Many partnerships play support doubles without ever really having discussed standards. The purpose of this memo is to suggest standards for my fussy readers. who obsess on correctness and take all the adventure out of bridge. Support doubles and redoubles must be marked on your convention card and are alertable (join the club if you have a few “failure to alerts”.)
The essentials of every support double are partner must have opened 1club, 1 diamond or 1 heart and responder must have made a major suit response at the one level. You may make a support double on a minimum hand, but if you have both a minimum hand and only 3 small cards in support for partner, you may want to consider “pass”. Both Mike Lawrence and Eric Rodwell have said pass is an option with that holding.
It does not matter what opener’s LHO does in the auction as long as responder can bid his major suit at the one level. The sequence 1c/x/1s/2h is still a support double, the double showing 3 card suport for spades. Basically we ignore interference by LHO unless it prevents partner from showing his major suit at the one level. So 1c/1h/1s/2h/x is still a support double. Since responder chose not to make a negative double over opponents heart overcall, we know he has a 5 card spade suit, but he will still be happy to find opener with has 3+ card support. If opener had 4+ card support he would not make a support double. He would have bid some number of spades depending on the strength of his hand. With 4 card support, whether opener makes a simple bid, jump in partner’s suit or jump directly to game is based on the same considerations if there had been no bid on opener’s right.
In all situations where a double would show support, if RHO doubles responder’s overcall (it would always be for take-out) instead of making an overcall, a redouble of RHO’s double would show the same level of support as a support double. So, 1c/p/1s/x(take out for hearts and diamonds)/xx is a support redouble showing 3 card support for spades.
At what level does double of advancer’s bid cease to be a support double. Mike Lawrence suggests that as long as partner can still bid 2 of his suit after the double, it is always a support double. Thus doubling a cue bid by advancer (1c/1h/1s/2c/x) is still a support double showing 3 card support for spades. Mike Lawrence also does not have any trouble with 1c/1h/1s/1NT/x being a support double. He notes that while many old style player’s would say this double is for penalty, he prefers to treat it as a support double. In is nice to have a rule that is always consistent: responder can still bid 2 hearts in the above sequence.
So here is the rule. The double or redouble of RHO’s bid by opener shows support for responder’s bid major so long as responder can rebid his major at the 2 level. Effectively this means playing support double through bids of 2 hearts by RHO. This avoids partner having to play at the 3 level with only a 7 card fit.
What happens when the bidding gets higher than that? Say the auction goes 1c/1d/1s/3d/? Suppose as opener you held (i) KQxx, AQxx, x, Axxx, and the bidding proceeded as above. Here you have a nice 5 losing trick count hand and clearly would have made some kind of game try, but the bidding got too high for you to do so. Contrast this with (ii) QJxx, KQxx, xx, AJx, a 7 losing trick count hand, little defense against 3 diamonds and good support for partners bid major. With both hands you want to bid 3 spades, in the first case to invite partner to game and in the second solely to compete against the diamond contract. How does partner know what you want?
The opponents have taken away your bidding spade. At this point bidding 3 spades is compeititive and shows a hand like (i) above. The invitational bid disappeared. A double on the other hand is a penalty double, and may be the right call with hand (i) if the vulnerability is favorable, but my vote wold be to bid 4 spades. While only a 15 hcp hand, it had only 5 Losing trick Count (you read that blog, didn't you). Partner must have no more than 9 LTC for his 1 spade response, and making 10 tricks with a total of 14 LTC is a high probabliity.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Law of Total Tricks and Other WMD's
This is a special blog for my non-life master readers. It’s not likely to make me a hit with my partners and other highly regarded bridge players of my acquaintance, but then I can’t figure out how to publish this anonymously so here it is. Whether you are a beginner, novice, aspiring intermediate or in some other ascending category, you have to stop whatever you are doing right now and start pulling some cards out of the bidding box that are not green. You cannot – let me say that again – you cannot let good opponents freely engage in constructive bidding. This is what they do best. Leave them alone and they will get to an optimum contract 99% of the time. That is their specialty. You need to compete in the bidding.
