Reviewing Shep's 2/1 at www.bridgementor.com, I see that the opening sequence 1D – 2C is not treated as a game-force. That strikes me as probably a good idea, since the 2/1 GF structure works best with the major suit openings and the forcing 1NT response. When I play with Elwood, 1D – 2C is a game force, and as a consequence 1D – 3C has to be invitational, showing a 6-card suit, and non-forcing. That is playable, but it introduces an asymmetry into the treatment of 1C and 1D openings that I find aesthetically dissatisfying. If 1D – 2C is not a game force, the asymmetry can disappear.
The notes on Shep's 2/1 continue that the 2C response denies a 4-card major. That sort of approach just doesn't sit well with me, even though it has a long 2/1 pedigree. Known as Walsh, it has been a part of “West Coast Scientific” for thirty years or more. Walsh bidders will bypass a 4-, 5-, or even 6-card minor to bid a 4-card major suit. Commonly seen at the one level after a 1C opening, you can also apply the same general idea over 1D, choosing to bid 1H or 1S even when holding a longer club suit. But I don't like it. My preference would be to respond to 1C and 1D as I would in old-fashioned Standard American. Basically, when I am not strong enough to respond at the two level, and may even be making only one bid, I will choose to mention a 4-card major while I can. But if my hand is strong enough to respond at the two level, it is also strong enough to bid twice, and I can afford to bid naturally, long suit first and shorter suit second. I dislike distorting the picture I paint of my distribution when I don't really need to.
Perhaps the answer is that I tend to think within a weak no-trump frame of reference. Consider the sequence 1D – 2C; 2NT - ? If you play 1NT as 15-17, then Opener's minimum NT rebid has to be 12-14 balanced. If the 2C response could be as weak as 10-11 hcp, it is now somewhat dangerous for Responder to go fishing for 4-card majors. It would be very easy (almost inevitable) for you to find yourself in a lot of games with sub-minimum total values when both Opener and Responder are at or near their allowed minimums. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to get your major suit investigations started immediately, so that Responder can comfortably pass that 2NT rebid. And it could be argued that the “natural” approach I prefer is unsound when you play a strong no-trump, unless you play that 1D – 2C is a game force, and Opener can rebid a major suit without it being a reverse (just bidding out shape).
But consider the same story when an opening 1NT shows 12-14 hcp. Now that minimum NT rebid by Opener after 1C or 1D shows at least 15 hcp. So the sequence 1D – 2C; 2NT has become a game force by simple arithmetic – there are at least 25 or so hcp between the two hands. Now Responder doesn't worry about bidding a new suit at the three level, because he knows that the partnership will not be out of its depth in 3NT. My comment slipped in earlier that “if my hand is strong enough to respond at the two level, it is also strong enough to bid twice” is true when you play a weak no-trump, but not necessarily if you play strong.
I enjoy thinking about bidding sequences in this way, and quite often surprise myself when I work through something and discover an underlying connection that isn't readily apparent. I mean, without having thought about sequences carefully, if you read about Walsh, did it occur to you that its utility is connected to the strength of your 1NT opening? I was startled when I suddenly saw it.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The "new" system
Assuming that Agent 99 and I are going to switch to some version of 2/1 Game Forcing, there's something to be said for trying to get her to play what Elwood and I play. It would make my life easier, no doubt, but that wasn't what I meant. It's just that Elwood is a 2/1 afficionado, and so anything he agreed to play with me is probably somewhat sound. On the other hand, that isn't necessarily at all the best answer. Their personalities are quite different, and Elwood has a much higher tolerance for memory strain. (Agent 99 is willing to try, but she actually has a social life away from the bridge table, which proves to be a very distracting factor.) Add to that the Flint-Pender stuff we used to play, and there's some scope for creativity here.
Now, when I say creativity, I usually mean ripping off good ideas from better players. So I was browsing around, and I found www.bridgementor.com, and the system notes for Shep's 2/1. I'm not thinking to steal the whole thing (Shep doesn't play a weak notrump, for starters), but there are one or two things that are interesting. Using jump-shift responses as 4-card raises in the majors could be a good idea. Making 1D-2C a non-GF 2/1 may be better than "pure" 2/1.
Just to mention, I was enchanted to notice that the system includes criss-cross raises of the minors (1D - 3C and 1C - 2D) to provide a two-tier breakdown of the weak raise to 3minor. I invented that for myself and Agent 99 some time ago, and I've never noticed anyone else mention the idea.
