tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71156337911104778902024-03-04T23:57:18.860-08:00Cuebidding At BridgeA Modern ApproachKenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.comBlogger324125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-55449485682866350892015-10-07T16:38:00.001-07:002015-10-07T16:38:06.170-07:00MICS playersI get a lot of requests for contact information for MICS players, to play online, etc. If you are a devotee to MICS, please feel free to comment with your contact info or to email me. The more practice you get with others, the better.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-30618972741144235792015-08-06T03:09:00.000-07:002015-08-06T03:09:15.104-07:001D 2CIt is well known that an aggressive 2C overcall of a 1D opening is often a good idea because of the problems that it causes for the opening side. I am more and more convinced that the solution to this problem is that the auction be deemed forcing. <br />
<br />
Consider the advantage of this. Responder gains and entirely new option, the forcing pass, which allows more definition. Suppose, for example, that you went very basic. Actual calls standard. Double as weak with one or both majors. After a double, Opener usually picks a major (assumes 55 majors) by bidding 2H with heart preference (Responder may correct to 2S with just spades) or 2D with spade preference (Responder corrects to 2H with just hearts). So far, you have added the ability to handle lighter major hands more efficiently. Responder can also double with five hearts and diamond support effectively.<br />
<br />
As with multi, you can also stack stronger meanings onto the double. <br />
<br />
What about passing? Here, you have a "negative pass" to replace the negative double. A negative pass allows partner to have a responsive double back, again saving space for definition. Opener could, for example, bid 2H with both majors (maybe 4351 oe 3451), redouble with one major (Responder bidding 2H with weak and both majors at least 33). <br />
<br />
I am not proposing a final perfect agreement. Rather, I am suggesting that perhaps a force here wins more in the long run than enabling a pass as weak. Sure, you can get too high, but is that all bad? The fact that a treatment has a downside is not a trump card against it, because the alternative of standard also has a downside. Which downside is worse?<br />
<br />
This approach, by the way, is even stronger if the 1D opening is unbalanced, or canape, or otherwise limited away from the 4432 type.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-59826404033634424772013-11-04T05:07:00.001-08:002013-11-04T05:07:33.335-08:00November Newsletter AvailableSee <a href="http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/">www.limadbc.blogspot.com</a>Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-89238553820820659172013-10-30T08:30:00.004-07:002013-10-30T08:30:57.260-07:00Some curiositiesI went through about 100 deals where the auction started P-P-P, checking to see if there were any strange anomalies that popped up. A few perhaps interesting observations are listed here. Some might not be shocking, and a lot intuitive.<br />
<br />
1. Second hand has exactly 9 HCP a ton.<br />
2. Fourth seat is balanced a ton.<br />
3. When fourth seat is unbalanced, he seems to be in the 16-19 HCP range a lot.<br />
4. Strangely, a partscore in diamonds as the best end contract seems to recur quite remarkably often.<br />
5. You need about 16 HCP if balanced to have a fair shot at the auction being a game auction.<br />
6. Second hand has a lot of Queens and Jacks as a general rule.<br />
7. Stiff honors are frequent.<br />
8. Spade-club two-suiters are fairly frequent (and often in that 16-19 range).<br />
9. Partner often has a difficult hand to respond with because of his HCP strength and a major opening.<br />
10. Hands with both red suits are especially difficult for Opener.<br />
11. 5-5 majors never came up. For that matter, no 5-5's came up except spades+clubs.<br />
12. Hands with 6-card suits rarely had a second suit of 4+.<br />
13. Balanced 21-23 hands were fairly common, but partner seemed to have 0-3 a lot.<br />
14. Slams were very rare.<br />
15. 4-4-4-1 hands were more common than I would expect, and often in the 16-19 range.<br />
16. Interference is rare in real life.<br />
Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-22556782086591192532013-09-04T09:44:00.002-07:002013-09-04T09:51:13.792-07:00UpdateI have not posted for some time on this blog, largely for two reasons. First, I am writing and playing a lot less because of my children. Second, my main focus is now on the local bridge club Newsletter, which I edit and for which I write. For those who miss my posts, you might check out the Newsletter, which is uploaded once per month at the website <a href="http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/">www.limadbc.blogspot.com</a>. You can also ask to be added to the massive Newsletter mailing list by contacting Ruth Odenweller at <a href="mailto:07bridge@gmail.com">07bridge@gmail.com</a>. <br />
<br />
The articles in the Newsletter go back several years now. Last year, I started and then finished a small mini-book I called "Gil's Epic Game," which was intended to be a humorous spin on bridge in the vein of the Epic of Gilgamesh; the entire ebook is available free lower on the Lima DBC website. I am now working on a more general "Theory" series. Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-18440046889355581662013-01-31T12:08:00.001-08:002013-01-31T12:08:21.325-08:00Super Accepting?In line with my latest prior post, what should a "Super-Accept" look like?<br />
