Queens and Jacks, even if they are supported by other non-honor cards, are not very valuable in suit contracts, since tricks that can be won only after 2 or 3 leads of the suit often disappear. In no trump contracts, these middle cards take on more value as they can become stoppers in the suit and produce a trick. The following discussion assumes entries are not a problem.
1. Assume you are declaring a no trump contract. You hold QJx in a suit and dummy has xxx.
(a) What is the probability this holding will provide a stopper in the suit and produce a trick if opponents lead the suit?
(b) Does it make and difference if opponents do not lead this suit and force you to lead it?
(c) If your contract was dependent on this combination producing a trick would you still bid it?
2. Assume again you are declaring in no trump. You hold Qxx and when the opening lead comes down you see Jxx in the dummy.
(a) Is this combination any different that the first combination in result?
(b) If so, is it more or less vulnerable if opponents lead the suit?
(c) If your contract was dependent on this combination producing a trick would you still bid it?
3. Does the fact that declarer hold 6 cards in the suit have any practical significance in either case?
Here is the discussion of each issue:
1. The holding of QJx in any hand will produce a guaranteed stopper except where the A and K are both sitting behind the QJx. Thus, if held by declarer (always South), it is a winner when East holds AK (25%), or when the A and K are split between the two defenders (50% since they can split 2 ways) but loses to AK West (25%). Thus it is a guaranteed stopper and will produce a trick 75% of the time. With this holding it does not make any difference if opponents lead the suit or if declarer is forced to lead the suit, the probabilities remain the same. With a 75% probability I want to be in the contract every time. It’s like asking if you would like a 75% game. If West holds the AK, hopefully your disappointment will be shared by many others.
2. In the case where Qxx is in one hand and Jxx in the other, the situation changes somewhat. Note that if opponents lead this suit, it will produce a trick 100% of the time as long as declarer ducks on the hand to first play to the trick. With this holding you are happy to have the suit played on opening lead. That is the good news. The bad news is that if declarer if forced to play this suit it becomes a 50% proposition and will not produce a winner when the A and K are divided between the opponent’s two hands. If you merge the two probabilities you still have a 75% chance of making a trick, so I still want to be in the contract.
3. Note in each case you had 6 cards in the suit. One of the concerns is opponent’s holding in the suit will split 5-2 and they may be able to run 5 tricks before you get your track shoes on. The defenders will hold a 5+ card holding only 1/3 of the time and only 1/6 of the time will opening leader have that holding. This provides some additional element of safety. You probably noticed that QJx opposite xx will also produce a stopper and a trick 75% of the time. But now you only have 5 cards in the suit and the odds of one of the opponents holding 5+ cards in the suit has doubled.
If the suit is not led on the opening lead, this information can be helpful in planning your further play. Do you take the opportunity/risk to set up a trick in another suit for an overtrick or should you take your tricks and run. With QJx only one holding of four can hurt you. With Qxx opposite Jxx, two holdings of four can doom your contract. Do you run the risk for an overtrick? If the scoring is IMPs, whether a game or part score contract, I would take the guaranteed plus score and not take any risk for an overtrick. In matchpoints I would try for the overtrick with either a 75% or 50% chance of success. The odds feel right to me.
What if there is an overcall and partner makes a Western Cue bid? Do you treat QJx as a stopper? What about Qxx? We ask questions, you decide!!
If you are defending and sense that declarer may have one of these holdings it is seldom right to lead the suit unless you see your tricks are going away. When you declare, you may have sensed that it is often advantageous to put opponents in the lead and let them solve your problem. Now you know why.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Game Tries-- Are you Game or Do You Just Smell That Way?
No offense intended in the title. My first disclosure is that I made a game try yesterday afternoon accepted by my partner and we both ended up like Peking Duck on a spit. Here is my hand so you can savor it. AQJ9xx, xx, AK, xxx. The auction was 1s/2s. Your bid Oswald! Here are the understandings of the partnership: 2nd suit game tries (a/k/a help suit tries) and in a competitive auction a re-raise asks about the quality of trump support.
Many experts (including Ron Klinger and Mel Colchamiro) and countless bridge teachers have advised their readers and students to follow the rule of 5-6-7. Bid game with 5 Losing Trick Count (LTC), make a game try with 6 LTC and pass with 7+LTC. In fairness to Mel, he later enunciated a different and safer rule for 5-4-2-2 hands but that is not germane to my hand. My hand is a 6 LTC hand, so I started looking for a way to invite.
I didn’t have a second suit (you can’t use 2nd suit help suit on a 3 card suit) and I wasn’t particularly interested in partners trump quality since I was 50-50 to pick up the King even if partner didn’t have it. This gave me pause for thought, but I apparently need a longer pause and more thought. I decided that given the limitations of our agreements it might be reasonable to use the re-raise as an omnibus game try asking partner to simply evaluate the quality of his raise. Standing ready to absolve partner of any blame if she did not figure this out, I bid 3 spades, partner bid 4 and we learned to make perfect circles on our personal scorecards.
What observations will help avoid this huge embarrassment the next time?
1. When I couldn’t find the right bid I should have passed. My hand also demonstrates that there are times when “Help Suit” will not help and trump quality is not the primary concern. We (and I think most regular partnerships) needed a more flexible agreement on game tries.
2. My hand met all the prominent tests for a game try, 6 LTC, 3 ½ Quick tricks, 5 controls and a good 6 card suit. Actually, the “don’t blame me refrain” is somewhat weak. For one thing, half my points and 3 of my controls were in a 2 card suit. You want your controls and touching honors in suits in which you have length so you can make tricks from little cards. Second, even with a 6 card suit, I had the worst possible distribution: 6-3-2-2. Third, if I visualized the hand that partner would need to have to make game, it really boils down to controls, Ace, Kings and singles and voids. Queens and Jacks are worthless. Although a short suit game try (asking partner where he had shortness or 2nd round control) might have been better that was not our agreement. Even if our bidding had more precision, my game try was too aggressive for matchpoints.
3. Partner never saw an invite that she didn’t want to accept and it didn’t help that it was the last set of boards. We suffered the ultimate indignity of going down 2 in 4 spades when the field was making 2 spades. At least we played it well! This brings me to another point. You need an understanding with your partner about who does the stretching to reach games. In matchpoints (in spite of my bid) I prefer sound game tries by opener so that responder can stretch a bit on hands that smell like game. This strategy will keep us at 2 of the major on high risk trials. The bottom of the barrel is to be in 3 of a major down one because nobody else thought your hand was worth a try. If the scoring is IMPS, I think the understanding should be just the other way around. Games are a big premium (particularly vulnerable) and you can’t get there if you don’t try. David Berkowitz recently reiterated a comment that Jim Jacoby make to him about IMP game tries: “Don’t make them vulnerable, just bid the game.”
