Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have to say that I really dislike the “Rule of 14”. It is a strange “Rule”, which only came to my notice in the last couple of years and seems to make no sense.
For me it is rather easy. A two-over-one response requires ten High Card Points. I am prepared to upgrade a nine-count, but never an eight-count and certainly not seven. Note that a five-card suit isn’t enough in itself to upgrade and make a two-level response. A good quality five-card suit might merit an upgrade, but I would also consider other factors such as fitting honours, intermediates, aces and particularly, the number of cards in partner’s suit is a big factor. So after a 1♠ opening, ♠KJ3 ♥42 ♦A1096 ♣J1095 is worth a two club response for me, but ♠3 ♥A42 ♦K643 ♣Q7542 is not. When considering a 2♥ response, we need a five-card suit anyway for a two-level response, because it takes up so much bidding space. So holding a five-card heart suit is not a reason to upgrade.
Of course, I recognise that Sean’s hand has huge potential, but at the moment it is just that: “potential”. The big thing that we need is some kind of fit and at the moment the only indication that we have – the singleton in partner’s suit – suggests a misfit. This hand might not be worth much in a spade contract and might not even be worth much in no trumps, if entries are a problem. A useful tip that I remember from years ago is that it easy to add to the values that you have already shown, but impossible to subtract from the values shown. If you respond 1NT, you can always show extra interest if the auctions moves in a favourable direction. But if you respond 2♥, you will never convince partner that you are not a ten-count if the auction reveals a misfit.
I have to say that I really dislike the “Rule of 14”. It is a strange “Rule”, which only came to my notice in the last couple of years and seems to make no sense.
For me it is rather easy. A two-over-one response requires ten High Card Points. I am prepared to upgrade a nine-count, but never an eight-count and certainly not seven. Note that a five-card suit isn’t enough in itself to upgrade and make a two-level response. A good quality five-card suit might merit an upgrade, but I would also consider other factors such as fitting honours, intermediates, aces and particularly, the number of cards in partner’s suit is a big factor. So after a 1♠ opening, ♠KJ3 ♥42 ♦A1096 ♣J1095 is worth a two club response for me, but ♠3 ♥A42 ♦K643 ♣Q7542 is not. When considering a 2♥ response, we need a five-card suit anyway for a two-level response, because it takes up so much bidding space. So holding a five-card heart suit is not a reason to upgrade.
Of course I recognise that Sean’s hand has huge potential, but at the moment it is just that: “potential”. The big thing that we need is some kind of fit and at the moment the only indication that we have – the singleton in partner’s suit – suggests a misfit. This hand might not be worth much in a spade contract and might not even be worth much in no trumps, if entries are a problem. A useful tip that I remember from years ago is that it easy to add to the values that you have already shown, but impossible to subtract from the values shown. If you respond 1NT, you can always show extra interest if the auctions moves in a favourable direction. But if you respond 2♥, you will never convince partner that you are not a ten-count if the auction reveals a misfit.
Hi Charles,
The subject of overcalling on four-card suits came up last year in a series of related posts (see: http://blog.bernardmageebridge.com/forums/topic/over-calling-on-a-four-card-suit/). Julian’s reply refers to the Mike Lawrence book which gives some extensive guidance.
I am not in the habit of regularly overcalling on a four-card suit, but it can sometimes be the best option with a good quality suit (especially spades) and opening values. I looked back over my hands played in the last month and found that I had overcalled once on a four-card suit.
With ♠AKJ10 ♥9 ♦A754 ♣J1093 after a 1♦ opening with neither side vulnerable, passing is possible, but I would rank:
- 1♠ overcall
- Pass
- Takeout double (a distant third choice for me – but some at our club would choose this option)
Obviously the quality of the spades is very good and your AQxx example is probably a little bit light for me, in terms of suit quality. But other player might reasonably judge differently.
In my experience, most club directors bend over backwards not to give a judgement ruling to their own advantage. As someone who partner’s a director, I am always hoping that another director is present if a ruling is needed!
More generally, I believe that well-run clubs should always strive to have more than one qualified director. This gives cover when a director is ill or on holiday, as well as allowing an alternate to give a ruling if the director in charge is involved (or busy resolving an issue at another table).
Your regular partner might “know that you won’t pass without good reason” and you may think that it worked out ok when you passed the reverse. But there are hidden costs to partnership confidence. The next time that partner holds a big hand, maybe they jump to 3H (costing a round of bidding) or open 2C on shaded values. These hidden costs are part of the reason that I suggest that passing is not a long-term winning action.
Misfits are difficult. I think that we would stop in 2NT, which will probably drift one off. But I would still be unhappy if partner passed my reverse – it might work better on this hand, but passing will not be a Long-term winning action.
I would bid 2NT (non-forcing). The hand is a bit of a misfit and 2NT is most likely to discourage you. I don’t like raising hearts with only three cards in this auction, because you are very unlikely to have a five-card heart suit.
