The "Bridge Methods" Blog

Well, the season has finished – sorry for the paucity of posts throughout!

The introduction of Good 2NT achieved the desired results – maintaining most of the efficiency of Good/Bad 2NT whilst minimising/removing memory problems/mistakes.  It hasn’t been perfect, but this has been more about using Good 2NT effectively, rather than making errors.

S1N 1.3 has just been released, and within in Good 2NT has been extensively elaborated on in a S1N context.  Mostly it is as you would expect, but after the 1♣ opening, 3♦ acts like the 3♣ puppet in normal Lebensohl (except when the oppo’s interference was in diamonds, in which case, 3♥). The reason for this is to allow 3♣ to show 5+ club length without forcing (and the 3♦ puppet mentioned above to in practice be a WK NT).

Once again, we’ll have to see how it goes, but hopefully the compromise above will allow the most likely things that need to be shown to be so

• Opener’s long clubs (via 3♣) , or
• Responder’s major suit length (via 3M, most likely after 2NT 3♦)

Regards, BM

Sorry about the gap between posts – busy at home with the two month old and busy at work too.  The good news is that another partnership is sufficiently impressed with S1N and has started to use the method.  We’ll see how they go as well!

One question that has come up recently in S1N (though it is probably applicable in many other systems) is over which natural 1NT and 2NT rebids some form of Checkback Stayman applies.  I’d never really thought about it as a matter of theory before, but rather, just answered each situation as a standalone case.  However, the answer is fairly clear when you think about it …

• If responder has shown a suit, 2♣ (or 3♣) is Checkback.  This is the more common case, so Checkback usually applies.
• If responder has not shown a suit (as in 1♣ 1♠ 1NT/2NT or 1♦ 1♥ 1NT in S1N) then Checkback doesn’t apply.  In these cases, responder is often strong if he still has a major, so he simply reverses into it (e.g. 1♣ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ showing FG with 5⁺♦/4⁺♥ in S1N).

Well, that was fairly easy.  Then we had the following sequence:  1♠ 1NT 2NT – I was the 1NT bidder and had a modest hand with 5 hearts.  I bid 3♥ and we got to the correct 4♥ contract (but played wrong way up, though it didn’t matter anecdotally).  So we discussed the question:  should we play transfers over natural NT rebids, and if so, when?

When I thought about it, the answers were sort of obvious, “yes” and “all the time”.  There is almost no downside to playing ♦ -> ♥, ♥ -> ♠, ♠ -> ♣ and when available (i.e. when checkback is not applicable) ♣ -> ♦.  In all cases, I suggest playing them as WK or FG, with jumps as NAT, INV.  Most of the continuations will be self evident – just think about the preference auctions.

If you’re playing a Walsh style method, as I prefer and as S1N does by default via its TRF responses to 1♣, then its important to retain the ability to sign off in the minors when holding a WK 4/6.  This necessitates keeping the 3♦ jump as to play (1Y 1M 1NT 3♦) or equivalent auctions. Strangely, this is not required in clubs, where you can use 2NT over the 2♠ transfer to clubs to suggest preference to the major, but allowing partner then to insist on clubs with 3♣.  For example, in S1N:  1♣ 1♦ 1NT 2♠ 2NT where responder has shown hearts and then transferred to clubs.  Once opener shows a heart preference with 2NT, responder can run with that, or bid 3♣ as a sign-off.

It all looks pretty sensible to me – hope I’m not missing something

Regards, BM

The decision to slightly adjust the S1N openings, and in particular, to play 2♥ as roughly 11-15 hcp with 4♥ and a longer minor has had some interesting, and mostly positive, surprising repercussions.

Firstly, there is the obvious removal of the rebid problem with 5m4♥ hands that many natural methods have after a 1♠ response.  In S1N, the two relevant sequences would other be 1♣ 1♥ (showing spades) and 1♦ 1♠.