4. Another way to add more certainty to game tries is to use "semi- constructive" major suit raises. With this understanding partner does not raise the major unless he has a really good 7+ to 10 hcps. With lesser hands and 3 card support he first bids 1NT (forcing) and then supports the major at the 2 level. This helps prevent useless game tries since you know in advance that partner does not have a strong raise. The argument against this is that 2 of the major is more preemptive than 1NT and forcing opponents to enter at the 3 level has its virtues in competitive auctions. Choices, Choices!
Steve Robinson, a well known bridge expert, conducts a bidding survey among his expert friends every other month. It is published on the District Six web site http://www.districtsix.org. Recently he asked 20+ bridge professionals about game tries and as you can imagine he got some support for every kind of game try known to the bridge world. There were two consistent themes.
Very few experts like 2nd suit game tries for the very simple reason that they give the opponents too much information about the opening lead and defense. Eric Compton said “Disclosing your hand at IMP’s is losing bridge.” Larry Cohen said “I don’t like to tell.” Marty Bergen said “the very last thing declarer should do is tell the enemy which suit he is weak in.”
I have to say that the re-raise system we used did not give away any information t our opponents or to each other for that matter!!
What has evolved at advanced levels are two way and three way game tries where one of the options is to ask responder to further describe his hand. Many of these trials ask responder in what suit he would accept a game try. Responder bids his positive responses up the line and the major suit at the 3 level as a rejection of the trial. This discloses nothing about opener’s hand and only gives information about the dummy. Not much of a gift!
One such system would have the next bidding level after the raise ask responder for a suit in which he would support a trial. (Ex. 1h/2h/2s or 1s/2s/2NT). In the heart example 2NT is a surrogate bid for spades so there is no overshoot. If 1s/2s/2NT, then if responder bids 3 diamonds it says he accepts in diamonds but would not accept a trial in clubs.
If this were a two-way system, then any bid other than the next level by opener asks a different question. In many systems that is a short suit trial, again revealing nothing about opener’s hand. So 1h/2h/3c might ask about 2nd round control of clubs. Alternatively, 3 clubs could be a 2nd suit game try if that’s your agreement.
This is an advanced topic and for some of my readers may have to be put on the shelf for later. But there is something that all of us can take from this post. If you see 1s/2/s and then some other bid by opener, ask what the bid means. Players are notoriously bad about alerting their game tries. If the game try is a second suit game try (which it will be in most club games) start thinking how you can use this information and responder’s further bidding to direct your opening lead and defense.
Many experts (including Ron Klinger and Mel Colchamiro) and countless bridge teachers have advised their readers and students to follow the rule of 5-6-7. Bid game with 5 Losing Trick Count (LTC), make a game try with 6 LTC and pass with 7+LTC. In fairness to Mel, he later enunciated a different and safer rule for 5-4-2-2 hands but that is not germane to my hand. My hand is a 6 LTC hand, so I started looking for a way to invite.
I didn’t have a second suit (you can’t use 2nd suit help suit on a 3 card suit) and I wasn’t particularly interested in partners trump quality since I was 50-50 to pick up the King even if partner didn’t have it. This gave me pause for thought, but I apparently need a longer pause and more thought. I decided that given the limitations of our agreements it might be reasonable to use the re-raise as an omnibus game try asking partner to simply evaluate the quality of his raise. Standing ready to absolve partner of any blame if she did not figure this out, I bid 3 spades, partner bid 4 and we learned to make perfect circles on our personal scorecards.
What observations will help avoid this huge embarrassment the next time?
1. When I couldn’t find the right bid I should have passed. My hand also demonstrates that there are times when “Help Suit” will not help and trump quality is not the primary concern. We (and I think most regular partnerships) needed a more flexible agreement on game tries.
2. My hand met all the prominent tests for a game try, 6 LTC, 3 ½ Quick tricks, 5 controls and a good 6 card suit. Actually, the “don’t blame me refrain” is somewhat weak. For one thing, half my points and 3 of my controls were in a 2 card suit. You want your controls and touching honors in suits in which you have length so you can make tricks from little cards. Second, even with a 6 card suit, I had the worst possible distribution: 6-3-2-2. Third, if I visualized the hand that partner would need to have to make game, it really boils down to controls, Ace, Kings and singles and voids. Queens and Jacks are worthless. Although a short suit game try (asking partner where he had shortness or 2nd round control) might have been better that was not our agreement. Even if our bidding had more precision, my game try was too aggressive for matchpoints.
3. Partner never saw an invite that she didn’t want to accept and it didn’t help that it was the last set of boards. We suffered the ultimate indignity of going down 2 in 4 spades when the field was making 2 spades. At least we played it well! This brings me to another point. You need an understanding with your partner about who does the stretching to reach games. In matchpoints (in spite of my bid) I prefer sound game tries by opener so that responder can stretch a bit on hands that smell like game. This strategy will keep us at 2 of the major on high risk trials. The bottom of the barrel is to be in 3 of a major down one because nobody else thought your hand was worth a try. If the scoring is IMPS, I think the understanding should be just the other way around. Games are a big premium (particularly vulnerable) and you can’t get there if you don’t try. David Berkowitz recently reiterated a comment that Jim Jacoby make to him about IMP game tries: “Don’t make them vulnerable, just bid the game.”
4. Another way to add more certainty to game tries is to use "semi- constructive" major suit raises. With this understanding partner does not raise the major unless he has a really good 7+ to 10 hcps. With lesser hands and 3 card support he first bids 1NT (forcing) and then supports the major at the 2 level. This helps prevent useless game tries since you know in advance that partner does not have a strong raise. The argument against this is that 2 of the major is more preemptive than 1NT and forcing opponents to enter at the 3 level has its virtues in competitive auctions. Choices, Choices!
Steve Robinson, a well known bridge expert, conducts a bidding survey among his expert friends every other month. It is published on the District Six web site http://www.districtsix.org. Recently he asked 20+ bridge professionals about game tries and as you can imagine he got some support for every kind of game try known to the bridge world. There were two consistent themes.
Very few experts like 2nd suit game tries for the very simple reason that they give the opponents too much information about the opening lead and defense. Eric Compton said “Disclosing your hand at IMP’s is losing bridge.” Larry Cohen said “I don’t like to tell.” Marty Bergen said “the very last thing declarer should do is tell the enemy which suit he is weak in.”
I have to say that the re-raise system we used did not give away any information t our opponents or to each other for that matter!!
