[blml] A strory with a conclusion

Tue Jan 8 11:49:00 CET 2008

    It is a long story but I tried to keep
it interesting so I'd appreciate if you took
your time and read it. I know how it sounds
("and now, ladies and gentlemen, I am going
to entertain you with my poems...") but
if you have nothing better to do then
you might as well read it.

    When going through the old issues of the
Polish "Brydż" magazine I ran into a deal
from the Polish First Division that was played
15 years ago. Before I get
to it a short systemic explanation is needed.
In the Polish Club the 1D response to the 1C
opening is artificial showing either 0-6 with
any shape or unbalanced hands in the 7-11
zone with no 4 card major. Some pairs add
one more meaning - 16+, balanced with no 4M.
Then if responder jumps to 2NT on the next round
eg.

1C    1D
1H/S  2NT

he shows this hand type: 16+, BAL, no 4M.
The pair from the story below decided to adopt
this toy.

So playing in the First Division (screens were
used) opener held

KQxx
Axxx
Qx
AKJ

He opened 1C and over the 1D response he rebid
1NT showing 18-21 BAL. 99.99% pairs in Poland
use the very same methods in this sequence as
they do after the 1NT opening - it is a solution
that is both easy to remember and theoretically
sound. The pair in question was no exception.
    Over 1NT responder bid 2C - Stayman
(guaranteeing a 4-card major or a slammish balanced
hand), opener dutifully rebid 2H, the tray returned
with 2S and the problems began. Over the 1NT opening
this sequence was an artificial relay showing
a slammish hand. However here in the context
of the 1D response things started to look weird.
As responder could
only have a 4-card major in the 0-6 zone for his 1D
response his 2S meant... what exactly? The only
slammish, balanced hand he could have for his 1D
response was 16+ BAL, no 4M. And although this was,
in itself, not impossible it looked horribly unlikely
given that opener himself had a 19 count. Already
worried opener decided, however, that he would proceed
as if partner's 2S bid was a relay, as it should have
been. He bid 3D showing the 4=4=2=3 distribution
(exactly). Partner now jumped to 4H.
    In relay auctions after distribution was known
this pair was using Slawinski's method of suits
setting - 3NT was a sign off, 4D was the End Signal
(partner was required to bid 4H and pass the next bid)
while other bids were RKCB setting suits in the
length order. So over 3D 3H would be RKCB with
hearts agreed, 3S would be RKCB with spades agreed,
3NT would be a sign-off, 4C would be RKCB with clubs
agreed, 4D would be the End Signal. 4H was, thus, RKCB
agreeing diamonds.
    Now obviously this was not possible. Partner
couldn't have even 5D for his sequence or else he would
have responded 2D to the 1C opening in the first
place (2D being a GF hand with 5+D). If partner really
has 16+ BAL then

1, It is very improbable in the first place
2. Why doesn't he simply bid 6/7NT instead
of all this relaying leading to nowhere
3. why, having denied a 5-card diamond suit, would
he set as trumps a suit in which he knows we hold
only 2 cards? This is simply impossible.

So partner's hand has to be something like

Kxxx
xxxx
Qxx
xx

and, having learnt about 4 hearts he was bidding
naturally his 4-card suit in spades looking for
a 4-4 fit in a suit where he himself had better trumps.
Now obviously he took our 3D bid naturally so he now
jumped to 4H because he didn't found 4 spades in
our hand as he had hoped.
    Opener, however, was afraid to convert now to 4S
because, having bid 3D (which he now knew partner treated
naturally) over 2S the 4S follow-up might sound very
confusing to his partner. So opener took the safe route
and passed 4H - this contract would be played on a 4-4
fit after all, so it was OK, too.
    So opener passed 4H. Partner tabled a balanced 18 count
with 4 diamonds and 2 hearts. He did have his bidding,
it turned out, and he needed two things for the grand
slam - aces and the queen of diamonds. This was why
he temporarily set diamonds as trumps to learn about
these values with RKCB.
    At the other table 7NT was reached and so stopping
in 4H on a 4-2 fit was a big loss.
    What is my point?
    This disaster could never happen without screens
for a pair playing a traditoinal school (as opposed to
de Wael school). Let's get back to the critical moment
of the auction