Secondly, now that 1♦ 1♥ is now no longer needed in its natural form (though opener can reverse into 2♥ when stronger than a 2♥ opening) has allowed a problem with 2/1 to be addressed.  I like to play 2/1 as absolutely game forcing, but this means that the sequence 1♦ 1NT needs to be quite wide ranging (and arguably, unplayable).  Taking advantage of the property described above, we are now going to play the following “Kaplan Inversion” inspired responses to 1♦

• 1♥:  ART, <5M, F1
• 1♠:  5⁺♥
• 1NT:  5⁺♠
• 2♣:  NAT, FG
• etc

The above gives the obvious advantages of knowing immediately that responder has 5 in the major, but also, after the new 1♦ 1♥ 1NT “catchall” sequence (no game interested opposite <9⁺ hcp) it gives responder second chance with invitational values to do something sensible.  Also, the spade fits still get discovered via1♦ 1♥ 1♠.

Thirdly, it also helps in inverted minor raise sequences.  In S1N, the 1♣ opening includes 12-17 BAL hands without a 5M.  Once again, 1♣ 2♣ 2♥ is not needed (as much) in its natural sense, so we can play the following [note, we are playing shape showing continuations after an inverted minor raise - I can't remember the fancy name for this] “Kokish” inspired continuations …

• 2♦:  4⁺♦
• 2♥: 4⁺♥ (reversing strength) or14-17 BAL, requests a 2♠ R, then
  • 2NT:  14-15 BAL
  • 3NT:  16-17 BAL
  • others – as per a strong 5⁺♦/4⁺♥ hand
• 2♠:  4⁺♠
• 2NT:  12-13 (pre-declining a simple invite, if you like).
• 3♣:  MIN, NF
• 3♦/♥/♠ splinters
• etc

All in all, I’m quite liking how this somewhat accidentally fits in!

Regards, BM

It’s been a busy time at home – August has brought a new baby into the family.  Nevertheless, I hope to get some sleep sometime, preferably before the middle of September when I return to work.  Also, the middle of September is effectively the start of my bridge calendar for the year, so I’d better complete any refinements of S1N in time for it!

One thing my partner in “S1N” has taken issue with is the use of 2♣ naturally – I think some pressure needs to be taken off 1♣ as it contains all the weak and strong notrump openings.  He is not convinced of the veracity of this use and instead prefers to use it as part of the pre-emptive barrage.  I have considered this and decided that I can’t keep saying no to this opinion indefinitely as it might cause resentment.  I think it’s best to trial it his way, which will lead to one of three outcomes

1. I will be more or less proved right, but it will only hurt us a little bit in the meantime (this is what I think is the likely scenario)
2. I will be proved right, but it will hurt us a lot (this is the bad scenario)
3. I will be proved wrong (in which case, only my bridge intellect will be bruised)

As part of the “negotiation”, I have secured one compromise and a joint positive outcome.  The compromise is that 2♥ will be played as a minimum opening with 4+♥ (usually exactly 4) and a longer minor.  This achieves two positive effects

1. It takes a modicum of pressure of the 1♣ opening, and
2. It removes the rebid problem from this hand type after 1m 1♠ or equivalent sequences (in S1N, 1♣ 1♥ shows spades, but it still exhibits the same problem)

If this bid does not prove its worth, then I suppose its back to some form of Weak Twos in the majors (with some mild adjustment to the 2♠ to 3♦ openings, which contain two way pre-empts, probably making them similar 2NT to 3♥ openings).

As to the positive outcome (I think) the 2♥ Jammer now gets moved to 2♣.  This gives more safety, in particular the ability to pass 2♣ (which we often do to the 2♦ Jammer), but also to have 2♣ 2♦ as PoC, 2♣ 3♣ as invitational and 2♣ 4♥ as usually right-sided.

This leaves the S1N v2 1st seat openings now as below, with the following percentages using some sensible assumptions and ignoring pre-empts for the present.

