As a Book for bridge card game

“Once in a blue moon an idea sweeps through the bridge world and revolutionises thinking. The so-called Law of Total Tricks is so accurate in assessing potential in the contested auction and so easy to use (meaning in the book) that it is being introduced early and used to justify many subsequent bidding decisions.”

From the book “Understanding the contested auction” of Ron Klinger and Andrew Kambites.

Once upon a time, I was playing bridge.

When I moved to live in an area where the game was not well known, I decided to teach it to three other players. I created and supplied them with a SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) contract card and for a few years they played with it next to them. Until I informed them that the game was actually a sport, like chess. On one of their visits to other areas, two of the players, searched for and found a bridge club and were convinced, by the coach there, as to the fact that with his help, the three of them, could form a club in their locality. The paid teaching and refereeing in times of economic crisis was worth it. (Personally, I believe in amateurism and offering the above services for free.) The club was eventually formed, but I was informed that I could not teach, because four teachers would be too many and, besides, I did not have the necessary teaching certification, so I might be detrimental to the quality of play of the new members.

So I had to find another teammate and start all over again. At that time I was reading the book mentioned at the beginning of this post. The second chapter of the book, on the law of total tricks, had a particular impact on my playing style and my understanding of how to justify the SAYC statements, which I continued to use. Initially I posted my thoughts on some online website, where I used to play bridge. When I found a teammate in the club, I copied my posts, begged the administrator to delete them and translated them into Greek, with the purpose of creating a joint, with my teammate, contract card (slightly modifying SAYC) and explaining it to him.

Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for my notes, my teammate was impulsive. He had in mind two equally valid estimates for him, one with a trick calculation - from my notes - and one with a points calculation - as the club had taught him - and he impulsively chose one of the two, making his bet inconsistent. For several years, with each mistake he made, my notes were enriched with a new chapter. Eventually they began to take the form of a book, which is why I called them “as-book.” And indeed, in the end, for me, they would have been a book, if they had contained only two more chapters. One on defending against very high interference auctions and one on playing the first card.

Unfortunately, ten years ago, I lost interest in bridge and, therefore, in completing my notes to call them a book. It was very soul-destroying for me to be constantly, time after time, confirmed the correctness of my notes and the fact that we could get excellent results, against pairs of any level, as long as my teammate’s impulsiveness was absent. (The last chapter, according to the metadata in my files, seems to have been added on 30-06-2011)

If you read the “About” section of my website, you’ll know that I’m a math enthusiast. I would not let the correctness of my notes go unchecked. Everything I state in the book I publish, I have developed through mathematical models and have tested it with statistical methods and data from the use of the program deal, through its problem solving capability.

Adopting the bidding system, which my as-book contains, will provide you with exceptional accuracy in estimating each hand distribution at the table and, therefore, a unique level of confidence in your bidding, that point estimation cannot provide. I guarantee it, from years of playing experience. The bids he recommends are those of the SAYC system, the only difference, if I recall correctly, being that when we are in first, obstructive bids must be made at higher level, if we are not in red zone.

In addition to hand evaluation and bidding, the book contains a chapter on execution, where I systematize, as i could, the particularly beautiful technique of squizz.

In my book, I consciously endeavour to justify what I state, both theoretically and by examples, so that it can only be challenged by studies which will produce different results. Otherwise, anyone could refute the system in the book, citing only any exceptional performance, without, in essence, bothering to prove any error as such. The immediate consequence is that the book, which began, and partly remained, as a collection of notes, has grown to the volume of a hundred or more pages.

The as-book is not for everyone. For those whose attention is drawn to it, here are its contents, so that they may know what to expect.

Contents

I. AUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

  1. Recognition of seizure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    1.1. Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    1.2. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    1.2.1. If we have no more winners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    1.2.2. If we have more winners . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

    1.3. Distribution assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

    1.3.1. Assessment aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

    1.3.2. Our level assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

    1.3.3. preliminary assessment of opponents’ tricks . . . . . 10

  2. Basic principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

    2.1. Negative assumption of final declarations . . . . . . . . . 11

    2.2. Common sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

    2.3. We use three styles of auction mood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

    2.4. Do we know the strength of teamate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

    2.5. Does the teammate know our hand? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

    2.6. Final pass liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

    2.7. Loss of the right to propose a suit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

  3. Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

    3.1. Searching for a stopper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

    3.2. Singletons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

    3.2.1. But there is also the following angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

    3.2.2. Target is game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

    3.2.3. Target is slam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

    3.3. Auction’s opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

    3.3.1. Opening of NT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

    3.3.2. Strong opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

    3.3.3. Competitive openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

    3.4. Responding to an opening in suit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

    3.4.1. Support for opening of the masser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

    3.4.2 Support in a miner’s opening (reverse miners) . . . . . 30

    3.4.3. 4th suit conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

    3.4.4 Checkback Stayman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

    3.4.5. Jumping to a new suit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

    3.5. Response to the 1NT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

    3.5.1. Bi-suit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

    3.6. Slam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

    3.6.1. Miner to level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

    3.6.2. 5΄Aspects (4XA=14-03) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

    3.6.3. 5XA trump quality question for a large slam . . . . . . . 40

    3.6.4. Jump to level 5 or support of masser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

    3.6.5. Que bid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

    3.7. Competitive auction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

    3.7.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

    3.7.2. Generally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

    3.7.3. Interference of suit by suit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

    3.7.4. 1NT interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

    3.7.5. Responding right after a simple suit interference . . . 57

    3.7.6. Take out double . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

    3.7.7. Response right after 1XA interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

    3.7.8. Two-suit interpolation (Ghestem) on suit . . . . . . . . . . 62

    3.7.9. Interference in the strong 1XA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

    3.7.10. Response to interpolation on the teammate’s 1NT . 72

    3.7.11. Force balanced on the two axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

    3.7.12. X (double) is not a penalty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

    3.7.13. Defence against obstructive bids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

II. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

  1. Squeeze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

    4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

    4.2. Simple squeeze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

    4.2.1. We have the two threats in the same hand. . . . . . . . . 89

    4.2.2. The threats are on both sides in our hands. . . . . . . . . 90

    4.3. Double squeeze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

    4.3.1 Case of the common threat alone in the North. . . . . . 91

    4.3.2. The common threat accompanied by the left threat 93

    4.4. Full squiz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

    4.4.1 The case of the North having the leftist threat alone . 96

    4.4.2. The North has the only left threat accompanied by a common threat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Αʹ. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Αʹ.1. Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Αʹ.1.1. Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Αʹ.1.2. Response to an opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Bʹ. Examples of auctions in suit without interference from rivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

Bʹ.1. Normal opening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Bʹ.1.1.1. Support on majors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Bʹ.1.2. Opener’s rebid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Bʹ.1.3. Responder’s rebid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Bʹ.2. Strong opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Bʹ.3. Obstructive bid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Bʹ.4. Gerber; No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

You can read or download the “as-book” of bridge from here.

Unfortunately it is written only in Greek and will not be translated, at least not by me. Anyone who is interested in adding the two missing chapters, or as otherwise desired, and needs the original latex files, please contact me. It is written in latex with lyx. After 12 years, I managed to read it with lyx, but for some reason (input codecs) I was unable to export to tex files except once. Maybe because it uses usepackage[iso-8859-7]{inputenc}, while I exclusively use UTF-8 on my computers now.

All careers, at their end, create a need to take a final review. The publication of this book, after more than a decade of abstinence from bridge, is, as a swan song, in the context of such a review.

I thank those who have managed to maintain their interest to the end of this publication and wish them good matches and good luck.