I played with a real bridge savvy guy yesterday. It cost me $6.50 to sit down, but as tuition goes it was surely cheap. I am sure if he started counting his master points after Board 24, he would still be running the total. My partner is named in the title to this blog, can you identify him? Hint: Oswald Jacoby and Max Hardy have both played their last card, and Marty Bergen is retired.
One hand that we defended reminded me of importance of partnership understandings in defining the hand characteristics of Bergen Limit Raises, Jacoby 2NT and Splinter responses to major suit openers. I think your bidding skills and partnership communication will vastly improve if you start with the proposition that each of these responses should be narrowly defined and distinguishable.
Start with the easy one, the Bergen Limit Raise. For most pairs today that response is 3 clubs. It shows 10 to a bad 12 points, 4 card support and no singleton or void. Since responder’s hand may have little or no ruffing value (4333 is really ugly) it is highly invitational , but not forcing. If you are opener, even with a bad hand do not pass 3 clubs. I already did that in the finals of a Regional knockout – nobody on our team was entertained. The bar tab was a killer!
Move forward to the Splinter bid. If differs from the Bergen Limit Raise in that the splinter must have a single or void. It should also show 10 to a bad 12 points, but because of the shortness it is a game forcing bid. If you have a void rather than a single upgrade your hand a little. The splinter is shown by making a triple jump in the short suit. If your short suit is a single honor, do not show the hand as a splinter, downgrade it to a Bergen Limit Raise. In order to make a good hand valuation opposite a splinter, opener must be able to assume that all of your points are “working points.” For more detail on splinter valuation, see my earlier blog on splinter bids in the archive.
Most often the splinter bid will be at the 4 level so we have eaten up a lot of bidding space. This is what makes it so important that the bid be narrowly defined. Opener is not handcuffed, but he must count on you being within the defined range in making the slam/no slam decision. If opener bids anything other than 4 of the major, he is showing slam interest. There is no science involved if responder has 10 points one time and 17+ points another.
The Jacoby 2NT response also shows 4 card support, and it will have game forcing strength. It may resemble an overgrown Bergen Raise or an overgrown Splinter. It will be a minimum of a good 12 hcps, but the bid is unlimited in strength. In both the Bergen Limit Raise and the Splinter bid, opener is in charge of the hand and makes the crucial decisions. With the Jacoby 2NT bid, responder takes over the hand and is the "Captain of the Ship". Opener describes his hand strength and distribution and responder puts all 26 cards together and makes the final contract decision. Since responder is the decision maker, it really doesn’t matter that he has a singleton or void, or 12 or 22 points, he simply takes that into account in his hand analysis.
One of the problems of the Splinter bid is that you are giving information about responder’s hand distribution and the defender’s can read your smoke signals. The defender’s are being told where they should not expect tricks. A lead of the splinter suit will most often give declarer a “tempo” which may be all the hand needs to make the contract. Both Bergen and Hardy discussed the use of “concealed splinters” in connection with the Bergen Raise complex. With a splinter hand, responder jumps to the 3 level in the opposite major. Thus, 1h/3s or 1s/3h shows a concealed splinter raise. If opener has a big hand and wants to investigate slam, he asks for the shortness by bidding one step up (3s over 3h and 3NT over 3s). Responder then shows the short suit.
If the bidding is: 1s/3h(splinter)/3s(where?)- then 3NT(short clubs) or 4c(short diamonds) or 4h(short hearts).
If the bidding is:: 1h/3s(splinter)/3NT(where)- then 4c(short clubs) or 4d(short diamonds) or 4h( short spades).
That obviously has achieved no advantage over the traditional method, but if opener has no slam aspirations, he can simply bid game in the major directly, and then the location of the splinter has not been disclosed to the defenders. This also opens up all the direct four level calls in the unbid sits for whatever use you wish to make of them. One idea might be to have them show a void as opposed to a singleton. Another choice may be to show a good secondary 5+ card suit along with 4 card support.
After our opponent’s Jacoby 2NT sequence yesterday, the dummy came down with AT76, Q6, AJ8652, x. Do you like that 2 NT bid? Partner held QJ9543, K7, K7, A92 and did a fast arrival of 4 spades. The King of spades was offside, but it shows the dangers of getting the wrong hand in control. Just when you think you have clarified everything, a hand like this comes along. I’ll take criticism on this, but I am splintering that hand. Preferably a concealed splinter! Maybe 6 spades down 1. I would have had company!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Response to Bidding Quiz
In my last blog I showed two hands that were forwarded to me for a bidding opinion. To stimulate some interest, I asked my readers to comment on their own technique for opening these hands. The two obvious opening calls on each hand were either one spade or a forcing 2 clubs. While the responses included all 4 possible answers, the preponderance of elevated thought opened both hands 1 spade.
