I was asked to think about 4SF sequences. The question was whether this should best be GF or forcing to 2NT, or something else. I realize that most people define all 4SF sequences the same. But, this did not seem to make sense to me, as each is different. My suggestion in response to the proposed question is still in discussion, but you may find this worth considering, as well.
For sake of discussion, I have assumed that the 4SF sequences we are concerned about are those with a one-over-one response, no reverse by Opener. The following sequences are the entirety of the qualifying sequences:
1. 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ (and what is 2♠?)
2. 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥
3. 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦
4. 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣
5. 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♠
6. 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥
7. 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦
8. 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣
This set need not all be handled the same, as each has somewhat of a unique set of parameters. However, some consistency makes sense.
Two of these sequence have a unique similarity:
4. 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣
7. 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦
In these two sequences, the 4SF call is below two of Opener’s long suit and is below two of Responder’s first suit. In both of these, Opener can:
1. rebid his long suit with a minimum and no fit for Responder’s suit,
2. can bid two of Responder’s suit with a minimum and a fit for Responder’s suit,
3. can bid 2NT with a maximum and a fit, or
4. can bid anything else (logical) with a maximum and no fit.
If we use that approach, then I think these two sequences should be invitational or better. If Opener shows a minimum, with or without a fit, the Responder can:
1. pass or
2. bid 2NT to play, but
3. any other call is GF.
One sequence is nearly identical, in theory:
3. 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦
In this sequence, Opener could:
1. rebid his shorter suit (2♥) with a minimum and no fit,
2. bid 2♠ with fit and a minimum,
3. 2NT with a maximum and a fit, or
4. any other with a maximum and no fit (logical).
This would allow the same basic approach, with Responder bidding
1. pass, or
2. correcting 2♥ to 3♣ as NF, or
3. bidding 2NT to play, or
4. any other call as GF.
In all other situations, excepting the weird 1-1-1-1 sequence, I think 4SGF is probably the best approach, because of the space concerns.
Thus, this type of analysis would lead me to a conclusion:
1. Fourth Suit is Forcing to Game if the Fourth Suit is a major OR is 3♣.
2. Fourth Suit is Invitational+ if the Fourth Suit is a MINOR at the TWO-LEVEL.
a. If 4SF is a MINOR at the TWO-LEVEL, Opener can:
i. Bid Responder’s major at the two-level with a 3-fit* and a minimum
ii. Bid his own cheapest suit at the two-level with no fit and a minimum (this will always be the “relay,” the next-suit-up)
iii. Bid 2NT as an artificial bid showing a maximum with a 3-fit for Responder’s suit (GF)
iv. Any other call is GF and logical
b. If Opener shows a minimum, with or without fit, then:
i. Responder can pass Opener’s call
ii. Responder can correct to Opener’s long suit to play
iii. Responder can bid 2NT to play
iv. Any other call is GF
*We might tweak this such that Opener’s “minimum with 3-fit” is actually “minimum with 2-3 cards in fit.” The “non-fit minimum” option would then be 0-1 in Responder’s suit. This might make sense if unbalanced 3-fit raises would be common.
Special Case of 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ or 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♠:
I like the latter (1♣-1♦-1♥-2♠) as GF with the true 4♠/5+♦ hand.
The former (1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠) maybe should be 4SF, with 1♠ artificial. Probably just a one-round force, actually. If Responder runs into a problem, he can always rebid 2♠, which cannot be natural (because he did not bid 2♠ the first time).
Suppose 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ start, and Opener rebids 2♣. If Responder bids 2♠, this is clearly forcing, again, because Responder could have jumped to 2♠ over 1♥. So, 1♠ as a one-round force only is not a real problem. We could stop at 1NT, even.
[This, howevetr, is also where I have consiodered a one-level "Kokish" style of auction...]
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Recognizing Assumptions
I ran into an interesting problem in a sequence last Thursday night. The most interesting part for me was the reminder of the assumption problem.
What I mean by this is that there are sequences where at some point you or partner makes a bid that is the assumption bid. The bidder may think that the bid shows X, but the partner may think the bid shows Y. Or, perhaps partner is uncertain as to whether the bid shows X or Y and is therefore stuck.
Now, we all know to avoid, if we can, a call that is unclear, but the assumption bid is a call where one partner thinks it is clear and therefore does not recognize that partner can have a problem. An assumption bid can result in arguments when bidder and partner both think the bid has a specific meaning, different from each other, not recognizing the alternative.
The example was 2C-P-2D(GF)-P-2S-P-3NT. Is Responder showing a tweener hand (8-9 or so), kind of a Baby Quantitative, or is this Fast Arrival (2344 with two queens)? Either is perfectly playable, reasonable, and logical.
