Yesterday I played in the Rochester (New York) Duplicate Bridge Club Friday game with my partner Betty Ann Schmitz. At least that is how it started out. Betty Ann’s bronchitis got the best of her and she bailed out at the end of 8 boards. Game director Doug Bradley then stepped in as a courtesy to replace Betty Ann and we played 6 Boards. We had just gone down 5 in 4 spades doubled for -1100 when in walked Dave Hunt. He had just completed work and had come over to Kibitz his regular partner. Doug quickly grabbed him and put him in the North seat and now I am matched up with my third partner for the day. With 12 boards to go my team was sputtering along with a 50% game with lots of good teams coming up in my rear view mirror.
Now Dave is one of Rochester’s premier players and almost exclusively plays with a single partner, equally adept, so I know him only as an opponent to be avoided when possible. His size equals his bridge talent (XXL). Out of respect for the Bridge Gods, I have never spoken a compete sentence to Dave and now I have this mountain of a man with talent to match sitting across from me. He glanced at Betty Ann’s card and said “Let’s Go.” It was at this point that I knew that I should have left with Betty Ann.
In my short bridge career I have rarely had the experience of one person simply taking over the game and dominating it. In 12 short boards, Dave, through aggressive bidding and flawless play, raised our team from the muck and mire to a first overall finish. If having a 4 person pair team isn’t unusual enough, surely a first overall finish is a fitting counterpart when I am the guy sitting South. The most amazing thing to me was that as intimidating as Dave is as an opponent, he was one of the most nurturing partners that I have ever encountered. He never failed to say “nice dummy partner” or “nice bid partner” and always had that “we got ‘em where we want ‘em” smile to encourage me.
Dave showcased his analytical skills on several hands, but the one I remember best is Board 23. Both vulnerable, West is dealer. Here are the hands.
**********JT876
**********KT65
**********K93
**********A
K3****************95
J98***************A4
AJ76*************QT852
K765*************T842
**********AQ42
**********Q732
**********4
**********QJ93
West opens 1 diamond, Dave overcalls 1 spade and East passes. Some might cue bid 2 diamonds with the South hand, but with 13 support points I didn't want to over inform opponents, so I put Dave to the test and bid 4 spades. Those who don't like that bid can use the comment button.
East decided the defense called for an attacking lead with West's opening hand values and led the Ace and a small heart taken by the King in declarer’s hand. One thought is that if the King of spades is on side you can make 5 spades. Dave was not to be fooled by that simplistic analysis. He lead the jack of spades, East smoothly played the 5, Dave without hesitation refused the finesse, went up with the Ace of spades and then played a small spade losing to West’s King. A heart came back but it was too late, East was out of trump. Are you up to that play? Play for 5 and you make 3, but if you correctly analyze East’s opening lead and plan of defense, you make 4 spades for 10 of 12 matchpoints.
All is not well that ends poorly. While we sat idly by, on the last two boards Katherine Slocomb and Yvonne Limbeck decided to finish with a flourish. On Board 25 they bid and Yvonne made 6NT that involved dropping the Queen of Spades doubleton on a 5-2 split (a 5% probability) and then squeezing poor Dave in hearts and spades for a cold top. On Board 26 they bid and made 4 hearts on a combined 21 hcps. Only one other pair found that contract. Even on good days this game can be humbling. To see Boards 25 and 26 go to http://www.rababridge.org click on "Direct Link to Hand Records" and click on the hands for Friday May 28.
As they say on the PGA Golf Tour advertisements, “These guys are good!”
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The Dubious Joy of Defending 1 No Trump
In his March Newsletter Larry Cohen published an analysis of 1,000,000 bridge contracts played at 1NT. The deals were randomly taken from Bridge Base On Line and analyzed by “Bridge Browser”, a powerful data base program. One no trump contracts can be arrived at in a variety of ways including 1NT openers passed out, 1NT responses passed out and 1NT rebids, as well as 1 no trump overcalls and no trump continuations by advancer. They all have one thing in common; whoever won the auction played and prayed for 7 tricks at no trump.
Does playing 1 No Trump contracts sound like something you would like to do for a living? Well, it should be, and those who actually play bridge for a living hear the cash register ringing if any opponent permits them to play a 1 No Trump contract. I think there is a correlation between bridge skills and the desire to play 1 No Trump contracts. I often hear novices complain about being left in dreaded 1 No Trump contracts. The more experience they get, the better they like that predicament.
All of this joy is for good reason, one that I have always known but not been able to prove. It is a high honor to be allowed to play 1 No Trump contracts and you can surely count among your friends, those opponents who permit you to reside there. The results of the analysis of 1,000,000 1NT contracts demonstrate that declarer is an overwhelming favorite to make his contact and very likely to make overtricks.
Here are the facts: Declarer (whether by opening bid or overcall) will make his contract 71%of the time. Declarer will actually make overtricks 40% of the time he plays a 1 NT contract. Yes, there will be “no joy in mudville” on occasion, but not often. You should expect to beat 1NT 29% of the time, but 17% of those times it will only be -1. As my partner Bob Scarbrough says, “Down one is good!”
These facts do not really not surprise me. I actually wrote a blog post on February 1, 2008 “Interfering over 1NT Opening Bids” encouraging players to aggressively get in the face of opponents opening one no trump. You can’t always steal the bid (in fact you rarely do) but you can get them playing something other than a 58% 1NT contract. As my partners and I have observed, a multitude of more interesting things can also take place if you put a little sand in their gears. I recommend an aggressive form of DONT. A survey of defenses used by the experts is available at www.clairebridge.com/defensevsnt.htm. If I had to choose another defense, I would use expert Bart Bramley’s system aptly named SCUM. Yeow! What more is there to say after that alert!! Whatever you do, don’t sit on your hands waiting for a 5-5-2-1 distribution, a holding that occurs in about 3% of the hands.
In his excellent book To Bid or Not to Bid, Larry Cohen said that there is one thing worse than playing 1NT contracts, and that is to defend 1NT contracts. That is just an expert speaking from experience, but now we have the facts to back that up. When balancing after two passes, I am persuaded by Mel Colchamiro’s “Rule of Two.” Mel says if you are in the balancing seat you should reopen the bidding if you have two distributional points, no matter how many high card points you have. I also follow that rule and have rarely been disappointed with the results.
One of the interesting things from the analysis of the 1,000,000 deals is that when the 1NT contract originated from a 1NT overcall, the results were significantly worse than when the declaring side opened the hand. In fact, the 1NT overcaller only averaged 49% of the matchpoints and went slightly minus in IMP’s. This means that the success rate for opening 1NT was actually higher than 71% since that stat included overcalls. It is enough to know that the margin of safety is reduced when making a 1NT overcall, but the reasons for this are not quite as clear.
