In my book, Overcalling pponent's 1NT, I made a lot of suggestions for structure types for overcalling 1NT using 2C as "one or both majors." The suggestions were not meant to be exhaustive. Another idea occurred to me today that some might like.
1NT-?
2C = Both majors (longer or equal hearts), or just hearts, or just spades and a minor
2D = "Soft" Reverse Flannery (4H/5S, 4H/6S, or just 6+ spades)
2H = Hearts and a minor
2S = 4S, longer minor
Another version, which is not strictly the same:
1NT-?
2C = "Soft" Flannery (4S/5H, 4S/6H, or just 6+ hearts, or SEE BELOW)
2D = "Soft" Reverse Flannery (4H/5S, 4H/6S, or just 6+ spades)
2H = Hearts and a minor
2S = Spades and a minor
In this version, 2C followed by 2S would be "one or both minors" with values. With a weak hand, bid 2NT or three of the minor immediately. If partner prefers spades (bids 2D), Overcaller must bid 2NT, 3C, or 3D instead of 2S with the minor(s) hand. The purpose of this structure is to allow Overcaller to make another descriptive call with the values hands and both majors.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
More Uses for Two Under Bidding
Those of you who have picked up a copy of my new book, Overcalling Opponent's 1NT, will undoubtedly realize that the main focus is on overcalling the opponents' 1NT openings but that I dedicate some time to discussing other uses for the theory, in other unrelated sequences. As I continue to think through permutations, new ideas come up. I thought I would share.
How about after a 1NT overcall by the opponents? Your partner, say, opens One Club, with a strong 1NT overcall. A lot of us play Lair here, where 2C is sort of a replacement for a negative double. Well, what about using the two-under approach? In the simplified version, 2C would show one or both majors with a weak hand, typically a long one-suited major (either one) or a weak hand with both majors (5-5 at least). Other calls, like 2D, 2H, and 2S, would then show the same pattern with extras. This approach would be particularly good in dealing with a R.U.N.T. 1NT overcall for those who also picked up my new book, Really Unusual Notrump (R.U.N.T.). Alternatively, a fit-showing style could be used, where 2C shows one or both majors, but if one major then with a fit for Opener's minor. Hence, for instance, after 1C, you would bid 2C with either major and clubs (or both majors).
What about tweaking Drury? After two passes, partner opens 1H. You hold 3H/4S with limit values and are concerned about missing a 4-4 spade fit. If Opener responds to your Drury call by acting as if he is responding to a one or both majors call, he bids 2D with spade preference (four spades) or 2H with heart preference (not four hearts). If he does that, then your Drury bid could be bid with a heart fit ("just hearts"), with 4S/3H ("both majors"), or with four spades and a longer minor ("just spades"). In the latter event, if partner bids 2D, you bid 2S. If he bids 2H, you also bid 2S and partner can decide what to do. You would need an unwind for when Opener has extras, of course,
How about after a 1NT overcall by the opponents? Your partner, say, opens One Club, with a strong 1NT overcall. A lot of us play Lair here, where 2C is sort of a replacement for a negative double. Well, what about using the two-under approach? In the simplified version, 2C would show one or both majors with a weak hand, typically a long one-suited major (either one) or a weak hand with both majors (5-5 at least). Other calls, like 2D, 2H, and 2S, would then show the same pattern with extras. This approach would be particularly good in dealing with a R.U.N.T. 1NT overcall for those who also picked up my new book, Really Unusual Notrump (R.U.N.T.). Alternatively, a fit-showing style could be used, where 2C shows one or both majors, but if one major then with a fit for Opener's minor. Hence, for instance, after 1C, you would bid 2C with either major and clubs (or both majors).
What about tweaking Drury? After two passes, partner opens 1H. You hold 3H/4S with limit values and are concerned about missing a 4-4 spade fit. If Opener responds to your Drury call by acting as if he is responding to a one or both majors call, he bids 2D with spade preference (four spades) or 2H with heart preference (not four hearts). If he does that, then your Drury bid could be bid with a heart fit ("just hearts"), with 4S/3H ("both majors"), or with four spades and a longer minor ("just spades"). In the latter event, if partner bids 2D, you bid 2S. If he bids 2H, you also bid 2S and partner can decide what to do. You would need an unwind for when Opener has extras, of course,
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Controls, or Shape? Why not both!
I am of the opinion that cuebidding beats pattern bidding in the long run. But, some either disagree or simply have their own preference. It seemed to me that a partnership could opt to use either one, perhaps situation-dependent, by employing a trigger.
Consider, for instance, a classic 2/1 GF auction:
1S-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2S
If spades are agreed for your partnership at this point, then some will use my methods and cuebid from this point forward, whereas others will prefer to have Opener complete his pattern and then cuebid from there. What if, instead, the first step is a trigger?
For those who lean cuebidding but might want to allow a pattern-bidding over-ride, consider this structure:
2NT = complete pattern
3C = club cue
3D = diamond cue, no club cue available
etc.
