In Part 1 we viewed the bidding from responder’s side and discussed how to recognize invitational and game going hands and how to bid them. It did not surprise me that my commentary raised the ire of many supporters of the “feature’ treatment. Confidentially, I think they just did not want to admit that they had wasted all this time and energy on a bid calculated to be more counterproductive than helpful. Others wrote me that I was trying to make the game too simple (suggesting that it is impossible to simplify bridge) and that there are no substitutes for minds that cannot deal with significant complexity. Well, I reject that as well, and again suggest to those of my readership in the novice or intermediate category that you look at my simplistic “Red Light/Green Light” solution. The conservative nature of the treatment may cause you to miss a close game or two now an then, but it will never lead you to games you should not be in. Looking at it from a match point standpoint, missing a tight game will still get you no worse than an average minus, whereas being in a game that is hopeless from the start will almost guarantee a bottom.
What do you do as responder when you do not have an invitational or game going hand. Assume RHO has made a take out double. Here are some choices that I like, although as usual they probably do not enjoy universal support. If as responder you hold:
1. Kxx or Axx in partner’s bid suit, raise partner’s bid to the 3 level. This identifies these two specific holdings and will help partner with his opening lead if he has (god forbid!) bid a broken suit. Assume partner holds KJxxxx. It is probably cash out time and partner now knows that you hold Axx, so he can safely lead away from his tenace. Your failure to make the raise may also prevent partner from making an otherwise disastrous lead in his suit.
2. With more than 3 cards in partner’s suit, raise as you would under the Laws of Total Tricks. Thus with 109xx raise partner’s 2 spades to 4 spades. The concept is most reliable where the hands are unbalanced. If you have a square hand and the vulnerability is against you, it gets more risky.
3. With 3 cards in the suit not supported by the Ace of King you have two options.
(a) Note that the Law of Total Tricks would say raise partner to the 3 level. Since that bid is already taken (see 1 above), we need another bid to show this holding. That bid is a conventional 2NT which asks partner to bid three in his bid suit.
(b) If you have a suit that you would like led other than the weak 2 bid suit, you bid that suit. This is purely lead directing and says nothing about the length or playability of the suit. We don’t intend to play a contract in that suit, and if the bid is passed partner will safely correct at the 3 level (note that we do have 9 trump). Your bid may have saved partner from a disastrous lead that gives a trick away or may direct him to the killing lead. In matchpoints you do not have to set the hand, only take one extra trick.
4. Rarely it happens that you have a suit of your own that you think is probably better than partner’s suit. This becomes more appealing if you have shortage in partner’s suit. Don’t expect much support from partner since he is already known to have 6 cards in another suit. Since a simple change of suit would be lead directing (see 3b above), you will have to make a jump shift to show this hand. This better be a special hand!!!
5. If you do not have a holding that fits on of the above options, simply “PASS.” The negative inferences of a pass will not be lost on a good partner.
With all that I have said, I will pass on two pieces of wisdom from my excellent partner, Howard Christ, that are worth thinking about. First, “the pass card is the most under used card in the box.” Second, “unless you think partner needs to know, don’t over inform declarer.” Now that I have preempted his comments, let me say that I think there is more danger that partner will give up a trick on the opening lead than your bid will tell declarer something he does not know about the weak 2 bidder’s hand, or for that matter, your holding.
If you use these treatments, you will need to “alert” all bids by responder other than a pass or raise to game.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Responding to Weak 2 Bids
Visualize that your partner has opened a weak 2 bid in 1st or 2nd seat. Partner’s work is over, do not expect to hear from him again unless you make a forcing response. As responder, your work has just begun. While the weak 2 bid is meant to create headaches for the opponents, sometimes that turns around when you discern (horror of horrors) that you actually have a hand with some real values. In those cases, if you and your partner do not have effective systems and the communication skills, you will likely be “hoisted on your own petard.”
The first decision that responder has to make is “when I add my values to what my partner is likely to have for his weak 2 bid, is a game, or even a slam, a practical possibility. I cannot emphasize too strongly that you must make this analysis on tricks, not high card points. Except for the trump suit, all honors other Aces and Kings, or Queens supported by Aces and Kings, are to be disregarded. Partner has more losing tricks than winning tricks, and you need to cover several losers in partner’s hand if game is a prospect. This introduces the concept of “cover cards”.
Count cover cards as follows:
A=1 cover; AK=2 covers; AQ=1 1/2 covers; KQ=1 cover Kx=1/2 cover.
If you have a singleton or a void and at least 3 cards in partner’s bid suit (2,3,4 is OK) , you can count the shortness as a cover card. If you have at least 4 cover cards you have a “green light” to explore the hand further. To get the answer, you need to find out how many tricks partner can take in his own hand so you can add his winners to your cover cards. Thus, if you have 4 cover cards, you can make a game in a major if partner can take 6 tricks.
If partner has any discipline at all, it is almost guaranteed that he can take a minimum of 5 tricks and a maximum of 6 tricks. So if partner opened with AKxxxx, xx, xxx, xx, that is 5 tricks. If partner opened with KQxxxx, xx, Axx, xx, that is 6 tricks. If partner opened with QJ10xxx, xx, Kx, Kx, that is 5 tricks. If opener has 7 tricks in his hand, it is too good for a weak 2 bid and should be opened with 1 of a major. If partner only has 4 tricks in his hand, the hand is too weak to open at any level and the thing to do is to pass and see what happens. Remember, if you pass originally with QJ10xxx, xx, xxx, xx, you are not barred from further bidding, and if you do pass and then make a call later in the auction, partner will not misinterpret your strength.
So, assume I hold 4 cover cards, I need to make inquiry. Suppose I only have 3 cover cards, it should be safe to pass. If I hold 5 cover cards, I can bid game without inquiry since 5+5=10. Almost universally, the inquiry bid is 2NT which is forcing. There are many response systems that can be used after partner bids 2NT.
