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!!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Give Respect, if Respect is Due
I have often recommended Larry Cohen’s free internet newsletter. If you have not looked at his newsletter in the past 6 months, it is worth revisiting. The newsletter has taken on a new feature which provides 4 sets of East-West hands for readers to bid and then he gives the likely or best bidding sequence, some rationale and comment and a score for your bid. The East and West hands are separately shown, so you can actually bid them with your partner without the double dummy advantage. Larry says this material is intermediate to advanced, but they are tough problem hands and are not going to be a pushover for anybody.
His lead article this month is a lamentation that no bridge convention has ever been named after him, while Marty Bergen has almost a dozen. After a worthwhile review of the basics of 4th seat opening bids, he puts a new twist on the Rule of 15. He says that we should augment the Rule of 15 by using CRIFS for deciding whether to bid or fold. CRIFS is an acronym for Cohen’s Rule In Fourth Seat. The rule is intended to be applied to 10, 11 and 12 point hands that actually meet the Rule of 15.
The rule is not about points, spades, distribution, but rather brings into play a human factor, the skill level of your opponents. After all, you do not have to play this hand; you can throw it in and move on. If you look left and right and see two highly competent, competitive players who will compete for the bid, and then play and defend like demons, do not touch your bidding box, do not pass Go and slip that marginal hand back into the tray. Alternatively, if you see players who you would like to make permanent opponents, pick your spot and go for it. If you open that 10 point hand hand, it is not considered good form to tell you opponents why you did so.
This is not the first time I have read about analyzing your opponents. A prominent professional team in discussing their opening lead discipline said that they prefer to use the more informative “Jack Denies” system, but that unfortunately it gives the same information to their opponents, so they only use it when they judge that their opponents don’t know what to do with the information!
As I thought about this sensible advice, I recollected that I had heard this same general advice before by a lesser known author. Sure enough, I found the same theme in a blog post I wrote in April of 2007 titled Rate Yourself as a Partner. This was a series of 12 tests of a good partner and you get a point for each “Yes” answer. The second item asks:
“Do you give expert players a little respect? The David and Goliath scenario hardly ever plays out at the bridge table. If you opponents are frequently known to play at the 55% level, you will do well against the field holding them to an average board. Find another time, place and opponent to demonstrate your cleverness.”
I think that blog post was one of my best and would be suitable to be reread before each game. Maybe suitable for framing! If you want to read that blog post, look in the archive in the right margin of the blog and locate the posts for April, 2007.
Now back to CRIFS. The underlying concept is valid, but I don’t need one more hard to remember acronym to tell me to duck when trouble is on the horizon. I doubt CRIFS will become a “biggie” in bridge vocabulary, and I think Larry Cohen was just having some fun at Marty Bergen’s expense.
His lead article this month is a lamentation that no bridge convention has ever been named after him, while Marty Bergen has almost a dozen. After a worthwhile review of the basics of 4th seat opening bids, he puts a new twist on the Rule of 15. He says that we should augment the Rule of 15 by using CRIFS for deciding whether to bid or fold. CRIFS is an acronym for Cohen’s Rule In Fourth Seat. The rule is intended to be applied to 10, 11 and 12 point hands that actually meet the Rule of 15.
The rule is not about points, spades, distribution, but rather brings into play a human factor, the skill level of your opponents. After all, you do not have to play this hand; you can throw it in and move on. If you look left and right and see two highly competent, competitive players who will compete for the bid, and then play and defend like demons, do not touch your bidding box, do not pass Go and slip that marginal hand back into the tray. Alternatively, if you see players who you would like to make permanent opponents, pick your spot and go for it. If you open that 10 point hand hand, it is not considered good form to tell you opponents why you did so.
This is not the first time I have read about analyzing your opponents. A prominent professional team in discussing their opening lead discipline said that they prefer to use the more informative “Jack Denies” system, but that unfortunately it gives the same information to their opponents, so they only use it when they judge that their opponents don’t know what to do with the information!
As I thought about this sensible advice, I recollected that I had heard this same general advice before by a lesser known author. Sure enough, I found the same theme in a blog post I wrote in April of 2007 titled Rate Yourself as a Partner. This was a series of 12 tests of a good partner and you get a point for each “Yes” answer. The second item asks:
“Do you give expert players a little respect? The David and Goliath scenario hardly ever plays out at the bridge table. If you opponents are frequently known to play at the 55% level, you will do well against the field holding them to an average board. Find another time, place and opponent to demonstrate your cleverness.”
I think that blog post was one of my best and would be suitable to be reread before each game. Maybe suitable for framing! If you want to read that blog post, look in the archive in the right margin of the blog and locate the posts for April, 2007.
Now back to CRIFS. The underlying concept is valid, but I don’t need one more hard to remember acronym to tell me to duck when trouble is on the horizon. I doubt CRIFS will become a “biggie” in bridge vocabulary, and I think Larry Cohen was just having some fun at Marty Bergen’s expense.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
A Tribute to Ina Mills
Ina Mills was my duplicate partner on Friday. The only risk in writing about Ina is that I won’t find the words to adequately give her the credit she deserves. Friday was a great occasion for me because I got to play with Ina; it was a great occasion for Ina since she was celebrating her 90th birthday. This later bit of news caught me off guard, since she looks and acts and like a youngster anxiously waiting for that first social security check.
