Bob Mackinnon

My Year So Far

Most think it’s the beginning of a new decade, but they’re wrong. The year 2011 is the beginning of a new decade, in the same way January 1, 2001 was the beginning of a new millennium. The decades run from 1 to 10. As Ibsen said, ‘the majority is always wrong.’ Take bridge as an example: the vast majority prefers 2/1 to Precision, but they’re wrong, dead wrong. Nevertheless, in deference to my partners my primary New Year’s Resolution is to ‘go with the field’. The big question is, ‘where is the field going?’ The answer: downhill. Before we expound on that, I’ll give you my predictions for 2010.

Barack Obama will forecast a budget surplus for the year 2020.

George W. Bush’s as-told-to memoirs will top the hardcover fiction list.

Vancouver will make money on the Winter Olympics.

Investment bankers will agree to cut back on huge, unwarranted bonuses.

The Chinese economic bubble will burst.

Toyota will return to making all its cars in Japan.

Martha Stewart will teach Hillary Clinton how to bake cookies.

Sarah Palin will star in the hit show Desperate Hockey Moms on Fox.

Tiger Woods will appear on the David Letterman Show.

Silvio Berlusconi will go to prison, but only to visit old friends.

Rihanna will crash and burn.

In the Iraqi elections the Peace and Prosperity Party will come in last.

Karzai will be accused of intercepting bribes intended for the Taliban.

The Pope will visit Mecca.

I Pass the First Test My first game of the year was with Dorothy who long ago gave up Precision in favor of SAYC. Behaving myself and going with the field I scored 48%. I caused one bad board because I mistakenly believed with 2NT the field played Puppet Stayman. I had asked Dorothy if she would add it to our card, and she agreed, either because she’s a good sport, or she thought it would never come up. Sorry, Dorothy. Late in the game I was dealt a hand with 20 HCP and a 5-card spade suit AQT96, 5-3-3-2 shape, a perfect setup for Puppet. Wrong! Partner held 3 spades and zero points. I played too fast – my euphemism for screwing up – when I led out the A, ending up down 3. I imagined I might have some company, but, no. Everyone with my hand opened 1, making 80 or 110, so a well deserved bottom for me. I was buoyed by the hope that the field I was going to emulate was not as dumb as I feared.

On seeing the scores on the travelers the nice old granny on my right cackled, ‘That’s the kind of top I like.’ It was on the tip of my tongue to reply, ‘I prefer the tops I earn myself’, but I didn’t say it. My new rule of life was not, ‘do unto others’, but ‘turn the other cheek’. I had found it doesn’t hurt to thank partner for a totally inappropriate dummy, or to congratulate the opponents on their lucky result. This was the New Me. Being virtuous feels so good it’s a wonder more don’t practice it. I wish there was a pill for men to promote a surge in friendly feelings towards those of female persuasion that lasts up to 3 hours without affecting performance.

The Old Me Returns A week later I thought to pick up more ideas on which direction the field is currently leaning, so I went early to the club to sit in on a lecture given by our local 2/1 expert. There are always attempts to explain why 2/1 should work, but doesn’t. He often speaks of ‘lying about your hand’. It’s nonsense, of course. Don’t make a liar of everyone; if the demands of the system require that you bid that way, it can’t be a lie. Today’s topic was opening 1NT on a 5-card major within a 5-4-2-2 shape. When at the end of his lecture, he asked, ‘any questions?’ I kept mum. I have lots of questions, but they always come out as declarations about the superiority of a Big Club approach.

My last surviving Precision partner, Harry, and I began play against a pair of old dears. We announced happily that we play Precision, upon which the one on the right, festively bedecked with decorations that wouldn’t look out of place on the municipal Christmas tree, turned to me and declared severely, ‘Bridge is a game, and I come here to have fun.’ To which I replied, ‘Good for you; I am sure there are others here who think the same way.’ Harry laughed. So there went my first New Year’s Resolution which had been, ‘Be 100% tolerant of any asinine comment directed your way.’ It might have been one of those I’ll-hate-myself-in-the–morning moments, but it turned out that it wasn’t. Frankly, I was already tired of the New Me. The Old Me returned to score 67%.

I want things to be done the proper way. Does that make me an elitist? Yes. When I look in the mirror I see what could easily be mistaken for a mean, old geezer. So what? At my age no one looks like Howdy Doody. Don’t I have a right to have fun, too?

After 10 straight pluses Harry and I faced the lecturer. He let Harry play in 2, plus number 11, after which this hand came up.

Harry Bob Expert Advice
AJ KQ105 1NT (14-16) 2 1NT         4
AK76 54 2 3 4NT         6
1083 5 4 5 Pass
A984 KQJ1072 Pass

 

When Harry bypassed 3NT I had a fair indication that we had little wastage in diamonds. The loser count led me to conclude that 6 would be a good contract, and a tiny voice whispered in my ear, ‘bid it.’ Then I remembered my primary New Year’s Resolution, ‘go with the field’. So I counted up my 11 HCPs, added 19 and bid 5 praying something might go wrong to hold me to 11 tricks. My prayers went unanswered. I had missed the mark by a long shot as the field was in 3NT going down. Missing a cold minor suit slam was worth 8 out of 11 matchpoints. I blame Harry for not opening 1 with his 7 controls. I note once more that the field commonly bids 3NT with a singleton in the suit about to be led. Is that an unforeseen consequence of 2/1?