On the one hand, you might have a thought as to what this should be, or maybe a thought that a conventional or artificial meaning might make sense. My point, however, is that this actual sequence involved an assumption bid at the table. The person bidding 2NT had an assumed meaning, whereas Opener did not know and recognized the problem with interpretation.
I think one skill at this game is in recognizing "assumption bid" situations. Places where discussion is unlikely but where general principles could lead to a combination of results. This skill allows you to better discuss sequences (getting deeper into esoterica, perhaps). It also allows you to track a regular partner's thinking, such that you can predict his interpretation better in these assumption bidding situations. It allows you to avoid assumption bid options in favor of perhaps inferior but safer non-assumption options. It allows you to better structure your own calls to exhibit consistency as to assumption bid situations ("bid where you live," "flags rather than cues," "shortness third"). If you can sing a jingle after the assumption bid call you elect, that's a good thing.
If you can spot assumption bid situations, this will allow you to track partner (if he goes there). If you find that partner has a consistent track, you are that much better as a partnership. If, on the other hand, partner seems to run wild across the field, apparently inconsistent in his interpretation of assumption bid resolution, then perhaps ask him his thoughts as to why Call A showed X but Call B showed Y. Maybe he concedes inconsistency and corrects it. Maybe he explains a nuance that you missed, clearing up the inconsistency as actually consistent for a deeper reason, and you either grow or realize that he is way out there. Maybe he stares at you with a dumb look, calls you an idiot, and displays his own ignorance, in which case you run like a deer for the woods, finding a new partner.
If you find assumption bids hard to spot, I can make it easy for you, as a starter. I bet you and partner reach points where a bidding misunderstanding occurs or where a really bad call seems to have been made. Someone might have been an idiot, or you both may have been fools. Or, this may be a situation where one or more assumption bids occurred -- two people can bid intelligently to a ridiculous contract because they made sane but ionconsistent-with-each-other assumption bids. So, if partner seems to have bid something screwy, stop. Don't write this off as insanity. Grab this opportunity as a case study in assumption bids and figure out where the assumption bid(s) is/are hidden, figure out the reasoning behind them, and learn from the situation. Maybe your "obvious call" was an assumption bid or was based on a different interpretation of an assumption bid by partner.
What I mean by this is that there are sequences where at some point you or partner makes a bid that is the assumption bid. The bidder may think that the bid shows X, but the partner may think the bid shows Y. Or, perhaps partner is uncertain as to whether the bid shows X or Y and is therefore stuck.
Now, we all know to avoid, if we can, a call that is unclear, but the assumption bid is a call where one partner thinks it is clear and therefore does not recognize that partner can have a problem. An assumption bid can result in arguments when bidder and partner both think the bid has a specific meaning, different from each other, not recognizing the alternative.
The example was 2C-P-2D(GF)-P-2S-P-3NT. Is Responder showing a tweener hand (8-9 or so), kind of a Baby Quantitative, or is this Fast Arrival (2344 with two queens)? Either is perfectly playable, reasonable, and logical.
On the one hand, you might have a thought as to what this should be, or maybe a thought that a conventional or artificial meaning might make sense. My point, however, is that this actual sequence involved an assumption bid at the table. The person bidding 2NT had an assumed meaning, whereas Opener did not know and recognized the problem with interpretation.
I think one skill at this game is in recognizing "assumption bid" situations. Places where discussion is unlikely but where general principles could lead to a combination of results. This skill allows you to better discuss sequences (getting deeper into esoterica, perhaps). It also allows you to track a regular partner's thinking, such that you can predict his interpretation better in these assumption bidding situations. It allows you to avoid assumption bid options in favor of perhaps inferior but safer non-assumption options. It allows you to better structure your own calls to exhibit consistency as to assumption bid situations ("bid where you live," "flags rather than cues," "shortness third"). If you can sing a jingle after the assumption bid call you elect, that's a good thing.
If you can spot assumption bid situations, this will allow you to track partner (if he goes there). If you find that partner has a consistent track, you are that much better as a partnership. If, on the other hand, partner seems to run wild across the field, apparently inconsistent in his interpretation of assumption bid resolution, then perhaps ask him his thoughts as to why Call A showed X but Call B showed Y. Maybe he concedes inconsistency and corrects it. Maybe he explains a nuance that you missed, clearing up the inconsistency as actually consistent for a deeper reason, and you either grow or realize that he is way out there. Maybe he stares at you with a dumb look, calls you an idiot, and displays his own ignorance, in which case you run like a deer for the woods, finding a new partner.
