The Magic Question

January 26th, 2012  ~  Dan Romm  ~  1 Comment 

If you pick up a strong hand you should first evaluate how strong it really is and then plan the bidding accordingly. How is this done? Think about that for a minute, it is the key to successful slam (or game) bidding. If you don’t have a mental process that you routinely use, you need one. And if you do have a process, is it the right one? Is it overly complex? Before I tell you my recommendation, let’s look at two examples:

1. You hold AQx, AQx, AKxx, AKx.

2. You hold AKxxxx, void, x, AKxxxx.

Clearly, these are strong hands. The first one is easy; you have been taught how to bid it – open 2♣  and rebid 3NT unless you play a strong club system. The second one is tougher since you don’t have a ready-made solution. You would probably open 1♠  and, with no interference (unlikely), jump shift in clubs. But then what? And, what if there is interference? Why is it advisable to bid the first one the way you have been taught? What should you do with the second one? Which hand is stronger?

There is a magic question which must be asked with all strong hands and is the most likely way to solve these problems. It has little to do with point count, controls or other considerations that you most likely use. It is simply this:

What does partner need to make slam (or game) and, if he has it, will he know it? Once you answer this question, all you need to do is plan the bidding in the most effective way to find out whether or not he has it.

In example 1, this question will lead you to the same approach, even had you not already learned it. He needs about 7 scattered HCP for slam. You don’t really care which specific cards he holds, so if you show him a balanced hand with about 26 HCP, he will know it if he has what you need.

In example 2, if P is 4-2 in the black suits with no card higher than a five then you are odds-on to make slam! (Note that if this is his hand and you hold hand 1 you may be hard-pressed to make even a one-level part score, so hand 2 is stronger by far). Furthermore with hand 2, if you are unlucky and P is 3 – 2 in the black suits you are only slightly less than even money to make slam (you merely need trumps to spit 2 -2 and the other black suit to split 3 – 2). Worse yet, he may be only 3 – 3 in the black suits and slam still has play (you need a 2-2 split in both black suits). With any of these hands, P would certainly not suspect that he is a favorite to have what you need, so exploratory bidding may be useless. Without interference I would bid 1♠  and jump shift in ♣ ’s, planning on bidding 6♣  unless you either have a clear indication from the bidding that P is likely to be at best 2 – 2 in the blacks, or if you have a way to find out which specific Ace P might hold (in which case you can probe for 7). With interference, I would merely bid 6♣  at my second turn. P will bid 7 with both Aces and reasonable support for one of your suits. He might also have the right Ace and not bid 7 or the wrong Ace and bid 7. But in the first case, you can’t find out anyway, and in the second case you will still be OK if the opening leader doesn’t lead a diamond.

With other strong hands, asking the magic question is still your best guide. Merely use whatever sequence in your arsenal is best geared to find out whether or not P has the card (or cards) you need. If you learn to routinely ask this question whenever you pick up a good hand your slam (or game) bidding should improve significantly.

Adding Mustard to Your Sandwich

December 16th, 2011  ~  Dan Romm  ~  2 Comments 

The Sandwich NT has been around for quite awhile as an alternative to a takeout double immediately after opponents have bid two suits. Generally both bids are used, but the Sandwich NT shows different features than the takeout double depending upon partnership agreement – I. e, more (or less) defense, strength, distribution (at least 5-5), etc.

I propose the following version (esp. at MP’s): the ONLY difference should be that the Sandwich NT guarantees at least five of any unbid major. This allows partner to compete in a major when holding only a three card suit, which is unlikely to happen if not playing this version of Sandwich NT. In fact, the only time it will happen in current versions of Sandwich NT after the auction 1m – P – 1M is when the NT bidder happens to hold five of the other minor along with his five card major (since otherwise he will make a takeout double and partner will presume he has only a four card major); this seems to be an overly restrictive requirement.

