Bridge: Response showing strong support for an opening bid

[jack]

With Liv, and many other good-but-not-experienced players, I advocate a simple quantitative response system to opening bids when you have a fit. That is, if partner opens 1S and you have a fit, your responses are 2S (with a minimum hand), 3S (with an intermediate hand) or 4S (with an opening hand).

With casual partners I think it's important to have a system which is (a) simple and (b) captures the most important information. With Liv, I think we've reached the point where we can recognise when we have a fit (or NT) and have the strength for game, and fairly reliably bid game when we have it and not when we don't. And we can usually recognise when we have the potential for slam and bid it reliably some of the time. And I'm really pleased by that and I think that's the most important thing!

I would rather have a system that did that, than a more complicated system that gave benefits we couldn't easily take advantage of. I'm a big believer that the point to add a bid to your system is when you both instinctively understand the need for the bid.

However, that does leave a hole in our system in one of the simplest places. Which is if both hands are STRONGER than an opening hand say (16+ points or 6 losers), we likely have the strength for slam. Is there any way of communicating that in the bidding?

The basic problem is that the responding hand doesn't want to go straight from 1S to 5S (because 5S might not make). And if they bid 2S, 3S or 4S, opener might pass. What they actually need is a response that says "I have support for your opening bid, but I may have more to say as well"

The normal bid for this situation is Jacoby 2NT, where "1H-2NT" (or the same with S) says "I have a four cards in your suit and an intermediate-or-better hand". And opener then has to bid again. For us, opener would be forced to respond 3H (with a minimum opener) or can respond 4H (if they opened with 6 losers or 16+ points). And then responder knows opener's strength without going beyond game, and can choose whether to go to slam. (If you have more complicated bids available showing other suits, etc, you can use them after 2NT, but we would stick to simple raises.)

In fact, I think Jacoby 2NT is simpler and more useful than blackwood. I wouldn't bother to teach beginners to use blackwood except that everyone already knows it. I think having blackwood gives a false sense of security. I think people should learn when they have the strength for six level first, and only worry about missing an ace when they're already confident about that. But blackwood does the reverse -- it teaches people to bid blackwood when they're not sure if they have the strength for six, when it doesn't actually help with that.

Whereas I think many beginners have experienced "oops, I want to bid but I don't want partner to pass", and understand the need for a conventional artificial bid to say that. And many alternative solutions obscure the problem by saying "well, if you have a second suit, you can bid that for a bit", which are more useful in many cases, but to me obscure the essential message that "when you have a fit, you don't want to mess around, you want to get into that suit". I like a bid which covers any hand for "we have a fit and I have extra strength", rather than saying "here's a bid which shows 'we have a fit' and 'i have extra strength' AND something else, but sometimes you have to lie about the something else."

However, this has led to me suggesting Jacoby 2N as almost the first convention to teach someone. I like it because (a) I think the explanation of why it's useful is comprehensible to player whether or not they have a lot of experience (b) you can use it later to explain lots of other bids that show a fit, and intermediate-or-better hand, and something else: "a splinter is like jacoby 2NT but shows an opening hand and a singleton", "a jump fit is like a jacoby 2NT but shows a second suit", etc and (c) I don't like any of the alternatives (strong jump shift only works if you have another suit, splinter only works if you have a singleton and may or may not show extra strength, etc)

But it isn't very usual advice, most other casual players will not know jacoby 2nt, and many players will play one of the alternatives, so I'm not sure if it's a mistake to depart from what "everyone else" does.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[gerald_duck]

I thought it was almost universally agreed that Stayman was the first convention?

Having a rich vocabulary of raises over 1H or 1S is very useful. Matt has persuaded me that, after 1H, any of 2H, 2S, 2NT, 3C, 3D, 3H, 3S, 3NT, 4C, 4D, 4H, 4NT, 5H, 6H, 7H supports the heart suit, variously giving supplementary information, asking supplementary questions, signing off or pre-empting. I was skeptical of the complexity at first, but now I really miss those bids when playing without them. Indeed, we should probably play 5C/5D/5S as Exclusion RKCB for good measure…

Many people would think Matt and I have gone too far. Absent a scheme like that, I'd agree Jacoby 2NT is worth including. I'd disagree that it was more useful than Blackwood, though. As well as Blackwood and Stayman, I'd also put two-suited transfers ahead of it in usefulness, but it's certainly right up there with the big boys in terms of useful conventions!

