Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas everybody. We aren't having a white christmas, but we have a blizzard to look forward to (Sunday night / Monday morning), so everybody take care travelling to the regional.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional
This week, there are only two topics on my mind. First up, Christmas is nearly here, and I'm trying to plan how I'm going to finish my gift shopping (basically done), finish my food shopping (nearly all to happen Thursday/Friday), and produce my usual Christmas dinner masterpiece on Saturday. No worries, as the Aussies say.
The other thing is the Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional in New York, which is next week from the 26th to the 30th. I don't really need any gold points myself, but Agent 99 needs quite a few to get to Life Master. And in addition, there's a client (or potential client) at the Manhattan who needs about 15 gold - I'll call her Goldie. So I've agreed to play with Agent 99 in a Golden Opportunity Pairs, and Goldie is playing with another Life Master in the same event. Then the next day, the four of us team up in a round-robin. That should provide a fast route to a few gold, because the whole team has a total of only about 2000 master points, and we must be in with a good chance to win whatever bracket we finish up in.
No pressure, except Goldie's husband (they both play at the Manhattan, sometimes even together) has promised to stalk me and haunt me if she doesn't get enough gold, on the grounds that he isn't going to be able to sleep until she gets them, so why not share the pain.
I'm also going to play a bracketed Round Robin with Elwood, but that should be a relaxing wind-down compared to the earlier efforts. Tell me again - this is fun, right?
The other thing is the Edgar Kaplan Winter Regional in New York, which is next week from the 26th to the 30th. I don't really need any gold points myself, but Agent 99 needs quite a few to get to Life Master. And in addition, there's a client (or potential client) at the Manhattan who needs about 15 gold - I'll call her Goldie. So I've agreed to play with Agent 99 in a Golden Opportunity Pairs, and Goldie is playing with another Life Master in the same event. Then the next day, the four of us team up in a round-robin. That should provide a fast route to a few gold, because the whole team has a total of only about 2000 master points, and we must be in with a good chance to win whatever bracket we finish up in.
No pressure, except Goldie's husband (they both play at the Manhattan, sometimes even together) has promised to stalk me and haunt me if she doesn't get enough gold, on the grounds that he isn't going to be able to sleep until she gets them, so why not share the pain.
I'm also going to play a bracketed Round Robin with Elwood, but that should be a relaxing wind-down compared to the earlier efforts. Tell me again - this is fun, right?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
2010 Gold Cup
OK, finally I see the news. "My" team, the Nick Stevens team, has survived the quarter-finals and will be heading to the finals weekend showdown. Go team!
Friday, December 3, 2010
Concealed Splinters And 4-card Raises
Splinter bids are bids that (by agreement) show partner a trump fit, a raise to game, and shortness in a side suit. This is terrifically useful information for assessing how well the two hands fit together, and splinters should be used at almost every opportunity.
There are a couple of tweaks that can be made, though. One observation is that usually, a splinter could be either a singleton or a void. Singletons are much more common, of course, but if you do happen to get a void, it would be nice to be able to distinguish it. Another thought is that the “traditional” splinter uses three responses to distinguish shortages in three suits. This is easy to use, but a tad inefficient. If you use one response to indicate that there is a shortage somewhere, a relay can be used to identify exactly where, if partner wants to know. And if he doesn't ask, you can bid game without revealing where the shortage is.
Another leaf on the tree of Niggle is the matter of jump-shift responses to major-suit openings, and using them for different flavors of raise. I don't like Bergen Raises, but the 4-card raises in Shep's 2/1 make sense to me. In addition, it's fair to say that if you don't need or want to use jump-shift responses as natural and strong, you need to find a good use for them, and that's not quite as easy as it sounds. Clearly distinguishing an assortment of 4-card raises seems like a very useful idea.
