Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Julian, I guess that the argument in favour of leading the ace of spades is similar to the argument for leading an ace against a Gambling No Trump. Declarer is likely to be able to run a lot of tricks fairly quickly, so we want to find a way to come to 5 tricks before they run their 9. The spade lead is attractive, not because it is our most likely suit, but because we will get to see dummy and partner’s signal.
Now I admit that it is declarer’s hand that we really want to see, but I can see a case for the ace lead. We certainly need to be active and I would strongly favour a heart over a diamond.
I have played around a bit more with this deal. A spade lead will be normal on the bidding (♠3, ♠9, ♠A, ♠J). The defence can go wrong and switch to a diamond at trick two and it is fairly easy for declarer to make if he run this to dummy’s ♦10. But I think that this would be an unusual line, given that West bid diamonds twice. A spade at trick two, leading up to ♠K10 in dummy, also looks very wrong. South holds the ♣KJ over the ♣Q, so a club switch doesn’t look right, although it might work if North held the ♣A. For me a trump switch at trick two looks very normal and if declarer ducks, North can comfortably continue with a club. I can’t see any way for declarer to make after a trump switch at trick two.
I think that the best chance for a mis-defence is a club from South at trick two. Q Plus actually did this on one occasion against me. This allows the ♣Q to make a trick and gives declarer a chance to cash to ♠K (which doesn’t particularly help). But even then, it seems natural to finesse in trumps rather than diamonds and declarer will still fail. The successful line after a club return is to run the ♦J, before tackling trumps – but I certainly couldn’t find that line.
Interesting hand.
I have just found this marvelous quote from the Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo book:
“COUNTING THE HAND is like having a cold bath – difficult and a little frightening, until you get in the habit. Then it comes quite easily and leaves you with a pleasant tingling sensation when it is over.”
I’m not sure if that is encouraging …
Imagine that you hold AK432 opposite a singleton 5. You have 6 cards in the two hands and the opponent’s have 7 which we hope to break 4-3. The ace any king will win the first two tricks and you ruff the third round. One opponent will still hold a winner and you will need to ruff the fourth round to establish the fifth card. In total you ruffed twice.
Now imagine your suit is 765432 opposite a void. Again, the opponent’s have 7 cards, which we hope are 4-3. But we have no natural winners this time and will have to ruff 4times to establish our long suit.
So the number of ruffs will be the length of the longer defenders suit less any natural winners.
Reg, we play Leaping Michaels. But it applies over a Weak Two opening not a Weak Three bid.
To be honest, it is a very rare bid. You need to be very strong to use Leaping Michaels since you are committing to the four or five level opposite a partner who might have nothing. So I don’t think you lose much if you don’t play Leaping Michaels.
Counting is not a skill that has been overlooked or taken for granted. Hugh Kelsey wrote one of the all-time classic bridge books: Killing Defence at Bridge. Chapter one is Counting. Chapter two is Beating the Drum (about counting). Chapter three is More Counting. Good bridge writers and teachers understand that it is a hugely important skill.
But it is a difficult thing to do and although I have played duplicate bridge for 30+ years, I can find that I have miscounted. You can’t aim for perfection, but you can improve with practice. For what it is worth, here are some tips:
- There are lots of things to count (the shape in each four different suits, the shape in two unseen hands, the number of points, the required number of tricks, the possible losers). You can’t hope to keep track of everything, so when you first see dummy, try to identify the important thing to track on any particular deal. This gets easier with experience.
- Say that you identify that it is important to count (say) the heart suit. You might count all of the cards that you see and subtract from 13. But 13 is quite a high number and this takes effort. A better method is to add up the number of cards that you can see in your hand and dummy at the start of the hand, deduct this total from 13 and just count the opponents’ cards. For example you have a 4-4 fit, so you have 8 cards and the opponent’s have 5. Counting to 5 is much easier than counting to 13!
- You can make things even easier. Get used to thinking in patterns. We worked out that our opponent’s have 5 cards in the suit. This can be 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2. There are no other patterns possible. With experience, you get to know the patterns, without conscious thought. Now, instead of counting to 13, you can to 2. If an opponent shows out at trick 1, the suit is 5-0. If both follow to trick 1, but someone shows out on the second round the suit is 4-1. If both opponent’s follow to 2 tricks the suit is 3-2. There are no other possibilities and you make life easier when you start to recognise these patterns.
- Counting starts during the auction. Any opposing bids will help tell you about the opposing shape and points.
I hadn’t seen Bernard’s response when I posted mine.
