Many of my readers, like myself, are still stuck in the depths of “Intermediatesville” trying to get better as we learn from our mistakes. Some wag once wrote that in order for something to become a habit, you have to do it correctly 19 times. It is hard to find anything in bridge that you can do correctly 19 times other than pass, and even pass has its own problems. So it doesn’t hurt for us to reinforce basics one in a while. Here are some thoughts about responding to 1NT forcing bids.
Most duplicate players today play the 1NT response to one of a major as forcing for one round by an unpassed hand. That means that opener has to come up with one more bid. On a good day you will be delighted to come up with another bid reflecting your 6 card suit or extra values, on a bad day you will have some less appealing choices to make and wonder why you ever made this bid forcing. How about a little quick review? Music maestro!!
1. If you rebid your major suit, it shows a suit that is 6 cards in length and has no significant extras. A jump in the major suit shows 6 good cards in the bid major and 16+ hcps, but is non- forcing.
2. If the hand is 5233, you rebid your lower ranking 3 card minor.
3. If you opened 1 heart, a 2 spade rebid is still a reverse and shows 16+ hcps. Why is it a reverse? Because partner must now go to the 3 level to take a preference for your original suit. Don’t confuse this with 2/1 sequences where most players do not play reverses as showing extra values, just hand shape.
4. If you make a jump shift, it promises a hand of about 19 hcps or shape with equivalent playing strength. Definitely forcing!
5. A raise to 2NT shows a balanced hand of about18-19 hcps and almost forcing; pass it at your peril. Have a back up partner. If you're playing with your spouse, it is forcing!
Those were supposed to be easy choices, and reading this blog post counts as one of the 19 repetitions. With the basics behind you, take shot at these: You open 1 heart, your partner responds 1NT, your bid Syd! Remember that Max Hardy is looking over your shoulder from that big bridge table in the sky. Honk if you don't like it Max.
(i) KJxx, AQxxx, Jx, Qx
(ii) K4, AQJT9x, 5, QJ43
(iii) K4, QJ7643, 5, AQJ3
(iv) K4, AKQJ63, Q7, J95
On hand (i) you have 4 spades but to bid them would be a reverse – not with 13 hcps! In 2/1 game force, it is not systemically correct to rebid your 5 card heart suit, so you “suck it up” and bid 2 clubs. The rule says you bid your best 2 card minor and hope for the best. Somehow this often works out.
On hand (ii) you have a 6 card heart suit which is rebiddable, but also a 4 card club suit you could show. Note that hand (iii) has the same feature. How do you decide whether to show the club suit or just rebid your hearts? There is another rule for this. Here is the standard: Opener will only show the 4 card suit when the 6 card suit is not solid enough to play against a singleton. Opener bids 2 hearts with hand (ii) and 2 clubs with hand (iii). If you are responder and have a singleton in openers major (which happens with alarming frequency), it is important to understand the implication of opener rebidding a second suit. Opener is telling you that he does not have a 6 card major, or if he does it is not good enough to play against a single in your hand. If you have a single in opener’s major, you have 12 cards in the other suits. Remember opener’s bid of a new suit at the 2 level does not show extra values nor is it forcing, so you can pass, and with 4144 that may be the best thing to do. These situations come under the “catch all” that “sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.”
Hand (iv) is even more twisted. I would guess many readers would bid 3 hearts over 1NT forcing. You are not going to like that match point choice if the hand makes both 4NT and 4 spades. Opener should rebid 3NT showing 16-18 hcps, solid hearts, and no single or void. This asks responder to pass if his hand is balanced and otherwise correct to 4 hearts.
If you don’t like my analysis, the specimen hands or the responses send an e-mail to maxhardy@bridgeinheaven.god Be patient, he may not respond immediately. It may be more productive to write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com. If you are on my blog notice list, do not use the “reply” button unless you want the entire list to read your comments.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Tommy Passes 5th Grade Math but Flunks Match Point Duplicate
I got comments from all over the world on my 7NT adventure. Some suggested a competency hearing and some that I find a new hobby where I won’t disturb others. One person suggested that my math solutions are an insult to 5th graders; they are well beyond that stuff. Seems like just yesterday I was there learning long division!!
Another group of commentators suggested that the contract of 7NT was poor math in itself, since it was far from the best contract in a match point game. I don’t disagree with that but I have my justifications. First, I did say that it was the last board of the day. Second, we were a little desperate and things had not been going our way. Third, when I was learning bridge I played all the Swiss Teams and Knockouts I could find in a rush to life master. I love match points, but sometimes my IMP mentality gets the best of me. Finally, if I had not bid 7NT with that hand, my partner Howard Christ would have pouted for a week. You don’t want to go there.
Still, any way you cut it, 7NT may not be the best match point contract. One of the premier players in the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club, Cliff Garing, told me a long ago that in club games it is not practical to bid Grand Slams, since some in the field will fail to get to slam, some will go down trying to make 7 and 6 of anything bid and made will, over time, reward you with an average plus.
My sometimes partner, Mike Spitulnik, is a heavy weight bridge thinker from Rochester, New York. Mike is a multiple Ace of Clubs winner and had the distinction of becoming a life master, as well as bronze and silver on the same day. Mike felt that the contract was aggressive, but deserving. He believes that in a high quality field several aggressive bidding pairs will be in 7NT and the important thing is not to separate yourself from those teams if that’s where you want to be. He points out that taking the clubs and hearts early hoping to lure opponents into a mistake is sheer folly since it won’t fool anybody and at the same time exposes the contract to being down 2 instead of down 1 if the spade suit does not work out. His point is well taken, and substantiated by the fact that I never saw a spade sluff.
