In suit contracts I mark one change from the standard leads shown on the convention card.. If I have a suit headed by the AK, KQ, or QJ, I lead the Ace or Queen if I want partner to signal me with attitude (high card asks for a continuation and low card asks for a shift) and I lead the King when I want partner to give me his card count in the suit led (high-low for an even number and low high for an odd number). The short hand name for this is “Ace is for Attitude and King is for Kount.” Get it? Did I just invent this. No, it is recommended in a short monograph by two leading bridge experts. The book is Defensive Signaling (Masterpoint Press 2000) by bridge experts David Bird and Marc Smith. This book is out of print and not available from the publisher, but a few copies are available used at Amazon at $7.60.
Selecting an opening lead at a suit contract is much more complicated than leading against a no trump contract. When opponents reach a suit contract unmolested it is necessary to base your lead on the type of defense you decide to employ. Since we have not bid, we need to listen to the opponents’ bidding to gain insight. We listen to what they bid, the sequence in which they bid it and take what inferences we can from their failure to make certain bids. Propped up by the bidding and a view of our 13 cards we select from one of 5 primary lines of defense.
There is an excellent discussion of the 5 Primary Lines of Defense in How the Experts Win at Bridge (1996) by Burt Hall and Lynn-Rose Hall. This is an excellent read for Intermediates. Here’s an overview of their listing:
Force Declarer to Lose Control of the Hand (“Pumping Declarer”)
Go Active When Tricks Can Disappear
Remain Passive When Your Tricks are Safe
Cut Down Declarer’s Ruffing Power
Creating Trump Tricks (Upper Cuts and Trump Promotion Plays)
Since we are going to discuss leading trump and trump tricks separately, we will concern ourselves here with the first 3 defenses.
1. Forcing Declarer. This is an awesome defense. You may not recognize it by name, but I’m sure you know how it feels. It ain’t fun to lose control of your trump suit and not be able to draw trump to cash side suit winners. Worse yet, sometimes opponents actually draw your trumps and cash all their side suit winners. How does opening leader know to start a forcing defense. You sense that partner has long trumps since you are short in trumps and they sound like they are on a 7 or 8 card fit. It can also be reversed, you can have long trump, it works both ways. Finally, if you hear declarer bid two suits he probably has shortness somewhere in his hand and may be vulnerable.
How do you force declarer? You lead your longest and strongest suit and keep leading them at every opportunity. If partner has bid a suit, you can lead that suit rather than your own. The object is to make declarer trump your long suit winners in his hand and cut down on his trumps. Note that forcing declarer to trump tricks in the dummy only works if dummy has the long trump. This most often occurs where there has been a transfer after a no trump opeing bid. Ideally you sense a situation where dummy has 3 small cards and declarer only one or two cards in your suit. If the trump suit are divided 1-3-4-5 (WNES), declarer only has to be forced to trump only once to get him down to our size, and if you can force him again, he loses control. This is also an explanation why it is bad to lead trump when you either have trump length or a trump singleton. You are usually helping declarer maintain control of the hand. You don’t always know on the opening lead that a forcing defense is going to work, but usually there is little to lose by starting out with that in mind. If it sounds like a forcing defense will work, it pays to make aggressive leads to get it started, even leading away from tenaces may be worth the risk.
2. Going Active. Make aggressive leads so you can get your tricks before they go away. It is particularly important in matchpoints to get your tricks so that declarer doesn’t get an overtrick. Sometimes you only get one chance to “cash.” So what does it sound like when your tricks are about to disappear? How about this auction 1h/2c/2h/4h. The trump suit sounds solid and responder didn’t make a 2/1 club suit bid on thin air. To me this sounds like declare may be ready to draw trump and play clubs to pitch losers from his hand. It is worth a risky lead to get a trick if you have one or can quickly promote one. Aside from laying down your tricks or leading honor sequences, it is worth the risk of under leading a suit of Kxx or QJx or even Qxx (as I did recently). Another time to get active is where opponents bid two suits and you can see from your hand that a key honor in the side suit is "on side" or that the side suit is going to break favorably for declarer. Another “go active" sign is when opponents make a slam try and then back off. It usually means they are close to slam and loaded and you should thing about grabbing your tricks or starting to set up a quick trick in some suit.
3. Remaining Passive. Make safe leads when your tricks are safe and will not go away. The best indicator of staying passive is when you do not find a reason to go active. You don’t want to be snatching winners, breaking suits for declarer or otherwise solving his problems for him if there is no urgency. Often there are two lines for declarer to attack a suit or contract, and you want to make him guess. With less experienced players, when they have to solve the problem for themselves, they often get nervous and make a needless mistake. Indicators of a passive approach are (i) no evidence of a side suit strength, (ii) dummy very weak and declarer very strong (2NT/3NT), (iii) a misfit hand or (iv) defending 6NT or a Grand Slam. Good passive leads are partner’s suit if he has bid one, honor sequences, top of nothing in a long suit or as a last resort, lead through dummy’s strength and not up to declarer.
You don’t have to worry too much about finessing partner since his high cards are likely to be finessed anyway. What you want to avoid if you can is under leading an unsupported honor and finessing yourself. If you have to underlead an honor, prefer a King to a Queen. Partner needs to have only one of two cards to promote a 2nd round trick for you.
Leading doubletons is probably the most abused lead by novices. Don’t do it unless you have reason to believe that it is going to be effective to produce a trump trick that you will not get naturally. Unless partner has bid a suit or otherwise indicated power in a suit, the likelihood of you getting a quick ruff from a doubleton lead is remote and the damage you can do is irreparable. One of the usual by-products is that you give declarer a “tempo”, since it is not an attacking lead. He will be grateful that you gave him time to get his house in order! Leads from doubleton honors are even more ridiculous. You would have a better chance with the lottery. A positive indicator to lead from a doubleton is where you have the top honor in trump so that you will get in again to lead the suit a second time before all your trump are pulled.
Are you left in doubt? Well, leading trump is coming up next.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Opening Leads Against No Trump Contracts (Part 2)
The bidding of no trump contracts has become so simple and precise, even novices have astoundingly high success rates. Although you can hope that opponents will misplay the hand, they are odds on favorites to make the contract. In no trump contracts, usually the matchpoints are won or lost on the opening lead. It boils down to whether you are going to give opponents an extra trick on the opening lead by finessing partner, finessing yourself (even worse), starting a suit in which opponents have length or giving declarer a “tempo” so that he has time to develop a different side suit before you knock out his single stopper.
The natural advantage declarer has in a no trump contract is that he has a big hand and the lead is often coming up to his AQx and KJx tenaces. Sometimes a "give away" is unavoidable, but you can minimize your exposure two ways. First, don’t make speculative "squirrelly" leads that are long shots in the hopes of finding partner with specific cards that he is not likely to hold. This is sure to put a smile on declarer’s face. Second, look at the hand and ask yourself what are other players going to lead from the mess you are looking at. Even if the lead turns out to be awful, if everybody else makes the same choice, you get an average board. This technique is referred to as “swimming with the fishes” and works quite effectively.
Honor leads in no trump are not common and almost invariably they are from a sequence of honors, a broken sequence (KQTx) or from an interior sequence (KJTx). If partner leads a King in a no trump contract, it is a command for you to unblock with any honor you may hold in the suit. For example, from AKJxx you would lead the King asking partner to jettison any honor he holds. So holding Qx or Txxx, he is asking you to play the honor under his King.
What do you do if you hold two honors but they are not in a sequence such as AQxx or KJxx. If opponents are in a contract of 3NT, start your analysis with the thought that they have roughly 2/3rds of the hcps. Who is most likely to hold the KJ or the AQ in those two examples. You got it, the opponents, and most of the time it will be the declarer. The moisture you see on declarer’s chin is drool and not sweat.