Improving the Appeal Process

December 16th, 2011  ~  Dan Romm  ~  5 Comments 

After giving the matter considerable reflection, I am ready to respond to Adam Wildavsky’s magnanimous request for feedback (in his comment to the 8/10/10 article on my BBO bridge blog). I propose the following revisions to the process. Some may already be included, but if so they need to be enforced since they were not followed at the appeal that I attended.

1. Any alleged fact that is in dispute must be disallowed unless corroborated by the ruling director or by a MAJORITY of the people present at the incident.

Agreed, this would permit dishonesty to prevail in some cases, but this is unavoidable. In the current process dishonesty prevails far more often than it would if my suggestion is adopted since at least two people would need to be dishonest rather than one as things now stand. It would also preclude the committee from having to decide issues of integrity (for which knowing how to play bridge is not a relevant qualification).

As an aside, I notice that in the overseeing panel’s review of my case a contention of my opponent (namely that I had made an inappropriate remark or gesture that gave UI to my P) was listed as a ‘fact’ although untrue, disputed by me (vehemently) and my partner, unsubstantiated by the director or any other party, and even partially recanted by the person making the false assertion.

2. The ruling director must be present at the hearing.

This may place a hardship on the director, but should be included as part of the duties for which he is being paid.

3. Any person who is a personal acquaintance of, or has had private dealings with, any of the disputants apart from being an occasional opponent at the bridge table must recuse himself or herself from the proceedings. Failure to do so should result in disciplinary action and an automatic nullification of the hearing should subsequent facts reveal that this wasn’t done. (Due to the vehemence with which one of the committee members grilled me, I suspect that he was far from impartial.)

4. A member of the rules committee (or an equivalent authority) must attend the proceedings to give guidance and explanation as to the interpretation and application of any relevant rule.

5. Inasmuch as the appeal committee is merely a first step beyond an individual’s ruling (the director), its decision should NOT be the final one.

Any party should have the right to further review by a standing board of committee members (i.e. – the committee currently headed by Adam Wildavsky) since the initial committee is nothing more than a makeshift collection of spontaneously assembled available bridge players who must decide without the benefit of an earlier committee’s opinion. In our judicial system, an initial court’s ruling is never deemed final and is subject to judicial review for procedural and/or substantive errors.

6. One should be allowed to submit a written account in lieu of attending the hearing. Furthermore, a disputant should be permitted to leave the hearing at any time. Either action should be allowed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

7. The burden of proof should be on the party disputing the director’s ruling. Furthermore, if one side must be regarded as the defendant and the other the plaintiff, clearly it is fairer that the one disputing the ruling be deemed the de facto defendant. (The opposite was done in my case).

8. The appeal committee should receive a special instruction to avoid the appearance of bias toward the better known player or players.

For some reason that I don’t fathom, it seems to be natural to assume the better bridge player should get the benefit of any doubt. I glean this from the many (at least eight) occasions in which others have complained to me that this was the case and the additional fact that no well-known bridge player of my acquaintance has ever been unhappy with an outcome except when it was in favor of another equally well known player. Since committee members vary from tournament to tournament it is reasonable to assume that some bias might occasionally enter the proceedings. An explicit warning, although not a guarantee, would go a long way toward dispelling the current suspicion that bias is a regular occurrence. Along the same lines, I have twice been advised by well-meaning directors against paying to appeal rulings (a mandatory$50 charge was in effect) in favor of international stars regardless of the merits of my case since I “had no chance to win.”

9. No disputant is allowed to plead his or her case to any relevant party other than the ruling director before the hearing commences. Doing so will result in automatic rejection of the appeal (if the appellant) or automatic upholding of the appeal (if the appellee). This is the equivalent of jury tampering.

10 . Any player should be allowed only a limited number of appeals (as is done in pro football), both annually and over his or her lifetime.

This would prevent an abuse of the system by those who are constantly seeking an unfair advantage by learning how to “work the process.”

11 . If the intent to appeal is not made clear to the director while the outcome of the deal is still pending then it will be disallowed.