If you find assumption bids hard to spot, I can make it easy for you, as a starter. I bet you and partner reach points where a bidding misunderstanding occurs or where a really bad call seems to have been made. Someone might have been an idiot, or you both may have been fools. Or, this may be a situation where one or more assumption bids occurred -- two people can bid intelligently to a ridiculous contract because they made sane but ionconsistent-with-each-other assumption bids. So, if partner seems to have bid something screwy, stop. Don't write this off as insanity. Grab this opportunity as a case study in assumption bids and figure out where the assumption bid(s) is/are hidden, figure out the reasoning behind them, and learn from the situation. Maybe your "obvious call" was an assumption bid or was based on a different interpretation of an assumption bid by partner.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
One-Level Kokish?
I was looking for something else, deep in my computer files, and I found something I had forgotton about. By the way -- consider setting up computer files for random ideas that pop up. You might be surprised that crazy ideas from a drunken night years ago amazingly solve a problem that emerges years later.
Quite a few years ago, I dabbled for about a month with something sort of like "One-Level Kokish." The idea was that if the auction started 1C-P-1D-P-?, Opener's 1H would be an artificial relay to 1S (exceptions allowed), after which Opener completed his story. In a Walsh approach, this seemed to make a lot of sense, but I kind of left this alone for, oh, about 10 years.
Has anyone dabbled in that idea? The reason I gave this up was that it seemed like a relatively rare sequence to get concerned about, especially with no competitition, and a relatively non-interesting sequence, in a Walsh 2/1 approach. But, I also imagine that this type of relay might be even more useful in a strong club sequence, or even in a strong diamond sequence (if 1C is nebulous or stacked canape or something).
Eh, probably made the right decision ignoring that idea for 10 years. If the file doesn't get corrupted in the next 10 years, maybe this will be interesting in 2020.
Quite a few years ago, I dabbled for about a month with something sort of like "One-Level Kokish." The idea was that if the auction started 1C-P-1D-P-?, Opener's 1H would be an artificial relay to 1S (exceptions allowed), after which Opener completed his story. In a Walsh approach, this seemed to make a lot of sense, but I kind of left this alone for, oh, about 10 years.
Has anyone dabbled in that idea? The reason I gave this up was that it seemed like a relatively rare sequence to get concerned about, especially with no competitition, and a relatively non-interesting sequence, in a Walsh 2/1 approach. But, I also imagine that this type of relay might be even more useful in a strong club sequence, or even in a strong diamond sequence (if 1C is nebulous or stacked canape or something).
Eh, probably made the right decision ignoring that idea for 10 years. If the file doesn't get corrupted in the next 10 years, maybe this will be interesting in 2020.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Strange Little Unwind
There was for a while a strange little unwind that I played with a partner of mine, one that you might find a liking for.
Simple auction, really. You open 1D, partner raises to 2D (limit+).
Suppose that you have a desire to show an unbalanced hand and focus the second suit. That's easy -- bid 2H, 2S, or 3C.
Suppose that you want to focus the stiff or void, instead. Easy again -- bid your stiff at the three-level. 3C, 3H, or 3S.
Wait a minute. 3C covers both a real suit and a short suit. What to do, what to do?
Easy! Make 3D by Responder an asking bid, seeking the shortness. If Opener has real clubs, and an unbalanced hand, he must have shortness in a major. If he doesn't have shortness in a major, but he is unbalanced, then he must have shortness in clubs (and bids 3NT).
This was a fairly unusual solution for this problem, one that may well be worth adopting, if you also sense this problem. I mean, there may be other solutions, like an immediate 3NT rebid to show the short club hand, but this approach just seems so symmetrical, like it was meant to be.
It kind of reminds me, though, of one of my favorite results with my wife, when she was learning to play. I taught her splinters, but i forgot to mention that 3S would be a splinter when I open 1H. So, she launched a 3S call on me with seven spades and a relatively weak hand.
We ended up in 6H, because I had the right hand for it.
When hearts split 3-3 with the Queen onside, my AKJxxx was just enough to pull trumps. Her spades were just enough that I could run the suit after losing one spade. With control everywhere else, 6H made.
Of course, it sure seems like 6H and 6S both should make, right? Well, it turns out that my side A-Q provided ample control in 6H, but 6S fails on that lead, which was found at every other table.
This was the first occurrence (and last) of the either-or splinter-preempt, a 3S call that denies 2-6 spades and shows "15 by Leah Count," similar to Cansino Count. You add your HCP to your spades. If the total is 13-15 LCP, you can bid 3S. Simple, really. How many conventions have a 100% success rate?
