Learn Bridge

If you're going to preempt, choose the level and preempt!

2012-01-07T18:33:00.001-08:00

In third seat partner bids 4S all nv at imps. (4N) and you hold Axxxx,xxx,Qxx,KJ and pass. lho bids 5C and you forge on to 5S. Opps X and you're down two.
Teammates are down one in five diamonds.

You hold Qx,xxx,KJxxx.Axx and partner preempts 2D same all nv at imps. (X) 5D (6S) down two. Teammates are defending 4S making.

Holding AJ98x,KQ,xxx,Axx partner preempts 3H (P). Not knowing if it would make you bump the preeempt to 4H. Perhaps you can goad them into bidding 4S! Passed to the balancer who X's. Cute, after passing over 3H. Lefty tanks forever and finally emerges with 4S. Partner bids 5H. Anyone XX ing over the balancer? If so, what does that mean?

sooooo your analysis is???

************
************

ok, so here are some of my thoughts. I fielded these hands with a top flight A player so perhaps my thoughts are not mainstream.

so on the first hand it's kind of curious why one would compete to 5S after the opps bid 5C. Surely, one doesn't think this contract can be bought for 4N? 4N in this position is a TO bid. Lefty is forced to bid the longer minor, for pass, or correct to perhaps hearts.

So why not jam the auction to 5S in the first place? Is one going to sell out to 5D or 5H? That way the opps have to guess at the six level whether to bid on or whether to stop and saw off 5S.

Note that is precisely what happened on the following hand. My partner started the jam with 2D. I was willing to take the save at the five level but didn't mess around with 3d, then 4d then 5d. I blasted right away and forced my lho to guess. The guess was totally wrong and we won big time on this board.

as for the last hand, once again, opener didn't make a decision at the first opportunity to determine how high he/she wanted to preeempt -but bothered to get there on the second round. (holding 8 hearts).

It's just confusing to me and gives opponents multiple opportunities to get it right --whether to bid to their game, their slam or to saw you off.

any comments?

Action Doubles --what do they look like?

2011-09-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

Action X's appear in a variety of sequences. Mostly instigated by responders to opening bids, they can roughly be described as communicating the following: "Partner, this is our hand, I have invitational strength but no clear direction, please help"
Responder usually has some values and has marginally described the nature of his/her hand previously in the auction.

Witness this: you hold AJ,KT5,AJ43,T932 and open 1D. Lefty overcalls 1H, partner makes a neg X and rho bids 2H. You pass having no clear call and partner X's. Given your heart cards, this X is not made on a heart stack. Partner is saying "I have invitational strength and have no clear direction as to where this hand belongs".

The other day, partner held this hand. AJ3,AT,KQ875,943 and opened 1D. I bid 1N and it gets passed to the balancer who bid 2H. I X that contract. I surmise that my X was not based on a heart stack, I denied four of them with my 1N bid. Thereby my hand is limited to 6-10 hcp. Presumably if I want to continue this auction I have about 10 hcp. So this X also says "We have the majority of the points here, pard, we need to compete, but I have no clear direction for this hand, can you help?". Another auction might be (1H) 1N (P) P, (2H) P (P) X. In this case, advancer has clearly defined his/her hand somewhat --less than invitational strength, and certainly no appreciable spades. Certainly the 1N overcaller holds all the hearts. So this bid is saying "We have the majority of the points, but I have no clear direction, what are your thoughts, partner --we should be competing somewhere".

With all these X's it is easy for opener to convert to penalty if opener has a really good holding in opponent's suit. It's not so easy if opener has a marginal holding in opponent's suit. With the marginal holding, opener has to decide whether to go for the golden 200 at mp or whether to risk 2HX vul making (perhaps on less than optimum defense) at imps. In other words, watch the type of scoring and vulnerability when making these decisions.

With the hand up above AJ3,AT,KQ875,943 (1D 1N, P (2H) X) you may wish to competed to 2N at mp. (+120 is a great score) and you probably won't beat 2H more than one trick. (+100 nv). At imps, one might want to compete to 3D which has less risk of going down!

These auctions are important to practice within you partnerships and your low level defense needs to be solid. I made a "no direction X" once against vul at mp in a major event. I tracked a trump on the opening lead and walked away with +200 and almost all the matchpoints. My friend at the other table had the same auction, tracked her minor suit and opponents scored up 2SX making.

Look for opportunities to field these auctions! Fielded right and defended right, these auctions will get you lots of mp and imps. Trust me, I know.

Warning! The discussion above has nothing to do with what folks call "Do Something Intelligent Doubles". Please don't use that phrase with me. My doubles are clearly defined as to shape and strength. I may ask for "cooperation" dependent on what you hold but you won't have any guesses as to "what's intelligent" for the most part. I've seen huge errors made on this concept. Define your doubles, precisely in every sequence possible! Makes "so-called intelligent" decisions" a lot easier!

I hope this is helpful! And please ask if you have further questions.

Roman Keycard Blackwood-Beyond the Basics

2011-07-02T03:56:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

One of the first conventions that usually gets embellished once we move from the novice level to the serious player is our ace asking convention Blackwood. Most of us quickly adopt an ace asking convention which includes the trump K and we call that convention Roman Key Card. We now consider the trump K the fifth ace and define our responses as if there were five key cards in the deck --four aces and the trump K.

There are two major types of response categories to 4N ace ask--0314 and 1430. The former shows zero or three key cards with the first step: 5C. The latter shows 1 or 4 key cards with the first step 5C. Since the partnership often signs off after "zero" responses, it makes sense that the key card positive responses remain the lower steps! Why? because further queries about the Q of trump can then be made at lower levels. The last two responses, 5H and 5S are the same in both methods: i.e. two key cards w/out the Q versus two key cards with the Q.

So with the trump K already located with the partnership or the opponents, advanced partnerships often play "specific K" responses to 5N, king ask. Responder bids K's up the line. Imagine how helpful it would be if I held AQJT(x)(x) of clubs and partner bids 6C! If instead my other length side suit is diamonds, I can continue asking for the dK by bidding 6D. "I heard about your CK, do you have the DK also?" The asker continues asking. Respond "yes" to the specific DK query by bidding 7. Respond "no" by signing off in six. Remember asking for K's promises all the key cards. If all the key cards are promised with the 5N query responder has a right to blast to the grand holding a solid side source of tricks -for example Qx,AQxx,AKQJT9,x in a heart contract. If my partner bid 5N, K ask with the hand above, I'd just bid the grand.

Over the 4N responses (5c,5d) there is often still room to determine whether the partnership holds the trump Q. For consistency sake and to pass along the most information possible, answers to the Q query are the same as answering to specific K's. Bid the next suit up to ask. If responder has the trump Q and the CK ,he/she bids 6C. If his/her cheapest K is the diamond K, he/she bids 6D. Pretty slick how that works. No Q? Sign off in the trump suit. For the Q ask, the partnership does not promise all the key cards, so be careful about blasting to the grand. The query could be made trying to figure out if the contract belongs in 5 or 6.

There are actually ways to show useful voids during key card queries. Most universal is a 5N answer to 4N query meaning even number of key cards and a useful void. With an odd number of key cards, bid the void suit at the six level.

Hope this is helpful,that you always get to the right level in your high level contracts and there is never a surprise when dummy hits the table. Please ask if you have further questions.

P.S. If you engage in an ace asking auction and out of the blue a bid comes up that you don't recognize, it probably means that partner couldn't bid 5N asking for Kings because he/she wants to play no trump. Here's an example in a confirmed hearts auction.

1H 2N! (Jacoby), 4H 4N (ace asking), 5C 5S --now in this auction spades is not K ask, it is not queen ask and no one starts queue bidding at this point. Perhaps partner is saying --bid 5N, that's where I think this contract belongs. Opener bids 5N and it should go all pass.

1S 1N!, 2C -Problematic in Standard and 2/1 Systems

2011-04-12T11:51:00.000-07:00

Remember when you could open this hand 1S (AKxxx,Axx,xx,xxx)? Partner bids 1N promising 6-9 and denying three spades. Cool, there was nothing else to do but pass this hand. Not true once we’ve learned 2/1 auctions. Now the 1N forcing bid could include three card spade support and any hand not worth a game forcing call e.g. up to 11 points. This forces opener to keep the bidding open by rebidding the longest three-card minor, 2C in the example hand above. Yuck, do you really want to suggest xxx as a trump suit? –and on a horrible day have partner lead it against a diamond contract?

The plot thickens when we are also forced to rebid 2C on strong shapely hands that value less than strong jump shift actions: AKxxx, xx, K, AKxxx. Although you’re more than happy to offer up AKxxx as a trump suit, does partner know from your basic sequence that you have almost a strong jump shift hand forcing to game?

The sequence 1S 1N, 2C auctions is one of the least defined auctions in 2/1 systems. This makes decisions as responder very difficult. For example, holding x, Axx, xxx, Qxxxxx one could easily pass AKxxx,Axx,xx,xxx and be satisfied. However, should partner hold : AKxxx, xx, K, AKxxx, you’re now missing a pretty good club slam if you pass.

It takes a lot of partnership work to gauge opener and responder actions in these situations. Imagine an auction such as 1C 1S, 2N. Isn’t opener’s hand defined between a very narrow range? Responder can pretty much gauge the potential of the hand. Not so with 1S 1N, 2C auctions where opener can have an extreme range of high card values and black suit shape.

When I was discussing this confusing situation with my mentor, he mentioned that strong club systems alleviate some of these issues— the powerful hands start with an artificial 1C bid. However. strong club sequences have problems of their own.

So, I offer you some parameters on which 3C bids can be made as responder. Since one could bid 2S on most hands for 5/2 spade fits, the minimum 3C hand should have lots of clubs. Lots of 3C hands contain only one spade. One should also have an ace somewhere in a non-trump suit to cover losers. Here are some examples:

1) x, Axx, xxx, Qxxxxx
2) x, Axx, xxxx, Kxxxx

Unfortunately, since no other bid is available but 3C to show less than game forcing hands, the 3C bid could also contain all invitational hands opposite a minimum that is not appropriate for no trump e.g. x, KQx, Jxx, KQxxxx,

Bottom line, these sequences are difficult, caution should be taken that one doesn’t get too high on trash and not high enough on potential game/slam hands. Bidding is not an exact science –however if you work on these parameters within your partnerships you should get as good at them as some of the other expert players who routinely field these auctions.

1S 1N!, 2d auctions have the same problems as those mentioned above. However, similar auctions that start with 1H are less problematic. As responder one can delineate the “courtesy bump” from the invitational hands with the “impossible 2S” calls, the latter being the stronger.

1) 1H 1N!, 2D 2S! (invitational hand with diamonds)
2) 1H 1N!, 2D 3D (less than an invitational hand with diamonds)

If your partnership is ready, you might try reversing the 1C/1S bid with 5/5 hands or play Bart relays. These treatments truly need partnership discussion and work! In the meantime, I hope the above discussion piece provided the need/reason for such work!

Convention Card Development --Think Like a Bridge Player

2011-04-03T07:19:00.000-07:00

Everyone knows teaching and sharing is not about teaching facts (ok, sometimes it is, but most of the time it isn't) . When you've been around A players a long time, you get into their heads and figure out how they think. I hope I share some of how A players think, otherwise, my sharing is really lacking in substance --

So, I offer the development team an effort at providing a structure for convention development and documentation --it's just a start --

Every player over 2000 mp will have their own favorite conventions and versions of them. Because one treatment has helped them one time beat the Lusky team, it will forever be inscribed in their prayer books and you won't be able to talk them out of that particular treatment. Remember, part of partnership development is keeping partner happy and even inferior methods are better than methods that are not discussed.

Whenever a structured partnership contemplates adding a new treatment to their card/system notes, they review the following --always. You should do likewise.

Name of convention and which version
Purpose
In comp strategies/Seat position rules
How to handle the bids the convention replaces
Caveats/Warnings
Example Sequences
Defense when others use the convention

Above that, the partnership usually does a "frequency versus memory overhead" assessment.

If the convention comes up once in five years, and takes 15% of brain power to remember it, well then, one might not want to add the treatment to your methods. That ratio is just too overbearing. One might want to adopt treatments in your early career that are portable to multiple partnerships.

Attached is a very basic attempt to define a drury convention. Telling your partner you want to play "drury" is like telling them you wish to play "bridge". There are so many versions, discussion is truly necessary. Likewise with most other conventions.

Enjoy.

DRURY AGREEMENTS
March 29, 2011

NAME: Reverse One-Way Drury

PURPOSE: To protect against getting too high opposite light third and fourth seat openings. Invitational sequences are replaced by a low-level 2C bid. Bail-outs, game tries and slam tries are based on confirming invitational values by passed hand in support of the opened major.

The drury query is sort of like Stayman. Temporarily, responder is in charge of the auction and opener, like Stayman is required to answer responder’s question. Responder may have passed a hand that has game-going values once a major suit fit is found but it’s up to responder to take the partnership there.

Light major suit openings in third seat are made to protect a passed 11 point hand where the partnership may still have up to 21 to 23 points combined. Light major suit openings are often psyched. Fourth seat openings may be light due to “rule of 15” calculations. Drury protects all of these openings from getting to the three level.

BASIC SEQUENCES-all bids require an alert:

2C by passed hand asks opener about the quality of his/her opening bid. Says nothing about clubs.

Responses: 2M –subminimum, I would not have opened this hand in first/second seat. 2D says nothing about diamonds but promises an opener in first or second seat. 4M I have game values opposite your promised invitational values. 3S slam invite, start Q bidding.

2N by opener is an offer to play, invites 3N.
3N by opener is an offer to play.

Any bid by either side between 2M and 3M is shortness –game try, of course.

IN-COMP TREATMENTS:

Drury is off over direct interference of any type. If you wish to show your invitational values for partner’s opener, use your regular methods (e.g. Q bid, XX’s, etc).

If there is interference at the two level after the 2C drury bid, 2M by opener is the weakest action. Pass is stronger. Opener is allowed to pass a weak hand over three level interference.

TREATMENTS OF BIDS THE CONVENTION REPLACES:
Drury bids replace 2C natural bids by passed hand. Those hands should start with 1N. A jump in clubs by a passed hand is invitational and implies six good clubs.

DEFENSE: Any X of a drury bid is take out for the other suits. Suit bids are natural.

EXAMPLES:

P 1M, 2C! 2D! I have a full opener, a hand I would have opened in first or second chair.

P 1M, 2C! 3M! I have a great hand, slam invite. Unless you have complete dog, please start Q bidding.