In other words, 2NT triggers pattern bidding, whereas any other call would be cuebidding immediately. 2NT could either ask (please complete your pattern, Responder) or relay (please bid 3C so that I can show my pattern), perhaps with allowance of a relay-override in the latter situation. You might even have a 2NT asking bid with its own one-step override (after 2NT asking for pattern, Responder bids 3C to override and demand cues whereas other calls show pattern).
If the tendency is instead pro-pattern, 2NT by Opener could override and demand cuebidding (again with a possible override if you want), whereas other calls would be pattern calls.
Consider, for instance, a classic 2/1 GF auction:
1S-P-2C-P-
2D-P-2S
If spades are agreed for your partnership at this point, then some will use my methods and cuebid from this point forward, whereas others will prefer to have Opener complete his pattern and then cuebid from there. What if, instead, the first step is a trigger?
For those who lean cuebidding but might want to allow a pattern-bidding over-ride, consider this structure:
2NT = complete pattern
3C = club cue
3D = diamond cue, no club cue available
etc.
In other words, 2NT triggers pattern bidding, whereas any other call would be cuebidding immediately. 2NT could either ask (please complete your pattern, Responder) or relay (please bid 3C so that I can show my pattern), perhaps with allowance of a relay-override in the latter situation. You might even have a 2NT asking bid with its own one-step override (after 2NT asking for pattern, Responder bids 3C to override and demand cues whereas other calls show pattern).
If the tendency is instead pro-pattern, 2NT by Opener could override and demand cuebidding (again with a possible override if you want), whereas other calls would be pattern calls.
Monday, February 6, 2012
RUNT now available in paperback!
You can find the Really Unusual Notrump (R.U.N.T.) as a paperback now at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Really-Unusual-Notrump-Ken-Rexford/dp/1554947634/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5
Also, Amazon is running a sale (plus free shipping) on Overcalling Opponent's 1NT, which makes it even cheaper than the ebook.
http://www.amazon.com/Really-Unusual-Notrump-Ken-Rexford/dp/1554947634/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5
Also, Amazon is running a sale (plus free shipping) on Overcalling Opponent's 1NT, which makes it even cheaper than the ebook.
Friday, January 27, 2012
R.U.N.T. -- The Authoritative Text!
I am pleased to announce the release of Really Unusual Notruimp (R.U.N.T.) as an ebook through Master Point Press. It can be found at http://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/index.php?main_page=ebb_product_book_info&cPath=138_136&products_id=489&zenid=74461e63cec3cbfb8ce16bed223d730e. (The paperback version will be coming shortly, through Amazon and other sources.)
For those of you who know me, I have been using R.U.N.T. for about 20 years, and it is one of my favorite tools, mostly because it comes up constantly, meaning sometimes 6-8 times in a session. More than just about any other call imaginable.
You might not know that the computer bridge program Jack also plays R.U.N.T.! The link at ebooksbridge has a "sample" and a table of contents. R.U.N.T. is not for the conservative among us -- it is clearly for the wild people. But, there are many of us. I hope you enjoy this.
For those of you who know me, I have been using R.U.N.T. for about 20 years, and it is one of my favorite tools, mostly because it comes up constantly, meaning sometimes 6-8 times in a session. More than just about any other call imaginable.
You might not know that the computer bridge program Jack also plays R.U.N.T.! The link at ebooksbridge has a "sample" and a table of contents. R.U.N.T. is not for the conservative among us -- it is clearly for the wild people. But, there are many of us. I hope you enjoy this.
Non-Psychics
The Laws of Duplicate Bridge define a psychic call as "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length."
A call is NOT a psychic if the definition given for the call is such that the person making the bid has not deliberately misstated strength or length. There are many situation where a psychic would be called for, but the partnership can avoid the psychic occurring by defining the bid to include the "psychic meaning." Why do this, though?
Consider a simple example. White on red, partner opens Three Clubs. After a pass, you bid 3NT, played as non-forcing and showing either a strong hand that thinks 9 tricks possible or a weak hand with club support. Opener is expected to pass throughout. You do this for two reasons.
First, if the hand belongs to the opponents at the game level, 3NT undoubled down 9 (-450) might beat 5CX-3 (-500), which is a matchpoints gain. So, 3NT undoubled is a good result. Plus, you cause the opponents to have a problem.
Second, if you really wanted to play 3NT, you might induce a mistake by an opponent if the remaining points are stacked. For instance, if you have 26 HCP combined, one opponent might have all of the remaining 14 HCP and bid, to his great discomfort.
By having a two-way meaning, each of which merits 3NT as a call, you protect both. Two-way calls in such situations avoid unnecessary disclosure of values.
Similarly, consider a 2S response to a weak 2H opening. If this is "spades, or hearts" and non-forcing, you cause problems when your intent is preemptive, but you also protect the times when you wanted to escape to 2S, as the opponents must bid against oth possibilities.