Hand One: KQ432, Q, AQ32, AKT. Open it 1 spade. For those who auger for 2 clubs, I ask “Where’s the beef?” I don’t see a forcing bid on tricks or on hcps (a bad 20). There are 4 LTC hands that I would open 2 clubs, and I think the modern trend is in that direction, but this is not one of them. If partner can’t muster up some kind of supporting bid (2,3 or 4 spades) or 1NT forcing, where are we going on this hand. If responder has as much as 6 hcps and sits on his hands, I’m heading for the partnership desk. I am assuming that we play jump shifts as forcing so there are no rebid problems.
I also think there is a risk in placing too much emphasis on Losing Trick Count before anyone has put their hand on a bidding box. While Ron Klinger did not invent LTC (it has been around since at least the 1930”s), his book, The Modern Losing Trick Count (1987) is today considered the unchallenged authority on the subject. At page 13 he states:
“The LTC can be used after a trump fit has been established. It is not designed for no trump hands and is quite unsuitable for misfit hands. Thus, it is vital that you do not envisage the LTC as replacing point count. It is used as an adjunct to point count when a trump fit comes to light. After the trump fit is known, the LTC will give a more accurate guide to the potential of the partnership hands.”
There is also this about LTC that is often forgotten and that is that there is a disconnect between the concept of losing trick count and winning tricks. A hand that has 4 LTC often does not have 9 Winning Tricks. Try this test out on either hand.
Jeff Rubens in his classic book on hand valuation, The Secrets of Winning Bridge (1969) states one of the principles of hand valuation: “PRINCIPLES OF HONORS WITH LENGTH: Other things being equal, honors are more valuable in your long sits than in short suits. The longer the suit in which the honor is located the more valuable the honor.” In an example he shows a hand Axxxx, xxxxx, AK, K and notes that the single club King is unguarded and as such loses much of its value.
Other features that show hand weakness are only 4 ½ quick tricks and only 6 controls. This may be more significant when compared with hand two which is stronger and has 5 Quick Tricks and 7 controls. I am keeping a list of those who voted to open this monstrosity with 2 clubs so I can protect myself!
Hand Two: AQxxx, AKT2, AQJ, 2. A much tougher case. I know good players (and some other self styled experts) who would open this two clubs. 4 LTC, 5 Quick Tricks, 7 controls and good defensive values, but still it fails to meet time honored standards. I am going to show my traditional values and reputation for foot slogging stodginess and open this one spade. I can hear the rhetoric now that I am risking getting passed out. That may be true, but not passed out in a probable game. I prefer not to dilute opener’s standards and rather rely on responder not to be shy if he has anything that looks like a plausible response. My odds of getting a response out of partner go up considerably when I only hold 20 hcps as opposed to 24-26, so the traditional danger of opening at the one level is mitigated.
I also think the communication will be better if the hand is opened 1 spade. The bidding structure and responses of a forcing 2 club opener are not what you call eloquent. Two diamonds “Waiting” or 2 hearts negative always leave you wondering. Even if responder bids his “controls”, opener may be left guessing about the club suit. With a singleton club, if exploration is warranted, wouldn’t you rather get into a cue bidding sequence? I think doing that successfully is more likely if you open 1 spade.
I am not saying that every 2 club opener has to be a crushing brute, only that it should represent some considerable guaranteed trick taking assets. I think there are some instructive examples of these types of hands in Max Hardy’s Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century (2000) at page 175-176.
One final caveat. If you are looking for expert bridge opinion you at the wrong web site.
Hand One: KQ432, Q, AQ32, AKT. Open it 1 spade. For those who auger for 2 clubs, I ask “Where’s the beef?” I don’t see a forcing bid on tricks or on hcps (a bad 20). There are 4 LTC hands that I would open 2 clubs, and I think the modern trend is in that direction, but this is not one of them. If partner can’t muster up some kind of supporting bid (2,3 or 4 spades) or 1NT forcing, where are we going on this hand. If responder has as much as 6 hcps and sits on his hands, I’m heading for the partnership desk. I am assuming that we play jump shifts as forcing so there are no rebid problems.
