When you have a genuinely two-suited hand, 5-5 or better, it is worth getting into the auction even when you are not strong. You have two chances of finding a fit with partner, and if you do catch one, the hand usually plays well. Of course, a problem is that if you finish up defending, declarer pretty much has a blueprint of how to play the hand. But that’s a trade-off that many people are willing to make.
There are various methods for showing a two-suiter with one bid. With all these overcalls, the high-card strength should be concentrated in the suits. Generally, the calls are most often used as pre-emptive weapons, and you don’t want to mislead partner into making a sacrifice that turns out to be a phantom because you have an unexpected ace or two showing up in your short suits. A common idea is to play the bids as weak or strong. With a weak hand, you make the overcall and then keep quiet. With a strong hand, you make the overcall and then bid again. If you have a middling sort of hand, you don’t use the two-suited overcall, just bid one of your suits and hope to get the other one mentioned later. Exactly what constitutes weak, middling and strong is a subject for debate. A common sort of arrangement would be 7-11hcp = weak, 16+hcp = strong.
The Unusual No-Trump is a 2NT overcall to show the minors. This is usually generalized to say it shows the two lowest unbid suits, so that after a 1D opening, for example, you can overcall 2NT to show clubs and hearts.
This seems easy, but the mistake a lot of people make is to overlook that 2NT is occasionally needed as a natural overcall. For starters, 2NT over an opponents weak two opening is similar to a 1NT overcall of a one-level opening. And even over a one-bid, in 4th seat 2NT is generally natural, for example:
(1H) – Pass – (Pass) - 2NT or
(1H) – Pass – (2H) – 2NT
In both these cases, the 2NT overcall is natural, something similar to a 2NT opening bid, around 20 points with hearts stopped. It is also worth mentioning 1C openings. If the opponents play a “short club”, meaning it may only be a doubleton, you may want to discount that as being a bid suit and have your Unusual NT show both minors – at least it’s something to discuss. The same issue arises if they play a strong club system and a 1D opening may not have many diamonds.
The other really common two-suited overcall is the Michaels cue-bid. (1minor) – 2minor cue-bid shows both majors. (1major) – 2major cue-bid shows the other major plus an unspecified minor. Advancer can bid 2NT to ask for the minor. Some people play that 2NT is a constructive way to ask, while bidding 3C is simply “pass or correct” with no interest in going higher.
The advantage of Michaels is that it only uses the cue-bid, and covers a couple of the most important situations. The weakness is that your partner doesn’t always know both suits immediately (which may limit his ability to pre-empt), and that even with both UNT and Michaels in play, there are still some two-suiters not covered. For example, over a 1D opening, neither bid handles a spade-club two-suiter. If you want to be able to cover all combinations, you have to use a third bid, and the one usually sacrificed is the 3C jump overcall. For example, the method known as Ghestem (after its inventor, Pierre Ghestem) uses (in the original version)
2NT = the two lower unbid suits
3C = the two higher unbid suits
qbid = the highest plus the lowest
and of course there are variations on this.
One other set of overcalls worth mentioning is Leaping Michaels. Over an opponent’s weak two opening, jumps to 4 of a minor show two-suiters. Over 2H or 2S, a jump overcall of 4C or 4D shows the bid minor plus the other major, strong but not forcing. Over a weak or natural 2C or 2D (perhaps a Precision 2C that shows 11-15hcp with 5 or 6 clubs), a jump cue-bid shows both majors. A jump to 4 of the other minor shows the bid suit plus an unspecified major.
This hardly ever comes up, but it’s worth having in the back of your mind just in case. It uses bids that aren’t likely to be needed for anything else, and if you do happen to get the right hand for it, it could be a life-saver.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Playing 1NT Weak
Playing the weak no-trump in America remains a source of constant amusement. Theoretically, there should be some hands where we play 1NT and the strong no-trumpers play a major suit part-score, because they open a minor suit and discover a 4-4 fit that we don’t bother with because responder is weak. And on the other side, there should be some hands where the pre-emptive effect of the opening steals the contract or pushes the opponents into the wrong part-score (or a non-making game). But a lot of the time, you might think there wouldn’t be much difference. Wrong! It seems like any hand we open 1NT makes for mayhem on the scoresheet.
