Gambling 3NT

The opening bid of 3NT is still played as showing a monster balanced hand by some die-hards. But the majority of people, including almost all experts, seek a better use for the bid. A very large balanced hand can be adequately handled through a 2C opening (or whatever is your conventional strong opening bid). And starting to try and bid constructively at 3NT is fairly hopeless, making the very old-fashioned opening ineffective as well as unnecessary. The commonest alternative is what is called the Gambling 3NT.

The Gambling 3NT was originally part of the Acol system. The opening showed a solid or semi-solid 7- or 8-card minor suit, with one or two stoppers outside. With some help, responder could pass, hoping that declarer could gain the lead and run off nine tricks before the defence could organize five. This might depend on a favorable opening lead, or an ace being on-side, or some such – hence the “gambling” designation.

The modern incarnation of this bid is modified from that original description. These days, a seven card suit is enough, but it is expected to be pretty solid (minimum AKQxxxx). Rather than having outside strength, the opener is expected to have little outside strength, usually defined to be no ace or king outside. Responder still has the option to gamble with a pass, or bid 4C or 5C for pass-or-correct to opener’s suit. There is also a 4D response to ask for a singleton (with no aces or kings, a singleton is the most useful feature opener might have outside his suit). Opener rebids:
After 3NT – 4D ;
4 major = singleton in the bid suit
4NT = no singleton
5 minor = singleton in the other minor
(The reason for reversing the minor suit calls is that it wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea for opener to go past 5C holding a singleton diamond – what if responder was really looking for a heart control?)

This incarnation of the bid is clearly more frequent in occurrence (though still pretty rare), and also fits in to a spectrum of pre-emptive bids that runs from very weak (3-minor pre-empts are often made on 6-card suits these days) to very strong (4- and 5-level pre-empts are usually 8- or 9-card suits). But one obvious weakness of the modern version is that the contract is wrong-sided. Since the responder is the one with the stoppers, it would be much better to have the opening lead running around to his hand. That is why the usual advice for the opening leader is to lay down an ace, so that you get a look at the dummy and can (hopefully) spot the flaw that will give you your defensive tricks. This also is why transfer pre-empts or Alder pre-empts or some such scheme are attractive for this case – if the opening is 3S , responder gets to be the declarer when he wants to gamble, which is much better.

With virtually all of opener’s assets concentrated in one long suit, there is scope for the opposition to have decent prospects of game in one of the other suits. But finding a fit when you have to start at the 4-level is bound to be somewhat problematic. The best idea looks to be to use a defence against 1NT, just a few levels higher. We would go with Multi-Landy:
4C = both majors
4D = one major, unspecified
4H = hearts and a minor (hopefully, the one opener doesn’t have)
4S = spades and a minor
Double can be used to show general values, but clearly you aren’t going to get fat on penalties most of the time. Opener will probably be able to round up at least eight or nine tricks, even without too much in the dummy. So probably it would be better to use an immediate double to show the other minor.

Landy, Multi-Landy and Cappelletti

As a strategic principle, it is a bad idea to allow the opponents to open 1NT and play there, especially when they are not vulnerable. Research has shown that on average, you lose. Therefore, you should intervene whenever possible, to push the opponents out of this contract. Some pairs take this to extremes, overcalling on almost any hand. I don’t recommend that as an approach, but I do advocate an overcall of even a strong no-trump when holding 10+hcp and moderate distribution.

At the moment, agent 99 and I play simple Landy. An overcall of 2C shows both majors, at least 5-4 distribution, 10+hcp. If responder (opener’s partner) passes, advancer (overcaller’s partner) gives preference in the majors or bids 2D to ask overcaller to bid his better major. Passing 2C is possible, but only with long clubs (declarer may be void), no tolerance for either major, and a weak hand. It seems reasonable to play 2NT as natural, showing 12-13 points in a hand tilted towards the minors, while 3C would be a forcing advance, strongly interested in game.