What has evolved at advanced levels are two way and three way game tries where one of the options is to ask responder to further describe his hand. Many of these trials ask responder in what suit he would accept a game try. Responder bids his positive responses up the line and the major suit at the 3 level as a rejection of the trial. This discloses nothing about opener’s hand and only gives information about the dummy. Not much of a gift!
One such system would have the next bidding level after the raise ask responder for a suit in which he would support a trial. (Ex. 1h/2h/2s or 1s/2s/2NT). In the heart example 2NT is a surrogate bid for spades so there is no overshoot. If 1s/2s/2NT, then if responder bids 3 diamonds it says he accepts in diamonds but would not accept a trial in clubs.
If this were a two-way system, then any bid other than the next level by opener asks a different question. In many systems that is a short suit trial, again revealing nothing about opener’s hand. So 1h/2h/3c might ask about 2nd round control of clubs. Alternatively, 3 clubs could be a 2nd suit game try if that’s your agreement.
This is an advanced topic and for some of my readers may have to be put on the shelf for later. But there is something that all of us can take from this post. If you see 1s/2/s and then some other bid by opener, ask what the bid means. Players are notoriously bad about alerting their game tries. If the game try is a second suit game try (which it will be in most club games) start thinking how you can use this information and responder’s further bidding to direct your opening lead and defense.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Mike Lawrence Visits the Blog -- OOPS!!
In a recent blog I noted that I was reading Mike Lawrence’s book The Complete Book on Overcalls, a 2009 overhaul after 30 years in the marketplace. In the blog post I noted that Mike stated “Good matchpoints is almost never good bridge. You have to learn to play badly.” That was simply his way of emphasizing that matchpoint competitive bridge has changed and the conservative advice from “back in the day” is often not effective in today's matchpoint battlefield.
In my light, lively and rollicking writing style I stated “Gee Mike, I have been saying that for some time, you reading my blog?”
It is really humor and not a cheap shot, just an absurdity aimed in my own direction. The funny thing is that I got an e-mail from Mike Lawrence yesterday saying that he had visited my blog for a “look.” He said “I did not go through more than a couple of items but it looks like you have done a lot.” Fortunately he took no umbrage at my weak humor, so “all's well that ends well.”
For those who may not know Mike’s accomplishments, he may be the one of the most celebrated bridge competitors ever. He is a member of the Bridge Hall of Fame, a member of the original Dallas Aces, and has won 3 World titles and 18 National titles. When they have credentials like that you can engage in humor (if you only pick on nice guys).
This may be a good point to reiterate my advice on competitive bidding. Yes it has changed, yes it has gotten much more aggressive, yes it lets some of us stragglers back in the game. Here is the kicker: It is not an “automatic game leveler.” Initially you will benefit from a more aggressive stance, but that advantage will disappear if you do not back it up with an effective risk reward system that tells you “when hold them, when to fold them and when to get out of Dodge.” Rely on intuition and windage? That will work about as good as it did last time. It may be a time to join me in a little study and get new standards that will refine your competitive risk reward analysis.
Mike did say that he has new software coming out on November 15 which analyzes 333 frustrating moments in the bidding. Apparently it is not just cutting edge stuff and relies, in large measure on common sense. Less cutting edge and more common sense sounds appealing. The cost $33.95 with postage. You are on your own, since I have not seen it prior to its release.
In my light, lively and rollicking writing style I stated “Gee Mike, I have been saying that for some time, you reading my blog?”
It is really humor and not a cheap shot, just an absurdity aimed in my own direction. The funny thing is that I got an e-mail from Mike Lawrence yesterday saying that he had visited my blog for a “look.” He said “I did not go through more than a couple of items but it looks like you have done a lot.” Fortunately he took no umbrage at my weak humor, so “all's well that ends well.”
For those who may not know Mike’s accomplishments, he may be the one of the most celebrated bridge competitors ever. He is a member of the Bridge Hall of Fame, a member of the original Dallas Aces, and has won 3 World titles and 18 National titles. When they have credentials like that you can engage in humor (if you only pick on nice guys).
This may be a good point to reiterate my advice on competitive bidding. Yes it has changed, yes it has gotten much more aggressive, yes it lets some of us stragglers back in the game. Here is the kicker: It is not an “automatic game leveler.” Initially you will benefit from a more aggressive stance, but that advantage will disappear if you do not back it up with an effective risk reward system that tells you “when hold them, when to fold them and when to get out of Dodge.” Rely on intuition and windage? That will work about as good as it did last time. It may be a time to join me in a little study and get new standards that will refine your competitive risk reward analysis.
Mike did say that he has new software coming out on November 15 which analyzes 333 frustrating moments in the bidding. Apparently it is not just cutting edge stuff and relies, in large measure on common sense. Less cutting edge and more common sense sounds appealing. The cost $33.95 with postage. You are on your own, since I have not seen it prior to its release.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Mixed Raise Response to Overcalls
I hate to write about the history of bridge bidding, since it is rarely is germane, but on this topic it may help you understand where we are heading today and why. Since in Bridge, my actual history does not extend into the 20th century, I may be a poor one to write this, but my hearsay sources are good.
Back when cards were still shuffled, responding to partner’s overcalls with supportive hands was quite simple. They actually resembled the responses you would make to opening bids, so life was much easier. If you had 3+ card support and 6-9 hcps you raised partner’s overcall. If you had the same hand with limit raise values you jumped in his suit. If you bid a new suit, it was forcing one round. If you bid 1NT, you took the smile off partner’s face. Well, that part never changes.
That all worked well “back in the day”, so why make any changes. Here are my own observations. At that time, overcalls were really overcalls, you could actually lead partner’s overcalled suit and not give up a trick on defense! One level overcalls were expected to have at least 10 hcps, 5+ cards in length and a good suit with honor strength. Even a “space eater” like 1d/2c was expected to be an opening hand equivalent and probably a one loser suit. A 1NT overcall showed at least 16+ hcps and a double stop in opponent’s bid suit, and jump overcalls were as strong as overcooked morning coffee, you could take them to the bank for direct deposit. In that environment simple tools for searching for games worked well because overcalls were so disciplined. Actually, in the overcall seat “trap passing” with a big hand was a prominent strategy, and lead to light third seat openers.
The first development was “Sputnik.” If you know what Sputnik is in bridge terminology, it’s well past the time to give up the game. No, I am not referring to the Russian satellite, it’s actually the system we call "negative doubles" today. Alvin Roth invented it and claimed that it was the beginning of the space age of bridge. He was not too far from wrong, and many of his ideas form the basis for the 5 card major system we play today. As a result of Sputnik, everybody gave up their penalty doubles of overcalls (the primary policeman of sloppy overcalls) and joined the space age. At this point the pent up frustration of not being able to overcall on "pure crap" broke loose!! Overcalls started down the slippery slope and we may not have seen it all yet.
