Tommy's Bridge Blog

O Captain! My Captain

2011-10-01T16:59:00.002-04:00

What’s Walt Whitman doing popping up in the Blog? I was tucked in last night reading myself to sleep on my iPad2, when I see this e-mail pop up at midnight from my left coast babe Elinor (elsnie on BBO). Elinor is a long time reader so I always take her mail. I see rolling across my screen “Help, my partner and I are coming to blows over this hand.” Obviously she’s “on line” with the chat wires burning up. Here are the hands she gives me. Vulnerability or position make no difference in this hand.

North: AKxx, 9xxx, xx, xxx
South: QJxx, AJx, AKxx, Ax

Elinor sitting South opens 1 diamond, pard bids 1 heart. Now it rolls back to Elinor who bids 2NT and pard (assuming she would have rebid 2 spades if she had 4 of them), bids 3NT. Is 2NT the correct rebid, and if so why? No memorizing here or playing on auto pilot, you only get a perfect 10 if you can explain the bid and understand the logic as well. I don’t perceive that any of my high stepping partners and other so called BBO experts will have much trouble with this, but I have many novice and intermediate readers as well, so bear with me.

As you can see, the 3NT contract is in for some hard times and 4 spades can be made by my cat Axel. Granted he is a precocious cat!! It helps that his tail hangs over my keyboard all day. He say’s “ Boss, we have written about this before—he is right but it was ages ago and lost in a hard drive a couple of computers back.

Elinor reads the Blog so naturally I will stand up for her. It’s a little beside the point, but her 2NT rebid also happens to be 100% correct. With the South hand you pass the 4 card spade suit even if it is AKQJ. What is at work here is the “Captaincy Principle.” I know, they promised you would only have to memorize a few bids and not penetrate bridge theory. If this principle were not at “the very heart and soul” of bridge bidding, I would fold my tent and move on, but once you understand this little principle you will forever be a much better player.

In researching this post I read a one page description of the Captaincy Principal by Harold Schachter, a bridge expert and writer from the Lakewood, New Jersey area. As he describes it, every auction has a “descriptive” phase and a “captaincy” phase. During the descriptive phase both partners have equal responsibility for the final contract, and their only duty is too describe their hands (as tightly as they can) in terms of hcps and distribution.

There are some bids that describe the hand with the opening bid, such any no trump opening. It describes both a point range and a balanced or semi balanced hand. We immediately know that partner is the Captain. There are many responses to one level suit openings that describe the hand and end the descriptive phase. These include 1NT, single or limit raises and weak jump shifts. All of these responses make opener the Captain. In all of these cases the opener has the combined knowledge of both hands and directs the hands to the final contract.

Partner of the Captain (the “Crew”) has no responsibility except to answer further “inquiry bids” (think game tries; fourth suit forcing, New Minor Forcing, Key Card Blackwood). If the Captain does not want to be passed out he must be careful not to make any non-forcing bids and the crew must not pass until he hears a bid that is not forcing. Don’t be a “Mastermind” and assume Captaincy until you are sure you are best positioned to do so. There is lot to like about being the Crew (think blame free). As the crew, know what is and is not a forcing bid and keep giving answers until you hear one that isn’t.

In 2/1 GF auctions it often takes several rounds to find the Captain, and both partners share information with each other until the conclusion of the descriptive phase. Since the hands already are in a game force you have the bidding space to do lots of exploration. In non-game force hands players tend to first describe and limit the strength of the hands. In 2/1 auctions we normally bid to describe distribution since we don’t want to consume valuable bidding room with jump shifts, splinters and other space eaters.

So why did Elinor bid 2NT. Did she want to become the crew and blame her partner for any problems? No, her bid is the ultimate in the descriptive category, showing 18-19 hcps and balance and makes partner Captain. Note that by bidding one spade she would have said nothing about the size of her hand, or for that matter hand pattern, and we would still be looking for a Captain.

How do we avoid losing a 4-4 spade fit? The Captain uses the inquiry bids available to her, either NMF or Check Back Stayman to find out about Elinor’s holding in the majors. With both 3 hearts and 4 spades, if NMF was the agreement, she would show her 3 card heart support first (pard might have 5 hearts) and if the Captain now bids 3NT (denying the 5 card heart suit), Elinor would bid 4 spades. If the Captain used NMF, she must have one or the other, or alternatively, be a historical footnote in the partnership.

What if Elinor had this alternative hand: QJxx, Jxx, AQxx, Kx and the bidding went 1 diamond, 1 heart: Do you just bid 1NT and skip the 4 card spade suit? No, No, No – that's not the way ACBL land does it. They show the 4 card spade suit bidding one level suits up the line. Sound and feel familiar? But how does that sequence square with the duty to limit your hand as soon as possible. A rebid of 1NT would show 12-14 and balance, what could be better than that?
It’s an aberration. The Captaincy principle conflicts with the perceived need to find a 4-4 spade fit if there is one and gives way to showing the spade suit. Yes, partner could use NMF just as in the 2NT example, but in this instance to make a NMF bid responder must have 11 hcps. If she does not, we miss the potential major suit fits.

This is all based on the theory that 8 card major fits will usually play better in the major suit than in No Trump. “Usually” is the operative word. Some experts have found complex solutions to work around this issue, and for them bidding 1 spade shows a distributional hand with diamonds and spades whereas the 1NT bid shows a balanced hand and says nothing about spades. I should also note that most weak no trump pairs skip the spade suit to rebid 1NT, since for them that rebid is usually 15-17 and balance.

Bridge author, Professor Alan DeSerpa, in his book Logical Bidding says “Having one Captain and a crew of one is better than having two captains with no crew or a crew of two without a Captain. Consequently, the sooner one partner can surrender captaincy to the other the better.”

So how did Harold Schachter get this all on one page? Simple, he is an expert and I am simply a story teller. Send comments to tommy@rochester.rr.com

Raising Partner's Forced Response to a Take Out Double

2011-09-08T11:23:00.003-04:00

Despite rumors to the contrary, I have not been dispatched to a nursing home, but I feel ready! My 4 month absence from bridge and blogging resulted from something almost as bad, working. I made enough to pay my weekly entry fees at Citrus Bridge Center for the winter and discovered something that I should have known – I am a better lawyer than Bridge player. Some might say that is not saying much!

Occasionally late at night I would sneak in and watch a few hands on BBO. It is amazing how clever you can be when you can see all four hands. In August I was watching one of my favorites, Pat Peterson (patpete2) who was mentoring one of her better club players. Pat is a true expert (as opposed to a BBO expert) and recently earned the title of Master Bridge Teacher awarded by the American Bridge Teachers Association and was nominated as Teacher of the Year.

The game was IMPs with both vulnerable. I didn’t write fast enough to scribble down the North-South hands but North opened with a bid of one club with a good suit and solid hand. Pat sitting East made a take out double and the action starts there. Here are the East-West hands:

East: AQJ85, A952, A53, K

West: T9632, QT43, KT94, void

South had Q empty 6th of clubs and nothing else and decided to pass. They may not have been playing inverted minors or maybe it didn’t meet South’s standard. I don’t think I could have been so restrained.

The first test comes with the West hand. What would you respond with West’s hand following South’s pass. Only 5 hcps, but a strong playing hand with only 7 Losing Trick Count. Pard did not double without majors and West has mega support and great distribution.. But remember, you can’t see East’s hand and it might be KJxx, Kxxx, AJx, xx. Also if you respond 2 spades, in standard, you are showing a hand that presumes 9++ points and suggests some defensive values. I can visualize advocates for 1, 3 or even 4 spades. If I don’t pull the trigger and bid 4 spades, my choice would be to show a little patience here and respond one spade which is what West did. If South had made a preemptive raise of 3 clubs, I think a responsive double would have been in order telling partner to take a pick.

North, holding strong clubs and a desire to compete, now bids 2 clubs. Here is the next examination. What do you now bid with the East hand. Even if you downgrade the King of clubs, it is still a very nice hand. If North had not rebid the clubs, you would have bid two spades showing the fit and 17+ points. Hearing that action, it would be pretty easy for West to bid the spade game.

But what is the effect of the intervening rebid by North? If East bids 2 spades over the 2 club rebid, is East still showing a big constructive hand and inviting West to bid again or is East simply competing with a hand that doesn’t want to sell out to 2 clubs when there is a known 8 card spade fit? If East held something like KJxx, Kxxx, AJx, xx you would want to bid 2 spades simply to follow the Law of Total Tricks. You didn’t want them to play 2 clubs did you?

Frankly, this dilemma has always bothered me a bit. I really didn’t know the meaning of a raise to 2 spades by doubler after an intervening rebid by opener. I found that in Standard bidding the raise to 2 spades, with or without an intervening rebid, clearly shows extras and is forward going, and is not simply competitive. Other choices might be 3 spades or even 4 spades, but in Standard those bids would really show block buster hands as partner has been forced to respond and may have “Squat”. So what does partner do with the hand where he merely wants to compete and not sell out to 2 spades?

I “Googled” the issue and came up with only one relevant hit. I found a 2009 discussion of this issue in Robin’s Bridge Blog. Recognizing the problem with Standard agreements, the author (who did not claim to be an expert) suggested an optional agreement that in competition a bid of 2 spades could show a hand with 4+ spades and 14-16 hpcs and a jump to 3 spades showing a better 17+ hand. This special agreement (alert!!!) would provide differentiation and probably works, but ignores those minimal take out hands where you simply want to make a Law of Total Tricks bid.

Who do you call when you have a “Law” problem? The Sheriff, of course, many time National Champion Larry Cohen and the author of “To bid or Not to Bid - The Law of Total Tricks.” Larry claims to have withdrawn from competitive bridge to play golf, tour the United States giving seminars and to host some wonderful bridge cruises. If you have read his Bridge Bulletin articles or books, you know that he speaks Bridge in a language that we can all understand. When I posed this question to him he acknowledged that “in or out of competition 2 spades would show extras in standard bidding.” He went on to say “By Agreement (alert!!!), ever since my (Marty) Bergen days I play that double and raise is just a Law of Total Tricks bid - a 4 trump raise. With a better hand (like 17+) the doubler has to cue bid." He says that this arrangement applies even if opener has not taken a rebid. So if the auction went 1c/x/p/1s/p/2s, the two spade bid does not show extras and is simply showing 4 card support.

What if doubler holds something like AQJx, Kxx, Kxx, xxx? Yes you have 4 trump, but the Law of Total Tricks is clear that when you have 4333, it is not have a “Law hand.” You have no ruffing values. Partner is still a forced response.

OK, what does Larry rebid with the East hand. Well, he chose to make a cue bid of 3 clubs. Even if we end up at 3 spades, we are have competed to the correct level with 9 trump and with the West hand a bid of 4 spades would have been indicated. He notes that if you have this agreement/understanding that it is alterable since it is not Standard bridge

The finale: Would I be writing about this if E-W reached a makeable game (actually it makes 5). The breakdown I think came as a result of West not remembering that a simple raise in Standard by East shows a good hand with extras. In the real auction, over 2 spades by East, South, bolstered by the fact that North had a real club suit, now bids 3 clubs. West bid 3 spades and it got passed out at that level. The failure to bid game was a combination of misunderstanding and suspect valuation on West’s part. Time to smile and move on! We have all been there.

If you are one of those LOTT non-believers who wander around looking for that hand where the Law of Total Tricks does not work, then just play Standard. If you want to play better bridge and be more competitive, follow Larry’s suggestion. Don’t forget to discuss it with your partner and also to “alert” the “double and raise” bid as simply showing 4 trump and not extras.

You can comment directly to tommy@rochester.rr.com.

False Carding is an Art, Not a Routine

2011-07-09T15:55:00.002-04:00

I am often asked the basic question “Is it correct to false card?” Here is the answer: “It depends!” How’s that for a lawyer’s answer?

There are three categories of false carders: (i)Those "smarmy" players who think that their partner is snoozing anyway, so they never give you an honest card (ii) those that can’t be bothered and (iii) those with angelic faces that pick and choose their spots; false carding when it will be more confusing to declarer than partner. Advanced Bridge players should be striving to fall into the last category. False carding is all about deception, the art of illusion and it is one of the sneaky things you will never get a director call on as long as you do it in tempo!! You can deceive declarer by the order in which you play your cards as long as you don’t pair it up with undue hesitation.

If you are in category (i) you are undoubtedly doing more harm than good and often end up with egg on your face looking like a complete jerk. Remember those moments of truth when you wanted to slide under the table? What’s worse, you are not effective since eventually everyone will know your routine and totally disregard the order in which cards seemingly float out of your hand. What may be worse, unless you have a partner who pays no attention at all (a match made in heaven for my money), he won’t be your partner for long.

If you are category (ii), it is sort of like “physician do no harm.” If you are blessed with an analytical partner, at least you have not misinformed him and he may have a good chance of figuring it out if “Mr. Upside Down” doesn’t confuse him.

The category (iii) player is the one who is really dangerous. He not only stays in tempo and is a complete stoic, but he also very cleverly plans the ruse in advance, plants the bait and springs the trap. He also employs these scams only infrequently, realizing that it is not a scam if you have not previously established the patina of believability.

False carding is not only about misleading declarer about what specific high cards you may hold, but also about how many cards you hold in any particular suit. People have been playing the Jack from JT doubleton since Hoyle explained Whist (i.e. 1742). More effective, however, is to mislead declarer as to the number of cards you hold in a suit. This has an odd twist to it. The better player declarer is, the more he will be susceptible to deceptive count signals or even thinly veiled suit preference indicators. Let’s face it, if declarer is totally ignoring you, you can do everything but pass cards under the table. If declarer is watching your every move and card, then he is easier prey since in his mind every card tells a story and holds the solution to the hand.

It is seldom worth false carding if you are confusing both declarer and your partner. The best false card situations are those where you create doubt in the mind of declarer that cannot injure partner. An example of that might be where declarer has a tenace on the board and an opportunity in another suit that would enable him to avoid the finesse by taking an alternate risk. You can usually tell by the way declarer is playing the hand whether he holds the fitting card for the tenace. Even though the finesse card may be onside with partner, that is not obvious to declarer who is still on the horns of a dilemma.

The standard advice to declarer when uncertain about choices, is to play on other suits to see what hints you can uncover. This may provide a defender with an opportunity to make a discard (always risk with this strategy). If you can convince declarer that you have the key card offside, you have given him a chance to go wrong. Now is the time to discard the ten in the problem suit. If you have real respect for declarer, play a seven, maybe he will not smell out your plan. These cat and mouse games can be really stimulating and relieve the boredom of just pitching cards. What is better than intrigue?

I asked Eddie Kantar about false signals and discards. He told me that he does so vigorously if he is convinced he can’t hurt partner. He volunteered that he most often engages in it later in the hand when there is less chance of damage to partner. He also noted that if the bidding and/or play reveals that partner is dead broke, all avenues of deception are open, since partners analysis is, in large measure, unimportant.

When I asked Karen Walker about this same issue she told me a cute story. In an early part of her bridge career she was playing in a big pairs game with many expert players. Two players, who made no effort to disguise their apparent expertise, made their way to her table. Karen, perhaps duly awed by these bridge bullies, found herself declaring a game contract. The hand was one perhaps like the one I described above where there was more than one possible solution to making the contract. While engaged in the information gathering process she noted that a somewhat significant card flew out of East’s hand. She decided it had to be a signal, put that information into her internal computer and solved the hand.

At the conclusion of the hand, there were no compliments, but West did upbraid his partner loudly for signaling and giving away the hand. West’s best defense was “She is only a young girl, how did I known she was paying attention!” That was the final straw for West, he threw his cards at East and walked away. Aw, them were the days! Ashtrays, alcohol. abuse and attitude were the four big A’s. Big time bridge in those days was not for sissies!

Signals, Discards and Such

2011-07-06T19:45:00.002-04:00

Signals to partner’s leads come in three principal varieties and they are all collected in the southwest corner of your convention card. Note that the card does not ask for detailed information, it simply asks for your primary signal to partner’s opening leads. Thus you can have specific situations where your leads utilize something other than the primary signal. For example, if your primary signal is count, you can have scenarios where you and partner agree that you will show attitude and others where you will show suit preference. As we will see, most functional signaling systems employ a balanced use of all the systems mentioned above.

As we all know, you can’t have secret signals that you and partner have agreed upon. You don’t have to alert or announce, but if asked by declarer you must indicate your general agreement concerning your signals and discards. It is important to know that you must only disclose the nature of your agreement and you do not have to interpret the play of any specific card. For example, if your primary signal is attitude and on the opening lead partner plays the 6 of the suit, you do not have to express an opinion as to whether the card is a positive attitude signal (unless of course you have some agreement about 6’s).

Note that there is also disclosure for defensive carding. This does not seek to regulate when carding is attitude, count or suit preference. Defensive discards would only be non-standard if in signaling you used upside down attitude and/or count. Upside down would be just the reverse of standard. Note that you cannot use upside down suit preference signals, those must be right side up. UDCA is a recipe for disaster for novices and intermediates, and most others.

There is also a disclosure if your discards are other than standard (attitude). If you use Odd-Even or Lavinthal you not only must mark the convention card, but you may use such dual carding system only on the first discard. After the first discard, your discards must be single message discards. Encrypted signals are not permitted, so no home brew or secret codes. Of course you can make faces if nobody catches you.

The fact that you have a carding system or discard agreement does not bind either partner to follow it with religion. If you choose to ignore the system (since you either forgot or you are being cagey and trying to hoodwink declarer), that is allowed as long as you are deceiving both declarer and partner. Again no secrets. Likewise, both carding and discards are only suggestions to our partner. He is not bound to follow your advice and may choose not to do so freely for any reason. The only person he has to answer to is you, and on a good day you will accord him the courtesy of being silent.