If responder doubles, then advancer has more options. We play
Pass – showing clubs. At least 5, willing to play there if overcaller happens to have 3 clubs
Redouble – please bid your best suit, equivalent to the 2D bid if there were no double
2D – natural, 5+ cards, suggesting a place to play if overcaller has 3 diamonds
2H/2S – preference

Using simple Landy, other suit overcalls are natural, suggesting a 6-card suit and (again) probably 10+hcp.

A 2NT overcall is the Unusual No Trump, showing both minors at least 5-5. Advancer gives a simple preference to 3C or 3D unless he feels adventurous and wants to play at the 4 or 5 level. Needless to say, that would depend on a number of factors, including the strength of the opening 1NT, the quality of fit, vulnerability, whether you are trying to make or are going for a sacrifice, etc.

When agent 99 is ready to upgrade, we will move to Multi-Landy. In this convention, the 2C and 2NT overcalls remain the same, but some other overcalls are also used to show two-suiters.

The odd call out is 2D, showing a 6-card overcall in an unspecified major. Bidding proceeds as after a Multi 2D opening: advancer will ordinarily bid 2H, allowing overcaller to pass or correct to 2S. With good support for hearts (willing to play at least 3H), advancer can respond 2S. Again overcaller passes or corrects, this time the correction being to 3H. With a hand interested in game whichever suit overcaller has, advancer bids 2NT. Overcaller bids 3C with hearts and a maximum, 3H with hearts and a minimum, 3D with spades and a maximum, 3S with spades and a minimum.

If responder doubles the 2D overcall, advancer can pass to show a diamond suit, redouble to show diamond shortage, while the other bids remain the same. If responder bids 2NT as Lebensohl, double from advancer should indicate a willingness to play at the 3-level in overcaller’s suit (that is, he has support for both hearts and spades).

With single-suited hands handled by the overcall of 2D, overcalls of 2H or 2S now show the bid major and an unspecified minor, at least 5-4 and probably 5-5. Advancer can bid 2NT to ask for the minor suit in constructive fashion, or bid 3C for pass or correct with no interest in going further.

Against a weak 1NT, double can be for penalties, 15+hcp. Against a strong 1NT, and also against weak if you don’t want the straight penalty double, double can be used for another type of two-suiter: to show a hand with a 4-card major and a 5-card minor, 11+hcp. Advancer has choices:
Pass – 11+hcp, converting the double for penalties
2C – asking overcaller to pass or correct to 2D, whichever is his minor
2D – asking overcaller to bid his major (advancer usually 4-4 or better in the majors)
2H or 2S – natural, 6-card suit of his own
It may seem unusual to consider doubling a strong no-trump for penalties, but the basic reasoning is sound. If we have 12 points each, and opener has the other 16, not only do we have him out-gunned, the hand should play much better for us than him. If advancer has a useful card or two in each minor, we can expect the opening lead from the 5-card suit to get the defence off to a good start, and declarer is unlikely to have a good day.

The only hands not covered by this scheme are single-suited overcalls in the minors. For those you have to jump-overcall 3C or 3D, which means you aren’t going to do it very often, especially when vulnerable. But natural 2C and 2D overcalls are the least effective interference anyway, and the least problematic to lose.

The most popular defence against 1NT (in the US) is Cappelletti. The Multi-Landy defence described above is substantially similar, the only real difference being that the 2C and 2D bids are swapped around. However, that is a major improvement, since advancer thus has room to discover opener’s five-card suit, making overcalls on 5-4 distribution much more attractive. I also like the minor-major treatment of the double described above. Dealing random hands where a 1NT opening was followed by a hand strong enough to overcall, this was a common distribution, and it’s one that is commonly not handled at all.

Jacoby 2NT

The use of a 2NT response to a 1 major opening has evolved over the years. Typically it would have been somewhat natural 60 or so years ago, either 10-12 and invitational in Acol style, or stronger and game-forcing in old-fashioned American style. If your system includes 5-card majors with 1NT forcing, you don’t need the bid in such a natural mode (you can always respond 1NT and then follow-up with 2NT to show an invitational hand). Jacoby invented a new use for it – to show a game-forcing raise of the major suit, including 4-card support, with the idea of facilitating slam investigation.