As overcalls got less disciplined (more diverse as my partners prefer to say) it became more important for advancer to be able to better describe the shape and strength of his hand to put overcaller in the driver’s seat. If advancer can precisely describe his hand, then overcaller can call the “shot”: Go or No Go.
A further development was the popularization of the “Law of Total Tricks.” Although Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen did not develop the theory, they put it on every bridge player’s menu. No longer did 1c/1s/p/3s mean a limit raise, it meant that we had 9 trump between us and a hand not good enough for a limit raise. The sequence 1c/1s/2c/2s no longer guaranteed anything other than 3 card support for spades. Since the LOTT changed the jump raise to make it preemptive, the cue bid in opener’s suit was put in play to show a limit raise or better with support. This is where most of my readers find themselves today.
It bothered bridge theoreticians that the Law of Total Tricks would have you raising a 1 spade overcall to three spades with QJxx, xx, xxxx, xxx and also raising to 3 spades on QJxx, xx KQxx, xxx. The first hand is clearly preemptive, but the second hand has some very constructive values as a supporting hand. Enter the Mixed Raise which I first read about in Larry Cohen’s “To Bid or Not to Bid-The Law of Total Tricks”. The Mixed Raise in competition is shown by a jump cue bid on the 3 level. So, 1c/1s/p/3c shows the Mixed Raise.
The first two requisites of the Mixed Raise are 4 card trump support and at least one doubleton. The more distribution the better, do not use it on 4333 hands. The final issue is points. Since the Mixed Raise is by definition less than a limit raise (which remains a simple cue bid) I prefer 7 to 9 support points. Examples might be 7654, A987, 6, QT87 and QJ98, A5, JT42, 763. Since partner did not double and then overcall, he could have as much as 16-17 hcps for his overcall. The jump cue bid is self alerting. If partner passes your cue bid, you know what to do. If partner just bids 3 spades, that shows no game interest. If partner bids game, well “you done good.”Pray he declares well.
With the uncertainties of overcalls in today’s competitive bidding, it becomes important to “slice and dice” advancer’s hand to define it as tightly as possible. Talk this over with your partner and add it to your arsenal. Even if partner gets confused and can’t remember what the double cue bid means, it has to be supportive and he has to bid something, so hopefully he will rebid spades and this will not end up in a bidding disaster. With 4 trump you wanted to compete to the 3 level anyway.
If you have a big storage tank, there are more slices and dices. If you want the full entree menu, write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Back when cards were still shuffled, responding to partner’s overcalls with supportive hands was quite simple. They actually resembled the responses you would make to opening bids, so life was much easier. If you had 3+ card support and 6-9 hcps you raised partner’s overcall. If you had the same hand with limit raise values you jumped in his suit. If you bid a new suit, it was forcing one round. If you bid 1NT, you took the smile off partner’s face. Well, that part never changes.
That all worked well “back in the day”, so why make any changes. Here are my own observations. At that time, overcalls were really overcalls, you could actually lead partner’s overcalled suit and not give up a trick on defense! One level overcalls were expected to have at least 10 hcps, 5+ cards in length and a good suit with honor strength. Even a “space eater” like 1d/2c was expected to be an opening hand equivalent and probably a one loser suit. A 1NT overcall showed at least 16+ hcps and a double stop in opponent’s bid suit, and jump overcalls were as strong as overcooked morning coffee, you could take them to the bank for direct deposit. In that environment simple tools for searching for games worked well because overcalls were so disciplined. Actually, in the overcall seat “trap passing” with a big hand was a prominent strategy, and lead to light third seat openers.
The first development was “Sputnik.” If you know what Sputnik is in bridge terminology, it’s well past the time to give up the game. No, I am not referring to the Russian satellite, it’s actually the system we call "negative doubles" today. Alvin Roth invented it and claimed that it was the beginning of the space age of bridge. He was not too far from wrong, and many of his ideas form the basis for the 5 card major system we play today. As a result of Sputnik, everybody gave up their penalty doubles of overcalls (the primary policeman of sloppy overcalls) and joined the space age. At this point the pent up frustration of not being able to overcall on "pure crap" broke loose!! Overcalls started down the slippery slope and we may not have seen it all yet.
As overcalls got less disciplined (more diverse as my partners prefer to say) it became more important for advancer to be able to better describe the shape and strength of his hand to put overcaller in the driver’s seat. If advancer can precisely describe his hand, then overcaller can call the “shot”: Go or No Go.
A further development was the popularization of the “Law of Total Tricks.” Although Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen did not develop the theory, they put it on every bridge player’s menu. No longer did 1c/1s/p/3s mean a limit raise, it meant that we had 9 trump between us and a hand not good enough for a limit raise. The sequence 1c/1s/2c/2s no longer guaranteed anything other than 3 card support for spades. Since the LOTT changed the jump raise to make it preemptive, the cue bid in opener’s suit was put in play to show a limit raise or better with support. This is where most of my readers find themselves today.
It bothered bridge theoreticians that the Law of Total Tricks would have you raising a 1 spade overcall to three spades with QJxx, xx, xxxx, xxx and also raising to 3 spades on QJxx, xx KQxx, xxx. The first hand is clearly preemptive, but the second hand has some very constructive values as a supporting hand. Enter the Mixed Raise which I first read about in Larry Cohen’s “To Bid or Not to Bid-The Law of Total Tricks”. The Mixed Raise in competition is shown by a jump cue bid on the 3 level. So, 1c/1s/p/3c shows the Mixed Raise.
The first two requisites of the Mixed Raise are 4 card trump support and at least one doubleton. The more distribution the better, do not use it on 4333 hands. The final issue is points. Since the Mixed Raise is by definition less than a limit raise (which remains a simple cue bid) I prefer 7 to 9 support points. Examples might be 7654, A987, 6, QT87 and QJ98, A5, JT42, 763. Since partner did not double and then overcall, he could have as much as 16-17 hcps for his overcall. The jump cue bid is self alerting. If partner passes your cue bid, you know what to do. If partner just bids 3 spades, that shows no game interest. If partner bids game, well “you done good.”Pray he declares well.
With the uncertainties of overcalls in today’s competitive bidding, it becomes important to “slice and dice” advancer’s hand to define it as tightly as possible. Talk this over with your partner and add it to your arsenal. Even if partner gets confused and can’t remember what the double cue bid means, it has to be supportive and he has to bid something, so hopefully he will rebid spades and this will not end up in a bidding disaster. With 4 trump you wanted to compete to the 3 level anyway.