[jack]

I'd also put two-suited transfers ahead of it in usefulness

Oops, I forgot to mention stayman and transfers because they're so universal, I usually teach them at the same time, and very soon. I'd agree they're more vital than any other artificial conventions, if only because anyone you play with *expects* you to play them.

I'm not sure why, if you're playing a weak NT, transfers are superior to non-transfers, even though everyone plays them.

But I do think it's vital, especially for beginners, that the responses to 1NT are agreed (specifically, what's invitational, what's forcing, what's to pass). I would almost prefer to teach that any response to 1NT is to play, and have beginners either bid a 2-level contract to play, or 3NT+ to play. And only introduce invitational raises and major-fit-seeking later. That conveys the most important point that responder should know almost everything about the final contract already, and not make a bid with the intention of saying "OK, I have some points and this suit, what do you think?" like in suit contracts. I think I would put that agreement as a specific semi-artificial teaching point as more important than any other conventions, whether it has transfers or not.

The main reason I teach transfers is that everyone I know plays them, so it's confusing if someone *doesn't*.

I'd disagree that it was more useful than Blackwood, though.

I think the problem with blackwood is that (a) people use it when what they really want to say is "do you have extra strength, partner?" and then end propelled to slam whether it's a good idea or not and (b) most of the time "guess how many aces partner has for their point count" gives the right answer, so blackwood doesn't gain (c) it trains people to resort immediately to blackwood and not practice guess what the best contract *probably* is (d) it uses up a lot of mental effort remembering the responses.

If I play with a pick-up partner at a club, I'd expect a couple of slams in an evening, and most probably, they're simple slams where blackwood doesn't help. Blackwood only really helps if you have 32 points or 12 losers, but are missing two aces.

It's definitely useful in a regular partnership, but for a pick-up partner or a beginner, I'd much rather the time spent explaining blackwood was spent agreeing how to bid in competition, or something else which comes up on many more hands. However, it's quicker to agree to play blackwood to avoid misunderstandings :)

If beginners were not taught blackwood, I think they would be find until they start trying to bid slams missing aces, and then I think they might be ready to be taught control-showing cue-bids immediately (which in some ways are easier to remember than blackwood). The advantage of blackwood for beginners is you never have to say "have we agreed a suit yet?" But once people know when they're agreed a suit, they should understand "a follow-up bid in a new suit is an artificial bid". For instance -- after 1S-2NT.

after 1H, any of 2H, 2S, 2NT, 3C, 3D, 3H, 3S, 3NT, 4C, 4D, 4H, 4NT, 5H, 6H, 7H supports the heart suit,

I know that sounds complicated, but I honestly think most experienced players would play something similar, even if they didn't list the bids out like that :)

Almost everyone plays 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H, 6H, 7H and 4NT as supporting hearts. And most experienced players assign SOME meaning to "jump shift" and "double jump shift". I think most experienced players play splinters. And jump-fit is fairly common (probably better than weak jump shift, which is better than strong-jump-shift, but people often play what they're use

So most of those bids, most experienced players would play nearly the same, with the exception of "is a single jump WJS, SJS or fit-showing" and "is 4C/4D splinter or another slam-seeking convention".

All of those bids are useful, and I would assume a pick-up experienced player was playing something broadly similar (but I would avoid those bids unless I absolutely had to if I thought they might misunderstand).

However, I think it's important to distinguish between this bid is REALLY useful, and this bid is OCCASIONALLY useful. A fit-showing jump is useful to let opener re-evaluate their hand and decide if game or slam is more likely knowing you have a double fit or whether they have no wasted values or shortage opposite your length. But most beginners and some club players don't know how to do that, so they don't really get any benefit from a fit-showing jump more than a simple constructive raise. I'd say the simple constructive raises give 90% of the benefit, and the other support-showing bids are genuinely useful, but only once you've a firm grasp on the basic constructive bids.

[jack]

Although, come to think of it, there's a significant advantage in saying "any jump response shows a fit, any new suit is bid at the lowest level and is forcing" because it's simple to remember that "if you're not sure what it means, you can safely assume you can return to the original suit as a minimum response".

