“It is the oddness and the evenness of the spots that really count,” he said, as they stood near the edge of the bluff overlooking the harbor.
“That doesn’t answer my question!” said Pontus, clearly frustrated. “I asked you if you prefer attitude or count signals.”
“Why must you always try to paint this grand scene with only two colors?” He huffed. His arm swept the beach, the boats, and the bay. It lingered for a moment where the sea touched the sky, and then fell, relaxed, to his side. “You seek knowledge, you say. I think you seek merely answers.”
In a moment, he started to speak again, but caught himself on the inhale. He ran his wrinkled hands through his soft flowing silver hair, and closed his eyes. He was obviously in thought about something. Pontus was his most promising student, but getting him to delve into his own mind was always a trial. Now rubbing the back of his neck, he finally chose to speak again:
“In truth, Pontus, the more answers you discover the more complex your world will become and the more questions you will be saddled with.” His eyes gazed expectantly at Pontus, hoping to see a glimmer of insight. There was none, so he continued: “Can you sense your quest has no end? That it will never fit into that nice little box you have designed for it, and there is no amount of ribbon that can tie it up?”
It was pretty clear that Socrates had made a point that registered in the brain of Pontus, and it was pretty clear Pontus was having difficulty understanding just what that point was. For Pontus had his head bent down and was rolling a small pebble around with the sole of his sandal, his lips appeared to move but no sound was coming out. He was obviously humbled by the words spoken from a man he admired, yet without the courage or conviction or direction of how to reply.
Pontus thought back to the initial response Socrates had uttered, and he realized he had not given even a moments thought before he expressed his displeasure at that odd answer. Was it odd that Socrates had used the word count in his answer? Was it clever, even?
In a flash of insight several events snowballed. Pontus had a gleam in his eye as he raised his head to look at Socrates. Socrates, in turn, produced a broad and splendid smile and placed a fatherly hand on the shoulder of his star pupil. Pontus grinned, somewhat sheepishly, somewhat embarrassed.
“I have just now realized what you have been trying to tell me,” Pontus proudly exclaimed.
“I know. I can see it in your eyes, my good friend. Please share with me what you think I meant,” and he guided his pupil to a near by bench.
“Well, I think you are saying we must play both count and attitude and that somehow we can do that by coding oddness and evenness in the little spot cards.”
“The messengers, you mean.” Socrates injected.
“Messengers?” inquired Pontus, pausing to consider the word and the potential implications of giving personality to the spot cards.
“Let us create a loose but very useful analogy. The play of the hand is very much like war between two opposing armies.” Now, Socrates paused to allow Pontus to take the lead.
“Yes, the combat soldiers that go hand-to-hand with the enemy are the honor cards and the remainder are the “messengers,” as you call them. Success on the battlefield does require good communication.”
“Not just good communication, Pontus. It requires full and complete communication from every member of the messenger force. Every card is an asset and each must be used to the fullest extent possible. A great General will never waste an opportunity to communicate the status of the battle to the troops , right?”
“So, what I hear you saying is that every spot card should be carrying a message to partner.”
“Exactly, and this dialogue becomes enhanced the bigger the vocabulary of the messengers.”
“Vocabulary? Whoa, where did that come from?” said Pontus, somewhat taken aback.
“A good partnership must use all available methods to communicate with each other. Sometimes they must give attitude, sometimes count, sometimes suit preference, sometimes they need to know if the opening lead was on the right track, sometimes they must convey there is a ruff to be taken. This variety of information must be communicated via a limited number of messengers, the spot cards as you call them.” Socrates paused with purpose to let Pontus digest the breadth of this response, and then he continued. “Sometimes the defense must send deceptive messages designed to trap or mislead the opposition, too.”
“ I think I see what you are talking about, Socrates.” Pontus contributed his newly formed insight. “The more closely we look at the communication necessary between two partners in combat the more complicated the whole business becomes. Signaling is no substitute for thinking. Making hard and fast rules only handcuff the players and reduce their ability to express what needs expressing.”