Otherwise, double jeopardy comes into play. In my case the opponent had a fifty-fifty chance to get an excellent result, in which case no appeal would have been filed. Only after it turned out otherwise did he proceed with his complaint.

I believe these suggestions are necessary, reasonable, practical, easily implementable, and a good beginning step toward tightening up a somewhat loose process. They are conscientiously offered for your consideration and I applaud your willingness to solicit and entertain ideas from the bridge playing population at large.

Respectfully,

Dan Romm

Modifying Puppet Stayman

November 30th, 2011  ~  Dan Romm  ~  5 Comments 

At MP’s, I find that playing 3NT is slightly better than playing in the 2NT opener’s major with a 5-3 fit provided that the major is concealed. For one thing, you have to make one more trick in the major. For another, it is surprising how often the opening lead is the concealed major, in which case they are stacked against you and you will do much better in 3NT. Finally, if opener has no losers in responder’s short suit then the ruffing value is negated. If your experience concurs with mine, I propose the following version of Puppet Stayman:

1. It guarantees at least one four card major.
2. If opener has a four or five card major, he bids 3♦ over 3♣  and the auction proceeds as in regular Puppet.
3. Without a four or five card major, opener bids:
1. 3♥  with a minimum,
2. 3♠  with a maximum and a three card spade suit,
3. 3NT with a maximum and a doubleton spade.
4. Responder continues as follows:
1. After 2NT – 3♣ – 3♥ or 3♠ or 3NT, or after 2NT – 3♣ – 3♦ – 3 of a major – 3NT:
1. 4♣ is a slam try with clubs and a major (note, after 2NT – 3♣ – 3♠ this could be clubs with five spades).
2. 4♦ is a transfer to hearts.
3. 4♥ is a transfer to spades (with one exception, see iii).
4. 4♠ is a slam try with diamonds and a major (note, after 2NT – 3♣ – 3♠ this could be diamonds with five ♠’s
2. 2NT – 3♣ – 3♥ – 3♠ shows five spades and four hearts (this is not checkback with only a four card spade suit since responder has already guaranteed four spades).
3. 2NT – 3♣ – 3♦ – 3♥ – 3NT – 4♥ is a weak 4-4 in the majors with a short minor. I also advocate this treatment playing regular Puppet.

Let’s explore the features of this approach.

1. It allows responder to play in spades whenever he has five spades and four hearts and opener has three spades and fewer than four hearts. This won’t be possible in regular Puppet if opener bids 3NT over 3♣, but in modified Puppet responder merely bids 3♠ over 3♥ or transfers to 4♠ if opener bids 3♠.
2. Knowing whether opener has a minimum or maximum has obvious advantages.
3. Opener’s five card major, if he has one, remains concealed.
4. The advantage of auction iii with a weak hand is that it gives responder a chance to pass if opener bids 3♠ over 3♥. With a better hand, as in regular Puppet responder would merely bid 4♦ over 3♦ to show 4-4 in the majors. Note – if opener doesn’t have spades then responder will be declarer rather than opener, but the lead is likely to be responder’s short suit so this disadvantage is minimized.

MP’s vs. IMP’s

September 23rd, 2011  ~  Dan Romm  ~  No Comments 

How do you play the following hand at MP’s? At IMP’s?

North (Dummy) ♠ K 8 6 5 2 ♥ 4 3 2 ♦ A K 10 6 ♣ 5

South (You) ♠ 3 ♥ A K Q J 10 9 ♦ 9 ♣ A K 6 4 2

Contract – 6♥

Opening Lead – Q♦

No adverse bidding.

This hand illustrates two points:

1. There are different strategies for MP’s and Imp’s.

2. It is frequently better to count winners than losers.

Solution at MP’s

Throw a spade on the K♦ and hope clubs are no worse than 4-3 (about 50-50) in which case you can ruff two clubs and make 7.

Solution at IMP’s

Lead a club to your hand at trick 2 and lead a spade! If clubs split 4-3 you will always make 6, but if they split 5-2 you need the K♠ for your 12th trick.

