opponents 1NT opening and following the Law of Total Tricks.
In this post we will discuss the Sandwich No Trump bid. This conventional bid is much like Unusual 2NT and in fact Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen called it the “Unusual 1NT.” The bid is made in the 4th seat when opponents have opened, partner has passed and they have made bids in different suits at the one level. The music sounds something like this: 1c/p/1h/1NT. No, the 1NT bidder doesn’t have a standard 1NT overcall (we are giving that up), the bid shows the other two suits (diamonds and spades), less than an opening hand and lack of defensive values. The bid has traditionally shown 5-5 in the other 2 suits, but if the vulnerability is equal or favorable, I would not hesitate to do it with 5-4-3-1 or even 5-4-2-2 if I am sufficiently aggravated. How about 4-4? I love the question, you’ve got the right attitude!
The objective here is to turn what appears to be the start of a constructive auction (letting opponents bid unmolested) into a competitive auction (an Irish bar fight). It is also preemptive. Opener probably wants to rebid 1NT to show a balanced minimum, but you just stole his bid. By bidding 1NT you have screwed opener up to the 2 level, but often will pass in frustration.
I am hoping that I find partner with 3, and preferably 4 card support for one of my suits, that he can add 5+4=9, hoist us to 3 level immediately and potentially suggest a save if opponents recover and drive to game. On a good day my sandwich no trump hand may look like KJxxx, x, QJxxx, xx. Suppose I catch partner with Axxx, xx, Kxxx, xxx. Partner and I have 14 points combined, so opponents with 26 are favorites to make 4 hearts. Neither of my suits are suitable for an overcall and the hand is not strong enough for a traditional take out double, so without the Sandwich 1NT overcall, opponents will surely rack up rack up a game if we let them alone. In this case if they bid 4 hearts over 3 spades by partner, I am going to take a save at 4 spades as my 5-5 hand may not take any tricks at 4 hearts. In this case, we catch moonbeams in a jar, as our 4 spade contract only goes down 1 or 2 at most.
Many very good players will suggest that giving up the natural 4th seat overcall of 1NT is not a good trade. I ask you, when is the last time you had a 4th seat bid with a balanced 15-17 hcps and where are you really going with it if both opponents are bidding and you tell them that your hand is balanced and that you have all the missing points right in front of opener. If Sandwich No Trump is heresy, then let it be so. Little is gained from arguing with so called “World Class” players. They not only want to bid their cards, but your cards as well. If you happen to catch a real big balanced hand (16-19), just double first and then bid 2NT at your next bid. Not a complete answer, but a compromise for that “once in a lifetime” hand.
Assume you hold KQxxx, Ax, KQxx. xx. This hand has 14 hcps and is way too good for a Sandwich No Trump. With this hand you make a take out double to show the values and also mildly suggesting the unbid suits and shortness in one or both of opponents 2 suits. If you are 5-5 and huge, you can always bid 2NT. What can that mean other than the unbids with muscle?
When partner makes a Sandwich no trump bid, if opener passes it is your duty to bid one of his two suits unless you lack 3 card support in either suit. Be guided by the Law of Total Tricks and bid to the max. If you don’t have 3 card support for either suit, just pass. Don’t worry, partner is not going to play 1NT doubled. Opponents will bail you out.
If you are losing trick count person (see my posts on LTC) a minimum Sandwich hand should have about 8 LTC non-vulnerable and 7 LTC vulnerable. (a) Vul. Qxxxx, xx, QJxxx, x. 7 LTC, bid 1NT after 1c/p/1h/.
(b) Non-Vul. xx, xxxxx, QJxxx, x. 8 LTC bid 1NT. I can’t say that I have always followed that advice, having last Monday bid 1NT with T83, Jxxxx, JTxxx, void, after 1c/p/1s. Opponents got to their 3NT makeable game, but went down one when they miss guessed the distribution of spade suit. Confusion itself has some value!
Review of Requirements: (a) less than an opening hand (b) no defensive strength, (c) good shape in the unbids and (d) opponents have bid 2 suits at the one level with partner passing in between. Note, that since the bid of 1NT shows lack of strength, it can be used even though you are a passed hand originally. How can it be clearer than that?
Post Graduate Stuff: What do you do to show partner you are 6-5 or 6-6. My Florida partner, Howard Christ, moved to Florida from the Albany-Schenectady area. He brought with him a bidding structure for these hands which we call BHQ Bids, named after Central New York area experts Carl Berger and Paul Harrington. With 6-5, we cue bid the lower ranking of opponent’s suits to show that our lower ranking suit is 6 long and cue bid the higher ranking to show that our higher ranking suit is 6 long. What do we do with 6-6? 2NT, what else? My advice, just grab the basics of the bid and doll it up after you have a few successes. Even if you overcall 1NT, partner will not be disappointed to see 6-5-1-1.
Alerts: You need an understanding with partner that the 1NT bid is Sandwich. He must also alert the call. Monday, my partner, Mike Spitulnik, alerted it even though we had not specifically discussed it. He actually had 9 hcps, opener had minimally 13, responder had a minimum of 6. so what as left for me? Mike was hoping it was more than 2 hcps, but that is life in the fast lane.
Early this Spring I had the chance to teach a few classes to novices and intermediates. I had my choice of material and I chose competitive bidding. I saw my audience week after week at club games letting me and others play part score contracts resulting in +90 or worse +110. As I have said before, that is the “death zone” so you need to do whatever you need to do to get opponents out of that comfort zone.
Oscar Wilde said “Nothing Worth Learning Can be Taught.” I actually discovered that effective competitive bidding is teachable, and that it is not that hard to do. Mostly, you need faith and to quit sitting on your fingers. Some got all the nuances, but others just discovered that never letting opponents play a hand is an effective strategy onto itself. In these competitive auctions we learned to move opponents out of their comfort zone and to fall in love with -100, the great equalizer.
After just 3 weeks, life in the old game was not the same. I had created a bunch of “Bridge Terrorists” who routinely aggravated the better players. When I heard comments like “How can she make that bid” or “He didn’t have the cards he was supposed to have” or “It was a colossal fix”, I knew my terrorists were at it again. What a joy!
I have already covered most of the important competitive bidding tactics in other blog posts. Among them are preemptive bidding, balancing in the pass out seat, balancing in the direct set (OBAR BIDS), Unusual No Trump, Michaels, D.O.N.T. over opponents 1NT opening and following the Law of Total Tricks.
In this post we will discuss the Sandwich No Trump bid. This conventional bid is much like Unusual 2NT and in fact Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen called it the “Unusual 1NT.” The bid is made in the 4th seat when opponents have opened, partner has passed and they have made bids in different suits at the one level. The music sounds something like this: 1c/p/1h/1NT. No, the 1NT bidder doesn’t have a standard 1NT overcall (we are giving that up), the bid shows the other two suits (diamonds and spades), less than an opening hand and lack of defensive values. The bid has traditionally shown 5-5 in the other 2 suits, but if the vulnerability is equal or favorable, I would not hesitate to do it with 5-4-3-1 or even 5-4-2-2 if I am sufficiently aggravated. How about 4-4? I love the question, you’ve got the right attitude!
The objective here is to turn what appears to be the start of a constructive auction (letting opponents bid unmolested) into a competitive auction (an Irish bar fight). It is also preemptive. Opener probably wants to rebid 1NT to show a balanced minimum, but you just stole his bid. By bidding 1NT you have screwed opener up to the 2 level, but often will pass in frustration.
I am hoping that I find partner with 3, and preferably 4 card support for one of my suits, that he can add 5+4=9, hoist us to 3 level immediately and potentially suggest a save if opponents recover and drive to game. On a good day my sandwich no trump hand may look like KJxxx, x, QJxxx, xx. Suppose I catch partner with Axxx, xx, Kxxx, xxx. Partner and I have 14 points combined, so opponents with 26 are favorites to make 4 hearts. Neither of my suits are suitable for an overcall and the hand is not strong enough for a traditional take out double, so without the Sandwich 1NT overcall, opponents will surely rack up rack up a game if we let them alone. In this case if they bid 4 hearts over 3 spades by partner, I am going to take a save at 4 spades as my 5-5 hand may not take any tricks at 4 hearts. In this case, we catch moonbeams in a jar, as our 4 spade contract only goes down 1 or 2 at most.
Many very good players will suggest that giving up the natural 4th seat overcall of 1NT is not a good trade. I ask you, when is the last time you had a 4th seat bid with a balanced 15-17 hcps and where are you really going with it if both opponents are bidding and you tell them that your hand is balanced and that you have all the missing points right in front of opener. If Sandwich No Trump is heresy, then let it be so. Little is gained from arguing with so called “World Class” players. They not only want to bid their cards, but your cards as well. If you happen to catch a real big balanced hand (16-19), just double first and then bid 2NT at your next bid. Not a complete answer, but a compromise for that “once in a lifetime” hand.
Assume you hold KQxxx, Ax, KQxx. xx. This hand has 14 hcps and is way too good for a Sandwich No Trump. With this hand you make a take out double to show the values and also mildly suggesting the unbid suits and shortness in one or both of opponents 2 suits. If you are 5-5 and huge, you can always bid 2NT. What can that mean other than the unbids with muscle?
When partner makes a Sandwich no trump bid, if opener passes it is your duty to bid one of his two suits unless you lack 3 card support in either suit. Be guided by the Law of Total Tricks and bid to the max. If you don’t have 3 card support for either suit, just pass. Don’t worry, partner is not going to play 1NT doubled. Opponents will bail you out.
