Regional

Some more hands from the regional. These two were against a pair that were just too timid.

N-S Game, dlr N

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

N     E     S     W
Pass  1♦    2♠    3♣
pass  3♦    all pass

I just don’t understand North’s pass in the second round. Partner is pre-empting, you have a strong fit and no defence. You can’t find even a single raise? In a sense, inaction is correct, because however high N-S go, we are likely to bid one more than that and make the contract. In actuality, South decided that the ♦J looked like a good lead, and I soon wrapped up thirteen tricks: twelve tricks are available against any lead.

So how should we bid the hand (assuming N-S shut up)? Reaching even game seems to involve an optimistic view.

E-W game, dlr E

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

E     S     W     N
Pass  pass  1♣    dble
1♦    2♦    3♦    3♠
4♣    4♠    5♣    all pass

With such prime controls and a double fit in evidence, Agent 99 didn’t have much hesitation going to 5♣. I just don’t know how either North or South could feel that it was reasonable to leave us there undoubled. Of course, if you double, North has to find a diamond lead (not difficult on the bidding). In practice, she led a spade to South’s ♠A, which killed the defence and 5♣ made. So as the old saying goes, it was only one mistake: if she was going to defend like that, failure to double was not an error. But then, knowing she was capable of such defence, South should certainly have bid 5♠. Perhaps her dummy play is equally as bad.

Now here’s a bidding problem. You hold
♠Q J 10 5 ♥6 ♦10 ♣A J 9 8 7 4 3
Nobody vulnerable, you hear 1♥ on your left and 2NT (Jacoby) on your right. Doesn’t it sound like they have at least a game, and 5♣ might well be a good sacrifice? I thought so. And yet neither side has a game double-dummy, while both sides may make game at the table.

Love all, dlr S

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

S     W     N     E
1♥    pass  2NT   5♣
pass  pass  dble  all pass

It should not be too difficult for E-W to find the diamond ruff to beat 4♥, but it’s not a sure thing. If the bidding hasn’t given too much away, and if West leads the Q♣, South may be smart enough to not cover, and that makes it very difficult. You would expect some, perhaps even most, N-S pairs to make game.

Even more so, the spade ruff to beat 5♣ looks simple. And yet our opponents, who were not idiots, had a mix-up over signals. After one top spade, South switched. I had asked about the bidding, and South could have made a penalty double. Since he clearly must have had a minimum opening, I played North for all the trumps and made 5♣ for most of the matchpoints.

The analysis software points out that 3NT is cold E-W, but it doesn’t suggest how we bid it.

Regional

OK, I’m back from my second event of the regional, a Swiss Teams. I was playing with my other decent partner, a 2/1 Game Forcing aficionado that I’ll call Elwood, and a decent pair that included one of the directors from the Manhattan. Actually, they were probably more than decent, because we won seven out of eight matches, and I wasn’t defending too well. But we fitted into the B/C Swiss, and I guess that was enough of an edge.

The wild distributions were notable. There were a couple of 7-6 hands, one or two 7-5s, and it seemed like endless 5-5s and 6-5s, and these were all hand-dealt, at the table! That’s a lot of stuff in 56 boards.

Anyway, the bottom line is it seems I won five and a half gold points for Friday’s effort, and eight and a half gold for Sunday’s effort. So my two days of work has taken me more than halfway to the requirement for Life Master. Not a bad deal at all, although it might make you wonder whether the Life Master rank means much.

Regional

This weekend is the Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional in New York City. I decided to try and get a little more serious about winning some gold points, and so I'm playing in a couple of events. Friday was the Jim Becker Open Pairs, and Agent 99 and I were in as a C pair. This is a fairly prestigious event, and I didn't expect to be in the running overall, but I was sure we could be as good as any other C pair around. And so it proved. It's a two-session event, and we rang up 58% in the first session to actually stand tied for 7th overall at the halfway mark, well clear of the rest of the C crowd. The later session was something of a let-down, unfortunately, and we dropped off the overall leader-board. But approximately 50% in the second session was enough to stay at the top of the Cs, and so we gained our first gold points.

I'd prefer not to dwell too much on the second session. But there were some magic results in the first half.

Game all, dlr W

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

W     N     E     S
1♠    pass  2♣    pass
2♥    pass  3♦    pass
4♣    pass  4♦    pass
4♥    pass  5♦    pass
5♥    pass  7♣    all pass

Agent 99 bid out her shape, and I went through Redwood 1430, taking it all the way to the grand slam. It's perhaps a bit of a stretch, but I could count twelve tricks as long as the distribution was reasonable, and I thought there was bound to be play for thirteen.

In fact, you can make all the tricks in clubs, hearts or no-trump, because the heart finesse works. But playing in clubs is best, as it gives you multiple chances. The trump opening lead didn’t hurt anything, so I had choices to make. A diamond ruff in dummy would make the twelfth trick, and then you could try the heart finesse, a ruffing spade finesse, or a spade-heart squeeze for thirteen. Or you could ruff a couple of spades (if the trumps are 3-2) hoping to drop the ♠K. The main issue is how to combine the most chances.

The best I can come up with is:
1: ♣6 (North didn’t want to waste his ♣10)
2: ♦Q
3: ♠A
4: ♦9 ruffed in dummy
5: ♠ ruffed in hand
6+7: ♣AK, drawing trumps, discarding ♠9 (if trumps turn out to be 4-1, you have to ditch the spades and rely on the heart finesse)
8: ♥A
9: ♠ ruffed in hand
Now if the ♠K fell, you have thirteen tricks. If everybody has followed to the spades but the ♠K hasn’t appeared, you now cash the ♦AK, discarding the ♥8 and the ♠Q from dummy (unless South discards the ♠K). If South holds the ♠K, he has been squeezed, and you can play for the drop in hearts, making even against a doubleton ♥Q in North. And if you think North had the ♠K all along, there is still the heart finesse to fall back on.

In practice, you aren’t tested since the ♠K does fall. The main lines that don’t work are ones involving the ruffing finesse in spades.

We were the only ones to bid a grand – most tables rang up 1470 (for 6NT+1).

E-W game, dlr E

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

E     S     W     N
1NT   dble  pass  pass
redbl all pass

West has an awkward hand for our methods. It's the sort of hand that you would really like to just leave at 1NT doubled and see what happens. While you can be reasonably optimistic about our chances, because the points seem to be split more or less 20-20 between the two sides, it really looks thin for a business redouble. But running is distinctly unattractive, and we can only stand with a redouble – so that's what Agent 99 did.

South started with the ♥2, which went to the ♥9 and ♥Q, and I returned the ♥7 to his ♥K. A diamond switch put the danger hand in, but North's return of the ♠10 didn't help their side any. I won and played a third heart, and South persisted with diamonds. When the smoke cleared, I finished up with an overtrick. +1160 isn't bad on a hand that should be held to down two, double-dummy.

The Bucket List

When you are a beginning student of this game, everything is new and it can seem difficult to impose order on all the things that you have to try to remember. There comes a point, when you are an intermediate player, where some level of basic knowledge has been absorbed, and you start to become acquainted with more advanced matters of technique. And somewhere about there, you find that you are reading about a particular type of play and looking for a chance to use it at the table. Probably, the throw-in and the simple squeeze are the simplest “advanced” techniques, and the time when you learn about them is around about the time I mean. If you are a keen student, you may work on a number of techniques before the proper occasion at the table crops up (or is recognized, anyway). And that means you have a list, of sorts, of plays that you are waiting for.

Now, throw-ins and simple squeezes are pretty common, so they don’t stay on the list too long. Elopement plays and coup en passant variations I had played before I knew they had a name, so they actually by-passed my list. Some items get onto the list for sentimental or whimsical reasons, rather than any special technical element. I haven’t put “the beer card” on my list of things to do, but I might, just for fun. A weird one was the really deep finesse. I did play a suit contract (5♦ doubled, it was), and on the first round of trumps I led the ♦5 from dummy and ran it, winning the trick with all players following suit. I didn’t make the contract, but I didn’t care since that deep finesse worked. (It sounds ridiculous when you first think of it, but it’s actually not that bad. RHO was the doubler, of course, so I knew he had a trump stack, and LHO was either singleton or void. So then it’s a matter of waiting a few years or a few thousand hands to find LHO with the right singleton.) 

As time goes by, and your studies get more esoteric, the items that stay on the list tend to be things that are intrinsically rare and unlikely. Top of my list for now (and for the foreseeable future, truthfully) is a backwash squeeze. But there are some easier items still there. And the other day, one of the more recent additions actually got knocked off.

