Defensive conventions

There are a few competitive/defensive treatments that need to be documented.

Flannery is an opening 2D bid that shows five hearts and four spades and 11-15hcp. The idea is that such hands pose the most difficulty for systems that use 5-card major openings with the 1NT response forcing, because they are not strong enough for opener to reverse, and so over 1NT he may be forced to rebid 2C on a doubleton – hardly descriptive. If such hands are separated out of the 1H opening, they can be bid conveniently, while the forcing no-trump complex becomes cleaner. (While this is true, the cost – using up the 2D opening – really doesn’t appear worth the benefit, to most experts).

There are variations: some play that the Flannery bid includes 4-6 hands. It is also possible to play Flannery as a non-forcing 2H opening, rather than a forcing 2D opening. Neither variation poses any additional problems for the defence.

While we don’t meet Flannery very often, we should have a defensive approach defined. As per Elwood, over 2D we play
• Double – shows diamonds, equivalent to a 2D overcall of a 1H opening
• 2H – take-out of hearts, showing support for the other three suits (including spades), equivalent to a double of a 1H opening
• 2S – both minors, equivalent to 2NT against a 1H opening
• 2NT – natural, equivalent to 1NT over a 1H opening, but a bit stronger, say 17-19hcp
This is straightforward, really, although the only time (so far) it has come up playing with Elwood, I forgot. That’s the main reason for getting it down in writing.

Unusual over Unusual is a more commonly-occurring treatment.

Over a one-level opening, a 2NT overcall is the Unusual No Trump, showing the two lowest unbid suits, at least 5-5. Since opener has bid one suit and the opponents have shown two, responder only really has three active courses of action: to attempt to penalize the opponents, to support opener, or to show the fourth suit. The intent to penalize the opponents can be demonstrated by doubling the 2NT bid. This should indicate a willingness to make a penalty double of at least one of overcaller’s suits, and implies not too much fit with opener’s suit.

When it comes to bidding our suit(s), there is a problem in that it would be nice to have both a merely competitive raise and an invitational raise, but we have been crowded to the three-level. However, by way of compensation, we have two cue-bids available. In the ordinary overcall situation, an immediate raise to the three-level is pre-emptive, and a cue-bid of the overcall is limit+. For example, 1H – (2C) – 3H is pre-emptive, and 1H – (2C) – 3C is a limit raise of hearts (or better). In the Unusual situation, the lower cue-bid shows the lower of our suits, and the higher cue-bid shows the higher suit, while direct bids are merely competing. Examples:
1H – (2NT) – 3C is a limit raise or better of hearts
1H – (2NT) – 3H is pre-emptive
1H – (2NT) – 3S is not forcing
1H – (2NT) – 3D shows spades and a tolerance for hearts, invitational-plus strength.
1D – (2NT) – 3C is a limit raise or better of diamonds
1D – (2NT) – 3H shows spades and a tolerance for diamonds, invitational-plus strength.

This treatment can be extended to use against any overcall method that specifies both suits. For example, Michaels over a minor suit opening to show both majors:
1C – (2C) – 2H is a limit raise or better of clubs
1C – (2C) – 2S shows diamonds and a tolerance for clubs, invitational-plus strength
1C – (2C) – 2D, 1C – (2C) – 3C, and 1C – (2C) – 3D are all just competing.
When only one suit is exactly specified, it doesn’t apply. For example, Michaels over a major:
1H – (2H) – 2S is a limit-plus raise of hearts, but there is no second cue-bid available because overcaller’s minor suit is not known.

Weak Two Bids

Happy new year everybody. Let's start with some more system notes.

There are some bids that “everybody” plays, so you might wonder what needs to get documented. In ACBL-land, weak twos, especially in the majors, fall into that category. Playing with Elwood has opened my eyes.

The standard for opening a weak two varies wildly, depending on who you ask. Some people treat the bids as purely destructive, and are willing to open on almost any garbage, even not-that-great five-card suits. Some people are quite strict, imposing restrictions on suit quality and other features of the distribution. Elwood runs closer to the wild side than I do, but is more disciplined than many I know. He regards two-bids as belonging in the spectrum of pre-emptive hands, and judges whether to open based on likely tricks and losers, taking into account the vulnerability and so on. That means he doesn’t have hard and fast rules about suit length or suit quality or point count, but on the other hand, if he judges correctly, you aren’t likely to make a killing off a penalty double of him either. I am a bit more old-fashioned, and consider the openings more like the bottom tier of constructive bidding. Therefore I will have prospects of a defensive trick, and I generally try to follow the old standard of “two of the top three or three of the top five”, at least in first and second seat. I have been known to open on a five-card suit, but the few times I’ve done it, it was a very good suit, AKQxx or better, and the strategic situation seemed to call for extra effort. I think I’ve opened two on a seven-card suit, also, but that would be even rarer. (I usually take any excuse to open a weak three-bid, and at that level I tend to be much wilder than Elwood).

