For those who do not know about the site, the bridgewinners site is quite good. I also maintain a smaller blog on that site. http://bridgewinners.com/
Also, the latest Lima Newsletter can be found at www.limadbc.blogspot.com and includes the latest chapter of Gil's Epic Gae.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
One Higher than Splinter, but Below Game
There are occasionally calls that are one level higher than necessary for a splinter and yet below game.
One example is the double jump reverse. For example:
1C-P-1S-P-
4H
1C-P-1S-P-
4D
1D-P-1S-P-
4H
1C-P-1H-P-
4D
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.
A second example would be a double jump cuebid below game.
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?).
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.
One example is the double jump reverse. For example:
1C-P-1S-P-
4H
1C-P-1S-P-
4D
1D-P-1S-P-
4H
1C-P-1H-P-
4D
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.
A second example would be a double jump cuebid below game.
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?).
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.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Strange 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.
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.
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)
But, what if Dummy has K-x-x(-x), partner the Queen, and Declarer the 10-x-x(-x)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Notice how Journalist leads ("Jack denies") really messes up both scenarios terribly and is perhaps the worst method, for opening-lead surrounding play reasons.
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.
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)
But, what if Dummy has K-x-x(-x), partner the Queen, and Declarer the 10-x-x(-x)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Notice how Journalist leads ("Jack denies") really messes up both scenarios terribly and is perhaps the worst method, for opening-lead surrounding play reasons.
Monday, June 25, 2012
MPP Ebooks Sale
Summer Sale: 25% off all eBook orders over $25*
From now until July 31st, we are treating our readers to a discount on their eBook purchases of $25 or more. Simply log into eBooksBridge.com and add your purchases to your shopping cart. When you are ready to check out, use the coupon code Summer2012 to redeem your discount.
*Offer ends July 31st, 2012.
*Offer ends July 31st, 2012.
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!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Serious 3NT for Beginners
I 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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe a funny word? Like, "Stumble Bunny 3NT." The idea being to avoid stumble bunny auctions?
Maybe I need to get that baby concept in there, like "Stumble Baby 3NT" or "Pampers 3NT?"
I am running short on ideas.
So, any suggestions for a catchy name?
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.
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.
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.
Maybe a funny word? Like, "Stumble Bunny 3NT." The idea being to avoid stumble bunny auctions?
Maybe I need to get that baby concept in there, like "Stumble Baby 3NT" or "Pampers 3NT?"
I am running short on ideas.
So, any suggestions for a catchy name?
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The Importance of System Context
A discussion on the Bridge Winners site (bridgewinners.com) was quite interesting to me. The question was whether Opener should accept or decline a 4D splinter with a given hand.
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.
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.
For instance, take the auction 1H-P-4D. Could Responder have xxxx-Jxxx-x-AKJx?
My position would be that this holding is not possible if
1H-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2H-P-
2S-P-4D
would show that hand. Redundancy is not allowed.
Similarly, consider
1H-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2H-P-
2S-P-2NT-P-
3C-P-4D
as having impact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For instance, take the auction 1H-P-4D. Could Responder have xxxx-Jxxx-x-AKJx?
My position would be that this holding is not possible if
1H-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2H-P-
2S-P-4D
would show that hand. Redundancy is not allowed.
Similarly, consider
1H-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2H-P-
2S-P-2NT-P-
3C-P-4D
as having impact.
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.
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.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Gil's Epic Game
I 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 www.limadbc.blogspot.com. 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)