<br />
You open 1NT with 15-17 HCP (occasional upgrades), and partner transfers. What is your "range?"<br />
<br />
I showed how the "normal" range would be 2-6 cover cards as far as strength, with 2-5 cards in support of the major. Suppose that we took the cover card range and added to it the variance off of an expected simple 3-card fit. For example:<br />
<br />
3 cover cards. 3-card fit (0 variance). 3+0=3. Net of 3 Super-Accept Credits (SAC's).<br />
<br />
4 cover cards. 4-card fit (+1 variance). 4+1=5. Net of 5 SAC's.<br />
<br />
2 cover cards. 5-card fit (+2 variance). 2+2=4. Net of 4 SAC's.<br />
<br />
4 cover cards. 2-card "fit" (-1 variance). 4-1=3. Net of 3 SAC's.<br />
<br />
If we do this, then perhaps the worst SAC count is 1 SAC (2 covers, no fit), while the greatest is probably only 7 SAC (4-card fit plus 6 covers or 5-card fit nut then only 6 covers), because a 5-card suit with six covers would have upgraded to open the major and jump rebid 2NT. Thus, the SAC range is 1-7.<br />
<br />
With 7 SAC, force game. With 6 SAC or 5 SAC with something else, show a strong super-accept. With 5 SAC without something extra or 4 SAC with something extra, show a medium super-accept. With less, do not super-accept unless you have 4+ support and a means to show a weak super-accept.<br />
<br />
Notice how a 3-card super-accept is possible in this approach.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-5326633323122173392013-01-17T12:37:00.000-08:002013-01-17T12:37:04.692-08:00No Trump "Ranges"What is the "range" for a strong 1NT opening bid?<br />
<br />
A lot of people will knee-jerk out "15-17." Some will start a discussion of upgrades and downgrades for this or that honor collection, will speak about tenaces and length cards and the like. You might even have discussions of controls and "three and a third's" with some.<br />
<br />
All of this is fine when opening the bidding, before anyone has said anything. But, that only gets you so far. If partner shows you an unbalanced hand, and if you have a fit, the situation radically changes, such that your analysis should also change.<br />
<br />
I mean, if your 15-HCP hand features the KJ2 in clubs, that seems nice. If you later find out that your partner has a stiff club, however, the KJ2 looks not so useful. If he has AQxxx, however, you love the KJ2 more tha you thought.<br />
<br />
If the auction and knowledge changes, the "range" for a 1NT opening can wildly change, therefore, when viewed as a function of how good it fits with partner's hand. From a "Losing Trick Count" perspective, the "cover card" count probably could change by as much as three cards.<br />
<br />
What?!?!?<br />
<br />
Consider a normal-looking Qxx-KQx-Axx-Axxx, a 15-HCP hand. If partner has something like 5-3-3-2 pattern, your hand has five cover cards -- the two outside Aces, the spade Queen (the agreed trump suit), and both the King and Queen of hearts (a side fragment held by partner).<br />
<br />
What if, however, partner holds 2-1-5-5 pattern, a minor two-suiter? Now, your cover card count looks more like 2, one for each Ace but nothing else. At most,m if partner has both major Aces, you might contribute a cover card for the diamond King. This might also help if the opponents defend incorrectly.<br />
<br />
Now, the cover card count is not as important unless Responder has an unbalanced hand and we end up declaring a suit contract, but the point seems apparent. In this rough example, the number of useful cards for a minimum hand of exactly 15 HCP was somewhere between 2 and 5 covers.<br />
<br />
Thus, as far as cover cards is concerned, a "tight range" of 15-17 HCP is not remotely tight at all.<br />
<br />
Keep this in mind when developing bidding agreements and when analyzing a given auction. A "maximum" in terms of cover cards is probably about six cover cards (one Ace, one side King, plus two internal King-Queen combinations. A reasonable "minimum" might be a 15-count with K-Q-J opposite a stiff, Q-J opposite a doubleton, and then only two useful cover cards. I am having trouble imagining a 1-cover-card 15-HCP hand. So, the "freak extreme" hands are 2 covers or 6 covers. Hence, the normal range is probably 3-5. <br />
<br />
If you have the freak extreme 6 covers, go crazy. If freak extreme only 2, you might pass a forcing bid. But, 3 is a minimum (regard;ess of HCP strength), 5 is a maximum (regardless of HCP strength), and 4 covers is middling, needing more analysis.<br />
<br />
So, the range for a 1NT opening is 15-17 HCP, or 2-6 cover cards.<br />
<br />
BTW, notice that this phenomenon is not at all unique to 1NT openings. It is just with 1NT openings (and 2NT openings) that Openers get especially lazy, feeling that they have somehow showed their tight range by the act of opening. Not so.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-34285823443177859512012-12-12T11:12:00.003-08:002012-12-12T11:12:27.017-08:00VKCBAmazon now has VKCB available as a paperback:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Variable-Key-Card-Blackwood-Rexford/dp/1554947723/ref=la_B0034Q3QKI_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355339486&sr=1-2">http://www.amazon.com/Variable-Key-Card-Blackwood-Rexford/dp/1554947723/ref=la_B0034Q3QKI_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355339486&sr=1-2</a><br />
<br />