It seems like the majority of players at the intermediate level have been taught that they shouldn’t let a weak no-trump pre-empt them out of their proper contract. And they’ve also been told that the penalty double is a good way to teach the impudent opener the error of his ways. Now, there is some truth in all that. But you do need some cards. We see people overcalling on almost any hand with a 6-card suit. We see penalty doubles on almost any sort of opening hand. People, please. If you are going to make a business double of 1NT, you must have either more points than the opener, or a good source of tricks to make up for the lack. If you don’t have either, you are just setting yourself up for a big disappointment. And if your partner chooses a suit overcall rather than a double, maybe you need to consider what you need for a raise.
E-W game, dlr S (hands rotated)
♠ 3
♥ A 9 7 6 3 2
♦ J 8 7 6 2
♣ A
♠ K Q 10 9 8 6 ♠ 7 2
♥ K J 5 [ ] ♥ 10 4
♦ K 4 3 ♦ 10 9 5
♣ 9 ♠ A J 5 4 ♣ K Q J 7 5 2
♥ Q 8
♦ A Q
♣ 10 8 6 4 3
1NT 2♠ 3♥ 4♣
Dble 4♠ Pass Pass
Dble All pass
Routine defence defeated this 800, for all the matchpoints. If we slipped them a trick, 500 would still have been a top. Most tables played in 4♥, making. I don’t have any problem with West’s overcall, but you have to wonder what East had been smoking. If West is in the 10-14 range with spades, what in East’s hand justifies the thought that a vulnerable free bid at the 4 level is justified? Admittedly, he picked exactly the wrong moment, but really, he was asking for it.
Next case.
Love all, dlr E (hands rotated)
♠ J 10 6 5 4
♥ 5 3
♦ Q 10 8
♣ J 9 7
♠ A K 3 2 ♠ 9
♥ Q 4 2 [ ] ♥ J 10 9 7 6
♦ J 9 2 ♦ K 6 5 3
♣ Q 8 5 ♠ Q 8 7 ♣ A K 3
♥ A K 8
♦ A 7 4
♣ 10 6 4 2
Pass 1NT Dble All Pass
I’m sorry, but a random 12 count isn’t a business double of – well, anything really. This one lucked into a partner who had passed with 11hcp, and still couldn’t win. Agent 99 decided not to transfer into spades, and I received the ♠2 as the opening lead. I won the queen and played one back, and East discarded the ♣3. For some reason, West decided this called for a switch to clubs. East tried to get her hearts going, but it was a bit late. And when East managed to crash her ♣Q under the ace, I even finished with an overtrick. Most pairs overbid the East-West cards to 4♥, going down one trick. Making 280 was more than enough to beat all the scores of 50 and 100.
It seems like the majority of players at the intermediate level have been taught that they shouldn’t let a weak no-trump pre-empt them out of their proper contract. And they’ve also been told that the penalty double is a good way to teach the impudent opener the error of his ways. Now, there is some truth in all that. But you do need some cards. We see people overcalling on almost any hand with a 6-card suit. We see penalty doubles on almost any sort of opening hand. People, please. If you are going to make a business double of 1NT, you must have either more points than the opener, or a good source of tricks to make up for the lack. If you don’t have either, you are just setting yourself up for a big disappointment. And if your partner chooses a suit overcall rather than a double, maybe you need to consider what you need for a raise.
E-W game, dlr S (hands rotated)
♠ 3
♥ A 9 7 6 3 2
♦ J 8 7 6 2
♣ A
♠ K Q 10 9 8 6 ♠ 7 2
♥ K J 5 [ ] ♥ 10 4
♦ K 4 3 ♦ 10 9 5
♣ 9 ♠ A J 5 4 ♣ K Q J 7 5 2
♥ Q 8
♦ A Q
♣ 10 8 6 4 3
1NT 2♠ 3♥ 4♣
Dble 4♠ Pass Pass
Dble All pass
Routine defence defeated this 800, for all the matchpoints. If we slipped them a trick, 500 would still have been a top. Most tables played in 4♥, making. I don’t have any problem with West’s overcall, but you have to wonder what East had been smoking. If West is in the 10-14 range with spades, what in East’s hand justifies the thought that a vulnerable free bid at the 4 level is justified? Admittedly, he picked exactly the wrong moment, but really, he was asking for it.
Next case.
