Cuebidding At Bridge

R.U.N.T. -- The Authoritative Text!

2012-01-27T08:53:00.000-08:00

I am pleased to announce the release of Really Unusual Notruimp (R.U.N.T.) as an ebook through Master Point Press. It can be found at http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_136&products_id=489&zenid=74461e63cec3cbfb8ce16bed223d730e. (The paperback version will be coming shortly, through Amazon and other sources.)

For those of you who know me, I have been using R.U.N.T. for about 20 years, and it is one of my favorite tools, mostly because it comes up constantly, meaning sometimes 6-8 times in a session. More than just about any other call imaginable.

You might not know that the computer bridge program Jack also plays R.U.N.T.! The link at ebooksbridge has a "sample" and a table of contents. R.U.N.T. is not for the conservative among us -- it is clearly for the wild people. But, there are many of us. I hope you enjoy this.

Non-Psychics

2012-01-27T07:20:00.000-08:00

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge define a psychic call as "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length."

A call is NOT a psychic if the definition given for the call is such that the person making the bid has not deliberately misstated strength or length. There are many situation where a psychic would be called for, but the partnership can avoid the psychic occurring by defining the bid to include the "psychic meaning." Why do this, though?

Consider a simple example. White on red, partner opens Three Clubs. After a pass, you bid 3NT, played as non-forcing and showing either a strong hand that thinks 9 tricks possible or a weak hand with club support. Opener is expected to pass throughout. You do this for two reasons.

First, if the hand belongs to the opponents at the game level, 3NT undoubled down 9 (-450) might beat 5CX-3 (-500), which is a matchpoints gain. So, 3NT undoubled is a good result. Plus, you cause the opponents to have a problem.

Second, if you really wanted to play 3NT, you might induce a mistake by an opponent if the remaining points are stacked. For instance, if you have 26 HCP combined, one opponent might have all of the remaining 14 HCP and bid, to his great discomfort.

By having a two-way meaning, each of which merits 3NT as a call, you protect both. Two-way calls in such situations avoid unnecessary disclosure of values.

Similarly, consider a 2S response to a weak 2H opening. If this is "spades, or hearts" and non-forcing, you cause problems when your intent is preemptive, but you also protect the times when you wanted to escape to 2S, as the opponents must bid against oth possibilities.

So, is this a "psychic control?" I don't understand that term, frankly. If a call is used to "show a psychic," then the "psychic" was not a "psychic" after all. That is, unless the definition of the call did not include the "psychic meaning." IMO, a "psychic control" is not really what it sound like. Rather, it is a means of conventionally agreeing a meaning that is not otherwise allowed (which would be a GCC problem and not a psychic problem) or is a means of allowing non-disclosure of the true meaning, which is really a disclosure problem (and/or a failure to alert).

Thoughts?

False Heart Preference?

2012-01-23T08:42:00.000-08:00

If you have been reading my new book, an idea might have popped into your mind. If Overcalled bids Two CLubs as Crunched Cappelletti and happens to hold hearts and diamonds, and if Responder shows spade preference by bidding Two Diamonds, Overcaller might be tempted to pass Two Diamonds, at least in some situations (depending on vulnerability, seat, state of the match, scoring form, etc.).

This is something that you might want to discuss with partner. If this is a possibility, then Advancer in some circumstances might want to give a false heart preference. Consider, for instance, Advancer looking at a weak hand with 5-3-0-5 pattern. Having heard Two Clubs, Advancer would normally bid Two Diamonds for spade preference, planning on playing in the major, whichever Overcaller-Partner has. However, if Overcaller is allowed to make a "judgment pass" of Two Diamonds with both reds, then Advancer might opt to use a "judgment preference" himself. With 5-3-0-5 shape, Advancer expects a huge likelihood that partner has the red suits. He might be wrong, but the odds are high. Advancer who playts with an Overcaller-Partner who likes the "judgment pass" could protect by showing "false heart preference." If Overcaller-Partner has the expected red-suit two-suiter, this gets us to the right contract quickly. If, however, Overcaller-Partner actually holds spades, or hearts and clubs, the contract will be acceptable but not ideal.

This might be cause for not allowing any "judgment" decisions. But, as a person who once passed a Roman Two Clubs opening with 6-2-2-3 shape (it worked, as Two Clubs was the only makeable contract), I am also a realist. So, I thought it a good idea to predict this "abuse" and to counter with the "abuse counter" of the "false heart preference."

By the way -- thanks to all who have already sent kind words about my book.

Now in Stock -- Overcalling Opponent's 1NT in Paperback

2012-01-18T06:19:00.000-08:00

My new book is now in stock at Amazon as a paperback edition, if you are interested. I am pleased to see that it is already in the top 100 bridge books for current "sales rank!" The price at Amazon is $11.95, with free shipping available.

You can also find it at a discount at Barnes and Noble for $8.60 right now: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/overcalling-opponents-1nt-ken-rexford/1108315832?ean=9781554947621&itm=1&usri=overcalling+opponent%27s+1nt, but this might not include the free shipping.

If you get the book and enjoy it, please consider writing a review on these sites. If you hate the book, get around to a review later! ;-)

Overcalling Opponent's 1NT -- Paperback

2012-01-17T07:39:00.001-08:00

The paperback version seems to be imminent. A link to Amazon for notification when it arrives:

http://www.amazon.com/Overcalling-Opponents-1NT-Ken-Rexford/dp/1554947626/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326814725&sr=8-1

Ebook Now Available

2012-01-11T09:36:00.000-08:00

The ebook version of my new book, Overcalling Opponent's 1NT, is now available at www.ebooksbridge.com. Specifically, http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_136&products_id=486.

THe print version should be available in a few days.

Overcalling Opponent's 1NT

2012-01-10T10:14:00.000-08:00

I have a new book coming out through Master Point Press in the next few days. Overcalling Opponent's 1NT. The topic generally is overcalling 1NT openings, but I use the theory to also develop applications for other auctions.

The methods arise from my idea of using two-under as one or both majors (or as one or both minors in other auctions). Using these methods, for instance, you can do better (in my opinion) than the Woolsey defense, while fitting into the ACBL General Conventions Chart, a claim that the Woolsey defense cannot meet.

In Woolsey, for instance, you can handle (1) both majors with a probe as to which is better, (2) one-suited major, (3) major-minor, or (4) the double as typically major-minor canape longer in minor. But, the one-suited major is through 2D, which is not GCC compliant.

Using one of my proposed methods, you can have Overcaller handle (1) both majors with Overcaller defining which he prefers, (2) one-suited major without GCC violation, (3) major-minor, or (4) spades with a longer minor, all without violating the GCC and with retention of the double as penalty, if you want. If you then add in an artificial meaning for the double, you can handle much more than the Woolsey defense could handle, again all GCC legal.

If you add in the Multi used in Woolsey and in Multi-Landy (which I also out perform), you can handle (1) both majors, (2) major-minor, (3) major-MINOR canape, and (4) one major, all without giving up the penalty double! Of course, the penalty double could be added onto that to expand options even further.

You also would have other interesting options, like defining immediately which minor you have, defining immediately (at the two-level) whether you have a values overcall or a garbage overcall, and the like.

I hope you enjoy. I have pasted in the Table of Contents to give you a feel for what the book will be about:

Introduction 5

Chapter One: Good-Bad for One or Both Majors over Notrump 9

The Basic Structure for Differentiating Weak from Intermediate 11

More About the Weak Two Clubs Overcall 17

Advancer’s Options with Game Interest

Advancer is Interested in Game in Spades Only

Advancer is Interested in Game in Hearts Only

Advancer is Interested in Game Regardless:

If Overcaller Shows a Maximum with Both Majors

If Overcaller Shows a Minimum

Advancer’s Override Options

Advancer Dislikes Both Majors and has One or Both Minors

Advancer Dislikes Hearts

Advancer Dislikes Spades

Handling Interference

Responder Doubles

Responder Shows a Major

Responder bids Two Spades Artificially

Responder bids Two No Trump

Responder bids Three Clubs

Responder bids Three Diamonds

Other Uses for Clubs as One or Both Majors 37

Three Clubs After Two No Trump for Minors

A Different Multi Structure

Chapter Two: Crunched Cappelletti 41

Advancer’s Options with Game Interest 45

Advancer is Interested in Game in Spades Only

Advancer is Interested in Game in Hearts Only

Paradox Two Spades

Paradox Minor Preference

Advancer is Interested in Game Regardless

Overcaller’s Options with Independent Game Interest 51

When Advancer Prefers Hearts

Advancer’s Heart Preference is Bad News – Overcaller has Spades and a Minor

Advancer’s Heart Preference is Good News

When Advancer Prefers Spades

Examples for Overcaller with Strong Hand

Why Use Crunched Cappelletti? 57

Backwards Cappelletti

Backwards Cappelletti Plus Power 2¨ for Strong Majors

Backwards Cappelletti Plus Flannery

Backwards Cappelletti Plus Reverse Flannery

Backwards Cappelletti with Impure Reverse Flannery and Canapé Spades

Specific Minor Cappelletti

Crunched Cappelletti Plus 2¨ for Diamonds-Major

Club-Specific Crunched Cappelletti

2¨ as Diamond-Major Two-Suiter

Crunched Cappelletti Plus 2¨ as Multi

Crunched Cappelletti, Multi 2¨, and Double Canapé

Incorporating an Artificial Double

Other Uses for Crunched Cappelletti 81

Overcalling a Strong Two No Trump

Crunched Cappelletti Double and Forcing Pass

Crunched Cappelletti Cuebid

Chapter Three: Spades for One or Both Minors 85

Using Spades for One or Both Minors to Overcall 1NT 87

Majors and Minors via Two-Under, Plus Transfers

Majors and Minors via Two-Under, Plus Multi

Crunched Cappelletti plus Two-Under Minor(s) and Ripstra

Other Uses for Spades for One or Both Minors 91

Different Handling of 3145

Defense Against Flannery

Impossible Two Spades for One or Both Minors

Positives after a Two Clubs Opening

Chapter Four: Other Two-Under Situations 99

Escaping 1NT Doubled

RESPONDING TO TWO NO TRUMP OPENINGS

ThREE CLUBS FOR ONE OR BOTH MAJORS

THREE DIAMONDS AS “STAYMAN”

MINOR FLAGS

RESPONDING TO ONE NO TRUMP OPENINGS

Kaplan Inversion by Opener?

2011-12-22T20:43:00.000-08:00

Has anyone ever thought of this? A Kaplan Inversion after a minor opening and One Heart response?

I was thinking tonight about the sequence 1D-P-1H-P-1S as opposed to 1D-P-1H-P-1NT. For many of us, 1NT rebids might be made with a four-card spade suit. 1D-P-1H-P-1S, then, is unbalanced.

Assuming this, I wondered whether a Kaplan Inversion by Opener might open up some interesting opportunities. Opener rebids 1NT with an unbalanced minimum, four spades and five diamonds. With the hand with which he would normally bid 1NT, he bids 1S instead, forcing to at least 1NT. How would this gain?

Well, assume that Responder has the hand with which he would pass 1NT. In that event, he instead simply bids 1NT after the inversion, and we wrong-side the contract, probably. That's bad.

But, a lot of good things could then happen if we add in alternative holdings for Opener. See, if 1S is forcing, then Opener can use this inversion as a relay before a next move with some of the tweener strong-ish hands. Assuming, again, the simple auction, you have:

1D-P-1H-P-
1S!-P-1NT-P-
?

What can Opener rebid?

Pass = would have bid 1NT (probably wrong-sided)
2C = 18-19 balanced with either three hearts or four spades or both, CHECKBACK! If Responder has five hearts, he bids 2D as a transfer suggestion (Opener can reject this). If Responder has four spades, he transfers to spades. With neither, he transfers to 2NT and then can bid again as appropriate. This allows nice stops on occasion at the two-level, a rare pass of 2C as well, and averts the somewhat preemptive 2NT, which now shows 2H and 2-3S and hence allows more focus for Responder's 3-bids.
2D = Intermediate, with diamonds. This is the normal 3D call (jump rebid), but we can get out lower if Responder has a bust, and Responder can even rebid hearts. This allows the direct 1D-P-1H-P-3D to be forcing, avoiding manufactured jump shifts.
2H = Intermediate hearts raise (anywhere from would accept a game try by Responder to would make a game try himself). This allows stops at the two-level more often, more descriptive game tries (Opener is not forced to bid 3H with any number of hands but now has space to show stiffs and the like), and a different meaning for a direct 1D-P-1H-P-3H call (maybe GF).
2S = Spades and diamonds, enough for a reverse but nor for a jump shift.
2NT = Solid diamonds, needs something more.

Of course, we would need to work out the kinks as to what happens when responder has values or takes other actions, but this seems capable of working out.

Extend this, then, to 1C-P-1H-P-1S as another inversion. This allows, after the 1NT relay:

2C = Club intermediate
2D = 3145 with extras but not good enough to reverse
2H = Invite raise
2S = Spades and clubs reverse-not-Jump-Shift hand
2NT = Balanced with four spades (direct 2NT denies four spades)

This time, the inversion solves the 3145 problem hand as the focus of the new minor call. I mean, the same exact approach is possible, but perhaps it is more useful to handle this difficult pattern rather than super-tweaking strong balanced hands. Plus, 2D gets messy anyway when you start thinking through the loss of re-transfers. A smaller tweak works fine.

Stepping Stone Bids, Bootstrap Bids, and Standoff Bids

2011-12-19T12:35:00.000-08:00

I have previously described an idea that I call a "stepping stone bid." The name comes from the similar situation of throwing an opponent in to gain his card's value as an entry to Dummy (or hand) that you do not yourself have. Similarly (in a sense), a "stepping stone bid" is a call that does not take shape unless the opponent takes action, usually relying upon the need for the opponent to actually take action.

An example might be if you were to play that a 2C overcall of 1NT is a one-suited hand (Cappelletti, for example) but without any agreement that Advancer bids 2D to find out what you have. Instead, 2C just says you have a one-suited hand, and Advancer is free to pass. This would only make sense if we are white on red and limited severely as to strength. In that condition, the opponents cannot simply pass this out and defend a silly 2C contract, even if the score will be "down eight" for +400 to the opponents, because the opponents would be missing their vulonerable game bonus. Hence, 2C is not forcing on Advancer but rather conditionally forcing on the opponents.

A stepping stone bid, then, uses the condition of a force on the opponents as a means of having a "forcing" auction. This actually has some space-saving merit, in that this allows you two extra layers of description at a lower level. Consider the Cappelletti auction. If 2C is forcing on Advancer, the 2D relay means that we play 2D, 2H, 2S or 3C. If 2C is forcing on the opponents by the conditions that exist, however, we can bid 2C and play 2C, 2D, 2H, or 2S. Hence, you gain the ability to play one level lower in clubs when that is your suit. For that matter, you gain another step -- the redouble -- such that 2C could (in the situation of a conditional force on the opponents) safely show any one-suiter with the ability to play at the two-level and one additional meaning, perhaps weak with both majors or weak with both reds or something like that.

The point, though, is that a conditional force on the opponents is something we can in theory take advantage of in designing some isolated sequence options. As another example, consider a passed-hand Responder to a third-seat, whoite-on-red weak Two Hearts. You could decide that a 2S response is a weak escaqpe showing spades, clubs, diamonds, or both minors, non-forcing. If the opponents pass this out, they lose. So, they are conditionally forced to double. If they double, you can pass with spades, bid your minor with a one-suited minor, bid 2NT with both minors of equal length, or redouble with 6-4 in the minors (allowing Opener to bid a side 4-card minor or bid 2NT to ask for your minor).

Related to the Stepping Stone Bid is the "Bootstrap Bid." This is a call that boostraps onto the force actually created by the opponents. A simple example is a cuebid made by the opponents. If partner opens One Heart and RHO cuebids Two Hearts, this establishes a force on Advancer. Responder can use that force to facilitate more descriptive bidding himself, with free calls meaning one thing but passes-then-action another. There is nothing all that tricky about a Bootstrap Bid, but understanding the concept as such might create some interesting options that might not have been thought of before.

A third related concept is one I would call a Standoff Bid, which is related to the Boostrap Bid. A standoff is a situation where perhaps neither side likes the status quo. However, someone must blink. Because someone must blink, this requirement establishes a force itself. Moreover, one can use the forced blink as a defining tool, albeit with some risk of the Bluff Defense.

Let's consider an example. RHO opens a Multi 2D, guaranteeing a major. You play that a double shows "the other major." RHO cannot pass 2DX, so he must show his major. That, then, reveals your major to partner. Opener could use a "Bluff Defense" of bidding the major he does not have, of course, but that might get messy.

The point, though, is that the standoff creates an ability to stack meanings because the opponent not only must blink but in so doing must tell partner what you have. The standoff exists because in theory everyone could pass 2DX in the example. But, we expect them to blink first, so we send 2DX out there as a possible contract. I suppose that the other defense is the "All In Gamble," where 2DX is passed and played.

Restructuring 1NT Responses

2011-12-15T06:25:00.000-08:00

It has been a long time since anyone really seems to have considered a complete revamp of the basic building blocks for responding to 1NT. In thinking through some ideas, the area of 1NT responses popped up.

Is there a possible alternative core to potentially replace Stayman and Jacoby Transfers? How about something like this:

2D as Stayman, with invitational+ values. Opener bids 2S with four spades, 2H with neither major, 2NT with four hearts and a minimum, 3C with both majors (re-transfers), 3H or 3S with four and a maximum, 3D with neither but a maximum.

2C as one or both majors. Opener assumes 5-5 and bids 2D with spade preference, 2H with heart preference (2S for 22 majors). If Responder has both weak, he places contract. With just one weak, he bids it. With both invitational, raise preference. With just one but Opener preferenced, raise that. With just wrong one and six, jumps. With just wrong one and 5, notrumps.

2H as one or both minors invitational+. Opener picks minor preference to decline invites by bidding 3C or 2NT for diamonds, after which Responder places contract or can bid 3M as stiff from 5-5 and GF. If Opener would accept some invites, bids 2S, after which Responder bids 2NT minors, bids minor, or bids 3M shortness GF.

2S as one or both minors weak, or 3-1/1-3 majors GF. Opener shows minor preference, after which Responder places weak contract or bids stiff major if GF.

This is just a rough draft brainstorm. Much more would need to be filled in, of course, like perhaps Puppet 3C.

Mechanism of Competitive Two-Under Sometimes One-Under

2011-12-02T04:41:00.000-08:00

In a competitive sequence, a Two-Under call may be made by way of what appears to be a one-under "call," in a sense.

If you double an opposition two-under call, this works as a surrogate for a two-under call. Hence, for example, a double of 4C could show one or both majors, or crunched cappelletti (any two suits), effectively.

A forcing pass of either a one-under call by the opponents, or a double of a one-under call from partner, also works, as it allows a double or redouble from partner to be the preference call for the higher suit. One example is the runout of 1NT doubled, where a forcing pass enables that one-under 1NT to be escaped into a one or both minors holding. So also, consider 2C-4D-? A forcing pass here would allow opener's double to show spade preference and therefore would enable a cunched cappelletti forcing pass of the one-under 4D call.

Just How Much Definition is Possible Over 1NT?

2011-11-29T05:20:00.000-08:00

I included a list of wildly descriptive options over 1NT using a 2-Under approach. But, non of them included a double as an option. I wonder how detailed one could get with a doubkle also included.

For example, consider one scheme:

2C = both majors or one major and a minor. Advancer preferences major (2D for spade preference). If Overcaller had both majors, we play in Advancer's preferred suit. If Overcaller has a major-minor and Advancer preferences his major, we play in that major. If Overcaller has major-minor but Advancer preferences the other major, Overcaller bids his major and Responder elects contract (possibly bidding 2NT for the minor). This handles all hands with five of a major and 4+ of another suit (including the other major)

2D = four spades and longer minor or just long spades. Advancer bids 2S if he would want to play spades opposite spades and a longer minor or 2D if he would prefer the minor in that situation. Overcaller acts accordingly.

2H = just hearts

2S = just spades, stronger

X = both minors or just diamonds or 4414/4441 or 4144. Advancer preferences minor. If Overcaller has both minors, he passes Advancer's preference. With just diamonds, he corrects 2C to 2D or passes 2D. With 4414/4441, Overcaller bids 2H. With 4144, 2S.

That's a lot of coverage. Can even more be shown?

What about the same 2C as majors or major-minor. X as both minors, just diamonds, or four of either major and a longer minor. 2D, then, could be 4-4 majors, 1-4 or 4-1 minors. 2M as natural.

If 2D is allowed as one major (either), then 2H could be 4414 or 4441 and 2S 4144.

These allow all but one Ripstra shape at the two-level.

How about double as canape major-MINOR, or one major? Advancer bids 2C if he would prefer the minor in the major-minor canape, pass-or-correct. With both majors, Advancer bids 2D (or to ask for the major); after 2D, Advancer can return to the minor. After either 2C or 2D, Doubler can instead bid 2M as natural, one-suited. 2C is crunched Capp, still. 2H still 4414/4441. 2D as 1444 or one or both minors; if Advancer bids 2H, 2S shows one or both minors. If Advancer bids 2S, 2NT shows both minors but 3min is one-suited. (2D might promise four diamonds, perhaps, and thereby become a natural "treatment," GCC legal -- bid 3C immediately with just clubs.) 2S, then, as 4144, and all 4441 hands are handled.

The possibilities seem almost endless. Granted, some of this is so tight that it hampers Advancer bidding his own stuff. So, maybe the insane detail is best for pass-out or opposite a passed partner. Or, maybe it is just a curiosity or a brainstorming start. But, wow can you stack if you want to.

Flags/Transfers After 2NT in 2/1 GF

2011-11-25T12:47:00.000-08:00

An idea that might be worth considering. In any 2/1 GF sequence where trumps have not yet been agreed but both major strains are possible, a 2NT call forces one-under calls by the other person, with 3C as a minor flag.

An example from BBF is 1S-2minor, 2S-2NT, ? At this point, Opener rebidding 3C to agree Responder's minor, 3D for hearts (6-4 weakish), or 3H to rebid spades allows three-level agreement of all suits, which solves some problems.

Similarly, 1S-2H, 2S-2NT is a good start for this.

If only one major strain is possible, but both minors are possible, then bidding the minor naturally but always 3H for whichever major (and 3S as a confirm call) makes sense. E.g., 1M-2C, 2D-2NT, ?

If all four suit strains are actually possible, one-under still might make sense, with 3S for clubs. This hurts in club sequences but helps in all others.

Two-Under Plus Fishbein Defense to 4C/5C

2011-11-23T06:58:00.000-08:00

The opponents open 4C. The standard defense is natural overcalls, plus double as takeout.

An alternative structure could allow for more description, at the cost of converting the takeout double for penalties:

X = both majors, or one major and diamonds
4(5)D = takeout
4H/4S = natural one-suited

After the double, partner assumes both majors and shows prewference in the two-under method; bid 4H with heart preference or 4D with spade preference. If doubler had both majors, we get to the right major. If doubler had the other major and diamonds, he now bids 4H after 4D spade preference, or 4S afetr 4H heart preference, and Advancer picks. If doubler had a major-diamond two-suiter and Advancer prefers his major, we play there, which is probably OK.