Bernard gives a good counter-example to my “Over 3♣ or 3♦, it will almost certainly be both majors”. 🙂
Interesting question. I think that it shows a very strong two-suiter. Over 3♥ or 3♠, I would expect a cue-bid to show the other major + a minor and 4NT would show both minors. Over 3♣ or 3♦, it will almost certainly be both majors – with a major and a minor I would expect to bid the major and show the minor if convenient on the second round.
I am not sure what length it will promise, but I certainly wouldn’t expect 4-4 (you wouldn’t want to rule out 3NT or defending). I suppose that a very strong 5-4 is possible (depending partly on vulnerability), but you would have the option of bidding the five-card suit instead. The problem with cue-bidding with 5-4 is that partner might choose the four-card suit if 3-3 in the majors. With five spades you can over-call 3♠ and hope to bid hearts later. With five hearts and four spades, it can be more awkward and cue-bidding is more attractive because partner will often bid 4♥ with 3-3 in the majors.
Thanks David, your method is I think the same as ours after 1♠-2NT, but is subtly different to ours after 1♥-2NT and I can see that it does have some merit. I must admit that I had always played the idea that clubs and hearts are linked and diamonds and spades are linked (it is simple to remember and it comes up in other contexts as well). But it seems that our method is not as common as I had supposed – maybe that’s a regional thing.
Hilary and Mark are correct of course. But it certainly looked like a singleton to me and I was sober! 🙂
Sam, if you had four diamonds and four spades you are right to respond 1♦ – it is usual in Acol to respond up the line.
The reason to bid 1♠ rather than 1NT (after 1♣-1♦-1♥) is that opener might be 4414 shape and you will only identify a spade fit if you bid the suit. 1NT would show a spade stop in a three-card suit.
The situation where opener has 16 points and responder has 9 points is a tricky area in Acol. Take a simple auction like: 1♥-1NT-2NT: this really needs to show 17-18, else you might be too high when responder has a 6-count. But you risk missing a 25-point 3NT when responder has 9 and opener has 16. The wide 6-9 range for the 1NT response is an area of imprecision in Acol that we have to accept – all systems have their weak points and this is a difficult area for Acol.
So I think that you were right to pass her 1NT. Note that you have exactly 25 HCPs. You expect to make 3NT more often than you will go off with 25 points, but it is far from certain and the contract will often fail – so I wouldn’t lose any sleep over missing 3NT.
Tricky question. We know that:
- Opener must be unbalanced. With a balanced hand we would always either open 1NT or rebid NTs.
- It is likely that no fit has been found. With an unbalanced hand we would tend to support a suit with a fit.
- I would jump to 2NT with about 17-18 – so the 1NT bid is limited to a maximum of 16ish.
- With a very weak opener, opener might prefer to repeat the clubs, or bid two diamonds with three-card support. But sometimes, that just isn’t possible – what do you bid with: ♠K2 ♥AQ54 ♦Q10 ♣J6432?
So I would expect that 1NT will often show 14-16, but it might sometimes be weaker than that.
As an aside, I prefer the 1♠ to be fourth suit forcing and responder can raise with four spades. I think that the world is split 50:50 on this!
Interesting Brian.
Are you committed to game with a misfitting 4441 12-count? I wouldn’t be forcing to game with the West hand minus a king if the bidding starts 1D-1H-2D.
Meanwhile, the advantage of opening aggressively comes when the opponent’s are bidding and we help partner compete or find a lead.
You also ask about a 2C opening when playing three weak two. This is another tricky area – that is why Bernard teaches Benji. I like to keep the 2C bid fully up to strength – which means 23+ if balanced or a hand which wants to force to game if unbalanced. The downside is that you sometimes have to open at the one-level with some pretty strong hands and so sometimes risk them being passed out – but it is pretty rare for everyone to pass.
Some players (particularly Americans) lower the requirements for 2C and have systematic ways to stop short of game (often using a double negative). Unless you have agreed such methods with partner, I suggest that you keep the 2C opening up to strength.
Thanks, I have found the hand now. My rule is that “low level doubles are for take-out, unless they clearly can’t be for take-out”. The rule seems a bit fuzzy and it can take some practice, but this is a good example: North opened 1C and when South passed the overcall North had an opportunity to make a take-out double. North chose instead to bid his second suit diamonds and has described his shape. North then passed twice before doubling on the fifth round of bidding. Not only that, but South has shown some support for North’s diamonds! North surely has a good picture of the hands and cannot possibly want to double to ask South to bid a suit! The only possible interpretation is that the double is for penalties.
This takes some getting used to and some practice. And you will have some mishaps, but it will improve your bridge. 🙂