My First 2/1 Session Despite my studious preparation, or perhaps because of it, my first 2/1 outing with Carl was disappointing. Our local expert was lecturing as usual, and last week’s hand was discussed as our fortunate result against him apparently still rankled. After a roundabout analysis he suggested that I should have bid 4 Gerber, then 6 when the required 3 aces were revealed. Well, that works on that hand, but what about a possible 4-4 spade fit? Isn’t 2/1 all about reaching spade contracts? My reading suggests they even seek out the juicy 4-3 fits. I kept my peace then, but here are my thoughts now.

The Proliferation of Conventional Bidding has at its source the need for precise information, however, no one wants to give out information, as we have been told repeatedly that giving away too much information is detrimental. So the field goes by guesses. The Losing Trick Count is a superior way of guessing, however, there is this fundamental need that can’t be denied. The 1NT bid has limited partner’s hand. Responder must make a decision. How can he find out about controls? At the table I could have lied about my hand and bid 4, but where does the lying stop?

Another convention made to order: the bid of 4 should be defined as RKCB-for-Bob. Problem solved. We’d all love to have a convention named after us, but I am probably not in the first thousand Canadians to suggest this. It doesn’t come up very often, so we can double the frequency by extending its application to the diamond suit as follows: 1NT – 2; 2 or 2 – 3; 4 – 4, where 4 agrees diamonds and 4 is RKCB-for-Bob in diamonds. It’s easy to remember as a natural 4 bid is highly unusual.

The Weak Hand Decides I resolved never to comment to Carl after a bidding failure that it would have been easier playing Precision as we used to do, but, like my other New Year’s resolutions, this one didn’t survive the month of January. Most don’t subscribe to the idea that the stronger hand decides. Imagine you are driving carefully through town and the person in the passenger seat is constantly grabbing at the wheel. That’s how I felt all day. One of the features that attracts the masses to 2/1 is that either partner can decide at any time what the final contract should be. Indeed, they may slant the early bidding towards reaching what appears at first glance to be the best spot. If that’s how they behave, how can they imagine they’re playing a system? My resolve to button my lip was sorely tested on the 3rd board:

Bob Carl
AQ3 J104 2 2NT (4+controls)
AKQJ9 10764 3 4NT (RKCB)
AK85 5 7 NT!
KQ875 A2 Pass

 

I have read that one shouldn’t open 2 with a 2-suited hand. My excuse was that as we were playing control responses, I would immediately obtain useful information that could allow me to place the contract in the best spot. My heart leapt with joy when partner showed a big hand. A tiny voice whispered in my ear, ‘seven clubs’. As Frank Stewart tells us in the ACBL Bulletins, we shouldn’t listen to the tiny voice which tempts us into indiscretions, but here I was again, shamelessly out to beat the field. My 3 bid was a firm step forward, and I felt on the brink of a great success. Then I became exposed to one of the most attractive features of 2/1, the take-charge jump to 4NT. This shook me momentarily and I thought of bidding 6 to show the void, but we certainly had no agreement, so I kept it simple, declared my key cards, and held my breath.

Void or no void, 7NT, if it had made, it would have been a top, no argument there, but then so would 7, a contract that has the great advantage of actually producing 13 tricks. My unrepentant partner argued that he didn’t expect my hearts to be so good. Of course, how could he know? He missed the point entirely. How the field managed to avoid a cold grand slam, I am not sure. I’ll have to study the 2/1 system more carefully before I can state it authoritatively, but I think most began with 1 followed by a Jacoby 2NT raise putting the weaker hand in control. Opener showed shortness in diamonds and responder happily bid 4, which he was always going to do, regardless. Opener stopped in 6 thinking he needed the spade finesse. This is really stupid. Can it be true?

My First 2/1 Top Our first zero came early, so I was only marginally peeved. The chill turned to thrill a few hands later when against my expectations 2/1 produced a good minor suit slam. I initiated a dreaded reverse, opening on shorter clubs planning to bid longer diamonds later to show a strong hand while keeping my shape open to question. One must keep the weaker hand informed about the HCPs, just in case he wants to spring to 4NT. I was surprised when partner responded 1, as my diamonds were not only strong but plentiful. This bidding a minor over a minor is very significant in 2/1 as it suggests no interest at all in spades.

Bob Carl
AQ4 K653 1 1
3 A874 3* 3NT
AK1087 Q962 6 Pass
KQ98 4 *splinter

 

The old granny cum witch on my right admonished us for not alerting that we no longer played Precision where 1-1 means something entirely different. Fair enough, but I wonder if such an alert is required under the ACBL rules. After 6 was seen to have scored a clear top, partner politely commended me for my successful bid.

‘Pretty standard’ I replied, ‘you had to have a good hand to reply 1 like that.’