If you are losing trick count person (see my posts on LTC) a minimum Sandwich hand should have about 8 LTC non-vulnerable and 7 LTC vulnerable. (a) Vul. Qxxxx, xx, QJxxx, x. 7 LTC, bid 1NT after 1c/p/1h/.
(b) Non-Vul. xx, xxxxx, QJxxx, x. 8 LTC bid 1NT. I can’t say that I have always followed that advice, having last Monday bid 1NT with T83, Jxxxx, JTxxx, void, after 1c/p/1s. Opponents got to their 3NT makeable game, but went down one when they miss guessed the distribution of spade suit. Confusion itself has some value!
Review of Requirements: (a) less than an opening hand (b) no defensive strength, (c) good shape in the unbids and (d) opponents have bid 2 suits at the one level with partner passing in between. Note, that since the bid of 1NT shows lack of strength, it can be used even though you are a passed hand originally. How can it be clearer than that?
Post Graduate Stuff: What do you do to show partner you are 6-5 or 6-6. My Florida partner, Howard Christ, moved to Florida from the Albany-Schenectady area. He brought with him a bidding structure for these hands which we call BHQ Bids, named after Central New York area experts Carl Berger and Paul Harrington. With 6-5, we cue bid the lower ranking of opponent’s suits to show that our lower ranking suit is 6 long and cue bid the higher ranking to show that our higher ranking suit is 6 long. What do we do with 6-6? 2NT, what else? My advice, just grab the basics of the bid and doll it up after you have a few successes. Even if you overcall 1NT, partner will not be disappointed to see 6-5-1-1.
Alerts: You need an understanding with partner that the 1NT bid is Sandwich. He must also alert the call. Monday, my partner, Mike Spitulnik, alerted it even though we had not specifically discussed it. He actually had 9 hcps, opener had minimally 13, responder had a minimum of 6. so what as left for me? Mike was hoping it was more than 2 hcps, but that is life in the fast lane.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
This Dummy is No Dummy
Well, I stole a line from the great one, Marty Bergen, who asserts that when his dummy hand comes down it is clear that he has been no dummy. The correlative of that is that some dummies are actually --- dare I say it? True “Dummies!” How do you jump out of the latter category and get on that lofty perch with Marty. Well its not that hard, just recognize the need to revalue your hand when the partnership has found a trump suit fit. Various terminology is used to describe the revaluation process and authors alternatively talk about support points, distributional points or dummy points. In this post I will use the term “dummy points.” You can revalue your hand with dummy points at any point in the auction where it is clear that a fit exists and that your hand will be dummy. How’s that for simple! Most of us get a general notion when we are destined to become the dummy.
Most often this will occur when partner opens 1 of a major and you look down and have 3+ cards in his major suit. On other occasions opener will open 1 of a minor, you will bid 1 of a major and opener, with support for your major suit, raises your major to the appropriate level based open’s hand strength. In these auctions responder is going to play the hand and opener will be the dummy. So, just to warm up to dummy recognition, when you see you are about to become the dummy just mutter “I am a Dummy.”
Now that we have achieved dummy recognition, how do we use that to get to our goal – getting more masterpoints faster. The answer: When you have a fit with partner and are destined for the dummy role, adjust your starting points (what you think you had before the bidding) by converting your starting points to dummy points. If bridge is just a social event, stop reading, you don’t need to know about dummies to meet a lot of nice people, even though some of them may also be dummy-dummies.
This seems so basic that I am almost embarrassed to write it. Surely all of you have been told to revalue fitting hands as dummy. The standard of yesteryear was to value a doubleton as 1 point, singletons as 3 points and voids as 5 points. Well, that is better than nothing, but with suit shortness (singletons and voids) it is often too generous and will overvalue the dummy. This is where your well intended partner asks “where is the hand that you bid?”
The value of suit shortness is directly linked to the number of supporting trump cards in the dmmy hand. Surely it must have occurred to you that a singleton with 3 supporting trump is worth less than a singleton with 4 supporting trump. If you agree, then how can they both be valued as 3 dummy points? It is very possible that with only 3 card trump support that partner may not even be able to ruff even one loser from his hand. Yes, that is a bad day and with non-cooperating opponents, but at least it makes a point. What happened to those 3 dummy points?
Conversely. with 4 trump you are virtually guaranteed to be able to ruff at least one loser, and very often two or more. Think about this: If you have an card 8 trump fit, one opponent will hold 4+ trump an astounding 33% of t he time. Hardly a rarity, more like a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, if your trump fit is 9 cards, one opponent will hold 4 trump only 10% of the time. As a general rule, bid aggressively when you have a 9 card fit and more conservatively when the fit is only 8 cards.
The same is true with voids. If you have a void, it is likely that partner has at least 4+ cards in your void suit. If they are not AKQJ, he needs some trump to ruff his losers in that suit. By the same logical reasoning, the more trump held by dummy, the more valuable the void.
Marty Bergen has refined dummy valuation by changing the dummy point valuation formula to better account for the true value of the dummy. Here is the rule:
When a fit is established and you have said to yourself, “I am the dummy, but not a dummy” revalue your starting points by adding (a) one dummy point for each doubleton (b) two dummy points for each singleton except if you have 4+ supporting trump add 3 points for each single and (c) for any void add dummy points equal to the number of supporting trump that you hold. This is not a moon shot, but still “one small step for man.”
For example, if you ordinarily start with hcps and then add points for suits with more than 4 cards, that’s your starting value. You keep that value and simply add your dummy points to it.
Now you know what dummy points are and how to correctly value them, the next task is to know when to use them. Here’s my advice, use them in every auction where it is apparent that you and partner have a fit and you are the DD (designated dummy). I’ll bet my wrist watch that 95% of my reader’s fail that test. Let’s look at some auctions.
1. 1s/2s. This is a “fluff ball”, DD has 6-9 Dummy Points (DP). Did you notice that I said nothing about hcps? If you know what constructive raises are, try to forget them.
2. 1s/3s. If it shows a limit raise DD has 10-12 DP. If a weak jump raise, DD has 4-5 DP.
3. 1s/3c. If Reverse Bergen DD has 10-12 DP. If Regular Bergen DD has 6-9 DP.
4. 1s/2NT. Jacoby naturally, DD needs 13+ DP. The bid is of unlimited strength.
5. 1s/4c. Splinter (4 card support) with club shortness. DD has 13-16 DP. If you have 17+ use Jacoby 2NT rather than the space eating Splinter.
6. 1s/4s. For most good players this shows 5+ trump and total lack of defense. It is preemptive. Worry about having too much rather than too little. 6 or fewer DP and no outside Ace. This is not your mother’s 4s bid!
7. 1s/x/2NT. Jordan. A conventional bid showing 3 card support and 10-12 DP. Using Jordan a redouble (10+ hcps) would imply no fit for partner.
8. 1s/2c/3c/. Cue Bid showing 3+ card support and 10+ DP. There should be no upper limit to this bid since 2NT would be natural and not Jacoby.
9. 1d/p/1h/p/2h. For most, 4 card support and 13-16 DP. If opener rebids 3h rather than 2h, it shows 17-19 DP and if 4h, then 20+DP. Note that opener is the Dummy.
10. p/p/1s/p/2c. Drury. 3 card support and 10-12 DP. If 2-way Drury then 2d would show 4 card support but still 10-12 DP.
11. 1d/1s/2d/3d. Cue bid supporting partner’s spade overcall. 10+ DP. Here the advancer to the overcall values his hand based on DP.
Notice that we got rid of all this confusion about whether Bergen Raises, Jacoby, Drury etc. etc. are measured by hpcs or dummy points. If you are (or expect to be) a dummy on fitting hands, just adjust your starting count (however you arrived at it) by adding on your dummy points.
If you don’t like this idea, you can always pay a few thousand dollars for a 2 day seminar with Marty Bergen in Las Vegas. A low cost option would be to buy his book Slam Bidding Made Easier. If you are the 10 minute manager type, just read this blog post again. If you think I am full of crap, HONK!!!
Most often this will occur when partner opens 1 of a major and you look down and have 3+ cards in his major suit. On other occasions opener will open 1 of a minor, you will bid 1 of a major and opener, with support for your major suit, raises your major to the appropriate level based open’s hand strength. In these auctions responder is going to play the hand and opener will be the dummy. So, just to warm up to dummy recognition, when you see you are about to become the dummy just mutter “I am a Dummy.”
Now that we have achieved dummy recognition, how do we use that to get to our goal – getting more masterpoints faster. The answer: When you have a fit with partner and are destined for the dummy role, adjust your starting points (what you think you had before the bidding) by converting your starting points to dummy points. If bridge is just a social event, stop reading, you don’t need to know about dummies to meet a lot of nice people, even though some of them may also be dummy-dummies.
This seems so basic that I am almost embarrassed to write it. Surely all of you have been told to revalue fitting hands as dummy. The standard of yesteryear was to value a doubleton as 1 point, singletons as 3 points and voids as 5 points. Well, that is better than nothing, but with suit shortness (singletons and voids) it is often too generous and will overvalue the dummy. This is where your well intended partner asks “where is the hand that you bid?”
The value of suit shortness is directly linked to the number of supporting trump cards in the dmmy hand. Surely it must have occurred to you that a singleton with 3 supporting trump is worth less than a singleton with 4 supporting trump. If you agree, then how can they both be valued as 3 dummy points? It is very possible that with only 3 card trump support that partner may not even be able to ruff even one loser from his hand. Yes, that is a bad day and with non-cooperating opponents, but at least it makes a point. What happened to those 3 dummy points?