Simple auction, really. You open 1D, partner raises to 2D (limit+).
Suppose that you have a desire to show an unbalanced hand and focus the second suit. That's easy -- bid 2H, 2S, or 3C.
Suppose that you want to focus the stiff or void, instead. Easy again -- bid your stiff at the three-level. 3C, 3H, or 3S.
Wait a minute. 3C covers both a real suit and a short suit. What to do, what to do?
Easy! Make 3D by Responder an asking bid, seeking the shortness. If Opener has real clubs, and an unbalanced hand, he must have shortness in a major. If he doesn't have shortness in a major, but he is unbalanced, then he must have shortness in clubs (and bids 3NT).
This was a fairly unusual solution for this problem, one that may well be worth adopting, if you also sense this problem. I mean, there may be other solutions, like an immediate 3NT rebid to show the short club hand, but this approach just seems so symmetrical, like it was meant to be.
It kind of reminds me, though, of one of my favorite results with my wife, when she was learning to play. I taught her splinters, but i forgot to mention that 3S would be a splinter when I open 1H. So, she launched a 3S call on me with seven spades and a relatively weak hand.
We ended up in 6H, because I had the right hand for it.
When hearts split 3-3 with the Queen onside, my AKJxxx was just enough to pull trumps. Her spades were just enough that I could run the suit after losing one spade. With control everywhere else, 6H made.
Of course, it sure seems like 6H and 6S both should make, right? Well, it turns out that my side A-Q provided ample control in 6H, but 6S fails on that lead, which was found at every other table.
This was the first occurrence (and last) of the either-or splinter-preempt, a 3S call that denies 2-6 spades and shows "15 by Leah Count," similar to Cansino Count. You add your HCP to your spades. If the total is 13-15 LCP, you can bid 3S. Simple, really. How many conventions have a 100% success rate?
Friday, April 23, 2010
It seems like there should be a way
After a 1D opening by the opponents, I overcalled 1S with A10xxx-Axx-xx-AQx, a fairly hefty collection, but we play rather sound overcalls in this seat at the colors we had (I jump to 2S on any excuse). Responder passed, and my partner splintered 4D.
Here's the rub. I was fairly certain the the whole problem was whether partner had a hand like she actually had (KQxx-Kxxxx-x-Kxx) or the other hand she could have (KQxx-Kxx-x-Kxxxx). If the bidding seems insane at this point, give Advancer any number of my cards that makes her hand look like you would expect -- maybe AKxx in spades, and me Qxxxx. Maybe Axx in clubs, and me Kxx. The point remains -- the whole question is whether I have the right Queen.
I find this to occur a lot.
Here's the rub. I was fairly certain the the whole problem was whether partner had a hand like she actually had (KQxx-Kxxxx-x-Kxx) or the other hand she could have (KQxx-Kxx-x-Kxxxx). If the bidding seems insane at this point, give Advancer any number of my cards that makes her hand look like you would expect -- maybe AKxx in spades, and me Qxxxx. Maybe Axx in clubs, and me Kxx. The point remains -- the whole question is whether I have the right Queen.
I find this to occur a lot.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Talk, talk, talk, and play, play, play
There is and never will be anything that quite compares with partnership experience.
A discussion hand presented itself the other day, on a telephone call with a favorite partner of mine, Ken Eichenbaum.
The problem was this. Your partner opens 1S, opponents passing throughout. You respond 3D, which conventionally shows an invitational hand with hearts (looks like a high-end weak two to an ugly one-level opening you should be ashamed of, perhaps). We do this to gain a smidge of extra preemption in the 1S-P-3H auction, with one-under being the high "Bergen" option.
Anyway, that specific call could be 3H -- the point is the same. Opener next bids 4C. What's that?
As if in sync, we both kind of just knew the take on the auction that we would each have, if playing together. 4C is either a slam try agreeing hearts or a spade-club two-suiter with values. That part seems obvious -- it has to be one of these. But, it could be either. Responder, uncertain which, would clearly opt for a 4D call to unwind this, Opener bidding 4H when he has the power heart raise but 4S when he has the black suits. Because Opener knows what Responder would do out of the context of discussion, and because he KNOWS what THIS PARTNER would do, he can "safely" bid an undiscussed 4C in either situation, knowing that this will be unwound properly.
Partnerships benefit from a lot of discussion. "Weird hand came up with Johnny last night. Here's the hand. Blah-blah blah to you." "Um, I suppose 4D works." This type of discussion, and the actual experience at the table, gives the partnership a comfort level that expands the realm of "undiscussed sequence" into "undiscussed but with principles and theory known." Practical works a lot. But, sometimes practical just won't do. Sometimes, discussion just wasn't likely (who discusses this sequence?!?!?). In those situations, the only thing you have is logic to resolve situations where only one meaning is possible, despite discussion, or understanding of style, when two options are plausible, often coupled with unwind opportunities.