A technique I hadn’t heard of before came to my attention on BBO, within the last year (actually, probably within the last six months). Watching Vu-graph matches at BBO on-line, I saw described and executed what is known these days as an intra-finesse. With a holding like
A 8 x x x opposite Q 9 x,
if you have to play the suit for one loser, you have some fairly limited options. The king being singleton would do, but you aren’t going to play for it (too rare). If the suit is breaking 3-2, leading low to the queen will work half the time. But what if the bidding and play leads you to think that the king is sitting over the queen? You can play for the king being doubleton (ace and duck). Or you can play for either the knave or ten to be doubleton in front of the queen. You do that by playing small to the nine (the intra-finesse). That loses to the jack or ten, but when you get back in, the lead of the queen pins the doubleton honor in the other hand.

Now, I haven’t tried to calculate the odds of different configurations. But I’ve had my fill of hands with KJx sitting over my queen, and the chance to strike back with a winning line definitely got on my list.

N-S game, dlr E

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

E    S    W    N
Pass 1♦   2♦   3♦
3♥   Pass 4♥   All pass

At trick one there was an infraction. South led ♦A, dummy ruffed with the ♥5, and North played ♥3 to a chorus of queries. This became a penalty card, so to try and take advantage, I played a club to the ♣K to get to hand for a trump finesse that would definitely win. So trick three was hearts – 2, 8, 9, 3.

And there I was, in dummy, and there was still work to do. I would have to bring in the spade suit. I placed the ♣A with North since the ♣K held, so that meant there was an excellent chance that the ♠K was in the South hand. They can still force dummy with diamonds, so I need trumps 3-2, and I need spades 3-2 to keep down the losers and avoid a ruff. The bidding suggests diamonds 5-4, so there’s no great reason to think South might be short in spades. So the stage is set for the intra-finesse – trick 4 was spades, 2, 7, 8, 10. South exited with the ♥Q, won in hand so I could lead the ♠Q. And then it’s just mopping up: draw the last trump and the last spade, concede a trick to the ♣A, and claim 5-odd. No problem!
   

Bidding over opponent’s 1NT response

When the opponents start the auction 1D – 1NT, in Standard American auctions it is pretty much a given that the 1NT bidder will have a club suit. This observation leads to a couple of neat overcalling possibilities.

First, consider how you are placed when in the “sandwich” position, after (1D) – pass – (1NT) - ?
The BobbyBridge page about Multi-Landy observes that it works here. Since we won’t want to make a simple minor-suit overcall in this position, we can play that 2C shows both majors and 2D shows a weakish overcall in an unspecified major. That lets us specify that the 2H and 2S overcalls are full-value – opening bid strength – so we can intervene relatively cleanly in either (or both) major.

Second, consider where you stand in the re-opening position, after
(1D) – pass – (1NT) – pass; (pass) - ?
On Eddie Kantar’s website, he notes that a re-opening 2D here should be natural, because you may have been silenced by the opening bid (which might only be a 3-card suit). However, it is still true that you won’t want to reopen in clubs with a known suit behind you. So we can (again) use 2C as showing both majors, in this case not strong and possibly only 4-4.

Third, Kantar also remarks on
(1C) – pass – (1NT) – pass; (pass) - ?
He notes that a re-opening 2C here should be natural, because you may have been silenced by the opening bid (which might only be a 3-card suit). However, it is also true that a natural re-opening 2D bid is very unlikely, since any such hand would almost certainly have overcalled 1D in the first place. So we can use 2D, this time, as showing both majors, again in this case not strong and possibly only 4-4.

These may seem like little things to clutter-up your memory, possibly causing more trouble than they are worth. That remains to be seen. Being able to fight for part-scores at the two-level is important at any form of scoring. Allowing the opponents to settle in 1NT too easily is faulty strategy.

I hate Mondays

I skipped a game with Agent 99 to cover for a director that had jury duty. Big mistake. The Monday afternoon crowd is awful, and just about everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. All in all, a thoroughly unpleasant experience. Paying me twice as much wouldn't be enough.

There was one of those nasty hesitation rulings included. Bidding: 1C - 4H - 5C - (pause)pass - pass - 5H - director. At one level, this is a straightforward case - at least everyone agreed on the events (it was a very long pause), and the rule of thumb is reasonably clear. If pass was a logical alternative for North (rather than 5H), even if only a minority of players would likely choose it, then if East-West don't like their result I should order the hand scored at 5C. But here's North's hand.

S: A 7, H: A K 10 8 5 4 3 2, D: A J, C: 4

You can argue that pass is a logical alternative, but I can't honestly think of anyone I know who wouldn't bid 5H at that point in the auction with this hand. Speaking with another (more experienced) director, he said that if North had bid better in the first place (say, double first and then bid 4H), he would be more inclined to believe her claim that she would always bid 5H. But to me, that logic seems backwards. If you have already shown a really strong hand, pass becomes a much more viable alternative. If you have committed the gross underbid of the direct 4H, the undisclosed strength pushes you towards 5H. I suppose he meant that if she would underbid so badly once, she would do it twice. I don't know.

Anyway, hearts makes 11 tricks, clubs makes 10 tricks the other way. Big swing!

Misadventures In Manhattan

We’ve had some contenders for “stupid hand of the month” lately – thankfully, some of them were perpetrated by the opponents.

This one includes stupidity, but even more luck.

Love all, dlr E (rotated)

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

E    S    W    N
Pass 1♦   1♥   2♦
2♥   Pass 3♥   4♦
4♥   5♦   Pass Pass
Dble All pass

I really hate the 2♦ then 4♦ from my partner – I was raised in the Acol tradition, where you bid what you think you can make. In that style, he should bid some large number of diamonds immediately then keep quiet. Or, alternatively, make some other noise first (a cue-bid of hearts, perhaps) and then support diamonds. But you don’t say “I think all we can make is 2♦” and on the next round come out with “trick or treat”. All that achieves is confusing partner and giving the opponents more room to exchange information.

I’ve seen this sort of bidding from this partner before, so I expected the distributional hand, and that was why I chanced the sacrifice against their 4♥. Of course, I didn’t expect the two spade tricks that make the sacrifice a phantom.

From East’s demeanor, it was clear he held the trumps, so I ruffed the opening heart lead and played small to the ♦8. Then across with a spade and small to the ♦J. East was hanging on to the ♦AQ (nobody is quite sure why), so now I exited with the ♣K, noting the fall of the ♣J with some interest. Another heart from West (aagh! anything else is better) shortened dummy’s trumps enough that I could play winning clubs through East to trap the ♦Q - +550.

Two boards later, the same opponents were still brooding.
 
N-S vul, dlr W (rotated)

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

W    N    E    S
Pass 3♦   Dble 3NT
Pass Pass Dble Pass
Pass Pass

This was pretty much a tie for stupidity, but the opponents win the battle on the grounds of the result. The first round of bidding is actually sensible enough. I was just trying to stir the pot with the 3NT bid, planning to run to 4♦ when the water got too warm. But when East doubled again, the devil on my shoulder said, let it ride (obviously a stupid decision at the vulnerability). West didn’t want to bid 4♣, so decided to pass also, which might well have been the winning choice. However, she then didn’t lead a major suit. When the ♣6 held at trick one, I announced that I could see nine tricks. Our score of +750 compared favorably to the -450 that everybody else was racking up.

I don’t know what to say, really. Perhaps 4♦ from East would have got the message across that he really, really wanted to hear a major suit bid from West.

This one was from a session with Agent 99.

Love all, dlr W

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

W    N    E    S
2♥   2NT  Pass 3NT
Pass Pass Pass

The rule of thumb I grew up with was: if you don’t have partner’s suit, you can’t lead it, if you only have one, you don’t want to lead it, and if you have two, you better have a good reason why not to lead it. So we started with two rounds of spades, declarer winning the ♠Q at trick two. Now declarer made her first mistake, leading the ♣4 to the ♣10. (Leading the ♣J makes a lot more sense, because from the bidding and play so far, both the ♣A and ♣Q rate to be in front). Crossing back to ♥A, she tried the ♣J next, but it’s too late. I rose with the ♣A to clear the spades, and she’s in deep doo-doo. Back to the ♦A to lead the ♣8, but I still had ♣Q7 surrounding it. In dummy for the last time, she now led a second diamond and then hesitated forever. The mistake that wins the prize: she tried the double finesse of the ♦9. I now tabled my hand, for down three.

Actually, at IMPs, she might have an argument that the finesse is correct play. But at matchpoints, it must be correct to take the top winners and settle for down one. The contract is not outrageous, so there is a chance she would have company at -50. There was nobody else at -150.

Hiyo Silver

It’s silver points for a week again. So far I’ve only played one session. The field wasn’t large, considering, at 17 tables. But it made up for that with quality – it seems that a lot of the local pros had clients that wanted silver! So I was well pleased to have a session with few mistakes and scoring over 50%. We actually finished on 53%, and 7th place, but with one round to go we were at 55% and 5th very close to 4th. The last two boards dropped us out of contention without us making a gross error. But that’s the way of matchpoints when the field is tight.

