Fourth suit forcing to game is something most players play nowadays but I think many people don't know some of the implications of bidding fourth suit. Why do we bid fourth suit forcing? Because we want to be in game but don't know what strain we should be in or because we want to make a forcing raise but bidding 2, 3, or 4 of the suit would all be passable, and/or because we want to make a slam try.
Take this auction for example: 1C-1H-1S-2D-2NT-3S. Opener has a balanced minumum with 4 spades and a diamond stopper. Many people do not know what responder is showing here. He is making a slam try in spades. He could not bid 2S (nonforcing), 3S (inv), or 4S (sign off) so the only way to raise spades and have it be forcing is to bid 4th suit and then bid 3S. A good hand for this would be: AJxx, AKxx, Kxx, Ax. Take out a king and it's a simple 4S bid over 1S. Likewise, responder has to bid fourth suit to make a forcing club or heart raise.
As with new minor forcing, many people think of 4th suit as just showing a good hand with a 5 card major, which it frequently is, but people need to keep in mind that it could be a hand with too much to just jump to game, and/or a forcing hand that does not have the 4th suit stopped.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
AJB Sweep of District 7 NAP Flight C
For the second straight year, teenagers from the Atlanta area won 1st and 2nd on the flight C district 7 NAP. In fact, this year they took 3rd as well. Congratulations to this year's winners who will represent GA, SC, NC, and eastern TN at the spring NABC in Louisville: 1st Saachi Hingorani and Aashna Choudhary; 2nd Angie Green and Mili Raina, who I was going to play with in B but there's a conflict w/ B and C at the nationals; 3rd Ricoh Das, who I also play with/teach, and Murphy Green.
Atlanta Junior Bridge is clearly doing some good things that will hopefully lead to more success in youth and junior international success in the coming years. I just hope getting beaten by kids doesn't discourage the older players who are new to bridge or duplicate bridge from continuing to learn the game. And I hope that they don't get used to winning every - it gets a harder to win in flight B, and much harder in flight A. The winners have been unable to tell me a favorite hand from the tournament for me to write about but see some of my previous and upcoming posts for a few of my interesting struggles with the same hands in flight A. The results and hand records can be found here.
Atlanta Junior Bridge is clearly doing some good things that will hopefully lead to more success in youth and junior international success in the coming years. I just hope getting beaten by kids doesn't discourage the older players who are new to bridge or duplicate bridge from continuing to learn the game. And I hope that they don't get used to winning every - it gets a harder to win in flight B, and much harder in flight A. The winners have been unable to tell me a favorite hand from the tournament for me to write about but see some of my previous and upcoming posts for a few of my interesting struggles with the same hands in flight A. The results and hand records can be found here.
Monday, November 22, 2010
1C-1H-7NT
I witnessed this auction in the NAP game on Saturday. So much for scientific bidding. 1C was precision and 1H was 8+ hcp with 5+ spades. And it's another of my bad boards. I found myself on lead with Tx, Txxx, xxx, Jxxx and for some reason chose to lead from the jack, the only lead that gives him the contract. Declarer's hand: AKJxx, AKx, AQ, AKT.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Defensive Struggles
The District 7 NAP finals got off to an ominous start for Emory and I and my defensive mishaps did not improve the rest of the day.
We started against the McLaughlins and they reached 4H after Mark opened a 5-10 weak 2 and then after a 2NT inquiry said he had a good weak 2. He could have shown a weak 2 he is ashamed of, a minimum, a super max, or a solid suit.
A trump lead stands out to me but apparently lots of people chose a more aggressive lead as we got 2.5 out of 8 when my subsequent defense gave him a trick. He played 4 rounds of hearts and then took a spade finesse and led a club to his K and my ace.