Jon Shuster, a bridge expert and author from Gainesville, also took issue with the bidding of the contract. He believes that if you want to play an aggressive 7 contract, 7 diamonds is much safer than 7NT and that standard bidding with responder showing both spades and diamonds will enable you to find the 8 card diamond fit. It is a risk reward situation. If you accept Mike’s argument that strong aggressive bidders will be in 7 NT, then 7 diamonds is going to cost some match points. The trade off is that when diamonds are 3-2 (about two thirds of the time) you will be able to ruff the third spade. Even if diamonds are 4-1 (which they were) you get a spade ruff if opponent’s spades are 4-2 and the person with short spades does not have the long diamond. Jon has a PhD in medical statistics, so I am sure all these alternate chances support his view. But where is the romance in 7 diamonds and how can you write a blog about that?
My high math consultant is Janice Barnes. I thought for sure that this nice technical analysis of play probabilities would appeal to her. Janice seemed pleased that I finally used the terms “probability” and “odds” in the correct context, but expressed some doubt about whether, with all the variable factors, any math can be practically applied at the table. Janice says that she would far prefer to be a bridge savant who just looks at a dummy and knows all the correct plays instinctively. Dream on Janice, wouldn’t we all? The downside is that those players often forget their partner’s first name.
I am not giving up on the Law of Vacant Places although it seems to be a hard sell to my readers. I am going to rename it Tommy’s Law of Empty Spaces and give it one more try in my next post. Good ideas rarely take without repeating. Jean Rene Vernes wrote about the Law of Total Tricks in the June, 1969 Bridge World, Marty Bergen wrote about it again in 1979, but it was not until Larry Cohen wrote “To Bid or Not to Bid” in 1992” that duplicate players actually started to widely apply it. That’s because Larry discussed "the Law" in a language that common folks could understand. Let’s see if I am up to that standard.
Another group of commentators suggested that the contract of 7NT was poor math in itself, since it was far from the best contract in a match point game. I don’t disagree with that but I have my justifications. First, I did say that it was the last board of the day. Second, we were a little desperate and things had not been going our way. Third, when I was learning bridge I played all the Swiss Teams and Knockouts I could find in a rush to life master. I love match points, but sometimes my IMP mentality gets the best of me. Finally, if I had not bid 7NT with that hand, my partner Howard Christ would have pouted for a week. You don’t want to go there.
Still, any way you cut it, 7NT may not be the best match point contract. One of the premier players in the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club, Cliff Garing, told me a long ago that in club games it is not practical to bid Grand Slams, since some in the field will fail to get to slam, some will go down trying to make 7 and 6 of anything bid and made will, over time, reward you with an average plus.
My sometimes partner, Mike Spitulnik, is a heavy weight bridge thinker from Rochester, New York. Mike is a multiple Ace of Clubs winner and had the distinction of becoming a life master, as well as bronze and silver on the same day. Mike felt that the contract was aggressive, but deserving. He believes that in a high quality field several aggressive bidding pairs will be in 7NT and the important thing is not to separate yourself from those teams if that’s where you want to be. He points out that taking the clubs and hearts early hoping to lure opponents into a mistake is sheer folly since it won’t fool anybody and at the same time exposes the contract to being down 2 instead of down 1 if the spade suit does not work out. His point is well taken, and substantiated by the fact that I never saw a spade sluff.
Jon Shuster, a bridge expert and author from Gainesville, also took issue with the bidding of the contract. He believes that if you want to play an aggressive 7 contract, 7 diamonds is much safer than 7NT and that standard bidding with responder showing both spades and diamonds will enable you to find the 8 card diamond fit. It is a risk reward situation. If you accept Mike’s argument that strong aggressive bidders will be in 7 NT, then 7 diamonds is going to cost some match points. The trade off is that when diamonds are 3-2 (about two thirds of the time) you will be able to ruff the third spade. Even if diamonds are 4-1 (which they were) you get a spade ruff if opponent’s spades are 4-2 and the person with short spades does not have the long diamond. Jon has a PhD in medical statistics, so I am sure all these alternate chances support his view. But where is the romance in 7 diamonds and how can you write a blog about that?
My high math consultant is Janice Barnes. I thought for sure that this nice technical analysis of play probabilities would appeal to her. Janice seemed pleased that I finally used the terms “probability” and “odds” in the correct context, but expressed some doubt about whether, with all the variable factors, any math can be practically applied at the table. Janice says that she would far prefer to be a bridge savant who just looks at a dummy and knows all the correct plays instinctively. Dream on Janice, wouldn’t we all? The downside is that those players often forget their partner’s first name.
I am not giving up on the Law of Vacant Places although it seems to be a hard sell to my readers. I am going to rename it Tommy’s Law of Empty Spaces and give it one more try in my next post. Good ideas rarely take without repeating. Jean Rene Vernes wrote about the Law of Total Tricks in the June, 1969 Bridge World, Marty Bergen wrote about it again in 1979, but it was not until Larry Cohen wrote “To Bid or Not to Bid” in 1992” that duplicate players actually started to widely apply it. That’s because Larry discussed "the Law" in a language that common folks could understand. Let’s see if I am up to that standard.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? Here's 5th Grade Math
In Friday’s Game at Citrus Springs on my last board the hands were:
KQTx
Jxx
Axxx
xx
Axx
AK
KQJx
AKxx
Sitting South I opened 2 clubs with this nice 4 Losing Trick Count hand and 5 Quick Tricks. Since we have a system that shows control cards over strong 2 club bids, my partner bid 3 clubs showing an Ace and a King in different suits. Sleuth that I am, I identify the King of spades and Ace of diamonds. What excuse could I offer for bidding anything less than 7NT. Bang! The tremor set my Diet Coke can in motion but thankfully it stayed upright!