“And what good is a message if it arrives too late.” Socrates continued. “Timing is critical. Partners must receive the necessary information before it is time to act. Often, therefore, a good partner must anticipate his partner’s questions and answer them before they are asked.”
“So, we need to have a messenger system that prioritizes the information we need to communicate to partner,” Pontus rightly concluded.
“Exactly!” Socrates triumphantly exclaimed, while slapping the back of Pontus. “Now let me share with you what I believe is an underutilized opportunity in this messenger system, but first I will tell you that I believe partner’s first priority should be to give count with his messenger card, unless, for some reason, there is another pressing priority. Count greatly contributes to completing the picture of the distribution of the opponents cards when compared with the auction. When you know declarers distribution you know the extent of the trick taking potential of the hand.”
The two of them sat contented on that marble bench for a few moments, experiencing the mild on-shore breeze that carried with it the sounds of the gulls squawking as they circled over the fishermen cleaning today’s catch. The fishermen would toss the scraps into the air, and seldom would they ever make a return trip. Socrates was constantly reminded that nothing goes to waste in the natural world.
“Conventional count signals have remained unchanged as long as I can remember,” he started his narration. “We play up-the-line to show an odd number of cards in the suit, and we echo, or peter, to show an even number in the suit. Many times, given the messenger cards we were dealt, we must complete the message on the second round of the suit, before it becomes clear to our partner.
“Yes, when I am dealt the 789 in a side suit, the play of the 7 can be easily misunderstood on the first round of the suit, especially when declarer is astute enough to false card, and conceal his lowest spot card.” replied Pontus.
“Those barbarians we call the Romans have hit upon a concept that triggered a flow of insight in my brain. They devised a method whereby the discard of an odd spot card would encourage partner to lead this suit, and the discard of an even card would not only discourage the lead of the suit but would be a suit preference card for the remaining suits.”
“Yes, the ‘Roman discards’. I have found them to be a very effective signaling device.” continued Pontus.
“ They have utilized the evenness and the oddness of the messenger cards in a way that can actually convey two messages with the play of one card. The discard of a small even card not only discourages the suit played but shows partner the suit wherein assets lie. In my example, the lower ranking suit since the even card was a small one.”
“Very economical, two messages, one messenger,”
“One day I was sitting very near where we are now, and I said to myself what if we play an even spot when we have an even number and an odd spot when we have an odd number. So we can play the 8 or the 6 or the 4 or the 2 when we have an even number in the suit. Or, we can play the 9 or the 7 or the 5 or the 3 when we have an odd number of cards in the suit.
“So, by doing this your partner gets a complete count message with the play of one card, and it cannot be confused by declarers potential false card.” gleaned Pontus. Then, after a moments pause, he continued. “What do you do when you weren’t dealt the right cards? For instance, suppose you are dealt the 864 or the 75. How would you send the right message?”
“Very astute observation, Pontus,” was the old man’s immediate reply. “This potential problem forced me to realize that there are times when the count cannot be confirmed with the play of one card. My solution was to echo, or peter, to send an opposite message, when we don’t have a right card to play. So, an echo of two even cards would show an odd number in the suit, and an echo of two odd cards would show an even number. In the 864 example you gave me, I would play either the 6 followed by the 4, the 8 followed by the 6, or I could play the 8 followed by the 4. All are echoes of even spots so they would show an odd number of cards in the suit. In the second example, I would play the 7 followed by the 5. An echo of two odd cards would show an even count.
“So, what I hear you saying is that an echo of an even card followed by an odd card, like an 8 followed by a 5, is not really an echo?” added Pontus.
“Correct. Likewise the play of the 7 followed by the 6 would still be showing an odd number, and no longer be considered an echo in the classical sense.”
“Have you put this idea into practice?”
“Yes, with clear and measurable benefits.” was his immediate reply. Then he paused, visibly upset. “But our governing body has determined that this type of carding should not be permitted in tournament play. And, as hard as I have tried to understand their ruling, I just cannot grasp their logic.”
“Really? It is extremely hard for me to imagine there is any form of logic that you cannot grasp, Socrates.”