This method could also be used in the event of a call that is practically forcing. For instance, after P-1NT-4C, we could assume that 4C will never be played undoubled, in which case pass is forcing and the risk of not doubling 4C is solved. Similarly, 4C (or 5C) after a strong, forcing opening might be a good time for this defense.

Two-Under Run-Out Pass

2011-11-22T08:53:00.000-08:00

I am not familiar with every run-out method ever devised for a weak notrump doubled. However, most that I have found require playing at the three-level if Responder desires to show both minors. A two-under forcing pass may do better.

1NT-X-P = suggests run-out to a minor. Opener responds by bidding:

2C = club preference
XX = diamond preference

If Responder started with a one-suited minor hand, he passes 2C with clubs, bids 2C after a redouble with clubs, or converts the redouble or 2C call to 2D with diamonds. If Responder started with both minors, he passes 2C or converts the redouble to 2D.

Responder could also pass with a minor-major combo. With, for example, 4H/5C, Responder could pass and then either (a) pass 2C or (b) convert redouble to 2H to show four hearts and longer clubs. I'm not sure that I would do this, but it seems like a plausible move.

Responder might even opt to convert the redouble for penalties. If, for example, Responder felt that 1NT XX'ed was a good bet if Opener prefers diamonds but would prefer to play 2D otherwise, then heck -- pass and pass.

If Responder has values, instead, he redoubles himself. 1NT-X-XX. Otherwise, systems on.

Maybe this works; maybe not so good. But, it's a two-under forcing pass option, and I like that as a theory discussion.

Two-Under by Strong Hand

2011-11-21T12:25:00.000-08:00

The normal two-under approach has the person not bidding the two-under call bidding the lower suit if he prefers that but the one-up artificially to show a preference for the higher suit. Thus, if 2C shows one or both majors, partner bids 2H with heart preference or 2S with spade preference.

If the stronger hand bids the two-under, you could reverse the meanings, indicating your least preferred suit. Thus, if 2C was bid by a strong hand to show one or both majors, Responder/Advancer would bid 2H if he prefers spades but 2D if he prefers hearts. As a pure coincidence, this happens to mean that the weak hand transfers to the suit he prefers. If the strong hand has both suits, he accepts the transfer. With only one suit, he bids that suit. Using this "transfer to the suit you prefer" method, the strong hand always plays the hand when the strong hand is two-suited, and the strong hand usually plays the hand even when he is one-suited, as the transfer is to the least-preferred suit (which is more often what the strong hand actually has).

It might be rare for a strong hand to use the two-under approach, but it could happen. For example, one might devise a scheme where a 3S rebid after a 2C opening is forcing beyond 3NT and shows one or both majors, and huge. 2C-2D, 3S-? In that scenario, as an example, Responder could transfer to the suit he prefers, and the two-under scheme still works great, just with the two-under bidder more often declaring.

Your reaction might be to suggest that transferring to the suit you prefer is easier to remember and maybe should be used all the time. But, the most common use for a two-under (one or both of two suits) approach is in situations where the person bidding two-under is weak, and where therefore you generally want the lead into the stronger hand (and the less described hand hidden).

A Different Multi

2011-11-20T06:53:00.000-08:00

Two-Under for One or Both could also be used with an alternative style of Multi, if one were so inclined.

Consider a standard 2C approach. Many use 2D waiting, plus Kokish. Thus, with heart hands and strong balanced hands, Opener starts with 2C, bids 2H, and then makes a call at the three-level.

Well, suppose, then, that your TWO CLUBS opening were multi, showing:

1. Weak with hearts,
2. Weak with spades,
3. Weak with both majors, or
A. Very strong, balanced
B. Strong with hearts primary

In that structure, Responder would assume weak and would normally bid:

I. 2H with heart preference
II. 2D with spade preference

If Opener has weak with majors, Responder's preference ends up the spot. If Responder has just spades, he bids 2S next whatever Responder prefers. With just hearts, he bids 2H or passes if Responder prefers hearts.

If Responder preferences a major but Opener has the strong hand, he next bids 2NT or higher, which shows the same thing that would be shown had Opener started a standard 2C, heard a waiting 2D, bid Kokish 2H, heard the 2S relay, and then bid.

If Responder has extras, sufficient for a game try opposite the weak hand, we are probably bidding a grand opposite the strong hand and can work it out. But, assuming a weak hand, Responder can bid 2NT as an unwind. Opener with a maximum for a weak hand bids 3D with both majors or his one major naturally. With a minimum weak hand, Opener rebids 3C instead, and the same unwinds normally available are still available, just one level higher.

Responder with one-way extras bids 2D with interest only if Opener has spades and then bids accordingly, or with a hearts-only interest bids 2S as a paradox bid. This seems somewhat better than regular multi because only one suit requires paradox bidding, and you get the bonus of the two-suited major hand.

If Opener has a strong hand of other varieties, he opens 2D, with 2H as the relay. This does not preempt anything, because the hands where Opener would have wanted to rebid 2H are bid through a 2C opening. Opener, after the relay, continues normally.

This alternative core for multi players might be better than the traditional approach, in that you ad yet another type of weak hand.

(One might also use the "Rexfordized Kokish" approach with this multi, where the 2C opening following by 2NT is not the big balanced hand (bids those through 2D) but rather a MINOR-major canape hand. See my articles here: http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/different-spin-on-kokish.html and here: http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/rexfordized-kokish-part-ii.html and http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/rexfordized-kokish-part-iii.html for details.)

Any thoughts from multi players?

Dreaming...

2011-11-15T17:58:00.000-08:00

One concern with cuebidding is that the more you reveal to partner in a cuebidding sequence to fine-tune the contract, the more you reveal to the defense. This is a tough problem to resolve.

So, I got to thinking on this problem. There might be a way to structure cuebidding sequences so as to avoid disclosure of useful defensive info until after we have resolved less useful data sufficiently to warrant entering the extended discussion. How?

Well, consider a normal cuebidding sequence using my methods. Partner opens 1H, you bid 2C GF, partner rebids 2D, and you agree hearts with 2H. Cuebidding now starts.

Using my methods, 2S is a cue showing spade control, 2NT is a trump quality denial cue, 3C is a cue of an interior suit -- clubs, and 3D is a cue of an interior suit -- diamonds. Or:

Step 1 = spade cue
Step 2 = trump denial cue
Step 3 = club cue
Step 4 = diamond cue

Why the "Steps" analysis? Well, the cue definitions are, in fact, steps. But, the steps are defined by the call made rather than by some pre-ordained rules tied to steps. Defining the cues by the call made means that the structure of cuebidding, if observed from the standpoint of steps, is not necessarily ideal. (This same type of issue arises with showing stiffs, where the steps approach might be low-middle-high, but the strain approach might make the steps become low-middle-high or high-low-middle or middle-high-low, depending on the sequence.)

Well, suppose that one organized cuebidding by steps instead of by strain? Maybe the acronym AORTA might work -- Agreed suit, Opener's suit, Responder's suit, Their suit, Asking bids. In that structure, consider, again, the basic auction 1H-2C, 2D-2H. Now:

2S = A = Trump denial cue
2NT = O = Diamond cue
3C = R = Club cue
3D = T = Spade cue
(4NT = A = RKCB)

This, then, could be reciprocated. For example, consider the basic auction after 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 2NT (trump denial cue). Responder uses the same AORTA approach:

3C = A = trump denial cue
3D = O = diamond cue
3H = R = club cue
3S = T = spade cue

This then kicks back even again. Suppose 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 2NT(denial)-3C(denial), ? At this point, we know that the partnership is missing a trump honor, at least. Opener would restructure again:

3D = no trump honors
3H = diamond cue
3S = club cue
3NT = spade cue

In contrast, a step can become "closed." E.g., 1H-2C, 2D-2H, 3C(diamond cue, but the 2NT bypass promises two top trumps)-3H(diamond cue, plus the bypass promises the missing third trump). As Opener has shown two top trumps and Responder the third, the trump suit is "closed." As Opener also showed two top diamonds and Responder the third, the diamond suit is also "closed." Thus, with Opener next to bid:

3S = R = club cue
3NT = T = spade cue
A suit can become "closed" by cueing all cards or by a complete denial.

Using this appproach, plus bypasses as denials, would seem to prioritize resolution of the solidity of trumps first, the solidity of Opener's second suit second, the solidity of Responder's suit third, and then lastly control of the fourth suit. That might be ideal, in theory, as it might avert disclosure of useful info until later in the cuebidding auction. As the steps approach simply restructures the sequences, the same number of calls would be available and used, such that it seems that the steps approach would be as efficient.

The tricks, though, would be:

1. Determining the best acronym, meaning the best structure of priorities (not really priorities in the sense of importance but in the sense of least-damaging-disclosures).
2. Deciding when serious (or frivolous) enters in as a step.
3. Thinking through the possible auctions and any nuances that develop from this sort of structure.
4. Maximizing the usefulness of jump cues in this structure.

Just thinking out loud, though, it seems easy enough to cuebid using this technique without much adjustment. Simply make the trump denial cue (normally 2NT) the first step, use AORTA because it is easy to remember and sounds good, and keep 3NT as serious when you get to that point in the auction.

If anyone likes this idea and tries it out, let me know how it works, even if trying it out means running through deals on your own and seeing what happens.

MINORS and major frag

2011-11-15T05:42:00.000-08:00

One classic approach to handling patterns with 3145/1345/3154/1354 is to jump to three of a major (some play this as the stiff, some as the fragment). The immediately-observed problem, however, is that focus on a strain with extras is difficult. For example:

1NT-3S-?

If Opener wants to suggest a slam move with a minor agreement, he bids the minor. But, with heart agreement, Opener has insufficient space to pursue that strain.

Consider, then, Minor Suit Stayman. Many will play that 1NT-2S, 2NT/3C/3D-3M shows both minors and a stiff in the indicated major, typically 5-5 minors. In that situation, we have an abundance of space, especially when Opener indicates a four-card minor, as the strain for slam is already known.

This structure might possibly be improved. I am concerned a small bit with interference with what I am proposing, but that might not be a large problem.

The simple idea is to first make the immediate 3M (1NT-P-3H or 1NT-P-3S) show the 5-5 minors hand, slam interest, indicating the stiff. Opener can resolve strain easily, by bidding the respective minor at the four-level, or perhaps Flags as RKCB with really good hands (meaning, 4H RKCB for clubs, 4S RKCB for diamonds).

Next, have 1NT-P-2S be the two-under minor or minors call. If Responder is weak, he has one or both minors. Opener will bid 3C with club preference (Responder passing with clubs only or both minors weak, bidding 3D with diamonds only weak) or 2NT with diamond preference (Responder bidding 3C with clubs only weak or 3D with diamonds only weak or both minors weak).

If Responder has the 3145/3154/1345/1354 hand and slam interest he bids 2S first, to isolate the sole minor that might be the strain for slam purposes. After Opener's call, Responder next bids three of the (short or fragment, depending on style) major. This way, space is opened up for Opener bidding the other minor as a flag if needed.

Examples:

1NT-2S
2NT(diamond pref)-3S(1S/3H)
4C = heart super-accept
4D = diamond slam move

1NT-2S
3C(club pref)-3S(1S/3H)
4C = club slam move
4D = heart super-accept

1NT-2S
2NT-3H(3S/1H)
3S = spades agreed slam move
4C = both minors slam move
4D = just diamonds slam move
4H = RKCB diamonds
4S = spades, but really poor slam cards (might be Moysian)

1NT-2S
3C-3H
3S = slam spades
4C = slam clubs
4D = both minors slam move
4H = RKCB clubs
4S = spades, poor slam cards (Moysian?)

Three-Under for Three-Suit Situation?

2011-11-13T06:00:00.000-08:00

Wow is this getting interesting to me. OK, the challenge now is to find a common situation where a three-under call (sort of) is enhanced by the theory of three-under bidding. A simple one is a redouble of One Spade!

1S-X-XX-?

To escape effectively, the three-under approach for three suits can be used. The redouble makes 2S "three under" the three suits shown by the double, in the sense that it adds pass as the additional level.

If escaping Advancer has one or both minors and wants to play at two of a minor, perhaps two of the right minor if he has both equal minors, he passes. Doubler then picks his minor of preference, bidding 1NT to show preference for diamonds, to allow this move by Advancer safely with either one minor or both minors.

This enables 2C or 2D to show, instead of just that minor, equal length with that minor and hearts.

With just hearts, Advancer bids 2H.

1NT by Advancer, then, could be used to show a desire to play 1NT.

Alternatively, 1NT could show hearts and an equal-length minor with a weak hand, scrambling-style, with 2C or 2D then showing the same pattern but enough stuff that the redouble does not negate game prospects.

This same basic structure could be used after 2S-X-XX, of course.

Three Under, plus Responsive Asking Two-Under?

2011-11-13T05:45:00.000-08:00

Is a "three under" approach possible and sensible as a means of including and asking bid? Sure. The situation would be one where Overcaller makes or doubles a three-under call, with room for Advancer to use the two-under call as an asking bid or relay on weak hands, other calls being invitational.

Consider your problem if the opponents open 2NT as a light opening, both minors. This is a tough situation to defend, and I have thought long about the most effective defense structure to that opening. Well, what about incorporating a two-under and a three-under plus asking approach?

Overcaller could bid 3D for both majors, values, or 3M with that major and values. Advancer moves accordingly. So far, rather normal.

We then add the two-under for Overcaller, who is light. 3C shows a lighter overcall with one or both majors. If Advancer has spade preference, he bids 3D, which allows some unwind and a decision from Advancer. With heart preference, 3H is the call, or 3S as a "paradox" call (I have interest in a heart game but not a spade game if you just have long spades). 4C would be the game-force unwind.

Next, consider the double of 2NT, a "three-under plus asking" double. This shows a takeout hand, but the majors might be of different lengths (4-4, 4-5, 5-4, 4-3, or 3-4, or even 3-5 or 5-3 are possible).

Advancer, hearing this double, could bid 3M as an invitational call, agreeing the indicated major with tweener values -- he needs extras for game to be a good bet. With equal majors and game interest, Advancer bids 3D after the double, asking doubler to pick the strain and level.

If Advancer has a weak hand and wants to get out at three of one of the majors, he bids 3C, a Herbert Negative asking bid. Advancer has either a specific major he wants to play at the three-level OR a weak hand with equal majors, wanting to play the right major at the three-level. Doubler bids 3H with longer of better hearts, 3D with longer or better spades. After either, Advancer places the contract.

A similar approach could be used to compete over Flannery. One could play that a three-under 2H cue of a Flannery 2D opening shows both minors. If this were used, Advancer could bid 2S as a Herbert-negative two-under signoff, allowing the 2H cuebidder to pick his longest/best minor (2NT with longer/better clubs), to make sure that the contract ends up being the best minor fit if Advancer has equal minors. The 2Nt call allows room, again, for Advancer to bid the Herbert Negative with the asking bid tool while maintaining the ability to get out at 3C. If Advancer has game interest, he could bid three of his preferred minor, showing extras.

How about after a Roman 2S opening, showing clubs and spades? Three-under for the reds is a double. If 2NT is then Lebensohl-style, you end up in the same scheme. After 2NT, doubler can bid 3C to show better/longer hearts, and the weak hands end up played in the right strain.

In summary, the three-under plus asking bids is a way to have the person bidding (or doubling) a call that is three-under his two known suits, with Advancer using a counter two-under call as a weak relay with an added asking-bid included safely, to enable other calls to have values attached.

Using 2- and 3-under as 2C Responder

2011-11-12T06:31:00.000-08:00

Another possible use for the two-under or three-under (for transfers) might be in responding to a strong 2C opening. Suppose that 2D is waiting and GF, 2H bust. That leaves 2S, 2NT, and the three-level for positives, and possibly for "preempt-ish" hands. Stacking is facilitated by some two-under and three-under techniques.

Two Spades as One or Both Minors

Here, a two-under approach is used, with a Smolen style of follow-ups.

Opener generally will bid 2NT if he wants to agree diamonds or Three Clubs to agree clubs, assuming initially a two-suiter. After 2NT (prefers diamonds), Responder can use a "Smolen" style to unwind his hand, bidding 3C as a "transfer" to agree diamonds, 3D to suggest clubs, or 3M as shortness.

Two No Trump as One or Both MAJORS

With a one-suiter and a major, Responder uses a three-under, enabling transfers. Opener assumes a two-suiter and picks his major of preference, bidding 3H to suggest hearts or 3C to suggest spades. If Responder has both, he can bid 4C or 4D as shortness. Or, to simply agree spades (possibly one-suited), he can transfer with 3H after 3C. 3D after Opener's 3C shows just hearts.

If Opener shows heart preference (3H) and Responder has just spades, Responder can bid 3S in a simple version, which is no worse than the usual method where Responder bids his own suit.

If Opener wants to reject both majors and show a long minor, he bids 3D with diamonds or 3S with clubs. If Opener has his own spade suit, and cares not if Responder has hearts, he bids 3C and then insists with 3S after a transfer. If Opener has his own heart suit and cares not about a one-suited spade suit from partner, Opener can bid 3H and then after 3S bid something above 3NT.

Major-Minor Combo

With a major-minor combo, Responder bids 3C. Opener usually shows which major he would prefer, bidding 3D to preference spades. If Opener wants to agree both majors, he bids 3S.

If Opener bids 3H and Responder has hearts and a minor, he can bid the minor next as a slam move. If he has spades and a minor, 3S does the trick. Opener can then agree spades with 4C to ask for the minor.

If Opener bids 3S, Responder can bid up-the-line. 3NT = clubs and hearts; 4C = diamonds and hearts. 4D = clubs and spades; 4H = diamonds and spades extras; 4S = diamonds and spades minimum.

If Opener bids 3D to preference spades, Responder bids 3H with hearts and clubs, 3S with hearts and diamonds extras, 3NT with hearts and diamonds minimum, 4C with clubs and spades, 4D with diamonds and spades.

Other Three-Level Calls

This allows 3D, 3H, 3S, or 3NT to show other holdings, whether 4-4-4-1 hands or perhaps one-suited but weaker. Thus, for instance, 2C-P-3S could be played as 1-4-4-4 or could be played as seven spades but a bust. Something like that.

Two Under Plus Transfers? Or, THREE-under?

2011-11-10T06:05:00.000-08:00

Just because I am thinking about it...

One could incorporate a "two under" approach with transfers into a THREE under. For instance, suppose that partner opens 2NT. You might play that a 3S response is a relay to 3NT, as the means of getting to 3NT. Then, 3NT would be available as a THREE-under call to show one or both majors, game-only:

2NT-P-3NT = one or both majors, game only.

If Opener prefers hearts, he bids 4H. In that instance, Responder would play spade contracts, unfortunately.
If Opener prefers spades (or equal preference), he bids 4C, after which Responder transfers to the suit we agree to play.

Using that approach might then allow Responder to use four-level calls (4C, 4D, 4H, and 4S) for other meanings, such as perhaps Texas showing 5-5 with that major and five or the opposite color minor, 4C as diamonds and hearts, and 4S as blacks, all slammish.

Again, this is not necessarily a matter of suggesting a good idea. It is a matter of brainstorming methods.

A three-under with transfers to show both minors would be a heart call, which is perhaps rather rare to imagine. A three-under for spades and clubs would be a club call; a three-under for reds would be a spade call. These might make sense in the context of a cue or double of the opponent's suit.

Two-Under Reds

2011-11-05T05:49:00.000-07:00

The two-under approach has some good apps when the two suits are both minors (and the artificial call is made in spades, with 2/3NT for diamond preference) or both majors (and the artificial call is clubs, with 2/3D for spade preference).

What about the red suits? This would be of more limited application, as it is not easy to think of circumstances where you would want to dedicate a call to showing both reds or just one red suit and where ypou would want to give up another meaning for the call -- notrump -- that is two under.

An example of how it would work, whether useful or not, might be to ovbercall 2NT after the opponents bid and raise spades as a red(s) call:

1S-P-2S-2NT!

Overcaller would have diamonds, hearts, or both red suits, with Advancer bidding 3C if he prefers hearts to diamonds. That might allow 3D or 3H directly to show extras.

Another similar example might be in a more competitive auction. Suppose that you open 1D and the opponents compete in spades:

1D-(1S)-X-(2S)
2NT!

This might be the way to show:

(1) diamonds, competitive
(2) four hearts, competitive
(3) THREE hearts, competitive

Responder would then "prefer hearts" if he doubled with five hearts. That gives up showing clubs naturally for Responder, or Opener using 2NT possibly with clubs, such that it might not make sense to use this method. My purpose, however, is more to discuss how it might work if you did, simply to think through the methodology.

The remaining, touching two-suiter is clubs and spades. But, they do not really touch, as notrump is between them. But, one could imagine nonetheless using diamond calls to show both and hence a heart response as club preference:

1NT-2D as spades plus clubs, or just one of them
1NT-2D-P-2H as club preference

Again, the usefulness of this tool seems dubious, but the mechanics is what interests me. I find this interesting to think about because I did not think of the clubhs-for-major(s) parallel to the spades-for-minor(s) despite playing the latter for years now. Maybe diamonds-for-black(s) or notrump-for-red(s) might fit in somewhere I have not yet recognized as a curious solution.

UPDATE: After thinking this over with my morning coffee, I thought of something where a lot of this could be used; after a 1NT opening, if you wanted to be very precise:

X = red(s). Advancer bids 2C if he prefers clubs. Doubler then places the contract. This handles reds, hearts, and diamonds.
2D = blacks. Advancer bids 2H if he prefers clubs to spades. Doubler then places the contract. This handles blacks, clubs, and spades.

So far, all one-suited hands are covered, as well as two of the two-suited hands.

2C = majors, or either major and the non-matching color minor. Advancer picks his major of preference, bidding 2D to preference spades. This is a limited Crunched Capp, keeping the major-minor to a specific major-minor.

So far now, all normal two-suited holdings are covered, except both minors.

2M = canape with shorter major, longer minor
2NT = minors

This structure (again, only allowed if not GCC) allows the partnership to show any one-suiter (clubs at the three-level, which is a common problem), allows specific identification of the minor when major-minor, and allows showing canape major hands.

To make this fully GC legal, have 3C direct to show just clubs; 2D would then show spades, or spades plus clubs, such that 2D guarantees spades.
Again, this might not be ideal, and perhaps even more could be stacked on, but you may see the potential now and why I am thinking about it.

Two-Under Double?

2011-11-04T14:36:00.000-07:00

The two-under concept might also be applied to Precision/Neapolitan 2C openings and the defense thereto, or to 3C openings.

Double = one or both majors, competitive only. Partner bids 2/3D (cheapest) with spade preference.
2/3D = majors, extras
2/3M = intermediate overcall.

This is the rough sketch structure. Tweaks might include that the cheapest diamond call is Michaels-style and the double takeout-or-major. The idea would be to solve a problem with a 2C opening, namely that 2M might make sense with a weak two hand up to an intermediate with six-bagger. Forfeiting diamond overcalls and diamond responses to the double vastly improves major sequences.

Just a thought...

