Dubious Logic

The Judas Pair

Introduction

It started accidentally. My partner couldn't make Brighton this year due to family commitments. Elsewhere, Debby (our esteemed editor) had signalled her unavailability due to her own vacation plans. When those plans shifted and she, Peter Sutcliffe and Peter Gemmell were free for the teams without a fourth, I suggested I partner Debby. Everybody (even the editor) seemed happy. That was on the occasion we stuffed Norfolk in June; there was lots of time to get prepared. This is about that preparation and its results.

Note: I know that the editor feels it inappropriate to meddle in the articles she receives - a resolve I applaud - but here I think it is quite justified. So I will leave a pair of braces '{}' to invite comment and correction; if they remain juxtaposed, then you may presume none was necessary.

System

Of course if there was anything to be dreaded more than the event itself it would be delivery of the system notes… These would come thick and fast towards game-day in August. In the interim, sequences and to a lesser extent, hands for practice, crossed via e-mail.

The first draft was verbal; what system would we play? That seemed clear; Debby played five card majors (5CM) with all her regular partners. Her team-mates played it too, so that was the pretext of all discussions. I played 5CM as well. I suggested, contrary to all this that we play four card majors (4CM). Why? The reasons were many fold.

I thought we could be more effective, more dangerous, with 4CM - there were more chances of accidental gains like stealing opponent's suit, more chances of 'one - two - out' auctions and less murk surrounding our minor suit openings. Don't get me wrong. I haven't changed my opinion of 5-CMs, I still believe them to be a strong base but it is important to realise where that strength comes from. 5-CMs are better in long, technical auctions. They are better with distinct, disciplined understandings. With 4CM you can live a little, it's more touch and feel and less science. It's no surprise that the largest sections in the 'Why you should play 5-CMs' (TT Spring '97) concerned slam bidding and the conventional agreements necessary to exploit your superiority.

Secondly, two people playing something 'very similar but not quite' is dangerous, more so than playing an off the shelf system that both have to learn. Thirdly, I had this notion that Debby's game had stalled, she needed to shake-up her conceptions and 'de-cosy' her game {}. Lastly, I hoped she would use the discipline to take her regular partnership forward. That's a good summary of the main points but it has to be admitted this approach contravened the first rule of ad-hoc partnerships, 'the senior player makes all the system compromises'. Would the imagined advantages outweigh that important consideration?

So we agreed a 4CM approach. I sort of railroaded Debby into it. The carrot was that the rest would be familiar. So that left, a 14-16 no-trump, weak twos in ♦, ♥, ♠, Debby's leads and signals, her artificial competitive moves (I had to give up Good and Bad 2NT and (ouch) fit jumps).

Where to start? Obviously with a yellow folder and the notes to our developments over 1NT. Why there? Well I wanted to get her used to studying system on paper. After 1NT you will have the auction to yourselves a sizeable chunk of the time (14-16 remember) and it obligates you to make the best use of the definition it creates. It is also a disaster area for unfamiliar partnerships who believe that the answer to 'Stayman and Transfers, OK?' is all the discussion needed. Simultaneously we started with our doubles. This must be the area that causes the most misunderstandings, by number and by cost. The solution was simple. I obtained a pamphlet written by a Swedish international and we played it absolutely down the line. It had a base rule and seven distinct exceptions. The rule was 'a double is for take-out unless we have defined it otherwise'. So if it's not on the list of exceptions then it couldn't be penalties.

I wrote a list of overriding agreements, here it is including the first two elements. There's no particular order but I'll letter them to clarify a few below:

1. Firm agreements about doubles (see end for Swedish methods)
2. Well defined sequences over our opening 1NT
3. 4NT is always RKCB unless the sequence is specifically excluded.
4. 3NT is always natural even with agreed major fits (it means poor trumps etc.).
5. In any sequence where they bid at the two level and we have doubled, 2NT is artificial.
6. We do not play fast arrival unless the sequence is specifically described.
7. Fourth suit creates a game force (except four suits to 1♠)
8. Passing a redouble is for penalties except at the one-level over the redoubler.
9. Redouble is always for business except where the redoubler had the chance to raise on a previous round.
10. When we have a game force established, we cannot play in a merely doubled partscore.
11. When we have forced to a level bidding to that level immediately is the least constructive action.
12. What suit to open with 4441 types.
13. Same system over natural 3NT as over 1NT (2NT is different), no-trump overcalls are treated as opening.