Socrates’ face reddened, noticeably embarrassed. “Enough of this. Let me tell about all of these clear and measurable benefits. The messengers take on character, a form of identity. Let me list these traits for you:
Messenger 2: He is always even, unless he is a singleton
Messenger 3: He is always odd
Messenger 4: He is always even, unless he is a singleton
Messenger 5: He is always odd, unless he is in the 5-3 doubleton
Messenger 6: He is always even, unless singleton, or part of the 642
Messenger 7: He is always odd, unless part of 7-5 or 7-3 doubleton
Messenger 8: He is always even, unless part of the 864, 862, 842
Messenger 9: He is a troublesome soul. He is the best messenger for these odd holdings:
986, 984, 982, 942, 964. He is also the even messenger from these holdings:
97, 95, 93,
“As you can see, Pontus, there is a lot of clearly defined identity in these count messengers. Messenger 9’s message can usually be ascertained by looking at the spots in dummy and your hand. Another inference that has good value, is this: The smaller the messenger the more accurate the message.”
“You know, when you lay it out like this, there is not nearly the potential confusion that I thought there would be,” acknowledged Pontus.
“Once we have established an accurate count card for partner, we are free to convey our next message on the second round of that suit. Let me present a frequent type of holding as an example of what we might be able to do. Say we have a nondescript 8752, and partner leads the Q. With our methods the 2 is the obvious right card, showing an even number. On the next round of the suit we have a happy choice of either of 3 cards. When you have options you have additional opportunities.”
“Wouldn’t the standard carders have the same options, in your example, if they play the 8 on the first round, then they could complete the echo with either the 7 or the 5 or the 2?” Pontus postulated.
“You are correct in theory, Pontus.” replied the elder statesman. “But my experience indicates players following with this holding echo routinely with the second smallest card followed by the smallest. I think they are afraid the play of the 8 or the 7 would be either encouraging or looking more like a doubleton.”
“What do you think about players who utilize the reverse count and upside-down attitude signals.” Pontus queried.
Socrates heard the question but made no attempt to answer it or even acknowledge the fact that he had heard it. Instead, his eyes unfocused and his gaze returned to the horizon.
The two sat in silence, Pontus waiting for a reply and Socrates contemplating both the radiant glow of the setting sun reflecting on the calm waters and his answer.
“I think these methods are an improvement over the traditional.” he opined. “If for no other reason than partnerships have thought out how their messenger cards might be more expressive in certain situations, and therefore, create a message with less ambiguity. But it is how the methods are used that is far more important that what methods are used.
EN PASSANT
I have a close friend, Alan Dankman, from Sacramento, California. In the late 70’s he lived on a Kibbutz in Israel. He attended the University of Tel Aviv studying nuclear engineering and had a small candle business on the side. He is a bridge player and used to occasionally kibitzed at the local bridge club. Sam Lev played there at this time. Alan learned of this form of carding from Sam, though when he shared it with me the “echo of like cards” to show the opposite was not included.
I liked the idea. When I lived in Santa Barbara, California I developed a fine partnership with Will Beall. He and I worked out how best to card when you had the wrong spots. We played REO (real even-odd) for many years and found it very useful. I still do, and encourage you to give it more than a passing glance.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Next "Next Step?"
There are several hand types that are difficult for responder to describe when holding the spade suit and hearing partner open the bidding with 1♥. Many of these are accommodated by playing the Flannery convention, but many are not.
If you don’t play Flannery at this time, but are open minded about the possible benefits it could provide, consider that when you play Flannery you can also utilize the method written here.
When a partnership has agreed to play Flannery within a 2/1 system, they should agree to play a modified version of the Kaplan Inversion as well. The 1♠ response to the1♥ opener is artificial. The 1NT response to the heart opening should show a very specific hand with 5 spades and less than invitational values without heart support.
The 1♠ response should not be alerted as a forcing NT though, because that explanation would be misleading. My preference for the alert description is: “1♠ is an asking bid, requesting opener to make his natural rebid. It denies holding 5 spades and a weak hand (less than invitational values), and it denies the ability to make a game forcing 2/1 response in a minor, and it denies any type of Bergen raise for the heart suit.”
