Two Steps
Yesterday Karen and I played in the ACBL-wide International Fund game, and when I got home I wanted to blog about it. Then I realized other time zones might not have yet played the boards, so I left the blog until another month.
Frank Stewart provided the hand analyses in the post-game hand-out. When I had the opportunity to play a little bit with Frank on Okbridge, I found that he was both a super player and a world class gentleman - one of the nicest bridge players ever. Frank took the "call me stodgy" side of the engaging debate on aggressive balancing actions in December's ACBL Bulletin (Larry Cohen took the "Call me competitive" side), and you might imagine how Frank had to refrain from gentleman comment when I took the "Call me silly" side in our Okbridge bidding. (Btw speaking of engaging debaters, our oldest daughter will be married next spring)
On board 15, Frank notes that North has a "good 2NT opening":
Frank says "if North-South are held to +600, East-West will get a top".
However the clubs around here don't give up tops that easily. At our table, Karen led a spade, won by the queen. Declarer tried the diamond queen next, Karen covered, and now declarer took 9 tricks and gave us the rest: but -600 was not a top for us.
At one table North-South played 1NT. Was this a East-West top? Frankly, no, since it was still a plus for North-South.
At another table, North-South played 3NT, but by South. If you play 2NT as 21-22, and a short club opening (1C could be 2+ clubs), you could bid 1C-1NT;-3NT. West led a top diamond, covered by Q, K, A, eliminated clubs, and then took a losing spade finesse. Now declarer had no entry for a heart finesse and ended down one. Top board? Frankly no.
At another table, North South zoomed to 6NT, using zoom-zoom bidding. This was down more than one, and East-West got that hard to get top.
On board 1, I didn't like Karen's two step bidding:
After 1C-P-1S, I doubled to get the red suits in. North supported spades with 2S, and now Karen bid 3H, assuming I'm not a good hand since the opponents are both bidding. This would be +140 for us, a great score. However South now bids 3S with the long spade hand, and this would be making 140, a great score for them. Now Karen bids 4H, down, but better than them playing in 3S. If 4H is doubled and the club ruff found, NS get a good score, but with a pure spade hand, South can't resist bidding 4S, and ends up down. We didn't double 4S, but should have, since pushing them into 4S making would be a terrible score.
Both sides here used two-steps: bidding 3 of a major first to play, then getting pushed to four of the major. It is better to avoid two-steps when possible, since it first sends the message to the opponents "we think we can just make 3", and then when you bid four it gives the opponents chances to double.
Here Karen's hand is rich in the red suits, and should just bid 4H after I double - if 4H is not making, 3S for the opponents likely is. Likewise South can bid 4S at the second turn to bid, trying to disguise if this is based on shape, or points, or both.
Having told Karen I don't like two step bidding, I promptly used a three step on board 21 here:
The bidding started 1D-X-P-2S. My 2S showed 6-10 length points and 5+ spades. With just 4S I either bid 1S if less than 11 length points, or I cuebid with 11+ length points. This style of responding to takeout doubles is designed to accentuate shape instead of points.
Now North doubled as takeout with values, Karen passed, South bid 2C, and I quickly bid 2S again, completing a two step. North doubled 2S once more, Karen passed, South bid 3C, and I should have passed, already having done a two-step. Instead I three-stepped with 3S and was in down territory. However by the serendipity of having allowed South to bid clubs twice, North competed to 4C and we got a great score from stepping out. Frank missed this particular auction in his hand analysis, but that can happen when experts assume bidding will fit within reason, instead of being just another adventure at the club.
Yesterday Karen and I played in the ACBL-wide International Fund game, and when I got home I wanted to blog about it. Then I realized other time zones might not have yet played the boards, so I left the blog until another month.
Frank Stewart provided the hand analyses in the post-game hand-out. When I had the opportunity to play a little bit with Frank on Okbridge, I found that he was both a super player and a world class gentleman - one of the nicest bridge players ever. Frank took the "call me stodgy" side of the engaging debate on aggressive balancing actions in December's ACBL Bulletin (Larry Cohen took the "Call me competitive" side), and you might imagine how Frank had to refrain from gentleman comment when I took the "Call me silly" side in our Okbridge bidding. (Btw speaking of engaging debaters, our oldest daughter will be married next spring)
On board 15, Frank notes that North has a "good 2NT opening":
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Frank says "if North-South are held to +600, East-West will get a top".
However the clubs around here don't give up tops that easily. At our table, Karen led a spade, won by the queen. Declarer tried the diamond queen next, Karen covered, and now declarer took 9 tricks and gave us the rest: but -600 was not a top for us.
At one table North-South played 1NT. Was this a East-West top? Frankly, no, since it was still a plus for North-South.
At another table, North-South played 3NT, but by South. If you play 2NT as 21-22, and a short club opening (1C could be 2+ clubs), you could bid 1C-1NT;-3NT. West led a top diamond, covered by Q, K, A, eliminated clubs, and then took a losing spade finesse. Now declarer had no entry for a heart finesse and ended down one. Top board? Frankly no.
At another table, North South zoomed to 6NT, using zoom-zoom bidding. This was down more than one, and East-West got that hard to get top.
On board 1, I didn't like Karen's two step bidding:
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
After 1C-P-1S, I doubled to get the red suits in. North supported spades with 2S, and now Karen bid 3H, assuming I'm not a good hand since the opponents are both bidding. This would be +140 for us, a great score. However South now bids 3S with the long spade hand, and this would be making 140, a great score for them. Now Karen bids 4H, down, but better than them playing in 3S. If 4H is doubled and the club ruff found, NS get a good score, but with a pure spade hand, South can't resist bidding 4S, and ends up down. We didn't double 4S, but should have, since pushing them into 4S making would be a terrible score.
Both sides here used two-steps: bidding 3 of a major first to play, then getting pushed to four of the major. It is better to avoid two-steps when possible, since it first sends the message to the opponents "we think we can just make 3", and then when you bid four it gives the opponents chances to double.
Here Karen's hand is rich in the red suits, and should just bid 4H after I double - if 4H is not making, 3S for the opponents likely is. Likewise South can bid 4S at the second turn to bid, trying to disguise if this is based on shape, or points, or both.
Having told Karen I don't like two step bidding, I promptly used a three step on board 21 here:
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
The bidding started 1D-X-P-2S. My 2S showed 6-10 length points and 5+ spades. With just 4S I either bid 1S if less than 11 length points, or I cuebid with 11+ length points. This style of responding to takeout doubles is designed to accentuate shape instead of points.
Now North doubled as takeout with values, Karen passed, South bid 2C, and I quickly bid 2S again, completing a two step. North doubled 2S once more, Karen passed, South bid 3C, and I should have passed, already having done a two-step. Instead I three-stepped with 3S and was in down territory. However by the serendipity of having allowed South to bid clubs twice, North competed to 4C and we got a great score from stepping out. Frank missed this particular auction in his hand analysis, but that can happen when experts assume bidding will fit within reason, instead of being just another adventure at the club.
posted by Glen Ashton @ 8:24 AM
2 Comments:
At 7:28 PM,
Memphis MOJO said…
"using zoom-zoom bidding."
Love it!
At 1:03 AM,
Paul said…
As you may have seen I recently played a Scotland-wide simul pairs and had similar thoughts about the commentary.
Namely that the commentators often do not appreciate the level of play down in the trenches, which can range from brilliant to atrocious. There is no such thing as a top for (just)"-600"!
Post a Comment
<< Home