I looked up the word “preempt” in the dictionary. The word means that “you occupy a position to prevent others from doing so.” If you bear that thought in mind, you will have better success with your preemptive bids. Let’s face it, all preempts are a “crap shoot”, it is simply a question of measuring your tolerance for risk against the potential reward. The gamble is that you will go for a "big number" and the reward is that you will take up several levels of bidding space and hopefully jam your opponents into a flawed auction where they fail to reach their game or slam.
As part of the big picture, here are some considerations that I think merit consideration.
1. Mental Toughness. I know, we all think we are “grinders” who can put the bad results behind us. In reality, many of us are not. It takes experience and discipline. So if you are not there yet, then be more conservative in your approach.
2. Matchpoints vs. IMPs. In matchpoints a well intended preemptive bid gone bad only costs you a bad board, and often not that bad at all, since you can count on others to join you in your decision. If the scoring is IMPs, you need to be more circumspect since -1100 is 15 IMPs. Results like that can easily cost you a 24 board knock-out match, or put a major crimp in your Swiss game.
3. It’s Not About Points! If you really want to demonstrate that you are a novice, ask how many points you need to make a preemptive bid. Points are not the measure, it is “How many tricks will your hand take?” More to come on this issue.
4. Positional Differences. Let’s work backwards. There is no point to preempting in 4th seat, you can just pass the hand out. So opening bids at the 2 level and higher in 4th seat are not preemptive, they have some other meaning. In 3rd seat, partner is a previous pass, so if you have a preemptive style hand, there is little risk that you will miss a game and the bidding room the preemptive bid takes up is almost guaranteed to be that of opponents. When we preempt in 1st seat, there are three hands around the table, any one of which can hold the balance of power. Since 2 of those hands will be held by opponents, the odds are 2:1 that it will be opponents who will bear the burden of a 1st seat preemptive bid. When we preempt in 2nd seat, one opponent has already passed, so our concern now is the remaining 2 hands. Since one of those is held by partner and the other by an opponent, the effectiveness ratio of the preemptive bid has been reduced to 1:1, or cut in half. Do you think about that when making preemptive bids?
5. What is the Risk? Are you worried that your partner will not show up with a good hand and that your preemptive bid will go down? That thinking is misguided. The real risk is that partner will have too much and opponents will not have enough to make a game. If that happens, then any result greater than -150 will be a disaster. An even a greater risk is that partner will have a great hand and a fit and we will not find our game because it was our bidding space that got occupied, not opponents.
6. Swimming. Swimming (as in “with the fishes’) in the bridge context means that you take some action in the bidding auction because you feel that most other pairs sitting the same direction will take a similar action. Sometimes I think about this when considering a preemptive bid, particularly if I am having a good game and want to reduce the risk of having a late bad board that will be costly. I really don’t advocate this type of thinking. I think at all times it is more important to stay with your bidding standards (whatever those may be) and do the right thing. Trying to guess what the field will do is a risky exercise and smacks of “masterminding” the auction, a big no-no in bridge partnerships.
7. Quality of Opponents. When you have close decisions about whether to preempt, I think it is fair to consider the experience of your opponents. The reaction of most players is to make conservative decisions against better players and more aggressive decisions against weaker players. I do not agree with this. Remember, the single justification for making a preemptive bid is to rob opponents of bidding space and make it difficult to find a tight game or slam. Opponents with modest bidding skills will have trouble reaching tight games and slams no matter what you do. Much of the time if you leave them alone the risk will be minimal. On the other hand, if your opponents are very experienced and have good systemic bidding tools, they probably will find those tight games and slams if you don’t do something to make it difficult for them. So step right up to those experts and make it difficult for them. It is guaranteed they will hate you for it!
8. Vulnerability. In 1st and 2nd seat, vulnerability will be a big factor in deciding how many tricks you want to have in your hand to make the preemptive bid you are considering. To a lesser extent that is also a consideration in 3rd seat. No matter what position you are in, -800 is not going to feel good!