You might add to the explanation that it doesn’t deny holding 5 or more spades and invitational or game forcing values.
Opener will rebid 1NT on all 5332 hands. Opener will rebid the minor suit on all 5431 hands. If opener is 5422 and the 4 card minor is very weak he is permitted to rebid 1NT, otherwise he should rebid the minor. A 2♥ rebid will show a 6 card suit, and the 2♠ rebid is the legit ♥/♠ reverse.
Responder’s rebid after 1♥-1♠*-2m should be obvious. He can pass any minor rebid with 4 card support and weakness, or raise with invitational values. Lacking support for the minor rebid, he will preference hearts when weak, holding a doubleton. A good 6 card minor can be introduced at the 2 or 3 level. The 2NT rebid is a balanced game try.
Responder’s rebid after 1♥-1♠*-1NT are equally self-evident. He will pass with a balanced minimum or raise to 2NT with invitational values. He can bid 2♣ or 2♦ with a good 5 card suit, non-forcing or he can rebid 2♥ which should probably show a very bad hand with 3 hearts.
The value of this approach, so far, is the ease of finding the 4-4 minor fit, and the ability to stop at 1NT when no 8 card fit exists with good suit quality.
When responder holds 5+ spades and the values to invite game or more he will be rebidding 2♠ after 1♥-1♠*-1NT or 1♥-1♠*-2♥/2m. Responder’s rebid of 2♠ is forcing and shows spades!
(I put this auction in the prior entry: 1NT-2♦*-2♥-3♦ and made a comment that was so obvious to the reader that s/he may have said to themselves: “daaa, give me a break!” The reason I did this was to remind the reader how commonplace it is to bid a suit initially artificial (as a transfer) and then bid it later naturally. It is the same for the Kokish relay: Opener rebids 2♥ over 2♦ as an artificial relay request, and then rebids 3♥ later to show the suit.)
After 1♥-1♠*-1NT/2m/2♥-2♠, opener will rebid 2NT lacking 3 card support for spades and a minimum hand. This is non-forcing and may end the auction. Opener will raise spades with 3 card support and a minimum. If opener is weak and 5-5 he will rebid his minor. Opener is expected to jump to game in the appropriate strain when accepting the invite. Jumping to 3NT will promise 2 spades. If opener has the values for game but lacks 2 or 3 card support for spades he will make a 4th suit bid or bid a minor fragment containing a NT stopper and bid 3NT later.
If the reader wants to know what hands holding spades give responder (or the partnership) problems in standard 2/1 methods, consider:
1.) KT9xx, Qx, xxx, QTx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
Do you preference hearts or do you rebid spades?
2.) KT9xx, Qx, xx, AQx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
Do you invite game by rebidding 2NT?
3.) KT9xx, x, xx, Axxxx 1♥-1♠-1NT-?
Do you rebid 2♣?
4.) AQTxxx, Qx, Kxx, xx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
Accepted practice is to rebid 3♠ here, nf. Do you like this bid?
5.) AKJTxx, x, AKx, Qxx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
If a 3♠ rebid shows hand #4, what will you rebid here? 4th suit?
If you bid the 4th suit, what will you do when partner bids 3NT?
There are many such examples where the 8 card spade fit goes undiscovered or where the partnership ends up in a spade contract with a 6-1 or even 6-0 spade fit.
If a partnership plays Flannery and has made the 1♠ response to 1♥ as promising a 5 card suit they have eliminated many of these problems. But now responder must bid 1NT forcing on many more hands than the standard bidders do. They have a very difficult time settling into a 4-4 minor suit contract, and have no option to play a final contract of 1NT.
By adding this form of modified Kaplan Inversion to the Flannery structure all of these ambiguities are clarified. Using 1♠ as an initial asking bid over 1♥ sets the stage for describing a wide variety of hands actually holding spades (very much like the Kokish relay becomes a “stepping stone” to a variety of different hand types).