Let's look at (f). Take a sequence like

What's the difference in each case? The first is classic, 3♥ is forcing so is the jump to game more or less? In the second auction we had agreed to play a two-over-one (2/1) as game forcing unless responder rebids their suit, so each sequence promised game, but how many trumps and which was stronger? With agreement (f) we committed ourselves to the picture style. So in the first example, 4♥ rather than 3♥ showed good cards in spades and hearts, say ♠ AKxxx ♥ Kxxx ♦ xx ♣ xx not ♠ KJxxx ♥ Kxxx ♦ QJx ♣ x (imagine ♠ x ♥ AQxx ♦ Axx ♣ AKQxx opposite). In the second example we borrowed from 5-CM theory and played 2♠ showed two spades or four. If four then a shortage in opener's second suit. 3♠ showed three spades and four spades was weaker - so yes, fast arrival did creep in but it was specified.

What's (k) about? If you play artificial raises and other moves then you should have a philosophy for when the opponents refuse to go quietly. Consider:

We make a cue bid raise, they double. Agreement (k) means any action, even pass, is more forward going than 3♠.

Or (j) ?

2♥ was forcing to game (g!) so is the two heart bidder being invited to pass and take their chances? No! They can't pass, they can redouble to say they fancy playing there (i) but they cannot pass. That means opener can pass with no good bid without distorting their hand out of fear of suddenly being dummy.

Redoubles are expensive, what's happening here?

1) 15-17
2) Invite to 3NT with clubs or balanced
3) Minimum
4) Extras

You may recognise this, it's the hand that decided the 1998 World Pairs championship. What does pass mean, 'you got us in, you get us out' or 'we've got them'? Cohen and Berkowitz had an agreement I'm glad to say, they just had the wrong one, they weren't playing (h). Would you avoid catastrophe here? Even if you're not so aggressive, a simple sequence like

Can catch you out.

Although not explicitly named we had a our own 'style sheet', containing such things as:

1. Raise freely.
2. Light actions first and third non-vulnerable - examples of borderline decisions for balanced hands.
3. Pre-balance aggressively when they have a fit.
4. When to open 1NT with a five card major.
5. Two over one style (remember we came from a 5CM background so had to decide whether to shift to a more free-wheeling Acol approach or not; in the end we kept with strong 2/1s)

Don't under-estimate these topics - this list ought to be longer that it is - they are the most important things to get sorted as a partnership. You can state system as above but when you have to agree something here that may well compromise how you feel about the game - whether it is right or sensible to open balanced 11 counts for example. Fortunately we knew something of each other's overall style from being team-mates, so topics like pre-empting philosophy, and how aggressive we were in invitations to game and slam, at least we had a handle on.

Things like (1) 'Raise freely' aren't quite as simple as they look. We would be opening a major suits as often as we could so when we opened a minor and partner bid a major, we couldn't be expected to hold four card support unless we were 5-4. This has several repercussions, we would raise on three cards in weak no-trumps (14-16 opening NT remember) and try to jump support with four. Also we would not rush to introduce very weak majors. Although this is about building understandings and not about structure, a small diversion.

If you play a weak no-trump you have to do something with your strong no-trumps and vice versa. If you are 4432 you have a choice of two suits, with a major and minor which do you choose? Off a weak no-trump base if you open the major and partner responds 1NT you won't know what to do. They have 6-9 and you have 15-16(17), inviting can get you to stupid levels but you can miss game. The solution is open a minor as often as you can. Partner will frequently be able respond a major and you can bid 1NT announcing your range if you don't have a fit. With a strong no-trump (14-16 or 15-17 etc.) you can afford the luxury of the major suit, if partner essays a no-trump and all you have is 12-14 (11-13) you can simply pass. Standard English seems to have this upside down. Odd.

Practice

It wasn't as if we had never played before but a few run outs had to be useful. I was conscious not to do too much - a disaster might shatter the delicate confidences so far established. Strangely, at least to me, what was causing Debby the most concern was the system over 1NT {}. May be this would serve as a distraction to the real upheaval zone, the switch to 4CM.

