Conclusion

Anyways, our partnership agreement is that style 2 is the general methodology. So, declarer should have the Q. But, part of the attraction is the intellectual challenge/stimulation, right? Let's say we had chosen to adopt style 1 and take a closer look.

What can we deduce about the heart suit? Partner could always afford a heart with five of them, so declarer is very likely to have at least three. If declarer has at least three hearts, then game always makes if he's got the K as well, unless we take the ace and can cash three club tricks, i.e declarer having

KJTxxx

AKx

4

Jxx

That would give partner...

x

QTxx

QT5xx

K9x

... and I can't see the 5 of diamonds discard coming from this holding. I'd let go of my lowest diamond then to inform partner I have a high card there. That should help him see that ducking a diamond is useless and that setting tricks must come from other suit(s). The problem then is that partner wouldn't know which K to play me for. But that dilemma is solved by our second diamond play. We'd follow low with club interest and high with the K of hearts. This information is more important than length at this point.

So, after that diamond discard let's place the K of H with partner and it seems reasonable to place declarer with either the Q of diamonds or the K of clubs because otherwise he'd only have 9 hcp at most. (Sidequiz: would a heart discard indicate original length or show/deny another honour?)

Doesn't that mean we can now fly the ace of diamonds (anyway) and put partner in with K of hearts for a club through and collect the setting tricks?

The answer is maybe. What if declarer has a stiff club? Could he have a singleton? With a stiff K, declarer would probably have led a club from dummy at trick 3, or partner might have discarded a club from Jxxxx. But what about...

KJTxxx

ATx

Qxx

J

Now we have to duck.

Is 6-3-3-1 then a possible shape for declarer? I could see partner letting go of a diamond from a short holding with both K's.

x

KQxx

T5x

K9xxx

I'd discard the 5 of diamonds from this holding, not wanting to emphazise either sidesuit.

Edit: It has been suggested elsewhere that one would never discard from a three-card holding here, rendering this layout impossible. I say one should consider letting a diamond go from 532 as well. If you always discard from your longest suit(s), you'd be an easy read for a competent declarer. Here, if declarer has QTx (vs K97) this diamond discard might lead him astray, playing you for an original Jxxxx. Don't be too rigid in your approach here.

Summing up: The only time the setting trick could go away, by ducking, is when declarer has a stiff diamond and partner has discarded the 5 from QT532. Otherwise we just wait for declarer going down, getting one heart trick and either two diamonds and a club or a diamond and two clubs (catering to either layout). I can't construct a reasonable layout where partner would have QT532. And, as stated above, is that really possible with the actual partnership agreement? So, ducking must be right.

Anyone with a differing opinion?

Discarding - partnership signalling philosophy

The most common signalling agreement when discarding is 'discourage/encourage' or 'show/deny strength'. This can be done 'directly', i.e. by playing a card in that suit, or 'indirectly', i.e. by discouraging one suit we may indicate strength in another because otherwise we might have chosen to discourage that suit instead. That's the easy definition. In real life many other things may factor in. Does dummy has a trick source? What did the lead reveal? How many cards does dummy have in a particular suit, can I afford to discard one? And so forth.

A very important aspect is what general signalling philosophy that your partnership applies. The main 'sides' are:

1) Obvious-shift style where the key word is INTENTION.

2) Actual holding (what do I have), where the key word is POSSESSION.

There are layers of this, but an easy example of this might be when partner leads an ace vs a suit contract and I have a weak holding in that suit. Style 1 would encourage or discourage depending on the holding in the suit partner would be most likely to shift to if I discourage. Style 2 would discourage, as we have nothing to contribute, and leave it to partner to work out how to continue (with the information that I don't have any strength in this suit). There are advantages and disadvantages to both and exceptions, such as cases when you intentionally choose to mislead partner because you can see it's correct (by looking at your hand and dummy).

It might actually even be proper to have a different terminology for these styles. Perhaps the INTENTION-style is best described by 'encouraging/discouraging' and HOLDING-style should be coined 'strength/weakness'. That would also be better from a disclosure perspective as it would give the declaring side a better understanding of your signalling methodology, something he/she is entitled to.