We got off to a good fast start. First board:

Love all, dlr S

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

S    W    N    E
1♠   pass 4♠   All pass

Perhaps the jump to game is a bit ambitious, but the North hand looks very good for a raise to 2♠. Even if that’s all you do, South is worth a raise anyway. He only has five losers, and the sixth trump provides some compensation for the lack of honors. Nevertheless, we scored above average for this – some people didn’t get there.

Third board:

Game all, dlr N

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

N    E    S    W
Pass pass 1♣   pass
1♥   pass 4♥   All pass

West decided to pass over 1♣, and I decided I couldn’t pass with a singleton and a 5-card major. South should probably only raise to 3♥ (on most people’s evaluation scale, anyway) but he liked his controls and went all the way. When the ♥Q dropped, I had ten easy tricks and cashed out for all the matchpoints – nobody else reached this one.

We got another clear top on a psychological defence, pressuring a declarer who erred at trick one.

Game all, dlr W

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

W    N    E    S
Pass Pass 1♦   Pass
1♥   Pass 2♦   Pass
2NT  Pass 3NT  All pass

I started prosaically enough with the ♠4, and declarer foolishly played the ♠10 from dummy. Partner won the ♠K and returned the ♠8, covered by the 9 and Q. Obviously, partner’s only possible entry was the ♦Q, so I switched to the ♦9. This gave declarer something to think about. I had an easy safe exit in hearts, so why switch to a diamond? Was I trying to talk him out of a winning finesse? Declarer won the ♦A and crossed to a club to lead another diamond, but that didn’t really help him. Eventually, he decided I was being a smartass and finessed. Down one, with everyone else making, and many of them taking ten tricks.

AQ opposite K can be a difficult suit to cash out, unless you’re defending against us.

N-S Game, dlr S

          ♠ A K Q J 3
          ♥ K J 9
          ♦ 8 2
          ♣ J 6 4
♠ 10 4               ♠ 9 8 2
♥ 5 4       [ ]      ♥ 10 8 6 2
♦ A 10 6 5 4         ♦ 9 7 3
♣ K 9 8 7            ♣ A Q 2
          ♠ 7 6 5
          ♥ A Q 7 3
          ♦ K Q J
          ♣ 10 5 3
S    W    N    E
1♦   Pass 1♠   Pass
1NT  Pass 3NT  All pass

Partner didn’t want to open his feeble club suit, but the result was disastrous. A natural diamond lead lets him run home with ten tricks. Instead, West led a club, and the defence cashed out for down one before he even got started. For variation, half the field was in 4♠, and that has four top losers for down one also. Nevertheless, that was making almost all the time too.

WMSG

I've watched less than I would have liked of the first World Mind Sports Games on the Vu-Graph at BBO. But when I could, it was fun watching England do so well. The Women and Seniors had great results, but I was really rooting for the Open team. They were up against really tough opposition, and not expected to medal. But they reached the final against Italy, and refused to be blown out by the huge favorites. Every time they fell behind, they found a way to close the gap, and while they didn't catch up, they stayed within striking distance and pushed the Italians all the way. I was very impressed by Townsend-Gold. Watching some previous events on BBO, they hadn't made much impression on me. But they had a great Games, and I wasn't surprised to hear that they were voted best pair at the games by some spectators. 

Opening 2C And Responses

I have described in an older post what Agent 99 and I play. I wanted to put out another post, because there are a couple of good alternatives floating around that I would be interested in trying, and in hearing how other people get on with them.

An idea I used to like is an artificial positive set-up, perhaps similar to:
• 2D: any 0-3, or 4-7 with a 5-card or longer major
• 2H: any 8+ unbalanced or 10+ balanced
• 2S: 4-6 balanced, or 4-7 with a 5-card or longer minor
• 2NT: 7-9 balanced
The reason why I consider this sort of scheme playable is that while it seems harmful or perhaps just not useful to condense all positive replies into 2H, I have looked at hundreds of deals where a 2C opening is faced by a positive response. In virtually every case, the final contract should be a slam. So it actually makes sense to use only one bid for those hands, and use two or three responses to categorize the "semi-positive" hands.

A similar sort of philosophy gets a very different implementation as described by Martin Johnson at
http://www.freewebs.com/bobbybridge/
(some interesting stuff there). He calls it "Two, Weak, Transfer".
• 2D: A positive hand with at least an ace or 6 working points, unsuitable for any of the special higher responses. All hands of 10+ HCP and most hands with 1.5 quick tricks use this response.
• 2H: A negative response, the auction may stop at 2NT, 3 of a major or 4 of a minor
• 2S: A medium strength TWO-suited hand. Minimum strength is any hand that does not intend to stop below game, maximum of two kings or 1 quick trick.
• 2NT: A WEAK single suited hand with no side entry, and a decent suit. The bid denies two top honors, but any seven card suit qualifies as "decent".
• 3C, 3D, 3H: A good single suited hand minimum suit KQJxxx or AQ10xxx with no side king or ace, suit shown is the next higher (TRANSFER response).
Once again, there is a positive response and a negative response. But this time, the other bids are used to describe particular types of responder hands that are difficult to get across otherwise. I like this idea, because while I appreciate that the ideal auction has the opener as captain (because his hand is so strong), I also feel that standard methods provide too few mechanisms for responder to describe whatever contribution he might make. Discovering point count or controls can be done later: identifying shape, or that there is a suit without an outside entry, is both more difficult and more useful. That makes this set-up far better than, say, step responses.

For something completely different, you can go to Dr. Chris Ryall’s website
http://chrisryall.net/bridge/two/clubs.htm#responses
for his description of Paradox responses.
• 2D: Can supply a trick in support of either hearts or spades.
• 2H: Cannot supply a trick for hearts, may or may not have a trick for spades.
• 2S: Cannot supply a trick for spades, but promises a trick for hearts.
Both the 2H and 2S responses are a form of negative, bidding the suit that responder doesn’t like (hence, Paradox). They are therefore not forcing, if opener doesn’t have game in his own hand. An auction like 2C – 2H; Pass would probably make the opponents blink, but it’s perfectly logical. Suppose you open 2C on a hand that is single-suited with hearts, and you estimate 8 or 9 tricks in hand. Partner responds 2H, saying he has no help. Obviously, the thing to do is pass. Of course, that means the requirements for the 2H and 2S responses must be pretty tight – opposite a typical 2C opening, you really don’t need much to contribute a trick. But the general idea is interesting, and may be worth exploring.

Of the three methods, Martin Johnson’s “Two, Weak, Transfer” system has me the most excited at the moment. I’m going to run up some random 2C openings and try to compare possible sequences.

Misadventures In Manhattan

Slams were definitely a problem last week. Not just for us, the opponents didn’t do so well either.

E-W vul, dlr W

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

W    N    E    S
1♣   Pass 1♦   Pass
1♠   Pass 4♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This was distinctly un-enterprising from both sides of the table, but one of them has some excuse. Why West didn’t open 1NT (15-17) I have no idea. That would have made for a completely different auction, of course, but failing to make the bid seems very misleading. Certainly it seems to have fooled East, who would be worth a slam try in any sensible auction (and would probably drive to slam opposite 1NT). But having been primed to expect a minimum-ish opening with club values, she just pounded out 4♠, which West passed without a second’s thought - making all thirteen tricks after I led my singleton.

Game all, dlr S

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

S    W    N    E
1♦   Pass 2♣   Pass
2NT  Pass 3NT  Pass
Pass Pass

This one isn’t really a slam, but I wanted to include it for completeness. We scored 720 for the second time in the session – I don’t remember ever doing that before.

The opening spade lead forced a finesse at trick one. Partner then crossed to the ♥A and ran the ♣10, crossed back to the ♠Q to cash clubs, and then took the diamond finesse. On the fourth round of diamonds, East (who had lost interest) discarded a heart, and that was thirteen tricks. I did give passing thought to 6♦ before bidding 3NT, but twelve tricks seemed a bit unlikely. Swap the East-West hands and declarer isn’t nearly so happy.

Against the previous pair of opponents, we’d racked up 720 on this one.

Game all, dlr E (rotated)

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

E    S    W    N 
Pass 1♦   Pass 1♥
Pass 2♦   Pass 3NT
Pass Pass Pass

I didn’t think I had quite enough to jump to 3♦, even though I was impressed with my controls and partner was bidding to cover my losers. And I don’t see what else I might have rebid, so that means I have to place the blame with partner. Truthfully, he really is too good to close the auction with 3NT, and for all he knows 4♥ would be better anyway, even if there is no slam. So how about
E    S    W    N 
Pass 1♦   Pass 1♥
Pass 2♦   Pass 3♥
Pass 3♠   Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥   Pass 6♦
Pass Pass Pass

Knowing us, we would probably finish up in 6♥, but the layout is so friendly that everything makes.

