|
|
|
|
|
|
Bridge Brief Broadcast Archive
|
Back to Bridge Brief Archive Index
April 18, 2003
Design for Bidding - Part 2 and Part 3
The Scorecard is the publication for ACBL District 16. I was asked and consented
to write a regular column aimed at the 0-299 masterpoint player. I will post my
columns here as they may be of benefit to the same readers that benefit from my
newsletter.
Scorecard, Volume 34, No 6 - November/December 2002
I started a series of columns in the last issue that are intended to help new
partnerships decide just what system they want to use. The first column briefly
discussed no trump auctions. Not necessarily all balanced hand auctions, but
auctions that used no trump bids in the early stages. In an effort to help, I
posted a No Trump Worksheet on my website that could be used as a recorder for
your partnership. I received several emails about this worksheet so a couple of
comments are in order.
One or two people wanted to know if I would post the "answers" to the worksheet.
There are no "answers". Think of it as a framework on which you can describe
your partnership agreements. Auctions that are not defined or auctions that have
an unclear meaning are OPPORTUNITIES. Opportunities for you and partner to
investigate, learn, and decide what meaning that should have in your system.
Filling in the blanks will make your bidding system more comprehensive and more
accurate. The worksheet is also a great tool for resolving disputes. When
partner passes your forcing bid you can go back and look to see what agreement
was actually in place. If it is undefined then it is an opportunity to decide
and update your record. The 235 possible auctions listed will cover most
situations.
The long laundry list I provided of responding hands types can be used as well
to make sure that you have the significant areas covered. Certainly the less
experienced the partnership the greater number of open issues you will have.
There is nothing wrong with that at all. Spend some time with partner going
through the list and deciding what should be what. If you are in doubt ask a
couple of more experienced players how they play a specific auction and why. In
fact, ask more than one and you will usually get more than one answer. To help a
bit I have posted a second copy of the No Trump Worksheet on my website that is
completed for a reasonably basic duplicate no trump structure. It is filled out
for a partnership playing strong 1NT, Gambling 3NT, Stayman, Jacoby Transfers,
Texas Transfers, Minor Suit Stayman, Gerber, and Roman Keycard Blackwood.
Perhaps it will help your process with partner. Again the worksheets may be
found at
https://www.bridgecompanion.com. The links are right there on the opening
page and the document is in Adobe Acrobat format. A free reader is needed but
the link for it is also provided.
In this column I want to begin the discussion of major suit auctions. These
auctions begin with an opening bid of 1
or 1
. The first major decision you
must make is whether you intend to play a four or five card major suit style. At
one time four card suit openings were considered standard. Today most
partnerships play a five card major suit approach, but even five card major
advocates have a few decisions to make. Do you ALWAYS hold at least five cards
when you open 1 or 1?
Many partnerships have identified situations where it is acceptable to open
holding only four cards. Here are some of the agreements that I have seen:
- Always 5+ cards, all the time.
- Always 5+ cards in first or second seat, but a good four card suit is
acceptable in third or fourth seat.
- Always 5+ cards in first or second seat, always 5+ spades in any seat,
but a good four card heart suit is acceptable in third or fourth seat.
If you and partner elect to play four card major suit opening bids, then how
do you open when you hold four spades and 4 hearts? Always 1?
Always 1? The stronger suit?
Once the opening style has been determined then the responding agreements need
to be decided. When I was first starting out someone told me, "You can�t have
too many ways to raise partner." So I personally like a pretty robust raise
structure. What you decide is your choice, but try to have lots of ways to frame
the instructions by responder.
Lots of conventional choices are available for you over major suit openings and
you should play those that you can effectively remember and handle. Do not be in
too much of a rush to add everything at once. Add and build slowly and carefully
and you will be more at ease rather than consumed with worry over forgetting
something. When you first add a convention it is likely that both you and
partner will screw it up at least once. I used to have the agreement that until
we each messed it up it was not evenly officially part of the bidding system!