I believe that the foreign Amazon's (e.g., Amazon UK and Amazon Japan) also have this available, but the shipment might still be delayed. Nor sure.<br />
<br />
Also, Bridge World's website has it up for paperback, at a nice discount.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-29473121565333989052012-12-03T22:09:00.000-08:002012-12-03T22:09:07.008-08:00Irony!In August Boehm's "Boehm on Bridge" in the December Bridge Bulletin, he noted that irony is frequent in literature but rare in bridge. Strangely, irony in December of 2012 occurred in bridge literature. <br /> <br />In Mr. Boehm's article, he mentioned an auction where with AQ-AQJ5-KQ10942-8, you end up bidding 4NT as Roman Key Card Blackwood (hearts agreed) to find two key cards, but cannot find the grand opposite two Aces (which should make in context) because one of partner's key cards might be the heart king. Quoting Edgar Kaplan for "the trump king is not the same as an ace," he notes the irony that RKCB players would have to stop in the small slam while traditional Blackwood players could bid the grand.<br /> <br />The irony is that on December 2, I released through Master Point Press my new book, called Variable Key Card Blackwood. My new VKCB is a means of improving upon RKCB to, among other things, identify which key cards replier has, namely whether the holding is two aces or an ace and the trump king. In the auction that Mr. Boehm provides (1S-X-P-4H-P-?), doubler would bid 4S as Kickback VKCB. Partner would respond 4NT, showing two key cards. Doubler (with this specific hand) would then be able to bid 5C to ask whether partner has the trump Queen (already known) and, if not, which form of key cards he has. Replier would bid 5D to deny the trump Queen but show that his two key cards are both aces. <br /> <br />So, ironically, in the same month that we published Variable Key Card Blackwood, August Boehm spots this issue and bemoans the lack of a solution in RKCB, in an article about irony!Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-66096491371128189942012-12-03T10:54:00.002-08:002012-12-03T10:54:12.611-08:00Variable Key Card BlackwoodThe VKCB book is now available for order. Note that the title to the book is now "Variable Key Card Blackwood" rather than "Variable Keycard Blackwood," which makes sense.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="javascript:popupWindow('http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=521')"><img alt="Variable Key Card Blackwood" height="350" src="http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/images/medium/books/VariableKeyCardBlackwood_SML_MED.jpg" title=" Variable Key Card Blackwood " width="226" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=133&products_id=521">http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=133&products_id=521</a>Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-16312653675654867112012-11-30T09:35:00.001-08:002012-11-30T09:35:27.477-08:00Variable Keycard BlackwoodI am pleased to announce that I will be publishing a new book, called <strong><em>Variable Keycard Blackwood</em></strong>, through Master Point Press, to be released any day now. Check at <a href="http://www.ebooksbridge.com/">www.ebooksbridge.com</a> for the ebook version (which is usually available first) to arrive.<br />
<br />
From the back cover:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: white; font-family: Futura-BookOblique; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: white; font-family: Futura-BookOblique; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: white; font-family: Futura-BookOblique; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: "RotisSemiSerif-Bold","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: RotisSemiSerif-Bold;"><span style="color: black;">Beyond Roman Key Card Blackwood!<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: "RotisSemiSerif-Bold","serif"; font-size: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: RotisSemiSerif-Bold;"><o:p><span style="color: black;"> </span></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span>Easley
Blackwood introduced and developed the Blackwood Convention. Eddie Kantar then expanded the Blue Team’s Roman Blackwood into
the Roman Key Card Blackwood that has dominated expert circles for the past
half century. <em>Variable Key Card Blackwood </em></span><span style="font-family: "AGaramondPro-Regular","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: AGaramondPro-Regular;">may
be the next logical step. VKCB allows partnerships to address </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "AGaramondPro-Regular","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: AGaramondPro-Regular;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">many
problems that neither Blackwood nor Roman Key Card Blackwood solves, while
keeping the auction low enough to avoid bad slams. And, better yet, it is
relatively easy to use.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "AGaramondPro-Regular","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: AGaramondPro-Regular;"><o:p><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "AGaramondPro-Regular","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: AGaramondPro-Regular;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Suppose
you have enough power for slam but only the J732 in trumps, in support of
partner’s five-card suit. You also know that partner has only one of the top
three honors. If the honor is the ace, the slam seems good. If it is the king,
the slam is not so good. Using VKCB, partner can tell you which honor he has.