Now, when I say creativity, I usually mean ripping off good ideas from better players. So I was browsing around, and I found www.bridgementor.com, and the system notes for Shep's 2/1. I'm not thinking to steal the whole thing (Shep doesn't play a weak notrump, for starters), but there are one or two things that are interesting. Using jump-shift responses as 4-card raises in the majors could be a good idea. Making 1D-2C a non-GF 2/1 may be better than "pure" 2/1.
Just to mention, I was enchanted to notice that the system includes criss-cross raises of the minors (1D - 3C and 1C - 2D) to provide a two-tier breakdown of the weak raise to 3minor. I invented that for myself and Agent 99 some time ago, and I've never noticed anyone else mention the idea.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
On-line bridge
The best thing to happen in the world of bridge in recent years is the advent of BBO - BridgeBase Online. This website, masterminded by Fred Gitelman, allows thousands of bridge players all over the world to find a game any time, for free. It has other features, including the terrific Vugraph, which lets you watch as world-class players bid and play hands (with expert commentary to let you know what's going on). If you've never visited (www.bridgebase.com), you're missing out.
Yet I don't particularly like online bridge. It really isn't the same game, to me. I'm not a world-class player; I've never played with screens in use, or more than a couple of kibitzers watching for my mistakes. Perhaps the perspective is different if you do fall into that category, or perhaps not. But for me, the whole atmosphere of being in a room full of bridge players, of having the cards in your hand and feeling the physical presence of the opponents to be overcome, is part of the game. Without that atmosphere, it just isn't the same experience.
And then there's the people you meet. Meet in the internet sense, of course, meaning you don't meet them at all. Some are chatty, some taciturn, and I myself might go either way depending on (to some extent) how much alcohol has flowed my way. But often enough, you don't know for sure whether you are sitting down with an octogenarian life master or a twelve year-old intermediate (or vice versa, etc). The thing about bridge is, after a few hands, you can get a surprisingly clear feel for the character of your partner. Sometimes it might take a few hours to figure someone out, but sometimes the story becomes clear in a matter of minutes. Unfortunately, it tends to be the better people who are harder to figure out, and the idiots who are rapidly unmasked. I say unfortunately, because often enough you play for an hour or two and then never see that player again. But the ones who are sympatico enough for an hour or two are the ones that you really want to stick with.
And there's the question of rudeness. Some people (I'm tempted to assume they're kids, but there's no real justification for that assumption) feel that it's OK to be a complete asshole in an on-line forum, when they probably wouldn't dare to behave that way in real life.
A good thing you can say about BBO is that at least there is a facility to mark other players as "friends" or "enemies". If I come across a reasonable player, I mark them as friends, and if someone is too terrible either as a player or a person, I flag them as an enemy. This evening I played a few hands with gm1776, whoever that is. He's a chronic overbidder, and when I pulled a penalty double of his, he suggested I didn't know what I was doing and left the table. A review of the hand (if he could have been bothered) would reveal 3D doubled likely to be made with overtricks. But I guess it's the principle of the thing - he doubled, so I should sit for a terrible score whether I know better or not. Well, at least I won't be playing with him again, unless he changes his name (a sickening thought).
Yet I don't particularly like online bridge. It really isn't the same game, to me. I'm not a world-class player; I've never played with screens in use, or more than a couple of kibitzers watching for my mistakes. Perhaps the perspective is different if you do fall into that category, or perhaps not. But for me, the whole atmosphere of being in a room full of bridge players, of having the cards in your hand and feeling the physical presence of the opponents to be overcome, is part of the game. Without that atmosphere, it just isn't the same experience.
And then there's the people you meet. Meet in the internet sense, of course, meaning you don't meet them at all. Some are chatty, some taciturn, and I myself might go either way depending on (to some extent) how much alcohol has flowed my way. But often enough, you don't know for sure whether you are sitting down with an octogenarian life master or a twelve year-old intermediate (or vice versa, etc). The thing about bridge is, after a few hands, you can get a surprisingly clear feel for the character of your partner. Sometimes it might take a few hours to figure someone out, but sometimes the story becomes clear in a matter of minutes. Unfortunately, it tends to be the better people who are harder to figure out, and the idiots who are rapidly unmasked. I say unfortunately, because often enough you play for an hour or two and then never see that player again. But the ones who are sympatico enough for an hour or two are the ones that you really want to stick with.