LHO opens the Queen of clubs and the “pleased as punch” smile drains from my face. We got a problem Houston! At 7 NT there is no end play, and with only 11 top tricks there is no squeeze. It is clear that making the slam is going to be based on the play of the 7 card spade suit. I first set out to establish a couple of phony decoy threat cards hoping to crowd somebody’s hand and lure the defenders into making a telling spade discard. I take the Ace of clubs, the King of clubs and the Ace-King of hearts. Everybody follows suit. Now I have given them three potential winners to stew about, the Queen of clubs, Queen of hearts and Jack of spades.
Next I play 4 rounds of diamonds with West following suit and East playing one diamond and pitching a couple of hearts and a club. I then go into the tank trying to remember the four blogs that I have written on bridge probabilities.
(a) I do remember that “all other things being equal” that finessing the Jack of spades would be a 50% probability, but are all other things equal? Its biggest appeal is that if it is wrong, it will put a sudden end to this misery.
(b) Now I need to test if all other things are equal. Emile Borel, the noted French physicist, also wrote the first definitive treatise on bridge math in the late 1930’s entitled Theorie Mathematique du Bridge. Borrowing from his physics expertise, he laid down the “law of attraction” that length in one suit attracts shortness in another and that shortness attracts length. An adjunct to this is his “law of vacant places.” Once you have fully identified the distribution of one suit (in this case diamonds were 4-1) the likelihood of a defender holding any particular card in another suit is directly proportional to the non-diamond cards that he held. West originally held 9 non-diamond cards and East held 12 non-diamond cards, so the odds are 12 to 9 that East has the Jack of spades. Now the success of the finesse has become about a 43% probability.
(c) What about the 7 card spade suit. I remember that when the opponents hold an even number of cards they are likely to break unevenly. Even if spades are 4-2 as predicted, the missing honor could be doubleton, but that only happens in the newspaper. If it happens it will happen as i will first lead the Ace and King
in the spade suit.
(c) There is another rule that says when opponents have the 5 or 6 cards in a suit, finesse for the King or Queen, but not the Jack! In order to square that with the 7 card rule above, it must be that holding the ten in the suit makes a difference. Behold, I have AKQT in spades. This enhances the 3-3 split to 52.4% probability. Actually this rule is based on another probability rule called the “Deletion Principle” which also explains that time honored saying “8 ever, 9 never.”
I play the King o f spades from the dummy and Ace of spades to my hand and now lead a spade toward dummy. Both defenders follow to the Ace and King and LHO follows to the third lead of spades. The moment of truth! I am committed to taking the play with the best probability. At this point making 7 NT has become a side issue, I just want to make sure that if I lose bragging rights, I have an iron clad excuse for blowing the contract. I play the Quuen of spades and the Jack comes “oh so slowly” out of East’s hand.
I am thinking that this must be a cold top. Six no trump is unbeatable no matter what the lead or how you play the spade suit. How many pairs are going to bid 7NT in matchpoints and then also get the 5th grade math correct? Yesterday morning I quickly checked the results and found that out of 13 pairs playing the hand, one other team bid the Grand and they actually made it. I give credit to Eve Taylor sitting south and Lorraine Carrier her partner.
You may be saying that all that math is tiring and hard to remember. Actually the detail stuff is all window dressing, but nevertheless valid. If you remember the finessing rule for 5 and 6 cards you will make 7 no trump.
You can access my four earlier blogs on the odds and ends of bridge by looking in the archive in the right hand margin of the blog. I wrote about the Law of Attraction and the Law of Vacant Places in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part1) dated August 28, 2007. I covered the finessing rule with 5 or 6 cards outstanding in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 2) dated September 6, 2007 and about the Deletion Principle in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 4) dated September 12, 2007. It also proves that at my age the only chance you have of remembering something is if you write it down and tape crib notes on your right wrist. Now you know why I never wear short sleeve shirts!!
KQTx
Jxx
Axxx
xx
Axx
AK
KQJx
AKxx
Sitting South I opened 2 clubs with this nice 4 Losing Trick Count hand and 5 Quick Tricks. Since we have a system that shows control cards over strong 2 club bids, my partner bid 3 clubs showing an Ace and a King in different suits. Sleuth that I am, I identify the King of spades and Ace of diamonds. What excuse could I offer for bidding anything less than 7NT. Bang! The tremor set my Diet Coke can in motion but thankfully it stayed upright!
LHO opens the Queen of clubs and the “pleased as punch” smile drains from my face. We got a problem Houston! At 7 NT there is no end play, and with only 11 top tricks there is no squeeze. It is clear that making the slam is going to be based on the play of the 7 card spade suit. I first set out to establish a couple of phony decoy threat cards hoping to crowd somebody’s hand and lure the defenders into making a telling spade discard. I take the Ace of clubs, the King of clubs and the Ace-King of hearts. Everybody follows suit. Now I have given them three potential winners to stew about, the Queen of clubs, Queen of hearts and Jack of spades.
Next I play 4 rounds of diamonds with West following suit and East playing one diamond and pitching a couple of hearts and a club. I then go into the tank trying to remember the four blogs that I have written on bridge probabilities.
(a) I do remember that “all other things being equal” that finessing the Jack of spades would be a 50% probability, but are all other things equal? Its biggest appeal is that if it is wrong, it will put a sudden end to this misery.
(b) Now I need to test if all other things are equal. Emile Borel, the noted French physicist, also wrote the first definitive treatise on bridge math in the late 1930’s entitled Theorie Mathematique du Bridge. Borrowing from his physics expertise, he laid down the “law of attraction” that length in one suit attracts shortness in another and that shortness attracts length. An adjunct to this is his “law of vacant places.” Once you have fully identified the distribution of one suit (in this case diamonds were 4-1) the likelihood of a defender holding any particular card in another suit is directly proportional to the non-diamond cards that he held. West originally held 9 non-diamond cards and East held 12 non-diamond cards, so the odds are 12 to 9 that East has the Jack of spades. Now the success of the finesse has become about a 43% probability.