Some time back I had some e-mail interchanges with some real experts. I enjoy e-mail contact with Eddie Kantar, Karen Walker and Mel Colchamiro, Bridge Bulletin contributors all. One of the questions I asked each of them was their view on how players of all levels should go about selecting a carding and discard system. While they all said it in different ways, the standard reply was use a system that partner can apply and still stay in tempo. In other word the KISS principal. One e-mail said that if partner has to think about carding, it is too complicated. This is particularly important if you play with a number of partners with varying ability.

Two of the best books on carding, signals and discards are Countdown to Winning Bridge (1999) by Tim Bourke and Marc Smith and Defensive Signaling (2001) by David Bird and Marc Smith. The later is a monograph of less than 100 pages and is excellent if you can find it. Each of the books takes you through all the popular methods of carding and signaling and illustrates why no one of them standing alone is sufficient. The recommendation is to combine them into a comprehensive system.

I have long harbored a personal prejudice against dual carding systems. Half the time I never could figure out what I wanted to do without getting out of tempo, half the time I could not find the right size card in the suit that I wanted to discard, and most of the time I was wrong about the suit that needed to be played. In Countdown to Winning Bridge the authors give you a typical hand to defend. It’s a hand in which you (East) hold AJxx in both minors and you know partner has to hold the King in one minor suit but you don’t know which suit it is. Here is a direct quote from page 127:

“Note that if East-west are playing Lavinthal, Revolving, Odd-Even or some other method of signaling in which a discard tells partner which minor to switch to, then East must guess which suit to ask for. Half the time he will guess wrong as he has no clue which suit to ask for. Any method of signaling which requires one partner to make the decision for the other is quite clearly flawed. (emphasis mine). On this hand a combination of signals will lead you to the optimum defense.”

Now for some rules on discarding. The experts having summarily dispatched dual carding systems, I will give you a recommendation directly from Countdown to Winning Bridge. What is recommended is a different type of attitude signal when discarding. Be careful, this is not very sophisticated and may slip right by you:

“An efficient method is to treat all discards as discouraging denying interest in the suit thrown. The basic philosophy is that you throw from a suit in which you do not have anything. One reason for this is that sometimes you will not be dealt a card which is obviously high or obviously low, (or the right spot for an odd-even signal) or you will not be able to afford to throw a card carrying the message you want to send.”

If you read Frank Stewart's bridge column this morning (July 6), you will see that was the central theme. East threw the ten of spades to get a spade lead and that wold have been the setting trick if not discarded.

If you have one suit you want played, discard cards in the other two suits. If you have two suits and you don’t know which suit you want led, just discard two cards in the third suit and partner should be able to solve your dilemma. Do not be afraid to let partner work out part of what is going on. Often times he can see things a lot clearer from his side of the table and defense always should be a team effort. This concept of throwing losers and keeping winners may seem too simple for those who thrive on needless complexity, but it is both effective and efficient.

I touched earlier on the fact that all signals are suggestions only. My favorite partner is Howard Christ (apologies to all others), a true expert and the Head Director of the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club in Ocala, Florida. When we first started our partnership many years ago, I was very nervous and worried about everything. Early on he told me “Don’t over-educate declarer, only signal me only if you think I can’t figure it out for myself.” There is not much Howard can’t figure out, so I get to divert my attention to really important stuff like defeating the contract. Novel idea huh? Well, to each his own.

Hope y'all having a great summer.

The Evolution of Zero Tolerance

2011-05-15T19:08:00.002-04:00

I was kibitzing at Bridge Base on Line recently watching some self styled “Experts” play a few hands. The spectator box had over 100 chattering kibitzers demonstrating how smart they were when looking at all four hands. One of the experts sitting south had just butchered a cold 4 spade contract and of course the chat really flew, indeed questioning his intelligence and minimal bridge skills. I usually ignore all the chat but one particular line really got me: It read “Where is Myrtle Bennett now when we really need her?” A really nice touch if you like bridge trivia.. No one else picked up on this clever comment, so I got to wondering how many of my readers have ever read the story of the bridge pairing of Jack and Myrtle Bennett and Mayme and Charles Hoffman, a landmark event in the long road to zero tolerance.

In the 20’s and 30’s bridge was the great American pastime for men and women. If you were entertaining friends in your home, after some bathtub gin and a fine supper, out came the card tables for an evening of rubber bridge. At the time, women often were more knowledgeable about the game than men. Men usually knew less about the fine points of bidding and got by with their card sense, some bullying and more than a little bluffing, much to the chagrin of their spousal partners.

The Bennett’s had been married about 10 years in 1929 and were living in Kansas City, “Mazura” (as the locals would have said it). They were very demonstrably affectionate to each other and were still very much in love. At the same time, they both had hot tempers and short fuses, so martial spats were not unusual. Jack Bennett was a very successful traveling perfume salesman making upwards of $20,000 a year in 1929. Most weeks Jack was on the road. Myrtle spent most of her time spending Jack’s money on clothes (she was a stunning blonde beauty who dressed very fashionably). When not otherwise occupied she would either be playing golf or bridge at her country club. The Hoffman’s were very much like them, an affluent young couple enjoying the new liberties that the roaring 20’s permitted. They were upstairs neighbors to the Bennett’s in a very upscale apartment building.

On Tuesday, September 29, 1929, the four of them decided that they would play a round of golf. Jack in his plus fours, white shirt and tie and Myrtle in her most fashionable sport suit. After the game they had a couple of “pops” and Myrtle e invited Charles and Mayme back to their house to “raid the refrigerator” and play some bridge for 1/10 of a cent a point. The Bennett’s were enjoying the game immensely because they got off to big lead. But as the lead began to dwindle, the smile disappeared from Myrtle’s face. She got visibly unhappy with Jack’s recklessness and inconsistent play. Suddenly the Hoffman’s pulled ahead and this hand was dealt by Jack sitting South. Everybody vulnerable.

************Myrtle
************AT53
************T85
************4
************A9842

Charles***************Mayme
Q72******************4
AJ3******************Q94
AQT92***************KJ763
J6*******************Q753

************Jack
************KJ985
************K762
************85
************KT

The gold standard for opening a hand in those days was 2 ½ quick tricks, but that didn’t deter Jack, he boldly barked one spade. Charles quickly overcalled 2 diamonds. He had played with Jack before and was not to be kept out of this auction. Myrtle with her good distribution and spade support was happy to bid 4 spades. Mayme not being a Law of Total Tricks babe, declined to take a sacrifice. When it got back to Charles he gave 4 spades a whack thinking his Q of spades was well positioned and that if Mayme did not have a diamond stack he might get two diamonds and a heart. Mayme has a second chance to bail out, but in those days women did not take out their husband’s penalty doubles.

The story is clear that Charles led the Ace of diamonds, and with a single on the board Mayme played a small diamond to get a club shift. Charles next led the club Jack taken by Charles in his hand with the King. Jack had 9 trump and, ignoring the bidding, decided to play for the percentage 2-2 split. When that failed he drew the last trump instead of playing on the club suit to establish club winners. Charles took his trump queen and returned a diamond trumped on the board. Eventually Jack lost 3 hearts for down 2 -500.

After the play of the hand everything went wrong as Jack and Myrtle got at each other’s throats. Going to the offense, Jack shouted "you overbid!" Myrtle replied: "You are a bum bridge player." As the argument escalated in front of the horrified Hoffman’s, Jack reached across the table and slapped Myrtle’s face a few times. Jack announced that he was going to a hotel for the night and then on to make a sales call in St. Joseph in the morning (where he incidentally had a girl friend stashed). In a parting shot Myrtle yelled “Nobody other than a bum would hit a woman in the presence of friends.”

As Jack packed his bag, Myrtle rushed into a bedroom occupied by her mother and grabbed a .32 automatic that was in her mother’s nightstand. As Jack came out with his bag he saw Myrtle with the gun and quickly stepped into a bathroom and locked the door. Myrtle not to be deterred so easily, got off two rounds through the door, both of which missed their intended mark. The bath had another door that led to the living room and Jack exited trying to make it to the front door. Charles Hoffman tried to cool things down, but before he could prevail, Myrtle cut loose with two more rounds, both of which found their intended mark. Jack not only goes down 2 in 4 spades but repeats himself going down to the .32 automatic, never to sort another bridge hand.

Myrtle was charged with first degree murder and a trial was held 17 month later in the court room of Judge Ralph S. Latshaw. Myrtle was represented by a silver tongued orator, James a. Reed, a three term United States Senator from Missouri, by then retired at age 68. He was a formidable lawyer, but then so was the prosecuting county attorney who had a long list of convictions in murder trials. There was extensive courtroom drama with toe to toe battling over the admissibility of almost every piece of evidence. Judge Latshaw rode hard on both attorneys, but in fact became a significant part of this sideshow.

Myrtle attended the trial everyday in a different stylish outfit and cried through out the proceedings. The jury finally took the case after impassioned closing arguments and were out for 5 hours. One juror said that they could have been back much sooner but three of them were trying to learn to play bridge. In the end it was ruled an accidental death and Myrtle Hoffman was acquitted of all charges. One juror stated “ She was only a woman unused to guns. We reckon that if she had been trying to hit him she would have missed. One wag stated that the verdict showed shooting a bum bridge partner was justifiable homicide. Myrtle not only went frree, she got $30,000 in life insurance since her husbands shooting had been ruled accidental.

Back to the hand. No less an authority than Eli Culbertson, editor of the
Bridge World, testified at the trial that there were several ways that Jack Hoffman could have made the contract and saved his life and marriage. There are at least three lines of play that could have succeeded. Some as simple as taking finesses or establishing the club suit with a ruffing finesse before drawing trump and even a strip end play option. Do you see them? Do you think Jack Bennett deserved to be shot? Do you think that Charles and Mayme were the cause of the shooting, since apparently Myrtle only objected to the slapping becasue it occured in the presnce of good friends!

One writer wrote about this story well after the trial and after Mrs. Bennett had settled in as an executive at the famous Carlyle Hotel in New York City. She would occasionally fill in at the bridge table if the guests were short handed. Playing with a stranger one evening who had badly miss-bid his hand, he remarked as he laid down the dummy “I’m afraid you will want to shoot me for this.” Mrs. Bennett reportedly had the good grace to faint.

No Trump by the Numbers

2011-04-22T11:14:00.003-04:00

We always seem to notice the 23-24 hcp no trump hands that make 3NT. Naturally, these are always held by our opponents. Do we take equal cognizance of the 26-27 hcps hands that go down at 3NT? These are, of course, dealt to us. What does it really take to make game when partner opens 1NT. It may surprise you that the probabilities do not support 23 and 24 point no trump games. You are a favorite to go down unless our BBO screen name is “ 0 Lordtay.” When the scoring is IMP’s, the game bonuses may support the risk, but at match points you need to play the odds (unless you are desperate or a sadist).

Ron Klinger, noted expert and author, stated in is book Basic Bridge that 3NT has a success rate of only 60% with 26 hcps and only 50% with 25 hcps. In match points you want to avoid anything that is not even money. By way of contrast, Klinger states that the success rate of 4 hearts or 4 spades with an 8 card fit is about 80% with 26 points. Presumably the reason is that two-thirds of the time the suit will split 3-2 leaving you a potential ruffing trick in each hand. The ruffing values combined with better hand control make the suit contract safer. There are some relics out there who disagree, but I don’t play 3NT like they do.

If the suit contract makes 80% of the time, how do you know how to avoid the 20%? Well one sure indicator are the 4333 hands. If both partners have a flat 4333 hand, the advantage of the suit contract disappears. Do your chances of making 3NT go up with flat hands? No, actually they go down.

Marty Bergen (no intro needed) said “4333 hands are bad for suit contracts and equally bad for no trump contracts and 4432 are not a whole lot better.” Even in a suit contract, if you and partner have doubletons in the same suit, the ruffing advantage disappears. It took a while for the bridge community to understand that hands that are 5332 generally play better in no trump that flat hands. In a recent News Letter Larry Cohen (a former Bergen partner) said that most marginal no trump hands that make 3 no trump have been shown to include a 5 card suit. It is common today for teachers to recommend opening 15-17 hcps hands at 1NT even with a 5 card major and to advise adding a point to the response hand if you have a 5 card suit. The more interesting question is should you deduct a point for flat (4333) hands. I think the idea deserves consideration. Start looking at those hands and compare your results to form your own opinion.

Another interesting question that you never see discussed are the 4432 response hands with only one four card major. If partner opens one no trump and responder holds 8+ hcps and a single 4 card major, are there any circumstances where you might choose to not use Stayman? Is not Stayman a can’t lose proposition? Is it possible that I am over medicated and should melt down my ACBL card?

How about the free information you give away to the opponents when you use Stayman? It shows responder has a 4 card major. If opener bids 2 diamonds it shows opener does not. If opener bids two of a major it shows that major and when responder bids 2NT it shows that he had 4 of the other major and less than 10 hcps. Opener has shown that his distribution is 4333 or 4332 and responder has shown his distribution to be 4432 (one major only). If opener doesn’t bid game you know he did not start with a maximum no trump hand. If there were a strong probability of finding opener with a 4 card major that matches responder’s, then you might say “pish tosh” let’s get to important issues. I won’t bore you with probabilities, but the chances of opener having a matching 4 card major or even both majors are very poor. So, if you think you had all this information do you think you could make an intelligent opening lead and defend the hand better? Let’s hope so. If not see my teacher, Pat Peterson: patpete2@tampabay.rr.com or come watch her defend a hand.

Michael Nissler, a California teacher and expert, has an excellent bridge web site known as BridgeHands. I asked Michael if there are 4432 hands on which he would not use Stayman. He said that he would give that question a resounding “it depends.” Wow! A “chink in the armor.” He continued, “If you are going to pass on Stayman with 4332 and simply raise no trump, the time to do it is when responder’s short suits (the 3 and 2 card suit) have significant high card points.” That adds protection and enhances the no trump play.

Michael mentioned another Californian, Gene Simpson, a Grand Life Master, who is closing in on 30,000 master points. You gotta like this guy. When asked for his to 25 tips on winning bridge, the first on the list was get a good partner. You can find Gene’s list published on the Internet. When I asked Gene about this issue, he said when responder has 12 hcps it is best to bid your no trump game instead of majoring in majors. He also said that if responder’s major has no high card points, it is better to raise no trump and avoid Stayman.

Do you think these Californians are like “Cheech and Chong” or is their thinking apparatus working one gear above ours? We report, you decide.

Be forewarned, most club players will be rotely using Stayman and you will probably be going against the grain. Most of the time a 4 card major will not be located so it won’t make any difference. If your analysis is correct you will get a top. Even if an 8 card major is found, it may make the same number of tricks in no trump. "Ca-Ching, Ca-Ching!" Be selective, and make sure when you stray from the asylum the scoring is match points. If all goes wrong “ Close you eyes and think of England.”

In responding to opening no trump bids, I always think the 8 hcps hands present the most challenges. Here’s some advice from expert Gordon Bower on 8 counts:
• With 4333 (any 4 card suit) pass.
• With 4432 pass if your long suits are clubs and diamonds
• With 4432 and one 4 card major it is borderline. Most of the field will be bidding of course, so you may choose to bid just to avoid swings, but I am not certain that in the long run it will be the winning action.
• With 4-4-3-2 (both majors), the odds are well in favor of your bidding
• With more shape (5422 or 5332) bid!!

With an 8 count, I suggest that you consider passing more often if the shape is not favorable, or just taking your shot with no trump. Often when you pass, overly aggressive balancers will often come rushing back in and holding a good 8 count you can "whack" them for penalties.

If you have not visited the site BridgeHands, I urge you to do so and sign up for the bridge blog “Polling You”. This teaching blog section is destined in the future to be a fee based members only teaching site with multiple levels of membership enabling different levels of access, but for the present you can sign up for a free introductory membership. Go to the site, sign up for a membership and also request e-mail notification each time a new poll is posted. The animated videos with commentary by Michael are excellent. I think you will be impressed with the professional quality of the presentation.

Negative Free Bids -- A Definite Postive

2011-04-11T11:13:00.007-04:00

Well, if you believe that there is a cost to everything, then you will know that “free bids” are not free. In Bridge, a free bid arises when your partner opens the bidding, his LHO make an overcall and you as responder choose to bid a new suit. The bid is called “free” since even if you don’t bid, your partner (opener) will have another chance to bid and the hand will not be passed out. Thus, you have taken action when you were free not to do so. If you are fortunate, you can make a free bid at the one level (1c/1d/1s). In modern duplicate style this does not show much more that a bid that you would have made without the overcall.

If, however, the overcall requires you to go to the 2 level to show your suit, Standard American bidding requires you to have 11+ hcps and a 4+ card suit. A two level bid free bid is forcing on round and very invitational. So what do you do if you have a nice 5 card suit that you want to get on the table but do not have the required 11 hcps? Well, sometimes a negative double will help you out. After 1c/1d, a negative double would show 6+ hcps and both majors, but when you have a 5 card suit often your suits and distribution will not fit negative double requirements. So you are left with lying to partner or losing the suit. Most often it is better to lose the suit than lose a partner, but there are notable exceptions to that rule. On a good day opener may double the overcall and give you a chance to show your suit, but he might not have a hand appropriate for a reopening double. On a bad day after you pass your LHO raises the bid to 2, 3 or 4 diamonds? Now you and your suit are history.

Enter the concept of a “Negative Free Bid”. Negative because you promise opener that you do not have the hcps to make a classic free bid, but that you have a good 5+ card suit with 5-10 hcps. If you are at the top of your Negative Free Bid range (9-10 hcps) you can make a jump shift. (1c/1d/2h). This most also shows a good 6 card suit. A Negative Free Bid is non-forcing, partner may pass and with a minimal holding will do so. More important than hand strength is suit quality. It might be something like AQJxx or KJTxxx with little or nothing outside. Remember, you may end up as declarer and opener’s pass with minimal values does not guarantee a fit.

