The Liar's Code

[mikestar]

The Liar's Code is a concept I learned from the writings of Edgar Kaplan. It is a superb tool for finding the best bid on hands that don't quite fit the requirements for any of your possible bids.

 

Definition:

 

An "honest bid" is a bid which conforms entirely to its technical requirements for strength and shape. A "lie" is a bid which does not. Kaplan is not expressing moral judgment--he is using a vivid metaphor that helps keep the concept in focus.

 

The code:

• 1. Never lie unless necessary.
  
• 2. If you must lie, tell the smallest lie possible.
  
• 3. Prefer to lie about your shape rather than your strength.
  
• 4. Prefer to lie about a minor suit rather than a major suit.
  
• 5. Always consider your next bid: better a small lie now than an honest bid which may require a big lie later.
  

 

An example of how this is applied. Teaching beginners a basic 5 card major system, I give then the following information about opening bids:

 

Minimum strength to open.

A major suit opening shows five+ cards.

A minor suit opening shows four+ cards.

1NT shows 15-17, with 4333, 4432, or 5332 shape. If a 5 card suit is held, it is a minor.

 

I then have them to apply the Liar's Code to hands that have opening strength but don't meet any of the requirements.

 

A major advantage of this approach is that they start learning judgement very early in their bidding careers.

[jtfanclub]

I have my own personal code, though I'm not particularly good, and maybe that's why. :)

 

These are in addition to yours, and are more 'when to lie' situations.

 

1. Never overbid a balanced hand. Never underbid an unbalanced hand.

 

2. Support with support, especially in competition.

 

3. Overbid aces- they do great on offense. Underbid queens and jacks- they often do better on defense.

 

4. If you have the points for game, have a misfit, and don't know what to bid, pass is a good option. Sometimes, it's better to pass in a game forcing auction than to reach the wrong game (or slam).

 

5. Voids are special. Not always special in a good way, but always special.

[Cascade]

The code:

• 1. Never lie unless necessary.
  
• 2. If you must lie, tell the smallest lie possible.
  
• 3. Prefer to lie about your shape rather than your strength.
  
• 4. Prefer to lie about a minor suit rather than a major suit.
  
• 5. Always consider your next bid: better a small lie now than an honest bid which may require a big lie later.
  

I prefer to lie about my strength than my distribution.

 

Relatively rarely does one Jack make the difference between a playable and an unplayable contract. On the other hand if I don't have enough trumps ...

[inquiry]

I agree with cascade.. Shape first, stregnth later. Rather lying or telling the truth, I am more interestedi in shape.... :-)

 

Ben

[mikestar]

A partnership could reasonably decide to reverse the preferences in #3. But in any case it must be interperted in the light of #2: lying by a jack is a smaller lie than misrepresenting your shape, but is lying by an ace?

[MickyB]

3. Overbid aces- they do great on offense. Underbid queens and jacks- they often do better on defense.

Qs and Js in your long suits do better on offence, Qs and Js in your short suits do better on defence. And I agree with that lying about strength is better than lying about shape, a good or bad lie of the cards will make over/underbidding work out well more often than being in the wrong strain.

[Fluffy]

3.  Overbid aces- they do great on offense.  Underbid queens and jacks- they often do better on defense.

Qs and Js in your long suits do better on offence, Qs and Js in your short suits do better on defence. And I agree with that lying about strength is better than lying about shape, a good or bad lie of the cards will make over/underbidding work out well more often than being in the wrong strain.

mmm, I think the J of trumps is often the most useless card, and the Q as well when 10 trumps are there, these isn´t always of course, specially when you want to cross ruff or to shorten trumps on a hand quick.

[Free]

The code:

• 1. Never lie unless necessary.
  
• 2. If you must lie, tell the smallest lie possible.
  
• 3. Prefer to lie about your shape rather than your strength.
  
• 4. Prefer to lie about a minor suit rather than a major suit.
  
• 5. Always consider your next bid: better a small lie now than an honest bid which may require a big lie later.
  

The code for psyching is the exact opposite :blink: :

• 1. Lie whenever you feel like it.
  
• 2. If you must lie, tell the BIGEST lie possible.
  
• 3. Prefer to lie about BOTH your shape AND your strength.
  
• 4. Prefer to lie about a MAJOR suit rather than a MINOR suit.
  
• 5. Always consider your next bid: pass or another psychic.
  