We were playing the second weekend, the first Debby played with Maria Allnutt. During that, two hands fell into my lap as perfect propaganda for the work we (Debby) had been doing. This was the first, you hold:

• A76432
• 43
• J65
• 34

The auction between Debby and Maria went (sorry guys):

Now I cannot think of another bid. I passed on the telephone as did Debby at the table. 3♣ was forcing by arrangement and loads of tricks were made. What arrangement? Well there was nothing in writing, and you know what they say about verbal agreements… The second exhibit featured Mike Ash and Robert Ferrari who have almost a three decade partnership.

Mike having opened 1♥ simply didn't know what this sequence meant. Was he being invited to prefer a minor? Was it 4♦ and 6♣? Weak or invitational? He guessed and got it wrong. It wasn't likely we would cover everything of course - though we had this one nailed - but we owed it to ourselves and our team-mates to get serious before the start. We had a game at Ipswich & Kesgrave and a intra-team practice the Wednesday before the event. The most notable thing about both sessions was that Debby had turned into a 'take-out tiger' - reluctant to let any auction die when she had the sniff of a take-out double available {}. I think this can only be a result of the freedom given by the 'all doubles are take-out arrangement'. This was one sequence:

1) Hearts and clubs

What would did double mean? Well it wasn't on our list so it didn't get in. Partner's double was penalty-orientated - she didn't expect 2N doubled to become the final contract so any double by our side was still take-out. I was able to pass (with four spades) and wait for Debby's take-out double.

Just before the second practice I made the decision to re-write a chunk of the problematic 1NT stuff. This was double edged. I could be making matters worse by seeming to chop and change but I consulted with Debby and she confessed that the real attempt to learn it would come the day before we sat down to play. So I re-wrote. Writing system notes is an odd business, just as writing cribs for people learning the game. You have a choice of two approaches; you can write out what all the sequences mean or you can describe what you do with such and such a hand. Of course when you play you have to go through both mental exercises, deciding your bid means finding a sequence to match your hand, making sense of partner's utterances entails picturing a hand to fit a sequence. This could have been Debby's first experience with the former approach and the unfamiliarity made it hard work. It could also be that my spare style of presentation was a good way of inducing a sound night's rest. I tried to summarise the approach and the important stuff like what was forcing and how to get to Blackwood etc., but I don't know how successful it was…{}

Brighton

Normally before a card is played I like to say, 'No mistakes yet!'. Sadly it wasn't true. I had lost Debby's mobile number - written on a previous draft of the dreaded notes so our refresher before we started was curtailed. I met up with Stuart McPhee and Mike Ash, we bantered about the spread of victory points between our two teams. I wanted a 35VP advantage for a straight bet to Saturday night but they wouldn't take me on.

Brighton's a small place and we managed to find each other. We did the 'identically completed convention card' thing, got a small bite of supper and suddenly we were sitting down opposite opponents. First out we're against a player I recognise from the BBL Premier League in a new partnership. Have they done as much work as us? No, they haven't as they're transparently discussing level zero arrangements as the boards arrive. (Digression: the boards for the teams were all pre-dealt, this speeded things up, gave everyone an equal playing field and we got hand records at the end to discuss in the hotel bar - everyone thought this was marvellous. Why have organisers so underestimated the attraction of this?) The boards arrive in random order as the directors get used to the table sequence, early on this happens:

1) High card raise to 3♠

Cautiously perhaps I declined to double, a bit concerned they might retreat to 6NT. I led a diamond, just in case I had only one trump trick. Declarer was somewhat taken aback by dummy but the slam is quite good. North started with a top heart and a heart ruff and then the queen of spades and there was no way back. It was reported in the bulletin that in the same contract one declarer played the trump ace at trick two and got the bad news early. Whether this was a safety play before adopting the same line as our North I'm not sure, but now it allowed him to take two hearts, three clubs, twice ruffing diamonds back to hand to arrive in an ending where he just had to ruff a heart with the spade nine and East could not prevent him. I like to think that's how our declarer would have played had I doubled, still, the opponents had a misunderstanding and stumbled into a good contract which hadn't made. The Gods were against them, were they for us?