One such system is generally known as “feature” in which opener bids any suit at the 3 level if he has an Ace or King in that suit outside the trump suit and rebids the opened suit if he does not. It is both simple and worthless! A respected bridge author has said “I consider feature an absurdity”. I could not agree more. Find something else, even if you have to make it up.
Another system is called “Ogust”, developed by a now deceased bridge expert. In Ogust opener shows whether he has a good hand and/or a good suit as follows: 3 clubs=bad hand, bad suit; 3 diamonds= bad hand, good suit; 3 hearts= good hand, bad suit; 3 spades=good hand good suit; 3NT top three honors in the bid suit. If you do not have a lot of experience and a facility for remembering a lot of bidding detail under pressure, this treatment can easily get mixed up and cause more problems than it solves. First, you have to agree with partner on what is a bad hand or suit and what is a good hand or suit. My personal guideline is that a good hand is 8+ hcps and a good suit is 2 of the top 3 honors. If this is not complicated enough, I should warn you that not all players using Ogust agree on the order of the responses. Some show the hand and suit in exactly the reverse order, so before you play the system with a new partner, you have to ask about the Ogust responses. Even if you get all this worked out, you still have to translate partners response into his trick taking ability. I would not assume partner can take 6 tricks unless his response shows a good hand and a good suit.
I think bridge is already too complicated. There is not an unlimited amount of storage space in our brains. Every time we take on excess baggage in the form of a complicated system, something else has to give, and often it is not an even trade. For novices and intermediates, I suggest using a simple system that I call red light/ green light. Following a 2NT inquiry, opener bid 3 clubs if he can take 5 tricks and 3 diamonds if he can take 6 tricks. Now responder simply adds together opener’s winners and responder’s cover cards. If you get to 10, bid 4 in the major, and if not rebid the opened suit at the 3 level. This is not invitational, it is a sign off!If the suit is diamonds, you need to work on a total of 11.
Say what, you want to play 3NT! Jack Brawner, who writes for the Florida Bridge News, asked Jeff Meckstroth when to bid 3NT and when to bid 4 of the major against a weak 2 bid. Meckstroth replied “are you getting bad results when you bid 3NT?” When Brawner said Yes”, Eric replied, “there is your answer, don’t bid 3NT.” Brawner says that now he never tries for 3NT and that he is well ahead of the game.
In the next post we will wrap up with a quick discussion on responses to weak 2 bids when you don’t have game potential.
The first decision that responder has to make is “when I add my values to what my partner is likely to have for his weak 2 bid, is a game, or even a slam, a practical possibility. I cannot emphasize too strongly that you must make this analysis on tricks, not high card points. Except for the trump suit, all honors other Aces and Kings, or Queens supported by Aces and Kings, are to be disregarded. Partner has more losing tricks than winning tricks, and you need to cover several losers in partner’s hand if game is a prospect. This introduces the concept of “cover cards”.
Count cover cards as follows:
A=1 cover; AK=2 covers; AQ=1 1/2 covers; KQ=1 cover Kx=1/2 cover.
If you have a singleton or a void and at least 3 cards in partner’s bid suit (2,3,4 is OK) , you can count the shortness as a cover card. If you have at least 4 cover cards you have a “green light” to explore the hand further. To get the answer, you need to find out how many tricks partner can take in his own hand so you can add his winners to your cover cards. Thus, if you have 4 cover cards, you can make a game in a major if partner can take 6 tricks.
If partner has any discipline at all, it is almost guaranteed that he can take a minimum of 5 tricks and a maximum of 6 tricks. So if partner opened with AKxxxx, xx, xxx, xx, that is 5 tricks. If partner opened with KQxxxx, xx, Axx, xx, that is 6 tricks. If partner opened with QJ10xxx, xx, Kx, Kx, that is 5 tricks. If opener has 7 tricks in his hand, it is too good for a weak 2 bid and should be opened with 1 of a major. If partner only has 4 tricks in his hand, the hand is too weak to open at any level and the thing to do is to pass and see what happens. Remember, if you pass originally with QJ10xxx, xx, xxx, xx, you are not barred from further bidding, and if you do pass and then make a call later in the auction, partner will not misinterpret your strength.
So, assume I hold 4 cover cards, I need to make inquiry. Suppose I only have 3 cover cards, it should be safe to pass. If I hold 5 cover cards, I can bid game without inquiry since 5+5=10. Almost universally, the inquiry bid is 2NT which is forcing. There are many response systems that can be used after partner bids 2NT.
One such system is generally known as “feature” in which opener bids any suit at the 3 level if he has an Ace or King in that suit outside the trump suit and rebids the opened suit if he does not. It is both simple and worthless! A respected bridge author has said “I consider feature an absurdity”. I could not agree more. Find something else, even if you have to make it up.
Another system is called “Ogust”, developed by a now deceased bridge expert. In Ogust opener shows whether he has a good hand and/or a good suit as follows: 3 clubs=bad hand, bad suit; 3 diamonds= bad hand, good suit; 3 hearts= good hand, bad suit; 3 spades=good hand good suit; 3NT top three honors in the bid suit. If you do not have a lot of experience and a facility for remembering a lot of bidding detail under pressure, this treatment can easily get mixed up and cause more problems than it solves. First, you have to agree with partner on what is a bad hand or suit and what is a good hand or suit. My personal guideline is that a good hand is 8+ hcps and a good suit is 2 of the top 3 honors. If this is not complicated enough, I should warn you that not all players using Ogust agree on the order of the responses. Some show the hand and suit in exactly the reverse order, so before you play the system with a new partner, you have to ask about the Ogust responses. Even if you get all this worked out, you still have to translate partners response into his trick taking ability. I would not assume partner can take 6 tricks unless his response shows a good hand and a good suit.