Conversely. with 4 trump you are virtually guaranteed to be able to ruff at least one loser, and very often two or more. Think about this: If you have an card 8 trump fit, one opponent will hold 4+ trump an astounding 33% of t he time. Hardly a rarity, more like a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, if your trump fit is 9 cards, one opponent will hold 4 trump only 10% of the time. As a general rule, bid aggressively when you have a 9 card fit and more conservatively when the fit is only 8 cards.
The same is true with voids. If you have a void, it is likely that partner has at least 4+ cards in your void suit. If they are not AKQJ, he needs some trump to ruff his losers in that suit. By the same logical reasoning, the more trump held by dummy, the more valuable the void.
Marty Bergen has refined dummy valuation by changing the dummy point valuation formula to better account for the true value of the dummy. Here is the rule:
When a fit is established and you have said to yourself, “I am the dummy, but not a dummy” revalue your starting points by adding (a) one dummy point for each doubleton (b) two dummy points for each singleton except if you have 4+ supporting trump add 3 points for each single and (c) for any void add dummy points equal to the number of supporting trump that you hold. This is not a moon shot, but still “one small step for man.”
For example, if you ordinarily start with hcps and then add points for suits with more than 4 cards, that’s your starting value. You keep that value and simply add your dummy points to it.
Now you know what dummy points are and how to correctly value them, the next task is to know when to use them. Here’s my advice, use them in every auction where it is apparent that you and partner have a fit and you are the DD (designated dummy). I’ll bet my wrist watch that 95% of my reader’s fail that test. Let’s look at some auctions.
1. 1s/2s. This is a “fluff ball”, DD has 6-9 Dummy Points (DP). Did you notice that I said nothing about hcps? If you know what constructive raises are, try to forget them.
2. 1s/3s. If it shows a limit raise DD has 10-12 DP. If a weak jump raise, DD has 4-5 DP.
3. 1s/3c. If Reverse Bergen DD has 10-12 DP. If Regular Bergen DD has 6-9 DP.
4. 1s/2NT. Jacoby naturally, DD needs 13+ DP. The bid is of unlimited strength.
5. 1s/4c. Splinter (4 card support) with club shortness. DD has 13-16 DP. If you have 17+ use Jacoby 2NT rather than the space eating Splinter.
6. 1s/4s. For most good players this shows 5+ trump and total lack of defense. It is preemptive. Worry about having too much rather than too little. 6 or fewer DP and no outside Ace. This is not your mother’s 4s bid!
7. 1s/x/2NT. Jordan. A conventional bid showing 3 card support and 10-12 DP. Using Jordan a redouble (10+ hcps) would imply no fit for partner.
8. 1s/2c/3c/. Cue Bid showing 3+ card support and 10+ DP. There should be no upper limit to this bid since 2NT would be natural and not Jacoby.
9. 1d/p/1h/p/2h. For most, 4 card support and 13-16 DP. If opener rebids 3h rather than 2h, it shows 17-19 DP and if 4h, then 20+DP. Note that opener is the Dummy.
10. p/p/1s/p/2c. Drury. 3 card support and 10-12 DP. If 2-way Drury then 2d would show 4 card support but still 10-12 DP.
11. 1d/1s/2d/3d. Cue bid supporting partner’s spade overcall. 10+ DP. Here the advancer to the overcall values his hand based on DP.
Notice that we got rid of all this confusion about whether Bergen Raises, Jacoby, Drury etc. etc. are measured by hpcs or dummy points. If you are (or expect to be) a dummy on fitting hands, just adjust your starting count (however you arrived at it) by adding on your dummy points.
If you don’t like this idea, you can always pay a few thousand dollars for a 2 day seminar with Marty Bergen in Las Vegas. A low cost option would be to buy his book Slam Bidding Made Easier. If you are the 10 minute manager type, just read this blog post again. If you think I am full of crap, HONK!!!
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Revisiting Two Club Opening Bids
In June of 2009 I led (more or less) a discussion about when to open 2 clubs. The discussion centered around 2 hands sent to me by a reader. Rather than simply respond, I asked my readers to select the appropriate opening bid. The hands were:
Hand One:
KQ432
Q
AQ32
AKT
Hand Two:
AQxxx
AKT2
AQJ
2
I got a lot of varied responses. The only things the responses had in common were that none of them were equivocal and all lacked any discussion of standards that would be useful to my blog readers in the heat of battle. Almost everyone vilified hand one as a perfect example of abuse and overuse of the 2 club opening bid. Hand 2 gained more support and there was almost an even balance between 1 spade and 2 clubs.
Always practical and useful, enter Marty Bergen who has it all figured out and reveals his answer in depth in Chapter 4 of Slam Bidding Made Easier (2008), my summer beach book. His standard for opening 2 clubs is based on a combination of Quick Tricks and Losers (tricks you would expect to lose if partner shows up with no help at all).
Note that there is a distinct difference between the concept of “losing tricks” in opener’s hand and “Losing Trick Count.” Losing Trick Count (see my earlier blogs) is a valuable valuation tool when a fit has been established with partner, but of dubious value when there has been no bidding.
Most of you know the definition of Quick Tricks since it has been around from the early days of Bridge. A=1, AK= 2, Kx= ½, AQ= 1 ½ KQ=1. That’s it, and there can only be a maximum of 2 Quick Tricks in each suit.
Now you are ready for the Bergen Gold Standard:
(a) If the hand is balanced (4333 or 4432) open 2 clubs only if you have 22 high card points. Opener intends to rebid 2NT.
(b) If the hand is semi-balanced (5332) or unbalanced only open if the hand has 4 or fewer losers and the hand also has 4 or more quick tricks. Thus in Marty speak, “4+4.” Astute observers and mathematicians may point out that if you have only 4 losers, the hand also has 9 winners. Does that standard sound familiar?
Marty is not going to open either Hand 1 or 2 with 2 clubs. They both meet the 4 quick trick requirement but also have too many losing tricks. Let’s look at some example hands from Chapter 4 of Marty’s book.
(a) AJ, KQJT762, AK4, 8. (4 losers and 4 quick tricks). Open 2 clubs.
(b) AKQJ9874, 72, 65, A. Open 1 spade, only 4 losers, but just 3 quick tricks.
(c) AKQT2, AKQJ2, 42. 8. Open 2 clubs, 3 losers and 4 quick tricks.
(d)A, AQ643, K763, AKJ. Open 1 heart. 5 quick tricks, but at least 5 losers. The hand should also be downgraded for the singleton A of spades. Aces that are not supported with other honors in the suit or iare in short suits have diminished value. If you don’t have firm control of the trump suit, you also run the risk of a “pumping defense” in spades.
(e) AKT54, AK5, AKT3, 8. Open 2 clubs. Marty sez any hand with 6+ quick tricks is too strong to open with 1 spade or 1 heart.
What is the downside of the “2 club overuse syndrome?” In three words, “loss of communication.” You are starting the auction on the 2 level and by the time you get through with responses and rebids, it is no trick at all to be on the 3 level and not know much more than you did when you first sorted the cards. If your hand is one that deserves to play in game no matter what partner has, then opening 2 clubs is an effective way to tell him that. You don’t need a lot of bidding room. If your hand is not that strong, then give yourself the optimum opportunity to gain helpful information from partner by a one level opening.
What? Worried about getting passed out? Trust me, in this day and age good partners are looking for reasons to bid, not reasons to pass. Even if partner does not have a minimum bid, the chances are very good that the opponents will either overcall or balance. This sucker is not going to die, and on the rare occasion when it does, you are probably in the right spot.
So what do we have? Marty Bergen who said “Bridge is a Bidder Game” rejects the current fad to reduce standards for forcing 2 club opening bids and goes traditional on us. When you have one of the World’s most aggressive bidders saying “Pull in your horns”, maybe it is time to listen.
So consider making 4+4 your partnership standard.
Hand One:
KQ432
Q
AQ32
AKT
Hand Two:
AQxxx
AKT2
AQJ
2
I got a lot of varied responses. The only things the responses had in common were that none of them were equivocal and all lacked any discussion of standards that would be useful to my blog readers in the heat of battle. Almost everyone vilified hand one as a perfect example of abuse and overuse of the 2 club opening bid. Hand 2 gained more support and there was almost an even balance between 1 spade and 2 clubs.
Always practical and useful, enter Marty Bergen who has it all figured out and reveals his answer in depth in Chapter 4 of Slam Bidding Made Easier (2008), my summer beach book. His standard for opening 2 clubs is based on a combination of Quick Tricks and Losers (tricks you would expect to lose if partner shows up with no help at all).
Note that there is a distinct difference between the concept of “losing tricks” in opener’s hand and “Losing Trick Count.” Losing Trick Count (see my earlier blogs) is a valuable valuation tool when a fit has been established with partner, but of dubious value when there has been no bidding.
Most of you know the definition of Quick Tricks since it has been around from the early days of Bridge. A=1, AK= 2, Kx= ½, AQ= 1 ½ KQ=1. That’s it, and there can only be a maximum of 2 Quick Tricks in each suit.
Now you are ready for the Bergen Gold Standard:
(a) If the hand is balanced (4333 or 4432) open 2 clubs only if you have 22 high card points. Opener intends to rebid 2NT.
(b) If the hand is semi-balanced (5332) or unbalanced only open if the hand has 4 or fewer losers and the hand also has 4 or more quick tricks. Thus in Marty speak, “4+4.” Astute observers and mathematicians may point out that if you have only 4 losers, the hand also has 9 winners. Does that standard sound familiar?
Marty is not going to open either Hand 1 or 2 with 2 clubs. They both meet the 4 quick trick requirement but also have too many losing tricks. Let’s look at some example hands from Chapter 4 of Marty’s book.