P 1M, 2C! 3C! I have a good hand and shortness in clubs. Watcha think responder?

(P) (1M), (2C!) X I have a TO bid of their major, please consider competing partner.

P 1H (1S) 2C natural non forcing.

CAVEATS/WARNINGS: Two-way (2 diamonds) drury gives up a valuable natural bid and allows the opponent easier choices when balancing. The “reverse” in the name is due to the fact that the 2M and 2D bids used to have opposite meanings than what is now mainstream.

If your partner neglects to alert your bid, treat your partner’s response as if you had bid drury. You are not allowed to take an action based on the fact that you did not hear an alert. That is unauthorized information.

Hand Evaluation --Let me introduce you to the K & R‏

2011-03-19T08:33:00.000-07:00

So someone tells you bridge is fun and you decide you want to learn to play. After all, you like playing cards in general. Your instructor sits down patiently and tells you that Aces are worth four points, Kings are worth three, etc. What he/she usually forgets to tell you, but what you find out later, is that this point count system is supposed to tell you the relative strength of the hand and help you in the bidding. So you learn to "open" hands with more than an average number of points in the deck per deal, usually 13 points.

As you evoke this rather simplistic hand evaluation technique, it becomes clear to you that this method is hopelessly inadequate. First off, barring a ruff, an A will take a trick, always. A king will only take a trick when the A is onside, i.e. half the time and risks getting ruffed. A "Q" is even more likely to become a nothing trick and if it's in rho's suit and lho hasn't raised, it's going to get ruffed out for sure. The proportions 4/3/2/1 just don't seem to be quite right. Thereby a hand such as this: AK,8732,A84,8742 and this: A874,7,87,AK8765 are given the same raw point count but the latter definitely has more trick-taking power. The raw point count technique definitely does not tell the whole story.

So if you're like most developing players, you're introduced to another evaluation strategy: the losing trick count. For most, losing trick count asks you to count one loser in each suit that is missing and A/K/Q. (Most experts make .5 loser adjustments for A vs Q but most "instructors" don't tell us that). Be that as it may, now hands like AK,8732,A84,8742 become eight loser hands and hands like A874,7,87,AK8765 become six loser hands and bidding decisions are made on these evaluations. This evaluation technique accounts for shape, but flattens out the honor cards A/K/Q and ignores J's completely to wit: A654,A65,A65,A65 and Q654,Q65,Q65,Q65 register the same 8 loser count (before the adjustments). Which hand would you rather have?

Thereby neither of the techniques above account for any card less than a J. Which hand would you rather have: AKT9,AT5,T93,K98 or this hand AK32,A32,432,K32? Would you rather have this six loser: A432,2,32,AK5432 or this six loser: AT98,T,T9,AKT9876? Or better yet this one: AJT9,J,JT,AKJ987.

Another example

This is "six" points (raw) but you can get four trick from it: KQJT9
This is "nine" points but only guarantees three tricks AKQ53

Luckily, we have very accomplished bridge players such as Kaplan/Rubens/Goldsmith who help us out of this dilemma. A very helpful tool for hand evaluation is the K & R hand evaluator applet:

http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi

I've used it tons as I learned the ins and outs of the trick-taking potential of my hands.

This hand evaluation tool adjusts the raw point count to something more realistic. The evaluator consistently correctly evaluates A/K's versus Q/J's. It accounts for shape as well. (incorporating losing trick count techniques). It adds the dimension of spot cards and adjusts if spot cards are present in long suits as opposed to short suits.

What is also remarkable about this tool is that it evaluates hands that might fit well opposite a possible hand partner may have. For example this hand: AKJT65,A65,A5,98 (K&R (AKJT76 A65 A5 98) = 20.00) is equal in strength to this hand AKQJT,A65,A54,98? (K&R (AKQJT A65 A54 98) = 20.00) Aren't both spades suits worth five tricks in general. Well "No!". Opposite Q, Q4,Q32,432,7432 hand number one will give you six tricks in the spade suit.

Here are some hands to help you test out the above theories. Figure out a raw point count, losing trick count and evaluator count. See what you get and see if the above phenom isn't presented in your outcome data. I can assure you it is!

Have fun.

A654,A65,A65,A65

Q654,Q65,Q65,Q65

AKT9,AT5,T93,K98

K432,QJ5,Q54,KJ5

AK43,T9,7,A78543

J432,Q9,K,KQ543

A from AK. Ins and Outs explained

2011-01-13T10:27:00.000-08:00

Hi Folks,

The above treatment has caused an appreciable amount of problems in my bridge experiences so I thought I’d write a definitive explanation of the subject. Hope you enjoy the discussion.

First, last I checked, K from AK is still standard. So, if you’ve decided to juxtapose this lead agreement, please don’t explain your treatment as “standard”. This almost caused a committee hearing once, so remember, K from AK is standard. If you lead A from AK your treatment is not “standard”.

So why do lots of pairs reverse the standard K from AK treatment? We reverse this lead so we can distinguish the AK from KQ leads. This is extremely helpful when playing standard carding and you hold something like J7. If partner leads the A, you signal high low for the third round ruff (hopefully you have trump). If partner leads the K promising the Q you might not want to blow all your honors on the first trick. At any rate, if partner leads the A promising the K you usually give attitude for the Q or a ruff. If partner leads the K from KQ you give attitude for ruffs or the J but know that you have to wait for one control card to disappear –namely the A. It’s probably with opponents.

In some very specific situations, one often leads the A w/out the K. Now what? Leading A from AK precludes the partnership from knowing whether that A is backed by the K or not. It isn’t often that we lead an unsupported ace except in the following situations:

1) At the five level or above

2) When you’ve bid and raised your suit

3) In the middle of the hand and

4) Against preempts at any level.

Example: Your partner and you have raised hearts. The opponents have violently competed in spades. Wouldn’t you lead the A without the K. Often you would. If you insist on using your A from AK agreement, your partnership will not be able to give attitude towards the K. This has happened several times in my partnerships. Partner led the A, I presumed he didn’t have the K and carded accordingly. Confusion ensued.

In these situations it’s more important to know that your partner has led a blank ace then it is to distinguish K from KQ. Why? As noted above, reversing standard treatments helps you negotiate J7(3) –like holdings. Now tell me, how often is that an issue at the five level or above, when you’ve bid and raised your suit, in the middle of the hand or against preempts. Jacks usually don’t cash in these situations.

Hope this is helpful. There is one other time one leads K form AK. That is when you have AK dry. Partnerships just have to figure that one out from the bidding and from the trump holding.

Have fun.

Attitude on Opening Lead --the Plot Thickens

2010-11-16T17:46:00.000-08:00

So you've agreed to play "attitude on opening lead". It's a pretty standard treament and most experts can field it even though it may not be their preferred method. I play nothing else, but know that even this standard treatment takes a lot of work.

The comments that follow refer to standard carding against suit contracts. Upside down carding is relatively the same with some minor twists.

So, positive attitude means you want the suit continued, and you "echo" with your suit. Holding 87 and wanting a ruff, or not wanting a shift, you play 8 followed by the 7. If you do not want a ruff, there is no reason to "echo" in the suit. Ask for a switch by playing the 7. If you wish the suit continued and you hold 973. Play the 7 (continue) then play the 9 --now switch.

As per usual in bridge when it concerns carding, the plot thickens fast.

Suppose you hold Ax, Kx, Qx, KQ, or QJ. Now what.

With Ax, you should only be concerned about overtakingthe K --should you overtake and ask for a ruff by returning your small card? Usually that is a good idea. However if you're staring at Jxxx in the dummy and you have a natural trump trick, why would you overtake and ask for a ruff. That might be crashing your tricks in order to set up dummy's suit.

The general principle with Kx and Qx is that one generally should not signal with an honor if there is a reasonable chance that it is needed for tricktaking purposes, i.e., if playing the honor is likely to reduce the number of tricks that you and partner can take.

So, if you hold Kx and partner leads the A, play K only when the K ranks to block the cashing tricks. You don't want to be stuck with Kx in your hand and let declarer run the rest of the tricks. Consider a hand where partner shows 5 good spades and is unlikely to have a quick side entry (for example, dummy has 1st round control of the other suits) and dummy has xxx in spades and top cards in another suit that are likely to provide quick pitches. Or perhaps you are defending 5m at IMPs and can tell that the only tricks for the defense are likely to be in spades. Now it might well be right to play K from Kx so hopefully the defense can cash 3 quick tricks, which would be impossible if one held onto the K.

If you don't see that happening, play low and let partner figure it out. If you pound the K in situations where blocking and cashing are not issues, partner is going to think you have a singleton and underlead. Oooops.

Playing the Q on an opening lead of A or K usually promises a singleton or the J.
So unless you're dire for something to happen, play low from Qx. Partner will underlead if he/she wants you in for a timely return through declarer's values. He/she thinks you hold the J with your Q, or that your Q is singleton.

Most folks echo with Jx if they wish to show partner a doubleton or want a ruff for some reason. Jx's usually don't compress tricks if the J is blown on another top honor. Playing the J from Jx would be appropriate if one wants the suit continued for a ruff, or in a count situation, if playing standard carding. But if one does not want to ruff (from one's natural trump trick, perhaps) or if partner leads the K showing the Q and not the A, and dummy has 10xx, then generally one should not play the J from Jx, because it will cost a trick.

Hope this is helpful. Ask if you have questions.

Two Level Overcalls--Discipline

2010-09-27T19:51:00.000-07:00

Hi Folks,

One of our own is frustrated without having partnership discussions about two level overcalls. If you don't set parameters around those bids, it's hard to engage in constructive bidding, and advances may be much of a "potuck" affair. A ZERO in the making, I say.

I would be happy to give you some parameters my experts partners and I use. It might help if you adhere to some of these guidelines.

First, repeat after me, "If you make a two level overcall you have a good suit." (goes for one level overcalls, too actually). Then repeat after me again. "I will not make a two level overcall w/out a good suit".

Ok, so let's define the qualities of a "good suit". I would much rather make a two level overcall on QJT987 than AK543. Why is this? If the layout is foul, one would much rather defend with QJT93 in the suit than AKxx(x). Why is this? Prime cards help bring in no trump contracts and stop quick losers in opponent's suits playing your contracts. However, QJT93 are purely defensive cards. The T for example will be a cool defensive trick but it will do precious little in an opponent's offensive contract. It's like a "gift" from the bridge gods on D; as good as an ace. Value solid intermediate cards and honors when you overcall and be cautious about suits like AJ8532. Yuck.

Remember, when you're making a two level overcall in direct seat you are launching in an "non-fitting" auction where no one has, as of yet, claimed a majority of the points. It may just be that your "fit" is with your lho and he/she may have the remainder of the deck. This is why you need to be relatively solid. I say have this:

1) 10 points non vul
2) Opening hand with six card suit vul.
3) And all together now: "A good suit".

If you have less than that and your partnership and/or teammship gets in trouble, you have no one to blame but yourself. And if partner makes a reasonable raise and you still get in trouble, once again, the blame rests with the dubious overcall.

Sometimes you hear "one needs to stretch bidding 2C over 1D to make it hard for opponents to find their 4/4 major fits". What are you going to do with A54,QJT9,JT98,Q3 when the auction goes 1D (2c)?

"Stretching" is being at the bottom end of the overcall ranges.

Sometimes folks forget this fact. This might not be the last time you get in the auction. Perhaps if you lay quiet now, you know you'll belong in the auction after the opponents have settled in a low level fit aution. Now you can balance and tell partner volumes about your hand due to the delayed entry

Hope this helps.

Maximal Doubles-A Discussion

2010-08-16T06:35:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

Doubles, man their multi-facited purposes never quit, do they? We have doubles
that in some sequences actually mean "penalty" you're not making this --or at least not with overtricks :). Some doubles are "take out" meaning "opponents are attempting to land in a suit, or have landed in a suit fit, perhaps we can find our fit this way". There are those doubles that are lead direct and control showing.

However, there is one double that my advanced partnerships use routinely having a meaning different from all of the above--this double (maximal) means "game try, are you at the max or min of your limited bid?"

These maximal double sequences are mostly used over major suit raises when the opponents have taken away a level of bidding under your suit so that natural suit-asking game tries are not possible.

For example. You bid 1S on AKxxx,A,QJTxx,xx. Lefty bids 2H and partner raises, 2S. Rho bids 3H and now what. Wouldn't you like to make a 3D game try? Well, if you try that you're going to get a director call. 3D is below 3H so instead of using the double for penalty in this sequence, we use the double as an "all purpose game try".

I play these sequences with most of my established partnerships but usually I have brief discussion about whether maximal doubles are on if the opponents have not bid and raised their suit. For example, has the auction gone 1S 2S (3H)? or 1S (2H) 2S (3H)? Some of my partnerships play maximal doubles in the latter situation and not the first. Be on the same page, discuss. If not, get ready for -730 at imps. Don't ask me how I know :-).

If you agree to play maximal doubles, remember they are usually "on" in overcall situations also i.e. 1D (1H) 2D (2H), 3D. Now X is not penalty of diamonds but an all purpose game try in hearts. Make sense?

Hope this is helpful, please ask if you have further questions.

A Ruse is Sometimes Very Effective

2010-07-30T11:56:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard the phrase. "Let the opponents make the last guess". It is usually uttered when one side has a contract option with power, and the other side has a save option. You are to continue preempting to the level where you don't know if their contract is making or not. Hey, if you don't know, perhaps they don't know either.

I fielded an interesting hand at the Eastside bridge club the other day where I wanted to invoke this practice. NV vs Vul (MP) my left hand opponent started the bidding with 1D. My partner jumped right in there with 3S (preemptive) and right hand opponent bid 4C freely. Holding xxx,Jxxxxx,QJ,xx it didn't take a trip to A land to figure out that the opponents were on for slam. If I were to make the opponents truly have the last guess, I would bid 6S, knowing full well that 6m is makable but not being sure whether 7m is. The "last guess" theory is.........if I don't know, maybe the opponents don't know either.

When I approached my mentors with this hand, they, as usual had a lot of other thoughts to share as well.

In this kind of situation, "last guess theory" is not nearly as important as your attempt to take away their machinery. You may know 6m is on, but if you take away their opportunity to find even that and they land in 5m -- look how happy you will be. Remember, offensively your spade tricks are limited and even a 5S save may go for more than 5m.

Here are their options! pick your favorite.

1) Bid 4S -- hides the degree of your fit and lack of defensive potential. Somebody will bid 5m and they can languash there. Also takes a way a 4S Q bid often use as a power raise.