(c) What about the 7 card spade suit. I remember that when the opponents hold an even number of cards they are likely to break unevenly. Even if spades are 4-2 as predicted, the missing honor could be doubleton, but that only happens in the newspaper. If it happens it will happen as i will first lead the Ace and King
in the spade suit.
(c) There is another rule that says when opponents have the 5 or 6 cards in a suit, finesse for the King or Queen, but not the Jack! In order to square that with the 7 card rule above, it must be that holding the ten in the suit makes a difference. Behold, I have AKQT in spades. This enhances the 3-3 split to 52.4% probability. Actually this rule is based on another probability rule called the “Deletion Principle” which also explains that time honored saying “8 ever, 9 never.”
I play the King o f spades from the dummy and Ace of spades to my hand and now lead a spade toward dummy. Both defenders follow to the Ace and King and LHO follows to the third lead of spades. The moment of truth! I am committed to taking the play with the best probability. At this point making 7 NT has become a side issue, I just want to make sure that if I lose bragging rights, I have an iron clad excuse for blowing the contract. I play the Quuen of spades and the Jack comes “oh so slowly” out of East’s hand.
I am thinking that this must be a cold top. Six no trump is unbeatable no matter what the lead or how you play the spade suit. How many pairs are going to bid 7NT in matchpoints and then also get the 5th grade math correct? Yesterday morning I quickly checked the results and found that out of 13 pairs playing the hand, one other team bid the Grand and they actually made it. I give credit to Eve Taylor sitting south and Lorraine Carrier her partner.
You may be saying that all that math is tiring and hard to remember. Actually the detail stuff is all window dressing, but nevertheless valid. If you remember the finessing rule for 5 and 6 cards you will make 7 no trump.
You can access my four earlier blogs on the odds and ends of bridge by looking in the archive in the right hand margin of the blog. I wrote about the Law of Attraction and the Law of Vacant Places in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part1) dated August 28, 2007. I covered the finessing rule with 5 or 6 cards outstanding in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 2) dated September 6, 2007 and about the Deletion Principle in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 4) dated September 12, 2007. It also proves that at my age the only chance you have of remembering something is if you write it down and tape crib notes on your right wrist. Now you know why I never wear short sleeve shirts!!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Give Respect, if Respect is Due
I have often recommended Larry Cohen’s free internet newsletter. If you have not looked at his newsletter in the past 6 months, it is worth revisiting. The newsletter has taken on a new feature which provides 4 sets of East-West hands for readers to bid and then he gives the likely or best bidding sequence, some rationale and comment and a score for your bid. The East and West hands are separately shown, so you can actually bid them with your partner without the double dummy advantage. Larry says this material is intermediate to advanced, but they are tough problem hands and are not going to be a pushover for anybody.
His lead article this month is a lamentation that no bridge convention has ever been named after him, while Marty Bergen has almost a dozen. After a worthwhile review of the basics of 4th seat opening bids, he puts a new twist on the Rule of 15. He says that we should augment the Rule of 15 by using CRIFS for deciding whether to bid or fold. CRIFS is an acronym for Cohen’s Rule In Fourth Seat. The rule is intended to be applied to 10, 11 and 12 point hands that actually meet the Rule of 15.
The rule is not about points, spades, distribution, but rather brings into play a human factor, the skill level of your opponents. After all, you do not have to play this hand; you can throw it in and move on. If you look left and right and see two highly competent, competitive players who will compete for the bid, and then play and defend like demons, do not touch your bidding box, do not pass Go and slip that marginal hand back into the tray. Alternatively, if you see players who you would like to make permanent opponents, pick your spot and go for it. If you open that 10 point hand hand, it is not considered good form to tell you opponents why you did so.
This is not the first time I have read about analyzing your opponents. A prominent professional team in discussing their opening lead discipline said that they prefer to use the more informative “Jack Denies” system, but that unfortunately it gives the same information to their opponents, so they only use it when they judge that their opponents don’t know what to do with the information!
As I thought about this sensible advice, I recollected that I had heard this same general advice before by a lesser known author. Sure enough, I found the same theme in a blog post I wrote in April of 2007 titled Rate Yourself as a Partner. This was a series of 12 tests of a good partner and you get a point for each “Yes” answer. The second item asks:
“Do you give expert players a little respect? The David and Goliath scenario hardly ever plays out at the bridge table. If you opponents are frequently known to play at the 55% level, you will do well against the field holding them to an average board. Find another time, place and opponent to demonstrate your cleverness.”
I think that blog post was one of my best and would be suitable to be reread before each game. Maybe suitable for framing! If you want to read that blog post, look in the archive in the right margin of the blog and locate the posts for April, 2007.
Now back to CRIFS. The underlying concept is valid, but I don’t need one more hard to remember acronym to tell me to duck when trouble is on the horizon. I doubt CRIFS will become a “biggie” in bridge vocabulary, and I think Larry Cohen was just having some fun at Marty Bergen’s expense.
His lead article this month is a lamentation that no bridge convention has ever been named after him, while Marty Bergen has almost a dozen. After a worthwhile review of the basics of 4th seat opening bids, he puts a new twist on the Rule of 15. He says that we should augment the Rule of 15 by using CRIFS for deciding whether to bid or fold. CRIFS is an acronym for Cohen’s Rule In Fourth Seat. The rule is intended to be applied to 10, 11 and 12 point hands that actually meet the Rule of 15.