I think bridge is already too complicated. There is not an unlimited amount of storage space in our brains. Every time we take on excess baggage in the form of a complicated system, something else has to give, and often it is not an even trade. For novices and intermediates, I suggest using a simple system that I call red light/ green light. Following a 2NT inquiry, opener bid 3 clubs if he can take 5 tricks and 3 diamonds if he can take 6 tricks. Now responder simply adds together opener’s winners and responder’s cover cards. If you get to 10, bid 4 in the major, and if not rebid the opened suit at the 3 level. This is not invitational, it is a sign off!If the suit is diamonds, you need to work on a total of 11.
Say what, you want to play 3NT! Jack Brawner, who writes for the Florida Bridge News, asked Jeff Meckstroth when to bid 3NT and when to bid 4 of the major against a weak 2 bid. Meckstroth replied “are you getting bad results when you bid 3NT?” When Brawner said Yes”, Eric replied, “there is your answer, don’t bid 3NT.” Brawner says that now he never tries for 3NT and that he is well ahead of the game.
In the next post we will wrap up with a quick discussion on responses to weak 2 bids when you don’t have game potential.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The"X" Factor - Do You Have It?
Before I walk across the table and discuss responding to preemptive bids, we need a little change of pace. Having been involved in various forms of competition most of my life, I became acutely aware that in athletic endeavors it is not always the most gifted athlete that steps up to the podium to take the trophy or medal. In all forms of competition and at all levels, there is an “x” factor that enables certain competitors to succeed when on paper they should be doomed to failure. They have a mindset that convinces them that losing is not an option and that, no matter what the odds or the state of adversity, victory is right around the corner if they will only bear down and tough it out. These people are what I call “Grinders”, and while they are often identifiable, no one seems to be able to explain exactly why they succeed.
I got to wondering whether this “x” factor was only present in competitions involving physical skills, or whether it can also be a factor in games such as bridge. This sent me to the Internet and a site that mentioned the “x” factor and referenced a book entitled “How the Experts Win at Bridge” by Burt Hall and Lynn Rose Hall (1996). Who? People that know me would bet that you could not find a bridge book title that I didn’t know about, but there it was. Having already used up my bridge book budget for 1997 and beyond (by February no less), I decided to ask before I ordered. I sought out the only person that I know of who has read more bridge books than I have, my bridge teacher, Pat Peterson, of Hernando, Florida. Pat’s response was a little surprising. She said “Of course I know the book, I own it and refer to it often, it is a wonderful practical resource.” I next looked at the used book sites to see if I could find it “on the cheap.” Amazing, in a world where bridge books are being discounted before they hit the shelves, this book was offered only at its original price of $16.95. That in itself was quite a recommendation, so I gave up a week of bridge games and bought it. When the favorite bridge books of the experts was published in a recent Bridge Bulletin, almost all of them listed How the Experts Win at Bridge. It turns out to be one of the most practical bridge books that I have ever read. It is not a “wishy-washy” presentation. The authors give you clear direction.
Sure enough, in a section entitled “Some Final Thoughts on How to Advance your Play,” I found a subsection on The “X” Factor. It turns out that this element was first mentioned in a Bridge Bulletin Article by Roselyn Tuekolsky in the January 1996 Bridge Bulletin. In summary, both resources concluded that there is an “x” factor in bridge that is vitally important to the success of all top level players. It is an elusive quality that transcends talent—often described as guts, competitive spirit or simply killer instinct. People with the “x” factor never give up. Even if they are hopelessly behind in a knockout match, they do not understand that; it never enters their mind that they cannot win, and as a consequence they often find that +1400 that turns the match around. They apparently do this by simply summoning their resources and going for the jugular until the bitter end. Often it is not as dramatic down 5 vulnerable doubled. The classic situation in bridge is when opponents have found a game contract that is apparently impregnable, and a defender, refusing to give up, finds a way (such as an uppercut or trump promotion) to bring the contract to its knees.
Now that we have examined the concept, I am sure you are saying, of course, I know people like that, but who wants to play with those miserable unhappy people? A grossly unfair statement. Often competitiveness is mistaken for unpleasantness simply because the player is in what I call “the zone”, and has shut out the world to completely focus on the problem at hand. If they did not have that single minded skill, they would not have the “x” factor. Simply stated, not all highly competitive bridge players are unpleasant and not all unpleasant bridge players have the “x” factor.
The expectation of duplicate bridge is that anyone paying an entry fee is entitled to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the Laws of Bridge and ethical behavior) to succeed at the cost of the other participants. Your entry fee does not entitle you to play with smiling conversationalists: conversely it does not entitle others to treat you with rude behavior. No one, even the super talents, is excused from the application of the “zero tolerance” standard. Admire those with the “x” factor; if you want major success, find out how they summon it up. Find one for a partner if you can. If I told you who they are, you would be stealing all my partners!
I got to wondering whether this “x” factor was only present in competitions involving physical skills, or whether it can also be a factor in games such as bridge. This sent me to the Internet and a site that mentioned the “x” factor and referenced a book entitled “How the Experts Win at Bridge” by Burt Hall and Lynn Rose Hall (1996). Who? People that know me would bet that you could not find a bridge book title that I didn’t know about, but there it was. Having already used up my bridge book budget for 1997 and beyond (by February no less), I decided to ask before I ordered. I sought out the only person that I know of who has read more bridge books than I have, my bridge teacher, Pat Peterson, of Hernando, Florida. Pat’s response was a little surprising. She said “Of course I know the book, I own it and refer to it often, it is a wonderful practical resource.” I next looked at the used book sites to see if I could find it “on the cheap.” Amazing, in a world where bridge books are being discounted before they hit the shelves, this book was offered only at its original price of $16.95. That in itself was quite a recommendation, so I gave up a week of bridge games and bought it. When the favorite bridge books of the experts was published in a recent Bridge Bulletin, almost all of them listed How the Experts Win at Bridge. It turns out to be one of the most practical bridge books that I have ever read. It is not a “wishy-washy” presentation. The authors give you clear direction.