Putting all this together, you find that everything fits quite neatly. We include 2NT in the pantheon of jump-raises, and we include 3NT in the range of double-jump raises. Now, the cheapest jump raise is a concealed splinter. So 1H-2S and 1S-2NT are raises to game that include 4 trumps and a singleton somewhere. If Opener wants to find out where (ie usually), he bids the next step as a relay, and Responder bids the suit of the shortage, or bids the trump suit for the one suit he can't mention below 3. That is:
1H-2S; 2NT (relay) - 3C/3D/3H with a singleton C/D/S respectively. 1S-2NT; 3C (relay) - 3D/3H/3S with a singleton D/H/C respectively. This all leaves plenty of room for Opener to start q-bidding if slam is starting to look attractive. Note that if Responder q-bids the splinter suit subsequently, he is indicating the singleton ace.
We have only used one response so far, the cheapest jump-shift. There are 4 other single-jump responses, and these are used in reverse order of strength to indicate a 4+card raise (this idea being lifted from Shep's 2/1).
1H-2S 1S-2N Splinter (above)
1H-2N 1S-3C game-forcing raise without shortage (equivalent to Jacoby 2NT)
1H-3C 1S-3D 4-card limit raise
1H-3D 1S-3H 4-card mixed raise (weak but includes a defensive trick, an A or K outside trumps)
1H-3H 1S-3S pre-emptive, no defensive trick
Next we move up to the double-jump raises. The cheapest one is a concealed void splinter, showing a raise to game with 4 trumps and a void somewhere. As with the singleton splinters a level lower, a relay is used to locate the actual void. So,
1H-3S; 3N (relay) -4C/4D/4H shows a void C/D/S respectively.
1S-3N; 4C (relay) -4D/4H/4S shows a void D/H/C respectively.
At this point, we can look back and see that we have an array of raises with 4-card support, and can distinguish singleton and void splinters, which is a lot more than most people have in their bag of tricks. [infomercial voice]But wait, there's more.[/infomercial]
We actually have a few bids spare now. The double-jump raises, that most people use for splinters, are available for some different meaning. There is a type of splinter used by Opener called an Auto-splinter. For example, the sequence 1C – 1S; 4C! would indicate 4-card support for spades and a raise to game that includes 6 solid clubs (and a shortage somewhere else, therefore). This is off the main track of splinters, as the most important part of the message isn't actually the shortage but rather the honking great source of tricks. But it's still a good idea, and I think it makes sense to make that type of raise available to Responder also. So, for example, the sequence 1S – 4C! would show a hand like KJxx/xx/x/AKQT9x. It's true that you could start to bid this hand by bidding clubs, or by showing a diamond splinter. But I don't think either of those routes is really going to convey the combination of a very good suit with 4-card trump support.
Now we're talking. All I have to do is sell Agent 99 and Elwood on the idea.
There are a couple of tweaks that can be made, though. One observation is that usually, a splinter could be either a singleton or a void. Singletons are much more common, of course, but if you do happen to get a void, it would be nice to be able to distinguish it. Another thought is that the “traditional” splinter uses three responses to distinguish shortages in three suits. This is easy to use, but a tad inefficient. If you use one response to indicate that there is a shortage somewhere, a relay can be used to identify exactly where, if partner wants to know. And if he doesn't ask, you can bid game without revealing where the shortage is.
Another leaf on the tree of Niggle is the matter of jump-shift responses to major-suit openings, and using them for different flavors of raise. I don't like Bergen Raises, but the 4-card raises in Shep's 2/1 make sense to me. In addition, it's fair to say that if you don't need or want to use jump-shift responses as natural and strong, you need to find a good use for them, and that's not quite as easy as it sounds. Clearly distinguishing an assortment of 4-card raises seems like a very useful idea.
Putting all this together, you find that everything fits quite neatly. We include 2NT in the pantheon of jump-raises, and we include 3NT in the range of double-jump raises. Now, the cheapest jump raise is a concealed splinter. So 1H-2S and 1S-2NT are raises to game that include 4 trumps and a singleton somewhere. If Opener wants to find out where (ie usually), he bids the next step as a relay, and Responder bids the suit of the shortage, or bids the trump suit for the one suit he can't mention below 3. That is:
1H-2S; 2NT (relay) - 3C/3D/3H with a singleton C/D/S respectively. 1S-2NT; 3C (relay) - 3D/3H/3S with a singleton D/H/C respectively. This all leaves plenty of room for Opener to start q-bidding if slam is starting to look attractive. Note that if Responder q-bids the splinter suit subsequently, he is indicating the singleton ace.