The rule is not about points, spades, distribution, but rather brings into play a human factor, the skill level of your opponents. After all, you do not have to play this hand; you can throw it in and move on. If you look left and right and see two highly competent, competitive players who will compete for the bid, and then play and defend like demons, do not touch your bidding box, do not pass Go and slip that marginal hand back into the tray. Alternatively, if you see players who you would like to make permanent opponents, pick your spot and go for it. If you open that 10 point hand hand, it is not considered good form to tell you opponents why you did so.
This is not the first time I have read about analyzing your opponents. A prominent professional team in discussing their opening lead discipline said that they prefer to use the more informative “Jack Denies” system, but that unfortunately it gives the same information to their opponents, so they only use it when they judge that their opponents don’t know what to do with the information!
As I thought about this sensible advice, I recollected that I had heard this same general advice before by a lesser known author. Sure enough, I found the same theme in a blog post I wrote in April of 2007 titled Rate Yourself as a Partner. This was a series of 12 tests of a good partner and you get a point for each “Yes” answer. The second item asks:
“Do you give expert players a little respect? The David and Goliath scenario hardly ever plays out at the bridge table. If you opponents are frequently known to play at the 55% level, you will do well against the field holding them to an average board. Find another time, place and opponent to demonstrate your cleverness.”
I think that blog post was one of my best and would be suitable to be reread before each game. Maybe suitable for framing! If you want to read that blog post, look in the archive in the right margin of the blog and locate the posts for April, 2007.
Now back to CRIFS. The underlying concept is valid, but I don’t need one more hard to remember acronym to tell me to duck when trouble is on the horizon. I doubt CRIFS will become a “biggie” in bridge vocabulary, and I think Larry Cohen was just having some fun at Marty Bergen’s expense.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
A Tribute to Ina Mills
Ina Mills was my duplicate partner on Friday. The only risk in writing about Ina is that I won’t find the words to adequately give her the credit she deserves. Friday was a great occasion for me because I got to play with Ina; it was a great occasion for Ina since she was celebrating her 90th birthday. This later bit of news caught me off guard, since she looks and acts and like a youngster anxiously waiting for that first social security check.
Bill and Eve Taylor composed special lyrics for her birthday song that started “Nothing could be fina that to have a friend like Ina, she’s enchanting!” That line says it all, and while Jeanne Reynolds and Howard Christ sang the song, to my amazement, my partner got up and demonstrated a one person line dance complete with all the moves. Did I tell you that line dancing is still one of her passions and you better know the steps if you are in her line.
On the bridge side, Ina ran past Gold Life Master like it was standing still and she ain’t done yet. Who knows what she might have achieved if she had not spent most of her competitive life in an earlier ACBL system where if you didn’t finish first you might end up with .04 master points. Since it was a special occasion on Friday, Ina and I engaged in what we called “birthday bids” in which we entirely eliminated the invitational level, so it was either Ina’s birthday or our opponents' birthday when we were in the auction. Ina did not disappoint. I expected a high level of play from her and she delivered every time, bidding, declaring and defending like the champ she is. No pussy cat this one, she put an exclamation point on the day by bidding and playing two small slams and one Grand.
My job was to accurately sort cards and try not to renege. I did not put down one missorted dummy all day; alas, I did have one renege. It was a disappointment, not so much because I reneged, but because I did it at trick 12. One would think it would not be hard to follow suit when you are looking at only two choices. Maybe the bridge Gods just got it right and decided it would be bad form for Ina to finish first on her own birthday. We slipped into second place thanks to Ina.
At 5:00 I was home chewing on the olive at the bottom of my Martini when I got a call from Ina. Ina (no slouch herself when it comes to the cocktail hour) had decided to stay behind and check the results and scores on every board against her personal score and found a critical scoring error that vaulted us up a couple of places. I think that says it all about the intensity of her competitive juices. Sweet old lady? Not quite. In my next bar fight (I actually hope that was my last one) I want Ina on my back.
So just as the song goes “Nothing could be fina than to have a friend like Ina." Happy Birthday Ina!!
Bill and Eve Taylor composed special lyrics for her birthday song that started “Nothing could be fina that to have a friend like Ina, she’s enchanting!” That line says it all, and while Jeanne Reynolds and Howard Christ sang the song, to my amazement, my partner got up and demonstrated a one person line dance complete with all the moves. Did I tell you that line dancing is still one of her passions and you better know the steps if you are in her line.
On the bridge side, Ina ran past Gold Life Master like it was standing still and she ain’t done yet. Who knows what she might have achieved if she had not spent most of her competitive life in an earlier ACBL system where if you didn’t finish first you might end up with .04 master points. Since it was a special occasion on Friday, Ina and I engaged in what we called “birthday bids” in which we entirely eliminated the invitational level, so it was either Ina’s birthday or our opponents' birthday when we were in the auction. Ina did not disappoint. I expected a high level of play from her and she delivered every time, bidding, declaring and defending like the champ she is. No pussy cat this one, she put an exclamation point on the day by bidding and playing two small slams and one Grand.
My job was to accurately sort cards and try not to renege. I did not put down one missorted dummy all day; alas, I did have one renege. It was a disappointment, not so much because I reneged, but because I did it at trick 12. One would think it would not be hard to follow suit when you are looking at only two choices. Maybe the bridge Gods just got it right and decided it would be bad form for Ina to finish first on her own birthday. We slipped into second place thanks to Ina.
At 5:00 I was home chewing on the olive at the bottom of my Martini when I got a call from Ina. Ina (no slouch herself when it comes to the cocktail hour) had decided to stay behind and check the results and scores on every board against her personal score and found a critical scoring error that vaulted us up a couple of places. I think that says it all about the intensity of her competitive juices. Sweet old lady? Not quite. In my next bar fight (I actually hope that was my last one) I want Ina on my back.