When I first played weak twos, many moons ago, we played step responses that are known these days as Ogust. Most common now seems to be the idea of using 2NT to ask for an outside feature, defined to be an ace or a king. Rather than choose between these methods, Elwood plays both. So we have that 2NT asks for a feature, and a 3C response is Ogust: opener rebids
• 3D = bad hand, bad suit
• 3H = bad hand good suit
• 3S = good hand, bad suit
• 3NT = good hand, good suit
Responses in a new suit, other than the 3C ask, are natural and forcing. Direct raises are to be considered as raising the pre-empt, and opener should not be encouraged.

When the opponents interfere, we use an approach generally known as McCabe. After 2x – (dble) - ?, a new suit is lead-directing, and opener is expected to return to three of his own suit. This hasn’t come up yet, but it sounds like a useful weapon. After some discussion, we decided to keep 2NT as a feature-ask. The alternative was to use it for a relay, with the idea that responder is running to a suit of his own which he deems a better idea than staying with opener’s suit. It’s a close call – neither use seems likely to come up, to be honest. The other call to be defined is a redouble. Elwood had a little menu of possible meanings, and I chose the one he didn’t expect. Redouble shows Ax or Kx in opener’s suit, and a good hand. I picked that meaning because it seemed to me to fit the lead-directing strategy – responder is really telling the opener that it’s OK to lead small away from his suit.

Now all we need is some aggressive opponents.

Regional

Some more hands from the regional. These two were against a pair that were just too timid.

N-S Game, dlr N

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

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

I just don’t understand North’s pass in the second round. Partner is pre-empting, you have a strong fit and no defence. You can’t find even a single raise? In a sense, inaction is correct, because however high N-S go, we are likely to bid one more than that and make the contract. In actuality, South decided that the ♦J looked like a good lead, and I soon wrapped up thirteen tricks: twelve tricks are available against any lead.

So how should we bid the hand (assuming N-S shut up)? Reaching even game seems to involve an optimistic view.

E-W game, dlr E

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

E     S     W     N
Pass  pass  1♣    dble
1♦    2♦    3♦    3♠
4♣    4♠    5♣    all pass

With such prime controls and a double fit in evidence, Agent 99 didn’t have much hesitation going to 5♣. I just don’t know how either North or South could feel that it was reasonable to leave us there undoubled. Of course, if you double, North has to find a diamond lead (not difficult on the bidding). In practice, she led a spade to South’s ♠A, which killed the defence and 5♣ made. So as the old saying goes, it was only one mistake: if she was going to defend like that, failure to double was not an error. But then, knowing she was capable of such defence, South should certainly have bid 5♠. Perhaps her dummy play is equally as bad.

Now here’s a bidding problem. You hold
♠Q J 10 5 ♥6 ♦10 ♣A J 9 8 7 4 3
Nobody vulnerable, you hear 1♥ on your left and 2NT (Jacoby) on your right. Doesn’t it sound like they have at least a game, and 5♣ might well be a good sacrifice? I thought so. And yet neither side has a game double-dummy, while both sides may make game at the table.

Love all, dlr S

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

S     W     N     E
1♥    pass  2NT   5♣
pass  pass  dble  all pass

It should not be too difficult for E-W to find the diamond ruff to beat 4♥, but it’s not a sure thing. If the bidding hasn’t given too much away, and if West leads the Q♣, South may be smart enough to not cover, and that makes it very difficult. You would expect some, perhaps even most, N-S pairs to make game.

Even more so, the spade ruff to beat 5♣ looks simple. And yet our opponents, who were not idiots, had a mix-up over signals. After one top spade, South switched. I had asked about the bidding, and South could have made a penalty double. Since he clearly must have had a minimum opening, I played North for all the trumps and made 5♣ for most of the matchpoints.

The analysis software points out that 3NT is cold E-W, but it doesn’t suggest how we bid it.

Regional

OK, I’m back from my second event of the regional, a Swiss Teams. I was playing with my other decent partner, a 2/1 Game Forcing aficionado that I’ll call Elwood, and a decent pair that included one of the directors from the Manhattan. Actually, they were probably more than decent, because we won seven out of eight matches, and I wasn’t defending too well. But we fitted into the B/C Swiss, and I guess that was enough of an edge.

The wild distributions were notable. There were a couple of 7-6 hands, one or two 7-5s, and it seemed like endless 5-5s and 6-5s, and these were all hand-dealt, at the table! That’s a lot of stuff in 56 boards.