Playing Puppet Stayman

September 15th, 2011  ~  Dan Romm  ~  No Comments 

What should be the meaning of 2NT – 3♣ – 3♦ – 3♥ – 3NT – 4♥ ?

I propose that it be a weak hand with 4-4 in the majors and a singleton or void in one of the minors. Why? Let’s suppose you hold xxxx, QJxx, x, J10xx and partner opens 2NT showing 20-21 HCP. What do you bid?

You can pass, but you will certainly be in an inferior spot if partner has a 4 or 5-card major. Furthermore, even if he doesn’t he is likely to hold four cards opposite your singleton so that 3NT, although still an underdog to make, should have a reasonable chance.

You can bid 3♣. If partner bids 3NT then again you have a reasonable chance to make as explained above. If he bids anything else you are delighted that you chose to bid 3♣. If he bids 3 of a major you should raise to game in your 5-4 fit. The critical case for purposes of this article is when partner bids 3♦ . In standard puppet you would bid 4♦ and let partner choose. But, if you bid 3♥ then you will be able to stop in 3♠ if partner has four (this will happen about 2/3 of the times that he bids 3♦ since it includes the hands where he has both majors). In this case, 3♠ is quite likely to be the best spot, esp. at match points since you will beat all the pairs that play 2NT, tie all those who are able to stop at 3♠, and only lose to those few who get to 4♠ and are lucky enough to make. If partner bids 3NT over 3♥ then you will still have to play in 4♥ (which you can do using my suggested meaning of your 4♥ bid), as will all the other puppet players. The only difference is that the weak hand will be declarer, but this a small price to pay since the lead is likely to be your singleton in which case there is little or no disadvantage.

Bidding Against a Weak NT

January 17th, 2011  ~  Dan Romm  ~  No Comments 

I. The best defense is to fight fire with fire

1. In the immediate seat: double with any balanced hand as strong as opener’s minimum (or the middle of his range if you prefer).

 

2. In the pass out seat: you should have more strength (at least the middle of opener’s range or a source of tricks) since opener’s partner usually won’t pass 1NT if he is weak; he will transfer into a 5 card suit if he has one, use garbage Stayman with a singleton club, or use some other run mechanism (which most weak NT players have).

 

3. Against a 10-12 HCP 1NT, doubler’s partner should sit with 9+ points or more unless he is strong enough to think game is likely and will produce a better result.

 

4. Against a 12-14 HCP 1NT, doubler’s partner should sit with 7+ points or more unless he is strong enough to think game is likely and will produce a better result.

II. Analysis:

1. This remedy puts the opponents at the same risk as you. Granted, you are usually in trouble whenever they hold the balance of strength. But, on the other hand, they are usually in trouble whenever your side holds the balance of strength. So, they will be in trouble more often than you for three reasons:

    

   a. The opener’s hand has an upper limit whereas the doubler’s doesn’t.

   b. If you end up defending 1NT your side has the advantage of the opening lead.

   c. If you end up playing the hand (much more likely than against a strong 1NT) you will have no problem locating the missing honors.

    

2. Against weak NT’s, doubling with these hands levels the playing field and is far better than letting the opponents rob you blind if you don’t.

 

3. If the doubler has more than opener’s range, how will his partner know? His opponent will tell him! The opener’s partner has the disadvantage of having to decide what to do first, thus revealing his hand. He will run after an immediate double (and also after an immediate pass as in I.2 above) if he thinks his side is in trouble. After he does so, the doubler can double again to show extra strength.

 

4. Along the same lines, it is probably best that you merely need be in the same range as the 1NT opener to make the appropriate bid with unbalanced hands whatever system you use (Cappelletti, Suction, Astro, etc.).

Play Problem

January 3rd, 2011  ~  Dan Romm  ~  No Comments 

What is the best way to play the following hand at MP’s?