So just as the song goes “Nothing could be fina than to have a friend like Ina." Happy Birthday Ina!!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Majoring in Majors on BBO
Last night I was having a friendly IMP game at Bridge Base on Line with an on line partner, Cara. At BBO there is little time to discuss detailed bidding sequences even if you happen to be a key board whiz and know all the "new age" texting shortcuts. Me? Given 10 minutes, I might be able to find a cell phone, but don’t bet the farm on it. Even when I try to communicate on line, the words seem to lack vowels, sentences lack verbs and only the Turks understand me.
Most of the time you are playing some form of SAYC. It ranges from very basic to complete, but most often they don’t bother to tell you. The full description of two over one game force is exactly “2/1” and you are on your own from there. These factors combine for very limited use of conventional bids other than Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. One of the areas where you don’t expect issues are 15-17 no trump opening hands, but when Stayman, transfer and no trump raises are inadequate to describe responder’s hand, you have to figure out how you showed distributional hands before you had partnership agreements and a convention card to guide you.
Responder hands with more than 8 major suit cards fall in this category. We need to find our best fit and tell opener about our strength. Will all who know how to do it please raise their hands right now? You are excused from this blog. Remember, no short cuts, you need to do it the old fashioned way.
Today most advanced players would use the Smolen Convention to show the 5-4 major hand with at least invitational values. In a previous post I discussed Smolen, but do you remember how you bid this hand before you had the conventional crutch? Absent any agreement, I would recommend starting with Stayman! Yes, I said Stayman not Transfer! If partner bids either major, it is a happy day no matter which major it is. If partner bids 2 diamonds, you next bid your 5 card major. Bid it at the 2 level if your hand is invitational (7-8 hcps), and bid it at the 3 level if you have a game forcing hand. So with KJxxx, QJxx, xx, xx, after 1NT/2c/2d/ a second response of 2 spades should show this 5-4 invitational hand. If the majors are reversed, the second response would be 2 hearts. For opener it is pass or bid a major or 3NT game with a max.
If you make responder’s hand KJTxx, KJTx, x, xxx, you want to make a game forcing 2nd response, so after Stayman, bid the 5 card spade suit at the 3 level. It will be disappointing if pard is 2-3-4-4, but with 2 tens and the 5 card suit, I still like my chances at 3NT. So with 5-4 in the majors “Stay with STAYMAN.”
The hand I actually anguished over was AQxxx, KTxxx, x, xx. Yummy yummy! I was all set to respond 3 spades, with most of my regular partners that shows 5-5 in the majors, game force. Then I suddenly remembered that I had no agreement on the 3 level responses, and I was expected to show this holding by a SAYC bidding sequence. Does anyone remember what it is?
Well, with 5-5 you start with Transfer, but which suit do you transfer to. Start with transferring opener to hearts if you have an invitational hand like AJxxx, JTxxx, x, xx, since that enables responder to rebid 2 spades after the transfer acceptance and show invitational values. With the game force hand, it doesn’t really matter what suit you transfer as long as your 2nd response is at the 3 level. I like the discipline of transferring your best major in case opener has 3 card support for both majors and needs to make a choice. On a bad day opener might bid 3NT, confessing that he had opened a 2-2-4-5 hand, but with that hand opener is expected to have a stopper (or at least a half stopper) in the majors, so there should be a play for 3NT. So when you are 5-5, "Start with Transfer".
How did it all work out in the heat of battle? Well, I got it right, but didn’t know it until the next morning when I looked it up. Cara had no trouble understanding my jump rebid was forcing and put me us in 4 hearts, which made in a breeze thanks to her great declaring skills.
Just when you think you have it all worked out, you are dealt 6-4 in the majors. There may be some advantages in searching for the 4-4 major fit as trump, but only when partner has exactly 2 card support for your 6 card major. This is too much of a dream world for me. Assume you bid 2 clubs and opener responds 2 diamonds showing no 4 card major. Is your on line partner (or any partner for that matter) now going to figure out that a 2nd response of 4 hearts is really an attempt by you to make a Texas Transfer to spades. You will know it a was a poor decision when opponents start rudely typing "faster, faster" and you wonder if partner lost her connection. Of course you can always bid 4 spades and even on line they can figure that out, but now you have the 1NT hand on the table and the lead coming up to the weaker hand. Save your self some grief and just make a Texas transfer to start with. At least you will not summarily be removed from the table by your own partner.
The next time you come on line at BBO be sure to designate me as a “friend”. My screen name is “tommylee” and I would enjoy playing a few hands with any of my readers.
Most of the time you are playing some form of SAYC. It ranges from very basic to complete, but most often they don’t bother to tell you. The full description of two over one game force is exactly “2/1” and you are on your own from there. These factors combine for very limited use of conventional bids other than Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. One of the areas where you don’t expect issues are 15-17 no trump opening hands, but when Stayman, transfer and no trump raises are inadequate to describe responder’s hand, you have to figure out how you showed distributional hands before you had partnership agreements and a convention card to guide you.
Responder hands with more than 8 major suit cards fall in this category. We need to find our best fit and tell opener about our strength. Will all who know how to do it please raise their hands right now? You are excused from this blog. Remember, no short cuts, you need to do it the old fashioned way.
Today most advanced players would use the Smolen Convention to show the 5-4 major hand with at least invitational values. In a previous post I discussed Smolen, but do you remember how you bid this hand before you had the conventional crutch? Absent any agreement, I would recommend starting with Stayman! Yes, I said Stayman not Transfer! If partner bids either major, it is a happy day no matter which major it is. If partner bids 2 diamonds, you next bid your 5 card major. Bid it at the 2 level if your hand is invitational (7-8 hcps), and bid it at the 3 level if you have a game forcing hand. So with KJxxx, QJxx, xx, xx, after 1NT/2c/2d/ a second response of 2 spades should show this 5-4 invitational hand. If the majors are reversed, the second response would be 2 hearts. For opener it is pass or bid a major or 3NT game with a max.