1D-1S-2H is a reverse and is forcing for one round after a one-level response. Your hand is certainly worth a reverse – yes the singleton king is worth a downgrade, but the five-card diamond holding headed by AKQ is worth an upgrade, as is three-card support for partner. I would value this hand as a good 18.
I would need to know partner’s hand to comment on their second bid. Did they have more than four spades? Did they have a club stop? But with six points they are right to make a minimum response and 3H is non-forcing.
I don’t believe that takeout doubles have been covered at a topic yet. Try instead to search for “Endplay”. That returns the latest big seminar, the latest live seminar as well as several forum comments.
Thanks Bernard. I agree, but I rather liked the aesthetics of having the option to end play either opponent at trick 11. (And I think that North is known to have started with eight hearts by that point).
Can I please ask about Set Hand 6 on the Endplays:
If the topic hadn’t been endplays, I would have a ducked a round of clubs, which would allow the contract to make if either clubs are 3-3 (36%) or the heart finesse succeeds (a further 32%, giving a 68% chance). I might even have thought that ducking was rectifying the count in case there was a squeeze – but of course a simple squeeze won’t work because East is discarding after us. And I guess that opponents make safe leads against 6NT contracts, so South is likely to hold QJ10(x)(x)(x), making the chances of a 3-3 break are much less. But our target must be to find a line which succeeds more often than this line.
So can I please clarify a few things on your line:
- If South holds onto his clubs, we have a guess – has South reduced to a singleton king? Against novices, it probably works to throw South in with the club if a club is discarded, but if there is no club discard, South probably doesn’t have the king of hearts, so we should take the finesse, But an expert will be very capable of reducing to a singleton king of hearts, so we are likely to be on a guess.
- I am certainly not an expert. But I am probably not a novice either and I would hope that I would be capable of keeping my clubs once the ace and king of clubs are played to the first two tricks, coming down to the singleton king of hearts if necessary. But I think that I would find it be much more difficult to get it right if the diamonds and spades are eliminated before the second club is played. I’m not sure of the purpose of playing the second club? Is it a form of Vienna Coup?
- It was surely a mistake for South to play the nine at trick two. That marks South with an initial ♣QJ109? If South played the jack or ten instead, then a subsequent club discard might have been an unblocking play from an initial ♣QJ10 and it is not clear what the position is.
Thanks again.
I would be interested to know what hand your partner had for their double. They promised at least-three card support for each of the unbid suits (or considerable extra strength). Much of the time you would expect four cards in the unbid major for the takeout double. So your five-card spade suit should be enough to guarantee an eight-card fit and it would be perfectly normal to bid 4S with a four-card suit in this auction. Playing in a 4-3 fit at the two-level is not the end of the world.
Great question David and of course it applies to three-level and four-level pre-empts as well.
The first thing to say is that the suit matters, It is much more attractive to bid in fourth seat with the spade suit than with the heart suit along with short spades, because when the points are evenly balanced the pair who own the master suit (spades) will often come out on top. The second important point is that you shouldn’t be pre-empting as a sacrifice – you should only bid if you expect to make the contract more often than you fail (pairs). In making that assessment you can assume that your partner has some values, since the opponents don’t seem to have them – maybe nine or ten scattered points.
I would expect a weak two to show a good quality six-card suit and about 9-12 HCPs. A weak three would be similar but a seven-card suit. At the four-level you might be rather stronger – a hand that expects to make game and can’t envisage a slam opposite a passed hand.
Yes it is rare – maybe once every few years.
John makes some good points and I was maybe a bit too dogmatic in my reply last night, so perhaps I should explain further. Let’s imagine the “worst possible” three-ace hand – maybe ♠A32 ♥A32 ♦A32 ♣5432 and consider the evaluation factors:
- Good features: Aces are undervalued. This is particularly the case in suit contracts, but also true to a lesser extent in no trump contracts.
- Bad Features: (1) Ugly 4333 shape (note that it is specifically 4333 that is bad, not 4432); (2) Isolated honours (I acknowledge that this is a characteristic of these three-ace hands; (3) no major suit; (4) no intermediates.
I can see a reasonable case for not opening this “worst case” hand – particularly if sitting in third seat and vulnerable. But personally, I would still usually open 1NT if non-vulnerable, because the weak no trump has quite a lot of pre-emptive effect, making it difficult for opponents.
If we carry out the same analysis on your first hand ♠A832 ♥10962 ♦A6 ♣A63:
- Good features: (1) Aces are undervalued, particularly in suit contracts (note that we have four card in each major and the final contract is, perhaps, as likely to be a suit contract as no trumps); (2) We have a little bit of shape (two four-card suits and a doubleton offering ruffing potential); (3) We have a ten and a nine and they are working together in a four-card suit
- Bad features: Our aces are still isolated.
Your first hand is so much better than my “worst case” and I would find it a comfortable 1NT opener – at any seat or vulnerability.