OK, I am sure you can remember a time when opponents bid a no trump game without a stopper and partner held those key cards. Try to remember that bridge is a game of percentages and that you want to develop a habit of making leads and plays that will work most of the time. Under leading a tenace at no trump is a long term loser. Equally unappealing is leading either honor. You want this suit led by your partner and through declarer and you need to develop patience and have confidence that partner will make the lead. If partner does not have an entry, this defense is not going anywhere anyway. Even if partner can not or does not lead this suit, it is better to force declarer to break the suit.
Well, after all that advice you may still decide you must lead either suit. By all means lead from the KJxx, a far superior lead than from AQxx. The reason: If you lead from KJxx there are two cards that can protect you, the A or Q. When you lead from AQxx, there is only one card partner can hold to avoid disaster, the King. So the odds are 2:1 by way of comparison.
Other than honor sequence leads, when defending no trump contracts, generally stay with the time honored rule of 4th best from the longest and strongest. First, you are not likely to defeat a no trump contract by your preponderance of high card points. It is not Aces and Kings that doom most no trump contracts, it’s the 2’s, 3’s and 4’s in that long suit you were able to develop before declarer got 9 tricks. So you need to get started on that right away. Second, when you lead 4th best, partner can employ the Rule of 11 and obtain some idea of declarer’s holding. I follow this rule pretty religiously if I have a 5+ card suit. Experience has taught me that leading from 4th best when you only have 4 cards in the suit headed by a single subordinate honor (Queen or Jack) often gives away more tricks that it gains. Look for something else.
If you don’t have any entries back to your hand after your opening lead, it is pointless to work on your suit, it will never materialize. When I have that kind of hand, I try to lead something that looks like it might help my partner, often an unbid major. If the bidding has gone 1NT/3NT, it sounds like opponents do not have an interest in majors. Since they lack interest in majors, that should be where our interest lies.
If partner has bid a suit, and the opponents bid a NT contract right in his face, you have a tough decision. I generally lead partner’s suit, even if I have a singleton. Better to lose a board than to lose a partner. If I have bid a suit and they bid a NT contract in my face, if I am on lead I will generally not lead my suit unless I have an honor sequence of some kind. Without a sequence, it is better to hope that partner can get the lead and lead your suit through declarer. So, the fact that partner did not lead his bid suit does not indicate lack of interest in the suit, he just does not want to lead it up to declarer.
Here are some “Don’ts”:
1. Don't leada short suit unless partner has bid it or directed the lead.
2. Dont lead a suit opponents have bid, particularly one bid by declarer.
3. Don't lead Aces or other high honors that are unsupported.
In the next blog post we will cover leads at suit contracts. Does anyone want to “guest author” this? Warning: It must fit on 20 pages single spaced!
The natural advantage declarer has in a no trump contract is that he has a big hand and the lead is often coming up to his AQx and KJx tenaces. Sometimes a "give away" is unavoidable, but you can minimize your exposure two ways. First, don’t make speculative "squirrelly" leads that are long shots in the hopes of finding partner with specific cards that he is not likely to hold. This is sure to put a smile on declarer’s face. Second, look at the hand and ask yourself what are other players going to lead from the mess you are looking at. Even if the lead turns out to be awful, if everybody else makes the same choice, you get an average board. This technique is referred to as “swimming with the fishes” and works quite effectively.
Honor leads in no trump are not common and almost invariably they are from a sequence of honors, a broken sequence (KQTx) or from an interior sequence (KJTx). If partner leads a King in a no trump contract, it is a command for you to unblock with any honor you may hold in the suit. For example, from AKJxx you would lead the King asking partner to jettison any honor he holds. So holding Qx or Txxx, he is asking you to play the honor under his King.
What do you do if you hold two honors but they are not in a sequence such as AQxx or KJxx. If opponents are in a contract of 3NT, start your analysis with the thought that they have roughly 2/3rds of the hcps. Who is most likely to hold the KJ or the AQ in those two examples. You got it, the opponents, and most of the time it will be the declarer. The moisture you see on declarer’s chin is drool and not sweat.
OK, I am sure you can remember a time when opponents bid a no trump game without a stopper and partner held those key cards. Try to remember that bridge is a game of percentages and that you want to develop a habit of making leads and plays that will work most of the time. Under leading a tenace at no trump is a long term loser. Equally unappealing is leading either honor. You want this suit led by your partner and through declarer and you need to develop patience and have confidence that partner will make the lead. If partner does not have an entry, this defense is not going anywhere anyway. Even if partner can not or does not lead this suit, it is better to force declarer to break the suit.
Well, after all that advice you may still decide you must lead either suit. By all means lead from the KJxx, a far superior lead than from AQxx. The reason: If you lead from KJxx there are two cards that can protect you, the A or Q. When you lead from AQxx, there is only one card partner can hold to avoid disaster, the King. So the odds are 2:1 by way of comparison.
Other than honor sequence leads, when defending no trump contracts, generally stay with the time honored rule of 4th best from the longest and strongest. First, you are not likely to defeat a no trump contract by your preponderance of high card points. It is not Aces and Kings that doom most no trump contracts, it’s the 2’s, 3’s and 4’s in that long suit you were able to develop before declarer got 9 tricks. So you need to get started on that right away. Second, when you lead 4th best, partner can employ the Rule of 11 and obtain some idea of declarer’s holding. I follow this rule pretty religiously if I have a 5+ card suit. Experience has taught me that leading from 4th best when you only have 4 cards in the suit headed by a single subordinate honor (Queen or Jack) often gives away more tricks that it gains. Look for something else.
If you don’t have any entries back to your hand after your opening lead, it is pointless to work on your suit, it will never materialize. When I have that kind of hand, I try to lead something that looks like it might help my partner, often an unbid major. If the bidding has gone 1NT/3NT, it sounds like opponents do not have an interest in majors. Since they lack interest in majors, that should be where our interest lies.
If partner has bid a suit, and the opponents bid a NT contract right in his face, you have a tough decision. I generally lead partner’s suit, even if I have a singleton. Better to lose a board than to lose a partner. If I have bid a suit and they bid a NT contract in my face, if I am on lead I will generally not lead my suit unless I have an honor sequence of some kind. Without a sequence, it is better to hope that partner can get the lead and lead your suit through declarer. So, the fact that partner did not lead his bid suit does not indicate lack of interest in the suit, he just does not want to lead it up to declarer.
Here are some “Don’ts”:
1. Don't leada short suit unless partner has bid it or directed the lead.
2. Dont lead a suit opponents have bid, particularly one bid by declarer.
3. Don't lead Aces or other high honors that are unsupported.
In the next blog post we will cover leads at suit contracts. Does anyone want to “guest author” this? Warning: It must fit on 20 pages single spaced!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Opening Leads (Part 1)
More than half the time, selecting the correct opening lead will make or break the contract. Put another way, most contracts make at least one overtrick because of faulty leads and defense. What’s the easiest way to pick up your game? Learn a few simple rules about opening leads and adhere to them. Note that I didn’t say anything about memorizing the exhaustive opening lead tables that are so common, nor did I imply you needed to be a genius. As quixotic as experts would like to make this, there is a process that will enable your partnership to function efficiently and score better. First you must determine the suit to be lead. Second, and more important, is that you must determine the card to be led in the suit you have selected. Your choice of card will tell partner about your length and strength in the suit.