If you have a big storage tank, there are more slices and dices. If you want the full entree menu, write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Sunday, October 24, 2010
A Playing rule -- Everybody Loves Playing Rules
I hate to divert my energies from competitive bidding. We'll be back to that topic shortly. But speaking of competitive bidding, I was just reading Mike Lawrence’s 2009 rewrite of his legendary book, The Complete Book on Overcalls. This revision has been 30 years in coming, but it was long overdue. Mike was always an advocate of very disciplined overcalls, and very slow to change his mind about principles that had worked for him 30 years ago. His new revision does make some concessions to the need to compete in matchpoints, but he stops short of jumping on the Bergen-Cohen bandwagon.
The rewrite is a good and necessary one and will reestablish the book to it’s former prominence. But do you think his heart was really in this project? Here’s a quote from page 16:
“Good matchpoints is almost never good bridge. You have to learn to play badly. Things that are theoretically wrong, at matchpoints work a high percentage of the time.” Gee Mike. I’ve been saying that for some time now, you reading my blog?
Now for a little dancing music. In the heat of battle, as declarer it is frequently difficult to figure out the best way of playing card combinations. You are counting cards, counting points, reviewing the bidding and calculating the odds, my gosh, even back in the old law office they gave us yellow pads. There are so many Mnemonic (thank God for spellcheckers) assists in the bridge universe that Ron Klinger wrote an entire book about them in 1998 titled Better Bridge with a Better Memory – How Mnemonics Will Improve Your Game. According to my count there are Bridge Rules numbered from 1 to 23. Since you already know the Rule of 11, let’s start with the Rule of 12.
The Rule of 12 is a rule that you can put into play immediately. Hardly a hand goes by that you do not have to make some decision about finessing. How many times have you had a finessing layout, and wondered if it is safe to start the finesse by playing a high card, (often a Ten or Jack) and letting it ride or whether it is prudent to start with a low card and re-enter. Well if there wasn’t risk, we wouldn’t give it another though; who likes to burn entries getting back to take the finesse a second time, or worse yet, have your re-entry trumped by opponents.
Assume you are declarer and you in the dummy ready to finesse:
*****QTxx
*****AJ64
Also assume you have one more dummy entry, but you would rather not use it at this time. Is it safe to play the Q, and if successful, play a small card to the Jack or is there risk in that line of play?
Rule of 12 to the rescue. Here is the Rule: Add the cards you hold in the suit and to the number of cards in both hands that are sequential and if they equal 12 then it is safe to start with the high card. If not, there is some risk associated with starting with the high card.
In the above case we have 8 total cards in the suit and 3 sequential cards so we fail to meet the Rule of 12. What is the risk? Suppose I show you the rest of the suit.
*****QT52
9876 *******K
*****AJ43
The 9 promotes to a trick if you start with the Queen or Ten. Note that if I give dummy the 9 and put the 5 in West’s hand, we would meet the rule of 12 and it would be safe to roll the Queen.
Is this distribution probable? Not probable but possible, and when it makes a difference and you play it correctly it is guaranteed a good board. Many players just play the higher card hoping for the best.
The rule works in the same way whether the suit is 7, 8 9 or 10 cards in length. Add to the length of the suit the number of sequential cards. Do they equal 12? If the suit is AJT3 opposite Q92, lead the 2. If the short holding is Q98 lead any card, your total is 12.
What if you don’t have an entry back to the dummy? Lead the top card and hope this is not a computer hand.
The rewrite is a good and necessary one and will reestablish the book to it’s former prominence. But do you think his heart was really in this project? Here’s a quote from page 16:
“Good matchpoints is almost never good bridge. You have to learn to play badly. Things that are theoretically wrong, at matchpoints work a high percentage of the time.” Gee Mike. I’ve been saying that for some time now, you reading my blog?
Now for a little dancing music. In the heat of battle, as declarer it is frequently difficult to figure out the best way of playing card combinations. You are counting cards, counting points, reviewing the bidding and calculating the odds, my gosh, even back in the old law office they gave us yellow pads. There are so many Mnemonic (thank God for spellcheckers) assists in the bridge universe that Ron Klinger wrote an entire book about them in 1998 titled Better Bridge with a Better Memory – How Mnemonics Will Improve Your Game. According to my count there are Bridge Rules numbered from 1 to 23. Since you already know the Rule of 11, let’s start with the Rule of 12.
The Rule of 12 is a rule that you can put into play immediately. Hardly a hand goes by that you do not have to make some decision about finessing. How many times have you had a finessing layout, and wondered if it is safe to start the finesse by playing a high card, (often a Ten or Jack) and letting it ride or whether it is prudent to start with a low card and re-enter. Well if there wasn’t risk, we wouldn’t give it another though; who likes to burn entries getting back to take the finesse a second time, or worse yet, have your re-entry trumped by opponents.
Assume you are declarer and you in the dummy ready to finesse:
*****QTxx
*****AJ64
Also assume you have one more dummy entry, but you would rather not use it at this time. Is it safe to play the Q, and if successful, play a small card to the Jack or is there risk in that line of play?
Rule of 12 to the rescue. Here is the Rule: Add the cards you hold in the suit and to the number of cards in both hands that are sequential and if they equal 12 then it is safe to start with the high card. If not, there is some risk associated with starting with the high card.
In the above case we have 8 total cards in the suit and 3 sequential cards so we fail to meet the Rule of 12. What is the risk? Suppose I show you the rest of the suit.
*****QT52
9876 *******K
*****AJ43
The 9 promotes to a trick if you start with the Queen or Ten. Note that if I give dummy the 9 and put the 5 in West’s hand, we would meet the rule of 12 and it would be safe to roll the Queen.
Is this distribution probable? Not probable but possible, and when it makes a difference and you play it correctly it is guaranteed a good board. Many players just play the higher card hoping for the best.
The rule works in the same way whether the suit is 7, 8 9 or 10 cards in length. Add to the length of the suit the number of sequential cards. Do they equal 12? If the suit is AJT3 opposite Q92, lead the 2. If the short holding is Q98 lead any card, your total is 12.
What if you don’t have an entry back to the dummy? Lead the top card and hope this is not a computer hand.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Table of Contents for Tommy's Bridge Blog
In the past 5 years I have posted to my Bridge Blog about 115 times. It started out as sort of a joke among my bridge friends and just grew from there. The blog was a personal outlet for my life passions; research, writing, learning and teaching. It was a shock to me that I was accumulating readers not only from North America, but other parts of the World as well. I would like to say that some of them were experts, but alas, only a few, and most readers were struggling to make headway just like me. When my counter was working, I was getting about 100 hits a week, not what you would call a commercial success. My archived blogs have always been a workout to find. I never did anything about it since some of my early posts are best forgotten and having them conveniently buried in a difficult process seemed a blessing. What they can't find they can't criticize!