Negative Free Bids are "on" through 3 diamonds so free bids of 3 hearts and 3 spades are forcing. Negative Free Bids are very useful in combating those pesky weak jump overcalls. If the bidding goes 1s/2h (sound familiar) with xx, Qxx AJT9xx, xx, you can make a negative free bid of 3 diamonds. We do not want to get shut out when one opponent has already shown a single suited hand with little in defensive values.

The concept of lowering the free bid requirement is driven by the very real possibility that partner may have 3 or 4 cards in your suit and without the negative free bid we will never find our 8+ card fit. In duplicate, effective bidding in competitive auctions depends on finding fits. So, if the bidding is 1d/2c and you find yourself holding xxx, KQT9x, Qx, xxx you make a negative free bid of 2 hearts. This announces that you have a good heart suit with less than 5-10 hcps, and also serve as lead directing if we defend.

Now we know how to bid the minimal hands with good suits, but how do we show partner that we really have a classic free bid with 11+ points and a good suit? Instead of making a bid at the 2 level we double the overcall. Yes that would be a negative double, but is really a two-way bid. Opener assumes it is a real negative double and bids accordingly, but at your next bid you bid your suit signaling to him that you really hold a classic free bid with 11+ hcps and not a negative double. The bidding proceeds naturally from that point. Alerts: The Negative Free Bid must be alerted by opener and if asked indicate that it shows a single suited hand with 5-10 hcps. The same alert should be made for jump shift indicating that the hand is in the 9-10 hcp range and likely 6 cards. If responder makes a negative double alert the double and indicate that partner has either a true negative double or a single suited hand with 11+ hcps. If responder rebids a new suit after a negative double alert that the double was not negative. Opener’s Rebids:

I am going to lay out some recommended rebids by opener, but don’t let this detail keep you from getting started. Responder’s negative free bids are very descriptive (most often a 5+ card suit and 5-9 hcps). With that detail, bidding continuations should be almost natural.

For those that want my recommendations here they are: Pass: Shows a minimum hand and does not promise a fit. Don't run to : 2NT without extra values. It’s easy to under use “pass” in this context!!

Rebid opener’s first suit: Long suit without a fit.

2 NT: 16-18 with a stopper in opponents overcalled suit.

Free single non-competitive raise: Fit plus 15-18 support points.

Double/Redouble: If Opener’s RHO bids over the negative free bid or doubles the bid, a double or redouble by opener is a support double or redouble. Opener may also pass since the support action is not mandatory with a minimum hand.

Jump Raise: Minimum Opener with a 5+ card fit and great playing strength.

Cue Bid: If opener wants to show a supportive hand for the negative free bid and wishes to convert it to game forcing auction, he makes a cue bid. 1d/1s/2h/p3h.

Jump Cue Bid: If opener makes a jump cue bid that shows 4+ card support for the negative free bid suit and a single or void (splinter). 1c/1s/2h/p/2s. This bid also shows a big playing hand.

Is this a new concept? No, Marty Bergen first wrote about it in 1986 in Better Bidding by Bergen Vol. 2. It was also detailed by Karen Walker in a multi-part series in the Bridge Bulletin in 2005. Many Experts have this treatment as part of their arsenal, but the time has come for Intermediates and Advanced Players to give this serious consideration. Even if you don’t adopt it as part of your system, it is likely that you will be playing pairs that have (like your blogger) so it is a good idea to arm yourselves with some information.

Kaye Thomas Does Elgin Illinois

2011-03-10T09:26:00.002-05:00

When I practiced law in Rochester, New York, I was fortunate to have as a law partner Kaye Thomas. Kaye practiced tax law for our firm and was my “go to” guy for all complex tax matters and everything else that required raw intellect. Not only was he an incredible resource but he had writing skills that could boil the most complex legal concepts down into a language that even I could understand. Kaye took a law job in Chicago many years ago and then went into the publishing business in that area. Recently I got an e-mail from Kaye saying “I have taken up bridge and am playing on line. In doing an on line internet search I came across your bridge blog. I recognized the writing style as it looks like you stole it from me.”

Maybe he is right, because certainly I didn’t come by this “Rock and Roll” style honestly. He thought I might be able to repay him for all the advice he had so freely given to me. Now get this, this guy has never played in a club game and is one of those BBO night riders who has never seen a real opponent with a face, doesn’t know what a convention card is and has never experienced the ignominy of having all the bidding cards fall out of the bottom of the bidding box. He has no partner, doesn’t know what a score card is and doesn’t have a clue about registration or the partnership desk. So he says “there is a Sectional Tournament in nearby Elgin, Illinois next weekend and I thought I might as well saunter over and start half way up the ladder. Start me off at the front door and spare me anything that I can pick up on the fly.”

Unless you have written “tech manuals”, it is hard even get your arms around this problem, much less organize it and detail it. After about a week of furious e-mails back and forth daily, I am pleased to say that Kaye has joined the ACBL and has a vague idea of the match point duplicate protocol. I, on the other hand, am exhausted, and now realize it would been less of a headache to fly to Chicago and be his first partner. I expect that it will not be too long before Kaye is on a first name basis with the ACBL directors since BBO players alert their own bids and are prone to making strategic aggressive claims.

In a future blog I will report if Kaye manages to retain the same partner for more than one session, for that matter for one complete session. Look out you 299ers, he is on the way. Now that I have concluded all my pay, deal, sort and play advice, I realize that I haven’t given him a strategy for knocking some of those 299er heads together, so here are some guidelines Kaye to get you through the first 24 boards:

1. Identify vulnerability before the cards come out of the tray and make vulnerability part of your bidding strategy? If vulnerability is unfavorable, don’t be carried off the battle field on your shield. If vulnerability is favorable, don’t let them play a contract if you can hold your losses to down 1 or even 2. Remember that when opponents play the hand, a score of -90 to -120 is the “death zone”. Even the best players find it near impossible to double low level contracts, and the urge to take another bid, rather than suffering the ignominy of letting the hand be stolen, is almost irresistible.

2. Accept that in match point duplicate that you are not the master of your own result? In match point games, inequity plays out on every hand. Good players defending will steal an extra trick from poor players and good players declaring will do the same thing. Play the hand for its full potential and don’t worry about the “gifts” that other teams may be getting on the same hand. Pouting about “fixes” is the quickest way to fix yourself. “If you want justice, go to night court!”

3. Do not fret over any hand that has been played. Can I say that again or often enough? Once the hand is done, it is over!! You are never going to see that hand again; the odds are 1 in 465 billion! Looking backward only will set in motion mood swings of highs and lows (more lows than highs) and will prevent you from playing with equanimity. Don’t give away the next board worrying about the last one.

4. Accept the fact that a badly defeated contract can still be a great board. If you are in a contract that is going down from the minute the dummy hits the table, play extra hard to minimize your losses. If you have bid the hand correctly, other teams will keep you company.

5. Realize the value of average plus boards and their place in determining overall results. Good results in match point duplicate are not produced by a massive array of high boards. High and low boards will frequently even out. At the end of the day if you have more boards in the “average plus” range than in the “average minus” range, you will have a good result.

6. Be a winning coward. Grand slams are for bridge heroes. Heroes are usually carried off on their shields. The risk-reward ratio is out is whack because we are competing against teams composed of imperfect people and not robots! Bidding and making a small slam in the right denomination will invariably get you an average plus good board even if the hand makes 13 tricks.

7. Be a tranquil declarer. When you declare, do not panic. You can’t develop a playing strategy if your mind is running in all directions. Tranquility is a state of mind and no battle plan was ever created in the middle of a full retreat.

8. Plan your work and work your plan. Once you have a plan, execute it with confidence. Don’t appear to be frazzled and torn by indecision. Thank partner for coming down with exactly the cards that he bid (effusively if you are disappointed). If opponents think you have it “in the bag” and are about to “claim”, they might just fall asleep and start pitching cards carelessly. Never give the opponents even the slightest reason to kindle their hope.

9. Bid on the KISS principle. If you have two choices, make a bid that you are sure partner will understand. Game day is not a bidding examination. If there is any concern that your bid will send partner “into the tank”, then it is wrong even if it is 100% right. Save the bidding lesson for later.

10. Reward partner for balancing. If partner acts courageously in a balancing situation, give him a little room for his bravery. Don’t hang him out to dry. Remember that he has already bid some of your points. It is not necessary or advisable for you to bid the same points again!

Well, Bon Voyage Kaye. If the door prize is a watch, send it to me.

Sometimes Hands are Almost Unbiddable

2011-03-07T09:48:00.002-05:00

Recently, on the next to last Board, I was dealt x, Txxxx, Kx, AJxxx. Partner and I were riding a 60% game going into the last set so I was hoping for something prosaic that would not cause a big swing. I was thinking maybe partner will pass or open a club, heart, diamond or 1NT, and I will skate out of this hand without serious injury. The Bridge Gods don’t let you off the hook that easy. By now you have guessed that partner opened 1 spade. We were playing Standard American with 1NT forcing. Thus, a 2/1 bid showed 10 hcps. I am not above telling a little lie but usually it is the "least worst lie" and would indicate the lack of a better bid.

Whether you are playing SAYC or 2/1 game force, my hand is what the 1NT forcing bid was designed for, so I decided to play it straight and run in the same direction as the rest of the field. The opponents passed (darn it) and partner now bids 2 diamonds.

Well, what do we know about partner’s hand? If he held 6 spades he would have rebid spade, so 5 spades it is. Partner also has 0-3 hearts since he would have bid 2 hearts with 4+ hearts. Another rule of 1NT forcing rebids is that if your clubs are at least equal in length to your diamonds, you always bid clubs. This gives responder more space and options for his rebid. So what we have left is that partner has 4-6 diamonds and 0-3 hearts. Oh, we need to one more rule. Responder does not introduce a new suit on his rebid unless he has 6 of them. So now that I have gathered all this intelligence for you, what action do you take after partner bids 2 diamonds? Hint: Going to the restroom is not an option! Further hint: There are no winners in this game except those that look in partner’s hand!

I had a lot of a lot of partners and friends, whose bidding skills I respect, look at this hand. Most took a view, but nobody was satisfied with their answer or strongly convinced that the course of action selected was the right one. About this time I got Larry Cohen’s free newsletter (www.larryco.com)and noticed he was doing a 2/1 game force series and in the current letter discussing the 1NT forcing response and its continuations. How timely I thought, so I sent the hand to Larry and requested that I be able to quote his response in this blog.

Larry is good about staying in touch and sure enough I got an e-mail back from him shortly. Here is his entire response:

Tommy,

Sure, you can quote me.

This problem is a headache beyond belief. I would answer by asking if you want me to submit it to the Bridge World Master Solvers Club.

Larry

So, if you are a Bridge World subscriber, you will see this hand and expert analysis in the coming months. When I get it I will also reproduce the results in a follow up blog. Are you truly an expert? Here is your chance to find out.

Bridge Opportunities Expanding in citrus County

2011-02-26T16:58:00.001-05:00

Bridge is alive and well in Florida. The ACBL recently noted that Florida is the game’s fastest growing geographic area. That is also true of Citrus County. As part of that growth and expansion, Pat Peterson recently announced that she will expand bridge at her bridge facility to include a Friday afternoon game.

All of Pat’s games (now Monday thru Friday) are held in the Nature Coast Bank building at the corner of Highway 486 and Citrus Hills Boulevard. Her new Friday game will start on March 4th at 1:00 and will be directed by Daryl Drew, an ACBL certified bridge director.

Why support Pat and her games? Well, first I will admit bias, since Pat is my teacher, mentor and close friend. I have taken every bridge class that Pat has offered since 2004 and some of them, like “Play of the Hand”, twice. If Pat offers that course again I will be the first to sign up. I read recently that a lady had been born with 13 toes – maybe that is what I need.

Pat is not only a superb teacher but also an outstanding player and director. She is a model of decorum at the bridge table and sets the right tone for the way a bridge game should be run. She never fails to offer a charity game or a special game when permitted. Pat offers basic instruction to novices and beginners and constantly brings new players to the game. Without Pat Peterson, bridge in Citrus County would be an afterthought with dwindling participation.

Need more inspiration? Well there is the wine and cheese party to kick off the inaugural Friday game on Friday, March 4, so come and start the weekend off right. If bridge doesn’t appeal to you, just come for the wine and cheese and leave. See y’all on Friday.

In closing I would like to thank the Verla West Bridge Club of Citrus Springs for hosting me to many pleasant Friday bridge afternoons. I wish them luck as they continue to serve their clients.

Writ by hand. tommy solberg

When All Seems Hopeless Good Things Can Happen

2011-01-12T17:37:00.003-05:00

It is probable that few of my readers have read Clyde Love’s book on Squeeze Plays. This is the all time classic from the middle of the last century and is still on top of the heap. I confess that I have started it more than once, but never finished it. It gives me a big headache. Even if you don’t know anything about Squeeze techniques, if you bring the hand down to the point where you only have one loser and then just play off the rest of your winners, you will often find that mysteriously you have an automatic squeeze on somebody. You look like a magician, and if you get that look of shock and surprise off your face, you may pass for an expert. The thing you should do at that point is say “Sorry, I should have claimed back at trick 2 since the Squeeze was elementary.”

This post is not about squeezes but does demonstrate that good things can happen in other situations if you just let it happen. Before we get to the play, I want to discuss the bidding. The hand is one that I watched on BBO on January 2.

*******K84
*******J3
*******QJ973
*******K82

J97************Q532
KT54**********Q862
83*************AT
AT65**********J43

*******AT6
*******A97
*******K654
*******Q97

First a bidding commentary. South opens the hand one diamond and West passes. You are playing Standard Inverted Minors so a raise to 2 diamonds is a good 10 hcps with no upper limit and 4+ card support for diamonds. In the auction North responded 1NT in preference to 2 diamonds. She later asked me what I thought of that choice. When you play Standard Inverted Minors there is a tough range where your hand is not quite good enough for a single raise but too strong for a preemptive raise to 3 diamonds (0-7 hcps and diamond support). You have to find a bid for the hands that fall in between these values. Most players with that in-between hand will bid 1NT. Often 1NT will be passed out for a good board. On a good day your diamonds will produce 5 tricks.

What about North hand. It has 10 hcps, but it has a balanced shape that is a negative in a suit contract. It also has only 1 Quick Trick, no Aces, mostly secondary honors and the two black Kings are not supported by other honors in the suit. If North bids 2 diamonds they might end up in a no trump game that is unmakeable. Also notice that if you play 1NT, you want the lead coming up to North’s two black Kings, not coming through them. I think her choice is a good one since Standard Inverted Minors was their agreement.

I think the hand would go easier if they played Criss Cross Inverted Minors. North could then bid 3 clubs (showing a limit raise for diamonds) without worrying about the bidding getting out of control. South with minimum opening values would bid 3 diamonds which is to play. When you play Criss Cross, the single raise in diamonds shows an opening hand thus permitting responder to better describe her hand. The response of 3 diamonds is always preemptive, in or out of competition.

Following the 1NT response, East and South pass, but West decides to balance with a 2 heart bid. What foolishness!! If North doubles, it goes down 2 for minus -500. North, without any trump tricks, decided not to do that, but now took the opportunity to show her good diamonds by bidding 3 diamonds which was passed out.

West led a spade. You will note that if he had laid down his Ace of clubs, my cat Axel could have played the hand. Generally, experts say that it is not good to lead unsupported Aces against suit contracts unless opponents have bid a game or higher. Then it is permissible, but you still need a reason for doing it. Now you have to move into the South seat and make 3 diamonds. It was surprising to me that the traveler showed that most did not make the hand without a club lead. Take hint from the title of this blog. When all else fails, just lay down your winners and good things can happen. Stop reading here and try the hand.
*****************************************************************
This is an interesting hand because it is an automatic. There is no lead that can beat the hand and nothing the opponents can do on defense to upset the result. It is apparent that you need to avoid 2 losers in the club suit, and since opponents correctly didn’t lead clubs on the opening, don’t expect them to do so after they see the dummy. After winning the spade you go after trump. East wins the second diamond with the ace and returns a heart. Declarer wins the return in the hand. Now is the moment of truth. Declarer must clear his two hands of hearts by ruffing the third heart in the dummy. You must play on hearts before you lead spades. You simply play the Ace, give up the next heart, and when you get back in ruff the third heart in the dummy. If at any point you try to lead toward one of your club honors you are done for. There is no way that you can succeed in the club suit unless you get the opponents to lead a club. They will not willingly do that.

When all else fails just play out your cards. Lay down the Ace, King and a small spade to “throw in” one of the opponents. In this layout it doesn’t make any difference which opponent wins the spade trick, they are both end played. If East wins, he must lead a spade or heart, either of which will give declarer a ruff and sluff, pitching one of his clubs. If the lead is a club declarer will make two club tricks. If West wins the third spade, he must lead a heart or club, both of which are deadly.

My cat, Axel, whose favorite perch is in front of my screen, commented “Don’t sell me short Doc, I can make that hand since all you have to do is lay down your cards in order, high cards first.” Well, he is probably right because the strip and endplay is an automatic, and even if you don’t know what that is, you can hardly avoid executing it. As you lay down the third spade simultaneously "claim", it will sound very impressive in the post mortem.”

So the moral of the post is when all else seems lost don’t give up, just avoid a renege and that may carry the day.

Holiday Time 2010

2010-12-21T22:13:00.004-05:00

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

Double Trouble

2010-12-05T15:01:00.002-05:00

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.