If you make responder’s hand KJTxx, KJTx, x, xxx, you want to make a game forcing 2nd response, so after Stayman, bid the 5 card spade suit at the 3 level. It will be disappointing if pard is 2-3-4-4, but with 2 tens and the 5 card suit, I still like my chances at 3NT. So with 5-4 in the majors “Stay with STAYMAN.”
The hand I actually anguished over was AQxxx, KTxxx, x, xx. Yummy yummy! I was all set to respond 3 spades, with most of my regular partners that shows 5-5 in the majors, game force. Then I suddenly remembered that I had no agreement on the 3 level responses, and I was expected to show this holding by a SAYC bidding sequence. Does anyone remember what it is?
Well, with 5-5 you start with Transfer, but which suit do you transfer to. Start with transferring opener to hearts if you have an invitational hand like AJxxx, JTxxx, x, xx, since that enables responder to rebid 2 spades after the transfer acceptance and show invitational values. With the game force hand, it doesn’t really matter what suit you transfer as long as your 2nd response is at the 3 level. I like the discipline of transferring your best major in case opener has 3 card support for both majors and needs to make a choice. On a bad day opener might bid 3NT, confessing that he had opened a 2-2-4-5 hand, but with that hand opener is expected to have a stopper (or at least a half stopper) in the majors, so there should be a play for 3NT. So when you are 5-5, "Start with Transfer".
How did it all work out in the heat of battle? Well, I got it right, but didn’t know it until the next morning when I looked it up. Cara had no trouble understanding my jump rebid was forcing and put me us in 4 hearts, which made in a breeze thanks to her great declaring skills.
Just when you think you have it all worked out, you are dealt 6-4 in the majors. There may be some advantages in searching for the 4-4 major fit as trump, but only when partner has exactly 2 card support for your 6 card major. This is too much of a dream world for me. Assume you bid 2 clubs and opener responds 2 diamonds showing no 4 card major. Is your on line partner (or any partner for that matter) now going to figure out that a 2nd response of 4 hearts is really an attempt by you to make a Texas Transfer to spades. You will know it a was a poor decision when opponents start rudely typing "faster, faster" and you wonder if partner lost her connection. Of course you can always bid 4 spades and even on line they can figure that out, but now you have the 1NT hand on the table and the lead coming up to the weaker hand. Save your self some grief and just make a Texas transfer to start with. At least you will not summarily be removed from the table by your own partner.
The next time you come on line at BBO be sure to designate me as a “friend”. My screen name is “tommylee” and I would enjoy playing a few hands with any of my readers.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Super Duper Acceptance
Almost everybody who can sort cards knows about Jacoby Transfers in no trump bidding. Usually after a 1 No Trump opener and a Jacoby Transfer, partner will dutifully accept the transfer by bidding the indicated major at the 2 level. From there the bidding proceeds in three directions. Responder either passes, invites or bids game. Responder’s strength requirement for each of these three options is a little fuzzy depending on whether the game is matchpoints or IMP’s, the vulnerability and just how gosh darn mad you are. Almost equally familiar is the concept of “Super Acceptance”. If you asked 100 people in a 25 table game about super acceptance, 99% would say raise to the three level if you have a max and 4 trump and the other guy would be looking for a partner..
Most players today know the name Marty Bergen, a wonderful bridge theorist who brought aggressive competitive bidding to the forefront in matchpoint bridge. He gained bridge immortality by his innovative way of dealing with major suit raises known as “Bergen Raises”, probably second only to Stayman in terms of popular conventions. Since Better Bidding by Bergen was published 24 years ago, there are many players in the game today who have never even seen the book, much less read it. Marty may not have been the father of “super acceptance”, but he was one of the first to write about it. It may come as a surprise to today’s players that Marty had a somewhat different take on Super Acceptance borne out of his championing of the Law of Total Tricks.
In a recent e-mail to me Marty reiterated his position: Jump to the 3 level in the major if you have a “bad” opening 1NT hand, bid 2NT with 4333 and a “max” and bid any doubleton you hold if you have a “nice” hand and 4432. Notice Marty did not seek to define the term “bad”, “nice” or “max”. Marty would place greater value on Aces and Kings and discount Queens, but to avoid subjective arguments, let’s assume they mean roughly 15-16 and 17 to the unwashed. When I asked about the premise for what I call “Super Duper Accepts” (also known as Bergen Super Accepts), four letters came rolling back on my screen, LOTT!!! After all, we have 9 trump so we need to be at the 3 level, why wait? Hold onto that thought for a moment.
The problem arises when responder has a hand that he intends to transfer and pass. Modern thinking on this technique holds that you transfer anytime you have a 5 card major and it can be done with 0 points. Earlier this week I held AKQx, Q752, KQT, 85. The bidding went 1NT/2h(transfer)/3spades(super accept). I thought I would give Marty’s theory a try. Partner’s hand was J7643, T8, 75, QJ72. As you can see, we lose 5 tricks off the top, down 1 on a hand that every other pair made +110. Certainly the fault is not with partner in making the transfer.
The problem I see with the application of the LOTT is that it is a competitive bidding guideline. By the time responder passes the 2 level transfer bid, the auction is only competitive if opponents will balance by bidding 2 spades (in the case of hearts) or double or a make 3 level bid. This may be standard balancing procedure at professional levels, but when was the last time you witnessed this at the club level. Even with skilled amateurs you don’t see much balancing in these sequences, and if opponents don’t compete, you often are just one level too high.