North ♠ K ♥ 8 5 2 ♦ Q ♣ A Q J 10 7 5 4 2

South (you) ♠ A 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 ♥ 4 ♦ J 10 7 2 ♣ —

Contract – 4♠ (no adverse bidding)

Opening lead – nine of clubs

Note that after pitching a heart on the Ace of clubs you have three diamond losers and perhaps also a trump trick or two.

Solution:

The lead is obviously a singleton or doubleton. It appears that the best line is to take the free finesse and then lead a spade to the king, pitching a heart loser on clubs and also a diamond loser (if the lead is a doubleton) as West ruffs, maybe even with a natural trump trick if he started with three trumps. But this is an illusion. If West started with three trumps (which is likely given his club lead) you will lose TWO trump tricks via a subsequent uppercut when East gets in with a diamond (he must have the Ace or king since West didn’t lead one) and leads another club, so you will still go down. Thus this line is no better than winning the Ace at trick one pitching a heart, leading a spade to the king, ruffing a heart and leading the Ace of spades. Both lines make if trumps split and go down if they don’t (except in the unlikely case that West is 1-1 in the black suits and never bid).

But there is a slightly better line against weak (but not strong) opponents, especially if you think the lead is a doubleton. Win the Ace at trick one pitching a heart, cash the king of spades and lead the queen of diamonds even though this line (but not the others) will risk the contract if trumps split whenever East started with a singleton club and the opponents find the uppercut!

Why? To begin with, they may not find it – i.e. if East ducks with the diamond king. Also, a singleton club is less likely than a doubleton. But more importantly, leading a diamond has a big advantage against weak opponents (but gains nothing against strong ones) – you have not revealed that you are out of hearts and the secret will be kept for at least another trick if the opponent who wins the diamond does not lead a heart. This is quite likely whenever the club lead was a doubleton since either side can safely lead a club (the king if it is East). Furthermore, you needn’t fear a diamond ruff since then your remaining diamond will be a winner.

Now you ruff the club return, cash the Ace of spades hoping trumps split and then play the jack of diamonds. A lesser opponent will probably win the diamond and return one because this will seem safer to West than breaking hearts (since he didn’t lead one) and also to East unless he holds touching honors (note – he can’t have no honor since West didn’t lead hearts). Having never ruffed a heart your hand is not an open book, so when you run all your spades these opponents will probably pitch diamonds and save hearts to protect their honors (as did my opponents when I played the hand) and you will make five for a top board!

The ACBL Bureaucracy

August 10th, 2010  ~  Dan Romm  ~  2 Comments 

I attended my first appeal process after the mixed pairs at the Reno national. I am completely unknown by any members of the five person committee chaired by Ms. Kent. Cam Doner, an internationally known player, had filed the appeal.

These are the facts: my partner, Helen Abbott, opened one diamond and I bid five hearts (exclusion Blackwood, which was written on both our cards). She failed to alert, looked confused, went into a one-minute huddle, and finally bid five spades. I bid six diamonds, which she corrected to 6NT holding the AQ10 of hearts. We eventually reached 7NT that luckily made on a finesse. At the hearing I (unfortunately) told the committee that when she bid five spades I breathed an internal sigh of relief that she hadn’t passed five hearts, which Cam claimed, for the first time, was visible. The director’s fact sheet only stated that he had heard me make a remark when it was my turn to bid. When asked what he heard, he answered “some sort of inaudible guttural noise,” an oxymoron. His partner, when asked the same question said, “I may have heard something coming from the next table.” When I was asked if I had said or done anything unusual, I replied that the only reason I even attended the hearing was to deny that I had, since I conceded that all the rest of the facts were correct. Next, Helen denied having seen or heard me do anything other than make a bid in a normal fashion.

The committee ruled that I had conveyed unauthorized information to my partner by my (internal) sigh and rolled the contract all the way back to six diamonds. The committee chairman’s (Ms. Kent) write-up claimed that my testimony seemed contradictory, but omitted any mention that Cam’s testimony contradicted his own statement on the fact sheet The affront to my integrity (and Helen’s) angered me to the point that I left the proceedings before finding out what I am most in the dark about. Can any of you enlighten me and alleviate my misgivings about the integrity of the process? Even Cam would not deny that Helen doesn’t have ESP.