I also think there is a risk in placing too much emphasis on Losing Trick Count before anyone has put their hand on a bidding box. While Ron Klinger did not invent LTC (it has been around since at least the 1930”s), his book, The Modern Losing Trick Count (1987) is today considered the unchallenged authority on the subject. At page 13 he states:
“The LTC can be used after a trump fit has been established. It is not designed for no trump hands and is quite unsuitable for misfit hands. Thus, it is vital that you do not envisage the LTC as replacing point count. It is used as an adjunct to point count when a trump fit comes to light. After the trump fit is known, the LTC will give a more accurate guide to the potential of the partnership hands.”
There is also this about LTC that is often forgotten and that is that there is a disconnect between the concept of losing trick count and winning tricks. A hand that has 4 LTC often does not have 9 Winning Tricks. Try this test out on either hand.
Jeff Rubens in his classic book on hand valuation, The Secrets of Winning Bridge (1969) states one of the principles of hand valuation: “PRINCIPLES OF HONORS WITH LENGTH: Other things being equal, honors are more valuable in your long sits than in short suits. The longer the suit in which the honor is located the more valuable the honor.” In an example he shows a hand Axxxx, xxxxx, AK, K and notes that the single club King is unguarded and as such loses much of its value.
Other features that show hand weakness are only 4 ½ quick tricks and only 6 controls. This may be more significant when compared with hand two which is stronger and has 5 Quick Tricks and 7 controls. I am keeping a list of those who voted to open this monstrosity with 2 clubs so I can protect myself!
Hand Two: AQxxx, AKT2, AQJ, 2. A much tougher case. I know good players (and some other self styled experts) who would open this two clubs. 4 LTC, 5 Quick Tricks, 7 controls and good defensive values, but still it fails to meet time honored standards. I am going to show my traditional values and reputation for foot slogging stodginess and open this one spade. I can hear the rhetoric now that I am risking getting passed out. That may be true, but not passed out in a probable game. I prefer not to dilute opener’s standards and rather rely on responder not to be shy if he has anything that looks like a plausible response. My odds of getting a response out of partner go up considerably when I only hold 20 hcps as opposed to 24-26, so the traditional danger of opening at the one level is mitigated.
I also think the communication will be better if the hand is opened 1 spade. The bidding structure and responses of a forcing 2 club opener are not what you call eloquent. Two diamonds “Waiting” or 2 hearts negative always leave you wondering. Even if responder bids his “controls”, opener may be left guessing about the club suit. With a singleton club, if exploration is warranted, wouldn’t you rather get into a cue bidding sequence? I think doing that successfully is more likely if you open 1 spade.
I am not saying that every 2 club opener has to be a crushing brute, only that it should represent some considerable guaranteed trick taking assets. I think there are some instructive examples of these types of hands in Max Hardy’s Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century (2000) at page 175-176.
One final caveat. If you are looking for expert bridge opinion you at the wrong web site.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Short Bidding Quiz to Start Summer
It seems that I always need recertification as an expert authority on bidding. Since I have repeatedly denied any bridge expertise on this blog, I will turn to my real experts, my readers, to help me out. A reader sent these hands to me and asked how I would open the bidding. It is your turn to bid, you are in first seat, the game is match points, your card is Standard American or 2/1 and vulnerability is not an issue.
Here are the 2 hands:
Hand 1
KQ432
Q
AQ32
AKT
Hand 2
AQxxx
AKT2
AQJ
2
The first thing I always do with bidding questions is to make sure that there are 13 cards. Half the hands I get have 12 or 14, just waiting for me to pontificate on the bidding and not notice the card issue. I have gone for that for the last time. I also received assurance that this is not a trick question, that the selection should boil down to one of two possible bids. I saw a hand like this opened last week with 2 No Trump, and the result was a disaster, so I don’t think that is one of the choices. Now that is the end of the coaching, its your bid and you do not want to start “out of tempo.”
A long story or explanation is not necessary, but your pithy comments will be appreciated. If you are a bridge player you probably do not see an issue, a more opinionated bunch I have never run into. So if you just want to give it a hip shot and a “What’s the Problem”, that will be O.K. as well.
I am in Rochester, New York on my summer leave from the Florida heat, so don’t use your address book to e-mail your response. Send your answers and opinions to me at tommy@rochester.rr.com .
Have a nice summer.
Here are the 2 hands:
Hand 1
KQ432
Q
AQ32
AKT
Hand 2
AQxxx
AKT2
AQJ
2
The first thing I always do with bidding questions is to make sure that there are 13 cards. Half the hands I get have 12 or 14, just waiting for me to pontificate on the bidding and not notice the card issue. I have gone for that for the last time. I also received assurance that this is not a trick question, that the selection should boil down to one of two possible bids. I saw a hand like this opened last week with 2 No Trump, and the result was a disaster, so I don’t think that is one of the choices. Now that is the end of the coaching, its your bid and you do not want to start “out of tempo.”
