November 2015 - 8

Letters to the Editor
My partners have always been careful
not to allow for this possibility in the
bidding in case we end up on defense.
I have trouble understanding the
ACBL's policy in this case. Certain
conventions are prohibited in order
to protect opponents who do not have
sufficient opportunity to prepare a
bidding defense against unfamiliar
methods. In this instance, the popular
two-suited and one-suited defensive
conventions are just as useful against
the rare singleton as they are against
traditional notrump distributions.
My preference, in the spirit of full
disclosure, would be to inform my opponents of the rare singleton possibility. Because we already must announce
our notrump range, why can't we
append that announcement with the
phrase "rare singleton"? It also seems
to me that a "rare singleton" checkbox
could be fit onto the convention card
near to the 1NT opening range.
As Boehm suggests, I'd like to live a
little, but we are prohibited from agreeing to a practice being advocated by a
regular magazine contributor. It seems
to me there is something wrong with
that.
KEN BLOOM
Acton MA

Spiderman

The Westside Bridge Academy here
in Houston has started using the web
movement for most of its pair games.
This movement provides a fair comparison for everyone, because all pairs
play the same 26 or 27 boards.
In the past, the web movement
was rarely used because of logistical difficulties. But now, with dealing
machines, ACBLScore and Bridge
Pads, those problems are minimized.
In particular, the Bridge Pad tells the
North players which boards and which
opponents should be at the table.

8 Bridge Bulletin November 2015

All clubs and tournaments should
consider using this excellent movement.
ROBERT MUNGER
Houston TX

A standard argument

A recent article by Larry Cohen
(September, pg. 14) extolled the virtues
of the 2/1 game-forcing system, including 1NT forcing, as against the "oldfashioned" modern Standard American (SA) system.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised that
our experts are so strongly urging the
2/1 game-forcing system on the rest of
us. I believe 2/1 hurts the non-expert
player more than it helps. It seems to
me it's something they should only be
offering to players who can't handle
the subtleties of the second round of a
game-going SA auction.
In exchange for an easier auction
when responder has a game-forcing
hand, 2/1 gives responder the problem
of deciding right away whether he has a
game-forcing hand. In SA, we can postpone that decision until we hear more
from opener or get more information
from sometimes foolish interference
by the opponents.
And the 2/1 opener gets the problem
of guessing whether a 1NT response is
forcing or only nearly so. And besides,
what does 1NT say about responder's
hand other than it's not very strong?
Just look at all the varieties of possible
hands used to illustrate the "range" of
the forcing 1NT bid!
I would prefer that experts show us
how to more accurately judge whether
or not to move toward game after an
SA two-level response showing 10-plus
points. Here's the simplistic view that
I take and that I wish they would improve upon: Playing SA with five-card
majors, after a major-suit opening and
a 2/1 response, both partners should
realize that they have 22 or more

points between them, and that 4 more
would make game a good prospect. So
opener with a good 14 or shapely 15
points should look for a safe advance
bid. On the other hand, if he stretched
to open, the semi-artificial 2NT rebid
comes to the rescue. Responder with a
good 12 points or a bit more should bid
game over anything else.
Auctions that start with a 1/1 bid
should employ the same kind of
analysis, but with larger numbers.
With an extra king in either hand,
opener and/or responder should try to
make a forward move. And they have
a safe out if the values are limited and
there are no prospects for a major-suit
fit: 1NT, non-forcing, by either partner.
A good style of SA also allows a
player to make a better bid, sometimes,
than the "rules" call for. The aforementioned article suggested that, playing
SA, we "would have to respond 1NT to
1♠, with, say:
♠2 ♥5 3 ♦A 7 6 5 4 3 ♣Q 8 7 6."
No, Larry, I would pass.
ROBERT KRONING
Seaside OR

Quack, quack

In Mark Horton's August column
(pg. 53), he was absolutely correct that
declarer should have ducked East's
♦Q on the opening lead. However, the
defense can duck as well. From the
bidding, East knows declarer has a
double stopper in diamonds and should
duck the trick by playing the 9. When
declarer eventually attacks clubs, West
must hop up with the ace and return
the diamond, giving the defense two
clubs and three diamonds. It would
have been a more interesting problem
if the ♣A and ♣K were reversed, but
West should hop up with a club honor
in any case.
JERRY SCOTT
Selbyville DE

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of November 2015