At first blush you think “I am receiving the opening lead through the hand that opened the bidding and I know where most of the strength in the hand is located, right in front of me.” Countering that is the fact that that when RHO open’s the bidding, and you hold 16 hcps, on average the other two hands at the table will likely have only 11 hcps divided between them. If they are divided 6-5, with the opening hand sitting behind the dummy, it is possible that you will never get to the dummy and will be playing the contract out of your hand. Now that is something that is not fun! Other factors affecting the result may be that opening leader will have a lead directing bid that may prevent him from giving declarer a trick on the opening lead. I think this points out the importance of playing “systems on” over NT overcalls and hopefully finding a better place to play.
If you take nothing more from this analysis, understand that it is a losing game to let opponents play 1NT contracts. Why you might ask why am I encouraging a course of action that may actually prevent me from playing the 1NT contracts that I so enjoy? That’s easy – nobody ever takes me seriously! Sigh!
There is another factor. Once you engrain a line of thinking in the minds of most bridge players, it seems to close their mind forever to the possibility of an improved model. This is pure denial and the history of bridge points out that lie. Innovative thinking has brought bridge a long way since its inception and the process continues on an accelerated basis. More interesting is that not all of the good ideas in bridge come from experts. I recently read a quotation from Leo Tolstoy that I thought very descriptive of this mind boggling tug of war that we have all endured from time to time. Leo died at his dacha in 1910, but before passing he said:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted man if
he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Do you think Leo played bridge? Remember, in bridge an open mind is always better than an opening hand. Quote me if you like!
Does playing 1 No Trump contracts sound like something you would like to do for a living? Well, it should be, and those who actually play bridge for a living hear the cash register ringing if any opponent permits them to play a 1 No Trump contract. I think there is a correlation between bridge skills and the desire to play 1 No Trump contracts. I often hear novices complain about being left in dreaded 1 No Trump contracts. The more experience they get, the better they like that predicament.
All of this joy is for good reason, one that I have always known but not been able to prove. It is a high honor to be allowed to play 1 No Trump contracts and you can surely count among your friends, those opponents who permit you to reside there. The results of the analysis of 1,000,000 1NT contracts demonstrate that declarer is an overwhelming favorite to make his contact and very likely to make overtricks.
Here are the facts: Declarer (whether by opening bid or overcall) will make his contract 71%of the time. Declarer will actually make overtricks 40% of the time he plays a 1 NT contract. Yes, there will be “no joy in mudville” on occasion, but not often. You should expect to beat 1NT 29% of the time, but 17% of those times it will only be -1. As my partner Bob Scarbrough says, “Down one is good!”
These facts do not really not surprise me. I actually wrote a blog post on February 1, 2008 “Interfering over 1NT Opening Bids” encouraging players to aggressively get in the face of opponents opening one no trump. You can’t always steal the bid (in fact you rarely do) but you can get them playing something other than a 58% 1NT contract. As my partners and I have observed, a multitude of more interesting things can also take place if you put a little sand in their gears. I recommend an aggressive form of DONT. A survey of defenses used by the experts is available at www.clairebridge.com/defensevsnt.htm. If I had to choose another defense, I would use expert Bart Bramley’s system aptly named SCUM. Yeow! What more is there to say after that alert!! Whatever you do, don’t sit on your hands waiting for a 5-5-2-1 distribution, a holding that occurs in about 3% of the hands.
In his excellent book To Bid or Not to Bid, Larry Cohen said that there is one thing worse than playing 1NT contracts, and that is to defend 1NT contracts. That is just an expert speaking from experience, but now we have the facts to back that up. When balancing after two passes, I am persuaded by Mel Colchamiro’s “Rule of Two.” Mel says if you are in the balancing seat you should reopen the bidding if you have two distributional points, no matter how many high card points you have. I also follow that rule and have rarely been disappointed with the results.
One of the interesting things from the analysis of the 1,000,000 deals is that when the 1NT contract originated from a 1NT overcall, the results were significantly worse than when the declaring side opened the hand. In fact, the 1NT overcaller only averaged 49% of the matchpoints and went slightly minus in IMP’s. This means that the success rate for opening 1NT was actually higher than 71% since that stat included overcalls. It is enough to know that the margin of safety is reduced when making a 1NT overcall, but the reasons for this are not quite as clear.
At first blush you think “I am receiving the opening lead through the hand that opened the bidding and I know where most of the strength in the hand is located, right in front of me.” Countering that is the fact that that when RHO open’s the bidding, and you hold 16 hcps, on average the other two hands at the table will likely have only 11 hcps divided between them. If they are divided 6-5, with the opening hand sitting behind the dummy, it is possible that you will never get to the dummy and will be playing the contract out of your hand. Now that is something that is not fun! Other factors affecting the result may be that opening leader will have a lead directing bid that may prevent him from giving declarer a trick on the opening lead. I think this points out the importance of playing “systems on” over NT overcalls and hopefully finding a better place to play.
If you take nothing more from this analysis, understand that it is a losing game to let opponents play 1NT contracts. Why you might ask why am I encouraging a course of action that may actually prevent me from playing the 1NT contracts that I so enjoy? That’s easy – nobody ever takes me seriously! Sigh!
There is another factor. Once you engrain a line of thinking in the minds of most bridge players, it seems to close their mind forever to the possibility of an improved model. This is pure denial and the history of bridge points out that lie. Innovative thinking has brought bridge a long way since its inception and the process continues on an accelerated basis. More interesting is that not all of the good ideas in bridge come from experts. I recently read a quotation from Leo Tolstoy that I thought very descriptive of this mind boggling tug of war that we have all endured from time to time. Leo died at his dacha in 1910, but before passing he said:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted man if
he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Do you think Leo played bridge? Remember, in bridge an open mind is always better than an opening hand. Quote me if you like!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"Stormin" Norman and Four Suit Transfers
“Stromin Norman” Gath, affectionately known in Rochester, N.Y. bridge circles as the “Mad Rhino”, was a friend of mine for years before we realized that we both played bridge. Bad health took him down about 2 years ago, but he went out like a warrior on his shield, in touch with his bridge friends until the very end. Norm was a real Renaissance man with interests in everything from music, to antiques, to coins, to the stock market, Persian rugs, golf, bridge and more.