You are not left to guessing as there are standard lead disciplines that have been developed over time. If you want to be more successful in selecting the right card, just follow 6 simple rules:
1. Lead the highest ranking card from touching honors except lead the King from AKx(x)(x) and the Ace from AK doubleton. (See later discussion).
2. Lead the Second highest card from a broken sequence such as KQTx or KJTx.
3. Lead the 4th best card from a 4+ card suit headed by an honor.
4. Lead the highest card from three small cards (see later discussion).
5. Lead the lowest card from 3 cards to an honor (see later discussion).
6. Lead high from any doubleton.
Let me emphasize that these are standard leads, and partners can choose to make non-standard leads as long as the variance is fairly disclosed to the opponents. Marking the change on the convention card will do. The most common exception to standard leads today is the lead of an Ace from AKx+ and lead King from Ace King doubleton. Don’t ask me why, I don’t understand it, but if that is what your partner wants to do, just humor him. There is also a thriving controversy about what card to lead from 3 small cards. While many stay with the standard and lead the highest card, an equal number lead the lowest card. If that is not bad enough, some partnerships use MUD, middle card, then up and then down. Here briefly are the considerations.
When you lead the top card from three small it is impossible for partner to know if you hold 2 or 3 small cards in the suit. The trade off is that he knows that you do not have a card higher than the card lead. Guess what, so does the opposition! When you lead the small card from 3 small cards, partner will know that you do not have a doubleton, but he will be uncertain about whether you have an honor in the suit since you also lead small from three or four to an honor. In an effort to side step this uncertainty (and add even more uncertainty), some partnerships use MUD, but the downside about this is that you do not know whether it is from a doubleton or three cards until the second card is played. You also forfeit the discipline of the lead of a low card (5 or under) guaranteeing an honor in the suit. Each has their own supporters and none is perfect all the time. You and partner need to decide what to do and mark your card if it is not “top of nothing.”
If partner has bid a suit, you are hopefully going to lead it. If it turns out to be a rotten lead, get a new partner. Who asked him to overcall on KJxxx? Lead low from 3 cards and high from two cards to give partner a count in is suit. There are variations on this scheme as well, but this basic rule will work.
If partner doubles a conventional bid by opponents, this means he wants you to lead that suit. This opportunity often happens on Stayman and Transfer bids in no trump bidding. What if partner doesn’t double a conventional bid? As usual, there are strong inferences to be taken from silence, and in this case lead any suit other than the conventional bid he did not double. Here you may have to woodshed partner to train him to do the right thing.
If partner makes a takeout double, it usually means he has something in the other three suits. If you are on lead and have an honor in any of the unbid suits, lead that suit as it is reasonable to assume that partner will be able to help you out with a supporting honor. That gets you off to an aggressive start. If you have a hopeless hand without any defensive possibilities, and you lead any of the three unbid suits, you likely will finesse one of partners honors. Make declarer figure it out and work for it. Now is the time for a passive lead like trump.
With the next post we will cover leading at no trump contracts. Following that I will cover leads at suit contracts, then trump leads and leading against slams. If you want a reference work for definitive information on opening leads and the play of the hand I recommend Easley Blackwood’s The Complete Book of Opening Leads (1983) or the all time classic, Louis Watson’s The Play of the Hand at Bridge (1933). Both are good references, but a substantial workout to read cover to cover. Just rereading the six rules and getting on the same page with partner may produce quicker results.
You are not left to guessing as there are standard lead disciplines that have been developed over time. If you want to be more successful in selecting the right card, just follow 6 simple rules:
1. Lead the highest ranking card from touching honors except lead the King from AKx(x)(x) and the Ace from AK doubleton. (See later discussion).
2. Lead the Second highest card from a broken sequence such as KQTx or KJTx.
3. Lead the 4th best card from a 4+ card suit headed by an honor.
4. Lead the highest card from three small cards (see later discussion).
5. Lead the lowest card from 3 cards to an honor (see later discussion).
6. Lead high from any doubleton.
Let me emphasize that these are standard leads, and partners can choose to make non-standard leads as long as the variance is fairly disclosed to the opponents. Marking the change on the convention card will do. The most common exception to standard leads today is the lead of an Ace from AKx+ and lead King from Ace King doubleton. Don’t ask me why, I don’t understand it, but if that is what your partner wants to do, just humor him. There is also a thriving controversy about what card to lead from 3 small cards. While many stay with the standard and lead the highest card, an equal number lead the lowest card. If that is not bad enough, some partnerships use MUD, middle card, then up and then down. Here briefly are the considerations.
When you lead the top card from three small it is impossible for partner to know if you hold 2 or 3 small cards in the suit. The trade off is that he knows that you do not have a card higher than the card lead. Guess what, so does the opposition! When you lead the small card from 3 small cards, partner will know that you do not have a doubleton, but he will be uncertain about whether you have an honor in the suit since you also lead small from three or four to an honor. In an effort to side step this uncertainty (and add even more uncertainty), some partnerships use MUD, but the downside about this is that you do not know whether it is from a doubleton or three cards until the second card is played. You also forfeit the discipline of the lead of a low card (5 or under) guaranteeing an honor in the suit. Each has their own supporters and none is perfect all the time. You and partner need to decide what to do and mark your card if it is not “top of nothing.”
If partner has bid a suit, you are hopefully going to lead it. If it turns out to be a rotten lead, get a new partner. Who asked him to overcall on KJxxx? Lead low from 3 cards and high from two cards to give partner a count in is suit. There are variations on this scheme as well, but this basic rule will work.
If partner doubles a conventional bid by opponents, this means he wants you to lead that suit. This opportunity often happens on Stayman and Transfer bids in no trump bidding. What if partner doesn’t double a conventional bid? As usual, there are strong inferences to be taken from silence, and in this case lead any suit other than the conventional bid he did not double. Here you may have to woodshed partner to train him to do the right thing.
If partner makes a takeout double, it usually means he has something in the other three suits. If you are on lead and have an honor in any of the unbid suits, lead that suit as it is reasonable to assume that partner will be able to help you out with a supporting honor. That gets you off to an aggressive start. If you have a hopeless hand without any defensive possibilities, and you lead any of the three unbid suits, you likely will finesse one of partners honors. Make declarer figure it out and work for it. Now is the time for a passive lead like trump.
With the next post we will cover leading at no trump contracts. Following that I will cover leads at suit contracts, then trump leads and leading against slams. If you want a reference work for definitive information on opening leads and the play of the hand I recommend Easley Blackwood’s The Complete Book of Opening Leads (1983) or the all time classic, Louis Watson’s The Play of the Hand at Bridge (1933). Both are good references, but a substantial workout to read cover to cover. Just rereading the six rules and getting on the same page with partner may produce quicker results.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Michaels Cue Bids Revisited
After Stayman, Blackwood and Transfers, Michaels Cue Bids and Unusual No Trump are probably the most common conventions. They are used by most rubber bridge players, and have now become part of the consensus Standard American Yellow Card system (SAYC) as well as more advanced systems. Today I’m going to focus on Michaels Cue Bids developed by well known professional, Mike Michaels. In yesteryear, an immediate cue bid after an opening by opponents showed a monster hand and was forcing to game. Since today we can first make a take out double and then bid to show an unbalanced hand in the 17+ range, or overcall 1NT or 2NT to show big balanced hands, the cue bid has been recruited to show hands that have 5-5 distribution.
While some partnerships may permit a Michaels bid to be made on a 5-4 hand, I prefer sticking with the original concept of 5-5, even when it involves both majors. If you want to change Michaels to some combination of 5-4, you definitely need to discuss it with your partner. The risk is with equal support, partner may take a preference for your 4 card suit and you end up singing the wrong song.
