Bridge over disturbed waters

I apologise to the more sensitive Chillians, but this post contains strong language which you may find offensive.

As you know, Chilli has three very distinct modes of operation: neutral, disturbed and fit, each with its own set of rules. Since early Chilli, both neutral and fit auctions have also had a distinctive character and a strong sense of structure built round the milestones in their respective worlds.

In neutral auctions, passage through or over the minor relays is a significant determinant of what will happen next; and later, the suit-setters provide a definitive 'end-of-term'. Fit auctions are even more driven by structure: as you progress, you pass inexorably through splinters, value expressions and finally asks.

But disturbed auctions have never had such a clear structure or such a distinctive feel. And clear as they are, there are definite practical problems associated with the disturbed rules as they stand. Consider these sequences:

1. 1 (2) dbl (4); ?


2. (2) dbl (pass) ?


3. 1 (pass) 1 (pass); 1 (pass) 2 (pass); ?

In sequence 1, we have suffered the very worst fate of a strong club system: we have made not one but two amorphous bids that show strength but conceal distribution, and we now have to decide what to do at a very high level. Surely responder should try a little harder to describe his hand? But currently he has no other forcing bids other than the equally amorphous 3.

In sequence 2, we face the same dilemma as in all other systems: how do we distinguish between a competitive try at the three-level and a genuinely game-invitational one?

In sequence 3, we have done the damage to ourselves by disturbing the auction with 2. This is fine if opener can now name the final contract, but if he has some powerhouse with spades, he's stuck for forcing continuations.

In thinking about these issues, sequence 2 naturally made me think 'Lebensohl' (I'm sorry, but I did warn you about the strong language at the top!) Most tournament players use some version of Lebensohl some of the time, and have some success with it. Its basics work well, distinguishing competitive hands (2NT) from invitational hands (3suit), and it would go a long way to solving some of the Chilli problem sequences.

But it does have a number of problems, both technical and psychological:

• The common-or-garden variety is demonstrably inferior to transfer versions (more dirty language ... sorry) because it cannot cope with unlimited hands
  
  
• Even the common-or-garden variety becomes prone to memory lapses once its basic function is complicated with Staymanic and guard-showing refinements
  
  
• Even more of a psychological problem is deciding and then remembering in which particular circumstances Lebensohl applies.

So putting on a Chilli hat, how could we use this? Suppose as in Lebensohl we make 2NT the weak bid, wanting to compete to the three-level, and use transfers to show better hands. But not just any old transfers ...

I have been fascinated for a long time by two-step transfers, where clubs transfers to hearts, diamonds to spades, hearts to clubs and spades to diamonds. They've been around in the fringes of bridge theory under many names, but partner Geoff came up with the natty name of shunts, an amalgam of sharps (diamonds and spades) and blunts (clubs and hearts).

Apart from putting majors first - very Chilli - shunts have the big advantage that you can break them in one of two ways; either below or above the anchor suit, and you can use this to express the different reasons why you broke.

Let's look how this will work. After 1NT (2) ?:

• 2NT is weak. Opener puppets to 3 and responder passes or names the final contract.


• 3 is a natural shunt to hearts with at least invitational values. Opener can:
  
  
  
  • complete the shunt to show a minimum hand with no great fit, after which responder can pass; any other continuation is forcing to game with normal disturbed rules
  
  
  • under-break with 3 to show heart support and make the auction fit
  
  
  • over-break with any other continuation, which is forcing to game with normal disturbed rules
  
  
• 3 is a cue shunt to spades with at least invitational values and inviting 3NT with spade stop. Opener can:
  
  
  
  • complete the shunt to show a minimum hand with no spade stop
  
  
  • under-break with 3 to show a maximum hand with no spade stop and nothing sensible to say
  
  
  • over-break with any other hand with no spade stop, which is forcing to game with normal disturbed rules


• 3 and 3 are natural shunts, with continuations similar to 3

I deliberately used a sequence that is by far the most common use of some sort of Lebensohl device. You can probably see that I can introduce into this scheme the same sort of Staymanic/guard jiggery-pokery of ordinary Lebensohl e.g. 2NT followed by 3NT could deny a guard (or show one, depending on what partner's name is). But I'm not going there for two reasons: one, it's confusing (to me and many of my partners, anyway) and two...

