Chilli bidding

Harvest

2009-08-11T07:43:00.002+01:00

Hello Chillians

It's been much too long since I blogged here last. As I predicted, my life has rather been taken over for the last few months by things unrelated to Chilli. This will continue for a few weeks more, so this blog has some news but little bridge substance.

Having got all the bad news out of the way, let's look at some good news. First, Geoff, Peter and I have been giving the system some extensive run-outs, and as a result come up with some fine tuning. Well, fine tuning is the correct description for most of it, and all in the direction we like here at Chilli Towers - simplification. It includes a little tweak to the high-level fit bids that I can't believe I didn't think of five years ago, so much easier does it make the system description.

There is one big change though. We've proved fairly comprehensively that shunts are technically complete and admirable, and I'm very happy I thought of them. We've also proved that they make us feel very tired when we play them, and that we spend most of the time in fiercely competitive auctions worrying about whether we've selected the right bid. That's not how it should be. And one or two of you are at this very moment thinking 'Yes, I always knew that' and you were right.

So we have put them to one side for the moment in our Twiddly Gadget storeroom, and replaced them with a much simpler tool that is a complete doddle to drive but provides much of the shunt goodness.

I'll have to leave you in suspense on this and the other changes, which I promise I will come back too in the next blog and update on the website when I get my life back.

Another bit of good news is that Michael is back from China for a few weeks holiday, and has been running his excellent critical eye over where we are with the project, and his summary is very encouraging.

So I am taking a solitary two-week holiday at the end of September, when I'll set up camp somewhere on the coast of Britain and start writing the book. I have so much material now, I can't wait to get started.

And when I get back I will do a little more for Chillians everywhere. I will set up a forum so that we can better organise theoretical discussions, and also organise some online sessions so that even if you can't find anyone far-sighted/brave/naive/foolish to play Chilli at the table, we can still all enjoy a game.

Best wishes
Alan

Alighting on a pinhead

2009-02-21T09:39:00.013Z

When I first started learning competitive bridge, my experienced partner told me that there was little point in stopping in four of a minor, as it was as akin to angels alighting on a pinhead. You may as well bid five, he said wisely.

And – he said in another lesson – let's play that 4NT is always Blackwood, and then we won't get into a muddle when it's not clear what is going on.

Later, other wise heads taught me that when playing pairs there was little point in stopping in five of a minor, since everyone in 3NT would probably score better. You might as well bid six, they said.

Being a good pupil, I took all this on board, and realised that once we had passed 3NT with no major fit in sight, six of the minor was the next available stopping place. Yes, my mentors all agreed, and that is why you shouldn't go past 3NT unless you can count twelve tricks.

This is all common knowledge amongst club players, which is why a likely result on any duplicate night is 3NT+2 for a flat board when six of a minor is stony cold.

A little older and wiser, I now realise that these advices were well meaning but only partly true. In Chilli we have gone some way to relieving the tyranny of the 3NT road block by making 4NT available as another stopping point, so that we can afford to put our toe in the water and then swiftly remove it again if it's too cold. Now we're going to go a little further ...

What do you want to do after partner opens 1 and you hold 92 Q84 AQ53 KQJ7? This is a perfectly respectable 14-count, and so surely you would want to force to game with a 2 Chilli relay?

That would be the right thing to do most of time, but every so often partner will turn up with a minimum flat hand, a fit for one of your minors and an empty heart doubleton. Now 3NT will probably go down on the obvious heart lead, and five of the fitting minor looks like too much of a stretch with only 26 points and two balanced hands between you. For once the right thing would be to explore 3NT and then to play in four of that minor.

It would be quite simple to make the 2 relay forcing only to 3NT to achieve this. But a problem would then arise when we have forced to 3NT and we are having our one shot at finding a minor fit at the three-level. If partner has just bid, say, 3 and we have a primary fit, currently we raise to 4, forcing, and take it from there.

If instead 4 were not forcing as per my suggestion, how would you bid a stronger hand that does want to go to game?

My suggested answer comes from looking at what jumps to the four-level opposite 3 currently mean. A bid of four of either major here is defined as to play if it is possible or a fit bid if it is not. It is quite easy to show that the 'to play' meaning should never be used.

Suppose partner has never bid the major but you have. So you are setting some strong suit, but then you could and – more importantly – should bid three of the major, a forcing suit-setter. I say 'should' because partner should be given the chance to re-evaluate his hand in the light of your unilateral suit-set, and space to then express an opinion (which might be 3NT to play or values-for-five, for instance).

Exactly the same argument applies if you are giving delayed support to partner's major i.e. setting a Moysian fit.