Sure enough, in a section entitled “Some Final Thoughts on How to Advance your Play,” I found a subsection on The “X” Factor. It turns out that this element was first mentioned in a Bridge Bulletin Article by Roselyn Tuekolsky in the January 1996 Bridge Bulletin. In summary, both resources concluded that there is an “x” factor in bridge that is vitally important to the success of all top level players. It is an elusive quality that transcends talent—often described as guts, competitive spirit or simply killer instinct. People with the “x” factor never give up. Even if they are hopelessly behind in a knockout match, they do not understand that; it never enters their mind that they cannot win, and as a consequence they often find that +1400 that turns the match around. They apparently do this by simply summoning their resources and going for the jugular until the bitter end. Often it is not as dramatic down 5 vulnerable doubled. The classic situation in bridge is when opponents have found a game contract that is apparently impregnable, and a defender, refusing to give up, finds a way (such as an uppercut or trump promotion) to bring the contract to its knees.
Now that we have examined the concept, I am sure you are saying, of course, I know people like that, but who wants to play with those miserable unhappy people? A grossly unfair statement. Often competitiveness is mistaken for unpleasantness simply because the player is in what I call “the zone”, and has shut out the world to completely focus on the problem at hand. If they did not have that single minded skill, they would not have the “x” factor. Simply stated, not all highly competitive bridge players are unpleasant and not all unpleasant bridge players have the “x” factor.
The expectation of duplicate bridge is that anyone paying an entry fee is entitled to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the Laws of Bridge and ethical behavior) to succeed at the cost of the other participants. Your entry fee does not entitle you to play with smiling conversationalists: conversely it does not entitle others to treat you with rude behavior. No one, even the super talents, is excused from the application of the “zero tolerance” standard. Admire those with the “x” factor; if you want major success, find out how they summon it up. Find one for a partner if you can. If I told you who they are, you would be stealing all my partners!
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Preemtive Bidding (Part 4)
I’ve danced all around this subject, so now I have to get to the bottom line and tell you how to make a decision on whether to preempt, and if so, at what level. The most important thing is to recognize that bridge is a partnership game that is based on a communication system called bidding. It would be handy to tell partner what cards you hold, but since you cannot, you have to do that through bidding. Bidding is a form of code. Each bids means something, and the tighter the parameters, the better the communication. This means that partners have to set guidelines or standards for each type of bid, and that once set, the other partner is entitled to rely that the bidder holds the cards he advertised and make her decisions accordingly.
Within the rules imposed by the ACBL, a bid can mean anything that partners want it to mean. For example, my opening bid of 1NT means a balanced hand and 15-17 hcps with some partners, 14-17 with others and 11-14 with others. While the hcp range will vary by partnership, I must agree to play only one range with each partner. If I bid 1NT, partner relies on me to hold the cards that are equal to our standard. Standards are equally important in making preemptive bids, and not unlike my no trump example, they can mean anything you and your partners want them to mean, but they can’t mean one thing one time, and another thing another time. To engage in such a practice simply undermines partnership communication and such “masterminding” usually results in abortive communication and strained partner relations.
Let’s use weak 2 bids in 1st and 2nd position as an example. The standards for those bids are often described by suit strength. For example, your standard could promise partner that you will hold 2 of the top 3 honors in the suit. If you have another partner who likes to be more aggressive, with that partner your standard could be 3 of the top 5 honors. That standard will find you preempting more often, but the price for being more aggressive defensively is that you run a slightly greater risk of getting set by the opponents for a total that is more than they could make on the hand. A further downside is that if partner actually has a good hand, it is harder for her to engage in constructive bidding since your suit could be headed by either the QJ10 or the AKQ. As we head down the slippery slope, we tend to lose our discipline. If you think the answer lies in “inquiry conventions” like Ogust, be patient until I can tear at that a little in a subsequent installment dealing with responses to weak 2 bids.
Another important part of setting a standard is to set limitations on the defensive tricks that the weak 2 bidder will have outside the trump suit. Remember, a good preemptive bid is supposed to say to partner “good offense, no defense.” If you make a weak 2 bid with J10xxx, x, KQx, Kxx, that bid sends the wrong message since you have very poor offense and very good defense. How is partner, who is considering a save at the 4 level, going to reach the right result. You can probably beat 4 hearts, but how is he supposed to know this when you have sent him this confusing message. Whatever your standard is for the suit, I do not advise making a preemptive bid if the hand has more than one Ace or King outside the bid suit.
How weak can a standard be? I hope by now that you understand that it can be as weak as you want it to be as long as you and partner agree to it. In an extreme, you could have a standard such as "I will never have hand as good as 3 of the top 5." Thus, you would open J10xxxx, or Q9xxxx, but not open AKxxxx since it is too good for your standard. If that is what you want to do, be my guest, but it sounds like a recipe for disaster. What, you say, you want to open all three of those hands with a weak 2 bid. Well, there is no rule against it, but you have just turned your bridge partnership into a one man show and placed partner in a position where all he can do is pass, since even with a potential game going hand, he never knows which hand you are bidding. It points out the folly of each partner having the discretion to bid on whatever type of hand suits him at the moment.