A long story or explanation is not necessary, but your pithy comments will be appreciated. If you are a bridge player you probably do not see an issue, a more opinionated bunch I have never run into. So if you just want to give it a hip shot and a “What’s the Problem”, that will be O.K. as well.
I am in Rochester, New York on my summer leave from the Florida heat, so don’t use your address book to e-mail your response. Send your answers and opinions to me at tommy@rochester.rr.com .
Have a nice summer.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Rosencranz and Expanded Advances
My recent blog was intended to introduce Rosencrantz Doubles and Redoubles as responses to overcalls when Advancer (overcaller’s partner) has 3 card support. In what I thought was a “free toss”, I quickly dispatched advancer’s other supporting options as either a cue bid to show limit raise hands or a law of total tricks preemptive bid to show weaker hands with 4+ card support. “Incomplete and over generalized” says my Rochester, New York, partner Carol Van Der Voorn. “You wouldn’t make the same bid with 4 card support and 0-6 hcps as you would with 7-9 hcps, would you?”
Now even with a blog to flog with, you don’t want to mess with Carol. Three reasons: her beliefs about good bridge bidding are more than a little entrenched, she’s always ready with proof and citations and she is mostly right. I confess, I was trying to end the unrelated Rosencrantz discussions without putting too fine a point on “other supporting bids.” No such luck, back to the drawing board.
Let’s set up an auction: 1c/1h/x/? Here are the first two hands for Advancer: (i) xx, Qxxx, Qxxxx, xx and (ii) Ax, QJxx, xx, Jxxxx.
All my novice readers are on testosterone overload, so I think they would have no trouble bidding 3 hearts on hand (i). It is the new bridge that “the less you know the more important it is that you bid.” I was a guest in a novice game recently and I think I declared 1 hand! Hand (ii) is a little more troublesome. The usual choices are bidding 2 hearts, cue bidding 2 clubs (to show a limit raise and support) or preempting to 3 hearts..
Now if those are your only choices, I think in the long run with hand (ii) you will wish you had preempted by bidding 3 hearts. The hand is too weak for a cue bid and you run the risk that overcaller will misread your hand and run away with the auction. If you make the simple supporting bid of 2 hearts, as sure as God made green tomatoes you are going to hear opener bid 2 spades. Another sign of modern bridge, the pass and double cards are missing from the box, so everybody takes the push. Now without the “boss suit”, it will be hard to ever regain control of the auction.
The Mixed Raise
There is another choice for hand (ii) that I neglected to mention. The bid is some something called a ”mixed raise” which is shown by a jump cue bid in opener’s bid suit. It is a bid that is both preemptive and constructive, requires 4+ trump, generally has one defensive trick and will fall in the 7-9 hcp range. Mixed Raises usually have 8 or 9 Losing Trick Count.
Let’s look at a few more examples: (iii) Axx, Kxxxx ,xx, JTx (iv) Kxx, KJTx, Jxxx, xx (v) KJ43, KJ65, xx, xxx. All of these would be suitable for a mixed raise to 3 clubs in the example sequence.
Most of you play "Bergen" raises when you are responding to a major suit opening. The mixed raise has nothing to do with Bergen Raises, but note that all of the mixed raise hands look very much like the same hands that make a 3 diamond response playing Bergen Raises.
If overcaller has a standard overcall with 7 Losing Trick Count, he will simply bid 3 hearts and that ends the auction. If overcaller bids any other suit below 3 hearts it would be a game try. If Advancer has an 8 LTC hand he should accept and bid 4 hearts and with 9 LTC return to 3 hearts. Overcaller may bid 4 hearts directly with a strong overcall or excellent distribution. Remember that overcaller and advancer need to have a combined LTC of 14 or less to have a reasonable play for game.
The Fit Showing Jump
If you want a bid for every occasion, there are other supporting bids that Advancer can make. Now we are moving from intermediate play to the advanced category. Fit showing jumps show 4+ card length in overcaller’s suit, a good 5 card suit of your own with 2-3 working honors and 10-11 hcps.
The hand might look like this xx, KTxx AQxxx, Jx. Assume the same bidding sequence 1c/1h/x/?. To show the “fit showing jump” you jump in your 5 card suit, so in our sequence the bid would be 3 diamonds. You might say, well I could have made a simple cue bid on that hand. True enough, but with the fit showing jump you are passing additional vital information to overcaller. If overcaller holds the King of diamonds, his hand just got a whole lot better. Light contracts are made on double fits.