What about holding 8732? Now you need partner specifically to have the ace and
the jack. VKCB has a solution for that problem as well. In fact, you might also
find out about a particular side king, all before committing to a slam and
without any cuebidding. VKCB solves your problem without going past the safety
of the five-level.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "AGaramondPro-Regular","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: AGaramondPro-Regular;"><o:p><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Futura-Bold","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Futura-Bold;"><span style="color: black;">KEN REXFORD </span></span></b><span><span style="color: black;">(Ohio) is a Master
Point Press author known for his contributions to bidding theory. His first
book, </span><a href="http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_101&products_id=359"><span style="color: blue;"><em>Cuebidding
at Bridge</em></span></a></span><span><span style="color: black;">, introduced the bridge world to a modern
approach to Italian cuebidding. His most recent books for Master Point Press
are </span><a href="http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_136&products_id=378"><span style="color: blue;"><em>Modified
Italian Canapé System</em></span></a></span><span><span style="color: black;">, </span><a href="http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_136&products_id=390"><span style="color: blue;"><em>New
Frontiers for Strong Forcing Openings</em></span></a></span><span><span style="color: black;">,
</span><a href="http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_136&products_id=489"><span style="color: blue;"><em>Really
Unusual Notrump (R.U.N.T.)</em></span></a></span><span><span style="color: black;">, and </span><a href="http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_136&products_id=486"><em><span style="color: blue;">Overcalling
Opponent’s 1NT</span></em></a><em><span style="color: black;">.</span></em></span><span style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: small;">
</span></span></span></span><span style="color: white; font-family: Futura-BookOblique; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: white; font-family: Futura-BookOblique; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: white; font-family: Futura-BookOblique; font-size: xx-small;"></span></span></span>Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-14635706669367753742012-11-16T08:14:00.002-08:002012-11-16T08:14:13.523-08:00Taking Advantage of a Forced Wrap-AroundConsider an auction:<br />
<br />
Blah-blah-blah. Spades agreed.<br />
<br />
4NT would be RKCB, but partner bids 5C as Exclusion RKCB.<br />
<br />
Notice that your answers are:<br />
<br />
5D = 0/3<br />
5H = 1/4<br />
5S = 2 without the Queen<br />
5NT = 2 with the Queen<br />
<br />
Now, if this is your structure, you probably see that 5C as Exclusion RKCB forces slam when replier has "two plus the Queen." <br />
<br />
You also notice a problem. If Replier has "1/4," there is insufficient space below 5S to ask for the Queen. This might not be such a problem, as perhaps even "1 with the Queen" is not enough while "4" is enough for a grand (if 2+Q is enough for the small slam).<br />
<br />
What about the 0/3 holding? You have space for a Queen-ask, presumabl;y for grand slam purposes, in the 5H call. But, you already know that any more questions are grand-slam oriented, if 2+Q is enough for slam.<br />
<br />
It seems to me, then, that in this situation (and other similar situations) you can save space by wrapping around the answers. You do not need (enough to matter) an answer showing yet another void, so why not put this wrap-around to better use?<br />
<br />
One approach is this:<br />
<br />
5D = 0, or 3 without the Queen (5H then asks for specific features as a grand probe)<br />
5H = 1/4 (if 4, can bid on)<br />
5S = 2 without<br />
5NT = 2 with (asker can continue a grand probe if desired)<br />
6C+ = 3 with the Queen, showing specific features (as if partner had bid 5NT himself)<br />
Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-29833707262690229032012-11-05T06:28:00.001-08:002012-11-05T06:28:45.379-08:00Bridge Bulletin ReviewsThe November issue of the ACBL Bridge Bulletin has two nice reviews for my latest books, Overcalling Opponent's 1NT and Really Unusual Notrump (R.U.N.T."), reviewed by Paul Linxwiler.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-18468219151432544242012-10-26T09:44:00.001-07:002012-10-26T09:44:10.572-07:00Optional Suit Last TrainDiscussions often inspire new ideas. One just occurred today.<br />
<br />
There are auctions where two suits are "in focus," one of which is a minor for slam purposes but the other a major for game purposes. In that situation, "Last Train to Clarksville" can have a nuanced meaning.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, an auction where we know that the out when slam is rejected is playing in a 5-2 major fit, but where a minor is agreed if we explore slam. An example might be:<br />
<br />
1S-1NT<br />
3C-4C<br />
4D<br />
<br />
In that sequence, you could play that Responder bids 4H as "Last Train," with interest in a club slam but unwillingness to bypass 4S, the likely out spot if slam is rejected,Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-4384893802338269302012-09-13T11:26:00.002-07:002012-09-13T11:26:54.329-07:00Automatic Answers -- Other OptionsThere is a concept in bridge where one partner auto-answers an assumed RKCB. The classic example might be that 4H Texas followed by a 5-level bid is Exclusion RKCB, while 2H Jacoby followed by a 5-level bid is esponder ANSWERING an "implied" 4NT RKCB from Opener (an idea I have heard to be attributed to Meckwell).<br />
