At the club the other evening I held this hand ♠64 ♥J983 ♦A82 ♣JT94 and heard the following auction, starting on my right (we were silent throughout): 1♥ - 2♣ - 2NT - 3♠ - 4♣ - 4NT - 5♥ - 6♣. I was in the passout seat and considered briefly whether to double. Clearly this contract was going down unless somehow declarer had a void in diamonds or could quickly pitch a losing diamond. The Roman keycard blackwood sequence suggested no voids, however. So it seemed prudent to pass and await developments. There was another very good reason not to double and that was because double would ask for an unusual lead. Since I could have doubled 5♥ for a heart lead, it wouldn't be clear what an unusual lead would get. A heart lead could easily be disastrous if partner had say the ♥K (he did). Finally, there was the fact that I knew that they were in a bad contract and so I was happy. Why tip them off? Stay with happiness.
Somewhat surprisingly, partner led the ♦K and we took the first two tricks. I subsequently got my club trick and so we were +200. Obviously we were getting a top.
But wait! The hand proved to be difficult for our "team-mates" too and, believe it or not, +200 was a common result for our direction. There was a 500, three 300s, and four other 200s. So our score was only 15/21. No other pair was in 6♣ (two were in 5♣ down 1) and the majority of the blood was shed in spade contracts. Our side doubled only once: a 4♥ contract (that accounts for the 500).
So let's see how this should have been bid. Let's put ourselves in the dealer's seat with: ♠K93 ♥AQT62 ♦973 ♣K5. After the initial 1♥ call and the game-forcing 2♣ response, what should the rebid be? In my opinion, 2♥ is automatic. 2NT would be fine if we had some sort of honor in diamonds, but we have nothing. Of course, we hate to bid 2♥ with only five pieces, but partner knows it's a possibility so should take that into account.
Partner will now bid 2♠, completing the picture of his hand as being at least 5-4 in the black suits. Now what? Again, I think the correct bid is automatic: 3♦. This, the fourth suit, is artificial and says I have no obvious bid -- I can't support either of your suits and I can't bid notrump because I don't have anything in diamonds. Partner will bid 3NT with a diamond stopper and all will hopefully be well. If he happens to have 4045 shape, he can "raise" diamonds.
In this case, partner doesn't have a diamond stopper and will now bid 4♣, hopefully showing a sixth club.
At this point, I think pass stands out but I wouldn't call it automatic. 5♣ might be right. Most partnerships don't consider a 2/1 game force to be forcing to a minor-suit game when there's no fit and we can't play notrump. We do have quite a nice club holding, but there again, we have a bare minimum hand. In this case, 4♣ is the last making contract. My LHO's hand, by the way, was ♠AQ72 ♥5 ♦T4 ♣AQ8732.
The key to bidding this hand, I believe, is our old friend the fourth suit. It's amazing how often people fail to use it when it's the right bid. I've even heard it said that since we're already in a game force, how can it be artificial? That is nonsense of course. Like "double", the fourth suit is an under-utilized bid that should be our friend.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
To alpha or not to alpha, that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler to play precision at all is another question. Many pairs play what I think of as semi-precision. The 1♣ opening in such systems essentially is used to divide the bidding space into good opening hands and, by elimination, bad opening hands. After the first round, most of the calls are natural. These pairs seem to suffer from all of the disadvantages (particularly the 1♦ opening) while enjoying none of the advantages.
I'm in the more traditional camp. Memorize and use all of the asking bids (alpha, beta, etc. – although they also go by other more prosaic names) and get the most out of the system.
The question that I set out to consider is whether or not to use alpha and, in particular, "second" alpha. It seems to me that there are hands that are suited to alpha bids and hands which are not. It's a question of figuring out the relevant frequencies.
