Striking gold

Things are likely to change now – the client has finally gained enough gold points to achieve the goal of her obsession, life master status. The momentous occasion has been a while coming. She has needed just a couple of gold points for some time, but a couple of regionals went by without our being able to clinch the deal. Perhaps my last chance to come through for her was the Smithtown (Long Island) regional, and saints be praised we featured 5th in the overalls at the gold rush pairs, for 4.86 gold. Actually, 3rd through 8th were all between 57 and 58%, and we finished a tantalising .06% behind 4th (that's 0.2 matchpoints, a difference that probably arises from factoring for different sized sections). But I'm not sour. The relief at finally getting the job done is incredible, for me, and the client is positively bubbly.

In the first session, we finished second in our section, greatly helped by the slam hands. There were two slams our way, and we bid them both, and three slams for the opponents, none of which were bid against us. I don't know that we can claim too much credit, though. Our opponents seemed pretty clueless.

 

 The 3S bid is a bit bizarre, but I don't think East should pass it. The result was down one, while 6C is cold and was bid twice, and 6NT makes if you escape a heart lead (that happened once). With 5 quick tricks and only three losers, I think West should start with 2C. That seems to lead to at least 4H or 5C quite easily, although bidding the 6th is not so easy. On the other hand, the slam does depend on the club break, so maybe stopping at 5C is good.

I was lucky on this hand.

 

 Perhaps I should have bid 6NT, but with a known 9-card fit, I confess the thought never occurred to me. If East leads his AD, I'm down in 6H, but fortunately he led a spade, and I wasted no time drawing trumps. One pair did make 6NT, and one pair was unlucky enough to be the only -100.

This hand featured an unusual auction (although it used to be one of my favorite Acol auctions, you don't see it much in ACBL-land).

 

 The client's choice of 3S is not too bad, I think. She actually only has 7 losers, and the high cards are a bit thin – perhaps 4S would be more appropriate. But 3S isn't far off. My hand started out pretty good, and looks even better opposite a limit raise. So I decided to just bid six – maybe if there were two diamond losers off the top, they wouldn't be able to find them (with the thought that a more scientific approach might tip them off). To some extent, this may have worked. A diamond lead (hard to find) would have removed a dummy entry, and put me under some pressure. The safer-looking JH lead applied no pressure at all. I was the only declarer to make 6S – three went down.

Gadgets

I've been playing with Elwood a lot more regularly, usually once a week. Conversely, our system tinkering and email volume has dwindled, after a couple of big spasms to get some complicated stuff in place. So, I think it's time I put some documentation out there for what we're playing.

The basic set-up of 2/1 with a weak no-trump is still there, of course. A couple of gadgets have been added to the responses. The most complex item is Muppet Stayman.

We had been playing a relatively simple version of Puppet Stayman over the 2NT opening all along. Muppet Stayman involves switching Opener's 3H and 3NT rebids. The purpose of that is to handle Responder hands that include 5 spades and 4 hearts. The other way round, Responder can transfer to hearts and then bid 3S. Playing Muppet, with 5 spades and 4 hearts, Responder can start with 3C, and if Opener bids 3H (denying a 4- or 5-card major) Responder has room to continue with 3S. Of course, that loses the transfer effect if Opener chooses to play in spades, so Elwood suggested a further reversal, swapping 3S and 3NT from Responder in this sequence. Needless to say, when you try to map out the ramifications of all this, not forgetting that, as Responder, you also want to know what to do with a 4-major 5-minor type of hand, you finish up with some sequences that are disasters waiting to happen, and a severe headache from trying to remember it all.

