Slammin’ at the Vanderbilt

Before we look at some slam hands from the 2012 finals, we should again remind ourselves that the donor of the cup, Harold Vanderbilt, was a pioneer who invented the first bidding system that employed 1♣ as the opening bid with strong hands. Of the 8 pairs playing in the finals half were employing a Big Club system.

After several days glued to the screen watching the exciting matches played with great skill by the experts, my head began to ache. By the time the finals were in progress my brain whirled with the instructive details often presented by the BBO commentators – all in good faith, mind you, but in my fatigue the question arose – were the bidding details all that significant? Bob Hamman had said his victory in the Platinum Pairs little involved the bidding systems being employed at the tables at which he was engaged. In a sense that’s understandable. Suppose an opponent gets to a reasonable contract based on the information provided by the bidding around the table. Success or failure will depend more on the placement of the cards around the table than on the route by which he arrived at the contract. Bidding a good game doesn’t mean he will make it, and bidding a bad game doesn’t mean he will not. Having noted that, we still claim that success may very much depend on the route taken. We present evidence later.

With my head in a whirl of confusion there suddenly appeared on my screen a simple statement of fundamental truth that blew my mind. It was like in the old biblical movies when the sun burst through the parting clouds and a voice speaks to the sandal-clad hero, played by Charlton Heston or some other muscular goy, who is in a state of frustrated confusion. In my case the revelation came not from the Almighty but from 2 Canadian commentators, Andre Vallée and Allan Graves, who keeps to the basic truths.

A.G.  ‘Bridge is a gambling game first and foremost……they would easily have this auction on a different set of boards with similar values and end in a very good contract.’
A.V.   ‘Distribution is nearly always the determining factor.’
A.G. ‘Yes, and the location of the high cards for the fit.’

So there you have it in a nutshell – Plato and Socrates. If we are going to watch hundreds of hands being bid and misbid by experts with their exotic bidding agreements, we should keep these truths foremost in our minds. Furthermore, when we go to play bridge we should employ methods that facilitate the disclosure of the fundamental requirements for success. Thereafter, let the Fates decide. Here is an example from late in the Finals, where the winners got it right. We simplify their Precision bidding.

♠ QT92	♠ AJ53	1♣*	3♦**
♥ A9	♥ K743	3♥ (ask)	3NT***
♦ AJ652	♦4	6♠	Pass
♣ AJ	♣ KT92	*16+HCP	**4=4=1=4
			*** A & K

The 3♦ response is an old-time Precision bid showing shape and a good hand.
3♥ asks for controls in hearts and spades.
3NT promises an Ace and a King in the majors.

At this point opener know partner holds the ♠A and a major K, more likely in hearts. No matter, it is reasonable to bid 6♠ and no more. The major point to note is that opener holds a decent trump holding greatly enhanced by the presence of the ♠T&9. It is unlikely the opponents will lead a trump, but if they do a club finesse may be needed to provide an extra chance. In the event the lead was a heart and declarer was able to crossruff for an easy 12 tricks when the defender short in hearts was unable to over-ruff.

One might say the result was a lucky one as it depended on the location of the ♠K. Yes, partly true, but declarer had a reasonable chance of making his slam on a variety of hands and opening leads, a gamble based on the information made available by the auction which gave distribution exactly and the location of controls partially. In the end the player with the trump intermediates (Joe Grue) made the final decision.

Let’s contrast this success story with the slam failure that our 2 commentators were discussing. Here are the hands as bid at the table using 2/1 methods.

♠ AJ765	♠ KQ	1♠	2♣
♥ AT93	♥ Q542	2♥	4♦*
♦ A3	♦7	4NT	5♣
♣ 85	♣ AQJ642	5♦	5♠
		6♥	Pass

The slam depended on the club finesse and some luck in the trump suit. In the end it was down 2. The fundamental flaw in many slam contracts in a 4-4 fit is the quality of the trumps. One may get away with AK only in a 9-card fit, but in an 8-card fit, the quality has to be there in close contracts. On the hand discussed above, the trumps were no better, but the distribution was such that declarer might escape having a trump loser without having to depend on a club finesse. Such was not the case in this 6♥ contract.

So we must ask where in the auction was the opportunity to discover the trump situation? Can we put the blame on declarer? His trumps look good enough. Is it then wrong for the responder to react so emphatically with Qxxx when QJxx would be much better? A jump to 4♦, systemic or not, takes away the bidding space needed to discover the critical situation, and RKCB is not the solution. So 4♦ can’t be right for both Qxxx and QJxx.

As Allan Graves noted, the slam might make on a happier placement of the defender’s cards, but that avoids the problem of how to bid the hands so as to extract critical information on the trump holdings. The real question is this: is this the best auction available to describe the placement of the cards as held by the declaring side – an action over which the players have full control? As noted above, one might bid beautifully to a reasonable slam only to face a bad situation during the play, but that is not under one’s control. Getting there is. Let’s see the successful auction at the other table.

Del’Monte	Bessis
♠ AJ765	♠ KQ	1♠	2♣
♥ AT93	♥ Q542	2♥	3♥
♦ A3	♦7	3NT*	4♣
♣ 85	♣ AQJ642	4♦	4♥
		Pass

The purpose of the 2/1 rule (forcing to game) is to give more room below game for slam exploration. Thus Bessis was able to bid a comfortable 3♥ in a game forcing auction. Del’Monte was able to show some slam interest by an artificial 3NT bid that limited his hand while promising a spade control. The pair exchanged cue-bids then decided indirectly that their trump suit lacked inner strength. This is what we may term ‘psychological’ bidding, in which each partner has a chance to show enthusiasm by evoking RKCB. Bessis in the end didn’t value his good spade holding above his poor heart support. Good judgement in support of good practice gained 13 IMPs on the board.

When it appears to be merely a question of being in game or not, there is less need to exchange information. If the bidding were in Precision-style where the opening bid was limited to at most 15 HCP, it might go 1♠ – 2♣; 2♥ – 4♥. Responder has shown a club suit and 4 hearts, enough to gamble out a game on the chance that opener won’t lose 3 tricks in the trump suit. He would consider himself unlucky either to go down in game or to make slam, either of which is possible, both of which are unlikely.

Players who bid this way using standard methods don’t generally win the long contests. These types, often referred to as ‘good rubber bridge players’, have enough savvy to clobber the suckers, but don’t prevail against those who can control their own destinies within the limitations chance allows. The less control one exerts over the auction, the more one relies on the benefits of uncertainty.

During the recent PGA tournament, the commentator referred to Tiger Woods unflatteringly as a ‘control freak’. Tiger was spending considerable time before making his shot to the green, and stepped away from the ball when a gust of wind came up. Tiger, it seems, doesn’t like to shoot into the breeze which introduces an extra random element into the game. A bad player might think, as he hacks away without hesitation, ‘what-the-hell, the wind might straighten out my slice’. It might, but a player who has his game under control wants to minimize the element of chance. In practice, the trick is to control what you can, play aggressively, and calmly leave the rest to chance.

Unlike golf, bridge is a game where the opponents may purposefully introduce randomness and uncertainty. The more random the environment, the cruder the methods, and the more reliance must be placed upon normal likelihood. The winning strategy tends towards one of caution. Nonetheless, competitive auctions can still be approached with the same eye towards control, but the process is more complex, therefore, more interesting, at least for the players involved. Spectators may quickly tire of watching purely random swings from one side to the other. It would be like watching a series of meaningless scoreboard racing events as often seen during a late inning break.