Here's how alpha is supposed to work: you pick up ♠AQT72 ♥AK732 ♦2 ♣A5, a nice hand by any measure. You open 1♣ and partner bids 2♦ (or 2♣ if playing transfer positives) showing diamonds and enough points for game. Naturally, you bid 2♠ ("alpha") showing five spades and asking more about partner's hand. Partner bids 2NT denying Qxx/xxxx or better in spades and fewer than four controls (A=2, K=1) in total. Actually, there are five responses in all (in steps: first, second... fifth):
But suppose partner's first response had been 3♣ (bad support for spades but 4+ controls). Now, when we bid 3♥, we get the second alpha response of 3NT, leaving us the entire four level for more bidding. If we were playing natural bids at this point, partner would be obliged to bid 4♥ to show the support. Let's give partner the following hand: ♠K3 ♥Q65 ♦AKJ92 ♣J94. After 3NT, 4♣ is beta (hopefully!) and will elicit the response of 4♦ (exactly four controls). Now, we follow up with 4♠ ("espilon" or control-asking bid – presumably, there's no law against invoking epsilon in a suit previously alpha'd?). Partner bids the third step (5♦) showing second round control (either the K or a singleton). We're running out of room a little (we'd like to know if partner has ♠K(x) or ♠x but bidding 5♠ will commit us to 6♥ anyway). But, just for fun, we'll bid 5♠ and partner responds 6♣ (K). We can now bid 6♥, 6NT (played by partner) or even 7♥/7NT if we're really stretching. If both major suits behave, we will have all thirteen tricks in hearts or notrump.
To conclude: after a minimum/no-support game force response to alpha (1st step), we might as well go to natural bidding because slam is generally (not always) out of reach and getting to the right game contract should take preference. But, after a four-control response (2nd step), our next new suit should be "second" alpha because slam is still very much in the picture.
Comments?
I'm in the more traditional camp. Memorize and use all of the asking bids (alpha, beta, etc. – although they also go by other more prosaic names) and get the most out of the system.
The question that I set out to consider is whether or not to use alpha and, in particular, "second" alpha. It seems to me that there are hands that are suited to alpha bids and hands which are not. It's a question of figuring out the relevant frequencies.
Here's how alpha is supposed to work: you pick up ♠AQT72 ♥AK732 ♦2 ♣A5, a nice hand by any measure. You open 1♣ and partner bids 2♦ (or 2♣ if playing transfer positives) showing diamonds and enough points for game. Naturally, you bid 2♠ ("alpha") showing five spades and asking more about partner's hand. Partner bids 2NT denying Qxx/xxxx or better in spades and fewer than four controls (A=2, K=1) in total. Actually, there are five responses in all (in steps: first, second... fifth):
- bad support, 3– ctrls;
- bad support, 4+ ctrls;
- good support, 3– ctrls;
- good support, 4+ ctrls;
- very good support (Qxxx or better), 4+ ctrls.
- bad support;
- good support;
- very good support.
But suppose partner's first response had been 3♣ (bad support for spades but 4+ controls). Now, when we bid 3♥, we get the second alpha response of 3NT, leaving us the entire four level for more bidding. If we were playing natural bids at this point, partner would be obliged to bid 4♥ to show the support. Let's give partner the following hand: ♠K3 ♥Q65 ♦AKJ92 ♣J94. After 3NT, 4♣ is beta (hopefully!) and will elicit the response of 4♦ (exactly four controls). Now, we follow up with 4♠ ("espilon" or control-asking bid – presumably, there's no law against invoking epsilon in a suit previously alpha'd?). Partner bids the third step (5♦) showing second round control (either the K or a singleton). We're running out of room a little (we'd like to know if partner has ♠K(x) or ♠x but bidding 5♠ will commit us to 6♥ anyway). But, just for fun, we'll bid 5♠ and partner responds 6♣ (K). We can now bid 6♥, 6NT (played by partner) or even 7♥/7NT if we're really stretching. If both major suits behave, we will have all thirteen tricks in hearts or notrump.
To conclude: after a minimum/no-support game force response to alpha (1st step), we might as well go to natural bidding because slam is generally (not always) out of reach and getting to the right game contract should take preference. But, after a four-control response (2nd step), our next new suit should be "second" alpha because slam is still very much in the picture.