The original rebids by the opener showed singletons at the three level and voids at the four level. Using all those bids just to show shortage is obviously very inefficient, and nobody plays that way these days. The modern version taught to beginners uses 3-level bids to show shortages, while rebidding a new suit at the 4-level indicates a good second suit, a source of tricks. That’s clearly better, but still not great. It does have the virtue of being easy to remember, but experts (who are prepared to pay the price in memory strain) usually go for more information. The version described by Larry Cohen (at larryco.com) is fairly typical, I think:
After 1 major – 2NT;

• 4 major = absolutely awful minimum (always 5-3-3-2)
  
• 3C = any other minimum (could be 5-3-3-2, but at least some redeeming feature)
  
• 3D = non-minimum, with a side singleton or void somewhere
  
• 3H = non-minimum, any 5-4-2-2 distribution
  
• 3S = non-minimum, 6+ trumps (no singletons or voids)
  
• 3NT = non-min., 5-3-3-2 (can be defined range eg 18-19)
  
• 4 new suit = decent 5-card side suit (should have ace or king)
  

After opener’s 3-level rebid, responder can bid the next step as a relay, and there are step 2nd rebids by the opener to locate shortages or second suits. Larry says that the memory strain isn’t too bad, but I don’t think I want to take it on.

At Bobby Knows Bridge (www.bobbybridge.com, a site well worth visiting) there is something a bit different. This is called Jacoby-Roman 2NT, and it concentrates on discovering opener’s shape with mostly natural bidding. In addition, the recommendation is to have the original 2NT response promise only 3+ cards in support of opener’s major. While there is therefore a known fit, there is also the possibility of discovering a 4-4 fit in another suit and playing there.
After 1 major – 2NT; opener has five types of rebid:

• 4 major = minimum with 6+cards, no side suit or singleton
  
• 4x = splinter with 6+card suit, no side suit
  
• 3NT = minimum with 5-3-3-2, not forcing
  
• 3 major = 15+ 5-3-3-2 or 6-3-2-2 or 7-2-2-2
  
• 3x = natural side suit
  

Of course, bidding a side suit will be the commonest rebid for the opener. After that, responder in turn has five possible continuations:

• 3NT = good stoppers, only 3-card support for the major. Opener will often pass, and should have a shortage or substantial extras to go on.
  
• 4 major = minimum response with 4-card support.
  
• 4x = 4-card support for opener’s second suit, suggesting slam.
  
• Cheapest bid other than 3NT = relay.
  
• Not the cheapest bid = control cue-bid with 4+card support for the major.
  

The relay bid asks opener to further clarify his shape. Opener continues in a natural style:

• 3NT = 5-4-2-2, not too much extra since 3NT can be passed
  
• repeating the major = 6-4 shape
  
• repeating the side suit = 5-5 shape
  
• new suit = natural, probably 3 cards in a 5-4-3-1 distribution
  

This all looks quite attractive to me. Memory strain is negligible, since all the bidding is essentially natural – there is only one artificial bid to recognize, the relay asking for more shape info. And responding 2NT on 3-card support makes sense to me also, since it increases the frequency of occurrence – the usual Jacoby 2NT really doesn’t come up very often – and allows you the inference that a 2-over-1 response followed by raising opener’s major will show a decent 5-card suit as well as 3-card support. (There is no longer any need to fudge the initial response on a poor suit).

I realize it is far from perfect. There are a number of distributions where the full sequence will take you past 3NT when ideally you might want to stop there. But that isn’t disastrous, because 4major should always be playable. I would be interested to give it a try.

70%

I’ve been taking it easy since STaC week, only playing a couple of times a week. And wouldn’t you know it, the first three sessions that weren’t worth silver points ran at 71%, 57% and 61%, with both the 71% and the 61% being good enough to win. I know some different people show up for silver points, so maybe the opposition hasn’t been as strong, but I’m disappointed anyway. I know my own play has been better these past two weeks.