<br />
A while ago, I proposed a method whereby immediate answers in some contexts might be agreed as showing or denying a critical side suit Queen. In other words, imagine spades agreed, with clubs an obvious important suit. In this sort of scheme, the person bidding 4NT might have the club Queen; if not, he immediate-answers as if partner bid 4NT, denying the Queen.<br />
<br />
Well, another possibility is in the context of a splinter bid (or other shortness bid), where there is some ambuiguity as to whether the shortness is stiff or void. In that situation, a plausible scheme would be for the person not knowing the answer to immediate-answer an assumed EXCLUSION 4NT if he lacks the Ace in the short suit -- a sort of Bluhmer RKCB Answer?<br />
<br />
Consider a simple example (not that this would be the ideal place to use this -- it is merely an example). You open 1S, and partner blasts 4H, which you play as a stiff or void, support, and 13-14 or so HCP. Whatever. Opener could bid 4NT with the heart Ace or could bid, instead, 5C/5D/5H/5S as EXCLUSION RKCB answers, denying the heart Ace.<br />
<br />
This would alleviate the need for showing the void, in a sense, which saves space, and would allow Responder with the void to know that partner has the Ace in the void suit if he asks (which might have some impact on Slam Last Train bids or something like that).<br />
<br />
The same thing could be done in reverse. If you are the one who showed shortness, you could ask with the stiff but answer with the void. For example, after a 1S opening, you splinter 4D. Partner bids 4H as Last Train. If you accept with a stiff, bid 4NT. If you accept with a void, answer RKCB, promising the void.<br />
<br />
This type of concept could be extended into other ideas, as well. Suppose, for example, that you know of a 5-3 major fit, but YOU also know of a 4-4 minor fit, partner being unaware of that second fit. Maybe 1S-2H, 3C-3S, cues, and then you are about to ask, having 3-5-1-4 shape. You could use 4NT ask straight RKCB but 5-bids as RKCB answers (maybe 6KCB answers?), establishing thereby clubs as an alternative fit!<br />
<br />
This last concept is very promising. There are a lot of auctions where there is some ambiguity as to whether a call (like 6C in the example) is a choice call or a further inquiry. This type of structure would solve that problem.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-77837138674975199992012-09-04T09:41:00.004-07:002012-09-04T09:42:40.688-07:00Bridge Winners BlogFor those who do not know about the site, the bridgewinners site is quite good. I also maintain a smaller blog on that site. <a href="http://bridgewinners.com/">http://bridgewinners.com/</a><br />
<br />
Also, the latest Lima Newsletter can be found at <a href="http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/">www.limadbc.blogspot.com</a> and includes the latest chapter of Gil's Epic Gae.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-41983834350568197432012-08-14T12:15:00.000-07:002012-08-14T12:15:03.899-07:00One Higher than Splinter, but Below GameThere are occasionally calls that are one level higher than necessary for a splinter and yet below game.<br />
<br />
One example is the double jump reverse. For example:<br />
<br />
1C-P-1S-P-<br />
4H<br />
<br />
1C-P-1S-P-<br />
4D<br />
<br />
1D-P-1S-P-<br />
4H<br />
<br />
1C-P-1H-P-<br />
4D<br />
<br />
In all four sequences, two of Opener's second suit would be forcing. Three of Opener's suit can operate as a splinter option. Thus, four of the suit is one higher than the minimum call needed for a splinter but still below game.<br />
<br />
A second example would be a double jump cuebid below game.<br />
<br />
I mention this merely because I saw a lot of posts recently where people bid four of a suit as a splinter, perhaps thinking that four of the suit sounds like a splinter, whereas in the sequence three of the suit would also sound like a splinter. When I mentioned this, some noted that three of the suit works and then opined as to what four of the suit should mean (void splinter? other?). <br />
<br />
Personally, I think that if three of the suit is a splinter, then four of the suit should be a Picture Splinter of some variety (very well defined), because the call usually consumes a lot of space that would otherwise be available to unwind a lot of information. "Void Splinter" seems bad, if only because a void makes (1) slam more likely but (2) fine-tuning more important. Consider that with a void you might have much less other stuff to merit the splinter, but then you might also have a lot more stuff than the minimum void splinter requires. Accordingly, you have more need to unwind (it seems) with the void hands. Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-51556145439026317602012-08-08T11:22:00.001-07:002012-08-08T11:22:35.735-07:00Strange Rusinow Benefit?I just was reminded of a strange situation that may argue for Rusinow leads in a strange way. Granted, this almost never comes up, but it was interesting to me as a thinking experiment.<br />
<br />
Suppose that you are on lead against 3NT with something like AJ9x in one suit and a side Ace. Dummy is expected by you for some reason to likely have the strength (if any) in your AJ9x suit, and you feel like an aggressive lead. So, you decide to give Dummy Qxx and to lead the surrounding-play Jack. <br />