More on Two Under

2011-11-02T18:20:00.000-07:00

The more I discuss the two-under concept with others, the more I like it. a few schemes have come to mind over 1NT openings:

(1) Distinguishing Major(s) and Strength

2C = weak with one or both majors. Partner bids 2D with spade preference, which allows Overcaller to bid 2H with just hearts. Responder's direct 3C asks for unwind, strong hand.
2D = majors, stronger
2H/2S = one major, stronger

(2) Crunched Cappelletti plus canape

2C = both majors or one major and either minor. Partner picks the major of preference, again bidding 2D with spades. If you started with both majors, go to the major partner prefers. With extras, raise that major. If major-minor and partner picks the right major, go to that major or bid the minor with extras. With major-minor and partner picks the wrong major, bid the other major; partner continues as if Cappelletti.
2D = hearts or spades, multi-ish
2H = four hearts, longer minor
2S = four spades, longer minor

(3) Crunched Cappelletti plus Stronger Majors

2C = same as for other Crunched Capp
2D = majors, values
2H = hearts
2S = spades

(4) Crunched Capp plus Crunched Minors plus transfers plus leaping Ripstra

2C = Crunched Cappelletti
2D = hearts
2H = spades
2S = one or both minors (2NT prefers diamonds)
2NT = majors, values
3C = 4414-ish, values
3D = 4441-ish, values

(5) Razzle-Dazzle

2C = Crunched Capp
2D = one or both majors
2H = 4H/longer minor
2S = crunched minors
2NT = majors, values
3C/3D = leaping ripstra

(6) specific minors crunched capp

2C = Crunched Capp, but if major-minor the minor is diamonds
2D = multi major one-suiter
2H/2S = major plus clubs

The 2C for major(s) and the 2S for minor(s) both get featured a few times. But, the opportunities are quite vast for using this two-under method.

Some Thoughts on 2NT Openings

2011-10-28T14:12:00.000-07:00

A couple of thoughts from last night.

First, Super-accepts after transfers. With a very tight range available to Opener, the most likely problem for Responder more and more seems to be the two-suiter hand. A case in point for the opponents last night was a Responder holding 5-5 reds, K10xxx in each, with xx-x outside. Opener has 5-3 and 5-5 support for the reds, with AK-A outside, so six of either makes (5-5 in hearts).

Opener did super-accept, but their call blew up the auction.

I think a reasonable structure would be:

+1 = I have a hand where a stiff would be interesting (meaning, a hole suit)

E.g., 2NT-3D-3S or 2NT-3H-3NT

If Responder hears the +1, he is forced into shortness-based slam tries below game. He bids 4C with club shortness, 4D with diamond shortness if the agreed suit is spades, 4H for diamond shortness if the agreed suit is hearts, 3NT for spade shortness, 4S for heart shortness, and re-transfers. Responder can also re-transfer and then cue above game if he wants to know the hole for control reasons.

This +1 option keeps the hole secret for as long as possible.

The other option is a fit-oriented call. Opener bids suits up the line across from which he would accept a slam move if Responder had so moved, with 3NT after heart agreement being a spade-acceptance call. This strongly implies control of all suits, but the call might mean that one suit features KQx or Qxx or something fit-dependent. If Opener bypasses a suit Responder has, Responder on shady slam interest can resign. If Opener has not yet reached a suit, Responder can introduce it, with re-transfers but not re-transferring showing the re-transfer suit. Opener also does not bid the re-transfer suit, instead bidding the agreed suit at the four-level with only slam acceptance for the agreed suit and the re-transfer suit.

I kind of think this would work better.

The other thought is a brainstorming idea of having 2NT-P-4C show 5-5 in the majors, with Opener bidding 4D if he prefers spades. If Opener bids 4D, Responder re-transfers. This might seem silly, but there is a reason. Doing it this way allows 4C to be mutli-purpose, as 4C...4S makes little sense otherwise, no matter what major Opener picks. I'm not sure what purpose this would serve, but I just thought I'd share the idea because it seems to be an interesting occurrence. With some partners, I play that a 2S response to a 1NT opening shows one or both minors, with opener bidding 2NT if he prefers diamonds, and this works wonders. This seems like a theme, where a call two below two suits asking for Opener's preference of the two suits and Opener bidding next-up to show the higher preference allows space for the "asker" to have only one of the two suits in reality. This same type of auction could happen after 2NT-P-3S.

Another example of this struicture might be a 2C overcall of a 1NT opening showing one or both majors, with Advancer bidding 2D if he prefers spades. That would allow Overcaller to know which major is best in the two-suiter scenario and to not be preempted in the one-major scenario. That might also allow for an interesting approach over a weak 1NT opening:

2C = weak with one or both majors
2D = strong with both majors
2H/2S = strong with the indicated major

or

2C as both majors OR one major and a minor. Advancer picks the major (2D for spades). If Overcaller had both majors, he goes to where Advancer likes. If he has a major-minor, and if Advancer prefers his major to the other major, we play in the major and the Opponents are lost. If Advancer picks the wrong major, the 2D call is low enough for Overcaller to bid the other major as Cappelletti. 2M immediately is one-suited; 2D immediately is majors, stronger.

Cue-Enabling "Last Train"

2011-10-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

Your partner opens 1NT, and you transfer to hearts. You now bid 3NT, and partner bids 4C, obviously a cue with extras and heart support. (This was an auction from a BBF discussion.) What should 4D mean by you?

This is sort of a strange auction. Ideally, if Responder held three spades, with slam interest, he might have considered a manufactured 3C call rather than 3NT, which has a lot going for it. You might find the heart fit early, and you might find a 3-5 spade fit if partner rebids 3S. That is usually my call.

So, if Responder is interested here, he almost assuredly does not have 5H/3S, in my opinion, as 3NT just seems wrong with that. Also, with slam interest and a 4-card major, why not mention that? So, if Responder has any interest, he has precisely 2-5-3-3 shape, it would seem.

Now, obviously this is not universal, as many would not bid a faker 3C with 5332, wherever the doubleton might be. I think that is a mistake, but whatever. One thing is for sure, though -- Responder just cannot logically have a stiff anywhere. That would be too weird, to bid 3NT with some 5431 and slam interest.

4D is often treated as Last Train, which makes some sense. But, Last Train might be somewhat subject to interpretation in this sequence.

This auction is rather pinched. Opener only had two possible cues -- 4C and 4D. Looking at a club control, he obviously had to bid 4C. But, there is no space available to cue both diamonds and spades without bypassing 4H. Plus, the specific situation is one where the only true cue available did not deny anything, meaning that two suits could not be shown control-wise.

In this situation, it makes some sense to think of 4D as not just "Last Train" but rather as "Cue-Enabling Last Train." In other words, 4D shows sufficient values that if Opener is still interest he might continue cuebidding into the five-level safely, whether cue of 4S or of 5D.

This nuance might come up ion other sequences, as well. I mean, technically one might look at a forcing pass of 4S by the opponents, after agreeing hearts, might be a "Cue-Enabling Forcing Pass."

Similarly, consider:

1D-(P)-1H-(2C)
2H-(4C)-?

Responder has an unlimited hand at this point. But, a fit is agree, and only one call is available below 4H to seek slam -- 4D. That call might be construed as Last Train, but also as Cue-Enabling Last Train, to encourage entering the five-level to make cuebids.

The nuance to this is that this QE-LTTC call is one that invites slam where control cannot be established yet. As such, it strongly suggests considering cues at the five-level rather than simple RKCB, and it likely also erases any default agreements suggesting Exclusion RKCB or other asking bids.

In some situations, this QE-LTTC might not actually say, "Do you have extras?" Rather, consider the original auction that started this discussion. Opener showed extras already. So, the QE-LTTC call could also be one of captaincy. "Huh?" Yep. Responder might want to control the auction and might therefore bid a QE-LTTC to induce partner to continue describing his hand rather than describing the other way. In other words, whereas Responder might cue 4S to ask for a diamond control, or 4D and then keep bidding to infer the need for a spade control, a QE-LTTC approach has 4D induce Opener to keep describing, maybe because Responder knows more already or something like that, especially if this occurs in a different auction. In some situations, this might even be construed as a "Cue-DEMANDING Last Train," or QD-LTTC.

Surrogate Fit Non-Jumps

2011-10-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

So, I was sort of egged into a theoretical analysis on BBF that amused me.

The problem was this. As a passed-hand Dealer, you hear partner open 1D in third seat and a 3H overcall by RHO. With Axx-x-Jxx-AQxxxx (why you did not open is a mystery, but the challenge has these conditions), you must (for the fun of the argument) respond by bidding 3NT. The challenge is to explain why 3NT is the right call.

So, thinking through theory, I found a plausible explanation (perhaps). The fun of the challenge is to think through principles of theory and to reach this conclusion in a "somewhat" supportable manner.

My thinking went along these lines. First, with spades, I would double or bid them. So, spade-based hands are out.

Second, to commit us to anything at this level, I must have a landing zone. This usually means diamond support, for the obvious reason.

So, it seemed that there were a few possible scenarios to consider here.

I might have long diamonds and a heart control. But, with that hand, it seems that I would have opened 1D or 2D (weak). Thus, the "I just have lots of diamonds and a heart control" scenario seems reasonably out. Granted, I might have just five diamonds, and a near maximum, but I open 1D with 11 HCP, so what am I getting all excited about on lesser values?

The other alternative is reached by considering what a 4C call would mean. IMO, introducing a new suit at the four-level, as a passed hand, is absurd if it stands on its own. Rather, 4C would only logically make sense as a fit non-jump (clubs, with diamond support).

If we assume that 4C means this, the obvious downside to bidding 4C as a fit non-jump is that you just bypassed 3NT, which might be the ideal end contract.

Aha!

3NT would make some theoretical sense, then, as a surrogate for a fit non-jump with clubs, getting at or below 3NT to allow partner, with the right hand, to convert to 3NT or to pass as that conversion. If nothing else makes sense other than a "surrogate fit non-jump 3NT" call, then clearly (lol) that is what 3NT shows. Challenge met.

Now, this is all somewhat nonsensical (or is it?!?!?). But, the fun was in the challenge and using actual theory concerns to reach the required (by the challenge) result.

So, for the sake of argument, I then started thinking. Is there something to be said for actually using a fit non-jump surrogate in some sequences? If the idea has some merit this seems like a reasonable sequence to use it. Maybe there are other situations. A recent discussion on BBF suggested after P-P-1H-(2NT)-? that 3D operate as what could be called a surrogate fit non-jump, meaning heart support with spades (Justin Lall mentioned this). The surrogate is needed because 3S bypasses 3H.

Other of these beasts might be out there.

Super-Accepts are for the Suit you Cannot Short-Raise

2011-10-10T05:54:00.000-07:00

An auction came up recently with a pickup partner. At the end of the auction, we were at the five-level, mercifully making when the opponents missed cashing an Ace. But, it need not have been that way.

After the auction was over, my pickup partner acknowledged knowing that a call was a cue in support but claimed to have no idea which suit I was supporting. This seemed odd to me, but I suppose a general rule of thumb is worth noting, again.

When one of two strains can be agreed below game easily but the other cannot, odd cues general support the inconvenient suit.

The example from the near disaster. After a minor opening and spade response, I jumped to 2NT, 18-19 balanced. Partner then rebid 3H naturally. I bid a minor next. As 3H was GF by agreement, 3S could agree spades with space to cue, but I could not support hearts as easily. Therefore, cues support hearts.

A second, related corollary.

When two suits can be supported easily, cues and other slam moves generally support the suit that is least economical to support.

This happens where, for example, partner could support spades at 2S or hearts at 3H in a GF sequence. Splinters in this situation support hearts, the least economic raise. With shortness and spade agreement, support spades and then splinter if you can.

Using this parallel, had my pickup partner used transfers, 3D would show hearts, and hence either suit could be supported below game. An immediate cue by me in that instance, using this rule, would support spades instead, as this would be the least economical raise. It is only by a sliver less economical, and arguably not even so. But, a rule of thumb applied even when it has no technical advantage has an advantage nonetheless of consistency and expectation.

A caveat, though.

When neither can be supported economically, flags probably apply.

Suppose that partner had longer spades and naturally bid 3S at rebid. Now, neither hearts nor spades could be supported below game. If I wanted to make slam noise in this event, I would ideally be able to use flags, with 4C super-accepting hearts and 4D super-accepting spades.

MICS as Overcall Structure?

2011-10-09T20:24:00.000-07:00

For a while, a partner of mine and I dabbled with the idea of playing our entire system on if the opponents opened a "short club." In fact, we tried this out and found it at least fun.

MICS has something going for it for an overcall structure, as well. With RHO opening a short 1C, a "MICS Overcall Structure" would have a modified structure:

2NT for minors, weak
2M for that major and DIAMONDS
2D for majors (like Sparts or Flannery, or Michaels for that matter)
2C for 4-4-4-1, any short suit!
1NT balanced (probably strong better, but maybe even a weak RUNT approach instead?)
1M for 4+, could be canape
1D for either diamonds or clubs one-suited, or rare CLUBS AND A MAJOR
X for strong

This is probably not completely ideal and could be radically tweaked. But, the idea of incorporating a canape-style simple overcall structure with a three-suited cue/takeout of 2C seems to have intuitive merit.

Canape Transfers with Both Majors Invitational

2011-10-01T11:27:00.000-07:00

One auction seems troubling to me:

1NT-2D
2H-2S

I play this as game invitational. But, this auction seems troubling because the chances of a 4-4 spade fit seem lower than the chances of the 5-3 or better heart fit. So, you end up in 3H a lot more than in 2S, it seems.

So, let's suppose that this auction is a canape sequence. In other words, if Responder bids this way, he has four hearts and five (or more) spades, invitational.

The benefit is that pass happens more often, allowing the two-level stop more often. That seems good.

One objection might be that Opener could super-accept hearts, the four-card suit. So? If you have invitational values and partner super-accepts your four-card heart suit, this is a good thing! Not only do you simply bid game, but the opponents have no idea about the side spade suit trick source.

The corollary to this is that you now need to handle the invitational hand with four spades and five hearts differently. OK -- same deal. Transfer to spades and then bid three hearts. Again, passing occurs more often, even if this gains nothing really. But, you get that added benefit of the super-accept non-disclosure.

And, the benefit of this super-accept is not without substance. Whereas most super-accepts occur in the context of a 9-card fit, these super-accepts will occur a tad more often, because only a four-card fit is needed to induce the call. So, the non-disclosure will probably occur quite frequently.

Transfers, then, would show five or more of the major OR four cards if invitational values and both majors.

Context and Theory

2011-09-28T12:42:00.000-07:00

A discussion on BBF interested me.

Partner passes as Dealer (not vulnerable), pass, and you open One Club. LHO overcalls a strong 1NT, and partner bids 2H.

Now, for my part, this sequence is often discussed and shows five hearts with five clubs.

But, the interesting part was analyzing what it would mean logically if the auction were not discussed and if no general agreements for this sort of situation were available. In other words, what is the LOGIC of the situation?

You start with one principle for any and all analyses. Partner is sane. I know, this is dubious, but you have to start somewhere in the hypo. Sanity implies something to say and safety saying it. A landing zone should be contemplated for dangerous action.

One aspect of the analysis is partner's predisposition and style in making weak two's. If strict, maybe 2H shows cruddy but long hearts. But, if cruddy but long hearts is just fine, then that's out.

The second rule: Partner cannot have later what he denied earlier. This is not like Poker. You cannot hand three cards to Dealer and ask for three new cards. You start with what you end with. So, bids are defined by prior actions and by prior inaction.

When would partner NOT open 2H but be safe bidding 2H?

One option is that partner's hearts are as good as he says. If he has that, he was good enough to open 2H. So, he has a flaw. The likely flaw is holding four spades also. So, one logical interpretation is "six hearts with four spades."

Another option is that 2H describes a hand with insufficient hearts to open 2H (hence five) but a logical landing zone. That might mean a "DONT" or Brozel approach (hearts and spades), a Cappelletti approach (hearts and a minor), or a "fit bid" approach (hearts and clubs).

Which is used might be a function of discussion, but it might be a result of applying parallel structure (we use Cappelletti normally, so Cappelletti makes sense here). It might be a function of percentages (6H/4S makes sense, but the two-suited situations occur more frequently). It might be a function of limited space (Cappelletti makes sense IF 2C agrees clubs, which it does, but DONT and Brozel do not because we need double for penalty, for example). It might even be a function of the opening bid context (fit bids making sense if the minor is real, but capp if the minor is short or Nebulous).

Empathetics Via Flags

2011-09-24T15:56:00.000-07:00

In Philadelphia, a deal showed a rare example of the handling of the empathetic splinter matrix via a flag to identify the fit suit.

My LHO had opened 1NT (strong), and partner doubled to show (a) both minors, (b) just diamonds, (c) both majors, or (d) some other very strong hand otherwise unbiddable. After a pass from RHO, holding Kxx-Jxxx-xxxx-Ax, I advanced 2D, as my normal "first duty" was to pick the preferred minor.

Opener made a shocking rebid of 3D, and partner doubled, showing both majors and extras.

At this point, I have an incredibly valuable hand. Thinking along the empathetic splinter matrix, hearts is the "4-4 fit suit," with 5-4 being of course acceptable (and preferable after a 1NT opening by the opposition). Spades is the 5-3 side source. Clubs the "ace only" side; and diamonds clearly contextually the short suit.

Contextually, the matrix is known, except that partner cannot know which is the 4-4 and which is the 5-3. Thus, in this sequence, I opted 4C, a flag for hearts indicating that the matrix was as it was.

Partner held Axxxx-AKxxx-void-Jxx and just enough for the slam. With the 3D call by Opener, Opener was likely to hold 2-2-6-3 shape (he in fact held 2-2-5-4), which meant that both hearts and spades were cooperating. As long as partner made sure to right-side the contract by forcing me to bid hearts first, the slam was unstoppable; LHO held the King and Queen of clubs. (On a small club lead, hop Jack. On a club honor lead, win the Ace and then lead a club toward the Jack, establishing a pitch for the third spade.)

In the World Open Pairs, no one reached this slam.

This same concept may apply in other sequences where (a) one partner has shown a two-suiter, (b) a specific known suit is clearly the short suit contextually or by definition, and (c) no one has been able yet to define fits. For example assume for the sake of argument that a 3C response to a 1NT opening shows 5-5 majors and invitational. Assume, for example, that after a 1NT opening and a natural 2C or 2D overcall, 3H by Responder shows 5-5 majors and game-invitational; in that sequence, Opener's 4C or 4D would seem to be empathetic flags.

Old Scribbles

2011-09-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

I found an older convention card and located in this a few scribbled notes. I'm not sure if I ever posted the idea, but I kind of like it. The idea concerned a better way to find major fits after Opener starts a strong Two Clubs and then rebids a minor.

First, after a 3C rebid, 3M promises 5+, with 3H possibly showing 5H/4S. So far, nothing exciting.

Second, after 3C, Responder's 3D is "modified Stayman." Opener bids 3NT with hearts or 3S with spades. With no 4-card major, Opener rebids 3H. This allows Responder to then rebid 3S with 5S/4H.

So, after 3C, Responder has these options:

With just five spades, bid 3S.
With five spades and four hearts, bid 3D modified Stayman and then, if necessary, bid 3S after the 3H-no-major rebid.
With just five hearts, bid 3H.
With 5H/4S, bid 3H and see if opener bids 3S.
With one or both 4-card majors, bid 3D.

The simplicity of this is the key. Everything is natural, except that Opener rebids 3NT to show four hearts and rebids 3H to deny a four-card major after Responder's artificial 3D rebid.

So, next to the 3D rebid. Opener solves the problems himself, by describing his major holdings, a reversal of roles!

2C-P-2D-P-3H = diamonds with four hearts, and might be 3451 (Responder needs five spades to introduce them).

2C-P-2D-P-3S = diamonds with four spades, with fewer than three hearts.

This eliminates some holdings from the 3D rebid. Not all that the one common method uses are included (which leaves a problem finding the 5-3 heart fit if Opener is 4351 or 4360).

Opener's 3D call, with these methods, becomes a "natural but Puppet" call. Responder can bid 3S with five spades (as usual) or 3NT with five hearts! (With five hearts and extras, a higher call would work.) With no five-card majors, Responder rebids 3H. This allows Opener to rebid 3S with 4351.

This method allows Opener to distinguish/handle the "other major" sufficiently for Responder.

Go Where the Experts Dare Not?

2011-09-15T13:47:00.000-07:00

A funny email just came to me.

You have xx-Qxx-10xxx-AKJx opposite a partner who opens a limited (max of 15 HCP) 1S, 2D overcall. What do you do? If you opt to pass, what next when partner reopens with a double?

The question has been asked of several people, including experts, with a wide variety of answers, including:

Bid 2S the first time;
Double 2D negative;
Pass twice;
Pass and then bid 2S;
Pass and then bid 2H;
Pass and then bid 3D(!);
Pass and then bid 3C.

When asked about this, I decided to apply a rule. When experts have six or more ideas of what to do in a given situation, avoid all six (or more) options at all costs and look for yet another option.

I think this rule works here. I opted for pass and then 2NT.

Pass and then 2NT seems to show extras without spade support, without four hearts, and without five clubs (and hence four diamonds). Plus, it seems to show insufficient diamonds to sit for penalties. Tada!

Now, maybe pass...2NT is not the best answer, but maybe it is. The rule of ignoring all options of experts when they pick six or more different answers seems to be the best argument, though, for pass...2NT. I'm convinced!

Perspective?

2011-09-13T09:24:00.000-07:00

In thinking through a bidding sequence for possibilities, a somewhat strange thought occurred to me. I am not sure what to make of it, but the thought process was unique.

Suppose one decided that the ability to bid a natural 2NT after a weak Two Hearts is doubled by partner is a good thing. Suppose, further, that to cater to this, one decided to use Two Spades in this sequence as the alternative for Lebensohl. This might not be ideal, but that's not the point that I reached.

In that scheme, you end up forced to the three-level to play spades. This is the obvious downside.

But, the thought process was not simply along these lines. What I thought about was whether playing 2S by Advancer as artificial and forcing would be the description. Or, would Doubler simply be forced, in a sense? The nuance might be elusive at this point. "Is 2S forcing, or is the Doubler forced?" What's the difference?

If the double commits to play at the 2NT level or higher, then there is nothing in effect "different," in a sense. Advancer can bid 2S, knowing that the auction is alive. However, 2S is not the forcing bid, but rather the Double forces a set level as a minimum end point, in the thought process.

This is sort of like a Standard American sequence. Opener starts 1S. Responder responds 2D. Opener bids 2H. This is "forcing," but the 2H call does not establish the force. 2D did that.

I am still working out the implications, but it alleviates some analysis.

Responding to a Weak Two

2011-09-10T07:07:00.000-07:00

The other night, a friend of mine and I, who do not play all that frequently, had an auction where one of us forgot whether we played RONF or new suits non-forcing after a two-level weak opening. The specific auction was 2H-P-2S-P-? Opener opted to show secondary diamonds, feeling that the auction was forcing and that, without discussion otherwise, a diamond call should show diamonds. Responder, thinking that 2S was non-forcing, logically construed 3D as agreeing spades and showing extras, perhaps a feature, perhaps shortness. Needless to say, the auction got a tad out of control.

This then caused an initial discussion of "what do we play?" Looking at the convention card resolved that.