It’s not the first time I’ve scored 70%, by any means, but it still was a bit of a thrill. To score that high, you have to be playing in luck, as well as not making many mistakes. One example: on one hand, my partner realized at trick 12 that he had only one card left. Under the director’s watchful eye, we discovered the extra card in the quitted tricks – apparently two cards had stuck together. The rule in this situation is that the card is deemed to have been in your hand all along. Naturally, if you have played half a dozen tricks since “losing” it, there is a fair chance that you will have revoked. In fact, my partner hadn’t, and there was no penalty assessed - lucky.

The other news, such as it is, is that I’ve taken the Tournament Director test from the ACBL. They promise to take weeks to return a verdict as to whether I’ve passed or not. But maybe, someday, I’ll actually get to direct a game or two. Won’t that be fun.

Silver Points

I played a lot this week because it was STaC week, and I wanted some more silver points. I only managed about three altogether, and no session was big enough to register on the city-wide scoring, so overall I have to say it was a disappointing result. Still, I had a couple of three-session days at the Manhattan, playing 66 boards total each day (24, 18 and 24), so that was nice. I haven’t played that much in one day since Gold Cup days back in England, and they were about thirty five years ago! Actually it wasn’t bad, although I was definitely tired by the end of the day. Maybe I would have achieved better results by spreading the sessions over more days, but there are downsides to that too – I get more grief at home the more days I’m out. I really have to start working out. Mens sana in corpore sano, and all that, and better stamina too.

I didn’t notice too many hands I would want to blog about either.

E-W game, dlr S (rotated)

              ♠ 10 3
              ♥ A 8 6 4
              ♦ A K 5
              ♣ 5 4 3 2
♠ K J                        ♠ Q 9 8 7 5 4 2
♥ 10 5           [ ]         ♥ 9 7
♦ J 10                       ♦ Q 8 7 3
♣ A J 10 9 8 7 6             ♣ -
              ♠ A 6
              ♥ K Q J 3 2
              ♦ 9 6 4 2
              ♣ K Q

1♥    2♣    3♣    pass
4♥    All pass

This seemed straightforward enough at first. The auction was simple enough, with the unassuming cue-bid as a limit+ raise. The ♣A opening lead didn’t promise any difficulties, and the first view of dummy seemed to show an appropriate number of losers and winners. That picture changed when East discarded at trick one, because the defence was too obvious: ♣A, ♣ ruff, ♠ switch. And suddenly I have four losers, because even if the diamonds break 3-3, they have a spade to cash when they win the third diamond.

Fortunately, there is just one reasonable line of play, and it works. Win the ♠A and draw trumps in two rounds – you need them 2-2. Eliminate the clubs by ruffing, and cash both top diamonds. Finally, exit with the spade loser, and hope that West is winning the trick. He had indeed failed to drop the ♠K under the ♠A, and found himself forced to give a ruff and discard. Dummy’s third diamond went away as I ruffed in hand with my last trump, for the tenth winner.

Very simple, but I wanted to mention it because it’s a long time since I’ve had a throw-in that didn’t involve any sort of tenace.

This one gets a mention because the Losing Trick Count got us to the game, and not many people bid it.

Game all, dlr N

             ♠ Q J 5 3 2
             ♥ K 9 6 4
             ♦ 5 2
             ♣ 10 7
♠ A K 9                     ♠ 8
♥ 2            [ ]          ♥ Q J 8 7 5 3
♦ J 10 6 4                  ♦ Q 7
♣ K 9 8 5 2                 ♣ Q J 6 4
             ♠ 10 7 6 4
             ♥ A 10
             ♦ A K 9 8 3
             ♣ A 3

1♦   Pass   1♠   Pass
3♠   Pass   4♠   All pass

South’s raise to 3♠ is perhaps a bit aggressive. But there are only 6 losers, and the controls are impressive. My raise to four spades looked outrageous when I counted points – 6 isn’t very many. But there are only 8 losers, and there should be a 9-card trump fit. So 4♠ has to be the bid, if partner can bid 3♠.

I jumped up with the ♥A on the opening lead, and returned the ♥10 towards the ♥K. If West ruffs, I can later discard dummy’s club loser on the ♥K. Instead he discarded, so I won, crossed with a diamond and led a spade towards the ♠QJ. There was no way for the defence to make more than three tricks after that. West tried the effect of drawing three rounds of trumps, but I used my two spades in hand to ruff diamonds, establishing the ♦3 as the tenth trick.