Bill and Eve Taylor composed special lyrics for her birthday song that started “Nothing could be fina that to have a friend like Ina, she’s enchanting!” That line says it all, and while Jeanne Reynolds and Howard Christ sang the song, to my amazement, my partner got up and demonstrated a one person line dance complete with all the moves. Did I tell you that line dancing is still one of her passions and you better know the steps if you are in her line.
On the bridge side, Ina ran past Gold Life Master like it was standing still and she ain’t done yet. Who knows what she might have achieved if she had not spent most of her competitive life in an earlier ACBL system where if you didn’t finish first you might end up with .04 master points. Since it was a special occasion on Friday, Ina and I engaged in what we called “birthday bids” in which we entirely eliminated the invitational level, so it was either Ina’s birthday or our opponents' birthday when we were in the auction. Ina did not disappoint. I expected a high level of play from her and she delivered every time, bidding, declaring and defending like the champ she is. No pussy cat this one, she put an exclamation point on the day by bidding and playing two small slams and one Grand.
My job was to accurately sort cards and try not to renege. I did not put down one missorted dummy all day; alas, I did have one renege. It was a disappointment, not so much because I reneged, but because I did it at trick 12. One would think it would not be hard to follow suit when you are looking at only two choices. Maybe the bridge Gods just got it right and decided it would be bad form for Ina to finish first on her own birthday. We slipped into second place thanks to Ina.
At 5:00 I was home chewing on the olive at the bottom of my Martini when I got a call from Ina. Ina (no slouch herself when it comes to the cocktail hour) had decided to stay behind and check the results and scores on every board against her personal score and found a critical scoring error that vaulted us up a couple of places. I think that says it all about the intensity of her competitive juices. Sweet old lady? Not quite. In my next bar fight (I actually hope that was my last one) I want Ina on my back.
So just as the song goes “Nothing could be fina than to have a friend like Ina." Happy Birthday Ina!!
Bill and Eve Taylor composed special lyrics for her birthday song that started “Nothing could be fina that to have a friend like Ina, she’s enchanting!” That line says it all, and while Jeanne Reynolds and Howard Christ sang the song, to my amazement, my partner got up and demonstrated a one person line dance complete with all the moves. Did I tell you that line dancing is still one of her passions and you better know the steps if you are in her line.
On the bridge side, Ina ran past Gold Life Master like it was standing still and she ain’t done yet. Who knows what she might have achieved if she had not spent most of her competitive life in an earlier ACBL system where if you didn’t finish first you might end up with .04 master points. Since it was a special occasion on Friday, Ina and I engaged in what we called “birthday bids” in which we entirely eliminated the invitational level, so it was either Ina’s birthday or our opponents' birthday when we were in the auction. Ina did not disappoint. I expected a high level of play from her and she delivered every time, bidding, declaring and defending like the champ she is. No pussy cat this one, she put an exclamation point on the day by bidding and playing two small slams and one Grand.
My job was to accurately sort cards and try not to renege. I did not put down one missorted dummy all day; alas, I did have one renege. It was a disappointment, not so much because I reneged, but because I did it at trick 12. One would think it would not be hard to follow suit when you are looking at only two choices. Maybe the bridge Gods just got it right and decided it would be bad form for Ina to finish first on her own birthday. We slipped into second place thanks to Ina.
At 5:00 I was home chewing on the olive at the bottom of my Martini when I got a call from Ina. Ina (no slouch herself when it comes to the cocktail hour) had decided to stay behind and check the results and scores on every board against her personal score and found a critical scoring error that vaulted us up a couple of places. I think that says it all about the intensity of her competitive juices. Sweet old lady? Not quite. In my next bar fight (I actually hope that was my last one) I want Ina on my back.
So just as the song goes “Nothing could be fina than to have a friend like Ina." Happy Birthday Ina!!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Majoring in Majors on BBO
Last night I was having a friendly IMP game at Bridge Base on Line with an on line partner, Cara. At BBO there is little time to discuss detailed bidding sequences even if you happen to be a key board whiz and know all the "new age" texting shortcuts. Me? Given 10 minutes, I might be able to find a cell phone, but don’t bet the farm on it. Even when I try to communicate on line, the words seem to lack vowels, sentences lack verbs and only the Turks understand me.
Most of the time you are playing some form of SAYC. It ranges from very basic to complete, but most often they don’t bother to tell you. The full description of two over one game force is exactly “2/1” and you are on your own from there. These factors combine for very limited use of conventional bids other than Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. One of the areas where you don’t expect issues are 15-17 no trump opening hands, but when Stayman, transfer and no trump raises are inadequate to describe responder’s hand, you have to figure out how you showed distributional hands before you had partnership agreements and a convention card to guide you.
Responder hands with more than 8 major suit cards fall in this category. We need to find our best fit and tell opener about our strength. Will all who know how to do it please raise their hands right now? You are excused from this blog. Remember, no short cuts, you need to do it the old fashioned way.
Today most advanced players would use the Smolen Convention to show the 5-4 major hand with at least invitational values. In a previous post I discussed Smolen, but do you remember how you bid this hand before you had the conventional crutch? Absent any agreement, I would recommend starting with Stayman! Yes, I said Stayman not Transfer! If partner bids either major, it is a happy day no matter which major it is. If partner bids 2 diamonds, you next bid your 5 card major. Bid it at the 2 level if your hand is invitational (7-8 hcps), and bid it at the 3 level if you have a game forcing hand. So with KJxxx, QJxx, xx, xx, after 1NT/2c/2d/ a second response of 2 spades should show this 5-4 invitational hand. If the majors are reversed, the second response would be 2 hearts. For opener it is pass or bid a major or 3NT game with a max.