The secondary discussion, then, was "why do we play that?" This resulted in a debate as to the merits of escape calls and of constructive calls with stronger hands.

It then dawned on me that perhaps a new style of responding might be worth considering. Responding methods are often easiest to remember if they parallel other structures for other sequences. This actually made for a relatively easy method.

The idea:

After 2H, 2S by Responder is a relay call, showing one or both minors. This parallels our 2S response to a 1NT opening. Opener picks the minor of preference (bidding 2NT with diamond preference, to get under 3C). After this, Responder can then pass 3C to play, convert 2NT to 3C to play, or bid 3D to play, all of which cater to either one-suited minor (clubs or diamonds). Opener's preference call (2NT for diamonds, 3C for clubs) allows Responder with weak minors to select the minor of choice as if that were his one minor.

With extras, Responder hears the response and then bids 3S to agree the minor Opener showed, forcing (Opener might have started with both minors), bids 3NT if Opener "picked wrong," or perhaps even bids the other minor at the four-level (also forcing). Returning to Opener's major is to play, suggesting that the 2S call was actually tactical, wanting to spot a feature perhaps (this might instead show the other minor and forcing, if that makes more sense, or flags method).

That handles one or both minors and weak or strong, at the sole cost of not being able to show spades cheaply. To show spades, Responder could bid 3C with one hand, 3D with another (perhaps one is 5-card, the other 6+) or perhaps 3C is simply "asking," with Opener agreeing spades with 3, rebidding his major with a sixth card (for the 5-carders), or waiting 3D with neither.

After a 2S opening, the methods described in the Rexford-Eichenbaum system notes works.

After a 2D opening, we do not need a means to show both minors. However, criss-cross has some merits. 2H would then show spades (a simple transfer), which allows spades to be shown as weak or as GF. 2S would show hearts, which eliminates the ability to get out at 2H, but if you play RONF otherwise, this is no real loss.

Perhaps something like this is best.

Yet Another 2D Opening Method???

2011-09-08T12:55:00.000-07:00

I love coming up with new meanings for opening 2D. A sick hobby, perhaps. Well, here's another, inspired by my thinking again on "delayed canapes."

There are two 5431's where delayed canape does not help:

1-3-4-5 and
1-4-3-5

Interesting. This suggests that a 2D opening could show these. 14-17 or so HCP, with 1345 or 1435.

But, then you could add in 1-4-4-4 fairly safely.

You now have a three-suited opening, flexible like the Precision three-suited 2D opening (not strictly 4-4-4-1), with like Precision a known shortness (here, spades). 2D as 1345/1435/1444, 14-17 HCP or so.

Unlike the Precision 2D (3415/4315/4414/4405), it is easier to pass this 2D call. Plus, the available asking bid of 2S (retaining the meaning of 2NT as natural) is much less painful.

2S asking?

2NT = 1345
3C = 1435
3D = 1444

3S after answer as slam probe?

Something like that. This could be coupled with 2H as H+C and 2S as S+minor to solve all high-reverse problems. Perhaps r-on-w or 4th seat?

Delayed Canape

2011-09-05T13:54:00.000-07:00

I was pleased to see some extra interested in one of the concepts that I have enjoyed developing somewhat. The link:

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/delayed_canape_rexford_eichenbaum.html

I responded to an inquiry from the "Bridge Guys" recently, which you may find true:

If you notice, most of the examples are ones that feature a 5-4-3-1 shape with the four-card suit being higher ranking than the 3-card suit. (As a side note, this is also the precise pattern that is the best argument for occasional 1NT openings with a stiff, when the stiff is the Ace or King.)
With 4531 or 4513, you have (1) open 1H, (2) typically rebid the minor, and then (3) rebid/raise spades. This might also happen, in theory, as Responder, but NMF or XYZ usually is used instead.
With 4153, this could also develop (1D-1NT, 2C-2D, 2S...). In fact, spades could be the end contract (Responder maybe 4333).
With 1453, delayed canape very possible, as described.
With 3145, delayed canape is possible.
Beyond these, however, are two possible preempted second suit scenarios.
With 5314, for instance, you might start 1S, rebid 2H, and then bid 3C. Similarly, with 3514, the same sequence might occur. These would seem to be less frequent with 2/1 GF, but I have had these sequences with standard or other methods, especially as a solution for a high reverse problem, and especially if the first suit is lousy.

For example, consider a problem. You open 1S with Jxxxx-AKJ-x-AKxx, and partner rebids 2D (as a passed hand, perhaps, or playing Standard American). Rebidding 2H makes sense. If partner then bids 2S, rebidding 3C makes a lot of sense as showing four clubs (possibly only three hearts).
Assuming this sequence type, the "delayed canape" sequence may also, therefore, occur when the sequence has preempted (or preempted in potential) the four-card suit even if the four-card suit is below the long suit. The preemption might come from an actual call (2D preempting the ability to bid clubs at the same level), through an artificial call (2C as Drury preempting Opener's ability to rebid 2C, for instance), or through the rebid being an artificial call (2C old-school drury preempting the ability to bid 2D as a natural values call, for example).

In theory, then, "delayed canape" may have a lot more occurrences.

Having a Baby

2011-08-25T13:36:00.000-07:00

My wife and I are having a baby soon. We are very excited, of course. I already have (sick) visions of the "youngest life master" as a Rexford. Who knows? Eh, she'll probably have nothing to do with bridge (if she's smart).

Pregnancy has lots of potential complications, one of which is "gestational diabetes." It is a condition where you can develop an inability while pregnant to process sugars because hormones block the effectiveness of insulin. One solution is to eat lots of small meals per day rather than our usual one big dinner and snacks late at night. Work causes a dumb eating schedule, you see.

As always, I see bridge parallels to life. So, is even this capable of a bridge parallel? Sure.

Take matchpoints, for example. Healthy eating might be shooting for average plus all night. If you could maintain just a 65% on each board, you would surely win most games.

On the other hand, shooting for tops all night long usually results in tops and bottoms, feast and famine. If you have three 100% scores, but also three 0%, you end up with 50%. To get to 65%, you need about six 100% scores for every three 0% scores. That's a lot of work, and it is definitely not healthy.

The thing is, from experience, 100% never seems to be 100%. It ends up second to top or tied for top. 0%, bottom, however, tends to be full blown 0%.

In contrast, the "average plus" never seems to be 65%. Rather, you end up with a lot of 75% average plus results.

IMP scoring, however, seems different. A top yields a lot IF the top is big scorer. Lots of less costly bottoms cost less. Plus, the margin seems different. IMP scoring, to some degree, is more like GETTING PREGNANT. The boys either swim or not. There is no 65% pregnant. So, with IMP scoring, you go for the BIG SCORE.

This parallel seems to play out even more. Matchpoints is like bearing a kid. Constant headaches over little things. Sickness. Cramps, constantly. Little achievements here and there. Estimations of scores, somewhat like sonograms of the game. And then, a lot of screaming when the results come in.

IMP games, however, are more like sex. Big scores that you brag about. Complete disasters that you pretend did not occur, and frankly blame on partner anyway.

I suppose that's why I like IMP games better. My wife, though, complains that I play the hands too fast. I like to get to the smoking faster, I say.

Weird Begets Weird

2011-08-11T15:22:00.000-07:00

Bridge is a funny game. One aspect of it that is quite humorous to me is the Principle of Consistent Weirdness. This principle establishes that weird bids or plays have a tendency to induce further weird bids or plays. Remember this.

My favorite problem of this sort was in a suit contract. I was in Dummy, but I would opnly be back there one more time. In a side suit, Dummy held KJ109xxx opposite my stiff. So, with nothing better to do while over there, I decided to lead one of these cards toward my hand, ruffing and hoping for something good to happen. But, which card?

I could try the King, hoping to smother the stiff Queen. I could just play small, hoping for the stiff Ace or for RHO to hop the Ace. Or, I might even try the tricky Jack.

I tried the 10.

Why? Because the 10 is weird. And, by application of the Principle of Consistent Weirdness, the 10 was fhe most likely weird card to induce a weird card from RHO. Weird begets weird.

In practice, RHO hopped the Ace, I ruffed, and I later enjoyed the King. Did the 10 have any impact at all on this situation? Did RHO think I was being tricky with the stiff Queen? No. RHO started with both the Ace and the Queen. There was absolutely no reason to play the Ace rather than the Queen. Except, that is, that the 10 was so very weird that the PCW forced that Ace out of his hand.

The same thing happens, of course, during the bidding. However, be careful trying to whip out the PCW in the bidding, as partner has a tendency to be sucked into the weirdness vibe. The same can be said for PCW on defense -- be careful to ensure as much as possible that partner's weirdness cannot hurt.

Finally, if you check, you will probably find PCW principles at play with the opponents' convention cards. generally, people who play weird conventions play a lot of weird conventions. If you can only find one weird convention on their card, expect their seemingly normal sequences to in fact be weird nonetheless. Plus, if you see weirdness on their convention card, be quick to make the first weird bid, or at least a reciprocal-weirdness call, as this usually induces an equal reaction of enhanced weirdness from these opponents.

Don't get me started with directors.

Regular Stayman Auction and Idea

2011-08-10T05:38:00.000-07:00

Playing with a friend who is not a regular partner, the following auction and problem arose.

Partner opened a strong 2NT. Playing Stayman, with 4450 pattern, I trooted out Three Clubs, played as regular old-fashioned Stayman. Her rebid was Three Hearts.

Being not too familiar with old-fashioned Stayman these days, but with slam interest, I decided to cuebid Three Spades, believing that this must be a cuebid in context. Partner bid Three No Trump, causing me grave concern. The auction broke down after this, and we ended up in Six Hearts, needing a diamond hook to work (it did not) and for an intrafinesse in trumps to result in only one trump loser (hearts split 4-1 the bad way). So, a disaster.

But, the first five bids gave me a thought. I kind of like the idea that Three Spades by me, in this sequence, using these methods, should be a shortness slam move. Partner's 3NT call, then, would ask for the shortness (I would bid Four Hearts to flag spade shortness).

That seems like a relatively easy concept. You might want to add this IF you play old-fashioned Stayman after a 2NT opening.

2NT-3C
3H-3S!
3NT*-stiff

! = shortness slam try, hearts agreed
* = asking for shortness

But, it could get even more complete. Suppose, for instance, that Three Spades is instead a relay to 3NT. In other words, Three Spades is natural. That seems really easy to remember.

If that is the case, then 3NT would have no particular meaning. For that matter, calls above 3NT would have no particular meaning. If Responder had a hand with four spades and a minor and slam interest, he could first bid Three Spades to check on a fit and then, if opener bids 3NT, show the minor. That saves space when the major fit exists.

Using that more natural approach, Responder's 4C and 4D would be immediate shortness bids. 3NT could be "spades or general slam bump," with Four Clubs asking for clarification, Four Diamonds showing general but Four Hearts showing spade shortness:

2NT-3C
3H-?

3S = natural
3NT = hearts agreed, spade shortness of no shortness (4C asks; 4D = general, 4H = short spade)
4C = hearts agreed, short club
4D = hearts agreed, short diamond

This alternative has the downside of wrong-siding spade contracts, but it enhances all slam sequences when hearts are agreed or when spades end up agreed.

Some food for thought, maybe.

Prioritized RKCB?

2011-07-20T18:40:00.000-07:00

I have for some time thought that a bit of structure might save space when asking for Aces.

Consider spade agreement and launching into RKCB. One might have a structure at the four-level like this:

4NT = RKCB
5C = Exclusion RKCB, void in clubs
5D = RKCB switching focus to suggest showing diamond keys rather than spade keys
5H = Asking for a heart control

The idea in the above is that calls at the five-level, if not cuebids but rather asking bids, are generally tied to the suit you bid. Is that ideal?

One might, instead, simply adopt a sort of "Yummy Toes" pre-determined set of priorities. For example:

Step One Asking Bid = 4NT = RKCB
Step Two Asking Bid = 5C = Exclusion RKCB for the known or only contextually possible void
Step Three Asking Bid = 5D = Re-Focused RKCB focusing on the obvious focal side suit or only unknown side suit (as to controls)
Step Four Asking Bid = 5H = Control Ask (their suit)

Obviously, with Kickback, you drop a level or more. Also, this order might not be your preference for orders, and context might suggest other orders. For example, if you like having Exclusion as priority #2, but there are two possible void suits, then you might have Step #2 = lower exclusion, Step #3 = higher exclusion. Similarly, if voids are not possible, then you might have a switch-ask run Step #2 = Opener's other suit, Step #3 = Responder's other suit, or vice-versa.

Establishing priorities might seem somewhat daunting, perhaps. Which set of priorities is the best for the most possible auctions? Well, I am sure that the educated guess is better than the random draw of what happens to be established by rules of the game -- rank.

One might decide that the best acronym resolves doubts, or that the acronym is better than a perhaps technically better structure because the acronym is easier to remember.

Ideas for Acronyms, anyone??? I'll try some.

REST? RKCB, Exclusion, Switch, Their (Suit)

REMY? RKCB, Exclusion, My Suit, Your Suit

ACES? Aces, Control, Exclusion, Switch

I really like "ACES in Comp." With spades agreed, 4NT would be "A" for Aces; 5C "C" for Control (answer RKCB with control), 5D "E" for Exclusion (probably void in their suit), and 5H as "S" for Switch (which would be rare in competition, I would imagine).

Out of Comp, a lot of sequences might make for ASSET. 4NT for "A" for Aces; 5C for "S" for SWITCH (my suit), 5D for "S" for SWITCH (your suit); 5H for Exclusion of the fourth suit, and 5S for "T" for "TRY" (a general try not otherwise covered).

I'd love to hear some better ideas.

Reverse Optical Illusion

2011-07-01T07:53:00.000-07:00

An optical illusion is interesting. Your brain for some reason wants to generalize data to save energy and processing time. So, you can be tricked into seeing something that is not really there because of shortcuts.

An optical illusion sometimes is ruined because you know what is going on with the illusion. If you have looked at the picture of the old lady and the young lady before, you can easily see both the second time.

There is something that exists that one could call a "reverse optical illusion," perhaps. I recognized this recently during a jury trial. The litigants in a jury trial know the facts; the jury does not. As a result, an "optical illusion" of sorts can develop for the jury. That part is perhaps normal. The example was complicated, but the essence was that the jury could conclude that three people were shysters, even though they were not, because the evidence available to the jury was insufficient to see reality and because the ambiguous state of the partial information could result in an incorrect view.

The "reverse optical illusion" was the difficulty in recognizing the existence of this illusion if looking at the evidence from a standpoint of more complete information.

Consider, for example, a color blindness test. Circles form a "7" in a field of circles, with perhaps red circles making the seven and random green circles surrounding the red "7" of circles. Without color blindness, you see a seven easily. With color blindness, you cannot distinguish the circles' colors and hence miss ther "7."

Well, if you never heard of color blindness, could you see that this test was ambiguous? Of course not. It would not even occur to you that someone could be confused by this. Hence, in a sense, your possession of extra information obscures your ability to spot that others, without this extra information, might run into a problem spotting what you spot.

In the jury trial, the "shysters" were known to be people having no axe to grand but simply used by the person thought to be the true shyster. However, we all knew this, except for the jury. Without being told this, the jury could have thought that the three innocent bystanders were actually running the game and tricking the one alleged shyster. Spotting that possible misconstruction, enabled by a lack of information, was not obvious because it is difficult to empathize with someone lacking facts if you do not think about all possible fact patterns lacking sopme information that you have and the implications of this missing information on possible conclusions.

Often times, life and bridge have parallels. This of course made me think, next, about bridge "reverse optical illusions." I mean, if you have Qxx in hand opposite Axx on Dummy, do you easily spot the fact that LHO might think that you have QJ9 in hand instead and might duck the Queen? You might after reading about it or seeing it come up of having a fortunate eureka moment. But, this is not easy, because you see what you know and not what the opponents might not know.

I thought about how to develop this ability, or how to add this into Declaring as a "step." One classic approach is "ARCH," for Analyze the lead, Review the bidding, Count your losers and tricks, and How are you going to play this. Maybe a missing step is to sort of hide your hand from yourself and study Dummy from the opponents' perspective. Give them cards you know them to have or to possibly have, and place your cards plus their missing cards into their unknown stack. Then, imagine possible defenses that you would consider from their illusion.

The same, of course, if possible on defense, but even trickier. It even arises in bidding (classic being the short-cards raise of partner to make each opponent think that their 3-card holding must be opposite a stiff).

But, the key might be simply in understanding the concept of the reverse optical illusion.

"Courtesy" Focus Shift

2011-06-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

I realized in a discussion on BBF that I had not ever mentioned another concept (I don't think, anyway) that you might like.

The auction starts with a raise of a major (presumably constructive), Opener now bids a natural suit, ostensibly GT but potentially ST. As I mentioned in Cuebidding at Bridge, I like 3NT as a power "focus shift" showing 3+ "key cards" (6KCB, ncluding Q's) and a fit for this new suit, suggesting a focal shift to possibly pursue slam.

With a lesser hand, but still cause for a focal shift, one can use a "courtesy focus shift," typically two key cards and a side King, where Opener needs shortness to make this interesting.

When spades are the agreed major, 4C is the "courtesy" focal shift, allowing Opener show either suit as shortness and agree the focal shift and slam interest.

When hearts are agreed, 3S serves this function, to get below both minors.

More on (moron?) "Impossible Two Spades"

2011-05-29T11:00:00.000-07:00

A discussion on BBF underlined yet again a concept that I believe to make sense.

The origin to the idea was a combination of a discussion with Ken Eichenbaum in Philadelphia concerning a specific "exception" where one might suppress a 4-card spade suit after a 1H opening, coupled with a Bridge Bulletin hand with the same principle. The idea is that with a light hand, a practical response to a 1H opening with four spades and six clubs is occasionally 1NT, planning to bid clubs later. (For the skeptics, the hand in question in the expert forum was handled frequently with that approach). This suggested that a "impossible two spades" is no so impossible:

1H-P-1NT-P-
2D-P-2S = weak with four spades, six clubs?

This could be tweaked somewhat to include 3136 hands. This caters well to the hand where Opener (not playing Flannery) has 4531 shape and finds himself "forced" to rebid 2D, disliking this, of course.

The first question, then, is whether Responder or Opener should have the fourth spade (to bid "impossible 2S" or to pass the same). It seems that the hands where Responder bypasses a 4-card major are less frequent than the 3-card options for Responder, such that Opener should be 4-card to pass.

This, then, leads to the BBF problem. Opener has a trashy hand with 4630 and lousy (9-high) hearts.With the "not impossible two spades" approach, 2D comes to mind, as it seems to increase our chances of landing well (you could end up in 2S for a fine result, and 2D therefore is less frequently passed when that is bad). One concern was propelling the auction when Opener has 5-5 reds, but it still seems that you end up OK when and if Responder hits Opener with the "not impossible two spades" response.

To Cue a Side Queen? Or, "Almost Last Train?"

2011-05-17T16:16:00.000-07:00

I may have erred in my bidding ecently, but I think I was right. If so, an interesting sequence came up.

Critical to the problem is that Responder initially passes, advertising less than an opening hand. After two passes, third seat opens One Heart holding:

AKxx-AKxxxx-Kx-x

The opponents pass throughout. Responder bids One Spade. Opener now leaps to Four Clubs.

Initially, I thought that perhas my 4C call was perhaps poor. This hand is extremely powerful. But, two factors convince me (feel free to comment if you disagree) that 4C is right. First, the splinter is opposite a passed hand, which by definition is limited; hence, the splinter should probably be a tad richer than a similar splinter opposite an unpassed hand. Second, the space available for more exploration is maximized after a cheapest possible splinter, which allows Responder space to dangle carrots with les cause. (After 4C, partner can bid 4D, bid 4H, bid 4D and accept-or-reject 4H; after 4D, only 4H is available to invite slam back.)

In any event, back to Responder, who held:

Qxxx-J10-Qxxx-Axx.

The other problem to consider with the splinter is that the holding of the AK-AK-K in trumps, hearts, and diamonds means that partner is less likely to have traditional cues available. In my cuebidding style Responder can cue 4H with the heart Queen (if that call is a traditional cue), but he will only be able to cue diamonds with the Ace.

Or will he?

This sequence made me think of two alternative possibilities.

First, one might decide that a cue of 4D simply shows one of the top three honors in diamonds. The idea would be that a splinter bid inferentially is the same (or similar) to bidding the suit (or suits) that are not short. For example, if you assume a pure splinter in rsponse to a major opening (e.g., 1S-P-4C) as showing a pure 4441 pattern (it does not, but bear with me), then this is sort of like bidding spades, diamonds, and hearts at the same time, at least in theory. Thus, cuebidding "partner's shown suit" would show (per my agreements) one of the top THREE honors, not one of the top TWO. Extending this out too much would perhaps be insanity, but the general principles could be that a space-deprived cue of an inferentially-shown suit might be the Queen. In this situation, using that idea might justifya 4D call by Responder (planning to reject a 4H last train try). Opener would accept any sniff.

Alternatively, I wonder whether a different principle might make sense here. When only two calls are available (the three-under splinter being the classic example), should cues be cues? Or, should cues be Last Train and Almost Last Train? LTTC and ALTTC?

ALTTC allows a counter LTTC.

It seems like a "critical card" concept might work well in this situation. LTTC might deny the critical card but show extras otherwise. ALTTC might show that critical card but not necessarily defining "extras" versus "EXTRAS," with a counter LTTC (CLTTC?) asking for general strength.

In the actual auction (1H-1S-4C), the "critical card" might be diamond control or it might be a missing heart card. I'm not sure which would be more important in the long run. I think the missing honor (assuming a ore frequent semi-solid hearts than solid) in a splinter-maker's long suit (if one had been shown) is probably a good candidate for the default "critical card." Assuming this:

1H-1S-4C-4H = LTTC = extras but no heart honor
1H-1S-4C-4D = ALTTC = at least mild interest, plus a heart honor
1H-1S-4C-4D-4H = do you have mild or strong interest?

What about a non-descript sequence, like 1S-P-4C? Now, there is no focal side suit. In that event, the default might be internl trumps:

1S-4C-4H = LTTC = extras but poor trumps
1S-4C-4D = ALTTC = good trumps, extras to EXTRAS
1S-4C-4D-4H = extras, or EXTRAS???

Now Available at Bridge World

2011-04-24T14:07:00.000-07:00

I just noticed that Bridge World Magazine's online bookstore is now carrying the paperback versions of both of my latest books (New Frontiers for strong Forcing Openings, and Modified Italian canape System). A link is provided below:

http://www.bridgeworld.com/pages/html/bookshelf/gallery_allbooks.asp

Is it Frequency?

2011-04-22T06:03:00.000-07:00

For the life of me, I still do not understand why one concept has not expanded as a general practice. It is fairly common these days to play Smolen, which could be called "Same Rank Criss-Cross at the Three-Level" as a longer conventional name. Using that term, one then imagines the other applications of that conventional approach.

After Stayman, a "SRCCTL" treatment for the MINORS would make 3C show diamonds and 3D show clubs. After a Jacoby Transfer, the same SRCCTL approach could be used, as well. This would also "right-side" many contracts, albeit less often. A 2D transfer to hearts determines who declares a diamond contract. A Stayman 2C determines who declares a club contract, and a 2D response determines who declares a diamond contract. But, in many instances te minor declarer is not yet determined.