And we don't need to stop at four of a major: a jump to 5 is also to play and also wrong: set the suit first with 4 for the same reasons. Ditto five of a major.

Exactly the same analysis applies opposite 3 with one slight caveat: a jump to 4 currently shows a semi-solid suit, whereas going via 3 does not. But I can let that go: the sequence has never arisen, and in any case if you subsequently set diamonds, in all likelihood you have something like a semi-solid suit anyway.

So what we can say is that a jump suit bid opposite a neutral three of a minor is something we will never hear, and therefore these bids become prime candidates for re-use. What I have in mind for them is that they should all be fit bids agreeing the minor, and then interpreted as if we were already in the fit auction.

A simple schedule should clarify. Opposite 3 in a neutral game-forced auction, all these bids agree diamonds:

4: to play (i.e. values-for-four)

4: values-for-five

4: Keycard Ask

5/5/5: Exclusion Keycard Asks

And similarly for clubs. After either values-for-four or values-for-five, partner can continue in standard fit style, including the cheapest side-suit as the Keycard Ask.

Providing this special treatment for the minors does seem right. They get badly neglected up to this point, and they do not have the luxury of the 2NT agreement available to the majors, so they should have some extra tools when they do finally get their moment in the sunshine.

To support good minor suit bidding we need the right mix of encouragement to go beyond 3NT to explore minor fits coupled with good ways of stopping safely. In combination with 4NT to play, I think this provides just that, as well as relieving any fear of the unknown associated with the 2 relay.

Alan

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

Financial crisis causes double to weaken

2009-02-20T12:38:00.014Z

Hello Chillians

Like everyone else, Chilli is not immune to the global financial crisis, so here at Chilli Towers we have been conducting a mid-winter review of our operations, and we have come to two important decisions which I will tell you about.

First, although we have always believed in rewarding our staff richly for success, we recognise the zeitgeist and, unlike some, we will no longer be paying ourselves huge bonuses. One can safely say that those juicy +1100s and +1400s are history.

Second, after an intensive management consultation using the latest 'two pints of beer' methodology, our review of the system ended with quiet satisfaction overall but a recognition of two areas where we could do better. With our usual zeal for improvement, we've come up with two small but very significant refinements in these areas. I'll blog about one here and now, and the other next week.

The strong double refers to our opening double of their one of a suit, which might be either their opening bid or their first response. It shows 16+ points, and is intended to be a replacement for our lost 1. The auction stays neutral, and as far as possible we retain the normal neutral structure.

The strong double has been around for a long time. The main reason for its existence is that we were trying to avoid a whole new set of continuations that would be needed after a standard takeout double. So if we could squeeze everything a bit (well, quite a bit) we could pretend that they hadn't bid and continue on our neutral way.

In practice, the strong double is a bit of a pig over one of a major, and particularly so over 1. All the continuation ranges have to be compressed, so we have to respond 1NT on a very wide range of hands, leaving doubler with a difficult decision as to whether to continue. A lot of weaker overcalls have to be placed unsatisfactorily in a 1NT or 2 overcall, thereby polluting their world too. And finally there is the rather ugly and somewhat unsound three-suited cue bid.

During the review we realised that the original main reason for the strong double had now gone. If we made an opening double of one of a major be a takeout double and made it disturb the auction, then the weak 2NT and shunts would provide all the vocabulary we could possibly want responding to it on stronger hands, while two-level suit bids would sensibly all be to play.

A little research and some practice showed that the idea was a significant improvement. The scheme:

An opening double of one of a major becomes takeout, disturbing the auction

The immediate cue bid of one of a major is retired as a takeout - pending some perceived better use, it reverts to being natural

2 over 1 reverts to being the equivalent of a 2 opener, so e.g. six cards in second position

1NT over one of a major remains as neutral 12-15 without necessarily a stop in their suit (which continues to be a real money spinner) but it will now always be a balanced hand

A 1 overcall of their 1 continues to show an opening hand with four spades (another money spinner), so double instead will deny a minimum hand with four spades.

What about over their one of a minor? Over 1 the strong double works perfectly as a substitute for 1, but over 1 it's slightly cloudy. But if you think about it, there are very few (if any) hands of less than 16 points that cannot be handled with an overcall of one of a major, 1NT or at the two-level. The exception would be the minor two-suited type that would have opened 1, and surely the best action with these hands over their 1 will be to pass smoothly and await developments.

So the idea is that the neutral strong double remains as now over their one of a minor. But we do scrap the takeout cue bid idea, which was never necessary over one of a minor in the first place.

