Misadventures In Manhattan

I don’t know that this entry is going to be very educational, but here are some of this week’s oddities from my games at the MBC.

On a fairly boring board, I got into an argument with an opponent who is also a director. At some point in the middle of the hand, dummy asked to see a defender’s card (that had just been turned over). “No you can’t”, says the other defender. “You’re the dummy: you can’t interrupt the play at all.” Well, “yes he can”, says I, “he has the right to see the cards played”. And back and forth we went. Anyway, it was all a theoretical barney, not an actual argument argument. But there are conflicting requirements in the Laws. Dummy has the absolute right to follow the play and keep track of tricks won and lost. In order that he be able to do that, the defenders must play their cards in such a way that he can see them, which I think means that he does have the right to ask when a defender turns his card over too quickly. But on the other hand, dummy can’t draw declarer’s attention to a particular card or trick: he really is not allowed to interfere in the play at all. So we were both right, which is a bit confusing. I think the bottom line is that while dummy has that right, he must be very careful about exercising it, in case he gets accused of coaching declarer. Not an issue in this case, but I can see how it could be for some pairs.

The next hand, I picked up
♠5 ♥KT9632 ♦6 ♣KQJ32
and still being a little hot under the collar, I went a bit Australian on him and opened 3♥. Passed out and just made, for close to a top. I don’t remember opening a three-bid on a hand like that before, but with the vulnerability against us (we were, they weren’t) it worked well at stifling the competition. As it happened, even though partner didn’t have much, it was a part-score hand. We can make 3♣ or 3♥, they can make 3♦ or 2NT. But even if they go to 3NT or 4♦, they score better than letting us make 3♥. By contrast, the evening before, I played with Agent 99 and the following hand came up.

I swear to god, a 12-card trump fit and we go two down because they get a ruff. But it was pretty much a top, of course, because they forgot to double or bid on. South thought for a while before passing. Double isn’t totally ridiculous, and would actually have collected a lot of matchpoints (a tad undeservedly) because there were an awful lot of 480s on the traveler. On the other hand, North didn’t think much before passing directly over 5♦: he seems to have very much under-estimated the offensive power of his 6-5 distribution. The combination of his suits and South’s controls makes 6♠ a snap. We left the table as South started in on North’s choice of opening. The commentary was quite sotto voce and calculated, but I wouldn’t have wanted to be on the receiving end of it. Agent 99 remarked that they must be married.

When it comes to bidding over the opponent’s 1NT, I’m definitely a convert to the view that a lot of people don’t do it enough. But there has to be some discretion exercised.

Partner minimized the defence, but we still managed to get them down three for a top. I don’t like the 2♦ call (diamonds plus a major), because there are too many HCP in the short suits. 5-4 distribution and 10-11 HCP is OK, but you want the high cards for offence, not defence. On the other hand, the 4♦ call strikes me as just suicidal. If you want partner to overcall on these sorts of deals, you have to not hang him when he does.

Sectional in the clubs

I’ve not been playing much the last few weeks, but on Sunday we reunited our regional team to play in a sectional Swiss Teams – apparently, one of us needed some silver points. We still qualify for the B stratum, so we played at Honors bridge club in the B/C event. It’s a nice venue – Honors and the Manhattan are just about tied for being the best clubs in NYC. (For this sectional, MBC was hosting all the 299er events).

We got off to a rocky start. First, I overslept, and in a mad panic blew my entry fee cash on a cab to get there with less than five minutes to spare. (The alarm clock didn’t go off, or I shut it off in my sleep, or something). Then the tone of the first match was set by the very first board.

The ♥K was led, and this seemed like a very reasonable contract when the dummy came down. If spades are 2-2, the ruffing diamond finesse disposes of the heart loser even when the ♦K is offside. If spades are 3-1, I need the ruffing finesse to win, with enough of even breaks so that I can ruff one club loser while ditching the other two losers on diamonds. Not much to ask - I’d say the chances are somewhere up towards 70%. There are other lines, but I’d say that two trumps and the ruffing finesse must easily be best. Of course, ♠Qxx was offside and the ruffing finesse lost, so I finished up three down.