2) X. Who knows, they may play 4CX when they're on for six. (Look at the score cards, you just got a top). If they XX -- "correct" to 4S and see what happens.

3) Bid 4N. This takes away the opponent's aces asking bid. You can always land safely in 5S no matter what the response of your partner is to this seemingly blackwood auction, and the opponents are now thinking you're stopping short of slam based on some values.

4) Bid 5S. You might buy it there X'd when they're on for six or seven.

It is very important to know who your opponents are when you try to guage the liklihood of success of each of these options. The more sophisticated the partnership, the more a Q bid will mean, the more a 4N bid will mean, the more forcing passes will have meaning. And trust me, the real pros won't get fooled by your X at all! That's the way they are!!

Hope this has been helpful!

Quantitative Bids...the ins and outs

2010-07-20T16:57:00.001-07:00

Cool, one of the first things one learns in beginning bridge days is that there is this neat convention where 4N “asks for aces”. Pretty nifty!! That way you can figure out whether you can take 12/13 tricks or less than that.

However, the plot thickens quickly when someone informs you that over nt, this bid is meant as “quantitative”. Quantitative means it's an inquiry about how much you have in overall values, as opposed to an inquiry about something specific, like number of key cards. So, confusion often arises as to when a 4N bid is “quantitative" or “ace asking”.

Here’s my slant on the subject.

When opener denotes a balanced hand that has a range, we use 4N as an asking bid for slam, thus quantitative. There are lots of auctions where opener denotes a balanced NT hand of some sort with specific ranges:

Examples:

1N (15-17) usually
1C 1D, 1N (12-14) usually
2N (20-21) usually
2C 2D, 2N (22-24) usually

4N over these types of auctions asks opener to accept a slam invite with a max or pass the invite for a 4N contract.

The auction after a quantitative bid are not relegatedto NT contracts, however. Often folks will play them “Baron” style which means one will accept the slam invitation by bidding a four card minor at the five level. The hand may fit better in a 4/4 minor fit for 12 tricks rather than NT. Thus: 1N 4N, 5C.

One can also accept the slam invitation by bidding six of a minor. This denotes a five card suit or better and request responder to agree to the minor suit slam, or correct back to NT. Thus 1N 4N, 6C.

In order to ask for aces, we use 4C Gerber replacing the traditional 4N bid. This serves the purpose of keeping many nt auctions lower and the ability to bail at 4N when that seems right.

Quantitative bids are also often used in minor suit auctions once the contract has settled in 3N. Now 4N is a “slam ask” for strength.

Example:

1S 2C, 3C 3N, 4N.

Since it’s usually wrong to take 3N out to 4m, 4m in this auction now says “I’m interested in slam, but not NT yet. Please start Q bidding if you accept, bid 4N sign off if you don’t. In these type auctions, 4N is showing as much as asking--i.e., it says "I have substantially more than I have shown from my prior actions, but not enough to drive to slam, so act accordingly

In order to divine whether 4N is ace asking or quantitative one might ask what a 4m bid would mean at the same point of the auction. If this bid is ace asking or a suggestion to start Q bidding, then 4N is probably quantitative. That is a round about way of going at it, but it might help to think that way when you’re dead tired in the finals of the Spingold and about 100 different notions are taxing your brain –mostly how to win the thing!

Competing over weak NT..Clarify your methods!

2010-06-02T12:11:00.000-07:00

Ahhh yes it wasn't too many masterpoints ago when I and my then-regular partner would sit at the table against opponents with weak nt methods and were almost guaranteed a zero. The solution to that was to practice those methods on our own. 12-14 nt promptly put on our card. We got our undeserved tops in limited fields but wo! be the partnership, got a significant amount of zeros when smacked with flight A competition.

The moral of this story is: Get your defense ready over weak NT.

1) What artificial methods you use over weak nt is immaterial. I highly recommend you preserve the X for penalty, however with whatever methods you use. If, by opening a weak nt in front of you, opps take away your 1S bid on AKJT,Kxx,Qxxx,xx then at least allow them the chance to go for a telephone number if it's right. In most of my partnerships, all X's force to our 2S level or X them off for penalty.

A fairly popular method is to play all X's after a direct X of a weak nt are take out until one pass has been passed for penalty, i.e. (1N) X starts forcing sequences. When a X has been passed for penalty all subsequent X's are penalty should the opponents try further runouts to other suits.

Example: (1N) X (2H) X the second X is TO of hearts
Example: (1N) X (2H) P (the pass is forcing here and denies a TOX of hearts)
Example: (1N) X (2D) X, (P) P (2H) X pass is penalty since partner already wanted to X diamonds by passing your TOX.

This allows safe passes when it's right and forces auctions at the appropriate times. It takes a little bit of work (and some zeros) before this is adequately executed, but I find the work worth it.

2) Weak nt are considered "preemptive" which means you don't preempt over a preempt. Jumps (at least at the three level) are strong. (1N) 3D is a hand akin to a 1D 1M, 3D auction.

3) The idea of interference over strong NT is to confuse the issue and land in a safe part score. Constructive bidding methods are still needed over weak nt to find your own games. Compete with a slightly better than opening hand. If your hand is highly distributional but weak, you may have a chance to come in later.

4) Constructive sequences are still needed by unpassed hands over their artificial advances. Therefor 1N 2C (X) should be "like hand or strong hand" not lead direct for clubs. In case their advance is game forcing i.e. 1N 2D (gf Stayman) revert back to lead directing X's.

This will give you a healthy start as to getting those tops the experts get against weak nt. Bridge is hard work, and sharpening up your defense against weak nt is no exception to that process. Results-wise the work is worth-it in my book.

Ask if you have further questions

6/5 Open Them Right!

2010-04-09T14:49:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

One of my protegees asked me some time ago to put together some guidelines for opening 6/5 hands when the major is the five bagger and a minor is the longer six bagger--and the hand does not have reverse values.

One thing I need to share up front is that my mentor taught me a valuable lesson in my early years: any 6/5 hand opposite the right opening bid makes slam. Repeat that 100 times before you go to sleep at night.

Reverse values start with meaty 16 counts. One can give some 6/5 hands reverse values even with lower high card point values. Trouble is, those hands have to have playing strength.

For example, AJ654,4,KQ6543,6 is not a reverse strength hand, but something like this might be: AJT98,JT,KQT987,v. So, if you think you have enough playing strength for a reverse, then go ahead and bid out your pattern, minor followed by the major.

If you have a 65 hand without reverse values, then there are to main points to consider: 1) How many suits are in between the two that you have. 2) How strong is one suit relative to the other.

So, for example, if your suits are six clubs and five spades, you have two suits between the blacks, namely diamonds and hearts. So you can handle a bid from your partner at the one level and rebid spades without reversing at the two level. However if your suits are diamonds and hearts, then you're in trouble immediately if it goes 1D 1S--and you don't have the values/playing strength for a reverse. Now you need to evaluate whether switching the order in which you bid the suits may be right.

Another strong indicator of the order in which you should open the suits is the strength of the relative suits. Suppose your hand were: A5432,4,AKJ543,5. Now, one would likely open 1D because you want that to be trump. However, should your hand be: AKJ43, 5,A97543,6 one would likely open 1S.

These bids are hard for us all. Once, vul at imps I held 65,98743,AKQJ54,v. Well, the bridge Gods don't give me solid tricks in my hand very often so I opened 1D. I was most surprised when all the experts chose to pass the hand and "show" the hand later somehow. I don't know how to let on to partner that you passed a six trick hand initially, but apparentl;y the experts do.

So to sum up. There are three things to consider: playing strength, how many suits are between the 6/5 suits, and relative strength of the suits.

And here's the real rub. If you get them all right, you'll be playing much better than the experts.

Hope this is somewhat helpful, please ask if you have further questions.

What bridge players can learn from football

2010-02-08T13:10:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

Well another football season is over and it's time to write another blog spot on one of my favorite topics: gleaning winning strategies from other competitive endeavors.

Who can relate to 2009/2010 season when Bret Favre in the instrumental moments of a quarterfinal game took a high risk call to blow a chance in the playoffs? Conservative run was needed instead of a high risk pass--interception. Who's done similar things at the bridge table?

Who can relate to the final superbowl game (Colts vs Saints) where onside kicks, two point conversions and blitzes were made at the appropriate times and executed appropriately for a Saints win. Who's done similar things at the bridge table?

It has always amazed me that in team events, most players in lower level competitions concentrate on individual execution, solo or within the partnerships, to promote a win without fully analyzing or paying attention to what is needed to win the event.

I speak from experience. Once in a relatively tough flight A event we had "won" the event before the final two matches were played. Phone calls were placed to "home folks" that the Knaap team was clearly leading and would easily slide into the first place position. What happened? One of the partnerships ended up playing 3DXX in opponents' suit. The result: a 1 VP overall loss. Was somebody paying attention to what needed to be done, or were players just executing as per the first two rounds of the event? Who wouldn't sell out a low level contract before confusing the issue for an "at most" lose five imps?

I had another example last Salem tourney. As promoted by team captain Knaap, if there is anything on the line at all before the last match, it pays to execute a team "huddle" to assess the placement of the team at that point in the competition.

The situation was clear, on a 20 VP scale we were leading second and third by 7/9 vp's respectively. We took a look, the opposing team seemed OK! but we knew we had a chance to nail this thing here. I told the team that we didn't need to win by a huge margin but that a small margin win would make us unquestioned victors of the Sunday team event. My advice to the players? "Slow down, think and stay steady. Take advantage of any mistakes."

So what happened? The team had to score up a grand off a cashing ace vul. Lose 17. Yep, it was admitted that listening to the captain(ess) might have been appropriate at this important juncture of the competition. We did end up winning the event, however, since no one blitzed to put us second/third and teammates managed to cover a -17.

So here's the deal. In almost every other serious competitive endeavor, someone keeps an eye on what needs to be done while the individual competitors concentrate on execution. The football teams have a myriad of coaches at all levels. Baseball has their first and third base coaches. The gymnasts have spotters and coaches who say when the high risk moves are needed to win the competition, or when they are to be avoided to possibly turn a win into a loss.

So as you are entering the final rounds of a team competition, at least take a moment to get the team together and recognize what needs to be done and plant a firm reminder in everyone's consciousness. It seems only normal as this is done in most other competitions --sport or otherwise.

I'm not sure this is universal thinking, but you might try it and see if it works.

I would be glad to answer any further questions.

(1N) X --handle this treatment for optimum results

2010-01-03T18:50:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

It is always with great pleasure that I, through this forum, get to review the teachings of my mentor. This subject presents another occasion. I too well remember discussing different methods of competing over opponent's NT. The retort was this "I loathe to give up the penalty X over NT". There was no qualifier there --i.e. baby, weak or strong NT. Penalty X's over all NT can reap huge rewards.

I can share with you that through my own experience I have reaped a wealth of mp and imps from this treatment. Unfortunately I have not reaped the optimum results because of an inability of the partnership to field the penalty X over NT properly.

First, let me say that a penalty X over NT could be a balanced hand at the top of the opponent's NT range. However, it's important that one has prime cards and/or a source of tricks. Using a penalty X over a strong nt with this hand: QJ4,KJ,QJ543,KQ is ill advised. Please have at least a prme seventeen count or a solid suit somewhere. Also, be aware that penalty X's can be made with one or two suited hands also. Here are some examples: AKQ10xxx, xx, x, Axx; AKQJxx, xx, xx, Axx; AKQxx, xx, xx, AKJ10.

The idea here is that you suspect the opponents will never sit for 1NX with these hands. They'll run out to their own suit. Now when you compete over that with your own suit, your partner will know that you have an extraordinary strong hand. Remember jumps over strong NT are preemptive. This is the way to show strength (although one can jump with strength over weak nt)

The down side about maintaining this treatment in your partnership is that one needs to discuss with what types of hands one pulls the penalty X's. My teaching says that with a balanced hand you sit, period. If you're 4333, 4432, 5332 you sit. Get it, you sit, I don't care what your strength is. The idea is that even with a zero count there is no guarantee that your side is in a fit and might get X'd off for a number. And if by chance you happen to be -180 (1NX making one) then that is the risk you take. That -180 is probably a lot less than what you would get being X'd off in your two level contract on a 4/2 fit.

Just three days ago all vul at imps I held this hand: 8542,876,53,8532 . Pard opened 1N and rho X'd. Poker face I sat quietly and watched lho squirm. 2D PHEW PHEW PHEW. The opponents were plus 130 when they could have had a telephone number. PHEW PHEW PHEW. Lho had forgotten an important rule about penatly X's over nt. Pass with a balanced hand.

Some time ago I picked up this beaut over 1N. AKxx,Kxx,KQJx,Ax. It didn't take me long to find the red card. My partner bid 2S. Thinking he would have Jxxxxx,x,xxx,xxx or the like I blasted to four spades thinking we could probably make five. Down two. There went the masterpoint race for the tournament to my opponent. Heavy price to pay! My partner had pulled my penaty X with four spades and had to play the entire hand from the dummy.

If you're going to maintain the X as penatly over 1N --I can guarantee you'll get some stellar results. I certainly have. But field it properly! or else you'll be fighting each other instead of your opponents!

If you have any questions, I'd be willing to answer them.

Competing over 1M (X).. do it aggressively

2009-11-03T11:23:00.000-08:00

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of competing with one of the top players of the Seattle area. NV vs Vul at MP I opened 1S in first chair. Lefty made a TOX and partner, without any hesitation whatsover and with all the confidence in the world bid 2S holding: 652,842,J8542,JT.

Although this raise might be a little on the light side, most experts get in there over 1MX with less than the 5/6 points required for a normal raise. Why? First off, these bids are totally LAW protected. Have an eight card fit, compete to the two level. Note the emphasis on "compete". Don't promise you partner six points out of comp and emerge with 1.

Also, in these sequences a two level major suit bid takes away one or two levels of bidding from the opponents. For example, as in the above case --note that my RHO does not have the one level bid available, nor the jump to 3H. Rho is forced to compete to the three level on a very wide range of hands --almost anything that is not worth a 3S (gf) Q!!! Oh my. Competing light over 1H (X) takes away the 2S invitational jump.

If the layout is foul, only the most experience partnerships can catch you in a X'd contract. A X by the fourth hand is usually TO for the other suits and in order for the TOX'er to X again he/she needs relatively strong values.