Most competitive bidding takes place when one side does not have the 26 hcps required for game. The odds show that each side will hold 26 points about 10% of the time, so that 80% of the time it is a matchpoint battle for part scores. Now you may not always have the cards to compete when you and partner hold 15 hcps total, but then there are times when you need to sacrifice even when they hold 26 hcps, so the saying that “matchpoints is a part score battle” is well justified by the odds.
If you are going to compete, you need some weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) and you need to use them as often as possible, and sometimes even when you think it is a total embarrassment.. Bidding today is not you mother’s bridge of the 20th century, it is guerilla warfare. Go watch some Texas Hold’em Poker on television and you will get in the right frame of mind. I was watching a teenager at a final table the other night playing for about $1,000,000 in real money, and in an interview he explained that the game is simple: “if they check, you raise, if they raise, you re-raise, if they raise back, you go all in.” Do you think you can translate that to bridge?
A good starting point is always following the “Law of Total Tricks.” If you are not consistently following the Law, you are already backing up. This is not a new concept; it was first introduced by a French bridge theorist Jean-Rene Vernes in 1966 and later republished in an article by the Bridge World in 1969. It did not take on any real popularity until Larry Cohen popularized it his books To Bid or Not to Bid and Following the Law in the 90’s. Cutting through all the arithmetic, it simply says “count the number of trump you think you and partner have in your best suit and bid for that number of tricks in that suit.” It is a rule for competitive bidding that gives aspiring players an edge, since you do not need to do anything other than count cards. This article assumes that when partner takes a bid, makes an overcall, weak 2 bid or weak jump shift or preempt, you can get a reliable count on his suit holding.
I am aware that from the beginning certain bridge experts have been claiming the Law does not work in certain situations. In fact, two world class players published a book “I Fought the Law of Total Tricks” which seeks to undercut the Law and explain why in certain specific situations it is not as reliable as advertised. If you are inclined to buy it, write to me, mine is for sale at a significant discount. Most of the experts hate the Law, since they dwell in a place where only years of experience and impeccable powers of reasoning can resolve the game’s competitive bidding enigmas.
Although it is commonly referred to as the “Law”, of course it isn’t a law, simply a rule of application that will be right more than it is wrong. The Bridge World analyzed a number of hands from World Bridge Competition and found a very small standard deviation, most of which can be explained by easily remembered adjustments. First, it doesn’t work as accurately with square hands. That doesn’t mean that it won’t work, it just is not as efficient. The answer, subtract one from your Law count if you are 4333. The other most common cause of variance is that it works better when you have no honors (Ace excepted) in opponent’s suit; so again reduce your Law count if your holding in their suit is KJx or something similar. Even if you don’t remember the adjustments, don’t let it concern you – they are better learned by experience anyway. The time to be really bold is when you have some good distribution. Often these hands will play better than the law projects
How about high card points? The Bridge World concluded that the law works most reliably if the point count difference is no greater than 15-25. They also advised using it only when vulnerability is favorable or equal. Maybe at the World Competitive level those things make a difference, but at club games I would not worry about points or vulnerability. Even good opponents are not predisposed to double your “Law” bid because they assume you are stealing: they are predisposed to take another bid to a level where they are no longer protected by the law, because they do not want this brash pair of novices stealing a contract from under their noses.
This last tendency leads to another part of the Law that is often not as well understood as it should be. While the Law states that the number of prospective trump should determine your competitive level, it also applies in the same manner to your opponents. If the bidding goes 1s/2s, you know they have an 8 card fit and are fully “Law” protected at the 2 level. If -110 is where you yearn to be, just pass with your 8 card fit. If on the other hand you have a known 8 card fit with partner in a suit subordinate to opponent’s suit (in this case clubs, diamonds and hearts), bid to the 3 level anyway in seeming violation of the law. Why? Because even though the law does not protect you, it does protect them at 2 spades, and that makes a 3 level competitive bid worthwhile. In most cases they will give you a disdainful look and swat you like a fly as they dance their way to the 3 level. Now we got the Law back on our side!
A discussion of other WMD’s will be continued in future blog posts. In the meantime, don’t sit quietly unless you’re sitting at my table.
Most competitive bidding takes place when one side does not have the 26 hcps required for game. The odds show that each side will hold 26 points about 10% of the time, so that 80% of the time it is a matchpoint battle for part scores. Now you may not always have the cards to compete when you and partner hold 15 hcps total, but then there are times when you need to sacrifice even when they hold 26 hcps, so the saying that “matchpoints is a part score battle” is well justified by the odds.