If Norm thought your bridge was within the “salvageable” range, he would send you his two favorite bridge books. Dee Brown’s “Two over One in a Nutshell”, a 2”x 3” miniature book covering all you need to know about 2/1 and “4 Suit Transfers”, a 32 page monograph by Ann Reese. What, you didn’t get them? That is not good! Mine contain a personal thanks and endorsement from the Rhino himself. Well, needless to say, I couldn’t go into this 4 Suit Transfer blog without a tear in my eye for the great Rhino and a bunch of pleasant memories.
Four Suit Transfers operate after partner has opened 1 No Trump. The first of the 2 transfers are actually just Jacoby Transfers with 5 card major suits which everybody understands today. According to “4 suit transfers” a super acceptance of a Jacoby Transfers (a jump in the transferred suit) shows 4 card support for the major, a maximum hand and at least one doubleton. Marty Bergen makes a super accept on little more than 4 card support for the major, since he has 9 trump and is properly aligned with the Law of Total Tricks. You can look in my recent blog archive for a post on “Super Accepts” that discusses this issue. The other two transfers are transfers to minor suits. Almost everybody in duplicate bridge has some system to transfer or relay the 1 No Trump opener to a minor suit.
One system for dealing with hands dominated by minor suits is Minor Suit Stayman. The actionable bid over 1 No Trump is 2 spades and it shows responder with 9+ minor suit cards, minimally 5-4 and 9+ hcps. There are detailed rebids by opener to show hand strength and distribution with the object of bidding game or slam in a minor suit or no trump. The bidding sequences are very specific and for me have never been easy to remember. Since this is not a post about Minor Suit Stayman, I will leave you to do your own research if you are interested.
Another popular system for minor suited hands is to agree that the response of 2 spades over 1 No Trump relays opener to 3 clubs, and from there responder sets the contract in either clubs by passing or bids 3 diamonds to play. The big advantage of this system is its simplicity. Easy to remember and hard to go wrong in the bidding, but other than “right siding” the hand so that opener becomes declarer, it doesn’t accomplish much. In his last newsletter Larry Cohen talks about “truck driver” bids. Bids that show no imagination and do not serve to further define either hand, using a sledge hammer where a scalpel might have been more appropriate. In these relays, opener does not know what suit you want to play in so it is difficult for him to offer any constructive help. You have turned opener into a relay robot and you are masterminding the hand. How good can that be?
When using 4 Suit Transfers the sequence 1NT/2 spades transfers opener to clubs. The sequence 1NT/2NT transfers opener to diamonds. Responder could have four different types of minor suit hands:
Transfer and Pass: x, xx, xxxx, QJTxxxx. If responder passes 1NT, opener will probably be playing the contract out of his own hand, never getting to the dummy. If you have never done that, take it from me that the contract is down 2 or 3. The hand rates to play better in 3 clubs, so bid 2 spades to transfer to clubs and pass.
Invitational: xx, xx, AJTxxx xxx. With 15-17 no trump openers, I usually figure partner for 3 ½ quick tricks. If opener holds Kxx of diamonds, we are surely favorites to make 3NT even though responder holds only 5 hcps. Responder bids 2NT transferring opener to diamonds. Note that in between 2NT and 3 diamonds, there is an unused bid of 3 clubs. In 4 Suit Transfers, opener’s bid of 3 clubs in this sequence (rather than 3 diamonds) is a ‘super acceptance” showing 3 card support with one of the top three honors in diamonds or 4 card diamond support. If opener has Kxx in diamonds he bids 3 clubs, and responder with new information bids 3 NT rather than 3 diamonds. Suppose opener held AQ, Axxx, Kxx, Axxx (17 hcps). Although the combined hands hold only 22 hcps, the no trump game makes most of the time. Perfect fit? Of course, I made it up, but it didn’t have to fit this well to have a good play for 3NT.
Game Values: AQx. xx, AQTxxx, xx. With 12 hcps, responder bids 2NT (a transfer to diamonds) showing his diamond suit and a distributional hand. If opener takes the transfer to 3 diamonds, responder bids 3NT showing game values. Opener apparently does not have Kxx in diamonds, but the hand is good enough to play in 3NT in any event. If opener shows Kxx in diamonds by bidding 3 clubs, responder would be rethinking his options.
Slam Interest: Axx, x, Kxx, AKxxxx (14 hcps). Assume opener holds Kxx, Ax, AQxxx, Qxx (15 hcps.). The bidding goes 1NT/ 2s (transfer to clubs) 2NT (super accept for clubs) 4c (ace of clubs – 3 clubs would be to play) 4d (ace of diamonds) 4h (ace of hearts) 6NT. If clubs split 3-1 or 2-2 and diamonds split 3-2 it will make 7 No Trump.
Notice how useful it can be to find a solid minor suit that will produce 6 tricks. One of Max Hardy’s favorite sayings was “fits take tricks.” Fits are only found through good communication. Four suit transfers with super acceptances permit this. Relays are just one man shows.
It should be noted that the super acceptance can be flip-flopped so that taking the in-between bid could say “no super accept” and bidding the transfer suit could say “super accept.” If you decide to do this, the opening one no trump bidder will be declaring the hand when he has a super acceptance and responder will be playing the hand when there is no super accept. There is no compelling evidence that one treatment is better than the other. Just reach agreement with your partner and stick to it.
You may have rejected this idea already saying “I don’t want to give up my 2 no trump invitational bid just to occasionally transfer to diamonds.” Good point, neither do I, but there is no need to give up anything. If you have whatever you consider an invitational 2 no trump hand, just bid 2 clubs (Stayman), even if you have no 4 card major. Opener will make some response representing his holding in majors, but no matter what he bids, if you don’t find a major fit you now bid 2 No Trump!!! This delayed 2NT is invitational and partner should alert at this point that you may not have a 4 card major.
By using the wide variety of bids that are available to us we are able to cover all situations. Four Suit Transfers are not a substitute for judgment, but they are calculated to provide you with information on which your judgment can be based. Did I get this right Norm?
If Norm thought your bridge was within the “salvageable” range, he would send you his two favorite bridge books. Dee Brown’s “Two over One in a Nutshell”, a 2”x 3” miniature book covering all you need to know about 2/1 and “4 Suit Transfers”, a 32 page monograph by Ann Reese. What, you didn’t get them? That is not good! Mine contain a personal thanks and endorsement from the Rhino himself. Well, needless to say, I couldn’t go into this 4 Suit Transfer blog without a tear in my eye for the great Rhino and a bunch of pleasant memories.
Four Suit Transfers operate after partner has opened 1 No Trump. The first of the 2 transfers are actually just Jacoby Transfers with 5 card major suits which everybody understands today. According to “4 suit transfers” a super acceptance of a Jacoby Transfers (a jump in the transferred suit) shows 4 card support for the major, a maximum hand and at least one doubleton. Marty Bergen makes a super accept on little more than 4 card support for the major, since he has 9 trump and is properly aligned with the Law of Total Tricks. You can look in my recent blog archive for a post on “Super Accepts” that discusses this issue. The other two transfers are transfers to minor suits. Almost everybody in duplicate bridge has some system to transfer or relay the 1 No Trump opener to a minor suit.