The Splinter
Surely you didn’t think I was done. The bidding is again 1c/1h/x/?. As advancer you hold xxx, QJTxx, AKxx, x. A cue bid could be made to do the job, but again it doesn’t really show the power of this hand, much of which lies in the single club. While it technically has only 10 hcps, the honors in sequence supporting each other and the singleton, make it a very strong playing hand in support of hearts. With this hand I think it is correct to show the splinter by bidding 4 clubs. Against any kind of disciplined overcall, this hand should have a good play for game.
So now if you combine the two ways to show 3 card support with Rosenkranz, the standard preemptive raise, the cue bid to show the limit raise, the Mixed Raise shown by the jump cue bid, the Fit Showing Jumps shown by jumping in your own 5 card suit and the Splinter Bid showing support and shortness, I believe you have a full menu to show your support for partner’s overcall. Now all you need is a graduate student at MIT for a partner!
Now even with a blog to flog with, you don’t want to mess with Carol. Three reasons: her beliefs about good bridge bidding are more than a little entrenched, she’s always ready with proof and citations and she is mostly right. I confess, I was trying to end the unrelated Rosencrantz discussions without putting too fine a point on “other supporting bids.” No such luck, back to the drawing board.
Let’s set up an auction: 1c/1h/x/? Here are the first two hands for Advancer: (i) xx, Qxxx, Qxxxx, xx and (ii) Ax, QJxx, xx, Jxxxx.
All my novice readers are on testosterone overload, so I think they would have no trouble bidding 3 hearts on hand (i). It is the new bridge that “the less you know the more important it is that you bid.” I was a guest in a novice game recently and I think I declared 1 hand! Hand (ii) is a little more troublesome. The usual choices are bidding 2 hearts, cue bidding 2 clubs (to show a limit raise and support) or preempting to 3 hearts..
Now if those are your only choices, I think in the long run with hand (ii) you will wish you had preempted by bidding 3 hearts. The hand is too weak for a cue bid and you run the risk that overcaller will misread your hand and run away with the auction. If you make the simple supporting bid of 2 hearts, as sure as God made green tomatoes you are going to hear opener bid 2 spades. Another sign of modern bridge, the pass and double cards are missing from the box, so everybody takes the push. Now without the “boss suit”, it will be hard to ever regain control of the auction.
The Mixed Raise
There is another choice for hand (ii) that I neglected to mention. The bid is some something called a ”mixed raise” which is shown by a jump cue bid in opener’s bid suit. It is a bid that is both preemptive and constructive, requires 4+ trump, generally has one defensive trick and will fall in the 7-9 hcp range. Mixed Raises usually have 8 or 9 Losing Trick Count.
Let’s look at a few more examples: (iii) Axx, Kxxxx ,xx, JTx (iv) Kxx, KJTx, Jxxx, xx (v) KJ43, KJ65, xx, xxx. All of these would be suitable for a mixed raise to 3 clubs in the example sequence.
Most of you play "Bergen" raises when you are responding to a major suit opening. The mixed raise has nothing to do with Bergen Raises, but note that all of the mixed raise hands look very much like the same hands that make a 3 diamond response playing Bergen Raises.
If overcaller has a standard overcall with 7 Losing Trick Count, he will simply bid 3 hearts and that ends the auction. If overcaller bids any other suit below 3 hearts it would be a game try. If Advancer has an 8 LTC hand he should accept and bid 4 hearts and with 9 LTC return to 3 hearts. Overcaller may bid 4 hearts directly with a strong overcall or excellent distribution. Remember that overcaller and advancer need to have a combined LTC of 14 or less to have a reasonable play for game.
The Fit Showing Jump
If you want a bid for every occasion, there are other supporting bids that Advancer can make. Now we are moving from intermediate play to the advanced category. Fit showing jumps show 4+ card length in overcaller’s suit, a good 5 card suit of your own with 2-3 working honors and 10-11 hcps.
The hand might look like this xx, KTxx AQxxx, Jx. Assume the same bidding sequence 1c/1h/x/?. To show the “fit showing jump” you jump in your 5 card suit, so in our sequence the bid would be 3 diamonds. You might say, well I could have made a simple cue bid on that hand. True enough, but with the fit showing jump you are passing additional vital information to overcaller. If overcaller holds the King of diamonds, his hand just got a whole lot better. Light contracts are made on double fits.
