Pass or Bid?

It is generally acknowledged that the side that opens the bidding gains an advantage. That attitude has spread to the side that faces a light opening bid – it is better to get into the auction early than it is to see what transpires before making a move. The result is that bids have become less informative as the traditional restrictions have been lifted, with the result that auctions today intentionally involve more guesswork. Inferences are less certain. It follows that competitive bidding is an increasingly important aspect of winning bridge. Before we get into that, let’s have a brief look at some factors affecting the decision as to whether or not one should open the bidding ‘light’. Here is a deal from the recent English Premier League Match 7-7 broadcast over BBO where the commentators expressed mixed feelings as to whether West should not have passed initially.

The hands possess a 8-7-6-5 division of sides with a trick total of 16 in accordance with the Law of Total Tricks. NS can make 110 in 2♥, EW 90 in 2♦. The optimum contract for NS is 120 in 2NT. Both sides should go down in a contract at the 3-level.

The South hand is clearly worth an opening bid on the power of the 14 HCP held. The West hand has just 9 HCP, but if we add 3 points for a void, the resultant sum of 12 points qualifies the hand for an opening bid of 1♦ under the guidelines advocated by Charles Goren. Under the Zar point method the West and South hands are equally qualified. The difference in quality is that composition of points for the South hand is predominantly in ‘transferable’ power points, whereas the composition of points for the West hand is dominated by shape. The West hand may generate many tricks if a fit is found in diamonds and/or spades, which is not guaranteed, but not improbable.

Pass Now, Pass Forever?
At one table the West player seemed to gain an advantage by passing throughout.

In 3rd seat opposite a passing partner Osborne made a protective preempt on an inappropriate hand. Jason Hackett reached the optimum contract for NS, but his brother, Julian, aimed higher. Hinden led the ♦4, won by the ♦J. Unaware of the situation, declarer led a heart to dummy to set up tricks in that suit, won the club return, and unblocked his ♦A before leading a spade from his hand. Hinden won with the ♠K and cleared the diamonds with the entry to cash them later.  This resulted in down 2, an extra undertrick that would be very valuable at matchpoints, but which stood to gain little at IMPs. The major factor in the NS loss was the exuberance of the North player, which is understandable as no one chooses to play in 2NT these days.

At the other table the West player entering the bidding at a later stage, but that led indirectly to a big loss. Psychology played a part.

Once again, in 3rd seat a player felt the need for action, but the lower level gave South the chance to bid under less pressure. Having passed initially, King felt the diamonds were worth a bid within a constructive context. Allerton might have bid an invitational 2NT on values, but went for the game bonus. King felt his hand was worth a great deal on defence opposite a questionable opening bid from partner. Which side would benefit most from the information exchanged?

Jagger won the lead with the ♦J, but unlike Hackett he began by playing a spade towards dummy. Of course, he had been made aware of the danger in the diamond suit. A spade to dummy, a club finesse, followed by a second spade allowed West to win the ♠K, take his 3 tricks in spades, and exit with a diamond. Here was the 6-card ending where declarer was stuck in his hand having to yield the setting trick to East for a tie board, but a strange thing happened.

South led the ♥2 to dummy, but East ducked! This error enabled declarer to cash the ♦K squeezing East in hearts and clubs, so 3NT* made for a gain of 12 IMPs. The reason this lapse on defence holds our interest lies in the question as to what extent it was caused by the unusual bidding of the West player. In theory East should have had all the information needed to come up with a simple conclusion. As with many errors that don’t make sense, we have to look to the surrounding circumstances. This error might have been avoided if West had followed Hinden’s example and passed throughout, or better yet, opened 1♦ and let the auction take its natural course. The double of 3NT punished partner’s initiative with no partner-proof opening lead to back it up. East, not at his best, may have suffered from the pressure.

The Psychology of Multi-Source Messages
If this were an isolated example one might dismiss it as totally random event of the kind that shouldn’t have happened but did. There is more to it than this as it is not uncommon even for experts to err egregiously during and after a competitive auction.

Normally the more sources of information the better, but that doesn’t work out well when the sources are putting out different messages. (The US intelligence community has proved that once again in the Benghazi incident.) When conflicts arise one has to choose how much credence to give to each source. It is easier to evaluate the information given by one player than it is to collate information from 3 participants. The mind may become overloaded with information with all players active, giving their own self-interested interpretation of reality. So, just the fact that all 4 players are bidding can cause unwarranted confusion as the players’ circuits get overloaded. There are computer programs that can extract the message from the noise. One must train the brain to do the same, but it is made much harder by reactions of the mind to a variety of stimuli, a necessary function in times of danger. For example, in broad daylight one happily ignores background noises, but home alone in the dark, one is sensitive to unusual sounds. Later, given time to reflect, one can calmly draw the correct conclusions, but at the time one’s mind was playing tricks by over-reacting to what was harmless ambient noise.