Alan

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

Life, who'd been doing with it?

2009-01-30T10:06:00.004Z

Hi all

As is so often the way, a trickle of ideas to improve Chilli has arrived just at the same time as real life has intruded with a large To Do list. So I'm going to have to restrict myself to little and often on the blogging front.

Shunts are so huge that Geoff, Peter and I are only slowly grasping the subtle inferences available to us with this rich new language. For instance, in the auction (2 weak) dbl (5) pass; (pass) dbl, what do you reckon the doubler has?

In the old days it could be anything from more defence than you could expect from the first double to some rock-crusher, maybe with both majors. Now, however, we know that with the latter type of hand, he would either have shunted to a long suit or made a cue shunt instead of the first double. So the doubler has something more like the former - probably about strong no-trump strength - and partner will probably pass unless he has a decent suit.

One area where shunts have dramatically improved possibilities is in sequences like 1 - 2, since now strong opener does not have to grind his teeth and curse partner for disturbing the auction. For that reason, we feel much more confident in using such bids. We've also extended their use to wide range and sub-minimum values opposite limited openings, along these lines:

1 - 2/2: 0-3 points, six cards

1 - 2/2: 0-7 points, six cards

1 - 2: 0-7 points, six cards

All these have a useful pre-emptive effect without doing us any harm. The second one is useful in that it distinguishes these hands from those that bid 2M the second time round with only five cards. The last one is possible because a minimum hand can go via 1 (but 1 - 2 needs to be kept up to minimum strength as there is no alternative route).

This is actually very similar to an idea suggested by Piet some time ago.

Best wishes
Alan

Strengthening the bridge

2009-01-12T12:11:00.008Z

A Happy New Year to all Chillians and bridge players everywhere! You may still be suffering from the after effects of the festive season, but here at Chilli Towers we have been beavering away at the coalface of human knowledge (or something like that).

Last month I blogged about the new Chilli disturbed structure with the weak 2NT and shunts (Bridge over disturbed waters). Now we want to get some more work out of one of these wonder beasts, the cue shunt.

The first thing to say is a simple clarification: with a natural shunt, it's possible to stop short of game if partner completes the shunt, but with a cue shunt you can never want to stop after completion. So it's simplest if we treat the cue shunt as forcing to game in all variations.

Now to something more substantial. We would strongly prefer that a natural shunt to a previously unshown suit guarantees at least five cards, but if that is the case we will struggle to find four-four fits in an unshown major. Now traditional Lebensohl has a mechanism for this – either a direct cue bid or a cue rebid after 2NT shows four cards in the other major, the difference being that one route shows a guard, the other doesn't. This has a number of defects:

It restricts the use of the cue bid to hands with four in the other major and excludes many other hands with uncertain destination

It provides a memory task to remember which route shows the guard in this particular partnership

It compromises the 2NT bid by including a strong hand amongst weak ones

Intuitively the cue bid sounds like a no-trump try rather than a bid of the other major.

Given that we have highly expressive two-step transfers at our disposal, can we do better than that, and in a Chilli sort of way? Yes we can. Here's a revised response scheme to a cue shunt to a major:

under-break with four cards in the other major; otherwise

bid 3NT with a guard; otherwise

over-break in a suit to show a five-card suit; otherwise

complete to deny any of the above.

So the auction goes 1 (2) 3 – 3. Opener has responded to our cue shunt with an under-break showing four hearts. Isn't this very irritating if all along we wanted to play in 3NT?

This is a good bit. One of the characteristics of shunts is that they can be used only once, since by definition you are above 2NT after first use. This means that after partner under-breaks your cue shunt, you can cue bid again! So here we can continue with the repeat cue bid 3, which systemically asks for a stop for 3NT.

(After a cue shunt to a minor, the repeat cue bid occurs above 3NT, so we give preference to bidding 3NT if we have the guard. But the repeat cue bid is still available as a general force and so can be used to find any major suit fit.)

The Chilli cue shunt can be used (a) when we are looking for 3NT and/or (b) when we are looking for a four-four major fit or (c) when we have nothing better to say, and requires no specific holding in any suit. It's more flexible than the Lebensohlic cue bid, and works without compromising the weak 2NT or having a nasty 'which way' memory load.

This is all lovely stuff for Chilli, but it did occur to me last week that the weak 2NT plus shunts set up was perfectly playable in any system. What you would need is some understanding of how to continue in a fit-like manner in your particular bidding system and – more importantly – just when it applies. Here at the Towers we smugly say 'always', and that's a choice that has a lot going for it.