I don’t know how to generate a sensible bidding sequence on this beast.

N-S Game, dlr E

                 ♠ 9 2
                 ♥ Q 10 6 5 2
                 ♦ K J 10 3 2
                 ♣ 9
♠ -                            ♠ A 10 8 7 6 5 3
♥ A 8 3            [ ]         ♥ K J 9 7
♦ 9 8                          ♦ Q 5
♣ A K J 10 5 4 3 2             ♣ -
                 ♠ K Q J 4
                 ♥ 4
                 ♦ A 7 6 4
                 ♣ Q 8 7 6

1♠   Pass 2♣   Pass
2♥   Pass 4NT  Pass
5♥   Pass 6♣   All pass

Not a good auction, demonstrating that Blackwood and voids don’t go together well. But it’s hard to come up with any positive result. The best efforts seem to manage to stop at 5♣, and only go one down.

It seems ridiculous to do other than open 1♠ with East’s hand, and that is enough to keep South out of the auction. So then what do you do with that West hand? You have 8, likely 9, tricks in your own hand, and partner has opened. Can you envisage that there is no game available? Nothing makes.

Reverses

Reverses are very simple bidding sequences that seem to give a lot of beginners (and even intermediates) fits, for no good reason.

In standard bidding in the US and UK, we bid our longer suits first, and rebid a second suit later if that seems advisable. Generally speaking, with a balanced hand we will bid no-trumps at the first convenient opportunity. So after a bidding sequence like
1D – 1S; 2C (opponents silent)
responder can infer that opener has an unbalanced hand that includes at least five diamonds and at least four clubs. Now, suppose responder has a weak hand. What is the weakest action he can take? Obviously, if he clearly prefers clubs to diamonds, he can pass. But much of the time, he will like diamonds equally as well as clubs, or will have some holding like two small diamonds and three small clubs, in which case opener would be much happier in his 5-2 diamond fit rather than the 4-3 club fit. So most of the time, responder will return to opener’s first (and therefore longer) suit when he is weak. In the above example, he will bid 2D.

Now what if the bidding starts instead with
1D – 1S; 2H
What is the same, and what is different? Actually, everything discussed above is still true. Opener has an unbalanced hand that includes at least five diamonds and at least four hearts (this time). When weak, responder will usually return to opener’s first suit, diamonds. The difference is that this time, the lowest level will be a bid of 3D. If that is to be a reasonable contract when responder is very weak, then obviously, opener must have something more than a minimum opening. This sort of sequence is called a reverse – where opener bids two suits and forces responder to the three-level if he wants to get back to the first suit. In the UK, opener would be showing about 16+ hcp when he bid like this. In the US, people typically expect even more, 17-18+ hcp.

The situation should be compared to the sequence
1H – 2D; 3C
As with our reverse, no jumping is involved, but responder has still been pushed up to the three-level. In standard bidding, opener would still need extra strength to do this, and in fact, this sort of sequence used to be called a “high reverse”. Playing 2-over-1 game forcing, you can play this as merely bidding out your shape, and not showing extra strength. This is possible because responder has promised extra strength with his first response, so the three-level should be safe even if opener is minimum.

A style I like to play is to use five-card majors with 1NT response forcing, but with 2-over-1 responses not absolutely forcing to game. In this style, since the 2-over-1 responses are “meaty but not game-forcing”, a high reverse should be better than a minimum, but need not be a rock-crusher as in Standard American. I therefore like to play all reverses at about the British level, 16+ hcp.

You may ask why call it a “reverse”? What is backwards? The answer is: nothing that I can see. I think the name came from the thought that if you bid the higher-ranking suit first, you can get the suits in at the two-level. If you reverse the order, you force responder to the three-level. But which suit you choose to bid doesn’t actually have anything to do with its rank. As I started out saying, we bid the longer suit first.

Misfits

I had a pretty good night at the Manhattan, but there were some brutal hands about.