Competing on a minimum with a major suit hand over a TOX is just solid expert bridge. However, here's the problem. Last weekend, at imps, my partner made a game try on this hand over my 2S raise. AQJxxx,AT98,Ax,K. I refused the invitation on Jxx,J9xxx,J,Axxx. The problem is obvious...If partner thinks I can have a 1 count, he/she makes a game try. If partner thinks I have a normal "in comp bid" i.e. 7+ more points, he/she jumps to game. The ultimate gaffe was not having discussed the issue.

Lots of expert partnerships have methods to delineate the 3 to a bad 7 point raise from an good 7 to a 10 point raise. Some use a 2D artificial bid for the strong raise, leaving the major support bid for "garbage". Thus 1M (X) 2D! means: "I have a solid raise to 2M, pard, says nothing about diamonds". Some use a transfer system to announce a good raise.

All systems protect the direct natural raise as "weak"- 1M (X) 2M! garbage. Why? it totally takes away bidding room from opps, it's law protected and very hard to catch if it's wrong (i.e. the layout is foul). Hope this is somewhat helpful. This is a necessary discussion to have with all your growing/learning partnerships.

Leading A, K and Q's against NT

2009-08-24T20:28:00.000-07:00

Hi All,

There are as many discussions about leading A/K/Q against no-trump as there are bridge players. I thought I'd get my opinion down on the matter and we can use these methods to win bridge competitions. Too fun.

Suppose your opponents have landed in 3N and you hold something like AKJT(x) in a suit. Cool. Now, you would not want to lead low, or the J and see Qx in the dummy. Nor would you like it if declarer had Qx. So with these types of power hands I lead the A. It requires my partner to unload the Q if he/she has it --so I'm not left to wonder. If he/she does not have that card, I require partner to give me a count card. Now, I know when the Q is falling in declarer's hand or if it's better that I abandon the suit and let partner lead through declarer later. In the meantime, partner knows my holding and can place some serious defensive points!

Now, suppose opponents have landed in 3N and you decided that it is optimum to lead from these holdings: AKxx, AKx, KQx, etc. Now, I lead the K! This requires partner to give me an attitude card. Do you like the suit I chose, pard, do you have an honor or length and shall I continue.

On every convention card you have the holding KQT9 in the "honor card lead" sections. It is usually advantageous to lead the Q from this holding requiring partner to unload the J if he/she has it. If partner does not unload the J, it is adventagious for partner to give you an attitude card. Sure, it would be good for partner to give a count card so that you know when the J will fall but here's the rub. One leads the Q in many situations --QJTx, QJ9x, QJx. For all these leads you obviously don't need partner to unload the J --you're staring at it. However you do need to know if you can continue the suit safely. On Q leads I require partner to unload the J or give me an atittude card. Heaven forbid I lead from QJ9x continually into declarer's AKT. Ugly. An attitude card from pard denoting honor cards in the suit or length and I/we can defend much better.

Hope this makes some sense. Not all people adopt these treatments so make sure it is a discussion point with your serious partners.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Isolde

1C (1H) X (P) --Some Nifty Actions by Opener!

2009-08-12T06:32:00.001-07:00

Hi all

I wanted to share with you some expert secrets of these sequences. This weekend, the bridge Gods gave me these tickets: KQ4,T98,K84,KQT9 NV at mp second seat. There you go, an aceless four by three thirteen count but probably warrants an opening. Hey, at least you have a T,9 spot. So, 1C (at least you can stand the lead). Lefty bids 1H and partner makes a negative X. Ok, there you are. What are you most likely to do? Bid 1S. You don't have four of them, but you don't even have as little as Jxx in the heart suit and your clubs...well probably not rebiddable given you only have four.

Now suppose you had this hand: KQ43,K98,K8,QT98 -This time you have four spades all right, but a nasty HK underneath the heart bidder. Ohhhhh, not so good. Again, 1S.

Now let's give you a better hand for the negative X. Let's say you opened 1C on KQ43,43,KT4,KQT9. Compared to the previous hands we've discussed, this is a beaut.

Experts bid an immediate 2S on this hand. Why?

1) To delineate this hand from the subminimum three card spade hand and/or honor values underneath the heart overcall.
2) They realize that with these hands you clearly belong at the two level anyway, due to the nature of the fit and the purity of the honor cards. If you don't jump there immediately, there is a good chance that opponents will push you there anyway.

Thus, over 1m (1H) X (P), a 1S bid says: "Given our combined resources, pard, we now have a subminum holding given the heart overcall. Please slow down the your assessment of the level at which you place the contract or compete.

a 2S bid says: "Full opening values, no heart honors wasted, and four card support".

Had my partner and I discussed these sequences, we might not have been in game opposite AJ98,642,AQJ2,75. And competed safely to the three level only.

Hope this is helpful. Ask if you have any questions.

The Reverse --its secrets revealed

2009-05-25T17:06:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

It usually isn't long in a bridge journey before one becomes acquainted with the term "reverse". Hmmmm, I know this is a gear in my car, but what does it mean in terms of my bridge vocabulary.

I came across it this way. I had a very strong hand (two suiter) and opened it 1C. Partner bid 1S and I jump-shifted into hearts. When my dummy came down, a seasoned player said: "Isolde, you don't have to jump to show this hand". Thus, started my study of the "reverse" concept as it manifests itself in bridge bidding.

There are several (confusing) definitions of reverses but there are two which I like the best:

1) One reverses when one bids a higher ranking suit at the two level without a jump than one opened. Note, responder has only promised 6 points. Thus.....1C 1S, 2H is a reverse.

a) 1C 1H, 1S is not (second round of bidding does not start at the two level).
b)1D 1H, 2C is not (second suit is lower ranking than the first).
c) 1C 1D, 2H is not (note the jump)

2) One reverses when one asks responder to prefer the opened suit at the three level without a jump. Note, responder has only promised six points. If the bidding goes 1H 1N, 2S and responder prefers hearts, he/she has to do this at the three level. Thus, a reverse,

There are several musts about reverses and its best to practice them always:

1) Reverses show extra values. If you ask responder to pref the suit at the three level you should have combined resources to handle a contract at the three level. Reverse with a 13 point hand and responder owns only six--the pref at the three level will have to be played with 19 high card points between you. Not good. Have really good playing strength or at least 16 hcp as your extra values.

2) Reverses are shape-showing, that is the first suit is always longer than the second one --always. I had an opponent bid this hand 1C 1S, 2D against me this weekend. This hand was 4,A85,AQJT7,AK43. Note that diamonds are longer than clubs so this hand should have been shown through a strong jump shift, i.e. 1D 1S,3C.

3) One always promises one more bid after a reverse. Don't pass. (unless partnership agreements override this dictum).

There are many responder methods over reverses, some more standard than others. I have discussed them with most of my partners but will leave that for another day. Also, a serious discussion about handling reverses in competition needs to happen in every partnership.

I'd be happy to field any questions regarding this subject.

Happy bridging.

Isolde

Bridge learning curve analyzed

2009-05-03T09:56:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

The other day I was asked by one of my partners if we were "incompatible". Hmm the thought had not occurred to me. True, we had misfired and defended 3HXX making. We had also slipped up and let 2SX make. We languished in 2N making four for a major imp loss. I suppose my partner had a right to question the "incompatibility" factor.

As a seasoned player I know what incompatibility is, but from my POV it had little to do with these poor results. From my assessment, right or wrong, it was but a fact of performing at different spots on the bridge learning curve.

Let me explain using two example hands from last weekend's set. Curiously enough both hands involved competing over nt with "red suited" hands. And, as "luck" has it for illustration purposes, in both sets and partnerships we were competing using suction methods.

At imps at all nv I held this gem: Q92,AJ97,AQ32,T6 and passed over a 1N opening. My opponent at the other table launched in there with a 2S suction bid, requiring to show these two suits at the three level. It would not occur to me to try anything with this balanced hand over nt because the hand is not shapely enough. Certainly not forcing to the three level. "Shape" for bidding over nt precludes 4333, 4432, 5333 hands and starts mostly with 54 patterns. (You and the opponent may want to review my blog/Trumpet article on the matter.)

The same weekend the bridge Gods dealt me these tickets: 62,J8732,KJT954,v all vul at mp. Note the appreciable "shape" in the reds. I thought briefly about 2S but discounted that because the suits were very unequal in length and strength. I chose to show "diamonds". I was commended by that decision by a true expert player --showing diamonds was very much more "good bridge" than showing reds. However, here is the rub. The expert preferred passing with the entire hand and waiting until a nv condition? Why? Because competing in suits lacking in appreciable high cards wasn't his standard MO or good bridge.

So what am I saying put more succinctly? That as we grow in our bridge journey, communication becomes more concrete. It will take a while as long as you're "compatible" initially, and remain so in other ways of that journey.

Level 1: Competing over nt with reds Q92,AJ97,AQ32,T6
Level 2: Competing over nt with reds 64,J8762,KJT954,v
Level 3: Competing over nt vul at mp with diamonds 64,J8762,KJT954,v
Level 4: Pass and wait for nv conditions.

Do you get the picture? It's a process based solely on communication levels and the strength of that communication. Enjoy the journey with your proteges, partners, teachers and mentors! I certainly have. But if you want to learn the best, play with the best against the best. And work hard. You always want that opportunity to compare your actions with the finest! ~~~and learn their language.

I'd be happy to answer any quesitons.

More Sequences over 1N: 1N 2N -relay to 3C

2009-03-27T07:31:00.000-07:00

Now that you've all rested from my MSS sequences and, of course, know them by heart, I'll fill in some hand patterns as responder that we haven't discussed yet.

I usually play that 1N 2N is an automatic relay to 3C. Period. Partner can say alert! and bid 3C --that's it. Now, that would cover the club signoffs. Responder passes and has set the contract at 3C.

There is one other important hand pattern that you can describe with this relay: the 4441 pattern game forcing. What you do, is relay opener to 3C then bid your shortness.

1) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3D --shortness in diamonds, thus 4414
2) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3H --shortness in hearts, thus 4144
3) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3S --shortness in spades, thus 1444
4) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3N --shortness in clubs, thus 4441

The questions begs, what does one do with the basic "1N 2N invite to 3 w/out a four card major" sequence? All invitational sequences with or without a four card major go through Stayman. If partner responds to Stayman with a 2D bid, bid 2N. Partner now knows you have an invitational with or without a four card major. Opener doens't really care whether you have one or not since opener has denied a major. If opener bids 2H over your Stayman query, and you have an invitational hand with four spades, you must bid 2S at this point. Opener has not had the opportunity to fess up to a four card spade suit so responder must check back. If the bidding goes 1N 2C, 2H 2S responder has specifically an invitational hand with four spades. Opener can take it from there.

Game forcing hands with minors I handle by going through Stayman also. This means that opener once again does not know whether responder has a major or not when it goes 1N 2C, 2X 3m. Oh well.

Hope this is somewhat helpful. Ask if you have any questions.

Minor Suit Stayman --Sequences described

2009-03-24T17:31:00.000-07:00

The very first convention I learned was Stayman, checking back for majors over nt. You, too no doubt (after blackwood, that is). About 30 master points later, I was asked to learn Minor Suit Stayman. Cool, I had mastered Stayman so figured this was a piece of cake.

As per usual when learning new conventions, some of the memorization of the early sequences is the easy part, i.e. 1N 2S asks opener to bid a four card minor and says nothing about "spades". However, how this query system fits into existing sequences, how the information gleaned is useful in determining the potential of the hand, how to handle pesky opponents and their actions in the bidding. These are all sequella learning points that one needs to discuss, explore and sometimes tweak!

I use MSS in tandem with a convention where 2N relays to 3C to describe various responder hands. Because I don't want to overwhelm this discussion with two new treatments, I'll defer the 1N 2N! discussion to a later blog -suffice it to say we aren't going to cover all the responder type hands one encounters in this treatise when partner opens 1N. Ready, set go!

First off, when responder asks for a four card minor by bidding 2S over 1N, the basic responses are thus:

2N --sorry pard, I have no four card minor
3C--I have a four card club suit (says nothing about strength or suit quality)
3D--I have a four card diamond suit (says nothing about strength or suit quality)

One queries opener for such minor suit holdings with four hand-types that through these sequences are well described to opener.

1) Diamond sign off, responder has long, weak diamonds. After opener bids 3D, pass. If opener bids 3C, bid 3D and opener drops the auction there. If opener bids 2N, bid 3D and opener drops the auction there.

2) Responder has weak 5/5 hands, minors. After opener bids 3C, pass. After opener bids 3D, pass. If opener bids 2N, bid 3C and opener is required to pass or correct depending on which minor suit is better.

3) Responder has a game forcing hand 5/4,5 in minors. After opener bids a minor, confirm the minor and make slam try if appropriate. Otherwise, bid game. If opener bids 2N, responder bids shortness (major). Opener has now described a 5/4,5 game forcing hand with shortness in a major.

4) Responder has a slamish 5422 hand with minors. After opener bids 2N, 3C or 3D bid 3N.

If there is anything I need to add, please let me know. Otherwise, look forward to the next blog piece on 1N 2N sequences.

Rule of 11

2009-03-08T18:41:00.000-07:00

Hi All,

Most of you are advanced enough to have come across the rule of 11. Surely some of your advanced partners/teammates/mentors have mentioned it once or twice, or you've read about it in some bridge book/column somewhere. As a growing bridge player I ignored this basic analytical tool too long. I, no doubt, was more involved with learning systems, getting to know partners, learning rules and competitive strategies to bother with this basic skill.

I've since lost my naivite and perform that analysis automatically every single time a partner or opponent fesses up to a "fourth best" lead. Here's how it works.

What you do is subtract the spot card that hits the table from the number 11 and it denotes how many outstanding cards there are higher than the spot card that hit the table. So, what you do is count the number of cards in the disclosed hand and your own hand, subtract that number from the result of the difference obtained in the previous subtraction process and voila, you know the remaining number of cards higher than the original led card in the undisclosed hand?

Clear as mud? Let's go through an example. The bidding was simple. 1S 1N!,3N. Cool, the H7 hit the table to this dummy: AJT64,T8,AQ,AK73 and this is my hand. K7,J652,T972,Q42. Immediately, without a moment's hesitation the math starts: 11-7 =4. There are four outstanding cards greater than the 7 in the remaining three hands. I count three that I can see (HT, H8, HJ) which means that the undisclosed hand, my rho has one card higher than a 7. This one is easier than most. Since lefty does not hold AKQ in the suit (or else he/she would not have led fourth best) rho must have one of those cards. I play the h8 and sure enough, rho rises with the Q. I wait for a lower card back than the 7 (or perhaps another suit) but something funny happens. Rho plays the HK. Given the math, he/she should not have that card --that would be two cards higher than the 7 spot which is impossible unless lho did not lead fourth best. Hmmm, I played low again and lefty now produces the 9. So lefty has the 9,7 and didn't lead like he/she had a doubleton. Apparently he/she led from A97 (third best). And so it was, I ducked that next card and the A popped on air.