With 5-4 distribution and a hand worth an overcall, I would recommend overcalling your 5 card suit, and if it does not misrepresent your hand strength, show the 4 card suit on the second bid. It is convenient to do when your 5 card suit is the higher ranking suit and your 4 card suit is lower ranking, since then you can give partner a simple preference without reversing the bidding. The thing to avoid is reversing the bidding on a modest hand. If your 5 card suit is lower ranking than your 4 card suit, you just have to eat the four card suit. This may be the justification for permitting 5-4 Michaels, and would work best if limited to five hearts and four spades.
Let’s get the bids out of the way:
(a) a cue bid in a minor (1c/2c or 1d/2d) shows both major suits.
(b) a cue bid in hearts (1h/2h) shows 5 spades and an undisclosed 5 card minor suit.
(c) a cue bid in spades (1s/2s) shows 5 hearts and an undisclosed 5 card minor suit.
The traditional strength requirement to make a minor suit cue bid (showing both majors) is 7+ hpcs. If the cue bid shows a major and minor, I would raise the requirement to about 10+ hcps, since you often end up at the three level playing a minor suit. You must watch the vulnerability and adjust your strength up or down. With equal or favorable vulnerability, I might substantially lower those requirements. With unfavorable vulnerability, I would be at the top. The most important thing is that you have the majority of your points in your two 5 card suits. Singleton or doubleton honors in your short suits are often worthless.
Here are the responses:
(a) If the cue bid is a minor (showing majors) a simple response to the 2 level in a major can be made on weak hands if you have 3+ card support. It is not a constructive bid. A direct raise to the 3 level is generally regarded as invitational with 3 or 4 trump. "Invitational" in this sequencing surely means a hand you would have opened had partner not made a cue bid. A bid of 2NT shows a balanced hand, stoppers in the minors and opening no trump values (15-17). A cue bid by advancer (1c/2c/p/3c) is a game force. You have a very good hand and plan to get a new partner if this one stops bidding short of game.
(b) If the cue bid is a major (showing the opposite major and a minor) and you have support for the major suit indicated, the responses are essentially the same as shown in (a) above. If you do not have support for the major (singleton or doubleton) and have at least 3 card support for both minors, you can ask partner to show his minor by bidding 2NT. When partner shows his minor, you can then decide how to proceed using “judgment.” (We never seem to be able to abandon that word, do we?)
Often partner’s Michaels bid will set the stage for a sacrifice. If the bidding goes 1h/2h/4h/?, it does not sound good for the home team. If you have exceptional support for spades (4+ cards) or if you have great minor suits, you may want to make a save. In spades you would simply bid 4 spades. If you have great support for the minors and little defense, you may want to save in a partner’s minor. You bid 4NT asking partner to bid 5 of his minor. Your hand may look like xx, xx, KJxxx, xxxx. If partner has as much as AQxxx, x, Qxxxx, xx, you may be able to hold it to down 2. In match points this strategy can be very effective, as opponents heart game looks pretty solid. At IMPs, 5 level saves are much more problematical, and running up the white flag is most often the best.
You may have heard of “over/under Michael’s.” In this scheme, with 5-5 hands you use Michaels with hands in the 8-10 range and with hands over 16 hcps. If the hand falls in the middle with 11-15 points, you attempt to bid both suits and forgo Michaels. This attempt at showing the size of the 5-5 hand is just a bunch of crap a far as I am concerned. With 11-15 hcps, you often do not have the bidding room to show both suits and your story never gets told. Most good players today realize the importance of showing the distribution of the hand as soon as possible by playing what I have earlier described, known as “Continuous Michaels.”
In Frank Stewart’s bridge column last Sunday he showed a world class Norwegian pair at work. Geir Helgemo sitting south held KJTxx, KJTxx, xx, x. East opened the bidding one club. For whatever reason, Geir bid 1 spade thinking he would bid hearts next to describe this hand. The bidding went 1c/1s/2s (limit raise or better for clubs)/3s (weak preemptive raise)/ 3NT/4 h/p/4s/x. Well, he finally got to describe his hand, but he was at the 4 level before the opportunity presented itself. What is wrong with a Michaels Cue bid of 2 clubs to describe the hand. It puts partner in the picture instantly and lets him be the “captain of the ship.” The only downside I can see is that it would have deprived Geir of the opportunity of going -1100 and the loss of 15 IMP’s.
A final caution. I had a hand last Friday where my LHO made a 2 club cue bid over my one club opener. We ultimately prevailed and played a game contract in a minor suit. The trump broke 4-1, but I was able to pick up the entire trump suit with Kxxx in east’s hand. The Michaels Cue bid told me that my LHO opponent had only 3 minor suit cards and that the outstanding major suit honors were likely to my left. The play of the hand was somewhat contorted, but fully justified by the information I had been gratuitously given. Michaels Cue bids and Unusual No trump always give opponents information. Be sure it is worth the price!
While some partnerships may permit a Michaels bid to be made on a 5-4 hand, I prefer sticking with the original concept of 5-5, even when it involves both majors. If you want to change Michaels to some combination of 5-4, you definitely need to discuss it with your partner. The risk is with equal support, partner may take a preference for your 4 card suit and you end up singing the wrong song.
With 5-4 distribution and a hand worth an overcall, I would recommend overcalling your 5 card suit, and if it does not misrepresent your hand strength, show the 4 card suit on the second bid. It is convenient to do when your 5 card suit is the higher ranking suit and your 4 card suit is lower ranking, since then you can give partner a simple preference without reversing the bidding. The thing to avoid is reversing the bidding on a modest hand. If your 5 card suit is lower ranking than your 4 card suit, you just have to eat the four card suit. This may be the justification for permitting 5-4 Michaels, and would work best if limited to five hearts and four spades.
Let’s get the bids out of the way:
(a) a cue bid in a minor (1c/2c or 1d/2d) shows both major suits.
(b) a cue bid in hearts (1h/2h) shows 5 spades and an undisclosed 5 card minor suit.
(c) a cue bid in spades (1s/2s) shows 5 hearts and an undisclosed 5 card minor suit.
The traditional strength requirement to make a minor suit cue bid (showing both majors) is 7+ hpcs. If the cue bid shows a major and minor, I would raise the requirement to about 10+ hcps, since you often end up at the three level playing a minor suit. You must watch the vulnerability and adjust your strength up or down. With equal or favorable vulnerability, I might substantially lower those requirements. With unfavorable vulnerability, I would be at the top. The most important thing is that you have the majority of your points in your two 5 card suits. Singleton or doubleton honors in your short suits are often worthless.
Here are the responses:
(a) If the cue bid is a minor (showing majors) a simple response to the 2 level in a major can be made on weak hands if you have 3+ card support. It is not a constructive bid. A direct raise to the 3 level is generally regarded as invitational with 3 or 4 trump. "Invitational" in this sequencing surely means a hand you would have opened had partner not made a cue bid. A bid of 2NT shows a balanced hand, stoppers in the minors and opening no trump values (15-17). A cue bid by advancer (1c/2c/p/3c) is a game force. You have a very good hand and plan to get a new partner if this one stops bidding short of game.
(b) If the cue bid is a major (showing the opposite major and a minor) and you have support for the major suit indicated, the responses are essentially the same as shown in (a) above. If you do not have support for the major (singleton or doubleton) and have at least 3 card support for both minors, you can ask partner to show his minor by bidding 2NT. When partner shows his minor, you can then decide how to proceed using “judgment.” (We never seem to be able to abandon that word, do we?)