Our windfall was overshadowed by the events in the other room. Their West chose to open the hand one heart - where's the attraction in that? (Two diamonds anyone?). When Peter and Peter bid to 4♠, East doubled, West ran, East put her back to hearts and the result was -2000 and +19IMPs for us. Imagine how crushing it would have been for declarer against us to pick up spades 5-0 offside for +1430 and discover he had held the loss to 11IMPs… The wind was behind us and we had more than enough for 20-0.

Second out we earned a match against Preston, Huggett et al. and they too found their way uncertainly to six spades.

Our table:

I led the ♥K and declarer won to play a low spade off dummy. Debby ducked as smooth as silk and North won. A trump to the ace and a ruffing finesse in clubs passed off OK, but an attempt to cash two diamonds ended in failure. Debby drew trumps and played a heart but I had been throwing them away (can't you wink or something if you have a good trump holding?) and the slam was only three down. I wrote this hand up in the EADT and I have something of a confession to make. By far the best line after West ducks a spade is to play a club to dummy and play another low spade which West must win. I gave the impression that this made the contract but the defence has a counter. West exits with her singleton diamond and North cannot get back to hand to draw trumps. I discovered this after I sent the article and I considered faxing a correction but I thought some sharp analyst may well write in and I'll get a letter about something other than the newspaper's type-setting. But it hasn't happened yet.

Could our team-mates find a minor suit? East opened a multi 2♦ and South brought matters to a premature close with a jump to 3NT. I don't like this. Maybe North should move if South could be as good as this? It must be easier to double a multi when pre-emptive action by LHO is less likely than in our sequence.

1/15

And these hands were a system triumph. The auction against us was 1♠ all pass for +100, Peter and Peter weren't part of the '4432 which suit' debate as they open 1♣ on all balanced hands but they also respond light; that got them to 4♥ for +620. Playing 4CM majors with over-strong NT hands it's fine to start with a minor but I would have responded to 1♠ anyhow.

That was good enough 18-2 and we now found ourselves up against Collings, Jones, Link and Allen. We seemed to be having a tough draw. We were not over-awed but we lost - in over trick IMPs. They gained on six boards to our one with one flat; 10 - 1 and a slightly raw 6-14 in VP. Still we were in good spirits and had had no disasters and no tortuous sequences, in fact it was odd how little difference the system we were playing actually made. Next morning we found ourselves in =31^st . First match is against two European Women's Champions, Pat Davies and Sandra Landy, playing with two men to make up the numbers. First board:

Debby led the ♠A and thought. Needless to say I was willing her to play a diamond as my double had purported to show something in both minors. Eventually she played ace and another club, dummy's ten winning and the contract was cold. He ran the knave of hearts which won and then played another, I won and… Led a diamond. All that mental energy I was expending trying to get partner to play a diamond - which was useless of course, there were was no way I could influence her - I should have been looking for ways to beat the contract on other defences. How many times must I do this before I learn? Perhaps South's line was legitimate - worried about a club ruff - but he wouldn't have had enough trumps had I the wit to play a third round. A couple of boards later:

• J83
• A
• AQ64
• 98652

First in hand, they're vulnerable, you're not, borderline? One club looks a poor start and one diamond might be a better choice, but maybe pass is prudent after all…

Debby led the ♥10 (strong 10), I won and exited with a club Declarer played a diamond to the king and then cashed his winners very slowly. Why oh why hadn't declarer got the spade nine? Not only were partner's spades too strong, so were mine. The spade eight ('spade bad dog' in some parts of the world) meant that even if he had dropped the nine or ten offside their was still no double finesse. Then I saw it. Rather than this wet club at trick two, I should play the knave of spades, deuce, nine, queen. Then declarer could play me for 4144 (seven, cover, back to a club for one last finesse and there's still a club in dummy for a diamond lead). Our guys got to spades but not to game to lose 10IMPs. The 4♥ hand above cost a similar amount when the defence was the same as ours against a heart partial (our declarer took only one round of trumps for +170). That was a 1-19VP reverse and we found ourselves against the Indonesian Women's team.