In Part 3, I will give you some guidelines on when not to preempt and discuss the ambiguous meaning of the term “disciplined” as it is commonly applied to preemptive bids.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
All About Preemptive Bids (Part 1)
I have been waiting to start a series on preemptive bidding, so it seems like a good summer project. If you are consistently getting average plus on your preemptive opportunities, you can take the next few weeks off. I always think the starting point is the ACBL Convention Card and the disclosure required. Preemptive type bids are covered in 2 different areas of the card. On the left hand side of the page are “opening preempts”, where you are required to describe your style for preemptive openings. On the right hand bottom of the card are weak 2 bids. Since weak 2 bids would be described here, they are presumed to be excluded from the section on opening preempts.
In the ACBL Bulletin series, Conventional Wisdom, the following comments about preemptive openings are made.
1. An opening bid on the 3 or 4 level promises a weak hand of below opening strength with a seven card suit at the 3 level and an 8 card sit at the 4 level. The texture of the hand can be a determinate of whether the hand qualifies.
2. Under “opening preempts” you are required to indicate whether your opening preempts are “sound, light, or very light.” While the categories are somewhat subjective,
(a) “Sound” means that you generally subscribe to the Rule of 500. This rule means that you have told partner that at any vulnerability you will not be down more than 500 based on your own hand. This is the oldest and most conservative approach.
(b) “Light” means that you preempt on most reasonable 7 or 8 card suits. “Reasonable means that your holding contains some honor concentration in the suit. I think this category can best be understood by looking at the definition of “very light.”
(c) “Very light” means that you will preempt with almost any 7 or 8 card suit and sometimes with less than the number of cards normally associated with the bid.
3. If you have conventional uses for preempts (such as Namyats) or conventional responses (such as 4 clubs being ace or key card asking), then you should disclose them in this section of the card. If you don’t know what Namyats is, then you don’t need to worry. That needs separate discussion at another time.
Conventional Wisdom also requires you to describe your weak 2 bids. Two diamonds means many things in many different systems, but in standard American or 2/1, it generally is weak unless you play either Flannery or the Mini-Roman convention. In these same systems, 2 hearts or 2 spades are weak. If these 3 bids are anything other than weak, they must be alerted.
Note that for your weak 2 bids you must disclose the high card point range. One limitation is that a weak 2 bid must not be as strong as an opening hand. A further limitation imposed by the ACBL’s General Convention Chart is that the high point range cannot be more than 7 hcps. This later limitation is not well known, so if your partner sometimes opens a non-vulnerable weak 2 bid with 3 hcps and a 6 card suit (QJxxxx and nothing outside) you must put the lower range at 3 hcps, but now your upper range must be 10 hcps or less. If partner will open a weak 2 bid with a Yarborough, then your upper limit is 7 hcps. Finally, if you partner will open with a weak 2 bid in any seat at any vulnerability with only a 5 card suit, then you must disclose that.
Good habits are formed in club games, so now that you better understand your obligations to your opponents with respect to disclosure on preemptive bids, take the time to mark your convention card correctly. It is not ethical to leave those spaces blank, even though the local director will let you get a way with it. If you carry sloppy convention card procedure over to ACBL tournament bridge, you will likely pay the price.
In the ACBL Bulletin series, Conventional Wisdom, the following comments about preemptive openings are made.
1. An opening bid on the 3 or 4 level promises a weak hand of below opening strength with a seven card suit at the 3 level and an 8 card sit at the 4 level. The texture of the hand can be a determinate of whether the hand qualifies.
2. Under “opening preempts” you are required to indicate whether your opening preempts are “sound, light, or very light.” While the categories are somewhat subjective,
(a) “Sound” means that you generally subscribe to the Rule of 500. This rule means that you have told partner that at any vulnerability you will not be down more than 500 based on your own hand. This is the oldest and most conservative approach.
(b) “Light” means that you preempt on most reasonable 7 or 8 card suits. “Reasonable means that your holding contains some honor concentration in the suit. I think this category can best be understood by looking at the definition of “very light.”
(c) “Very light” means that you will preempt with almost any 7 or 8 card suit and sometimes with less than the number of cards normally associated with the bid.
3. If you have conventional uses for preempts (such as Namyats) or conventional responses (such as 4 clubs being ace or key card asking), then you should disclose them in this section of the card. If you don’t know what Namyats is, then you don’t need to worry. That needs separate discussion at another time.
Conventional Wisdom also requires you to describe your weak 2 bids. Two diamonds means many things in many different systems, but in standard American or 2/1, it generally is weak unless you play either Flannery or the Mini-Roman convention. In these same systems, 2 hearts or 2 spades are weak. If these 3 bids are anything other than weak, they must be alerted.