[gerald_duck]

Inconveniently, the arguments are different when you have a major from when you have a minor. That's why Matt and I play substantially different meanings for responses to 1 of a minor. (-8

[jack]

True, I meant primarily "responses to 1M". But even that is still helpful, either because (with a beginner or a new partnership) you forgo the responses over 1m and don't play any jumps or use the same meaning as over 1M, or because you say "all jump responses to 1M show fit", and discuss jump responses to 1m separately.

OOI, what are your jump responses to 1m? I assume inverted minors for 2m and 3m, what are the other bids?

[gerald_duck]

Yes, inverted minor raises — not least because we could be as short as two when we open 1m.

The bids we use (and Matt takes the credit for most of these) are:

• 1NT = insufficient points/shape to show a suit at the two level
  
• New suit at cheapest level is entirely straightforward
  
• 2NT is the weakest possible raise, with 3m as a limit raise, 2m as a better raise
  
• Weak jump shifts are pre-emptive
  
• Above that, splinters

The emphasis is definitely on finding a major fit or no-trump contract rather than continuing in the minor, if at all possible.

[gerald_duck]

An important note: a lot of the time, bids are for having not for using.

If you open 1H and I respond 2H, in a sophisticated system that means something far more precise than it does in a simple system, because it denies any of the hands that would have made one of the other bids instead.

Blackwood implicitly says "there's a good chance partnership has combined strength sufficient for the five level" and yes, people often forget that. Whereas combined HCP is important in defence and NT, and losing trick count plus a fit is relatively important in a suit contract at or below game, as one approaches slam what matters is first- and second-round controls in every suit so your contract isn't set on the lead. Blackwood recognises that. There are more sophisticated techniques such as Exclusion Blackwood, splinters, cue bids, etc. but it doesn't mean Blackwood is anything approaching useless.

[jack]

Blackwood implicitly says "there's a good chance partnership has combined strength sufficient for the five level" and yes, people often forget that.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think to be in slam, you need a minimum level of strength (high card points or loser count), about 32+ pts or 12 losers, or maybe 29+ pts or 13 losers with two hands which fit absolutely perfectly together. After that point, I agree more points or fewer losers don't help, you need controls. But I think the most important thing is to have that minimum level of strength, and the second most important thing is to have enough controls.

If I don't know anything else about the hand, I would rather be in a slam with 12 losers and chance partner having the expected number of aces than be in a slam with 13 losers and four aces and hope partner has some extra tricks s/he hasn't shown. That's important for beginners (because they need to know when to TRY to bid slam) and also for experts (because if the opponents interfere, you may not get multiple bids and have to guess which information is most important).

If partner opens 1H, I know many people, beginners and somewhat experienced players, who find it way too easy to say "I have 16 pts / 6 losers so the 5 level is safe", bid blackwood and then... what? They don't have any way of finding out if the SIXTH level is safe, even if they have the aces.

Even more experienced pairs can do this -- bid fourth suit forcing, make several cue bids, think they have enough for slam, go beyond game, but then discover they have enough controls for slam, but extra strength/source of tricks. This is why Serious 3NT exists. But I think it's an example of partners trying too hard, knowing lots of conventional cue bids, but not knowing the basics of judging "should we be in slam or not".

If I had to choose, I would want to find out MOST importantly, whether partner has extra tricks (or a perfect fit), and only SECOND most importantly, do they have enough aces.

So, I would teach beginners to know when they have enough strength for slam, skip blackwood entirely, and then teach them cue bids when they're confident enough to know when they've already agreed a fit. I think blackwood is always taught early on because it's easy to teach in principle (basically "memorise this"), and you can see the use for it. But I think it obscures the problem, it's a crutch that (as Matt said may be useful) tricks inexperienced pairs into bidding slam more often, without actually teaching them when they SHOULD bid slam.

Likewise, with a pick-up partner, I'd much rather have no blackwood and more time to establish general principles like "when to support in competition with a weak hand or a seven card fit" and "when a double in a competitive auction stops being takeout and starts being penalties" because it tells us generally about each others' style, in addition to those specific bids. (But I always agree blackwood because NOT doing so is more confusing.) I agree in an established partnership, blackwood is a very useful addition, but if I have a limited time to agree conventions, I'd rather talk about low level bids, cue bids, bids in competition, etc.

But you seem to be saying the reverse -- you'd rather find out about controls than find out about supra-minimum strength. Is that right?