In a different session, I played with Agent 99.

Love all, dlr N

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

N    E    S    W
2NT  Pass 3♥   Pass
3♠   Pass 4♣   Pass
4♦   Pass 4♥   Pass
4♠   Pass 4NT  Pass
6♣   Pass 6♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This finished in a reasonable contract, but with much confusion. I intended 4♦ as Redwood 1430, agreeing clubs. Agent 99 wasn’t sure what suit I was interested in, and treated it as a cuebid. So I thought 4♥ showed the ♣A, and 4♠ asked about the ♣Q (I was thinking 7♣ on a 4-4 fit might have play that 7♠ didn’t), and then I wasn’t sure what she meant by 4NT. Agent 99 thought 4♦ and 4♥ were cuebids, and was happy to hear 4♠ because she figured that set trumps. So then she proceeded with 1430, and didn’t know what to make of my answer.

In the event, everything depended on the spade finesse, and that was right, so the top score went to a pair that punted 7NT. But 6♠ is actually a very reasonable spot.

But what should our auction have been? Should 4♦ be treated as Redwood? I’m still inclined to think so, because if I want to press forward in clubs, it’s my only chance to use the convention. What if I prefer spades? Am I only allowed to bid 4♠, and rely on partner to make a move for slam if advisable? Perhaps so, and make sure to super-accept the initial transfer somehow if I really, really like spades. That sort of rationale would also work for spades and diamonds, or hearts and clubs, but it looks like we’re screwed if responder has hearts and diamonds. I’ll have to think on it some more.

Redeal

A quick update about the computer-dealt hands at the Manhattan.

At this time, the hands (or at least, the vast majority of them) are indeed being dealt by the computer as "random". (In fact, a lot of the "grunt work" of setting up the boards is being done by non-bridge-playing workers). So the complaints about computer-dealt hands are back in fashion, but my suspicions about hands being "adjusted" are out of play now.

So some people are bothered, but I'm actually happier.

Shuffling

As I’ve mentioned before, I play most of my bridge at the Manhattan Bridge Club. In response to customer requests for hand records after tournaments, the club has recently acquired a dealing machine. This is actually a pretty cool piece of equipment, when it’s working well. It’s hooked up to the PC, and the computer tells the machine which cards belong in which hand. An ordinary deck of cards is loaded in, and the dealing machine scans the face of each card, recognizes it, and feeds it into the correct (north, south, east or west) pile. You can either (manually) take the hands from the machine and put them in the board, or (this is the really cool way), if you have special boards that open up, you can put the board in the machine and then it deals the cards straight into the board. You just take out the board, close the lid, and move on to the next hand. Since the computer knows all the cards, it can produce the hand records, including double-dummy analysis by Deep Finesse.

So much to the good. But the introduction of this machine caused an immediate backlash against “computer-dealt” hands. The customer is always right, even when he’s wrong, so the management made a change to appease the new bunch of complainers. The hands are now shuffled and dealt by hand, so there is no basis for the “computer-dealt” complaint. The results of the manual shuffle are entered into the computer, and so (using one deck of cards really) a full set of 36 hand layouts are generated that can then be used by the dealing machine. Everybody is happy now, yes?

Well I’m not. Over the past few sessions, I’ve noticed a marked increase in the number of “interesting” deals. Misfits, slams on low point-count hands, singleton kings offside, etc suddenly seem to be cropping up all over the place. I have no evidence, of course, but it seems clear to me that at least one of the people doing the shuffling and dealing isn’t just entering whatever hand comes up. He is selecting for interesting or challenging hands, perhaps even adjusting things by moving a card or two around. This is understandable, in the sense of being a very human thing to do, when you are stuck with the tedious task of dealing and entering into the computer a set of thirty six hands. But I don’t need my games to be like a scenario from one of Hugh Kelsey’s books. I would be much happier with computer-dealt (ie truly random) hands.

The reason why people don’t like random deals is, as everyone knows, that they are used to seeing human-dealt hands that haven’t been shuffled properly. That typically results in hands that are noticeably too balanced, on average. So when they get a truly random set, where 4-3-3-3 is a rare hand pattern and most hands have a 5-card suit, they feel that things are “wild”. They aren’t: the usual hands are too tame.

Almost everyone uses some form of riffle shuffle. That is OK, as far as it goes, but most people shuffle three or four times and start dealing. If you really want to use a riffle shuffle, you should do it at least seven or eight times to get something approaching randomization. When’s the last time you saw anyone do that?

Many moons ago, when I was starting my duplicate career, there was a magazine article that outlined a very simple yet very random shuffle. You actually deal the cards, into a random number of piles, in a random order. To help avoid any unconscious bias, you can have someone else specify (occasionally) which pile a card should go onto, or whether it should start a new pile. (The piles don’t have to be the same size: if one has two cards and another fifteen, it doesn’t matter). I usually finish up with six or seven piles. These are then picked up in random order (and again, someone else can have input as to which pile goes on top next). The end result is a thoroughly randomized deck. And statistical analysis had been done to prove that the results are indeed more random than typical common shuffling techniques produce.

No particular skill is needed, because all you do is deal, mechanically speaking. This makes it a good method for children who haven’t mastered the necessary dexterity for other shuffles. The chief complaint I’ve heard (once I explained what I was doing) is that it takes too long. I think this complaint is bogus. For one thing, it doesn’t actually take all that long to do. For another thing, the complaint mostly comes from the people who don’t shuffle properly themselves. If they riffled nine times instead of three, they might rethink whether dealing the deck out takes too long.

This method gained some adherents back in the 1970s, but never became really widespread. I think that’s a shame, and if I could, I would try and make it better known.

Run-outs from 1NT Doubled

The only significant problem with opening a weak no-trump is the danger of getting caught for a penalty. Going for a large number really doesn’t happen very often at all, but if you are vulnerable, getting hit for 200 or 500 on what is essentially a part-score deal is a real possibility. But we don’t have to sit still for 1NT doubled if a suit fit looks to be better.

I am not suggesting that running is always the best policy. If responder has 6-8hcp in a more-or-less balanced hand, the points are split roughly equally between the two sides. The best choice will usually be to stand your ground and trust partner to bring home 1NT. If you are not vulnerable, even when very weak, responder may do best just to sit: if declarer can escape for one or two down, you may find that they have a good part-score or even game the other way.

But then there are the times when we need to escape. There are numerous methods for escaping from 1NT doubled. For better or worse, we have decided to go with Moscow run-outs, which are among the simplest methods. The advantages that I see are that the run-outs are easy to remember, and our constructive bidding doesn’t get damaged too much when the opponents are being silly. The biggest disadvantage is that we often lose the ability to play in 1NT doubled: we can play redoubled, but not doubled. That raises the stakes to an uncomfortable level when assets appear to be roughly equally divided. But to be fair, that’s a blade that cuts both ways. (For a much bigger discussion of the philosophy of competing over 1NT and different methods for competing and escaping, see Chris Ryall’s website:

http://chrisryall.net/bridge/1nt-complex.htm

I’m not saying I agree with everything he says, but I think I agree with most of it).

There are two basic situations, 1NT – Double and 1NT – Pass – Pass - Double.

1NT – Double

In this situation, we want to play “systems on”, so that our constructive bidding isn’t disrupted too much when the opponents are being silly. The escape bids are Pass, Redouble, and 2NT, all alertable.
Redouble requires opener to bid 2C. Responder can Pass with clubs, or bid 2D with diamonds.
2NT over the double shows both minors (pre-emptive), 5-5 or better.
Pass requires opener to redouble. Responder can then pass (to play in 1NT redoubled) or bid his lowest suit holding any two suits 4-4 or better. Opener passes with 3-card support or better, or bids the next suit up if he has a doubleton in responder’s first suit. Responder then passes or corrects to his second suit. We should therefore finish up in at worst a 4-3 fit at the two level. The opponents may find that harder to double.

1NT – Pass – Pass – Double – Pass – Pass

Note that with a very weak hand, after 1NT – Pass, as responder you should often try and bid something. The best hand at the table is on your left, and if you pass it will most likely double, announcing the situation to the world. If you can transfer to a suit or use garbage Stayman, you start to confuse the issue. A weak minor two-suiter can be handled by bidding 2S and either passing 3C from opener, or if he bids 2NT, correcting to 3D. That all being said, sometimes you pass, and a double comes back around to you.

In this situation, presumably responder either has enough to pass (which is how we can occasionally still play 1NT doubled), or has a one-suit run-out to a minor via redouble (same as above) or we’re in trouble. In the latter case, if responder has two suits at least 4-4, he bids the lower one. Opener passes with 3-card support or better, or bids the next suit up if he has a doubleton in responder’s first suit. Responder then passes or corrects to his second suit. As after the pass and compulsory redouble, we should therefore finish up in at worst a 4-3 fit at the two level. Since this means we can move to a suit contract, after 1NT – Pass, a responder looking at any weak hand with a mild two-suiter can elect to pass first and run later, if staying in 1NT looks plausible unless they double.