One system for dealing with hands dominated by minor suits is Minor Suit Stayman. The actionable bid over 1 No Trump is 2 spades and it shows responder with 9+ minor suit cards, minimally 5-4 and 9+ hcps. There are detailed rebids by opener to show hand strength and distribution with the object of bidding game or slam in a minor suit or no trump. The bidding sequences are very specific and for me have never been easy to remember. Since this is not a post about Minor Suit Stayman, I will leave you to do your own research if you are interested.
Another popular system for minor suited hands is to agree that the response of 2 spades over 1 No Trump relays opener to 3 clubs, and from there responder sets the contract in either clubs by passing or bids 3 diamonds to play. The big advantage of this system is its simplicity. Easy to remember and hard to go wrong in the bidding, but other than “right siding” the hand so that opener becomes declarer, it doesn’t accomplish much. In his last newsletter Larry Cohen talks about “truck driver” bids. Bids that show no imagination and do not serve to further define either hand, using a sledge hammer where a scalpel might have been more appropriate. In these relays, opener does not know what suit you want to play in so it is difficult for him to offer any constructive help. You have turned opener into a relay robot and you are masterminding the hand. How good can that be?
When using 4 Suit Transfers the sequence 1NT/2 spades transfers opener to clubs. The sequence 1NT/2NT transfers opener to diamonds. Responder could have four different types of minor suit hands:
Transfer and Pass: x, xx, xxxx, QJTxxxx. If responder passes 1NT, opener will probably be playing the contract out of his own hand, never getting to the dummy. If you have never done that, take it from me that the contract is down 2 or 3. The hand rates to play better in 3 clubs, so bid 2 spades to transfer to clubs and pass.
Invitational: xx, xx, AJTxxx xxx. With 15-17 no trump openers, I usually figure partner for 3 ½ quick tricks. If opener holds Kxx of diamonds, we are surely favorites to make 3NT even though responder holds only 5 hcps. Responder bids 2NT transferring opener to diamonds. Note that in between 2NT and 3 diamonds, there is an unused bid of 3 clubs. In 4 Suit Transfers, opener’s bid of 3 clubs in this sequence (rather than 3 diamonds) is a ‘super acceptance” showing 3 card support with one of the top three honors in diamonds or 4 card diamond support. If opener has Kxx in diamonds he bids 3 clubs, and responder with new information bids 3 NT rather than 3 diamonds. Suppose opener held AQ, Axxx, Kxx, Axxx (17 hcps). Although the combined hands hold only 22 hcps, the no trump game makes most of the time. Perfect fit? Of course, I made it up, but it didn’t have to fit this well to have a good play for 3NT.
Game Values: AQx. xx, AQTxxx, xx. With 12 hcps, responder bids 2NT (a transfer to diamonds) showing his diamond suit and a distributional hand. If opener takes the transfer to 3 diamonds, responder bids 3NT showing game values. Opener apparently does not have Kxx in diamonds, but the hand is good enough to play in 3NT in any event. If opener shows Kxx in diamonds by bidding 3 clubs, responder would be rethinking his options.
Slam Interest: Axx, x, Kxx, AKxxxx (14 hcps). Assume opener holds Kxx, Ax, AQxxx, Qxx (15 hcps.). The bidding goes 1NT/ 2s (transfer to clubs) 2NT (super accept for clubs) 4c (ace of clubs – 3 clubs would be to play) 4d (ace of diamonds) 4h (ace of hearts) 6NT. If clubs split 3-1 or 2-2 and diamonds split 3-2 it will make 7 No Trump.
Notice how useful it can be to find a solid minor suit that will produce 6 tricks. One of Max Hardy’s favorite sayings was “fits take tricks.” Fits are only found through good communication. Four suit transfers with super acceptances permit this. Relays are just one man shows.
It should be noted that the super acceptance can be flip-flopped so that taking the in-between bid could say “no super accept” and bidding the transfer suit could say “super accept.” If you decide to do this, the opening one no trump bidder will be declaring the hand when he has a super acceptance and responder will be playing the hand when there is no super accept. There is no compelling evidence that one treatment is better than the other. Just reach agreement with your partner and stick to it.
You may have rejected this idea already saying “I don’t want to give up my 2 no trump invitational bid just to occasionally transfer to diamonds.” Good point, neither do I, but there is no need to give up anything. If you have whatever you consider an invitational 2 no trump hand, just bid 2 clubs (Stayman), even if you have no 4 card major. Opener will make some response representing his holding in majors, but no matter what he bids, if you don’t find a major fit you now bid 2 No Trump!!! This delayed 2NT is invitational and partner should alert at this point that you may not have a 4 card major.
By using the wide variety of bids that are available to us we are able to cover all situations. Four Suit Transfers are not a substitute for judgment, but they are calculated to provide you with information on which your judgment can be based. Did I get this right Norm?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Opener Rebid Choices After 1NT Forcing
Many of my readers, like myself, are still stuck in the depths of “Intermediatesville” trying to get better as we learn from our mistakes. Some wag once wrote that in order for something to become a habit, you have to do it correctly 19 times. It is hard to find anything in bridge that you can do correctly 19 times other than pass, and even pass has its own problems. So it doesn’t hurt for us to reinforce basics one in a while. Here are some thoughts about responding to 1NT forcing bids.
Most duplicate players today play the 1NT response to one of a major as forcing for one round by an unpassed hand. That means that opener has to come up with one more bid. On a good day you will be delighted to come up with another bid reflecting your 6 card suit or extra values, on a bad day you will have some less appealing choices to make and wonder why you ever made this bid forcing. How about a little quick review? Music maestro!!
1. If you rebid your major suit, it shows a suit that is 6 cards in length and has no significant extras. A jump in the major suit shows 6 good cards in the bid major and 16+ hcps, but is non- forcing.
2. If the hand is 5233, you rebid your lower ranking 3 card minor.
3. If you opened 1 heart, a 2 spade rebid is still a reverse and shows 16+ hcps. Why is it a reverse? Because partner must now go to the 3 level to take a preference for your original suit. Don’t confuse this with 2/1 sequences where most players do not play reverses as showing extra values, just hand shape.
4. If you make a jump shift, it promises a hand of about 19 hcps or shape with equivalent playing strength. Definitely forcing!