Well, I digress. Back to the defence vs 4S. The reason for the above is that playing style 1, a high diamond (relatively, according to UDCA) here wouldn't necessarily say anything about the Q if he really want another suit/shift. It would only say that he's got no interest in you playing a diamond if you're on lead. Playing style 2, the [relatively] high diamond would (should) pretty much deny the Q. When looking at this particular dummy it's hard to find a case where an exception might apply.

What's in a signal?

Playing a top-bracket knockout at the Washington NABC's, red vs white, you look down at

65

J742

AJ86

AQ5

Playing a light, aggressive opening style, partner deals and passes and your RHO open 1S. First choice, pass or X?

Since you are outranked by the boss suit, you decide to pass and the bidding continues with 3H, alerted, on your left and 4S from opener. 3H is explained as being an artificial limit raise in spades and you decide to lead the 2 of hearts. Your agreement is 2nd/4th, Polish-style, so this promises an honour (4th) or is the lowest from xx. Dummy hits and this is the view:

_______AQ84

_______87

_______K97

_______T754

65

J742

AJ86

AQ5

The 2 draws the Q from partner and declarer wins with the A. Without further ado he draws trumps in two rounds ending in his hand. Partner follows low once and then discards the 5 of diamonds, playing upside-down count and attitude (UDCA). Declarer now leads the 4 of diamonds from his hand and we do what??

Initial analysis shows 8 hcp in the majors from declarer and a reflection that any late heart losers can be ruffed in dummy. 6 spade-tricks, HA, maybe a H ruff in dummy and the K of diamonds brings up the total to 9. If declarer has the Q of diamonds we can duck now without risk (not going anywhere) and get some more info. If partner has the Q, declarer might have a stiff and we need to grab the ace immediately.

What can we deduce from that diamond discard?

Fingerspitzgefühl

Nation's Cup is an excellent 2-day invitational tournament held each year in Bonn-Bad Godesberg. 2009 was the 24th occurence, all organized by expatriate Swede Göran Mattsson. Everything is top-notch and the format is national teams, Germany as the host providing two, divided in two groups meeting in each other in a round-robin with the winners from each group squaring off in a final. The other teams continue in a Swiss for the remaining prizes.

This year the field consisted of 16 teams, Canada and a bunch of Europeans, and Sweden was represented by Ulf Nilsson - BG Olofsson and PG Eliasson - Thomas Magnusson. Teammates played well but we didn't play up to par and a 8th place finish was a disappointment for sure.

Here's a fine display of "fingerspitzgefuhl" by PG in our 2nd match. First take a poke at the auction:

AT2

-

KT987643

KQ

All red and the auction starts (1S) - pass - (2C) to you with 2C showing 10+ with 3-card spade support. Yes, this is Europe and bids that doesn't carry the same meaning as in the club game are allowed. It seems pretty obvious to bring the diamond suit into the picture, but at what level?

PG opted for 'the full Monty' and jumped to 5D which was greeted by RHO with a red card. The lead was the K of hearts and a decent dummy came down.

K4

T4

J2

JT97654

AT2

-

KT987643

KQ

A surprisingly few number of hearts in dummy is the initial reaction. What can the opponents hands look like? We know spades to be 5-3 and hearts are very likely to be 5-6. If diamonds are 0-3 we're toast so assume 1-2. So this looks like 5-5-1-2 vs 3-6-2-2 with KQ of hearts to your left.

Ruff the lead and play the K of clubs to find out who has the ace. West wins and shifts to a spade. This pretty much guarantees that East has the ace of diamonds and PG played three rounds of spades, ruffing in dummy and a diamond to the king, dropping the offside queen for a gratifying +750 and 12 imps.

Full results are available here:

http://www.bonn-nations-cup.bridgeverband-westfalen.de/2009/Englisch/Englisch_00_Frame.html

What's up?

As can be deduced, the blog isn't alive in any sense of the word nowadays. If you found your way here I hope you find some interesting material in the archive.