A couple of hands further, there was a like situation. Uncomfortably, we had hit 3N on these cards and the S7 hit the table. Here's my dummy: 8652,A5,J7,AK875 and here's my hand: AQJ4,K963,QT6,32. Immediately the arithmetic started. 11-7 is four. I see four spades higher than my spot card in the combined dummy and declarer hands: SA, SQ, SJ and S8. Rho followed with the ST a card he/she could not hold if the lead were from "fourth best". I figured it might be a doubleton lead and confidently finessed once again for the SK. Wrong, rho had lead form K973; i.e third best -no wonder the original math did not work.

I encourage you to practice this analytical manipulation so it becomes automatic and part of your tool box whether partner or your opponents lead the suit. Trust me, it gives a huge clue as to the flow of the hand when you can figure it out. Thereby, don't make this an arduous, laborious task when you play. Drill and memorize those two digit combos that add up to 11. 83 74 65 56 47 38; just like your third grade math teacher would have liked. Your brain is needed for much more important calculations during any serious bridge competition.

Good luck, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

1C 1H, 1S --forcing or not?

2009-02-24T19:36:00.000-08:00

Sometimes in a competition there is a major theme that presents itself in multiple times and in multiple ways. Have you discussed the title auction in your partnerships? When John and I prepared to play one of the top flight teams last week, our opponents were discussing whether the above auction was forcing or not. Some thought it was (their teammates) and our particular opponents were of the other opinion. Non forcing! I told John that I was happy that we had discussed the auction thoroughly and weren't going to get mixed up this set or ever! Copied ver batem from our system notes:
**********
**********

1C 1D, 1H
1C 1D, 1S
1C 1H, 1S
1D 1H, 1S

–only passable if you were ashamed of your first bid or bidding out of fright..

*********
*********
So three days forward we face the Lusky team --of all things and my partner responds 1H to my one diamond opening. I rebid 1S although came really close to just bidding 2H and getting on with life. Partner passed. Did she meet the specs of the Lusky/Knaap system notes? My hand: AQxx,Qxx.KJTx,xx Dummy: T9x,Txxxx,Ax,xxx There you are, should have gone with my intuition! Extra credit --what do you expect the Villain to lead on this auction. And if he doesn't lead "it" why not.

Mid-hand carding -pinpoint the communication process!

2009-02-13T09:08:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in one of my previous posts that one of the biggest sections of your system notes might be the section headed by "carding". Indeed it is an important part of the communication scheme, essential to figure out who has what when on defense you have precious little time to develop your tricks. After all, the opps have announced the balance of power or a source of tricks due to a powerful trump suit.

There will be times when you wish to fool your declarer, knowing your partner can figure stuff out, but we'll defer that to when we've all won the blue ribbons once or twice. Before that, assume that good communication between you and your partner will foil declarer's plans every single time, or at least won't let you drop the overtrick.

Mid-hand carding has it's own unique rules. Whether playing standard or udca, the midhand carding remains the same unless specified different within the partnership:

1) In general I give attitude (udca or standard per agreement) on the suits we lead. I give a count card on the suits declarer attacks. This remains true throughout the hand after the opening lead on non-trump plays.

2) I you lead a suit mid-hand, you lead low from interest. So, if you hold an honor in the suit, lead low; if you hold junk, lead some high card. It tells your partner where your sources of tricks might be for the defense. For example, suppose you hold 973 in one suit and AQ5 in another and you don't see a K of your strong suit in dummy. Exit the 7 of the off suit telling partner "don't lead this suit back, think of something else". Partner will figure it out.

3) If the attitude of the suit is known lead a count card "fourth best". Suppose you lead an A and see the K in dummy and partner encourages most likely holding the Q. --lead back a "fourth best" remaining count card. Suppose you led the A against a preempt from AT742 and partner encourages with the K in dummy and you agree. Now lead the count card 4 "fourth best" from the original holing. Why? So the pair knows what's cashing and you can make appropriate switches. Remember attitude is known.

One would continue with the 2 from A1042 or the 7 from A72. Note that these are the same cards one would return if partner led the suit to you and you were returning the suit.

4) One of the favorite things expert players like to do is run their long suit so the opponents are forced to guess what to save. I haven't been caught in that a long time --Know why? My partnerships give a clear attitude signal at the first opportunity. "I'm saving/discarding this suit partner". This card is now followed by a count card (odd or even number) Most of my partnerships figure it out from there.

5) Make sure to discuss what to do with a singleton in the dummy. My preference is to continue "attitude". A discouraging card means I want you to switch to the suit in dummy where you can see tricks coming for our side. An unusual high card means "make an unusual shift, partner", most likely to the strong suit in dummy --for a ruff or isolation or something. Make sure to discuss this however, not every partnership prefers this method.

A fun thing to do is go over a set or two you've played with your favorite parnter and talk about carding and what message you are conveying as you lead, pitch and follow. You'll be amazed by how smooth that conversation piece is once the kinks get worked out.

Hope this helps. Ask if you have questions!

Balancing actions after two passes!

2009-02-03T17:39:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows pretty quickly that bids in different positions take on different meanings. Take for example the pretty innocuous 1N bid. In opening position it signifies 15-17 hcp and a balanced hand (standard treatment). As an overcall, it denotes 15-18 hcp, as response to a minor 6-9, a major 6-11 and in the balancing chair; voila! 11-14.

There are a whole cadre of bids after the bidding goes 1x P P that take on different meanings when made in this position. One of the reasons we alter these bids is that there is already something extremely significant we know when the bidding goes 1x P P.

1) Responder has less than 5 hcp.
2) Partner could not make a TOX or overcall –what does that mean?
3) Responder doesn’t think the opponents have a huge trump fit.

Given all of that, actions in the balancing chair take on a different flavor from immediate overcalls. These actions can be separated into two categories: 1) unpassed hand 2) passed hand.

Unpassed hand:

Over 1M or 1m openings, a 1N balance means 11-14 hcp. Some people play systems on, other systems off. Make sure to come to an agreement with your pard. Here are some further bids.

1N 11-14
X and 1N 15-17
2N 18-20
X and 2N 21+

Jumps in suits are value-showing. Remember you’re preempting no-one here, rather engaging in your own constructive sequences. So two level and three level bids show six card suits and values. Eleven hcp if a single jump, more if a double jump.

Q bids.

1m P P 2m also shows at minimum constructive values (opening hand) as opposed to the preempt junk you bids in direct seat; Majors 1M P P 2M (same major) is Constructive Michaels showing the other major and a minor.

There are some hands which are terribly difficult to show in this position. Those are the strong one suited or two suited hands (very strong) where passing a TOX might not be optimum. Ex. AKQxxxx,KQJ,Ax,x over 1C or AKJxx,Kx,x,AKJxx over 1D. For these you might manufacture a Q bid then jump in some suit!

Passed hand:

Since we don’t have strong nt hands to show, 2N now is unusual for the lower unbid suits. i.e. P, (1D) P (P) 2N shows clubs and hearts –less than an opening hand. Duh.

Encore Performance

Try not to balance rich in lho's suit. Think our dear instructor Tony Glynne used the word "never" three times when describing this concept. Look at number 2 above, partner, known to be short, did not make a TOX nor overcalled a suit. What makes you think you belong in the auction? Also, if you have a fit with lho and partner has a fit with lho, perhaps opps have a fit elsewhere. Don't balance them into their better fit. Sit back quietly, pass and defend well!

Hope this straightens out some confusion –because without discussion there will be confusion. Trust me, and I've lost the mp, imps and events to prove it. Good luck

On hesitations...

2009-01-11T10:10:00.000-08:00

....It was thus, I was deep in thought about the entire hand, my proposed defense and our carding methods. I held two clubs in my hand. I hesitated on the first club play but the real 'call the director' error was the hesitation on my second club play (my one and only card left) Here, is my guidance regarding that incident and the suggestion for rectification.Much too good not to share with the rest of you! Enjoy learning from my mistake.************

From John...

There are times when it is appropriate to do one's thinking about the hand on defense and other times when it is not (or when if you do, you must tell declarer that you are thinking about the whole hand, not this trick). Obviously, when you are on lead you can think all you want to before leading. You can also generally think all you want when you are deciding whether to win a trick (if you have a choice of plays) or when you are deciding what to discard (although it would be improper to hesitate simply to make declarer think that you have a discarding problem), or when you have a decision about whether or not to cover declarer's card (although again, only if you have a real choice of plays). And it's OK to take some time at trick one as opening leader's partner to think about the hand, although it is courteous to announce that you are thinking about the hand if that is what you are doing.

But there are some 'time-sensitive' situations when you simply must play in tempo when you have no significant choice of plays from the standpoint of trick-taking potential. Those include the following:

1. Declarer has or may have a 'finesse or drop' guess, as in this case (and yes, once she played the ace on the first club trick, it was apparent that it was at least possible that she had such a guess).

2. Declarer leads a card that you may or may not want to cover, e.g., dummy has K9xx and declarer leads the 10, or dummy has the A10xx and declarer leads the J.

3. Declarer leads low toward a holding like the KJ.

In those situations, when declarer leads at the critical moment and you hesitate, declarer will reasonably think that you have something to think about that is germane to a decision about what to play to this trick. If you find that you have hesitated about something else than what to play to this trick, the ethical thing to do is to say before playing or as you play 'I have no problem on this trick' or 'I was thinking about the whole hand, not this trick' (assuming that this is true--of course one should not say this if declarer has caught you napping in a cover/noncover situation). This is particularly the case if you hesitate when you only have one card in your hand that you could legally play to the trick.

Now Smith Echo creates some choices on defense that are a little different from standard signalling. I can understand your confusion about whether to echo in this situation--I can see arguments in both directions. The best time to be thinking about this would be at trick 1, i.e, don't turn your own card over until you have decided whether to echo on what declarer leads. However, having not done so, it was probably, but just barely, OK to do so at trick 2 when declarer led the ace, since obviously you were not going to be taking that trick. Note that it really wouldn't have been OK if declarer had led low toward the KJ10, since now the hesitation would have suggested that you had the club A. So if declarer had led low and you had hesitated about what to play from 85, that would have been potentially problematic, although not necessarily, since your hesitation might not affect declarer's play, particularly if she had the ace.

The point I am trying to make here is that in these time-sensitive situations, declarer will interpret a hesitation as meaning that you have something to think about that is germane to trick-taking, not that you are thinking about whether or not to give count or whether or not to make a Smith Echo. And if it turns out otherwise, declarer is going to be justifiably upset and may call the director, at all levels of the game. And if it turns out that you hesitated when you had only one legal card to play to the trick, that is really going to cause a problem. So if you find yourself hesitating when you have no trick-taking issue, and particularly when you have only one card you could play, you need to say something to make sure that declarer is not deceived.

So one thing about playing Smith Echo is that you do have to be on top of it, and thinking all the time about whether you are going to echo or not. Now against declarers who understand Smith Echo, they are probably going to understand what you are thinking about when they lead the A and you hesitate, so you probably have no problem there. When you hesitate on the second round, that is a whole other kettle of fish. I understand the argument 'why would I hesitate with the Q?' But the other side of that is 'why on earth would you hesitate when you only have one club left?' And I have seen plenty of people hesitate with Qx left in hopes that declarer would prematurely call a card from dummy or play a card from his hand.

If you want to read the bridge laws about this, you can look at Law 73.D on the ACBL website. They basically say that we should all try to maintain a steady tempo, that we should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of our side, but that declarer draws inferences at his/her own risk.

3 Level Interference over NT

2009-01-10T17:54:00.000-08:00

The opponents never leave you alone. Partner and I were playing online and Partner opened 1S. (3C). There you are. Now what.

First if you are a passed hand: Bid what you think is the optimum contract. Remember that no call is forcing after passing so if you want to show your six card suit before offering four card support, don't. You may just get passed in the new suit and there you are. If you are an unpassed hand. A new suit is forcing to game.

If you have no support and less than game going values, pass, wait for pard to X in or lho to raise or something.

Three level free bids force to game or 4m (I believe) i.e. strong actions. If you want to raise the major, do it thus: 4M is still preemptive. 3M is anything from a good constructive raise to a bad limit raise. 4 of the preempt suit is a Major suit raise stating that you would have gone to game without the preempt based on values.

If you look at your hand when pard opens and say "this is a hand that is going to game" (or more) Q bid the 3 level preempt at the four level. This way opener can advance that auction based on the way you made your major suit raise. This was taught to me by Bill Hardy, certainly capable of adequately explaining such standard expert strategies. Use them often! and Have Fun!

How To Spot A Bridge Addict

2008-12-23T16:28:00.000-08:00

How To Spot A Bridge Addict

Imagine yourself at some social gathering and suddenly the topic of bridge comes up. You don’t know how, but before you know it a person with foam flecking the corners of her mouth is staring into your face with the wide-eyed desperation of a heroin addict in need of a hit, trying to convince you that playing bridge is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, fun and that you ought to try it. Now. Really fun. Try it now, right now. The judge, the guests and your bride-to-be can just cool their damned heels for a minute. Really try fun now bridge.

A card table, two other bridge addicts, four chairs, bidding boxes and an endless supply of boards will instantly appear, for all bridge addicts have the cartoon character-like ability to produce these items upon demand from a seemingly normal pant leg. You will be led to your place at the table and the three of them will commence simultaneously to explain to you what each feels are the most important aspects of the game. Once you have received more technical instructions than it takes to assemble a Volvo, the three of them will in unison encourage you to relax and just enjoy yourself because the main thing about bridge is that it’s really, really fun. Really.

Cards pass through your hand and then the first game is over, you guess, because the three of them are chorusing about how much fun they had while inspecting you like a lab animal for signs of addiction. A discussion (‘discussion’ is what bridge addicts call a fight) begins (breaks out) between your opponents. The female of the two complains that her partner did not make the correct uppercut play, whereupon she demonstrates proper uppercut technique by striking his jaw with her fist. A scrum ensues which twists the bridge table into a metallic piece of origami. Your partner, the original bridge addict, manages to separate the two addicts who live in her pant leg and remind them, jerking significant nods towards you, that bridge is really, really fun. The three of them reassemble the bridge table (which now has a permanent wobble) and sit down amid sniffles and threats muttered under the breath, all staring at you with crazed smiles. Time to play another hand. Religious texts refer to your current circumstances as ‘hell’ and suggest that it lasts a very, very long time.