The percentage each opening appears to occur (ten million hand sample) are

Let’s see how it goes!

Regards, BM

July has passed me by- busy at work and busy preparing for a newborn early this month.  It might be a good time to get a post in!

Jammer continues to serve well on the infrequent chances I get to play & practise.  Before I go into the 2NT continuations, it is worth noting also that 2♥ 3♥, 2♠ 3♦ and 2♠ 3♠ are now played as invitational.  There is no invite available in clubs after a 2♥ opening due to space considerations (thought as yet, the 4m responses to 2♥/♠ are undefined).  The responses to the strong 2NT relay are shown below, after a 2♠ opening first, then their equivalents after a 2♥ opening.

First, 3♣ always shows length in the non-anchor minor, 3♦+ length in the non-anchor major.  This is because more relay space is needed in the latter case to resolve relative major suit lengths.

• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♣:  spades, diamonds and clubs (hearts, clubs and diamonds)
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♦⁺:  spades, diamonds and hearts (hearts, clubs and spades)

Resolution then goes as follows.  When the non-anchor major is held

• 2♦(♥) 2NT 4♥:  5=3=5=0 (3=5=0=5), i.e. long anchor major and minor
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 4♦:  5=5=3=0 (5=5=0=3), i.e. long both majors
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 4♣:  some 5440 short in the non-anchor minor, then 4♦ asks 5 card suit
  • 4♥ 4=5=4=0 (4=5=0=4)
  • 4♠ 5=4=4=0 (5=4=0=4)
  • 4NT 4=4=5=0 (4=4=0=5)
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3NT:  4=5=3=1 (5=4=1=3), i.e. longer in the non-anchor major
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♠:   4/4 M’s, then 4♣ asks
  • 4♦ 4=4=4=1 (4=4=1=4)
  • 4♥ 4=4=3=2 (4=4=2=3)
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♥:  BAL with the anchor major longer, then 3♠ asks
  • 3NT 4=3=4=2 (3=4=2=4)
  • 4♣ 5=3=3=2 (3=5=2=3)
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♦:  UNBAL with the anchor major longer, then 3♥ asks (3/4 then 3/5 then 4/5 for memory)
  • 3♠ 4=3=5=1 (3=4=1=5)
  • 3NT 5=3=4=1 (3=5=1=4)
  • 4♣ 5=4=3=1 (4=5=1=3)

When the non-anchor minor is held, and after a 3♦ continuation to the 3♣ response

• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 4♥:  5=0=5=3 (0=5=3=5), i.e. long anchor major and minor (as above)
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 4♦:  5=0=3=5 (0=5=5=3), i.e. long anchor major and non-anchor minor (by elimination)
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 4♣:  some 5440 short in the non-anchor major, then 4♦ asks 5 card suit
  • 4♥ 4=0=4=5 (0=5=4=4)
  • 4♠ 5=0=4=4 (0=4=4=5)
  • 4NT 4=0=5=4 (0=4=5=4)
  • mnemonic above – “NT shows diamonds” or “long clubs before diamonds”
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 3NT:  4 in anchor major and diamonds not clubs (mnemonic – “NT shows diamonds”), then 4♣ asks
  • 4♦ 4=2=4=3 (2=4=4=3)
  • 4♥ 4=1=5=3 (1=4=5=3)
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 3♠:  5 in anchor major, then 4♣ asks
  • 4♦ 5=2=3=3 (2=5=3=3)
  • 4♥ 5=1=3=4 (1=5=3=4)
  • 4♠ 5=1=4=3 (1=5=4=3)
  • mnemonic above – “long clubs before diamonds”
• 2♦(♥) 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 3♥:  4 in anchor major and clubs (and maybe diamonds) then 3♠ asks
  • 3NT 4=1=4=4 (1=4=4=4)
  • 4♣ 4=2=3=4 (2=4=3=4)
  • 4♦ 4=1=3=5 (1=4=3=5)

There are a few obvious design decisions that have been made above, most notably, that all void types initially show 4♣ and above.  This is not foolproof, but I believe (and testing has thus far borne out) that if partner was willing to force opposite a potential 4432, then there is almost always safety above 3NT with an extreme shape.  This means there is now less pressure on shape resolution below 3NT.  Also, it may appear strange that one sometimes resolves fairly common shapes above 3NT.  If you look closely, however, the location of the shortage and relative major suit length was known at 3NT or below.  In many if not most cases, this final resolution will not be needed, and if it is, those bits that resolve above 3NT will promise extra length.