So, is this a "psychic control?" I don't understand that term, frankly. If a call is used to "show a psychic," then the "psychic" was not a "psychic" after all. That is, unless the definition of the call did not include the "psychic meaning." IMO, a "psychic control" is not really what it sound like. Rather, it is a means of conventionally agreeing a meaning that is not otherwise allowed (which would be a GCC problem and not a psychic problem) or is a means of allowing non-disclosure of the true meaning, which is really a disclosure problem (and/or a failure to alert).
Thoughts?
A call is NOT a psychic if the definition given for the call is such that the person making the bid has not deliberately misstated strength or length. There are many situation where a psychic would be called for, but the partnership can avoid the psychic occurring by defining the bid to include the "psychic meaning." Why do this, though?
Consider a simple example. White on red, partner opens Three Clubs. After a pass, you bid 3NT, played as non-forcing and showing either a strong hand that thinks 9 tricks possible or a weak hand with club support. Opener is expected to pass throughout. You do this for two reasons.
First, if the hand belongs to the opponents at the game level, 3NT undoubled down 9 (-450) might beat 5CX-3 (-500), which is a matchpoints gain. So, 3NT undoubled is a good result. Plus, you cause the opponents to have a problem.
Second, if you really wanted to play 3NT, you might induce a mistake by an opponent if the remaining points are stacked. For instance, if you have 26 HCP combined, one opponent might have all of the remaining 14 HCP and bid, to his great discomfort.
By having a two-way meaning, each of which merits 3NT as a call, you protect both. Two-way calls in such situations avoid unnecessary disclosure of values.
Similarly, consider a 2S response to a weak 2H opening. If this is "spades, or hearts" and non-forcing, you cause problems when your intent is preemptive, but you also protect the times when you wanted to escape to 2S, as the opponents must bid against oth possibilities.
So, is this a "psychic control?" I don't understand that term, frankly. If a call is used to "show a psychic," then the "psychic" was not a "psychic" after all. That is, unless the definition of the call did not include the "psychic meaning." IMO, a "psychic control" is not really what it sound like. Rather, it is a means of conventionally agreeing a meaning that is not otherwise allowed (which would be a GCC problem and not a psychic problem) or is a means of allowing non-disclosure of the true meaning, which is really a disclosure problem (and/or a failure to alert).
Thoughts?
Monday, January 23, 2012
False Heart Preference?
If you have been reading my new book, an idea might have popped into your mind. If Overcalled bids Two CLubs as Crunched Cappelletti and happens to hold hearts and diamonds, and if Responder shows spade preference by bidding Two Diamonds, Overcaller might be tempted to pass Two Diamonds, at least in some situations (depending on vulnerability, seat, state of the match, scoring form, etc.).
This is something that you might want to discuss with partner. If this is a possibility, then Advancer in some circumstances might want to give a false heart preference. Consider, for instance, Advancer looking at a weak hand with 5-3-0-5 pattern. Having heard Two Clubs, Advancer would normally bid Two Diamonds for spade preference, planning on playing in the major, whichever Overcaller-Partner has. However, if Overcaller is allowed to make a "judgment pass" of Two Diamonds with both reds, then Advancer might opt to use a "judgment preference" himself. With 5-3-0-5 shape, Advancer expects a huge likelihood that partner has the red suits. He might be wrong, but the odds are high. Advancer who playts with an Overcaller-Partner who likes the "judgment pass" could protect by showing "false heart preference." If Overcaller-Partner has the expected red-suit two-suiter, this gets us to the right contract quickly. If, however, Overcaller-Partner actually holds spades, or hearts and clubs, the contract will be acceptable but not ideal.
This might be cause for not allowing any "judgment" decisions. But, as a person who once passed a Roman Two Clubs opening with 6-2-2-3 shape (it worked, as Two Clubs was the only makeable contract), I am also a realist. So, I thought it a good idea to predict this "abuse" and to counter with the "abuse counter" of the "false heart preference."
By the way -- thanks to all who have already sent kind words about my book.
This is something that you might want to discuss with partner. If this is a possibility, then Advancer in some circumstances might want to give a false heart preference. Consider, for instance, Advancer looking at a weak hand with 5-3-0-5 pattern. Having heard Two Clubs, Advancer would normally bid Two Diamonds for spade preference, planning on playing in the major, whichever Overcaller-Partner has. However, if Overcaller is allowed to make a "judgment pass" of Two Diamonds with both reds, then Advancer might opt to use a "judgment preference" himself. With 5-3-0-5 shape, Advancer expects a huge likelihood that partner has the red suits. He might be wrong, but the odds are high. Advancer who playts with an Overcaller-Partner who likes the "judgment pass" could protect by showing "false heart preference." If Overcaller-Partner has the expected red-suit two-suiter, this gets us to the right contract quickly. If, however, Overcaller-Partner actually holds spades, or hearts and clubs, the contract will be acceptable but not ideal.
This might be cause for not allowing any "judgment" decisions. But, as a person who once passed a Roman Two Clubs opening with 6-2-2-3 shape (it worked, as Two Clubs was the only makeable contract), I am also a realist. So, I thought it a good idea to predict this "abuse" and to counter with the "abuse counter" of the "false heart preference."
By the way -- thanks to all who have already sent kind words about my book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)