Finessing to Eliminate a Guess

2010-11-27T13:32:00.002-05:00

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?

Surviving with Queens and Jacks in No Trump

2010-11-21T19:29:00.002-05:00

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.

Game Tries-- Are you Game or Do You Just Smell That Way?

2010-11-17T11:07:00.002-05:00

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.

Mike Lawrence Visits the Blog -- OOPS!!

2010-11-04T12:08:00.002-04:00

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.

Mixed Raise Response to Overcalls

2010-10-31T16:49:00.002-04:00

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

A Playing rule -- Everybody Loves Playing Rules

2010-10-24T17:45:00.002-04:00

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.

Table of Contents for Tommy's Bridge Blog

2010-10-16T19:26:00.002-04:00

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

Scrambling Two No Trump

2010-10-08T10:25:00.002-04:00

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.

Sandwich No Trump

2010-09-29T18:51:00.003-04:00

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.

This Dummy is No Dummy

2010-09-14T14:11:00.002-04:00

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!!!

Revisiting Two Club Opening Bids

2010-09-11T11:09:00.002-04:00

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.

Pat Peterson Takes Over the Bank

2010-09-06T15:03:00.002-04:00

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!!!

Slammin' with Marty Bergen

2010-08-22T12:26:00.004-04:00

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.

Redefining "Two Hearts Trash" - A Systemic Update

2010-06-15T11:20:00.002-04:00

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.

Combined Bergen Revisited (Again)

2010-06-06T13:45:00.003-04:00

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.

Four Person Team Wins Pairs Event!

2010-05-30T10:46:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I played in the Rochester (New York) Duplicate Bridge Club Friday game with my partner Betty Ann Schmitz. At least that is how it started out. Betty Ann’s bronchitis got the best of her and she bailed out at the end of 8 boards. Game director Doug Bradley then stepped in as a courtesy to replace Betty Ann and we played 6 Boards. We had just gone down 5 in 4 spades doubled for -1100 when in walked Dave Hunt. He had just completed work and had come over to Kibitz his regular partner. Doug quickly grabbed him and put him in the North seat and now I am matched up with my third partner for the day. With 12 boards to go my team was sputtering along with a 50% game with lots of good teams coming up in my rear view mirror.

Now Dave is one of Rochester’s premier players and almost exclusively plays with a single partner, equally adept, so I know him only as an opponent to be avoided when possible. His size equals his bridge talent (XXL). Out of respect for the Bridge Gods, I have never spoken a compete sentence to Dave and now I have this mountain of a man with talent to match sitting across from me. He glanced at Betty Ann’s card and said “Let’s Go.” It was at this point that I knew that I should have left with Betty Ann.

In my short bridge career I have rarely had the experience of one person simply taking over the game and dominating it. In 12 short boards, Dave, through aggressive bidding and flawless play, raised our team from the muck and mire to a first overall finish. If having a 4 person pair team isn’t unusual enough, surely a first overall finish is a fitting counterpart when I am the guy sitting South. The most amazing thing to me was that as intimidating as Dave is as an opponent, he was one of the most nurturing partners that I have ever encountered. He never failed to say “nice dummy partner” or “nice bid partner” and always had that “we got ‘em where we want ‘em” smile to encourage me.

Dave showcased his analytical skills on several hands, but the one I remember best is Board 23. Both vulnerable, West is dealer. Here are the hands.

**********JT876
**********KT65
**********K93
**********A

K3****************95
J98***************A4
AJ76*************QT852
K765*************T842

**********AQ42
**********Q732
**********4
**********QJ93

West opens 1 diamond, Dave overcalls 1 spade and East passes. Some might cue bid 2 diamonds with the South hand, but with 13 support points I didn't want to over inform opponents, so I put Dave to the test and bid 4 spades. Those who don't like that bid can use the comment button.

East decided the defense called for an attacking lead with West's opening hand values and led the Ace and a small heart taken by the King in declarer’s hand. One thought is that if the King of spades is on side you can make 5 spades. Dave was not to be fooled by that simplistic analysis. He lead the jack of spades, East smoothly played the 5, Dave without hesitation refused the finesse, went up with the Ace of spades and then played a small spade losing to West’s King. A heart came back but it was too late, East was out of trump. Are you up to that play? Play for 5 and you make 3, but if you correctly analyze East’s opening lead and plan of defense, you make 4 spades for 10 of 12 matchpoints.

All is not well that ends poorly. While we sat idly by, on the last two boards Katherine Slocomb and Yvonne Limbeck decided to finish with a flourish. On Board 25 they bid and Yvonne made 6NT that involved dropping the Queen of Spades doubleton on a 5-2 split (a 5% probability) and then squeezing poor Dave in hearts and spades for a cold top. On Board 26 they bid and made 4 hearts on a combined 21 hcps. Only one other pair found that contract. Even on good days this game can be humbling. To see Boards 25 and 26 go to http://www.rababridge.org click on "Direct Link to Hand Records" and click on the hands for Friday May 28.

As they say on the PGA Golf Tour advertisements, “These guys are good!”

The Dubious Joy of Defending 1 No Trump

2010-04-03T17:54:00.002-04:00

In his March Newsletter Larry Cohen published an analysis of 1,000,000 bridge contracts played at 1NT. The deals were randomly taken from Bridge Base On Line and analyzed by “Bridge Browser”, a powerful data base program. One no trump contracts can be arrived at in a variety of ways including 1NT openers passed out, 1NT responses passed out and 1NT rebids, as well as 1 no trump overcalls and no trump continuations by advancer. They all have one thing in common; whoever won the auction played and prayed for 7 tricks at no trump.

Does playing 1 No Trump contracts sound like something you would like to do for a living? Well, it should be, and those who actually play bridge for a living hear the cash register ringing if any opponent permits them to play a 1 No Trump contract. I think there is a correlation between bridge skills and the desire to play 1 No Trump contracts. I often hear novices complain about being left in dreaded 1 No Trump contracts. The more experience they get, the better they like that predicament.

All of this joy is for good reason, one that I have always known but not been able to prove. It is a high honor to be allowed to play 1 No Trump contracts and you can surely count among your friends, those opponents who permit you to reside there. The results of the analysis of 1,000,000 1NT contracts demonstrate that declarer is an overwhelming favorite to make his contact and very likely to make overtricks.

Here are the facts: Declarer (whether by opening bid or overcall) will make his contract 71%of the time. Declarer will actually make overtricks 40% of the time he plays a 1 NT contract. Yes, there will be “no joy in mudville” on occasion, but not often. You should expect to beat 1NT 29% of the time, but 17% of those times it will only be -1. As my partner Bob Scarbrough says, “Down one is good!”

These facts do not really not surprise me. I actually wrote a blog post on February 1, 2008 “Interfering over 1NT Opening Bids” encouraging players to aggressively get in the face of opponents opening one no trump. You can’t always steal the bid (in fact you rarely do) but you can get them playing something other than a 58% 1NT contract. As my partners and I have observed, a multitude of more interesting things can also take place if you put a little sand in their gears. I recommend an aggressive form of DONT. A survey of defenses used by the experts is available at www.clairebridge.com/defensevsnt.htm. If I had to choose another defense, I would use expert Bart Bramley’s system aptly named SCUM. Yeow! What more is there to say after that alert!! Whatever you do, don’t sit on your hands waiting for a 5-5-2-1 distribution, a holding that occurs in about 3% of the hands.

In his excellent book To Bid or Not to Bid, Larry Cohen said that there is one thing worse than playing 1NT contracts, and that is to defend 1NT contracts. That is just an expert speaking from experience, but now we have the facts to back that up. When balancing after two passes, I am persuaded by Mel Colchamiro’s “Rule of Two.” Mel says if you are in the balancing seat you should reopen the bidding if you have two distributional points, no matter how many high card points you have. I also follow that rule and have rarely been disappointed with the results.

One of the interesting things from the analysis of the 1,000,000 deals is that when the 1NT contract originated from a 1NT overcall, the results were significantly worse than when the declaring side opened the hand. In fact, the 1NT overcaller only averaged 49% of the matchpoints and went slightly minus in IMP’s. This means that the success rate for opening 1NT was actually higher than 71% since that stat included overcalls. It is enough to know that the margin of safety is reduced when making a 1NT overcall, but the reasons for this are not quite as clear.

At first blush you think “I am receiving the opening lead through the hand that opened the bidding and I know where most of the strength in the hand is located, right in front of me.” Countering that is the fact that that when RHO open’s the bidding, and you hold 16 hcps, on average the other two hands at the table will likely have only 11 hcps divided between them. If they are divided 6-5, with the opening hand sitting behind the dummy, it is possible that you will never get to the dummy and will be playing the contract out of your hand. Now that is something that is not fun! Other factors affecting the result may be that opening leader will have a lead directing bid that may prevent him from giving declarer a trick on the opening lead. I think this points out the importance of playing “systems on” over NT overcalls and hopefully finding a better place to play.

If you take nothing more from this analysis, understand that it is a losing game to let opponents play 1NT contracts. Why you might ask why am I encouraging a course of action that may actually prevent me from playing the 1NT contracts that I so enjoy? That’s easy – nobody ever takes me seriously! Sigh!

There is another factor. Once you engrain a line of thinking in the minds of most bridge players, it seems to close their mind forever to the possibility of an improved model. This is pure denial and the history of bridge points out that lie. Innovative thinking has brought bridge a long way since its inception and the process continues on an accelerated basis. More interesting is that not all of the good ideas in bridge come from experts. I recently read a quotation from Leo Tolstoy that I thought very descriptive of this mind boggling tug of war that we have all endured from time to time. Leo died at his dacha in 1910, but before passing he said:

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted man if
he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

Do you think Leo played bridge? Remember, in bridge an open mind is always better than an opening hand. Quote me if you like!

"Stormin" Norman and Four Suit Transfers

2010-03-23T17:08:00.002-04:00

“Stromin Norman” Gath, affectionately known in Rochester, N.Y. bridge circles as the “Mad Rhino”, was a friend of mine for years before we realized that we both played bridge. Bad health took him down about 2 years ago, but he went out like a warrior on his shield, in touch with his bridge friends until the very end. Norm was a real Renaissance man with interests in everything from music, to antiques, to coins, to the stock market, Persian rugs, golf, bridge and more.

If Norm thought your bridge was within the “salvageable” range, he would send you his two favorite bridge books. Dee Brown’s “Two over One in a Nutshell”, a 2”x 3” miniature book covering all you need to know about 2/1 and “4 Suit Transfers”, a 32 page monograph by Ann Reese. What, you didn’t get them? That is not good! Mine contain a personal thanks and endorsement from the Rhino himself. Well, needless to say, I couldn’t go into this 4 Suit Transfer blog without a tear in my eye for the great Rhino and a bunch of pleasant memories.

Four Suit Transfers operate after partner has opened 1 No Trump. The first of the 2 transfers are actually just Jacoby Transfers with 5 card major suits which everybody understands today. According to “4 suit transfers” a super acceptance of a Jacoby Transfers (a jump in the transferred suit) shows 4 card support for the major, a maximum hand and at least one doubleton. Marty Bergen makes a super accept on little more than 4 card support for the major, since he has 9 trump and is properly aligned with the Law of Total Tricks. You can look in my recent blog archive for a post on “Super Accepts” that discusses this issue. The other two transfers are transfers to minor suits. Almost everybody in duplicate bridge has some system to transfer or relay the 1 No Trump opener to a minor suit.

One system for dealing with hands dominated by minor suits is Minor Suit Stayman. The actionable bid over 1 No Trump is 2 spades and it shows responder with 9+ minor suit cards, minimally 5-4 and 9+ hcps. There are detailed rebids by opener to show hand strength and distribution with the object of bidding game or slam in a minor suit or no trump. The bidding sequences are very specific and for me have never been easy to remember. Since this is not a post about Minor Suit Stayman, I will leave you to do your own research if you are interested.

Another popular system for minor suited hands is to agree that the response of 2 spades over 1 No Trump relays opener to 3 clubs, and from there responder sets the contract in either clubs by passing or bids 3 diamonds to play. The big advantage of this system is its simplicity. Easy to remember and hard to go wrong in the bidding, but other than “right siding” the hand so that opener becomes declarer, it doesn’t accomplish much. In his last newsletter Larry Cohen talks about “truck driver” bids. Bids that show no imagination and do not serve to further define either hand, using a sledge hammer where a scalpel might have been more appropriate. In these relays, opener does not know what suit you want to play in so it is difficult for him to offer any constructive help. You have turned opener into a relay robot and you are masterminding the hand. How good can that be?

When using 4 Suit Transfers the sequence 1NT/2 spades transfers opener to clubs. The sequence 1NT/2NT transfers opener to diamonds. Responder could have four different types of minor suit hands:

Transfer and Pass: x, xx, xxxx, QJTxxxx. If responder passes 1NT, opener will probably be playing the contract out of his own hand, never getting to the dummy. If you have never done that, take it from me that the contract is down 2 or 3. The hand rates to play better in 3 clubs, so bid 2 spades to transfer to clubs and pass.

Invitational: xx, xx, AJTxxx xxx. With 15-17 no trump openers, I usually figure partner for 3 ½ quick tricks. If opener holds Kxx of diamonds, we are surely favorites to make 3NT even though responder holds only 5 hcps. Responder bids 2NT transferring opener to diamonds. Note that in between 2NT and 3 diamonds, there is an unused bid of 3 clubs. In 4 Suit Transfers, opener’s bid of 3 clubs in this sequence (rather than 3 diamonds) is a ‘super acceptance” showing 3 card support with one of the top three honors in diamonds or 4 card diamond support. If opener has Kxx in diamonds he bids 3 clubs, and responder with new information bids 3 NT rather than 3 diamonds. Suppose opener held AQ, Axxx, Kxx, Axxx (17 hcps). Although the combined hands hold only 22 hcps, the no trump game makes most of the time. Perfect fit? Of course, I made it up, but it didn’t have to fit this well to have a good play for 3NT.

Game Values: AQx. xx, AQTxxx, xx. With 12 hcps, responder bids 2NT (a transfer to diamonds) showing his diamond suit and a distributional hand. If opener takes the transfer to 3 diamonds, responder bids 3NT showing game values. Opener apparently does not have Kxx in diamonds, but the hand is good enough to play in 3NT in any event. If opener shows Kxx in diamonds by bidding 3 clubs, responder would be rethinking his options.

Slam Interest: Axx, x, Kxx, AKxxxx (14 hcps). Assume opener holds Kxx, Ax, AQxxx, Qxx (15 hcps.). The bidding goes 1NT/ 2s (transfer to clubs) 2NT (super accept for clubs) 4c (ace of clubs – 3 clubs would be to play) 4d (ace of diamonds) 4h (ace of hearts) 6NT. If clubs split 3-1 or 2-2 and diamonds split 3-2 it will make 7 No Trump.

Notice how useful it can be to find a solid minor suit that will produce 6 tricks. One of Max Hardy’s favorite sayings was “fits take tricks.” Fits are only found through good communication. Four suit transfers with super acceptances permit this. Relays are just one man shows.

It should be noted that the super acceptance can be flip-flopped so that taking the in-between bid could say “no super accept” and bidding the transfer suit could say “super accept.” If you decide to do this, the opening one no trump bidder will be declaring the hand when he has a super acceptance and responder will be playing the hand when there is no super accept. There is no compelling evidence that one treatment is better than the other. Just reach agreement with your partner and stick to it.

You may have rejected this idea already saying “I don’t want to give up my 2 no trump invitational bid just to occasionally transfer to diamonds.” Good point, neither do I, but there is no need to give up anything. If you have whatever you consider an invitational 2 no trump hand, just bid 2 clubs (Stayman), even if you have no 4 card major. Opener will make some response representing his holding in majors, but no matter what he bids, if you don’t find a major fit you now bid 2 No Trump!!! This delayed 2NT is invitational and partner should alert at this point that you may not have a 4 card major.

By using the wide variety of bids that are available to us we are able to cover all situations. Four Suit Transfers are not a substitute for judgment, but they are calculated to provide you with information on which your judgment can be based. Did I get this right Norm?

Opener Rebid Choices After 1NT Forcing

2010-03-16T15:03:00.003-04:00

Many of my readers, like myself, are still stuck in the depths of “Intermediatesville” trying to get better as we learn from our mistakes. Some wag once wrote that in order for something to become a habit, you have to do it correctly 19 times. It is hard to find anything in bridge that you can do correctly 19 times other than pass, and even pass has its own problems. So it doesn’t hurt for us to reinforce basics one in a while. Here are some thoughts about responding to 1NT forcing bids.

Most duplicate players today play the 1NT response to one of a major as forcing for one round by an unpassed hand. That means that opener has to come up with one more bid. On a good day you will be delighted to come up with another bid reflecting your 6 card suit or extra values, on a bad day you will have some less appealing choices to make and wonder why you ever made this bid forcing. How about a little quick review? Music maestro!!

1. If you rebid your major suit, it shows a suit that is 6 cards in length and has no significant extras. A jump in the major suit shows 6 good cards in the bid major and 16+ hcps, but is non- forcing.
2. If the hand is 5233, you rebid your lower ranking 3 card minor.
3. If you opened 1 heart, a 2 spade rebid is still a reverse and shows 16+ hcps. Why is it a reverse? Because partner must now go to the 3 level to take a preference for your original suit. Don’t confuse this with 2/1 sequences where most players do not play reverses as showing extra values, just hand shape.
4. If you make a jump shift, it promises a hand of about 19 hcps or shape with equivalent playing strength. Definitely forcing!
5. A raise to 2NT shows a balanced hand of about18-19 hcps and almost forcing; pass it at your peril. Have a back up partner. If you're playing with your spouse, it is forcing!