It turned out our West had opened a weak two on a five-card heart suit, and got caught for 800. If the slam makes, that’s a useful swing to us, but instead of +180 the swing was -950. We bid a couple of close games that went down when critical finesses lost, our teammates mis-defended a game, and when the smoke cleared, we had been blitzed 0-20 VPs – not an auspicious start. But it’s often a good way to start a Swiss, or so I’ve been told, and our next few matches took us to the top of the leader-board (17-3, 18-2, 18-2, 19-1).

The fifth match looked like a win all the way at our table. The opposing pair were snapping at each other when they sat down. Then on the first board, in what seemed like a safe part-score, at trick 12 declarer held the last trump and a winner in hand. He led a loser from dummy, and dropped the side-suit winner on it. Then he showed the last trump, and tried to claim. Elwood pointed out that the 12^th trick wasn’t his, and that was one down. I’ve seen (and committed) pulling the wrong card, of course, but rarely at trick 12. It turned out they were booked for a swing against anyway, since our teammates made game, but naturally dummy was not pleased by this result. The second board looked something like this:

At IMPs, you’re going to push for games, and so you’re going to get into these messes. Legitimately, you only make if spades are 2-2, but the way the cards had been running all afternoon, I would have put money on a 3-1 break. I won the opening diamond lead with the king in dummy, and ran the ♠7 to West. He tried a heart, and I captured the ♥J with the ♥K, and played another spade. East won this one as West discarded. Now East dithered a little before returning – a diamond. So I finessed the ♥9 and ditched both clubs before East could ruff in. East was really venomous by now. “I knew I shouldn’t return your suit, it’s always wrong when I do” was just the start, and by the time the third board started, they basically weren’t speaking to each other any more. The 19-1 result wasn’t a surprise.

The sixth match was against the second place team, only two VPs behind us. There were swings in both directions, roughly canceling out. But in the end, we eked out a 2 IMP victory, 11-9 in VPs. And so in the last match, still only leading by 4 VPs, we needed to win fairly convincingly. Fortunately, the opponents at our table were not having a good match, and our teammates didn’t cut their teammates any slack either. So 30-0 in IMPs translated to a 20-0 VP blitz, and our first place was assured.

Opening 2NT And Responses

 

The opening bid of 2NT sits in the twilight zone between ordinary opening bids and forcing strong openings. It has a reputation for being a “slam-killer”, in that it can be difficult to identify slam potential when the optimal contract depends upon fit. Responder knows that opener has a big hand, but 21 hcp or so can have more than one weakness, especially in a balanced hand, so he can’t go hog-wild. And there is very little room for investigation before you find yourself past game and heading into dangerous territory.

An additional complicating factor is that the distributional requirements for the 2NT opening tend to be somewhat lax. These days, the 1NT opening gets used on semi-balanced hands or maybe even with a singleton, and that sort of thing would have been heresy 30 or 40 years ago (and still is frowned upon in some quarters). But even back then, it was routine to bend the “balanced hand” rules for the 2NT opening, because the grey area between opening 1suit and opening 2C needs the help in Standard American and similar systems. (For a while, one of the cornerstone advantages of Acol as a system was its intermediate 2-bids, because they specifically addressed this region of hand-strength. But as people were seduced by weak 2-bids, that advantage was surrendered by many Acol players.) So whatever responding scheme you choose, you have to be aware that both opener and responder may not exactly be balanced.

Nevertheless, the usual responses are similar to those used over the 1NT opening. Stayman, transfers, and think of something to do with the 3S response and some way to handle minor-suit responding hands. Puppet Stayman addresses the possibility that opener has a 5-card major suit, as well as making the stronger hand declarer, so that sees quite a lot of use over 2NT. I play it with Elwood, but not with Agent 99. To be honest, I’m not as thrilled with it as I might be. I just can’t recall any hand I’ve played where we finished up in the wrong contract and I said to myself “if only we’d been playing Puppet…”. The last time I opened 2NT with a 5-card spade suit, playing with Agent 99, she answered 3H (transfer)! I bid 4S, just to make sure we got there, and we played quietly in game like everybody else. There is a memory-burden attached to Puppet, not a large one, but still, it was something that Agent 99 didn’t want to add to her repertoire when we were starting out, so we play just regular 4-card Stayman.