1♥-1NT-2♠ probably ends the auction, 3 card spade raise
1♥-1NT-3♠ ♥/♠ reverse, asking responder to bid game on top
1♥-1NT-4♠ ♥/♠ reverse wanting to be in game opposite minimum
1♥-1NT-2 grapes-2♠ weak six card suit (my idea)
1♥-1♠-2 grapes-2♠ invitational to game or more, forcing to 2NT
1♥-1♠-2 grapes-3♠ semi-solid 6+, slam zone
1♥-2♠ 12 to 15 (my idea) 6+ spades
1♥-1♠-2 grapes-2♠-2NT-3♠ 6+ spades invitational
If you don’t play Flannery at this time, but are open minded about the possible benefits it could provide, consider that when you play Flannery you can also utilize the method written here.
When a partnership has agreed to play Flannery within a 2/1 system, they should agree to play a modified version of the Kaplan Inversion as well. The 1♠ response to the1♥ opener is artificial. The 1NT response to the heart opening should show a very specific hand with 5 spades and less than invitational values without heart support.
The 1♠ response should not be alerted as a forcing NT though, because that explanation would be misleading. My preference for the alert description is: “1♠ is an asking bid, requesting opener to make his natural rebid. It denies holding 5 spades and a weak hand (less than invitational values), and it denies the ability to make a game forcing 2/1 response in a minor, and it denies any type of Bergen raise for the heart suit.”
You might add to the explanation that it doesn’t deny holding 5 or more spades and invitational or game forcing values.
Opener will rebid 1NT on all 5332 hands. Opener will rebid the minor suit on all 5431 hands. If opener is 5422 and the 4 card minor is very weak he is permitted to rebid 1NT, otherwise he should rebid the minor. A 2♥ rebid will show a 6 card suit, and the 2♠ rebid is the legit ♥/♠ reverse.
Responder’s rebid after 1♥-1♠*-2m should be obvious. He can pass any minor rebid with 4 card support and weakness, or raise with invitational values. Lacking support for the minor rebid, he will preference hearts when weak, holding a doubleton. A good 6 card minor can be introduced at the 2 or 3 level. The 2NT rebid is a balanced game try.
Responder’s rebid after 1♥-1♠*-1NT are equally self-evident. He will pass with a balanced minimum or raise to 2NT with invitational values. He can bid 2♣ or 2♦ with a good 5 card suit, non-forcing or he can rebid 2♥ which should probably show a very bad hand with 3 hearts.
The value of this approach, so far, is the ease of finding the 4-4 minor fit, and the ability to stop at 1NT when no 8 card fit exists with good suit quality.
When responder holds 5+ spades and the values to invite game or more he will be rebidding 2♠ after 1♥-1♠*-1NT or 1♥-1♠*-2♥/2m. Responder’s rebid of 2♠ is forcing and shows spades!
(I put this auction in the prior entry: 1NT-2♦*-2♥-3♦ and made a comment that was so obvious to the reader that s/he may have said to themselves: “daaa, give me a break!” The reason I did this was to remind the reader how commonplace it is to bid a suit initially artificial (as a transfer) and then bid it later naturally. It is the same for the Kokish relay: Opener rebids 2♥ over 2♦ as an artificial relay request, and then rebids 3♥ later to show the suit.)
After 1♥-1♠*-1NT/2m/2♥-2♠, opener will rebid 2NT lacking 3 card support for spades and a minimum hand. This is non-forcing and may end the auction. Opener will raise spades with 3 card support and a minimum. If opener is weak and 5-5 he will rebid his minor. Opener is expected to jump to game in the appropriate strain when accepting the invite. Jumping to 3NT will promise 2 spades. If opener has the values for game but lacks 2 or 3 card support for spades he will make a 4th suit bid or bid a minor fragment containing a NT stopper and bid 3NT later.
If the reader wants to know what hands holding spades give responder (or the partnership) problems in standard 2/1 methods, consider:
1.) KT9xx, Qx, xxx, QTx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
Do you preference hearts or do you rebid spades?
2.) KT9xx, Qx, xx, AQx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
Do you invite game by rebidding 2NT?
3.) KT9xx, x, xx, Axxxx 1♥-1♠-1NT-?