To make the effort worthwhile, we decided to play the exact same thing over 1NT. So while regular Stayman is still in place and handling a lot of stuff, with a game-going hand Responder also has 1NT – 3C available as Muppet. This fits with our revised philosophy for opening 1NT. I started out with the traditional British attitude, that 1NT shouldn't include a 5-card major, except for odd cases. But influenced by results (and by Fantunes, I admit), I have let the pendulum swing towards the opposite extreme. We now explicitly open all 5-3-3-2s and most 5-4-2-2s (especially with 4-major and 5-minor) 1NT if they are in range. As a result, checking for a 5-card major is very much a good idea. For example, if Responder has a game-going hand 4-3 in the majors, the right choice is Muppet rather than regular Stayman. That way, he can find a 5-3 fit as well as a 4-4 or 5-4 fit. The one time we had a memory lapse that should have resulted in disaster, we actually dodged the bullet by both having the same failure. We both forgot the second inversion, and I passed Elwood's 3NT bid that should have shown 5 spades to find that he actually only had 2. If I had remembered, I probably would have corrected to 4S, to play in a 3-2 “fit”.

We are still playing 4-suit transfers over 1NT, and they can handle single-suited and wildly 2-suited hands. To complete the system of responses, we wanted to provide some tools for less extreme hands with both minors and a shortage in a major. Using 3H and 3S as the usual splinter responses, with a 3-suited hand and exactly 4 in the other major, takes care of quite a few. And we have defined the 3D response as showing both minors in a hand with a 3-card major. Then 3H asks, and Responder bids his shortage (3NT with short hearts). Of course, there are follow-up sequences, and the end result is (hopefully) that we can choose between 3NT, 4major and 5minor (or 6minor) on some sensible basis. This 3D response is quite cute (and original, I think), but rare. So far it has only come up once, steering us to 4H somewhat anti-climactically when Elwood showed short spades and I had opened with a 5-card heart suit. The real payoff for that bid will be when we get to a nice Moysian game, or to 5- or 6-minor, when no-trump doesn't make.

The other toy we have adopted is a mini-Roman 2D. This shows a 3-suited hand, 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0. Commonly, this is played without much more definition, with some strength range around 11-15hcp. Some strong club pairs play a version where the the short suit is always diamonds, to handle a variety of hand that is difficult for their system. I started out somewhat skeptical about this bid's worth, feeling that it might be OK as a pre-empt, but would be difficult to use constructively, while if you finished up defending, declarer would have a blueprint for the play. Having run into it a few times, I changed my mind, conceding that it is annoying and sometimes quite awkward to defend against. So I decided to look into adopting it, and I produced some original ideas that have been run through Elwood's brain, and I think the result is quite interesting.

The ACBL's GCC insists on a minimum of 10hcp, so we are playing the opening as 10-14, which (as with Fantunes 2-openings) is weak enough to be quite pre-emptive, but strong enough to have some punch. To provide a constructive framework, I suggested some things to make our approach very major-suit oriented. Making the shortage always a minor is the first change. This does some good things to your response structure, but carries the penalty of reducing the frequency of occurrence. To help with that, and also just why not, Elwood suggested allowing 5-card hearts but not 5-card spades. That includes some “Flannery” hands, without screwing up our relays. Next, the usual set-up is to have 2NT as the strong response, whence Opener shows his shortage. Instead, I have Opener bid the minor suit he holds, and Responder can pass that or place the contract wherever he likes. Next, the 3C and 3D responses are not usually well-defined, as far as I can discover. So I suggested using them as proxies for hearts and spades. Elwood came up with the game-forcing relay sequences to follow, whereby Opener defines his strength and exact distribution. And then we have the 3H/3S responses as natural and invitational, and the 4H/4S responses as natural and to play (either weak or strong, like after a weak two opening). Almost all the time, when we play in a major, Responder is declarer. This is policy, since Opener's hand is well-known from the bidding (so if he becomes declarer, the defence can play double-dummy).

So far, it seems like the mini-Roman is occurring about once every other session. That doesn't sound like a lot, but I think it's comparable to the frequency of the weak two that we have given up – that didn't seem to come up all that often, either. And we've had at least a couple of good results from it.

Precious metals

I still don't have the urge to update this blog regularly, but I have been playing both for fun and for profit. The past few weeks have seen me rack up about 40 masterpoints, almost all gold or silver.

