e-Vil Two's
This Friday series is not going to be simply about “Evil Acol” but also about what we can do to improve our results when playing the sort of match point game that is being played on Friday afternoons. I would not necessarily recommend that the reader switch to “Evil Acol” but I will be talking about the philosophy of playing weak, and sometimes weaker than weak, two level openings. If the reader wishes to try something as radical and different as that, will be up to them.
The main intention of this series will be to help the reader to eradicate some of their bad habits and get them into new and more productive ones. That will not necessarily mean any real change to their basic system whether they play Acol, Standard American, or Precision, though I will be focusing mainly on basic Acol bidding - apart from the “Evil Twos”, that is.
In the very first Friday Review I briefly described the “Evil Two” openings. The philosophy behind them is that if you have a poor hand, it is better to be able to tell partner just that, and as soon as possible. As well as the preemptive value of course. But the two suited structure of these bids can also be applied to when you want to compete against a 1NT opening by an opponent. I find that competing over an opponent's 1NT opening can be very rewarding, and not as risky as people might think. Take a look at the following deal from Friday 17th Feb.
Board 24 Dealer W Nil Vul
| ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
K743
Q84
Q97
KQ9Boring stuff, you might say. Yes, at nine tables North played in 1NT. Four Norths made four, three made three and two made two (quite a coincidence) and one was in 3NT (??) down one. But at our table things were different. North opened 1NT, I passed and so did South, but partner Legal Eagle, after considerable thought, emerged with 2C, which showed at least 4-4 in clubs and hearts (no specific point count but a willingness to compete). We don't believe in passing rubbishy hands if we can help it, nor in allowing opponents to play in 1NT if we possibly can compete, and the two suited structure of the “Evil Twos” lends itself to just that. The good thing about it is that we don't have to remember anything different, with the same two suited bids over 1NT as we use for opening bids. We have found that with most other systems over an opposing 1NT, it is not easy to locate any two suiter with only four hearts, unless it is “Evil”. And by the way, someone else called it Evil (none of us) but in explanation I say it stands for E for Email and Vil for yours truly, and there is nothing really evil about it at all. So, with that said, let's look again at the 'boring' deal.
North opened 1NT. I had nothing to say and neither did South. Legal Eagle did some thinking and calculating and bid 2C showing clubs and hearts. I find that in such situations, with no definite fit in clubs or hearts, at least bidding hearts will make the 2H bidder declarer. That makes the defence more difficult because his hand is unknown and could be pretty well anything. So I did bid 2H and that was the final contract.
If you think about it, unless the partner of the 1NT opener has a 10 count, by backing in after two passes, it is very unlikely that opponents will bid anything, nor can they double with any confidence, so you will end up having to make what you can in your two-level contract. Depending on how well you (or partner) play the hand and how well or badly opponents defend, a small negative result is possible but it is unlikely to be bigger than the positive that opponents will make playing in 1NT. The most important thing to take note of is the VULNERABILITY, and you need to do some calculations. If opponents are vulnerable, can you hope to defeat 1NT by two tricks if you can make something your way? If you expect that 1NT will make at least one, i.e. you don't have a great defensive hand but some distribution, even 4-4, then think about how many you or partner may go down by if you are allowed to play the hand at the two level.
This West hand is in fact perfect for taking a calculated risk and making a bid that commits your side to a 2 level contract. Why? Because West does not expect to be able to make anything at the two level but it will not be doubled. Neither opponent can possibly know enough, or have a good enough hand to double. 1NT making exactly scores 90 and if that is all NS can make you will probably make your contract if you have at least a 4-4 fit, or be down by no more than one. Once you can come to grips with that sort of reasoning and maths you can't go wrong.
This is what happened at our table: After I had ended up in 2H came the bad defence: South led the ace of diamonds. I find it quite
amusing and also quite appalling how many players at this level start the defence by leading off their unsupported aces, or even underleading them. When we go back to basics in some later articles you will learn more about opening leads and I hope know what to do and what not to do as a defender. But .. this South led the ace of diamonds and then tried the ace of spades! No rhyme or reason for the defence so far, and the two aces pretty well pinpointed all the other points with North. South now led another spade and North won, thus setting up my queen. Back came a spade from North and I won the queen. Amazing how many tricks the defence can throw at you, but I didn't need any more thrown my way, I could do it myself now.
Winning the queen of spades, I played king of diamonds and ruffed a diamond. Now a heart to my ace and a club to dummy's ten and North's queen. What was North to do now? Here was the layout at this point:
Board 24 Dealer W Nil Vul
| ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
North was 'endplayed' in clubs and trumps and had no diamonds, therefore tried the last spade. I discarded my last diamond and over-ruffed South's ruff in dummy. Then I had the luxury of being able to end play North yet again, in two suits: I could play three rounds of trumps and put North on lead to lead clubs, or play two rounds of clubs and put North in to lead a heart round to dummy's KJ. I had made an impossible 2H but the significant point is that even if had gone down by TWO it would have been a 94% score, beaten only by the one EW pair that were lucky to have NS bid to a ridiculous 3NT. And, if the truth be know, 2H CAN be defeated by THREE tricks. I will leave it to the expert reader to work out how.
The answer to the poser at the end of Friday Review No.1: A CLUB lead will defeat 3NT and no other lead. Can you now tell me WHY? Readers are asked to send me their solutions before the next article.
This is your final chance to register for Friday Review e-mails. These reviews will also cover some quite basic things which junior players should know but may not, so I would recommend they read them and glean what they can and ignore what may seem too difficult. For instance, in this Friday Review I have said that the defence against 2H was very poor and that in fact 2H can be defeated by three, a big difference from making two. The juniors who read the article will have difficulty in working out how and why but it should still be good exercise or them. That sort of defence you won’t be able to execute until you have read my “Ultimate Defence” which will also be included in part in later Friday reviews. So, if you want to receive further e-mails, do let me know at villyn@xtra.co.nz or you will not be receiving any more.
With best wishes,
Vil
NB - Vil & LE finished 5th of 248 pairs with 65.89% in this session.
