1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠-3NT-4♣-? (opponents passing throughout)
Opener has agreed hearts. Responder cues spades, yielding a serious 3NT from Opener. Responder now cues 4♣. What is the difference between Opener bidding 4♦ and 4♥?
On the one hand, you could interpret things along these lines. Opener's 4♦ sounds like a cuebid. If he needed a diamond control, he would not cuebid 4♦. Hence, 4♥ essentially asks for a diamond control. 4♦, in contrast, is a sort of "Last Train" bid but definitely shows a diamond control, seeking generally "more stuff."
On the other hand, you could interpret things another way. Opener's 4♦ sounds like and should be "Last Train." When control of a suit has not been showed yet, Last Train implies a lack of that missing-suit control. Hence, 4♦ "asks" for a diamond control. By process of elimination, then, 4♥ becomes a "general stuff" invite, showing a diamond control. The bypass of what is essentially an "asking" bid, or a "denial" cue, shows that which would otherwise be requested/denied.
The risk is that you interpret this auction under the first reasonable approach but partner interprets this auction under the second reasonable approach. Better to agree.
Personally, I see little merit to going one way or the other. I see a small technical advantage to the second line, in that I might want to "ask" about a diamond control even if I have one, and only the 4♦ as asking approach allows that. I also, for perhaps strange reasons, feel that the second theoretically is more consistent, not with cuebidding generally but with Last Train theory specifically. Hence, I lean toward option two. But, reasonable minds can differ.
Again, this is probably a very good discussion point. Save yourself from having a silly argument when it comes up.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Relay/Cue Idea
An auction got me thinking.
Your partner opens 1♥ and you bid 2♣, game-forcing. Partner rebids 2♥, and you bid 2NT. Partner repeats 3♥.
At this point, the contract will either be a notrump strain or a heart strain, right? So, any call except 3NT would be a cuebid in support of hearts. So far, so good.
However, what is partner's strength? This seems like a sequence where partner's strength is fairly unlimited. He might have a bare minimum opening. Or, he might have a powerhouse that is not right for an immediate 3♥ jump. This seems like a really good sequence for using Serious 3NT, but you just cannot do that.
Or, can you?
Suppose that you make a 3♠ call a relay to 3NT. If Responder wants to play in 3NT (or would have bid 3NT in this auction as "to play"), he bids 3♠, expecting that Opener will bid 3NT. If that was his intended contract, that's where we end up. Note that this relay would not risk a lead-directing double, because the person making the double would be on lead.
Using that approach, 3NT by Responder would instead be a cue of spades.
What this gains is that Responder can now relay to 3NT and then cue a minor if he has mere "cooperative" values. 3NT, 4♣, or 4♦ directly would be serious cues (3NT as a serious spade cue). With mere cooperative values any no minor control, Responder relays and then bids 4♥.
What if Opener rejects the relay? If Opener would not have passed 3NT, then he bids whatever he would have bid instead of 3NT. However, he should probably stretch to make a cue in support of himself if he would have bid 4♥, in case all was well in the world.
This same idea might work whenever hearts is agreed or is the sole focus suit and where the person bidding 3♠ over a trump-setting or focus-setting 3♥ call will be the declarer if the contract will be 3NT.
Your partner opens 1♥ and you bid 2♣, game-forcing. Partner rebids 2♥, and you bid 2NT. Partner repeats 3♥.
At this point, the contract will either be a notrump strain or a heart strain, right? So, any call except 3NT would be a cuebid in support of hearts. So far, so good.
However, what is partner's strength? This seems like a sequence where partner's strength is fairly unlimited. He might have a bare minimum opening. Or, he might have a powerhouse that is not right for an immediate 3♥ jump. This seems like a really good sequence for using Serious 3NT, but you just cannot do that.
Or, can you?
Suppose that you make a 3♠ call a relay to 3NT. If Responder wants to play in 3NT (or would have bid 3NT in this auction as "to play"), he bids 3♠, expecting that Opener will bid 3NT. If that was his intended contract, that's where we end up. Note that this relay would not risk a lead-directing double, because the person making the double would be on lead.
Using that approach, 3NT by Responder would instead be a cue of spades.
What this gains is that Responder can now relay to 3NT and then cue a minor if he has mere "cooperative" values. 3NT, 4♣, or 4♦ directly would be serious cues (3NT as a serious spade cue). With mere cooperative values any no minor control, Responder relays and then bids 4♥.