The Splinter
Surely you didn’t think I was done. The bidding is again 1c/1h/x/?. As advancer you hold xxx, QJTxx, AKxx, x. A cue bid could be made to do the job, but again it doesn’t really show the power of this hand, much of which lies in the single club. While it technically has only 10 hcps, the honors in sequence supporting each other and the singleton, make it a very strong playing hand in support of hearts. With this hand I think it is correct to show the splinter by bidding 4 clubs. Against any kind of disciplined overcall, this hand should have a good play for game.
So now if you combine the two ways to show 3 card support with Rosenkranz, the standard preemptive raise, the cue bid to show the limit raise, the Mixed Raise shown by the jump cue bid, the Fit Showing Jumps shown by jumping in your own 5 card suit and the Splinter Bid showing support and shortness, I believe you have a full menu to show your support for partner’s overcall. Now all you need is a graduate student at MIT for a partner!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles
Last week I had an inquiry about Rosenkranz. That would be George Rosenkranz, a world renowned chemist, the founder of a major drug company, a pioneer and leader in the development of steroids and one of Mexico’s leading citizens. He also is a bridge expert, winning 14 North American Championships, writing 11 books on bridge and a major inventor of bridge gadgets. Perhaps he is best known in the bridge world for the popular bridge convention that still bears his name, the Rosenkranz Double and Redouble. Although the conventional bid does not receive that much attention in Florida, in other areas of the country it is almost as routine as Stayman.
In general Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are used in response to an overcall by partner to describe your supporting length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. Let’s first work on Rosencrantz Doubles.
If the bidding has gone 1d/1h/1s, a Rosenkranz Double of the 1 spade bid is purely informational and would promise partner that you have exactly 3 card support for hearts and one or more of the top 3 honors in the suit. By way of contrast, if you bid 2 hearts over 1 spade instead of doubling, it would also indicate exactly 3 cards in the heart suit, but would deny any of the top three honors. If you made a Rosenkranz Double your hand might look like (a) xx, Kxx, Axxx, Jxxx. If you bid 2 hearts you might hold (b) Kx, JTx, Axxx, Jxxx. So already we have passed some useful information to partner.
The Rosenkranz Redouble is closely related, except in this case you right hand opponent has made a negative double rather than bidding 1 spade. So the bidding has gone 1d/1h/x/. Now, if you redouble you are showing three card support to one of the top three honors and if you bid 2 hearts you still show 3 card support but deny a top honor. So with hand (a) above you redouble and with hand (b) you bid 2 hearts.
We have covered 3 card support, what do you do with 4 or 5 card support? Exit George Rosenkranz and enter Larry Cohen. We follow the law of total tricks and bid to the appropriate level. You are now out of the realm of Rosenkranz and you are just upping the ante hoping to preempt opponents or on a good day actually buy the contract. Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are made on limited strength hands that are sufficient to make a single advance of the overcall. The hand should not have more 10 hcps. If you actually have 3+ card support and limit raise or greater values, then you must cue bid opener’s suit to pass this message to your partner. This is just old SAYC.
So now we can see that we have really sliced and diced advancer’s hand and completely described to overcaller the supporting strength, length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. This information may be useful to overcaller in competitive bidding, but let’s face it, when they open the bidding, most likely we are going to be defender’s and we want to get off to a good start without giving away a trick on the opening lead. Visualize that overcaller might hold AQxxx in the overcalled suit. The best defense may to be to grab our heart tricks before they go away. But is it safe to lead? If partner had made a simple raise he does not hold the King so you would not want to lead the suit, but rather wait for partner to lead it. If advancer has made a Rosenkranz Double or Redouble, advancer is marked with the King and you can either safely lead one of your honors or underlead the Ace/Queen if you want partner to lead back through declarer. Note that we also have an exact count on the heart suit.
I should point out that some play Rosenkranz as requiring one of the top 2 honors. That is only a matter of style, but it is good to talk to partner about it. There is more assurance of not making a disastrous lead playing the top 2 only, but you don’t get to use the convention as much. Experience will tell you, and as in most things in bridge, it boils down to trade offs. The use of Rosenkranz needs to be marked on your convention card and the use of the convention is alertable.
My recommendation is to start using Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles and fine tune your personal preference from there. There is very little downside, the convention has a relatively high level of occurrence and is easy to recognize. Partner will be happy to know that you have 3 card support, and even happier if you have one of the top three honors.
To my critics who allege that I never provide any useful stuff, this blog post is my best defense.
In general Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are used in response to an overcall by partner to describe your supporting length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. Let’s first work on Rosencrantz Doubles.