There are other possible approaches. I came across an old scheme of Jeremy Flint the other day. After 2NT – 3C; opener rebids:

3D = no major OR flat major OR 4-4 with diamonds

3H = hearts and clubs

3S = spades and clubs

3NT = 3334 or 3325

4C = majors, minimum

4D = majors, good controls (7+)

4H = majors, maximum points, <7>

Notice that all bids from 3H to 3NT show C, and all bids over 3NT show both majors. 3D is basically natural.

2NT – 3C – 3D – 3H (natural)

3S = 4333, 4243, 4342

3NT = no major

4C = H and D **

4H = 3433

2NT – 3C – 3D – 3S (natural)

4C = S and D **

** Note that the 4C bid shows support and D, allowing partner to bid 4D control ask (4H=5).

2NT – 3C – 3D - 3NT = 54xx.

This is kind of interesting. The opening has limited opener’s high-card strength, and the 3C inquiry seeks elucidation of his distribution. Although it looks a bit intimidating at first glance, a lot of the bidding is actually pretty natural, and the provision of control counts or inquiries for slam investigation is quite economical. The biggest weakness I see straight off is that it doesn’t seem to take account of off-shape openers, not even a 5-card major. So I don’t think anybody will be taking this up these days.

On the other hand, the other part of Flint’s responding scheme uses the 3S response to account for various minor-suit hands. Opener has to make the puppet bid of 3NT, and then responder has

4C/D = invitational

4H = xx45

4S = xx54

4NT = good 5-5 minors. 

In the original, 2NT – 3NT showed a moderate hand 5-5 in the minors, so to simply raise to 3NT you would make the 3S response, and then pass the forced 3NT rebid. This multi-purpose 3S response is still used today in some circles. At the Manhattan, the version that is sometimes taught has 2NT – 3NT as natural. The 3S response followed by 4NT shows 5-5 in the minors but is non-forcing, and 3S followed by 5C is 5-5 minors forcing to slam. Depending on who is doing the teaching, the 4C and 4D bids may be natural or may indicate the opposite minor (that is, 4C shows diamonds and 4D shows clubs). The advantage of leaving the bids as natural is that it’s one less thing to remember, and opener may be able to use Redwood or something conveniently. The idea of not bidding your suit is, of course, to allow the strong hand to be declarer. This whole thing isn’t that great, but it provides a relatively simple “one-stop shopping” solution for various hands, so it’s definitely better than nothing.

In his columns written for OKBridge, Marc Smith advocated using 3S as Minor Suit Stayman. In conjunction with this, he suggested 4C/4D as Texas transfers (for H/S, respectively), thus freeing the 4H and 4S responses to show single-suited hands with clubs and diamonds, respectively. I haven’t tried that arrangement, but if he suggests it, it must be somewhat playable.

To be honest, the best solution for the 2NT opening may be to stop using it. In ACBL territory, one of the best uses of the 2D opening may be to replace the 2NT opening. The Mexican 2D is a known convention, originally part of the Romex system. This opening shows a big balanced hand, usually 18-19 hcp, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t make that 20-21 or 21-22, or whatever your usual 2NT range is. The extra couple of bids available to responder may not seem like much gain, at first glance, but if you check out Martin Johnson’s ideas at Bobby Knows Bridge (http://www.freewebs.com/bobbybridge/), you can see how to use (in effect) four-suit transfer responses. You actually gain quite a lot of flexibility, responder being able to stop in lower part-scores when he has a bust, and also able to show more below 3NT when he has some distribution. It seems to me that the 2D opening looks much better than 2NT.