A short update:

I'm no longer playing with Frederic Wrang. That ended after the Europeans in Pau last summer.

I have a new partnership with BG Olofsson (BGO@BBO). We're headed for the NABC's next year on Bob Hollman's team with fellow Swedes, Upmark-Cullin.

The main reason for not blogging anymore is that my 'spare' time is spent on writing a book about slam bidding. Don't know the time table but progressing somewhat steadily.

For fun I entered, and managed to win, the 2008 Australian bidding forum (www.australianbridge.com) and will now be a panelist for at least a year. I will also write a couple of articles for the magazine.

I'm likely to resume the blogging at some point in the future but no predictions now.

Have a great 2009 bridge year.

Spingold decision

Last summer in Nashville, Spingold semi on vugraph vs Meckwell in the second set I look down at:

J3
K9
A643
AJ652

All is vulnerable and Meckstroth opens 1H at my side of the screen. 'Nobrainer' pass or a 2C-overcall?

The warning signs are there and you can't count on weak opposition to bail you out if the overcall is wrong. They will extract whatever is there. But if partner is short in clubs, only the J of clubs is wasted and my hand is useful to a larger or lesser extent in diamonds and spades.

As you can 'guess', I have already made up my mind on my course of action in these situations. Why would I turn chicken now? I overcalled 2C. How did this go?

My overcall triggered a negative double from Rodwell and a 3C-raise from Frederic, passed out. At the other table there was the same opening, a 1S response and a 2H-rebid passed out when Hemant Lall [of course] didn't overcall. This was the full deal:

______QT8
______T87
______J52
______KQ93
K9752______A64
QJ_________A65432
KT9________Q87
T85________4
______J3
______K9
______A643
______AJ652

Sure was a thin opening in 1st position vulnerable but one also chosen by Antonio Sementa at the other table. 2H was an easy +140 and that QJ tight turned a 1 imp gain (-100) into a 6 imps gain (+110) when Jeff won the ace and continued H's.

That was lucky in a way, but on the other hand I caught a 4333 shape when a doubleton diamond would have made the overcall an easy winner, and had Meckstroth had AJxxxx maybe he'd bid 3H and Rodwell raised to 4H, permitting us to go plus on defence. Lot's of maybe's.

The overcall could have won in many ways, this was perhaps a 'flukie' kind of way but not that undeserved, in my [subjective] view.

As predicted, dummy had useful club honour's; there were no maybe involved in that 'fact'...

The 'suit quality paradox' and more

I think the subject of overcalling is interesting. Let's start with my reflections and opinions of 2-level overcalls after opposing 1M-opening. This is an area I've been meaning to write about a long time but never gotten around to. As this issue stirred up some attention in my last post(s), let's move on and destroy any credibility I may have left ;-)

There seem to be a consensus among many experts I've talked to that you should have a good suit, preferably 6 or more, and not be shaded when overcalling at the 2-level in a lower ranking suit. This is a view that I don't share at all.

The main reasons for those requirements are that it makes constructive bidding easier (say the next guy jumps to game and now you can compete to the 5-level much more comfortable with marginal hands) and to lower the risk of getting nailed for a number. If you have HHxxxx, this would make it less likely of length/strength behind and you'd still take some trump tricks of your own.

I find it useful to overcall almost any hand with a 5-card suit IF the hand has above average strength, say a control-rich 12/13+ hcp and that a weak suit may be a better proposition than a good one! Doesn't this sound strange? Why would I think this?

Here are my general thought/views and reflections on the 2-level overcall and weak vs good suits:

1) It's very useful to get into the auction. See as many 'flops' as possible. This is nothing new at the 1-level, but it may be extended to a certain degree to the 2-level as well. The chance of finding a big fit should be exploited.

2) When you have a weak 5-card suit, the chance of finding big support (length & strength) with partner is greatly enhanced, i.e better chance of gaining a high-level swing, compared to then you have a strong 6-card suit. That's the 'suit quality paradox', that a weak suit is frequently better than a good one! See more below.

