Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Regional

OK, I still don't have all my stuff from the old machine. Hopefully, that will all be taken care of this weekend. But in the meantime, I wanted to post a quick update about the Edgar Kaplan Regional. That's the regional that happens between Christmas and New Year in New York City.

Still needing 0.10 gold points to become a Life Master (gnash, gnash) I decided to play it cool. On Sunday I played in the Swiss Teams, A/X strat. That's OK as an experience-gathering thing, but not necessarily a good strategy for winning points. We won 3 of our first 4 matches (a definite mis-step in a Swiss) and then lost the rest. So that was a red point or something. The only other entry was for a bracketed round-robin teams today (Wednesday). This was me and Agent 99, teamed with Elwood and one of his other partners (actually, one of the other directors at the Manhattan, and also a team-mate in the regional teams where I partner Elwood). That made for a relatively small master-point total for the team, so we were in bracket 5. This, then, was the one event I was relying on to win that elusive fraction.

After 2 matches we were first in the bracket. After 3, we slipped to a tie for second, but after 4 matches we were back in first. After 5, first. After 6, first. Going into the seventh and last match, we were only 2 VPs ahead of second place, but 9 VPs ahead of third, and about 15 VPs ahead of several other teams that were arguing about 4th, 5th, etc. And we were playing the third place team, so any sort of win would guarantee at least second place. Even losing 14-6 would preserve second, they would have to beat us 15-5 or worse to overtake us. So what happened? Disaster, of course.

After playing really quite well all day, and with her trademark aggressive bidding winning several swings, Agent 99 fell from grace on the last two boards, flooring two game contracts that were actually cold. Punishment was merciless: both games were bid and made at the other table, turning what would have been a 6-14 VP loss into a 0-20 VP blitz, and jeopardizing any gold points by dropping us into third place. We were left biting nails as we waited for the result of the final match. Both teams were within striking distance, if one or the other could manage a heavy win: we were hoping for something close to a tie. The result was finally put up as 14-6 for somebody or other. That left them one VP behind us, so third place was in, and that was 6 gold points - a bit more than I needed, but then, there wasn't anything for fourth.

This hand came up in the fourth match. Bidding the grand was worth 13 IMPs when they stopped at 6S at the other table. We only won the match by 7 IMPs.


I said Agent 99 is aggressive. At the other table, opener only raised to 3S, and responder was happy to settle for the small slam. When I saw the 4S raise, I said to myself that 7S must be on if we had all the keycards, and so it went. I received a trump lead, which made ruffing diamonds unattractive as a plan. So I decided to rely on trumps 3-2 and hearts 4-2, and that passed off smoothly.

edit: Actually, ruffing diamonds looks at least as good  a plan, now that I'm not at the table. What can I say? At the time, I took a dislike to it.

2nd edit: And now that I can review the results on the GNYBA site, the team that finished just 1 VP behind us in 4th place was the opposing team for this slam (and all familiar faces from the Manhattan, too!).


Wednesday, December 16, 2009

New computer!

Well it seems as if Santa is on the job. My new machine is here and working, but I still have a lot of work to do to sort out retrieving my data from the old machine, and there's a lot of software I had accumulated as well. Still and all, progress.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Still hanging

I'm sorry to say I still don't have a new machine, so my computer access is still very limited. I have a new desktop on order from Dell, but I seem to be caught up in the Christmas rush - projected delivery is still more than two weeks away, which is frustrating. But there you go.

In the meantime, I'm trying to keep track of some interesting hands and stuff, so I can have an orgy of posting in January. And I will be playing in the winter Regional after Christmas, so there will be (hopefully good) news from there too.

May all your trump breaks be kind.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Technical difficulties

Sorry for the delay posting. I am having technical difficulties - my PC turned into a brick. Plus it's been a very busy month, one way and another. So hang in there, and maybe Santa will bring me a new machine a bit early.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

A long day

OK, it's been a long day and I'm hitting the sauce, so this is just going to be a brief note. This afternoon I directed a 17-table game, which is not the biggest thing by any means, but it is the most awkward size for us movement-wise. At 18 tables, we split the thing into two comfortable 9-table sections and play 8 rounds at 3 boards a round, no problem. At 17 tables, you're stuck with 12 rounds at 2 boards a round, and keeping everybody moving at the right pace is like one of the labors of Hercules. In addition, all my house players got used up, and I had to play as well as direct, to avoid a half-table. Not everybody pays when they first arrive, so that means when you are dummy, you are running around collecting money, setting up the game in the computer, and trying to keep an eye on how the movement is going. And every so often there's a director call too, just for variation. Basically, after a couple of hours of this torture, I was feeling like a one-legged guy in an ass-kicking contest - really busy, not making much progress, and thoroughly kicked too.

At the end of the game, three-quarters of the tables finished more or less on time, the one I was at included (exactly on time for me). Not bad, especially since my scratch partner and me (who had never played more than a board or two together before and didn't discuss system at all) scored 66% and won East-West. Hoo-yah.

Then this evening, I was still working, this time on supervised play. But somehow Agent 99 managed to forget that I had cancelled our play-date, and showed up expecting to play with me. Instead, she got... Well, let me put it this way. Do you know those cartoons with a funny little old guy who kind of resembles a turtle, often depicted driving in such a way that his hands are higher than his head on the steering wheel, and he is peering through the wheel trying to see where he is going? OK, this guy became her partner since I wasn't available (that'll teach her, I thought). Wouldn't you know it, with one round to go they were almost a top clear East-West. Sad to say, they had a disastrous last round, and finished third. But I was still mightily impressed. I'm going to have to give her a raise.


Sunday, November 8, 2009

Hand Evaluation

I’ve been doing more teaching lately, primarily of beginners, but also some intermediates. That has brought the topic of hand evaluation higher into my awareness.

How do you  evaluate your hand? Do you use the Work point-count? Do you adjust your point-count for distribution, or maybe use a different count, like Zar Points? Or maybe you follow the Losing Trick Count? Are you a devotee of The Law in competitive situations, or do you keep adjusting whatever measure you started with?

There’s a plethora (love that word) of methods out there. We start the beginners with a simple 4-3-2-1 point-count, but soon enough they start asking about other things. We can’t help but introduce “adjustments” for long suits or short suits almost immediately, because the truth of the matter is that the 4-3-2-1 count just doesn’t work very well. And once that cat’s out of the bag, we’re left wondering what’s the best method to tell people to use.

Part of my problem is that I’m not entirely sure how I evaluate my hands when I play for real. I do count points, and for balanced hands I pretty much let myself be guided by the count. But when distribution starts to be a factor – like, most of the time – I tend to bid pretty much what I feel like. Now, my feelings tend to be pretty good and consistent, based, I suppose, on my past experience and study. But I’m a bit at a loss to explain how I arrive at the bids I make.

Many years ago, I discovered the Losing Trick Count, chiefly through the writings of Harrison-Gray. I immediately became a convert, and I still think it’s the best practical method for evaluating distributional deals. What sold me the most, of course, is that it seems to provide me with a justification for bidding what I wanted to bid anyway, most of the time. How can I not like a method that agrees with me? But also, the factors that the LTC inherently takes into account make logical sense to me. When you look at the cards covering losers, you are automatically weighting controls and whether the high cards are in your long suits. (Other methods, such as Zar Points, take account of some of this stuff, but the calculations aren’t quite so easy to do, and the results aren’t quite so easy to evaluate either). Once you have found a trump fit with partner, you can start adding your losers together and making adjustments for extra trumps, and there is a logical basis for using these calculations to decide how high to bid. Devotees of The Law also have an easy calculation, but as has been pointed out in detail by Lawrence and Wirgren, they have no reason to think that the answer they come up with is any use. Those authors have come up with their own method of evaluation, and I think it is probably very accurate when you can see both hands. But it isn’t clear to me how to apply their methods easily in the practical situation of looking just at your own hand, so I still favor the Losing Trick Count.

I guess my bottom line is that I go with Work point-count for balanced hands, the Losing Trick Count for distributional hands, and a mystical combination of the two when we’re in the usual murky situation. Oh well.