<br />
You hope to catch Dummy with Q-x-x, partner with the King, and either partner or Declarer with the missing 10. Great lead! (if it works)<br />
<br />
But, what if Dummy has K-x-x(-x), partner the Queen, and Declarer the 10-x-x(-x)?<br />
<br />
Now, put yourself in Declarer's seat. If you are playing standard leads, the Jack looks like a card seeking partner's suit and certainly on its own. Accordingly, Declarer will likely cover this, expecting to lose but also expecting his 10 to grow up quickly. Ducking would be fatal.<br />
<br />
What if, instead, you play Rusinow? In that situation, the Jack looks like Jack from Q-J-9-x(-x). Now, Declarer cannot pop the ing, as ta would be fatal. Ducking, however, makes the suit a frozen suit. So, if you lead the Jack, playing Rusinow, and catch this layout, the Jack probably holds.<br />
<br />
On the next play in the suit, you can lead small, "hoping partner has the 10," and catch Declarer ducking again! So, you scoop the suit. Rusinow leads made this possible.<br />
<br />
Of course, the counter is that non-Rusinow works better if you lead the Queen from A-Q-9-x, which is technically true. And, that lead might be a sexy lead if you expect Dummy to have the King and partner the Jack. But, (1) reading partner for the Jack, and more importantly Declarer for not having the Jack, is more difficult (making the lead less attractive), and (2) the A-Q-9-x lead only gains on the tricky play whereas A-J-9-x wins naturally (and hence roughly twice as often). Thus, the Rusinow protection seems more effective in the long run. <br />
<br />
What about the parallel of the lead of the Jack from K-J-9-x? Here, you are playing for partner and Dummy to each have one top honor, Ace or Queen. In either situation, there is no trickery. However, there might be some trickery for partner. If he cannot see the 10, he may decide that you have it if you are playing standard leads and if the Queen covers the Jack, which might induce a switch. If Rusinow, he will see the Queen on Dummy or in his hand and may be able to work this situation out contextually.<br />
<br />
Notice how Journalist leads ("Jack denies") really messes up both scenarios terribly and is perhaps the worst method, for opening-lead surrounding play reasons.<br />
<br />Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-74498317646624036272012-06-25T08:19:00.001-07:002012-06-25T08:19:01.847-07:00MPP Ebooks Sale<br /><span><strong><span style="font-size: large;">Summer Sale: 25% off all eBook orders over $25*</span></strong></span><br />
<span><strong> </strong></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">From now until July 31st, we are treating our readers to a discount on their eBook purchases of $25 or more. Simply log into <strong><a href="" shape="rect" style="color: #3e69bd; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">eBooksBridge.com</a></strong> and add your purchases to your shopping cart. When you are ready to check out, use the coupon<span> code <span style="color: #d52c2a;"><strong>Summer2012</strong></span> to redeem your discount.</span><br /></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">*Offer ends July 31st, 2012.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span> </div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">So, if you have been waiting for a great time to complete your entire library of Ken Rexford books (isn't everyone?), this is your chance! </span></div>Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-40183795190805055402012-06-21T14:15:00.001-07:002012-06-21T14:15:30.212-07:00Serious 3NT for BeginnersI am more and more convinced that the "Serious 3NT" convention needs to be re-introduced to the general public with some new catchy name, in some new and simpler form. I am trying to come up with a term, though. "Baby Blackwood" was a concept that ran for a while, and people seem to love "Gerber," which also makes you think of babies. These terms seemed appealing for some reason.<br />
<br />
The "Serious 3NT" version I am thinking of is simply a 3NT call showing extras (maybe defined as 17+ HCP), with this meaning that cuebids show less. Something really basic.<br />
<br />
Then, I need to call it something neat, so people will approach it more enthusiastically. People seem to like the words "Jacoby," "Bergen," and "Stayman," but "Serious" sounds, well, serious. Hard to understand, somehow.<br />
<br />
I thought about "Rodwell 3NT," but Rodwell's name is scary, too. Obviously, you cannot attribute the convention to someone else, so a different name is no good.<br />
<br />
Maybe a funny word? Like, "Stumble Bunny 3NT." The idea being to avoid stumble bunny auctions?<br />
<br />
Maybe I need to get that baby concept in there, like "Stumble Baby 3NT" or "Pampers 3NT?"<br />
<br />
I am running short on ideas.<br />
<br />
So, any suggestions for a catchy name?<br />
<br />Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-17393755899141009212012-06-13T09:15:00.001-07:002012-06-13T09:15:46.468-07:00The Importance of System ContextA discussion on the Bridge Winners site (<a href="http://www.bridgewinners.com/">bridgewinners.com</a>) was quite interesting to me. The question was whether Opener should accept or decline a 4D splinter with a given hand.<br />
<br />
The problems with this sort of question are legion. First, the question did not even set parameters for the 4D splinter, as far as what it means.<br />