And there's the question of rudeness. Some people (I'm tempted to assume they're kids, but there's no real justification for that assumption) feel that it's OK to be a complete asshole in an on-line forum, when they probably wouldn't dare to behave that way in real life.
A good thing you can say about BBO is that at least there is a facility to mark other players as "friends" or "enemies". If I come across a reasonable player, I mark them as friends, and if someone is too terrible either as a player or a person, I flag them as an enemy. This evening I played a few hands with gm1776, whoever that is. He's a chronic overbidder, and when I pulled a penalty double of his, he suggested I didn't know what I was doing and left the table. A review of the hand (if he could have been bothered) would reveal 3D doubled likely to be made with overtricks. But I guess it's the principle of the thing - he doubled, so I should sit for a terrible score whether I know better or not. Well, at least I won't be playing with him again, unless he changes his name (a sickening thought).
Monday, September 6, 2010
Responding to 1NT
One change that Agent 99 and I will implement is to use the scheme that Elwood and I have devised for responding to 1NT. It is based on 4-suit transfers, which is arguably not the best responding scheme for a weak no-trump, but it is a framework which is commonly in use locally. Elwood and I took some amusement out of elaborating some sequences and inventing a bid or two. The overall layout is like this.
2C is Stayman but does not necessarily promise a 4-card major. After 1NT – 2C; 2D, Responder’s bid of 2H is weak, and usually shows 5-5, or 5-4 either way in the Majors, but if very weak does not promise more than four cards in each Major. Opener should correct to 2S with a doubleton heart (Crawling Stayman) and also more often than not with 3-3 in the Majors, so the stronger hand declares.
After 1NT – 2C; 2D – 4D/4H are delayed Texas transfers, implying Responder is 6-4.
1N – 2C; 2D – 2S; shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, invitational.
1N – 2C; 2D – 3H; shows 5 hearts and 4 spades, game-forcing
1N – 2C; 2D – 3S; shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, game-forcing
1N – 2C; 2D – 3D; shows 5-5 majors (Weissberger), either invitational or slam-interested. With 3-3 in the majors and non-minimum (accepting an invitation), Opener bids 4C, and Responder transfers to his preferred major.
1NT-2C; 2D-3C, 1NT-2C; 2D-P, or 1NT-2C; 2M-3m indicates a weak sign-off, 6+ in the minor and 4 in one Major. 1NT-2C; 2H-3m; 3S is a special sign-off correction where Opener is 4-4 in the Majors, possibly with only 2 in Responder’s minor.
We play four-suit transfers, 2S transferring to clubs and 2NT transferring to diamonds, with acceptance (bid them if you like them). With a weak minor two-suiter, responder can answer 2NT and pass opener’s rebid. Responder’s follow-up of his m-suit transfer with 3M on the next round shows a game-forcing hand, 4 in the M and 6+ in the m, regardless of whether or not Opener “accepts” the transfer.
After a Jacoby Major suit transfer simple acceptance, a single jump in an unbid suit by Responder is an autosplinter, showing a 6+ self-sufficient Major, a singleton or void in the splinter suit, and slam interest. Examples: 1NT-2D; 2H-3S, 1NT-2H; 2S-4C (not Gerber). The sole exception to this is noted below.
1N – 2D; 2H – 2S; shows 5 hearts and 4 spades, invitational.
1N – 2H; 2S – 4H; shows 5-5 majors, no slam interest. The non-jump sequence 1N – 2H; 2S - 3H; is the auto-splinter with heart shortage.
All 3-level responses show both minors and are either strongly game-invitational or slam-interested. In principle, when Responder is confident of game values, he should most of the time just bid it. The use of these minor-suit oriented bids implies that he is seriously worried that 3NT is likely to fail because of a weak suit, or that he is considering 6m should Opener have a suitable hand.
1N – 3C; shows 5-4-3-1 or 5-5-3-0 with both minors. Then 3D asks, and 3M is the singleton (or void), when 4OM by Opener is to play in the 4-3 fit. 4m from Opener is now a preference and is not forcing and not Minorwood, although Responder will often be in a position to raise or cue-bid.
