Information Changes Perception

Information Changes Perception

In a recent Swiss Teams I was dealt the following potent collection: ♠ AKQT6 ♥ AJT8 ♦ — ♣ AQ43. If I could make just one bid it would be 6♠, but slam was possible in 3 suits, and courtesy demands one lets partner have his say. Admittedly it would be nice to find out whether I would find an entry in the dummy. How? I was playing a democratic Standard American system, where in principle everyone has the right to express an opinion regardless of what they know for sure. Facts are often a source of embarrassment that become revealed when it is too late to do anything about it. Under such conditions one may have to work hard to get partner to cough up precise and relevant information. My forebodings were interrupted by an opening bid on 1♦ on my right. Great!

Some might consider double at this point to be the correct bid, but a double very often gives partner too much latitude because it is not immediately clear where the auction is heading. It appears as if one is seeking an opinion, thereby yielding the captaincy, which is often hard to regain. I decided to put the club suit aside at least temporarily and to cue bid 2♦ asking for partner’s better major, a simple question he should be able to answer unambiguously. The bidding proceeded as follows:    1♦    (2♦)    3♦    (3♠);   pass (6♠) pass   (pass). When my partner saw my 6♠ bid he nearly fell from his chair. He had recently been fitted with a pacemaker, which happily withstood the test. The club lead was not trying, and 13 tricks were easy taken as he held 3 useful HCPs in the form of the ♠J and the ♥Q.

You see, the problem was one of creating a perception – how to get partner to see his hand within a particular context – my context. From his point of view he was merely competing for a part score, so he could risk a 3♠ bid under duress with the assurance of support for his 6-card suit. His perception of the deal was different from mine, but there was enough overlap that he could express a relevant opinion. The opponents had helped out by bidding and supporting diamonds, adding clarity, which is what one hopes for in a competitive auction, but what one doesn’t always get. Let’s now look at some ancient history for guidance in perception management.

Hideyoshi’s Ploy
Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598) was Japan’s most successful warrior, beginning life as a peasant and rising in times of civil war to be the country’s absolute ruler before the age of 50. Naturally, he was a master of strategy. , Kitami Masao in his book, The Swordless Samurai, purports to give lessons to businessmen drawn from the master’s actions during his rise to power. Of course, lessons on strategy can be helpful to bridge players as well.

One such lesson is: Information Changes Perception. In 1582 the warlord whom Hideyoshi served was assassinated by one of his top generals. Hideyoshi quickly gathered his troops, defeated the assassin’s army within 4 weeks before the others ranked about him were able to coordinate their efforts. Rather than let matters stand in abeyance while his rivals made alliances and took their sweet time in assessing the state of affairs, Hideyoshi sent each an urgent message calling them to an emergency conference on the succession for which he would set the agenda. He wrongly stated that everyone else had already agreed to come. Some may have doubted this claim, but they couldn’t afford to be left out, so they accepted his invitation individually, which put him in the driver’s seat before anyone realized what had happened. Kitami’s conclusion is that one must strive to control the perception of the situation regardless of the true state of affairs. Well, of course, that’s what competitive bidding is all about these days.

Double Rhymes with Trouble
A double is a poor way to project the image of a strong distributional hand. Partner will imagine the doubler is asking for an opinion. If he has a flat hand with a stopper he will be only too pleased to head doggedly towards 3NT played by himself, imagining the doubler is otherwise well stocked for that purpose. This tendency was recently displayed in the Challenge the Champs feature of the July 2014 issue of The Bridge World. Here are the hands where slam was missed by both pairs.

If you were West you’d be thinking, ‘nice collection for a slam in either diamonds or spades. I wonder if partner has a control in clubs.’ If you were East you’d be thinking, ‘nice collection for playing in NT – love those ten’s and nine’s. The hearts are particularly well stocked.’  How can they get together?

If West had one bid to make it would be 4♠, but a bidding system should be able to do better than that.  It is disheartening to go through several rounds of bidding only to be left in your best initial guess. That happens when responder has a flat hand and nothing significant to add, which is the normal expectation. Using a 2/1 system West opens 1♠ hoping not to be left there. After a 1NT response one is judged not strong enough to jump to 3♦, a natural bid, so a patch is necessary, that patch being an artificial 2♣ (Gazzilli) to avoid being passed out in a partial. It’s all very murky, but West has shown great values.  The basic problem arises because the strength of opener’s distributional hand shouldn’t be measured in HCPs, the central guidelines of the 2/1 system.

The Bridge World problem had North open the bidding with 1♣, passed around to West who doubled. Israeli stars Michael Barek and Yaniv Zack gave it a good try thereafter.