System Summary

A long time ago (it seems), I said I would post information about the bidding system I was playing with Agent 99. Well, there have been a few posts about specific topics, but generally I’ve been neglectful of that idea. We’ve been playing together for long enough now that the system has stabilized somewhat, so I’ve no real excuse not to write about it. Here’s a quick overview.

We play a Standard American natural system, with 2C as the artificial strong opening and a few gadgets. The basic framework is as suggested for Flint-Pender, described by Jeremy Flint about forty years ago. Key features include:
• 5-card majors with 1NT response forcing
• weak no-trump with three-suit transfer responses
• 1NT rebid has extended range, 13-17
This relatively simple basis allows for some accurate bidding, and easily accommodates some gadgets for fun and profit. Key conventions we employ include:
• 4th suit forcing
• Inverted minor suit raises
• Roman Key Card Blackwood, 1430 version
• Redwood 1430 when a minor suit has been agreed

1NT Rebid

The Flint-Pender formulation is that after 1plum – 1grape; 1NT shows 13-17hcp. Per the ACBL, this range has to be announced, since it is “non-standard” but overlaps what they consider to be standard.

Responses

Regardless of what suits have been bid, responder always has two artificial inquiries available.

2C – range inquiry. Opener bids 2D with 13-14hcp, 2NT with 17hcp, with 15-16hcp he bids two of responder’s major holding 3-card support, or two of the other major when lacking support. (If the bidding started 1C-1D, he bids two of his better major.)

2D – checkback Stayman, forcing to game. Responder is looking for a 4-card major that opener hasn’t mentioned, or for 3-card support for responder’s major.


1 Minor Opening

1 minor is natural, 3+ cards. We generally open the better minor, 1D holding 4-4 in the minors or 1C holding 3-3. Opener should have 11-20hcp in an unbalanced hand, or 15-20 balanced.

Responses

1major response may be weak (5+hcp) 4-card suit. With a balanced hand, opener will generally rebid 1NT (13-17) or 2NT (18-20), relying on subsequent inquiry mechanisms to return to a major suit if that is advisable.

1NT response to 1C shows about 8-10hcp. Holding 5-7hcp, responder may have to improvise a response in a 3-card suit to keep the auction open below 1NT.

Raises are inverted. Simple raise shows 10+hcp, 4-card support, and subsequent bidding revolves around stoppers for no-trump, unless or until one partner bypasses 3NT. Double raises are pre-emptive, 4-6hcp and often 5-card support.

Major-suit jump-shift responses are pre-emptive, based on a 6-card (or longer) suit and 0-5hcp. Jump-shifts to the other minor are pre-emptive raises of the opened minor, showing 7-9hcp and often 5-card support.

2NT response is natural and invitational, 11-12hcp. 3NT response is natural, 13-15hcp. In practice, both of these responses are very rare, and may be given an alternative (conventional) use if we find one we like.

1 Major Opening

1major opening is natural, 5+ cards, 11-20hcp usually.

Responses

1S over 1H may be weak (5+hcp) 4-card suit. With a balanced hand, opener will generally rebid 1NT (13-17) or 2NT (18-20), relying on subsequent inquiry mechanisms to return to a major suit if that is advisable.

2-over-1 suit responses are “meaty but not game-forcing”. In practice, most auctions will go to game, but it is possible to stop below game when responder is minimum (about 11hcp) and opener shows a minimum opening.

1NT response to 1major is forcing for one round, and handles many balanced responding hands plus unbalanced hands that are too weak for a 2-over-1 response. But part of the power of 1NT forcing is that it can handle some stronger responding hands. Responder can bid 1NT and then 2NT to indicate a 10-12hcp invitational hand, or 1NT and then 3NT to show 13-15hcp. 1NT and a jump to 3 of opener’s major would be a limit raise with 3-card support. And 1NT and then 4 of opener’s major, would show 3-3-3-4 distribution and game-going high-card strength, sometimes called a “pudding” raise.

Direct raises are standard limit raises.

Double-jump-shift responses, including 1H-3S and 1S-4H, are splinter raises, indicating a raise to game that includes 4+card support and a (bid) singleton.

Jump-shift responses are pre-emptive, based on a 6-card (or longer) suit and 0-5hcp.

The 2NT response is Jacoby-Roman, 12+hcp and 3+card support.

The 3NT response is currently undefined.

Other sequences

We don’t play Drury. However, 2-over-1 responses from a passed hand imply some support for opener’s suit (on the grounds that without that fit, no passed hand can be strong enough to give a 2-over-1), and if opener retreats to 2major, responder should realize that the opening bid is dead minimum or sub-minimum. By implication, opener should not simply rebid 2major when he is full value and doesn’t want to stop there.


1NT Opening

1NT opening is natural, 12-14hcp. Opener will very rarely have a 5-card major, but can have a 5-card minor in a 5-3-3-2 distribution. Rarely, 1NT may be opened with an off-shape hand, 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 where the long suit is a minor. Occasionally, opener might upgrade an 11-count with a 5-card suit.
Responses

2C is Stayman, generally either weak or strong, promises a 4-card major. New suits by responder at the two level are weak, at the three level are strong.

2D, 2H are major-suit transfers. Transfer then second suit is invitational+, forcing for one round. Transfer and single raise is 6-card suit, forcing to game, strong slam try.

2S is transfer to clubs. Opener completes the transfer with 3+ clubs, bids 2NT with a doubleton. Responder may pass 3C or bid 3D as weak takeout which opener must pass. Transfer followed by 3major is a splinter, game forcing, implying a strong 6-card minor suit (unspecified). Transfer followed by 3NT is game-forcing 5-5 with both minors.

2NT is natural and invitational, 11-12hcp.

3C, 3D are weakly invitational with a broken 6-card suit. Opener should only accept with good support.

3H, 3S are splinters, game forcing, with strong 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors.

3NT is natural, 13-18 balanced.

4C is Gerber.

4D, 4H are Texas transfers.

4S is unused.

4NT is natural, invitational to 6NT. If opener decides to accept, he may show aces as per Blackwood, and if responder then bids 5NT he must pass. Or opener may jump to 6minor to show a 5-card suit, offering a choice of slams.

5NT is forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT.

6NT and 7NT are natural.

2NT Opening

2NT opening is natural, 20-22hcp. Opener may have a 5-card major, and occasionally 2NT may be opened with an off-shape hand, 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 where the long suit is a minor. With 20hcp, opener has a choice between opening 1minor and rebidding 2NT or opening 2NT. Generally, responder will treat the 2NT rebid as 18-19 and the 2NT opening as 21-22, trusting opener to downgrade or upgrade 20-counts appropriately.
Responses

3C is Stayman.
 
3D, 3H are major suit transfers.

3S is a relay indicating a minor-suit hand.

3NT is natural

4C is Gerber

4D, 4H are transfers

4S is unused.

4NT is natural, invitational to 6NT.
 
5NT is forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT.

6NT and 7NT are natural.

2C Opening

The 2C opening is artificial and forcing to game in almost all sequences. Opener should have 23+hcp balanced, or 22+hcp unbalanced, or 18+hcp unbalanced in a hand that is within one trick of game. These unbalanced hands will have at most 4 losers, and usually 3 or less.
Responses

2H, 2S, 3C, 3D are natural positives showing 8+hcp and a suit of at least 5 cards headed by two top honors. 2NT is a natural positive showing 7-9+hcp balanced. Bidding continues naturally, and should almost always finish in a slam.

2D is a relay, negative or waiting, indicating that responder is unable to make one of the above positive responses. Opener’s rebids are essentially natural, with a couple of exceptions.

After 2C-2D, opener rebids:
• 2NT is 23-24hcp balanced
• 3NT is 27-28hcp balanced
• 2H is Kokish, either game forcing with hearts or game forcing balanced.
• Responder will normally relay with 2S, when 2NT shows 25-26hcp balanced, 3NT shows 29-30 balanced, and a suit bid is a natural second suit indicating that the 2H bid showed hearts.
• Responder can break the relay over 2H only with a very weak (0-3hcp) minor suit hand and no tolerance for hearts. Bidding 3C or 3D shows a 7+card suit headed by at best the queen.
• 2S, 3C, 3D are natural (5+cards)
• 3H, 3S show a 4-card suit with longer diamonds. This is a gadget to make sure that a 4-4 major fit doesn’t get lost when opener’s longest suit is diamonds.
After opener rebids 2NT, responder bids as after a 2NT opening. After opener rebids 3NT, 4C is Stayman, 4D, 4H are transfers.