Do you rebid 2♣?
4.) AQTxxx, Qx, Kxx, xx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
Accepted practice is to rebid 3♠ here, nf. Do you like this bid?
5.) AKJTxx, x, AKx, Qxx 1♥-1♠-2♣-?
If a 3♠ rebid shows hand #4, what will you rebid here? 4th suit?
If you bid the 4th suit, what will you do when partner bids 3NT?
There are many such examples where the 8 card spade fit goes undiscovered or where the partnership ends up in a spade contract with a 6-1 or even 6-0 spade fit.
If a partnership plays Flannery and has made the 1♠ response to 1♥ as promising a 5 card suit they have eliminated many of these problems. But now responder must bid 1NT forcing on many more hands than the standard bidders do. They have a very difficult time settling into a 4-4 minor suit contract, and have no option to play a final contract of 1NT.
By adding this form of modified Kaplan Inversion to the Flannery structure all of these ambiguities are clarified. Using 1♠ as an initial asking bid over 1♥ sets the stage for describing a wide variety of hands actually holding spades (very much like the Kokish relay becomes a “stepping stone” to a variety of different hand types).
1♥-1NT-2♠ probably ends the auction, 3 card spade raise
1♥-1NT-3♠ ♥/♠ reverse, asking responder to bid game on top
1♥-1NT-4♠ ♥/♠ reverse wanting to be in game opposite minimum
1♥-1NT-2 grapes-2♠ weak six card suit (my idea)
1♥-1♠-2 grapes-2♠ invitational to game or more, forcing to 2NT
1♥-1♠-2 grapes-3♠ semi-solid 6+, slam zone
1♥-2♠ 12 to 15 (my idea) 6+ spades
1♥-1♠-2 grapes-2♠-2NT-3♠ 6+ spades invitational
Monday, January 16, 2012
The Next Step
After a bid has been made, “the-next-step” (TNS) is considered the minimum bid available to bidder’s partner. TNS has value as an artificial bid in many situations.
The oldest example, and one we may fail to recognize, is Stayman. The 2♣ response to the opening bid of 1NT is TNS. The negative response to Stayman is 2♦, also TNS. The negative or waiting response to the artificial 2♣ opener is 2♦, TNS.
TNS is artificial for all strong club opening bids, and TNS is utilized in many relay sequences within that structure.
TNS is utilized in the modern two-way NMF (or, xyNT) as a way to differentiate invitational hands from game forcing hands.
TNS is employed after an RKC response as an asking bid for the Queen of trump.
Another modern method utilizes transfer bids by responder after a 1♣ opening bid. In this approach TNS becomes a transfer to hearts.
In all of these TNS examples, the suit bid is completely artificial. In other TNS situations, the bidder may or may not have length in the suit bid. The earliest example of this may be the Walsh 1♦ response to the 1♣ opener. Since the Walsh 1NT response to the 1♣ opener had an 8 to 10 point range, responder was stuck for a bid when 3334 and 6 to 7 points, so TNS here showed at least three diamonds, but not a suit, per se.
Another “may or may not have” TNS bid was devised by Erik Kokish as a way to show either of two ranges for strong NT hands. After 2♣, 2♦ (TNS), 2♥* (TNS) became an artificial relay bid. Responder must complete the relay by bidding 2♠ (TNS). Opener would then clarify his holding by rebidding 2NT to say he really didn’t have hearts but a very strong NT hand (24 or 25 pts+) or he will rebid 3♥ to state that he does, in fact, actually have a strong hand with the heart suit.
It almost seems right to call the Kokish usage of TNS over the 2♦ response as a form of “stepping stone.” It can show a NT hand, a heart hand, a club/heart two suiter, or a diamond/heart two suiter. It is even possible for the opener to raise the relay bid of 2♠ to 3♠ as a relay to 3NT for some monstrous minor suit hand.