One of my early readers was Jim Logsden from Texas. Even though I have never met Jim, he has read every one of my blog posts and actually created a table of contents or index for his own reference. Jim recently surprised me by sending me his table of contents. It is an impressive job and it occurred to me that it might be useful to to other readers, so I am posting his table of contents. Now about assembling these into a book ---- not a chance! You can stop worrying about any further proliferation of my little musings and meanderings.Think about it as my major contribution to better bridge.
Table of Contents
Following are titles and the date of publication for the articles from Tommy’s Bridge Blog. Old posts are found in the Archive in the right hand column of the blog page. Locate the year and month that you want to search and then the title. If you want to print all or a part of a blog post, drag and highlight the material you want to print, and then when you get to your print page indicate you want to print the “Selection”. This table is more or less chronological, and where you see multiple dates that means that more than one blog was written on the same general subject Questions to tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Scrambling 2 No Trump 10-08-10
Sandwich No Trump 9-29-10
This Dummy is No Dummy (Bergen’s Dummy Points) 9-14-10
Revisiting 2 Club Opening Bids (Bergen Analysis) 9-11-10
Pat Peterson Takes Over the Bank 9-6-10
Slammin with Marty Bergen: 8-22-10
Redefining “Two Hearts Trash” – A Systemic Update: 6-15-10
Four Person Team wins Pairs Event: 5-30-10
Defending 1 No Trump: 4-3-10
Storming Norman and 4 Suit Transfers: 3-23-10
Opener Rebid Choices After 1NT Forcing 3-6-10
Tommy Passes 5th Grade Math, but Flunks Matchpoint Duplicate: 3-7-10
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?: 2-28-10
Give Respect, if Respect is Due: 2-24-10
A Tribute to Ina Mills: 2-21-10
Majoring in Majors on Bridge Base Online: 12-6-09
Reopening Doubles: 7-28-09
Super Duper Acceptance 8-11-09
Bergen, Jacoby, Hardy and Joe Sargent and Concealed Splinters
Bidding Quiz and Response: 6-22-09; 6-29-09
Rosencranz Doubles and Redoubles and Expanded Advances: 4-29-09; 5-5-09
The Road to Match Point Success: 4-12-09
Matchpoints and Major Suit Fits: 4-5-09
Where’s Tommy?: 4-4-09
Defending Against 2-Suited Overcalls: 12-3-08
Support and Maximal Doubles: 11-19-08
The Law of Total Tricks and Other WMD’s: 11-10-08
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Conventions: 11-7-08
The Principles of Logical Bidding: 10-28-08
More on Overcalls (because we need it): 9-18-08
Western Cue Bids: 8-25-08
New Minor Forcing (NMF): 8-3-08
Advice from Larry Cohen: 5-3-08
Forcing 1NT: 5-5-08; 3-16-10
Opening 1NT with 5 card Majors: 5-31-08
Major Suit Fits: 5-29-08
Michaels Cue Bids Revisited: 6-17-08
Opening Leads: 6-29-06; 7-3-08; 7-10-08; 7-21-08
Balancing in the Pass Out Seat: 4-21-08
Searching for Major Suit Fits 5-29-08
Opening 1NT With 5 Card Majors 5-21-08
OBAR the Pre-balancer – Not the Tentmaker 5-12-08
1NT Forcing to Hell and Back 5-5-08
Free Advice From Larry Cohen 5-03-08
Bridge by the Numbers: 4-15-08
Take Your Finesses in the Right Order to Maximize 3-29-08
Bidding NT hands with Interference: 1-13-08; 2-24-08; 3-2-08
Interfering Over 1NT Opening Bids: 2-1-08
Negative Doubles: 11-21-07; 11-24-07; 12-2-07; 12-29-07
Combined Bergen Raises: 2-18-08; 3-12-08: 6-6-10
Frank Stewart—Do You Sometimes Wonder? 2-8-08
Mel Colchamiro’s Rules of 23: (need 23 hcps for 2NT) 11-17-07
Getting Life and Bridge in Balance 11-11-07
Cue Bids and Control Bids: 11-6-07; 11-11-07
Weak Jump Shifts: 10-21-07; 10-26-07
The “X” Factor – Do You Have It? 7-03-07
Pre-Emptive Bidding (parts 1-4) 5-23-07, 5-29-07, 6-14-07, 6-19-07
Best Bridge Book of 2007: 9-30-07
Probabilities in Bridge: 8-28-07; 9-6-07; 9-7-07; 9-12-07; 9-23-07
Finding Opportunities to Make a Hand: 9-18-07
Awareness at the Bridge Table: 8-15-07
Responding to Weak 2 Bids: 7-8-07; 7-18-07
Preemptive Bidding: 5-23-07; 5-29-07; 6-14-07; 6-19-07
Responding to Partner’s Overcall: 2-14-07; 2-16-07; 2-24-07; 3-3-07; 5-5-07
The Murder on Sanchez Avenue (A bad day for Tommy) 5-12-07
Bridge Ruling: 4-29-07
Rate Yourself as a Partner: 4-13-07
Jacoby 2NT: 4-10-07; 8-11-09
Smolen for 2NT Opening: 4-5-07
Culbertson’s Valuation by Visualization 3-28-07
Discussion of Inverted Minors: 3-26-07
Losing Trick Count: 2 Posts (both Dated 3-18-07)
Smolen Over 1NT: 3-11-07
Middle Cards Make a Difference: 2-27-07
Garbage Stayman: 2-20-07
3 words on Overcalls- “Cheap is Expensive” 2-14-07
Interpreting Opponent’s Opening Leads: 2-8-07
Major Suit Jump Raises to Game: 2-4-07
Common Traits of an Effective Bridge Player: 1-26-07
Splinter Bids: 1-15-07; 6-30-09
Comments by Jeff Meckstroth (of Meckwell fame): 1-8-07; 1-10-07
Balancing –Avoiding the Death Zone: 12-25-06
One of my early readers was Jim Logsden from Texas. Even though I have never met Jim, he has read every one of my blog posts and actually created a table of contents or index for his own reference. Jim recently surprised me by sending me his table of contents. It is an impressive job and it occurred to me that it might be useful to to other readers, so I am posting his table of contents. Now about assembling these into a book ---- not a chance! You can stop worrying about any further proliferation of my little musings and meanderings.Think about it as my major contribution to better bridge.