2D, 2H, 2S Opening

We play standard weak 2s, a 6-card suit headed by two of the top three honors or three of the top five. Strength is 5-9hcp not vulnerable, 6-10hcp vulnerable.


Higher Openings

We play fairly sound standard pre-empts, plus the Gambling 3NT.





Competitive Bidding

We are playing overcalls as pretty standard. Simple overcalls are generally around 8-16hcp with a 5-card suit. Jump overcalls are weak with 6+cards, similar to a weak 2 opening. 1NT overcall is 15+-18hcp, systems on, in direct seat, about a king less in balancing seat.

We play Michaels cue-bids and the Unusual No-trump. Opponents’ minor openings showing 3+cards are treated as natural, and the UNT then shows the two lowest unbid suits. If the opponent’s minor suit may be two cards or less, the UNT shows both minors. Note that cue-bids are Michaels in both 2nd and 4th seats, but 2NT is generally Unusual only in 2nd seat, being natural and strong (about the same as a 2NT opening) in 4th seat.

We also play Leaping Michaels over opponents’ natural (not strong) 2-bids.

Our defence to 1NT is Landy.

When the opponents intervene in our auctions, we play in simple and fairly standard fashion. Doubles are negative through 3S, responsive through 2S. We don’t play support doubles or maximal doubles. Over an opponent’s takeout double, we play Jordan 2NT. Redouble usually shows 10-14hcp and a desire to penalize the opponents.

When the opponents intervene over 1NT, we play Lebensohl with slow denies.

Misadventures In Manhattan

The other day, Agent 99 and I started a session by missing two slams. That’s really not like us at all.

Game all, dlr S

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

S       W        N        E
Pass  1♦      3♥      3♠
Pass  4♠      Pass   Pass
Pass

Sitting East, I thought about making a try, since we have some sort of double-fit and I have the ♥K behind the pre-empt. But I couldn’t justify it. Of course, there is no excuse for West’s bid of 4♠ except that it was the first board and she hadn’t warmed up yet. At her second turn, her hand has become enormous. Just bidding 4NT seems reasonable, settling for 6♠ when an ace is missing.

Next board:

Love all, dlr W

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

S W N E
Pass  1♠      Pass  2♦
Pass  3♦      Pass  3NT
Pass  Pass   Pass

The system bid on my hand is really 1NT forcing, to be followed by 3NT (13-15). That would really give us no chance of reaching a slam. But once I made the “wrong” response of 2♦, we had a chance. In practice, playing matchpoints, it’s a hard choice (from either side) to suggest a diamond contract and almost guarantee bypassing 3NT. And truthfully, the two hands are a great fit which is not going to be easy to diagnose properly, while the 4-1 trump break means that I would have to be very careful playing the hand. Even though Deep Finesse says that 6♦ is always there, I can see a lot of ways to go down. So I don’t mind missing this one so much.

I’m back to playing with the guy I broke up with a few weeks ago. So far, we haven’t had any great results, but the partnership seems to be working a little better. One of the teachers at the Manhattan tends to intimidate the weaker players with boisterous bidding tactics (not out of malice, just because he has fun bouncing the bidding around). On the next hand, he was quite well-behaved, but we managed to take advantage anyway.

Game all, dlr W

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

W N E S
Pass  1♥      Dble  2♥
Pass  Pass   Dble  Pass
3♣     3♥     Dble  Pass
Pass  Pass

My bidding box had run out of doubles, but I didn’t need any more. I started with my trump, and partner got in twice to lead two more, preventing a diamond ruff. At that point, declarer just conceded two down, there being no hope for more. That got most of the matchpoints, since people weren’t reaching the minor-suit games.

It’s not often that you score as high as 59% and only come in 5th, but that’s what happened to me playing with my old regular partner a few weeks ago. It was a tough field, with some visiting pros to augment the supply of regulars, and four pairs managed to get over 60%. We came 5th with 59.66%, not bad for a pair of rabbits.

The only board I remember actually came right at the end. A pair of not-bad opponents was victimized by distribution and trappy bidding.

Love all, dlr E

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

E S W N
1♦     1♠     Dble  2♠
Pass  Pass  3♥     3♠
Dble  Pass  Pass  Pass

I was just about good enough to bid 3♠ at my first turn, counting about 8 losers. I figured that the ♦K would have to be downgraded with the diamond bid on my left, but against that, the heart honors were well-placed. Still, I went with prudence first, but couldn’t resist pushing to 3♠ the next time. That had the effect of drawing E-W into a penalty double that was tight at best, and in fact partner made the contract in great style, picking up the trumps for one loser by leading to the ♠Q and then finessing the ♠9 on the way back.

Major Suit Auctions

Major suit openings show 5+cards in all seats. High card strength will generally be about 11-20 hcp, depending on distribution. LTC will typically be 7 losers for a minimum opening, down to 5 or even 4 losers for a maximum. (Any hand with 3 losers or less should be opened 2C, and many 4-loser hands may qualify also). The basic responding scheme is as follows.
1S – pass usually has 0-4hcp and tolerance for spades, 10+losers.
1S - 2S is a limit raise, 3+ cards, 9 losers, usually 4-8hcp.
1S - 3S is a limit raise, 4+ cards, 8 losers, usually 9-11hcp
1S - 4S is a limit raise based on distribution: 4+ cards (often 5+), 7 losers, but usually only 6-8hcp.
1S – 4C/4D/4H are splinter raises, 4+cards, 7 losers or less, singleton or void in the bid suit.
1S – 3NT is undefined.
1S – 3C/3D/3H are natural and pre-emptive, showing a 6+card suit and 0-5hcp, with little tolerance for spades.
1S – 2NT is Jacoby-Roman, 3+ cards spade support, 12+hcp, typically somewhat balanced.
1S – 2C/2D/2H are natural, 11+hcp, showing a 5+ card suit, neither promising nor denying spade support.
1S – 1NT (forcing) catches everything else, including limit raises to 3S that have only 3-card support, balanced hands that include a doubleton spade, and hands that have a suit of their own but aren’t strong enough to make a 2 over 1 response.
Responses to 1H are similar, with the addition that there is

1H – 1S natural, showing a 4+card suit.

Generally, responding hands that are weakish 4-5 or 4-6 with spades and a minor should answer 1H with 1S so that a 4-4 spade fit can be discovered straight away. If they are strong enough to make an initial 2 over 1 response in the minor suit, they should go ahead and do that, because they are then also strong enough to mention the spades later.

After 1S – 1NT, opener rebids naturally. Repeating his suit guarantees 6+ cards: 2S shows 11-16hcp, 3S shows 17-18hcp, 4S would be 19-20hcp. Raising 1NT to 2NT would indicate 17-18hcp, raising to 3NT would show 19-20hcp. A jump rebid into a new suit (3C/3D/3H) would also be strong, no more than 5 losers, 18+hcp. With the typical 11-17hcp 6-7 loser hand, opener bids a second suit at the two level. 1S – 1NT; 2H guarantees at least 4+ hearts. 1S – 1NT; 2C or 2D may be a 3-card suit in a 5=3=3=2 or 5=3=2=3 hand.

Opener’s rebids after 1H – 1NT work similarly, except that hands with a 4-card spade suit can be awkward. 1H – 1NT; 2S is a reverse showing 17+hcp. Holding fewer points, opener must find a rebid in a minor, which may demand a 2C rebid on a doubleton in a 4=5=2=2 hand.

Responder’s rebid after 1S – 1NT; 2C/2D/2H is basically natural. Jumps to 3S and 4S indicate flat raises with 3-card spade support. (The 4S raise is specifically 4-3-3-3 distribution, a “pudding” raise. With a more promising hand, the initial 2NT response should be preferred.) Rebidding 2NT is a natural invitational bid with 10-12hcp, 3NT would be 13-15, and in both cases a doubleton spade is implied (or perhaps a singleton with 1=4=4=4 distribution). Other bids are mostly aimed at finding a playable part-score. Bidding a new suit indicates a weak hand and opener is expected to pass. Holding a doubleton spade, responder will usually return to 2S, even with 3 cards in opener’s second suit. If opener’s second suit is clubs or diamonds, it will generally be correct to return to spades even holding 4 cards in the minor. Raising the second suit would imply maximum values (in context, 9-11hcp) and a genuine fit, 5+cards if the suit is a minor.

Bidding after 1H – 1NT; 2C/2D is similar, with opener’s club suit being even more suspect than after a 1S start.

Once a major suit has been agreed, 4NT as 1430 RKCB is our main slam-bidding tool. In some auctions, a jump to 5NT (bypassing Blackwood) will be the Grand Slam Force, asking partner to bid 6 or 7 depending on his holding of the top trump honors. The original scheme was to bid 7 holding two of the top three honors, otherwise settle for 6. Using the space between 5NT and 6H/6S (whatever the trump suit is), it’s possible to define step responses to show your holding more precisely (for instance, 6C=no top honors, 6D=Q, 6H=A or K, 6S=2, or something like that). I’m not particularly impressed, and will settle for the old-fashioned way. If we’ve agreed trumps and I jump to 5NT, I’m interested in the AKQ of trumps. If you have 2 of them, bid the grand.