Assuming I made an “inarticulate guttural noise” (which I didn’t) and/or visibly sighed before I bid six diamonds (which I didn’t):

a) What relevant information could these actions convey to my partner?

b) Would the information justify precluding her from bidding 6NT, which I think any competent bridge player would have done with her holding in hearts?

Follow-up: I was subsequently accused of violating an ACBL rule for not calmly accepting the insult to my integrity and asked to attend a disciplinary hearing in New Orleans (at my expense). Although I couldn’t attend the hearing due to the birth of my grandson, I was encouraged to submit a written statement, which I did although it took some time to compose. This is it (along with the above):

Facts re: Reno incident

1. As stated in Ms. Kent’s document, I was willing to accept the verdict (knowing by Ms. Kent’s demeanor and the tenor of the panel that I had no chance (see 2 below)) and leave, but she insisted that I stay. Hence, she has only herself to blame for my affront to the “dignity” of her and the committee for their affront to my (and my partner’s) integrity (see other document).

2. At the meeting, Mr. Doner was merely asked (politely, unlike me) what he thought he heard me say with no further remarks from the members after he answered. I, on the other hand, was grilled about what I was alleged to have done, quite hostilely by the member seated across from me at my extreme right (a different person than Ms. Kent).

3. I stated (and do believe) that Mr. Doner called the director after the first trick was played. He denied this was the case, claiming that the director was summoned immediately, at which time I stated that I wasn’t absolutely positive about this. Perhaps this was the contradictory testimony I am alleged to have given (although this would be an incorrect use of the word ‘contradictory’). The committee didn’t elaborate in their write-up. If I don’t attend the hearing please enlighten me as to what was contradictory in my testimony.

As supporting evidence for my position, the first words Mr. Doner uttered were “I’m not happy about this.” Why wouldn’t he be unless he knew we were making? I assure you a director wouldn’t have been summoned had we gone down! Nonetheless, you can ask the director when he was summoned and I will abide by his answer. If he agrees with Mr. Doner’s version that he was summoned immediately upon Helen’s hesitation then he must have been able to observe the manner in which I made my bid. Please ask him if he observed anything unusual in my behavior (I am surprised the committee didn’t bother to ask him that unless, of course, he was summoned after my turn to bid.)

4. I wasn’t going to appear at the meeting at all but Matt Smith advised me that it would be in my best interests to attend (sorry Matt, it wasn’t). I also asked the director who brought me the fact sheet if I could merely note that I disagreed with only one thing (that I did anything unusual) and leave it at that. He told me that I couldn’t and needed to appear if I wanted to dispute Mr. Doner’s assertion.

If (unlike Mr. Doner) I cared so little about the ruling, why would I be so upset if it weren’t for the insult to my integrity, the ludicrous ruling, and the intense grilling to which I was subject? I admit that my partner may have given me unauthorized information and I would have been quite satisfied with the committee’s decision based on that, whatever it might be, without even bothering to appear.

But I was stunned that, given all the true relevant facts at their disposal the committee elected to base the verdict on the one (completely false) allegation my partner and I denied, namely that I had done anything other than behave in a proper manner – quite a slap in the face if you ask me.

5. I noticed Mr. Doner vehemently arguing with someone outside the playing area during the tournament. I assume it was about the director’s ruling in our behalf. Incidentally, to this day I remain uninformed as to what that ruling was. I was only told that there would be an appeal at 11:15. When I arrived, there were several other pairs waiting to file an appeal standing outside of a room adjacent to the committee room in which Mr. Doner was wrapping up a statement to several people in the room (I had no opportunity to plead my case before the meeting). Please inform me as to the purpose of the room, its attendees, and why I wasn’t informed of its convocation prior to 11:15. Clearly it meant something since people were waiting to enter upon Mr. Doner’s exit.