What if Opener rejects the relay? If Opener would not have passed 3NT, then he bids whatever he would have bid instead of 3NT. However, he should probably stretch to make a cue in support of himself if he would have bid 4♥, in case all was well in the world.
This same idea might work whenever hearts is agreed or is the sole focus suit and where the person bidding 3♠ over a trump-setting or focus-setting 3♥ call will be the declarer if the contract will be 3NT.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Flexible Inversion?
I have occasionally been asked if there is merit to inverting the meaning of a 3♠ cuebid and a serious 3NT call when hearts are trumps. I have thought this through a bit more and have a thought to share on this topic.
If hearts are set as trumps, after a natural spade call, then I believe that cuebidding spades naturally at the normal, "cheap" level of 3♠ is more important than the serious cue, largely because the existence of that spade cue is critical to partner deciding how serious he is.
As an easy example, consider a very basic auction. 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥-P-3♠. If 3♠ is just a spade cue, then Opener can better decide how serious he is by reference to his spade holding. If 3♠ is "serious," then Responder is deciding how serious he is without reference to whether Responder does or does not have a spade card. It seems to me that the better course is for Responder to first tell that critical fact before the partnership decides seriousness.
Another example. 1♥-P-2minor-P-2♠-P-3♥. Here, again, it seems that Opener should define his spade suit quality as his primary function at this point, with Responder then showing seriousness in light of that fact. Arguably, however, this might be different, where Opener might want to show serious interest with a 3♠ call, to "get under" the ability for Responder to now cue the critical spade honor for him. I'm still undecided here.
So, perhaps the inversion should occur (if you like that idea) unless 3♠ is Responder's first chance to cue a spade suit opened by partner?
If hearts are set as trumps, after a natural spade call, then I believe that cuebidding spades naturally at the normal, "cheap" level of 3♠ is more important than the serious cue, largely because the existence of that spade cue is critical to partner deciding how serious he is.
As an easy example, consider a very basic auction. 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥-P-3♠. If 3♠ is just a spade cue, then Opener can better decide how serious he is by reference to his spade holding. If 3♠ is "serious," then Responder is deciding how serious he is without reference to whether Responder does or does not have a spade card. It seems to me that the better course is for Responder to first tell that critical fact before the partnership decides seriousness.
Another example. 1♥-P-2minor-P-2♠-P-3♥. Here, again, it seems that Opener should define his spade suit quality as his primary function at this point, with Responder then showing seriousness in light of that fact. Arguably, however, this might be different, where Opener might want to show serious interest with a 3♠ call, to "get under" the ability for Responder to now cue the critical spade honor for him. I'm still undecided here.
So, perhaps the inversion should occur (if you like that idea) unless 3♠ is Responder's first chance to cue a spade suit opened by partner?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Three Diamonds as Stayman
A lot of people probably already know about the Muppet Stayman solution to Puppet Stayman's inability to handle Responder with 5♠/4♥. Opener bids 3♥ when he has no 4-card or five-card major (instead bidding 3NT with five hearts), to allow Responder to bid 3♠ with 5♠/4♥.
This same restructuring principle (3NT=hearts, 3♥=negative) can be used in other situations, to solve other, similar problems.
A classic problem example would be in formulating defenses to when your 1NT or 2NT opening faces a 3♦ intervention. Playing Responder's double as negative only goes so far. If you treat the double as "Stayman," and have Opener bid 3NT with four hearts, 3♠ with four spades, and 3♥ with no four-card major, then Responder can, again, better handle the hand with 5♠/4♥.
This same structure works if a strong 2♣ opener rebids 3♣. Responder can bid 3♦ as "Stayman," asking about the majors. If Opener does not have a four-card major, he bids 3♥ (3NT would show, again, four hearts), allowing Responder to better handle a hand with 5♠/4♥.
How about after 3♣ interference of a 1NT or 2NT opening. My usual defense is for a double to be Muppet Stayman, with transfers (3♠ showing diamonds). One could, however, decide that ditching transfers and an easy way to show diamonds allows a possible improvement of 3♦ as a modified (as discussed) Stayman bid "with a stopper," making the double of 3♣, Muppet, deny a stopper.
Another instance of this big principle might include the sequence 1♣-3♦-? If the double is negative, inversion of the 3♥/3NT meanings allows Responder to, again, better handle 5♠/4♥.