Just a brief comment on making preemptive bids at the 3 level and higher. In an earlier post I spoke about the 2-3-4 rule (sometimes called the down 500 rule). Thus, the standard is that looking at only your hand (and no miracles), you will not be down more than 2 at unfavorable vulnerability, down three at equal, and down 4 at favorable. I personally like that standard, but if you need more excitement in your life, you can move the standard to 3-4-5. Expect to get in the opponents hair more often, but also expect to have more regrets and to reduce the accuracy of partners constructive bidding. You can also elect not to have any standards (open at the 3 level anytime you have 7 cards in the suit). Yum-Yum, be sure to start with my partner and me, we are friendly people.
I hear all the time "I saw Jeff Meckstroth open a 5 card major at the 2 level, or open a 6 card minor at the 3 level." Yes, if you are one of the best players in the world you can do things like that successfully, since the judgment is impeccable and the declaring skills are about 1½ tricks above yours on average. When strangers come and offer you $10,000 to play a Board–a- Match event, you will know that your time has come.
Within the rules imposed by the ACBL, a bid can mean anything that partners want it to mean. For example, my opening bid of 1NT means a balanced hand and 15-17 hcps with some partners, 14-17 with others and 11-14 with others. While the hcp range will vary by partnership, I must agree to play only one range with each partner. If I bid 1NT, partner relies on me to hold the cards that are equal to our standard. Standards are equally important in making preemptive bids, and not unlike my no trump example, they can mean anything you and your partners want them to mean, but they can’t mean one thing one time, and another thing another time. To engage in such a practice simply undermines partnership communication and such “masterminding” usually results in abortive communication and strained partner relations.
Let’s use weak 2 bids in 1st and 2nd position as an example. The standards for those bids are often described by suit strength. For example, your standard could promise partner that you will hold 2 of the top 3 honors in the suit. If you have another partner who likes to be more aggressive, with that partner your standard could be 3 of the top 5 honors. That standard will find you preempting more often, but the price for being more aggressive defensively is that you run a slightly greater risk of getting set by the opponents for a total that is more than they could make on the hand. A further downside is that if partner actually has a good hand, it is harder for her to engage in constructive bidding since your suit could be headed by either the QJ10 or the AKQ. As we head down the slippery slope, we tend to lose our discipline. If you think the answer lies in “inquiry conventions” like Ogust, be patient until I can tear at that a little in a subsequent installment dealing with responses to weak 2 bids.
Another important part of setting a standard is to set limitations on the defensive tricks that the weak 2 bidder will have outside the trump suit. Remember, a good preemptive bid is supposed to say to partner “good offense, no defense.” If you make a weak 2 bid with J10xxx, x, KQx, Kxx, that bid sends the wrong message since you have very poor offense and very good defense. How is partner, who is considering a save at the 4 level, going to reach the right result. You can probably beat 4 hearts, but how is he supposed to know this when you have sent him this confusing message. Whatever your standard is for the suit, I do not advise making a preemptive bid if the hand has more than one Ace or King outside the bid suit.
How weak can a standard be? I hope by now that you understand that it can be as weak as you want it to be as long as you and partner agree to it. In an extreme, you could have a standard such as "I will never have hand as good as 3 of the top 5." Thus, you would open J10xxxx, or Q9xxxx, but not open AKxxxx since it is too good for your standard. If that is what you want to do, be my guest, but it sounds like a recipe for disaster. What, you say, you want to open all three of those hands with a weak 2 bid. Well, there is no rule against it, but you have just turned your bridge partnership into a one man show and placed partner in a position where all he can do is pass, since even with a potential game going hand, he never knows which hand you are bidding. It points out the folly of each partner having the discretion to bid on whatever type of hand suits him at the moment.
Just a brief comment on making preemptive bids at the 3 level and higher. In an earlier post I spoke about the 2-3-4 rule (sometimes called the down 500 rule). Thus, the standard is that looking at only your hand (and no miracles), you will not be down more than 2 at unfavorable vulnerability, down three at equal, and down 4 at favorable. I personally like that standard, but if you need more excitement in your life, you can move the standard to 3-4-5. Expect to get in the opponents hair more often, but also expect to have more regrets and to reduce the accuracy of partners constructive bidding. You can also elect not to have any standards (open at the 3 level anytime you have 7 cards in the suit). Yum-Yum, be sure to start with my partner and me, we are friendly people.
I hear all the time "I saw Jeff Meckstroth open a 5 card major at the 2 level, or open a 6 card minor at the 3 level." Yes, if you are one of the best players in the world you can do things like that successfully, since the judgment is impeccable and the declaring skills are about 1½ tricks above yours on average. When strangers come and offer you $10,000 to play a Board–a- Match event, you will know that your time has come.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Preemptive Bidding Part 3
A decade or so ago, Michael Farebrother, (an English Bridge authority) authored an article titled Preempts Made Sane. That implies that preemtive bids are often insane. Who with any experience at the bridge table could disagree with that? What creates the aura of insantiy is the lack of partnership standards. If you do not have any rules or standards for preempts, then you end up barring your partner more than your opponents. Most important are hands that you do not want to preempt on even though you may have the requisite number of cards in the suit. Here are some of Mr. Farebrother's rules paraphrased:
1. When you preempt, you are denying holding an opening hand. If you are in first or second position, and hold a decent 6 card major suit with 10 or 11 hcps, a preemptive call will more often be wrong than be right. It’s not that your hand is not good enough, it is too good and the bidding space that you take up will probably belong to you and your partner, thus frustrating an intelligent "game going" auction. I too often see hands like AQJxxx, x, K109, xxx opening 2 spades. Why not open 1 spade? If partner holds xx,xxx,AQxxx,AQx, we have an excellent play for 4 spades; but it is unlikely we will find our fit and game if partner has to start responding at the 3 level. On the other hand, no matter what partner responds to 1 spade, you have a nice, safe rebid of 2 spades, so there is not much risk in taking it “slow and easy” with this hand.