6. Ms. Kent’s allegation in the charging document that I made a remark (of any sort) as to the manner in which my opponent walks is a figment of her imagination. If I don’t attend the hearing I would like an explanation of what the remark was. Please note that “an inaudible guttural noise” is not a remark, although I didn’t do that either.

7. Neither my partner nor I heard Ms. Kent mention sanctions to me at the meeting, although she contends that she did in the charging document.

8. When I denied that I had done anything unusual, Ms. Kent stated incorrectly that my signature on the fact sheet was an admission to the authenticity of the allegations (as stated on the fact sheet it merely confirmed that I had read the document and been notified of the appeal) as if to say that she had already made up her mind despite my denial. It seems to me that in the committee’s zeal to find in favor of Mr. Doner they disregarded his embellishments, clutched at straws and overlooked the obvious.

9. Should I not attend, I would also like an answer to the two questions I pose at the bottom of my other document.

10. I would like to know if any of the appeal board has spent any time with Mr. Doner other than at the bridge table and, if so, which ones.

11. Since Mr. Doner made the ONLY substantial recantation, I find it odd that his integrity went unchallenged whereas Helen’s and mine were called into question. The ethicality of baldly asserting on the fact sheet that I had made a remark and then changing his tune when confronted is worthy of reprimand (in a real court of law it would be tantamount to perjury). In fact he, not I, should be the one facing sanctions at a hearing.

12. The rule that a player graciously accepts any verdict goes against human nature, since it essentially asks one to smile sweetly and say “Thank you” no matter how badly he may have been shafted. If I deserve a reprimand it would be for using the words “crock of shit.” I apologize for this; “farce” would have sufficed.

13. Regardless of the outcome of this hearing, I urge the ACBL to take a serious look at the appeals process. There seems to be many procedural defects. To mention one, the entire proceeding was conducted as if I was a defendant and Mr. Doner was the plaintiff.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that being a bridge player qualifies one to pass judgment on integrity. I am far from alone in being quite dissatisfied (and suspicious) of the process and have heard at least eight cases wherein it appears to me that the result was biased in favor of the better-known bridge player. Could this be because they, a priori, pay considerably more fees?

Please answer the underlined questions.

Not only did the disciplinary committee refuse to answer my questions, they completely omitted any response to my statement and sentenced me to a one-month suspension beginning 8/10 with no explanation of any kind. So, they apparently feel that their time is more important than mine even though I wrote the statement at their request. This doesn’t surprise me. I am well aware of the truth of Lord Acton’s quote implying that small minds are easily corrupted by the slightest taste of power and, let’s face it, bridge players like Cam Doner whose only pleasure in life is winning master points to the exclusion of all other activities are, a priori, likely to be small minded.

All of the ACBL’s actions, including naming a time and place for the hearing no matter how inconvenient or expensive it might be for me, asking me to spend time pleading my case in a written document while they knew full well it would be for naught, not having the courtesy to reply to my document or at least offer some sort of explanation or basis for their ruling, chastising me for reacting angrily to a clear affront to my integrity, wanting me to stick around for the appeal committee’s explanation for their ludicrous ruling which I knew would only aggravate me more and then filing a grievance for an affront to their ‘dignity’ when it did, and rudely grilling me even though Mr. Doner, not me, had refused to accept the director’s ruling by filing an appeal (does this make ME a defendant?), smack of the utmost arrogance and clearly suggest an exaggerated sense of importance by a dictatorial group whose only credentials are that they play a good game of bridge.

The Best Of Both Worlds – Part II

July 6th, 2010  ~  Dan Romm  ~  No Comments 

Let’s explore the pros and cons of the method espoused in Part I.

Disadvantages:

1. With a GF hand you now need to postpone mentioning your suit for a round (but this is offset by the fact that now opener usually has an extra level to further describe HIS hand).

2. A limit raise may have only three trumps (but this is commonplace nowadays anyway) since you can no longer start with a forcing 1NT. But you can bid 2NT instead if you have three small trumps, no doubleton, and 10-11 HCP.