If you make responder’s hand KJTxx, KJTx, x, xxx, you want to make a game forcing 2nd response, so after Stayman, bid the 5 card spade suit at the 3 level. It will be disappointing if pard is 2-3-4-4, but with 2 tens and the 5 card suit, I still like my chances at 3NT. So with 5-4 in the majors “Stay with STAYMAN.”
The hand I actually anguished over was AQxxx, KTxxx, x, xx. Yummy yummy! I was all set to respond 3 spades, with most of my regular partners that shows 5-5 in the majors, game force. Then I suddenly remembered that I had no agreement on the 3 level responses, and I was expected to show this holding by a SAYC bidding sequence. Does anyone remember what it is?
Well, with 5-5 you start with Transfer, but which suit do you transfer to. Start with transferring opener to hearts if you have an invitational hand like AJxxx, JTxxx, x, xx, since that enables responder to rebid 2 spades after the transfer acceptance and show invitational values. With the game force hand, it doesn’t really matter what suit you transfer as long as your 2nd response is at the 3 level. I like the discipline of transferring your best major in case opener has 3 card support for both majors and needs to make a choice. On a bad day opener might bid 3NT, confessing that he had opened a 2-2-4-5 hand, but with that hand opener is expected to have a stopper (or at least a half stopper) in the majors, so there should be a play for 3NT. So when you are 5-5, "Start with Transfer".
How did it all work out in the heat of battle? Well, I got it right, but didn’t know it until the next morning when I looked it up. Cara had no trouble understanding my jump rebid was forcing and put me us in 4 hearts, which made in a breeze thanks to her great declaring skills.
Just when you think you have it all worked out, you are dealt 6-4 in the majors. There may be some advantages in searching for the 4-4 major fit as trump, but only when partner has exactly 2 card support for your 6 card major. This is too much of a dream world for me. Assume you bid 2 clubs and opener responds 2 diamonds showing no 4 card major. Is your on line partner (or any partner for that matter) now going to figure out that a 2nd response of 4 hearts is really an attempt by you to make a Texas Transfer to spades. You will know it a was a poor decision when opponents start rudely typing "faster, faster" and you wonder if partner lost her connection. Of course you can always bid 4 spades and even on line they can figure that out, but now you have the 1NT hand on the table and the lead coming up to the weaker hand. Save your self some grief and just make a Texas transfer to start with. At least you will not summarily be removed from the table by your own partner.
The next time you come on line at BBO be sure to designate me as a “friend”. My screen name is “tommylee” and I would enjoy playing a few hands with any of my readers.
Most of the time you are playing some form of SAYC. It ranges from very basic to complete, but most often they don’t bother to tell you. The full description of two over one game force is exactly “2/1” and you are on your own from there. These factors combine for very limited use of conventional bids other than Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood. One of the areas where you don’t expect issues are 15-17 no trump opening hands, but when Stayman, transfer and no trump raises are inadequate to describe responder’s hand, you have to figure out how you showed distributional hands before you had partnership agreements and a convention card to guide you.
Responder hands with more than 8 major suit cards fall in this category. We need to find our best fit and tell opener about our strength. Will all who know how to do it please raise their hands right now? You are excused from this blog. Remember, no short cuts, you need to do it the old fashioned way.
Today most advanced players would use the Smolen Convention to show the 5-4 major hand with at least invitational values. In a previous post I discussed Smolen, but do you remember how you bid this hand before you had the conventional crutch? Absent any agreement, I would recommend starting with Stayman! Yes, I said Stayman not Transfer! If partner bids either major, it is a happy day no matter which major it is. If partner bids 2 diamonds, you next bid your 5 card major. Bid it at the 2 level if your hand is invitational (7-8 hcps), and bid it at the 3 level if you have a game forcing hand. So with KJxxx, QJxx, xx, xx, after 1NT/2c/2d/ a second response of 2 spades should show this 5-4 invitational hand. If the majors are reversed, the second response would be 2 hearts. For opener it is pass or bid a major or 3NT game with a max.
If you make responder’s hand KJTxx, KJTx, x, xxx, you want to make a game forcing 2nd response, so after Stayman, bid the 5 card spade suit at the 3 level. It will be disappointing if pard is 2-3-4-4, but with 2 tens and the 5 card suit, I still like my chances at 3NT. So with 5-4 in the majors “Stay with STAYMAN.”
The hand I actually anguished over was AQxxx, KTxxx, x, xx. Yummy yummy! I was all set to respond 3 spades, with most of my regular partners that shows 5-5 in the majors, game force. Then I suddenly remembered that I had no agreement on the 3 level responses, and I was expected to show this holding by a SAYC bidding sequence. Does anyone remember what it is?
Well, with 5-5 you start with Transfer, but which suit do you transfer to. Start with transferring opener to hearts if you have an invitational hand like AJxxx, JTxxx, x, xx, since that enables responder to rebid 2 spades after the transfer acceptance and show invitational values. With the game force hand, it doesn’t really matter what suit you transfer as long as your 2nd response is at the 3 level. I like the discipline of transferring your best major in case opener has 3 card support for both majors and needs to make a choice. On a bad day opener might bid 3NT, confessing that he had opened a 2-2-4-5 hand, but with that hand opener is expected to have a stopper (or at least a half stopper) in the majors, so there should be a play for 3NT. So when you are 5-5, "Start with Transfer".
