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.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Coffee house

Just a quickie.

I directed two games at once today, the first time I've done that. There was an open game of 14 tables, and a 299er game of 4 tables. I seemed to be horrendously busy all afternoon, but actually things went pretty well.

There was one interesting ruling which has prompted this post. Halfway through a hand, a defender leads a spade through declarer, and LHO wins the trick with the queen. Declarer says "I couldn't see your card; did you win the king?". LHO subsequently lays down the ace of spades, thinking that his partner has the king. But near the end, the king of spades appears from declarer's hand.

I haven't seen a coffee-house like that in quite a while.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Crawling Stayman

Here’s a hand that came up in a pairs session with Elwood.

N-S Vulnerable, dealer West
♠ K Q J 4
J 10
A K J 9
♣ K 10 5

  []

♠ 10 8 6 5
9 7 4 2
4 3
♣ 8 6 3

W    N    E    S
1♣   1NT  Pass Pass
Pass

There was no way for Elwood to make his contract, despite his high point count. -100 didn’t get very many matchpoints at all, though, because several pairs playing our way made impossible contracts, and several others registered small pluses as E-W “won” the contract but found they couldn’t make much either.

Elwood wasn’t happy, and I was very embarrassed. With my other partners, I play the usual Garbage Stayman. On this hand, I considered the bid, but rejected it, on the grounds that if the answer from North was 2, I wouldn’t have anywhere to go. But at Elwood’s insistence, many months ago, I had agreed to play a variation he calls Crawling Stayman. In this version, a bid of 2 over the 2 reply doesn’t promise more than a 4-card suit. Opener (or overcaller, in this case) is expected to correct from 2 to 2♠ in the event that he holds a doubleton heart. Of course, this isn’t something that comes up very often, but there’s very little downside, and it just so happens to work very well on this particular hand. The crawling mechanism doesn’t come into play, but because it is available, South can bid 2♣. The answer of 2♠ finds the one contract that N-S can make against any defence.

And I just forgot all about it. Completely. Never even entered my mind.

I hate it when that happens.

I think, in general, I’m pretty good about remembering the different systems I play with my various partners. I have two regular partners, and two fairly regular but somewhat less frequent ones (including Elwood). And then again I play occasional games with all sorts of people as I fill my roles as TD/house player. No two of them play exactly the same stuff, except maybe the 299ers when I have to fill in the movement in their game. But my recent experiences with Elwood are ruining my self-image, and maybe my reputation. He is one of the most intense and thoughtful players in the club (the biggest fault he ever gets accused of is over-thinking things, which isn’t a complaint you hear too often at the club level). I love that in a partner, and I’m more than willing to listen to what he wants in our bidding system. I know that anything he brings up will have been considered, usually in great detail, and often in some directions and situations that wouldn’t have occurred to me. I do get my ideas in, of course, and veto some of his, but the end result is that our bidding system is probably 60%-40% his ideas versus mine. I’m sure it’s very good, but the result of this mixture is that there’s a memory burden on me that I haven’t successfully addressed. With him, I’ve agreed to play stuff that I don’t play with anybody else – and I’m failing in my obligation to remember it all.

So this is coming at an awkward time, and it’s the wrong time of year anyway, but I’m making a resolution. I resolve to document our frigging system, and read the system summary before every session. I think I remember stuff better after I’ve written it down in my own words. And if that doesn’t work, I’ll blame Mad Cow Disease and English roast beef.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Congratulations

It may compromise my mild attempts at "anonymizing" him, but I can't let pass without comment that Elwood has been getting some great results lately. In the recent World Wide Bridge Contest, he actually placed second in the world - a terrific achievement. Very well done.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Big hand

I just wanted to publish this hand, because it gave Elwood agita at the table while I just cruised through a slam. Entirely different subjective experiences for North and South.


Game N-S, dealer South
♠ J 7 x
Q x x x x
x x 
♣ 7 x x

  []

♠ A K Q x
-
K J
♣ A K Q 8 x x x

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

A opening lead.

When Elwood bid 3, East asked if it was a “second negative”. I said I thought so, but wasn’t entirely sure. Elwood gave me a bit of a look, and then when I bid 6♣ he was about ready to chew the table. Of course we had discussed this, of course 3 was negative, and I was going to need a very strong hand to make even five clubs (all this as he slammed his cards down).

Well, I was trying not to laugh, as I thanked him for his huge dummy. Three trumps and the J♠! Magic. That South hand has to be one of the strongest I’ve seen for a while – one loser on the LTC.

The bad news was that trumps were 3-0, but the good news was that the first discard on my left was the 8. Reverse attitude, said the polite pro on my right. So a diamond to the K quickly wrapped up twelve tricks. His client sitting West had failed to interfere holding seven diamonds, Q 10 x x x x x. Our teammates managed to bid on those cards, and East ducked smoothly on the lead from dummy, giving declarer at the other table virtually no chance to get the diamond position right.

Elwood was slightly mollified by my making the contract, but he still hasn't forgiven me for the "not sure" comment.