Take the auction: 1S p 1NT* p, this is a form of TNS in action. Responder is, essentially, saying: “I don’t have another bid that fits with our agreements. I will make this “temporizing” bid that will enable you to make your planned rebid and I will let you know what type of hand I have at my next opportunity to bid.” Responder is in no way suggesting, at this point in the auction, the possibility of a NT final contract. I think most would agree the 1NT response to a major opening is more artificial than natural these days. It may end up being the final contract, but that will be by default when neither partner has the values or the distribution to bid again.
Two recent articles by Ken Rexford and Bob Heitzman at Bridgewinners.com have further developed TNS ideas. Bob has taken the Walsh (ambiguous) 1♦ response to the 1♣ opening bid and melded it with a Kokish-like “Stepping stone” to create a new and very dynamic TNS convention over the 1♣ opener he calls “The Utility One Diamond Response.” Ken has brought back the concept attributed to Edgar Kaplan called “The Kaplan Interchange” or “Kaplan Inversion.” In Ken’s article the interchange takes place (not after 1♥ has been opened, as Edgar proposed it) after a minor suit is opened and responder bids 1♥. By inverting the 1♠ and 1NT rebids by opener several good things can happen. I encourage the reader to look over both of these fine ideas!
The purpose of this entry was to summarize the varied common usages for TNS agreements and/or conventions. Many TNS bids are totally artificial, and many “may-or-may-not-have” bids (like the Kosish 2♥) have been accepted into standard partnership agreements.
Furthermore, when transfer bids are made and responder rebids the suit again most experienced players will recognize that the second time the suit is bid shows that suit.
1NT – 2♦* - 2♥ - 3♦ shows hearts and diamonds
I know all of this is pretty basic information but I wanted the reader, no matter his or her present skill level, to get a general understanding of the background of TNS bids because I am about to propose another TNS bid! But first I think a brief look into the Kaplan Interchange may be necessary to orient the reader.
The Kaplan Interchange or Kaplan Inversion was designed to solve opener’s rebid problem when he was 4522 and heard his partner respond with a forcing NT to his heart opener. (The Flannery convention solves all of opener’s rebid problems, but Edgar wanted a way to solve this problem without playing Flannery.) Now, prevailing thought during this era was that opener should raise partner’s spade response with three card support to an honor.
Unfortunately, when and if partner had responded 1♠ with xxxx, or Jxxx of spades the resulting seven card trump suit proved inadequate. As a consequence, many responders would choose to bypass a weak four card suit in favor of a forcing NT, to be on the safe side. The problem now was that often the 4-4 spade fit was left undiscovered when opener was too weak to reverse.
Edgar’s solution to this problem was to invert the NT and spade responses. The 1NT response would show five or more spades and was forcing, and the 1♠ response could be made with four spades or less. If opener had four spades he would rebid 1NT over the 1♠ response, otherwise he would bid his three card minor. If responder did have four spades he would raise spades when his partner had rebid 1NT.
I will post this and follow-up with a piece entitled “ The Next Next Step.”
The oldest example, and one we may fail to recognize, is Stayman. The 2♣ response to the opening bid of 1NT is TNS. The negative response to Stayman is 2♦, also TNS. The negative or waiting response to the artificial 2♣ opener is 2♦, TNS.
TNS is artificial for all strong club opening bids, and TNS is utilized in many relay sequences within that structure.
TNS is utilized in the modern two-way NMF (or, xyNT) as a way to differentiate invitational hands from game forcing hands.
TNS is employed after an RKC response as an asking bid for the Queen of trump.
Another modern method utilizes transfer bids by responder after a 1♣ opening bid. In this approach TNS becomes a transfer to hearts.
In all of these TNS examples, the suit bid is completely artificial. In other TNS situations, the bidder may or may not have length in the suit bid. The earliest example of this may be the Walsh 1♦ response to the 1♣ opener. Since the Walsh 1NT response to the 1♣ opener had an 8 to 10 point range, responder was stuck for a bid when 3334 and 6 to 7 points, so TNS here showed at least three diamonds, but not a suit, per se.
Another “may or may not have” TNS bid was devised by Erik Kokish as a way to show either of two ranges for strong NT hands. After 2♣, 2♦ (TNS), 2♥* (TNS) became an artificial relay bid. Responder must complete the relay by bidding 2♠ (TNS). Opener would then clarify his holding by rebidding 2NT to say he really didn’t have hearts but a very strong NT hand (24 or 25 pts+) or he will rebid 3♥ to state that he does, in fact, actually have a strong hand with the heart suit.