Love all, dlr E (hands rotated)
♠ J 10 6 5 4
♥ 5 3
♦ Q 10 8
♣ J 9 7
♠ A K 3 2 ♠ 9
♥ Q 4 2 [ ] ♥ J 10 9 7 6
♦ J 9 2 ♦ K 6 5 3
♣ Q 8 5 ♠ Q 8 7 ♣ A K 3
♥ A K 8
♦ A 7 4
♣ 10 6 4 2
Pass 1NT Dble All Pass
I’m sorry, but a random 12 count isn’t a business double of – well, anything really. This one lucked into a partner who had passed with 11hcp, and still couldn’t win. Agent 99 decided not to transfer into spades, and I received the ♠2 as the opening lead. I won the queen and played one back, and East discarded the ♣3. For some reason, West decided this called for a switch to clubs. East tried to get her hearts going, but it was a bit late. And when East managed to crash her ♣Q under the ace, I even finished with an overtrick. Most pairs overbid the East-West cards to 4♥, going down one trick. Making 280 was more than enough to beat all the scores of 50 and 100.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Opening 2C And Responses
The opening bid of 2C is the big opening of Acol and Standard American, played as artificial and forcing to game in most sequences. The requirements are open to some debate, and can depend on exactly what system you are playing, in particular, what other strong bids you have available. But overly distributional hands, with great playing strength but relatively low point count, generally should be bid some other way. Opening 2C is for genuine rock-crushers.
Since we play the opening 2NT as 21-22, for a balanced hand to qualify for 2C it has to be 23+hcp. Unbalanced hands are typically 3 losers or less on the Losing Trick Count, and 18+hcp. With 22+hcp unbalanced, I would probably open 2C even if the hand somehow managed 4 losers, but that's not a decision you have to make too often. The bigger issue is when you have pretty much game in your own hand but fewer points, probably because of holding a solid suit. If you hold too few points, people will get upset if you open 2C.
Responding to 2C is troublesome for many pairs. Following common (modern) practice, we play that 2D is an artificial negative or waiting bid. Other suit responses are positive, and require a suit of at least five cards that includes two of the top honors, and generally 8+hcp. A response of 2NT is a balanced positive, showing 10+hcp. Bidding after any positive response is natural and forcing to game. In actual practice, experience gained from hundreds of computer-dealt hands indicates that any positive response should press on to slam almost all of the time. This means that the relative crudeness of just bidding naturally after a positive response is in practice not so much of a handicap, since there is plenty of room if the auction isn't stopping anytime soon.
After the 2D response, opener's first rebid is generally natural, but with a couple of important exceptions.
A rebid of 2NT indicates a balanced hand of 23-24hcp, and responder can proceed as if opener had started with 2NT (Stayman, transfers, etc). Obviously, very little indeed is needed in responder's hand to justify bidding game.
A rebid of 2H by opener is Kokish, indicating either a game-forcing hand with hearts, or a game-forcing balanced hand. Usually, responder will bid 2S as a relay, awaiting clarification. Opener rebids NT holding a balanced hand, or makes some other (natural) bid to indicate that the original 2H did in fact mean hearts. We play that 2H followed by 2NT shows 25-26hcp, a direct 3NT rebid shows 27-28hcp, and 2H followed by 3NT shows 29-30hcp. The idea is that a common responding scheme can be used after 2NT, allowing us to explore suit contracts sensibly, and we can apply that scheme for balanced openers between 21 and 26 points. Over opener's 3NT rebids, 4C is Stayman, 4D and 4H are transfers, and 4NT after a Stayman or transfer sequence is natural and not forcing. That is a little unwieldy, but only comes up some of the time when opener has 27-30hcp - we can live with it.
The only hands where responder can break the relay (bidding something other than 2S over 2H) are very weak (0-3hcp) minor suit hands without heart tolerance. Bidding 3C or 3D shows a suit of at least seven cards headed by at best the queen.
A rebid of 2S, 3C or 3D by opener is natural (at least 5 cards) and game-forcing. If it's available, the cheapest rebid in a minor at the 3 level is a second negative, showing 0-3hcp.
A jump rebid of 3H or 3S by opener is a specialty bid. It shows a 4-card suit, together with a longer diamond suit. This is a device to make sure that a 4-4 major fit doesn't get lost when opener's longest suit is diamonds. That can happen because 2C-2D;3D eats up a lot of room, and 3H or 3S by responder at this point should show a 5-card suit. In that case, nobody has room to mention a 4-card major before 3NT is reached.