A more convoluted example carries this even further. Suppose that 2♣...3M shows a four-card major and longer diamonds (Belladonna?). There is still a problem when Opener has 4-3-6-0 or 4-3-5-1 shape if Responder has five hearts. The solution to that problem is to have Opener bid 3♦ with those problem shapes, reserving 3♠ for hands with four spades, five or more diamonds, and less than three hearts. When Opener does bid 3♦, this time Responder, if he is not about to raise diamonds, acts sort of like 3♦ was actually Muppet Stayman. If he has a 5-card major, he bid 3♠ (spades) or 3NT (hearts). If he does not, Responder bids 3♥, allowing Opener to now bid 3♠ if he has that 4-3-6-0 or 4-3-5-1 hand. Note the secondary benefit that Opener declares more of the 3NT contracts this way.
There may be many other instances where this may pay off. A very obscure one to consider is an inversion of 3♥ and 3NT as advances of a takeout double of a 3♦ opening. 3♥, in that situation, could grab onto and also include hands where Advancer might be struggling between a 3NT advance and a 4♣ advance. By putting these into 3♥, you allow Partner to, in a sense, make an insufficient bid of 3NT after your "4♣ call." If he wants you to tell him what you were thinking, he bids 3♠, and you end up at the same spot. The downside is that 3♥ is no longer a possible contract, but strain and not unnecessarily bypassing 3NT might be sufficient compensating benefits.
This same restructuring principle (3NT=hearts, 3♥=negative) can be used in other situations, to solve other, similar problems.
A classic problem example would be in formulating defenses to when your 1NT or 2NT opening faces a 3♦ intervention. Playing Responder's double as negative only goes so far. If you treat the double as "Stayman," and have Opener bid 3NT with four hearts, 3♠ with four spades, and 3♥ with no four-card major, then Responder can, again, better handle the hand with 5♠/4♥.
This same structure works if a strong 2♣ opener rebids 3♣. Responder can bid 3♦ as "Stayman," asking about the majors. If Opener does not have a four-card major, he bids 3♥ (3NT would show, again, four hearts), allowing Responder to better handle a hand with 5♠/4♥.
How about after 3♣ interference of a 1NT or 2NT opening. My usual defense is for a double to be Muppet Stayman, with transfers (3♠ showing diamonds). One could, however, decide that ditching transfers and an easy way to show diamonds allows a possible improvement of 3♦ as a modified (as discussed) Stayman bid "with a stopper," making the double of 3♣, Muppet, deny a stopper.
Another instance of this big principle might include the sequence 1♣-3♦-? If the double is negative, inversion of the 3♥/3NT meanings allows Responder to, again, better handle 5♠/4♥.
A more convoluted example carries this even further. Suppose that 2♣...3M shows a four-card major and longer diamonds (Belladonna?). There is still a problem when Opener has 4-3-6-0 or 4-3-5-1 shape if Responder has five hearts. The solution to that problem is to have Opener bid 3♦ with those problem shapes, reserving 3♠ for hands with four spades, five or more diamonds, and less than three hearts. When Opener does bid 3♦, this time Responder, if he is not about to raise diamonds, acts sort of like 3♦ was actually Muppet Stayman. If he has a 5-card major, he bid 3♠ (spades) or 3NT (hearts). If he does not, Responder bids 3♥, allowing Opener to now bid 3♠ if he has that 4-3-6-0 or 4-3-5-1 hand. Note the secondary benefit that Opener declares more of the 3NT contracts this way.
There may be many other instances where this may pay off. A very obscure one to consider is an inversion of 3♥ and 3NT as advances of a takeout double of a 3♦ opening. 3♥, in that situation, could grab onto and also include hands where Advancer might be struggling between a 3NT advance and a 4♣ advance. By putting these into 3♥, you allow Partner to, in a sense, make an insufficient bid of 3NT after your "4♣ call." If he wants you to tell him what you were thinking, he bids 3♠, and you end up at the same spot. The downside is that 3♥ is no longer a possible contract, but strain and not unnecessarily bypassing 3NT might be sufficient compensating benefits.
Monday, November 10, 2008
My 2001 Canape Book
Because of a number of requests for this, I have attached links to pdf's of my 2001 canape book. See links to the left of the main page.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Mirror Auction
Opener: ♠AQxxx ♥KQx ♦xxx ♣Kx
Responder: ♠Kxxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣Axxx
This set of hands was provided to me for analysis. I found something interesting here.