 

I didn’t want to weigh this entry down with detailed descriptions of the individual methods, but lots of information is available on the net. Here are some references: I’m not endorsing any of these sites or descriptions as being especially good, but if you want to look up a particular method, here are some places to start.

The Losing Trick Count

http://www.bridgehands.com/L/Losing_Trick_Count.htm

Zar Points

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/ZarPoints2003BOOK.pdf

The Law

http://www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/law-total-tricks.htm

Discussing the Law

http://www.newbridgelaw.com/

 

Friday, October 23, 2009

Misadventures In Manhattan

I don’t know that this entry is going to be very educational, but here are some of this week’s oddities from my games at the MBC.

On a fairly boring board, I got into an argument with an opponent who is also a director. At some point in the middle of the hand, dummy asked to see a defender’s card (that had just been turned over). “No you can’t”, says the other defender. “You’re the dummy: you can’t interrupt the play at all.” Well, “yes he can”, says I, “he has the right to see the cards played”. And back and forth we went. Anyway, it was all a theoretical barney, not an actual argument argument. But there are conflicting requirements in the Laws. Dummy has the absolute right to follow the play and keep track of tricks won and lost. In order that he be able to do that, the defenders must play their cards in such a way that he can see them, which I think means that he does have the right to ask when a defender turns his card over too quickly. But on the other hand, dummy can’t draw declarer’s attention to a particular card or trick: he really is not allowed to interfere in the play at all. So we were both right, which is a bit confusing. I think the bottom line is that while dummy has that right, he must be very careful about exercising it, in case he gets accused of coaching declarer. Not an issue in this case, but I can see how it could be for some pairs.

The next hand, I picked up
♠5 ♥KT9632 ♦6 ♣KQJ32
and still being a little hot under the collar, I went a bit Australian on him and opened 3♥. Passed out and just made, for close to a top. I don’t remember opening a three-bid on a hand like that before, but with the vulnerability against us (we were, they weren’t) it worked well at stifling the competition. As it happened, even though partner didn’t have much, it was a part-score hand. We can make 3♣ or 3♥, they can make 3♦ or 2NT. But even if they go to 3NT or 4♦, they score better than letting us make 3♥. By contrast, the evening before, I played with Agent 99 and the following hand came up.

I swear to god, a 12-card trump fit and we go two down because they get a ruff. But it was pretty much a top, of course, because they forgot to double or bid on. South thought for a while before passing. Double isn’t totally ridiculous, and would actually have collected a lot of matchpoints (a tad undeservedly) because there were an awful lot of 480s on the traveler. On the other hand, North didn’t think much before passing directly over 5♦: he seems to have very much under-estimated the offensive power of his 6-5 distribution. The combination of his suits and South’s controls makes 6♠ a snap. We left the table as South started in on North’s choice of opening. The commentary was quite sotto voce and calculated, but I wouldn’t have wanted to be on the receiving end of it. Agent 99 remarked that they must be married.

When it comes to bidding over the opponent’s 1NT, I’m definitely a convert to the view that a lot of people don’t do it enough. But there has to be some discretion exercised.

Partner minimized the defence, but we still managed to get them down three for a top. I don’t like the 2♦ call (diamonds plus a major), because there are too many HCP in the short suits. 5-4 distribution and 10-11 HCP is OK, but you want the high cards for offence, not defence. On the other hand, the 4♦ call strikes me as just suicidal. If you want partner to overcall on these sorts of deals, you have to not hang him when he does.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Sectional in the clubs

I’ve not been playing much the last few weeks, but on Sunday we reunited our regional team to play in a sectional Swiss Teams – apparently, one of us needed some silver points. We still qualify for the B stratum, so we played at Honors bridge club in the B/C event. It’s a nice venue – Honors and the Manhattan are just about tied for being the best clubs in NYC. (For this sectional, MBC was hosting all the 299er events).

We got off to a rocky start. First, I overslept, and in a mad panic blew my entry fee cash on a cab to get there with less than five minutes to spare. (The alarm clock didn’t go off, or I shut it off in my sleep, or something). Then the tone of the first match was set by the very first board.

The ♥K was led, and this seemed like a very reasonable contract when the dummy came down. If spades are 2-2, the ruffing diamond finesse disposes of the heart loser even when the ♦K is offside. If spades are 3-1, I need the ruffing finesse to win, with enough of even breaks so that I can ruff one club loser while ditching the other two losers on diamonds. Not much to ask - I’d say the chances are somewhere up towards 70%. There are other lines, but I’d say that two trumps and the ruffing finesse must easily be best. Of course, ♠Qxx was offside and the ruffing finesse lost, so I finished up three down.

It turned out our West had opened a weak two on a five-card heart suit, and got caught for 800. If the slam makes, that’s a useful swing to us, but instead of +180 the swing was -950. We bid a couple of close games that went down when critical finesses lost, our teammates mis-defended a game, and when the smoke cleared, we had been blitzed 0-20 VPs – not an auspicious start. But it’s often a good way to start a Swiss, or so I’ve been told, and our next few matches took us to the top of the leader-board (17-3, 18-2, 18-2, 19-1).

The fifth match looked like a win all the way at our table. The opposing pair were snapping at each other when they sat down. Then on the first board, in what seemed like a safe part-score, at trick 12 declarer held the last trump and a winner in hand. He led a loser from dummy, and dropped the side-suit winner on it. Then he showed the last trump, and tried to claim. Elwood pointed out that the 12th trick wasn’t his, and that was one down. I’ve seen (and committed) pulling the wrong card, of course, but rarely at trick 12. It turned out they were booked for a swing against anyway, since our teammates made game, but naturally dummy was not pleased by this result. The second board looked something like this:

At IMPs, you’re going to push for games, and so you’re going to get into these messes. Legitimately, you only make if spades are 2-2, but the way the cards had been running all afternoon, I would have put money on a 3-1 break. I won the opening diamond lead with the king in dummy, and ran the ♠7 to West. He tried a heart, and I captured the ♥J with the ♥K, and played another spade. East won this one as West discarded. Now East dithered a little before returning – a diamond. So I finessed the ♥9 and ditched both clubs before East could ruff in. East was really venomous by now. “I knew I shouldn’t return your suit, it’s always wrong when I do” was just the start, and by the time the third board started, they basically weren’t speaking to each other any more. The 19-1 result wasn’t a surprise.

The sixth match was against the second place team, only two VPs behind us. There were swings in both directions, roughly canceling out. But in the end, we eked out a 2 IMP victory, 11-9 in VPs. And so in the last match, still only leading by 4 VPs, we needed to win fairly convincingly. Fortunately, the opponents at our table were not having a good match, and our teammates didn’t cut their teammates any slack either. So 30-0 in IMPs translated to a 20-0 VP blitz, and our first place was assured.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Opening 2NT And Responses

 

The opening bid of 2NT sits in the twilight zone between ordinary opening bids and forcing strong openings. It has a reputation for being a “slam-killer”, in that it can be difficult to identify slam potential when the optimal contract depends upon fit. Responder knows that opener has a big hand, but 21 hcp or so can have more than one weakness, especially in a balanced hand, so he can’t go hog-wild. And there is very little room for investigation before you find yourself past game and heading into dangerous territory.

An additional complicating factor is that the distributional requirements for the 2NT opening tend to be somewhat lax. These days, the 1NT opening gets used on semi-balanced hands or maybe even with a singleton, and that sort of thing would have been heresy 30 or 40 years ago (and still is frowned upon in some quarters). But even back then, it was routine to bend the “balanced hand” rules for the 2NT opening, because the grey area between opening 1suit and opening 2C needs the help in Standard American and similar systems. (For a while, one of the cornerstone advantages of Acol as a system was its intermediate 2-bids, because they specifically addressed this region of hand-strength. But as people were seduced by weak 2-bids, that advantage was surrendered by many Acol players.) So whatever responding scheme you choose, you have to be aware that both opener and responder may not exactly be balanced.