This is where we get back to basic Chilliosity. At the heart of the system is our belief in big universal rules. So let's have one here: let's play weak 2NT and shunts in all disturbed auctions where the bidding is currently below 2NT.

This then is the big new idea that Geoff, Peter and I have been trying out over the last few weeks with great success. Let's see how it helps on those original three problem sequences.

After 1 (2), responder now has a bag full of tricks: the weak 2NT, shunts into any of the suits and a cue shunt. If he still chooses double, then that's because he has invitational values, tolerance for the other three suits without a decent suit of his own, and no immediate desire to play in 3NT. If advancer does pop up with a pre-emptive 4 over this or any of the other possible bids, you can see that opener is in much better to judge what is happening.

(And pre-emption is the other reason you shouldn't mess with 2NT: if it always means weak, there is less ambiguity at high levels.)

After (2) dbl (pass) ?, responder can again choose to bid a weak 2NT or shunt - and is already better informed than he might have been since the doubler themselves could have used either of these options. Since we play potentially two-suited doubles, opposite a weak 2NT it is best for minimum doubler to bid his lowest suit rather than always rebidding 3.

After 1 (pass) 1 (pass); 1 (pass) 2 (pass); ?, once again we now have a full bag of tricks. For example, our powerhouse spade hand can be bid via a 3 shunt.

There's one type of shunt we haven't yet met. After 1 (2), 3 is a fit shunt, agreeing hearts and starting a fit auction. It replaces the current 2NT strong fit bid, which now has a new life as a weakling.

It's probably time to stop this very long post. We haven't even begun to understand the full subtleties of this change, and maybe we have yet to discover its big flaw. But it's been great fun playing it, and it feels like it's always been part of Chilli. No longer need disturbed auctions play Cinderella.

Alan Williams
December 2008

The Chilli bidding system is described and defined at chillibidding.org.

Simple pleasures

As you probably know by now, nothing pleases us here at the Chillidome more than a bit of simplification. And so with great pleasure, I present a simpler 1 opening.

When we discovered that it was possible to combine two tetchy hand types – the strong notrump and the intermediate minor 5-4 hand – we went on a bit further and added in 16- and 17-point minor 5-4s for no good reason other than we could.

As we now see, not only was this not necessary (they work perfectly okay through 1) but it also made things a bit of a blur on opener's rebid. Sure, you could distinguish astrong hand from the intermediate minor two-suiter, but in an auction like 1 – 1; 2, strong responder will often need to know if opener is balanced with four-card support, or 5431 with three-card support. Without special agreements, this was not possible.

So the fix is simple: we've taken out those 16- and 17-point minor two-suiters. This leads to simpler words and rules, and much celebration.

While we were at it, I've clarified that the lower end of the minor two-suited option is 11 points – a 10-pointer would not meet the rule of 20. In similar vein, the upper end of a one of a major opening could be 16 if it were a 4441 hand which would not qualify for 1 because of the rule of 25.

I've also tweaked the three pages on side suit bidding in a fit auction: previously called 'three of a side suit', 'four of a side suit' and 'five of a side suit', they are now more accurately 'side suit below 3NT', 'side suit above 3NT' and 'side suit after the count' respectively, requiring a small rearrangement of their content.

And in the typo category, I've corrected the previously erroneous description of 1NT in the openings summary, mended a broken link in the NEXT chain and fixed a styling bug that caused lines to be variably spaced when viewed in IE.

I'd like to thank Andrea – a true peperoncino – for pointing out many of these inaccuracies.

Alan Williams
October 2008

The Chilli bidding system is described and defined at chillibidding.org.

