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.