This approach would also allow for some "intermediate" actions, such as showing a major-diamond two-suiter with only intermediate values via transfer...3C, as Responder can pass a 3D preference (Opener preferences 3D with no fit and with no interest in 3NT opposite only invitational), for example. That is, if the partnership wanted that. Equally, this might allow bidding Stayman with long diamonds and one major as an escape, and then bidding 3C if Opener picks the wrong major, so long as Opener completes th transfer in this sequence; Responder bids on with other hands.

Super Non-Accept?

2011-04-19T15:38:00.000-07:00

A troubling sequence is anything that starts with a 2NT opening, or 2C...2NT. Space is limited.

I kind of liked my wife's call the other day, as an aside. Bust with 4162. I opened 2C, and she bid an immediate 2H double neg. After 2NT, she whipped out Stayman, figuring that two of three rebids by me would be fabulous and that she could live with the fourth, rebidding 4D. As it was, I passed (I was looking at long clubs for my 2NT call), which yielded an unexpected fourth good option.

But, I am wandering off point. What this dal made me think about was what I might call a "Super Non-Accept." If partner had shown a positive response (2C-P-2D), and then I bid 2NT, it seems like there is something to be said for dedicating one call for great hands without a fit after a transfer.

for example, suppose she transfers to hearts, but I am looking at Ax or Kx in hearts. This is already a great holding if she is two-suited. Maybe 5-4 with a hand where she might be planning on a signoff if I cannot support her major, or even a 4NT quantitative (which burns space). In that second suit, if we have a fit, we have the likelihood of establishing her hearts via ruffing. So, suppose that the first non-relay shows a power non-raise:

2C-P-2D!-P-
2NT-P-3D!-P-
3S?

Partner could always back into 3NT or 4H (via re-transfer). But, this gives space and incentive to explore alternative strains if she was interested in slam but only mildly (might have bid 3NT earlier). It saves space by not forcing 4NT quantitative if that's what she had. And, it describes. She could trot out new suits by bidding 4C (natural) or 4H (4D is a re-transfer, so 4H shows diamonds).

Now, the 5H/4S for partner scenario can be "fixed" by way of not bidding this 3S call unless you also lack four spades. So, this call would typically show 3244 or a 5+ minor. But, I could live with that.

This obviously might not be the best structure, and there might be something better. But, it seems like there is good cause for that "Super Non-Accept" to possibly be considered.

Negative/Responsive Pass?

2011-04-17T05:07:00.000-07:00

A strange sequence recently inspired a thought.

LHO opened 3D, partner doubled, and RHO leapt to 6D. Yes, that was the start.

My hand was a rock:

AJxx-AJx-void-AKJxxx

I could hardly imagine any other call but 7C. That part was easy. But, RHO took the bait and bid 7D, of course.

So, what should a pass by me mean? It seems that in such a crunched sequence, a pass should not necessarily show the diamond Ace but perhaps should show interest in another strain more generally. In fact, I would certainly entertain 7S, and 7H might not be hopeless. The key would be whether partner has a quality 4-card suit, such that the ruff on my side does not auto-doom the contract to a 3-3 hope and prayer.

Negative and Responsive Doubles are a topic of discussion as to how high to play them. Perhaps we should also discuss how LOW to play a Negative Pass or a Responsive Pass?

I mean, consider this sequence:

(P)-1C-(6D)-?

It probably makes sense to play this sequence as forcing, if it actually comes up. If so, then should a pass show both majors and interest in a major-suit slam?

Are there other sequences that call for such a treatment?

Puppet?

2011-04-07T05:15:00.000-07:00

I had a recent discussion with some intermediate players that got me thinking.

After a 1NT opening, I have liked 3C as GF Puppet Stayman. For the intermediates I was talking to, this was not a good option, because ne of them did not like Puppet Stayman. So, I suggested an alternative, more "natural" approach. Bid Stayman. If partner bids 2D, continue on as you will. If partner bids 2S (denyig four hearts) and you are interested in a 5-card spade suit, bid your longest minor to see if partner rebids spades. If partner bids 2H and you are interested in either a fifth heart or a four-card spade suit, bid 3C. In all instances, the next-ip by Opener would agree the minor if that was your intention, so nothing should go terribly wrong.

This is not fabulous, but it is not bad. So, why do I play Puppet 3C, then? It sure seems like this alternative structure does good enough, and perhaps 3C is better used for something else.

It is rather odd that for the past 80 years people have tinkered with response structure to 1NT, and yet there is always some new thought. Weird.

More "Deep Thoughts"

2011-03-29T19:56:00.000-07:00

A while back (http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/2010/08/deep-thoughts.html), I suggested that he circumstance of a known two-fit scenario might best call for an "ask or answer" resolution of a ide "key card." I am more and more convinced that this makes sense.

The major time I would see a clear two-fit scenario would be a raised response in a minor converted to the major. For example, 1S-P-2D-P-3D-P-3S. This scenario reduces cuebidding space to unwind the strength of the diamond suit, as only one person will be able to cue (or not cue) diamonds. This lends itself somewhat to the "ask or answer" scheme.

The trick may be in deciding when a suit becomes sufficiently focal to call for an "ask or answer" scenario. Obviously, it seems that an agreed minor is and will be the focal side suit if a major is later agreed and if space was such that the minor could not be cuebid reliably as to internal controls. Also "obvious" seems to be that a competitive situation may call for the "focal suit" to be the opponents' suit, which would be a permutation of the idea for a different cause.

An example of the latter might be the following. You open One Spade, LHO overcalls Three Hearts, and partner bids Four Hearts as a strong spade raise. You want to explore slam. The classic method here is RKCB or cues. Perhaps a reasonable alternative is an ask-or-answer scenario. Ask with control in hearts; answer without.

Similarly, consider partner opening One Diamond, a 2H overcall, and you making a negative double. This is passed to partner, who splinters 4H. Passed to you. In that scenario, it might make sense to have an "ask-or-answer" scenario for an implied focal side suit -- diamonds. Perhaps Responder asks with the diamond King but answers without it.

Boy am I wanting better mga-rules here. I think there is something to this.

As I was just smoking a cigarette, another thought occurred to me. My wife is a newer player and thus afraid of RKCB still. When I try explaining it to her, the Queen ask always gets in the way. We all actually hate that part of RKCB anyway. The damned space it takes, and the question of whether 5H is a Queen ask after a 5D answer, hearts agreed. The 1430 or 3014 problem.

So, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the auction was one where Exclusion makes no sense (or where your partner does not get Exclusion as a concept -- my situation). One might make RKCB easier if the ask-or-answer sceanrio was used.

Bid 4NT with the trump Queen. Partner then answers a simple 5C = 0 or 3, 5D = 1 or 4, 5H = 2. No 5S response. This could even be easier. 5C = 0 or 4 key cards, 5D = 1, 5H = 2, 5S = 3. In other words, regular Blackwood, with the King also counted. The Queen problem is already solved.

Without the Queen, answer.

So far, easier, with no damned Queen-ask.

Advanced players, however, could keep the regular 0/3, 1/4, 2 structure. Then, the "void show" coul be cheaper, or a wrap-around structure used. In the latter, 5S+ could be bid with, say, 4. With three, bid 5C and 5D asks for specific Kings.

In other words, using an ask-or-answer structure to answer the Queen-ask problem could make for an easier THIRD version of RKCB (RKCB, 1430, and IQRKCB?). "Immediate Queen RKCB" or just "IQ" for short. Baby IQ would be the regular Blackwood-steps "RKCB." Advanced IQ could be an enhanced RKCB with wrap-arounds or cheaper King asks or whatever.

Improving 1S-P-2S-?

2011-03-28T14:28:00.000-07:00

A discussion on BBF got me thinking. When the opponents bid and raise spades (1S-P-2S), fourth seat is jammed. A structure to deal with this situation, however, might be worth considering.

1S-P-2S-2NT = both minors, or just diamond (Overcaller will correct 3C to 3D), or just hearts but weak (will correct either minor to 3H)

This part suffers some ambiguity in the 1-2-3 scenario, but that 1-2-3 is often the goal anyway.

1S-P-2S-3C = clubs plus hearts (Michaels style)
1S-P-2S-3D = diamonds plus hearts (Michaels style)

Showing the second suit helps at this level and possibly higher.

1S-P-2S-3H = strong overcall in hearts (like a strong jump overcall)

Obvious benefits.

1S-P-2S-X = takeout OR just clubs

This is really problematic for higher levels, but it at least gets us in there without giving something up but with the gains of the other auctions. Unwinding is simple:

Bid 3D or 3H if you would bid that after a 3C overcall -- if partner has the takeout he is pleased.
Bid 3C if you would bid that after a double -- if partner has just clubs he is pleased.

Bid 2NT (1S-P-2S-X-P-2NT) if you would have preferred a red suit in response to a takeout double. If partner bids 3C, he has "just clubs." If partner bids 3D, this is pass-or-correct.

Any thoughts on this structure? I think I like it, myself.

Magnets

2011-03-23T15:14:00.000-07:00

I was just reminded of a layout recently that I found interesting and called a "magnet" play.

The situation was that I had AK8 in hand, with J32 on dummy. Playing this suit for three winners seems easy -- play the Ace and King and hope the Queen drops.

On this deal, however, there was an alternative line that made more sense. Play RHO for five cards in the suit (contextually more likely than the Q-x dropping) and run a squeeze against those five cards and the known guard in another suit. So far, so good. (That line worked, by the way.)

However, a slight increase of odds seemed apparent, and I played for this (not that it mattered this time). It seemed to me that playing the Jack from dummy operated as a possible "9 magnet" for LHO. Suppose, for instance, that RHO started with Q10xx. He might cover the Jack, but then he might not. If not, LHO will see me play the Jack toward dummy and then fly with the King. Doesn't that scream that I have A-K-10 and was fishing for a cover? LHO might visualize this layout and decide to encourage me to play the other top spade later by jettisoning his 9 (to look like he started with Q-9 tight).

Thus, because the Jack has a tendency to dislodge LHO's 9 occasionally, it has the potential to cuase Q10xx with RHO to be a sufficient squeezable holding. The Jack, in other words, "transfers the menace" by inducing a potentially intelligent jettison.

The same line works if I had 10xx in dummy. The 10 to the King looks like I might have started with A-K-J. So, the jettison of the nine, a tricky play, causes Q-J-x-x to be caught as a menace.

Now, all of this was relevant because I had to pitch one of these cards from dummy when running the squeeze. In other words, I would END UP with only Jx (or 10x) opposite AKx when the squeeze ran. Otherwise, the Jxx (or possibly the 10xx) works sufficiently without messing with it, and playing the top one actually might transfer the menace in a bad way. But, since I had to pitch one anyway, I might as well run the magnet play, it seems. That way, I might get LHO to transfer his own menace back to his partner via the jettison. In other words, my pitch would allow LHO to guard the suit with 9-x-x, but the magnet play dislodges the 9 and keeps the menace where I want it.

Undiscussed Canape?

2011-03-23T14:23:00.000-07:00

I am always curious when I notice sequences that call for an undiscussed canape approach. I mean, sure. Discussion is better. But, some auctions just scream canape.

Here's an example. LHO opens 1D, partner doubles, and RHO bids 1S. You have 1-4-3-5 pattern with values to compete (if pushed) to the three-level.

One theory is to bid the long suit first. The auction you anticipate is either:

1D-X-1S-2C
2S-P-P-2NT or

1D-X-1S-2C
X-P-2S-2NT

In either event, you expect partner to take the 2NT call as showing 4H/5C.

The risk to that is this auction:

1D-X-1S-2C
P-P-P

Now, you might score up +110 instead of +140, if partner has four hearts, which would be bad (especially at MP).

The solution is probably canape. Bid 2H the first time. The anticipated auction is:

1D-X-1S-2H
P-P-P or

1D-X-1S-2H
2S-P-P-3C or

1D-X-1S-2H
X-P-2S-3C

In the first auction, you might end up in 2H on a 4-3 fit, which could be bad. But, on the last two auctions, you end up in the right place, as long as partner takes this as canape. Why canape? With 4-4, you could bid 2NT instead of 3C.

So, if all of this makes sense, it seems like an undiscussed (or discussed) canape approach works just as well as the non-canape approach if the auction has two bids. However, if the auction dies with this initial bid, 2H gets us to the right spot when partner has four hearts (probably), but 2H might get us to the wrong spot when partner only has three hearts.

Tough problem. Any thoughts out there?

Hyper-Natural?

2011-03-15T15:17:00.000-07:00

At times, I wonder what people are thinking. I mean, they also wonder what I am thinking (or smoking), but a recent discussion has me convinced that people have lost their minds.

Playing Walsh, the auction starts:

1C-P-1D-P-
1NT-P-???

The discussion concerned what to do with four of a major and 5+ diamonds with GF values. 2M seemed to stand out to me, since that seems like the whole purpose of bidding 1D first with Walsh. However, one set of good players noted that they promise 6+ diamonds when bidding the major at this point. With exactly 5-4, apparently they start with either "new minor forcing" or "two-way new minor forcing."

Huh?

First of all, suppose that you in fact have six diamonds and four hearts. If you start with 1D, and then bid 2H, the auction to this point is:

1C-P-1D-P-
1NT-P-2H

So, you have four hearts and 5+ diamonds. What call, precisely, will partner make that causes a problem? If he bids 2S, 2NT, or 3C, you can NOW bid 3D and show that sixth diamond. If he raises diamonds, or raises hearts, all is good. So, what's the problem?

In contrast, to cater to the ability to show 4-6 immediately (which makes the 2M call less common), a goal that seems random and pointless, Responder has to forfeit something much more useful. If the approach is "new minor forcing," I am at a loss as to which minor is "new," as both have been bid. But, suppose that clubs is deemed "new." Now, you cannot bid 2C naturally. If both minors are "new," this is even worse.

So, when our side has bid both minors, and nothing more, we dedicate 2C and 2D as artificial calls, to for some reason allow distinguishing 4-5 from 4-6 more rapidly? That just seems weird to me. The only two suits that you cannot bid naturally are the only two suits that we are known to have. Yeah -- that makes sense.

This type of nonsense seems to happen a lot these days. Artificiality is great when a problem exists. But, why is artificiality becoming the default?

Back on February 26, I posted on this exact same topic. The opening bid was again 1C, again with a 1D response. In that discussion, Opener rebid 1S, Responder bid 2C (thankfully at least that was natural), and the discussion was whether 2H showed something in hearts or asked a question. Again, however, "natural" solved all problems better than the funky and apparently mainstream "2H as asking a question" treatment.

What is this obsession with asking and artificiality and structures, when just plain bidding what you have works perfectly fine, if not better?

I mean, I love structure and intricate artificial methods when they make sense. It just seems like folks are grabbing artificiality as if it has some benefit in and of itself or something.

Bridge Without a Partner

2011-03-09T17:18:00.000-08:00

My friend Ken Eichenbaum has just released his new bridge comedy, Bridge Without a Partner. This book is hysterical. Kit Woolsey once called it his favorite bridge book ever. Brent Manley hated the original version, describing it as filled with ridicule, which are two good reasons to want the book. Do not miss this!

http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=136&products_id=420

X-Montreal?

2011-03-07T17:47:00.000-08:00

A thought.

There has been some debate between the classic responses to a 1C opening, Walsh responses, and Montreal Relay. One modern innovation is toward "T-Walsh" or transfer Walsh. So, could one, then, imagine and use yet another approach, one that might be called "X-Montreal," or cross-Montreal?

1C-P-1D = no 5-card major, typically a 4-card major.
1C-P-1H = 5+ spades
1C-P-1S = 5+ hearts

Let's play this out even further. First, start with the spade sequence. 1C-P-1H. Responder has 5+ spades. From his side of the table, he could later bid 2H or 3H, as appropriate, to show a spade-heart two-suiter, longer (or equal) spades. So far, nothing really sexy happens, except that Opener can bid spades first, which may in the long run be better for lead reasons. The normal raise method could be 1C-P-1H-P-2S. Not a jump shift -- just the normal raise that would have occurred if Responder had bid 1S instead of 2S.

What about the heart cross-over? 1C-P-1S. Responder has five hearts. Again, everything works out fairly normally. Opener raises normally but grabs declarership. 1C-P-1S-P-2H.

You then might be thinking that there is a problem in the 1C-P-1S sequence, in that Opener cannot bid spades. In the 1C-P-1H sequence, however, the auction is in theory improved, if Opener's 1S call shows hearts. You end up with an easy auction (Responder has spades and hearts and could normally bid 1S and then 2H) being made even easier and better (Opener can show the hearts himself below 1NT, allowing Responder's 2H to show 5-5). But, you end up with the easiest normal auction (Opener shows four spades after Responder introduces hearts) becoming what appears to be unworkable (the 1S call preempts the ability to show spades below 1NT, and Responder cannot later introduce spades without a reverse).

However, that perception of a complication is perhaps mitigated by that fifth card in hearts. When the auction starts 1C-P-1S (Responder has five hearts), Opener either started with (1) a balanced hand or (2) an unbalanced hand with clubs. If balanced, 2H is often the best contract anyway if Responder has a weak hand. I mean, with five hearts, is the normal auction often 1C-P-1H-P-1NT-P-2H anyway? So, let's start with the idea of Opener raising hearts (1C-P-1S-P-2H) with any balanced minimum hand (not the 18-19 balanced hands). Is this, so far, workable?

Fairly so. Responder will often bid just like he would after a transfer to a weak 1NT opening. Opener will be allowed to make calls that confirm a true fit and calls that show shortness. The opponents, if 2H is the final contract, will not know if the fit is real or not. So far, I could live with this.

Back to Opener's problem at rebid. Suppose Opener is unbalanced. Because Opener will always rebid 2H with a minimum balanced hand, 1NT must, per force, show an unbalanced hand. So, let's define that as promising four cards in spades. Non-forcing, but this would carry a strong encouragement to not pass, as Opener might have a fairly strong hand. If Opener has four spades and a balanced hand, with only two hearts, he could opt to treat this as "unbalanced" and bid 1NT, prepared to bid 2H later if necessary.

What bid would be left out? If Opener is unbalanced, without four spades and without three hearts, he has at most 5 cards in the majors. If diamonds are short (hence the unbalanced hand), Opener has 7+ clubs and has an easy rebid. If spades are short, with only two hearts, again Opener has 6+ clubs and an easy rebid. If Opener has precisely 3-1-4-5, 1NT to show spades is not implausible, nor is opening 1D instead (if that is your normal style), nor is rebidding clubs. Strangely, a similar problem to other methods.

So, it seems to me that the five-card suit allows Opener to support hearts with a doubleton and to dedicate 1NT to unbalanced (or balanced with 4-2 in majors), so as to mitigate the problem sequence for a "X-Montreal" approach.

I am not sure whether this all would have any net benefit or loss. I have only started to think along these lines. But, as I am unaware of anyone tryig this method before, and as it seems workable, I am rather curious about the concept. I would enjoy any feedback.

Subtlety

2011-03-06T08:22:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite little tools is opening 1D only with unbalanced hands and therefore including in 1C any balanced hands even if diamonds are (much) longer. One of the benefits is very subtle.

Consider two hands from yesterday's Swiss Teams.

On one, my wife opened 1C, dutifully alerted. RHO held both majors with clubs (4-4-1-4 type) and decided that a double in this context should show both majors and ONE of the minors. I tend to agree.

However, at favorable colors, I had seen this situation before and opted for the "odd" call of 1NT with 2-4-5-2 shape and two queens. I immediately removed the two-level from their discussion. LHO tried 2D, passed out. They made, but 2S would have made 140. The extra level convinced RHO to not risk further problems.

Later, partner again opened 1C. This time, RHO made a normal 1S overcall, and I doubled for hearts. LHO passed, and partner bid 1NT. Not knowing whether my wife had diamonds or clubs dominant, RHO felt almost forced into a 2C call, lest they be blown out of their possible club fit. As it was, partner had the normal club-spade two-suiter (2425) and the opponents ended up -200.

In either auction, the opponents might have resolved the problems better. However, adding an ever-so-slight problem for them, and knowing how and when to induce failure in these types of sequences, is the kind of subtlety that I love. Our teammates were impressed by the 6C contract we reached that the opponents missed, for a huge gain. But, I enjoyed, even more, the couple of small gainers we got from these more subtle actions.

That said, flamboyance is also fun. We had another where LHO opened 1S and partner overcalled 1NT as a light takeout (less than an opener down to, whatever). RHO decided to double and sit back. With xxx-Axxxxx-void-xxxx, it seemed like RHO was opting a double with spade support, which is odd. The only explanation, it seemed, was that he was thinking slam. So, wanting a diamond lead against 6S, I bid 2D. This was passed to RHO who, with KQ10xx in diamonds, could not stand it and doubled. I showed my "second suit" by bidding 2H, and LHO doubled. Pass, long hesitation... ("Please go for the BIG number -- we are in TROUBLE!!!") Well, the vibes did not work when RHO ended up bidding 3H. After a few bizarre bids, they ended up in 4S, a huge gain when 6S is cold (RHO was void in hearts). As added insult, our teamates made the overtrick in 6S, while we held 4S to 12 tricks (partner grabbed the induced diamond).

But, I still like the subtle ones best. The pro usually can deal with wild lunacy, but even the best fall prey at times to the very slight nudge. Actually, the pro is more likely to get snared by the nudge than the average player.

Happy Bids are Good Bids

2011-03-04T10:13:00.000-08:00

When gioven two choices, pick the one that makes partner happy.

An auction last night illustrates this. My partner, a good club player, opened a 19-count 4-1-4-4 hand 1C. Whether you approve or would bid 1D is not relevant to the story, so assume 1C is OK.

I now bid 1D. Partner had two plausible options. The one he chose was 2S, a game-forcing jump shift. Whether my call was right or wrong, I had somewhat of a problem deciding what to do. In an undiscussed partnership, I decided to be practical, because my hand was not that fascinating. My stiff club certainly looked bad. So, with a marginal decision, I opted to bid 3NT to slow the auction down, hoping for at least a useful stiff honor to increase the chances that the suit was stopped. In practice, the cards were just so, and the opponents could take the first five five heart tricks. Partner also opted to pass for the same "practical" reasons.

What if, however, partner has instead opted the "happy" bid of 3H, a splinter?

Now, I ignore the stupid "practical" option because my 5-card diamond suit and stiff club suggests slam. In fact, 6D is laydown.

The point is that, among reasonable options, pick the one that makes partner smile if you want him to smile. Bidding 2S, in the example, might have achieved a 2NT or 3C or 3D call by me, and then partner might have made a very descriptive 3D call. His great spade suit would then be underlined, and the shortness in hearts would be inferred rather than shown. But, the plan did not work when I, as partner, made a judgment call based on the info to date and when the plan seemed suddenly bad as to entry into the four-level.

Uncontested Structure Tailored for Contested Structure Parallels

2011-03-02T16:21:00.000-08:00

I am more and more liking the idea of structuring the uncontested auction in a manner that caters to consistency and sophistication in the contested auction.