<br />
More subtly, though, it is my position that a given call is defined not just by some sort of generalized agreement but also by the rest of the system structure, where alternative sequences could be considered.<br />
<br />
For instance, take the auction 1H-P-4D. Could Responder have xxxx-Jxxx-x-AKJx? <br />
<br />
My position would be that this holding is not possible if <br />
<br />
1H-P-2C-P-<br />
2D-P-2H-P-<br />
2S-P-4D<br />
<br />
would show that hand. Redundancy is not allowed.<br />
<br />
Similarly, consider<br />
<br />
1H-P-2C-P-<br />
2D-P-2H-P-<br />
2S-P-2NT-P-<br />
3C-P-4D<br />
<br />
as having impact.<br />
<br />
Of course, all of these sequence depend on what all of these bids mean in the system. That is why really understanding system and theory is critical to understanding the meaning of an otherwise imprecisely-defined call. Additionally, it is important to have partnership agreement as to these types of sequences, as otherwise you end up with a potential that partner does in fact have some hand he should not have (to you) because he does not recognize the redundancy, does not feel that one line to a point is preferred with some hand over another line, or similar inconsistencies to analysis. In other words, maybe partner thinks that 1H-P-4D defines the two example auctions, whereas you think that 1H-P-4D is defined by the two example auctions. Which defines which? That seems like a tough analysis without discussion.<br />
<br />
In this specific example, I actually define the Splinter, but I do so in a way as to consider the alternatives, meaning that the Splinter shows primes (Aces and internal lower honors only), wuch that the delayed auction shows some tertiary cards (Quacks, unattached Kings, etc.). Hence, my definition would exclude the xxxx-Jxxx-x-AKJx possibility.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-61172942244020378512012-05-11T10:23:00.001-07:002012-05-11T10:23:24.722-07:00Gil's Epic GameI have been in the process of putting together a story that some might find amusing. I have been "publishing" the story as a monthly running series in our local bridge club newsletter, which can be found in the "Library" at <a href="http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/">www.limadbc.blogspot.com</a>. The idea is to follow an eccentric bridge player ("Gil") at a tournament. Deals discussed. But, also a delving into the eccentricites of the bridge world. Thought some might enjoy this.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-63239344374794764222012-04-17T07:16:00.000-07:002012-04-17T07:16:02.273-07:00A Different "Jacoby 2NT" Use?After some thought following the usual BBF discussions, it dawned upon me that perhaps a better use for the "Jacoby 2NT" call is possible and worth considering.<br />
<br />
The typical limitation upon Jac2NT for those who use good cuebidding methods seems to be a fairly balanced hand, ideally with primes. This makes some sense, except that the equally modern trend for a 2C 2/1 as "real clubs or fit" or "real clubs, fit, or balanced" seems to cater equally well to these hands. If you have a fairly balanced hand with primes, starting with 2C seems to work perfectly fine. So, why Jac2NT at all?<br />
<br />
In thinking through this issue, I realized that there are certain hand types that end up being "problems" when 2/1 auctions develop. The "problem" occurs when we have a reduced likelihood of trumps being set at the two-level, usually caused because either Responder bids a 2/1 in the suit immediately below Opener's major (such that Opener cannot possibly make another call below his major) or, when Opener starts 1H, Responder is short in spades, such that Opener rebidding 2S is likely. <br />
<br />
For example, suppose partner opens 1S and you have 3-5-3-2 pattern. If you respond 2H, the auction goes ballistic and spades cannot be agreed at the two-level. With that specific pattern, I might opt to bid 2C, myself, as then I can switch tactics if Opener rebids 2H but otherwise usually can agree spades at the two-level.<br />
<br />
But, consider a 1H opening. If Responder has 1-3-5-4, for example, the auction is not likely to end up with hearts agreed at the two-level, both because Responder probably should bid 2D, which makes it impossible, and because even if a 2C response is selected Opener likely rebids 2S. <br />
<br />
Cuebidding sequences that start at the three-level are much less defined. The solution might be to force certain patterns into two-level cuebidding by having 2NT be a GF raise with 3+ support and a trouble pattern, rather than Jacoby 2NT.<br />
<br />
For instance:<br />
<br />
1H-P-2NT = Hearts agreed. Responder has a heart fit (3+) with long diamonds and/or short spades.<br />
1S-P-2NT = Spades agreed. Responder has a spade fit (3+) with long hearts and/or short clubs.<br />
<br />
Re-defining 2NT along these lines then calls for different rules for the continuing auction, obviously. One might have Opener usually bid a relay 3C to unwind? For example:<br />
<br />
1H-P-2NT-P-<br />
3C(asking)-P-?<br />
<br />
3D = long diamonds, balanced (2353, 3352, 2452)<br />
3H = long diamonds, short spade (1354, 1453, 1552, 0454, etc.)<br />
3S = short spade, with clubs (same as 3H, but with club length)<br />
3NT = short spade, 1444-ish<br />
4C+ = I have not worked this out that far -- what do you want from me?<br />
<br />
Some similar type of unwind could be used when the opening is in spades. In either situation, however, Opener mjight be able to break the relay, probably to show some very specific type of equally difficult hand contextually.<br />