So then what do you do with the 2NT opening? Well, Alder pre-empts look good, but the ACBL would have the vapors. Transfer pre-empts are relatively innocuous, but even they are listed as a mid-chart convention. Or you could just go with 2NT showing a minor two-suiter – that actually made it to the General Convention Chart.

lebensohl over 1NT

I can’t believe I haven’t yet posted anything about lebensohl. I have a very ambivalent, or at least confused, attitude to this convention. You really have to play it or something equivalent: just relying on natural bidding and common sense doesn’t work well enough in these situations. In principle, the convention is simple and should be easy to use. And yet, when it comes to actually using it at the table, I find that it drives the new user crazy (speaking both as a once-new user myself, and as a teacher who has had the dubious pleasure of trying to teach this thing). Perhaps the real difficulty is that while the problem situations occur often enough for you to need the convention, they don’t occur often enough for you to become comfortable with the different sequences just in at-the-table play. Some dedicated practice with customized deals is in order. Anyway, here is a quick overview.

When the opponents interfere over 1NT, responder may have difficulty describing his hand. Given that he has a suit worth mentioning, there are at least three levels of strength that he may hold: weak, invitational, and strong. And generally, he only has two bids available below 3NT, mentioning his suit at the two-level or jumping to the three-level. The lebensohl convention is a way to give him more flexibility.

The basic idea is that after a 2-level overcall, a natural bid of 2NT is very unlikely to be required. Using lebensohl, a bid of 2NT by responder is a relay, requiring opener to bid 3C. Then if responder passes (showing clubs) or bids a new suit at the 3 level, the bid is competitive or invitational. If the responder could have mentioned his suit at the two level, his three-level bid after the relay is invitational. If responder didn’t have a chance to bid his suit at the two-level, his bid after lebensohl is just competing, and opener is expected to pass. Conversely, if responder doesn’t go through the relay but bids a new suit at the 3 level directly over the overcall, that is strong and forcing. And if responder can get his suit in at the 2-level over the overcall, that is just weak.

So for example, if the bidding goes:

1NT – (2H) – 2S that is natural and weak, just competing

1NT – (2H) – 3S that is natural and strong, responder wants to be in game

1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3S that is not forcing, invitational

1NT – (2H) – 3D that is forcing with at least invitational strength

1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3D that is just competing

So far, so good, but there’s more. Another common convention, without a name that I know, is that responder can cue-bid to indicate game-going values and four cards in one or both majors (a way to make up for Stayman being lost). For example:

• 1NT – (2H) – 3H! means I’m strong enough for game, and have four spades
• 1NT – (2H) – 3NT means I want to be in game and I don’t have spades

The lebensohl relay can also be used in both these sequences, and the usual meaning attached is related to whether or not responder has a stopper in the enemy suit. The two possible methods are generally referred to as “fast denies” and “slow denies”. If you play “slow denies”, then the above mentioned two sequences also show a stopper in the enemy suit, hearts in the examples above. Going through the relay denies having a stopper in the enemy suit. So

• 1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3H game-forcing with four spades, but no heart stopper
• 1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3NT game-forcing without either spades or a heart stopper

If you play “fast denies”, the meanings are reversed: jumping to 3NT immediately over intervention actually denies having a stopper in the enemy suit. (Opener therefore has to stay awake and bid something if he too lacks a stopper). There may be an advantage to playing “fast denies” if the opposition wants to keep bidding. The immediate jumps tend to shut out advancer, and the times when responder doesn’t have a stopper are perhaps more likely to be the times you really want to do that. So, while it would seem that “slow denies” has the edge in naturalness (if there is such a word), in practice, almost everyone plays fast denies. Just for the hell of it, with Agent 99 I play “slow denies”, and so far we haven’t had any problem.

 

Misadventures In Manhattan

Some random hands from the MBC.

West and East were a teacher and one of her students (not a beginner). My partner was one of my regular partners, but he’s not doing so well these days and this was near the end of the evening. So for multiple reasons (not least of which was I fancied our chances of making), I decided to pull his penalty double.