It almost seems right to call the Kokish usage of TNS over the 2♦ response as a form of “stepping stone.” It can show a NT hand, a heart hand, a club/heart two suiter, or a diamond/heart two suiter. It is even possible for the opener to raise the relay bid of 2♠ to 3♠ as a relay to 3NT for some monstrous minor suit hand.
Take the auction: 1S p 1NT* p, this is a form of TNS in action. Responder is, essentially, saying: “I don’t have another bid that fits with our agreements. I will make this “temporizing” bid that will enable you to make your planned rebid and I will let you know what type of hand I have at my next opportunity to bid.” Responder is in no way suggesting, at this point in the auction, the possibility of a NT final contract. I think most would agree the 1NT response to a major opening is more artificial than natural these days. It may end up being the final contract, but that will be by default when neither partner has the values or the distribution to bid again.
Two recent articles by Ken Rexford and Bob Heitzman at Bridgewinners.com have further developed TNS ideas. Bob has taken the Walsh (ambiguous) 1♦ response to the 1♣ opening bid and melded it with a Kokish-like “Stepping stone” to create a new and very dynamic TNS convention over the 1♣ opener he calls “The Utility One Diamond Response.” Ken has brought back the concept attributed to Edgar Kaplan called “The Kaplan Interchange” or “Kaplan Inversion.” In Ken’s article the interchange takes place (not after 1♥ has been opened, as Edgar proposed it) after a minor suit is opened and responder bids 1♥. By inverting the 1♠ and 1NT rebids by opener several good things can happen. I encourage the reader to look over both of these fine ideas!
The purpose of this entry was to summarize the varied common usages for TNS agreements and/or conventions. Many TNS bids are totally artificial, and many “may-or-may-not-have” bids (like the Kosish 2♥) have been accepted into standard partnership agreements.
Furthermore, when transfer bids are made and responder rebids the suit again most experienced players will recognize that the second time the suit is bid shows that suit.
1NT – 2♦* - 2♥ - 3♦ shows hearts and diamonds
I know all of this is pretty basic information but I wanted the reader, no matter his or her present skill level, to get a general understanding of the background of TNS bids because I am about to propose another TNS bid! But first I think a brief look into the Kaplan Interchange may be necessary to orient the reader.
The Kaplan Interchange or Kaplan Inversion was designed to solve opener’s rebid problem when he was 4522 and heard his partner respond with a forcing NT to his heart opener. (The Flannery convention solves all of opener’s rebid problems, but Edgar wanted a way to solve this problem without playing Flannery.) Now, prevailing thought during this era was that opener should raise partner’s spade response with three card support to an honor.
Unfortunately, when and if partner had responded 1♠ with xxxx, or Jxxx of spades the resulting seven card trump suit proved inadequate. As a consequence, many responders would choose to bypass a weak four card suit in favor of a forcing NT, to be on the safe side. The problem now was that often the 4-4 spade fit was left undiscovered when opener was too weak to reverse.
Edgar’s solution to this problem was to invert the NT and spade responses. The 1NT response would show five or more spades and was forcing, and the 1♠ response could be made with four spades or less. If opener had four spades he would rebid 1NT over the 1♠ response, otherwise he would bid his three card minor. If responder did have four spades he would raise spades when his partner had rebid 1NT.
I will post this and follow-up with a piece entitled “ The Next Next Step.”
Friday, January 13, 2012
I play often with "back2back2". This is a hand that exemplifies his unrivaled enthusiasm for bidding a lot! Often it works out well, as in this hand, but getting him reigned in is a constant source of discussion. His goals are top scores not consistently good scores, and his style is more in line with matchpoints than IMPs.
3S was a super accept, and I had to assume 4D was a slam try. Maybe the jump to 6H took away the possibility of a grand slam on this hand (little did I know) but I wanted to make sure the hand got played from the right side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)