Table of Contents
Following are titles and the date of publication for the articles from Tommy’s Bridge Blog. Old posts are found in the Archive in the right hand column of the blog page. Locate the year and month that you want to search and then the title. If you want to print all or a part of a blog post, drag and highlight the material you want to print, and then when you get to your print page indicate you want to print the “Selection”. This table is more or less chronological, and where you see multiple dates that means that more than one blog was written on the same general subject Questions to tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com
Scrambling 2 No Trump 10-08-10
Sandwich No Trump 9-29-10
This Dummy is No Dummy (Bergen’s Dummy Points) 9-14-10
Revisiting 2 Club Opening Bids (Bergen Analysis) 9-11-10
Pat Peterson Takes Over the Bank 9-6-10
Slammin with Marty Bergen: 8-22-10
Redefining “Two Hearts Trash” – A Systemic Update: 6-15-10
Four Person Team wins Pairs Event: 5-30-10
Defending 1 No Trump: 4-3-10
Storming Norman and 4 Suit Transfers: 3-23-10
Opener Rebid Choices After 1NT Forcing 3-6-10
Tommy Passes 5th Grade Math, but Flunks Matchpoint Duplicate: 3-7-10
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?: 2-28-10
Give Respect, if Respect is Due: 2-24-10
A Tribute to Ina Mills: 2-21-10
Majoring in Majors on Bridge Base Online: 12-6-09
Reopening Doubles: 7-28-09
Super Duper Acceptance 8-11-09
Bergen, Jacoby, Hardy and Joe Sargent and Concealed Splinters
Bidding Quiz and Response: 6-22-09; 6-29-09
Rosencranz Doubles and Redoubles and Expanded Advances: 4-29-09; 5-5-09
The Road to Match Point Success: 4-12-09
Matchpoints and Major Suit Fits: 4-5-09
Where’s Tommy?: 4-4-09
Defending Against 2-Suited Overcalls: 12-3-08
Support and Maximal Doubles: 11-19-08
The Law of Total Tricks and Other WMD’s: 11-10-08
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Conventions: 11-7-08
The Principles of Logical Bidding: 10-28-08
More on Overcalls (because we need it): 9-18-08
Western Cue Bids: 8-25-08
New Minor Forcing (NMF): 8-3-08
Advice from Larry Cohen: 5-3-08
Forcing 1NT: 5-5-08; 3-16-10
Opening 1NT with 5 card Majors: 5-31-08
Major Suit Fits: 5-29-08
Michaels Cue Bids Revisited: 6-17-08
Opening Leads: 6-29-06; 7-3-08; 7-10-08; 7-21-08
Balancing in the Pass Out Seat: 4-21-08
Searching for Major Suit Fits 5-29-08
Opening 1NT With 5 Card Majors 5-21-08
OBAR the Pre-balancer – Not the Tentmaker 5-12-08
1NT Forcing to Hell and Back 5-5-08
Free Advice From Larry Cohen 5-03-08
Bridge by the Numbers: 4-15-08
Take Your Finesses in the Right Order to Maximize 3-29-08
Bidding NT hands with Interference: 1-13-08; 2-24-08; 3-2-08
Interfering Over 1NT Opening Bids: 2-1-08
Negative Doubles: 11-21-07; 11-24-07; 12-2-07; 12-29-07
Combined Bergen Raises: 2-18-08; 3-12-08: 6-6-10
Frank Stewart—Do You Sometimes Wonder? 2-8-08
Mel Colchamiro’s Rules of 23: (need 23 hcps for 2NT) 11-17-07
Getting Life and Bridge in Balance 11-11-07
Cue Bids and Control Bids: 11-6-07; 11-11-07
Weak Jump Shifts: 10-21-07; 10-26-07
The “X” Factor – Do You Have It? 7-03-07
Pre-Emptive Bidding (parts 1-4) 5-23-07, 5-29-07, 6-14-07, 6-19-07
Best Bridge Book of 2007: 9-30-07
Probabilities in Bridge: 8-28-07; 9-6-07; 9-7-07; 9-12-07; 9-23-07
Finding Opportunities to Make a Hand: 9-18-07
Awareness at the Bridge Table: 8-15-07
Responding to Weak 2 Bids: 7-8-07; 7-18-07
Preemptive Bidding: 5-23-07; 5-29-07; 6-14-07; 6-19-07
Responding to Partner’s Overcall: 2-14-07; 2-16-07; 2-24-07; 3-3-07; 5-5-07
The Murder on Sanchez Avenue (A bad day for Tommy) 5-12-07
Bridge Ruling: 4-29-07
Rate Yourself as a Partner: 4-13-07
Jacoby 2NT: 4-10-07; 8-11-09
Smolen for 2NT Opening: 4-5-07
Culbertson’s Valuation by Visualization 3-28-07
Discussion of Inverted Minors: 3-26-07
Losing Trick Count: 2 Posts (both Dated 3-18-07)
Smolen Over 1NT: 3-11-07
Middle Cards Make a Difference: 2-27-07
Garbage Stayman: 2-20-07
3 words on Overcalls- “Cheap is Expensive” 2-14-07
Interpreting Opponent’s Opening Leads: 2-8-07
Major Suit Jump Raises to Game: 2-4-07
Common Traits of an Effective Bridge Player: 1-26-07
Splinter Bids: 1-15-07; 6-30-09
Comments by Jeff Meckstroth (of Meckwell fame): 1-8-07; 1-10-07
Balancing –Avoiding the Death Zone: 12-25-06
Friday, October 8, 2010
Scrambling Two No Trump
Scrambling 2NT is a tool for taking risk out of balancing and pre-balancing (making a double in the direct seat). The bid is conventional and has nothing to do with playing any level of no trump. One of the fears of balancing is that when you double as a balance or pre-balance, partner will bid one of his 4 card suits and it will turn out to be one of your 3 card suits. Now, I would rather play a 7 card trump suit than let opponents play 2 of a major with a fit, but not if it is not necessary.
Let’s set the stage in the “classic” balancing auction: The bidding goes 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/? The good news is that “trusty partner” has balanced and they are not playing 2 spades. The bad news is that it is your turn to bid. Suppose you hold xx, Axxx, Kxxx, Qxx. Since hearts is the major, many players are just going to bid 3 hearts and hope. The minute you do that partner will hold xxx, Kxx, QJxx, Axxx. Some may decide to bid their 4 card suits up the line and hope for a fit in diamonds. The minute you do that partner will have a hand like xxx, KJxx, QJx, Axx. Yes, you could fall into an 8 card trump suit if doubler’s hands were reversed, but bridge is, by and large, a perverse game and justice is rarely served. There must be a better way!
