This is lifted lock, stock and barrel from the Flint-Pender system, described in Tiger Bridge by Jeremy Flint. Not many people use an extended range these days, but I want to give it a try. I think the constructive tools available are OK (just not widely known these days), and the chief weakness would be in competitive auctions. But in practice, if the opponents are going to interfere, they typically do so straight away, and the 1NT rebid doesn’t become an issue.
When opener rebids 1NT after a 1-over-1 response, it is common for players to treat that as showing a hand too weak for a 1NT opening if they open a strong 1NT, which leaves it not very well-defined. When you open a 12-14 no-trump, it is common to say that the 1NT rebid shows 15-16, 2NT 17-18, and 3NT 19-20. That is playable, but there are advantages to extending the range of the 1NT rebid. Opener is not forced to open 1NT with a 13 or 14-count if the texture of the hand looks unsuitable, and the top of the range extending to 17 makes for a sound overall structure of NT rebids.
1plum – 1grape; 1NT = 13-17
1plum – 1grape; 2NT = 18-19 or a bad 20
1plum – 1grape; 3NT = game-going based on a long minor suit (don’t “rescue” to a major)
2NT opening = good 20 up to 22
2C – 2D; 2NT =23-24
This all only works if we can handle constructive bidding after the 1NT rebid. To do that, we use two artificial inquiry bids for responder to find out what opener has, if responder thinks there may be game. (This can get marked on the convention card as two-way new minor forcing, but actually, Flint-Pender pre-dates NMF).
The first inquiry is 2C as a range query. Opener rebids:
2D = 13-14
2NT = 17
With 15-16, opener rebids two of responder’s major if he has 3-card support, otherwise two of the other major. If the bidding started 1C – 1D; 1NT – 2C; opener bids 2 of his better major.
Responder will normally be in the 8-11 hcp range to use this inquiry, since otherwise there’s no point to it. (With 12+, responder always wants to be in game, and with less than 8, there’s no game to be had). When minimum, opener should let the bidding die at the two level, at the first reasonable-looking spot, after making his 2D response. Alternatively, responder might be 16+ and trying to judge whether there’s a slam, but in that case he won’t be making another bid at the two level.
The other artificial inquiry is 2D, which is game-forcing, and is a sort of checkback Stayman, asking about opener’s major-suit holding. Opener shows a 4-card major that he bypassed when bidding 1NT, or 3-card support for responder’s major, or bids 2NT. Opener can choose not to mention a 4-card major on the way to 1NT, but only when he is in the 15-17 range. So this sequence, for example:
1C – 1H; 1NT – 2D; 2S
means not only that opener has four spades, but also that he has 15+. The inference isn’t available when opener didn’t have a chance to bid his suit, for example
1C – 1S; 1NT – 2D; 2H
In this case, opener is showing 4 hearts, but not saying anything about his strength.
The continuations after these bids, and other responses to the 1NT rebid, are essentially natural. Some examples:
1plum – 1grape; 1NT – 2NT; natural, 10-11 hcp
1plum – 1grape; 1NT – 3NT; natural 12-16 hcp
1C – 1H; 1NT – 3H; Not forcing, emphasis on good hearts
1C – 1H; 1NT – 3C; Not forcing, probably 4-5 in hearts and clubs. Responder isn’t interested in game unless opener is near maximum.
Contrast with
1C – 1S; 1NT – 2C; 2H – 3C; or
1C – 1D; 1NT – 2C; 2S – 3C;
In both those sequences, the last bid is forward-going and forcing.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Eight Cards
Here are some old hands.
Eight card suits are becoming something of a fascination for me. Theoretically, they don’t come up very often at all. In practice, I seem to see them on a regular basis. I’m coming to the conclusion that you have to bid them at at least the four level.
The other week, I saw two eight-carders on consecutive hands. The first was held by the defence as I became declarer.
N-S game, dlr S (hands rotated)
♠ 8 7
♥ J 8 x x
♦ K x x
♣ A Q J 9
♠ K J 10 x x x x x ♠ A Q x
♥ Q [ ] ♥ 10 6
♦ x x ♦ J x x x
♣ x x ♠ - ♣ K x x x
♥ A K 9 x x x
♦ A Q 10 x
♣ 10 x x
1♥ 3♠ 4♥ 4♠
5♥ 5♠ Pass Pass
6♥ All pass
Making the cold slam was worth a lot of matchpoints. Most tables played in some number of spades, and a few played in 5♥. Only one other pair was allowed to play in 6♥. West’s bid of 3♠ just didn’t raise a big enough barrier. If he bids 4♠, it is harder for N-S to judge to bid 6♥ and easier for N-S to bid 6♠ if they do. Note that West knew he had failed to describe his hand, hence the bid of 5♠.