Claiming

When I was just a teenager, I had a bad experience playing rubber bridge against some little old ladies. The contract was cold, and I made a sort of hand-waving claim, and RHO started in on "you touched that card, and if you're leading that then..." and the end result was that my cold contract didn't make because I wasn't careful about making my claim. You could say that she was a nasty old bugger, and you would probably be right, but the truth is it really was my fault. Those days (more than thirty years ago), playing rubber bridge in England, the rules were on her side. You have to play by the rules. I was careless, and I deserved to pay the price (although I wish I hadn't been playing for money!).

So fast-forward: what do I do now? When declarer, I don't touch dummy's cards at all, I call them. When I plan to claim, I nearly always draw trumps first, and/or play enough tricks that the remaining line of play is super-simple. The time "wasted" by playing two or three or four extra tricks is well compensated by virtually never having to answer a question about my line of play. And I'm always careful to clearly state the line of play. You're required to do that by the laws of duplicate, but I'm continually amazed by the number of declarers that show their hand and just say "they're all there" or something like that. It may well be true, but you don't make a claim that way. And if my line involves a squeeze or something that (while guaranteed to work) is not blindingly obvious to a beginner, I usually just play the hand out. It's easier, it really is.

OK, rant over. What prompted that? Well actually, nothing bad. I just noticed a coincidence. I've had two hands in the past year or so where, at trick two or three, the remaining line of play was just draw trumps and cash winners. So on these two occasions, I made an exception to my own rule given above, and claimed. Both times, my stated line of play began "I'm drawing trumps, and I can draw trumps even if they're 5-0". Both times, believe it or not, LHO interrupted at this point to show me the five trumps in his/her hand. And as best I can recall, all the times I drew trumps before claiming, they never were 5-0.

There are times when I think there might really be a goddess of bridge, with a really twisted sense of humor.

Misadventures In Manhattan

Time for some hands. Here are a few odd ones.

Love all, dlr E

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

 E    S    W    N
1♣   1♠   3♣   3♠
Pass 4♠   Pass Pass
Dble Pass Pass Pass

One of the issues with Michaels (and other two-suited overcalls, for that matter) is deciding on the strength the bid shows. Nominally, we play the weak-strong idea, where the Michaels call is either weak or strong, and with middling values you don’t use it. I can never figure out where a given hand lies on the scale, and in this case, took a guess that since it was neither a rock-crusher nor feeble, it must count as middling. Therefore I overcalled 1♠ hoping to get the hearts in later. Neither West nor North have too much, but that didn’t stop West from pre-empting and Agent 99 from refusing to be shut out. Of course, over 3♠ the raise to game is automatic, and the only reason I didn’t redouble was because I wasn’t sure how far down 5♣ would go if the distribution was a bit wild, as it certainly sounded to be.

In fact, having only one clear entry to the table and no spade honor there means that I need to find the cards distributed with some friendliness. West opened the A♣ and switched to a diamond. I was confident at that point that the ♥A and ♠KQ were on my right, of course, but managing repeated leads towards my hand is problematic. My trumps aren’t good enough to cope with a 4-0 break, and for a heart ruff to stand up for a second entry, I need East to have three or four hearts. Fortunately, everything worked, so we got a top. Nobody else ventured higher than 3♠ - West’s pre-empt back-fired.

This effort deserved better.

E-W vul, dlr E

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

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

I was playing with a serious 2 over 1 Game Forcing aficionado, so the North hand is the very minimum he might have held, and I had every reason to hope that we would have play based on the double fit. Unfortunately, West’s holding leaves you one down, with no escape. A terrible score, because the vast majority were content to rest in game. But that is really unjust.

Speaking of travesties...

Game all, dlr E

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

1♦ Pass 1♠(!) Pass
3♠ Pass Pass Pass

West mis-sorted his hand and responded in a three-card suit. He discovered the mistake in time to pass the raise. Then, aided by a little confusion in the defence, he managed to scramble one diamond, one club, two hearts, and six trump tricks for +170. This was of course a cold top, with most people playing in no-trump and making seven or eight tricks.

What can I tell you. I’ve got them so scared they can’t even sort their cards.

Minor Suit Auctions

For hands that must be opened with a minor suit, we open our better minor, at least a three-card suit. Holding 4-4 in the minors, we would normally open 1D, with 3-3 the bid would be 1C. Playing 5-card majors, I think it is absolutely necessary to play inverted raises. Inverted minor suit raises were an original feature of the Kaplan-Sheinwold bidding system. K-S tried to embody certain principles into their system – weak hands bid high, to pre-empt the opposition, while strong hands bid low, to use bidding space effectively. Accordingly, 1C-3C is a pre-emptive raise, while 1C-2C is natural but forcing 10+hcp (both raises are alertable). And similarly for diamond raises.

After a single raise, opener and responder can show no-trump stoppers, or move towards the minor suit game or slam. I’m assuming responder would have bid a 4-card major rather than raising the minor, so major-suit bids from either side should be just stoppers, not suits. If opener rebids 2NT, he is showing stoppers in both majors. The most worrying situation is if responder has a bare 10-11hcp and/or opener has a minimum 10-12hcp opening. It is important to identify these hands so that we can stop in 3 of the minor when both are minimum, and not drive ourselves into a hopeless 3NT on a combined 20-22hcp. Either hand shows a minimum by rebidding 3 minor at the first opportunity. Any other bid at the first rebid indicates better than the bare minimum, say, 13+. So for example, 1C-2C; 3C responder knows that opener holds the bare minimum, probably a long club suit but only 10-12 hcp. If responder’s raise was based on 10hcp and 5-card club support, prospects for game look a bit dim – we have a big fit, but not much outside. A pass of 3C is reasonable. Another example: 1C-2C; 2H-3C; 3D responder has shown a minimum raise, but opener has kept going, so responder should be looking for game now. Opener has shown stoppers in hearts and diamonds, so responder can bid 3NT if he has a spade stopper. With a half-stopper (Qx or Jxx), he can bid 3S, to ask opener if he has a half-stopper also. Any other bid would be pushing us towards 5C, since spades must be unguarded for no-trump.

When a minor suit is agreed as trumps and either player wants to check on aces, 4NT as Blackwood is problematic. Often, there is insufficient space for the response without going past game. The suggested solution is Redwood – using 4D as the asking bid when clubs are trumps, and 4H as the asking bid when diamonds are trumps. The extra two or three steps are valuable, and the bids are generally easy to recognize and unambiguous.

Holding less than 10hcp but with good trump support (might be a strong 4-cards but usually is 5+cards), responder wants to make a pre-emptive raise to the three level. A problem is that the potential range of responder’s hand is quite wide. Depending on vulnerability, distribution, and other circumstances, responder may wish to make the bid holding anything from 4-9hcp. Opener with a good but not great hand, say about 17hcp, then doesn’t know whether to make a move toward game or to leave well enough alone. A solution is to use the jump-shift in the other minor as an extra tier to the raise. (These bids are not very effective as pre-empts, so using them this way is better.) So
1D – 3D = pre-emptive raise with 4-6hcp
1D – 3C = pre-emptive diamond raise with 7-9hcp
1C – 3C = pre-emptive raise with 4-6hcp
1C – 2D = pre-emptive club raise with 7-9hcp
(all alertable)
This isn’t pinpoint accuracy, clearly, but it does give opener some chance to guess if more than 3minor has a chance.

Opening 3 of a minor is pre-emptive and may be a good 6-card suit if desperate, usually a not-so-good 7-carder. Opening 4 usually shows 8+ cards. In between is the Gambling 3NT, defined to be a solid 7- or 8-card suit with no outside A or K (minimum suit AKQxxxx). Responder can pass with stoppers in two or three suits. If he doesn’t want to chance it, he can bid 4C or 5C for pass or correct by the opener. If he feels slam-minded, he can use a 4D response to ask about a singleton. Opener rebids 4H or 4S to show a singleton in the bid suit, 4NT with no singleton, 5 of his suit to indicate a singleton in the other minor. (Holding solid clubs, you don’t want to bid 5D to show a singleton in case that wasn’t what responder needed. So bid 5C, and have that show the singleton diamond. And then when holding diamonds, you have to be consistent and bid 5D to show the singleton club.)

2/1 System Philosophy

If you play 2/1 Game Forcing, you are really playing two systems. The first system applies from first and second seat, when a 2/1 response is indeed forcing to game, and the second system is for third and fourth seat, when it isn’t. I find this arrangement somewhat unattractive, for a number of reasons.