How did it all work out in the heat of battle? Well, I got it right, but didn’t know it until the next morning when I looked it up. Cara had no trouble understanding my jump rebid was forcing and put me us in 4 hearts, which made in a breeze thanks to her great declaring skills.
Just when you think you have it all worked out, you are dealt 6-4 in the majors. There may be some advantages in searching for the 4-4 major fit as trump, but only when partner has exactly 2 card support for your 6 card major. This is too much of a dream world for me. Assume you bid 2 clubs and opener responds 2 diamonds showing no 4 card major. Is your on line partner (or any partner for that matter) now going to figure out that a 2nd response of 4 hearts is really an attempt by you to make a Texas Transfer to spades. You will know it a was a poor decision when opponents start rudely typing "faster, faster" and you wonder if partner lost her connection. Of course you can always bid 4 spades and even on line they can figure that out, but now you have the 1NT hand on the table and the lead coming up to the weaker hand. Save your self some grief and just make a Texas transfer to start with. At least you will not summarily be removed from the table by your own partner.
The next time you come on line at BBO be sure to designate me as a “friend”. My screen name is “tommylee” and I would enjoy playing a few hands with any of my readers.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Super Duper Acceptance
Almost everybody who can sort cards knows about Jacoby Transfers in no trump bidding. Usually after a 1 No Trump opener and a Jacoby Transfer, partner will dutifully accept the transfer by bidding the indicated major at the 2 level. From there the bidding proceeds in three directions. Responder either passes, invites or bids game. Responder’s strength requirement for each of these three options is a little fuzzy depending on whether the game is matchpoints or IMP’s, the vulnerability and just how gosh darn mad you are. Almost equally familiar is the concept of “Super Acceptance”. If you asked 100 people in a 25 table game about super acceptance, 99% would say raise to the three level if you have a max and 4 trump and the other guy would be looking for a partner..
Most players today know the name Marty Bergen, a wonderful bridge theorist who brought aggressive competitive bidding to the forefront in matchpoint bridge. He gained bridge immortality by his innovative way of dealing with major suit raises known as “Bergen Raises”, probably second only to Stayman in terms of popular conventions. Since Better Bidding by Bergen was published 24 years ago, there are many players in the game today who have never even seen the book, much less read it. Marty may not have been the father of “super acceptance”, but he was one of the first to write about it. It may come as a surprise to today’s players that Marty had a somewhat different take on Super Acceptance borne out of his championing of the Law of Total Tricks.
In a recent e-mail to me Marty reiterated his position: Jump to the 3 level in the major if you have a “bad” opening 1NT hand, bid 2NT with 4333 and a “max” and bid any doubleton you hold if you have a “nice” hand and 4432. Notice Marty did not seek to define the term “bad”, “nice” or “max”. Marty would place greater value on Aces and Kings and discount Queens, but to avoid subjective arguments, let’s assume they mean roughly 15-16 and 17 to the unwashed. When I asked about the premise for what I call “Super Duper Accepts” (also known as Bergen Super Accepts), four letters came rolling back on my screen, LOTT!!! After all, we have 9 trump so we need to be at the 3 level, why wait? Hold onto that thought for a moment.
The problem arises when responder has a hand that he intends to transfer and pass. Modern thinking on this technique holds that you transfer anytime you have a 5 card major and it can be done with 0 points. Earlier this week I held AKQx, Q752, KQT, 85. The bidding went 1NT/2h(transfer)/3spades(super accept). I thought I would give Marty’s theory a try. Partner’s hand was J7643, T8, 75, QJ72. As you can see, we lose 5 tricks off the top, down 1 on a hand that every other pair made +110. Certainly the fault is not with partner in making the transfer.
The problem I see with the application of the LOTT is that it is a competitive bidding guideline. By the time responder passes the 2 level transfer bid, the auction is only competitive if opponents will balance by bidding 2 spades (in the case of hearts) or double or a make 3 level bid. This may be standard balancing procedure at professional levels, but when was the last time you witnessed this at the club level. Even with skilled amateurs you don’t see much balancing in these sequences, and if opponents don’t compete, you often are just one level too high.
Confused by this, I asked another nationally renowned bridge theorist, Danny Kleinman, to look at my hand and tell me what went wrong. In short order Danny told me “Tommy, your hand was not good enough to make a super acceptance.” His “idiots guideline” for me was revalue your hand as a supporting hand and if you have 4 supporting trump and the hand has now grown out of your no trump range, then super accept. Thus if you have 17 and a doubleton, you revalue to 18 and super accept. Otherwise be content with a standard acceptance.
You may have been wondering about Marty’s recommendation to bid your doubleton suit when you have 4 card trump support and a “nice” hand. This is pretty clever since the no trump opener is now the short trump hand and the additional trump will be of value only if the hand has a ruffing value. By locating the doubleton for responder, you enable him to better gauge the value of the 4th trump. It may look like this is on the slippery slope to wrong siding the hand, but Marty solved that as well with his concept of “retransfers.” Upon hearing the doubleton bid, responder simply transfers again and now opener bids the major. Everything back to square.
Lets take a final look at Marty’s recommendation to bid 2NT when you have 4 trump, 4333 and a max. This is the opposite of the 4332 hand, it may have a 4th trump, but the hand has no ruffing value. It will probably make the same number of tricks in no trump as it will in a major suit even with a 9 card fit. The 2NT bid is a clear warning to responder about playing a suit contract and the last chance to get off the train by passing 2NT if responder has one of those “transfer and duck” hands.