The trouble with spotting a bridge addict and thus avoiding such catastrophe is that they look very much like normal people; that is, very much like people with other, equally severe but less annoying psychological problems. An effort to eradicate them by destroying all books on bridge proved unsuccessful after bridge addicts developed uncanny powers of recall like those rebels in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. That dangerous looking guy on the bus with the mad stare and an ominous bulge in his rucksack, with tattoos all over his shaved head, wearing nothing but a vest, army fatigues and boots in the dead of winter? You may try to comfort yourself by pretending he’s merely a psychotic hatchet murderer but the truth is he’s probably a bridge addict and the tattoos are probably Sanskrit for Jacoby Transfers, that portion of bridge lore entrusted to his care.

No, you’re basically on your own when it comes to dealing with these maniacs, which is why it pays to know how to spot one right off and then get while the getting’s good. So imagine yourself at a party that you suspect bridge addicts might attend. Here are a few dead giveaways:

1. Addicts love to segue into a discussion about bridge from totally unrelated topics:

You: “So the pain my chest was really getting bad and then my left arm went numb. I thought I might just be able to drive myself to Emanuel Hospital which is on the east side of the Fremont Bridge – ”

Addict: “Bridge? Do you play? What conventions do you use?”

2. Anytime a finger is run over a stack of papers, mimicking the sound of a deck of cards being shuffled, a bridge addict will exhibit the Pavlovian responses of dilated pupils, profuse sweating and rapid, shallow breathing.

3. Bridge addicts will move in one direction along the buffet table while insisting that dishes be passed along in the opposite direction. They will often launch into cheerful, spontaneous chatter about how they like to make a balanced food plate for themselves but that sometimes it’s nice to have a whole lot of one kind of dish – what they refer to as the ‘long’ dish – and none of another (the ‘void’ dish). They will ask your opinion on this natter with an expression reminiscent of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

If you notice any of these signs, the first rule is DON’T PANIC! Bridge addicts are well known for their ability to smell fear. However, there is not a moment to lose if you want to get out before it’s too late: Try these techniques:

1. Say to the bridge addict: “You know, I think I heard of a table in Susanville that needs a fourth.” For your own safety, be sure you are not standing in the path to the door when you use this technique. Also, be sure that it is not your car blocking the bridge addict’s as they try to leave.

2. Steer the bridge addict in the direction of a hat rack. Introduce hat rack as a friend who would love to know more about bridge. Quietly slip away. It helps if you’ve already retrieved your hat so you don’t risk disturbing the addict several hours later when you depart.

3. Try this: “Yeah, I have a friend who plays bridge. He said that once he was declarer with a balanced hand, a 3-4 fit and 24 combined points and somehow he made seven spades. How do you figure he did that?”

You don’t have to know what any of these words mean. The effect of them will be to cause the bridge addict to pace back and forth in a corner for hours muttering to herself, her head down and her arms wrapped tightly around her waist. Everyone else at the party will thank you.

4. This is my favorite. Lean nonchalantly against something handy to lean against and intone in a casual voice, “Yeah, I played bridge years ago. Even taught the game for a while. Had this one older guy who was my student who did okay for himself, considering. Fella by the name of Lusky, as I recall. Heard of him?”

This Lusky guy is apparently really, really good at the really, really fun game of bridge, but that doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that the bridge addict will fall to her knees like she’s receiving a visitation from the Angel Gabriel. You now have a slave for life which is really, really handy should you have some yard work that needs to be done.

Also, as the teacher of Lusky, you can now tell the addict anything you want about the game of bridge and even if it flies in the face of everything she knows, she will believe you. For example, tell her that when alerting unusual bids by her partner she should now set down her cards, stand on her chair, scream “Gompers!” at the top of her lungs and then spit on the floor. Take a stroll past the bridge club one evening when she’s playing, I swear she’ll be doing it. Really. In fact, years later, when even she admits that you were putting her on, she will continue to insist that in some strange way following your instructions actually improved her game. But that’s an addict for you.

For my friend Isolde Knaap, the most addicted bridge player I know, on the occasion of her fiftieth birthday.

© Andrew W. Osborn February 18, 2004

Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. Get your Hotmail® account now.

Thoughts from a mentee

2008-12-22T09:27:00.001-08:00

In the January/February Trumpet Hendrik Sharples touched on a most important aspect of the bridge world - mentoring. Yes, despite the "pro system" which exists, mentorship in its purest form is alive and well.
Here are Isolde’s thoughts:
1) Find a mentor who embraces your communication style. One mentor once told me to "read a book". Hmmm, he didn't know that in general, I hate to read. Another once answered a bridge question in a cryptic three word e-mail. Hmmm, but buy him a drink after the game is over and you will receive a wealth of information. What worked for me is e-mail. From the moment I presented my first hand via the keyboard, we were off. There was something calming about the physical distance, and the forgiving time lapse added to the learning process.
2) Don't get too many mentors. You'll avoid a lot of anguish and confusion if you stick to one or two mentors. This is the problem. For the most part there is a element of style in bridge, and there certainly are different approaches. I once heard three different responses from three mentors to the same question, true story. Pick a style that works for you (for me the style was extremely structured and mathematical, where communication systems were clearly defined).
3) Pay attention to what your mentor says. Take copious notes if you forget (I started writing down all my hands when I played, every last spot card). The most dreaded words I hear are: "Haven't we gone over that?" I don't believe I've heard those words often, but have said on occasion, "we've gone over that already.”
4) Work hard. Add your own blood, sweat and tears to the process. Before you approach your mentor with a difficult bridge problem, check the bridge encyclopedia, do a Google search, check the references your mentor gave you. Can you find an expert who has played the same hand, online perhaps, so you can review his/her declarer play card for card? Now your mentor will see that you are as invested as he/she is.
5) Be a true friend, since you can offer your mentor little besides friendship. Watch him/her play the major events. Congratulate him/her on the big wins. Make sure that your competitive passion is as tuned for your mentor as it is for your own level of play with your partners and teammates. Flowers, cards and the traditional "first place or don't come home" exchange, e-mailed before every "biggie", were my attempts at reciprocal karma.
6) Don't argue with your mentor. If, for whatever reason, you can't accept the guidance he/she gives at the time it was given, use this phrase to end the conversation: "I've heard you and appreciate your thoughts. I'll wait until I get as good as you to understand the concept in its entirety.”
7) Be trustworthy. Full-blown mentorship is a very intense private exchange. Trust that relationship to guard the special communications you share which are not meant for the entire world to hear.
8) Share what you learn. Once you think you are capable, share your mentorship teachings with others. I've written several bridge articles based on my mentor's teachings. I've also developed a special relationship with bridge players "in the making", Laura Beal, Dave Coleman, Paul Cieslak and others.
I can also share two potential problem areas in mentorship situations.
• Get your partner to buy into your mentor's approach to bridge. If it's a constant issue between you and your partner to accept your mentor's teaching, get a different mentor or partner. It isn't going to work for anyone.
• Remember that you will be competing against the person who is there to teach you. Make sure that you know his/her commitment is ultimately to his/her partners and teammates. The fact that he/she is willing to help develop players able to compete successfully at the national level makes goal setting easy. For both you and your mentor it isn't about getting an 80% in the local club game; it's about making it to the third day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs.
Hope these ideas are of help and you will enjoy a mentorship journey soon! For women this journey is essential. We aren't often seen intuitively and socially as national champions. It's such a struggle to break through some of those gender-based barriers. The strength gained through mentorship can be the wellspring of that quiet reserve you need to make it out of the Consolations and into the Finals.

Juxtaposed: 4th best vs third and low on opening lead against suits

2008-12-16T14:35:00.000-08:00

Third and low differs from third and fifth in what you lead from seven card suits. In third and low you lead 7th --the lowest one. In third and fifth you lead fifth. Third from the bottom.

One of the first things a partnership decides when filling out a card is the nature of their length leads. I started playing fourth best leads, but pretty soon after taking the game up seriously, decided to switch to third and low. Many expert D20 bridge players lead fourth best, so I doubt there is a consensus on the best treatment in all situations (or even most of them). Might be a factor of how one analyzes the hand ...or one might learn to analyze hands differently when playing one versus the other. I don't know.

I do know the characteristics of these lead agreements are not the same and it pays to study the differences. From my own personal history, this caused one of the few major public displays of disagreement in one of my past partnerships and I would advise everyone to avoid this at all a costs by studying the issues carefully.

I probably don't have to emphasize that whether you lead fourth best or third and low, you start counting cards from the top. The major differences between these two systems also delineate the major advantages.

Note: length leads from fourth best are always from strength. Discuss with your partner whether it promises the T, J or perhaps even Q minimum, but it has to promise some honor.

Note: length leads from third and low denote count, period. Nothing is promised about the quality of the suit. Third from an even number of cards, low from an odd number of cards. So hereby you see the difference.

1) Using fourth best leads, one leads the 4 form 42, K94, K964, K9642, K96432. There you go, five different lengths on the opening lead and you lead the same card.

2) Using third and low leads, one leads the 2 from 652, J52, K52, KJ2 87532, K7532, KJ532. There you go, the same card from two lengths and three different suit qualitities.

So, what you absolutely know with fourth best length leads is that it is from some sort of strength holding although the actual length of the suit might be unknown until further play has occurred. What you most likely know about third and low leads is the number of cards in the suits, provided you can distinguish from the 3/5/7 two card differences.

It is necesary to hold a brief discussion about what to lead from bad holdings playing fourth best. What does not work is to lead small (as if one has a strength holding). From three small, one needs to decide top of nothing or MUD. From four small, one usually leads second highest.

As if all of this isn't complicated enough, these two different styles are used primarily on opening lead. What your partnership does in the middle of the hand is also a discussion point. Most lead "low from interest".

Which method your partnerhip uses on opening lead might be a matter of philosophy. 4th besters like to send an immediate signal by the opening leader that he/she does or does not like the suit led. 3rd and low leaders like to give an immediately start on counting the entire hand.

Be open to using different methods. If you've traditionally counted on leads from strength holdings, perhaps try other methods to determine high card distribution. Experts use clues from the bidding and first few card plays to figure out where high cards are located.--but, that may be a whole other lesson. See what the future holds?

When are Q bids "to play"

2008-12-13T07:03:00.000-08:00

It's been ages since I've written to you and for my end of that, I apologize. Fact is, unless I play with you guys somewhat I really don't know where your needs are. (sorry). It's been a good year for me --once the smoke cleared, Freeman and I are the only D20 players representing this unit at both the pair and team events this year (Roger McNay, Eric Stolz and Chris Gibson Q'd but couldn't make it to Detroit). This, for me, is a phenomenal accomplishment and the beginning of true high level play. I'm glad that at least for me, hard work and having fun are not mutually exclusive. Go team and nose to the grindstone!

But, back to serious business for you guys. Yesterday, Jim Smith asked me to inspire him to play better bridge. I hope I accomplished that --it's always a fine line between "inspire" and "overwhelm". Hopefully I made the grade. However, here's what I need to share with this group so we don't mess this up in the finals of the Blue Ribbons. Please learn these sequences. Your developing partnerships may be at odds, and it can cause some discomfort, but I can guarantee you your flight A partners will thank you immensely.

(1m) 3m is natural. Get it --it's not "give me a stop" or "super majors". It's natural. Yesterday, my rho opened 1C and with this hand J,Axx,Tx,QJxxxxx, I bid 3C. To play. Natural.
(1D) 3D is also natural. To play.

The following Q bid sequence is also "natural" barring special within partnership agreements. Yesterday my lho opened 1C and rho bid 1H. Holding AQxx,KQ87xx,Ax,6 I wanted to play hearts so I bid 2H. Duh......natural. I don't care if rho has four of them, I can handle that. 2H is natural in this sequence --it is not "unusual" or "michaels" or asking for a heart stop. It's natural and to play.

In this hot seat sequence, 2m is also natural. The sequence (1C) (1H) 2C --i.e. instead of hearts I bid clubs, is also "to play". I hold something like Axx,x,xxx,AKQTxx. Natural.

Warning --please differentiate (1m) 3m from (1M) 3M. This 3H/3S bid is not natural. Duh, rho has already promised five. This is somewhat of the Western Q bid that is overly used and abused but here it is, in all it's glory. 3M over 1M asks specifically if partner can stop the major from running. This bid promises nine tricks. Not 8.5, not 8 on a good day and/or 7. It promises 9 tricks provided the major can be stopped. Why? Flight A players when they hear this bid will not lead the major. They will lead your long running minor so the QT98 you have in your hand will never be trick 9. You'll be one short. Here's another reason. Pesky flight A players will jam the auction with the major. Something like (1M) 3M (4M). I, as your advancer would now like to know when I can bid 4 nt. i.e. I not only have the major stopped but I have trick 10 for you or perhaps trick 12 for the slam. Vul vs nv at imps you'll be glad you found this and come back to your table with a huge imp win. If there are any questions (hopefully not too confusing), please ask. I'm here to help

Non forcing constructive -what does it mean, what does it look like, how should it be advanced‏

2008-12-13T06:58:00.000-08:00

I just came off a disaster playing against the Polish team in one of the finest events in bridge. I want to avoid a subsequent gaffe, so let's work on the above-named topic some. So, have you ever heard a term and not known what it meant, failing to look the word/term up somewhere and 'hoping' you would eventually get it from context. Yeah, me too, and the word 'constructive' was one of those terms in bridge.

Trouble is, I never figured it out and finally I got so tired of deciphering it from the pros in all its versions that I asked one of them. 'OK! So tell me what this word represents in bridge lingo: constructive'. As described by them it means 'not junk, below invitational'.

So one application you'll hear often is this: A bid in a new suit is 'non forcing constructive' in this position/sequence. This 'non forcing constructive' term means your hand looks like a weak two. Yep, memorize it --'non forcing constructive' means 'weak two'. For our purposes, our non forcing constructive example hand will be: 87,932,J4,KQJT54. There, a 6322 weak two hand in clubs.

This type of hand is shown in three important sequences: 1) As a response to an opening bid over a TOX. Example: I open a spade, lho makes a TOX and you make a two level club bid. Your hand looks like 87,932,J4,KQJT54.2)

As an advance of an overcall bid: Example: Lefty opens 1H, my partner overcalls 1S. Rho passes and I bid 2C. My hand looks like87,932,J4,KQJT54.3)

As a response to an opening bid over a 1N interference call: Example: Partner opens 1S and rho overcalls 1N. I bid 2C. My hand looks like 87,932,J4,KQJT54. The follow-ups here are very important to examine also. Note that after your pard opens a weak two, one does not usually have a 2N bid 'to play'. 2N bids are usually feature-asking or Ogust asking for forging on to nt games, or suit games, in the preempted suit. Tell me I'm wrong.