There are numerous alternative responding schemes, most of them inferior. For example, artificial step responses don't work so well, whether you are showing high card points or (better) controls a la Blue Club. Such ideas are well playable over 1C, but you run out of space fast when you start at the two level, and the information conveyed is often not as useful as you might think. Some people play more or less as we do, except that the 2D response guarantees at least some minimal values, while a 2H response is an immediate "double negative". I can sympathize with that idea. But if I were to suggest a good alternative scheme, I would go with an artificial positive set-up, perhaps similar to that played by Armstrong-Holland. (They are a British international pair, and John Armstrong is a contemporary of mine: we were at Cambridge University at the same time, although in different colleges.) Their responses are (very briefly):
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 in a comment I made earlier. 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. At the same time, I should say that this sort of thing only works well if you have thought about and worked through the many different continuations. A virtue of the system we are playing is that much of it is natural, and can be played reasonably well without too too much discussion. I'm sure Armstrong and Holland have spent many hours deciding what further bids mean after the initial responses.
Since we play the opening 2NT as 21-22, for a balanced hand to qualify for 2C it has to be 23+hcp. Unbalanced hands are typically 3 losers or less on the Losing Trick Count, and 18+hcp. With 22+hcp unbalanced, I would probably open 2C even if the hand somehow managed 4 losers, but that's not a decision you have to make too often. The bigger issue is when you have pretty much game in your own hand but fewer points, probably because of holding a solid suit. If you hold too few points, people will get upset if you open 2C.
Responding to 2C is troublesome for many pairs. Following common (modern) practice, we play that 2D is an artificial negative or waiting bid. Other suit responses are positive, and require a suit of at least five cards that includes two of the top honors, and generally 8+hcp. A response of 2NT is a balanced positive, showing 10+hcp. Bidding after any positive response is natural and forcing to game. In actual practice, experience gained from hundreds of computer-dealt hands indicates that any positive response should press on to slam almost all of the time. This means that the relative crudeness of just bidding naturally after a positive response is in practice not so much of a handicap, since there is plenty of room if the auction isn't stopping anytime soon.
After the 2D response, opener's first rebid is generally natural, but with a couple of important exceptions.
A rebid of 2NT indicates a balanced hand of 23-24hcp, and responder can proceed as if opener had started with 2NT (Stayman, transfers, etc). Obviously, very little indeed is needed in responder's hand to justify bidding game.
A rebid of 2H by opener is Kokish, indicating either a game-forcing hand with hearts, or a game-forcing balanced hand. Usually, responder will bid 2S as a relay, awaiting clarification. Opener rebids NT holding a balanced hand, or makes some other (natural) bid to indicate that the original 2H did in fact mean hearts. We play that 2H followed by 2NT shows 25-26hcp, a direct 3NT rebid shows 27-28hcp, and 2H followed by 3NT shows 29-30hcp. The idea is that a common responding scheme can be used after 2NT, allowing us to explore suit contracts sensibly, and we can apply that scheme for balanced openers between 21 and 26 points. Over opener's 3NT rebids, 4C is Stayman, 4D and 4H are transfers, and 4NT after a Stayman or transfer sequence is natural and not forcing. That is a little unwieldy, but only comes up some of the time when opener has 27-30hcp - we can live with it.
The only hands where responder can break the relay (bidding something other than 2S over 2H) are very weak (0-3hcp) minor suit hands without heart tolerance. Bidding 3C or 3D shows a suit of at least seven cards headed by at best the queen.
A rebid of 2S, 3C or 3D by opener is natural (at least 5 cards) and game-forcing. If it's available, the cheapest rebid in a minor at the 3 level is a second negative, showing 0-3hcp.
A jump rebid of 3H or 3S by opener is a specialty bid. It shows a 4-card suit, together with a longer diamond suit. This is a device to make sure that a 4-4 major fit doesn't get lost when opener's longest suit is diamonds. That can happen because 2C-2D;3D eats up a lot of room, and 3H or 3S by responder at this point should show a 5-card suit. In that case, nobody has room to mention a 4-card major before 3NT is reached.