Often partner’s Michaels bid will set the stage for a sacrifice. If the bidding goes 1h/2h/4h/?, it does not sound good for the home team. If you have exceptional support for spades (4+ cards) or if you have great minor suits, you may want to make a save. In spades you would simply bid 4 spades. If you have great support for the minors and little defense, you may want to save in a partner’s minor. You bid 4NT asking partner to bid 5 of his minor. Your hand may look like xx, xx, KJxxx, xxxx. If partner has as much as AQxxx, x, Qxxxx, xx, you may be able to hold it to down 2. In match points this strategy can be very effective, as opponents heart game looks pretty solid. At IMPs, 5 level saves are much more problematical, and running up the white flag is most often the best.
You may have heard of “over/under Michael’s.” In this scheme, with 5-5 hands you use Michaels with hands in the 8-10 range and with hands over 16 hcps. If the hand falls in the middle with 11-15 points, you attempt to bid both suits and forgo Michaels. This attempt at showing the size of the 5-5 hand is just a bunch of crap a far as I am concerned. With 11-15 hcps, you often do not have the bidding room to show both suits and your story never gets told. Most good players today realize the importance of showing the distribution of the hand as soon as possible by playing what I have earlier described, known as “Continuous Michaels.”
In Frank Stewart’s bridge column last Sunday he showed a world class Norwegian pair at work. Geir Helgemo sitting south held KJTxx, KJTxx, xx, x. East opened the bidding one club. For whatever reason, Geir bid 1 spade thinking he would bid hearts next to describe this hand. The bidding went 1c/1s/2s (limit raise or better for clubs)/3s (weak preemptive raise)/ 3NT/4 h/p/4s/x. Well, he finally got to describe his hand, but he was at the 4 level before the opportunity presented itself. What is wrong with a Michaels Cue bid of 2 clubs to describe the hand. It puts partner in the picture instantly and lets him be the “captain of the ship.” The only downside I can see is that it would have deprived Geir of the opportunity of going -1100 and the loss of 15 IMP’s.
A final caution. I had a hand last Friday where my LHO made a 2 club cue bid over my one club opener. We ultimately prevailed and played a game contract in a minor suit. The trump broke 4-1, but I was able to pick up the entire trump suit with Kxxx in east’s hand. The Michaels Cue bid told me that my LHO opponent had only 3 minor suit cards and that the outstanding major suit honors were likely to my left. The play of the hand was somewhat contorted, but fully justified by the information I had been gratuitously given. Michaels Cue bids and Unusual No trump always give opponents information. Be sure it is worth the price!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Searching for Major Suit Fits
This is more for my novice and intermediate readers, but I hope that there will be something for all readers to enjoy or criticize. Opening 5 card majors takes all the risks out of missing 8 card major suit fits. Even with a minimum hand (5+ hcps) and 3 card support, you should squeeze out a raise for partner. Even the constructive raise people will get there sooner or later if opponents don’t get in their way. Flip that suit around giving opener 3 cards in the major and responder 5, and reaching the best contract can sometimes be a problem. Let’s set the stage and then look at some solutions.
Opener holds Qxx, Qxx, AQxxx, Kx. The bidding goes 1d/p/1s/p/? Before we get to the heart of the problem, let’s do a little review on opener’s rebid options. As you sort through the possibilities, you might let your mind drift through 1 NT, 2 Diamonds or 2 Spades. This is no mindblower (a specialty of my blog), but let’s look briefly at those choices.
There are refugees from the 4 card major days who like to raise responder with 3 card support since they have spent a bridge lifetime playing 7 card fits. As a modernist, I prefer my partners to raise me only with 4 cards unless there is not better bid or and the 3 cards are a little chunky. The bid of 2 spades is out simply by not meeting either exception.
I find the bid of 2 diamonds equally unappealing. First, I think rebidding a minor should show a 6 card suit. Second, the diamond suit is not a good quality suit. Third, there is major difference between rebidding 1NT and rebidding 2 diamonds. Two diamonds holds out the potential for a hand that may have from 11-16 hpcs and is unbalanced. This does not represent opener’s hand.
The most important thing that opener can do in this auction is to limit his point count and show a balanced distribution by bidding 1NT. Opener tells his complete story at the one level and responder now is the “Captain of the Ship.” This is an important concept in bridge. As soon as either partner can do so, he should fully describe his hand, and from that point the other partner (with unknown values) calls all the shots.
We may have one problem. There may be an 8 card major fit between the hands that is yet unrevealed. I can hear all the “3 card raisers” saying didn’t we warn you about that? Enter “New Minor Forcing” or its first cousin “Check Back Stayman.”
If responder’s initial response is a 5 card major and he has 11+ hcps, he can use one of these conventions to ferret out 8 card major fits. In my bidding sequence both conventions would bid 2 clubs over 1NT asking opener if he has 3 card support for responder’s bid major or 4 card support for an unbid major. The bid is a one round force, but not a game force. If responder has 11 hcps and opener has 12 hcps, we want to be able to stop in part score in our best contract. Even if opener has neither 3 card support nor the opposite four card major, you will usually be safe playing 2NT with 23 hcps. This explanation is intended only as an introduction to these conventions, but you can see their usefulness. They are right up there with Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. See the literature for more detail or e-mail me for a more detailed summary.
There are sometimes opportunities to find these 3-5 fits from opener’s side. If the bidding went 1d/p/1s/2c/?, partnerships playing “Support Doubles” have other options. With the intervening overcall by opener’s RHO, opener can now double that overcall to show 3 card support for spades. If opener has 4 card support for spades, he bids 2 spades. A pass or any other bid would indicate no support. If opener made a support double, then responder with a 5 card major rebids that suit at the appropriate level. At this point neither partner has limited the strength of his hand, so if responder has game force or invitational values, he better not make a minimum bid. In the heat of battle it is often easy to miss the support double until you have done so once or twice :) . One of my favorite themes is that in any competitive auction there is a cost to intervening. In this case, if RHO had not overcalled 2 clubs, opener would not have the opportunity to make his support double and finding the 8 card fit would have been problematical. See the literature for more detail on Support Doubles and Redoubles or e-mail me for a more detailed summary. And “Oh by the Way” all of these conventions are alertable.
But suppose the opponents don’t accommodate you and responder doesn’t have the 11 hcps to use NMF, and yet has 5 cards in his bid major. Let’s give him something like KJxxx, xxxx, Jx, Qx. In early May, I had hands like this twice. Both of my partner’s were old bridge hands who did play in the 4 card major days (50’s and before). I passed 1NT and my partners in each case said “why didn’t you bid 2 spades?” I explained that my modern bridge education taught me that rebidding a suit by responder shows 6 cards in the suit and is to play. They just shook their heads as a polite commentary on “form over function.”
When I am uncertain of my ground, I often check with my bridge teacher, Pat Peterson, to see if I got the lesson correct or had wax in my ears that day. After an e-mail inquiry, Pat wrote me back:
“I (Pat) have a very good mentor who is a world class player and has won in highest level competition who says it is RIGHT for responder to rebid a 5 card major when you have too few points to make a NMF bid. The reasoning behind this is that partner must have at least 2 of the major to rebid 1NT (find another partner if he doesn’t) so you are better in a 5-3 or 5-2 fit than in 1NT. I must say I do this routinely and usually it is right. There are occasions where 1NT is better, but (sigh) such is life.”
That's good enough authority for me!! Note that with the hands I have given you 1NT is not a good contract and playing in spades will bring home +110-140 depending on the diamond finesse and suit breaks. Even if it turns out that partner holds QT, Qxx, AQxxx, Kxx and we play a 7 card suit, the play in spades is still superior. A good measure of bridge ability and experience is the willingness of a player to play a 7 card fit. It doesn’t seem to bother better players and some revel in it.