Those were supposed to be easy choices, and reading this blog post counts as one of the 19 repetitions. With the basics behind you, take shot at these: You open 1 heart, your partner responds 1NT, your bid Syd! Remember that Max Hardy is looking over your shoulder from that big bridge table in the sky. Honk if you don't like it Max.

(i) KJxx, AQxxx, Jx, Qx
(ii) K4, AQJT9x, 5, QJ43
(iii) K4, QJ7643, 5, AQJ3
(iv) K4, AKQJ63, Q7, J95

On hand (i) you have 4 spades but to bid them would be a reverse – not with 13 hcps! In 2/1 game force, it is not systemically correct to rebid your 5 card heart suit, so you “suck it up” and bid 2 clubs. The rule says you bid your best 2 card minor and hope for the best. Somehow this often works out.

On hand (ii) you have a 6 card heart suit which is rebiddable, but also a 4 card club suit you could show. Note that hand (iii) has the same feature. How do you decide whether to show the club suit or just rebid your hearts? There is another rule for this. Here is the standard: Opener will only show the 4 card suit when the 6 card suit is not solid enough to play against a singleton. Opener bids 2 hearts with hand (ii) and 2 clubs with hand (iii). If you are responder and have a singleton in openers major (which happens with alarming frequency), it is important to understand the implication of opener rebidding a second suit. Opener is telling you that he does not have a 6 card major, or if he does it is not good enough to play against a single in your hand. If you have a single in opener’s major, you have 12 cards in the other suits. Remember opener’s bid of a new suit at the 2 level does not show extra values nor is it forcing, so you can pass, and with 4144 that may be the best thing to do. These situations come under the “catch all” that “sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.”

Hand (iv) is even more twisted. I would guess many readers would bid 3 hearts over 1NT forcing. You are not going to like that match point choice if the hand makes both 4NT and 4 spades. Opener should rebid 3NT showing 16-18 hcps, solid hearts, and no single or void. This asks responder to pass if his hand is balanced and otherwise correct to 4 hearts.

If you don’t like my analysis, the specimen hands or the responses send an e-mail to maxhardy@bridgeinheaven.god Be patient, he may not respond immediately. It may be more productive to write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com. If you are on my blog notice list, do not use the “reply” button unless you want the entire list to read your comments.

Tommy Passes 5th Grade Math but Flunks Match Point Duplicate

2010-03-07T12:41:00.002-05:00

I got comments from all over the world on my 7NT adventure. Some suggested a competency hearing and some that I find a new hobby where I won’t disturb others. One person suggested that my math solutions are an insult to 5th graders; they are well beyond that stuff. Seems like just yesterday I was there learning long division!!

Another group of commentators suggested that the contract of 7NT was poor math in itself, since it was far from the best contract in a match point game. I don’t disagree with that but I have my justifications. First, I did say that it was the last board of the day. Second, we were a little desperate and things had not been going our way. Third, when I was learning bridge I played all the Swiss Teams and Knockouts I could find in a rush to life master. I love match points, but sometimes my IMP mentality gets the best of me. Finally, if I had not bid 7NT with that hand, my partner Howard Christ would have pouted for a week. You don’t want to go there.

Still, any way you cut it, 7NT may not be the best match point contract. One of the premier players in the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club, Cliff Garing, told me a long ago that in club games it is not practical to bid Grand Slams, since some in the field will fail to get to slam, some will go down trying to make 7 and 6 of anything bid and made will, over time, reward you with an average plus.

My sometimes partner, Mike Spitulnik, is a heavy weight bridge thinker from Rochester, New York. Mike is a multiple Ace of Clubs winner and had the distinction of becoming a life master, as well as bronze and silver on the same day. Mike felt that the contract was aggressive, but deserving. He believes that in a high quality field several aggressive bidding pairs will be in 7NT and the important thing is not to separate yourself from those teams if that’s where you want to be. He points out that taking the clubs and hearts early hoping to lure opponents into a mistake is sheer folly since it won’t fool anybody and at the same time exposes the contract to being down 2 instead of down 1 if the spade suit does not work out. His point is well taken, and substantiated by the fact that I never saw a spade sluff.

Jon Shuster, a bridge expert and author from Gainesville, also took issue with the bidding of the contract. He believes that if you want to play an aggressive 7 contract, 7 diamonds is much safer than 7NT and that standard bidding with responder showing both spades and diamonds will enable you to find the 8 card diamond fit. It is a risk reward situation. If you accept Mike’s argument that strong aggressive bidders will be in 7 NT, then 7 diamonds is going to cost some match points. The trade off is that when diamonds are 3-2 (about two thirds of the time) you will be able to ruff the third spade. Even if diamonds are 4-1 (which they were) you get a spade ruff if opponent’s spades are 4-2 and the person with short spades does not have the long diamond. Jon has a PhD in medical statistics, so I am sure all these alternate chances support his view. But where is the romance in 7 diamonds and how can you write a blog about that?

My high math consultant is Janice Barnes. I thought for sure that this nice technical analysis of play probabilities would appeal to her. Janice seemed pleased that I finally used the terms “probability” and “odds” in the correct context, but expressed some doubt about whether, with all the variable factors, any math can be practically applied at the table. Janice says that she would far prefer to be a bridge savant who just looks at a dummy and knows all the correct plays instinctively. Dream on Janice, wouldn’t we all? The downside is that those players often forget their partner’s first name.

I am not giving up on the Law of Vacant Places although it seems to be a hard sell to my readers. I am going to rename it Tommy’s Law of Empty Spaces and give it one more try in my next post. Good ideas rarely take without repeating. Jean Rene Vernes wrote about the Law of Total Tricks in the June, 1969 Bridge World, Marty Bergen wrote about it again in 1979, but it was not until Larry Cohen wrote “To Bid or Not to Bid” in 1992” that duplicate players actually started to widely apply it. That’s because Larry discussed "the Law" in a language that common folks could understand. Let’s see if I am up to that standard.

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? Here's 5th Grade Math

2010-02-28T18:45:00.003-05:00

In Friday’s Game at Citrus Springs on my last board the hands were:

KQTxx
Jxx
Axxx
x

Ax
AK
KQJx
AKxxx

Sitting South I opened 2 clubs with this nice 3 LTC hand. Since we have a system that shows control cards over strong 2 club bids, my partner bid 3 clubs showing an Ace and a King in different suits. Sleuth that I am, I identify the King of spades and Ace of diamonds. What excuse could I offer for bidding anything less than 7NT. Bang! The tremor set my Diet Coke can in motion but thankfully it stayed upright!

LHO opens the Queen of clubs and the “pleased as punch” smile drains from my face. We got a problem Houston! At 7 NT there is no end play, and with only 11 top tricks there is no squeeze. It is clear that making the slam is going to be based on the play of the 7 card spade suit. I first set out to establish a couple of phony decoy threat cards hoping to crowd somebody’s hand and lure the defenders into making a telling spade discard. I take the Ace of clubs, the King of clubs and the Ace-King of hearts. Everybody follows suit. Now I have given them three potential winners to stew about, the Queen of clubs, Queen of hearts and Jack of spades.

Next I play 4 rounds of diamonds with West following suit and East playing one diamond and pitching a couple of hearts and a club. I then go into the tank trying to remember the four blogs that I have written on bridge probabilities.

(a) I do remember that “all other things being equal” that finessing the Jack of spades would be a 50% probability, but are all other things equal? Its biggest appeal is that if it is wrong, it will put a sudden end to this misery.

(b) Now I need to test if all other things are equal. Emile Borel, the noted French physicist, also wrote the first definitive treatise on bridge math in the late 1930’s entitled Theorie Mathematique du Bridge. Borrowing from his physics expertise, he laid down the “law of attraction” that length in one suit attracts shortness in another and that shortness attracts length. An adjunct to this is his “law of vacant places.” Once you have identified the distribution of one suit (in this case diamonds were 4-1) the likelihood of a defender holding any particular card in another suit is directly proportional to the non-diamond cards that he held. West originally held 9 non-diamond cards and East held 12 non-diamond cards, so the odds are 12 to 9 that East has the Jack of spades. Now the success of the finesse has become about a 43% probability.

(b) What about the 7 card spade suit. I remember that when the opponents hold an even number of cards they are likely to break unevenly. Even if spades are 4-2 as predicted, the missing honor could be doubleton, but that only happens in the newspaper.

(c) There is another rule that says when opponents have the 5 or 6 cards in a suit, finesse for the King or Queen, but not the Jack! In order to square that with the 7 card rule above, it must be that holding the ten in the suit makes a difference. Behold, I have AKQT in spades. This enhances the 3-3 split to 52.4% probability. Actually this rule is based on another probability rule called the “Deletion Principle” which also explains that time honored saying “8 ever, 9 never.”

I play the Ace of spades from the hand and lead a small spade toward dummy. Both defenders follow to the Ace and LHO follows to the second lead of spades. The moment of truth! I am committed to taking the play with the best probability. At this point making 7 NT has become a side issue, I just want to make sure that if I lose bragging rights, I have an iron clad excuse for blowing the contract. I play the King of spades with East following suit and then the Queen and the Jack comes “oh so slowly” out of East’s hand.

I am thinking that this must be a cold top. Six no trump is unbeatable no matter what the lead or how you p;ay the spade suit. How many pairs are going to bid 7 in matchpoints and then also get the 5th grade math correct? Yesterday morning I quickly checked the results and found that out of 13 pairs playing the hand, one other team bid the Grand and they actually made it. I give credit to Eve Taylor sitting south and lorraine Carrier her partner.

You may be saying that all that math is tiring and hard to remember. Actually the detail stuff is all window dressing, but nevertheless valid. If you remember the finessing rule for 5 and 6 cards you will make 7 no trump.

You can access my four earlier blogs on the odds and ends of bridge by looking in the archive in the right hand margin of the blog. I wrote about the Law of Attraction and the Law of Vacant Places in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part1) dated August 28, 2007. I covered the finessing rule with 5 or 6 cards outstanding in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 2) dated September 6, 2007 and about the Deletion Principle in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 4) dated September 12, 2007. It also proves that at my age the only chance you have of remembering something is if you write it down and tape crib notes on your right wrist. Now you know why I never wear short sleeve shirts!!

Give Respect, if Respect is Due

2010-02-24T10:28:00.002-05:00

I have often recommended Larry Cohen’s free internet newsletter. If you have not looked at his newsletter in the past 6 months, it is worth revisiting. The newsletter has taken on a new feature which provides 4 sets of East-West hands for readers to bid and then he gives the likely or best bidding sequence, some rationale and comment and a score for your bid. The East and West hands are separately shown, so you can actually bid them with your partner without the double dummy advantage. Larry says this material is intermediate to advanced, but they are tough problem hands and are not going to be a pushover for anybody.

His lead article this month is a lamentation that no bridge convention has ever been named after him, while Marty Bergen has almost a dozen. After a worthwhile review of the basics of 4th seat opening bids, he puts a new twist on the Rule of 15. He says that we should augment the Rule of 15 by using CRIFS for deciding whether to bid or fold. CRIFS is an acronym for Cohen’s Rule In Fourth Seat. The rule is intended to be applied to 10, 11 and 12 point hands that actually meet the Rule of 15.

The rule is not about points, spades, distribution, but rather brings into play a human factor, the skill level of your opponents. After all, you do not have to play this hand; you can throw it in and move on. If you look left and right and see two highly competent, competitive players who will compete for the bid, and then play and defend like demons, do not touch your bidding box, do not pass Go and slip that marginal hand back into the tray. Alternatively, if you see players who you would like to make permanent opponents, pick your spot and go for it. If you open that 10 point hand hand, it is not considered good form to tell you opponents why you did so.

This is not the first time I have read about analyzing your opponents. A prominent professional team in discussing their opening lead discipline said that they prefer to use the more informative “Jack Denies” system, but that unfortunately it gives the same information to their opponents, so they only use it when they judge that their opponents don’t know what to do with the information!

As I thought about this sensible advice, I recollected that I had heard this same general advice before by a lesser known author. Sure enough, I found the same theme in a blog post I wrote in April of 2007 titled Rate Yourself as a Partner. This was a series of 12 tests of a good partner and you get a point for each “Yes” answer. The second item asks:

“Do you give expert players a little respect? The David and Goliath scenario hardly ever plays out at the bridge table. If you opponents are frequently known to play at the 55% level, you will do well against the field holding them to an average board. Find another time, place and opponent to demonstrate your cleverness.”

I think that blog post was one of my best and would be suitable to be reread before each game. Maybe suitable for framing! If you want to read that blog post, look in the archive in the right margin of the blog and locate the posts for April, 2007.

Now back to CRIFS. The underlying concept is valid, but I don’t need one more hard to remember acronym to tell me to duck when trouble is on the horizon. I doubt CRIFS will become a “biggie” in bridge vocabulary, and I think Larry Cohen was just having some fun at Marty Bergen’s expense.

A Tribute to Ina Mills

2010-02-21T12:58:00.003-05:00

Ina Mills was my duplicate partner on Friday. The only risk in writing about Ina is that I won’t find the words to adequately give her the credit she deserves. Friday was a great occasion for me because I got to play with Ina; it was a great occasion for Ina since she was celebrating her 90th birthday. This later bit of news caught me off guard, since she looks and acts and like a youngster anxiously waiting for that first social security check.

Bill and Eve Taylor composed special lyrics for her birthday song that started “Nothing could be fina that to have a friend like Ina, she’s enchanting!” That line says it all, and while Jeanne Reynolds and Howard Christ sang the song, to my amazement, my partner got up and demonstrated a one person line dance complete with all the moves. Did I tell you that line dancing is still one of her passions and you better know the steps if you are in her line.

On the bridge side, Ina ran past Gold Life Master like it was standing still and she ain’t done yet. Who knows what she might have achieved if she had not spent most of her competitive life in an earlier ACBL system where if you didn’t finish first you might end up with .04 master points. Since it was a special occasion on Friday, Ina and I engaged in what we called “birthday bids” in which we entirely eliminated the invitational level, so it was either Ina’s birthday or our opponents' birthday when we were in the auction. Ina did not disappoint. I expected a high level of play from her and she delivered every time, bidding, declaring and defending like the champ she is. No pussy cat this one, she put an exclamation point on the day by bidding and playing two small slams and one Grand.

My job was to accurately sort cards and try not to renege. I did not put down one missorted dummy all day; alas, I did have one renege. It was a disappointment, not so much because I reneged, but because I did it at trick 12. One would think it would not be hard to follow suit when you are looking at only two choices. Maybe the bridge Gods just got it right and decided it would be bad form for Ina to finish first on her own birthday. We slipped into second place thanks to Ina.

At 5:00 I was home chewing on the olive at the bottom of my Martini when I got a call from Ina. Ina (no slouch herself when it comes to the cocktail hour) had decided to stay behind and check the results and scores on every board against her personal score and found a critical scoring error that vaulted us up a couple of places. I think that says it all about the intensity of her competitive juices. Sweet old lady? Not quite. In my next bar fight (I actually hope that was my last one) I want Ina on my back.

So just as the song goes “Nothing could be fina than to have a friend like Ina." Happy Birthday Ina!!

Majoring in Majors on BBO

2009-12-06T14:24:00.002-05:00

Last night I was having a friendly IMP game at Bridge Base on Line with an on line partner, Cara. At BBO there is little time to discuss detailed bidding sequences even if you happen to be a key board whiz and know all the "new age" texting shortcuts. Me? Given 10 minutes, I might be able to find a cell phone, but don’t bet the farm on it. Even when I try to communicate on line, the words seem to lack vowels, sentences lack verbs and only the Turks understand me.

Most of the time you are playing some form of SAYC. It ranges from very basic to complete, but most often they don’t bother to tell you. The full description of two over one game force is exactly “2/1” and you are on your own from there. These factors combine for very limited use of conventional bids other than Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. One of the areas where you don’t expect issues are 15-17 no trump opening hands, but when Stayman, transfer and no trump raises are inadequate to describe responder’s hand, you have to figure out how you showed distributional hands before you had partnership agreements and a convention card to guide you.

Responder hands with more than 8 major suit cards fall in this category. We need to find our best fit and tell opener about our strength. Will all who know how to do it please raise their hands right now? You are excused from this blog. Remember, no short cuts, you need to do it the old fashioned way.

Today most advanced players would use the Smolen Convention to show the 5-4 major hand with at least invitational values. In a previous post I discussed Smolen, but do you remember how you bid this hand before you had the conventional crutch? Absent any agreement, I would recommend starting with Stayman! Yes, I said Stayman not Transfer! If partner bids either major, it is a happy day no matter which major it is. If partner bids 2 diamonds, you next bid your 5 card major. Bid it at the 2 level if your hand is invitational (7-8 hcps), and bid it at the 3 level if you have a game forcing hand. So with KJxxx, QJxx, xx, xx, after 1NT/2c/2d/ a second response of 2 spades should show this 5-4 invitational hand. If the majors are reversed, the second response would be 2 hearts. For opener it is pass or bid a major or 3NT game with a max.

If you make responder’s hand KJTxx, KJTx, x, xxx, you want to make a game forcing 2nd response, so after Stayman, bid the 5 card spade suit at the 3 level. It will be disappointing if pard is 2-3-4-4, but with 2 tens and the 5 card suit, I still like my chances at 3NT. So with 5-4 in the majors “Stay with STAYMAN.”

The hand I actually anguished over was AQxxx, KTxxx, x, xx. Yummy yummy! I was all set to respond 3 spades, with most of my regular partners that shows 5-5 in the majors, game force. Then I suddenly remembered that I had no agreement on the 3 level responses, and I was expected to show this holding by a SAYC bidding sequence. Does anyone remember what it is?