First came the Eastern States Regional, at the Park Central hotel in NYC. I played with the client in one Golden Opportunity Pairs (tied 3rd/4th), with Agent 99 in the other Golden Opportunity Pairs (won it), with the client in a Swiss teams (came nowhere), and with Elwood in a Round Robin teams (tied 2nd in bracket 2). That all worked out to more than 26 gold, plus a red point for good measure. It could have been more - I was supposed to play two events with Elwood, but was a little unwell and missed one.

The Golden Opportunity Pairs were something special, in this sense: for the first (and realistically, last) time, I played in a fairly large event where I felt that I was the best player in the field. When Agent 99 and I sat down to play, I actually told her that, and that we were the pair that everybody else had to beat. We then showed it was true, winning our section in both sessions to finish first overall almost a top clear of second place. I could feel my ego bulging out of my shirt.

The teams with Elwood provided some deflation. We played with the same teammates we had won with the last time we played, so we knew we could produce some good results. But the bracket seemed to be very evenly matched all around. There were no easy matches, and few blow-out victories. We narrowly defeated the eventual winners, but Scott Heaydon's team wasn't slowed down and beat everybody else to finish 22VPs clear of the field. Meanwhile, we lost a couple of matches, and were rather surprised to find that, going into the last round, we had a chance to finish second. As it played out, all we had to do was lose 13-7 or better, and we were playing the bottom team, who hadn't won a match all day. So of course, we lost 14-6, giving them a consolation victory and putting ourselves into a tie for second. Oh well.

Almost immediately after the Regional came STaC week. The client needed about 10 silver, so I played with her twice at the Manhattan's Eastside location. We chose East rather than West because the field tends to be somewhat weaker. No sentimentality involved here, I was after results. And we did in fact win both sessions we played, with scores big enough that the client got her silver points from the overalls (scored across the city). I also played with Agent 99 and with Elwood, and while we didn't win, that brought in a couple more points. I haven't seen the total yet, but it will be about 13 silver points for the week.

So now I get a week off. I think I've earned it.

Misadventures In Manhattan

A practice session with the client produced some interesting hands. She plays very few conventions, so the bidding is often almost Acol-like in tone. But we are fairly well used to each other by now, and seem to be getting to most things.

A double squeeze materialized on this hand.



At the end of the hand, I was the only declarer taking 12 tricks. West berated his partner for not switching to a diamond after winning the AC. That's asking a lot, though, considering East's holding. But a spade switch looks pretty normal, and would be enough to break up the squeeze. Attacking declarer's communications is the commonest form of squeeze defence, if you can see one coming. Of course, in this case, East had no inkling that a squeeze might be possible. He should have counter-attacked in the post mortem by telling West to save his AD. That would have worked too.

This slam was played in 6S+1 at most tables.



As you can see, there are tricks to spare in spades. One pair tried 7NT, which means taking either the heart finesse (which works) or the diamond finesse (which doesn't). Minus 1, which serves them right for being greedy. Nobody got to 7S, though, which is a bit disappointing across sixteen tables. Without any tools, I wasn't about to put the client in the grand, but I knew that if she had close to her bid it must be good. Playing with Agent 99 or Elwood, I would hope to generate a more workmanlike sequence out of a splinter and 1430.
1S-4H; 4N-5H; 5N-6C; 7S-P; looks perfectly reasonable.

This gamble shouldn't have worked. But I thought it looked good, until I saw the dummy.



It was speculative, no doubt. But I counted on partner producing six or seven clubs to the king and not a lot else. On a heart opening attack, I figured I would have eight top tricks, and some chance of a ninth. As it was, if East doesn't cash the heart ace, I think I'm done. Even worse, if she had ducked on the first round of clubs, I'd be lucky to make any more than six tricks.

You don't just have to pick the hand: you also have to pick the opponents.

Misadventures In Manhattan

Friday nights tend to be small at the Manhattan, and with the Spring Nationals in progress in Memphis, this past Friday's evening game was really small, just five tables. But Agent 99 and I had a pleasant evening anyway, clocking a 60% game that turned out to be enough to win.