If you currently have only one flavor to your super accept, I think you might consider Bergen’s technique of bidding the doubleton with 4432 and nice hand and bidding 2NT with a max and 4333. As for three level jumps, I think Danny Kleinman’s idiots rule suits me best. If you promise you will always balance over the passed transfer, I may change my mind. :-)
Most players today know the name Marty Bergen, a wonderful bridge theorist who brought aggressive competitive bidding to the forefront in matchpoint bridge. He gained bridge immortality by his innovative way of dealing with major suit raises known as “Bergen Raises”, probably second only to Stayman in terms of popular conventions. Since Better Bidding by Bergen was published 24 years ago, there are many players in the game today who have never even seen the book, much less read it. Marty may not have been the father of “super acceptance”, but he was one of the first to write about it. It may come as a surprise to today’s players that Marty had a somewhat different take on Super Acceptance borne out of his championing of the Law of Total Tricks.
In a recent e-mail to me Marty reiterated his position: Jump to the 3 level in the major if you have a “bad” opening 1NT hand, bid 2NT with 4333 and a “max” and bid any doubleton you hold if you have a “nice” hand and 4432. Notice Marty did not seek to define the term “bad”, “nice” or “max”. Marty would place greater value on Aces and Kings and discount Queens, but to avoid subjective arguments, let’s assume they mean roughly 15-16 and 17 to the unwashed. When I asked about the premise for what I call “Super Duper Accepts” (also known as Bergen Super Accepts), four letters came rolling back on my screen, LOTT!!! After all, we have 9 trump so we need to be at the 3 level, why wait? Hold onto that thought for a moment.
The problem arises when responder has a hand that he intends to transfer and pass. Modern thinking on this technique holds that you transfer anytime you have a 5 card major and it can be done with 0 points. Earlier this week I held AKQx, Q752, KQT, 85. The bidding went 1NT/2h(transfer)/3spades(super accept). I thought I would give Marty’s theory a try. Partner’s hand was J7643, T8, 75, QJ72. As you can see, we lose 5 tricks off the top, down 1 on a hand that every other pair made +110. Certainly the fault is not with partner in making the transfer.
The problem I see with the application of the LOTT is that it is a competitive bidding guideline. By the time responder passes the 2 level transfer bid, the auction is only competitive if opponents will balance by bidding 2 spades (in the case of hearts) or double or a make 3 level bid. This may be standard balancing procedure at professional levels, but when was the last time you witnessed this at the club level. Even with skilled amateurs you don’t see much balancing in these sequences, and if opponents don’t compete, you often are just one level too high.
Confused by this, I asked another nationally renowned bridge theorist, Danny Kleinman, to look at my hand and tell me what went wrong. In short order Danny told me “Tommy, your hand was not good enough to make a super acceptance.” His “idiots guideline” for me was revalue your hand as a supporting hand and if you have 4 supporting trump and the hand has now grown out of your no trump range, then super accept. Thus if you have 17 and a doubleton, you revalue to 18 and super accept. Otherwise be content with a standard acceptance.
You may have been wondering about Marty’s recommendation to bid your doubleton suit when you have 4 card trump support and a “nice” hand. This is pretty clever since the no trump opener is now the short trump hand and the additional trump will be of value only if the hand has a ruffing value. By locating the doubleton for responder, you enable him to better gauge the value of the 4th trump. It may look like this is on the slippery slope to wrong siding the hand, but Marty solved that as well with his concept of “retransfers.” Upon hearing the doubleton bid, responder simply transfers again and now opener bids the major. Everything back to square.
Lets take a final look at Marty’s recommendation to bid 2NT when you have 4 trump, 4333 and a max. This is the opposite of the 4332 hand, it may have a 4th trump, but the hand has no ruffing value. It will probably make the same number of tricks in no trump as it will in a major suit even with a 9 card fit. The 2NT bid is a clear warning to responder about playing a suit contract and the last chance to get off the train by passing 2NT if responder has one of those “transfer and duck” hands.
If you currently have only one flavor to your super accept, I think you might consider Bergen’s technique of bidding the doubleton with 4432 and nice hand and bidding 2NT with a max and 4333. As for three level jumps, I think Danny Kleinman’s idiots rule suits me best. If you promise you will always balance over the passed transfer, I may change my mind. :-)
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Reopening Doubles
There was bridge before negative doubles. If you played bridge in the 1950’s, and are still alive to tell about it, you will remember after the sequence 1s/2c/, a double of the 2 club overcall was a serious event intended to teach discipline to any who would make the call with anything less than a solid suit and an opening hand. It was not a negative double, an optional double, a BOP double or a DSIP double, it was for penalties and woe onto opener if he took the double out. These first round doubles are probably what brought about bidding boxes, because the always came out with a serious growl.
In 1957 Al Roth first wrote about the idea of a negative double and it became part of the Roth-Stone system. At the time the double was called “Sputnik” after the famous Russian satellite. As the negative double gained popularity it also became necessary to prevent the proliferation of cheap overcalls since responder could not double for penalty. If, instead of the perfect negative double hand, you had a stack of good cards in the overcalled suit (a hand that you would have previously inspired a penalty double) you not only could not double, but with 5 or 6 cards in overcaller’s suit, you most likely had no suit to bid. Out of this dilemma was born the so called “automatic reopening double.”