By this point I am pretty sure from partner's signaling that declarer is 3-6-2-2. I can see that if he ever gets back to his hand, a repeated spade finesse will provide 1 discard but the only back to his hand is to trump a minor suit. So if I cash a club he will easily be able to trump the third one and pitch a diamond loser on spades. A spade lead is obviously out of the question. A diamond lead appears to be able to hold him to 4 if partner has the Q, for he will again be stuck on dummy and have to lead a minor suit to us and we can then cash a winner in the other minor. But if declarer has the DQ, a diamond lead would give him a 12th trick. So the question becomes whether a 10 count with KQT of hearts and Kx and Qx in the minors would be a super max or just a decent weak 2. Obviously there are better 10 count weak 2's (HAK and Kxx on the side) but this still is close to the best hand he could have and open a weak 2. So I played partner for the DQ and he made 6. In retrospect, we are probably above average already for having made a good opening lead and I should make a passive club continuation.
A couple of rounds later, we came up against the eventual winners Owen Lien and Kevin Wilson, and after two fairly average boards, we had this annoying one.
We cashed our 3 black suit winners (♣A, ♠A, then ♣K). Kevin led the jack of hearts off the dummy and Emory followed low, at which point he tanked for a few minutes and eventually dropped my stiff K. Yes, I could have bid a little more aggressively and help get us to 4♠ but I really think I bid enough and 4♥ is probably the most common spot. Playing for the stiff K offside is definitely anti-precentage and even more so when I have shown at least 5-5 in spades and a minor. The reasoning for choosing this play is beyond me - because he didn't think I would bid Michaels vulnerable with only two Axxxx suits, as if the singleton ♥K makes my hand so much better. Argh.
On the next board against a different pair Emory opens 2♦, RHO looks for a few seconds and then says, "is that a weak 2" and I respond with a Sean-like response (see paragraph 4 in the Alert Procedure post 2 weeks ago) "I didn't alert it so it probably is." She comes back with, "Well, I'm still allowed to ask." Me: "Yes, but you're not allowed to suggest what you may or may not think it means." We wind up getting to 3NT going down 1 when LHO, holding KQT4 and the ♣A, finds the correct play of a low heart at trick 2 after the K held trick 1. The lady's hand who asked about 2♦: xxx, Jxx, Axxx, Txx.
We started against the McLaughlins and they reached 4H after Mark opened a 5-10 weak 2 and then after a 2NT inquiry said he had a good weak 2. He could have shown a weak 2 he is ashamed of, a minimum, a super max, or a solid suit.
| Dealer: S Vul: E-W | North ♠ AQJT ♥ AJ ♦ A54 ♣ T972 | |
| West ♠ K74 ♥ 863 ♦ KJ8 ♣ AQJ6 |  | East ♠ 9862 ♥ T4 ♦ T962 ♣ 843 |
| South ♠ 53 ♥ KQ9752 ♦ Q73 ♣ K5 |
A trump lead stands out to me but apparently lots of people chose a more aggressive lead as we got 2.5 out of 8 when my subsequent defense gave him a trick. He played 4 rounds of hearts and then took a spade finesse and led a club to his K and my ace.
By this point I am pretty sure from partner's signaling that declarer is 3-6-2-2. I can see that if he ever gets back to his hand, a repeated spade finesse will provide 1 discard but the only back to his hand is to trump a minor suit. So if I cash a club he will easily be able to trump the third one and pitch a diamond loser on spades. A spade lead is obviously out of the question. A diamond lead appears to be able to hold him to 4 if partner has the Q, for he will again be stuck on dummy and have to lead a minor suit to us and we can then cash a winner in the other minor. But if declarer has the DQ, a diamond lead would give him a 12th trick. So the question becomes whether a 10 count with KQT of hearts and Kx and Qx in the minors would be a super max or just a decent weak 2. Obviously there are better 10 count weak 2's (HAK and Kxx on the side) but this still is close to the best hand he could have and open a weak 2. So I played partner for the DQ and he made 6. In retrospect, we are probably above average already for having made a good opening lead and I should make a passive club continuation.