Nevertheless, the usual responses are similar to those used over the 1NT opening. Stayman, transfers, and think of something to do with the 3S response and some way to handle minor-suit responding hands. Puppet Stayman addresses the possibility that opener has a 5-card major suit, as well as making the stronger hand declarer, so that sees quite a lot of use over 2NT. I play it with Elwood, but not with Agent 99. To be honest, I’m not as thrilled with it as I might be. I just can’t recall any hand I’ve played where we finished up in the wrong contract and I said to myself “if only we’d been playing Puppet…”. The last time I opened 2NT with a 5-card spade suit, playing with Agent 99, she answered 3H (transfer)! I bid 4S, just to make sure we got there, and we played quietly in game like everybody else. There is a memory-burden attached to Puppet, not a large one, but still, it was something that Agent 99 didn’t want to add to her repertoire when we were starting out, so we play just regular 4-card Stayman.

There are other possible approaches. I came across an old scheme of Jeremy Flint the other day. After 2NT – 3C; opener rebids:

3D = no major OR flat major OR 4-4 with diamonds

3H = hearts and clubs

3S = spades and clubs

3NT = 3334 or 3325

4C = majors, minimum

4D = majors, good controls (7+)

4H = majors, maximum points, <7>

Notice that all bids from 3H to 3NT show C, and all bids over 3NT show both majors. 3D is basically natural.

2NT – 3C – 3D – 3H (natural)

3S = 4333, 4243, 4342

3NT = no major

4C = H and D **

4H = 3433

2NT – 3C – 3D – 3S (natural)

4C = S and D **

** Note that the 4C bid shows support and D, allowing partner to bid 4D control ask (4H=5).

2NT – 3C – 3D - 3NT = 54xx.

This is kind of interesting. The opening has limited opener’s high-card strength, and the 3C inquiry seeks elucidation of his distribution. Although it looks a bit intimidating at first glance, a lot of the bidding is actually pretty natural, and the provision of control counts or inquiries for slam investigation is quite economical. The biggest weakness I see straight off is that it doesn’t seem to take account of off-shape openers, not even a 5-card major. So I don’t think anybody will be taking this up these days.

On the other hand, the other part of Flint’s responding scheme uses the 3S response to account for various minor-suit hands. Opener has to make the puppet bid of 3NT, and then responder has

4C/D = invitational

4H = xx45

4S = xx54

4NT = good 5-5 minors. 

In the original, 2NT – 3NT showed a moderate hand 5-5 in the minors, so to simply raise to 3NT you would make the 3S response, and then pass the forced 3NT rebid. This multi-purpose 3S response is still used today in some circles. At the Manhattan, the version that is sometimes taught has 2NT – 3NT as natural. The 3S response followed by 4NT shows 5-5 in the minors but is non-forcing, and 3S followed by 5C is 5-5 minors forcing to slam. Depending on who is doing the teaching, the 4C and 4D bids may be natural or may indicate the opposite minor (that is, 4C shows diamonds and 4D shows clubs). The advantage of leaving the bids as natural is that it’s one less thing to remember, and opener may be able to use Redwood or something conveniently. The idea of not bidding your suit is, of course, to allow the strong hand to be declarer. This whole thing isn’t that great, but it provides a relatively simple “one-stop shopping” solution for various hands, so it’s definitely better than nothing.

In his columns written for OKBridge, Marc Smith advocated using 3S as Minor Suit Stayman. In conjunction with this, he suggested 4C/4D as Texas transfers (for H/S, respectively), thus freeing the 4H and 4S responses to show single-suited hands with clubs and diamonds, respectively. I haven’t tried that arrangement, but if he suggests it, it must be somewhat playable.

To be honest, the best solution for the 2NT opening may be to stop using it. In ACBL territory, one of the best uses of the 2D opening may be to replace the 2NT opening. The Mexican 2D is a known convention, originally part of the Romex system. This opening shows a big balanced hand, usually 18-19 hcp, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t make that 20-21 or 21-22, or whatever your usual 2NT range is. The extra couple of bids available to responder may not seem like much gain, at first glance, but if you check out Martin Johnson’s ideas at Bobby Knows Bridge (http://www.freewebs.com/bobbybridge/), you can see how to use (in effect) four-suit transfer responses. You actually gain quite a lot of flexibility, responder being able to stop in lower part-scores when he has a bust, and also able to show more below 3NT when he has some distribution. It seems to me that the 2D opening looks much better than 2NT.

So then what do you do with the 2NT opening? Well, Alder pre-empts look good, but the ACBL would have the vapors. Transfer pre-empts are relatively innocuous, but even they are listed as a mid-chart convention. Or you could just go with 2NT showing a minor two-suiter – that actually made it to the General Convention Chart.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

lebensohl over 1NT

I can’t believe I haven’t yet posted anything about lebensohl. I have a very ambivalent, or at least confused, attitude to this convention. You really have to play it or something equivalent: just relying on natural bidding and common sense doesn’t work well enough in these situations. In principle, the convention is simple and should be easy to use. And yet, when it comes to actually using it at the table, I find that it drives the new user crazy (speaking both as a once-new user myself, and as a teacher who has had the dubious pleasure of trying to teach this thing). Perhaps the real difficulty is that while the problem situations occur often enough for you to need the convention, they don’t occur often enough for you to become comfortable with the different sequences just in at-the-table play. Some dedicated practice with customized deals is in order. Anyway, here is a quick overview.

When the opponents interfere over 1NT, responder may have difficulty describing his hand. Given that he has a suit worth mentioning, there are at least three levels of strength that he may hold: weak, invitational, and strong. And generally, he only has two bids available below 3NT, mentioning his suit at the two-level or jumping to the three-level. The lebensohl convention is a way to give him more flexibility.

The basic idea is that after a 2-level overcall, a natural bid of 2NT is very unlikely to be required. Using lebensohl, a bid of 2NT by responder is a relay, requiring opener to bid 3C. Then if responder passes (showing clubs) or bids a new suit at the 3 level, the bid is competitive or invitational. If the responder could have mentioned his suit at the two level, his three-level bid after the relay is invitational. If responder didn’t have a chance to bid his suit at the two-level, his bid after lebensohl is just competing, and opener is expected to pass. Conversely, if responder doesn’t go through the relay but bids a new suit at the 3 level directly over the overcall, that is strong and forcing. And if responder can get his suit in at the 2-level over the overcall, that is just weak.

So for example, if the bidding goes:

1NT – (2H) – 2S that is natural and weak, just competing

1NT – (2H) – 3S that is natural and strong, responder wants to be in game

1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3S that is not forcing, invitational

1NT – (2H) – 3D that is forcing with at least invitational strength

1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3D that is just competing

So far, so good, but there’s more. Another common convention, without a name that I know, is that responder can cue-bid to indicate game-going values and four cards in one or both majors (a way to make up for Stayman being lost). For example:

  • 1NT – (2H) – 3H! means I’m strong enough for game, and have four spades
  • 1NT – (2H) – 3NT means I want to be in game and I don’t have spades

The lebensohl relay can also be used in both these sequences, and the usual meaning attached is related to whether or not responder has a stopper in the enemy suit. The two possible methods are generally referred to as “fast denies” and “slow denies”. If you play “slow denies”, then the above mentioned two sequences also show a stopper in the enemy suit, hearts in the examples above. Going through the relay denies having a stopper in the enemy suit. So

  • 1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3H game-forcing with four spades, but no heart stopper
  • 1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3NT game-forcing without either spades or a heart stopper

If you play “fast denies”, the meanings are reversed: jumping to 3NT immediately over intervention actually denies having a stopper in the enemy suit. (Opener therefore has to stay awake and bid something if he too lacks a stopper). There may be an advantage to playing “fast denies” if the opposition wants to keep bidding. The immediate jumps tend to shut out advancer, and the times when responder doesn’t have a stopper are perhaps more likely to be the times you really want to do that. So, while it would seem that “slow denies” has the edge in naturalness (if there is such a word), in practice, almost everyone plays fast denies. Just for the hell of it, with Agent 99 I play “slow denies”, and so far we haven’t had any problem.

 

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Misadventures In Manhattan

Some random hands from the MBC.




West and East were a teacher and one of her students (not a beginner). My partner was one of my regular partners, but he’s not doing so well these days and this was near the end of the evening. So for multiple reasons (not least of which was I fancied our chances of making), I decided to pull his penalty double.