Note that for your weak 2 bids you must disclose the high card point range. One limitation is that a weak 2 bid must not be as strong as an opening hand. A further limitation imposed by the ACBL’s General Convention Chart is that the high point range cannot be more than 7 hcps. This later limitation is not well known, so if your partner sometimes opens a non-vulnerable weak 2 bid with 3 hcps and a 6 card suit (QJxxxx and nothing outside) you must put the lower range at 3 hcps, but now your upper range must be 10 hcps or less. If partner will open a weak 2 bid with a Yarborough, then your upper limit is 7 hcps. Finally, if you partner will open with a weak 2 bid in any seat at any vulnerability with only a 5 card suit, then you must disclose that.
Good habits are formed in club games, so now that you better understand your obligations to your opponents with respect to disclosure on preemptive bids, take the time to mark your convention card correctly. It is not ethical to leave those spaces blank, even though the local director will let you get a way with it. If you carry sloppy convention card procedure over to ACBL tournament bridge, you will likely pay the price.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Tommy on the Move
After a pleasant winter campaign, your blogmaster is heading North to Rochester, New York for a few months. I already have my overshoes packed, anything else you can think of? While there will be a slight respite in blog activity while I relocate, I hope to do a few periodic posts, so keep checking my site for new stuff.
I want to thank all my regular partners, Howard Christ, Bob Scarbrough and Caroline Waugh, for their patience and good spirits. We are living proof that you can laugh a lot and still play some decent bridge from time to time. I also want to thank my occasional partners for their contributions to my bridge education. Most of all I want to thank the hundreds of players from the bridge communities of Citrus and Marion Counties for their friendship. I look forward every week to seeing this fine group of people and without them bridge would be a hollow exercise.
The next time you hear from me will be from Rochester, New York. The address of the blog site remains the same and you will still be able to access it via a link on the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club site. For those who wish to stay in touch with me, my e-mail address in Rochester is tommy@rochester.rr.com
I want to thank all my regular partners, Howard Christ, Bob Scarbrough and Caroline Waugh, for their patience and good spirits. We are living proof that you can laugh a lot and still play some decent bridge from time to time. I also want to thank my occasional partners for their contributions to my bridge education. Most of all I want to thank the hundreds of players from the bridge communities of Citrus and Marion Counties for their friendship. I look forward every week to seeing this fine group of people and without them bridge would be a hollow exercise.
The next time you hear from me will be from Rochester, New York. The address of the blog site remains the same and you will still be able to access it via a link on the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club site. For those who wish to stay in touch with me, my e-mail address in Rochester is tommy@rochester.rr.com
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Murder on Sanchez Avenue
Did you ever wonder about the maximum number of mistakes declarer can make playing a bridge contract and still make the contract? No need to consult the Guinness Book of Records, I have the answer for you. Here is a hand from a recent Swiss Team game that vividly demonstrates the answer. Stay tuned! Your Blogmaster is sitting South and declaring. Sitting North is a very patient partner, Jeanne Kitzmann.
My hand (south) is Axx, Q9xxx, AKx, xx. Partner (north) holds xx, AJx, QJxx, Kxxx. The auction was simple, 1h/1nt(F)/2nt/3h/4h. I didn’t like my 2NT bid without a club stopper, but playing strong no trumps you have these problems. We were scoring IMPs, so it is no time to be wimps. Passing never entered my mind. The opening lead is a low club from West, I decide to duck and lose the first trick to the queen of clubs. Now East switches to the Queen of spades and I grab it with my Ace. We are at trick three and I still haven’t made a mistake, or have I? Well, that was Mistake Number 1. I should have ducked the spade to set up a ruff of my third spade in dummy. But wait; there is still time to make more mistakes if I concentrate.
I can still recover and lose that spade in a timely fashion, but instead I get fixated on the trump suit, that is Mistake Number 2. I place East with the AQ of clubs and the QJ of spades, so it seems the King of hearts is with West or we would have heard from East in the bidding. Without thinking, I flop down the Queen of hearts to squeeze the King out of West’s knickers and then clear the suit. West covers with the King. Now I realize that this is not good news -- I just violated the Rule of 12 and may have to face the consequences. What, you say you never got beyond the Rule of 11? Well, here’s the last bridge rule that you will ever have to know, there is no Rule of 13.