2. Do not preempt if you have a limit raise for a major. If you open 3 diamonds with Q10xx, x, QJ10xxxx, A, you will miss your spade game if partner shows up with AKxxx, xxx x, KQxx. One thing that I have learned about this type of hand is that if you pass initially, even if partner does not have a good hand, there is usually plenty of time to enter the bidding later and it is almost risk free, since you are a previous pass.
3. Don’t preempt with more than one Ace or King outside your suit. Partner should always be able to count on your for not more than 1 defensive trick. This will be critical in his decision on whether to either double the opponents or sacrifice. When you preempt,the preponderance of your high card strength should be in your bid suit.
4. Avoid preempting with a void or more than one singleton. A highly distributive hand has a lot of defensive strength. Again, partner will underestimate your defensive strength, and you may be down 2 doubled, when all opponents can make is a part score. Sound familiar?
5. Do not preempt with a weak broken suit. QJ109XXX is a weak suit, but at least it is solid and will always take 5 tricks. KJxxxxx, may only take 3 tricks and if you hear 3h/p/p/x/p/p/p, you have located the AQ10x(x) directly behind you. Everyone should do that once to really feel the pain. It is somewhat akin to my experience with bad overcalls. How often have you been tempted to overcall with a crappy suit, and then at the last minute gain your sanity and decide to pass. It is incredible how many time that happens to me and the next thing that occurs is that my LHO responds in the suit that I was going to overcall
In the next part I will indicate what I believe is a sensible approach to establishing partnership standards for preemptive bidding. I will warn you that my recommendations for bidding standards for preempting will reflect my strong belief in being able to trust your partner. Call me old fashioned!
1. When you preempt, you are denying holding an opening hand. If you are in first or second position, and hold a decent 6 card major suit with 10 or 11 hcps, a preemptive call will more often be wrong than be right. It’s not that your hand is not good enough, it is too good and the bidding space that you take up will probably belong to you and your partner, thus frustrating an intelligent "game going" auction. I too often see hands like AQJxxx, x, K109, xxx opening 2 spades. Why not open 1 spade? If partner holds xx,xxx,AQxxx,AQx, we have an excellent play for 4 spades; but it is unlikely we will find our fit and game if partner has to start responding at the 3 level. On the other hand, no matter what partner responds to 1 spade, you have a nice, safe rebid of 2 spades, so there is not much risk in taking it “slow and easy” with this hand.
2. Do not preempt if you have a limit raise for a major. If you open 3 diamonds with Q10xx, x, QJ10xxxx, A, you will miss your spade game if partner shows up with AKxxx, xxx x, KQxx. One thing that I have learned about this type of hand is that if you pass initially, even if partner does not have a good hand, there is usually plenty of time to enter the bidding later and it is almost risk free, since you are a previous pass.
3. Don’t preempt with more than one Ace or King outside your suit. Partner should always be able to count on your for not more than 1 defensive trick. This will be critical in his decision on whether to either double the opponents or sacrifice. When you preempt,the preponderance of your high card strength should be in your bid suit.
4. Avoid preempting with a void or more than one singleton. A highly distributive hand has a lot of defensive strength. Again, partner will underestimate your defensive strength, and you may be down 2 doubled, when all opponents can make is a part score. Sound familiar?
5. Do not preempt with a weak broken suit. QJ109XXX is a weak suit, but at least it is solid and will always take 5 tricks. KJxxxxx, may only take 3 tricks and if you hear 3h/p/p/x/p/p/p, you have located the AQ10x(x) directly behind you. Everyone should do that once to really feel the pain. It is somewhat akin to my experience with bad overcalls. How often have you been tempted to overcall with a crappy suit, and then at the last minute gain your sanity and decide to pass. It is incredible how many time that happens to me and the next thing that occurs is that my LHO responds in the suit that I was going to overcall
In the next part I will indicate what I believe is a sensible approach to establishing partnership standards for preemptive bidding. I will warn you that my recommendations for bidding standards for preempting will reflect my strong belief in being able to trust your partner. Call me old fashioned!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Preemtive Bidding (Part 2)
I looked up the word “preempt” in the dictionary. The word means that “you occupy a position to prevent others from doing so.” If you bear that thought in mind, you will have better success with your preemptive bids. Let’s face it, all preempts are a “crap shoot”, it is simply a question of measuring your tolerance for risk against the potential reward. The gamble is that you will go for a "big number" and the reward is that you will take up several levels of bidding space and hopefully jam your opponents into a flawed auction where they fail to reach their game or slam.
As part of the big picture, here are some considerations that I think merit consideration.
1. Mental Toughness. I know, we all think we are “grinders” who can put the bad results behind us. In reality, many of us are not. It takes experience and discipline. So if you are not there yet, then be more conservative in your approach.
2. Matchpoints vs. IMPs. In matchpoints a well intended preemptive bid gone bad only costs you a bad board, and often not that bad at all, since you can count on others to join you in your decision. If the scoring is IMPs, you need to be more circumspect since -1100 is 15 IMPs. Results like that can easily cost you a 24 board knock-out match, or put a major crimp in your Swiss game.
3. It’s Not About Points! If you really want to demonstrate that you are a novice, ask how many points you need to make a preemptive bid. Points are not the measure, it is “How many tricks will your hand take?” More to come on this issue.
4. Positional Differences. Let’s work backwards. There is no point to preempting in 4th seat, you can just pass the hand out. So opening bids at the 2 level and higher in 4th seat are not preemptive, they have some other meaning. In 3rd seat, partner is a previous pass, so if you have a preemptive style hand, there is little risk that you will miss a game and the bidding room the preemptive bid takes up is almost guaranteed to be that of opponents. When we preempt in 1st seat, there are three hands around the table, any one of which can hold the balance of power. Since 2 of those hands will be held by opponents, the odds are 2:1 that it will be opponents who will bear the burden of a 1st seat preemptive bid. When we preempt in 2nd seat, one opponent has already passed, so our concern now is the remaining 2 hands. Since one of those is held by partner and the other by an opponent, the effectiveness ratio of the preemptive bid has been reduced to 1:1, or cut in half. Do you think about that when making preemptive bids?