Comments?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Everyone loves the Abbott
I had a great time in Cromwell, earning (modest) points in each event we entered. Mostly, I was playing with Tony.
I also took the opportunity to pick up a couple of bridge books. One of the Abbott series that I didn't already have is The Abbott's Great Sacrifice. There are two wonderful quotes on the very same chapter which seem appropriate to your humble blogger.
"He's the editor of Bridge Magazine, isn't he," grunted the Abbott. "If he was any good at playing the game, he would concentrate on that rather than writing about it."
...
"We needed a club lead, Abbott," said Brother Xavier. "Four clubs was my bid, playing fit jumps, and then you'd have led a club. You don't like to play them, of course."
Kim had a great time, advancing to the third round of the flight A KOs and playing Michael and Debbie Rosenberg, among other northeast experts.
I also took the opportunity to pick up a couple of bridge books. One of the Abbott series that I didn't already have is The Abbott's Great Sacrifice. There are two wonderful quotes on the very same chapter which seem appropriate to your humble blogger.
"He's the editor of Bridge Magazine, isn't he," grunted the Abbott. "If he was any good at playing the game, he would concentrate on that rather than writing about it."
...
"We needed a club lead, Abbott," said Brother Xavier. "Four clubs was my bid, playing fit jumps, and then you'd have led a club. You don't like to play them, of course."
Kim had a great time, advancing to the third round of the flight A KOs and playing Michael and Debbie Rosenberg, among other northeast experts.
Monday, February 7, 2011
An accident waiting to happen
The trouble with rules is that sometimes they are in mutual conflict and it isn't always obvious which rule takes precedence. Isaac Asimov gave his robots three rules and explicitly gave them a priority order. But in bridge, it isn't always so clear. Which rule is more binding may be "obvious" to one partner, while the other partner thinks a different rules is paramount.
Kim and I had just such a misunderstanding. It was a bomb waiting to go off. Fortunately for us, the bomb exploded alright but it blew up in the faces of our opponents, not us.
Here's the dichotomy in particular:
Life becomes further complicated when we overcall notrump. Again it's "to play" (bid in the face of competition) but what about "systems on"?
So here's the hand where this came up. I held ♠KT953 ♥AQ5 ♦K8 ♣AQT in third seat (no-one was vulnerable). Kind of an awkward hand, right? I suppose I have to open 1♠ and then rebid 2NT over 1NT but then partner will be declarer and my hand which is chock full of tenaces will be exposed as dummy. No matter, my RHO came to the rescue with 2♦. Now, this was easy: 2NT showing a balanced 15-18 possibly with a five-card major (since we play Romex including opposite an overcall). LHO now raised to 4♦ and partner doubled with ♠AQ72 ♥K732 ♦T2 ♣753.
Here's how I interpreted that double: I bid two NT in competition so it's 100% penalty. Here's how partner interpreted it: the opponents have strongly bid and raised a suit and our doubles are always for takeout (or two-way) in such cases. We play systems on, and therefore double should be for takeout [we had never actually discussed a four-level overcall of a 1NT or 2NT opening].
I was of course overjoyed to pass this double, whatever its meaning and we duly collected 1100. We could have made slam for 980/990 but in any case nobody else bid it (although all made 12 tricks in spades). 6NT (on 27hcp!) is the best contract but from my side of course in case the ♦A is in the wrong place. It was only afterwards we discovered that this hand could so easily have been a disaster.
The last word? I think that there are always three major considerations when discussing the meaning of calls: efficacy, frequency and simplicity. To a point, I'm a big fan of simplicity when it comes to doubles, which is why I have developed my set of rules. What about frequency and efficacy? LHO has bid something, partner has overcalled in notrump, and RHO has raised. Are we more likely to want to double for takeout (i.e. negative) or to penalize? To be honest, I think we're much more likely to want to double for takeout so that "systems on" should take precedence, thus supporting Kim's use of the double card. But, suppose that RHO didn't raise but bid a new suit. It's almost impossible for us to have much in the way of values now. Do we really want to make a takeout double? I don't think so. The only time I think we'd want to double would be when we happen to have some values in RHO's suit.