The hands seemed to include an unusual number of possible slams and/or sacrifices. This was the second hand of the evening.



I have a nice hand, but with all this bidding it doesn't seem likely that Agent 99 spoke because of high cards. Most probably she has shape. In that case, is it safe to pass 6S? Or am I worth a double? Would that induce a heart lead (which is what I want, I think), or would it ask for a (probably disastrous) club? 7D isn't going to make, but will it be cheap or just a phantom?

I wriggled for a while, and eventually decided that first, there was definitely no diamond trick in defence (east was way too confident), second, I couldn't count on any black suit tricks either, since even if a card or two was missing they might well be dropping or finessable. So that meant item third, beating 6S might need Agent 99 to find a heart lead, and might not be possible even then. At teams, I think bidding 7D is pretty much a no-brainer. At matchpoints, it isn't quite so easy, but I bid it anyway. It cost 500, and a heart lead would indeed have beaten their slam. But it turned out well when 6S made three times, on two occasions doubled (remember the board was only played five times).

The next set included this offering.


After a diamond lead, I returned a small heart (nice and smooth) to get a club through the king and so beat the contract. But 200 is small compensation for the heart game, and we actually can make 6H.

Here's a part-score, for a change.



For some unknown reason, Agent 99 opened 1C instead of 1D. Then when the auction was set to die in 1NT, I decided that my stellar four-card club support was enough to justify competing. When Agent 99 ran to 2H, I inferred she was 4-4 in the majors and corrected to 2S. That worked out well when E-W didn't realize what was going on and let me scramble eight tricks. (I won the club lead and played AH, H. Subsequently I got two H ruffs.)

Support doubles

I have been playing support doubles with Elwood all along, but I've started playing them with Agent 99 as well. Looking back over this blog, I don't see them being mentioned, so a new entry seems to be in order.

Support doubles and redoubles arise in auctions that begin
1suit – (something) – 1major – (call < 2major);
That is, Advancer bids over Responder's 1major, and it is still possible for Opener to raise to 2major. The commonest situation is an auction that starts 1minor – (pass) – 1major – (something), but the convention still applies if overcaller bid something other than pass as long as the basic framework is still there. And it applies to auctions 1H – (pass or double) – 1S as well.

The idea is that in this situation, Opener's rebid of double (or redouble, if Advancer doubled) shows exactly three card support for Responder's major. Raising the major explicitly therefore shows four-card support.

I am not a fan of The Law, and usually don't worry too much about whether a raise shows three or four cards. But in this particular situation, the support double turns out to be a useful bid when Opener might not have anything else really clear-cut to say. Systemically, Opener might have been planning to rebid 1NT or 2NT with three-card support for Responder. After the intervention, no-trumps may or may not still be attractive, but the double conveys good information without raising the level, keeping everything in play, so to speak.

A question I asked Elwood was whether support doubles only applied when Responder's major might be four cards. The dubious auctions would begin 1m – (1H) – 1S, where Responder is promising 5+cards. A counter-question is, if not support, what might a double show? There are various answers, but Elwood favors ignoring the complications and retaining all the doubles and redouble as support. I'm going along with that.

Another question was whether support doubles were mandatory. Elwood's answer was no, but if you don't have a good descriptive or temporizing call available, you should go ahead and double.

So that's a quick run-down of support doubles. There are other ways to play, but I would recommend giving them a try. I was skeptical at first, but I find that they do come up and are useful. You can't ask more of a convention than that.

postscript

No sooner do I post something than I have to amend it. There is a small system change for Agent 99 and me.

We play the weak NT (12-14 in all seats) with 4-suit transfers. Five card majors are quite acceptable, and 5-3-3-2 hands with 11-13hcp should certainly be opened 1NT if they are to be opened at all. We used to play that 2S transferred to clubs and 2NT transferred to diamonds, with acceptance. We are now playing that 2S is Baron, 2NT transfers to clubs, 3C transfers to diamonds, and 3D is Optional Stayman, looking for a 5-card or very chunky 4-card major.