Confused by this, I asked another nationally renowned bridge theorist, Danny Kleinman, to look at my hand and tell me what went wrong. In short order Danny told me “Tommy, your hand was not good enough to make a super acceptance.” His “idiots guideline” for me was revalue your hand as a supporting hand and if you have 4 supporting trump and the hand has now grown out of your no trump range, then super accept. Thus if you have 17 and a doubleton, you revalue to 18 and super accept. Otherwise be content with a standard acceptance.
You may have been wondering about Marty’s recommendation to bid your doubleton suit when you have 4 card trump support and a “nice” hand. This is pretty clever since the no trump opener is now the short trump hand and the additional trump will be of value only if the hand has a ruffing value. By locating the doubleton for responder, you enable him to better gauge the value of the 4th trump. It may look like this is on the slippery slope to wrong siding the hand, but Marty solved that as well with his concept of “retransfers.” Upon hearing the doubleton bid, responder simply transfers again and now opener bids the major. Everything back to square.
Lets take a final look at Marty’s recommendation to bid 2NT when you have 4 trump, 4333 and a max. This is the opposite of the 4332 hand, it may have a 4th trump, but the hand has no ruffing value. It will probably make the same number of tricks in no trump as it will in a major suit even with a 9 card fit. The 2NT bid is a clear warning to responder about playing a suit contract and the last chance to get off the train by passing 2NT if responder has one of those “transfer and duck” hands.
If you currently have only one flavor to your super accept, I think you might consider Bergen’s technique of bidding the doubleton with 4432 and nice hand and bidding 2NT with a max and 4333. As for three level jumps, I think Danny Kleinman’s idiots rule suits me best. If you promise you will always balance over the passed transfer, I may change my mind. :-)
Most players today know the name Marty Bergen, a wonderful bridge theorist who brought aggressive competitive bidding to the forefront in matchpoint bridge. He gained bridge immortality by his innovative way of dealing with major suit raises known as “Bergen Raises”, probably second only to Stayman in terms of popular conventions. Since Better Bidding by Bergen was published 24 years ago, there are many players in the game today who have never even seen the book, much less read it. Marty may not have been the father of “super acceptance”, but he was one of the first to write about it. It may come as a surprise to today’s players that Marty had a somewhat different take on Super Acceptance borne out of his championing of the Law of Total Tricks.
In a recent e-mail to me Marty reiterated his position: Jump to the 3 level in the major if you have a “bad” opening 1NT hand, bid 2NT with 4333 and a “max” and bid any doubleton you hold if you have a “nice” hand and 4432. Notice Marty did not seek to define the term “bad”, “nice” or “max”. Marty would place greater value on Aces and Kings and discount Queens, but to avoid subjective arguments, let’s assume they mean roughly 15-16 and 17 to the unwashed. When I asked about the premise for what I call “Super Duper Accepts” (also known as Bergen Super Accepts), four letters came rolling back on my screen, LOTT!!! After all, we have 9 trump so we need to be at the 3 level, why wait? Hold onto that thought for a moment.
The problem arises when responder has a hand that he intends to transfer and pass. Modern thinking on this technique holds that you transfer anytime you have a 5 card major and it can be done with 0 points. Earlier this week I held AKQx, Q752, KQT, 85. The bidding went 1NT/2h(transfer)/3spades(super accept). I thought I would give Marty’s theory a try. Partner’s hand was J7643, T8, 75, QJ72. As you can see, we lose 5 tricks off the top, down 1 on a hand that every other pair made +110. Certainly the fault is not with partner in making the transfer.
The problem I see with the application of the LOTT is that it is a competitive bidding guideline. By the time responder passes the 2 level transfer bid, the auction is only competitive if opponents will balance by bidding 2 spades (in the case of hearts) or double or a make 3 level bid. This may be standard balancing procedure at professional levels, but when was the last time you witnessed this at the club level. Even with skilled amateurs you don’t see much balancing in these sequences, and if opponents don’t compete, you often are just one level too high.
Confused by this, I asked another nationally renowned bridge theorist, Danny Kleinman, to look at my hand and tell me what went wrong. In short order Danny told me “Tommy, your hand was not good enough to make a super acceptance.” His “idiots guideline” for me was revalue your hand as a supporting hand and if you have 4 supporting trump and the hand has now grown out of your no trump range, then super accept. Thus if you have 17 and a doubleton, you revalue to 18 and super accept. Otherwise be content with a standard acceptance.
You may have been wondering about Marty’s recommendation to bid your doubleton suit when you have 4 card trump support and a “nice” hand. This is pretty clever since the no trump opener is now the short trump hand and the additional trump will be of value only if the hand has a ruffing value. By locating the doubleton for responder, you enable him to better gauge the value of the 4th trump. It may look like this is on the slippery slope to wrong siding the hand, but Marty solved that as well with his concept of “retransfers.” Upon hearing the doubleton bid, responder simply transfers again and now opener bids the major. Everything back to square.
Lets take a final look at Marty’s recommendation to bid 2NT when you have 4 trump, 4333 and a max. This is the opposite of the 4332 hand, it may have a 4th trump, but the hand has no ruffing value. It will probably make the same number of tricks in no trump as it will in a major suit even with a 9 card fit. The 2NT bid is a clear warning to responder about playing a suit contract and the last chance to get off the train by passing 2NT if responder has one of those “transfer and duck” hands.
If you currently have only one flavor to your super accept, I think you might consider Bergen’s technique of bidding the doubleton with 4432 and nice hand and bidding 2NT with a max and 4333. As for three level jumps, I think Danny Kleinman’s idiots rule suits me best. If you promise you will always balance over the passed transfer, I may change my mind. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