Well, with 5-5 you start with Transfer, but which suit do you transfer to. Start with transferring opener to hearts if you have an invitational hand like AJxxx, JTxxx, x, xx, since that enables responder to rebid 2 spades after the transfer acceptance and show invitational values. With the game force hand, it doesn’t really matter what suit you transfer as long as your 2nd response is at the 3 level. I like the discipline of transferring your best major in case opener has 3 card support for both majors and needs to make a choice. On a bad day opener might bid 3NT, confessing that he had opened a 2-2-4-5 hand, but with that hand opener is expected to have a stopper (or at least a half stopper) in the majors, so there should be a play for 3NT. So when you are 5-5, "Start with Transfer".

How did it all work out in the heat of battle? Well, I got it right, but didn’t know it until the next morning when I looked it up. Cara had no trouble understanding my jump rebid was forcing and put me us in 4 hearts, which made in a breeze thanks to her great declaring skills.

Just when you think you have it all worked out, you are dealt 6-4 in the majors. There may be some advantages in searching for the 4-4 major fit as trump, but only when partner has exactly 2 card support for your 6 card major. This is too much of a dream world for me. Assume you bid 2 clubs and opener responds 2 diamonds showing no 4 card major. Is your on line partner (or any partner for that matter) now going to figure out that a 2nd response of 4 hearts is really an attempt by you to make a Texas Transfer to spades. You will know it a was a poor decision when opponents start rudely typing "faster, faster" and you wonder if partner lost her connection. Of course you can always bid 4 spades and even on line they can figure that out, but now you have the 1NT hand on the table and the lead coming up to the weaker hand. Save your self some grief and just make a Texas transfer to start with. At least you will not summarily be removed from the table by your own partner.

The next time you come on line at BBO be sure to designate me as a “friend”. My screen name is “tommylee” and I would enjoy playing a few hands with any of my readers.

Super Duper Acceptance

2009-08-11T20:32:00.002-04:00

Almost everybody who can sort cards knows about Jacoby Transfers in no trump bidding. Usually after a 1 No Trump opener and a Jacoby Transfer, partner will dutifully accept the transfer by bidding the indicated major at the 2 level. From there the bidding proceeds in three directions. Responder either passes, invites or bids game. Responder’s strength requirement for each of these three options is a little fuzzy depending on whether the game is matchpoints or IMP’s, the vulnerability and just how gosh darn mad you are. Almost equally familiar is the concept of “Super Acceptance”. If you asked 100 people in a 25 table game about super acceptance, 99% would say raise to the three level if you have a max and 4 trump and the other guy would be looking for a partner..

Most players today know the name Marty Bergen, a wonderful bridge theorist who brought aggressive competitive bidding to the forefront in matchpoint bridge. He gained bridge immortality by his innovative way of dealing with major suit raises known as “Bergen Raises”, probably second only to Stayman in terms of popular conventions. Since Better Bidding by Bergen was published 24 years ago, there are many players in the game today who have never even seen the book, much less read it. Marty may not have been the father of “super acceptance”, but he was one of the first to write about it. It may come as a surprise to today’s players that Marty had a somewhat different take on Super Acceptance borne out of his championing of the Law of Total Tricks.

In a recent e-mail to me Marty reiterated his position: Jump to the 3 level in the major if you have a “bad” opening 1NT hand, bid 2NT with 4333 and a “max” and bid any doubleton you hold if you have a “nice” hand and 4432. Notice Marty did not seek to define the term “bad”, “nice” or “max”. Marty would place greater value on Aces and Kings and discount Queens, but to avoid subjective arguments, let’s assume they mean roughly 15-16 and 17 to the unwashed. When I asked about the premise for what I call “Super Duper Accepts” (also known as Bergen Super Accepts), four letters came rolling back on my screen, LOTT!!! After all, we have 9 trump so we need to be at the 3 level, why wait? Hold onto that thought for a moment.

The problem arises when responder has a hand that he intends to transfer and pass. Modern thinking on this technique holds that you transfer anytime you have a 5 card major and it can be done with 0 points. Earlier this week I held AKQx, Q752, KQT, 85. The bidding went 1NT/2h(transfer)/3spades(super accept). I thought I would give Marty’s theory a try. Partner’s hand was J7643, T8, 75, QJ72. As you can see, we lose 5 tricks off the top, down 1 on a hand that every other pair made +110. Certainly the fault is not with partner in making the transfer.

The problem I see with the application of the LOTT is that it is a competitive bidding guideline. By the time responder passes the 2 level transfer bid, the auction is only competitive if opponents will balance by bidding 2 spades (in the case of hearts) or double or a make 3 level bid. This may be standard balancing procedure at professional levels, but when was the last time you witnessed this at the club level. Even with skilled amateurs you don’t see much balancing in these sequences, and if opponents don’t compete, you often are just one level too high.

Confused by this, I asked another nationally renowned bridge theorist, Danny Kleinman, to look at my hand and tell me what went wrong. In short order Danny told me “Tommy, your hand was not good enough to make a super acceptance.” His “idiots guideline” for me was revalue your hand as a supporting hand and if you have 4 supporting trump and the hand has now grown out of your no trump range, then super accept. Thus if you have 17 and a doubleton, you revalue to 18 and super accept. Otherwise be content with a standard acceptance.

You may have been wondering about Marty’s recommendation to bid your doubleton suit when you have 4 card trump support and a “nice” hand. This is pretty clever since the no trump opener is now the short trump hand and the additional trump will be of value only if the hand has a ruffing value. By locating the doubleton for responder, you enable him to better gauge the value of the 4th trump. It may look like this is on the slippery slope to wrong siding the hand, but Marty solved that as well with his concept of “retransfers.” Upon hearing the doubleton bid, responder simply transfers again and now opener bids the major. Everything back to square.

Lets take a final look at Marty’s recommendation to bid 2NT when you have 4 trump, 4333 and a max. This is the opposite of the 4332 hand, it may have a 4th trump, but the hand has no ruffing value. It will probably make the same number of tricks in no trump as it will in a major suit even with a 9 card fit. The 2NT bid is a clear warning to responder about playing a suit contract and the last chance to get off the train by passing 2NT if responder has one of those “transfer and duck” hands.

If you currently have only one flavor to your super accept, I think you might consider Bergen’s technique of bidding the doubleton with 4432 and nice hand and bidding 2NT with a max and 4333. As for three level jumps, I think Danny Kleinman’s idiots rule suits me best. If you promise you will always balance over the passed transfer, I may change my mind. :-)

Reopening Doubles

2009-07-28T12:39:00.004-04:00

There was bridge before negative doubles. If you played bridge in the 1950’s, and are still alive to tell about it, you will remember after the sequence 1s/2c/, a double of the 2 club overcall was a serious event intended to teach discipline to any who would make the call with anything less than a solid suit and an opening hand. It was not a negative double, an optional double, a BOP double or a DSIP double, it was for penalties and woe onto opener if he took the double out. These first round doubles are probably what brought about bidding boxes, because the always came out with a serious growl.

In 1957 Al Roth first wrote about the idea of a negative double and it became part of the Roth-Stone system. At the time the double was called “Sputnik” after the famous Russian satellite. As the negative double gained popularity it also became necessary to prevent the proliferation of cheap overcalls since responder could not double for penalty. If, instead of the perfect negative double hand, you had a stack of good cards in the overcalled suit (a hand that you would have previously inspired a penalty double) you not only could not double, but with 5 or 6 cards in overcaller’s suit, you most likely had no suit to bid. Out of this dilemma was born the so called “automatic reopening double.”

Last Thursday I was dealt 9, K54, AJT8, A9842. When my RHO opened 1 spade. I decided to make a 2 club overcall, non-vul against vul opponents. I suppose some might double and others make an Unusual NT bid, but I thought 2 clubs best described my hand and was good lead direction. Now the bidding went pass, pass, pass, so the reopening double must not be “automatic” after all. This experience led me to believe that even among experienced bridge partnerships, there may be no definitive agreement on the standard to be applied to the reopening double. I asked several players about this and got a variety of comments. Here is a sampling.

(a) It is automatic, no questions!
(b) You do it if you have the right hand.
(c) You do it if you have a doubleton, single or void in the overcalled suit.
(d) You do it because your partner expects you to.
(e) You do it unless you have a minimum opening hand.
(f) The double shows extra values, so pass without them.
(g) You do because you don’t want to give up the hand.

What this indicates is that if you have not discussed this issue with your regular partners, now may not be too soon to do so. Oh, did I say that my LHO held K4, J, KQ42, KQJ753! His partner opened a 11 hcp “Rule of 20” hand and decided if there was an exception to the term “automatic”, his hand was it. Since he also had a single club, it was an ill fated decision.

Setting aside all the well intended advice I received, I decided to see what a real expert would say. In August of 2006, Karen Walker wrote an article in the Bridge Bulletin about this very subject in her series “12 Habits of Highly Effective Bidders.” Karen may lack the glitz of some of the top Bridge Super Stars, but she is very solid, reliable, sensible and an excellent writer. Her web site is always one of my first stops.

Karen rejects the concepts of “automatic” or “always double with shortness in overcaller’s suit.” She also rejects the concept of doubling “for partner” pointing out that except for rare occasions where partner has a monster trump stack, partner is not in a position to make a unilateral decision about whether to leave the double in. He needs to know whether opener’s hand is suitable for joining a defense.

Ideally opener should have not only shortness in the overcalled suit, but also support for the unbid suits and 2½ quick tricks. When you put this all together, a good guideline is that “if you were sitting behind overcaller and he opened rather than overcalled, would you make a take out double?” If so, make a reopening double, and if not pass or take some other appropriate action.

What if opener has a void in the overcalled suit, is that ideal? Hardly! First, the void gives opener extra length in the unbid suits, so the slow quick tricks like KQxxx may not be winners. Another reason is that when opener gets in, partner expects him to lead a trump through declarer. It is hard to lead a void (a certain director call) and the failure to lead through declarer often means that partner is going to ultimately get end played in the trump suit.

Do you pass with all hands that do not meet the “acid test” of a double? Obviously not. If you have a distributional hand such as 6-4 or 5-5, you are probably better off declaring, so you need to make a descriptive bid. If you have a strong single suited hand that is close to an opening 2 club bid (4 losing trick count), you can jump in your suit to show the strength. If you have a real good hand (again 4 LTC) without any clear direction, you can always make a cue bid forcing responder to describe his hand.

Assume partner has reopened the bidding, how do you know when to pass for penalties? Mel Colchamiro in his book “How to Play Like an Expert ….” advocated applying the Rule of 9 in determining when to leave in partner’s take out double. Since opener’s hand often looks like a take out double hand, I would apply the Rule of 9 to the reopening double as well. Her it is! Leave the double in if the total number of cards you have in overcaller’s suit + the total honors you have in that suit + the level of the contract equal 9.
So if the contract is 2 clubs doubled and you are sitting behind the overcaller with KQxxx, whack it! 5+2+2=9. Are you Smarter than a 3rd Grader?? Arrest your partner if he doesn’t show up with 2 1/2/quick.

To see some example hands where you should not make a reopening double see www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/negativedoubles_main,htm

Bergen, Jacoby, Hardy, Joe Sargent and Concealed Splinters

2009-06-30T18:07:00.002-04:00

I played with a real bridge savvy guy yesterday. It cost me $6.50 to sit down, but as tuition goes it was surely cheap. I am sure if he started counting his master points after Board 24, he would still be running the total. My partner is named in the title to this blog, can you identify him? Hint: Oswald Jacoby and Max Hardy have both played their last card, and Marty Bergen is retired.

One hand that we defended reminded me of importance of partnership understandings in defining the hand characteristics of Bergen Limit Raises, Jacoby 2NT and Splinter responses to major suit openers. I think your bidding skills and partnership communication will vastly improve if you start with the proposition that each of these responses should be narrowly defined and distinguishable.

Start with the easy one, the Bergen Limit Raise. For most pairs today that response is 3 clubs. It shows 10 to a bad 12 points, 4 card support and no singleton or void. Since responder’s hand may have little or no ruffing value (4333 is really ugly) it is highly invitational , but not forcing. If you are opener, even with a bad hand do not pass 3 clubs. I already did that in the finals of a Regional knockout – nobody on our team was entertained. The bar tab was a killer!

Move forward to the Splinter bid. If differs from the Bergen Limit Raise in that the splinter must have a single or void. It should also show 10 to a bad 12 points, but because of the shortness it is a game forcing bid. If you have a void rather than a single upgrade your hand a little. The splinter is shown by making a triple jump in the short suit. If your short suit is a single honor, do not show the hand as a splinter, downgrade it to a Bergen Limit Raise. In order to make a good hand valuation opposite a splinter, opener must be able to assume that all of your points are “working points.” For more detail on splinter valuation, see my earlier blog on splinter bids in the archive.

Most often the splinter bid will be at the 4 level so we have eaten up a lot of bidding space. This is what makes it so important that the bid be narrowly defined. Opener is not handcuffed, but he must count on you being within the defined range in making the slam/no slam decision. If opener bids anything other than 4 of the major, he is showing slam interest. There is no science involved if responder has 10 points one time and 17+ points another.

The Jacoby 2NT response also shows 4 card support, and it will have game forcing strength. It may resemble an overgrown Bergen Raise or an overgrown Splinter. It will be a minimum of a good 12 hcps, but the bid is unlimited in strength. In both the Bergen Limit Raise and the Splinter bid, opener is in charge of the hand and makes the crucial decisions. With the Jacoby 2NT bid, responder takes over the hand and is the "Captain of the Ship". Opener describes his hand strength and distribution and responder puts all 26 cards together and makes the final contract decision. Since responder is the decision maker, it really doesn’t matter that he has a singleton or void, or 12 or 22 points, he simply takes that into account in his hand analysis.

One of the problems of the Splinter bid is that you are giving information about responder’s hand distribution and the defender’s can read your smoke signals. The defender’s are being told where they should not expect tricks. A lead of the splinter suit will most often give declarer a “tempo” which may be all the hand needs to make the contract. Both Bergen and Hardy discussed the use of “concealed splinters” in connection with the Bergen Raise complex. With a splinter hand, responder jumps to the 3 level in the opposite major. Thus, 1h/3s or 1s/3h shows a concealed splinter raise. If opener has a big hand and wants to investigate slam, he asks for the shortness by bidding one step up (3s over 3h and 3NT over 3s). Responder then shows the short suit.
If the bidding is: 1s/3h(splinter)/3s(where?)- then 3NT(short clubs) or 4c(short diamonds) or 4h(short hearts).
If the bidding is:: 1h/3s(splinter)/3NT(where)- then 4c(short clubs) or 4d(short diamonds) or 4h( short spades).

That obviously has achieved no advantage over the traditional method, but if opener has no slam aspirations, he can simply bid game in the major directly, and then the location of the splinter has not been disclosed to the defenders. This also opens up all the direct four level calls in the unbid sits for whatever use you wish to make of them. One idea might be to have them show a void as opposed to a singleton. Another choice may be to show a good secondary 5+ card suit along with 4 card support.

After our opponent’s Jacoby 2NT sequence yesterday, the dummy came down with AT76, Q6, AJ8652, x. Do you like that 2 NT bid? Partner held QJ9543, K7, K7, A92 and did a fast arrival of 4 spades. The King of spades was offside, but it shows the dangers of getting the wrong hand in control. Just when you think you have clarified everything, a hand like this comes along. I’ll take criticism on this, but I am splintering that hand. Preferably a concealed splinter! Maybe 6 spades down 1. I would have had company!

Response to Bidding Quiz

2009-06-29T20:07:00.001-04:00

In my last blog I showed two hands that were forwarded to me for a bidding opinion. To stimulate some interest, I asked my readers to comment on their own technique for opening these hands. The two obvious opening calls on each hand were either one spade or a forcing 2 clubs. While the responses included all 4 possible answers, the preponderance of elevated thought opened both hands 1 spade.

Hand One: KQ432, Q, AQ32, AKT. Open it 1 spade. For those who auger for 2 clubs, I ask “Where’s the beef?” I don’t see a forcing bid on tricks or on hcps (a bad 20). There are 4 LTC hands that I would open 2 clubs, and I think the modern trend is in that direction, but this is not one of them. If partner can’t muster up some kind of supporting bid (2,3 or 4 spades) or 1NT forcing, where are we going on this hand. If responder has as much as 6 hcps and sits on his hands, I’m heading for the partnership desk. I am assuming that we play jump shifts as forcing so there are no rebid problems.

I also think there is a risk in placing too much emphasis on Losing Trick Count before anyone has put their hand on a bidding box. While Ron Klinger did not invent LTC (it has been around since at least the 1930”s), his book, The Modern Losing Trick Count (1987) is today considered the unchallenged authority on the subject. At page 13 he states:

“The LTC can be used after a trump fit has been established. It is not designed for no trump hands and is quite unsuitable for misfit hands. Thus, it is vital that you do not envisage the LTC as replacing point count. It is used as an adjunct to point count when a trump fit comes to light. After the trump fit is known, the LTC will give a more accurate guide to the potential of the partnership hands.”

There is also this about LTC that is often forgotten and that is that there is a disconnect between the concept of losing trick count and winning tricks. A hand that has 4 LTC often does not have 9 Winning Tricks. Try this test out on either hand.

Jeff Rubens in his classic book on hand valuation, The Secrets of Winning Bridge (1969) states one of the principles of hand valuation: “PRINCIPLES OF HONORS WITH LENGTH: Other things being equal, honors are more valuable in your long sits than in short suits. The longer the suit in which the honor is located the more valuable the honor.” In an example he shows a hand Axxxx, xxxxx, AK, K and notes that the single club King is unguarded and as such loses much of its value.