By a passed hand 2N should be a relay to a seven card suit hand you didn't preempt in a previous position through a 3c relay. Same situation in all of the above example cases. Don't use 2N 'oh it might play better here'. It rarely does, the strong hand should defer to the weak hand for suit play. 2N should be used to acknowledge the preempt type hand and invite to three if appropriate. Given this advice (and to emphasize it one more time). If you're all red in the Spingold and Polish player rho opens 1H and you hold AQTxx,Axxx,Kxx,9 and dare to overcall 1S. Lho passes and pard bids 2C, Pass. I don't see any reason to further the auction here. Opposite 87,932,J4,KQJT54 the place to play is 2C. If one wants to bid 2N which invites 3N, one should have hearts stopped solidly and a fit with pard. There, -1400 vs 110 avoided and teammates much happier!

Competing over NT --The Ins and Outs

2008-12-10T12:18:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd open up a brief discussion about bidding over nt. I remember dearly the same discussion I had with John -- so many master points ago. It was one of my very first lessons from him and I've cherished it ever since. I asked John: no matter what system (think I was playing Capp at the time) what do you promise when you interfere over nt. How many points, and what shape. If I bid 2D Capp showing majors, am I 4/4, 5/4, 5/5 or what? When I bid 2M showing a major and a minor do I have four of the major and six of the minor or vice versa. What's the deal here. And how many points do I promise.

John told me to remember one salient point: you bid over nt with shape. Period. It's shape that matters. That's why most no-trump interference systems have an ability to show two-suiters. Make sense, now? So, I will pass with 15 counts that are 5332, 4432, 4333, etc, but........I will bid with 54,55,65, etc. hands sometimes with as little as five points. Of course you hope in this instance you're going to find some kind of fit with partner --but that doesn't have to be the case. Let's say you overcall 2H with five hearts and four of a minor. Your partner could be 1/2 in those suits.

When you overcall at nt you are delving into a non-fitting auction. Be careful. If you have a fit with lho or rho and not your partner, you risk going for a telephone number. Bid with shape, period, hopefully you'll land in a fit. Also be careful of this: partner is supposed to pref to the lower ranking suit given equal number of cards in your promised suits.

So, if you promise majors and pard has 2/2 in both majors, he/she will always bid hearts. when one shows majors over nt --you usually bid as to expect pard to pref hearts with equal length. Why is it hearts instead of spades? So that partner can bid 2S with good but not great hands and not raise the level too much. Normally, this is a 6-4 15-count or so: AKJxxx KQ10x Kx x is about normal. Then if he catches you with decent support, you might find a game.

If you make a Capp call promising major/minor two suiter, guarantee five in the major and four in the minor at least. Partner with 2 cards in your major will pref to the major. A singleton in your major and he/she might insist on playing your minor fit, albeit a level higher, or of course bid his/her own suit.

That's why Capp was designed the way it was. So here is an example: Your rho opens 1N and you're itching to get in there with KQTxx,Kxxx,Ax,xx. Suppose you decide to bid 2D majors. So here is Isolde with Ax,xx,xxxxx,xxxx and bids 2H. Remember with equal length I'm supposed to pref to the lower ranking suit. Now your trump suit is xx opposite Kxxx instead of Ax opposite KQTxx. Not cool and it gets worse. Over my advancing call lho bid 3C and pard bids 3H. Now just because I preffed hearts does not mean we have a heart fit as is the case here. SMASH by opponents. A much better hand to show 'majors' is Kxxx,KQTxx,Ax,xx -see the difference?

Sometimes you will feel like intefering over nt without the perfect hand to fit your system. So your choice is to make a disciplined pass, hoping to get in another bid later or that pard will balance; or to make a bid slightly contrary to your system but for which you might have some security. With the hand above one might fess up to spades only --at least you have three honors in the suit and the suit is playable opposite a stiff J. No guarantees, mind you, but there rarely is in bridge especially in non fitting auctions.

If you're fessing up to a single suited hand, have a six bagger or be prepared to apologize when it doesn't work out. The above example hand does not have six spades but it is in the 'shape' category. For you die-hards, in the balancing seat one might make an exception with 4/4 in the majors protecting against an lho who opened xx,xx,AKQJxx,AKx 1N (they do it, trust me) P.S. Now that you know what you know, what do you think of my rho's bidding when she showed 'majors' holding AKJxx,Jxxx,xx,xx in the National Mixed BAM?

Fourth Chair Openings

2008-12-08T10:38:00.000-08:00

Chuck Baker asked me to enter into a discussion about fourth seat openings. I think this was an excellent request and a really important discussion point for your developing partnerships. I certainly have a section in all of my advanced partnerships' bridge notes regarding this area!

The important thing is of course to find your plus position. Either go plus in your own contract or force the opps so high that they go minus in theirs. There are virtually no opening bids that aren't shaded somewhat differently given the fact that no one has of yet owned up to an opening or preemptive hand when the bidding goes P P P to you. 1N and 2N are the exceptions, I surmise. Barring special agreements, no difference in the shape and strength of those opening calls in fourth seat.

For one level openings, I use the rule of 15 pretty religiously having stubbornly bypassed it once and regretted it immensely. If you use it, you'll usually have a lot of field protection. The rule of fifteen has to do with the number of HCP and spades in your hand. Add these two qualities up, if you get to 15, open the hand. If you don't, pass the hand out. So AT98,KJ3,QJ43,54 is an opener. A4,KJ3,QJ43,8763 is not. Two/three level bids should be annoying as they are in the other seats, and they also need to jam the auction so that the opps can't find their missed opportunities cheaply.

You shouldn't get in there with pure preempts because in that case you know the opps have probably missed something important. 2M is 10-13 six card suit. 3M are 7.5 tricks with outside strength. 3m should probably be a tad more. 3N (the gambling type hand) should be an ACOL type hand with seven of the minor, sometimes broken and outside strength. Here's an example. KT,3,AKQ8653,KJ5 Aside from that, there is always judgment as to vulnerability and type of scoring.

Once I was faced with the decision to open or not to open in fourth chair at favorable imps with a minor suited quackish hand. I figured the opps probably had spades and on a bad day I'd be giving up +400 (3N making)--on a good day I'd be -0 instead of -140. On a really good day I'd be -0 instead of -620, the opps now finding their vulnerable imp spade game after my opening. I passed. Sure enough, Connie and Sherwin brought back the expected 620 for win a bunch.

Some of this judgment will come with time as you can picture the hands and get to know your opponents and teammates. Hope this is somewhat helpful. Ask if you have further questions!

Opponents can't see through the back of the cards. make them prove their defense

2008-11-28T09:46:00.000-08:00

The nationals -- a sure-fire place they will put your skills to the test. One of the many important concepts John taught me as a neophyte bridge player was: hey, Isolde, your opponents can't see through the back of the cards. I keep that little slogan with me when I play, and sometimes, when I guide you to better bridge I add the following:

1) Make the opponents prove their carding
2) Make the opponents prove their defense.

This issue came up no less than three times in one session of the finals of the BAM. Yes, field these hands with me with the finest of the finest. And before we get started let me just say I'm going to totally isolate the declarer issues --and let you all decide within your partnerships how to overcome these ruse plays. Suffice it to say, I pulled off two myself, but got caught in two as well.

Polish player lefty landed in 3S with this hand AKQ864,Q2,AQ2,T7 opposite T93,JT86,654,J32. Pretty soon after getting the lead, he put the pressure on by playing the HQ. You can see the problem. Without any other entry to dummy one does need to isolate the fourth heart. Since the AK of hearts were split in both hands, neither defender knew the true situation of the honor cards and declarer scored an undeserved heart trick. voila (how do you say that in Polish) Not good in BAM -land.

Norwegian player righty pulled off an even greater ruse. He, too, was in some number of spades (non game) with AKQ982,A,KT3,742 opposite J63,J876,J742,J5. Once again, very few entries to dummy and those looming Jxxx in the offsuits. He played the DK and partner, not knowing exactly where the Q was ducked. Then declarer Norwegian started running the spades. Convinced that Norwegian player had the DQ the later play produced low diamond to my now stiff Q and partner's A. Oops, two significant honors on one trick and an overtrick for declarer (not good in BAM-land)

Ok, so enough of this foolishness it is now Isolde's turn (snicker snicker snicker). Weichsel (American) was on my right and overcalled 1S over 1C. I very confidently bid 3N with these tickets KQ64,A65,752,AJ3 and bought the contract there. Low spade to this dummy: v,K72,QJT9,KQ8542. Ok, I pitched a heart and after some tank Weichsel flew A. Good, two tricks for Isolde in the spade suit. Spade back and I stiffed the HK in the dummy and they could just spend a lot of brain power wondering what that was all about. I played a heart to the K and "finessed" the DQ (or so they thought).

Lefty (also American -boring lol) thought a long time and finally ducked. He didn't know I was trying to sneak the overtrick and that his partner had the other honor. So there you are--I'm only entitled to ten tricks but made 11 (good in BAM land for the declaring side)--side note, don't pay attention to the yelling that ensues.

There are many analytical skills and communication skills necessary to play good defense. But, it always pays to put the opponents to the test. Sometimes these two areas are just not good enough, or there has been inadequate information in the play of the hand so far to get enough deductive reasoning going.

Enjoy it all, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Beyond TOX, the Power Double

2008-11-18T19:56:00.000-08:00

I alluded in a previous post that most of us "grew up" learning that power doubles over opening bids (beyond the 4441 TO types) start with 17 points. Some of us discarded that notion pretty fast once we started playing in expert partnerships.

Here's the discusion. Seventeen counts are easily handled with one level overcalls. If partner doesn't respond (bid 1N with 8 or so, or raise with 6 or so) then you don't belong in game. Staying at the one level is good enough. Should partner show a limit raise or better with a Q bid, we know what to do. Bid game. If partner shows a simple raise, we might have our game tries down within our partnership and evoke those sequences. Easy. The hands we absolutely need to start with a TOX are those hands with which advancer would not bid a notrump nor make a simple raise and the hand might still belong in game.

You know how 2C openings are basically nine tricks? Well these power X are basically eight tricks. My partner had such a hand in the pro am the other day. He needed to field this hand over a 1D opening at the two level. ATxx,Kx,A,KQJTxx. Now, if he bids two clubs, what am I going to do with Kxx,Txxxx,xxx,Ax? Ugh, probably pass. Cold for 3N. Partner needs to start those hands with a double.

Warning, whenever you start a TOX with such hand and you are meager in the opener's suit, you might expect it to go all pass. There you are, defending the opening bid at the one level. That's why it's a lot safer to power double with appreciable "stuff" in the opener's suit or no-trump type hands too strong to overcall 1N directly. Then partner is not likely to have a stack in opener's suit.

A couple of prologues I need to share with such actions. Keep this one handy. If it goes 1m (X) all pass then your obligation is to lead a trump. As one of my mentors once told me, if you don't have a trump, leave the room and look for one. When you find one, return and lead it. Yes, it is that important. Partner will have QJxxx(x) in the trump suit and the last thing you want to do is finesse yourself into declarer setting up a high card in his/her hand......or allow a ruff in dummy. Lead trump, period.

Another prologue is everytime you double and subsequently bid your suit, you have such an eight trick hand (unless you talk about specific exceptions with your partners). So, even if the opponents put the auction to the test with raises, if you've taken a free bid as advancer you are forced to keep the auction open. For example, the auction (1C) X (2C) 2D, (P) 2S cannot be passed. If you've taken a free bid over responder's bid, you've promised six points at least and with a partner who promised eight tricks by doubling and bidding his/her suit, you are absolutely commited to game. See how this all works together?

As per usual, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Isolde

Law of Restricted Choice (LRC) - An application of statistics!

2008-11-16T08:24:00.000-08:00

Your best friend (nerdy statistician type) asks you what you believe the odds are that any one Oregonian picked at random will give birth within the next year. Your surmise it's close to zero. Your friend now gives you new information: The person is female and pregnant.You drastically revise your estimate based on the new information.

Monty Hall tells you the prize is behind one of three doors. As requested, you pick one door at random. He now shows you one of the remaining two doors which does not contain the big prize and asks if you would like to change your mind and choose the one door which is left. You now have new information. Of the remaining two doors, Monty would not show you the door which held the big prize. Your odds at getting the right door (and the big prize)improve from 33%to 66% if you switch.

Your favorite pro is playing bridge at the Portland regional. As kibitzer you watch him/her play a contract which contains the following card combination AT3 opposite
K98534. After playing the A, your pro sees a Q or J fall from RHO. Your pro has new information. Both opponents could not play low.

The three scenes above are classic examples of the branch of mathematics called "Bayesian statistics". Simply defined, it is a mathematical science for revising the probability of events based on new information.

Let's concentrate solely on the bridge application. What thoughts are going through your pro's mind when he/she looks at this card combination, plays the ace, and an honor flops from an opponent. No doubt the pro is wondering whether he/she should finesse LHO for the missing honor or drop Q/J doubleton.

This is a direct application of the law of restricted choice, a bridge play based on a concept of Bayes theorem .

However, before the pro decides on which play to make he/she mentally goes through the qualifying checklist.

1) Does RHO randomly play the Q or the J from Q/J holdings. If so, the law applies and he/she should finesse. If not, the law does not help him/her locate the missing honor.
2) Are the missing cards of equal value? In this case "Yes". The law of restricted choice has no merit when the missing spots are Q873.

Having one spot card fall versus another, does not indicate the nature of the splits nor helps locate the Q in the suit. If both of the above conditions apply, the pro will finesse LHO for the missing honor. If both conditions do not apply, the pro will not be able to apply the law of restricted choice to help him/her determine the splits, nor locate the missing honor.

The question begs, is the above card combination the only card combination on which you can apply this Bayesian-based theory called Law of Restricted choice (i.e. nine card fits missing the Q/J) to help you locate missing cards? The answer is, "No". This theory applies in many other situations aswell. It applies with eight and seven card fits provided the cards you are trying to locate are of equal value and opponents are known to pitch randomly from those equal holdings.

Example 1: You have an eight card fit missing QJ. You see one of these equal-value cards fall on trick one. Since there is the possibility your opponent is offering a false card from QJx, you have to eliminate that possibility first -- i.e. based on the bidding or other factors which indicate the distribution of the hand is this particular opponent likely to hold a doubleton in the suit.