[whereagles]

I don't really like these "THOU SHALT" rules. Kinda indoctrinating :blink:

 

I prefer to put it in another way, as in "When you seem to have no clear bid, here are some pointers that can help you judge which bid is the lesser evil".

[Chamaco]

I like Woolsey's general principle of the "no double flaw":

your bid should promise an "ideal standard", in terms of shape/strength/honor concentration, according to the vulnerability and the seat.

 

However, if you always stick rigidly to the standard, often times your action will be restricted, and no one becomes a winner by simply applying conservatives rules without daring. So commonsense suggests to be flexible and make sometimes offshape bids, or steal a point, or get away with some daring bids in terms of honor concentration (for preempts).

 

So the hand can contain some flaw compared to the "standard bid " expectations as reference.

Anyways, taking into account strength, shape, vulnerability and seat, the hand should have only one flaw, not two.

 

E.g.: preempting with a lousy suit can be a decent gamble in second seat although usually it is better to do it in 3rd seat and it is plausible to do it in first seat: but only if everything else is perfect, e.g. not vulnerable and no wasted honors (and without stealing 1 card in length).

 

There are many other examples, but I think the point is clear.

[helene_t]

I agree that you should rather lie about distribution than about strength.

 

Of course, Points Schmoints. But that means that you should design your system so that shape is stated more accurately than HCPs in competitive situations, and that HCPs is not all there is to card evaluation. That's not the same as lying.

 

"Don't lie about strength" means that you should rather rebid 1NT with a semi-balanced than reversing with a modest 14 HCP. We all agree about that don't we? It's trivial, of course, but this is about a beginners guide to lying.

[whereagles]

Actually... since distribution is more important than strenght, why shouldn't you lie about strenght instead of distribution??

[mikestar]

Actually... since distribution is more important than strenght, why shouldn't you lie about strenght instead of distribution??

I open 1D with x KQxx AKxxx xxx and partner responds 1S. Which lie should I tell?

 

2D right on strength but promises 6 diamonds OR

 

2H right in shape but about an ace light .

 

Most experts would choose 2D and this is what Kaplan is aiming at, not advocating grossly distorting your shape rahter than being a jack light.

[Chamaco]

Actually... since distribution is more important than strenght, why shouldn't you lie about strenght instead of distribution??

I open 1D with x KQxx AKxxx xxx and partner responds 1S. Which lie should I tell?

 

2D right on strength but promises 6 diamonds OR

 

2H right in shape but about an ace light .

 

Most experts would choose 2D and this is what Kaplan is aiming at, not advocating grossly distorting your shape rahter than being a jack light.

Another case is reversing into a 3 card suit with honors concentration.

 

x-AJx-AKQ-KJ98xx

 

1C:1S

?

I assume most experts would prefer a 2D reverse (shape distortion) rather than a jump to 3C.

[inquiry]

Actually... since distribution is more important than strenght, why shouldn't you lie about strenght instead of distribution??

I open 1D with x KQxx AKxxx xxx and partner responds 1S. Which lie should I tell?

 

2D right on strength but promises 6 diamonds OR

 

2H right in shape but about an ace light .

 

Most experts would choose 2D and this is what Kaplan is aiming at, not advocating grossly distorting your shape rahter than being a jack light.

Another case is reversing into a 3 card suit with honors concentration.

 

x-AJx-AKQ-KJ98xx

 

1C:1S

?

I assume most experts would prefer a 2D reverse (shape distortion) rather than a jump to 3C.

What is horribly wrong with 2NT here and 1NT on the hand by mikestar? With misho I would rebid 2♦ here, but we have special agreements about what 2NT bids (not what you suspect) and 3♣ (again not what you suspect).

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Actually... since distribution is more important than strenght, why shouldn't you lie about strenght instead of distribution??

I open 1D with x KQxx AKxxx xxx and partner responds 1S. Which lie should I tell?

 

2D right on strength but promises 6 diamonds OR

 

2H right in shape but about an ace light .

 

Most experts would choose 2D and this is what Kaplan is aiming at, not advocating grossly distorting your shape rahter than being a jack light.