We have only used one response so far, the cheapest jump-shift. There are 4 other single-jump responses, and these are used in reverse order of strength to indicate a 4+card raise (this idea being lifted from Shep's 2/1).
1H-2S 1S-2N Splinter (above)
1H-2N 1S-3C game-forcing raise without shortage (equivalent to Jacoby 2NT)
1H-3C 1S-3D 4-card limit raise
1H-3D 1S-3H 4-card mixed raise (weak but includes a defensive trick, an A or K outside trumps)
1H-3H 1S-3S pre-emptive, no defensive trick
Next we move up to the double-jump raises. The cheapest one is a concealed void splinter, showing a raise to game with 4 trumps and a void somewhere. As with the singleton splinters a level lower, a relay is used to locate the actual void. So,
1H-3S; 3N (relay) -4C/4D/4H shows a void C/D/S respectively.
1S-3N; 4C (relay) -4D/4H/4S shows a void D/H/C respectively.
At this point, we can look back and see that we have an array of raises with 4-card support, and can distinguish singleton and void splinters, which is a lot more than most people have in their bag of tricks. [infomercial voice]But wait, there's more.[/infomercial]
We actually have a few bids spare now. The double-jump raises, that most people use for splinters, are available for some different meaning. There is a type of splinter used by Opener called an Auto-splinter. For example, the sequence 1C – 1S; 4C! would indicate 4-card support for spades and a raise to game that includes 6 solid clubs (and a shortage somewhere else, therefore). This is off the main track of splinters, as the most important part of the message isn't actually the shortage but rather the honking great source of tricks. But it's still a good idea, and I think it makes sense to make that type of raise available to Responder also. So, for example, the sequence 1S – 4C! would show a hand like KJxx/xx/x/AKQT9x. It's true that you could start to bid this hand by bidding clubs, or by showing a diamond splinter. But I don't think either of those routes is really going to convey the combination of a very good suit with 4-card trump support.
Now we're talking. All I have to do is sell Agent 99 and Elwood on the idea.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Misadventures In Manhattan
While still only playing once or twice a week, I've managed to be busy enough to make blogging seem like a chore. I've been getting some up and down results, too, winning one day and coming in nearly last the next. A session with Agent 99 rang up 64%, which was only good enough for second but had at least one hand worth mentioning.
This auction is certainly not one to be proud of. Agent 99 was not inspired by her collection of queens and jacks, and downgraded it to only a 2S raise. That was questionable, and the failure to bid four when she got another chance is also hard to swallow. On the other hand, she has at least a technical defence in that the computer analysis says that nine tricks is the limit of the hand. But as a practical matter, most of the declarers in spades made ten tricks, and half of them were in game. I wrapped up ten tricks without too much trouble, even though I forced an entry to dummy in diamonds to take the spade finesse, instead of the other way round.
So why was this a notable deal? For the last couple of weeks, I've added the beer card to the list of things to do. This was the first deal where I actually managed to land it.
For the last few weeks, I've sat East-West most of the time I've played. It's been particularly noticeable to me, therefore, that by some quirk of randomness, the computer has been dealing the cards heavily North-South. That previously-mentioned session, Agent 99 and I were each declarer 4 times, while we defended 16 times. The day before, playing with a client, was similar. I know, it's the same for everybody, and should actually favor good defenders (we aren't necessarily demons, but one reason I enjoy playing with Agent 99 is that we are usually on the same wavelength in defence). But honestly, it wears you down when you pick up hand after hand with only a couple of face cards.
With Elwood, I sat North-South, and this came up.