If you are going to compete, you need some weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) and you need to use them as often as possible, and sometimes even when you think it is a total embarrassment.. Bidding today is not you mother’s bridge of the 20th century, it is guerilla warfare. Go watch some Texas Hold’em Poker on television and you will get in the right frame of mind. I was watching a teenager at a final table the other night playing for about $1,000,000 in real money, and in an interview he explained that the game is simple: “if they check, you raise, if they raise, you re-raise, if they raise back, you go all in.” Do you think you can translate that to bridge?
A good starting point is always following the “Law of Total Tricks.” If you are not consistently following the Law, you are already backing up. This is not a new concept; it was first introduced by a French bridge theorist Jean-Rene Vernes in 1966 and later republished in an article by the Bridge World in 1969. It did not take on any real popularity until Larry Cohen popularized it his books To Bid or Not to Bid and Following the Law in the 90’s. Cutting through all the arithmetic, it simply says “count the number of trump you think you and partner have in your best suit and bid for that number of tricks in that suit.” It is a rule for competitive bidding that gives aspiring players an edge, since you do not need to do anything other than count cards. This article assumes that when partner takes a bid, makes an overcall, weak 2 bid or weak jump shift or preempt, you can get a reliable count on his suit holding.
I am aware that from the beginning certain bridge experts have been claiming the Law does not work in certain situations. In fact, two world class players published a book “I Fought the Law of Total Tricks” which seeks to undercut the Law and explain why in certain specific situations it is not as reliable as advertised. If you are inclined to buy it, write to me, mine is for sale at a significant discount. Most of the experts hate the Law, since they dwell in a place where only years of experience and impeccable powers of reasoning can resolve the game’s competitive bidding enigmas.
Although it is commonly referred to as the “Law”, of course it isn’t a law, simply a rule of application that will be right more than it is wrong. The Bridge World analyzed a number of hands from World Bridge Competition and found a very small standard deviation, most of which can be explained by easily remembered adjustments. First, it doesn’t work as accurately with square hands. That doesn’t mean that it won’t work, it just is not as efficient. The answer, subtract one from your Law count if you are 4333. The other most common cause of variance is that it works better when you have no honors (Ace excepted) in opponent’s suit; so again reduce your Law count if your holding in their suit is KJx or something similar. Even if you don’t remember the adjustments, don’t let it concern you – they are better learned by experience anyway. The time to be really bold is when you have some good distribution. Often these hands will play better than the law projects
How about high card points? The Bridge World concluded that the law works most reliably if the point count difference is no greater than 15-25. They also advised using it only when vulnerability is favorable or equal. Maybe at the World Competitive level those things make a difference, but at club games I would not worry about points or vulnerability. Even good opponents are not predisposed to double your “Law” bid because they assume you are stealing: they are predisposed to take another bid to a level where they are no longer protected by the law, because they do not want this brash pair of novices stealing a contract from under their noses.
This last tendency leads to another part of the Law that is often not as well understood as it should be. While the Law states that the number of prospective trump should determine your competitive level, it also applies in the same manner to your opponents. If the bidding goes 1s/2s, you know they have an 8 card fit and are fully “Law” protected at the 2 level. If -110 is where you yearn to be, just pass with your 8 card fit. If on the other hand you have a known 8 card fit with partner in a suit subordinate to opponent’s suit (in this case clubs, diamonds and hearts), bid to the 3 level anyway in seeming violation of the law. Why? Because even though the law does not protect you, it does protect them at 2 spades, and that makes a 3 level competitive bid worthwhile. In most cases they will give you a disdainful look and swat you like a fly as they dance their way to the 3 level. Now we got the Law back on our side!
A discussion of other WMD’s will be continued in future blog posts. In the meantime, don’t sit quietly unless you’re sitting at my table.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Conventions
Do you own a copy of the bridge book 25 Conventions You Should Know (1999) by Barbara Seagram and Marc Smith? How About the 2003 Sequel 25 More Conventions You Should Know? I admit to owning both of them, as well as many others. I am proud to say that I can recite all 50 of them in alphabetical, ascending or descending order, and at the same time juggle 3 golf balls. I noticed too late that the title of the Seagram and Smith series was conventions you should “know”, they didn’t say anything about “playing” them. All of this assiduous application of talent failed to lead me to the real secret of winning bridge: understanding the importance of the “Secret Move.”