5. A raise to 2NT shows a balanced hand of about18-19 hcps and almost forcing; pass it at your peril. Have a back up partner. If you're playing with your spouse, it is forcing!
Those were supposed to be easy choices, and reading this blog post counts as one of the 19 repetitions. With the basics behind you, take shot at these: You open 1 heart, your partner responds 1NT, your bid Syd! Remember that Max Hardy is looking over your shoulder from that big bridge table in the sky. Honk if you don't like it Max.
(i) KJxx, AQxxx, Jx, Qx
(ii) K4, AQJT9x, 5, QJ43
(iii) K4, QJ7643, 5, AQJ3
(iv) K4, AKQJ63, Q7, J95
On hand (i) you have 4 spades but to bid them would be a reverse – not with 13 hcps! In 2/1 game force, it is not systemically correct to rebid your 5 card heart suit, so you “suck it up” and bid 2 clubs. The rule says you bid your best 2 card minor and hope for the best. Somehow this often works out.
On hand (ii) you have a 6 card heart suit which is rebiddable, but also a 4 card club suit you could show. Note that hand (iii) has the same feature. How do you decide whether to show the club suit or just rebid your hearts? There is another rule for this. Here is the standard: Opener will only show the 4 card suit when the 6 card suit is not solid enough to play against a singleton. Opener bids 2 hearts with hand (ii) and 2 clubs with hand (iii). If you are responder and have a singleton in openers major (which happens with alarming frequency), it is important to understand the implication of opener rebidding a second suit. Opener is telling you that he does not have a 6 card major, or if he does it is not good enough to play against a single in your hand. If you have a single in opener’s major, you have 12 cards in the other suits. Remember opener’s bid of a new suit at the 2 level does not show extra values nor is it forcing, so you can pass, and with 4144 that may be the best thing to do. These situations come under the “catch all” that “sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.”
Hand (iv) is even more twisted. I would guess many readers would bid 3 hearts over 1NT forcing. You are not going to like that match point choice if the hand makes both 4NT and 4 spades. Opener should rebid 3NT showing 16-18 hcps, solid hearts, and no single or void. This asks responder to pass if his hand is balanced and otherwise correct to 4 hearts.
If you don’t like my analysis, the specimen hands or the responses send an e-mail to maxhardy@bridgeinheaven.god Be patient, he may not respond immediately. It may be more productive to write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com. If you are on my blog notice list, do not use the “reply” button unless you want the entire list to read your comments.
Most duplicate players today play the 1NT response to one of a major as forcing for one round by an unpassed hand. That means that opener has to come up with one more bid. On a good day you will be delighted to come up with another bid reflecting your 6 card suit or extra values, on a bad day you will have some less appealing choices to make and wonder why you ever made this bid forcing. How about a little quick review? Music maestro!!
1. If you rebid your major suit, it shows a suit that is 6 cards in length and has no significant extras. A jump in the major suit shows 6 good cards in the bid major and 16+ hcps, but is non- forcing.
2. If the hand is 5233, you rebid your lower ranking 3 card minor.
3. If you opened 1 heart, a 2 spade rebid is still a reverse and shows 16+ hcps. Why is it a reverse? Because partner must now go to the 3 level to take a preference for your original suit. Don’t confuse this with 2/1 sequences where most players do not play reverses as showing extra values, just hand shape.
4. If you make a jump shift, it promises a hand of about 19 hcps or shape with equivalent playing strength. Definitely forcing!
5. A raise to 2NT shows a balanced hand of about18-19 hcps and almost forcing; pass it at your peril. Have a back up partner. If you're playing with your spouse, it is forcing!
Those were supposed to be easy choices, and reading this blog post counts as one of the 19 repetitions. With the basics behind you, take shot at these: You open 1 heart, your partner responds 1NT, your bid Syd! Remember that Max Hardy is looking over your shoulder from that big bridge table in the sky. Honk if you don't like it Max.
(i) KJxx, AQxxx, Jx, Qx
(ii) K4, AQJT9x, 5, QJ43
(iii) K4, QJ7643, 5, AQJ3
(iv) K4, AKQJ63, Q7, J95
On hand (i) you have 4 spades but to bid them would be a reverse – not with 13 hcps! In 2/1 game force, it is not systemically correct to rebid your 5 card heart suit, so you “suck it up” and bid 2 clubs. The rule says you bid your best 2 card minor and hope for the best. Somehow this often works out.
On hand (ii) you have a 6 card heart suit which is rebiddable, but also a 4 card club suit you could show. Note that hand (iii) has the same feature. How do you decide whether to show the club suit or just rebid your hearts? There is another rule for this. Here is the standard: Opener will only show the 4 card suit when the 6 card suit is not solid enough to play against a singleton. Opener bids 2 hearts with hand (ii) and 2 clubs with hand (iii). If you are responder and have a singleton in openers major (which happens with alarming frequency), it is important to understand the implication of opener rebidding a second suit. Opener is telling you that he does not have a 6 card major, or if he does it is not good enough to play against a single in your hand. If you have a single in opener’s major, you have 12 cards in the other suits. Remember opener’s bid of a new suit at the 2 level does not show extra values nor is it forcing, so you can pass, and with 4144 that may be the best thing to do. These situations come under the “catch all” that “sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.”
Hand (iv) is even more twisted. I would guess many readers would bid 3 hearts over 1NT forcing. You are not going to like that match point choice if the hand makes both 4NT and 4 spades. Opener should rebid 3NT showing 16-18 hcps, solid hearts, and no single or void. This asks responder to pass if his hand is balanced and otherwise correct to 4 hearts.
If you don’t like my analysis, the specimen hands or the responses send an e-mail to maxhardy@bridgeinheaven.god Be patient, he may not respond immediately. It may be more productive to write to me at tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com. If you are on my blog notice list, do not use the “reply” button unless you want the entire list to read your comments.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Tommy Passes 5th Grade Math but Flunks Match Point Duplicate
I got comments from all over the world on my 7NT adventure. Some suggested a competency hearing and some that I find a new hobby where I won’t disturb others. One person suggested that my math solutions are an insult to 5th graders; they are well beyond that stuff. Seems like just yesterday I was there learning long division!!
Another group of commentators suggested that the contract of 7NT was poor math in itself, since it was far from the best contract in a match point game. I don’t disagree with that but I have my justifications. First, I did say that it was the last board of the day. Second, we were a little desperate and things had not been going our way. Third, when I was learning bridge I played all the Swiss Teams and Knockouts I could find in a rush to life master. I love match points, but sometimes my IMP mentality gets the best of me. Finally, if I had not bid 7NT with that hand, my partner Howard Christ would have pouted for a week. You don’t want to go there.