This result irritated E-W, who were thus primed for the next hand.
Game all, dlr W (hands rotated)
♠ J 9 x x
♥ x x x x
♦ Q 10 x
♣ 9 6
♠ x x x ♠ A K Q 10 x x
♥ 10 x x [ ] ♥ A K x
♦ A K J x x x ♦ x x
♣ A ♠ - ♣ 7 5
♥ Q J 9
♦ 9 7
♣ K Q J 10 8 4 3 2
1♦ Pass 1♠ 4♣
4♦ Pass 4NT Pass
5♦ Pass 5NT Pass
6♦ Pass 7NT All pass
Vulnerable and with both opponents already bidding, I chickened out of the 5♣ overcall and only bid 4♣. This was enough to put a burr under East’s saddle, however, and he drove them all the way to 7NT. After the K♣ lead to the A♣, and a spade to the A♠, East could have crossed to the A♦ and run the spades with a finesse. That would have put me to a lot of discards, and he would probably have finished only two or three down. Instead he decided on death or glory, and took the diamond finesse at trick three. Down a lot.
As he said, if the finesse were right, they would have had a top. Better luck next time.
Eight card suits are becoming something of a fascination for me. Theoretically, they don’t come up very often at all. In practice, I seem to see them on a regular basis. I’m coming to the conclusion that you have to bid them at at least the four level.
The other week, I saw two eight-carders on consecutive hands. The first was held by the defence as I became declarer.
N-S game, dlr S (hands rotated)
♠ 8 7
♥ J 8 x x
♦ K x x
♣ A Q J 9
♠ K J 10 x x x x x ♠ A Q x
♥ Q [ ] ♥ 10 6
♦ x x ♦ J x x x
♣ x x ♠ - ♣ K x x x
♥ A K 9 x x x
♦ A Q 10 x
♣ 10 x x
1♥ 3♠ 4♥ 4♠
5♥ 5♠ Pass Pass
6♥ All pass
Making the cold slam was worth a lot of matchpoints. Most tables played in some number of spades, and a few played in 5♥. Only one other pair was allowed to play in 6♥. West’s bid of 3♠ just didn’t raise a big enough barrier. If he bids 4♠, it is harder for N-S to judge to bid 6♥ and easier for N-S to bid 6♠ if they do. Note that West knew he had failed to describe his hand, hence the bid of 5♠.
This result irritated E-W, who were thus primed for the next hand.
Game all, dlr W (hands rotated)
♠ J 9 x x
♥ x x x x
♦ Q 10 x
♣ 9 6
♠ x x x ♠ A K Q 10 x x
♥ 10 x x [ ] ♥ A K x
♦ A K J x x x ♦ x x
♣ A ♠ - ♣ 7 5
♥ Q J 9
♦ 9 7
♣ K Q J 10 8 4 3 2
1♦ Pass 1♠ 4♣
4♦ Pass 4NT Pass
5♦ Pass 5NT Pass
6♦ Pass 7NT All pass
Vulnerable and with both opponents already bidding, I chickened out of the 5♣ overcall and only bid 4♣. This was enough to put a burr under East’s saddle, however, and he drove them all the way to 7NT. After the K♣ lead to the A♣, and a spade to the A♠, East could have crossed to the A♦ and run the spades with a finesse. That would have put me to a lot of discards, and he would probably have finished only two or three down. Instead he decided on death or glory, and took the diamond finesse at trick three. Down a lot.
As he said, if the finesse were right, they would have had a top. Better luck next time.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
A New Partner
OK, I have a new partner, and she can play, but her bidding is rather basic and she is interested in working with me to develop a detailed system that we can play. Good! And she is happy for me to take the lead in suggesting things that she can learn. Excellent!
Thirty five years ago, I learned to play the Flint-Pender system, described in Tiger Bridge by Jeremy Flint. This book was printed in 1970, and is rather dated now. But the system was somewhat ahead of its time: the key features are five card majors with 1NT response forcing, weak no-trump opening (12-14), and an extended range to the 1NT rebid. We can still use all that as the base for a system of our own. We make the responses to 1NT to our own liking, and update the opening two-bids to a more modern arrangement, and we have a solid overall framework for a complete system.