Rule of 12: “With 8, 9 or 10 suit cards in the two hands, if the number of suit cards in the 2 hands plus the cards in your honor sequence equals 12, you can afford to lead the high card opposite the tenace and let it run. If it is less than 12, lead small to your tenace.”
There goes Mistake Number 3, I only had 8 cards in the heart suit and 2 cards in my heart honor sequence (Q, J), and so with a total of 10, I should have started with a small card intending to finesse the Jack. The King is not single, but even if it were, I could still pick up the whole suit out of East’s hand.
Actually, this hand can still be saved after three mistakes, just lead dummy’s last losing spade and at the next opportunity ruff a small spade in the dummy. Note that even if opponents lead a trump after winning the spade, I still have a small trump on the board to ruff with. It is about 80% that spades will break 5-3 or 4-4, so an over ruff is unlikely.
Here it comes, Mistake Number 4. I decide (for some reason known only to the bridge Gods) that the right play is to lead the Jack of trump hoping to drop the 10 doubleton in either hand. Well, even a simple bridge hand will not tolerate 4 cumulative errors by declarer. Both opponents produce a small trump and somebody now has the 10 which is the master trump. The opponents can still cash the club Ace, and I still have to lose that damn second spade before I can ruff my third spade with dummy’s last trump. In desperation, I lead diamonds, hoping they are 4-2 (actually a good probability) and that the person with the 10 of trump also has 4 diamonds (not a good probability). If that happens, I could sluff my last spade on the 4th diamond.
Even the bridge God’s are not that forgiving. The diamonds break 4-2, but following probabilities, the opponent with the long hearts has the short diamonds. I now lose the trump, a second club and a spade. This nifty maneuvering has turned a hand that can make an overtrick into down one. Of course at the other table they found the routine plays to make the overtrick. Oh, well, I never seem to remember anything unless it costs me at least 12 IMPs.
I quickly remark to partner that the only reason we went down was that our inept opponents stumbled onto the perfect defense. The only thing that would have actually saved us would have been a lead out of turn so partner could have played the hand.
What is the answer to the first question that I posed? In Bridge, it is 4 strikes and you’re out. This is the limit of abuse that any single hand can tolerate.
My hand (south) is Axx, Q9xxx, AKx, xx. Partner (north) holds xx, AJx, QJxx, Kxxx. The auction was simple, 1h/1nt(F)/2nt/3h/4h. I didn’t like my 2NT bid without a club stopper, but playing strong no trumps you have these problems. We were scoring IMPs, so it is no time to be wimps. Passing never entered my mind. The opening lead is a low club from West, I decide to duck and lose the first trick to the queen of clubs. Now East switches to the Queen of spades and I grab it with my Ace. We are at trick three and I still haven’t made a mistake, or have I? Well, that was Mistake Number 1. I should have ducked the spade to set up a ruff of my third spade in dummy. But wait; there is still time to make more mistakes if I concentrate.
I can still recover and lose that spade in a timely fashion, but instead I get fixated on the trump suit, that is Mistake Number 2. I place East with the AQ of clubs and the QJ of spades, so it seems the King of hearts is with West or we would have heard from East in the bidding. Without thinking, I flop down the Queen of hearts to squeeze the King out of West’s knickers and then clear the suit. West covers with the King. Now I realize that this is not good news -- I just violated the Rule of 12 and may have to face the consequences. What, you say you never got beyond the Rule of 11? Well, here’s the last bridge rule that you will ever have to know, there is no Rule of 13.
Rule of 12: “With 8, 9 or 10 suit cards in the two hands, if the number of suit cards in the 2 hands plus the cards in your honor sequence equals 12, you can afford to lead the high card opposite the tenace and let it run. If it is less than 12, lead small to your tenace.”
There goes Mistake Number 3, I only had 8 cards in the heart suit and 2 cards in my heart honor sequence (Q, J), and so with a total of 10, I should have started with a small card intending to finesse the Jack. The King is not single, but even if it were, I could still pick up the whole suit out of East’s hand.