Anyway, the bottom line is it seems I won five and a half gold points for Friday’s effort, and eight and a half gold for Sunday’s effort. So my two days of work has taken me more than halfway to the requirement for Life Master. Not a bad deal at all, although it might make you wonder whether the Life Master rank means much.

Regional

This weekend is the Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional in New York City. I decided to try and get a little more serious about winning some gold points, and so I'm playing in a couple of events. Friday was the Jim Becker Open Pairs, and Agent 99 and I were in as a C pair. This is a fairly prestigious event, and I didn't expect to be in the running overall, but I was sure we could be as good as any other C pair around. And so it proved. It's a two-session event, and we rang up 58% in the first session to actually stand tied for 7th overall at the halfway mark, well clear of the rest of the C crowd. The later session was something of a let-down, unfortunately, and we dropped off the overall leader-board. But approximately 50% in the second session was enough to stay at the top of the Cs, and so we gained our first gold points.

I'd prefer not to dwell too much on the second session. But there were some magic results in the first half.

Game all, dlr W

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

W     N     E     S
1♠    pass  2♣    pass
2♥    pass  3♦    pass
4♣    pass  4♦    pass
4♥    pass  5♦    pass
5♥    pass  7♣    all pass

Agent 99 bid out her shape, and I went through Redwood 1430, taking it all the way to the grand slam. It's perhaps a bit of a stretch, but I could count twelve tricks as long as the distribution was reasonable, and I thought there was bound to be play for thirteen.

In fact, you can make all the tricks in clubs, hearts or no-trump, because the heart finesse works. But playing in clubs is best, as it gives you multiple chances. The trump opening lead didn’t hurt anything, so I had choices to make. A diamond ruff in dummy would make the twelfth trick, and then you could try the heart finesse, a ruffing spade finesse, or a spade-heart squeeze for thirteen. Or you could ruff a couple of spades (if the trumps are 3-2) hoping to drop the ♠K. The main issue is how to combine the most chances.

The best I can come up with is:
1: ♣6 (North didn’t want to waste his ♣10)
2: ♦Q
3: ♠A
4: ♦9 ruffed in dummy
5: ♠ ruffed in hand
6+7: ♣AK, drawing trumps, discarding ♠9 (if trumps turn out to be 4-1, you have to ditch the spades and rely on the heart finesse)
8: ♥A
9: ♠ ruffed in hand
Now if the ♠K fell, you have thirteen tricks. If everybody has followed to the spades but the ♠K hasn’t appeared, you now cash the ♦AK, discarding the ♥8 and the ♠Q from dummy (unless South discards the ♠K). If South holds the ♠K, he has been squeezed, and you can play for the drop in hearts, making even against a doubleton ♥Q in North. And if you think North had the ♠K all along, there is still the heart finesse to fall back on.

In practice, you aren’t tested since the ♠K does fall. The main lines that don’t work are ones involving the ruffing finesse in spades.

We were the only ones to bid a grand – most tables rang up 1470 (for 6NT+1).

E-W game, dlr E

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

E     S     W     N
1NT   dble  pass  pass
redbl all pass

West has an awkward hand for our methods. It's the sort of hand that you would really like to just leave at 1NT doubled and see what happens. While you can be reasonably optimistic about our chances, because the points seem to be split more or less 20-20 between the two sides, it really looks thin for a business redouble. But running is distinctly unattractive, and we can only stand with a redouble – so that's what Agent 99 did.

South started with the ♥2, which went to the ♥9 and ♥Q, and I returned the ♥7 to his ♥K. A diamond switch put the danger hand in, but North's return of the ♠10 didn't help their side any. I won and played a third heart, and South persisted with diamonds. When the smoke cleared, I finished up with an overtrick. +1160 isn't bad on a hand that should be held to down two, double-dummy.

The Bucket List

When you are a beginning student of this game, everything is new and it can seem difficult to impose order on all the things that you have to try to remember. There comes a point, when you are an intermediate player, where some level of basic knowledge has been absorbed, and you start to become acquainted with more advanced matters of technique. And somewhere about there, you find that you are reading about a particular type of play and looking for a chance to use it at the table. Probably, the throw-in and the simple squeeze are the simplest “advanced” techniques, and the time when you learn about them is around about the time I mean. If you are a keen student, you may work on a number of techniques before the proper occasion at the table crops up (or is recognized, anyway). And that means you have a list, of sorts, of plays that you are waiting for.