Most partnerships will want to play a standard single raise (1-2
and 1-2)
but even here you have choices. Bergen style raises allow you to differentiate
between three card and four card single raises. When it comes to a double or
jump raise (1-3
and 1-3)
you have several choices. In the 1940s and 1950s a double jump raise was forcing
to game. Since then the more common approach has been to play it as a limit
raise only invitational to game. Today some partnerships even play the jump
raise as a preemptive bid showing a hand not even strong enough to warrant a
single raise. Even if you play the most common limit raise does it always
promise 4+ card support? If you choose to play a Forcing 1NT then a limit raise
can promise 4+ and auctions that go through the Forcing 1NT and then jump can
show a 3 card limit raise.
Keep in mind that everything you add to your system may alter other auctions as
well. Here is a partial list of my favorite major suit conventions that you
might wish to consider. Some are mutually exclusive. They are Forcing 1NT,
Jacoby 2NT, Jordon 2NT, Help Suit Game Tries, Splinter Bids, Mini Splinters,
Drury, and Flower Bids. In the next column we will explore major suit auctions
further. Let me hear from you.
-Gary King
Scorecard, Volume 34, No 7 - January/February 2003
This is the third in a series of columns reviewing some of the things your a
partnership needs to decide about the bidding structure you choose to employ. We
started on major suit auctions in the last column and I want to explore these
further. To that end I have posted a Design for Bidding worksheet on auctions
that begin with 1 or 1
on my website (https://www.bridgecompanion.com). Remember these worksheets
are not tests or lessons but a framework to help and partner consider various
sequences and record the agreed meaning.
In the last column the decision about four or five card major suit openings was
covered. Since most partnerships today play five card majors that is probably
the proper decision if you wish to stay with the field. The next major decision
has to do with two-over-one responses. Many experts play these auctions as 100%
forcing to game. Others play only certain auctions forcing to game. The standard
method is not forcing to game but requires a minimum hand value of 11 points.
What are the pros and cons?
Those that play these auctions as 100% forcing to game solve subsequent
responder rebid problems that standard players have to handle. Responder has the
ability to simply rebid a suit at the three level with the understanding that
this shows either interest in slam or uncertainty about the proper strain.
Those that play the standard method must occasionally find a forcing bid to keep
things alive. Although this can work it can also lead to trouble. Playing
standard (where an initial two-over-one response promises nothing more than 11
points) what would you rebid on this hand?
Running through the possibilities:
2NT, and 3
are only invitational, since you know you belong
in game, poor choice.
4 should be forcing but do you really want to run
past 3NT so quickly?
3NT might work but if partner holds this hand it is a disaster since 6 makes easily and you will go down in 3NT on a
heart lead:
6 might work but if partner holds this hand it is
a disaster since 3NT makes easily and 6 has no play on a heart lead:
Blackwood does not help either because you are still in 6after partner shows one ace. The tool used by
most partnerships is Fourth Suit Forcing and Artificial. Responder must bid 2.
Perhaps it should be part of your arsenal.
The point here is that playing the standard approach requires artificiality in
areas where two-over-one does not. These partnerships rebid 3 with the hand in question. If you choose to
stick to the standard approach it is completely workable, but you must look
carefully at follow up auctions to make sure responder has the tools needed to
do her job properly.
Another area frequently overlooked by partnerships is what being a passed hand
does to your agreements. Even if you play a two-over-one style sometimes the
auction proceeds as follows:
| Partner |
You |
|
|
| Pass |
1 |
| 2 |
|
| |
|
This obviously cannot be forcing to game. The upper limits for the 2
response are pretty well defined by the previous pass, but what are the lower
limits? What is the worst hand with which partner can respond 2?
Everyone would agree that this is enough:
What would you respond with this hand, having previously passed?
or
Many times the conventions you choose to play have an effect on other auctions
that at first glance may not be connected. If you play Flannery 2
(12-15 points with 4 spades and 5 hearts)
then it may change your responses.
Playing Flannery 2 what should you respond to a 1
opening holding:
1 or 1NT? 1NT you
say! Really?
Okay, so what do you open the bidding with on this hand?
See, the answers are not always so straight-forward. If you rebid 1NT you
might well miss your 4-4 spade fit.
Use the worksheet to help categorize various major suit auctions. You game will
improve. Let me hear from you.
-Gary King
�2003 The Bridge Companion. All rights reserved.