Secret Agent 99 (to pick a random pseudonym) is happy to switch to a 12-14 no-trump. The responses she knows are based around three-suit transfers, and I can work with that. All that was necessary was to add some definition to some sequences. The basic scheme is:
2C Stayman, guarantees 4-card major, may be weak
2D Transfer to hearts
2H Transfer to spades
2S Transfer to the minors
2NT 11-12hcp balanced, invitational
3C Invitational with a broken 6-card suit
3D Invitational with a broken 6-card suit
3H Splinter, holding strong 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors
3S Splinter, holding strong 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors
3NT 12-18hcp balanced, to play
4C Gerber
4D Transfer to hearts
4H Transfer to spades
4S Undefined
4NT 19-20hcp, invitational to 6NT
5NT 21-22hcp balanced, forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT
6NT 20-21hcp balanced, wants to be in 6 but not 7
7NT 23+hcp balanced
I can elaborate on some details behind this in a future post.
There was some discussion about major suit openings and whether 2 over 1 responses should be game-forcing. In the original Flint-Pender system they weren’t, and I’m inclined to think that way too. I do like using 1NT as a forcing response, and that means a 2 over 1 can be meatier than in old-fashioned Standard (or Acol or whatever) systems, but I don’t think they need to be unconditionally forcing to game. We both prefer weak jump-shifts all the time and 99 doesn’t know Roman Key-Card Blackwood yet, so it looks at first glance as though slam bidding would be a bit dicey. We’ll see how it goes, but so far we aren’t having any trouble, and we haven’t missed much at a high level. We do have a Jacoby 2NT response and splinter bids to help out.
We do need to play this a bit, and work through some practice sessions too. I will try to post some discussion pieces about the system as it evolves, as well as interesting hands.
Thirty five years ago, I learned to play the Flint-Pender system, described in Tiger Bridge by Jeremy Flint. This book was printed in 1970, and is rather dated now. But the system was somewhat ahead of its time: the key features are five card majors with 1NT response forcing, weak no-trump opening (12-14), and an extended range to the 1NT rebid. We can still use all that as the base for a system of our own. We make the responses to 1NT to our own liking, and update the opening two-bids to a more modern arrangement, and we have a solid overall framework for a complete system.
Secret Agent 99 (to pick a random pseudonym) is happy to switch to a 12-14 no-trump. The responses she knows are based around three-suit transfers, and I can work with that. All that was necessary was to add some definition to some sequences. The basic scheme is:
2C Stayman, guarantees 4-card major, may be weak
2D Transfer to hearts
2H Transfer to spades
2S Transfer to the minors
2NT 11-12hcp balanced, invitational
3C Invitational with a broken 6-card suit
3D Invitational with a broken 6-card suit
3H Splinter, holding strong 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors
3S Splinter, holding strong 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors
3NT 12-18hcp balanced, to play
4C Gerber
4D Transfer to hearts
4H Transfer to spades
4S Undefined
4NT 19-20hcp, invitational to 6NT
5NT 21-22hcp balanced, forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT
6NT 20-21hcp balanced, wants to be in 6 but not 7
7NT 23+hcp balanced
I can elaborate on some details behind this in a future post.
There was some discussion about major suit openings and whether 2 over 1 responses should be game-forcing. In the original Flint-Pender system they weren’t, and I’m inclined to think that way too. I do like using 1NT as a forcing response, and that means a 2 over 1 can be meatier than in old-fashioned Standard (or Acol or whatever) systems, but I don’t think they need to be unconditionally forcing to game. We both prefer weak jump-shifts all the time and 99 doesn’t know Roman Key-Card Blackwood yet, so it looks at first glance as though slam bidding would be a bit dicey. We’ll see how it goes, but so far we aren’t having any trouble, and we haven’t missed much at a high level. We do have a Jacoby 2NT response and splinter bids to help out.
We do need to play this a bit, and work through some practice sessions too. I will try to post some discussion pieces about the system as it evolves, as well as interesting hands.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I really enjoyed this hand.
E-W game, dlr E (hands rotated)
♠ K 8 4
♥ J 6 3
♦ 9 2
♣ A 8 6 4 2
[ ]
♠ A J 10 9 3
♥ A 7 4
♦ K Q 10 3
♣ 10
Pass 1♠ Pass 2♠
Pass 4♠ All Pass
Q♣ led.
The jump to game was perhaps a bit aggressive, but we weren’t having a good set, and I only have five losers on the LTC.
The play seemed very routine, and I didn’t have any thoughts of magic tricks. If the A♦ is on-side, my hand looks a lot better, so I hopped up with the A♣ to play the 2♦ to the K♦. West took his A♦ straight away and led to his partner’s K♣. I ruffed small, and paused to take stock.
If I can find the Q♠, I still only have eight tricks. I can finesse against the J♦, and if it falls in three I will have two extra diamond tricks. Or maybe ruffing the fourth diamond with the 8♠ will work, or maybe I can discard a heart or two on diamonds, and ruff a heart in dummy. It’s all looking a bit thin, but it seems right to clarify the diamond position to figure out what to do next. So I crossed to the K♠ and ran the 9♦, losing to the J♦. Of course, another club came back.