E-W game, dlr W

            ♠ K Q 10 8 6 3
            ♥ -
            ♦ 9
            ♣ Q J 9 8 7 3
♠ J 4 2                 ♠ A 9 7
♥ J 5 2       [ ]       ♥ Q 10 6 4 3
♦ A K Q 6               ♦ 7 3
♣ A 5 4     ♠ 5         ♣ K 6 2
            ♥ A K 9 8 7
            ♦ J 10 8 5 4 2
            ♣ 10

This was our worst board of the evening. The auction is too embarrassing to repeat, but it should be sufficient to say that, sitting North, I finished up in 5♠ doubled, sacrificing over their hearts. Needless to say, dummy was greeted with a fair amount of hilarity, which I could appreciate but apparently my partner could not. I went three down, only avoiding a complete zero because one E-W pair actually bid and made 3NT for +600 (I don’t see how, but that’s what it said on the traveler). On a heart lead (not completely ridiculous, since they had bid and supported hearts), I would only be one down (pitch ♦9 on the ♥A and play a spade to the ♠10). But East was smart enough to lead a trump (knowing I had a two-suiter and that South had given preference), and with the ♥AK visible, hearts were never led at all. Most people were going down in some contract or other, but nobody else was crazy enough to venture to the five level, and a lot of the time it was E-W going down. Oh well.

This one featured an optimistic opponent “stepping in it”.

Game all, dlr W

             ♠ Q J 6 4
             ♥ 10 3
             ♦ K 8 7 6 3 2
             ♣ 6
♠ A 8                    ♠ K 9 7 5 3
♥ J 8 7 4      [ ]       ♥ A 9 5 2
♦ A Q J 10 9 5           ♦ -
♣ 5          ♠ 10 2      ♣ 8 7 4 3
             ♥ K Q 6
             ♦ 4
             ♣ A K Q J 10 9 2

1♦   Pass   1♠    2♣
4♦   Double All pass

Even before I saw his hand, I was impressed with my partner’s cool pass over the double. Some players might wonder if their solid club suit might not be much more useful on offence than in defence. My guy never flinched.

I started with my singleton club, and on the second round over-ruffed declarer’s ♦5 with my ♦6. The ♥10 came next, and declarer rose with ♥A to play another club, ruffing with the ♦9 as I discarded. From that point, he had no chance of making more than his trumps and top winners, for down three. 800 was a top shared with one other pair.

The one slam board we played, we missed it with a typically crude auction.

Game all, dlr W

           ♠ A
           ♥ J 5
           ♦ K 8 7 5 2
           ♣ A Q J 7 2
♠ 10 7 6 4 3 2          ♠ Q J 8 5
♥ 4 3        [ ]        ♥ K 9 7 6
♦ 10 4                  ♦ J 9
♣ K 9 6    ♠ K 9        ♣ 10 8 4
           ♥ A Q 10 8 2
           ♦ A Q 6 3
           ♣ 5 3

1♦  Pass 1♥  Pass
2♣  Pass 3NT All pass

I know it was matchpoints, but I think South is just too good to not even think about 6♦. (Not to mention that he had no clue whether 3NT was anything like a decent contract). He only has five losers on the LTC, and he knows we have (at least) a nine-card fit. I hesitated before passing over 3NT, sure in my bones that he had just fixed us, but I had no real justification for bidding on. Playing with agent 99, I would hope for something a bit more classy and optimistic, along these lines.

1♦     Pass 1♥     Pass
2♣     Pass 2♠ (a) Pass
3♣     Pass 4♦     Pass
4♥ (b) Pass 5♦ (c) Pass
5♥ (d) Pass 5♠ (e) Pass
6♣ (f) Pass 6♦ (g) All pass

a) 4th suit forcing
b) Redwood 1430
c) 2 + ♦Q
d) Specific king ask
e) ♠K
f) Do you have the ♣K also?
g) With either the ♣K or a solid heart suit that would be a source of tricks, South could bid 7♦. Since he has neither, South signs off in 6♦.

Actually, agent 99 isn’t quite up to speed on 1430 yet, but we’re working on it.