Other features that show hand weakness are only 4 ½ quick tricks and only 6 controls. This may be more significant when compared with hand two which is stronger and has 5 Quick Tricks and 7 controls. I am keeping a list of those who voted to open this monstrosity with 2 clubs so I can protect myself!

Hand Two: AQxxx, AKT2, AQJ, 2. A much tougher case. I know good players (and some other self styled experts) who would open this two clubs. 4 LTC, 5 Quick Tricks, 7 controls and good defensive values, but still it fails to meet time honored standards. I am going to show my traditional values and reputation for foot slogging stodginess and open this one spade. I can hear the rhetoric now that I am risking getting passed out. That may be true, but not passed out in a probable game. I prefer not to dilute opener’s standards and rather rely on responder not to be shy if he has anything that looks like a plausible response. My odds of getting a response out of partner go up considerably when I only hold 20 hcps as opposed to 24-26, so the traditional danger of opening at the one level is mitigated.

I also think the communication will be better if the hand is opened 1 spade. The bidding structure and responses of a forcing 2 club opener are not what you call eloquent. Two diamonds “Waiting” or 2 hearts negative always leave you wondering. Even if responder bids his “controls”, opener may be left guessing about the club suit. With a singleton club, if exploration is warranted, wouldn’t you rather get into a cue bidding sequence? I think doing that successfully is more likely if you open 1 spade.

I am not saying that every 2 club opener has to be a crushing brute, only that it should represent some considerable guaranteed trick taking assets. I think there are some instructive examples of these types of hands in Max Hardy’s Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century (2000) at page 175-176.

One final caveat. If you are looking for expert bridge opinion you at the wrong web site.

A Short Bidding Quiz to Start Summer

2009-06-22T09:29:00.002-04:00

It seems that I always need recertification as an expert authority on bidding. Since I have repeatedly denied any bridge expertise on this blog, I will turn to my real experts, my readers, to help me out. A reader sent these hands to me and asked how I would open the bidding. It is your turn to bid, you are in first seat, the game is match points, your card is Standard American or 2/1 and vulnerability is not an issue.

Here are the 2 hands:

Hand 1

KQ432
Q
AQ32
AKT

Hand 2

AQxxx
AKT2
AQJ
2

The first thing I always do with bidding questions is to make sure that there are 13 cards. Half the hands I get have 12 or 14, just waiting for me to pontificate on the bidding and not notice the card issue. I have gone for that for the last time. I also received assurance that this is not a trick question, that the selection should boil down to one of two possible bids. I saw a hand like this opened last week with 2 No Trump, and the result was a disaster, so I don’t think that is one of the choices. Now that is the end of the coaching, its your bid and you do not want to start “out of tempo.”

A long story or explanation is not necessary, but your pithy comments will be appreciated. If you are a bridge player you probably do not see an issue, a more opinionated bunch I have never run into. So if you just want to give it a hip shot and a “What’s the Problem”, that will be O.K. as well.

I am in Rochester, New York on my summer leave from the Florida heat, so don’t use your address book to e-mail your response. Send your answers and opinions to me at tommy@rochester.rr.com .

Have a nice summer.

Tommy's Bridge Blog: Support Doubles and Redoubles

2009-06-14T09:47:00.000-04:00

Tommy's Bridge Blog: Support Doubles and Redoubles

Rosencranz and Expanded Advances

2009-05-05T09:26:00.000-04:00

My recent blog was intended to introduce Rosencrantz Doubles and Redoubles as responses to overcalls when Advancer (overcaller’s partner) has 3 card support. In what I thought was a “free toss”, I quickly dispatched advancer’s other supporting options as either a cue bid to show limit raise hands or a law of total tricks preemptive bid to show weaker hands with 4+ card support. “Incomplete and over generalized” says my Rochester, New York, partner Carol Van Der Voorn. “You wouldn’t make the same bid with 4 card support and 0-6 hcps as you would with 7-9 hcps, would you?”

Now even with a blog to flog with, you don’t want to mess with Carol. Three reasons: her beliefs about good bridge bidding are more than a little entrenched, she’s always ready with proof and citations and she is mostly right. I confess, I was trying to end the unrelated Rosencrantz discussions without putting too fine a point on “other supporting bids.” No such luck, back to the drawing board.

Let’s set up an auction: 1c/1h/x/? Here are the first two hands for Advancer: (i) xx, Qxxx, Qxxxx, xx and (ii) Ax, QJxx, xx, Jxxxx.

All my novice readers are on testosterone overload, so I think they would have no trouble bidding 3 hearts on hand (i). It is the new bridge that “the less you know the more important it is that you bid.” I was a guest in a novice game recently and I think I declared 1 hand! Hand (ii) is a little more troublesome. The usual choices are bidding 2 hearts, cue bidding 2 clubs (to show a limit raise and support) or preempting to 3 hearts..

Now if those are your only choices, I think in the long run with hand (ii) you will wish you had preempted by bidding 3 hearts. The hand is too weak for a cue bid and you run the risk that overcaller will misread your hand and run away with the auction. If you make the simple supporting bid of 2 hearts, as sure as God made green tomatoes you are going to hear opener bid 2 spades. Another sign of modern bridge, the pass and double cards are missing from the box, so everybody takes the push. Now without the “boss suit”, it will be hard to ever regain control of the auction.

The Mixed Raise
There is another choice for hand (ii) that I neglected to mention. The bid is some something called a ”mixed raise” which is shown by a jump cue bid in opener’s bid suit. It is a bid that is both preemptive and constructive, requires 4+ trump, generally has one defensive trick and will fall in the 7-9 hcp range. Mixed Raises usually have 8 or 9 Losing Trick Count.
Let’s look at a few more examples: (iii) Axx, Kxxxx ,xx, JTx (iv) Kxx, KJTx, Jxxx, xx (v) KJ43, KJ65, xx, xxx. All of these would be suitable for a mixed raise to 3 clubs in the example sequence.

Most of you play "Bergen" raises when you are responding to a major suit opening. The mixed raise has nothing to do with Bergen Raises, but note that all of the mixed raise hands look very much like the same hands that make a 3 diamond response playing Bergen Raises.

If overcaller has a standard overcall with 7 Losing Trick Count, he will simply bid 3 hearts and that ends the auction. If overcaller bids any other suit below 3 hearts it would be a game try. If Advancer has an 8 LTC hand he should accept and bid 4 hearts and with 9 LTC return to 3 hearts. Overcaller may bid 4 hearts directly with a strong overcall or excellent distribution. Remember that overcaller and advancer need to have a combined LTC of 14 or less to have a reasonable play for game.

The Fit Showing Jump
If you want a bid for every occasion, there are other supporting bids that Advancer can make. Now we are moving from intermediate play to the advanced category. Fit showing jumps show 4+ card length in overcaller’s suit, a good 5 card suit of your own with 2-3 working honors and 10-11 hcps.
The hand might look like this xx, KTxx AQxxx, Jx. Assume the same bidding sequence 1c/1h/x/?. To show the “fit showing jump” you jump in your 5 card suit, so in our sequence the bid would be 3 diamonds. You might say, well I could have made a simple cue bid on that hand. True enough, but with the fit showing jump you are passing additional vital information to overcaller. If overcaller holds the King of diamonds, his hand just got a whole lot better. Light contracts are made on double fits.

The Splinter
Surely you didn’t think I was done. The bidding is again 1c/1h/x/?. As advancer you hold xxx, QJTxx, AKxx, x. A cue bid could be made to do the job, but again it doesn’t really show the power of this hand, much of which lies in the single club. While it technically has only 10 hcps, the honors in sequence supporting each other and the singleton, make it a very strong playing hand in support of hearts. With this hand I think it is correct to show the splinter by bidding 4 clubs. Against any kind of disciplined overcall, this hand should have a good play for game.

So now if you combine the two ways to show 3 card support with Rosenkranz, the standard preemptive raise, the cue bid to show the limit raise, the Mixed Raise shown by the jump cue bid, the Fit Showing Jumps shown by jumping in your own 5 card suit and the Splinter Bid showing support and shortness, I believe you have a full menu to show your support for partner’s overcall. Now all you need is a graduate student at MIT for a partner!

Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles

2009-04-29T18:49:00.000-04:00

Last week I had an inquiry about Rosenkranz. That would be George Rosenkranz, a world renowned chemist, the founder of a major drug company, a pioneer and leader in the development of steroids and one of Mexico’s leading citizens. He also is a bridge expert, winning 14 North American Championships, writing 11 books on bridge and a major inventor of bridge gadgets. Perhaps he is best known in the bridge world for the popular bridge convention that still bears his name, the Rosenkranz Double and Redouble. Although the conventional bid does not receive that much attention in Florida, in other areas of the country it is almost as routine as Stayman.

In general Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are used in response to an overcall by partner to describe your supporting length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. Let’s first work on Rosencrantz Doubles.

If the bidding has gone 1d/1h/1s, a Rosenkranz Double of the 1 spade bid is purely informational and would promise partner that you have exactly 3 card support for hearts and one or more of the top 3 honors in the suit. By way of contrast, if you bid 2 hearts over 1 spade instead of doubling, it would also indicate exactly 3 cards in the heart suit, but would deny any of the top three honors. If you made a Rosenkranz Double your hand might look like (a) xx, Kxx, Axxx, Jxxx. If you bid 2 hearts you might hold (b) Kx, JTx, Axxx, Jxxx. So already we have passed some useful information to partner.

The Rosenkranz Redouble is closely related, except in this case you right hand opponent has made a negative double rather than bidding 1 spade. So the bidding has gone 1d/1h/x/. Now, if you redouble you are showing three card support to one of the top three honors and if you bid 2 hearts you still show 3 card support but deny a top honor. So with hand (a) above you redouble and with hand (b) you bid 2 hearts.

We have covered 3 card support, what do you do with 4 or 5 card support? Exit George Rosenkranz and enter Larry Cohen. We follow the law of total tricks and bid to the appropriate level. You are now out of the realm of Rosenkranz and you are just upping the ante hoping to preempt opponents or on a good day actually buy the contract. Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are made on limited strength hands that are sufficient to make a single advance of the overcall. The hand should not have more 10 hcps. If you actually have 3+ card support and limit raise or greater values, then you must cue bid opener’s suit to pass this message to your partner. This is just old SAYC.

So now we can see that we have really sliced and diced advancer’s hand and completely described to overcaller the supporting strength, length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. This information may be useful to overcaller in competitive bidding, but let’s face it, when they open the bidding, most likely we are going to be defender’s and we want to get off to a good start without giving away a trick on the opening lead. Visualize that overcaller might hold AQxxx in the overcalled suit. The best defense may to be to grab our heart tricks before they go away. But is it safe to lead? If partner had made a simple raise he does not hold the King so you would not want to lead the suit, but rather wait for partner to lead it. If advancer has made a Rosenkranz Double or Redouble, advancer is marked with the King and you can either safely lead one of your honors or underlead the Ace/Queen if you want partner to lead back through declarer. Note that we also have an exact count on the heart suit.

I should point out that some play Rosenkranz as requiring one of the top 2 honors. That is only a matter of style, but it is good to talk to partner about it. There is more assurance of not making a disastrous lead playing the top 2 only, but you don’t get to use the convention as much. Experience will tell you, and as in most things in bridge, it boils down to trade offs. The use of Rosenkranz needs to be marked on your convention card and the use of the convention is alertable.

My recommendation is to start using Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles and fine tune your personal preference from there. There is very little downside, the convention has a relatively high level of occurrence and is easy to recognize. Partner will be happy to know that you have 3 card support, and even happier if you have one of the top three honors.

To my critics who allege that I never provide any useful stuff, this blog post is my best defense.

The Road to Match Point Success

2009-04-12T13:37:00.000-04:00

In the process of creating joy and happiness in my life, I find lots of ways to be unproductive. One of my hobbies is reading bridge books. Now that may not seem so unique, since thousands of new bridge books are sold each year, many of which are never opened. I depart from the crowd somewhat since the bridge books that I read are often 40 years old. This is what you do if you can’t play a lick!

There is nothing new about playing the cards. Good declarers and good defenders of yesteryear would be equally good today. The language of bridge is bidding, and the changes that have come in bridge are the development of its language. In no place is that more important than in match point play. The part of bridge linguistics that interests me most is its etymology, the origin and development of the language of bridge. There may be many out there that share that interest, but the only one I know personally is Jim Bailey, one of my partners in Rochester, New York.

The more you read old bridge books, the more you realize that the development of bridge language moves slowly and that change takes place over long periods of time. Players who have learned the game in the 21st century undoubtedly think the style called “two over one game force” (2/1) is cutting edge technology, recently discovered. Not so!

Last summer Jim and I were both reading “Five Card Majors Western Style” written by Max Hardy in 1974. Max was describing a bidding system almost identical to what we today call 2/1, and he attributed it’s development to two Los Angeles players, Richard Walsh and John Swanson, who had been developing it since the 1960’s. A reading of Max Hardy’s many subsequent books on this subject will show that in large measure what Max did for 25 years was tweak an old system and drive it to the fore front of bridge bidding; to the point that competitive bridge in the United States is today synonymous with that system.

The ACBL has about 350,000 members. What you may not know is that the European Bridge Union has more than twice that many members and very few of them know or care about 2/1. Although many systems are used though out the rest of the world, most of them are based on what is generally referred to as a “Big club System” where all strong hands are opened one club to facilitate better bidding with big hands.

In the interest of spreading my wings and learning more about those systems, I am in the early stages of learning to play Precision. I started backwards, first reading “Precision Today” by Brent Manley and David Berkowitz. I quickly realized to understand Precision Today you have to understand Precision yesterday. So, I have gone back to read some of the old books on Precision by C.C. Wie, Terrence Reese, Eric Jannersten and yes, even Charles Goren, all products of the late 60’s and early 70’s.

I am currently reading “Match Point Precision”, largely written by Ron Andersen, who is best known for his book “Lebensohl Complete.” Match Point Precision, last revised in 1978, is a connection between the system as it was developed by Wie, and the high power system that is played today by so many top professionals. Probably of more general interest are Andersen’s comments on the keys to success in match point play.

For starters, he says “The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.” With that introduction, he goes on to say that those who win consistently in match points are those who:

1. Use a comfortable, sound, workable bidding approach.

2. Exercise a fine working knowledge of duplicate bridge at the table. (Not the Monday Morning Quarterback type who always know what they, or more often their partner, should have bid or played after the hand or game is over.)

3. Have the ability to concentrate throughout a game or match. (Ouch, that hits home!!)

4. Use good judgment.

5. Are both opportunistic and observant.

6. Are able to get the most out of both partner and partnership by first and foremost being a good partner.

In concluding, the author mentions a 7th key that is more important than the rest. Making his point, he quotes Kipling who counseled “to meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same.”

So now we see that the one thing in bridge that has never changed is the road to duplicate success.

Matchpoints and Major Suit Fits

2009-04-05T18:47:00.000-04:00

If you dig back a ways in duplicate bridge, particularly during the days when 4 card majors were opened, from the outset the hand was bid in a manner to end up in no trump almost by default. While you still see 4-4 major suit fits being played in no trump contracts, modern bridge correctly teaches that these hands should most often be played in the major suit fit for the simple reason that they usually make an additional trick in the suit contract. The major reasons for this preference are:

1. The trump suit acts like a stopper if the opponents have a long suit to run or establish before declarer gets his ducks in order.

2. With the 4-4 fit, if either of the partners has a short suit, it can be ruffed in the other hand, and yet, most often, control of the trump suit is maintained.

3. If either hand contains a singleton, it is almost always preferable to play the 4-4 fit in the major suit.

If you are thinking of rejecting the major suit in favor of no trump, consider the following criteria.

1. Hand Strength. The 4-4 fit is almost always superior if the hand has 25-26 hcps, or to put it another way, to consider no trump on the hand, it should have extra values like 29-30 hcps. These extra values are insurance against the opponents running a suit. In the later case, most often both contracts will make 11 tricks.

2. Holding in Short Suits. The absence of middle honors (queens and jacks) in your short suits is a favorable factor in playing the suit contract. When your short suit is made up of Qx, opposite KJx, then the suit produces a natural trick and the value of the ruff goes away. Same thing with Jx opposite QT9.

3. Holding in 4 Card Side Suits. This issue is much like 2. above, but with a different face. If your 4 card side suit contains Queens and Jacks, the ruffing value is frequently wasted because you often end up ruffing out 3rd and 4th round natural winners. If your side suits are headed by Aces and Kings and otherwise have empty values, the shortness in the other hand will be useful in ruffing out losers in the suit.

4. Trump Holding. I know it seems like the 4-4 fit always faces a 4-1 split in the suit, but it only happens about a third of the time. But that is often enough. If the 4-4 trump suit contains good intermediate honors like KTxx opposite QJxx, the 4-1 split by itself will not create a loser. Conversely, if the suit is Axxx opposite Kxxx, the 4-1 split will always cost you an additional loser in the trump suit. Thus, if you reject the 4-4 major contract in favor of the no trump contract, it is best to do so when you suit has weak intermediate honors.

These criteria come from bridge expert Kit Woolsey in his book Matchpoints (1982). He says that unless you have 3 of the 4 criteria, play the 4-4 fit in the major suit, but it is better to have all 4 present. If you don’t want to draw subtle distinctions, stay with what your teacher told you! Play the 4-4 fit in the major.

The 5-3 fits in majors have the same considerations, but in that layout the shortness, if it is to have trick saving value, has to be in the hand with the short trump. Not as convincing a case, but still probably right. It also makes the case for playing the 4-4 fit as trump even if you have a 5-3 fit in the other major. The rule is pretty well known, but the reason often escapes even better players.