5. What is the Risk? Are you worried that your partner will not show up with a good hand and that your preemptive bid will go down? That thinking is misguided. The real risk is that partner will have too much and opponents will not have enough to make a game. If that happens, then any result greater than -150 will be a disaster. An even a greater risk is that partner will have a great hand and a fit and we will not find our game because it was our bidding space that got occupied, not opponents.
6. Swimming. Swimming (as in “with the fishes’) in the bridge context means that you take some action in the bidding auction because you feel that most other pairs sitting the same direction will take a similar action. Sometimes I think about this when considering a preemptive bid, particularly if I am having a good game and want to reduce the risk of having a late bad board that will be costly. I really don’t advocate this type of thinking. I think at all times it is more important to stay with your bidding standards (whatever those may be) and do the right thing. Trying to guess what the field will do is a risky exercise and smacks of “masterminding” the auction, a big no-no in bridge partnerships.
7. Quality of Opponents. When you have close decisions about whether to preempt, I think it is fair to consider the experience of your opponents. The reaction of most players is to make conservative decisions against better players and more aggressive decisions against weaker players. I do not agree with this. Remember, the single justification for making a preemptive bid is to rob opponents of bidding space and make it difficult to find a tight game or slam. Opponents with modest bidding skills will have trouble reaching tight games and slams no matter what you do. Much of the time if you leave them alone the risk will be minimal. On the other hand, if your opponents are very experienced and have good systemic bidding tools, they probably will find those tight games and slams if you don’t do something to make it difficult for them. So step right up to those experts and make it difficult for them. It is guaranteed they will hate you for it!
8. Vulnerability. In 1st and 2nd seat, vulnerability will be a big factor in deciding how many tricks you want to have in your hand to make the preemptive bid you are considering. To a lesser extent that is also a consideration in 3rd seat. No matter what position you are in, -800 is not going to feel good!
In Part 3, I will give you some guidelines on when not to preempt and discuss the ambiguous meaning of the term “disciplined” as it is commonly applied to preemptive bids.
As part of the big picture, here are some considerations that I think merit consideration.
1. Mental Toughness. I know, we all think we are “grinders” who can put the bad results behind us. In reality, many of us are not. It takes experience and discipline. So if you are not there yet, then be more conservative in your approach.
2. Matchpoints vs. IMPs. In matchpoints a well intended preemptive bid gone bad only costs you a bad board, and often not that bad at all, since you can count on others to join you in your decision. If the scoring is IMPs, you need to be more circumspect since -1100 is 15 IMPs. Results like that can easily cost you a 24 board knock-out match, or put a major crimp in your Swiss game.
3. It’s Not About Points! If you really want to demonstrate that you are a novice, ask how many points you need to make a preemptive bid. Points are not the measure, it is “How many tricks will your hand take?” More to come on this issue.
4. Positional Differences. Let’s work backwards. There is no point to preempting in 4th seat, you can just pass the hand out. So opening bids at the 2 level and higher in 4th seat are not preemptive, they have some other meaning. In 3rd seat, partner is a previous pass, so if you have a preemptive style hand, there is little risk that you will miss a game and the bidding room the preemptive bid takes up is almost guaranteed to be that of opponents. When we preempt in 1st seat, there are three hands around the table, any one of which can hold the balance of power. Since 2 of those hands will be held by opponents, the odds are 2:1 that it will be opponents who will bear the burden of a 1st seat preemptive bid. When we preempt in 2nd seat, one opponent has already passed, so our concern now is the remaining 2 hands. Since one of those is held by partner and the other by an opponent, the effectiveness ratio of the preemptive bid has been reduced to 1:1, or cut in half. Do you think about that when making preemptive bids?
5. What is the Risk? Are you worried that your partner will not show up with a good hand and that your preemptive bid will go down? That thinking is misguided. The real risk is that partner will have too much and opponents will not have enough to make a game. If that happens, then any result greater than -150 will be a disaster. An even a greater risk is that partner will have a great hand and a fit and we will not find our game because it was our bidding space that got occupied, not opponents.
6. Swimming. Swimming (as in “with the fishes’) in the bridge context means that you take some action in the bidding auction because you feel that most other pairs sitting the same direction will take a similar action. Sometimes I think about this when considering a preemptive bid, particularly if I am having a good game and want to reduce the risk of having a late bad board that will be costly. I really don’t advocate this type of thinking. I think at all times it is more important to stay with your bidding standards (whatever those may be) and do the right thing. Trying to guess what the field will do is a risky exercise and smacks of “masterminding” the auction, a big no-no in bridge partnerships.
7. Quality of Opponents. When you have close decisions about whether to preempt, I think it is fair to consider the experience of your opponents. The reaction of most players is to make conservative decisions against better players and more aggressive decisions against weaker players. I do not agree with this. Remember, the single justification for making a preemptive bid is to rob opponents of bidding space and make it difficult to find a tight game or slam. Opponents with modest bidding skills will have trouble reaching tight games and slams no matter what you do. Much of the time if you leave them alone the risk will be minimal. On the other hand, if your opponents are very experienced and have good systemic bidding tools, they probably will find those tight games and slams if you don’t do something to make it difficult for them. So step right up to those experts and make it difficult for them. It is guaranteed they will hate you for it!
8. Vulnerability. In 1st and 2nd seat, vulnerability will be a big factor in deciding how many tricks you want to have in your hand to make the preemptive bid you are considering. To a lesser extent that is also a consideration in 3rd seat. No matter what position you are in, -800 is not going to feel good!