Actually, this hand can still be saved after three mistakes, just lead dummy’s last losing spade and at the next opportunity ruff a small spade in the dummy. Note that even if opponents lead a trump after winning the spade, I still have a small trump on the board to ruff with. It is about 80% that spades will break 5-3 or 4-4, so an over ruff is unlikely.
Here it comes, Mistake Number 4. I decide (for some reason known only to the bridge Gods) that the right play is to lead the Jack of trump hoping to drop the 10 doubleton in either hand. Well, even a simple bridge hand will not tolerate 4 cumulative errors by declarer. Both opponents produce a small trump and somebody now has the 10 which is the master trump. The opponents can still cash the club Ace, and I still have to lose that damn second spade before I can ruff my third spade with dummy’s last trump. In desperation, I lead diamonds, hoping they are 4-2 (actually a good probability) and that the person with the 10 of trump also has 4 diamonds (not a good probability). If that happens, I could sluff my last spade on the 4th diamond.
Even the bridge God’s are not that forgiving. The diamonds break 4-2, but following probabilities, the opponent with the long hearts has the short diamonds. I now lose the trump, a second club and a spade. This nifty maneuvering has turned a hand that can make an overtrick into down one. Of course at the other table they found the routine plays to make the overtrick. Oh, well, I never seem to remember anything unless it costs me at least 12 IMPs.
I quickly remark to partner that the only reason we went down was that our inept opponents stumbled onto the perfect defense. The only thing that would have actually saved us would have been a lead out of turn so partner could have played the hand.
What is the answer to the first question that I posed? In Bridge, it is 4 strikes and you’re out. This is the limit of abuse that any single hand can tolerate.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Responding to Partner's Overcall-- Changing Suits
This is my final post on responding to overcalls. If you want want to find the earlier posts, look in the archives. When is it appropriate to introduce a new suit in response to partner’s overcall, and should this bid be forcing, non-forcing/constructive or non-forcing? This is not a problem that you can face when you come to it, since the ACBL convention card requires your partnership to disclose your treatment. It is not so important how you play it, as long as you and partner agree.
I do not think many people play it as forcing these days. Since partner has made a simple overcall behind the opening bidder, even if responder passes, the likelihood of game is slight, and slam is not a consideration. Let’s move on to “non-forcing/constructive.” Doesn’t that sound good, particularly since virtually no one knows exactly what constructive means in this context? The ACBL in its Bridge Bulletin series, Conventional Wisdom, states that constructive/non-forcing means that overcaller is obligated to bid again except in the case where your overcall is minimum (which is also required to be defined on the convention card) and the hands are misfitting. I must say, that sounds more forcing than non-forcing. Mark the “non-forcing” box for me. It is not a coincidence that I have some comfortable authority on my side.
The last word on overcalls has to be Mike Lawrence since he is the only authority that has written a book on the subject in the last 25 years. When Mike gets through, what more is there to say? The Complete Book on Overcalls in Contract Bridge (1980) endorses a non-forcing treatment on change of suit responses to overcalls. Mike does it in 30 pages; here is a somewhat shorter version. If non-forcing was right 30 years ago, how can it not be the answer in today’s competitive environment?
In the ACBL series “How to fill out a Convention Card”, the instructions state that you would check the non-forcing box if holding K109xxx in hearts you would bid 2 hearts after 1c/1s/p/? Sounds ever so much like me! I would also do it after 1c/1s/2c/? and very likely after 1c/1s/1NT/? Of course this begs the question “What else do I have? Well I certainly don’t have 3 spades. Maybe the complete hand looks like xx, K109xxx, KJx, xx or even x, K109xxx, KJ, xxxx.
We are not looking for game, we are looking to win the part score battle. To do that we need to find a fit and the only way to find a fit is to start bidding our suits. If we wait for a hand that we can force with, we aren’t going to be bidding very much. Nor are we going to be encouraging partner to make a simple one level overcall, if he can’t do so without fear of having to take another bid.
If your system pushes partner to take another bid, almost invariably you are going to hear him rebid the overcalled suit. Rather than trying to strap partner with bidding obligations, I think it is preferable to let him decide what to do with his cards. Oddly enough, this enables you to be more aggressive as advancer.