(a) AJ, KQJT762, AK4, 8. (4 losers and 4 quick tricks). Open 2 clubs.
(b) AKQJ9874, 72, 65, A. Open 1 spade, only 4 losers, but just 3 quick tricks.
(c) AKQT2, AKQJ2, 42. 8. Open 2 clubs, 3 losers and 4 quick tricks.
(d)A, AQ643, K763, AKJ. Open 1 heart. 5 quick tricks, but at least 5 losers. The hand should also be downgraded for the singleton A of spades. Aces that are not supported with other honors in the suit or iare in short suits have diminished value. If you don’t have firm control of the trump suit, you also run the risk of a “pumping defense” in spades.
(e) AKT54, AK5, AKT3, 8. Open 2 clubs. Marty sez any hand with 6+ quick tricks is too strong to open with 1 spade or 1 heart.
What is the downside of the “2 club overuse syndrome?” In three words, “loss of communication.” You are starting the auction on the 2 level and by the time you get through with responses and rebids, it is no trick at all to be on the 3 level and not know much more than you did when you first sorted the cards. If your hand is one that deserves to play in game no matter what partner has, then opening 2 clubs is an effective way to tell him that. You don’t need a lot of bidding room. If your hand is not that strong, then give yourself the optimum opportunity to gain helpful information from partner by a one level opening.
What? Worried about getting passed out? Trust me, in this day and age good partners are looking for reasons to bid, not reasons to pass. Even if partner does not have a minimum bid, the chances are very good that the opponents will either overcall or balance. This sucker is not going to die, and on the rare occasion when it does, you are probably in the right spot.
So what do we have? Marty Bergen who said “Bridge is a Bidder Game” rejects the current fad to reduce standards for forcing 2 club opening bids and goes traditional on us. When you have one of the World’s most aggressive bidders saying “Pull in your horns”, maybe it is time to listen.
So consider making 4+4 your partnership standard.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Pat Peterson Takes Over the Bank
Well, not exactly, but sort of – Pat is moving her Florida Citrus County Bridge Games to new digs. She will be occupying part of the Nature Coast Bank Building (formerly the Ted Williams Museum) on Route 486 and Citrus Hills Boulevard. The first game in the new location will be Monday, September 20. It is a step forward for Pat and I am sure that I speak for all of her players in wishing her the very best.
Pat, who moved to Citrus County following retirement, has been widely recognized for her many contributions to bridge, not the least of which is her notable success in introducing new players to the duplicate bridge and bringing back some of us retreads. Her accomplishments were recently recognized on the ACBL web site and at last count her Florida pupils who had reached the Life Master milestone were at 35 and climbing. She is truly inspirational.
In furtherance of building bridge in Citrus County, Pat is offering FREE "Easybridge" lessons to beginners and novices or social players who wish to update their skills. This is not read 10 chapters and weep, Pat guarantees that students will be playing bridge by the end of the first day. The lessons start on Tuesday, October 19 and run from 2:00 to 4:30. We all have a big stake in the success of duplicate bridge in Citrus County, so make an effort to sign up any friends who may be candidates. Call Pat at 352-746-7835.
Pat’s success at managing and building bridge is equaled by her skills as a player. She can do it with such quietude and grace that you almost miss it. Recently I was watching Pat (Patpete2)and Sharron Rosenberg (Sharronr) dueling a couple of BBO World Class opponents. I had just finished reading a Chapter in Slam Bidding Made Easier by Marty Bergen on the importance of correctly bidding controls with distributional hands. Marty, no shrinking violet, just flat out said that notwithstanding other well intended expert opinion, the only way to successfully bid controls is to bid 1st and 2nd round controls up the line with equal priority.
I was rousted from my Internet daze by my cat Axel leaping to his perch on my desk and looked up and saw Pat and Sharron dealt these hands:
Sharron; KQJT542, void, A98, AJ8
Pat: A87, AJ732, KT7, 98
Sharron dealt and opened one spade, Pat 2 bid hearts (game forcing), Sharon 2 spades, Pat now bid 4 spades (spade fit and minimum hand). Now if all you count is hcps you might pass in Sharron’s seat. No matter what system you use for revaluing shapely hands, once the fit is established, this one is begging for further exploration. You can bid 4NT asking for key cards, but when partner shows you 2 key cards, you are still left with no complete solution to your minor suit losers. Sharron did not disappoint, she bid 5 clubs showing a control in clubs. Pat and Sharron obviously agree with Marty, since Pat bid 5 diamonds showing her control in diamonds, even though it was a 2nd round control. Now having a workable plan for diamonds, Sharron bid 6 spades. The slam makes against any lead and garnered a big bunch of IMPs. Axel wagged has tail and I sent an “attaboy” text.
The key to their success was both good hand valuation and also the critical control showing bid that Pat made of 5 diamonds. This is apparently how experts show controls (Marty said that) and the worthiness of the concept is proven by the result. So, if you and your partner don’t have an agreement on how to show controls, it might be a good idea to discuss it. Don’t be too surprised if Partner says ”Oh, I always bid 1st round controls first and then 2nd round controls.” If partner says “Oh, I just use Blackwood,” consider ripping up his ACBL card and if he is a life master borrow some tin snips.
Just a comment on hand valuation. I asked Pat what planted the seed in Sharron’s mind that more was there for the taking. An advocate of Losing Trick Count, she noted that Sharon had 4 ½ LTC hand and that her 2/1 game force bid showed about 7 LTC, so taking 12 tricks seemed quite reasonable.
Since my most recent blog post ("Slammin' with Marty Bergen") was about Marty Bergen’s system of valuing fitting major suit hands, I e-mailed the hand to Bergen for comment. Marty said Sharron’s hand is revalued at about 24 Bergen Points, but the void in hearts cannot be fully revalued since it is in partner’s bid suit. Anyway you put it together, as long as you don’t get sidetracked with hcps, you fully justify the bidding continuations and hit the jackpot..
That’s how it is done son!!!
Pat, who moved to Citrus County following retirement, has been widely recognized for her many contributions to bridge, not the least of which is her notable success in introducing new players to the duplicate bridge and bringing back some of us retreads. Her accomplishments were recently recognized on the ACBL web site and at last count her Florida pupils who had reached the Life Master milestone were at 35 and climbing. She is truly inspirational.
In furtherance of building bridge in Citrus County, Pat is offering FREE "Easybridge" lessons to beginners and novices or social players who wish to update their skills. This is not read 10 chapters and weep, Pat guarantees that students will be playing bridge by the end of the first day. The lessons start on Tuesday, October 19 and run from 2:00 to 4:30. We all have a big stake in the success of duplicate bridge in Citrus County, so make an effort to sign up any friends who may be candidates. Call Pat at 352-746-7835.
Pat’s success at managing and building bridge is equaled by her skills as a player. She can do it with such quietude and grace that you almost miss it. Recently I was watching Pat (Patpete2)and Sharron Rosenberg (Sharronr) dueling a couple of BBO World Class opponents. I had just finished reading a Chapter in Slam Bidding Made Easier by Marty Bergen on the importance of correctly bidding controls with distributional hands. Marty, no shrinking violet, just flat out said that notwithstanding other well intended expert opinion, the only way to successfully bid controls is to bid 1st and 2nd round controls up the line with equal priority.
I was rousted from my Internet daze by my cat Axel leaping to his perch on my desk and looked up and saw Pat and Sharron dealt these hands:
Sharron; KQJT542, void, A98, AJ8
Pat: A87, AJ732, KT7, 98
Sharron dealt and opened one spade, Pat 2 bid hearts (game forcing), Sharon 2 spades, Pat now bid 4 spades (spade fit and minimum hand). Now if all you count is hcps you might pass in Sharron’s seat. No matter what system you use for revaluing shapely hands, once the fit is established, this one is begging for further exploration. You can bid 4NT asking for key cards, but when partner shows you 2 key cards, you are still left with no complete solution to your minor suit losers. Sharron did not disappoint, she bid 5 clubs showing a control in clubs. Pat and Sharron obviously agree with Marty, since Pat bid 5 diamonds showing her control in diamonds, even though it was a 2nd round control. Now having a workable plan for diamonds, Sharron bid 6 spades. The slam makes against any lead and garnered a big bunch of IMPs. Axel wagged has tail and I sent an “attaboy” text.
The key to their success was both good hand valuation and also the critical control showing bid that Pat made of 5 diamonds. This is apparently how experts show controls (Marty said that) and the worthiness of the concept is proven by the result. So, if you and your partner don’t have an agreement on how to show controls, it might be a good idea to discuss it. Don’t be too surprised if Partner says ”Oh, I always bid 1st round controls first and then 2nd round controls.” If partner says “Oh, I just use Blackwood,” consider ripping up his ACBL card and if he is a life master borrow some tin snips.
Just a comment on hand valuation. I asked Pat what planted the seed in Sharron’s mind that more was there for the taking. An advocate of Losing Trick Count, she noted that Sharon had 4 ½ LTC hand and that her 2/1 game force bid showed about 7 LTC, so taking 12 tricks seemed quite reasonable.
Since my most recent blog post ("Slammin' with Marty Bergen") was about Marty Bergen’s system of valuing fitting major suit hands, I e-mailed the hand to Bergen for comment. Marty said Sharron’s hand is revalued at about 24 Bergen Points, but the void in hearts cannot be fully revalued since it is in partner’s bid suit. Anyway you put it together, as long as you don’t get sidetracked with hcps, you fully justify the bidding continuations and hit the jackpot..
That’s how it is done son!!!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Slammin' with Marty Bergen
I think success in duplicate bridge is in large measure based on good hand evaluation. It is easy to get stuck in “intermediatesville” and never lose the crutch of the 4-3-2-1 count. Knowing when and how to get beyond that is bridge’s great aperitif.