As a simple example, consider the benefits of a 3C response to a 1NT opening as Puppet Stayman. In and of itself, it has obvious benefits, which is why a lot of folks use this method. There may be alternative methods to explore this information in an uncontested auction, as well. But, consider an added benefit to Puppet 3C after 1NT.

If you have this structure in mind, then it doesn't seem that complicated to kick into Puppet 3C (and transfers) if RHO overcalls 2NT for the minors. 1NT-(2NT)-3C as Puppet, and then transfers, is workable.

But, then take it a step further. Often, Puppet 3C is coupled with 3H as 1345/1354 and 3S as 3145/3154. So, suppose the auction is 1NT-(2H)-? Now, one could have a semi-parallel structure where 3C is "Puppet" Stayman (3S=5, 3H=4, 3D=2-3), with a "parallel" 3H and 3S as shortness in hearts with three spades indicating the long minor. Then, you might decide to have a double of 2H be a transfer (stolen bid), 2S as one or both minors weak or GF (which I like out of comp for this reason -- consistency between contested and uncontested, geared toward needs of contested on default; 2NT prefs diamonds BTW), 2NT as some general invite (usually with clubs anchor), and 3D as invitational with diamonds.

Whether you love this structure or hate it, you may see the point. I like Puppet 3C, 2S as wk/GF minor(s), and the 3-level frag-minors bids because of their own benefits but also because in contested auctions these create a workable core structure, with tweaks as needed or situationally suggested.

Many other structures are such that any call disrupts the structure completely and forces something entirely different, which means more memory, more thinking, and less familiarity.

When structures are similar, things that you see in repeated auctions lead to suggestions and judgment and modifications. Playing "X Convention" in multiple situations means that it comes up a lot, meaning that you start to understand and feel it, and this allows you to realize, for instance, that a specific auction types suggests a specific weird call as a splinter rather than an honor, or a choice bid rather than a last train call, or optional rather than kickback. Whatever. If the structures vary a lot across sequences, you end up skimming the surface of the sequence and not gaining understanding, which weakens things.

So, think about developing contested structure first, perhaps, and then translating it to uncontested rather than the reverse. I think it works better.

Free Ebooks, Sort Of

2011-02-27T16:12:00.000-08:00

FWIW, at our local club's website (http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/), I have upoaded three "Free Ebooks." These are really compliations of 2010 articles from out local club newsletters. But, some might find these interesting or funny or whatever.

One of these "ebooks" is a set of several articles from 2010 written by Ruth Odenweller, the main club director, called "Bridge Tips."

One is a collection of 2010 articles in the series written by me and my wife, Leah, called "the Bickersons on Bridge." Some of this is actual bridge stuff, but some is more on the humor side.

The third is a small series on 2/1 GF that I wrote for beginners in the club thinking about switching to that approach from standard.

I am not vouching for any of these three being quality work, as I just cut and pasted the articles from the newsletter. And, the newsletter articles were not drafted with any intention that they be published other than as a newsletter article. So, the editing may be lousy, and the content moreso. But, the price is right.

Sometimes the Problem with Natural Bidding...

2011-02-26T13:47:00.000-08:00

...is that people often don't understand how to bid naturally.

I have been in a posting battle in BBF as to what I think to be a simple sequence.

1C-1D
1S-2C
???

The debate concerns what 2H means. I say, "bid where you live," meaning that 2H shows a value in hearts. Maybe this is a start to a pattern description with 4-3-1-5 or 4-2-1-6 shape. Maybe it is a card from perhaps 4-2-2-5 pattern with interest in 3NT. Maybe a blend of the two.

The contrary view is that 2H asks about a heart stopper. I don't understand that, because to me a 2D rebid and a 3C rebid each suggests a lack of a heart card, the former not as clearly because notrump has not yet been abandoned.

I included an insanely long post on the topic a few minutes ago, so I am not inclined to do this again here. However, my purpose here is to encourage people to think through some auctions to decide whether artificiality is really needed. Sometimes, I think what is needed is a bit more flexibility as to what is meant by "natural." his is a good case in point.

To me, Opener's option of bidding 2H (or 2D for that matter) is not one that is limited somehow to 3-card heart suits and 4-3-1-5 pattern. Why does "natural" have to mean "the maximum amount of cards that I already denied" in this sequence?

I mean, sure. If Opener has 4-3-1-5 pattern and interest in bigger things, 2H stands out. But, what about a heavy HCP hand with 4-2-2-5 but only Kx or Ax (or maybe Qx?) in hearts? If we are not looking to play hearts, then why is having three hearts more important from a "natural" or "bid where you live" perspective than holding, say, Kx? If your purpose happens to be to explore 3NT, which is worse if partner thinks you have H-x-x in hearts -- 4-3-2 in hearts as your actual holding or K-2 as the holding?

The entire discussion on BBF is probably (if you agree with me LOL) worth reading. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44570-meaning-of-2h/page__pid__531547#entry531547

It took Ken Eichenbaum a while to bang this one into my head, admittedly. For years, I developed a lot of theory into artificiality and asking bids and the like. These have their distinct place, and having lots of sexy agreements is certainly something I like. But, I missed the deeper natural game, if that makes sense, until much later.

Some auctions don't need artificiality -- they need understanding of how to bid. A situational discussion as to what the natural inferences are in a given sequence can, at times, be more intricate and complex than any gamma asking bid sequence or structured cuebidding sequence,especially if this is foreign to you (at least to the level to which one can actually develop "natural" thinking). You might THINK that you need artificiality in some sequences because you have not thought through what all the "natural" sequences should ideally mean.

To a degree, "Cuebidding at Bridge" was somewhat of an exploration of natural slam bidding, if you think about it. It may have seemed to those who read the book that a lot of it was extremely artificial, but I bet that if you think about it, and certainly when you bid this way for a while, it is actually more natural than initially one would think. Not the surface "natural," but a deeper natural, if that makes sense.

Review in Bridge Magazine (UK)

2011-02-21T09:25:00.000-08:00

I was pleased to see a nice review of New Frontiers for Strong Forcing Openings forwarded to me by Ray Lee of Master Point Press. It apparently is in Bridge Magazine (UK):

New Frontiers for Strong Forcing Openings Ken Rexford

One of the most popular methods amongst club players in this country is Acol with Benjamin two-bids – usually described affectionately as “Benji”. Having accepted that Acol 2♣ and strong two-bid hands have a relatively low frequency, these are now handled with an opening bid of 2♦ and 2♣ respectively. In addition, there are a number of players who play “reverse Benji” – this has the advantage of retaining the Acol 2♣ opening and responses, with the 2♦ opening now used to describe any Acol 2-bid in a suit. Unfortunately this brings further problems, particularly where the opener has an Acol 2-bid with hearts.

However, even those pairs who have been playing these methods for a long time often have nothing more sophisticated available that a “2♦ relay” response, and hand definition following one of these strong opening bids is often clumsy and at an inconveniently high level.

In this book, American expert Ken Rexford describes a new way of using these two opening bids (2♣ and 2♦) for strong hands. The basic idea is easy to grasp: the 2♦ opening bid shows a strong hand including at least four spades, while the 2♣ opening (with one exception) denies four spades. This one simple idea now gives the following results:

1. You will have no problem handling strong hands with four hearts and five or more of a minor. In fact, you will be able to agree hearts at a level low enough for all calls above 2NT to be cuebids. You will also be able to agree the minor, instead, at a level below 3NT, and often with space for some cuebidding below 3NT.

2. You will be able to set spades as trumps when Opener has four and Responder has a fit, at a level low enough for all calls above 2NT to be available to help look for a slam, no matter what Opener’s pattern may be. If the major is not agreed, you will be able to agree any longer second suit held by Opener below 3NT.

3. You will not bypass 2NT to show five hearts after opening 2♣, even if Responder shows an immediate double negative by bidding 2♥.

4. You will be able to find any major fit, whether Opener has four, five, or even only three of the major, below 3NT when Opener has a balanced hand with 20+ HCP’s. Puppet Stayman has a problem when Responder has five spades and four hearts. You will not even have a problem finding either possible fit when Responder has, for instance, five spades and three hearts or five hearts and three spades.

5. You will be able to identify a specific minor with slam interest, below 3NT, when Opener has 22-23 balanced.

6. You will occasionally even be able to identify a specific four-card minor with slam interest, again below 3NT, opposite an Opener with 22-23 balanced, and even after asking Opener about the majors.

7. You may be able to agree a major below 3NT, and start cuebidding, when Opener has 20+ balanced.

8. Responder will never have a problem deciding whether a new major shows, or should show, four or five after Opener shows a long minor.

9. Hands with 4-4-4-1 pattern will not be that difficult after a strong, forcing opening.

10. You will be able to show both minors below 3NT.

I believe that any regular partnership playing a form of “Benji” would benefit from adopting the ideas in this book. In particular, those hands that have been difficult in the past (e.g. strong 3-suiters, strong hands with a 4-card major and a longer minor) can now be handled efficiently. This book is highly recommended.

A Very Strange Puppet

2011-02-12T09:41:00.000-08:00

About the strangest place to play Puppet Stayman that I have actually used is in the following sequence:

1C - P - 1X - P -

2NT - P - 3C!!!

You might be wondering, "What?!?!?" Well, an explanation is probably called for.

With several partners, I play a fairly common (now) treatment where Opener, after starting with One Heart or One Spade and hearing a Forcing 1NT response, bids 2NT as an artificial Game-Force, with various hand types. This allows immediate Jump Shifts to show intermediate CP hands that have extra playing strength. If you do this, you know my problem. What, then, do you do with the balanced (17-)18 count with 5332 and a 5-card major? Several unsatisfactory suggestions have been provided, including, "Just bid 3NT -- it probably makes," or "Try some sort of sexy 2C rebid."

I dislike both options for various reasons. A third possibility is one that I tried out for a while and actually liked a lot. I suppose liked it mostly because it was weird, and I like weird.

The idea was to open One Club with all the normal meanings, but you might have a 5-card major (either) if you have the big balanced 18-count. The unwind, then, is of course Puppet Stayman.

Obviously, however, "Puppet" is modified so as to cater to the elimination that just happened if Responder's call was a major, as Opener is not too likely to have 5-card support that he suppressed.

I am still uncertain as to whether this solution is ideal, as I only tried it in one partnership and only for a while. But, I am somehow drawn to it, perhaps like a mosquito to a bug zapper but perhaps because there is something to this. I don't play this anymore, because of partnership switches and the like, but I thought some folks might find this suggestion to possibly solve a problem you might be having.

Two More Puppets?

2011-02-10T17:09:00.000-08:00

Nothing that spectacular, but I kind of like this treatment. Partner opens 1NT, and you have a 5-card major with 5332 pattern and 3 cards in the other major. Obviously, one can work out that the best contract might be four of the other major. So, how do you handle this?

Puppet Stayman, of course. But, after the transfer.

Start with a transfer to your long major. If partner does not super-accept, bid 3C Puppet Stayman.

If partner has five of the other major (without support for your major), he bids it. Raise as you will if you have 3-card support (raise to game without interest; bid 4D with slam interest).

If partner has three-card support for your major, he bids your major.

If partner has neither, he either bids Three Diamonds (likes clubs) or 3NT.

Sure -- you might have clubs also. If you bid Puppet Stayman, you might have clubs too.

Price of Information

2011-02-04T05:40:00.000-08:00

On a related note to the "steppingstone Bid" is "Price of Information" Series.

Partner passes, and RHO opens a strong 1NT. White on red, you overcall 2C because you are playing Cappelletti and have a one-suited hand. This call is alerted as such. LHO doubles, passed to you.

So, you bid 2D, alerted by partner as showing a one-suited hand. The opponents ask if that means diamonds, but partner says, "nope -- could be any suit."

The idea is that you play a series of calls above 2CX as all one-suiters without specificity as to which suit. If the opponents really want to know, then they must double you and find out with a final pass, but then you end up declaring.

This maneuver, properly alerted, cannot be deemed a psychic. Rather, it is "steppingstone-ish" in that the opponents cannot leave you in your contract undoubled and therefore must take action. However, you are obviously creating a tactical problem for them.

Moreover, this sequence also is "steppingstone-ish" in that it compounds definitions.

If one way to 2S is 2C-X-P-P-2D-X-P-P-2H-X-P-P-2S, then 2C-X-P-P-2S shows something different, as does 2C-X-P-P-2H-X-P-P-2S. If this situation presents itself, this may call for some discussion.

Of course, there is a defense to the "POI Series." LHO stops doubling and lets RHO start the doubling. But, this defense is only partial. Sure -- it eliminates the box of being forced to defend our contract doubled. But, it still forfeits definition somewhat for the opponents and it still gains us bidding space to fine-tune whatever we might want to fine-tune.

Steppingstone Bids

2011-02-01T05:29:00.000-08:00

The ACBL does not like psychic bidding, let's face it. If the Rules say that you can, that only gets you so far. When you start actually whipping one out here and there, your partner inevitably will end up at some point in some interrogation, thinking that he needs an attorney. Why? Usually you either made a really good psychic, or perhaps partner was not a complete dolt and noticed that 50 points in the deck, two sweating and confused opponents, and favorable colors suggested a "forcing pass" solution to a bidding problem.

At one point, years ago, I grew so frustrated with the nonsense that I decided to develop a new type of bid entirely, one that I called a "Steppingstone Bid." I wonder, still, how the GCC and Rules account for this beast.

I mean, we all know that there are types of bids. A "normal" bid shows what you have and designates (in theory) a possible strain and proposed level. Natural. Then, you have asking bids, relays, puppets, marionettes, and other varieties of bids. But, what about a "Steppingstone Bid?"

A "steppingstone bid" is defined (by me) as a call that is not forcing upon partner but that "forces" the opponents to take action to unwind your possible meanings. That's not even right as a definition.

The situation is one where you try to maximize "useful space" and you stack meanings efficiently by taking advantage of a scoring-based situational "force." That still doesn't explain it well.

OK, an example. Partner opens Two Hearts, weak. You are playing that any call at the three-level is forcing, 2NT is Ogust., and 3H is a raise. But, Two Spades is a non-forcing response. So far, fabulous. But, you realize that you cannot show a weak hand with one or both minors.

So, you decide that 2S instead shows one or both minors, weak. If partner prefers diamonds, he bids 2NT; if clubs, 3C. You then place the contract accordingly. That's better, in that you handle more hands, but then you cannot get out in spades.

Suppose you decide that, white on red, you will play that Two Spades shows either spades OR one-or-both-minors. Suppose, further, that you play 2S as non-forcing. How, then, will partner know what you have? Easy! The auction becomes, in a sense, forcing. Why? The opponents cannot defend 2S if you have one or both minors because they make +620 or better in Four Spades and get at most +400 against Two Spades undoubled. Thus, Two Spades is, in a sense, "forcing." Just, you partner is not the one who is forced.

Now, how can that type of call be treated as a psychic when the advantage gained is obvious? You stack bidding space up, which is constructive. This may be an unusual type of convention, and it may resemble a psychic, but alerted and explained, it is not.

So, take this a step further. Partner opens Two Hearts in third seat. After a double, you could play Suit/Lead. Suppose, instead, that you want to play a method where Responder can escape to a long suit OR suggest a lead, but you want to also be able to play Two Spades, or to bid 2NT as both minors. If you start working this up, Steppingstones works (at least white on red). Bid a suit that you either want as the lead (shortness perhaps) or that you want to declare. The opponents are situationally forced to unwind this for you, meaning that you stack meanings and thereby are "constructive." The fact that this ends up looking a lot like a classic psychic is irrelevant. Your purpose is honorable, efficiency results, and alerts clear up the ambiguity (somewhat) for the opponents.

So, then, is this a "controlled psychic?" That's the rub. By my thinking, a "controlled psychic" is a term that makes no sense. If one can ask whether you have X or Y, and if you can have X or Y, then having X (the "psychic" meaning) is not a psychic because you by definition can have that holding. So, I have no idea what a "psychic control" is. However, if this means a way to back-door a meaning that is not otherwise allowed, OK. Call it that. Whatever -- the point is that a "Steppingstone" should be allowed if alerted and explained when all possible weak meanings are allowed as conventional responses, of course. Then, it is not a psychic and hence there are no psychic controls. For that matter, by definition, PARTNER is not using any "control" anyway; the opponents are the ones who are "forced." I cannot imagine that the GCC prohibits calls that force the opponents to do something intelligent if they want a good score (or try).

I bet there are other uses for Steppingstones, like perhaps even a Steppingstone Pass? I mean, in theory we all do THAT call. LHO opens 1NT. RHO transfers. You pass, planning on making a different call when the auction comes back to you, because you know that the auction MUST come back to you, as LHO cannot pass. He is forced. So, you stack meanings in this manner. The question is whether there are more situations where you can "Steppingstone" auctions.

A couple of weird slam decisions

2011-01-25T16:55:00.000-08:00

I like cuebidding, in case you did not know this. Very delicate exploration of slam. so, when playing with a man the other day who did not play Stayman, a couple of slam decisions were a little more general principle.

The first was truly odd. As dealer, I grabbed Axxx-void-Axxxxxx-xx out of the slot. I expected a fair chance that, whatever my decision, the auction would return to me at the five-level. I was right, but the exact auction was unexpected. I started with One Diamond, figuring that this would be the best way to start.

1D - 2C - 5H - P - ???

Now THAT was unexpected!!! What in the world does 5H mean by a man who does not play Stayman, but who actually seems to have a fairly good grasp of the game?!?!? Weird.

I decided to pass, as a void looked ominous. Partner had the somewhat expected -- two voids (clubs and diamonds), with Qxxx-AKJxxxxxx-void-void. About right. On the spade lead, he ducked to assure 11 tricks. Sure enough, however, trumps split such that the Queen was protected AND the opening lead was a stiff spade. Fortunately, on the other hand, the stiff spade was with the Q-x-x in hearts. So, good stop.

The other. I was dealt AKQxx-Q10x-10xxx-x and opened One Spade. The auction then went:

1S - P - 3D - 5C - ?

Again, back to me at the five-level. And, what is a jump shift here???

6D seemed fairly good, so that's what I tried. Partner held an unexpected hand:

xx-A9x-AKQ10x-xxx

Kind of odd decision, but "the Rabbit" is a system with which I am not altogether familiar as to nuances and the like. So, presumably 3D is the standard Rabbit Jump Shift.

As you can undoubtedly see, 6D has play. If diamonds split 2-2, declarer can win five diamonds by force, two more diamonds by ruffs, one heart, three spades, and a 12th trick if spades split no worse than 4-2 or the spade Jack falls. If diamonds split 3-1, then we need the spade Jack to fall.

As it was, spades split very strangely. LHO had Jxxxx in spades. He also had three diamonds, along with KJ in hearts. Jxxxx-KJx-Jxx-Ax. RHO, therefore, held x-xxxx-x-KQJxxxx. Partner lost trick one to a club and got a spade switch (?). He won that and pulled three rounds of trumps before trying spades, finding the bad news, and ruffed a spade back to hand. Now, a club ruff to dummy. He now had five diamonds plus a ruff, three spades, and that heart Ace, for 10 tricks. His best shot was a hail-Mary catch of stiff heart with RHO, so Queen-King-Ace... Nope. Still, I liked his line.

The moral? Sometimes you have to guess.

Cuebidding to DEFEAT a Slam

2011-01-21T20:07:00.000-08:00

Cuebidding is not just for the side with all the stuff. Sometimes, a cue is necessary to defeat a slam.

I was playing last night with a newer duplicate player. The first game we played was a life master party for a friend of his. That new LM decided to celebreate by sponsoring a pro-am game, where regulars were matched with newbies, folks who perhaps played party bridge and might like duplicate. My partner for that game was a real novice -- we did not even play Stayman! But, with some well-timed luck and some heavy work to bring in some interesting contracts, we won.

Last night, we tried round two. This time, the game was open, with no leveling of the playing field. so, out work was cut out for us. One deal, however, helped us with a repeat first.

LHO opened a strong Two Clubs, and my partner overcalled Two Diamonds after hearing that 2C showed a strong hand but any suit or balanced. What kind of silliness was that? Why not just open two of your suit with a strong hand?!?!? So, partner decided to step in on that nonsense.

RHO then bid Two Spades. All white, I had been interested in this deal before the opening bid, as I held xx-void-AKxx-xxxxxxx. The developments so far made me even more interested.

Lots of options come to mind, but I tried a rather simple option of Six Diamonds. LHO thought for a while and tried Six Hearts, passed to me.

Well, now we have reached to key point. Better cuebid sometime, eh? I mean, if you are thinking about bidding a grand, should'nt you tell partner that you have first-round control of one of the opponents' suits? So, I bid Six Spades. We eventually bid our grand, failing by 800 for a top. The traveler showed a few small slams in hearts for an overtrick, on grand in hearts making, and our grand in diamonds, which was best. LHO noted that the grand in hearts seems to make BUT for the cuebid in spades.

Anders Wirgren's Review of New Frontiers!

2011-01-17T14:10:00.000-08:00

Again, I can only roughly translate this via google (as suggested to me). But, I think it is a decent review...

System som har öppningsbudet 2c som enda krav kan få problem att visa alla starka händer, det är ingen nyhet. Därför är det inte så dumt att göra, som Mats Nilsland föreslog för tjugo år sedan i systemet Super Standard och använda både 2c och 22 för att visa starka öppningshänder. Mats idé var, att 22 lovade minst fyra spader, medan 2c tog hand om övriga händer. Samma idé kläckte Ken Rexford för några år sedan och det är hans lösning som presenteras i den här e-boken. I förordet nämner han att kan känner till att idén inte är ny, men att hans lösningar av den fortsatta budgivningen ofta än enklare än Mats.

Mycket av det Rexford skriver är intressant och han ger många exempel på metoderna i aktion. Han har också med många givar från verkliga livet, där ett par fick problem att hamna rätt efter 2c, enda krav, men där det hade blivit mycket enklare med hans metoder.

Att jag själv, sedan länge använder idén med både 2c och 22 som starka öppningsbud, gör att jag gärna rekommenderar boken till alla systemintresserade.

Uncertainty

2011-01-17T09:27:00.000-08:00

I have maintained a theory that life and physics often have parallels. Rough parallels, perhaps. For example, consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Priinciple. In one overly basic description of what this means, we learn that the mere testing or observing of a thing affects that thing so as to give us a false view of the thing as it was prior to our assessment of that thing. The parallel in life seems to be roughly that our assessment of others (and their assessment of us) affects the other person. In broader terms, if you see a person as kind, that person tends to become kinder. If you see a person as funny, their sense of humor increases. If you see a person as a waste, they also meet that assessment sooner or later.

Bridge also has uncertainty of this type. If you see partner as a great player or as a strong developing player, partners tend to play great and develop well. If you see partner as a hopeless cause, they tend to become hopeless. If you think the opponents are going to crush you, they crush you. If you sense weakness from your opponents, you come up with a good line or bid yourself, making sure that your assessment of the opponents plays out.

I cannot prove this, but I often wonder if quantum mechanics is at work when I look for Queens. I am convinced that I find the Queen much less then 50% of the time, even if I follow the odds and inferences correctly. Is my expectation causing the Queen, perhapps fluttering back and forth, to materialize in the wrong place every time? Or, am I tending at times to be so pessimistic that I run against the line that I feel to be right?