West was keeping a pretty good poker face and not meeting my eyes when the dummy came down. My assessment was that she thought they were in the running East-West, and she had liked the progress of the auction. Even more, she still expected to beat the contract when I ruffed the opening lead of ♠A.

The bad news is that I have no way to avoid losing the other two aces I’m missing, so I really have to pick up the trumps for just one loser. For a vulnerable jump overcall, I’m inclined to credit East with more than just ♠QJxxxx(x), so give her an ace. I’m sure that means West thinks she has two trump tricks. So, does she have four trumps, or only three? Do you feel lucky?

Like the wuss that I am, I led to the ♦10, and East showed out. If I had run the ♦6, West wasn’t going to be happy. And even worse, she had doubled 5♣ only to panic us into 5♦, and was feeling very pleased with herself that it “worked”! Small details like us preferring to play in the 9-card fit rather than the 7-card fit, and me having a chance to make the contract, seemed to pass her by. Still, the result was dead average, one way or another. 

Rats.





A few posts back I said something about big balanced responding hands being difficult to deal with. This one came up for the opponents.




With the friendly diamond lie, 7, 7♠ and 7NT all make. But even with average distributions, you want to be in 6♠. With standard American treatments, it’s not as easy as it looks, and only about half the field got past 4♠. The Jacoby 2NT response usually shows 4-card support, and if you can’t use that, then a sensible auction gets much harder. I think there’s a case for using Jacoby with 3-card support when your hand is so strong.

 

Here’s another slam hand that’s a little awkward, but I applied my usual solution – just punt.




 The ♠A got ruffed on the opening lead, and I wondered what to do next. I decided that the best chance was to hope for trumps 2-1, when I could play to get rid of dummy’s spade losers by ruffing two and throwing two away. So I laid down the ♣A, and the ♣K fell on my right. That made it pretty safe to ruff a diamond, and when both opponents followed suit, I was claiming thirteen tricks.

This would have been a good hand for the special negative 2NT response I’ve described before. I would still be punting the slam, but it would be a much better informed punt.

 

Sunday, September 20, 2009

1NT Forcing and Bart

If you play 5-card majors, it is best to play the response of 1NT as forcing for one round. While this prevents you from playing in that most admirable contract, it provides an extra round of bidding to find an accurate part-score. While most people manage without too much further elaboration, there is a case for an additional layer of artificiality. For one thing, opener’s “natural” rebids of 2C and 2D can only promise a 3-card suit at best. And after 1H – 1NT opener may be forced to bid 2C on a doubleton in a 4=5=2=2 hand that isn’t strong enough to reverse. Also, responder’s hand may be balanced and weak to invitational in strength, or it may be unbalanced, and range from weak to just under the strength needed for a 2 over 1 response (and if you play 2/1 GF, “just under” is really not a bad hand). After 1S – 1NT or 1H – 1NT, opener will make a jump rebid with a maximum opening, generally 18+hcp. There is therefore a potential problem when opener is 15-17hcp and/or responder is near his maximum, say 9-11hcp - game needs to be considered in these cases. And yet another situation arises after 1S – 1NT when responder has a 5-card heart suit and a doubleton spade – it can be difficult or impossible to identify the best part-score (two hearts or two spades).

There is more than one way to address some of these issues. Perhaps one of the simpler ideas is a convention called Bart that addresses sequences after 1S – 1NT; 2C. (The situation after 1H – 1NT isn’t quite so bad, but while a similar treatment can be applied, there are differences, and I’ll stick with the spade opening for this description). There’s more than one version of Bart floating around as well, but this version seems fairly straightforward to me.

First, the agreement can be made that opener’s 2H and 2D rebids promise at least 4 cards. The 2C rebid is then redefined as not meeting the requirements for any other bid, making it alertable as not really natural any more. Second, bidding following opener’s 2C rebid is elaborated by making responder’s 2D at this point an artificial relay (also alertable).

We need to consider how opener will bid, and also what hands responder is trying to show. First, opener’s first rebid:

1S – 1NT;

  • 2S shows 6+cards, 11-16hcp
  • 3S shows 6+cards, 17-18hcp
  • 4S shows 6+cards, 19-20hcp
  • 2NT shows 18-19hcp
  • 3C/3D/3H are natural, 4+cards, 18+hcp, forcing
  • 2D/2H are natural, 4+cards, 11-17hcp
  • 2C catches everything else, generally either clubs or a balanced hand in the 11-17hcp range

Now consider responder’s hand. Generally, the 1NT response is made on hands that are balanced, or that are unbalanced but not strong enough for an immediate 2 over 1 response. The 2D relay will be used for:

  • Balanced 10-12hcp including 4-card club support
  • Strong (9-11hcp) with clubs
  • Strong (9-11hcp) with diamonds
  • 3-card limit raise that includes 4-card club support
  • hands with 5 hearts and 2 spades

Direct bids (not using the relay) will then show

  • Balanced 10-12hcp without 4-card club support
  • Weak (5-8hcp) with clubs
  • Weak (5-8hcp) with diamonds
  • 3-card limit raise without 4-card club support 

(The exclamation is used to indicate a bid that should be alerted).

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! responder bids

  • Pass – obviously weak, should be 5+clubs and at most 1 spade
  • 2D! – artificial and forcing, generally 9+hcp but can be weak with 5 hearts and 2 spades
  • 2H – natural, weak, 6+cards, opener should not return to spades
  • 2S – natural, weak, usually a doubleton
  • 2NT – natural, invitational 10-12hcp, denies 4 clubs or 3 spades
  • 3C – natural, 5-8hcp, 5+cards, principally a courtesy raise to shut out the opponents
  • 3D – natural, 5-8hcp, to play. Weak diamond hands have to play in 3D rather than 2D, the only serious drawback to the convention.
  • 3S – limit raise with 3-card spade support, denies 4 clubs
  • 3NT – natural, 13-15hcp, denies 4 clubs or 3 spades

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! – 2D! opener defines his hand a little more:

  • 3H – 3-card hearts, 15-17hcp
  • 2NT – natural, 15-17hcp, less than 3 hearts
  • 2S – 11-15hcp, less than 3 hearts
  • 2H – 11-15hcp, 3-card hearts

If opener has bid 2NT or 3H, responder should be able to place the contract. Otherwise, responder completes his description:

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! – 2D!; 2H

  • Pass – natural, 5-card hearts
  • 2S – usually a doubleton honor with 8-10hcp
  • 2NT – natural 10-12hcp, but with 4-card club support
  • 3C – good club raise, 9-11hcp
  • 3D – invitational with good diamonds, 9-11hcp, 6+cards
  • 3H – invitational, 8-11hcp, 5+cards
  • 3S – limit raise with 3-card spades and 4-card clubs
  • 3NT – natural, 13-15hcp, includes 4-card club support
  • 4H – natural, distributional

and after that, opener should know where to go.

Laid out like this, it all looks rather intimidating. But actually, it’s quite straightforward and pretty natural, just difficult to describe concisely.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Bermuda Bowl

Well it's all over. Congratulations to USA2, China, and England.

I have to say I was surprised by both the Venice Cup and the Senior Bowl. I really did expect the French and German women to do better, and the English seniors barely squeaked into the competition (they actually were out on a tie-breaker, always a miserable state of affairs, but got in when the Netherlands withdrew). That's not to say that the winners are unworthy, far from it. The Chinese women (and the men in the Bermuda Bowl too, for that matter) were consistently strong and dangerous, and took the final by the scruff of the neck. The English seniors climbed rapidly to the top of the round robin ladder and stayed there, and showed true quality in the final when Poland jumped out to an early lead. Very well done by all.

I read somewhere that Bobby Wolff's assessment of the Bermuda Bowl knock-out was that the best eight teams had qualified, and that there wasn't a weak player to be found anywhere. I often don't agree with him, but in this case I think he was exactly right. It would be easy to glance at the final result and assume that Italy and the USA are just streets better than anybody else. But if you watched some of the competition, you would know that it's much closer than in some prior years. All eight of the teams in the knock-out were very strong indeed, and if Italy and the USA are the strongest, it's not by very much of a margin.