No analysis of hand valuation would be complete without hearing from Marty Bergen. He wrote a book in 2008 entitled “Slam Bidding Made Easy.” In large measure it is about hand evaluation. I had some e-mail correspondence with Danny Kleinman this summer and asked him about some of Bergen’s ideas. Danny is one of the great bridge theorists, and a world champion in backgammon as well. He said that Bergen is at his best when discussing hand evaluation. Bergen divides hand evaluation into three stages: (i) The Initial Valuation (these adjustments apply to both hands in before any bidding commences), (ii) Revaluing Dummy after a fit is determined by responder and (iii) Revaluing Declarer’s Hand after responder shows a fit. Marty’s approach requires a modest amount of study, but then if all good hand valuation only entailed counting to ten, we would all be experts.
Step 1, The Initial Hand Evaluation. Marty calls this “Adjust 3”, but you will notice that I have managed to divide the adjustments into 4 steps so we will call this first step “Adjust 4.” Adjust 4 applies to both partners and is applied before the auction. Start with your high card count and then:
1. Add your Aces and tens (positive undervalued honors), and Subtract the number of Queens and Jacks (negative overvalued honors). You ignore Kings since they are properly valued at 3 hcps. If the result is at least 3 or more positive add a point and if at least 3 or more negative subtract a point. If the difference is 0-2 no adjustment is necessary. (This is the “honor quality” adjustment).
2. Subtract 1 hcp for any dubious doubleton and/or singleton honor combinations like KQ, KJ, QJ, Qx, Jx, K, Q, and J. (the “wasted honor” adjustment).
3. Add a point if you have a 4+ card suit with 3 of the top 5 honors. (The “suit quality” adjustment).
4. Add another point for every 5 card suit and one additional point for each extra card beyond (The “suit length” adjustment).
All of these are cumulative, so if you have a 6 card suit with 3 of the top 5 honors, you count it as a 3 point adjustment. Two points for the suit length and one point for suit quality. Try these for practice.
(a) AQx, AQTx, KTxx, Ax: Hcp count 19. Add 1 point for honor quality (+3) (5 positve honors and 2 negative), one point for the quality of the 4 card heart suit and it adjusts to 21. Open the hand 2NT.
(b) KQJ, KQxx, AJxx, KJ. Hcp count 20. Adjust down one point for poor honor quality (-3), (one positive card and 4 negative cards) and down one more point for the KJ as a wasted honor, so it adjusts to 18. Open 1 diamond and rebid 2NT.
(c) QJxx, K, Jxxx, AJxx. Hcp count 12. Reduce one point for poor honor quality (-3) and one additional point for the wasted honor. Adjusted count 10. Pass.
(d) AJTxx, 3, ATxx, Axx. Hcp 13. Add one point for honor quality (+4), one point for a 5 card spade length and one more point for the honor quality of the spade suit. Adjusted count 16. Open 1 spade.
(e) xx, AKTx, AKTxxx, x. Hcp Count 14. Add one point for the honor quality (+4) , add 2 points for the 6 card diamond suit, another point for the quality of the diamond suit and finally a point for the quality of the 4 card heart suit. Adjusted count 19. Open this 1 diamond and feel free to reverse with the heart suit.
Well, you may think these Initial Adjustments are a bit overwhelming, but I have tried it for a while and they can be quite easily mastered. I am not smart enough to evaluate the correctness of Bergen’s methodology, but I feel quite comfortable in my belief that it is a better Initial Hand Valuation than you would get by simply ignoring these features.
Step 2. Revaluing Dummy. Once a fit is established responder further adjusts the Initial Hand Valuation to reflect the value of the fit. You can add to your Initial Hand Valuation (i) One point for a doubleton (ii) Two points for a single if you have only 3 card support but add 3 points if you have 4 card support and (iii) for a void, add additional points equal to the number of trumps in your hand. So if you have 5 card support, count 5 for your void. Not too different that the usual dummy point revaluation.
Step 3. Revaluing Declarer’s Hand After a Fit (Bergen Points). If partner supports opener’s suit (e.g.1 spade/2 spades), then opener makes a further adjustment to his Initial Count as follows: (a) add 2 points for a singleton and 4 for a void (b) add 1 point for 2 doubletons (c) add 1 point for each trump suit card over 5 and (d) add one additional point for a 4 or 5 card side suit.
If your combined adjustments now equal 33 points (as adjusted on both sides) you have enough to bid a small slam.
At last Friday’s Open Pairs game in Rochester, N.Y as East I held :
A72, KT762, J9, QJ4.
West held: KQ9653, void, AQ8, AT93. None vulnerable. Dealer North passed, I passed with the East hand, West opened 1 spade, South overcalled 2 hearts and I cue bid three hearts showing 10-12 hpcs and spade support. Join Marty in valuing the East-West hands.
East has 11 hpcs. The Initial Valuation (Adjust 4) would be one added point for the 5 card heart suit and one point subtracted for the worthless doubleton Jack of diamonds. No other adjustments, so an Initial Valuation of 11 hcps. A pass feels right in any system.
West has 15 hcps and gets a 2 point add-on for the 6 card suit and no other adjustments, so West’s Initial Valuation is 17 hcps. The one spade bid seems right.
East has a spade fit, so he needs to revalue his Initial Valuation for Dummy Points. That Jx that initially cost him a point, he now gets to add it back, so 12 Dummy points. Since North made a 2 heart overcall, I cue bid 3 hearts showing support and 10-12 Dummy Points.
West now knows there is a spade fit and must revalue the hand to reflect that fit. Don’t be impatient, this is the final adjustment. Initially he had 17 adjusted points, but he now adds back 4 points for the void, 1 point for the 6 card spade suit and 1 point for the 4 card side suit in clubs. So 17+6=23 adjusted points for opener. Our pair total should be 33-35 adjusted points depending on the size of my limit raise. What Would Marty Do? Probably bid 7 spades which makes, but if you bid 6 spades you get a top board. Sadly, we failed. Joe and June DeSantis were the only pair that got to the slam and a cold top. Congratulations!
Marty has 10 commandments for good slam bidding. No. 1 is “Never forget the magic of Voids.” No 2. is “Hcps are Not the key.” Have you ever looked at the Rodwell-Meckstroth convention card? In bold across the top is “ Frequent upgrades and some downgrades.” Do you suppose they are just lucky or are they doing something we are not?
I hope you find this valuation concept interesting. A more interesting question: Is it an improvement over what I am presently doing? If you are relying on “Kentucky Windage”, consider that with a room full of World Class players (BBO standards) , only one pair found this 26 hcp slam.
No analysis of hand valuation would be complete without hearing from Marty Bergen. He wrote a book in 2008 entitled “Slam Bidding Made Easy.” In large measure it is about hand evaluation. I had some e-mail correspondence with Danny Kleinman this summer and asked him about some of Bergen’s ideas. Danny is one of the great bridge theorists, and a world champion in backgammon as well. He said that Bergen is at his best when discussing hand evaluation. Bergen divides hand evaluation into three stages: (i) The Initial Valuation (these adjustments apply to both hands in before any bidding commences), (ii) Revaluing Dummy after a fit is determined by responder and (iii) Revaluing Declarer’s Hand after responder shows a fit. Marty’s approach requires a modest amount of study, but then if all good hand valuation only entailed counting to ten, we would all be experts.
Step 1, The Initial Hand Evaluation. Marty calls this “Adjust 3”, but you will notice that I have managed to divide the adjustments into 4 steps so we will call this first step “Adjust 4.” Adjust 4 applies to both partners and is applied before the auction. Start with your high card count and then:
1. Add your Aces and tens (positive undervalued honors), and Subtract the number of Queens and Jacks (negative overvalued honors). You ignore Kings since they are properly valued at 3 hcps. If the result is at least 3 or more positive add a point and if at least 3 or more negative subtract a point. If the difference is 0-2 no adjustment is necessary. (This is the “honor quality” adjustment).
2. Subtract 1 hcp for any dubious doubleton and/or singleton honor combinations like KQ, KJ, QJ, Qx, Jx, K, Q, and J. (the “wasted honor” adjustment).
3. Add a point if you have a 4+ card suit with 3 of the top 5 honors. (The “suit quality” adjustment).
4. Add another point for every 5 card suit and one additional point for each extra card beyond (The “suit length” adjustment).
All of these are cumulative, so if you have a 6 card suit with 3 of the top 5 honors, you count it as a 3 point adjustment. Two points for the suit length and one point for suit quality. Try these for practice.
(a) AQx, AQTx, KTxx, Ax: Hcp count 19. Add 1 point for honor quality (+3) (5 positve honors and 2 negative), one point for the quality of the 4 card heart suit and it adjusts to 21. Open the hand 2NT.
(b) KQJ, KQxx, AJxx, KJ. Hcp count 20. Adjust down one point for poor honor quality (-3), (one positive card and 4 negative cards) and down one more point for the KJ as a wasted honor, so it adjusts to 18. Open 1 diamond and rebid 2NT.
(c) QJxx, K, Jxxx, AJxx. Hcp count 12. Reduce one point for poor honor quality (-3) and one additional point for the wasted honor. Adjusted count 10. Pass.
(d) AJTxx, 3, ATxx, Axx. Hcp 13. Add one point for honor quality (+4), one point for a 5 card spade length and one more point for the honor quality of the spade suit. Adjusted count 16. Open 1 spade.