I mean, strange things happen. when I feel "on," I manage to find Queens constantly. I recently held AJ10xx on dummy and Kx in hand. I crossed to dummy to hook the Jack back, then King, then back to dummy for the Ace, and this all worked. Nothing that fabulous, except that it was right AND I felt on fire that night, even before that play. Did my brain work better that night because I was positive in my thinking? Did I notice all of the right decisions because I felt right? Was this simply coincidence? Did I somehow elect in a quantum sense the "world" in which the Queen was placed where I thought it was? Did I change or decide reality? No -- the goofy quantum stuff was not really happening (I hope). What was happening is that I was in tune and positive, with ,myself and with my partner, and that translated into success.

The damned problem is that bridge is not exactly an easy game to master in that regard. You spend years and years learning about how big of an idiot you really are, and along the way you find out that your partner is a lunatic as well. And yet, somehow you are suipposed to be upbeat and positive? At bridge????

Hostage Negotiation

2011-01-15T08:24:00.000-08:00

I had a weird occurrence a few years ago. I was playing in a regional tournament in Dayton, Ohio. When away from the table, my career is one of criminal defense attorney. These two worlds collided when I received a note from a tournament director that I had an emergency call (fortunately, at the end of the session).

I stepped outside to call and found out that a client of mine was holed up in his mother's house, police surrounding the house, in what might have been a hostage situation. Apparently, a judge had ordered this man taken into custody for purposes of an involuntary commitment hearing, meaning a hearing to determine whether his mental illness would merit hospitalization against his will. He refused to leave, yelling this out of the door, and the police were unsure whether he might be dangerous. So, a standoff developed. He demanded to speak with his attorney, and they tracked me down at this tournament.

So, I spoke with him. The hostage negotiator had failed, but I succeeded in removing him peacefully from the house. The trick was rather simple, actually. When he told me what was happening, I acted excited and happy, which confused him at first. But, I then noted that we would probably have a massive lawsuit if this was all unconstitutional, as he was claiming. I started talking about what I would do with my one-third of the massive settlement, and this got his thinking about what he would do with all of his money. In the end, he walked out peacefully, dreams of a vacation home in Barbados in his head, and all was well. His medications were started overe again, and he was better. Later, both of us laughed about it. Good end to a possibly bad story.

Well, as a slight embellishment, I imagine a deal that happened on another day happening actually as the last hand of that day. I held Q8xx in hand, 9xx on dummy, in 3NT, and I needed one trick from this suit to make the contract, without losing three. There were no other options. So, I tried the obvious small toward the Queen, hoping for A-K to my right. No luck. But, the card played were x-10-Q-K. This was curious. I expected a fair shot that LHO started with K-J-x-x and RHO with A-10 tight.

I then ended up with a ruse to extract the remaining Jack and Ace at the same time from the opponents. A way to get the culrpit out of the holed up position. Greed, plus a measure of crazy. The line was rather simple, actually. I unnecessarily set up LHO's suit for him by using the last stopper in his suit to cross to dummy in order to finesse the Queen in a suit in my hand. However, my holding in that suit was A-K-Q-2. Not a real finesse, of course, but who would open up LHO's suit to lead toward A-K-Q-2? Sounds like A-Q-2 to me, eh?

That ruse convinced LHO that I did not have the King. Because I had opened 2NT, he was assured that my holding in the critical suit was now A-Q-x-x rather than my actual Q-8-x-x. Thus, I had accomplished two things at this point. First, I created a false image for LHO of my hand. Second, I gave him dreams of that house in Barbados by setting up his suit and lots of tricks for him. Now for part three.

Small toward the remaining 9-x on dummy in that key suit. What was LHO to think? Surely, I was trying one of those sneaky plays, small to the 9 hoping for an unfortunate duck by LHO. The combination of greed, thoughtful analysis by LHO, and a tad bit of crazy mixed in, resulted in a hop of the Jack, per force overtaken by RHO's Ace, and I actually ended up with TWO tricks from that suit, only losing two, as RHO had no entry to LHO's winners!

Sometimes bridge and life have parallels. When faced with a problem, remember a few things about the other guy. Most people are thoughtful and can be relied upon to work out that which you suggest by your clues. Most people are greedy. And, most people have a wee bit of crazy to them. Capitalizing on all three is part of the game of bridge.

Too often, players are obsessed with odds and percentages and finesse tables and conventional wisdom and the like. I have never seen a listing of holdings that cater to crazy, but it probably makes sense.

Could you imagine a table of finesse positions that includes x-x on dummy and 10-x-x in hand? How do you play this for one trick? The mathematician says, "No way." The thinker realizes that LHO could have A-Q-9-x and be tricky. If he plays you for K-J-10, he might duck the 10, trying to sucker YOU into what seems like a safe lead toward the Jack, allowing LHO three tricks! So, small to the 10 is the line. Does this work? Sure, for one of my partners. This is a "crazy line," but it is, in a sense, the RIGHT line.

Another I saw was Q-x-x on dummy and A-10 in hand. Suit contract. I needed two without losing one, in a slam. the line is not in any book I have seen, but it seemed right and worked.

Small toward the A-10, playing RHO for K-J. If he ducks, I finesse. If he sticks in the Jack, cross back and lead small toward the 10. If RHO buys that I might have started with stiff Ace, two tricks snuck through. I made the slam that way. Again, RHO was a thinker, and he had a little crazy. This time, however, the "greed" was actually more like not wanting me to have anything. Hoarding. Selfishness. He did not want to give me that Queen for free.

Shows or Asks?

2011-01-10T04:35:00.000-08:00

An interesting question from BBF brings up a theory issue. Unusual jumps typically show unexpected holdings or difficult-to-show holdings. Jumps often show shortness, but other times (Bluhmer, Empathetic Splinter) show 2+ without control. Five-level bids sometimes are used for extreme shortness (i.e., Exclusion RKCB), but sometimes imply a hole (asking bids).

It seems that perhaps there should be a meta-agreement that allows the partnership to know which is which in a way that maximizes utility. Perhaps the tendency should be toward most likely occurrence, but then perhaps the tendency should be toward least likely anticipated.

The case in point was a reverse followed by a raise of Responder's 6-card suit.

1D-1S
2H-3S
?

What would a leap to 5C show?

In theory, if the "most likely occurrence" method is used, one would expect Exclusion RKCB, meaning something like 3-4-6-0 shape.

However, if the "least likely anticipated" scenario is used, then an "Asking Bid," resembling a Bluhmer or Empathetic Splinter, or Asking Bid, makes sense, a 2-4-5-2 shape with solid but no club control.

I am not suggesting a specific answer. Rather, discussion.

Is the Cat Dead or Alive?

2010-12-21T06:17:00.000-08:00

I've never heard of anyone using this method, but an idea occurred to me for a method to better teach some aspects of Declarer play. Suppose you are teaching someone how to find the missing Queen, with the point of the lesson being to avoid the guess by using a throw-in. Maybe you have KJx opposite A10x in the trouble suit, and the point is to throw someone in, where the guess is solved by the opponents being forced to break the suit.

The traditional approach seems to be to use question marks. "Who has the Queen?" RHO has ?xx and LHO has ?xx. That seems confusing.

Why not do it the way we really think? I am convinced, sometimes, that both opponents have the Queen. I cannot prove my theorem, but quantum physics seems somehow involved. The point is that whoever I guess to not have the Queen actually has it, no matter what logic tells me. They both have it.

So, why not present the problem as if the opponents actually both have the Queen?\

The position ends up like this:

AJx

Qxx Qxx

A K

K10x

If you gave the problem this way, as a double-dummy problem, people could work out the problem. You exit your side pip. West wins and plays a third best from the Queen, forcing East to rise with the Queen, won with the King. Now, simply finesses against West's second Queen, winning three tricks in the suit despite the opponents both having the Queen.

This may seem like silliness, but the idea can be expanded, and it starts to approach a concept that better players grasp and use all the time. In essence, the learning player has a lot of question marks all over the place, and that makes life rather confusing as a Declarer. The advanced Declarer, however, kind of juggles a set of likely hands for East and likely hands for West simultaneously, and he caters to as many possible actual positions as he can. In other words, compare layouts:

Learning Declarer

AJx

?xx ?xx

? ?

K10x

Advanced Declarer

AJx

Qxx xxx

A x

Qxx xxx

x A

xxx Qxx

A x

xxx Qxx

x A

K10x

The second layout is how the advanced player "thinks." He sees all four layouts, in his head, and he caters to each. The developing player thinks about all the question marks and tries to work out what to do. The question marks get confusing, both on paper and at the table. The juggled specific examples, however, reflect the real possibilities and express, in a sense, how the better player starts to think about these things. So, who not teach using this type of layout? Why not teach/write bridge using layouts that reflect an expert way of visualizing layouts, and thereby teach people to think that way, instead of using the layout method that best reflects what actually occurs in the mind of the learning player?

Parallels

2010-12-19T05:52:00.000-08:00

Strange that I never saw this, but a somewhat interesting parallel seemed to arise today.

On BBF, a problem auction was provided where Opener has 5332 and Responder a balanced monster, the partnerships of many ending in 6S down immediately on a club lead (missing Ace and King). The short form of the story, IMO, was that Jacoby 2NT was flawed and thus ill-advised, whereas simple cues worked better (obviously).

The deeper story was the auction many of us will now use to get to thsat cuebidding spot:

O: One Spade
R: Two Clubs (real clubs OR just spade support)
O: Two Diamonds (real diamonds OR just balanced with a diamond card)
R: Two Spades (fit, start cuebidding...)

A "strong clubber" made a comment about how this type of bidding is why strong clubbers are better. As a sometimes strong clubber myself, I found this absurdly humorous, as Opener starts 1S either way and as my methods in a Precision-style strong club would mean the exact same start.

Furthermore, and the point of this post, I noticed that there would be a strong parallel using canape, albeit slightly different:

O: 1D (if diamonds and a major, diamonds could be 3-card if 5332)
R: 2C (GF, artificial)
O: 2H (diamonds plus spades; diamonds might be 3-card)
R: 2S (fit, start cuebidding...)

Strangely, then, a parallel arose. On the same hands where with 2/1 GF (or Precision for that matter) I would rebid 2D after opening a major and hearing 2C, I would open 1D canape and then show the major. This of course seems right -- canape means essentially getting to the second bid first. Sending in the reserves and holding back the main army until later. But, the decision-making is the same.

This is an example illustrating why I think learning multiple systems, and playing them enough to be competent in each, actually helps thinking in all systems. In other words, Precision helps your 2/1 game, and 2/1 helps canape, and K-S helps Standard American.

Gatlinburg for New Year's Eve

2010-12-14T06:20:00.000-08:00

My wife and I and a couple who are friends of ours are doing the Gatlinburg New Year's Eve this year. Apparently, the party on the streets is incredible, with a ball drop and fireworks and live music, all free. Of course, the drinks in the various venues are not free.

I am looking forward to this. It is weird, though. Growing up with Gatlinburg, TN, as part of my life (I consider it my other home and even thought about not leaving one time), I have a fondness for the various seasons, the hiking, the pancakes, the cabin in the hills, the hot tub, the outlet malls, the kitch, and all that. But, I canot help but feeling a bizarre attachment to two locations in Gatlinburg, namely the steps on the north side of the convention center (where you get the smoke and talk during the regional) and the bar stools at Calhoun's (the post-mortem). Just plain weird, to find yourself in such a fun city, with so much to do, and yet long for the next round to be called, eh?

Our friends are not bridge players. I sent them the ACBL's link to Fred Gitelman's Learn to Play Bridge, hoping maybe somehow this would stick. I wouldn't mind a few run around the table on a cold night, you know?

This past Thursday, our local club had a LM party for a man who returned to the game and made LM just a couple of months after his wife. (Yes, ribbing occurred.) The format was a "pro am" game, with the regulars each paired up with a beginner, meaning someone who does not play duplicate. This made for a lot of fun. There is nothing like remembering back when duplicate bridge was a new thing, eh? I absolutely love playing with rookies.

My partner announced that he knew Blackwood, but Stayman not so much. He was apparently the "fill in" when the men's club needed another body, the "short straw," if you will. When we ended up winning the game, he was bursting at the seams, having earned bragging rights for at least a year. I personally have not felt as good with any good performance in some time as I did that night. This was not because I dragged a newbie across the line but because he kept up. Decent defense. Good leads. Reasonable judgment. I mean, sure. By our usual standards, it was frightening. But, I could see his mind working, and he used the assets he had very well. I could not compliment him enough. There were times when he would overbid a hand a bit, which meant that I needed to find the squeeze or ruse or coup or whatever, but the 21-point game was playable, and THIS night it made.

My favorite was the 6C slam on the second board of the night. After a 1C opening from partner, I responded 1H with void-KQJxx-Axx-Qxxxx. After 1S by my LHO, partner jumped to 2NT. RHO raised to 3S. Of course, I expected partner to have overbid his hand a lot, but wow was this a possible slam. So, I leapt to 6C. Partner thought long and hard about this and finally said, "I thought I was supposed to bid 4NT to ask for Aces, and so I don't know what to do now." He finally shrugged his shoulders and passed.

Partner's hand was Kxxx-10x-KQx-AKJx, and clubs split 2-2. Obviously, the slam is easily made (hearts split 3-3 as a kicker). Partner lost the timing by ruffing the spade lead, pulling three rounds of trumps (lurker check), and then ruffing a second spade before tackling heats, for down one. The key, though, was how he reacted. He was fascinated by the hand and asked if he could make it. I commented, "Render unto Caesar...lose that heart Ace as soon as possible, while you still have control of every suit." He understood this and found it exciting. From that point through the evening, he was golden. And, he was never shy of trying that slam out.

There is something refreshing from that experience, and something to learn. All too often, we get discouraged and obsessed with a squeeze line that should have worked but we forgot to cater to one more risk than was seen initially. Anyone reading this post on this blog would run circles around Tom on this hand, easily working out the percentages and lines governing how to handle a 4-0 trump split or a bad heart stack. The auctions to get to 6C might have included some sort of flag, cues, exclusion RKCB, some forcng pass analysis, or some other such move. Heck, maybe some of us would have ended up with a lead problem against a spade contract. If we miss capitalizing on a play that adds another 0.035% chance of an overtrick, and should have known, we should probably have a different reaction than self loathing throughout the rest of the session.

Instead, how about this? The next time you drop that trick, reflect upon how much you have developed in this game that you actually know why that 0.035% chance of an overtrick really should have been spotted. Who else is of your ability to spot your own micro-mistake that quickly? Boy, have you developed as a Player!

Oh, and I strongly recommend doing anything you can to get a game every so often with a rookie. It is refreshing to remember, and I bet that rookie will get a story for his or her friends when reminiscing about that 65% game at the local club! If you make sure that they know (or at least think) that they contributed to that game, with compliments from that scary expert, you just might create a monster, one like you were years ago.

Clear Direction?

2010-11-24T16:16:00.000-08:00

An irony.

So, a post on BBF noted a commentary about the difference in theory between a splinter auction and a Jacoby 2NT auction, as it pertains to captaincy. It makes sense. A splinter call is a very descriptive call and hence yields captaincy almost entirely to partner. Conversely, a Jacoby 2NT call seeks description and is almost entirely, therefore, a captaincy grabbing call.

I tend to agree. As a result, I tend to be pure in my "type" for splinter actions, and I (ironically) hate Jacoby 2NT auctions. The irony is that I have been accused in the past of masterminding or of not being partnership-oriented in my bidding. My take, however, and fairly easily argued, is that my usual "error," if anything, is in being "too partnership oriented." In other words, I often go way out into the netherworlds of theory to make calls that cater to partner having maximal description or that cater to partner's various (but sometimes remote) possible hand patterns. This often catches a partner unaware of "WTF." To me, though, this is the ultimate in partnership bidding rather than "masterminding."

To me, a masterminding call is something like bidding 3NT too early while hiding a fit or blasting a slam (or signing off) because you think you know better than partner. In contrast, consider the type of call I often make that is not made by many. For example, partner bids Stayman and then 3NT when you show hearts. If you have both majors, do you make a call on route to 4S in case partner was borderline, or do you just bid 4S? If you make those 4C calls, they might be revealing too much, or too pie in the sky at times, but these are CLEARLY partnership-oriented calls and not masterminding calls.

In any event, back to the captaincy idea. To me, I love 2/1 sequences precisely because commitment to captaincy is deferred. I consider this critical in circumstances of impure holdings, but I also consider it difficult but appropriate partnership-oriented bidding.

So, I would group three types of sequences. Ones that seize captaincy, ones that yield captaincy, and ones that defer captaincy. I prefer the last, because I trust partners more than I trust structures (whether that trust be warranted or not). Which category do you fall into? Yielders? Seizers?

This is also perhaps why I disliked pure relay structures so much. The worst of all possible worlds seems to be pre-determined captaincy rules. Having three options in any given situation (I'll seize, I'll yield, or I'll defer) seems ideal for those random and unexpected new situations that arise. Developing structure with a pre-determined default captaincy before the deal even hits the table seems horrible to me. But, to each his own.

Parallel Structure, but Unparallel Application

2010-11-20T06:07:00.000-08:00

Too often I think that folks have a tendency toward an unwarranted parallelism as it pertains to application simply because of parallel structure.

Here's a simple example. You open One Spade, and partner makes a splinter response of 4C, 4D, or 4H. What do these calls show?

Well, a parallel structure (often needed for memory reasons) will likely mean that:

1. 4C is a splinter, support in spades with shortness in clubs
2. 4D is a splinter, support in spades with shortness in diamonds
3. 4H is a splinter, support in spades with shortness in hearts

Easy, right? So, what's the problem?

The "problem" is that parallel structure does not equate with parallel application, or at least it should not. In practice, it often does, but that seems to be a mistake.

Consider that within what appears to be a "parallel structure" there is an unparallel circumstance.

1. After 4C, Opener has two bids available below game as slam tries -- 4D and 4H. Two steps of available space actually means three levels of inquiry. 4H as a slam try, 4D as a slam try, and 4D as a slam try with a 4H re-try. Whatever these sequences mean, three levels of inquiry are available.

2. After 4D, one level of inquiry is available -- a 4H slam try.

3. After 4H, there is no level of inquiry below game.

If you consider a 3S splinter in support of hearts, the levels of inquiry atre even higher. 3NT, 4C, and 4D are available. 3NT can be rejected outright, sent back as 4C, sent back as 4C with space for 4D, or sent back as 4D. Hence, seven levels of inquiry exist (I think).

Thus, a one-under splinter leaves no below-game inquiries. Two-under gives one. Three-under gives three. Four-under gives 7. 0, 1, 3, 7.

This should start the thinking that the lower the picture action, the more flexible the picture action can be. Conversely, the higher the picture action, the more pure the picture should be.

This translates, then, into alternative sequences. Suppose, for instance, that partner opts for an alternative 2/1 sequence and ends up revealing a hand that seems to have been potentially suitable for a splinter. If the splinter would have been a one-under splinter, then his range of possible holdings for the alternative 2/1 sequence is higher, as he might be just shy of "pure splinter." If, alternatives, his 2/1 sequence reveals a plausible splinter candidate that would have been a four-under splinter, then his hand likely does not resemble a pure splinter at all, despite the shortness. The difference is probably tactical (meaning, the likely sequence after a four-under splinter could not have revealed the nature of his hand, so he has some feature or feature not otherwise describable via the splinter).

So, when you design a system and opt for a parallel structure, recognize that the goal of parallel structure is self-defeating, in a sense, because you cannot effectively create a true parallel structure when unparallel circumstances necessarily arise from stepped structure, as the degree of step away from a decision point creates necessarily unparallel application. Cater, then, to that unparallel application if you want to design an effective system.

Muiderberg by Responder?

2010-11-17T05:19:00.000-08:00

Just a thought...

For a few years I experimented with what could be called "Muiderberg by Responder," at least when Responder already has a passed hand. An example:

P-P-1H-P-2S as Spades plus a Minor.
P-P-1S-P-2H as Hearts plus a Minor.

I really liked this a lot, and I wonder if this could be usefully extended into unpassed-hand auctions. I mean, I really like 1H-P-2S as intermediate with a six-bagger, as this solves a lot of problems. But, there is something to be said for Muiderberg, as well.

When I started thinking about this, however, I end up with the lack of knowledge of the minor seeming to be more problematic in these auctions. A "specific minor Muiderberg" might work.

I don't know...just some rambling thoughts for a Wednesday morning.

Montreal Relay

2010-10-31T10:47:00.000-07:00

For some reason that I still don't really understand, the ideal of the "Montreal Relay" seems to have fallen out of favor with most experts. I learned to play Montreal Relay some 30 years ago, and I taught it to my wife. It just seems so much easier than all the nonsense of today's world.

For those who don't know this, it is sort of like a Puppet 1C opening, in a sense. Partner responds 1H or 1S with a 5-card suit, or 1D to deny a 5-card major. As 1NT would show 8-11, 1D is bid with a 4-card major (or both), just long diamonds (and not right for 1C-P-1D as 8-11 or so), or balanced with a range other than 8-11.

The pundits seem to suggest that this approach somehow is prone to problems with interference or something, but my experience is otherwise. First, when I play Montreal Relay, I don't ever need Support Doubles for these situations. Second, I never need to check back to see if partner really has 4-card support. Third, checkbacks generally are not needed at all. I mean, auctions are extremely easy. Imagine playing bridge where the most common opening (1C) comes up a ton, and yet I never seem to have any occasion where I need checkback, xyz, support doubles, structured game tries with pattern asks, or any of the things that usually take up 20 pages of notes. No "Kranyak Jump Reverses" to show 3-card support and a great minor. You just raise with 3 and have a fit established. EASY.

These sequences are SO friggin' easy that most of us use a short club, and most of my partners only open 1D when unbalanced. This actually creates another interesting twist -- you end up on occasion opening 1C and then rebidding 2D to show just a balanced hand with long diamonds. This happens in competition and almost never seems to cause a problem (one instance being because I made a foolish bid).

The amazing thing is that this structure works better, IMO, than anything I play with "better players." I sit down with people having 5000+ ACBL Masterpoints, and we play xyz and support doubles and 2NT game tries with unwinds and all that jazz. Pages and pages of discussions and notes. Odd situations that arise.

Then, I sit down to play Montral with my wife, who has 150 masterpoints. Never a problem with strain or level. Easy.

Any thoughts?

PD II

2010-10-28T13:28:00.000-07:00

Here's another one, with a timing issue.

Partner opens 1NT and you bid 2C stayman. Partner bids 2D, so you bid 2NT invitational. Partner bids 3D. What now?

This is an easy one, for the first call. Partner has six diamonds. What you do next seems more troubling. A partner of mine suggested something I think to be fairly good here. A new suit probably should "super-accept" diamonds and show shortness.

The "timing" issue is the other thing. You may be thinking that partner might have bid 3D directly over 2C if this was his intent. However, the problem with that is that 2C covers a lot of territory. By bidding a mere 2D first, YOUR hand was able to define general parameters well, which THEN allows your calls AFTER 3D to have more understandable meaning.

In other words, showing the exact same thing in one round as opposed to in a different round of bidding has consequences. Late unusual action, as opposed to immediate unusual action, does not help define YOUR call sometimes, but it may allow partner to better FIELD his options after your descriptive call.