Opener holds Qxx, Qxx, AQxxx, Kx. The bidding goes 1d/p/1s/p/? Before we get to the heart of the problem, let’s do a little review on opener’s rebid options. As you sort through the possibilities, you might let your mind drift through 1 NT, 2 Diamonds or 2 Spades. This is no mindblower (a specialty of my blog), but let’s look briefly at those choices.
There are refugees from the 4 card major days who like to raise responder with 3 card support since they have spent a bridge lifetime playing 7 card fits. As a modernist, I prefer my partners to raise me only with 4 cards unless there is not better bid or and the 3 cards are a little chunky. The bid of 2 spades is out simply by not meeting either exception.
I find the bid of 2 diamonds equally unappealing. First, I think rebidding a minor should show a 6 card suit. Second, the diamond suit is not a good quality suit. Third, there is major difference between rebidding 1NT and rebidding 2 diamonds. Two diamonds holds out the potential for a hand that may have from 11-16 hpcs and is unbalanced. This does not represent opener’s hand.
The most important thing that opener can do in this auction is to limit his point count and show a balanced distribution by bidding 1NT. Opener tells his complete story at the one level and responder now is the “Captain of the Ship.” This is an important concept in bridge. As soon as either partner can do so, he should fully describe his hand, and from that point the other partner (with unknown values) calls all the shots.
We may have one problem. There may be an 8 card major fit between the hands that is yet unrevealed. I can hear all the “3 card raisers” saying didn’t we warn you about that? Enter “New Minor Forcing” or its first cousin “Check Back Stayman.”
If responder’s initial response is a 5 card major and he has 11+ hcps, he can use one of these conventions to ferret out 8 card major fits. In my bidding sequence both conventions would bid 2 clubs over 1NT asking opener if he has 3 card support for responder’s bid major or 4 card support for an unbid major. The bid is a one round force, but not a game force. If responder has 11 hcps and opener has 12 hcps, we want to be able to stop in part score in our best contract. Even if opener has neither 3 card support nor the opposite four card major, you will usually be safe playing 2NT with 23 hcps. This explanation is intended only as an introduction to these conventions, but you can see their usefulness. They are right up there with Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. See the literature for more detail or e-mail me for a more detailed summary.
There are sometimes opportunities to find these 3-5 fits from opener’s side. If the bidding went 1d/p/1s/2c/?, partnerships playing “Support Doubles” have other options. With the intervening overcall by opener’s RHO, opener can now double that overcall to show 3 card support for spades. If opener has 4 card support for spades, he bids 2 spades. A pass or any other bid would indicate no support. If opener made a support double, then responder with a 5 card major rebids that suit at the appropriate level. At this point neither partner has limited the strength of his hand, so if responder has game force or invitational values, he better not make a minimum bid. In the heat of battle it is often easy to miss the support double until you have done so once or twice :) . One of my favorite themes is that in any competitive auction there is a cost to intervening. In this case, if RHO had not overcalled 2 clubs, opener would not have the opportunity to make his support double and finding the 8 card fit would have been problematical. See the literature for more detail on Support Doubles and Redoubles or e-mail me for a more detailed summary. And “Oh by the Way” all of these conventions are alertable.
But suppose the opponents don’t accommodate you and responder doesn’t have the 11 hcps to use NMF, and yet has 5 cards in his bid major. Let’s give him something like KJxxx, xxxx, Jx, Qx. In early May, I had hands like this twice. Both of my partner’s were old bridge hands who did play in the 4 card major days (50’s and before). I passed 1NT and my partners in each case said “why didn’t you bid 2 spades?” I explained that my modern bridge education taught me that rebidding a suit by responder shows 6 cards in the suit and is to play. They just shook their heads as a polite commentary on “form over function.”
When I am uncertain of my ground, I often check with my bridge teacher, Pat Peterson, to see if I got the lesson correct or had wax in my ears that day. After an e-mail inquiry, Pat wrote me back:
“I (Pat) have a very good mentor who is a world class player and has won in highest level competition who says it is RIGHT for responder to rebid a 5 card major when you have too few points to make a NMF bid. The reasoning behind this is that partner must have at least 2 of the major to rebid 1NT (find another partner if he doesn’t) so you are better in a 5-3 or 5-2 fit than in 1NT. I must say I do this routinely and usually it is right. There are occasions where 1NT is better, but (sigh) such is life.”
That's good enough authority for me!! Note that with the hands I have given you 1NT is not a good contract and playing in spades will bring home +110-140 depending on the diamond finesse and suit breaks. Even if it turns out that partner holds QT, Qxx, AQxxx, Kxx and we play a 7 card suit, the play in spades is still superior. A good measure of bridge ability and experience is the willingness of a player to play a 7 card fit. It doesn’t seem to bother better players and some revel in it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Opening 1NT with 5 Card Majors
A bidding question in this morning's Frank Stewart Bridge Column got me thinking about opening hands with 5 card majors with a bid of 1NT. In an early 2007 blog, I noted that Jeff Meckstroth (2007 ACBL Masterpoint leader) told me to open all 5332 hands 1NT (15-17) even if they contained a five card major. This advice was given without qualifications or exceptions. The advantages to the partnership are too significant not to do so. Among those mentioned were:
(a) The chance to limit your hand to a narrow point count.
(b) The chance to tell partner your hand is balanced or semi-balanced (no single or void).
(c) A clear signal to responder that he is the “Captain of the Ship.” Opener can now sit back, pop a brewski and relax,
(d) One No Trump is preemptive making it difficult for opponents to make a cheap overcall.
(d) The ability of the partnership to use the well understood Stayman and Transfers as well as a narrowly defined invitational bid. It’s a big plus to eliminate partnership confusion.
(e) Avoiding difficult rebid problems for opener.
(f) Establishing the no trump bidder as the most likely declarer so that the lead comes up to his tenaces and not through his Kx stopper.
The list goes on and on, but when you have Meckstroth’s advice, you don’t need reasons. Not all experts are as aggressive about this as Meckstroth, but there are few experts who today would disqualify a hand for a 1NT opening based solely on the presence of a 5 card major. Common qualifiers are not to open hands with 5 cards in one major and two cards in the other to minimize the risk of a transfer to the 2 card major. Others specify that the doubleton beheaded be headed by a Jack or better. While on a perfect day I would rather meet these conditions, their absence would not prevent me from opening 1NT with a 5 card major. In the long run (and after all bridge is a game of long run probabilities) you miss too many benefits waiting for the perfect 1NT opener.
Back to Frank Stewart. The hand he gives you is AQJ95, A6, KT, QT98.
Without comment or discussion he opens this 1 spade, partner bids 1NT, opener rebids 2 clubs, responder now bids 2 spades, showing a doubleton spade and 6-9 hcps. What does opener do now. I have no problem with the answer. Frank says to bid 2NT since we have a max and partner could have as much as 8-9 hpcs. All of this eventually gets us where we belong, whether part score or game in no trump.
That’s what is right about this analysis, but what is wrong. First, we have succeeded in wrong siding the hand. The 17 point hand is going down on the table in full view. Second, an ancillary part of the first comment is that the lead is coming through the strong hand. Instead of opener’s nice tenaces in 3 suits threatening opening leader, they make the lead very easy and we probably lose a trick. Finally, with all this descriptive bidding (don't you just love it), we are over informing the opponents about the distribution of the hands. Why wouldn’t opponents lead a diamond or heart? If I were defending and partner did not, I would send in the frontal lobotomy team.