Really, I think the last word can be summed up in the typical experts' response when asked about this kind of double: "cards". He who made the notrump overcall has to decide what to do based on bridge logic. At IMPs and sometimes at matchpoints, the expert will generally "take the money". The rest of the time? Your guess is as good as mine.
Honey, let's agree that 2NT (3♦) X would also be negative (by extension of the 1NT sequence), thus overriding the other rule that a bid of 2NT is "to play". We'll agree therefore that no opening notrump bid is ever "to play". The next time it comes up, in about 2015, we should be well prepared :)
Kim and I had just such a misunderstanding. It was a bomb waiting to go off. Fortunately for us, the bomb exploded alright but it blew up in the faces of our opponents, not us.
Here's the dichotomy in particular:
- Rule "1" -- when one player bids notrump to play*, all subsequent doubles are for penalty (* "to play" is defined as any natural notrump bid in the face of competition or at the two-level or higher);
- Rule "A" -- advancer of a notrump overcall bids with systems on^, that's to say as much as possible, we stick to our standard responses (^ "systems on" in our case means [after 1NT] Stayman, four-suit transfers, Texas transfers, various 3-level bids; [after 2NT] Romex Stayman, Jacoby transfers, minor-suit stayman).
Life becomes further complicated when we overcall notrump. Again it's "to play" (bid in the face of competition) but what about "systems on"?
So here's the hand where this came up. I held ♠KT953 ♥AQ5 ♦K8 ♣AQT in third seat (no-one was vulnerable). Kind of an awkward hand, right? I suppose I have to open 1♠ and then rebid 2NT over 1NT but then partner will be declarer and my hand which is chock full of tenaces will be exposed as dummy. No matter, my RHO came to the rescue with 2♦. Now, this was easy: 2NT showing a balanced 15-18 possibly with a five-card major (since we play Romex including opposite an overcall). LHO now raised to 4♦ and partner doubled with ♠AQ72 ♥K732 ♦T2 ♣753.
Here's how I interpreted that double: I bid two NT in competition so it's 100% penalty. Here's how partner interpreted it: the opponents have strongly bid and raised a suit and our doubles are always for takeout (or two-way) in such cases. We play systems on, and therefore double should be for takeout [we had never actually discussed a four-level overcall of a 1NT or 2NT opening].
I was of course overjoyed to pass this double, whatever its meaning and we duly collected 1100. We could have made slam for 980/990 but in any case nobody else bid it (although all made 12 tricks in spades). 6NT (on 27hcp!) is the best contract but from my side of course in case the ♦A is in the wrong place. It was only afterwards we discovered that this hand could so easily have been a disaster.
The last word? I think that there are always three major considerations when discussing the meaning of calls: efficacy, frequency and simplicity. To a point, I'm a big fan of simplicity when it comes to doubles, which is why I have developed my set of rules. What about frequency and efficacy? LHO has bid something, partner has overcalled in notrump, and RHO has raised. Are we more likely to want to double for takeout (i.e. negative) or to penalize? To be honest, I think we're much more likely to want to double for takeout so that "systems on" should take precedence, thus supporting Kim's use of the double card. But, suppose that RHO didn't raise but bid a new suit. It's almost impossible for us to have much in the way of values now. Do we really want to make a takeout double? I don't think so. The only time I think we'd want to double would be when we happen to have some values in RHO's suit.
Really, I think the last word can be summed up in the typical experts' response when asked about this kind of double: "cards". He who made the notrump overcall has to decide what to do based on bridge logic. At IMPs and sometimes at matchpoints, the expert will generally "take the money". The rest of the time? Your guess is as good as mine.