(e) xx, AKTx, AKTxxx, x. Hcp Count 14. Add one point for the honor quality (+4) , add 2 points for the 6 card diamond suit, another point for the quality of the diamond suit and finally a point for the quality of the 4 card heart suit. Adjusted count 19. Open this 1 diamond and feel free to reverse with the heart suit.
Well, you may think these Initial Adjustments are a bit overwhelming, but I have tried it for a while and they can be quite easily mastered. I am not smart enough to evaluate the correctness of Bergen’s methodology, but I feel quite comfortable in my belief that it is a better Initial Hand Valuation than you would get by simply ignoring these features.
Step 2. Revaluing Dummy. Once a fit is established responder further adjusts the Initial Hand Valuation to reflect the value of the fit. You can add to your Initial Hand Valuation (i) One point for a doubleton (ii) Two points for a single if you have only 3 card support but add 3 points if you have 4 card support and (iii) for a void, add additional points equal to the number of trumps in your hand. So if you have 5 card support, count 5 for your void. Not too different that the usual dummy point revaluation.
Step 3. Revaluing Declarer’s Hand After a Fit (Bergen Points). If partner supports opener’s suit (e.g.1 spade/2 spades), then opener makes a further adjustment to his Initial Count as follows: (a) add 2 points for a singleton and 4 for a void (b) add 1 point for 2 doubletons (c) add 1 point for each trump suit card over 5 and (d) add one additional point for a 4 or 5 card side suit.
If your combined adjustments now equal 33 points (as adjusted on both sides) you have enough to bid a small slam.
At last Friday’s Open Pairs game in Rochester, N.Y as East I held :
A72, KT762, J9, QJ4.
West held: KQ9653, void, AQ8, AT93. None vulnerable. Dealer North passed, I passed with the East hand, West opened 1 spade, South overcalled 2 hearts and I cue bid three hearts showing 10-12 hpcs and spade support. Join Marty in valuing the East-West hands.
East has 11 hpcs. The Initial Valuation (Adjust 4) would be one added point for the 5 card heart suit and one point subtracted for the worthless doubleton Jack of diamonds. No other adjustments, so an Initial Valuation of 11 hcps. A pass feels right in any system.
West has 15 hcps and gets a 2 point add-on for the 6 card suit and no other adjustments, so West’s Initial Valuation is 17 hcps. The one spade bid seems right.
East has a spade fit, so he needs to revalue his Initial Valuation for Dummy Points. That Jx that initially cost him a point, he now gets to add it back, so 12 Dummy points. Since North made a 2 heart overcall, I cue bid 3 hearts showing support and 10-12 Dummy Points.
West now knows there is a spade fit and must revalue the hand to reflect that fit. Don’t be impatient, this is the final adjustment. Initially he had 17 adjusted points, but he now adds back 4 points for the void, 1 point for the 6 card spade suit and 1 point for the 4 card side suit in clubs. So 17+6=23 adjusted points for opener. Our pair total should be 33-35 adjusted points depending on the size of my limit raise. What Would Marty Do? Probably bid 7 spades which makes, but if you bid 6 spades you get a top board. Sadly, we failed. Joe and June DeSantis were the only pair that got to the slam and a cold top. Congratulations!
Marty has 10 commandments for good slam bidding. No. 1 is “Never forget the magic of Voids.” No 2. is “Hcps are Not the key.” Have you ever looked at the Rodwell-Meckstroth convention card? In bold across the top is “ Frequent upgrades and some downgrades.” Do you suppose they are just lucky or are they doing something we are not?
I hope you find this valuation concept interesting. A more interesting question: Is it an improvement over what I am presently doing? If you are relying on “Kentucky Windage”, consider that with a room full of World Class players (BBO standards) , only one pair found this 26 hcp slam.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Redefining "Two Hearts Trash" - A Systemic Update
Many decades ago the opening bid of 2 clubs became the only forcing opening bid in the Standard American System. A companion response to this opening bid was a response system called “Two Diamonds Waiting.” The response of two diamonds was neither negative or positive, but merely was a temporizing bid to allow opener to further describe his hand. Responder on his rebid, not having previously described his hand, would show positive values and a fit by raising opener’s suit, positive values but no fit by bidding another suit, or a negative response hand by biding 3 clubs (if available). A negative response denies holding “working cards” defined as an Ace, King or Two Queens.
This system, still widely used today, has several weaknesses. The initial response is a wasted bid since it tells opener nothing about responder’s hand. Not only that, it uses up valuable bidding space. Consider a sequence 2c/2d/3c or 3d by opener. The bidding is already at the 3 level and opener know no more about responder’s hand than when he started. Suppose responder holds no working cards, do you know how to show a negative bid when the bidding level is passed 3 clubs? The answer is that you make the cheapest bid at the 3 level, but I have known many good players who failed that test. Do you and your partners understand that? Suppose you have a balanced hand of 25 hcps. I had this hand on successive days recently. Under 2 diamonds waiting opener must show that hand by jumping to 3NT. Three no trump leaves little room to find a 4-4 or 5-3 major fit. Wouldn’t it have been nice to simply rebid 2NT to facilitate both Stayman and transfers?
Enter our old friend Oswald Jacoby who said let’s rearrange our systems so that first bid by responder will actually define the hand as either negative or positive saving a level of bidding and solving other problems as well. I call this system “two hearts trash” because the immediate response of 2 hearts shows a trashy hand that lacks any working cards. Working card retain their definition, an Ace, King or 2 Queens. Some explanations of this system do not specify 2 queens but replace it with 4+ hcps. I think it is best to reject the concept of hcps and stick with two queens. Max Hardy in his excellent book Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century shows on page 177 an example J73, J62, J94, QJ87 and states that this fails the “2 queens” test and should be shown as a negative hand. He notes that the club holding could face club shortness in opener’s hand and be completely worthless. If opener should bid 2NT (22-23 hcps) responder would gladly raise to 3NT.
If responder has working values he bids anything other than 2 hearts. Any bid other than 2 hearts is game forcing. If responder holds a 5 card major to 2 of the top 3 honors he can bid that suit. If that suit is hearts, the substitute bid for 2 hearts is 2 no trump. If responder has a 6 card minor suit to 2 of the top 3 he can bid that suit at the 3 level. While under the “2 diamonds waiting” system these bids also suggested holding additional values as well (8-9 hcps), under “two hearts trash they do not require additional values beyond suit length and honor strength. Thus with KQxxx, xx, xxx, xxx the correct response is 2 spades.
If your hand does not meet the requirements for the more descriptive suit bids and you have working cards, your bid is 2 diamonds. This is much different than “2 diamonds waiting” since it clearly indicates a positive hand with no better bid to make. Since it is a positive bid, it is a game forcing bid. While under “2 diamonds waiting” responder having bid 2 diamonds could pass a rebid of 2NT, in 2 hearts trash responder may not pass 2 NT. Now opener with the big balanced hand does not have to make some jump bid in no trump to force responder, he can take it slow, rebid 2NT and pick apart responder hand values and distribution. Note how nicely this accommodates both Stayman and Transfers at reasonable levels.
The only bid that is not a game force is the negative response of 2 hearts. If opener now bids 2NT and responder has non-contributing values he may pass. Responder does not have to pass. With values like those shown in the earlier example it would be appropriate to raise to 3NT. This is a two edged sword. If opener has a big hand and wants to play at game against a “bust response”, he better bid that game.
If responder first makes a positive 2 diamond response, on the second response he further describes his hand by showing support, or showing lack of support by bidding no trump or a new 5 card suit. From this point the bidding flows naturally.
Suppose opener has a hand like 6, AKQJT75, AK5, 83. The bidding goes 2c/2d/3h. Certainly with 9 tricks this qualifies for a 2 club opening bid. The jump rebid shows a solid self supporting heart suit and asks responder to show controls. If responder has an ace, he bids that suit and without an ace but with 1 or more Kings, bids 3NT. Thus, the raise to 4 hearts would simply show the positive response was based on two queens.
It is beyond the scope of this post to attempt to promote disputes about what an opening bid of 2 clubs means. Right or wrong, it seems to be meaning less and less. I suggest that this rush to open all good hands with 2 clubs is misguided and that we would be better to retain traditional standards. Max Hardy says that it shows a balanced hand and 23+ hcps or hand that has 9 tricks. In part this standard was the basis for determining what constitutes a positive or negative response under both 2 diamonds waiting and 2 hearts trash. If you have a real 2 club bid and partner has one or more working cards, you should have a realistic play for game. If opener makes some watered down 2 club bid, then the safe guards built into the system will not protect you at game levels. Of particular vulnerability are single suited minor hands or two suited hands where competitive action by opponents may take up too much bidding room.
This brings us to our final issue. Tough and aggressive opponents do not always let you alone when you open two clubs. This frequently occurs where the 2 club bid is based on a single suited minor or a two suited hand. If the interference is an overcall, then double by responder is a negative bid and any other bid by responder is a positive bid. With the interfering overcall responder just bids his hand and the bids of two hearts (now natural) or two spades simply shows a 5 card suit headed by an Ace of King. If the interference is a double, then redouble is the negative bid and any other bid shows one of more working cards.
I am aware that some partnerships simply respond showing controls over 2 clubs. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss those systems other than to say that they have their pluses and minuses. Similar to “two hearts trash”, they focus solely on working cards and showing hand strength with the first response. Give a copy of this post to your partner and send “2 diamonds waiting” to the recycle bin.