Thursday, September 10, 2009

Bermuda Bowl

OK, time for the finals. My picks for the knock-out stages didn't pan out too well (not a surprise, really). But I did name the Open finalists (Italy - USA2) like most people. I did pick Poland to win the Senior Bowl, although I didn't think they'd be playing against England - go team! And I was kind of close for the women - I picked USA1 and China as the losing semi-finalists, but instead they both made it to the final. Oh well.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Bermuda Bowl

Two matches left in the round robin, and eleven teams are fighting for eight spots in the knock-out phase. Japan is one of my original picks, and they are currently 11th, with a lot of work to do, but I'll be cheering them on. Unfortunately, if they get in, they'll be supplanting some other one of my picks (China or Germany or the Netherlands), so I can't win.

England still way ahead in the Senior Bowl. I watched a little of them the other day, and wasn't greatly impressed. But obviously when I'm not looking, they're doing very well. So I better continue to not look.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Oddments

The odd and interesting moments in my games seem to happen most often when I’m playing with Elwood, these days. Here are a few samples (nothing very deep).

Nobody vulnerable, the bidding goes
Pass Pass 1H   Pass
2H   3S   3NT  Pass
Pass Dble Pass Pass
Pass
Sitting in fourth seat, I couldn’t imagine what sort of hand Elwood could have that would pass in second seat and then come to life so violently. Did he find a couple of spades mixed in with his clubs? But I had a couple of spades and AJTxxx of clubs, maybe another Q or something somewhere, so there was nothing to do except sit for it and lead a spade. Declarer wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he managed nine tricks without any real trouble, and Elwood said I was really thin for my double. “You doubled, not me” I said. “No, your takeout double” he said, and the light dawned, at least a little bit. Pass is bright green, and the Double card is bright red, and Elwood is not color-blind. But somehow he hallucinated a takeout double on the first round, and the illusion persisted through the auction, even though I’m pretty neat about how I put my bids out on the table and there were two or three pregnant pauses as almost everyone (three out of four people, anyway) wondered what was going on with these unusual bids. We still have no explanation.

The other week, the Welland team visited the MBC for an evening pairs game (change of pace?). Christal Henner and Uday Ivatury sat N-S, and for the second of our two boards against them, I picked up as dealer:

  ♠ K
  9 5
  7 6 5 
  ♣ A K Q 10 5 3 2

Both sides were vulnerable. I decided that against that pair, a very sound 3 pre-empt was in order. Passed out and down one, slightly above average since several pairs reached game in a major their way (both make). But I wonder how I would have bid the hand against a pair of palookas?

In case you were wondering, Andrew Stark and Franco Baseggio sat E-W, and won quite convincingly with a 72% score. Elwood and I were their nearest competition, second on 65%.

We continue to have a love-hate relationship with the weak no-trump. Both of us like the bid, but the bid seems to hate us: we continually run into penalty situations with it when we play together, although we don’t when we play with other people. But we’re fighting back:

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

N    E    S    W
     1NT  Pass Pass
Dble Pass Pass Pass

Elwood could have run to 2♣, but actually that would have been worse. As it was, South led the ♠7 to North’s ♠K, and the ♠3 came back to the ♠A. With three spade tricks visible and two hearts coming, I decided I needed a club and a diamond. So tricks three and four were a club – 4, 3, K, 2 – and a diamond – 2, 4, 6, 9. The full hand:

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

The reason why I’m reporting the hand is that (while I had no idea of it at the time) the two defenders have become completely disconnected by those two tricks. North could still have defeated me by switching to hearts, but she persisted with another spade, and that was seven tricks for me. It’s a classic case, really: the N-S assets would be much easier to handle if they were split more evenly. North is too good.

How about a hand where you push to slam with just two small trumps?

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

N    E    S    W
     1   Pass 2♣
Pass 2   Pass 2♠
Pass 2NT  Pass 3♠
Pass 4♣   Pass 4NT
Pass 6♣   All pass

The 2♣ response is forcing to game, so the 4♣ bid is Minorwood 1430, and 4NT showed two keycards plus the ♣Q. I was very nervous bidding the slam, though. I liked my controls, and didn’t think it could be right to settle for 3NT. But in clubs the K might be vulnerable, and in no-trumps I might not have enough tricks. In the end, I decided that clubs would probably be safer (a spade ruff might be vital), so 6♣ was the bid.

In fact spades were 3-3 with the Q onside, and clubs broke 3-2, so twelve tricks were easy in three denominations. But we were actually the only pair to bid any slam.

Bermuda Bowl

I haven't felt much like blogging lately, but I thought I would keep this thing alive by commenting on the World Championships. I don't rub elbows with very exalted company, in bridge circles, so I have no more information or insight than the average Joe Public bridge player. But I have enough experience and a varied enough background to make these international competitions  fascinating for me to watch. I'm spending as much time as I can on VuGraph at BBO, and I find myself unable to stick with just one match at a time. I can't resist flitting across the three or four matches that seem the most interesting match-ups.

Before it started, I picked Italy to win over USA2, with the Netherlands and USA1 as the losing semi-finalists, and Germany, Japan, Norway and China losing in the quarter-finals. Those picks aren't looking too great at the moment. We're about two-thirds through the round-robin, and Japan, USA1 and Germany have a lot of work to do to make the quarter-finals. Instead, Bulgaria, Russia and Argentina are currently in the top eight in the standings.

It's amazing to me how good the teams are, generally. I don't get over-awed and fawn like some bloggers I could mention, but I appreciate that some pairs are a class above the average expert. And it seems to me that a lot of the teams are fielding two or three pairs that are genuinely that good. I mean, Chagas and his pals from Brazil are not what anyone would call deadwood in any competition, and they're currently languishing 18th out of 22 teams . I mean, holy shit, 18th? I've been reading the blogs of Sartaj Hans and Cathy Chua and one or two other people who generally are concerned with how Australia and New Zealand don't seem to be able to step up to the winning circle at these very top levels. I have to admit, looking through the results so far, it does indeed look as if the 22 teams are separating into the top 8 or 10, the next 8 or 10, and the bottom 3 or 4. And Australia and New Zealand seem to be firmly planted in the middle, and if you don't get into the knock-out, you're not going to win. But that doesn't mean they're all chumps, either. When you look, they're both ahead of Brazil - in fact, they're both ahead of USA1, which must be rattling some cages in ACBL-land. USA1 cleaned everybody's clock in the US Trials, and comprise some of the best players in America, and realistically they have no chance of making the knock-out at this point. That must hurt.

To look on the brighter side, I'll say that I don't think Fantunes or Meckwell have really turned it on yet, so my Italy-USA2 final still looks very possible to me and still looks like a cracking match. I'll also say that I've been very impressed by Norway. I knew they were good, of course, but they're actually missing a couple of their best pairs for this competition, and they still look capable of kicking pretty much anybody's ass. Boye Brogeland seems to be one of relatively few players in this round-robin who aren't afraid to pull out the red card when the opponents are getting out of line - good for him.

I haven't seen much of the women (Venice Cup) or the seniors (D'Orsi Senior Bowl). I watched a little of Sabine Auken and Daniela von Arnim a couple of days, and was distinctly under-whelmed. They seemed to be playing very much below their best. And I haven't really looked at the seniors at all. But I'll have to take a look now - England are currently at the top of the standings, and it would be distinctly unpatriotic to ignore them. Rule Britannia!

Friday, August 21, 2009

A lucky result

A session with Elwood highlighted what I consider to be a problem area for our bidding (and for bidding with all my other partners too, for that matter). What do you do with a big balanced hand as responder?

E-W game, dlr E

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


E    S    W    N
1   pass 2♣   pass
2   pass 2NT  pass
3NT  all pass

The opening lead was a small heart, and I was quickly able to claim all thirteen tricks. That was a very good score, of course, with no slam making, but nobody at the table was happy. Elwood says I have to do more with my (West) hand, and I agree.

Since 2♣ is game forcing, I can aim for 6 and show my good diamond support at the three level, and cue bidding should take us safely to 5. That's a case of the operation being successful but the patient dying, because it doesn't score nearly as well as 3NT. The problem I see is that we almost certainly will have trouble identifying that we have a spade stopper, although the cue bids will highlight that we don’t have a control for slam. So finding an alternate resting place (say, 4NT) won’t be likely to happen.