According to Mike Lawrence, failure to act as advancer is the most serious error. He says when the bidding is at the one or two level, the rule is “When in doubt bid; only when it is not right to bid should you pass.” A change of suit overcall can put a lot of pressure on opener if he is now required to go to the 3 level to take another bid. Some opportunities are definitely better than others:
1. It is less hazardous to bid if opponents have found a fit, such as the 1c/1s/2c sequence. It is positive to act because they may well make their contract with overtricks and also positive since our losers in their suit may be limited by reason of their fit.
2. It can be a good sign that you have 4 cards in the opponent’s fit suit. It probably means that partner has at most one card in that suit, and increases the probability that partner will have a fit for your suit
3. Being non-vulnerable would certainly screw up my courage. As my partner, Bob Scarbrough, says “non-vulnerable down 2 is good.” The less we have, the more they have, and if we play our best fit and play it well, minus 100 is seldom a bad board. Are you worried about being doubled in 2 hearts? You need to seriously get a life!!
4. If you have a decent 5 card major, let partner know about your suit if you have the opportunity. The bidding goes 1c/1d/1h/? You hold Q10876, 42, 3, AJ865. Bid one spade. It will be your last chance. Positive factors overcoming your lousy suit are your shortage in hearts and partner’s probable shortage in clubs. An 8+ card fit is also likely.
5. Look for the preemptive effect on opener. The bidding goes 1c/1h/1s/? You hold 1065, Q2, KQ1095, 863. This may be a little dangerous, but I would bid 2 diamonds since it prevents opener from bidding 1NT or 2 clubs.
6. If responder’s bid limits his hand, this is the perfect opening. When opponents are in a 2/1 auction, there is no compelling need to step in.
7. Finally your overcall may deter opponents from playing a no trump contract, and if they do, you certainly would like partner to lead your suit.
If your call is not forcing, then partner should not take it as a strong lead directing preference. It may be a better time to lead his own overcalled suit. But even with K109xxx, what is the worst that can happen? Declarer may take two tricks with his AQ, but wasn’t he going to finesse against the King?
Before we leave, let’s look at situations where you are forced to the 3 level to bid your new suit. In practical application, about the only time you will do so is where responder has made a 2 level raise that limits his hand. It is also important that your 3 level bid be lower in rank than partner’s overcall so that if he has to run back to his suit, he will not have to go up yet another level. Finally, at the 3 level you need a real suit and some substantial length, a strong 6 carder or a 7 card suit.
Assume you hold 87, Q2, 42, KQJ1076, 7. The bidding is 1s/2h/2s/? At any vulnerability bid 3 diamonds. Responder has limited his hand; there is a good suit, a probable fit and the Qx of hearts is a plus. This also gives partner a chance to sacrifice at 5 diamonds. Alternatively, you hold Q82, 84, 7, KJ97654. the bidding is 1s/2d/2h/? This is a good time to pass. The Queen of spades will likely go away, the doubleton heart is of no value, the stiff in partner’s suit is bad news and there is little reason to expect a fit.
Others will certainly espouse a different approach. The elusive lure of 'non-forcing/constructive" is a powerful opiate. But, real men don’t put partner on the spot with “wishy-washy” bids do they? Do your home work, think it over, talk to your partner and experiment a little. Nothing will tell you like results. The only thing better than an opening hand is an open mind!
I do not think many people play it as forcing these days. Since partner has made a simple overcall behind the opening bidder, even if responder passes, the likelihood of game is slight, and slam is not a consideration. Let’s move on to “non-forcing/constructive.” Doesn’t that sound good, particularly since virtually no one knows exactly what constructive means in this context? The ACBL in its Bridge Bulletin series, Conventional Wisdom, states that constructive/non-forcing means that overcaller is obligated to bid again except in the case where your overcall is minimum (which is also required to be defined on the convention card) and the hands are misfitting. I must say, that sounds more forcing than non-forcing. Mark the “non-forcing” box for me. It is not a coincidence that I have some comfortable authority on my side.
The last word on overcalls has to be Mike Lawrence since he is the only authority that has written a book on the subject in the last 25 years. When Mike gets through, what more is there to say? The Complete Book on Overcalls in Contract Bridge (1980) endorses a non-forcing treatment on change of suit responses to overcalls. Mike does it in 30 pages; here is a somewhat shorter version. If non-forcing was right 30 years ago, how can it not be the answer in today’s competitive environment?