Autumn Clean

It's cold, grey and damp here – everything normal – so I decided to give the site an Autumn clean. Apart from weeding out a few errors, I've also removed the trailing comments on each page (which were beginning to make it look like a quality control manual rather than a pleasurable read), and replaced them with a simple threading link, so that the Chilli story can be read from cover to cover.

I've also removed all references to Chilli Two, except in the history section, replacing them with just 'Chilli'. It's high time that I stopped feeling guilty about replacing the nice natural Original
2 and 2 bids with artificial relays. Chilli Two works, and it works better than the Original.

Chill Two is Chilli, and so it shall be called!

While going through the site, I realised it is written somewhat in the style of a mathematical dissertation or computer program, with its hierarchy of rules. I'm contemplating a new project, which is to write a Chilli book that follows the structure of traditional bridge system books i.e. starts with the openings, then the responses etc. I expect it will progress at a more leisurely pace, and with more 'bridge' in there (as opposed to 'system'), and many more full hands.

I'm not sure what I will learn or gain from this, but it is something that has been beckoning me for a couple of years.

Have you had experience of writing bridge theory books or websites? I'd certainly like to hear from you if you have.

Alan Williams
September 2008

The Chilli bidding system is described and defined at chillibidding.org.

Tarting up the top tools

Having given 3NT values-for-four a good long workout over the last year or so, we have finally given it the thumbs down.

Let me explain first why it was there in the first place. In a sequence like 1 - 2NT, opener with extras needs to say 'opposite your raise to at least three, I have enough for four'. But if he has nothing to splinter at the three-level, without values-for-four he would need to bid 4.

What's the problem, you may ask? Well we have spent quite some time engineering Chilli so that keycard asks can be made below game, so that with an unfavourable response we may still be able to stop in game or 4NT, rather than be forced to the five-level. In the given sequence (and many others like it), responder is unlimited and may well be interested in going to slam. If opener does indeed rebid 4, responder can no longer ask at the usual safe level.

So 3NT was given a conventional meaning of values-for-four in some fit auctions. The 'some' is the root cause of our eventual disillusionment. It was clear from the start that 3NT should be to play in some other fit auctions, most obviously minor fit auctions, but also situations where partner could have no interest in going to slam, or where the fit was 5-3 and the hands were balanced. Each exception was logical and well defined and tied into the concept of hard and soft fits.

But the end result was too much thinking about rules at the table – just what Chilli is not about. So we are abandoning it, and 3NT returns to its former glory of always being to play in all types of auction.

Our sense of relief at this outburst of simplicity has been enhanced by the re-discovery of the extra nuances this allows. Consider this sequence, for example: 1NT - 2; 2 - 2NT; 3 - 3; 3NT. Opener has shown three hearts and an empty diamond suit, and has suggested 3NT as an alternative to 4, so is probably 3334 or perhaps 3343. This leaves responder ideally placed to choose. (We do better here than with standard transfer technology, which would go 1NT - 2; 2 - 3NT, and now it is opener that has to decide, with less information with which to do so.)

We've retained the idea of soft and hard fits, but they now differ only in the meaning of the three-level side-suit bids – empty suit (soft) or splinter (hard). That also means that we can re-classify some fits as hard when the only reason for their being soft was that 3NT needed to be to play.

To minimise the downside of all this, we have clarified the rules about the four-level bids for when partner (or the opposition) eats up our space. When there is only one side-suit left at the four-level, it is the keycard ask – we don't need a values-for-five. When there is no side-suit left at the four-level, 4NT is the keycard ask.

Then we aim to get the most out of the keycard ask responses. Usually we use the Chilli three-step responses, which generally perform better than the traditional four steps. But when the ask happens to be exactly one step above the trump suit, four steps are more effective, and we use those. (Five minutes with pencil and paper should convince you that this combination is optimal.)

So in our first example sequence, 1 - 2NT; 4, 4NT is now the keycard ask and the responses are zero, one, two no queen and two with queen. Does that sound vaguely familiar?

Alan Williams
July 2008

The Chilli bidding system is described and defined at chillibidding.org.