Alternatively, I could push for 6NT, say by raising 3NT to 4NT as an invitation. The problem with that is Elwood’s hand is good for his bidding to that point. So we might well finish in a failing slam.

Maybe this hand is just a brute to deal with. But I think there is a real difficulty with very strong, balanced responding hands that don’t have an immediate fit with opener’s minor. We need to be able to identify stoppers, and fits, and also get into cue bidding when necessary. On some sequences we might be able to do all that, but a lot of the time I don’t think we’ll manage it.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Reverse Flannery Revisited

A couple of posts ago, I had a fairly incoherent ramble about jump-shift responses, and I said I thought Reverse Flannery sounded like a fair-to-good idea. Well, Agent 99 and I are now playing it, but in a very abbreviated form. Essentially, 1minor - 2H shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, 6-8hcp. 1minor - 2S shows the same but with 9-11hcp. Neither bid is forcing, and opener is more or less expected to set the contract at his second bid. The only forcing rebid from opener would be 2NT, but we haven't yet defined how responder would reply to that, which sounds a bit odd - how can we play like that? - but the truth is, a detailed description of distribution is not entirely necessary, and the 3-point strength ranges are tight enough that narrowing the range seems a bit superfluous. I guess we'll go with something like:

3C - 5=4=1=3 or 5=4=0=4

3D - 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=4=0

3H - 5=5-2-1 or 5=5-3-0

3S - 6=4-2-1 or 6=4-3-0

3NT - 5=4=2=2

That should be easy enough to remember. And if the 2NT bid implies a fit with one or both majors, plus game interest, that should be the most critical information needed for picking the best game.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Misadventures In Manhattan

Here are some random hands from the MBC.

Lionel has only come up a couple of times so far, but we’ve picked up matchpoints both times.

Love all, dlr S

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


S    W    N    E
Pass pass 1NT  2♣
2♠   3♣   3♠   pass
pass 4♣   all pass

I took both finesses and finished up with eleven tricks, for a top shared with just one other pair. Only one other pair played in clubs – all the other scores were N-S playing spades. You can argue that this owes more to Agent 99 pushing the bidding, rather than to Lionel, but knowing that I held hearts and clubs let her see that all her meager assets were working. All the chumps playing DONT and Cappelletti were not nearly so well placed.

I finally had a good session with Elwood (69%). There were some interesting hands.

N-S Game, dlr N

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


N    E    S    W
1♠   pass 1NT  Dble
3♠   pass 4♠   all pass

Elwood found the ♣7 opening lead, which declarer passed to my ♣K. I deciphered the club position correctly, and switched to the K to remove dummy’s side entry while the clubs were still blocked, and declarer seemed to me (and to him) to be doomed to one down. That felt good, because if I play Elwood for a singleton, there’s a fair chance the contract will make. But what was more interesting was after the game: the computer analysis says that 4♠ makes against any defence. Eventually, I realized that declarer has to win the A and cash all of the trumps, which crushes the West hand.

          ♠ -
          Q 7
          6
          ♣ Q
♠ -                   ♠ -
A K        [ ]      10 9 6
Q                   7
♣ J 9                 ♣ -
          ♠ -
          J
          9
          ♣ A 10 

In the diagram, West still has to find another discard, and he hasn’t got one. If he throws a heart, the ♣Q is cashed, and he becomes a stepping stone to the ♣A – no other discard is any better. Fortunately, declarer wasn’t up to this, and truthfully, I don’t know if I would have found it either. Squeeze play springs to mind when you are one or two tricks away from your contract, but there’s something about having to lose two tricks after the squeeze card that makes this hard for me to see. I just didn’t recognize that the West hand would be in trouble with four or five tricks still to play.

Our one really bad board was me screwing up as declarer.

N-S game, dlr E

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

N    E    S    W
     Pass pass 1♠
Dble 3♠   pass 4♠
all pass

Elwood’s raise is pre-emptive, so really I should probably pass. But this was our ninth board, and I knew we were running hot – no scores yet below average, and several near-tops. I liked my controls, and I liked the look of the opponents (not too strong). The opening lead was the ♠9, and I saw that I had lucked into a fair dummy (Elwood is not especially shy about his pre-emptive raises).

This hand could be a topic for one of my lectures, because it’s all about planning. If you count your tricks, you can see five spades, one heart, one club. If you ruff two clubs in dummy, that will bring your total to nine – you will still need a diamond trick. North’s double places at least one diamond honor onside, so leading towards dummy will work, although you may need to do it twice. If spades are 2-2, you can probably manage all this, but if spades are 3-1, you are likely to run into trouble because you will have to use a trump or two for entry to your hand during the ruffing process. If you leave the diamond trick until the end, you will probably run out of trumps, and see them cash a side winner when they win the A or K. So you need to start the diamonds earlier, but then they may draw a third round of trumps for you, or they may be able to arrange a diamond ruff for themselves. So you probably are only making if the diamonds are 3-3, when there is no ruff for them and there are two diamond tricks for you if they hold you to one ruff. But in that case, you might as well just draw trumps yourself, and plan to make two diamond tricks if the trumps are 3-1. There are multiple chances for two diamond tricks, even if they break 4-2, because you have the
9.

Not difficult if you think about it the right way, but I didn’t. I played too quickly and went down one for a shared bottom. Making the contract, which only three pairs bid, would have been a shared top.

N-S game, dlr E

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


N    E    S    W
     Pass pass 1♠
Dble 3♠   pass 4♠
all pass

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Jump-shift responses

I'm at a bit of a down-spike at the moment. Real life is interfering with Agent 99's availability for playing bridge, and Elwood actually has a real job, so his availability is always limited. I don't care to fill my days with meaningless games as a house player or whatever, so the end result is I'm not playing so often myself. Bummer.

My usual pastime in this sort of situation is to trawl the internet for interesting bridge ideas. Sartaj Hans (The Imp Chimp) is looking for best practices to do with training, and related stuff. Having no great ideas myself, I'm waiting to see what everybody else comes up with, so I can steal it. Cathy Chua seems to be taking a few days off. So I'm reduced to either working on class notes to give to beginners, finding material for lectures to give near-beginners (which is way too much like work), or digging for the odd bidding convention that I might be able to persuade Agent 99 or Elwood to play.

An area that has some scope for Agent 99 and myself is the jump-shift response. We don't play 2/1 responses as game-forcing, so there is an argument for using strong jump-shift responses to identify certain strong hand types immediately and facilitate slam investigation. (I don't believe that the old-fashioned approach of using a jump-shift on any hand past a certain point-count is productive. If you are going to use them at all, restrict them to one of two sorts of hands: either a self-sufficient suit or a sort of fit-jump with good support for opener's suit. Which of the two it is gets clarified very quickly and you can proceed with the slam investigation without feeling the effects of the lost round of bidding.) But the truth is, neither of us is greatly enamored of strong jump-shifts, and so mostly we play pre-emptive.

After minor suit openings, we play inverted raises, where the simple raise is 10+hcp and the jump raise is 4-6hcp with 4+ (probably 5+) card support. The criss-cross raises (1D-3C and 1C-2D) are used for pre-emptive raises in the 7-9hcp range. This seems to be a slightly unusual use of the criss-cross raises - I made it up one day when I became dissatisfied with the wide (possibly) range of the pre-emptive raise. Since we play a weak no-trump, opener may be looking at a decent balanced hand (a strong no-trump opening), and he really would like to know if a pre-emptive raise is on the kamikaze edge or is maybe close to a forcing raise.

At the moment, all other jump-shift responses are simple pre-empts, showing 6+cards and 0-5hcp. (I don't believe in pre-empting partner unless my hand is really, really bad.)

An idea that might work is Reverse Flannery. After a minor suit opening, if responder has 5+cards in spades and 4+cards in hearts, he is not well placed for getting his distribution described accurately, especially when he is not too strong. Reverse Flannery uses the jump-shift responses of 2H and 2S to cover these hands, 2H being (say) 6-9hcp and 2S being 10-12 (or maybe just 10+) . 2NT can be used as a relay/distribution inquiry, similarly as in the original Flannery convention, if opener wants the details of what responder has. I have no experience with this, and I don't know anyone who plays it, but it sounds like a very reasonable idea, and a solution to a genuine (if not all that common) problem. Of course weak responding hands frequently cannot describe their distribution, but when they hold both majors, we should try and find a way for them to manage it. There are some details to be worked out before we try and play this. Maybe we should make the ranges 6-8 and 9-11, and make both bids non-forcing, on the grounds that if you're 12+hcp you'll manage anyway.