1C   1D
1NT  2C
2H   2S
3D

Opener would alert 2S and responder _would alert 3D_.
This alert would be a confirmation for opener that his
partner remembered the system and, however
improbable this might sound, he had a strong 16+ BAL
hand for his bidding. If responder had

Kxxx
xxxx
Qxx
xx

then for him the 3D bid would be natural (just like
his own 2S bid) so responder wouldn't alert 3D (as the
traditional school prohibits him to do so).
  But this time he would alert 3D all right so opener would
know that the wheels haven't come off. He
would know that 4H over 3D is the next asking
bid so he would confidently bid 5D over 4H showing
2 key cards + the queen of diamonds. Responder would
then jump to 7NT.
    The depicted scenario is a very common one in
real life. Players do need this information from
alerts that confirm that partner remembers the
system and that it is safe for them to

a) assume that partner has his bidding
b) to trot out the next bid of their their
4-tier X-alpha relay scheme without fear

    Playing behind screens players lose this
reassuring confidence and disasters like the one
described above are common. These don't have to be
spectacular disasters like this one - very often
players are afraid to investigate and search for
the best contract with their machinery and jump
to 3NT out of fear that partner is not on the
same wavelength. I could see this very vell when I
was playing in the Third Division and screens were
introduced for the first time. On simple auctions
bids asking for kings started becoming final
contracts. And this was happening to pairs who
were not cheats, this was happening to everyone.
This was happening to me - I wasn't a dWS follower
at the time.
    Now for a pair playing dWS the lack of screens
wouldn't be a protection. Let's have a look:

1C   1D
1NT  2C
2H   2S
3D   4H
???

Now opener would have the very same guess as he had
in real life. Yes, responder did alert the 3D bid but
when you play dWS it means nothing. He still might
have

Kxxx
xxxx
Qxx
xx

He bid 2S naturally, heard us alert this, thought to
himself "Oh, shit, this idiot thinks I am 16+" and,
playing dWS, alerted 3D to avoid creating UI.
So opener would be in the
very same position as he was behind screens in real
life. And he would pass 4H just the same following
the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real
life.

    So as you can see dWS limits UI. I know what you
are going to say - dWS creates MI instead. However
this is nowhere near equivalent - first of all MI
frquently can be corrected. You can correct it before
dummy goes down, especially in one-way acutions chances
of damaging the opponents are minimal. More
importantly - if the opponents are damaged every MI
infractions gets redressed. Even beginners can catch
it - a player explains that his partner holds hand X
while in reality he holds hand Y. Everyone can see
the discrepancy. Director!
    UI infractions, on the other hand, are often very
subtle and often require a lot of knowledge to detect
them not to mention redressing. Beginners are unable to
catch about 75% or UI infractions or more. Also -
sometimes the use UI is not redressable. If, being
a beginner, you see a discrepancy  between the
explanation and the hand - you call the TD. On
the other hand even if you are a top expert and
see your oppoents bid

1C   1D
1NT  2C
2H   2S
3D   4H
5D   7NT
pass

2S  = relay
3D = 4=4=3=2
4H = RKCB, D agreed
5D = 2KC + DQ

and you strongly suspect that your opponents needed
the UI from the alerts (the information being "partner,
we are on the same wavelength" - and we've just seen
a real life example of a pair who needed this
information as without it they landed in 4H as one
of them lost confidence) you have absolutely no
grounds for redress. What would you tell the TD?
All bids were in tempo, all were properly alerted and
explained, the explanations matched both the hands
and the system... What would you tell the TD? "Sir,
please put these two clowns behind screens and they
won't be able to repeat this auction?" - the TD would
get a good laugh but he would have no grounds to adjust.

    This is why dWS is superior to traditional school.
Pairs playing traditional school gain an important
advantage over the ones playing dWS. The former can use
a certain kind of UI ("partner - we are on the same
wavelength") freely.

Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chcesz kupic aparat? Sprawdz, ktory jest najlepszy!
Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd3