Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ian, The traditional response structure over a Jacoby 2NT is that a three-level bid shows shortage – so a very specific form of cue-bid (rather like a splinter). But some play a three-level bid as natural (2nd suit) and others play more artificial asking bids. You do need to agree your response structure with partner if you are going to agree to play Jacoby!
Hi Ian,
Bernard teaches that a sequence such as 1NT-(2D)-Dbl is a penalty double, based on length in diamonds. You describe yourself as a beginner, so I would recommend that you stick to Bernard’s recommendation at this stage. In this case it is best to follow Julian’s recommendation and bid 2S (assuming that the quality of the spade suit is adequate).
It is a reasonable alternative to play that a double in the sequence 1NT-(2D)-Dbl is take-out and many players (including me) do this. But this needs to be agreed with your partner and you need to be prepared for partner’s response when you double. Julian’s 2S will usually be the better choice on your 5-5 shape.
I have also found this in another Charles Goren book (20 years later):
“The Milton Work point count has remained the standard for more than half a century […]
The primary reason this author championed the point count method is its simplicity. Each suit contains 10 points, and counting by tens is natural to most of us. The bothersome fractions of other methods were eliminated. But simplicity alone is not why this method became dominant. It has stood the test of time, and experts all over the world have employed it, and continue to employ it, with great success.”
Charles, our agreement is that a double says “Lead the suit below the singleton” (on a revolving basis so double of a club splinter would ask for a spade).
I don’t know that it matters much which suit is shown, but there is little point in doubling the splinter suit to ask for a lead of that suit, unless there is a chance that the opponents might finish in no trumps. Typically we double (say) a 4D splinter with a club void.
I have done some further digging Steve, but I cannot find much on the original derivation of the Milton Work Point count.
Online sources state that the method was quickly taken up by Charles Goren – who did much to popularise the new game of Contract Bridge, at least in the US. I have a large number of bridge books – many picked up second hand. I have a book by Charles Goren titled Point Count Bidding in Contract Bridge. The book is dated 1950 and is not intended to be an advanced-level book. The introduction begins:
“For a great many years I have advocated the point count for all phases of No Trump bidding, and to a limited extent where trump suits are involved. It may have been a surprise to many of my readers therefore that I should have delayed so long publishing a book on the point count for suit bidding, though it became apparent that many a great many players in all parts of the continent found this method of presentation so much to their taste.
The answer is a simple one. As I have ofttimes stated, I never ask my students to serve as guinea pigs. Consequently I determined to postpone publication of my complete work until such time as I was able to cure most of the defects and iron out many of the fallacies that were inherent in the different versions of the point count method that had heretofore been hastily offered to the public in various parts of this country and England.
It required a great deal of study and experimentation. But, with the assistance of William M. Anderson of Toronto, head of one of Canada’s foremost life insurance companies and an actuary of great renown, I was able to develop a scale of values which will work effectively in an overwhelming majority of hands.”
This looked promising, but in reality this statistical analysis seems to be ways of tweaking the basic 4321 structure, rather than any real insight about the origins. Clearly there were many conflicting methods for adjusting the valuation even in 1950.
I rang the number and it was explained that the could copy membership details (name, address, BBO name etc.) across to the new server, but they cannot copy across your payment details (bank card, expiry date, number on the back etc.). This will be a security feature in the bank’s system and seems logical to me.
Thanks Julian, I understand. Although it must be difficult for opener if 1C-(1D)-Dbl might be either:
AKxx xx xxxx xxx; or
xx AKxx xxxx xxx
There are various reasons why a player holding an ace in the fourth suit might not wish to bid 3NT and David has given one good reason. Sometimes there are positional considerations. Imagine that North/South have these holdings in the critical fourth suit:
Axx
Qx
North might choose to bid 3NT, but there might only be one stopper with the lead coming from East. But if West leads the suit there is a guarantee of two stoppers. South’s “stopper” is a bit flimsy, but the partnership’s combined stoppers are better with South as declared.
In my experience, it is not unusual for a player holding Axx to bid the fourth suit before committing to a contract.
Hi Steve,
Your system is a little unusual and I am interested in how it can work.
You state that 1S promises five cards. Does 1H also promise a five-card suit? Most play that a double would be 4-4 in both majors, but what does a double show for you?
I think that you have the order the wrong way round. The 4321 Point Count dates back around 100 years and I very much doubt that any mathematical analysis was done at that time.
Many players over the years have tried to “improve” the count. Have a look at this discussion if you want some idea on this.
As I said, the method is an excellent combination of accuracy and practicality. But of course, it is not perfect. Over the years, players have noticed that aces tend to be under-valued by the 4321 count. Some try to assign numerical values but I suggest that it is very difficult, verging on impossible, to quantify with this level of precision. For example aces tend to be particularly valuable in distributional hands and for suit contracts. They are not so valuable in more balanced hands and for no trump contracts. You might be judging whether to open 1C but you don’t know where the auction will end.
Similarly queens tend to be overvalued by the 4321 count – but by how much? It will depend whether the contact is a suit contract or no trumps, but also whether we are declaring or defending, whether the queen is in our suit or the opponents’ and whether it works in combination with other other honours (and intermediates). I would completely ignore 10s for valuation purposes unless they are working well in combination with other honours.
Probably the best attempt to create a more mathematically robust valuation method is Kaplan Rubens. But this is not simple enough to use at the table – only for analysis afterwards.
I’m not sure which folks you have been talking to, but I think it very unlikely that an ace was originally 4.1 or indeed any fractional value.. one of the main reason the 4321 values were chosen was to make it simple to calculate at the table. The hand evaluation method has been around for longer than the game of Contract Bridge! It was originally devised in the days of Whist and Auction Bridge.
The amazing thing is that the method has stood the test of time so well. Almost all players make use of the Milton Work Point Count method – at least as the starting point for their hand evaluation. There have been many attempts over the years to come up with better hand evaluation methods. Some have merit, many don’t. But I think that the combination of simplicity and accuracy has not been bettered.
I agree with you Bruce, 4NT in the quoted sequences is quantitative in our methods.
I like to play that after a 2M response to Stayman, a bid of three in the other major agrees partner’s four-card suit and is slam invitational, giving space for cue bidding and Blackwood. So:
1NT-2C-2H-3S sets hearts as trumps.
1NT-2C-2S-3H sets spades as trumps.
Thanks Bernard for clarifying.
I understand where you coming from and of course I will also play a false card from time to time. But I do try to keep these false cards to a minimum because there is always a danger that the action will work well on this hand, but change partner’s expectations and cause partner to mis-defend on a later hands.
I prefer double as showing the values for a strong NT and no clear bid and no stop. Second choice for a double is take-out and I really don’t like Support Doubles in combination with a weak NT.
On Kelvin’s hand I would probably pass because partner is still there. So 2S is either extra strength (about 15+) or extra shape.