One final point of interest is slam investigation.  Current thinking is that a “reverse end-signal” should be used.  That is, if 4♦ is not explicitly required for a shape showing purpose, then it should command a puppet to 4♥, after which

• 4♠ – RKCB in clubs
• 4NT – RKCB in diamonds
• 5♣ – RKCB in hearts
• 5♦ – RCKB in spades

We could do some more work on the responses (a la Shortwood or similar) but at present, we haven’t.

Regards, BM

After one further practice run (a “win”) on BridgeBase, we wheeled out S1N and the Jammers again at a decent (arguably strong) Swiss Pairs event recently.  We had two system-ironing-out glitches, otherwise we may well have won comfortably (as it was, we finished second).

The Jammers are proving particularly effective.  Normally, I am quite opinionated as to the defence to various exotic weaponry as I almost always find it clear cut.  Playing this style of Jammer and watching others try and deal with it, I confess that I’m not sure I know what the optimum defence is.  My gut instinct would normally be to play double as take-out of the known major (of spades in the 2♦ opening and of hearts in the 2♥ opening).  However, this type of approach is typically consistent with a style which strains to enter the auction.  For most opponents doing this against the Jammer openings (which are often 4432′s) it typically hasn’t worked well.  Equally, complete conservatism on their part has rarely worked either – we have made most (maybe all?) of the part scores we’ve been allowed to play.

So, what to do?  I suspect (and this is something I would normally abhor elsewhere, where the opponents have shown or implied shape) that playing double as showing a 12-14, 13-15, 12-15 or similar Weak NT, with a view to allowing partner to pass with xxxx or Hxx even, in the opponents suit, might be the way to go.  This would ratchet up the IMP count, no doubt, but I think if this defensive method and moderately good judgement are applied diligently, it might rebalance the auction in favour of the opponents of the Jammer openings.  It may well be that the Jammer openings are a bit like the house in BlackJack:  theoretically, the odds are marginally in favour of the punter, but the punters on average play so badly that the house does very well in the game.

Still, it is still early days in this experiment and maybe we have some Jammer based hidings coming our way yet.  Until then, I am working on the constructive continuations after the Jammer openings, which also have promise.

Regards, BM

I played in a congress last weekend for the first time in an eternity, partly to help out some friends of a new partner and partly to wheel out S1N for the first time.

S1N incorporates the same version of Jammer that was mentioned in an October 2009 blog entry of mine, namely 2♦ as a long spade short round Jammer and 2♥ as a long heart short pointed Jammer.  On balance, the Jammers proved a success.  They were high frequency as expected.  There were two ridiculous results, one extremely positive where the opponents had a bidding misunderstanding and one one extremely negative, where partner, still less used to them than me, took a flight of fancy in a ridiculous save.  In my analysis they cancelled each other out.

This leaves the rest, where there was a stream of flat to small positive outcomes.  As an example, twice we picked off their spade suit with a 2D opening and prevented effective competition, allowing us to play in a comfortable partscore.  It’s still early days, but I think these bids will be long term net winners.

As to broader S1N, it went fine.  There were a lot of 1♣ openings, which is to be expected (given all the 12-17 BAL hands without a 5M are contained therein).  Our methods in response, agreed on the train to the venue, were adequate, but I think we’ll need to do quite a bit of work opposite this opening to make the most of the method.

Regards, BM