|
THE BRIDGE BEAT aims to cover the bridge pulse of the nation. If you have
questions of general bridge interest, interesting deals, stories, or news items,
please feel free to pass them on to us by e-mail only, to eok@bigfoot.com (our
permanent address). We will reserve space in the Sunday column for suitable
material originating with our readers. We can't promise to work every submission
into a column, and it may be a while before we can do so in any case, but every
communication will be considered. Please specify that you are writing to THE
BRIDGE BEAT (we also write a readers-oriented monthly column for the American
Contract Bridge League).
Today's contribution is from
Yvan Lizotte of La Prairie, Quebec.
I play regularly with a group of friends. We are attempting to standardise
our bidding methods, but there are a few issues that we cannot easily resolve.
We have agreed to play a two-over-one response to a major suit opening as
game-forcing, but we are not on the same page when it comes to opener's rebid in
these situations. I feel that a reverse bid (as shown below) by opener should
not imply extra values, but simply shows length in the suits bid. My idea is
that this treatment makes it easier for responder to bid notrump when he has
stoppers in the unbid suit. I know that this goes against standard practice and
all the literature on reverse bidding. I maintain that a convention is a means
of communication and if a treatment prevents us from doing so, we must amend it
to fit our needs. My friends call me an upstart for daring to challenge the
traditional well-established procedures. Am I a rebel or simply a bridge player
using common sense?"
"Here are some examples:
 KQJ8
 A7654  76  Q6,
I open 1, partner bids 2, I bid 2
87
AK765 %76 KQ76,
I open 1, partner bids 2, I bid 3."
"My friends maintain that with minimum values I should simply repeat my
hearts with a mediocre suit, or rebid two notrump even without true stoppers in
the unbid suits. I think that would be giving partner false information."
Kokish: The approach you suggest is not standard practice, but it should
not be labelled wrong or right without analysis. A preliminary caveat is that
when one partner is simply describing his distribution while the other is also
expecting extra strength, the partnership will often finish in a contract that
can't be made. Any successful partnership works hard to developing firm
agreements, and this is just one area that requires discussion.
Kraft: If you agree that opener may "reverse" after a two-over-one
response with minimum hands, consider your course of action when you have (instead)
a good hand (perhaps with extra shape), a so-called genuine reverse. You will
inevitably choose the same reverse rebid because anything else would be bulky,
inefficient, and better used for other purposes (a splinter raise, for example).
When partner chooses a game contract, you will realise that you have not yet
shown your extra strength. If you pass, you might miss an easy slam, but if you
bid again, you might be beyond your depth. Going set at the five level (or
perhaps in 4NT) can be particularly hard on a partnership when each player has a
theoretically legitimate point view. In effect, this late change of heart
amounts to entrapment.
Kokish: Systems using game-forcing two-over-one responses can be very
effective, but a sound foundation must be established. Some expert pairs do
favour the approach of our correspondent and for them, opener's simple major-suit
rebid would suggest a six-card suit. We prefer a style that is closer to
traditional, so our major-suit rebid would be the default choice with hands
unsuitable for a different, rather specific rebid (2NT with both stoppers and
extra values, a reverse with the right shape and extra strength, a minor-suit
raise with sound values, a jump rebid only with an exceptional suit). With both
of Yvan's example hands we would rebid 2 because nothing else appeals.
Kraft: For us, suit quality is important. We would reverse to 2 after a
2 response to our 1 opening with:
AKJ7
AQJ94 K2 84,
but not with:
KJ84
AK862 A5 KJ; we would mark time with 2 or 2NT, but most textbooks
would consider this an automatic 2 rebid.
We prefer to define sequences like 1-2; 3% as not only "high reverses"
but also as at least five-five, promising two very good suits (one honour in
partner's hand should give a good play for five winners).
This would be a typical
minimum: AQJ107
5 KQJ95 75.
With more high cards but less distribution or with less chunky suits, we
would rebid 2, temporarily concealing the second suit, but leaving responder
plenty of room to show a second suit or stall with a natural, forcing 2NT. It is
true that our approach isn't exactly mainstream either, and that we have to use
some judgment with classical reverses that do not meet our special suit-quality
requirements. But isn't that the sort of challenge that make our game so
appealing?
Kokish: Even if you simply define these three-level rebids as five-five
with extra values, we believe you will be better off than players using a go-as-you-please
style.
|