From this one concludes there is always something to be gained from entering the auction if for no other reason that to generate the confusion inherent in multi-source communication. This is quite apart from transmitting a desire to compete for the contract. An example of how this works comes from the 2012 European Champions Cup.

East-West were the Russian pair Mikhail Krasnosselski and Eugenyi Gladysh who proved fair game for the psychological ploys of their famous opponents. Helgemo made an innocent-looking vulnerable overcall on a decent spade suit with a second major suit available in an emergency. It was lacking in other respects. Krasnosselski doubled rather than show where his main hope lay. Helness added to the noise with a featherweight raise that ate up bidding space. The Russian bid their suits without implying extras with the result that they stopped in game. That would be a reasonable conclusion if NS held 12 HCP or so, but their opponents at the other table, Zimmermann and Multon, were able to bid and make 7♥. Obviously the Russians didn’t have the methodology at hand to counter trivial interference; they were unable to turn on the lights, as it were.

Let’s consider what information must be made available for EW to reach slam, then we might find methods for getting there.  West would like to known East’s holding includes: ♠A  ♥ Q ♦ K ♣ AKQxx . East would like to know West’s holding includes: ♥AKxxx ♦ A ♣ xx. It is easier for East (the stronger hand) to get the necessary information. So West has to bid hearts early, show his 5 controls, and deny shortage in clubs. This is actually quite easy to do, as follows.

Gladsyh	Krasnosselski
♠ A6	♠ 832	1♣	(1♠)	2♥	(2♠)
♥ QT8	♥ AKJ53	4♦*	Pass	4♠	Pass
♦ K73	♦ A42	4NT	Pass	5NT	Pass
♣ AKQ72	♣ J9	7♥	All	Pass
5 losers	7 losers	* RKCB

The essential first step is that Krasnosselski has to show a game forcing hand with a long heart suit, the main feature of his hand.  Gladsyh has a heart fit, so needn’t fool around with clubs directly: he asks for key cards, disclosing the fit. 4NT asks for more information on the way to slam. 5NT agrees to slam without a specific feature to show, the 2 jacks being undisclosed positive attributes. Gladsyh knows enough to bid the grand. He expects to take 1 spade, 5 hearts, 2 diamonds, and 5 clubs. The appearance of the ♣J is a welcome sight, otherwise he might have had to rely on a minor suit squeeze.

Of course, Gladsyn doesn’t know everything, so he cannot guarantee 13 tricks in 7NT. He does know what is probable. It helps that Krasnosselski is given the opportunity to express general encouragement. That could be based on a 6-card heart suit, or perhaps, the ♦Q. Whatever it is appears to be enough. The opponents bidding of spades was helpful in that EW could confine their interest to the quality of the other suits.

General Guidelines for Competitive Bidding
If the opponents are going to hand out extra bids, one should use those extra bids efficiently to transmit trustworthy information that distinguishes between power points and distributional values. The more unreliable the opponents the more accurate must be a partnership’s constructive agreements. Show your good suit(s) early and use doubles to show flexibility. Have a way of asking for key cards cheaply below game. Use 4NT to elicit partner’s opinion. Use cue bids as a general game forcing bid with the implication that 3NT may be a viable alternative. A cue bid may be used to initiate a cooperative effort when the opening bidder hasn’t enough in the way of controls to take charge unilaterally. It is not necessary to limit the bid to being a raise to game in responder’s suit. For example:

♠ A6	♠ Q32	1♣	(1♠)	2♥	(2♠)
♥ QT8	♥ AJ953	3♠	Pass	3NT	Pass
♦ KJ3	♦ A42	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
♣ AKJ32	♣ 97
5 losers	9 losers

Bridge bidding has the charm that there is underlying the exchange of information a reality that will be revealed in its entirety when the last card is played. The lie of the cards is the focus of endeavor, be it to resolve the uncertainty, or to increase it. In the end one cannot speak comfortingly of a compromise between two subjective versions of the truth, yours and mine – there is only one irrefutable truth which eventually becomes apparent for all to see. The partnership whose perception is closest to the truth in the essential details operates with a distinct advantage – simple as that.