If the bidding has gone 1d/1h/1s, a Rosenkranz Double of the 1 spade bid is purely informational and would promise partner that you have exactly 3 card support for hearts and one or more of the top 3 honors in the suit. By way of contrast, if you bid 2 hearts over 1 spade instead of doubling, it would also indicate exactly 3 cards in the heart suit, but would deny any of the top three honors. If you made a Rosenkranz Double your hand might look like (a) xx, Kxx, Axxx, Jxxx. If you bid 2 hearts you might hold (b) Kx, JTx, Axxx, Jxxx. So already we have passed some useful information to partner.
The Rosenkranz Redouble is closely related, except in this case you right hand opponent has made a negative double rather than bidding 1 spade. So the bidding has gone 1d/1h/x/. Now, if you redouble you are showing three card support to one of the top three honors and if you bid 2 hearts you still show 3 card support but deny a top honor. So with hand (a) above you redouble and with hand (b) you bid 2 hearts.
We have covered 3 card support, what do you do with 4 or 5 card support? Exit George Rosenkranz and enter Larry Cohen. We follow the law of total tricks and bid to the appropriate level. You are now out of the realm of Rosenkranz and you are just upping the ante hoping to preempt opponents or on a good day actually buy the contract. Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles are made on limited strength hands that are sufficient to make a single advance of the overcall. The hand should not have more 10 hcps. If you actually have 3+ card support and limit raise or greater values, then you must cue bid opener’s suit to pass this message to your partner. This is just old SAYC.
So now we can see that we have really sliced and diced advancer’s hand and completely described to overcaller the supporting strength, length and top honor holding in the overcalled suit. This information may be useful to overcaller in competitive bidding, but let’s face it, when they open the bidding, most likely we are going to be defender’s and we want to get off to a good start without giving away a trick on the opening lead. Visualize that overcaller might hold AQxxx in the overcalled suit. The best defense may to be to grab our heart tricks before they go away. But is it safe to lead? If partner had made a simple raise he does not hold the King so you would not want to lead the suit, but rather wait for partner to lead it. If advancer has made a Rosenkranz Double or Redouble, advancer is marked with the King and you can either safely lead one of your honors or underlead the Ace/Queen if you want partner to lead back through declarer. Note that we also have an exact count on the heart suit.
I should point out that some play Rosenkranz as requiring one of the top 2 honors. That is only a matter of style, but it is good to talk to partner about it. There is more assurance of not making a disastrous lead playing the top 2 only, but you don’t get to use the convention as much. Experience will tell you, and as in most things in bridge, it boils down to trade offs. The use of Rosenkranz needs to be marked on your convention card and the use of the convention is alertable.
My recommendation is to start using Rosenkranz Doubles and Redoubles and fine tune your personal preference from there. There is very little downside, the convention has a relatively high level of occurrence and is easy to recognize. Partner will be happy to know that you have 3 card support, and even happier if you have one of the top three honors.
To my critics who allege that I never provide any useful stuff, this blog post is my best defense.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Road to Match Point Success
In the process of creating joy and happiness in my life, I find lots of ways to be unproductive. One of my hobbies is reading bridge books. Now that may not seem so unique, since thousands of new bridge books are sold each year, many of which are never opened. I depart from the crowd somewhat since the bridge books that I read are often 40 years old. This is what you do if you can’t play a lick!
There is nothing new about playing the cards. Good declarers and good defenders of yesteryear would be equally good today. The language of bridge is bidding, and the changes that have come in bridge are the development of its language. In no place is that more important than in match point play. The part of bridge linguistics that interests me most is its etymology, the origin and development of the language of bridge. There may be many out there that share that interest, but the only one I know personally is Jim Bailey, one of my partners in Rochester, New York.
The more you read old bridge books, the more you realize that the development of bridge language moves slowly and that change takes place over long periods of time. Players who have learned the game in the 21st century undoubtedly think the style called “two over one game force” (2/1) is cutting edge technology, recently discovered. Not so!
Last summer Jim and I were both reading “Five Card Majors Western Style” written by Max Hardy in 1974. Max was describing a bidding system almost identical to what we today call 2/1, and he attributed it’s development to two Los Angeles players, Richard Walsh and John Swanson, who had been developing it since the 1960’s. A reading of Max Hardy’s many subsequent books on this subject will show that in large measure what Max did for 25 years was tweak an old system and drive it to the fore front of bridge bidding; to the point that competitive bridge in the United States is today synonymous with that system.