Although each player bid correctly within their system, it is obvious that they didn’t share a common perception of a slam in the offing. Zack showed his 4-card heart suit, and his stopper, then was left in the position of deciding on the final contract. That should have been Barek’s prerogative. Zack’s limitations were already evident from his initial pass. The problem lay in the use of a double to cover a 2-suited hand.

Do as the Romans Do
In general terms the greatest amount of information is conveyed by a bid that describes an unusual circumstance. The more specific the bid, the more information it contains. As a flat distribution is the most probable, bids that guarantee distributional hands are highly informative whereas bids that show flat hands are less so. A double that says little about shape is not efficient in this regard. It is normal for a partner to assume initially what is most probable, that is, a flat shape with support for the unbid suits. First impressions are hard to overcome. Commonly one may double and bid a suit as a means for showing a hand too good for a nonforcing suit bid, but this may not convince partner he should adjust his means of evaluation. It is natural to assume a 5332 shape opposite, or 5422 after a second suit is revealed, as these are the most probable.

A solution to this deficiency is to employ 2NT as a strong 2-suited takeout, in the manner of a Roman Jump Overcall. American experts suggest that for the lack of anything better a balancing 2NT should be a natural call with 19-20 HCP. This type can be incorporated in the double where it fits the preconception of a balanced hand. 2NT as a 2-suiter presents a totally different set of circumstances, so prepares partner for a different set of priorities and a different means of hand evaluation.

To be classified as strong, at a minimum the 2-suiter should have 6 controls and 4 or fewer losers. The method is general. Because the opening bid was passed by partner, 2NT may work better in a constructive mode in the balancing seat than as an immediate jump overcall when partner has not yet had a chance to bid. This is especially so when one of a minor is passed as partner could have entered the auction cheaply with an overcall and failed to do so, indicating high potential for a fit in at least one of the balancer’s suits.

Appearances Are Important
When bidding in competition one must keep in mind the effect of one’s action on the other participants. In a part score battle a minor suit may serve better than a major suit to distract opponents who think primarily of the majors. Here is an example of a competitive deal during a Sectional where two very good players were led astray.

It was matchpoints, so West risked his neck on a balancing double. In this situation East is sure that the doubler holds 4 hearts and a decent hand. He could have balanced with 2NT as a takeout to a minor. In the East seat I considered the effect of bidding 3♥. Experience has taught me that if one does the obvious, the opponents will do likewise, which was, from my point of view, to bid 3♠. I have also learned that if one opts to play in a lower scoring minor, they are more likely to leave you alone, thinking you may be in a misfit and have missed your best spot. The minors appear less threatening.

Deep Finesse tells us that EW can make 4♥, 4♦, or 2NT, so I missed my best possible spot, but my pitiful +110 scored 34 out of 38 matchpoints with the result sheet full of -140’s. I am sure that if I had bid 3♥, South would have balanced, even though he is a firm believer in the Law of Total Tricks. Over 3♦ there were too many chances I had got it wrong. Indeed, I did get it wrong, but that didn’t matter in practice, so let’s give West high marks for his brave balancing double.

When Image Outweighs Reality
Deception has always been an accepted strategy in bridge, however, in the long run reliance on deception is a losing strategy, for one begins to lose sight of what’s real and what isn’t. There is always the danger you’ll begin to believe your own phony hype. The Wagar Cup Final gave us so many examples of deceptive and misleading bidding, that it was ironic that the match was decided on a committee ruling on misinformation. What is legal and what is not is a moot point. Appropriately the venue was Las Vegas.

Accuracy was not a top priority; appearances counted most, so it was not surprising that the outcomes very often didn’t match up well with the double dummy results. Let’s not belabor the point with many examples, merely state the obvious: image has come to outweigh reality. Here is one example. On Board 22, EW vulnerable, both Easts (Yu and McCallum) opened 1♥ in first seat on: ♠ 7 ♥ KJ864 ♦ 32 ♣ KQ432. (Alert! She usually has an opening bid.) This doesn’t even qualify as an opening bid based on ZAR Points, which I tend to favor (must promote the ♥J to the ♥Q). The vulnerability increases the (in)credibility. With spades and diamonds instead of spades and clubs, I might be tempted trailing late in a match, but here it was early and close.

So what happened? Yu and Wu competed to a cautious 3♥, prompting Levitina to stretch to 4♠, off 1. Baker competed to 4♥ thinking a vulnerable game might be in the offing, doubled by Lu, the only one with an opening bid, for -500, a loss of 11 IMPs. As so often happens the gross deception worked against the perpetrator, but the effect is random. History teaches us success is everything, so bid on and let the chips fall where they may.