This system, still widely used today, has several weaknesses. The initial response is a wasted bid since it tells opener nothing about responder’s hand. Not only that, it uses up valuable bidding space. Consider a sequence 2c/2d/3c or 3d by opener. The bidding is already at the 3 level and opener know no more about responder’s hand than when he started. Suppose responder holds no working cards, do you know how to show a negative bid when the bidding level is passed 3 clubs? The answer is that you make the cheapest bid at the 3 level, but I have known many good players who failed that test. Do you and your partners understand that? Suppose you have a balanced hand of 25 hcps. I had this hand on successive days recently. Under 2 diamonds waiting opener must show that hand by jumping to 3NT. Three no trump leaves little room to find a 4-4 or 5-3 major fit. Wouldn’t it have been nice to simply rebid 2NT to facilitate both Stayman and transfers?
Enter our old friend Oswald Jacoby who said let’s rearrange our systems so that first bid by responder will actually define the hand as either negative or positive saving a level of bidding and solving other problems as well. I call this system “two hearts trash” because the immediate response of 2 hearts shows a trashy hand that lacks any working cards. Working card retain their definition, an Ace, King or 2 Queens. Some explanations of this system do not specify 2 queens but replace it with 4+ hcps. I think it is best to reject the concept of hcps and stick with two queens. Max Hardy in his excellent book Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century shows on page 177 an example J73, J62, J94, QJ87 and states that this fails the “2 queens” test and should be shown as a negative hand. He notes that the club holding could face club shortness in opener’s hand and be completely worthless. If opener should bid 2NT (22-23 hcps) responder would gladly raise to 3NT.
If responder has working values he bids anything other than 2 hearts. Any bid other than 2 hearts is game forcing. If responder holds a 5 card major to 2 of the top 3 honors he can bid that suit. If that suit is hearts, the substitute bid for 2 hearts is 2 no trump. If responder has a 6 card minor suit to 2 of the top 3 he can bid that suit at the 3 level. While under the “2 diamonds waiting” system these bids also suggested holding additional values as well (8-9 hcps), under “two hearts trash they do not require additional values beyond suit length and honor strength. Thus with KQxxx, xx, xxx, xxx the correct response is 2 spades.
If your hand does not meet the requirements for the more descriptive suit bids and you have working cards, your bid is 2 diamonds. This is much different than “2 diamonds waiting” since it clearly indicates a positive hand with no better bid to make. Since it is a positive bid, it is a game forcing bid. While under “2 diamonds waiting” responder having bid 2 diamonds could pass a rebid of 2NT, in 2 hearts trash responder may not pass 2 NT. Now opener with the big balanced hand does not have to make some jump bid in no trump to force responder, he can take it slow, rebid 2NT and pick apart responder hand values and distribution. Note how nicely this accommodates both Stayman and Transfers at reasonable levels.
The only bid that is not a game force is the negative response of 2 hearts. If opener now bids 2NT and responder has non-contributing values he may pass. Responder does not have to pass. With values like those shown in the earlier example it would be appropriate to raise to 3NT. This is a two edged sword. If opener has a big hand and wants to play at game against a “bust response”, he better bid that game.
If responder first makes a positive 2 diamond response, on the second response he further describes his hand by showing support, or showing lack of support by bidding no trump or a new 5 card suit. From this point the bidding flows naturally.
Suppose opener has a hand like 6, AKQJT75, AK5, 83. The bidding goes 2c/2d/3h. Certainly with 9 tricks this qualifies for a 2 club opening bid. The jump rebid shows a solid self supporting heart suit and asks responder to show controls. If responder has an ace, he bids that suit and without an ace but with 1 or more Kings, bids 3NT. Thus, the raise to 4 hearts would simply show the positive response was based on two queens.
It is beyond the scope of this post to attempt to promote disputes about what an opening bid of 2 clubs means. Right or wrong, it seems to be meaning less and less. I suggest that this rush to open all good hands with 2 clubs is misguided and that we would be better to retain traditional standards. Max Hardy says that it shows a balanced hand and 23+ hcps or hand that has 9 tricks. In part this standard was the basis for determining what constitutes a positive or negative response under both 2 diamonds waiting and 2 hearts trash. If you have a real 2 club bid and partner has one or more working cards, you should have a realistic play for game. If opener makes some watered down 2 club bid, then the safe guards built into the system will not protect you at game levels. Of particular vulnerability are single suited minor hands or two suited hands where competitive action by opponents may take up too much bidding room.
This brings us to our final issue. Tough and aggressive opponents do not always let you alone when you open two clubs. This frequently occurs where the 2 club bid is based on a single suited minor or a two suited hand. If the interference is an overcall, then double by responder is a negative bid and any other bid by responder is a positive bid. With the interfering overcall responder just bids his hand and the bids of two hearts (now natural) or two spades simply shows a 5 card suit headed by an Ace of King. If the interference is a double, then redouble is the negative bid and any other bid shows one of more working cards.
I am aware that some partnerships simply respond showing controls over 2 clubs. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss those systems other than to say that they have their pluses and minuses. Similar to “two hearts trash”, they focus solely on working cards and showing hand strength with the first response. Give a copy of this post to your partner and send “2 diamonds waiting” to the recycle bin.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Combined Bergen Revisited (Again)
Introduction
Combined Bergen is a modification of both Original and Reverse Bergen Raises. I was first introduced to the concept by Pat Peterson, a well known expert, teacher and director in Citrus County, Florida.. She is patpete2 on Bridge Base. I wrote a blog post detailing the concept about 2 years ago and it was my most popular blog ever, eliciting responses from all over the World. Since many of my readers were not following my blog at that time, I decided to repost it in a new format with examples and more detail. It’s time to rethink your Bergen and you now don’t have to ask regular or reverse, just say Combined!!
Why Do It?
The Combined Bergen Raise eliminates a difficult situation which arises after 1 heart or 1spade is opened and responder bids 1NT forcing. If opener has a strong hand worth a jump shift of say 3 diamonds; what now does 3 hearts or 3 spades show by responder? Is it a two-card false preference or could it be a limit raise with 3 trumps? If responder happens to have the limit raise with 3 trumps, does he have to bid 4 hearts or 4 spades using up valuable bidding space? Does he bid 3 hearts and give partner the idea that he has 2 trumps. With the Combined Bergen Raise this is addressed by using the 3 diamond response to show the limit raise with three trumps and the 3 club response to show a four card raise with a range of 7-12 hcps. This does not lose anything because we have ways to find out if the Bergen raise is a constructive raise or a limit raise by an "asking bid" by the opening bidder.
Combining the Bergen 4 Card Raises
The solution is to compress the Bergen 3 club and 3 diamond responses (four-card raises) into one response, 3 clubs. This shows a 4 card raise of the major with 7-12 hcps. If opener’s fowward going action will benefit by having the raise further defined, opener can initiate a "range check" by bidding 3 diamonds. If inquiry is made responder’s rebid of 3 hearts shows a constructive raise 7-9 hcps and 3 spades shows a limit raise of 10-12 hcps. You don’t need two bids to show two separate ranges. Alternatively, opener could ignore the range check and bid 3 or 4 of the major, each of which is to play. If after the range check response, Opener does anything other than bid game in the major, it would be a slam try.
Example 1: As Opener you hold AJ1086, KQ107, K87, 8
You hear 3 clubs over your 1 spade opener (7-12 Combined Bergen). Since opener would be willing to play at game against a limit raise, but would settle for playing 3 spades against a constructive raise, bid 3 diamonds to ask partner which he has the limit or constructive raise. If partner bids 3 hearts you bid 3 spades. If partner bids 3 spades, you bid 4 spades.
Example 2: As Opener you hold KQ107, AJ1086, K87, 8
You hear 3 clubs over your 1 heart opener (7-12 hcps, Combined Bergen). Ask partner if he has limit or constructive raise by bidding 3 diamonds. If you hear 3 hearts (7-9 hcps) you pass, If you hear 3 spades you bid 4 hearts. A occasional comment has been “when you bid 3 diamonds over 3 clubs in the heart suit sequence, if partner has the limit raise you are locked into a game contract.” Why would you bid 3 diamonds if you did not want to play game against a limit raise??
Example 3: As Responder you hold: KQ97, K987, 543, 98
Partner bids 1 spade, you bid 3 clubs (Combined Bergen 8 hcps). If partner asks your range by bidding 3 diamonds, you rebid 3 hearts “I have a constructive raise”
Example 4: As responder you hold: KQ97, K987, QJ9, 98
Partner opens 1 spade, you bid 3 Clubs. If partner asks your range by bidding 3 diamonds, you rebid 3 spades showing the limit raise. If Partner opens 1heart, you bid 3 clubs. If partner asks you range by bidding 3diamonds , you rebid 3 spades “I have a Limit raise”
Three Diamonds as a 3 Card Limit Raise
As noted earlier the response of 3 diamonds to an opening bid of 1 of a major shows a 3 card limit raise. This avoids the ambiguity detailed in the first paragraph when opener makes a jump shift. Responder by bidding 3 diamonds completely describes his hand with one bid. In addition, the response of 3 diamonds is much more preemptive than responding 1NT as a prelude to showing a 3 card limit raise. These are major advantages which now can be availed of by using Combined Bergen.
1NT is Now Semi-Forcing
Using Combined Bergen also changes the meaning of the 1 no trump” response. Since the 3 card limit raise no longer uses the 1NT response, it is no longer necessary to have 1NT treated as forcing, so the response of 1NT becomes semi-forcing and shows a hand of 5+-11 hcps with 0-2 card support for the opening major. Opener now may pass with a balanced hand (5332) and less than 14 hcps. To put it in the positive, opener takes a bid with an unbalanced hand or if he has 14+ hcps.
Example 5:: As opener you hold AJ1086, KQ104, K4, 87.
You open 1spade partner bids a “semi-forcing NT, you respond 2 hearts. You do not pass 1NT semi-forcing with another 4 card suit even though you have only 13 hcps.