East was an experienced A player and director, while West looked like a client, so I assumed that the 2NT overcall would be decent values and shape. That left both Elwood and myself with some interesting hand evaluation questions. Elwood decided that with further intervention possible, he should show the heart support immediately, rather than rebid his seven-card suit. I then had no idea how good my hand was with a void in partner's suit and strength in his splinter suit. On the other hand, a splinter bid should show at least mild slam interest, and where can Elwood's strength lie? I figured his spades should be very good, in which case I should be able to get the diamond losers away, and so I jumped to 6H.
Then when faced with the actual dummy and the QD opening lead, I decided that the best line of play would be the opposite of what I had envisioned, also. I ruffed the opening lead, and cross-ruffed clubs and diamonds ignoring the spade suit altogether. That seemed to me the plan least likely to be tripped up by the distribution. Twelve tricks rolled in without a problem.
So far, Agent 99 and I haven't had too much at-the-table experience with our 2D and 2NT openings. The 2NT came up once, getting us a good board when the opponents bid 3S just making while the field was in 3H making ten tricks. In the same session, Agent 99 missed a chance to open 2D by miscounting her points and opening 1C instead. Making eight tricks for +90 scored matchpoints for going positive, because 2NT proved to be too much for a few declarers, and if my hand bid, people got way too high. I don't have the hand record, but my hand was something like Jxx/9xxx/QTxxx/J which means that faced with a 2D opening, I might have exercised the option to pass that, also. Declaring 2D would also have been a unique contract.
This auction is certainly not one to be proud of. Agent 99 was not inspired by her collection of queens and jacks, and downgraded it to only a 2S raise. That was questionable, and the failure to bid four when she got another chance is also hard to swallow. On the other hand, she has at least a technical defence in that the computer analysis says that nine tricks is the limit of the hand. But as a practical matter, most of the declarers in spades made ten tricks, and half of them were in game. I wrapped up ten tricks without too much trouble, even though I forced an entry to dummy in diamonds to take the spade finesse, instead of the other way round.
So why was this a notable deal? For the last couple of weeks, I've added the beer card to the list of things to do. This was the first deal where I actually managed to land it.
For the last few weeks, I've sat East-West most of the time I've played. It's been particularly noticeable to me, therefore, that by some quirk of randomness, the computer has been dealing the cards heavily North-South. That previously-mentioned session, Agent 99 and I were each declarer 4 times, while we defended 16 times. The day before, playing with a client, was similar. I know, it's the same for everybody, and should actually favor good defenders (we aren't necessarily demons, but one reason I enjoy playing with Agent 99 is that we are usually on the same wavelength in defence). But honestly, it wears you down when you pick up hand after hand with only a couple of face cards.
With Elwood, I sat North-South, and this came up.
East was an experienced A player and director, while West looked like a client, so I assumed that the 2NT overcall would be decent values and shape. That left both Elwood and myself with some interesting hand evaluation questions. Elwood decided that with further intervention possible, he should show the heart support immediately, rather than rebid his seven-card suit. I then had no idea how good my hand was with a void in partner's suit and strength in his splinter suit. On the other hand, a splinter bid should show at least mild slam interest, and where can Elwood's strength lie? I figured his spades should be very good, in which case I should be able to get the diamond losers away, and so I jumped to 6H.
Then when faced with the actual dummy and the QD opening lead, I decided that the best line of play would be the opposite of what I had envisioned, also. I ruffed the opening lead, and cross-ruffed clubs and diamonds ignoring the spade suit altogether. That seemed to me the plan least likely to be tripped up by the distribution. Twelve tricks rolled in without a problem.
So far, Agent 99 and I haven't had too much at-the-table experience with our 2D and 2NT openings. The 2NT came up once, getting us a good board when the opponents bid 3S just making while the field was in 3H making ten tricks. In the same session, Agent 99 missed a chance to open 2D by miscounting her points and opening 1C instead. Making eight tricks for +90 scored matchpoints for going positive, because 2NT proved to be too much for a few declarers, and if my hand bid, people got way too high. I don't have the hand record, but my hand was something like Jxx/9xxx/QTxxx/J which means that faced with a 2D opening, I might have exercised the option to pass that, also. Declaring 2D would also have been a unique contract.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
New system
OK, it's official. Agent 99 and I played a session using the new system.