3. With a weak hand and a 6-card club suit you must bid 1NT and risk being passed whereas in ordinary 2/1 you can always sign off in 3♣ . But partner may bid over 1NT in which case you can still sign off and if he doesn’t then 1NT may be a better spot (especially at match points).

4. Without Flannery, hands with five hearts and four spades present a problem (there is no perfect system!), as they also do in 2/1. I don’t necessarily advocate Flannery since it gives up a lot when it replaces a weak 2♦ opener, so what should opener do over 2NT in the new method with more than a minimum? If he bids only 3♠ he may be passed and if he bids 4♠ his partner has to bid 4NT with 2-2 in the majors whereas the field can stop in 3NT. I advocate opening 1NT with 4522 distribution and more than a minimum, which will resolve this problem (as well as others) for those hands. Otherwise, in the infrequent cases where you have a singleton, partner bids 2NT, partner is 2-2 in the majors, and you can make only 3NT but not four with more than a minimum opposite 10-11 HCP, then chalk up a zero due to a system fix (as I said, there are no perfect systems).

Advantages:

1. You can describe weak one-suited hands (other than clubs) at the two-level rather than the three-level (where you may be too high) and partner will be well positioned to know how to proceed if his RHO decides to compete.

2. You can play 1♠ or 1NT.

3. Opener’s bids over two clubs are always real suits (not necessarily true after a 1NT response in ordinary 2/1).

4. Responder can set up a GF auction at the cheapest possible level, leaving maximum room for exploration. After a 2♣ response, proper control showing or cue-bidding techniques (once the trump suit is set) will further clarify how just how big responder’s and opener’s hands are without using Jacoby 2NT (which bypasses a level of bidding), especially if you use first or second round cue-bids in which case any singleton by opener can still be shown.

5. The immediate 2NT bid with most 10-11 point semi-balanced hands with at most a doubleton in opener’s major is superior to the treatment in 2/1 in which responder first bids 1NT and then follows with 2NT. In 2/1, responder’s ambiguous bid of 1NT could have anywhere from 6 to 12 HCP (as opposed to the precise 10 -11 HCP of a 2NT response in the new method) so when the auction goes, say, 1♠ – 1NT – 2♥ – 3♥ how does opener know whether or not to carry on to game? If opener passes 3♥ with 14 – 15 HCP and partner has 11 he is probably too low, whereas if he raises to game and opener has 8 or 9 he is probably too high. Other problems in 2/1 occur (1) when opener has six spades and four hearts (do you bid 2♠ or 2♥ over 1NT?) and, of course, (2) the hands with a five-card major and no second suit, in which case opener must bid a three-card minor and is stuck when partner raises holding four. Another big advantage of the immediate 2NT is that partner’s RHO will have to bid at the 3-level if he wants to compete, in which case partner is well positioned to know how to proceed (frequently a profitable double).

6. You can more easily reach a superior 4-3 spade fit when the field is playing in NT.

7. After a 2♣ response opener’s RHO can’t make a takeout double with a two-suited hand, since responder’s real suit is unknown (I recommend that a double shows clubs).

This system is merely a framework and leaves lots of room for further tweaking (for instance responder can now bid 3NT immediately or 2♣ followed by 3NT and you are free to decide what the difference is. My preference is that both show 15-17 HCP with the direct 3NT showing exactly 4333 distribution and the delayed 3NT showing a doubleton in opener’s major). It can also narrow the gap between 2/1 and strong club systems when it comes to slam bidding. In this method, rather than 1♣ showing a strong opener, 2♣ shows a strong response. If you like, you can try using the same methods over 2C in this system that you used over 1♣ when playing a strong club system. The only difference is that, rather than using 1♣ to show a strong opening you now use 2♣ to show a strong response, so responder becomes the captain instead of opener (after a 2♣ response, 2♦ by opener would be artificial, showing a minimum opening hand, etc.)