Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bernard has repeated any number of times that aces are under-valued by the point count system. We even have a new word: “Acelessness” to describe a hand which needs downgrading due to a lack of aces. The corollary to this is that it is madness to downgrade a hand with three aces. These hands should be upgraded and your partners are simply wrong.
David, I play different methods with different partners and don’t have any strong preferences. I guess that the logic for the strict rules on strong jump shift responses is that you only consume the extra round of bidding if you know which strain you want to play in. Your example isn’t too bad, because if the bidding starts 1C-2S-3C, you can probably bid 3NT and feel happy that you have described your hand.
It becomes more difficult if you jump with strong two-suited hands, because now there might not be time to diagnose whether we have a fit without passing the 3NT barrier.
The other danger is jumping with strength but a poor quality suit – particularly in the minors – and being locked into a poor suit whilst heading towards slam.
I thought that this was a difficult hand to analyse. I play quite a lot of teams and I must admit that I tend to look to make the contract as my main priority (I have remarked before that Quizzes and Hands Of The Week should state the method of scoring up front, before you plan the play).
Playing teams, I would not be happy with a strategy that leaves me taking a second club finesse at a point where I have exhausted my trumps and there are lot of hearts to lose if the finesse fails. But having said this, it is not obvious what is the optimum strategy. Ruffing low, drawing trumps in three rounds and then playing ace and another club will always succeed as long as trumps are not 4-1. But I don’t think that we can succeed if the trumps are not breaking. If we draw two rounds and discover the bad break, it won’t matter whether we next play on clubs or diamonds, we will lose the lead and be forced with a further heart. If we knew that trumps were breaking badly, our best chance of succeeding is to duck the second round of hearts (discarding a diamond) to retain trump control, then hope that West has the king of clubs:
- Trick 3: East exits with (say) a diamond. Tricks 4&5: ace of spades low spades then low spade to the jack. Trick 6: club finesse. Tricks 7&8: ace of diamond and exit with a small diamond and hope that the endplay gives the second club finesse or the entry to dummy for the second finesse.
But this would be silly if trumps are 3-2! So I think that we need to hope that trumps are 3-2.
Steve asked: “Do you know which videos discuss 1x 1y 3nt?”
I have been looking back at some of the past material and I have found a couple of links for you:
Charity Seminar 36 (Discussion of the bidding quiz)
As Julian notes, 4NT with a void is not a good choice.
But putting that aside, you asked about the D0P1 / R0P1 convention after interference. This can be adapted to work playing Roman Key Card Blackwood. A simple scheme would be:
- Double = 0 or 3 key cards
- Pass = 1 or 4 key cards
- One step = 2 key cards, without the queen
- Two steps = 2 key cards, with the queen
Geoff,
I think that you have this the wrong way round. The Benji sequences 2C-2D-2H/S has traditionally been forcing for one round. This can be seen from the history of the bid, because it was a development from Acol Twos, which were always forcing for one round. I believe that the standard treatment is still that it is forcing, but I am aware that there does seem to be a trend for some to play these bids as non-forcing.
The traditional valuation method of “8 Playing Tricks” is probably the reason that some players play the bid as non-forcing, but it is a fallacy to equate “8 Playing Tricks” in one player’s hand with “the partnership can take eight tricks”. After all, we don’t require seven playing tricks for a one-level opening.
If the Benji 2C bid has any value, then it is to plug the gap between a non-forcing one-level opening and a traditional Acol 2C opening which is forcing to game. There are hands where we prefer not to open at the one level in case partner passes, but are nevertheless too weak to force to game. If way play 2C-2D-2H/S as also non-forcing, then we might as well open 1H/S instead and save a round of bidding.
Hi Steve,
Yes, I was a bit sloppy there mixing my way of presenting. I think I started following Charles’s post then switched half way – sorry.
Of course we are discussing uncontested auctions, so 1♣-2♠.
Yes, I deliberately didn’t go into detail of the alternatives because they tend to create complexities. Whenever you tinker with your system, there are consequences for other parts of the system and you need to think these through before you make the changes.
Similar to Charles, in my main partnership we play 1♣-P-2♠ as weak (4-8 HCPs in our case). But this choice does have consequences that ripple through our system. Here are a few:
- Since 1♣-P-2♠ is 4-8 HCP’s, we play an auction such as 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♠ to show a stronger hand (9-11 HCPs and constructive).
- This allows 1♦-1♠-2♣-3♠ to be played as forcing (12+ and a six-card suit is enough to force to game). Playing this as non-forcing has always been an awkward part of the system, so being able to bid 3♠ as forcing is the big advantage of playing 1♣-P-2♠ as weak.
- But, we lose the ability to making a game-forcing response with a big hand (and we have too few forcing bids in Acol, not too many). So we find it helpful to play Fourth Suit Forcing as a game-forcing bid.
- This might leave us a problem with a semi-balanced eleven-count and no stop in the fourth suit. We have to either choose to downgrade and give preference to one of partner’s suits or upgrade and make a game forcing bid. Our view is that 2NT is never a great contract (you would prefer to be in 3NT or 1NT), so we are happy not to play in exactly 2NT. But it is a ripple effect of our choice to make a jump to 3♠ as 4-8 HCPs.
I’m not sure that Bernard has discussed these jumps as a topic, but they have been mentioned in passing. If playing standard Acol, the bids are forcing to game and inviting slam. They would be one of two hand types:
- A strong single-suited hand with a a good quality six-card suit and 16 or more High Card Points.
- Support for partner (4+ cards) and a second good quality five-card suit and 16 or more High Card Points.
The suit quality is important. If it is a single-suited hand, the suit should be playable opposite a singleton. If it is the hand with support, the side-suit should be a source of tricks in any slam contract.
As you can see, the bid will be an infrequent bid – many 16-point hand will still be a simple change of suit response. Because it is such a rare bid, some partnerships choose to use the jump for other purposes (there are lots of choices).
I’m not sure, I think that I remember it coming up a couple of times, but probably as a bidding Quiz or a set hand for QPlus. Unfortunately, I don’t think that any search term will find it easily. I will try and look over the next couple of days and let you know if I find it.
For what it’s worth Steve, I play a similar scheme with one partner, where 2NT is exactly 20 and 2C then 2NT is 21-22. Some opponents express surprise – some even refuse to believe us! But it works surprisingly well and it is a statistical curiosity that the odds of holding 20 HCPs is greater then the combined odds of 21 and 22.
Bernard recommends that 1x-1y-3NT is based on a long running minor, which is what we do.
You cannot redouble for clubs – it was your partner who doubled!
You could perhaps bid 2S to transfer to clubs, but you would then be playing at the three-level.
Helvic is an escape from 1NT doubled. Amongst other things it uses 1NT-Dbl-Pass to force opener to redouble. As a consequence, you can play in 1NT redoubled but not 1NT doubled. I am not a fan of Helvic for this reason and Bernard was very critical of the method when he covered wriggles in Friday Live seminars back in January / February.
The Helvic structure does not work for a double in the protective seat and you would need to agree a different methodology.
I agree with Julian’s response.
But it is interesting that although Bernard regards 1♠-2♣-2♥ as forcing, he would still jump 1♠-2♣-3♥ with a very strong hand (18+). I guess that this narrows the range for a two heart rebid making it easier to judge these auctions and a jump to 4♥ can still be used as a splinter.
Bernard discussed this auction in a Friday seminar, almost a year ago: Friday 003 – Rebidding in a Second Suit