Now the “Secret Move” is not as secret as you might think. It origins have been lost in the convoluted development of the game of bridge, but certainly documented traces of it can be found as early as the year 2000. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the ABTA (American Bridge Teachers Association) I am going to put it on the internet for all my readers to view. In preparation for the secret move you need to gather together all of the convention cards that you currently use with partners, straighten out all the folded corners, put them neatly in a stack with the most complex at the top and…. Are you ready for this…..? (drum roll) the Secret Move is to put them all in the nearest trash can, preferably on garbage day so they cannot be retrieved when you get withdrawal symptoms.
Well that may be a little dramatic, but unless you are an expert (self proclaimed does not qualify) or are on the cusp of bridge greatness, your bridge game, the weekly results, your attitude and your enjoyment will definitely improve if you will only simplify your systems and conventions, so give some thought to the Secret Move! Like most everything else that appears on this blog, this is not original thought. I have some pretty good authority that agrees with me.
In a published interview in 2000, Eric Rodwell (49,649.59 master points) commenting on this subject, said:
“There is a lot to be said for just plain vanilla “bid-what-you-think-you- can- make” bridge. There are a lot of tactical advantages- not allowing opponents in, not giving them extra information, not giving them extra opportunities to overcall or double. All are big advantages of natural bidding, like 1NT-2NT-3NT. Just in general there are a lot of potential downsides to playing artificial conventions. The main ones are not having thought through the sequences thoroughly enough to see when you are benefiting and when they are necessary.”
In the August 2000 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Zeke Jabbour (29,498.72 master points) said:
“What methods you use do not matter. What matters is how well you use them. What systems you play doesn’t matter. What matters is how well you play it. The convention doesn’t matter. What matters is the agreement and how well you understand it. How complicated your methods are doesn’t matter. What matters is how comfortable you are with them.
In the February 2001 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Zia Mahmood (13,665 master points) said:
“It is very important to emphasize that except at the very highest levels it does not matter what you play. Sound bridge and good judgment are enough to win.”
In his October 2008 Newsletter. Larry Cohen (23,328.81 master points) said:
“I am a staunch advocate of “less is better.” My observation is that at every level of the game players are using too many conventions. Too often I see players (from beginner to world champion) misusing or forgetting their methods. Everyone would benefit if they would just KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid). If I had to choose 4 conventions, this would be my list: Stayman, Blackwood, Negative Doubles and Weak 2-Bids. If you made me chose 4 more, my list would include Jacoby Transfers, DONT over opponents Opening 1NT, Weak Jump Shifts in competition and 4th Suit forcing to game. I could live happily with those 8.”
Glen Ashton, a Canadian Bridge theorist and editor of Bridge Matters advised:
“Select methods that your partnership likes, understands, and remains comfortable with, methods that give your partnership confidence, non- complex methods that come up often and are mostly successful when they do. Methods that are easily practiced, remembered and used. In other words methods that help you play well and win.
Here I think is the litmus test. If your systems or conventions are causing you to be out of tempo, require that you review conventions and responses on the drive to the bridge club, are subjecting you to that familiar refrain from partner at the end of the auction “failure to alert” or are creating tension in what should be a wonderful afternoon of pleasure, then back off, apply the “Secret Move” and start all over with treatments, systems and conventions that you are very comfortable with. Also remember there is a difference between knowing conventions and subjecting yourself to the ultimate test of using them under fire.
If you have to make choices, focus on knowing how to describe your hand when there is competitive bidding and understanding the meaning of partner’s double. Today, there is an inverse relationship between opponent’s master points and competitive bidding, and if they are still enrolled in week 6 of the “Introduction to Duplicate” series, get your defensive shoes on, cause you ain’t going to play a hand. You will soon be on a first name basis with all of the Phil Helmuth’s of duplicate bridge. They are “all in” all of the time.
To bridge game directors, I would suggest a true test of duplicate bridge. Once a month limit your player’s to Larry Cohen’s top eight conventions, and let’s find out who can really bid and play the cards the best! Don’t be surprised if the names are familiar!