The strident traditionalists like Frank Stewart will resist this, but doesn’t this hand scream to be opened 1NT? I firmly believe it is perfectly acceptable to open 5422 hands 1 NT, particularly where the doubletons are well stopped. It is more often done with a 5 card minor, and sometimes with a 6 card minor, but if you don’t open the above hand 1NT you deserve to be in 3NT and find the AQJxx of diamonds right behind the dummy. Note, this is not part of Meckstroth Rule, and really not a rule at all. Opener has to use some discretion, but most of the reasons to open 5332 hands 1NT still continue to be viable in the 5422 hands. Yes, sometimes opener will transfer me to hearts with this hand, but that’s not the end of the world as we know it either. We take the transfer and hope that opener isn’t scrambling with a bad hand. Even if he is, it may well play better in a suit contract. Bridge is like most of my days, not exactly perfect!
Under the “for what it is worth” category, Frank Stewart makes a living writing about bridge and I do not.
(a) The chance to limit your hand to a narrow point count.
(b) The chance to tell partner your hand is balanced or semi-balanced (no single or void).
(c) A clear signal to responder that he is the “Captain of the Ship.” Opener can now sit back, pop a brewski and relax,
(d) One No Trump is preemptive making it difficult for opponents to make a cheap overcall.
(d) The ability of the partnership to use the well understood Stayman and Transfers as well as a narrowly defined invitational bid. It’s a big plus to eliminate partnership confusion.
(e) Avoiding difficult rebid problems for opener.
(f) Establishing the no trump bidder as the most likely declarer so that the lead comes up to his tenaces and not through his Kx stopper.
The list goes on and on, but when you have Meckstroth’s advice, you don’t need reasons. Not all experts are as aggressive about this as Meckstroth, but there are few experts who today would disqualify a hand for a 1NT opening based solely on the presence of a 5 card major. Common qualifiers are not to open hands with 5 cards in one major and two cards in the other to minimize the risk of a transfer to the 2 card major. Others specify that the doubleton beheaded be headed by a Jack or better. While on a perfect day I would rather meet these conditions, their absence would not prevent me from opening 1NT with a 5 card major. In the long run (and after all bridge is a game of long run probabilities) you miss too many benefits waiting for the perfect 1NT opener.
Back to Frank Stewart. The hand he gives you is AQJ95, A6, KT, QT98.
Without comment or discussion he opens this 1 spade, partner bids 1NT, opener rebids 2 clubs, responder now bids 2 spades, showing a doubleton spade and 6-9 hcps. What does opener do now. I have no problem with the answer. Frank says to bid 2NT since we have a max and partner could have as much as 8-9 hpcs. All of this eventually gets us where we belong, whether part score or game in no trump.
That’s what is right about this analysis, but what is wrong. First, we have succeeded in wrong siding the hand. The 17 point hand is going down on the table in full view. Second, an ancillary part of the first comment is that the lead is coming through the strong hand. Instead of opener’s nice tenaces in 3 suits threatening opening leader, they make the lead very easy and we probably lose a trick. Finally, with all this descriptive bidding (don't you just love it), we are over informing the opponents about the distribution of the hands. Why wouldn’t opponents lead a diamond or heart? If I were defending and partner did not, I would send in the frontal lobotomy team.
The strident traditionalists like Frank Stewart will resist this, but doesn’t this hand scream to be opened 1NT? I firmly believe it is perfectly acceptable to open 5422 hands 1 NT, particularly where the doubletons are well stopped. It is more often done with a 5 card minor, and sometimes with a 6 card minor, but if you don’t open the above hand 1NT you deserve to be in 3NT and find the AQJxx of diamonds right behind the dummy. Note, this is not part of Meckstroth Rule, and really not a rule at all. Opener has to use some discretion, but most of the reasons to open 5332 hands 1NT still continue to be viable in the 5422 hands. Yes, sometimes opener will transfer me to hearts with this hand, but that’s not the end of the world as we know it either. We take the transfer and hope that opener isn’t scrambling with a bad hand. Even if he is, it may well play better in a suit contract. Bridge is like most of my days, not exactly perfect!
Under the “for what it is worth” category, Frank Stewart makes a living writing about bridge and I do not.
Monday, May 12, 2008
OBAR the Pre-Balancer (Not the Tentmaker)
Date Line: Rochester, New York.
A little over 3 weeks ago I blogged about balancing, “Expiring in the Pass Out Seat.” Opponents open and there are 2 passes to you. There is, of course, another pass out seat that may be more famous in the balancing context, that is having the last bid after 1 of anything/2 simple raise, pass, pass,? So much is written about the need to balance that it should not be necessary to comment on it again. Dig my blog out of the archive and look at the criteria for balancing. The same considerations apply whether you are sitting to the left or the right of the opening bidder; you just have to reverse some of the thinking.
In the matchpoint context, you just cannot let opponents play any contract at the 2 level if they have found an 8 card fit. That’s it, it is that simple, and you need to do something (like balance) unless you have a penchant for suffering. It is a discipline in which there should be no discretion. Make this a competitive philosophy. Larry Cohen, in an article in Audrey Grant’s Better Bidding (January/February 2005) made the oft quoted statement “When I used to Play with Marty Bergen, if he were in the balancing seat (after 1 heart/2 hearts) he would simply close his eyes and bid something in this auction.” Larry even provides a balancing guideline: “If you have shortness in the opponent’s suit --fewer than three cards-- bid a suit or make a take out double. High card points have nothing to do with it.”
Ok, we know when to balance, but when do we not balance. Some authors and experts insist that you need to balance if the opponents' contract if successul will result in +90 to +110. In fact I said that, but you should have known it was pure “horse manure” because I ain’t no expert! Here’s the drill: You do not need to balance in the pass out seat if the opponents have not found an 8 card fit at the 2 level. So if the auction goes 1s/p/1NT/p/2S? This is not a fit showing auction, you can pass. The same goes for the auction 1d/p/1h/p/2d. The auction 1d/p/1h/p/2h is a little tougher. Now you need to figure out if opener would raise hearts with only 3 card support. Older style players tend to do that if pressed when they have some good cards in the heart suit. Other players, equally good, tend to virtually guarantee 4 card heart support. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking responder about his expectation or the partnership understandings. If you get a wishy-washy answer, consider balancing on general open warfare principles!!
There is one untouched subject, what some call “pre-balancing” and others call “balancing in the direct seat.” This is where you make a balancing bid even though the auction will not be over if you pass. For example, opponents open 1 heart, partner passes, responder bids 2 hearts and it is now your bid. I have a personal theory that most bad balancing decisions that you blame on your partner, are rooted in your own failure to pre-balance. Ask yourself “why didn’t partner make a direct take out double or overcall?” If the problem is shape (maybe he had 3 hearts), then you have to help him out, since balancing in the pass out seat is going to be equally unattractive. That means that you have to double or bid right in front of opponent’s unlimited hand. Just do it when it is right.
Notice that Larry’s Guideline qualified your duty to balance in the “balancing seat” by saying it only applied when you have less than 3 cards in opponents' suit. OK, that’s sensible so you are off the hook with 3 cards in their suit, but how do we avoid defending 2 hearts when the balancing seat does have 3 cards in their suit. Well, if the balancing seat has 3 cards in the suit in the and opponents have 8, guess who holds 2 cards in the suit. Partner in the pre-balancing seat, of course. He sat there like an intimidated mouse worrying about the potential big hand hovering over him and now we go for -110 and a bottom shared with all those other teams who are not enlightened.