♠ 8 4
♥ J 6 3
♦
♣ 8 6
[ ]
♠ A J
♥ A 7 4
♦ Q 10
♣
West was entirely too pleased to get that club on the table, so I guessed that meant he was looking at the Q♠. I’ve already lost two tricks, so that makes all three I can afford. And I only have four top winners in these last seven tricks, so I have to make the extra two with trumps.
It has to be right to cash the A♠ in case the Q♠ falls, because if it does, I will be ruffing high with my last two trumps. Of course, the Q♠ remained out, and West looked poised for the kill. But he still had to find a way to ruff in. I cashed the Q 10♦, discarding hearts from dummy, then played A♥ and ruffed a heart with dummy’s last trump. Next a club from dummy, and West had to follow suit as I made the J♠ in hand. My losing heart and his Q♠ fell together on the last trick.
♠ K 8 4
♥ J 6 3
♦ 9 2
♣ A 8 6 4 2
♠ Q 7 5 ♠ 6 2
♥ K 8 [ ] ♥ Q 10 9 5 2
♦ A J 7 5 ♦ 8 6 4
♣ Q J 9 3 ♠ A J 10 9 3 ♣ K 7 5
♥ A 7 4
♦ K Q 10 3
♣ 10
I think it's called elopement when you make those last trumps while the master trump is still out with the defence. It perhaps doesn’t look like much, written down like this, but the effect at the table was like a magic trick. I had all these losers, and not so many winners, and all of a sudden the contract was made and West was very unhappy. To his credit, he took it like a gentleman, although seeing all the other scores on the traveler being 110 and 140 must have been painful.
E-W game, dlr E (hands rotated)
♠ K 8 4
♥ J 6 3
♦ 9 2
♣ A 8 6 4 2
[ ]
♠ A J 10 9 3
♥ A 7 4
♦ K Q 10 3
♣ 10
Pass 1♠ Pass 2♠
Pass 4♠ All Pass
Q♣ led.
The jump to game was perhaps a bit aggressive, but we weren’t having a good set, and I only have five losers on the LTC.
The play seemed very routine, and I didn’t have any thoughts of magic tricks. If the A♦ is on-side, my hand looks a lot better, so I hopped up with the A♣ to play the 2♦ to the K♦. West took his A♦ straight away and led to his partner’s K♣. I ruffed small, and paused to take stock.
If I can find the Q♠, I still only have eight tricks. I can finesse against the J♦, and if it falls in three I will have two extra diamond tricks. Or maybe ruffing the fourth diamond with the 8♠ will work, or maybe I can discard a heart or two on diamonds, and ruff a heart in dummy. It’s all looking a bit thin, but it seems right to clarify the diamond position to figure out what to do next. So I crossed to the K♠ and ran the 9♦, losing to the J♦. Of course, another club came back.
♠ 8 4
♥ J 6 3
♦
♣ 8 6
[ ]
♠ A J
♥ A 7 4
♦ Q 10
♣
West was entirely too pleased to get that club on the table, so I guessed that meant he was looking at the Q♠. I’ve already lost two tricks, so that makes all three I can afford. And I only have four top winners in these last seven tricks, so I have to make the extra two with trumps.
It has to be right to cash the A♠ in case the Q♠ falls, because if it does, I will be ruffing high with my last two trumps. Of course, the Q♠ remained out, and West looked poised for the kill. But he still had to find a way to ruff in. I cashed the Q 10♦, discarding hearts from dummy, then played A♥ and ruffed a heart with dummy’s last trump. Next a club from dummy, and West had to follow suit as I made the J♠ in hand. My losing heart and his Q♠ fell together on the last trick.
♠ K 8 4
♥ J 6 3
♦ 9 2
♣ A 8 6 4 2
♠ Q 7 5 ♠ 6 2
♥ K 8 [ ] ♥ Q 10 9 5 2
♦ A J 7 5 ♦ 8 6 4
♣ Q J 9 3 ♠ A J 10 9 3 ♣ K 7 5
♥ A 7 4
♦ K Q 10 3
♣ 10
I think it's called elopement when you make those last trumps while the master trump is still out with the defence. It perhaps doesn’t look like much, written down like this, but the effect at the table was like a magic trick. I had all these losers, and not so many winners, and all of a sudden the contract was made and West was very unhappy. To his credit, he took it like a gentleman, although seeing all the other scores on the traveler being 110 and 140 must have been painful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)