So, what should the immediate pounce show, if anything???

PD I

2010-10-27T14:59:00.000-07:00

So, here's an example.

You sit down with partner and agree to play that a 2NT response to a 1NT opening is a relay to 3C, possibly weak with clubs but possibly a 4441 with slam aspirations. So, you hear a 1NT opening and bid 2NT, ready to go, expecting partner to bid the 3C relay, when suddenly partner bids 3H.

What kind of nonsense is this?

Actually, partner has done that which he should do. Rotely bidding 3C on every hand seems wrong. Sure -- 3C is the "agreed" call, but then there must be room for thought.

So, think. Partner is showing something in a way that seems safe but that is constructive, with a hand that cannot afford your one end-the-auction action of passing 3C. So, he must he clubs.

Give yourself an average bust-type club hand. Maybe 6322 with nothing but honor-sixth in clubs.

What would make partner move opposite that hand?

How about three side Aces and the rest internal honors? Maybe KQx in clubs, with three side Aces? Opposite that hand, you don't need much for 3NT to be right. Consider two possible hands:

Axx-Axxx-Axx-KQx
xx-xxx-xx-Axxxxx

Nine tricks. Easy.

OK, so the first step is that partner could easily have a super-accept of clubs. But, why 3H?

Well, if he had the perfecto, he might have opted 3NT. So, perhaps he has a problem? Maybe:

Axx-xx-AKxx-KQxx?

Still 9 tricks, as long as hearts are under control. But, why would 3H send that message? Couldn't you simply bid where you live instead? In other words, bid stoppers up-the-line?

Perhaps. But, there is something else going on here. Partner also needs to cater to your possibility of being 4441, right? So, perhaps with any perfecto he should bid a focal suit for that contingency.

For example, consider a slightly different Axx-Axx-Axxx-KQx hand. 3D could operate as a call that super-accepts clubs but identifies diamonds as a suggested strain opposite the 4441 hand. 3NT, then, would "flag" or identify clubs as a strain suggestion in the event of a 4441 hand (typically 3-3-3-4 or 5-card clubs).

So, let's just assume that 3D flagged diamonds for the 4441 consideration while also super-accepting clubs. How would you proceed under that assumption?

With no interest in 3NT, you should be able to rescue to 4C, but otherwise bidding 3NT to accept the game try (honor sixth) works. But, you would also bid 3NT with a 4441 hand with club shortness (because Opener should have two top clubs, one would think). Does it matter that partner does not know which? Of course not.

What if you had that 4441 hand and diamonds is a good strain? No problem -- bid the shortness, if it is a major. so, 3H or 3S would logically show that 4441 hand with shortness in the bid major, right?

What about a 4441 hand with short diamonds? Again, you may want to bid 3NT. But, you might be missing a 4-4 major fit. Wouldn't partner think of that problem also? If he has THAT hand, he would typically bid a 4-card major before diamonds, if he had 4-4 in the major and diamonds plus clubs super-accepted. So, 3D would seem to eliminate a major out, making 3H and 3S continuations purely shortness calls.

But, partner bid 3H. Could he not, then, have four hearts and diamonds? Or, 4H/4C? Or even 4H/4S?

This seems to call for some slightly different situational handling. With the 4441 hand with short hearts, you would bid 3S and let partner unwind this appropriately, as all will work well. With hearts, you can bid the shortness or bid 4H with short spades! Problem solved, when 3H is the call. But, you cannot bid 4C to show club shortness!!! That shows an escape. No problem -- you now kick into your meta-agreement. If up-the-line, 4D for short clubs, 4H short diamonds, and 4S short spades. If "natural," reverse 4D and 4H.

What about partner bidding 3S, then? Well, you can eliminate having both majors, as 3H would have stood out. So, if he has two suits, they are spades and a minor. Maximizing space for the unwind, you could bid 4D with the "short spades" 4441 (if too good for 3NT), because 4C is again that escape. With a spade fit, then, the shortness calls start at 4H.

Now, all of this sounds like quite a bit to make up at the table. And, it is. And, perhaps you would assume or reach different conclusions from me. Ideally, these situations are discussed, but that is not realistic.

In my opinion, however, it is tough to draw a line as to when the assumptions to make during an undiscussed sequence are "too much." I would expect that a well-tuned partnership might know well how to anticipate assumptions in sequences like this and to get fairly deep into the analysis.

This is, of course, quite dangerous, but then NOT taking advantage of this type of thinking during the bidding is perhaps just as much of a loss, for you end up simply bidding 3C every time and missing opportunities.

An idea might be to run a few odd examples through the partnership. For example, take an auction like this and run with it. Have each partner write down their thoughts independently, and then compare.

A good starter example might be Kokish. You might write down this question:

"Opener bid 2H as the start of a Kokish relay, but Responder whips out 3C. What should 3C show, and how should Opener react to this?" If you have never discussed this, which would be great, see how you and partner respond independently and then discuss this. Allow no "that call cannot exist" lame escapes. This is a theory test, not a bidding test. Play along, and then see where you end up. You might discover a lot about partner's way of thinking, and about your own.

Plausibility Defaults

2010-10-27T05:26:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite experiences was playing with a pickup partner in a midnight swiss who played a home-spun strong club system. His base structure was odd. I agreed to play his system (why not?) and asked for the meanings of the opening bids. When he started to tell me the responses and rebids, I cut him off and said, "Let's play -- that works." We ended up winning the midnight swiss, with almost no bidding misunderstandings. How?

Bridge theory is fairly predictable, I think. There are a set of general principles that will emerge from context, often very complicated but nonetheless present. These can be predicted.

Granted, some situations call for choice. For instance, consider a Mini-Roman 2D opening. There will be a shortness ask, and that will usually be 2NT. The shortness will be told in steps, either bidding ther stiff or bidding one under the stiff, usually.

Within the context of any start, therefore, there is a predictable set of defaults. Partnership agreement seems to be a combination of tasks, therefore. First, we start with definition of various starts. A "start" could be mid-auction, but nonetheless it is a "start." The start will usually call for a logical set of follow-ups, based on general plausibility defaults. However, there may be two or more plausible defaults, which call for meta-agreements. Some plausibles are "better" than others, and sometimes understanding the reasons for calls provides and answer to the PD's. At times, however, discussion yields a more artificial "improvement" to the PD. These are discussed and perhaps memorized.

Good structure involves a combination of these factors intertwined in as consistent a manner as possible. Thus, if shortness asks tend to be in steps, they should probably be in steps always. If shortness bids are "one under," this should be a repeated theme. Repetition of theme and defaults enables understanding in undiscussed parallels.

Possible Stayman Tweak?

2010-10-19T05:23:00.000-07:00

Just an idea...

I think that it might be possible to re-structure Stayman to have a 2S rebid by Opener (1NT-P-2C-P-2S) show four spades and a minimum. 2D, then, would show either no 4-card major OR if spades a maximum.

For examples of how this would unwind...

1NT-P-2C-P-
2S-P-P-P (stopping at 2S is good)

1NT-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2NT-P-
3S = four spades, accepts game try

1NT-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2NT-P-
3H = five spades, maximum

1NT-P-2C-P-
2D-P-3S(Smolen)-P-
4S(four spades maximum)

1NT-P-2C-P-
2D-P-3H(4-4 or 4-5)-P-
3S = 3 spades
4C+ = 4 spades

1NT-P-2C-P-
2D-P-3NT (not four spades; spade situation kept secret)

This type of tweak might allow some stops at 2S and might further allow some degree of knowing whether pener has minimum or maximum, in some sequences.

I am not sure whether this is worth it, but ideas are ideas.

Impossible 2S Not So Impossible

2010-10-18T04:54:00.000-07:00

In the ACBL Bulletin, a problem hand was given. Something like xxxx-x-xx-AKJxxx after a 1H opening from partner. A large number of expert votes came in for a forcing 1NT, because focusing clubs even at the cost of burying spades seemed right.

If we assume this to be reasonable theory, an exception to the general Walsh thinking, then why not expand this further? It seems that the "impossible" 2S is not so impossible. Why not, in theory, 1H-P-1NT-P-2H-P-2S with 4-0-3-6 pattern? Focus the clubs, but mention the spades. Could not partner have 4-6-3-0?

If you take this out, then any 4-6 holding could be handled this way, and perhaps even 4-1-3-5 (perhaps passing 2D but converting 2H to 2S).

I am not sure where this thinking leads me, but the thinking is nonetheless suggested. Namely, there is nothing "impossible" about the "impossible" 2S.

Other Blogs

2010-10-03T07:06:00.000-07:00

Two blogspots that you might find interesting.

My friend, Ken Eichenbaum, has made some additions to his blog at http://www.kensclubbridge.blogspot.com/, including info on ordering several new e-books by him, as well as some smaller e-pamphlets. These include books and articles on slam bidding, 2/1 GF structure, defense, bridge comedy, etc.

Also, my local club newsletter for each month is available at http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/. The newsletter has a lot of articles that many have enjoyed and is more than just a list of who did what (but it has that too, of course). This month, for example, the newsletter is 13 pages long and has articles on cuebidding in a 2/1 GF system, "the Bickersons on Bridge," Ruth's Bridge Tips (largely rules-oriented), play of the hand shorts, analyses of a couple of deals from the instant MP event, Roman Gerber, avoiding the Stumble Bunny, etc.

Chek these sites out!

Cuebidding the Stiff Trump King

2010-10-01T06:12:00.000-07:00

Opener: A109xxxxx-Ax-void-AQx
Responder: K-10xx-AKQxx-K10xx

An enjoyably curious sequence yesterday...

Opener started with One Spade, Two Diamonds response.

Opener repeated spades; Responder showed clubs.

Opener repeated spades yet again (never jumping), to Responder.

The curious solution was the cue of Four Hearts. Four Hearts operated as a trump cue, contextually, at least in a sense. This was just what Opener needed to hear (and thus the good decisions to not blast Four Spades at any point), and the slam was reached.

Not that tricky, except for the rest of the field.

Anders Wirgren's Review of Modified Italian Canape System

2010-09-24T11:16:00.000-07:00

I have absolutely no idea what he said, as it is in Swedish. But, maybe someone can translate it for me? (If the translation is something like, "It sucks," feel free to NOT translate this. LOL)

I de flesta system bjuder man sin längsta färg först, både som öppnare och svarare. De framgångsrika italienarna började på 1950-talet använda system som byggde på den franska canapé-principen, då man i stället öppnade med sin näst längsta färg och nästa gång visade den längsta.

De italienska systemen slog aldrig igenom på bred front, eftersom de var ganska krångliga, ibland rentav ologiskt uppbyggda. Det är det Ken Rexford hoppas rätta till med hjälp av en förenklad version av ett system uppbyggt på stark klöver och canapé-öppningar i ruter, hjärter och spader.

Författaren börjar med att beskriva hur ett canapé-system fungerar. Det lyckas han bra med. Men när han går över till att beskriva specifika sekvenser i sitt eget favoritsystem, saknar jag ett kritiskt öga. Det är lätt att göra exempel, som visar hur utmärkt systemet
är, men om en beskrivning ska göra anspråk på objektivitet måste de knepiga situationerna också tas med. Det saknar jag.

Trots denna reservation, är det en bok som den systemintresserade säkert kan ha glädje av.

Muppet Extended

2010-09-23T05:50:00.000-07:00

Muppet Stayman is simple Puppet stayman but with Opener's 3NT and 3H bids reversed (3NT shows five hearts; 3H denies a 4+ majors). This allows Responder, over 3H, to bid 3S to show 5S/4H, an otherwise unbiddable shape below 3NT when playing Puppet.

So, suppose you have 5S/4H and partner bids 3D. You have both majors, but they are imbalanced. so, bid 3H to show spades. If partner also has spades, he can make sues, which could be nice for slam purposes. If he does not, you can next bid 4H to complete the picture.

Now, suppose that you have 5-5 in the majors. Muppet still works. If partner has a 4-card major, nothing can go wrong. If he has a 5-card major, wow. A lot, you hear 3H. So, bid 3S to show 5S/4H. If Opener declines (3NT), you can bid 4H to complete this picture, as well.

Funny Things!

2010-09-10T17:13:00.000-07:00

I was reading Bob Mackinnon's blog (http://bobmackinnon.bridgeblogging.com/?p=656) and saw the deal from the 2010 Canadian Senior Teams Championship where 7C was reached. It made me think of the recent change Eichenbaum and I just made.

Opener: AQ-Axxx-Axx-AQxx
Responder: xx-KQ-KQJ10-K10xxx

The auction Michael Yuen and Maurice De La Salle had was:

2NT-3S(minor slam try)
3NT-4C(5C/4D)
4H(RKCB clubs)-4NT(one)
5H(kings?)-7C

Ours could be quicker:

2NT-3S(transfer to clubs, maybe both minors; could show precisely 2245 this way if lighter)
3NT(super-accept, meaning playable in 3NT opposite xx-xx-xxx-Jxxxxx)-7C

Of course, Responder is allowed to ask questions...

OK, I Gave In!

2010-09-10T17:00:00.000-07:00

One of the more "questionable" ideas that I had in Cuebidding at Bridge was this auction example:

1S-P-2C-P-
2D-P-3S = stiff spade, diamond support

I still like it, but Eichenbaum has convinced me of a perhaps better treatment, one that we now use.

I have always played that a jump here is a splinter for Opener's SECOND suit. hence:

1S-P-2C-P-
2D-P-3H = stiff heart, support for diamonds

The theory was that I can support spades with a 2S call and THEN splinter.

So, the logical idea is that 3S IMMEDIATELY handles all splinters with spade support!

1S-P-2C-P-
2D-P-3S = stiff somewhere (not clubs, obviously) with SPADE support

Now, after the suggestion, it seems obvious.

The beauty of this is that the "spade splinter" stiff exists:

1S-P-2C-P-
2D-P-4C = diamond support, SPADE shortness!

That's easier to remember.

You may of course then say, well what about the Picture Jump in clubs? Well, because you erased all of the splinters from the 2S call, voila!

Interesting Suit/Lead Situation

2010-09-07T19:05:00.000-07:00

Eichenbaum and I have added a new twist to "Suit/Lead."

I open a minor; partner responds a major; my RHO doubles.

Now, for the trivia buffs, this was a situation where Eichenbaum and I years ago (while drunk) came up with an insane set of agreements, eventually published (for God knows what reason) in Bridge World magazine. Today's version is much better, I think.

The idea is that calls at an above 1NT, up through Responder's suit, are Suit/Lead. An example might explain this.

1C-P-1S-X
?

Opener can redouble as a support redouble.

If Opener has four hearts, he has several options. First, he might transfer to hearts, by bidding 2D. This shows a hand that leans "extras plus lead." In other words, Opener has a hand with a non-minimum and the Ace or King in hearts. A solid, lead-catering, maximum heart raise. This call will help when partner ends up leading against whatever my LHO might intend on bidding, will help when partner is considering game in a jammed auction, when partner considers inviting game in a non-jammed auction, and when partner considers doubling.

If Opener has four hearts but not this, meaning poor trumps (no ace or king) and a weak hand, he bids 2H directly. "Fast Arrival."

If Opener has a desire for a diamond lead, or a reverse, he bids 2C, one-under diamonds. Responder will assume bad hearts and a desire for a diamond lead -- if Opener has a reverse he will make noise later. so, with something like xx-Qxxx-AKJ-Kxxxx, 2C stands out.

With real clubs, Opener just bids 1NT, a relay to clubs.

If Opener has a hand that doesn't quite qualify for any of the above, he makes the closest call, defaulting to 2H when in doubt.

What if Opener's minor was diamonds? Same basic approach, but Opener's 1NT call (relay to clubs) might just be a minor two-suiter. He cannot make that call as a pure lead-director unless he is willing to solo-compete to 3H if the opponents intervene.

If Responder's major was spades, one additional "transfer" pops in, a "transfer" to hearts, which adds more definition to the calls.

We are fairly inclined to believe that this will be a winner in the long run. There is some risk to disclosure, of course, but this really seems good to us.

Partscore Before Slam?

2010-09-06T06:49:00.000-07:00

You know the advice, "Game Before Slam," but what about "Partscore Before Slam?" When we're talking GERBER as the alternative, well...

Partner Eichenbaum and I decided upon a switch this weekend. 2NT-P-4C had been "Gerber." 2NT-P-3S had been some sort of minor slam try. In thinking this through, we NEVER bid Gerber here. Usually a transfer, a 3S call, or at least Puppet happens. So, is there a better use?

Sure -- partscores before slam!

We have now switched to 4C as a transfer to diamonds. with a poor hand and long diamonds (e.g., xxx-Q-xxx-Jxxxxx), Responder can bid 4C and then pass 4D from Opener. With slam values, 4H next is RKCB, 4NT quantitative, and 4S or 5C simple cues from unbalanced invites.

3S, then, is a response promising clubs. Opener bids 3NT with AKx or better, but 4C otherwise. This also could be weak (will pass 4C or convert 3NT to 4C). 4D is RKCB.

With the minor two-suiters, Responder wtill bids 3S and then bids 4M to show the stiff from minor two-suiters.

WBF CONVENTION CARD

2010-09-05T19:42:00.000-07:00

Finally got the final WBF Convention Card done, for Philadelphia. I am considering hiring thugs to take my partner on a long drive if he tries changing anything again.

FYI, it is uploaded here:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7Jn7R4qColkZGY2NzAwN2UtMDdkNS00NmFiLWFmNTgtMjg3OGVmYmZjYjg0&hl=en

It should be available at Ecatsbridge when others are uploaded, as well.

cuebidding for the defense

2010-09-01T11:42:00.000-07:00

An old friend of mine and I several years ago had an auction that was a thing of beauty. It may have been insane. But, the fine line between insanity and genius is not for people like me to define. The auction was one where partner and I made "cuebids" not for the purpose of slam or game exploration, but for the defense.

The situation was one where we are white, the opponents red. We can take a sacrifice at six of a minor, which beats their red heart game, as we are down only three. The opponents can make five hearts unless we get off to the best defense.

So, the real-world results were varied, but the most common scores were 5minor our way, doubled for -300; 5H their way making 650 with normal defense; or 6minor our way, doubled for -500. Ideally, -300 looks great.

So, the auction. My RHO opened 1H, and I, with both minors, bid 2NT unusual. LHO raised to 3H, and my partner bid 4D. Opener bid 4H, to me.

I wanted to know which minor to lead. Maybe a club lead was best, but I had K-empty and did not want to spoil that card unnecessarily. Maybe a diamond was best, but I also had Q-empty there. Something like void-KJ-Q109xxx-K109xx. What to do?

Well, 5D seemed too lazy. I could try 4NT, which in theory should allow partner to pick the minor for lead, as 4D already set trumps, I figured. But, assuming a lead to partner, won by him, I wanted a spade back as an option to consider. So, my caqll was 4S, a cue for the defense.

LHO passed, which helped the plan along. Had partner no interest, he could bid 4NT. With a desire for a club lead, 5C. With confirmation of diamonds for the lead, 5D. In practice, his void in clubs screamed club lead.

The opponents would now be screwed. If they bid 5H, I would lead a club to partner's void, ruffed. He would lead back a spade, setting up a trick in spades. When he gets in with the trump Ace, the spade is the setting trick.

That was the only defensive line to beat 5H. The opponents, knowing that we had exchanged this info, would be forced to pick between a bad double and a worse 5H. Sure, we might panic and bid 6D anyway, not knowing that the defense would work, but we would be better set.

In practice, partner had no idea what I was doing and just bid 5D. Typical. Though, it is hard to blame anyone for not living in my world constantly, and he usually kept up with my insanity/genius.

That said, don't forget opportunities to cue for the defense. My partner, Ken Eichenbaum, recently trotted out a 5C call in competition for a club lead-director, which put a screeching halt to the opponents' thoughts of bidding 5S. A club lead to his stiff Ace would have primed us for a juicy defense, a defense I would not otherwise have found.

Deep Thoughts

2010-08-18T16:33:00.000-07:00

Here's a thought. Not sure how to crystalize this into practice.

Every so often, you see the hand where two possible strains offer reasonable trumps. For instance, maybe you find out that you have a minor fit and a major fit. Maybe 1S-P-2C-P-3C-P-3S as the start.

In this situation, a recurring theme is that of deciding ultimate strain in a potential slam. For example, if Responder has Kxx in spades, and Opener has Axxxx, perhaps a spade can be pitched from the short side in a club contract, allowing the spade suit to be played for no losers, if the contract is 6C. Or, maybe 6C simply reduces the risk from a 4-1 spade stack. What's worse is if we only have the spade ace and are missing both King and Queen, where 6C might be able to handle that.

Alternatively, however, 6C might not be as good for the same reason, and maybe a club pitch or two might help 6S to make.

The key to these situations is in the Queens, primarily, and secondarily in the Kings. So, what sometimes happens is that you use RKCB in spades, find out perhaps the bad news, and then bid 6C (and hope that partner takes this as a placement of contract and not a grand try).

It seems to me that there might be an alternative to consider.

Let's take the auction out a bit, in general terms. 1S-P-2C-P-3C-P-3S start. Cues and seriousness and the like end us at the point of, say, someone bidding 4H as Last Train or as a cue. Whatever. Now is the witching hour.

Suppose, also, that something about the "cues and seriousness and the like" suggests or proves that Exclusion RKCB is not an option. So, at this point, you might end up in a situation with an "ask or answer" structure.

What is that, you ask? Well, simply put, 4NT is RKCB, but anything above 4NT is an answer to an "assumed 4NT" from partner. Hence, if partner bids 4H Last Train (spades agreed), I would bid 4NT to ask questions, or I could bid 5H to instead answer, "Two without." I can ASK or ANSWER.

So, why "ask or answer?" I mean, which do you elect to do? I typically, in these situations (where partner and I have agreed to do this) answer with primes but ask with body.

There might be a slightly better way to handle this in the two-fits scenario. Or, a more precise rule.

If I am looking at the spade Queen, I am not as concerned about the "which strain" question. If I am not looking at the spade Queen, though, I can ask and place the contract in clubs if I have the club Queen. But, what if I have neither (and cuebidding has not answered this question, yet)?

Or, what if some Queen is unknown, but important? In some auctions, for instance, the spade queen might be known, but not the club Queen, because no cue was available to show that card. Finding that card later might be quite a task.

Here, then, is the thought. One might decide that you ask with the key unshown key Queen but answer without the key Queen. The side-suit, alternative-strain Queen is the default "key Queen." The part about asking with the key Queen is tactical, as captaincy is with the person looking at the key Queen. The part about answering without the key Queen is definitional, as captaincy is transferred to the person who may or may not be looking at the key Queen but now knows the answer as to the partnership holding by virtue of the definition.

I am still not sure how this would develop as a theory, as far as designation of the key Queen, handling a two-queens scenario, and the like. But, I think there is something to think about here.

LDBC Newsletter Links

2010-08-14T07:02:00.000-07:00

The local bridge club where my wife and I play on Thursday nights has a Newsletter, yours truly as the "Editor." The pdf's of the monthly newsletters are now available at http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/, in case anyone is interested. a lot of folks like "the Bickersons on Bridge," which is intended to have a touch of self-depricating humor.