Suit Composition as Information

Experts of the old school recognized there was a difference between a raise on 3 small cards and a raise on 3 to the jack-ten. They defined a 5-card suit as being ‘biddable’ if the suit was headed by an honor. In this regard they were saying that suits worthy of bid had to have an honor content that was consistent with their advertised length. That is, a bid was informative to a high degree as the minimum honor content was in accordance with expectations, that is, with what was most probable.

Today’s experts tend to ignore the honor content of a suit when opening the bidding or when raising partner in competition. The Law of Total Tricks maintains that it is the degree of fit that is most important feature. Most of the time this makes little difference as good fits usually produce a requisite number of honor cards merely on the basis of probability, however, the exceptional cases can cause problems. One may think solely in terms of the Law for which adjustments must be made for poor trump quality, but additionally one may think in terms of information. Without restriction on the honor content of suit bids, those bids become less informative than they were traditionally.

Uncertainty as to the quality of the suits being bid may be of benefit in competitive auctions as the opponents may misjudge the situation. On the other hand when it comes to defending a contract, the opening lead is often critical. The more reliable the bidding of one’s partner the more likely one will find the killing lead. Observing on BBO hands played by experts, I conclude that one of the most common sources of failure on defence is due to the bidding of poor suits by defenders who above all wanted to disrupt their opponents’ auction.

The following hand from the Slava Cup is the most recent evidence of a situation where experts bid in an atmosphere of uncertainty for its own sake hoping that the opposition will get it wrong in the end, but in which they are the ones who make the final wrong guess and suffer most from their own misinformation.

 

Dealer: South Both Vulnerable		Welland
		♠	Q105
		♥	93
		♦	AQ954
		♣	K102
Von Arnim				Auken
♠	AKJ987			♠	6432
♥	AJ865			♥	K72
♦	—			♦	82
♣	95			♣	Q643
		Zia
		♠	—
		♥	Q104
		♦	KJ10763
		♣	AJ87

 

Von Arnim	Welland	Auken	Zia
—	—	—	1♦
3♣	3NT	4♠	5♦
5♠	6♦	All Pass

 

At the other table after a Michaels Cue Bid by West, East played in 5♠* off 1 for -200. The double was applied by North whose values appear defensive in nature. Roy Welland thought otherwise, and put pressure on the opposition by taking a 2-way shot at slam, perhaps imagining the aggressive Zia would hold the ♥ A.

Most observers felt they would have found the killing lead of the ♥A. The question that is most relevant is this: could the defenders have bid in a more informative manner? If they had set up the correct defence, Welland would not have bid 6♦ , but would have had to be content with the par result of 5♠* off 1, as was achieved at the other table. As it turned out he and Zia benefited to the tune of 15 IMPs when Von Arnim led the ♠K.

One can see that the East-West defense should be centered on the heart suit. If they declare, they would prefer to play in spades. So the trick is to distinguish between the 2 situations. If over 3NT Auken had bid 4♦, that would have brought the hearts into play. Even a pass (shudder) would have been more informative than the bid of a suit that had no defensive value whatsoever. Occasionally defending against 3NT is not necessarily a bad idea. Down 3 would have been quite satisfactory. Von Arnim for her part might have simply overcalled 1♠. No need to panic, surely, and a more informative auction might develop allowing hearts to be introduced later. We cannot imagine a worse result than was achieved by her phony preemptive style.

Last week I was reminded of this hand when I arrived at a table where the North-South pair were discussing a previous misdefence. It seems North had led an unsupported Ace against a 5-level contract hoping for an attitude signal, which South could not acknowledge as such, since they always lead Ace from Ace-King. North maintained that against a high level contract their agreement no longer applied. Well, we can see Von Arnim had a similar problem. If she could have got an attitude signal on a lead of the ♥A, all would have gone well. It is a matter of being informed.

As it so happened when we finally got around to playing a hand against this pair, another high-level decision arose. As East I was dealt ♠ 543 ♥ QT942 ♦ — ♣ QT862, none vulnerable. North opened 1♦ on my right and I passed rather than bid a ratty unusual 2NT. Not holding spades, I do not expect to outbid the opponents. The bidding proceeded: 1♦ (Pass) 1♠ ( 2♥); 4♠ (???) What is your bid? Of course, 5♦ appears to be obvious, but it seems this is considered by many to be a stroke of genius. My 5♦ was doubled, and I bid 5♥, also doubled. Minus 100 was a clear top against 4 NS scores of 480 and 4 of 300. 5♠ would have been down 1 on a diamond lead, so the informative, lead-directing 5♦ bid was a sure way to achieve a top score. To be able to excel by merely using common sense does not constitute an entirely satisfactory state of affairs, but let’s maintain a clear perspective: it is better than not excelling.

The British Approach

A favorite form of British entertainment is the public inquiry in which political leaders are put to a friendly test with regard to the degree to which they can mislead the public without actually telling a lie under the legal definition. There were the Butler Inquiry, the Hutton Inquiry, the Baker Inquest, and, currently, the Iraqi War Inquiry. Like parliamentary question periods, these shed little light on the true nature of affairs, and whatever information is considered dangerous to the authorities is kept secret on pain of imprisonment and locked away for 70 years. In the same vein there was years ago the unconvincing Foster Inquiry concerning the accusation of cheating by Terrence Reese and Boris Schapiro in the 1965 world championships.