If the supporting hand is 4342 (three trump), with the doubleton it is almost always better playing the 5-3 fit than no trump. I fought that rule for a long time arguing that the possibility of doubleton vs. doubleton evened things out, but I am grudgingly giving up that position. In these cases, the hand with the 3 card support is probably in the best position to set the final contract. Even if the hand is 4333, no trump will only be the superior contract if the combined hands have all suits stopped and contain extra values.

Now don’t come to me with your tales of how two novices got all the matchpoints playing a hand with an 8 card major suit fit in no trump. More often than not, it is a case of the experts defending giving the hand less than an expert defense.

Where's Tommy?

2009-04-04T15:20:00.000-04:00

That’s the question that many of my readers have asked as I have not made a blog post since November 2008. Reports of my demise are largely rumor. Three things are going on that have impacted my availability.

There is, of course the economy, and getting my own little sand box in order has taken up a lot more time than I wanted to give it. I can’t imagine that some of my readers were not similarly distracted. I hope that is behind me for a lifetime.

I have also been suffering with a very painful case of bursitis. There are many bursae located throughout the body, little fluid sacks located near major joints. The ones that are troubling me are located near the Greater Trochanter (otherwise known as the hip bone) which have become inflamed. This is usually caused by some overuse problem, and will only get better when the overuse is corrected. In my case the irritant is sitting for any prolonged period of time. In order to get ahead of this problem I have had to give up most of my desk and computer time and severely limit my bridge and driving. With therapy and rest I have just started to feel some relief, and hope I will have it behind me soon. In the meantime, it is nice to be making some positive headway. It took a long time.

Last, but not least, I got an e-mail last September asking me if I would learn and play the Precision system of bridge. My challenges are not always wisely undertaken, and in this one I bit off a bunch. I have two partners in this venture with me so that together we play about 10 games a month. Since the Precision System is a stand alone system not based on any other major bidding system, it has been pretty much going back to square one. We all decided to base our play on a style used by David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen and outlined in a book entitled Precision Today of which Berkowitz is a co-author. The nice thing is that we are all on the same page with a given source of reference. The worst thing is that we often do not know what page we are on and often seem lost in the index.

We try to take our lumps in style and remember why we did it in the first place—intellectual curiosity. After about 6 months we are just getting our heads above water. Perhaps in a future post I will outline what we feel are the systemic advantages. At the moment, I doubt that Meckstroth and Rodwell are feeling the earth tremors. My next post will go up soon entitled “Double the Pleasure with Double Finesses.” Thanks for waiting around for me.

Defending Against Two Suited Overcalls

2008-12-03T09:43:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Doubles and Redoubles

2008-11-19T10:12:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Law of Total Tricks and Other WMD's

2008-11-10T10:11:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Conventions

2008-11-03T11:17:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Principles of Logical Bidding"

2008-10-28T17:31:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Overcalls (Because we need it)

2008-09-18T16:15:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western Cue Bids

2008-08-25T08:40:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Minor Forcing (NMF)

2008-08-03T11:54:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening Leads - Leading Trump (Part 4)

2008-07-21T09:03:00.000-04:00

The primary reason to lead trump is to keep declarer from trumping otherwise losing tricks in his hand with small trump in the dummy. A secondary reason may be that all other leads from your hand look dangerous. This may be the source of the saying “when in doubt lead trump.” Safety first may be a valid reason, but only if a passive lead sounds safe from the bidding. If the bidding sounds like dummy has a good side suit on which declarer can discard loser’s, don’t lead trump no matter how much doubt you have. Take your tricks or create tricks before they disappear.

There are no “stop and go” signs directing you on trump leads. As in other lead strategies (see my last blog) you need to listen to the bidding for clues. When declarer has the long trump he is not going to make any extra tricks by ruffing dummy’s losers in his hand. Those little trump are usually good in the end anyway. To score extra tricks, it has to be the other way around, using trump non-winners in the dummy to cover losing off-suit cards in declarer’s. If declarer’s bidding describes a hand with two biddable suits, this is a “go” signal to lead trump, particularly if declarer ends up playing the contract in a secondary suit. If declarer has made a conventional bid telling you he is 5-5 or better (Michael’s or Unusual NT), he is inviting you to lead trump so accommodate him.

For declarer to cash dummy's small trump with ruffs, there must be shortness in the dummy. If dummy sounds like it is going to be 4333, even if dummy has 4 trump, declarer is going to have a hard time finding a suit to ruff. If dummy’s bidding seems to portray a hand that may be somewhat unbalanced, then there is a high probability of shortness somewhere. Often you find this in hands that are misfits.

Another sign to lead trump is when opponents have struggled to bid game. Invitational bids, help suit bids, ugly biding sequences and other signs of hcp shortage are the clue. When they are in a shaky game, it means that we have some secondary off suit winners and they will need to create cheap tricks by ruffing with dummy’s small trump. Hence, we try to spend their trump before they can be useful.

If declarer has made a pre-emptive bid and responder has not supported him, it usually means that responder has 2 or fewer trump. Declarer has already said that he is weak, so we don’t want dummy trumping losing tricks from declarer’s hand. It seldom hurts to get the little trump off the board so declarer can’t use them to take cheap tricks.

In most slam contracts the point of leading trump is not so much to cut down declarer’s ruffing power, but rather an issue of safety. Yes, it is usually safe, but it almost always gives declarer a timing element in which to order his house. On the other hand, it is not good to underlead an off-suit honor nor do we want to finesse partner on trick one if it is avoidable. If partner has not done something to direct a lead, it usually boils down to whether I want to risk an active defense. If I have two high subordinate honors that may score a trick, I will often lead one of the suits to avoid getting squeezed in the end trying to protect both. In balance it is better to be safe against slam contracts.

A prime requisite of leading trump is to have an attractive trump holding to lead from. As to the number of trump, it is usually ideal to lead from two or three small trump. I do not like to lead from a single trump or from 4+ trump. Either of those holdings suggest that a “forcing defense” may be more appropriate, so I prefer to pick my best side suit and try to force declarer to trump in his hand with a consequent loss of control of the trump suit. If partner has 4 trump to an honor, the singleton lead may trap partner’s honor that declarer will not otherwise capture.

If the bidding calls for a trump lead, one of the most attractive trump holdings to lead from is Axx. From this holding lead a small trump. If the lead was painful for declarer, he probably will not lead a trump back. Still, the chances are good that we will obtain the lead again and be able to play 2 more rounds of trump before declarer can establish a dummy ruff. If dummy started with only 3 trump, now declarer has to make this hand on raw power and hcps. Leading from other trump honor holdings may not be equally desirable. Bridge expert Karen Walker points out that if you lead trump from honor holdings like Jx, KTx, ATx or Ax, the lead will be safe only if partner holds no subordinate trump honors. If partner holds the J or Q of trump, either you will lose a natural trump trick or more likely give declarer a finessing position that will enable him to pick up the entire trump suit on the next lead.

I like to lead trump when I get a sense from the bidding that the opponents have their trump suit reasonably under control. Obviously, if you have a protected trump honor that may become a trick, you don’t want to solve declarer’s problem by under leading the honor and giving him a free finesse. Even if the honor isn’t fully protected, declarer might decide to finesse partner for it enabling you to cash it. Remember that singleton King that you brought home? Still, if you sense that the hand is highly distributional and that declarer will attempt a full cross ruff in an effort to cash 8 or 9 trump tricks, then potentially giving away one trick to save two can be effective. but you better have an understanding partner. Usually this kind of “Whiz Bang” defense strategy is better left to people who don’t read my blog.

How about partner’s potential trump honors. Surely they become susceptible to being scooped up when you lead trump. The reality is that “onside” trump honors in partner’s hand are likely dead fish anyway, but there is still a downside to flushing them out on the opening lead. First you solve declarer’s trump problem for him. He doesn’t know who holds that trump, and if you leave the issue in doubt he may play the hand differently. You never want to relieve declarer of doubt or concern if you don’t have to. Second, trump honors that are not protected can often be useful in forcing declarer to over trump with a high honor with the result that a non-winning trump card in partner’s hand is promoted to a winner. Still, if you get a strong feeling that a trump lead is right, these considerations are of secondary concern.
\
It would be nice if all leads were double dummy. Unfortunately, it is usually the opening leader that is the double dummy. Listen to the auction, decide upon a defense strategy, pick a suit and then pick a card. Make it a way of life.

Opening Leads Against Suit Contracts (Part 3)

2008-07-10T10:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening Leads Against No Trump Contracts (Part 2)

2008-07-03T15:25:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some “Don’ts”:

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

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

Opening Leads (Part 1)

2008-06-29T14:58:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michaels Cue Bids Revisited

2008-06-17T18:16:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the responses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Searching for Major Suit Fits

2008-05-29T17:13:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening 1NT with 5 Card Majors

2008-05-21T13:17:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAR the Pre-Balancer (Not the Tentmaker)

2008-05-12T09:25:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 NT Forcing to Hell and Back

2008-05-05T09:22:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Advice from Larry Cohen

2008-05-03T13:49:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expiring in the "Pass Out" Seat

2008-04-21T18:27:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridge by the Numbers

2008-04-15T12:31:00.000-04:00

In Duplicate Bridge we have lots of playing laws or rules that have been handed down to us over time. It all started many centuries ago when an English author (actually the famous Hoyle) described the Rule of 11 for whist fanatics in his first book on the game. Since then, authors and teachers seeking to simplify the game and make decision making easier for novices and intermediates have developed what they refer to as Laws or Rules for every number from 2-23 (yes, I have accounted for every one of them). Actually the laws that we probably should know best are the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as developed by the ACBL, but for the most part they are seldom read and little understood. Since there has never been a “Rule of One” that I can find, I am going to create it and it is one that it is well to remember. All this Rule and Law stuff is vastly overcooked. They are only Guidelines which only give you an “edge” when you understand their application and follow them rigorously. Mel Colchamiro in his book “How to Play Like an Expert" (2007) suggests that guidelines should give you the correct result 70% of the time. I suggest to you that many of the rules, laws and guidelines that are the most popular today do not meet that test.

A prominent one is the old rule for finessing when you have 9 cards in a suit missing the Queen such as AKJx opposite 98765. Do we finesse for the Queen or do we play AK from the top hoping to split the trump 2-2? Well, you probably remember the well known Rule taught in Bridge 101, “Eight Ever, Nine never, meaning always take the finesse with 8 cards, but never do so if you have 9 cards in the suit. Actually, when you have the 9 card set up, the odds favor the drop by only about 2% over the finesse for the queen. Hardly overwhelming for one of the best known rules in bridge. Think about that next time you see this setup. If you declare, and your left hand opponent has overcalled, doubled, is out of tempo or is moving restlessly in his seat, take the finesse. If you are right, you are in for a very high board, since everybody else will remember the rule, but forget that the odds are almost even. Oh by the way, the odds for the second part of the rule (favoring the finesse with an 8 card suit) are overwhelming. You would really have to be on life support to try to drop the Queen doubleton.

Another well known rule is the Rule of 15, a rule for opening the bidding if you are in the pass out (4th) seat. The rule (think guideline) states that if your total points and spade cards equal 15, you open the bidding. Parts of this rule are too obvious to deserve mention. Is there anybody that wouldn’t open a 13 point hand with a doubleton spade or a 15 point hand with a spade void? Peter Cheung is an expert in discrete mathematics, computer algorithms, game theory and the strategy of bridge and poker. I can’t testify as to his bridge skills, but for our purposes it isn’t important since we are only going to rely on his computer analysis of the efficacy of the Rule of 15. Peter analyzed millions of computer dealt bridge hands in making his analysis. Having already dispatched the 13=15 point hands, we can also get rid of the 12 point hands as the computer results show that they should be opened in 4th seat (no matter what your spade holding) unless you have 12 points that should be downgraded to 11. Yes, occasionally you have to bring some common sense to the process like understanding that a stiff honor needs to be downgraded.

So, this brings us to the 11 point hands where the Rule of 15 appears to have some validity. Taking a worse case scenario (11 points and 4-3-3-3), opening the hand will provide you with a positive result against opponents about 51% of the time. If you look at a fuller array of possible hand distributions (4432 and better), when you have 11 points and meet the Rule of 15, you overall percentage of success increases to about 62%. Still not up to Mel’s guideline of 70%, but very worthwhile. So with 11 hcps and 4 spades, open in 4th seat. Don’t expect miracles though; be prepared to have it be wrong 38% of the time.

How about hands with 10 or fewer points that meet the rule of 15? On these hands the rule of 15 did not present a positive advantage, although with 10 points and 5 spades it was close 49% favorable to 51% unfavorable. Do you feel like you need a high board? Just pass the hand and hope that the 51% is on your side. For sure, everybody else will be opening 1 spade. The computer also found out that there are some hands that do not meet the Rule of 15 that should be opened. In particular, it found that 1-4-4-4 hands with 11-12 hcps had a positive success ratio due to the strong distributional value of the hand.

Note that with all of these favorable results the win percentage is very narrow, and if you really want to take advantage of it, you need to follow it religiously or be very successful in your picking and choosing.

I examined the history of the Rule of 15. Some call it a Casino Count, a bastardization of the fact that Jonathan “Cansino” (a British expert) is one of the claimants to developing the rule. It has nothing to do with the old card game Casino. Others refer to the 15 points as Pearson Points after a California expert Don Pearson, who also claims authorship. It is not a new guideline as I saw it referred to in Marty Bergen’s Book “Points Schmoints” from the mid 80’s. It was interesting to me that both Cansino and Pearson talked about not only having points and spadeds totaling 15, but also added a quick trick requirement, 1 ½ quick tricks for Cansino and 2 quick tricks for Pearson. Where did that go? If you want to add a little common sense to the pure math, I would highly recommend adding a quick trick requirement of your own to the formula. It will give you that extra edge.

Recently I was at a table where with 3 passes, 4th hand was dealt KJxxx, K, xx, Kxxxx. A good player applied the rule of 15 and opened the hand. Do you like this bid? If you do, you have to also like being -200 at 2 spades! As you might expect, they opened the Ace of hearts and just pumped declarer to death in hearts until declarer lost control of the trump suit. This in spite of the fact that dummy held the AK of diamonds. I showed this hand to Mel Colchamiro and his reply was the King of hearts is not worth 3 points. Good observation, but how about the fact that the hand also has no defense, only a fair suit and no easy rebid if partner (a passed hand) bids red suit. The “Guideline” here is “you do not have to forget everything else you know about bridge simply to play by the numbers.”

Take Your Finesses in the Right Order to Maximize Probabilities

2008-03-29T20:46:00.000-04:00

It is well known that I have more than a passing interest in odds and probabilities as they relate to the game of Bridge. I can’t say that the knowledge I have acquired has made any significant difference in my life, but at times it does steer me into the correct line of play for maximizing my opportunities. Often good players, who know nothing about bridge probabilities and could care less, make the same plays because of their vast experience. I am still waiting for that life change to happen!!

Playing yesterday with my excellent partner Howard Christ at Citrus Springs we were dealt the following hands.

Howard (North) AKxx, Axx, Qxx, JT.
Tommy (South) QT, xx, Axx, AKQxxx.

We play Kaplan Sheinwold (updated) so our opening 1 No Trump bids are 11-14 hcps. Howard dealt and opened 1NT. In spite of the voices of the Bridge Gods begging me to respond 3NT, I fell in love with my 7 tricks off the top (partner must have at least 2 clubs), and my distributional values. I bid 4 clubs (Gerber) and speed past 3 NT. Horror of horrors, partner shows 2 Aces and now I really am in a fix. There is no turning back, so I ask for Kings and partner shows 1 King. Since I have already waived goodbye to all sensible contracts, I slam down a stack of bidding cards with 6 clubs on top.

West, an experienced player, leads a small trump against my slam taken by the Jack in the dummy. Why do people lead trump against a small slam? It should set your nose twitching. As Howard said, they usually have something to hide! Now I need a plan for declaring this hand that will end up with 12 tricks.

My attention is immediately drawn to the spade suit. Since opponents have 7 spades between them, dropping the Jack in three swings is a distinct underdog. (I later looked it up, about a 25% probability). Another choice is a simple finesse in the spade suit, finding the Jack with East is a 50-50 proposition. If that works, I have 4 spades, 6 clubs, a heart and a diamond. But I wonder, is the Jack of spades one of the cards that West is hiding? Another possibility is finding the King of diamonds with West. That is also 50-50, but a more appealing choice given the lead.

Then I remembered a hand that I saw a couple of years ago in Pat Peterson’s class on “The Play of the Hand.” In that hand Declarer had have two choices to make his contract, splitting a 7 card diamond suit 3-3 or taking a simple finesse. While the finesse was the better opportunity, the example pointed out that when you have two chances, you should play them in a manner so that if the first chance fails you can still try the second chance. In that example, you play on the 7 card diamond suit first since if the suit does not split 3-3, you can still try the finesse. If you try the finesse first and it loses, you never get a second chance, you’re cooked!

Somehow I got the flash that this hand was full payment for staying awake in Pat’s class. If I try to finesse the diamond King first and my queen loses to East's King , I can still try the spade finesse, but if I do it the other way around and the spade jack is off side, I never get to the diamond finesse. After pulling trump, on trick three I laid down a small diamond. As soon as it hit the table I saw a small flinch come from West -- now I know what she was hiding. West put up the Kimg and the contract was home. A cold top. Now the location of the jack of spades is academic and only of interest to statisticians.

So, here is the lesson and you are not even going to have to pay Pat to learn it. When you have two chances to make your contract, arrange your play if you can so that if one chance loses, you can still try the second chance. Even if you are not a numbers guy, you would have to be impressed that getting the order of play correct changed a simple 50% chance into a 75% probability. Having two bites at the apple is always better than one.

You are probably wondering who held the Jack of Spades. To be honest, I was so excited about making this contract that I can’t remember. Probably West, she’s pretty sneaky!