Example 6: As opener you hold: AJ876, 874, KQ8, K4
When you open 1 spade and you hear 1NT (semi-forcing) you may pass 1NT with only 13 hcps and 5332 distribution. Partner has 2 or fewer spades and may has as little as a good 5 or 6 hcps. It might make 1NT and in any event figures to beat other pairs playing 1NT forcing..
Example 7: As opener you hold: AJ1086, KQ5, KJ7, 107
When you open 1 spade and you hear 1NT (semi-forcing) you bid 2 diamonds. You can’t pass with 14 hcps in case partner has the 11 point forcing NT.
Example 8: As opener you hold: AJ986, KQ5, KJ7, Q2
With 16 hcps and balance, open 1 NT, the best bid for this hand. If it looks like a NT hand bid it.
Interference and Combined Bergen.
If Opener’s LHO doubles, then Combined Bergen remains “on” as if the double hand not taken place.
If Opener’s LHO overcalls Combined Bergen is still on as long as it constitutes a jump shift. So 1h/1s/3c or 3d are combined Bergen. 1h/2c/3c would be a cue bid showing a limit raise or better but 3 diamonds would still be Combined Bergen showing the 3 card limit raise. Finally 1s//2h/3c or 3d are not combined Bergen as they are not jump shifts. They show a club or diamond suit respectfully. If all this distinction is too much for you, just play Combined Bergen off over overcalls, but have a partnership understanding how you show supporting hands.
If Opener’s RHO doubles the bid of 3 clubs or 3 diamonds, since they are artificial bids it should be a lead directing double. If 3 clubs is doubled I like the Combined Bergen rebids to retain their normal meanings. If 3 diamonds is doubled, 3 or 4 of the major should be to play and redouble would be showing slam interest asking responder to cue bid a control or if none to rebid the major..
Third Hand Opening Bids.
If you like to play some form of Drury, then continue to play it and Combined Bergen will be off by a passed hand. If you have a partner who is not comfortable with Drury (has missed 3 successive alerts), then just play Combined Bergen “on” opposite a 3rd hand opener. I play it both ways depending on my partner and his or her preference.
Conclusion.
Try it, but remember that almost all bids and responses are ALERTABLE. I think it passes the test of most good conventions. It is not complicated, it adds value and it doesn’t require that you give up any bids that it does not replace. I think you will particularly enjoy playing 1NT contracts again or forcing opponents into awkward balancing action on non-fitting hands.
Combined Bergen is a modification of both Original and Reverse Bergen Raises. I was first introduced to the concept by Pat Peterson, a well known expert, teacher and director in Citrus County, Florida.. She is patpete2 on Bridge Base. I wrote a blog post detailing the concept about 2 years ago and it was my most popular blog ever, eliciting responses from all over the World. Since many of my readers were not following my blog at that time, I decided to repost it in a new format with examples and more detail. It’s time to rethink your Bergen and you now don’t have to ask regular or reverse, just say Combined!!
Why Do It?
The Combined Bergen Raise eliminates a difficult situation which arises after 1 heart or 1spade is opened and responder bids 1NT forcing. If opener has a strong hand worth a jump shift of say 3 diamonds; what now does 3 hearts or 3 spades show by responder? Is it a two-card false preference or could it be a limit raise with 3 trumps? If responder happens to have the limit raise with 3 trumps, does he have to bid 4 hearts or 4 spades using up valuable bidding space? Does he bid 3 hearts and give partner the idea that he has 2 trumps. With the Combined Bergen Raise this is addressed by using the 3 diamond response to show the limit raise with three trumps and the 3 club response to show a four card raise with a range of 7-12 hcps. This does not lose anything because we have ways to find out if the Bergen raise is a constructive raise or a limit raise by an "asking bid" by the opening bidder.
Combining the Bergen 4 Card Raises
The solution is to compress the Bergen 3 club and 3 diamond responses (four-card raises) into one response, 3 clubs. This shows a 4 card raise of the major with 7-12 hcps. If opener’s fowward going action will benefit by having the raise further defined, opener can initiate a "range check" by bidding 3 diamonds. If inquiry is made responder’s rebid of 3 hearts shows a constructive raise 7-9 hcps and 3 spades shows a limit raise of 10-12 hcps. You don’t need two bids to show two separate ranges. Alternatively, opener could ignore the range check and bid 3 or 4 of the major, each of which is to play. If after the range check response, Opener does anything other than bid game in the major, it would be a slam try.
Example 1: As Opener you hold AJ1086, KQ107, K87, 8
You hear 3 clubs over your 1 spade opener (7-12 Combined Bergen). Since opener would be willing to play at game against a limit raise, but would settle for playing 3 spades against a constructive raise, bid 3 diamonds to ask partner which he has the limit or constructive raise. If partner bids 3 hearts you bid 3 spades. If partner bids 3 spades, you bid 4 spades.
Example 2: As Opener you hold KQ107, AJ1086, K87, 8
You hear 3 clubs over your 1 heart opener (7-12 hcps, Combined Bergen). Ask partner if he has limit or constructive raise by bidding 3 diamonds. If you hear 3 hearts (7-9 hcps) you pass, If you hear 3 spades you bid 4 hearts. A occasional comment has been “when you bid 3 diamonds over 3 clubs in the heart suit sequence, if partner has the limit raise you are locked into a game contract.” Why would you bid 3 diamonds if you did not want to play game against a limit raise??
Example 3: As Responder you hold: KQ97, K987, 543, 98
Partner bids 1 spade, you bid 3 clubs (Combined Bergen 8 hcps). If partner asks your range by bidding 3 diamonds, you rebid 3 hearts “I have a constructive raise”
Example 4: As responder you hold: KQ97, K987, QJ9, 98
Partner opens 1 spade, you bid 3 Clubs. If partner asks your range by bidding 3 diamonds, you rebid 3 spades showing the limit raise. If Partner opens 1heart, you bid 3 clubs. If partner asks you range by bidding 3diamonds , you rebid 3 spades “I have a Limit raise”
Three Diamonds as a 3 Card Limit Raise
As noted earlier the response of 3 diamonds to an opening bid of 1 of a major shows a 3 card limit raise. This avoids the ambiguity detailed in the first paragraph when opener makes a jump shift. Responder by bidding 3 diamonds completely describes his hand with one bid. In addition, the response of 3 diamonds is much more preemptive than responding 1NT as a prelude to showing a 3 card limit raise. These are major advantages which now can be availed of by using Combined Bergen.
1NT is Now Semi-Forcing
Using Combined Bergen also changes the meaning of the 1 no trump” response. Since the 3 card limit raise no longer uses the 1NT response, it is no longer necessary to have 1NT treated as forcing, so the response of 1NT becomes semi-forcing and shows a hand of 5+-11 hcps with 0-2 card support for the opening major. Opener now may pass with a balanced hand (5332) and less than 14 hcps. To put it in the positive, opener takes a bid with an unbalanced hand or if he has 14+ hcps.
Example 5:: As opener you hold AJ1086, KQ104, K4, 87.
You open 1spade partner bids a “semi-forcing NT, you respond 2 hearts. You do not pass 1NT semi-forcing with another 4 card suit even though you have only 13 hcps.
Example 6: As opener you hold: AJ876, 874, KQ8, K4
When you open 1 spade and you hear 1NT (semi-forcing) you may pass 1NT with only 13 hcps and 5332 distribution. Partner has 2 or fewer spades and may has as little as a good 5 or 6 hcps. It might make 1NT and in any event figures to beat other pairs playing 1NT forcing..
Example 7: As opener you hold: AJ1086, KQ5, KJ7, 107
When you open 1 spade and you hear 1NT (semi-forcing) you bid 2 diamonds. You can’t pass with 14 hcps in case partner has the 11 point forcing NT.
Example 8: As opener you hold: AJ986, KQ5, KJ7, Q2
With 16 hcps and balance, open 1 NT, the best bid for this hand. If it looks like a NT hand bid it.
Interference and Combined Bergen.
If Opener’s LHO doubles, then Combined Bergen remains “on” as if the double hand not taken place.
If Opener’s LHO overcalls Combined Bergen is still on as long as it constitutes a jump shift. So 1h/1s/3c or 3d are combined Bergen. 1h/2c/3c would be a cue bid showing a limit raise or better but 3 diamonds would still be Combined Bergen showing the 3 card limit raise. Finally 1s//2h/3c or 3d are not combined Bergen as they are not jump shifts. They show a club or diamond suit respectfully. If all this distinction is too much for you, just play Combined Bergen off over overcalls, but have a partnership understanding how you show supporting hands.
If Opener’s RHO doubles the bid of 3 clubs or 3 diamonds, since they are artificial bids it should be a lead directing double. If 3 clubs is doubled I like the Combined Bergen rebids to retain their normal meanings. If 3 diamonds is doubled, 3 or 4 of the major should be to play and redouble would be showing slam interest asking responder to cue bid a control or if none to rebid the major..
Third Hand Opening Bids.
If you like to play some form of Drury, then continue to play it and Combined Bergen will be off by a passed hand. If you have a partner who is not comfortable with Drury (has missed 3 successive alerts), then just play Combined Bergen “on” opposite a 3rd hand opener. I play it both ways depending on my partner and his or her preference.
Conclusion.
Try it, but remember that almost all bids and responses are ALERTABLE. I think it passes the test of most good conventions. It is not complicated, it adds value and it doesn’t require that you give up any bids that it does not replace. I think you will particularly enjoy playing 1NT contracts again or forcing opponents into awkward balancing action on non-fitting hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