Now the “Secret Move” is not as secret as you might think. It origins have been lost in the convoluted development of the game of bridge, but certainly documented traces of it can be found as early as the year 2000. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the ABTA (American Bridge Teachers Association) I am going to put it on the internet for all my readers to view. In preparation for the secret move you need to gather together all of the convention cards that you currently use with partners, straighten out all the folded corners, put them neatly in a stack with the most complex at the top and…. Are you ready for this…..? (drum roll) the Secret Move is to put them all in the nearest trash can, preferably on garbage day so they cannot be retrieved when you get withdrawal symptoms.
Well that may be a little dramatic, but unless you are an expert (self proclaimed does not qualify) or are on the cusp of bridge greatness, your bridge game, the weekly results, your attitude and your enjoyment will definitely improve if you will only simplify your systems and conventions, so give some thought to the Secret Move! Like most everything else that appears on this blog, this is not original thought. I have some pretty good authority that agrees with me.
In a published interview in 2000, Eric Rodwell (49,649.59 master points) commenting on this subject, said:
“There is a lot to be said for just plain vanilla “bid-what-you-think-you- can- make” bridge. There are a lot of tactical advantages- not allowing opponents in, not giving them extra information, not giving them extra opportunities to overcall or double. All are big advantages of natural bidding, like 1NT-2NT-3NT. Just in general there are a lot of potential downsides to playing artificial conventions. The main ones are not having thought through the sequences thoroughly enough to see when you are benefiting and when they are necessary.”
In the August 2000 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Zeke Jabbour (29,498.72 master points) said:
“What methods you use do not matter. What matters is how well you use them. What systems you play doesn’t matter. What matters is how well you play it. The convention doesn’t matter. What matters is the agreement and how well you understand it. How complicated your methods are doesn’t matter. What matters is how comfortable you are with them.
In the February 2001 ACBL Bridge Bulletin Zia Mahmood (13,665 master points) said:
“It is very important to emphasize that except at the very highest levels it does not matter what you play. Sound bridge and good judgment are enough to win.”
In his October 2008 Newsletter. Larry Cohen (23,328.81 master points) said:
“I am a staunch advocate of “less is better.” My observation is that at every level of the game players are using too many conventions. Too often I see players (from beginner to world champion) misusing or forgetting their methods. Everyone would benefit if they would just KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid). If I had to choose 4 conventions, this would be my list: Stayman, Blackwood, Negative Doubles and Weak 2-Bids. If you made me chose 4 more, my list would include Jacoby Transfers, DONT over opponents Opening 1NT, Weak Jump Shifts in competition and 4th Suit forcing to game. I could live happily with those 8.”
Glen Ashton, a Canadian Bridge theorist and editor of Bridge Matters advised:
“Select methods that your partnership likes, understands, and remains comfortable with, methods that give your partnership confidence, non- complex methods that come up often and are mostly successful when they do. Methods that are easily practiced, remembered and used. In other words methods that help you play well and win.
Here I think is the litmus test. If your systems or conventions are causing you to be out of tempo, require that you review conventions and responses on the drive to the bridge club, are subjecting you to that familiar refrain from partner at the end of the auction “failure to alert” or are creating tension in what should be a wonderful afternoon of pleasure, then back off, apply the “Secret Move” and start all over with treatments, systems and conventions that you are very comfortable with. Also remember there is a difference between knowing conventions and subjecting yourself to the ultimate test of using them under fire.
If you have to make choices, focus on knowing how to describe your hand when there is competitive bidding and understanding the meaning of partner’s double. Today, there is an inverse relationship between opponent’s master points and competitive bidding, and if they are still enrolled in week 6 of the “Introduction to Duplicate” series, get your defensive shoes on, cause you ain’t going to play a hand. You will soon be on a first name basis with all of the Phil Helmuth’s of duplicate bridge. They are “all in” all of the time.
To bridge game directors, I would suggest a true test of duplicate bridge. Once a month limit your player’s to Larry Cohen’s top eight conventions, and let’s find out who can really bid and play the cards the best! Don’t be surprised if the names are familiar!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
"The Principles of Logical Bidding"
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.
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.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
More on Overcalls (Because we need it)
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.
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.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Western Cue Bids
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!
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!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
New Minor Forcing (NMF)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