Still, any way you cut it, 7NT may not be the best match point contract. One of the premier players in the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club, Cliff Garing, told me a long ago that in club games it is not practical to bid Grand Slams, since some in the field will fail to get to slam, some will go down trying to make 7 and 6 of anything bid and made will, over time, reward you with an average plus.
My sometimes partner, Mike Spitulnik, is a heavy weight bridge thinker from Rochester, New York. Mike is a multiple Ace of Clubs winner and had the distinction of becoming a life master, as well as bronze and silver on the same day. Mike felt that the contract was aggressive, but deserving. He believes that in a high quality field several aggressive bidding pairs will be in 7NT and the important thing is not to separate yourself from those teams if that’s where you want to be. He points out that taking the clubs and hearts early hoping to lure opponents into a mistake is sheer folly since it won’t fool anybody and at the same time exposes the contract to being down 2 instead of down 1 if the spade suit does not work out. His point is well taken, and substantiated by the fact that I never saw a spade sluff.
Jon Shuster, a bridge expert and author from Gainesville, also took issue with the bidding of the contract. He believes that if you want to play an aggressive 7 contract, 7 diamonds is much safer than 7NT and that standard bidding with responder showing both spades and diamonds will enable you to find the 8 card diamond fit. It is a risk reward situation. If you accept Mike’s argument that strong aggressive bidders will be in 7 NT, then 7 diamonds is going to cost some match points. The trade off is that when diamonds are 3-2 (about two thirds of the time) you will be able to ruff the third spade. Even if diamonds are 4-1 (which they were) you get a spade ruff if opponent’s spades are 4-2 and the person with short spades does not have the long diamond. Jon has a PhD in medical statistics, so I am sure all these alternate chances support his view. But where is the romance in 7 diamonds and how can you write a blog about that?
My high math consultant is Janice Barnes. I thought for sure that this nice technical analysis of play probabilities would appeal to her. Janice seemed pleased that I finally used the terms “probability” and “odds” in the correct context, but expressed some doubt about whether, with all the variable factors, any math can be practically applied at the table. Janice says that she would far prefer to be a bridge savant who just looks at a dummy and knows all the correct plays instinctively. Dream on Janice, wouldn’t we all? The downside is that those players often forget their partner’s first name.
I am not giving up on the Law of Vacant Places although it seems to be a hard sell to my readers. I am going to rename it Tommy’s Law of Empty Spaces and give it one more try in my next post. Good ideas rarely take without repeating. Jean Rene Vernes wrote about the Law of Total Tricks in the June, 1969 Bridge World, Marty Bergen wrote about it again in 1979, but it was not until Larry Cohen wrote “To Bid or Not to Bid” in 1992” that duplicate players actually started to widely apply it. That’s because Larry discussed "the Law" in a language that common folks could understand. Let’s see if I am up to that standard.
Another group of commentators suggested that the contract of 7NT was poor math in itself, since it was far from the best contract in a match point game. I don’t disagree with that but I have my justifications. First, I did say that it was the last board of the day. Second, we were a little desperate and things had not been going our way. Third, when I was learning bridge I played all the Swiss Teams and Knockouts I could find in a rush to life master. I love match points, but sometimes my IMP mentality gets the best of me. Finally, if I had not bid 7NT with that hand, my partner Howard Christ would have pouted for a week. You don’t want to go there.
Still, any way you cut it, 7NT may not be the best match point contract. One of the premier players in the Ocala Duplicate Bridge Club, Cliff Garing, told me a long ago that in club games it is not practical to bid Grand Slams, since some in the field will fail to get to slam, some will go down trying to make 7 and 6 of anything bid and made will, over time, reward you with an average plus.
My sometimes partner, Mike Spitulnik, is a heavy weight bridge thinker from Rochester, New York. Mike is a multiple Ace of Clubs winner and had the distinction of becoming a life master, as well as bronze and silver on the same day. Mike felt that the contract was aggressive, but deserving. He believes that in a high quality field several aggressive bidding pairs will be in 7NT and the important thing is not to separate yourself from those teams if that’s where you want to be. He points out that taking the clubs and hearts early hoping to lure opponents into a mistake is sheer folly since it won’t fool anybody and at the same time exposes the contract to being down 2 instead of down 1 if the spade suit does not work out. His point is well taken, and substantiated by the fact that I never saw a spade sluff.
Jon Shuster, a bridge expert and author from Gainesville, also took issue with the bidding of the contract. He believes that if you want to play an aggressive 7 contract, 7 diamonds is much safer than 7NT and that standard bidding with responder showing both spades and diamonds will enable you to find the 8 card diamond fit. It is a risk reward situation. If you accept Mike’s argument that strong aggressive bidders will be in 7 NT, then 7 diamonds is going to cost some match points. The trade off is that when diamonds are 3-2 (about two thirds of the time) you will be able to ruff the third spade. Even if diamonds are 4-1 (which they were) you get a spade ruff if opponent’s spades are 4-2 and the person with short spades does not have the long diamond. Jon has a PhD in medical statistics, so I am sure all these alternate chances support his view. But where is the romance in 7 diamonds and how can you write a blog about that?
My high math consultant is Janice Barnes. I thought for sure that this nice technical analysis of play probabilities would appeal to her. Janice seemed pleased that I finally used the terms “probability” and “odds” in the correct context, but expressed some doubt about whether, with all the variable factors, any math can be practically applied at the table. Janice says that she would far prefer to be a bridge savant who just looks at a dummy and knows all the correct plays instinctively. Dream on Janice, wouldn’t we all? The downside is that those players often forget their partner’s first name.
I am not giving up on the Law of Vacant Places although it seems to be a hard sell to my readers. I am going to rename it Tommy’s Law of Empty Spaces and give it one more try in my next post. Good ideas rarely take without repeating. Jean Rene Vernes wrote about the Law of Total Tricks in the June, 1969 Bridge World, Marty Bergen wrote about it again in 1979, but it was not until Larry Cohen wrote “To Bid or Not to Bid” in 1992” that duplicate players actually started to widely apply it. That’s because Larry discussed "the Law" in a language that common folks could understand. Let’s see if I am up to that standard.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? Here's 5th Grade Math
In Friday’s Game at Citrus Springs on my last board the hands were:
KQTx
Jxx
Axxx
xx
Axx
AK
KQJx
AKxx
Sitting South I opened 2 clubs with this nice 4 Losing Trick Count hand and 5 Quick Tricks. Since we have a system that shows control cards over strong 2 club bids, my partner bid 3 clubs showing an Ace and a King in different suits. Sleuth that I am, I identify the King of spades and Ace of diamonds. What excuse could I offer for bidding anything less than 7NT. Bang! The tremor set my Diet Coke can in motion but thankfully it stayed upright!