In the ACBL series “How to fill out a Convention Card”, the instructions state that you would check the non-forcing box if holding K109xxx in hearts you would bid 2 hearts after 1c/1s/p/? Sounds ever so much like me! I would also do it after 1c/1s/2c/? and very likely after 1c/1s/1NT/? Of course this begs the question “What else do I have? Well I certainly don’t have 3 spades. Maybe the complete hand looks like xx, K109xxx, KJx, xx or even x, K109xxx, KJ, xxxx.
We are not looking for game, we are looking to win the part score battle. To do that we need to find a fit and the only way to find a fit is to start bidding our suits. If we wait for a hand that we can force with, we aren’t going to be bidding very much. Nor are we going to be encouraging partner to make a simple one level overcall, if he can’t do so without fear of having to take another bid.
If your system pushes partner to take another bid, almost invariably you are going to hear him rebid the overcalled suit. Rather than trying to strap partner with bidding obligations, I think it is preferable to let him decide what to do with his cards. Oddly enough, this enables you to be more aggressive as advancer.
According to Mike Lawrence, failure to act as advancer is the most serious error. He says when the bidding is at the one or two level, the rule is “When in doubt bid; only when it is not right to bid should you pass.” A change of suit overcall can put a lot of pressure on opener if he is now required to go to the 3 level to take another bid. Some opportunities are definitely better than others:
1. It is less hazardous to bid if opponents have found a fit, such as the 1c/1s/2c sequence. It is positive to act because they may well make their contract with overtricks and also positive since our losers in their suit may be limited by reason of their fit.
2. It can be a good sign that you have 4 cards in the opponent’s fit suit. It probably means that partner has at most one card in that suit, and increases the probability that partner will have a fit for your suit
3. Being non-vulnerable would certainly screw up my courage. As my partner, Bob Scarbrough, says “non-vulnerable down 2 is good.” The less we have, the more they have, and if we play our best fit and play it well, minus 100 is seldom a bad board. Are you worried about being doubled in 2 hearts? You need to seriously get a life!!
4. If you have a decent 5 card major, let partner know about your suit if you have the opportunity. The bidding goes 1c/1d/1h/? You hold Q10876, 42, 3, AJ865. Bid one spade. It will be your last chance. Positive factors overcoming your lousy suit are your shortage in hearts and partner’s probable shortage in clubs. An 8+ card fit is also likely.
5. Look for the preemptive effect on opener. The bidding goes 1c/1h/1s/? You hold 1065, Q2, KQ1095, 863. This may be a little dangerous, but I would bid 2 diamonds since it prevents opener from bidding 1NT or 2 clubs.
6. If responder’s bid limits his hand, this is the perfect opening. When opponents are in a 2/1 auction, there is no compelling need to step in.
7. Finally your overcall may deter opponents from playing a no trump contract, and if they do, you certainly would like partner to lead your suit.
If your call is not forcing, then partner should not take it as a strong lead directing preference. It may be a better time to lead his own overcalled suit. But even with K109xxx, what is the worst that can happen? Declarer may take two tricks with his AQ, but wasn’t he going to finesse against the King?
Before we leave, let’s look at situations where you are forced to the 3 level to bid your new suit. In practical application, about the only time you will do so is where responder has made a 2 level raise that limits his hand. It is also important that your 3 level bid be lower in rank than partner’s overcall so that if he has to run back to his suit, he will not have to go up yet another level. Finally, at the 3 level you need a real suit and some substantial length, a strong 6 carder or a 7 card suit.
Assume you hold 87, Q2, 42, KQJ1076, 7. The bidding is 1s/2h/2s/? At any vulnerability bid 3 diamonds. Responder has limited his hand; there is a good suit, a probable fit and the Qx of hearts is a plus. This also gives partner a chance to sacrifice at 5 diamonds. Alternatively, you hold Q82, 84, 7, KJ97654. the bidding is 1s/2d/2h/? This is a good time to pass. The Queen of spades will likely go away, the doubleton heart is of no value, the stiff in partner’s suit is bad news and there is little reason to expect a fit.
Others will certainly espouse a different approach. The elusive lure of 'non-forcing/constructive" is a powerful opiate. But, real men don’t put partner on the spot with “wishy-washy” bids do they? Do your home work, think it over, talk to your partner and experiment a little. Nothing will tell you like results. The only thing better than an opening hand is an open mind!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