Now, throw-ins and simple squeezes are pretty common, so they don’t stay on the list too long. Elopement plays and coup en passant variations I had played before I knew they had a name, so they actually by-passed my list. Some items get onto the list for sentimental or whimsical reasons, rather than any special technical element. I haven’t put “the beer card” on my list of things to do, but I might, just for fun. A weird one was the really deep finesse. I did play a suit contract (5♦ doubled, it was), and on the first round of trumps I led the ♦5 from dummy and ran it, winning the trick with all players following suit. I didn’t make the contract, but I didn’t care since that deep finesse worked. (It sounds ridiculous when you first think of it, but it’s actually not that bad. RHO was the doubler, of course, so I knew he had a trump stack, and LHO was either singleton or void. So then it’s a matter of waiting a few years or a few thousand hands to find LHO with the right singleton.) 

As time goes by, and your studies get more esoteric, the items that stay on the list tend to be things that are intrinsically rare and unlikely. Top of my list for now (and for the foreseeable future, truthfully) is a backwash squeeze. But there are some easier items still there. And the other day, one of the more recent additions actually got knocked off.

A technique I hadn’t heard of before came to my attention on BBO, within the last year (actually, probably within the last six months). Watching Vu-graph matches at BBO on-line, I saw described and executed what is known these days as an intra-finesse. With a holding like
A 8 x x x opposite Q 9 x,
if you have to play the suit for one loser, you have some fairly limited options. The king being singleton would do, but you aren’t going to play for it (too rare). If the suit is breaking 3-2, leading low to the queen will work half the time. But what if the bidding and play leads you to think that the king is sitting over the queen? You can play for the king being doubleton (ace and duck). Or you can play for either the knave or ten to be doubleton in front of the queen. You do that by playing small to the nine (the intra-finesse). That loses to the jack or ten, but when you get back in, the lead of the queen pins the doubleton honor in the other hand.

Now, I haven’t tried to calculate the odds of different configurations. But I’ve had my fill of hands with KJx sitting over my queen, and the chance to strike back with a winning line definitely got on my list.

N-S game, dlr E

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

E    S    W    N
Pass 1♦   2♦   3♦
3♥   Pass 4♥   All pass

At trick one there was an infraction. South led ♦A, dummy ruffed with the ♥5, and North played ♥3 to a chorus of queries. This became a penalty card, so to try and take advantage, I played a club to the ♣K to get to hand for a trump finesse that would definitely win. So trick three was hearts – 2, 8, 9, 3.

And there I was, in dummy, and there was still work to do. I would have to bring in the spade suit. I placed the ♣A with North since the ♣K held, so that meant there was an excellent chance that the ♠K was in the South hand. They can still force dummy with diamonds, so I need trumps 3-2, and I need spades 3-2 to keep down the losers and avoid a ruff. The bidding suggests diamonds 5-4, so there’s no great reason to think South might be short in spades. So the stage is set for the intra-finesse – trick 4 was spades, 2, 7, 8, 10. South exited with the ♥Q, won in hand so I could lead the ♠Q. And then it’s just mopping up: draw the last trump and the last spade, concede a trick to the ♣A, and claim 5-odd. No problem!
   

Bidding over opponent’s 1NT response

When the opponents start the auction 1D – 1NT, in Standard American auctions it is pretty much a given that the 1NT bidder will have a club suit. This observation leads to a couple of neat overcalling possibilities.

First, consider how you are placed when in the “sandwich” position, after (1D) – pass – (1NT) - ?
The BobbyBridge page about Multi-Landy observes that it works here. Since we won’t want to make a simple minor-suit overcall in this position, we can play that 2C shows both majors and 2D shows a weakish overcall in an unspecified major. That lets us specify that the 2H and 2S overcalls are full-value – opening bid strength – so we can intervene relatively cleanly in either (or both) major.

Second, consider where you stand in the re-opening position, after
(1D) – pass – (1NT) – pass; (pass) - ?
On Eddie Kantar’s website, he notes that a re-opening 2D here should be natural, because you may have been silenced by the opening bid (which might only be a 3-card suit). However, it is still true that you won’t want to reopen in clubs with a known suit behind you. So we can (again) use 2C as showing both majors, in this case not strong and possibly only 4-4.

Third, Kantar also remarks on
(1C) – pass – (1NT) – pass; (pass) - ?
He notes that a re-opening 2C here should be natural, because you may have been silenced by the opening bid (which might only be a 3-card suit). However, it is also true that a natural re-opening 2D bid is very unlikely, since any such hand would almost certainly have overcalled 1D in the first place. So we can use 2D, this time, as showing both majors, again in this case not strong and possibly only 4-4.

These may seem like little things to clutter-up your memory, possibly causing more trouble than they are worth. That remains to be seen. Being able to fight for part-scores at the two-level is important at any form of scoring. Allowing the opponents to settle in 1NT too easily is faulty strategy.