Last Thursday I was dealt 9, K54, AJT8, A9842. When my RHO opened 1 spade. I decided to make a 2 club overcall, non-vul against vul opponents. I suppose some might double and others make an Unusual NT bid, but I thought 2 clubs best described my hand and was good lead direction. Now the bidding went pass, pass, pass, so the reopening double must not be “automatic” after all. This experience led me to believe that even among experienced bridge partnerships, there may be no definitive agreement on the standard to be applied to the reopening double. I asked several players about this and got a variety of comments. Here is a sampling.
(a) It is automatic, no questions!
(b) You do it if you have the right hand.
(c) You do it if you have a doubleton, single or void in the overcalled suit.
(d) You do it because your partner expects you to.
(e) You do it unless you have a minimum opening hand.
(f) The double shows extra values, so pass without them.
(g) You do because you don’t want to give up the hand.
What this indicates is that if you have not discussed this issue with your regular partners, now may not be too soon to do so. Oh, did I say that my LHO held K4, J, KQ42, KQJ753! His partner opened a 11 hcp “Rule of 20” hand and decided if there was an exception to the term “automatic”, his hand was it. Since he also had a single club, it was an ill fated decision.
Setting aside all the well intended advice I received, I decided to see what a real expert would say. In August of 2006, Karen Walker wrote an article in the Bridge Bulletin about this very subject in her series “12 Habits of Highly Effective Bidders.” Karen may lack the glitz of some of the top Bridge Super Stars, but she is very solid, reliable, sensible and an excellent writer. Her web site is always one of my first stops.
Karen rejects the concepts of “automatic” or “always double with shortness in overcaller’s suit.” She also rejects the concept of doubling “for partner” pointing out that except for rare occasions where partner has a monster trump stack, partner is not in a position to make a unilateral decision about whether to leave the double in. He needs to know whether opener’s hand is suitable for joining a defense.
Ideally opener should have not only shortness in the overcalled suit, but also support for the unbid suits and 2½ quick tricks. When you put this all together, a good guideline is that “if you were sitting behind overcaller and he opened rather than overcalled, would you make a take out double?” If so, make a reopening double, and if not pass or take some other appropriate action.
What if opener has a void in the overcalled suit, is that ideal? Hardly! First, the void gives opener extra length in the unbid suits, so the slow quick tricks like KQxxx may not be winners. Another reason is that when opener gets in, partner expects him to lead a trump through declarer. It is hard to lead a void (a certain director call) and the failure to lead through declarer often means that partner is going to ultimately get end played in the trump suit.
Do you pass with all hands that do not meet the “acid test” of a double? Obviously not. If you have a distributional hand such as 6-4 or 5-5, you are probably better off declaring, so you need to make a descriptive bid. If you have a strong single suited hand that is close to an opening 2 club bid (4 losing trick count), you can jump in your suit to show the strength. If you have a real good hand (again 4 LTC) without any clear direction, you can always make a cue bid forcing responder to describe his hand.
Assume partner has reopened the bidding, how do you know when to pass for penalties? Mel Colchamiro in his book “How to Play Like an Expert ….” advocated applying the Rule of 9 in determining when to leave in partner’s take out double. Since opener’s hand often looks like a take out double hand, I would apply the Rule of 9 to the reopening double as well. Her it is! Leave the double in if the total number of cards you have in overcaller’s suit + the total honors you have in that suit + the level of the contract equal 9.
So if the contract is 2 clubs doubled and you are sitting behind the overcaller with KQxxx, whack it! 5+2+2=9. Are you Smarter than a 3rd Grader?? Arrest your partner if he doesn’t show up with 2 1/2/quick.
To see some example hands where you should not make a reopening double see www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/negativedoubles_main,htm
In 1957 Al Roth first wrote about the idea of a negative double and it became part of the Roth-Stone system. At the time the double was called “Sputnik” after the famous Russian satellite. As the negative double gained popularity it also became necessary to prevent the proliferation of cheap overcalls since responder could not double for penalty. If, instead of the perfect negative double hand, you had a stack of good cards in the overcalled suit (a hand that you would have previously inspired a penalty double) you not only could not double, but with 5 or 6 cards in overcaller’s suit, you most likely had no suit to bid. Out of this dilemma was born the so called “automatic reopening double.”
Last Thursday I was dealt 9, K54, AJT8, A9842. When my RHO opened 1 spade. I decided to make a 2 club overcall, non-vul against vul opponents. I suppose some might double and others make an Unusual NT bid, but I thought 2 clubs best described my hand and was good lead direction. Now the bidding went pass, pass, pass, so the reopening double must not be “automatic” after all. This experience led me to believe that even among experienced bridge partnerships, there may be no definitive agreement on the standard to be applied to the reopening double. I asked several players about this and got a variety of comments. Here is a sampling.
(a) It is automatic, no questions!
(b) You do it if you have the right hand.
(c) You do it if you have a doubleton, single or void in the overcalled suit.
(d) You do it because your partner expects you to.
(e) You do it unless you have a minimum opening hand.
(f) The double shows extra values, so pass without them.
(g) You do because you don’t want to give up the hand.
What this indicates is that if you have not discussed this issue with your regular partners, now may not be too soon to do so. Oh, did I say that my LHO held K4, J, KQ42, KQJ753! His partner opened a 11 hcp “Rule of 20” hand and decided if there was an exception to the term “automatic”, his hand was it. Since he also had a single club, it was an ill fated decision.