LHO opens the Queen of clubs and the “pleased as punch” smile drains from my face. We got a problem Houston! At 7 NT there is no end play, and with only 11 top tricks there is no squeeze. It is clear that making the slam is going to be based on the play of the 7 card spade suit. I first set out to establish a couple of phony decoy threat cards hoping to crowd somebody’s hand and lure the defenders into making a telling spade discard. I take the Ace of clubs, the King of clubs and the Ace-King of hearts. Everybody follows suit. Now I have given them three potential winners to stew about, the Queen of clubs, Queen of hearts and Jack of spades.
Next I play 4 rounds of diamonds with West following suit and East playing one diamond and pitching a couple of hearts and a club. I then go into the tank trying to remember the four blogs that I have written on bridge probabilities.
(a) I do remember that “all other things being equal” that finessing the Jack of spades would be a 50% probability, but are all other things equal? Its biggest appeal is that if it is wrong, it will put a sudden end to this misery.
(b) Now I need to test if all other things are equal. Emile Borel, the noted French physicist, also wrote the first definitive treatise on bridge math in the late 1930’s entitled Theorie Mathematique du Bridge. Borrowing from his physics expertise, he laid down the “law of attraction” that length in one suit attracts shortness in another and that shortness attracts length. An adjunct to this is his “law of vacant places.” Once you have fully identified the distribution of one suit (in this case diamonds were 4-1) the likelihood of a defender holding any particular card in another suit is directly proportional to the non-diamond cards that he held. West originally held 9 non-diamond cards and East held 12 non-diamond cards, so the odds are 12 to 9 that East has the Jack of spades. Now the success of the finesse has become about a 43% probability.
(c) What about the 7 card spade suit. I remember that when the opponents hold an even number of cards they are likely to break unevenly. Even if spades are 4-2 as predicted, the missing honor could be doubleton, but that only happens in the newspaper. If it happens it will happen as i will first lead the Ace and King
in the spade suit.
(c) There is another rule that says when opponents have the 5 or 6 cards in a suit, finesse for the King or Queen, but not the Jack! In order to square that with the 7 card rule above, it must be that holding the ten in the suit makes a difference. Behold, I have AKQT in spades. This enhances the 3-3 split to 52.4% probability. Actually this rule is based on another probability rule called the “Deletion Principle” which also explains that time honored saying “8 ever, 9 never.”
I play the King o f spades from the dummy and Ace of spades to my hand and now lead a spade toward dummy. Both defenders follow to the Ace and King and LHO follows to the third lead of spades. The moment of truth! I am committed to taking the play with the best probability. At this point making 7 NT has become a side issue, I just want to make sure that if I lose bragging rights, I have an iron clad excuse for blowing the contract. I play the Quuen of spades and the Jack comes “oh so slowly” out of East’s hand.
I am thinking that this must be a cold top. Six no trump is unbeatable no matter what the lead or how you play the spade suit. How many pairs are going to bid 7NT in matchpoints and then also get the 5th grade math correct? Yesterday morning I quickly checked the results and found that out of 13 pairs playing the hand, one other team bid the Grand and they actually made it. I give credit to Eve Taylor sitting south and Lorraine Carrier her partner.
You may be saying that all that math is tiring and hard to remember. Actually the detail stuff is all window dressing, but nevertheless valid. If you remember the finessing rule for 5 and 6 cards you will make 7 no trump.
You can access my four earlier blogs on the odds and ends of bridge by looking in the archive in the right hand margin of the blog. I wrote about the Law of Attraction and the Law of Vacant Places in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part1) dated August 28, 2007. I covered the finessing rule with 5 or 6 cards outstanding in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 2) dated September 6, 2007 and about the Deletion Principle in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 4) dated September 12, 2007. It also proves that at my age the only chance you have of remembering something is if you write it down and tape crib notes on your right wrist. Now you know why I never wear short sleeve shirts!!
KQTx
Jxx
Axxx
xx
Axx
AK
KQJx
AKxx
Sitting South I opened 2 clubs with this nice 4 Losing Trick Count hand and 5 Quick Tricks. Since we have a system that shows control cards over strong 2 club bids, my partner bid 3 clubs showing an Ace and a King in different suits. Sleuth that I am, I identify the King of spades and Ace of diamonds. What excuse could I offer for bidding anything less than 7NT. Bang! The tremor set my Diet Coke can in motion but thankfully it stayed upright!
LHO opens the Queen of clubs and the “pleased as punch” smile drains from my face. We got a problem Houston! At 7 NT there is no end play, and with only 11 top tricks there is no squeeze. It is clear that making the slam is going to be based on the play of the 7 card spade suit. I first set out to establish a couple of phony decoy threat cards hoping to crowd somebody’s hand and lure the defenders into making a telling spade discard. I take the Ace of clubs, the King of clubs and the Ace-King of hearts. Everybody follows suit. Now I have given them three potential winners to stew about, the Queen of clubs, Queen of hearts and Jack of spades.
Next I play 4 rounds of diamonds with West following suit and East playing one diamond and pitching a couple of hearts and a club. I then go into the tank trying to remember the four blogs that I have written on bridge probabilities.
(a) I do remember that “all other things being equal” that finessing the Jack of spades would be a 50% probability, but are all other things equal? Its biggest appeal is that if it is wrong, it will put a sudden end to this misery.
(b) Now I need to test if all other things are equal. Emile Borel, the noted French physicist, also wrote the first definitive treatise on bridge math in the late 1930’s entitled Theorie Mathematique du Bridge. Borrowing from his physics expertise, he laid down the “law of attraction” that length in one suit attracts shortness in another and that shortness attracts length. An adjunct to this is his “law of vacant places.” Once you have fully identified the distribution of one suit (in this case diamonds were 4-1) the likelihood of a defender holding any particular card in another suit is directly proportional to the non-diamond cards that he held. West originally held 9 non-diamond cards and East held 12 non-diamond cards, so the odds are 12 to 9 that East has the Jack of spades. Now the success of the finesse has become about a 43% probability.
(c) What about the 7 card spade suit. I remember that when the opponents hold an even number of cards they are likely to break unevenly. Even if spades are 4-2 as predicted, the missing honor could be doubleton, but that only happens in the newspaper. If it happens it will happen as i will first lead the Ace and King
in the spade suit.