1N – 3D; shows 5-5-2-1, 6-5-2-0 or 6-5-1-1 with both minors. Then 3H asks, when:
3S shows 2=1=5=5, 1=1=5-6 or 2=0=5-6 without slam interest
3NT shows 1=2=5=5 or 0=2=5-6 without slam interest
4C shows 2=1=5=5 with slam interest
4D shows 1=2=5=5 with slam interest
4H shows 6-5-2-0 with slam interest
4S shows 6-5-1-1 with slam interest
1N – 3M; is a splinter bid, with 4-4-4-1, 5-4-4-0, or 5-4-3-1 distribution and exactly four cards in the other major. Now 4OM by Opener is to play, 4m from Opener is a preference and is not forcing and not Minorwood, although Responder will often be in a position to raise or cue-bid.
3NT is natural, 13-18 balanced.
4C is Gerber.
4D, 4H are Texas transfers.
4S is unused.
4NT is natural, invitational to 6NT. If Opener decides to accept, he may show aces as per Blackwood, and if Responder then bids 5NT Opener must pass. Or Opener may jump to 6minor to show a 5-card suit, offering a choice of slams.
5NT is forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT.
6NT and 7NT are natural.
2C is Stayman but does not necessarily promise a 4-card major. After 1NT – 2C; 2D, Responder’s bid of 2H is weak, and usually shows 5-5, or 5-4 either way in the Majors, but if very weak does not promise more than four cards in each Major. Opener should correct to 2S with a doubleton heart (Crawling Stayman) and also more often than not with 3-3 in the Majors, so the stronger hand declares.
After 1NT – 2C; 2D – 4D/4H are delayed Texas transfers, implying Responder is 6-4.
1N – 2C; 2D – 2S; shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, invitational.
1N – 2C; 2D – 3H; shows 5 hearts and 4 spades, game-forcing
1N – 2C; 2D – 3S; shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, game-forcing
1N – 2C; 2D – 3D; shows 5-5 majors (Weissberger), either invitational or slam-interested. With 3-3 in the majors and non-minimum (accepting an invitation), Opener bids 4C, and Responder transfers to his preferred major.
1NT-2C; 2D-3C, 1NT-2C; 2D-P, or 1NT-2C; 2M-3m indicates a weak sign-off, 6+ in the minor and 4 in one Major. 1NT-2C; 2H-3m; 3S is a special sign-off correction where Opener is 4-4 in the Majors, possibly with only 2 in Responder’s minor.
We play four-suit transfers, 2S transferring to clubs and 2NT transferring to diamonds, with acceptance (bid them if you like them). With a weak minor two-suiter, responder can answer 2NT and pass opener’s rebid. Responder’s follow-up of his m-suit transfer with 3M on the next round shows a game-forcing hand, 4 in the M and 6+ in the m, regardless of whether or not Opener “accepts” the transfer.
After a Jacoby Major suit transfer simple acceptance, a single jump in an unbid suit by Responder is an autosplinter, showing a 6+ self-sufficient Major, a singleton or void in the splinter suit, and slam interest. Examples: 1NT-2D; 2H-3S, 1NT-2H; 2S-4C (not Gerber). The sole exception to this is noted below.
1N – 2D; 2H – 2S; shows 5 hearts and 4 spades, invitational.
1N – 2H; 2S – 4H; shows 5-5 majors, no slam interest. The non-jump sequence 1N – 2H; 2S - 3H; is the auto-splinter with heart shortage.
All 3-level responses show both minors and are either strongly game-invitational or slam-interested. In principle, when Responder is confident of game values, he should most of the time just bid it. The use of these minor-suit oriented bids implies that he is seriously worried that 3NT is likely to fail because of a weak suit, or that he is considering 6m should Opener have a suitable hand.
1N – 3C; shows 5-4-3-1 or 5-5-3-0 with both minors. Then 3D asks, and 3M is the singleton (or void), when 4OM by Opener is to play in the 4-3 fit. 4m from Opener is now a preference and is not forcing and not Minorwood, although Responder will often be in a position to raise or cue-bid.
1N – 3D; shows 5-5-2-1, 6-5-2-0 or 6-5-1-1 with both minors. Then 3H asks, when:
3S shows 2=1=5=5, 1=1=5-6 or 2=0=5-6 without slam interest
3NT shows 1=2=5=5 or 0=2=5-6 without slam interest
4C shows 2=1=5=5 with slam interest
4D shows 1=2=5=5 with slam interest
4H shows 6-5-2-0 with slam interest
4S shows 6-5-1-1 with slam interest
1N – 3M; is a splinter bid, with 4-4-4-1, 5-4-4-0, or 5-4-3-1 distribution and exactly four cards in the other major. Now 4OM by Opener is to play, 4m from Opener is a preference and is not forcing and not Minorwood, although Responder will often be in a position to raise or cue-bid.
