Parrish the Thought Newsletter

Greetings from Cape Cod! I had a great July! It started with my annual trip to Michigan with high-school friends. I had a nice time at the NABC in Minneapolis, though the results weren’t up to my standards. I’ve had some friends with me the past couple of weeks here on the Cape, which has been really fun. They had never been to the Cape, so I showed them around. We had a great time: we played lots of games (including a two-session pairs game at the local sectional, which McKenzie and Ankur won!) and drank a lot of yummy wine.

My sister and her family come down in a couple of weeks. Can’t wait to see them! I don’t have a lot on my calendar for August—just the way I like it! I’ll head back to NYC at some point in September—the later the better!!

Thanks to those of you who came to my memorial seminar for my dad yesterday. It was a special event for me. And thanks to all of you who donated to the Alzheimer’s Association. The page is still active if you want to make a donation.

I’m hard at work getting the re-launch of The Bridge World up and running. We’re hoping to launch in the fall; details to come soon (hopefully).

I released a couple of great podcast episodes this month, with Raj Shourie and Maya Jonas-Silver. I’ve got some cool ones coming in August: John Kranyak and Marc Smith.

Upcoming topics in my Monday Class on Learn Bridge Online:

August 3                Two-Tiered Splinters
August 10              Declarer Play
August 17              Puppet Stayman
August 24              Defense
August 31              Reverses

Time for some questions? Always feel free to send me questions at adam@adamparrishbridge.com

One of my big takeaways from Leveling Up is the utility of having a coach

Hi, Adam,

My partner and I started playing together online a few months ago and just played our first Nationals together. We have similar bridge interests and are looking to work on our partnership and play in future Nationals together. To help us in our journey, we are looking for a coach. However, being somewhat inexperienced, we really don’t know what we don’t know. What should we be looking for in a coach? What should we ask them to help us with?

I would lump the things you want from a coach into three basic categories:

1. Agreements. What are our current agreements, how well do we know them, where are they insufficient or overly complicated, what changes should we make? This is for both bidding and defense.

2. Analytics. Where are we falling short? What do we need to work on? This could be vague like “declarer play,” but hopefully more specific, like squeeze technique or identifying endplays. Often the best way to do this is to have a coach analyze your played games. (Online is great for this!!) This can also involve analyzing your style: how similar is your style to your partner’s on preempts, opening bids, overcalls, etc.?

3. Methodology. Now that we know what to work on, what should we be doing to improve? This is actually the hardest part. For bidding you might set up a bidding table, work through old Challenge the Champ sets, or use Cuebids. For defense you might do some structured lessons with the coach. There are lots of tools for declarer play (including my weekly class!). A good coach will be able to offer lots of options.

Finding a good coach like this is difficult, and it’s probably going to be a get-what-you-pay-for situation. I’m happy to make some recommendations.

Adam

What does this mean on the convention card?

Dear Adam,

There is something in the convention card Game Forcing Except When Suit Rebid.

Does that apply just to the responder, just to the opener or both? What do you do as responder if you absolutely do not want that game force turned off?

As responder, I had a 2/1 bid stopped short of game recently and it shocked me. Partner bid 1♠, I bid 2♣, partner bid 2♦, and I bid 2♠. He passed. He said he was worried about vulnerability and his hand being kind of weak. Is that right? What could I have done to avoid partner’s pass?

Almost no one plays that, but if you do it only applies to responder.

So they would play 1♠-2♣, 2♥-3♣ as Invitational but not forcing.

Instead, we just play 1♠-3♣ as that hand, and 2♣ creates an unconditional game force.

Even if you were playing that, it only applies to responder’s second bid. Your partner was not allowed to pass your 2♠ bid. 2♣ is GF GF GF!

Adam

I hate the term “help suit game tries”!

Dear Adam,

As a bridge teacher, I’m trying to put together information for my students about game tries. The problem is the definition of “help suit game try.” Different bridge authorities mean different things by that term.

I would like to clarify what a help suit game try is and how it differs from a natural, aka, “Second suit” game try. The way I see it, there are three different approaches frequently used for game tries:

1. Second suit game tries

2. Help suit game tries

3. Kokish (short suit) game tries

So I wanted to ask you: Is there one particular type of game try you recommend to your students? And if the answer is “help suit game tries,” how does that differ from “second suit” game tries? In other words, what is your criteria for making the game try, and what is your criteria for accepting the game try if your partner makes it?

I hate the term “help suit game tries” for exactly the reason you point out: everyone seems to mean something different by it. Some people make a HSGT on xxx: “I have losers I need you to cover.” Some make it on something like Qxx: “A fitting honor or two would be nice.” Some it’s more like AJxx or KQxx. “This is my second suit. Evaluate accordingly.”

I like the third approach, which I just call natural game tries. The whole point of a game try is to help partner evaluate where their cards—particularly queens and jacks—are useful and where they’re not. When I show my second suit, partner can use “In and Out Valuation” to know whether cards are useful (in my long suits) or potentially not (in my short suits). Now, I’m not going to make a game try on an AKQJ suit—partner is going to have no honors and think the hands don’t fit. Similarly, I’m not going to do it on Txxx and have partner think their Qxx is golden. So you have to use some judgment. If it goes 1♠-2♠ and I want to make a game try holding ♠ KJxxx ♥ x ♦ AKQx ♣ Kxx, I’m bidding 3♣, not 3♦. Partner will know to up-value honors in spades and clubs and down-value cards in hearts and diamonds, which is exactly what I want. ♠ QTx ♥ xxxx ♦ xx ♣ QJxx is a 5-count, but the cards are in the right place and we’re making 4. 3♣ also has the benefit of giving partner extra space to make a 3♦/♥ counter game try.

Adam

That's all for now. I encourage you to send me questions about my column or anything else at adam@adamparrishbridge.com. Maybe they'll end up in the next newsletter!