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.
Friday, August 21, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)