3) With a weak 5-card suit, you have a better chance of getting working points in dummy when catching a raise. Why? Say you give partner 6-9 points and a 3-level raise. If our suit is weak, then partner is more likely to have honours there (as more honours out of the total is 'taken' in other suits by us/opener when we have 12+ hcp with majority outside overcalled suit) pulling offensive weight. If our suit is strong, then partner can have at most one honour there and the other, say two honours, sit in other suits, with an opening hand 'over' then making it rather likely that at least one, maybe both honours being more or less worthless (maybe slight exaggeration, but you get the point).

4) If weak suit then more strength located in sidesuits and those honours are well positioned behind opener. Better trick-taking potential when hitting the flop (dummy) and we declare.

5) If weak suit and we get caught (p-p-X), partner should adopt a more active strategy of running in this style (i.e. permitting more free-wheeling overcall) and then most of our strength will be 'working' in the alternative contract. If I have Ax/Kx/Kxxx/KTxxx and overcall 2C over 1M, then after a reopening double and a runout by partner, we have 10/13 working points in that contract. Compare to Ax/xx/KJx/KQTxxx with 8/13 and worse shape.

6) Opponents more likely to misjudge the correct level. If I have a weak suit, then they are more likely to hold some honour strength there and may devalue that holding, more than is called for. Say opener has Kx of diamonds and started with 1S. That K of diamonds is more likely to be paper waste vs a constructive typical 6-card 2D-overcall than vs a 'free-wheeling' 5-card approach 2D.

7) The perception of the risk of getting nailed is disproportionate to the actual occurence ('selective memory', we remember those better). Ok, very subjective, but I've lived it and stand by that statement.

8) Getting into the auction early have so many ways that the opp's may misjudge that they wouldn't have otherwise. The nuisance value of 2m - 3m (raise) is a real one.

9) The risk of partner's lead in our weak suit turning sour isn't very big. On game level, they are most likely to end up in opened major, then I'm on lead, or in 3NT with partner on lead and then I'd prefer my long suit led with my sidesuit honours as potential entries to establish a cash my winners. Should they reach a contract after a negative double then I'm also on lead.

All this said I don't overcall nearly as much as I used to 10-15 years ago. Busy isn't always better; I'm much more selective.

Moving on, when considering overcalls with sub-par strength (i.e. less than an opening bid) in general, meaning both 1 and 2-level overcalls:

1) The key issue on marginal (for me) decisions. comes down to possesion of a [any] short suit or not. I think that factor is the 'biggie' when it comes to the number of favorable outcomes of an overcall.

2) The second factor is holding in enemy suit (but do see previous post). Strength there on an already sub-par hcp hand is a potential big minus.

3) The control-ratio. This means the number of controls (aces = 2, kings = 1) you have in relation to the statistical expectancy for the number of hcp you have. Optimum would of course be an ace and a king and the worst would be a bunch of 'quacks'.

Let's end with a look at a real-life example of a weak suit overcall, a hand from the training weekend in Holland about a year ago against the Dutch Team Orange. You have:

---
QJ97
KJ86
AT765

White vs red, partner passes as dealer and your RHO (that would be me) opens 1D (11-13 bal/5M332 or 11-15 unbal with 4-card M). What's your call?

I'd expect a large majority, but I could be wrong of course, to pass and back in with double over expected spade bids if the level isn't to high. Jan Jansma, Hollands best player in my opinion, overcalled 2C and scored up a game minutes later.

______QT8
______3
______T742
______KJ843
AK963_______J7542
A8642_______KT5
93__________AQ5
9___________Q2
_________
______QJ97
______KJ86
______AT765

(Yes, we open 1D on those. See postings about this from last spring.)

The board was played 4 times (2 practise matches) and all reached 5C. But, at all other tables the opening bid was 1S and it was easier. Had Jan passed, I think their chance would have been gone. Would you bid 5C on that North hand after 1D-1S; 2S (X) 4S ? That's easier when the whole hand is on display. What if partner is 1-4-5-3 ?

Was the overcall wreckless or did good bridge pay off? I think he was justly rewarded.