The auction with the opening bid as indicated in easy, whichever route you take.
Option #1: Opener starts with a 1NT opening. 14 HCP, five-card suit, three hearts - sure. Responder bids Stayman; Opener shows spades. Responder splinters; Opener accepts. Easy.
Option #2: Opener starts with a 1♠ opening and a 2/1 GF sequence commences. 1♠-2♣. At this point, I am a tad weird and like 2♦ by Opener. It works well when Responder can now bid 2♠. Opener bids 3♣ (two of the top three spades for bypassing 2NT, one of the top three clubs). Responder bypasses diamonds (none of the top three honors) to cue 3♥ (heart control). Opener cues 3NT (serious because tactical), allowing Responder to bid his stiff diamond (4♦), also denying two top clubs. That should be enough.
Option #3: Immediate or delayed splinter. 1♠-4♦, or my way (1♠-3♣ ,multi-purpose spade raise; 3♦ asking; 3♥ for undisclosed stiff; 3NT asking; 4♦).
The one "bad" auction would be 1♠-2♣; 2NT-3♠; 3NT(maximum for a minimum)-4♦; 4♥-??? This is why I really like the 2♦ call.
In any event, switch who opens now. This makes it a lot more difficult, unless you are empathetic.
1♣-1♠; 2♠-? Responder should visualize that a perfect minimum with a stiff diamond is possible and bid 3♣ as a cuebid of a club card to give Opener space to splinter. Opener should remember that 3♣ is not always just a game try and should now kick into slam try bidding (since he will accept), jumping to 4♦. A lot of people, however, will typically mess these auctions up.
In practice, no one facing these two hands found the slam. I'm not sure, in the real world, who opened. Heck, some people may have auctions where the long-spade hand opens after a pass from partner. That would create, I suppose, a third possible sequence:
P-1♠
2♣(drury)-?
Again, Opener should know his partner well enough to realize that a pass is possible with this partner. A fair finish:
...2♣(drury)-2NT
4♦
Well, 25 HCP slams are a bit tough.
Responder: ♠Kxxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣Axxx
This set of hands was provided to me for analysis. I found something interesting here.
The auction with the opening bid as indicated in easy, whichever route you take.
Option #1: Opener starts with a 1NT opening. 14 HCP, five-card suit, three hearts - sure. Responder bids Stayman; Opener shows spades. Responder splinters; Opener accepts. Easy.
Option #2: Opener starts with a 1♠ opening and a 2/1 GF sequence commences. 1♠-2♣. At this point, I am a tad weird and like 2♦ by Opener. It works well when Responder can now bid 2♠. Opener bids 3♣ (two of the top three spades for bypassing 2NT, one of the top three clubs). Responder bypasses diamonds (none of the top three honors) to cue 3♥ (heart control). Opener cues 3NT (serious because tactical), allowing Responder to bid his stiff diamond (4♦), also denying two top clubs. That should be enough.
Option #3: Immediate or delayed splinter. 1♠-4♦, or my way (1♠-3♣ ,multi-purpose spade raise; 3♦ asking; 3♥ for undisclosed stiff; 3NT asking; 4♦).
The one "bad" auction would be 1♠-2♣; 2NT-3♠; 3NT(maximum for a minimum)-4♦; 4♥-??? This is why I really like the 2♦ call.
In any event, switch who opens now. This makes it a lot more difficult, unless you are empathetic.
1♣-1♠; 2♠-? Responder should visualize that a perfect minimum with a stiff diamond is possible and bid 3♣ as a cuebid of a club card to give Opener space to splinter. Opener should remember that 3♣ is not always just a game try and should now kick into slam try bidding (since he will accept), jumping to 4♦. A lot of people, however, will typically mess these auctions up.
In practice, no one facing these two hands found the slam. I'm not sure, in the real world, who opened. Heck, some people may have auctions where the long-spade hand opens after a pass from partner. That would create, I suppose, a third possible sequence:
P-1♠
2♣(drury)-?
Again, Opener should know his partner well enough to realize that a pass is possible with this partner. A fair finish:
...2♣(drury)-2NT
4♦
Well, 25 HCP slams are a bit tough.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Focus Clarifying Responses to RKCB?