In Part 3, I will give you some guidelines on when not to preempt and discuss the ambiguous meaning of the term “disciplined” as it is commonly applied to preemptive bids.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
All About Preemptive Bids (Part 1)
I have been waiting to start a series on preemptive bidding, so it seems like a good summer project. If you are consistently getting average plus on your preemptive opportunities, you can take the next few weeks off. I always think the starting point is the ACBL Convention Card and the disclosure required. Preemptive type bids are covered in 2 different areas of the card. On the left hand side of the page are “opening preempts”, where you are required to describe your style for preemptive openings. On the right hand bottom of the card are weak 2 bids. Since weak 2 bids would be described here, they are presumed to be excluded from the section on opening preempts.
In the ACBL Bulletin series, Conventional Wisdom, the following comments about preemptive openings are made.
1. An opening bid on the 3 or 4 level promises a weak hand of below opening strength with a seven card suit at the 3 level and an 8 card sit at the 4 level. The texture of the hand can be a determinate of whether the hand qualifies.
2. Under “opening preempts” you are required to indicate whether your opening preempts are “sound, light, or very light.” While the categories are somewhat subjective,
(a) “Sound” means that you generally subscribe to the Rule of 500. This rule means that you have told partner that at any vulnerability you will not be down more than 500 based on your own hand. This is the oldest and most conservative approach.
(b) “Light” means that you preempt on most reasonable 7 or 8 card suits. “Reasonable means that your holding contains some honor concentration in the suit. I think this category can best be understood by looking at the definition of “very light.”
(c) “Very light” means that you will preempt with almost any 7 or 8 card suit and sometimes with less than the number of cards normally associated with the bid.
3. If you have conventional uses for preempts (such as Namyats) or conventional responses (such as 4 clubs being ace or key card asking), then you should disclose them in this section of the card. If you don’t know what Namyats is, then you don’t need to worry. That needs separate discussion at another time.
Conventional Wisdom also requires you to describe your weak 2 bids. Two diamonds means many things in many different systems, but in standard American or 2/1, it generally is weak unless you play either Flannery or the Mini-Roman convention. In these same systems, 2 hearts or 2 spades are weak. If these 3 bids are anything other than weak, they must be alerted.
Note that for your weak 2 bids you must disclose the high card point range. One limitation is that a weak 2 bid must not be as strong as an opening hand. A further limitation imposed by the ACBL’s General Convention Chart is that the high point range cannot be more than 7 hcps. This later limitation is not well known, so if your partner sometimes opens a non-vulnerable weak 2 bid with 3 hcps and a 6 card suit (QJxxxx and nothing outside) you must put the lower range at 3 hcps, but now your upper range must be 10 hcps or less. If partner will open a weak 2 bid with a Yarborough, then your upper limit is 7 hcps. Finally, if you partner will open with a weak 2 bid in any seat at any vulnerability with only a 5 card suit, then you must disclose that.
Good habits are formed in club games, so now that you better understand your obligations to your opponents with respect to disclosure on preemptive bids, take the time to mark your convention card correctly. It is not ethical to leave those spaces blank, even though the local director will let you get a way with it. If you carry sloppy convention card procedure over to ACBL tournament bridge, you will likely pay the price.
In the ACBL Bulletin series, Conventional Wisdom, the following comments about preemptive openings are made.
1. An opening bid on the 3 or 4 level promises a weak hand of below opening strength with a seven card suit at the 3 level and an 8 card sit at the 4 level. The texture of the hand can be a determinate of whether the hand qualifies.
2. Under “opening preempts” you are required to indicate whether your opening preempts are “sound, light, or very light.” While the categories are somewhat subjective,
(a) “Sound” means that you generally subscribe to the Rule of 500. This rule means that you have told partner that at any vulnerability you will not be down more than 500 based on your own hand. This is the oldest and most conservative approach.
(b) “Light” means that you preempt on most reasonable 7 or 8 card suits. “Reasonable means that your holding contains some honor concentration in the suit. I think this category can best be understood by looking at the definition of “very light.”
(c) “Very light” means that you will preempt with almost any 7 or 8 card suit and sometimes with less than the number of cards normally associated with the bid.
3. If you have conventional uses for preempts (such as Namyats) or conventional responses (such as 4 clubs being ace or key card asking), then you should disclose them in this section of the card. If you don’t know what Namyats is, then you don’t need to worry. That needs separate discussion at another time.
Conventional Wisdom also requires you to describe your weak 2 bids. Two diamonds means many things in many different systems, but in standard American or 2/1, it generally is weak unless you play either Flannery or the Mini-Roman convention. In these same systems, 2 hearts or 2 spades are weak. If these 3 bids are anything other than weak, they must be alerted.
Note that for your weak 2 bids you must disclose the high card point range. One limitation is that a weak 2 bid must not be as strong as an opening hand. A further limitation imposed by the ACBL’s General Convention Chart is that the high point range cannot be more than 7 hcps. This later limitation is not well known, so if your partner sometimes opens a non-vulnerable weak 2 bid with 3 hcps and a 6 card suit (QJxxxx and nothing outside) you must put the lower range at 3 hcps, but now your upper range must be 10 hcps or less. If partner will open a weak 2 bid with a Yarborough, then your upper limit is 7 hcps. Finally, if you partner will open with a weak 2 bid in any seat at any vulnerability with only a 5 card suit, then you must disclose that.
Good habits are formed in club games, so now that you better understand your obligations to your opponents with respect to disclosure on preemptive bids, take the time to mark your convention card correctly. It is not ethical to leave those spaces blank, even though the local director will let you get a way with it. If you carry sloppy convention card procedure over to ACBL tournament bridge, you will likely pay the price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