This was a match where you didn't need to add up the IMPs let alone consult the VP scale. They just bid everything in sight. This was one example:

2/11

Yes, 2♠ might get you to the wrong part score some of the time but it rates to get you to game when it has a chance. This rolled in as did all of their other attempts and we still had the same score after this round. Nevertheless we drew another competent outfit and bad boards came from our side this time. Holding

• AQJ10
• K1072
• QJ10
• 65

Debby opened a heart and I bid three diamonds, a four card limit raise. Next hand asked and she described it exactly. She decided not to bid game but passed. I held

I got the hearts wrong (South had Ax) and was down two in this peculiar spot. That was a 3IMP loss as the opponents pressed onto the poor game. After this round we still had just the one VP from the first match - a poor return on a morning's work. Our next opponents were having an even worse time of it and we salvaged some points if not our self-respect by beating them 20-0. An upbeat note on which to finish but our qualification chances (for the finals after three sessions) were pretty much gone. That meant wine for dinner and no surprise to find ourselves in the second section for the evening session. Things were pretty peaceful there and we emerged with 40/60 for our evening's efforts. Except one hand caused a certain amount of uproar.

Now although we didn't play fit jumps endemically, I thought I was on firm ground here. After all, by a passed hand, most jumps show two suits. Debby was sure of diamond support but uncertain about spades. She tried to help - in some circumstances these bids showed shortages, in others, length. She offered to leave the table but this was declined and East doubled. The ensuing debacle left them far from happy and the director was called. He absorbed the facts, asked a few questions and reverted the score to four hearts making. Now I am willing to be educated in these matters and I know pairs should know their system, but the law can only go so far to protect the opponents from their own stupidity. Did East have a penalty double of three spades against a double fit? The director informed them they should have summoned him earlier and would have sent one of us away so the other could explain. He seemed somewhat crestfallen to discover this had been declined. This never came to appeal, I said I wouldn't bother before I discovered we had a maximum win. Still it has to go down as our only real bidding misunderstanding.

We were way out of qualifying and could afford a lie in next morning. Mike and Stuart qualified for the top eight and would have won their bets even giving us 35VP.

Two hands from the late rounds I have to exhibit (though I much rather wouldn't). The first is a lead problem;

• 873
• 732
• A109
• Q832

There wasn't much to think about but I was fortunate to remember we played lowest - not middle - of partner's unsupported suit. So I fished out a low spade. Had the extra weight of memory caused this mechanical error, to forget what trumps were? In the same way Debby had passed the artificial game invitation in an earlier round? This is one of the disadvantages regularly cited against complicated systems, but here it wasn't that difficult was it? Nevertheless unfamiliarity will always stress you and you have to be aware that it will happen. Final horror:

We defended 3♥ and Debby, South, led a trump. Declarer ran this to the queen and then drew two more rounds to play a spade to the knave and ace. I willed her to play a diamond from some decent holding but she played ace and another club. Declarer crossed to the diamond Ace (second mistake) and led the spade six (best play so far) to the nine and my ten. And now I played a… Club. Once again I had given up a defence when I thought my partner had made an error. Now I don't think anyone is going to feel very sorry for me, but I have to say there will always be a weight of trying to look after the partnership that falls to the senior player. Hmm, don't buy that? What do you think partner? {}

Conclusions

Let's not forget why we went and what we play for (well most of the time). The work we put in to playing at Brighton made it more enjoyable. We were on solid ground almost all of the time and we avoided foolish misunderstandings. We were never ashamed bring our card back to our team-mates, though we often wanted them to be better. The 'deep system' - the one no-trump sequences - were as expected rare, and we got them all right, which helped. All our 'generic' agreements were worth their weight in gold. My partner refused to be pushed around and the most aggressive actions, the five card weak twos and featherweight take-out doubles all came from her side of the table. That must have come from confidence. {} We sat on the quiet side of the action, for example we only had one slam and that was 6NT on power but we never let a game through that couldn't have been made, though as you have seen, we didn't take all our chances and we didn't make life tough for declarer all the time. Whether the long term benefits of my subterfuges will mature we can only wait and see but Brighton was good fun.

Absolute Doubles - the Scanian Way, Mats Nilsand, Swedish Expert Methods Volume 4, Scania Bridgeknsult, ISBN 91-87416-18-2