[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]

mikestar, on Jul 22 2004, 07:46 AM, said:

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]

jtfanclub, on Jul 22 2004, 12:18 AM, said:

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]

MickyB, on Jul 22 2004, 12:42 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 22 2004, 12:18 AM, said:

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]

mikestar, on Jul 21 2004, 08:46 PM, said:

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 :

• 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

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]

whereagles, on Jul 22 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

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]

mikestar, on Jul 22 2004, 05:51 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 22 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

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]

Chamaco, on Jul 22 2004, 02:04 PM, said:

mikestar, on Jul 22 2004, 05:51 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 22 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

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]

mikestar, on Jul 22 2004, 08:51 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 22 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

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]

inquiry, on Jul 22 2004, 06:08 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Jul 23 2004, 06:18 AM, said:

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]

inquiry, on Jul 23 2004, 06:08 AM, said:

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.