A couple of rounds later, we came up against the eventual winners Owen Lien and Kevin Wilson, and after two fairly average boards, we had this annoying one.
| Dealer: E Vul: E-W | North ♠ K4 ♥ JT932 ♦ AT96 ♣ Q3 | |
| West ♠ AQJ92 ♥ K ♦ 8 ♣ AT9642 | | East ♠ 875 ♥ 65 ♦ J7543 ♣ K87 |
| South ♠ T63 ♥ AQ874 ♦ KQ2 ♣ J5 |
| West | North | East | South |
| — | — | Pass | 1♥ |
| 2♥ | 2♠ | Pass | 3♥ |
| Pass | 4♥ | All Pass |
We cashed our 3 black suit winners (♣A, ♠A, then ♣K). Kevin led the jack of hearts off the dummy and Emory followed low, at which point he tanked for a few minutes and eventually dropped my stiff K. Yes, I could have bid a little more aggressively and help get us to 4♠ but I really think I bid enough and 4♥ is probably the most common spot. Playing for the stiff K offside is definitely anti-precentage and even more so when I have shown at least 5-5 in spades and a minor. The reasoning for choosing this play is beyond me - because he didn't think I would bid Michaels vulnerable with only two Axxxx suits, as if the singleton ♥K makes my hand so much better. Argh.
On the next board against a different pair Emory opens 2♦, RHO looks for a few seconds and then says, "is that a weak 2" and I respond with a Sean-like response (see paragraph 4 in the Alert Procedure post 2 weeks ago) "I didn't alert it so it probably is." She comes back with, "Well, I'm still allowed to ask." Me: "Yes, but you're not allowed to suggest what you may or may not think it means." We wind up getting to 3NT going down 1 when LHO, holding KQT4 and the ♣A, finds the correct play of a low heart at trick 2 after the K held trick 1. The lady's hand who asked about 2♦: xxx, Jxx, Axxx, Txx.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Responsive Doubles and Other Competitive Doubles
Online I ran across a few situations where there was some confusion as to what double means: when the opponents interfere after a 2/1, when the opponents preempt after 1X-P-1Y, and the misuse of responsive doubles after 1M-X-2M.
A responsive double is generally defined as a double when the opponents have bid and raised a suit and partner has either made a takeout double or overcalled. When partner has overcalled, for example 1D-1H-2D-X, the double is clearly takeout for spades and clubs, without heart support. When partner has doubled and the opponents bid and raised a minor, for example 1D-X-2D-X, the double is clearly asking partner to bid a major, presumably showing 4-4 in the majors and not suggesting clubs at all.
There apparently is some confusion, at least amongst some juniors that I was watching yesterday, about what a responsive double means when it goes 1S-X-2S-X. This responsive double is not takeout for 3 suits. That would be a bit too vague as the chances that responder is 1-4-4-4 is minimal and with any other takeout shape, you're really not any more likely to find the best fit by passing the decision of which suit back to partner. A responsive double in this situation (1M-X-2M-X) should be takeout for the minors, i.e. "I don't have support for the other major and want to compete to 3 of a minor but I want you to pick which minor." This is based on the idea that if the responsive doubler has 4 of the other major, he would just bid that suit because the original takeout doubler is extremely likely to have 4 as well.
A second double that I have come across lately is 1H-P-2C-2S; X. We are in a game force and this guy comes in a bids. This is a penalty double, probably something like KJx, AKxxx, Axx, xx. It may make sense for this to just show extra values or show some club support or something else that probably is only useful for marginal slam hands, but being able to punish the opponent for sticking his neck in our auction.
The third double is in an auction like 1D-P-1H-2S; X. This time we are not in a game force and this is too high to be a support double (committing to 3H with a minimum could be dangerous). Penalty doesn't make as much sense here because we don't have as good an idea of where we are headed with this auction when we do have a good hand. This double should be just general extra values, probably a hand that would have rebid 2NT if RHO had passed, maybe a hand like Qx, Axx, KQJx, AQxx.
A responsive double is generally defined as a double when the opponents have bid and raised a suit and partner has either made a takeout double or overcalled. When partner has overcalled, for example 1D-1H-2D-X, the double is clearly takeout for spades and clubs, without heart support. When partner has doubled and the opponents bid and raised a minor, for example 1D-X-2D-X, the double is clearly asking partner to bid a major, presumably showing 4-4 in the majors and not suggesting clubs at all.