There of course is always a risk of a misread or a panic. But, sometimes that possible risk is lower than the known risk of NOT trying out the ambiguous, undiscussed action.
Of course, CRITICAL to this sort of partnership is one key requirement. You can be aggressive or passive. You can be naturalist, scientist, or a madman. But, be internally consistent and predictable to partner.
That's not to say that variation is not a good thing -- situations call for different action and some level of randomizing. But, "consistently randomize" in the right situations so that partner will know that this is a situation where randomizing is possible, or even likely, if that makes sense.
A discussion hand presented itself the other day, on a telephone call with a favorite partner of mine, Ken Eichenbaum.
The problem was this. Your partner opens 1S, opponents passing throughout. You respond 3D, which conventionally shows an invitational hand with hearts (looks like a high-end weak two to an ugly one-level opening you should be ashamed of, perhaps). We do this to gain a smidge of extra preemption in the 1S-P-3H auction, with one-under being the high "Bergen" option.
Anyway, that specific call could be 3H -- the point is the same. Opener next bids 4C. What's that?
As if in sync, we both kind of just knew the take on the auction that we would each have, if playing together. 4C is either a slam try agreeing hearts or a spade-club two-suiter with values. That part seems obvious -- it has to be one of these. But, it could be either. Responder, uncertain which, would clearly opt for a 4D call to unwind this, Opener bidding 4H when he has the power heart raise but 4S when he has the black suits. Because Opener knows what Responder would do out of the context of discussion, and because he KNOWS what THIS PARTNER would do, he can "safely" bid an undiscussed 4C in either situation, knowing that this will be unwound properly.
Partnerships benefit from a lot of discussion. "Weird hand came up with Johnny last night. Here's the hand. Blah-blah blah to you." "Um, I suppose 4D works." This type of discussion, and the actual experience at the table, gives the partnership a comfort level that expands the realm of "undiscussed sequence" into "undiscussed but with principles and theory known." Practical works a lot. But, sometimes practical just won't do. Sometimes, discussion just wasn't likely (who discusses this sequence?!?!?). In those situations, the only thing you have is logic to resolve situations where only one meaning is possible, despite discussion, or understanding of style, when two options are plausible, often coupled with unwind opportunities.
There of course is always a risk of a misread or a panic. But, sometimes that possible risk is lower than the known risk of NOT trying out the ambiguous, undiscussed action.
Of course, CRITICAL to this sort of partnership is one key requirement. You can be aggressive or passive. You can be naturalist, scientist, or a madman. But, be internally consistent and predictable to partner.
That's not to say that variation is not a good thing -- situations call for different action and some level of randomizing. But, "consistently randomize" in the right situations so that partner will know that this is a situation where randomizing is possible, or even likely, if that makes sense.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Update on Books
Honors Ebooks (http://www.ebooksbridge.com/) through Master Point Press has been up and running now for a while, and it seems to be working out great. I was able to update and modernize my 2001 canape book into a newer 2010 version, now running on MPP through the Honors Ebooks program.
Ray Lee has been working on another cool venture, as well, which will soon make the canape book, and others, available in hardcopy print. We are not sure what the timeline will be, but "soon" is the key word.
I have also decided, for various reasons, to switch publishers for my previously-announced book describing a two-way strong opening structure (2C and 2D as both strong openings) to MPP and Honors Ebooks. The ebook version will also be released "soon," with a print version following, as well. See prior announcement
The ebook format has a non-obvious upside, namely that in many situations books tend to be available in ebook format before print format, because creating the ebook version is faster than the print version. For the impatient, ebooks has that additional attraction. But, for those who prefer the feel of an actual book in hand, the print versions will be coming, as well.
Ray Lee has been working on another cool venture, as well, which will soon make the canape book, and others, available in hardcopy print. We are not sure what the timeline will be, but "soon" is the key word.
I have also decided, for various reasons, to switch publishers for my previously-announced book describing a two-way strong opening structure (2C and 2D as both strong openings) to MPP and Honors Ebooks. The ebook version will also be released "soon," with a print version following, as well. See prior announcement
The ebook format has a non-obvious upside, namely that in many situations books tend to be available in ebook format before print format, because creating the ebook version is faster than the print version. For the impatient, ebooks has that additional attraction. But, for those who prefer the feel of an actual book in hand, the print versions will be coming, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)