‘Well, actually, I had only 9 HCP, and was hoping you would bid a major.’

‘That’s the kind of top I like,’ I commented cheerily. I have a long memory.

So here was my introduction to yet another attractive feature of the 2/1 system as played by the field: you don’t have to follow it if you don’t feel like it. Once again a player opted to bid 3NT with a singleton, but this occasion was extraordinary, I think, in that he knew his partner held a singleton, too. I suppose at the other tables the auction went 1 – 1; 2 – 2; 2NT – 3NT, illustrating the method by which the weaker hand takes charge through the application of the nebulous Fourth Suit Forcing. Neither partner would know the other held a singleton, but then neither would the defenders. The consensus is that either you get very lucky, or you have lots of company.

Although it was very much in my mind, throughout the game the word ‘Precision’ had not audibly escaped my lips, but a lip reader might have caught it slipping through the cracks once or twice. That changed on the very last hand. I held a very attractive 2 bid with 22 HCP. Eight controls represent a very potent holding, so a rebid of 2NT can be a slam killer, but just how to avoid it I wasn’t sure. My concerns were alleviated when partner bid 2NT first, announcing 4+ controls. I could immediately place him with the AK and K. Ah, Science! The time was ripe for the strong hand to take control.

Bob Carl
Q63 AK98754 2 2NT (4+controls)
AKJ7 8 3 3
AK 9652 4 4
AJ87 K 6 NT Pass

 

Prospects for a grand slam were good, to say the least. I tried to get more information from Carl, but it is like pulling teeth. When all he could contribute were 2 minimal bids showing spades, I cautiously jumped to 6NT feeling that told the story. The doubleton AK detracted somewhat from the hand. If Carl held the Q along with the K he might have supported my phantom clubs. There was no tiny voice urging me to bid 7NT.

Declaring in 6NT holding 2 singletons might upset some, but not Carl. He was upset because I hadn’t supported his spades. Consequently he adopted an unusual line of play under a delusion of wish fulfillment. Winning the diamond lead in dummy, he cashed the second diamond, played to the K and attempted to ruff a diamond, carefully choosing the Q to guard against an over-ruff. Not an optimum line even if spades were trumps. He had played too quickly. It was then I said a bad word followed by what I had resolved never to say, and more. I refused to take responsibility.

Taking 13 tricks off the top 6NT would have scored a shared top with the field stopping in 6. I have so much to learn that the thought of bidding 6 had never crossed my mind. I suppose others bid 2 – 2 (waiting); 2NT (22-23 HCP) – 3 (transfer); 3 – 6. The weak hand would be happy to be in a slam with just 32 HCP.

Competitive Bidding In competition 2 over 1 is out and 3 against 1 is in. Not only do you compete against the opponents, you also compete against your partner. When the hands are approximately of equal strength, and sometimes even when they’re not, the auction becomes a game of musical chairs for sedentary folk, where the trick is not to be left standing when the bidding stops. As everyone bids on nothing there is little danger of being doubled in the early stages, but partner is always a danger. An over-zealous partner may raise twice so you end up in a really bad contract. The principle skill in declarer play lies in keeping the opponents from spotting the killing defense during the first 3 rounds of play, thereby escaping from an adequate penalty. Usually I hope for a lead in an unbid suit and usually I get it.

Surprisingly, if Carl had got those 2 slams right, 2 tops instead of 2 bottoms, we would have won the game by a big margin. It doesn’t make sense that we scored so well when we bid so badly. Studying the results is like reading an Agatha Christie mystery: the characters are familiar, their actions are suspect, their motivations are questionable, and the ending is unbelievable – but it’s highly entertaining while it lasts. Maybe dear, bridge-playing Agatha was more of a social realist than critics have given her credit for.


2 Comments

antonyFebruary 2nd, 2010 at 9:39 am

Hi,

Somehow I feel that 2/1 is not really the problem here… playing (French-style) standard (not even 2/1) I would have the following auctions:

– Old Me Returns: OK, I’d probably stop in 5C.

– Weak Hand Decides:

1H-2NT (Jacoby)

3C-3D (good suits)

4NT (1430)-5H

5NT-6D (DK)

7H

– 2/1 Top:

1D-1H

3C-3D

4D (BW)-4H

4S (Queen ask)-5S (DQ+SK)

6D

– the last one:

2C-2D

2NT-3H

3S-4C (why rush?)

4NT-5S (probable 10-card fit -> don’t care about the SQ…)

5NT-6C (CK)

7NT (easy one!)

So except for the first one, even with (a sensible) standard bidding you can find all these slams 🙂

Bob M.February 2nd, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Quite so, bidding sensibly in any number of systems one should be able to reach the correct contracts. The question raised by the mad scientist is ‘why doesn’t the field get there?’ The answer is that when people claim to bid according to a 2/1 system, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they play that system, or any system as far as that goes.

The superiority of the Precision system in a slack field lies in the constraints it puts upon its users. One sloppy bid and it all comes tumbling down about your ears. Most can’t tolerate the constraint, so they opt for a more stable environment and don’t strive for the optimum result.

Leave a comment

Your comment