1S= 5+cards, 1NT response forcing with Bart, 1S-2H GF
1D, 1H= 4+cards, 1NT response not forcing
1C= 3+cards
1NT= 12-14
2C= strong, 23+ balanced or within about a trick of game unbalanced
2D= 20-22 balanced
2H, 2S= Acol 2, 8 playing tricks in a one- or two-suited hand
2NT= both minors 5+5+cards, 5-10hcp
Wouldn't you know it, the cards ran heavily the other way, and not one interesting opening bid came up (not even 1NT, which is only slightly interesting).
1S= 5+cards, 1NT response forcing with Bart, 1S-2H GF
1D, 1H= 4+cards, 1NT response not forcing
1C= 3+cards
1NT= 12-14
2C= strong, 23+ balanced or within about a trick of game unbalanced
2D= 20-22 balanced
2H, 2S= Acol 2, 8 playing tricks in a one- or two-suited hand
2NT= both minors 5+5+cards, 5-10hcp
Wouldn't you know it, the cards ran heavily the other way, and not one interesting opening bid came up (not even 1NT, which is only slightly interesting).
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
5-cards or 4-cards? Yes
I had an idea last weekend that is a bit weird. I have a feeling it's either terrifically good or terrifically stupid, and after several days of chewing it over, I can't make up my mind which.
The thing is, basically I like bidding 4-card majors. With a weak no-trump, simple bidding becomes very natural, and if you want to add gadgets to cover specific weaknesses, you can see where you gain and where you lose. Except, opening 1S isn't so clever. The only response you have at the one level is 1NT, so that, perforce, becomes what you say any time you aren't strong enough to answer at the two level. Sensible auctions when Responder is weakish are unlikely to happen. By contrast, if you play 5-card majors with 1NT forcing (and Bart, maybe), you can have a relatively well-defined sequence to a somewhat sensible part-score at the two level, or maybe three level. On the downside, your minor suit bidding becomes quite compromised, with 1C often being 3 cards, and even 1D not immune.
But then I thought, why not play 1S as 5 cards, with 1NT forcing, but keep 1H as 4 cards, with 1NT not forcing? 1C does get compromised a little, but it will only be 3 cards when you are specifically 4=3=3=3 with 15+hcp. That's a lot better than Standard American.
So I looked at the ACBL convention card, and there's no way to express this arrangement. But I don't see how they can object to it, either: it's all known components that are legal, just put together in an unusual way.
Which doesn't answer my original question. Is this idea nifty or nuts?
The thing is, basically I like bidding 4-card majors. With a weak no-trump, simple bidding becomes very natural, and if you want to add gadgets to cover specific weaknesses, you can see where you gain and where you lose. Except, opening 1S isn't so clever. The only response you have at the one level is 1NT, so that, perforce, becomes what you say any time you aren't strong enough to answer at the two level. Sensible auctions when Responder is weakish are unlikely to happen. By contrast, if you play 5-card majors with 1NT forcing (and Bart, maybe), you can have a relatively well-defined sequence to a somewhat sensible part-score at the two level, or maybe three level. On the downside, your minor suit bidding becomes quite compromised, with 1C often being 3 cards, and even 1D not immune.
But then I thought, why not play 1S as 5 cards, with 1NT forcing, but keep 1H as 4 cards, with 1NT not forcing? 1C does get compromised a little, but it will only be 3 cards when you are specifically 4=3=3=3 with 15+hcp. That's a lot better than Standard American.
So I looked at the ACBL convention card, and there's no way to express this arrangement. But I don't see how they can object to it, either: it's all known components that are legal, just put together in an unusual way.
Which doesn't answer my original question. Is this idea nifty or nuts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)