There apparently is some confusion, at least amongst some juniors that I was watching yesterday, about what a responsive double means when it goes 1S-X-2S-X. This responsive double is not takeout for 3 suits. That would be a bit too vague as the chances that responder is 1-4-4-4 is minimal and with any other takeout shape, you're really not any more likely to find the best fit by passing the decision of which suit back to partner. A responsive double in this situation (1M-X-2M-X) should be takeout for the minors, i.e. "I don't have support for the other major and want to compete to 3 of a minor but I want you to pick which minor." This is based on the idea that if the responsive doubler has 4 of the other major, he would just bid that suit because the original takeout doubler is extremely likely to have 4 as well.
A second double that I have come across lately is 1H-P-2C-2S; X. We are in a game force and this guy comes in a bids. This is a penalty double, probably something like KJx, AKxxx, Axx, xx. It may make sense for this to just show extra values or show some club support or something else that probably is only useful for marginal slam hands, but being able to punish the opponent for sticking his neck in our auction.
The third double is in an auction like 1D-P-1H-2S; X. This time we are not in a game force and this is too high to be a support double (committing to 3H with a minimum could be dangerous). Penalty doesn't make as much sense here because we don't have as good an idea of where we are headed with this auction when we do have a good hand. This double should be just general extra values, probably a hand that would have rebid 2NT if RHO had passed, maybe a hand like Qx, Axx, KQJx, AQxx.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Clarity of Revoke Laws and Offender's Obligations
Since we are on the topic of ethics lately, here's another one. A few months ago I posted about the one and only time I revoked, http://bridgemaniacs.blogspot.com/2010/06/catching-revoke.html. For the few of you who read this but not bridgeblogging.com, I'd like to direct you to an article about the 1983 Bermuda Bowl in which Zia "got away with" a revoke while playing for Pakistan against Sweden. http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=568#comments
Personally, I don't care what the actual rule book says. If a clear error (all 4 players agree the wrong score was awarded) can be corrected, it should be corrected. If I were the director, equity would be restored for the revoke in both my case and Zia's even if it is not quite consistent with the laws. There must be some clause in the bridge laws that says common sense and reasonable morality takes precedence over some silly rules about how much time can pass before changing a score or who can/should bring attention to a revoke. I guess there should technically be some limit, but during the same session or in the break between that session and the next is certainly acceptable - just don't go trying to change a score 3 days later when everyone has left.
I also disagree that a player is not obligated to "draw attention to an infraction by one's own side." This seems rather inconsistent with the law that a player must announce any failures to alert or wrong alerts at the end of an auction (if on is the declaring side). While it is the opponents' fault for not catching the revoke, I don't think they should be obligated to be the ones to point it out. Bridge is kind of like golf and tennis - gentleman's games (at least it should be) where people are expected to conduct themselves with class and play honestly and police themselves for the most part.
Personally, I don't care what the actual rule book says. If a clear error (all 4 players agree the wrong score was awarded) can be corrected, it should be corrected. If I were the director, equity would be restored for the revoke in both my case and Zia's even if it is not quite consistent with the laws. There must be some clause in the bridge laws that says common sense and reasonable morality takes precedence over some silly rules about how much time can pass before changing a score or who can/should bring attention to a revoke. I guess there should technically be some limit, but during the same session or in the break between that session and the next is certainly acceptable - just don't go trying to change a score 3 days later when everyone has left.
I also disagree that a player is not obligated to "draw attention to an infraction by one's own side." This seems rather inconsistent with the law that a player must announce any failures to alert or wrong alerts at the end of an auction (if on is the declaring side). While it is the opponents' fault for not catching the revoke, I don't think they should be obligated to be the ones to point it out. Bridge is kind of like golf and tennis - gentleman's games (at least it should be) where people are expected to conduct themselves with class and play honestly and police themselves for the most part.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Latest GIB Lunacy
So, the robot didn't really do anything strange at my table. We had a sane auction to 6NT. With other players I'm sure I could have gotten to 7D or right-sided 6NT, but 3D over 2D apparently wouldn't have been forcing so the only way to blackwood in diamonds would have been 4NT immediately over 2D. Anyway, the lunacy is in the traveller. I sat west while most of the humans playing with 3 robots sat south. Check out the traveller and notice that every other table played 1D so the GIB really passed 1D with a 17 count?
http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1288608725-23168947
http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=M-1288608725-23168947
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)