I got dealt a very similar hand during a tournament last night:

 

White versus White

MPs

 

Playing "Animal Acol", I was dealer and picked up

 

3

AQT2

432

AQT42

 

From my perspective, I'd be faced with a near impossible rebid problem if I chose to open 1C and partner responded 1S

 

1. A 1NT opening would promise 15-17 HCP and suggest a doubleton spade

2. A reverse into Hearts in unthinkable

3. Rebidding clubs on a 5 card suit is pretty ugly

 

So, I decided to sidestep the problem by opening 1♥. Sure enough, partner responded 1♠ and I was happily able to rebid 2♣.

 

I'd chose the same strategy with your example hand and open 1♥ rather than 1♦.

[Chamaco]

What is horribly wrong with 2NT here ?

Well, I thought that bidding NT with only a singleton in pard's suit is usually delayed until you cannot do otherwise.

 

At least that was in the books by SJ Simon (as one of the cardinal sins in "Why u lose at bridge" = "the man that bids NT with singleton in pard's suit") and in the books of Mike Lawrence, but perhaps this is obsolete now, I am not in a position to be able to judge.

[mikestar]

Nothing horrible about either of the NT rebids, but they are "lying about shape" just like the alternatives. Maybe Edgar K. and his disciple aren't so crazy after all? (Well Edgar wasn't, I'm not so sure about me.)

[Cascade]

3

AQT2

432

AQT42

 

So, I decided to sidestep the problem by opening 1♥. Sure enough, partner responded 1♠ and I was happily able to rebid 2♣.

I would rather pretend to have six clubs than five hearts.

 

Therefore I open 1♣ and rebid 2♣.

 

Actually I do not think I am promising six clubs for this auction. Of course I would like to have a six bagger.

[Cascade]

What is horribly wrong with 2NT here and 1NT on the hand by mikestar?

I don't like rebidding NTs with a singleton in partner's suit.

 

When I rebid NTs (at my second turn to bid as opener) I feel that I owe partner two cards in his suit. And as I stated earlier I would rather lie about my strength than my distribution.

 

I will swap you a Jack if you give me a trump anytime.

[1eyedjack]

Playing "Animal Acol", I was dealer and picked up

 

3

AQT2

432

AQT42

 

From my perspective, I'd be faced with a near impossible rebid problem if I chose to open 1C and partner responded 1S

 

1. A 1NT opening would promise 15-17 HCP and suggest a doubleton spade

2. A reverse into Hearts in unthinkable

3. Rebidding clubs on a 5 card suit is pretty ugly

 

So, I decided to sidestep the problem by opening 1♥.  Sure enough, partner responded 1♠ and I was happily able to rebid 2♣.

And responder with 2xHearts and 3xClubs was happily able to put you back into 2H.

 

If 1NT opener shows 15-17 then you appear to be in range for a 1NT rebid. I would open 1C on this hand and rebid 1NT. Unlike Cascade I do not object to a singleton in responder's suit to rebid 1NT although I would rebid 1-suit in preference given the opportunity. (I would not rebid 2NT with a singleton, but then I would have sufficient values to take some other action with safety.)

 

Now, if you are playing a 12-14 1NT opener, so that 1NT rebid would have been 15-17, then I agree that this does become a nasty hand (although I would open 1C and rebid 2C rather than open 1H - the Club suit is not that ropey).

[whereagles]

Since when does

 

1D 1S

2D

 

show 6 cards? It can be done with 45 on the reds, without reverse strenght.

 

Anyway, I see the point of lying about distribution before strenght. It's usually better because it tends to keep the auction lower, and thus gives you a chance to catch up later. The other way around is not true. Usually, not always. Every hand has to be analyzed separately.

[Free]

Indeed, it all depends on the hand. Some you'll lie for shape, others for strength. Consider this example:

 

KJx-Kxxx-KJx-KJx

 

I think we all will downgrade this hand, at least by one point. If you play weak NT, I'm sure you'll open this 1NT rather than 1♣ (5 card Majors)! Here we 'lie' about strength, not shape.

[helene_t]

No, Free, that's card evaluation, not lying. 1NT is a perfectly descriptive bid.

[Cave_Draco]

One word that seems notable by its absence... "Partner"!

 

S/he is the chap sat opposite, as opposed to the opposition who are sat beside you, :blink:

 

Lying can lead to loss of partnership trust.

Admittedly, some hands don't lend themselves to an honest bid but, if you hold a post-mortem...

 

1) Will partner sympathise with your problem?

2) Will partner understand your solution?

3) Will partner "forgive" your lie?

 

If the answer to all three is "No" then you had better hope that partner is a Friend.