In the game of bridge ‘the British approach’ refers to the use of bids that are not intended to be informative while staying within the legal limit of their definition. Overcalling on a poor suit in a poor hand is a common means of achieving this end, as in this recent example from my club:

 

1♦	(1♠)	1NT	(2♥ )
2NT	(Pass)	3NT	All Pass	Opening Lead: the C♣

 

The overcall of 1♠ was made with a topless suit, a speculative toe-in-the-water effort made in the hope of eliciting a raise. The 2♥ bid on inadequate values was intended to show little support for spades. Despite these misleading bids the opposition proceeded to 3NT. The opening leader believed their bidding rather than his own or his partner’s, and led the suit in which he hoped his partner held complementary values. His feeling might have been that he had gained a great deal of information with little cost to himself, but in fact he had drawn a road map for declarer to follow. A tempo had been lost. The most probable outcome is a costly endplay after his minor suit exit cards have been removed and he is required to make a belated lead in a major suit. So it transpired.

We have further evidence to consider taken from Sally Brock’s feature in Bridge Magazine, Leading Questions: Quiz, a particular favorite of mine. Feisty Sally is a world’s champion, so we assume that she represents what is best in British bridge. In her quiz, experts are given an auction and a hand from which they are to choose their opening lead. A pattern has developed in which most often the normal opening lead gets the top (consensus) score, but it turns out not to have been the killing lead. Thus for the reader the problem becomes a 2-part question: what is the normal lead in theory and what is the killing lead in practice? (the Brits actually call it ‘the winning lead’.)

The most entertaining aspect of the feature is that for each problem she gives all 4 hands as they were dealt at the table. In the cases were the obvious lead is not the killing lead there is something fishy about the auction, something that invalidates the normal choice. The panelists are expected to draw correct inferences from the auction, then Sally Brock shows us why they are wrong. The message she is sending is that one cannot trust the auction as the protagonists’ bidding is unreliable. Distrust extends to one’s partner.

The first installment in the May 2009 issue set the tone. On the 5 problems presented, logicians Eric Kokish and Justin Hackett obtained a perfect score of 50, but David Bakhshi found all the killing leads, while finishing last in the consensus department with a score of 36. On Problem 4 he was the only panelist to find the killing lead of the ♣J from ♠J94 ♥J9 ♦8632 ♣JT72, after the sequence: 1♥ (Pass) 2♥ (3♦); 3♥ All Pass. Partner had interjected 3♦ on: ♠KQ6 ♥76 ♦AK974 ♣AQ9. To me the real question is whether East, rather than overcalling 3♦ after NS have established a fit, should have doubled on a balanced hand with 19 HCP thereby showing values in 3 suits at once.

Misleading bidding is disadvantageous in many ways when one ends up on defence. For that reason I prefer overcalls to be informative, that is, made on good suits, the exceptions being in the spade suit when there is a good chance of stealing the hand. I prefer competitive raises that imply that leading the suit is safe. Furthermore, I expect partner to lead the suit I have freely bid. Sally Brock doesn’t agree. She writes, ‘If partners are going to lead my suit it means I can’t bid unless I have a good one!’ Under such a constraint the overcall loses some of its disruptive potential, but this approach is pretty much a one-shot effort that puts a partnership at risk.

If the defenders are in the habit of bidding bad suits, a stopperless 3NT can escape the normal, killing lead. On the other hand leading to partner’s bad suit may give away the contract, a common theme in the quiz. So the game becomes one of bluff and counter-bluff. To reduce the guessing element, one should aim to play for what is most probable, and that involves providing partner with reliable information where it is most needed.

In the quiz of January 2010 Barry Rigal found all 5 killing leads, but scored a lowly 39, good for 10th place in a field of 13. He was the only one got this one right. You are West. South has opened 3♥ at game all, IMPs scoring, has been raised to 4♥ by North, which your partner, East, doubles. What is you lead from: ♠764 ♥Q5 ♦765 ♣KT876 ? The logical answer is ♠6, but the killing lead is the eccentric ♥5. South had opened 3♥, vulnerable, on a 6-card suit: ♠2 ♥AJT732 ♦KJ ♣J532. Although this bid is not illegal, one may say that it does not conform to what one usually expects of such a bid in the given circumstances, thus it is unusual, therefore, improbable.

The lesson I have drawn from these and similar examples is that it is difficult to find the killing lead when the auction is misinformative, therefore, a partnership will benefit if they misinform, yet, in spite of this, reach a playable contract that will make on a lead based on an assumption of normal, most probable conditions. A bidding system that uses limited opening bids has the advantage as the users know early in the auction whether they are aiming for game or for slam. If game is the limit, uninformative bidding may be the best option. There is nothing unethical in the sequence 1NT – 3NT, even if both partners are stretching the limits of definition. Also, one may take advantage of an opponent’s self-inflicted uncertainty. It may be ugly, but unusual is not illegal. There are risks as well as benefits to be derived from such an approach. The benefits are not so obvious when one bids speculatively only to end up on lead against an opponent who has not been intimidated. When in doubt one should ask oneself, ‘if I had not bid, what would I have led?’ To bid one suit tentatively and guess to lead another is a costly bad habit.