Alan Williams
January 2009

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

Bridge over disturbed waters

2008-12-05T15:15:00.012Z

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 (2) dbl (4); ?

(2) dbl (pass) ?

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

2008-10-07T22:44:00.009+01:00

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

2008-09-12T12:07:00.008+01:00

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

2008-07-05T12:53:00.013+01:00

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.

Soft fit, hard fit

2008-06-12T11:21:00.009+01:00

Chilli Two makes a distinction between major and minor fit auctions, the differences being that in a minor fit 3NT is to play (rather than values for four) and three of a suit shows an empty suit (rather than a splinter).

It's clear to see that these are good variations, but we can get more mileage out of them if we make them characteristics of a soft fit. The point is that we can characterise all minor fit auctions as soft, but then add some major fit auctions that would also benefit from these variations.

The first addition is a major fit established after a suit-setter. It's clearly a good idea after such a unilateral action to let reluctant partner have a small say and be able to nominate 3NT as a sensible contract, and we can do this by making the fit soft.

An example: 1 - 1; 2 - 2; 3 - 3; 3NT - pass.

(While we're on suit-setters, we've decided to try to increase the frequency of delayed premature suit-setters by allowing them to be bid missing any single honour, not just the ace.)

The second addition to soft fits is cleaning up what is currently an exceptional rule, and that is that 3NT is to play if partner has just made a non-forcing bid of the trump suit. By defining the non-forcing bid as making the fit soft, we get the exceptional rule rolled up into the general one.

An example: 1 - 2NT; 3 - 3NT; pass.

We may come up with some other applications of soft fits. The important thing is that there must be clear and concise definitions for when the soft fit applies.

Alan Williams
June 2008

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

Unscrambling the scramble window

2008-06-09T12:07:00.015+01:00

Putting up the Chilli Two site involved an intense review of the system, and – you'll never guess – we've already come up with some improvements! Most of them are simplifications, which are always popular. Over the course of this week I'll be posting on this blog as I put in the changes.

The first change is an important one, and that is to simplify the scramble window idea. It worked very well for its original purpose, which was to provide a special environment after a 2 invitational relay was declined. Everything in the window (2 to 3 inclusive) was then natural and to play, although a raise such as 1 - 2; 2 - 3 would be a repeat invitation, asking for reconsideration on the basis of the fit.

Unfortunately and incorrectly I then complicated it by also including two other types of sequence:

one in which someone jumped into the window without using a relay (e.g. 1 - 2)
continuations after 1 such as 1 - 1; 2

2; 3

The problem in both cases is that one hand is unlimited. To cope with strong hands we had to specify that bids that went beyond the window were forcing. But that was still clumsy, as these bids are all suit-setters: it left us badly placed if we wanted to explore for fit, or to strongly agree a suit (because it was a scramble, 2NT was natural).

So the fix is a three-parter. First, we've reverted to the simple window I described at the top, specifically for when one hand invites with 2 and the other declines.

Second, a jump into the window in sequence type 1 is now a disturbing bid. You'll find that this gives you all the tools you need to carry on when you have a strong hand opposite partner's space-stealing but highly descriptive bid; and there's no real need for scrambling, as partner's bid has already identified the strain in which we can play if are going no further.

And finally, we have to deal with the continuations after 1.

1 - 1/1; 2 shows a minimum hand with 5-4 in the minors and no three-card fit for partner's major. Again, we want to be able to manage responder's strong hands constructively, but we don't want to lose scrambling here – we want to be able to choose between opener's minors, or play in two of a major or in 2NT. As opener has defined his hand quite well, the best solution seems to be to make 2 an artificial game force, and to treat all other bids in the window as starting a scramble. In other words, continue as if the 2 bid is an invitational relay. This works well except in one small respect – we are forced to 3 if we want to play in diamonds. I think that is a small price to pay for having a really economical route forward when responder is strong.

1 - 2/2; 3/3 is a bit easier: we simply make the final bid disturbing.

Alan Williams
June 2008

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

A Chilli welcome

2008-05-20T08:29:00.007+01:00

Welcome to the Chilli bridge bidding blog.

I have posted a version of Chilli Two on the website and set up this blog for discussion. I hope you enjoy it.

I apologise to my readers for the year-long delay in posting Chilli Two. One or two wrinkles have been ironed out in tournament play in that year, so it's not all bad. I hope you enjoy it now it has arrived.

I am aware that this first posting of Chilli Two may be a little short of examples in places, and may also have typos. Please let me know if you spot anything, or feel extra explanation is required. You can use this blog, or email me with any immediate reactions and comments.

Best wishes

Alan Williams
May 2008