West was keeping a pretty good poker face and not meeting my eyes when the dummy came down. My assessment was that she thought they were in the running East-West, and she had liked the progress of the auction. Even more, she still expected to beat the contract when I ruffed the opening lead of ♠A.

The bad news is that I have no way to avoid losing the other two aces I’m missing, so I really have to pick up the trumps for just one loser. For a vulnerable jump overcall, I’m inclined to credit East with more than just ♠QJxxxx(x), so give her an ace. I’m sure that means West thinks she has two trump tricks. So, does she have four trumps, or only three? Do you feel lucky?

Like the wuss that I am, I led to the ♦10, and East showed out. If I had run the ♦6, West wasn’t going to be happy. And even worse, she had doubled 5♣ only to panic us into 5♦, and was feeling very pleased with herself that it “worked”! Small details like us preferring to play in the 9-card fit rather than the 7-card fit, and me having a chance to make the contract, seemed to pass her by. Still, the result was dead average, one way or another. 

Rats.

A few posts back I said something about big balanced responding hands being difficult to deal with. This one came up for the opponents.

With the friendly diamond lie, 7♦, 7♠ and 7NT all make. But even with average distributions, you want to be in 6♠. With standard American treatments, it’s not as easy as it looks, and only about half the field got past 4♠. The Jacoby 2NT response usually shows 4-card support, and if you can’t use that, then a sensible auction gets much harder. I think there’s a case for using Jacoby with 3-card support when your hand is so strong.

 

Here’s another slam hand that’s a little awkward, but I applied my usual solution – just punt.

 The ♠A got ruffed on the opening lead, and I wondered what to do next. I decided that the best chance was to hope for trumps 2-1, when I could play to get rid of dummy’s spade losers by ruffing two and throwing two away. So I laid down the ♣A, and the ♣K fell on my right. That made it pretty safe to ruff a diamond, and when both opponents followed suit, I was claiming thirteen tricks.

This would have been a good hand for the special negative 2NT response I’ve described before. I would still be punting the slam, but it would be a much better informed punt.

 

1NT Forcing and Bart

If you play 5-card majors, it is best to play the response of 1NT as forcing for one round. While this prevents you from playing in that most admirable contract, it provides an extra round of bidding to find an accurate part-score. While most people manage without too much further elaboration, there is a case for an additional layer of artificiality. For one thing, opener’s “natural” rebids of 2C and 2D can only promise a 3-card suit at best. And after 1H – 1NT opener may be forced to bid 2C on a doubleton in a 4=5=2=2 hand that isn’t strong enough to reverse. Also, responder’s hand may be balanced and weak to invitational in strength, or it may be unbalanced, and range from weak to just under the strength needed for a 2 over 1 response (and if you play 2/1 GF, “just under” is really not a bad hand). After 1S – 1NT or 1H – 1NT, opener will make a jump rebid with a maximum opening, generally 18+hcp. There is therefore a potential problem when opener is 15-17hcp and/or responder is near his maximum, say 9-11hcp - game needs to be considered in these cases. And yet another situation arises after 1S – 1NT when responder has a 5-card heart suit and a doubleton spade – it can be difficult or impossible to identify the best part-score (two hearts or two spades).

There is more than one way to address some of these issues. Perhaps one of the simpler ideas is a convention called Bart that addresses sequences after 1S – 1NT; 2C. (The situation after 1H – 1NT isn’t quite so bad, but while a similar treatment can be applied, there are differences, and I’ll stick with the spade opening for this description). There’s more than one version of Bart floating around as well, but this version seems fairly straightforward to me.

First, the agreement can be made that opener’s 2H and 2D rebids promise at least 4 cards. The 2C rebid is then redefined as not meeting the requirements for any other bid, making it alertable as not really natural any more. Second, bidding following opener’s 2C rebid is elaborated by making responder’s 2D at this point an artificial relay (also alertable).