Honey, let's agree that 2NT (3♦) X would also be negative (by extension of the 1NT sequence), thus overriding the other rule that a bid of 2NT is "to play". We'll agree therefore that no opening notrump bid is ever "to play". The next time it comes up, in about 2015, we should be well prepared :)
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Ruling the Game
This month's ACBL Bulletin has arrived (i.e. February's) and I was pleased to see photos of several players that we know well: Pat McDevitt/Rich DeMartino and the McNamaras. Congratulations to them for their outstanding WBF results in Philadelphia last year. And while I can hardly claim to "know" Brad Moss, it was interesting to see him as 2010 player of the year after facing him (and Gitelman) for two boards in the Reisinger.
I generally take a look at Mike Flader's column fairly soon after receiving a new bulletin. But I think he's a little off his game this month. In the third question, the opponents have the auction 2NT—4♥; 4♠—4NT. Opener now picks up his bidding cards and starts to put them back in the box. The questioner asked if it was appropriate for either his partner or himself to point out that the auction wasn't over. Maybe space was limited but Mike's answer addressed the simple fact that no call had been made (no card was placed on or near the table) so the director (none had been called) should allow the auction to continue and that was about that. I think he missed the point entirely.
First, the most obvious point. The writer (who has already passed in this round) should not be saying anything at all since it is not his turn to bid. Second, writer's partner should, in my opinion, wait a reasonable time and then call the director (or writer could call the director). Otherwise they'd logically still be sitting there. Clearly an infraction has occurred (it is incumbent on opener to make a call and he has not). And if I was that hypothetical director, I would rule, notwithstanding the laws, that opener had made the physical equivalent of a pass (removing his cards rather than placing one on the table amounts to the same thing). I would allow play to continue in 4NT (assuming that writer's partner also passes as any sane person would) and let the result stand if it was favorable for the defenders. If it was not favorable to the defenders, I would probably assign an adjusted score: give the defenders the table result and assess a procedural penalty against declarer, awarding his side an average minus.
If I were Flader, I'd point out that the laws were not well written in this case [to quote from The Mikado: That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution — will after luncheon suit you]. Actually, this issue is not covered in the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" because it is up to the regulating authority, the ACBL in our case.
But most of all, I'd criticize all those players who, not being the last to call in an auction, simply pick up the cards to indicate that the auction is over. It ain't over until the third pass in rotation is made! This particular behavior drives me potty. One of these days, I'm going to be the last to call over, say, 1NT—2NT—3NT and I'll be thinking of a lead-directing double when partner makes the opening lead. I certainly hope that partner will be allowed to replace his/her face-down lead if I do make that double.
The first question is more of a judgment call and maybe Mike Flader is correct for a table ruling, but in practice this would likely be referred to a committee (of players, rather than directors). Holding ♠9875 ♥A862 ♦KQ74 ♣T, our hero hears his partner open 1♠ (at favorable vulnerability) and RHO bid 2♣. Being an old-fashioned sort of player (but having, in a moment of weakness perhaps, agreed to play weak jump raises), he bids 3♠ meaning it as a limit raise. After ascertaining from opener that the jump is "weak", LHO bids 4♣ and partner passes as does RHO. The question is this: is said hero allowed to bid 4♠? Flader points out that pass is a logical alternative and that he may not choose another logical alternative that could have been demonstrably suggested by partner's explanation—he must decline the invitation that he thought he was making. But wait a moment! The situation is now quite different. Is it really a logical alternative to pass when our side is known to hold at least half the deck, nine spades and we have a singleton in the opponents' suit? I think not. Surely, we're still allowed to bid our cards! After all, the original 3♠ supposedly said "I think that, if you have a minimum hand, we have a better shot at making nine tricks than ten". But now, we're not even going to declare the hand. Surely our hero is allowed to try for -100 rather than suffer the likely -130!
This is one of those very tricky areas of bridge that unfortunately end up making somebody upset when the director rules a certain way. I'm not sure that I have a solution, other than screens, or electronic bidding with pre-loaded convention cards.