If he/she is, apply the other criteria as well and you are likely to make a better decision when playing the suit.

Example 2: You have a seven card fit holding KQx opposite A8xx. When playing the K/Q you watch the JT fall from RHO. Odds on that the finesse of the 9 spot through lho is the proper play. Once again those lovely spots are of equal value and you've got to give opponent RHO credit for randomly playing cards from JT9 to hide the true nature of the situation.

Hope this is of some use to you as you face these complicated card combinations as declarer player! Plenty of websites which addressthe issue should you like to explore the concepts above more thoroughly.

Light third seat openings --Handle them with confidence!

2008-11-04T17:03:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

It was very early in my bridge experience that I learned that third seat openings were suspect. As a college student, we left Boulder U. of Colorado to attend the Denver bridge club to see if we could beat "the women in polyester pants suits". ;-) --yes we were all young once --now we may be one of those women. The acronym: WPP's!

After a third seat opening I negotiated a part score contract that the WPP let us have. When I tried to place some values in her hand I found out in the end game that she had but five points. When I queried that action, she but flashed a coy smile.

Third seat openings are suspect, especially nv at mp. Get in there with your lead direct or get in there just to muddy up the water. Last weekend I opened this gem 9875,543,AJT93,T 1D and opps not being able to negotiate their strength could not manage to find their cold game for 35/36 mp.

Some time ago my frisky-ness got the better of me and nv at mp in third seat I opened this gem A2,T865,A982,QT7 1H. Hey the bridge Gods gave me two bullets!! The upshot of that was that we were on for four --. Ten count openings in third seat protect against a lot of hands which have legitimate contracts opposite a passed partner.

Have my frisky openings backfired! Indeed they have! But not enough for me to discontinue them all together.

The point of this missive is not to expound on third seat openings, just to make you aware that they are done routinely and that every partnership needs to be prepared to show strength after such nonsense! So here, this is what needs to be assimilated and practiced in every partnership.

Strong suit hands:

The tradition is to start the double with 17 counts --throw that notion away, that is way too light. Overcall your suit and make a game try later after a raise. If you're afraid your partner may pass a non fitting six count if you overcall, start your hand out with a double and show your suits later. These hands look almost like 2C openings but are approximately a K lighter.

Strong balanced hand: 15-18 --overcall 1N
19-21 -- X and then bid one no-trump if you have opps suit stopped.

X and Q bid if you don't have four card support for the major your pard offers and don't have their suit stopped.
If you have support for pard's major jump in the major and bid one less level than you would if you had opening the hand (remember, pard may have a zero count, don't go too crazy)

22+ X and bid 2N.

If the opponents get totally frisky and raise their suits, remember repeat doubles show the same take-out shape but add a K of value every time you pull the red card.

If you're solid on all these competitive calls, the third seat light openings will hardly bother you at all in the bidding. You'll also know how to double them off when it seems to be to your advantage.

However, sometimes light third seat openings create havoc in your decisions as to the play of the hand and will get opponents off to an optimum lead. Once, an opponent vul vs vul at imps bid this hand 1S in third seat. A7432,xx,xxx,xx. Yep, with a straight face. Once we negotiated 3N with the methods above, the leader started unblocking at trick one with his third best spade. Down one. Our teammates weren't so frisky and a normal fourth best spade produced a spade block. Lose 13.

That's how it is in big-boy land (and even with those women in polyester pants suits)--get prepared or lose the board.

As per usual, I'd be willing to answer any questions. Isolde

Juxtaposed: Negative vs Responsive Doubles

2008-10-22T03:52:00.000-07:00

Definitions:

Negative Double: Showing other suits (mostly major) after partner has opened and rho has overcalled

Responsive Double: Showing other suits after partner has overcalled and the opponents have bid and raised their suit

**********
**********

The bridge Gods have given you the following tickets. Axxx,xx,KJxx,xxx . Picture it!

What do you do when the bidding has gone 1C by pard, 1H on your right? (negative double position)

What do you do when the bidding has gone 1C by lho, 1H by pard and 2C on your right? (responsive double position)

The basic question I wanted to ponder in this piece is -- are the qualifications for negative doubles vs responsive doubles the same? Both these double sequences show "remaining suits" i.e. they are TO in nature, not penalty. Since virtually everyone would make a negative double with the above hand, is it appropriate to make a responsive double with this hand?

I'll tell you what happens if you do! Pard bids his/her three card diamond suit and there you are -- cold zero. You should be in 2H, your 5/2 fit.

Why do we have different specifications in neg double situations as opposed to responsive double situatations, i.e. a lot more distribution with responsive doubles or compensating high card values for the (missing) fifth card(s)? The perfect responsive double would look more like this: Axxxx,xx,KJxxx,x.

Here are two good reasons we have different specifications for the two positions!

1) You are not as eager to find subsequent fits with responsive X's as you are with plain old negative doubles since pard by virtue of overcalling has announced a relatively good suit. Imagine what a 1D opening call could look like. xxx? Would anyone ever overcall on such a suit? If my pard has overcalled a heart he/she ranks to have five with some good ones!

2) In the responsive double postion, you are in a overcall competitive situation which are non forcing constructive. In the negative double position you can go ahead an establish a one round force with a direct bid of your four/five card suit.

Example: 1C (1H) 1S forcing
1C (1H) 2C (2D) non-forcing

In other words, if you've got two suits, perhaps you ought to make a direct bid in the negative double situation forcing the auction until you get a second chance, whereas in the responsive double position you need to get both suits in with one bid for fear of getting passed since bidding a new suit is non-forcing.

Hope this helps you structure up your bidding somewhat and pard is not wondering why you are offering up such meager hcp and suits when you make a responsive double with the above hand, although he/she would eagerly anticipate a negative double with the same hand! Also remember whereas negative doubles concentrates on "the other major", responsive doubles always promises the unbid suits!

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

A asks for Attitude; K asks for Count --discussion against suit cotracts

2008-09-24T13:06:00.002-07:00

Most of you will run across this convention sooner or later. One of you asked me to put it on our card. I pretty violently refused that request. Here's why.

First off, this convention is seriously misnamed. It should not be called "A asks for attitude, K asks for count". Rather, this convention should be named (relatively nice) "A requires attitude and K requires count". Or, (not so nice) "A demands attitude and K demands count". Or, my true feeling "the Control Freak Convention".

Now that I've elicited your emotion, let's get to bringing forth some of your bridge logic. Presumably, this convention allows opening leader holding the A/K of a suit to pick a high honor and require partner to signal according to his/her presumed needs. Trouble is 1) opening leader will rarely know from the bidding what his/her needs are and 2) opening leader isn't always dealt the A/K of a suit, rather KQ(x) or Ax(x) only. And another special case is AK tight.

Here are some clarifications.

1) My partner bid diamonds. I held KQx in the suit. I led the K (having no A choice) and dummy decked xxx. Partner dutifully gave me a count card. Big deal, that's not what I needed to know. I needed to know where the A and the J were. I have the same problem if I had led from Kx. Note this is problematic even if pard hasn't bid the suit.

2) Suppose on some auctions you decide to lead the A from A(x)(x). Remember, partner is required by your convention to give an attitude card but here's the problem with that. Partner will not know if you hold the K so is he/she supposed to give you an atittude card for the K or Q? With standard methods you don't know that either but guesses are much more accurate.

3) With standard methods you can often show partner a doubleton holding. For example if you have agreed to lead A form A/K --holding AK only you would simple reverse that position, leading K form AK. Vice versa leading K from AK. With the above-named method one would not know whether partner were showing a doubleton or merely requiring you to give an attitude vs count card.

Suppose you held the golden suit combination for this method. AKx(x).Here's the problem. Often you would not know what you need from partner until you see the dummy. If dummy shows up with the Q, well you obviously don't need an attitude card. You know the attitude. If dummy shows up with xx, then you need an attitude card for the Q, wishing to know whether partner or declarer held the Q.

So with my expert partners I play thus. If one of us leads a high honor and dummy shows Qx(x)(x), partner gives a count card. If dummy does not show a Q, partner requires to give opening leader an attitude card for the Q.

How does this last treatment differ from the above-named convention? Simple, opening leader is not assuming he/she knows what is needed before seeing dummy. In otherwords he/she waits for one more piece of information to start the D going in the right direction.

Here's a perfect "mess up" using this convention. Opening leader holding Q85,AK954,Q4,J62 heard the auction go (1D) 1H (3D!) 4H, (5D) P (P) X at all nv imps. He decided that before the dummy came down he needed a count card from pard. HK. (side note, I don't know why, perhaps he thought there were a side suit somewhere). At any rate, the dummy decked J76,87,T9872,QT5 and partner dutifully gave him a "count" card from 942,JT3,6,AK8743. Not knowing what to do, opening leader continued hearts. I knew what to do, pitch a spade from dummy and claim down one -100 only. My hand: AKT3,Q62,AKJ53,9. This is clearly a mistake, the second heart should never have been cashed. With me? Partner would have led A or K per agreement. I would have offered the J denying the Q and partner finds a switch. Now the HQ
never sets up for a pitch.

Now, believe it or not, I've played this treatment with partners who have insisted on doing so.(Yes, even I can be that acquiescent). I'm convinced that it "works" when you hold AKQ in a suit and you "know" the attitude for the Q. So in this case, you clearly request a count card from pard. Is this slight feature, not available in standard methods, worth giving up the non-confusing and solid D that other more "traditional" methods provide.

I think not.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Isolde 8500

Dedicated Players--We're Cool, Too!

2008-09-23T16:31:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

I've been meaning to write about this for a long time and the words are finally coming to some kind of coherent order. I've been working with all of you somewhat and I hope that relationship is pretty well established so that some of the information below will come more of an 'aha!' then an ultra shock causing a major myocardial infarct.

I think it would be silly to deny that once one establishes a dedication to this fascinating game of bridge and becomes somewhat successful at it --something significant happens. Although most of us started geek-like we become even more so. Lots of the male players are accomplished attorneys. Lots of the females players are mathematicians dismayed by society to follow that course and 'vent' in this arena. Ask, you'll see that there is some merit to this.

Above that, however, we're human. We laugh and cry and send our sons/daughters in harm's way and are upset by that. We have goals beyond bridge and sometimes we are happy when we achieve them and upset when we don't. However, the latter is hardly noticeable as we practice our passion.

When we come to the table, we come to play. We've studied systems, card combinations, rules, advanced theories. Talk about the plant sale next door, the acquisition of a favorite pet or who is dating whom these days is not what's on our minds. In fact, it's distracting from performing the many analytical skills necessary to bid/play a hand. Please understand when we move the commotion/conversation back to the next hand.

Along with that we play very slowly. It's often important to us whether pard follows with the '2' or the '3' in an off suit. We make high-card and distribution decisions made on such plays. Forgive us if we ask to see the last trick for a long time as it languishes on the table. In general we post mortem 'on scene' very little. Most of the stuff we can talk about between boards, we did years ago. The rest takes much more analytical skill and emotion than what is available during the event. Excuse us if we don't commit to the discussion as to whether five spades was a good save or not. Mostly we know, and we also know if it is field protected.

We routinely call directors and have directors being called on us. It's normal, part of the game and we let the directors do their jobs and quickly get on to the next hand. No particular emotion about feeling guilty or animosity occurs. When we call the director, the person who calls speaks. The directors will then generally ask the others if the situation was explained accurately. Now is the time for others to talk.

In general we allow the opponents the dignity to come to terms with a bad board within their own partnership away from the opposition. So even if we successfully accomplish something, don't expect us to say much. If we screw up, silence is likewise appreciated, i.e. avoid saying 'the diamond was good in dummy' :)

We do love to talk about bridge and happily entertain questions about systems and hands we've played. However, we do that after the event is over for the most part -and we're particularly violent about it with email.--come join us.

It sometimes appears we overzealously ask questions about systems and carding. This is because most of us have thoroughly discussed these issues and just want to know if you have done likewise. We understand the term 'no previous discussion, assume standard' Please don't take it as an affront to your systems, we're just trying to analyze beyond imagine the high card and distribution placements of the cards. Let us be the geeks we are. Expect us to discuss defenses to your new conventions on the fly so we're ready for them.

Most of us have habits acquired over years of learning and growing that may seem foreign to you. For example, when someone asks us to be teammates and we have a commitment to other teammates we merely say 'we're not available'. We know choices about teammates can be as sensitive as choices about events and partnerships. We handle all that with kid gloves because we know there are egos on the line (mainly ours)

Most of us don't get overly excited about a particular event score or win/loss. Sometimes this is in our control (e.g. we got enough rest or nutrition to perform well) or not in our control --(e.g. the cards didn't match our system well --weak nt is a good example). We get much more excited about that one save that worked out well, or the intra finesse play we found or the one hand that matched our system perfectly. So expect conversations to steer in that direction. Major regional and national events are notable exceptions of course.

Often, as seeded players, we get to field comments like: "Man, I've been avoiding playing against you all day.""Oh, now we're really going to get beat up.""Oh, do we have to play against you good players, too." Although to a certain extent we value our commitment to the game and relish in executing it successfully, there isn't one of us who wouldn't temporarily step into your lives and embrace your achievements. We're jealous of the math degree from Stanford, the Public Health awards you've received, the businesses you've established and the careers you've had educating our young folk! Professor emeritus from Annapolis, you've got to be kidding me --Head of the math department at SOU --you've got to be kidding me! Professor of Dentistry at OHSU, you've got to be kidding me. Please be appreciative of that two-board moment we get to enter each other's lives and if by chance we find that slam against you that no one else has, or we take a daring sequence that works, or we force you to play good defense, talk to us about it afterwards. Many times I've played hands against you where later I wished I had had the opportunity to chat. What better resource might you have for your bridge growth.

Above all, we take it as a compliment when someone who is excited about bridge and has potential asks us to play with them. Keep asking, knowing, however that our main commitment is to our own events and partnerships. But please be forgiving if you might on occasion experience a bridge culture shock playing with us. A couple more hands and you'll be right where we are! Trust me on that one. It's infectious. And quite frankly our behavior and demeanor is so religiously practiced that it truly becomes second nature -to us anyway.

Of course there is another salient reason I entered into this discussion. Misunderstandings of others' behavior can lead to isolation --(or much worse) and we all know there are plenty of other reasons more serious than bridge that cause between-person frustrations! See you (smiling with appreciable understanding) at the tables.

Isolde 6322