We lose the acceptance on the minor-suit transfers, but gain a couple of bids in return. 2S as Baron provides a route to playing 6minor in a 4-4 or 5-4 fit. I'm not sure we're going to keep it, but it's in for now. 3D as Optional Stayman is definitely a good idea. If we are opening 1NT with a 5-card major quite frequently, as indeed we are, it makes sense to give Responder extra tools to handle the situation.

"New" system

Since Agent 99 and myself had such a long hiatus, it was natural that when we returned to play that our bidding would change to reflect what had been happening. So here is where we are now.

We are playing 2/1 Game Force “except when suit rebid”. The way I'm interpreting that is very restricted. Sequences
1major – 2C; 2any – 3C; and
1major – 2D; 2any – 3D;
are not forcing: Responder is showing a 6+card suit, 10-11hcp.
The sequence 1D – 2C; is also not game-forcing, for reasons I commented on years ago.
All other sequences that begin with a 2/1 response are unconditionally forcing to game.

We play the 1NT response to 1major as forcing, with the method sometimes called Bart after 1S – 1NT; 2C.

We play inverted minor suit raises, and use the “criss-cross” raises (jump-shift to the other minor) to show a mixed raise.

We play the weak NT (12-14 in all seats) with 4-suit transfers. Five card majors are quite acceptable, and 5-3-3-2 hands with 11-13hcp should certainly be opened 1NT if they are to be opened at all.

The rebid of 1NT shows 15-17hcp, and the jump rebid 2NT shows 18-19hcp. The 1NT rebid has to be alerted per the ACBL. We use New Minor Forcing after both these rebids to allow Responder to investigate major suit fits when he is invitational-plus.

We play 4th suit forcing to game.

Our main slam-bidding convention is RKCB 1430. We use Redwood when a minor suit has been agreed.

We are playing Support Doubles and Redoubles.

Our defence to 1NT is Lionel.

Meanderings

I haven't pushed blogging back into my routine, not yet anyway. But I have pushed bridge back into my life, and when I consider it, there are a few good topics that have cropped up.

Playing got started before directing, of course, but I have directed a couple of games at the Manhattan. It was noteworthy (to me, anyway) how much work seemed to be involved, and how stressful it all was. Overall, directing a game seemed to be quite an unpleasant assignment. I know I didn't feel that way before. Apparently, a break of nine months or so is long enough to introduce significant rust into the gears. Hopefully, I will shake it out and start enjoying directing again.

I have landed a decent client, and played several pro dates with her. She has accumulated about 600 master points, but almost all black points. My assignment is to play with her in regional and sectional tournaments, and win her enough gold and silver to be a life master. I could debate the proprieties of such a transaction, but suffice to say I think it is ok, from a theoretical as well as a practical standpoint. The truth of the matter is that I may be good, but if she plays like a bonehead we won't win much. If we win some points, she will have earned her share.

And playing as a pro has helped me focus on my game, also. The thing is, the client isn't a great player, so the partnership is certainly lop-sided. The pro is not expected to make any mistakes, because the client makes enough for the two of us. So all those things that people say (but so rarely do) - like paying attention to every trick, every board, and having a reason why that particular card, every card – all those things suddenly are real. For example, a couple of weeks ago, we played in a sectional. The client put me in 4S in a horrible 4-3 fit, as clients sometimes do. At first glance, the contract was hopeless, and indeed, the computer analysis gave 9 tricks as the limit. But the defence made a couple of mistakes, and suddenly I was racing for home. But then a careless error at trick 11 dumped it again, down 1. Time was, I could shrug that off – we were too high, and made the appropriate number of tricks. But this time, I see the difference as about 1.5 silver points that I could have – should have – won for my client. And weeks later, it still chaps my ass that I blew the hand at the last moment.

I'm also trying to get back into a regular playing rhythm with Agent 99 and, to a lesser extent, Elwood. (The putative partnership with Rose has bitten the dust, not explicitly but by tacit mutual agreement. Our personalities and styles just do not mesh very well.) I'll make a separate entry to talk about how we're bidding these days.