I generally take a look at Mike Flader's column fairly soon after receiving a new bulletin. But I think he's a little off his game this month. In the third question, the opponents have the auction 2NT—4♥; 4♠—4NT. Opener now picks up his bidding cards and starts to put them back in the box. The questioner asked if it was appropriate for either his partner or himself to point out that the auction wasn't over. Maybe space was limited but Mike's answer addressed the simple fact that no call had been made (no card was placed on or near the table) so the director (none had been called) should allow the auction to continue and that was about that. I think he missed the point entirely.
First, the most obvious point. The writer (who has already passed in this round) should not be saying anything at all since it is not his turn to bid. Second, writer's partner should, in my opinion, wait a reasonable time and then call the director (or writer could call the director). Otherwise they'd logically still be sitting there. Clearly an infraction has occurred (it is incumbent on opener to make a call and he has not). And if I was that hypothetical director, I would rule, notwithstanding the laws, that opener had made the physical equivalent of a pass (removing his cards rather than placing one on the table amounts to the same thing). I would allow play to continue in 4NT (assuming that writer's partner also passes as any sane person would) and let the result stand if it was favorable for the defenders. If it was not favorable to the defenders, I would probably assign an adjusted score: give the defenders the table result and assess a procedural penalty against declarer, awarding his side an average minus.
If I were Flader, I'd point out that the laws were not well written in this case [to quote from The Mikado: That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution — will after luncheon suit you]. Actually, this issue is not covered in the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" because it is up to the regulating authority, the ACBL in our case.
But most of all, I'd criticize all those players who, not being the last to call in an auction, simply pick up the cards to indicate that the auction is over. It ain't over until the third pass in rotation is made! This particular behavior drives me potty. One of these days, I'm going to be the last to call over, say, 1NT—2NT—3NT and I'll be thinking of a lead-directing double when partner makes the opening lead. I certainly hope that partner will be allowed to replace his/her face-down lead if I do make that double.
The first question is more of a judgment call and maybe Mike Flader is correct for a table ruling, but in practice this would likely be referred to a committee (of players, rather than directors). Holding ♠9875 ♥A862 ♦KQ74 ♣T, our hero hears his partner open 1♠ (at favorable vulnerability) and RHO bid 2♣. Being an old-fashioned sort of player (but having, in a moment of weakness perhaps, agreed to play weak jump raises), he bids 3♠ meaning it as a limit raise. After ascertaining from opener that the jump is "weak", LHO bids 4♣ and partner passes as does RHO. The question is this: is said hero allowed to bid 4♠? Flader points out that pass is a logical alternative and that he may not choose another logical alternative that could have been demonstrably suggested by partner's explanation—he must decline the invitation that he thought he was making. But wait a moment! The situation is now quite different. Is it really a logical alternative to pass when our side is known to hold at least half the deck, nine spades and we have a singleton in the opponents' suit? I think not. Surely, we're still allowed to bid our cards! After all, the original 3♠ supposedly said "I think that, if you have a minimum hand, we have a better shot at making nine tricks than ten". But now, we're not even going to declare the hand. Surely our hero is allowed to try for -100 rather than suffer the likely -130!
This is one of those very tricky areas of bridge that unfortunately end up making somebody upset when the director rules a certain way. I'm not sure that I have a solution, other than screens, or electronic bidding with pre-loaded convention cards.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Responding to opener's reopening double
My wife-and-favorite-bridge-partner has the slightly disconcerting habit – to someone who thinks of himself as a theoretician – of frequently teaching said theoretician some little bit of theory. Here's an example from a late-night bout with the GIBs on BBO (nobody is vulnerable): ♠AQ ♥8543 ♦QT54 ♣832.
Kim opened (second seat) 1♠ and RHO overcalled 2♥. I passed as did LHO and Kim re-opened with a double. What now? Clearly my hand isn't good enough to pass (that would net us -570!) but what is best? I chose 3♦, hoping for four diamonds opposite, which was not a success. The robots mercifully let me play undoubled but I somehow lost a trick I was supposed to get and ended up -200 for a 4.5 imp loss. I basically shrugged it off, noting that I might not have reopened with a double myself, and thought nothing more of it.