Enter Scrambling 2NT. The Scrambling 2NT bid is used after partner makes a double in the direct or balancing seat and you hold two 4 card suits. The bid of 2NT is designed to find an 8 card fit. It asks doubler to bid his 4 card suit or if more than one to bid them up the line. In my first example, after 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/2NT, doubler will bid his 4 card diamond suit and we will play 3 diamonds. In the second example, doubler will bid his 4 card heart suit and we will play 3 hearts. Yes, if doubler has four hearts and four diamonds, we will be playing our diamond fit rather than our heart fit. Forget about it! Our objective is to jolt opponents out of their 2 level spade fit and find an 8 card fit of our own at the 3 level. Put greed behind you and take the guarantee. Your master point profile will appreciate it.
Let’s spin it around and look at it in a pre-balance format. This time the bidding goes 1s/p/2s/X/p/?. You hold Kxx, xxx, Kxxx, Kxx. Note again the 2 four card suits, with a random chance of making the correct choice. Here again bid Scrambling 2NT to search for a 4-4 fit. If doubler in the direct seat has xx, Axx, AQxx, Qxxx, he will bid his 4 card club suit up the line to start the scramble. Since you do not have 4 clubs, you bid 3 diamonds showing your four card diamond suit, and hopefully we play it there in our 8 card fit. We may go down one, but in balancing that is pure gold. For sure we aren’t going -110 or worse.
Note that in each of these examples doubler’s partner does not have a 5 card suit. In fact, if he has have a 5 card suit he must bid it and not use Scrambling 2NT. Scrambling 2NT has a good negative inference. When we scramble we are either 4333, 4432 or on very rare occasions 4441. Helpful information in either the bidding or the defense. Since partner's square hand will not play as well as a distributional hand, you may want to think twice before competing further.
I can’t believe that I have gotten this far and nobody has pointed out to me that we have given away the natural bid of 2NT. Why would b we ever want to play no trump when they have found an 8+ card fit and will be on lead. Hopefully, this idea makes no sense to you as well. Nirvana, we have found a vacant bid and put it to good use.
The Scrambling 2NT bid is alertable. Just say that partner is asking me to further define my hand looking for a fit. This is not overly complicated. Think of the Scrambling 2NT as being like a responsive double. You are passing the bid back to partner to make a choice since your choice is not clear. One of the major benefits of the bid is that it will enable your partnership to make more aggressive doubles knowing that you can find your 4-4 fits safely. Yikes, if I balance any quicker I will be out of tempo.
Talk this over with partner in advance, not while the director is passing out the boards. It takes a moment to digest, but with minimum thought it pretty much sells itself.
This is my last post from Rochester, New York. On October 13 Axel, Virgil, Alla and I fly to Florida for the winter. Axel and Virgil are my two cats who do my proof reading. Looks like it doesn’t it. Rochester is a wonderful bridge town and I will miss my many friends who have made me feel so much at home. I look forward to seeing all my old bridge buddies in Citrus County, Florida. I can only hope that majority of them feel the same way.
Let’s set the stage in the “classic” balancing auction: The bidding goes 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/? The good news is that “trusty partner” has balanced and they are not playing 2 spades. The bad news is that it is your turn to bid. Suppose you hold xx, Axxx, Kxxx, Qxx. Since hearts is the major, many players are just going to bid 3 hearts and hope. The minute you do that partner will hold xxx, Kxx, QJxx, Axxx. Some may decide to bid their 4 card suits up the line and hope for a fit in diamonds. The minute you do that partner will have a hand like xxx, KJxx, QJx, Axx. Yes, you could fall into an 8 card trump suit if doubler’s hands were reversed, but bridge is, by and large, a perverse game and justice is rarely served. There must be a better way!
Enter Scrambling 2NT. The Scrambling 2NT bid is used after partner makes a double in the direct or balancing seat and you hold two 4 card suits. The bid of 2NT is designed to find an 8 card fit. It asks doubler to bid his 4 card suit or if more than one to bid them up the line. In my first example, after 1s/p/2s/p/p/X/p/2NT, doubler will bid his 4 card diamond suit and we will play 3 diamonds. In the second example, doubler will bid his 4 card heart suit and we will play 3 hearts. Yes, if doubler has four hearts and four diamonds, we will be playing our diamond fit rather than our heart fit. Forget about it! Our objective is to jolt opponents out of their 2 level spade fit and find an 8 card fit of our own at the 3 level. Put greed behind you and take the guarantee. Your master point profile will appreciate it.
Let’s spin it around and look at it in a pre-balance format. This time the bidding goes 1s/p/2s/X/p/?. You hold Kxx, xxx, Kxxx, Kxx. Note again the 2 four card suits, with a random chance of making the correct choice. Here again bid Scrambling 2NT to search for a 4-4 fit. If doubler in the direct seat has xx, Axx, AQxx, Qxxx, he will bid his 4 card club suit up the line to start the scramble. Since you do not have 4 clubs, you bid 3 diamonds showing your four card diamond suit, and hopefully we play it there in our 8 card fit. We may go down one, but in balancing that is pure gold. For sure we aren’t going -110 or worse.
Note that in each of these examples doubler’s partner does not have a 5 card suit. In fact, if he has have a 5 card suit he must bid it and not use Scrambling 2NT. Scrambling 2NT has a good negative inference. When we scramble we are either 4333, 4432 or on very rare occasions 4441. Helpful information in either the bidding or the defense. Since partner's square hand will not play as well as a distributional hand, you may want to think twice before competing further.
I can’t believe that I have gotten this far and nobody has pointed out to me that we have given away the natural bid of 2NT. Why would b we ever want to play no trump when they have found an 8+ card fit and will be on lead. Hopefully, this idea makes no sense to you as well. Nirvana, we have found a vacant bid and put it to good use.
The Scrambling 2NT bid is alertable. Just say that partner is asking me to further define my hand looking for a fit. This is not overly complicated. Think of the Scrambling 2NT as being like a responsive double. You are passing the bid back to partner to make a choice since your choice is not clear. One of the major benefits of the bid is that it will enable your partnership to make more aggressive doubles knowing that you can find your 4-4 fits safely. Yikes, if I balance any quicker I will be out of tempo.
Talk this over with partner in advance, not while the director is passing out the boards. It takes a moment to digest, but with minimum thought it pretty much sells itself.
This is my last post from Rochester, New York. On October 13 Axel, Virgil, Alla and I fly to Florida for the winter. Axel and Virgil are my two cats who do my proof reading. Looks like it doesn’t it. Rochester is a wonderful bridge town and I will miss my many friends who have made me feel so much at home. I look forward to seeing all my old bridge buddies in Citrus County, Florida. I can only hope that majority of them feel the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