Adopting some version of that would take care of all the jump-shifts after minor-suit openings. There's still the question of what to do after major-suit openings. I can't believe simple pre-empts are such a great idea - I can't even remember ever bidding one, or hearing one from Agent 99.

At the moment, my plan is to talk her into using them as fit-jumps - essentially, limit raises with a decent side-suit. That's not too sexy, but I'm not interested in Bergen raises (or variations thereof)  because I don't believe in the Law (I'm an LTC fan, myself). Elwood persuaded me that mini-splinters weren't a good idea in practice (although they have some attraction in theory). And I haven't come across any other particularly great ideas yet. Maybe strong jump-shifts by unpassed hands and fit-jumps by passed hands? That might work.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Misadventures In Manhattan

The dealing machine engaged its slam option the other night. I was playing with an occasional partner who doesn’t manage bidding much more sophisticated than major suit transfers. He compensates by punting when we seem to be in the ballpark, so we had some notably short slam bidding sequences.

This one came up in the first round.

E-W Game, dlr E

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


N    E    S    W
     1NT  pass 4♣
pass 4NT  pass 6NT
all pass

South tried a short-suit lead, so the A appeared at trick one. I agonized over which high spade to cash, and eventually got it wrong by cashing the king (I was tricked by the opening lead, honest). Fortunately, North had the right singleton to make the slam cold, and we got a top because everybody else chose to play in spades for some reason.

This one came up for the opponents in the second round.

E-W Game, dlr N

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


N    E    S    W
1   3   ?

I’m not sure how N-S should proceed. Our opponents made no real effort, and played quietly in 4, wrapping up 13 tricks in no time as declarer nonchalantly dropped my doubleton trump queen. We had some company, but that was below average as only one pair managed to bid a slam, any slam. Thirteen tricks are available in spades, hearts and clubs: bidding a small slam should be possible, surely. If South doubles, North cuebids 4, South shows heart support. Now North has to be interested in 6♠. He knows that there is a double fit, and he has first round control of the other suits. Maybe a jump to 5♠ would ask about the quality of the spade suit at this point (because North has already cuebid the enemy suit). South should have no worries on that score.

In the third round, it was our turn again.

E-W game, dlr S (rotated for convenience)

  ♠ A 9 4
  -
  A 9 7 6
  ♣ K Q J 7 5 3

  []  
   
  ♠ K Q 8 2
  Q 7 2
  K Q 10 3 2
  ♣ 2


S    W    N    E
1   pass 2♣   pass
2   pass 6   all pass

The diamond rebid on a 5-card suit is a matter of personal style – I know some people would prefer 2NT, and 2/1 bidders might bid 2♠ (not showing extra strength, just shape). But using primitive bidding, 2 seems like the simplest and most honest bid to me, even without 6 cards. With all his controls, that was enough to push partner to slam. And with diamonds 2-2 and clubs 3-3, there were no obstacles to 12 tricks. Only one other pair bid this slam, and I’m not entirely sure why. It’s true that I only have an ace-less 12-count, but that hand’s an opening bid every day of the week. E-W might have spoken up in hearts, and that might have put some people off. But at the vulnerability, they wouldn’t go leaping about, and seeing a void in their suit ought to have interested North. So I don’t know.

This one came up on the last hand of the evening. The dealer had gone quiet for a couple of rounds, so as we pulled the cards from the board, partner said “OK Richard, let’s finish with another slam”.

Love all, dlr S (rotated for convenience)

  ♠ A J 7 6 2
  A K 7 4
  10 3
  ♣ A J

  []  
   
  ♠ K 8
  Q 9
  A K 8 7 6
  ♣ K 9 5 3


S    W    N    E
1NT  pass 6NT  all pass

I nearly fell off my chair laughing when he made his bid. There was no hesitation at all. “Let’s have a slam”. Bang, 6NT.

As usual, he bid like this when my 15-17 1NT was at the 15 end of the range. But this time, we didn’t quite have a suit fit, although all the suits had some possibilities. West thought for a long time, and finally produced the 5 – 4, 10, Q.

I wasn’t sure what to make of that lead: it didn’t feel like a simple 4th-highest. But anyway, there are only 9 top tricks, and spades might supply all 3 extras if this was to be a really lucky hand. So the obvious plan was to test them first: ♠K, ♠8 to the ♠J, ♠A and East discards a small club. I cleared the spades, discarding two diamonds as East gave up a second club. Another long pause from West, and the J eventually appeared – 3, 4, A. And I wondered how to proceed.

  ♠ 7
  A K 7
  10
  ♣ A J

  []  
   
  ♠ -
  9
  K 8
  ♣ K 9 5 3

You need all 7 tricks, and you have 6 winners. Obviously the club finesse seems a fair bet, West having discarded a couple. But he’s good as well as tricky – could he have started with 5 clubs? You have good menaces in hearts and clubs, and a weak menace in diamonds. Maybe if you cross to the ♣A, cash the ♠7, come back to the ♣K, cash the top hearts. That would give you the right configuration for a double squeeze, assuming the long heart is to your left and the long club to your right.

But I really didn’t believe that was the situation. And if the squeeze wasn’t double, then I wasn’t confident that I knew what simple squeeze I could go for. So in the end, I decided that if I believed that the clubs were on my left, I should go with the simpleton line of the club finesse.

Love all, dlr S (rotated for convenience)

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

Actually, East would have been squeezed in the red suits if I cashed all the black suit winners. I probably should have figured it out, but it was the end of the evening and my brain was seizing up. The club finesse was right anyway, so 12 tricks rolled home and we got another top – nobody else bid this one.

   

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Reverse Drury

With Elwood I play 2/1, and Drury is one of his favorite conventions.

Systems that use sound first and second seat openings (particularly 2/1) often use light opening bids in third and fourth seat. It is not uncommon these days to see third seat openings on 8 counts, but usually a light opening is in the 10-12 HCP range. The expert style is to always open in a real suit in third seat if the hand is light, so four-card major openings are common. In responding to these light openings, you need to have a way of showing a near opener (good 9 to bad 12 HCP hand) with support for opener’s suit without going past the two level. The Drury response of 2C fills this need. In the original version of Drury, a rebid of 2D showed a minimum opening, other rebids showed a full opener (12+ HCP). Using Reverse Drury, opener rebids his suit to show a light opening (he may have to rebid a four card suit) or rebids 2D with a full opener, but perhaps only four cards in the suit opened. After the 2D rebid the responder may bid up to three of opener’s suit with four card support, after the rebid of the major he is asked to pass except with an exceptionally good passed hand.

Responses by a passed hand

After pass – 1S; ?
• 1NT - semi-forcing, up to 11-12 HCP. Opener passes if light or 5332 shape with 12-13 HCP
• 2D/H - not forcing, decent 5 card suits, 9-11 HCP. Deny three spades
• 2S - normal single raise, not constructive, limited to a bad 9 count
• 2NT - 4 card spade support and 9-11 HCP with a singleton somewhere. Opener relays to discover the singleton
• 3C - shows 6 clubs and about 10-11 HCP. The hand type is a flawed initial preempt (two side cards or bad suit are possibilities).
• 3D/H - a flower bid (4 card support for spades, decent 5 card side suit, near opener).
• 3S - this is preemptive, something like SJxxxx Hx Dxx CQxxxx

• 2C - any hand of 10-12 HCP with three plus spades, could be a good 9 count with 4 trumps and a ruffing value (Reverse Drury)

Responses after a 1H opening are essentially the same, except that with 4+ spades and only 3 hearts you should generally prefer a 1S response to a Drury response.

All 2C responses are Drury, even after intervention. For example,
Pass – (pass) – 1S – (1NT); 2C is Drury

Drury sequences: Pass – 1S; 2C - ?