The ACBL has about 350,000 members. What you may not know is that the European Bridge Union has more than twice that many members and very few of them know or care about 2/1. Although many systems are used though out the rest of the world, most of them are based on what is generally referred to as a “Big club System” where all strong hands are opened one club to facilitate better bidding with big hands.
In the interest of spreading my wings and learning more about those systems, I am in the early stages of learning to play Precision. I started backwards, first reading “Precision Today” by Brent Manley and David Berkowitz. I quickly realized to understand Precision Today you have to understand Precision yesterday. So, I have gone back to read some of the old books on Precision by C.C. Wie, Terrence Reese, Eric Jannersten and yes, even Charles Goren, all products of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
I am currently reading “Match Point Precision”, largely written by Ron Andersen, who is best known for his book “Lebensohl Complete.” Match Point Precision, last revised in 1978, is a connection between the system as it was developed by Wie, and the high power system that is played today by so many top professionals. Probably of more general interest are Andersen’s comments on the keys to success in match point play.
For starters, he says “The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.” With that introduction, he goes on to say that those who win consistently in match points are those who:
1. Use a comfortable, sound, workable bidding approach.
2. Exercise a fine working knowledge of duplicate bridge at the table. (Not the Monday Morning Quarterback type who always know what they, or more often their partner, should have bid or played after the hand or game is over.)
3. Have the ability to concentrate throughout a game or match. (Ouch, that hits home!!)
4. Use good judgment.
5. Are both opportunistic and observant.
6. Are able to get the most out of both partner and partnership by first and foremost being a good partner.
In concluding, the author mentions a 7th key that is more important than the rest. Making his point, he quotes Kipling who counseled “to meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same.”
So now we see that the one thing in bridge that has never changed is the road to duplicate success.
There is nothing new about playing the cards. Good declarers and good defenders of yesteryear would be equally good today. The language of bridge is bidding, and the changes that have come in bridge are the development of its language. In no place is that more important than in match point play. The part of bridge linguistics that interests me most is its etymology, the origin and development of the language of bridge. There may be many out there that share that interest, but the only one I know personally is Jim Bailey, one of my partners in Rochester, New York.
The more you read old bridge books, the more you realize that the development of bridge language moves slowly and that change takes place over long periods of time. Players who have learned the game in the 21st century undoubtedly think the style called “two over one game force” (2/1) is cutting edge technology, recently discovered. Not so!
Last summer Jim and I were both reading “Five Card Majors Western Style” written by Max Hardy in 1974. Max was describing a bidding system almost identical to what we today call 2/1, and he attributed it’s development to two Los Angeles players, Richard Walsh and John Swanson, who had been developing it since the 1960’s. A reading of Max Hardy’s many subsequent books on this subject will show that in large measure what Max did for 25 years was tweak an old system and drive it to the fore front of bridge bidding; to the point that competitive bridge in the United States is today synonymous with that system.
The ACBL has about 350,000 members. What you may not know is that the European Bridge Union has more than twice that many members and very few of them know or care about 2/1. Although many systems are used though out the rest of the world, most of them are based on what is generally referred to as a “Big club System” where all strong hands are opened one club to facilitate better bidding with big hands.
In the interest of spreading my wings and learning more about those systems, I am in the early stages of learning to play Precision. I started backwards, first reading “Precision Today” by Brent Manley and David Berkowitz. I quickly realized to understand Precision Today you have to understand Precision yesterday. So, I have gone back to read some of the old books on Precision by C.C. Wie, Terrence Reese, Eric Jannersten and yes, even Charles Goren, all products of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
I am currently reading “Match Point Precision”, largely written by Ron Andersen, who is best known for his book “Lebensohl Complete.” Match Point Precision, last revised in 1978, is a connection between the system as it was developed by Wie, and the high power system that is played today by so many top professionals. Probably of more general interest are Andersen’s comments on the keys to success in match point play.
For starters, he says “The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.” With that introduction, he goes on to say that those who win consistently in match points are those who:
1. Use a comfortable, sound, workable bidding approach.
2. Exercise a fine working knowledge of duplicate bridge at the table. (Not the Monday Morning Quarterback type who always know what they, or more often their partner, should have bid or played after the hand or game is over.)
3. Have the ability to concentrate throughout a game or match. (Ouch, that hits home!!)
4. Use good judgment.
5. Are both opportunistic and observant.
6. Are able to get the most out of both partner and partnership by first and foremost being a good partner.
In concluding, the author mentions a 7th key that is more important than the rest. Making his point, he quotes Kipling who counseled “to meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same.”
So now we see that the one thing in bridge that has never changed is the road to duplicate success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