Kim made a very astute observation, however. Why didn't you just bid 2♠? [She believes that I always try to wrest the contract from her, but that's another story – and certainly not the case here as I had no enthusiasm whatsoever for playing this particular hand!].
But her comment triggered a thought. Suppose RHO had never bid. The auction would have unfolded 1♠ – 1NT* – 2♣ – 2♠. That's automatic using the 2/1 system. There never would have been any question of anything else. I'd do the same with two small spades (assuming I had a 1NT response to start with). So isn't it logical that I should do the same thing in this sequence? It would result, assuming double-dummy play and no double, in -100 (which would beat the par of -140).
It's not only logical, it should be automatic.
Kim opened (second seat) 1♠ and RHO overcalled 2♥. I passed as did LHO and Kim re-opened with a double. What now? Clearly my hand isn't good enough to pass (that would net us -570!) but what is best? I chose 3♦, hoping for four diamonds opposite, which was not a success. The robots mercifully let me play undoubled but I somehow lost a trick I was supposed to get and ended up -200 for a 4.5 imp loss. I basically shrugged it off, noting that I might not have reopened with a double myself, and thought nothing more of it.
Kim made a very astute observation, however. Why didn't you just bid 2♠? [She believes that I always try to wrest the contract from her, but that's another story – and certainly not the case here as I had no enthusiasm whatsoever for playing this particular hand!].
But her comment triggered a thought. Suppose RHO had never bid. The auction would have unfolded 1♠ – 1NT* – 2♣ – 2♠. That's automatic using the 2/1 system. There never would have been any question of anything else. I'd do the same with two small spades (assuming I had a 1NT response to start with). So isn't it logical that I should do the same thing in this sequence? It would result, assuming double-dummy play and no double, in -100 (which would beat the par of -140).
It's not only logical, it should be automatic.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Bridge at the Enigma Club
I am always thrilled to receive bridge books as Christmas gifts. This time Joan, my mother-in-law, bought me one I hadn't seen or heard of before: Bridge at the Enigma Club by Peter Winkler. As soon as I saw the title and read the cover, I knew I was going to enjoy it. But it's better than that. I love it! And, therefore, I highly recommend it to anyone who loves reading about bridge.
Peter Winkler is a professor of math and computer science at Dartmouth College and a former cryptographer. Although I'd heard long ago about encrypted signals at bridge, I hadn't realized that it was Winkler who originated the idea. Given my love of cryptography (and its relevance to my work), I've always been fascinated by the idea of crypto signals at bridge and somewhat saddened by the fact that they are illegal in many bridge jurisdictions, in particular the ACBL. Why should this be? It's such an arbitrary ruling. And, of course, it turns out that one can theoretically use crypto during the auction too. Perhaps Winkler won't mind if I quote a passage from his book:
"And?"
"Well, you now know which ace your partner has, right?"
"Sure."
"If I, your opponent, ask you which ace she holds, do you tell me?"
"Of course not, but that's not the same thing, nothing hangs on which ace she holds."
"That's because you didn't hang anything on it. On that auction you and your partner developed two bits worth of cryptographic 'key' that you could theoretically use to hide information..."
The whole business of full disclosure is based on the fact that you have to tell your opponents your agreements, even down to the last detail if necessary, but you don't have to tell them your hand. So, if there's something about your hands that you know, legally, but they don't know, why should it be that you can't take advantage of this bonus knowledge?
While Winkler makes a good case for allowing crypto in bridge, he doesn't do it as a proselytizer might do. In fact, his "hero" in the book is the skeptic, the one who is unfamiliar with it all, just as we the readers typically are.
The book is really just a great read. There are fascinating ideas about system here, too, in particular, the meaning of 2/1 bids. He also describes a bridge club, and its ways of playing duplicate bridge, which is fascinating. A cross between online and face-to-face bridge which is elegant but goes much further than either. Some of the ideas aren't quite so novel now that we have pre-duplicated boards and electronic scoring, but still it represents to me a kind of nirvana for playing bridge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)