• 2D - full opener, may be a suit also, but presumed to be a flattish 12-14 hand. Responder continues:
     o 2H - natural, 5 card suit, usually only 3 spades, not forcing, suggests hearts as alternate trumps
     o 2S - usual rebid, 3 or four spades, not forcing
     o 2NT - natural, 11-12 HCP, only 3 spades
     o 3S - strong game invite, 4+ good spades
     o 3 bids - short suit game tries, singleton or small doubleton 

• 2H - natural, does not guarantee a full opener, could be a light 55 hand for example
• 2S - a light opener, less than 12 HCP
• 2NT - 15-17 HCP with 5332 shape
• 3C/D/H/S - slam tries, new suits are natural
• 3NT - balanced 18-20
• 4x - short suit slam tries
• 4S - a common rebid, no slam interest but enough extra to play game.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Lionel

I was somewhat upset when I realized that Multi-Landy is a Mid-Chart convention per the ACBL. And when I checked, they won’t let me and Agent 99 play it at the Manhattan (not in the afternoons, anyway – we might be able to get away with it in the evenings, because the usual evening crowd is more sophisticated). Apparently, the 2D overcall to show an unspecified major suit is more than the average little old lady should be able to defend herself against. I think that’s bullshit, but I think the blame lies with the ACBL, not the Manhattan. If the Multi 2D had been legal in the US for the last 40 years, neither it nor Multi-Landy would be raising any eyebrows anywhere in the US.

I want to use decent tools. If I have to follow ACBL strictures, fine, but we’re going with Lionel.

Double shows 11+hcp, a two- (or possibly three-) suited hand that includes 4 or 5 spades. The defined minimum is 4-4 in two suits, one of which is spades, but against a strong no-trump I think we should stick to at least 5-4 (although spades might be the 4-carder) or extra high cards. Against a weak no-trump, you can be as adventurous as you like. If responder passes, advancer with 11+hcp can (and probably should) pass also, converting the double for penalties. (This implies that overcaller shouldn’t shade his point-count, only the distribution.) If that doesn’t look attractive but he likes spades, advancer can bid spades at what seems like the best level, or can bid a new suit at the 3-level as a splinter raise of spades (game-try). If he doesn’t like spades, with a weakish hand he should bid his cheapest 4-card suit and we’ll try to find somewhere to play at a low level. With a really good hand, he can bid 2NT, suggesting “game somewhere”, and overcaller should show his second suit.

Overcalling 2C shows clubs and hearts, overcalling 2D shows diamonds and hearts, as mentioned above promising only 4+4+ cards but usually better. Neither overcall is forcing. A 2NT overcall is the Unusual No Trump, showing both minors 5+5+ cards. And that takes care of all the two-suited hands. All of those bids, including the double, need to be alerted, but they are all legal per the ACBL General Convention Chart.

And all the other overcalls are natural. 2H and 2S could be 5 cards against a weak no-trump, but will usually show a 6+card suit. Three-level overcalls would be natural and 6+cards.

The method doesn’t change with the strength of the opening 1NT. But the weaker 1NT is, the more aggressive the overcalls can be. I have the feeling that this could be much more destructive than Multi-Landy, but that’s the way the ACBL wants to play.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Splinters

I think one of my lectures sometime soon is going to be about splinter bids. There are a number of the low-ranked players who show up for one or more of the 299er games who don’t seem to know anything about them (not especially surprising, since I’m sure splinters don’t feature in the beginner or intermediate classes). But some splinters should be simple enough for them to manage without too many disasters. I’m thinking those from paragraph 1 below, and maybe paragraph 2.

Splinter bids are bids that (by agreement) show shortness. There are a large number of possible bidding sequences where a splinter can usefully be defined. Some are commonly known and used, others are less common and typically only used by regular partnerships. In general, it pays to take a little time to define a fairly wide variety of splinters, and use them as often as possible, for a couple of reasons. First, the overhead cost is low: the bids defined to be splinters typically have no other particularly good meaning, and the memory-burden is generally small (for that reason). Second, the payoff can be quite large. Knowledge of a singleton or void in partner’s hand allows a much more focused assessment of your values, which can lead to games and slams on relatively low point-count when assets are working, and also to good stops when combined high point-counts are not fitting so well.

All splinters are alertable, whether or not most people play them.

1) The splinter bids that everyone knows are 4-level responses to a major-suit opening. For example, 1H – 4D! shows a game-raise of hearts that includes a singleton diamond. To give this better definition, we should note that this sort of raise is laying some groundwork for slam bidding, so the raise to game needs to be full-strength: 10+hcp, no more than 7 losers on the LTC, and including 4-card trump support. That doesn’t make it excessively strong, and with many hands, opener will merely return to game and that will be the end of the auction. But even with a near-minimum, opener may want to investigate if it looks like the hands fit well. The Losing Trick Count is a better guide, but a rule for high card points is that slam will usually be a good bet if you can count 27 points in the combined hands counting only the ace in the splinter suit, or with 24 points and no high cards in the splinter suit. (This rule guarantees that you will not be off two cashable aces or the ace and king of a suit.) The one sequence I always mention to a new partner is 1S – 4H. I like to play that as a splinter raise of spades, some people like to play it as natural. I can live with it either way (for one session), but I really hate playing 4H in a 3-1 “fit”.

2) A similar sort of splinter happens the other way round, in sequences that begin 1minor – 1major. For example, in the sequence
1C – 1H; 4D!
opener is showing a game-raise of hearts that includes a singleton diamond. Typically, opener’s hand will not only be in the upper range (16+hcp) but will also include length in his first-bid suit. Responder should be aware of the possibility of a double-fit, if he has some support. A special case is sometimes called an auto-splinter: this where opener “splinters” in his own suit, for example
1C – 1H; 4C!
This sort of sequence should show a solid 6-card suit, 4-card support for responder, and an unspecified singleton in one of the other two suits.

3) Some bids of a new suit at the 3-level can also be defined as splinters, similar to those just mentioned but forcing only to 3 of responder’s major. For example,
1C – 1H; 3D!
doesn’t have an obvious natural meaning, since 2D would be a reverse and so opener doesn’t need to jump to show strength. I recommend that this and similar sequences be played as splinters supporting the major. Some attention has to be paid, since some sequences are needed for natural bidding, for example 1D – 1H; 3C looks similar, superficially, but opener is just showing clubs and a good hand. I don’t think there is much real risk of a misunderstanding, because the general rule is that if a bid might be natural, it is. It’s only the “jump reverses” and other such oddities that become splinters.

4) Any unusual jumps (often a jump in a sequence that is already forcing) should probably be treated as a splinter. For instance, playing inverted minors,
1C – 2C; 3H!
should be a splinter where opener is 16+ and is suggesting game or slam in clubs, and alerting responder to only try 3NT if he has the hearts well-covered. 
1NT – 2D; 2H – 4C!
should imply a 6-card heart suit and be a mild slam try, since just bidding 3C would show a club suit and be forcing. This rule of thumb can be applied in competitive auctions, also, although I’m sure some partnership discussion is needed. But whether you are the opening side or the overcalling side, there are a lot of sequences where a jump or double-jump in a new suit makes no sense normally and can be used as a splinter raise of partner.

5) Splinters typically show singletons. They can also show voids, which can cause problems. A solution for the 1major – 4x type of splinter (paragraph 1) is to set aside the cheapest triple-jump bid as a void splinter, showing a void in an unspecified suit. The 3NT response (currently unused) comes into play for this. So
1H – 3S and 1S – 3NT
are the void splinters. Opener bids the next step as a relay for responder to show where the void is (bidding 4 of the trump suit to show the suit that isn’t available to bid below game level):
1H – 3S; 3NT – 4C/D/H void in clubs, diamonds or spades respectively
1S – 3NT; 4C – 4D/H/S void in diamonds, hearts or clubs respectively
The only singleton splinter that is compromised by this scheme is 1H – 3S. That is fixed by using 1H – 3NT as (specifically) a splinter showing a singleton spade.

This idea has a little bit more memory-burden than basic splinters, but it does clear up an (admittedly rare) issue using only otherwise-unused bids.

I play all of this stuff with Elwood. Agent 99 wouldn't go for the void splinters, but Elwood has a mischievous streak.