Setting aside all the well intended advice I received, I decided to see what a real expert would say. In August of 2006, Karen Walker wrote an article in the Bridge Bulletin about this very subject in her series “12 Habits of Highly Effective Bidders.” Karen may lack the glitz of some of the top Bridge Super Stars, but she is very solid, reliable, sensible and an excellent writer. Her web site is always one of my first stops.
Karen rejects the concepts of “automatic” or “always double with shortness in overcaller’s suit.” She also rejects the concept of doubling “for partner” pointing out that except for rare occasions where partner has a monster trump stack, partner is not in a position to make a unilateral decision about whether to leave the double in. He needs to know whether opener’s hand is suitable for joining a defense.
Ideally opener should have not only shortness in the overcalled suit, but also support for the unbid suits and 2½ quick tricks. When you put this all together, a good guideline is that “if you were sitting behind overcaller and he opened rather than overcalled, would you make a take out double?” If so, make a reopening double, and if not pass or take some other appropriate action.
What if opener has a void in the overcalled suit, is that ideal? Hardly! First, the void gives opener extra length in the unbid suits, so the slow quick tricks like KQxxx may not be winners. Another reason is that when opener gets in, partner expects him to lead a trump through declarer. It is hard to lead a void (a certain director call) and the failure to lead through declarer often means that partner is going to ultimately get end played in the trump suit.
Do you pass with all hands that do not meet the “acid test” of a double? Obviously not. If you have a distributional hand such as 6-4 or 5-5, you are probably better off declaring, so you need to make a descriptive bid. If you have a strong single suited hand that is close to an opening 2 club bid (4 losing trick count), you can jump in your suit to show the strength. If you have a real good hand (again 4 LTC) without any clear direction, you can always make a cue bid forcing responder to describe his hand.
Assume partner has reopened the bidding, how do you know when to pass for penalties? Mel Colchamiro in his book “How to Play Like an Expert ….” advocated applying the Rule of 9 in determining when to leave in partner’s take out double. Since opener’s hand often looks like a take out double hand, I would apply the Rule of 9 to the reopening double as well. Her it is! Leave the double in if the total number of cards you have in overcaller’s suit + the total honors you have in that suit + the level of the contract equal 9.
So if the contract is 2 clubs doubled and you are sitting behind the overcaller with KQxxx, whack it! 5+2+2=9. Are you Smarter than a 3rd Grader?? Arrest your partner if he doesn’t show up with 2 1/2/quick.
To see some example hands where you should not make a reopening double see www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/negativedoubles_main,htm
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Bergen, Jacoby, Hardy, Joe Sargent and Concealed Splinters
I played with a real bridge savvy guy yesterday. It cost me $6.50 to sit down, but as tuition goes it was surely cheap. I am sure if he started counting his master points after Board 24, he would still be running the total. My partner is named in the title to this blog, can you identify him? Hint: Oswald Jacoby and Max Hardy have both played their last card, and Marty Bergen is retired.
One hand that we defended reminded me of importance of partnership understandings in defining the hand characteristics of Bergen Limit Raises, Jacoby 2NT and Splinter responses to major suit openers. I think your bidding skills and partnership communication will vastly improve if you start with the proposition that each of these responses should be narrowly defined and distinguishable.
Start with the easy one, the Bergen Limit Raise. For most pairs today that response is 3 clubs. It shows 10 to a bad 12 points, 4 card support and no singleton or void. Since responder’s hand may have little or no ruffing value (4333 is really ugly) it is highly invitational , but not forcing. If you are opener, even with a bad hand do not pass 3 clubs. I already did that in the finals of a Regional knockout – nobody on our team was entertained. The bar tab was a killer!
Move forward to the Splinter bid. If differs from the Bergen Limit Raise in that the splinter must have a single or void. It should also show 10 to a bad 12 points, but because of the shortness it is a game forcing bid. If you have a void rather than a single upgrade your hand a little. The splinter is shown by making a triple jump in the short suit. If your short suit is a single honor, do not show the hand as a splinter, downgrade it to a Bergen Limit Raise. In order to make a good hand valuation opposite a splinter, opener must be able to assume that all of your points are “working points.” For more detail on splinter valuation, see my earlier blog on splinter bids in the archive.
Most often the splinter bid will be at the 4 level so we have eaten up a lot of bidding space. This is what makes it so important that the bid be narrowly defined. Opener is not handcuffed, but he must count on you being within the defined range in making the slam/no slam decision. If opener bids anything other than 4 of the major, he is showing slam interest. There is no science involved if responder has 10 points one time and 17+ points another.
The Jacoby 2NT response also shows 4 card support, and it will have game forcing strength. It may resemble an overgrown Bergen Raise or an overgrown Splinter. It will be a minimum of a good 12 hcps, but the bid is unlimited in strength. In both the Bergen Limit Raise and the Splinter bid, opener is in charge of the hand and makes the crucial decisions. With the Jacoby 2NT bid, responder takes over the hand and is the "Captain of the Ship". Opener describes his hand strength and distribution and responder puts all 26 cards together and makes the final contract decision. Since responder is the decision maker, it really doesn’t matter that he has a singleton or void, or 12 or 22 points, he simply takes that into account in his hand analysis.
One of the problems of the Splinter bid is that you are giving information about responder’s hand distribution and the defender’s can read your smoke signals. The defender’s are being told where they should not expect tricks. A lead of the splinter suit will most often give declarer a “tempo” which may be all the hand needs to make the contract. Both Bergen and Hardy discussed the use of “concealed splinters” in connection with the Bergen Raise complex. With a splinter hand, responder jumps to the 3 level in the opposite major. Thus, 1h/3s or 1s/3h shows a concealed splinter raise. If opener has a big hand and wants to investigate slam, he asks for the shortness by bidding one step up (3s over 3h and 3NT over 3s). Responder then shows the short suit.