We need to consider how opener will bid, and also what hands responder is trying to show. First, opener’s first rebid:

1S – 1NT;

• 2S shows 6+cards, 11-16hcp
• 3S shows 6+cards, 17-18hcp
• 4S shows 6+cards, 19-20hcp
• 2NT shows 18-19hcp
• 3C/3D/3H are natural, 4+cards, 18+hcp, forcing
• 2D/2H are natural, 4+cards, 11-17hcp
• 2C catches everything else, generally either clubs or a balanced hand in the 11-17hcp range

Now consider responder’s hand. Generally, the 1NT response is made on hands that are balanced, or that are unbalanced but not strong enough for an immediate 2 over 1 response. The 2D relay will be used for:

• Balanced 10-12hcp including 4-card club support
• Strong (9-11hcp) with clubs
• Strong (9-11hcp) with diamonds
• 3-card limit raise that includes 4-card club support
• hands with 5 hearts and 2 spades

Direct bids (not using the relay) will then show

• Balanced 10-12hcp without 4-card club support
• Weak (5-8hcp) with clubs
• Weak (5-8hcp) with diamonds
• 3-card limit raise without 4-card club support 

(The exclamation is used to indicate a bid that should be alerted).

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! responder bids

• Pass – obviously weak, should be 5+clubs and at most 1 spade
• 2D! – artificial and forcing, generally 9+hcp but can be weak with 5 hearts and 2 spades
• 2H – natural, weak, 6+cards, opener should not return to spades
• 2S – natural, weak, usually a doubleton
• 2NT – natural, invitational 10-12hcp, denies 4 clubs or 3 spades
• 3C – natural, 5-8hcp, 5+cards, principally a courtesy raise to shut out the opponents
• 3D – natural, 5-8hcp, to play. Weak diamond hands have to play in 3D rather than 2D, the only serious drawback to the convention.
• 3S – limit raise with 3-card spade support, denies 4 clubs
• 3NT – natural, 13-15hcp, denies 4 clubs or 3 spades

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! – 2D! opener defines his hand a little more:

• 3H – 3-card hearts, 15-17hcp
• 2NT – natural, 15-17hcp, less than 3 hearts
• 2S – 11-15hcp, less than 3 hearts
• 2H – 11-15hcp, 3-card hearts

If opener has bid 2NT or 3H, responder should be able to place the contract. Otherwise, responder completes his description:

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! – 2D!; 2H

• Pass – natural, 5-card hearts
• 2S – usually a doubleton honor with 8-10hcp
• 2NT – natural 10-12hcp, but with 4-card club support
• 3C – good club raise, 9-11hcp
• 3D – invitational with good diamonds, 9-11hcp, 6+cards
• 3H – invitational, 8-11hcp, 5+cards
• 3S – limit raise with 3-card spades and 4-card clubs
• 3NT – natural, 13-15hcp, includes 4-card club support
• 4H – natural, distributional

and after that, opener should know where to go.

Laid out like this, it all looks rather intimidating. But actually, it’s quite straightforward and pretty natural, just difficult to describe concisely.

Bermuda Bowl

Well it's all over. Congratulations to USA2, China, and England.

I have to say I was surprised by both the Venice Cup and the Senior Bowl. I really did expect the French and German women to do better, and the English seniors barely squeaked into the competition (they actually were out on a tie-breaker, always a miserable state of affairs, but got in when the Netherlands withdrew). That's not to say that the winners are unworthy, far from it. The Chinese women (and the men in the Bermuda Bowl too, for that matter) were consistently strong and dangerous, and took the final by the scruff of the neck. The English seniors climbed rapidly to the top of the round robin ladder and stayed there, and showed true quality in the final when Poland jumped out to an early lead. Very well done by all.

I read somewhere that Bobby Wolff's assessment of the Bermuda Bowl knock-out was that the best eight teams had qualified, and that there wasn't a weak player to be found anywhere. I often don't agree with him, but in this case I think he was exactly right. It would be easy to glance at the final result and assume that Italy and the USA are just streets better than anybody else. But if you watched some of the competition, you would know that it's much closer than in some prior years. All eight of the teams in the knock-out were very strong indeed, and if Italy and the USA are the strongest, it's not by very much of a margin.