<br />
I have not worked out all of the possible sequences, as this is simply a brainstorming. But, from the experience of actual bidding, I know that (1) Jacoby 2NT as balanced with primes is not that important any more, but (2) some hand types for Responder cause predictable problems that might be averted with the 2NT call re-defined. Hence, this new approach might be worth considering and developing.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-19633216230120522542012-04-13T09:29:00.000-07:002012-04-13T09:29:32.687-07:00Lead Preference Indicators?An auction that I have seen rather frequently as calling for a lead-direction indicator is on that I describe in my "Really Unusual Notrump (R.U.N.T.)" book. An example:<br />
<br />
1C-P-1H-1NT*-P-? (*Sandwich)<br />
<br />
In RUNT, I recommend 2C as agreeing diamond to declare but preferring a spade lead, 2H as to declare spades but wanting a diamond lead, 2D or 2S netural but leaning to lead that suit. That helps when Advancer has, for example, Kx or Ax in one suit but 3-4 small in the other.<br />
<br />
This works wonders if the opponents end up playing hearts, where the person on lead has the information now as to which suit to lead. This then made me think whether this same type of messaging might be used to enable a person showing two suits to indicate his lead preference.<br />
<br />
Suppose, for example, this auction:<br />
<br />
P-1C-P-1H-?<br />
<br />
Sandwich is less important as a range describing tool, as we know that Dealer has a weak hand. One could, of course, define X and NT as different packages of suits. For instance, 1NT might show the minors notwithstanding the 1C opening. But, perhaps both partners can discuss lead preference, to cater to a final contract of either clubs or hearts as the strain, and hence either person on lead. (Maybe there are other circumstances where this discussion makes sense; the purpose here is to discuss theory and tools, not judgment.)<br />
<br />
Suppose, then, that the 1NT call showed lead preference in the lower suit, X lead preference in the higher suit. You might then have these possible auctions:<br />
<br />
P-1C-P-1H-<br />
1NT-P-2C-...<br />
<br />
Overcaller prefers a diamond lead against a club contract; Advancer wants a spade lead against a heart contract but agrees diamonds as our fit. Had Advancer bid 2D instead, he is neutral or prefers diamonds for lead also.<br />
<br />
P-1C-P-1H<br />
1NT-P-2H-...<br />
<br />
Overcaller prefers a diamond lead against a club contract; Advancer prefers a diamond lead against a heart contract but wants to declare spades. Had Advancer bid 2S instead, he prefers a spade lead against a heart contract or is neutral.<br />
<br />
P-1C-P-1H<br />
X-P-2C-...<br />
<br />
Doubler prefers a spade lead against a club contract; Advancer preferes a spade lead as well but wants to declare diamonds; had he bid 2D he would be neutral as to lead or prefer a diamond lead.<br />
<br />
You get the point.<br />
<br />
What inspired all of this was a sick hand from last night. The opponents bid 1C-P-1D, to me. With AQxx in spades and Jxxxx in hearts, I really wanted a spade lead. The end result of the auction was that my RHO ended up declaring 3NT, where I was on lead. My lead was a heart to partner's Ace, partner got in, and a spade return would hold the opponents to 10 tricks; they ended up with 11 when partner continued hearts. Our defense should have resulted in three tricks for the defense, but that is not the point. It would have been fantastic to have the auction develop where I knew to lead the heart and did not just guess, and where partner knew to switch to the spade without any guessing as well. This could have happened by me offering both majors by way of a call that indicated preference for a spade lead and partner picking hearts with preference for a heart lead (or neutral).<br />
<br />
Granted, this scheme would cause potential problems when acting as overcaller, because you might have equal holdings in the two suits. But, the solution there is to have one of the two calls show preference for a specific suit or <em>neutral</em>. One would be clear.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-57441563755109317492012-04-06T09:54:00.000-07:002012-04-06T09:54:48.558-07:00Assumed Call Bidding?Just a thought experiment...<br />
<br />
There is a fairly well-known technique where in certain sequences one partner might make calls that respond to an implied RKCB 4NT call that is not actually made. For instance, you might agree to play that a transfer followed by a 5-level call is an immediate answer to an implied but not made 4NT asking bid from partner. I.e., 1NT-2D, 2H-5C as three key cards, hearts agreed. This auction resembles 1NT-2D, 2H-something, 4NT-5C. But, the 4NT call is not actually made. Instead, Responder in a sense assumes an implied 4NT call for his calls.<br />
<br />
Another similar example is a call after a quantitative 4NT, where the <em>meaning</em> of the 4NT call shifts from quantitative to RKCB, in a sense. For example, 1NT-2D, 2H-4NT, 5D. 5D as an RKCB response to 4NT is assuming a change to the meaning of 4NT from quantitative to RKCB. That auction resembles 1NT-2D, 2H-4NT, 4H-4NT, 5C. An insufficient bid, perhaps, but the point works.<br />
<br />
I wonder to what degree assumed bidding might be played in other auctions. Kenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.com2