If the bidding is: 1s/3h(splinter)/3s(where?)- then 3NT(short clubs) or 4c(short diamonds) or 4h(short hearts).
If the bidding is:: 1h/3s(splinter)/3NT(where)- then 4c(short clubs) or 4d(short diamonds) or 4h( short spades).
That obviously has achieved no advantage over the traditional method, but if opener has no slam aspirations, he can simply bid game in the major directly, and then the location of the splinter has not been disclosed to the defenders. This also opens up all the direct four level calls in the unbid sits for whatever use you wish to make of them. One idea might be to have them show a void as opposed to a singleton. Another choice may be to show a good secondary 5+ card suit along with 4 card support.
After our opponent’s Jacoby 2NT sequence yesterday, the dummy came down with AT76, Q6, AJ8652, x. Do you like that 2 NT bid? Partner held QJ9543, K7, K7, A92 and did a fast arrival of 4 spades. The King of spades was offside, but it shows the dangers of getting the wrong hand in control. Just when you think you have clarified everything, a hand like this comes along. I’ll take criticism on this, but I am splintering that hand. Preferably a concealed splinter! Maybe 6 spades down 1. I would have had company!
One hand that we defended reminded me of importance of partnership understandings in defining the hand characteristics of Bergen Limit Raises, Jacoby 2NT and Splinter responses to major suit openers. I think your bidding skills and partnership communication will vastly improve if you start with the proposition that each of these responses should be narrowly defined and distinguishable.
Start with the easy one, the Bergen Limit Raise. For most pairs today that response is 3 clubs. It shows 10 to a bad 12 points, 4 card support and no singleton or void. Since responder’s hand may have little or no ruffing value (4333 is really ugly) it is highly invitational , but not forcing. If you are opener, even with a bad hand do not pass 3 clubs. I already did that in the finals of a Regional knockout – nobody on our team was entertained. The bar tab was a killer!
Move forward to the Splinter bid. If differs from the Bergen Limit Raise in that the splinter must have a single or void. It should also show 10 to a bad 12 points, but because of the shortness it is a game forcing bid. If you have a void rather than a single upgrade your hand a little. The splinter is shown by making a triple jump in the short suit. If your short suit is a single honor, do not show the hand as a splinter, downgrade it to a Bergen Limit Raise. In order to make a good hand valuation opposite a splinter, opener must be able to assume that all of your points are “working points.” For more detail on splinter valuation, see my earlier blog on splinter bids in the archive.
Most often the splinter bid will be at the 4 level so we have eaten up a lot of bidding space. This is what makes it so important that the bid be narrowly defined. Opener is not handcuffed, but he must count on you being within the defined range in making the slam/no slam decision. If opener bids anything other than 4 of the major, he is showing slam interest. There is no science involved if responder has 10 points one time and 17+ points another.
The Jacoby 2NT response also shows 4 card support, and it will have game forcing strength. It may resemble an overgrown Bergen Raise or an overgrown Splinter. It will be a minimum of a good 12 hcps, but the bid is unlimited in strength. In both the Bergen Limit Raise and the Splinter bid, opener is in charge of the hand and makes the crucial decisions. With the Jacoby 2NT bid, responder takes over the hand and is the "Captain of the Ship". Opener describes his hand strength and distribution and responder puts all 26 cards together and makes the final contract decision. Since responder is the decision maker, it really doesn’t matter that he has a singleton or void, or 12 or 22 points, he simply takes that into account in his hand analysis.
One of the problems of the Splinter bid is that you are giving information about responder’s hand distribution and the defender’s can read your smoke signals. The defender’s are being told where they should not expect tricks. A lead of the splinter suit will most often give declarer a “tempo” which may be all the hand needs to make the contract. Both Bergen and Hardy discussed the use of “concealed splinters” in connection with the Bergen Raise complex. With a splinter hand, responder jumps to the 3 level in the opposite major. Thus, 1h/3s or 1s/3h shows a concealed splinter raise. If opener has a big hand and wants to investigate slam, he asks for the shortness by bidding one step up (3s over 3h and 3NT over 3s). Responder then shows the short suit.
If the bidding is: 1s/3h(splinter)/3s(where?)- then 3NT(short clubs) or 4c(short diamonds) or 4h(short hearts).
If the bidding is:: 1h/3s(splinter)/3NT(where)- then 4c(short clubs) or 4d(short diamonds) or 4h( short spades).
That obviously has achieved no advantage over the traditional method, but if opener has no slam aspirations, he can simply bid game in the major directly, and then the location of the splinter has not been disclosed to the defenders. This also opens up all the direct four level calls in the unbid sits for whatever use you wish to make of them. One idea might be to have them show a void as opposed to a singleton. Another choice may be to show a good secondary 5+ card suit along with 4 card support.
After our opponent’s Jacoby 2NT sequence yesterday, the dummy came down with AT76, Q6, AJ8652, x. Do you like that 2 NT bid? Partner held QJ9543, K7, K7, A92 and did a fast arrival of 4 spades. The King of spades was offside, but it shows the dangers of getting the wrong hand in control. Just when you think you have clarified everything, a hand like this comes along. I’ll take criticism on this, but I am splintering that hand. Preferably a concealed splinter! Maybe 6 spades down 1. I would have had company!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