(c) There is another rule that says when opponents have the 5 or 6 cards in a suit, finesse for the King or Queen, but not the Jack! In order to square that with the 7 card rule above, it must be that holding the ten in the suit makes a difference. Behold, I have AKQT in spades. This enhances the 3-3 split to 52.4% probability. Actually this rule is based on another probability rule called the “Deletion Principle” which also explains that time honored saying “8 ever, 9 never.”
I play the King o f spades from the dummy and Ace of spades to my hand and now lead a spade toward dummy. Both defenders follow to the Ace and King and LHO follows to the third lead of spades. The moment of truth! I am committed to taking the play with the best probability. At this point making 7 NT has become a side issue, I just want to make sure that if I lose bragging rights, I have an iron clad excuse for blowing the contract. I play the Quuen of spades and the Jack comes “oh so slowly” out of East’s hand.
I am thinking that this must be a cold top. Six no trump is unbeatable no matter what the lead or how you play the spade suit. How many pairs are going to bid 7NT in matchpoints and then also get the 5th grade math correct? Yesterday morning I quickly checked the results and found that out of 13 pairs playing the hand, one other team bid the Grand and they actually made it. I give credit to Eve Taylor sitting south and Lorraine Carrier her partner.
You may be saying that all that math is tiring and hard to remember. Actually the detail stuff is all window dressing, but nevertheless valid. If you remember the finessing rule for 5 and 6 cards you will make 7 no trump.
You can access my four earlier blogs on the odds and ends of bridge by looking in the archive in the right hand margin of the blog. I wrote about the Law of Attraction and the Law of Vacant Places in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part1) dated August 28, 2007. I covered the finessing rule with 5 or 6 cards outstanding in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 2) dated September 6, 2007 and about the Deletion Principle in Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 4) dated September 12, 2007. It also proves that at my age the only chance you have of remembering something is if you write it down and tape crib notes on your right wrist. Now you know why I never wear short sleeve shirts!!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Give Respect, if Respect is Due
I have often recommended Larry Cohen’s free internet newsletter. If you have not looked at his newsletter in the past 6 months, it is worth revisiting. The newsletter has taken on a new feature which provides 4 sets of East-West hands for readers to bid and then he gives the likely or best bidding sequence, some rationale and comment and a score for your bid. The East and West hands are separately shown, so you can actually bid them with your partner without the double dummy advantage. Larry says this material is intermediate to advanced, but they are tough problem hands and are not going to be a pushover for anybody.
His lead article this month is a lamentation that no bridge convention has ever been named after him, while Marty Bergen has almost a dozen. After a worthwhile review of the basics of 4th seat opening bids, he puts a new twist on the Rule of 15. He says that we should augment the Rule of 15 by using CRIFS for deciding whether to bid or fold. CRIFS is an acronym for Cohen’s Rule In Fourth Seat. The rule is intended to be applied to 10, 11 and 12 point hands that actually meet the Rule of 15.
The rule is not about points, spades, distribution, but rather brings into play a human factor, the skill level of your opponents. After all, you do not have to play this hand; you can throw it in and move on. If you look left and right and see two highly competent, competitive players who will compete for the bid, and then play and defend like demons, do not touch your bidding box, do not pass Go and slip that marginal hand back into the tray. Alternatively, if you see players who you would like to make permanent opponents, pick your spot and go for it. If you open that 10 point hand hand, it is not considered good form to tell you opponents why you did so.
This is not the first time I have read about analyzing your opponents. A prominent professional team in discussing their opening lead discipline said that they prefer to use the more informative “Jack Denies” system, but that unfortunately it gives the same information to their opponents, so they only use it when they judge that their opponents don’t know what to do with the information!
As I thought about this sensible advice, I recollected that I had heard this same general advice before by a lesser known author. Sure enough, I found the same theme in a blog post I wrote in April of 2007 titled Rate Yourself as a Partner. This was a series of 12 tests of a good partner and you get a point for each “Yes” answer. The second item asks:
“Do you give expert players a little respect? The David and Goliath scenario hardly ever plays out at the bridge table. If you opponents are frequently known to play at the 55% level, you will do well against the field holding them to an average board. Find another time, place and opponent to demonstrate your cleverness.”
I think that blog post was one of my best and would be suitable to be reread before each game. Maybe suitable for framing! If you want to read that blog post, look in the archive in the right margin of the blog and locate the posts for April, 2007.
Now back to CRIFS. The underlying concept is valid, but I don’t need one more hard to remember acronym to tell me to duck when trouble is on the horizon. I doubt CRIFS will become a “biggie” in bridge vocabulary, and I think Larry Cohen was just having some fun at Marty Bergen’s expense.
His lead article this month is a lamentation that no bridge convention has ever been named after him, while Marty Bergen has almost a dozen. After a worthwhile review of the basics of 4th seat opening bids, he puts a new twist on the Rule of 15. He says that we should augment the Rule of 15 by using CRIFS for deciding whether to bid or fold. CRIFS is an acronym for Cohen’s Rule In Fourth Seat. The rule is intended to be applied to 10, 11 and 12 point hands that actually meet the Rule of 15.
The rule is not about points, spades, distribution, but rather brings into play a human factor, the skill level of your opponents. After all, you do not have to play this hand; you can throw it in and move on. If you look left and right and see two highly competent, competitive players who will compete for the bid, and then play and defend like demons, do not touch your bidding box, do not pass Go and slip that marginal hand back into the tray. Alternatively, if you see players who you would like to make permanent opponents, pick your spot and go for it. If you open that 10 point hand hand, it is not considered good form to tell you opponents why you did so.
This is not the first time I have read about analyzing your opponents. A prominent professional team in discussing their opening lead discipline said that they prefer to use the more informative “Jack Denies” system, but that unfortunately it gives the same information to their opponents, so they only use it when they judge that their opponents don’t know what to do with the information!
As I thought about this sensible advice, I recollected that I had heard this same general advice before by a lesser known author. Sure enough, I found the same theme in a blog post I wrote in April of 2007 titled Rate Yourself as a Partner. This was a series of 12 tests of a good partner and you get a point for each “Yes” answer. The second item asks:
“Do you give expert players a little respect? The David and Goliath scenario hardly ever plays out at the bridge table. If you opponents are frequently known to play at the 55% level, you will do well against the field holding them to an average board. Find another time, place and opponent to demonstrate your cleverness.”
I think that blog post was one of my best and would be suitable to be reread before each game. Maybe suitable for framing! If you want to read that blog post, look in the archive in the right margin of the blog and locate the posts for April, 2007.
Now back to CRIFS. The underlying concept is valid, but I don’t need one more hard to remember acronym to tell me to duck when trouble is on the horizon. I doubt CRIFS will become a “biggie” in bridge vocabulary, and I think Larry Cohen was just having some fun at Marty Bergen’s expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