A possible treatment to solve a possible problem sequence dawned on me. I'm not sure how to formulate rules to handle this, but I'll give an example.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the sequence is something like:
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♥
Perhaps Opener made a "fake reverse" for some tactical reason and holds a spade fragment. From Opener's perspective, the trump fit is going to be spades, but from Responder's perspective hearts is agreed.
Suppose further that the partnership agreement is that a 3♠ call by Opener is best treated as a cuebid, with Opener free to correct any heart contract to spades later if appropriate. Thus, Opener could simply bid 4♠ now or later as a "focus correction."
As an example, the auction might be...
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♥
4♠, where 4♠ is treated as showing a contextual minimum and a spade fit (2♥ being thereby proven to have been manufactured).
Or, the auction might be...
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♥
3♠(cue)-4♦(cooperative cue)
4♠(focus clarifying, no club control)
Something like that.
These sequences seem to have some merit, from Opener's "I have a problem" perspective. Whereas your approach might not result in problems like this, it seems that sound bidding could feature such auction types with such problems in an intelligent, if minority, approach.
So, assuming that this type of (nonsense?) bidding appeals to you, there is nonetheless a problem -- what if Responder bids 4NT (RKCB) first?
One solution is for Opener to not bid this way unless his answer to RKCB would be 5♣ or 5♦ (and perhaps some also specific-kings limitations as well).
An alternative idea is for the partnership to have certain discussed sequence types where "focus clarifying responses to RKCB" are used.
Thus, assume the auction described above (1♦-1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠...) but where Responder now leaps to 4NT as RKCB. The "focus clarifying" responses (if agreed for a sequence like this -- where Opener makes a reverse into hearts after a spade response) would be:
5♣ = 0/3
5♦ = 1/4
5♥ = 2 without (hearts confirmed)
5♠ = 2 without (spades now agreed)
5NT = 2 with (trumps still in limbo)
Notice how Kickback by Responder would help in this specific situation.
A similar situation might occur after a jump shift to 3♣:
1♦-1♠
3♣-4♥(RKCB for clubs)
???
Solution:
4♠ = 0/3
4NT = 1/4
5♣ = 2 without (clubs agreed)
5♦ = 2 without (diamonds refocused)
5♥ = 2 with (still unclarified position)
When precisely to use this tool (if ever) should obviously be discussed.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the sequence is something like:
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♥
Perhaps Opener made a "fake reverse" for some tactical reason and holds a spade fragment. From Opener's perspective, the trump fit is going to be spades, but from Responder's perspective hearts is agreed.
Suppose further that the partnership agreement is that a 3♠ call by Opener is best treated as a cuebid, with Opener free to correct any heart contract to spades later if appropriate. Thus, Opener could simply bid 4♠ now or later as a "focus correction."
As an example, the auction might be...
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♥
4♠, where 4♠ is treated as showing a contextual minimum and a spade fit (2♥ being thereby proven to have been manufactured).
Or, the auction might be...
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♥
3♠(cue)-4♦(cooperative cue)
4♠(focus clarifying, no club control)
Something like that.
These sequences seem to have some merit, from Opener's "I have a problem" perspective. Whereas your approach might not result in problems like this, it seems that sound bidding could feature such auction types with such problems in an intelligent, if minority, approach.
So, assuming that this type of (nonsense?) bidding appeals to you, there is nonetheless a problem -- what if Responder bids 4NT (RKCB) first?
One solution is for Opener to not bid this way unless his answer to RKCB would be 5♣ or 5♦ (and perhaps some also specific-kings limitations as well).
An alternative idea is for the partnership to have certain discussed sequence types where "focus clarifying responses to RKCB" are used.
Thus, assume the auction described above (1♦-1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠...) but where Responder now leaps to 4NT as RKCB. The "focus clarifying" responses (if agreed for a sequence like this -- where Opener makes a reverse into hearts after a spade response) would be:
5♣ = 0/3
5♦ = 1/4
5♥ = 2 without (hearts confirmed)
5♠ = 2 without (spades now agreed)
5NT = 2 with (trumps still in limbo)
Notice how Kickback by Responder would help in this specific situation.
A similar situation might occur after a jump shift to 3♣:
1♦-1♠
3♣-4♥(RKCB for clubs)
???
Solution:
4♠ = 0/3
4NT = 1/4
5♣ = 2 without (clubs agreed)
5♦ = 2 without (diamonds refocused)
5♥ = 2 with (still unclarified position)
When precisely to use this tool (if ever) should obviously be discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)