3NT is natural, 13-18 balanced.
4C is Gerber.
4D, 4H are Texas transfers.
4S is unused.
4NT is natural, invitational to 6NT. If Opener decides to accept, he may show aces as per Blackwood, and if Responder then bids 5NT Opener must pass. Or Opener may jump to 6minor to show a 5-card suit, offering a choice of slams.
5NT is forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT.
6NT and 7NT are natural.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Odds & Ends
I am still not playing very often, not frequently enough to keep my game up to snuff, truthfully. But I have managed to get a few games with Agent 99, and occasionally I play to complete a table when I'm working. If you're not playing well, it seems to make it harder to identify interesting hands to write about. But here are a couple of slams.
The first hand was a bidding disaster.
Agent 99 chose to open the West hand 1D and rebid 3D over my 1H response. I envisaged a slightly higher point-count opposite, and the result was I pushed all the way to 7NT, which had no play. Perhaps a Gambling 3NT would be best, and if I insist on getting carried away, I might choose 7D. That isn't really a great contract, but a ruffing finesse brings in the whole heart suit, so at least there is a line to make it.
The next hand was better.
I was playing with one of the many Barbaras of the Manhattan to make up the movement in the 299er game I was directing. This particular Barbara isn't a life master, and preferred if I went and did director stuff while I was the dummy, as otherwise I made her nervous. So I was impressed with the sequence we put together. When I asked for kings, her nerve finally broke, which is why she bid 6NT, but I wanted to play in a suit anyway. The same boards were in play in both the open game and the 299er, and we were the only pair in either game to bid a grand, and only three pairs bid even a small slam. Kudos to Barbara for a couple of useful cue-bids.
The Acol Experiment is coming to an end, at some point in the near future. I enjoy playing with Agent 99, and I think it's time we moved on to (or back to) a more precise system. I'd really like if I could persuade her to play Tangerine Club, but I don't think I'm in with a chance of making that fly. On the other hand, if I can get her drunk or something, maybe a session with the Phantom Club will warm her up...
One convention that both Agent 99 and I still like is Lionel. We haven't yet managed a penalty double of a strong no-trump, but we've given most of the other bids a run, and we almost always get a decent result. I think that one's a keeper, whatever else we play.
The first hand was a bidding disaster.
Agent 99 chose to open the West hand 1D and rebid 3D over my 1H response. I envisaged a slightly higher point-count opposite, and the result was I pushed all the way to 7NT, which had no play. Perhaps a Gambling 3NT would be best, and if I insist on getting carried away, I might choose 7D. That isn't really a great contract, but a ruffing finesse brings in the whole heart suit, so at least there is a line to make it.
The next hand was better.
I was playing with one of the many Barbaras of the Manhattan to make up the movement in the 299er game I was directing. This particular Barbara isn't a life master, and preferred if I went and did director stuff while I was the dummy, as otherwise I made her nervous. So I was impressed with the sequence we put together. When I asked for kings, her nerve finally broke, which is why she bid 6NT, but I wanted to play in a suit anyway. The same boards were in play in both the open game and the 299er, and we were the only pair in either game to bid a grand, and only three pairs bid even a small slam. Kudos to Barbara for a couple of useful cue-bids.
The Acol Experiment is coming to an end, at some point in the near future. I enjoy playing with Agent 99, and I think it's time we moved on to (or back to) a more precise system. I'd really like if I could persuade her to play Tangerine Club, but I don't think I'm in with a chance of making that fly. On the other hand, if I can get her drunk or something, maybe a session with the Phantom Club will warm her up...
One convention that both Agent 99 and I still like is Lionel. We haven't yet managed a penalty double of a strong no-trump, but we've given most of the other bids a run, and we almost always get a decent result. I think that one's a keeper, whatever else we play.
Gold Cup
In a previous post, I said that my "hometown" team had a tough match coming up. I wish I could have watched - the result has been posted on Bridge Great Britain. My guys won by the magnificent margin of 1 IMP. Hearty congratulations to the Nick Stevens team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)