Marty Bergen had a pneumonic label for these weak pre balancing bids. He called them OBAR BIDS, standing for Opponents Bid And Raise – Balance In The Direct Seat. Larry Cohen first wrote about this in his book To Bid or Not to Bid (1992) (p. 109). The key to your OBAR bid is that you, as pre-balancer, will have 2 or fewer cards in opponents' fit suit (in my example hearts). While you may have to be a little circumspect when vulnerable, Larry suggests that it would be right to pre-balance with 2 spades holding KQT98, 73, JT85, 84 or to double with KT73, 4, KT85, KJ86. Note that in each instance all the points are working points and with the spade overcall he clearly can wants a lead in the suit if opponents end up in 4 hearts. What? You say you are 4-4 in the minors? Bid 2NT asking partner to take a pick, but this needs to be a little better hand since you are committed to the 3 level.
If you agree to use weak OBAR BIDS, you probably need to tell opponents via an alert that partner’s pre-balance may not meet traditional standards. It keeps the playing field level.
Why does this all work? It is something called the Theory of Reciprocal Fits, but it is just the Law of Total Tricks dressed in a little different gown. See Principles of Logical Bidding (1997) by Allan De Serpa, page 9. If they have an 8 card fit, it is very likely that we do also. Partner and I have 26 cards, 5 of which are in opponents' suit. That leaves 21 cards remaining, and we always have an 8 card fit unless the three remaining suits are 7-7-7. As common as that may seem, the odds are over 93% that we have an 8 card fit. The theory doesn’t say you will make your bid, just that it is right to compete by balancing.
In my final Florida Game we finished 1st overall (everybody claimed it was a good-bye kiss – not likely, but it seemed that way). This good result in spite of the fact that we passed out a sequence 1d/p/1h/p/2h for a rotten board. I should have known that my sometimes partner Bob Scarbrough would have 4 card heart support. The compensating justice was that twice we were permitted to play 2 spades when opponents did not step up to their minor fit balance. It does not pay to flirt with Mother Nature, or for that matter the Theory of Reciprocal Fits. Asked about balancing over 2 spades, Larry Cohen says "I don’t like it, but you gotta do what you gotta do!" It helps to play the cards like Larry.
If you want to comment directly, the quickest way to get to me until October will be my Rochester e-mail, tommy@rochester.rr.com. Send sweaters, not e-mail.
A little over 3 weeks ago I blogged about balancing, “Expiring in the Pass Out Seat.” Opponents open and there are 2 passes to you. There is, of course, another pass out seat that may be more famous in the balancing context, that is having the last bid after 1 of anything/2 simple raise, pass, pass,? So much is written about the need to balance that it should not be necessary to comment on it again. Dig my blog out of the archive and look at the criteria for balancing. The same considerations apply whether you are sitting to the left or the right of the opening bidder; you just have to reverse some of the thinking.
In the matchpoint context, you just cannot let opponents play any contract at the 2 level if they have found an 8 card fit. That’s it, it is that simple, and you need to do something (like balance) unless you have a penchant for suffering. It is a discipline in which there should be no discretion. Make this a competitive philosophy. Larry Cohen, in an article in Audrey Grant’s Better Bidding (January/February 2005) made the oft quoted statement “When I used to Play with Marty Bergen, if he were in the balancing seat (after 1 heart/2 hearts) he would simply close his eyes and bid something in this auction.” Larry even provides a balancing guideline: “If you have shortness in the opponent’s suit --fewer than three cards-- bid a suit or make a take out double. High card points have nothing to do with it.”
Ok, we know when to balance, but when do we not balance. Some authors and experts insist that you need to balance if the opponents' contract if successul will result in +90 to +110. In fact I said that, but you should have known it was pure “horse manure” because I ain’t no expert! Here’s the drill: You do not need to balance in the pass out seat if the opponents have not found an 8 card fit at the 2 level. So if the auction goes 1s/p/1NT/p/2S? This is not a fit showing auction, you can pass. The same goes for the auction 1d/p/1h/p/2d. The auction 1d/p/1h/p/2h is a little tougher. Now you need to figure out if opener would raise hearts with only 3 card support. Older style players tend to do that if pressed when they have some good cards in the heart suit. Other players, equally good, tend to virtually guarantee 4 card heart support. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking responder about his expectation or the partnership understandings. If you get a wishy-washy answer, consider balancing on general open warfare principles!!
There is one untouched subject, what some call “pre-balancing” and others call “balancing in the direct seat.” This is where you make a balancing bid even though the auction will not be over if you pass. For example, opponents open 1 heart, partner passes, responder bids 2 hearts and it is now your bid. I have a personal theory that most bad balancing decisions that you blame on your partner, are rooted in your own failure to pre-balance. Ask yourself “why didn’t partner make a direct take out double or overcall?” If the problem is shape (maybe he had 3 hearts), then you have to help him out, since balancing in the pass out seat is going to be equally unattractive. That means that you have to double or bid right in front of opponent’s unlimited hand. Just do it when it is right.
Notice that Larry’s Guideline qualified your duty to balance in the “balancing seat” by saying it only applied when you have less than 3 cards in opponents' suit. OK, that’s sensible so you are off the hook with 3 cards in their suit, but how do we avoid defending 2 hearts when the balancing seat does have 3 cards in their suit. Well, if the balancing seat has 3 cards in the suit in the and opponents have 8, guess who holds 2 cards in the suit. Partner in the pre-balancing seat, of course. He sat there like an intimidated mouse worrying about the potential big hand hovering over him and now we go for -110 and a bottom shared with all those other teams who are not enlightened.
Marty Bergen had a pneumonic label for these weak pre balancing bids. He called them OBAR BIDS, standing for Opponents Bid And Raise – Balance In The Direct Seat. Larry Cohen first wrote about this in his book To Bid or Not to Bid (1992) (p. 109). The key to your OBAR bid is that you, as pre-balancer, will have 2 or fewer cards in opponents' fit suit (in my example hearts). While you may have to be a little circumspect when vulnerable, Larry suggests that it would be right to pre-balance with 2 spades holding KQT98, 73, JT85, 84 or to double with KT73, 4, KT85, KJ86. Note that in each instance all the points are working points and with the spade overcall he clearly can wants a lead in the suit if opponents end up in 4 hearts. What? You say you are 4-4 in the minors? Bid 2NT asking partner to take a pick, but this needs to be a little better hand since you are committed to the 3 level.
If you agree to use weak OBAR BIDS, you probably need to tell opponents via an alert that partner’s pre-balance may not meet traditional standards. It keeps the playing field level.
Why does this all work? It is something called the Theory of Reciprocal Fits, but it is just the Law of Total Tricks dressed in a little different gown. See Principles of Logical Bidding (1997) by Allan De Serpa, page 9. If they have an 8 card fit, it is very likely that we do also. Partner and I have 26 cards, 5 of which are in opponents' suit. That leaves 21 cards remaining, and we always have an 8 card fit unless the three remaining suits are 7-7-7. As common as that may seem, the odds are over 93% that we have an 8 card fit. The theory doesn’t say you will make your bid, just that it is right to compete by balancing.
In my final Florida Game we finished 1st overall (everybody claimed it was a good-bye kiss – not likely, but it seemed that way). This good result in spite of the fact that we passed out a sequence 1d/p/1h/p/2h for a rotten board. I should have known that my sometimes partner Bob Scarbrough would have 4 card heart support. The compensating justice was that twice we were permitted to play 2 spades when opponents did not step up to their minor fit balance. It does not pay to flirt with Mother Nature, or for that matter the Theory of Reciprocal Fits. Asked about balancing over 2 spades, Larry Cohen says "I don’t like it, but you gotta do what you gotta do!" It helps to play the cards like Larry.
If you want to comment directly, the quickest way to get to me until October will be my Rochester e-mail, tommy@rochester.rr.com. Send sweaters, not e-mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