First of all, the first system doesn’t really suit me. To make the basic premise possible, you really need to play sound opening bids. In order for a 2/1 response to stay within reasonable limits, responder has to be able to count upon good high-card strength being part of the opening bid. Otherwise, the requirements for making the response have to be higher, and the strain placed on the forcing 1NT response (etc) is going to be too great – your ability to bid hands where responder isn’t strong enough for a 2/1 will suffer. (And note that the higher the requirements are, the more hands there will be where responder doesn’t meet them.) I much prefer to start bidding when I have a hand, rather than lie in wait and hope the opponents haven’t bid game before the bidding gets back to me. When sitting down to play Standard in a pick-up game, I’m inclined to tell my partner I will open any 12-count, and with the right distribution, 11-counts and 10-counts get opened too. I don’t think you can do that and play 2/1 Game Forcing. Listen to strong-club players: they will tell you that a big advantage of their system is that the other bids are limited, and they can open a ropey 10- or 11-count 1S without worrying that partner will go ballistic on small values. Getting into the auction is good.

Second of all, I’m not convinced that the first system really delivers the benefits claimed for it. The major advantage claimed is that after the 2/1 response, since you are in a forcing auction there is no need for jumping around to show strength, and both partners can relax and explore the correct strain and whether there are slam possibilities. Whereas, in a typical Standard auction, neither opener nor responder is immediately sure whether game or slam is in the picture, and bidding space gets wasted as one (or both) jumps to show strength. I will concede there is some truth to this picture – some truth – but the overall assessment is not nearly so one-sided as advocates make out. For some slam hands where the auction starts 1major – 2something, having the response be game-forcing does make life easier. But those hands don’t crop up as often as you would wish, and if the response isn’t game-forcing, that doesn’t mean that you can’t bid the right game or slam anyway. Much is made of the fact that many bids and sequences are discussed and carefully defined, whereas in Standard they typically aren’t. Well, hello – you can discuss and define your bids playing any system. That doesn’t actually count as an advantage for 2/1, especially since if you question any random pair of 2/1 players, their interpretations of some bids and sequences will differ, sometimes quite significantly. Much is also made of the many gadgets that 2/1 users typically play. Again, that doesn’t actually count since you can play almost every such gadget without a 2/1 response being game-forcing.

And there is a down-side to the system. Responding hands that are pretty good but not quite strong enough for a 2/1 response are an obvious weak point. Such hands will be good enough to make game if opener is just a little better than minimum, and not being able to make a natural 2/1 response to start the ball rolling will make such games harder to find. As a matter of raw probabilities, I think these cases will occur much more often than the slam hands that are made easier. Then there is the issue of auctions that start with a 2/1 response and where one (or both) of the hands has some extras, but not too much. It is not unknown for a 2/1 pair to get too high by simply failing to stop, because (since there’s no jumping going on and many bids are unlimited upwards) one (or both) of them was unsure that he had actually shown his full values. I grew up in the Acol world, where the catch-phrases were stuff like “get the hand off your chest” and “bid what you think you can make”. Sometimes we jumped too high, but we didn’t putter around and stumble too high. That’s just undignified.

Then third of all, consider the difference of approach needed for the second system, the system for third and fourth seat, and realize that it is basically Standard. But here, rather than sound opening bids, the rule is that unsound openings are encouraged, as weak as 7-9 points at favorable vulnerability, especially in third seat. But there is nothing to stop a third or fourth seat hand from holding a maximum opening. So the 2/1 Game Force has – maybe – made life a little easier when first or second seat opens, but at the expense of making the “Standard” system unmanageable when third or fourth seat is the opening hand. Most pairs try to handle this situation with the Drury convention, to give responder a mechanism to identify under-strength openings. (Considered rationally, this is nothing more than a psychic control. Although the ACBL considers psychic controls to be anathema, they love Drury for some reason. Consistent logic is apparently not one of their strong suits.) This helps, but still leaves constructive bidding in the second system crippled, in my opinion. And I believe that many players fail to appreciate the difference in psychological approach necessary between the first and second systems.

So what’s my point? Well, in this little essay, I guess it’s just that I don’t really like 2/1 Game Forcing, but I think I have legitimate reasons for my gut reaction.

I finally got around to reading the August edition of the ACBL magazine, and so learned of the sudden death of John Armstrong early in July. I didn't know him personally, but I find myself affected anyway. I learned to play bridge as a teenager, and Armstrong was one of the strong young players at the time. We were almost the same age: we were both at Cambridge at the same time, although in different colleges. Too many people I knew from back then have departed already. I didn't want to hear of yet another.

Punting

Some more slams.

Game all, dlr N, matchpoint pairs

♠ -
♥ 7 6
♦ A 7 3
♣ A Q 10 9 8 5 4 3

  [ ]

♠ A 8 3
♥ A Q 10 9 3
♦ J 9 5
♣ K 2

1♣ Pass 1♥ 3♠ 
5♣ Pass 6♣ All Pass 

Surprisingly, we were the only pair to bid this excellent slam. I think most of the credit goes to my partner, for choosing to open at the one level. After that, his jump to 5♣ suggested that he not only had a very long suit, but also some values outside and/or some sort of heart fit. My concern wasn’t whether to raise to 6♣, but rather, might we be missing a grand. I decided that there were too many ways we might have a loser, and that the small slam was enough.

Apparently, most dealers elected to open 4♣ or 5♣. Now it still looks reasonable to me to punt 6♣, but it is much less clear-cut. You might have quick diamond losers; you haven’t heard the spade pre-empt, so if you envision a void in partner’s hand it seems most likely to be hearts; and so on. I can understand a pass opposite a 5♣ opening.

The next bidding sequence looks at first glance like a bit of a punt, but I think it’s actually better than that.

N-S vul, dlr S, matchpoint pairs

♠ K Q 9 6 4
♥ Q 2
♦ K Q 8 4
♣ A 6

  [ ]

♠ A
♥ A K J 5
♦ J 10 5 3
♣ K 10 7 4

1♦ Pass 1♠ Pass 
2♥ Pass 2♠ Pass 
3NT Pass 6NT All Pass

We play weak jump-shifts all the time, so there was no question about my first response. I was already thinking slam though, given any encouragement. The reverse into hearts was definitely that, but I still needed to sort out strain and level. I decided that 2♠ could not be passed – 2NT would have been the “slow down” bid – and that seemed like a good way to get another bid to clarify partner’s hand. I understood the jump to 3NT to indicate exactly the sort of hand he had – minimum for the reverse (about 16-17 hcp), no spade fit, clubs stopped. So 6NT then stands out as the matchpoint choice. Perhaps we’re missing 7♦, but few if any in the field would bid it. Perhaps 6♦ would be safer, but no-trump should be OK. With a combined count in the 32-34 range, it seems doubtful that 7NT is going to be a good bet. No, 6NT is easily the favorite, and yet this was a top shared with one other pair.

A couple of people chose 6♦, but the rest failed to reach slam-level. One that I spoke to didn’t reverse with the South hand. I know that a lot of Americans do require 17+hcp for a reverse, in which case the hand is borderline for the bid, at best. But if you don’t reverse, it then becomes very difficult for either partner to diagnose that the combined hands are at the borderline of slam territory. Agent 99 and I would probably have had a reversing auction, but we could also handle it through the extended-range 1NT rebid, if South chose to go that route:
1♦    Pass 1♠    Pass 
1NT(1)Pass 2♣(2) Pass 
2♥(3) Pass 3♦(4) Pass
3NT   Pass 4NT   Pass
6NT   All Pass
(1) 13-17
(2) Range inquiry
(3) 15-16, denies 3 spades
(4) Forcing
There is some danger that if North gets hypnotized by point-count, he might stop, knowing that the combined count is 31-32 and South isn’t overly enthused about the diamond suit. Certainly, jumping straight to 6NT seems too much. But a quantitative raise to 4NT doesn’t look totally unreasonable, and I think South should definitely accept the invitation if it’s made.

This one you can call a punt.

Love all, dlr S, matchpoint pairs

♠ K 8
♥ A Q 9 4 2
♦ 8
♣ 10 8 7 6 3

  [ ]

♠ A 7 4
♥ K J 7 6 5 3
♦ A 5
♣ A 4

1♥   Pass 4♥   Pass 
6♥   All Pass 

This was with an occasional partner, and we weren’t doing very well. I knew that for the game raise she would have four or five hearts and a little something outside, so the slam wasn’t a complete shot in the dark. If she had any sort of side suit, I would probably have some sort of play for enough tricks. The thing is, I can’t see any way to find out whether the North hand is suitable, “scientifically”. I mean, if it has KQ in one side suit and a singleton in another, slam may have play even if the ♥AQ are missing. There are lots of possibilities, once you start to consider.

Or maybe I’m an optimist. Nobody else bid it.