There are numerous alternative responding schemes, most of them inferior. For example, artificial step responses don't work so well, whether you are showing high card points or (better) controls a la Blue Club. Such ideas are well playable over 1C, but you run out of space fast when you start at the two level, and the information conveyed is often not as useful as you might think. Some people play more or less as we do, except that the 2D response guarantees at least some minimal values, while a 2H response is an immediate "double negative". I can sympathize with that idea. But if I were to suggest a good alternative scheme, I would go with an artificial positive set-up, perhaps similar to that played by Armstrong-Holland. (They are a British international pair, and John Armstrong is a contemporary of mine: we were at Cambridge University at the same time, although in different colleges.) Their responses are (very briefly):
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 in a comment I made earlier. 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. At the same time, I should say that this sort of thing only works well if you have thought about and worked through the many different continuations. A virtue of the system we are playing is that much of it is natural, and can be played reasonably well without too too much discussion. I'm sure Armstrong and Holland have spent many hours deciding what further bids mean after the initial responses.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The pace of my posting has noticeably slowed again. For a while I was averaging once a week, but the past few weeks have been a bit busy. I have been helping out with some “supervised play” sessions, assisting the TD at a couple of afternoon games a week, primarily to learn and practice with the computer program ACBLScore (and also as a training regimen to get exposure to the practical details of directing without just being thrown in the deep end). I even got to direct a game, just a small one. And I’ve also been playing, and had houseguests, and all the usual distractions. One way and another, finding the time and energy for blog entries drifted way down the list of priorities. But now “the boss” (at least he thinks he is) has declared my training days over (that is, he’s too cheap to pay for me any longer). On the supervised play front, I was actually covering for a guy who was sick, and he’s working again. So now I’m back to the old unemployed status, and what do you know, here’s a blog post.
Here’s a hand from the Eastern States regional.
Love all, dlr N (hands rotated)
♠ 9 7 6
♥ -
♦ K Q 10 9 7 3
♣ A K 8 5
♠ A 10 8 4 3 ♠ 2
♥ K 9 7 5 3 ♥ A Q J 10 8 4 2
♦ A 5 2 [ ] ♦ J 8 6
♣ - ♣ 7 3
♠ K Q J 5
♥ 6
♦ 4
♣ Q J 10 9 8 4 2
1♦ 3♥ 4♣ 4♥
6♣ pass pass double
All pass
This seemed straightforward enough from our side. Once agent 99 bid 4♣, I didn’t see how bidding 6♣ could be wrong. West “took the money”, but actually underestimated his potential. Probably he thought the spade suit was too anemic to be useful, or at least, to gamble on. But in fact, with our spades breaking 4-3, it is a simple matter to establish the long spade for the twelfth trick in 6♥. In fact, if South had five spades, once you eliminate the spades from the North hand and the clubs from East, there is a simple endplay by leading the ♦2. (North can take one honor, but then has to lead away from the other or concede a ruff and discard).
The defence was a conservative cashing of aces followed by one spade ruff, so the penalty was actually economical even just against a game. Bidding 5♣, and then being forced to bid 6♣ or even 7♣ over 5♥ or 6♥ sounds like a much inferior approach. Making them guess at the six level seems much more logical.
I feel I also should get into print the biggest hand I’ve ever held – 29 high-card points. And believe it or not, partner produces the missing ace. Of course, that makes the deal not very interesting, since you then just bid 7NT and cash your winners. So I won’t bother with the details.
This one comes from a silver-point game.
N-S vul, dlr E (rotated)
♠ Q 6 4 3
♥ 10 4 3
♦ 5 4
♣ 8 7 5 3
[ ]
♠ -
♥ A K Q J 9
♦ A 8 6
♣ A Q 9 4 2
pass 2♣ pass 2♦
pass 2♥ pass 3♥
pass 4♣ pass 4♥
pass 4♠ pass 5♣
pass 6♥ All pass
I was playing with a different partner, one who is less sophisticated in bidding strategy than agent 99. He made two mistakes, really. Bidding 3♥ is stronger than bidding 4♥, so he picked the wrong bid there. And that encouraged me to start cue-bidding, which he really didn’t understand. Of course, when he bid 5♣, I placed him with the ♣K, which made 6♥ look like a good bet. As it stands, I think I need the clubs 2-2 with the king on-side. Close! They were 2-2, but the finesse lost, so down 1. He was a bit upset that I had pushed on to slam when he only had 2 points. But I pointed out that if he had the ♣K instead of the ♠Q, he still would have had only 3 points, and the slam would have been very reasonable.
If I followed Jeremy Flint’s advice on cue-bidding, I should have bid 4♦ rather than 4♣ (highest of “touching” controls). The following 4♠ would then have indicated all three first round controls. That actually makes sense to me, although I haven’t done much cue-bidding lately. Maybe I’ll talk it over with agent 99.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)