The Art of Good Guessing

During the Baze Seniors Final super-scientist Eric Rodwell was asked what his 3rd seat 3NT bid meant, and he replied, ‘it can be anything I want.’ I was shocked. It was as if Albert Einstein had risen during a symposium at Princeton and said, ‘Gentlemens, forget about Cosmic Evolution for the time beings – tonight Abbott and Costello open at Minsky’s.’ Has Rodwell abandoned a lifetime search for systemic perfection and adopted the unsound method of randomization? Hardly. He was referring to his 3rd seat non-vulnerable 3NT on this hand: ♠ 62 ♥ A2 ♦ AT ♣ AKQ8532, a strange choice with 4 losers, when the hand could be opened a Precision 1♣. Still, it can be a temptation to occasionally bid whatever you fancy, a temptation to which many succumb in the intoxicating spirit of individual freedom. The trouble is they somehow imagine they are increasing their chances of winning rather than merely being a pain in the ass for the others involved.

In the December ACBL Bulletin August Boehm notes that even the concept of captaincy is foreign to many of the younger generation of players. They are overly concerned about how the opponents react rather than where the cards lie. Perception outweighs truth. Yes, bidding blindly does have the potential of increasing the chances of success, if a high scoring contract is reached with little information given up to the defenders. Here is an example of how not to do it from the recent Winter Nationals in India. With both vulnerable North opened a 3rd seat 1NT on ♠ T76 ♥ A5  ♦ AQJ9652 ♣ K. The BBO commentator noted that the most frequent game contract is 3NT, as if this somehow justified this strange start. The second most common game contract is 4M, he noted apologetically, when NS eventually reached 4♠ on a 5-3 fit without North having mentioned his diamond suit. Well if one is going to adopt this mode of operation, why not open 3NT and be done with it?  Opening 1NT is misguided deception for its own sake with little upside, whereas 3NT was unbeatable on any lead.

The key to successful master-minding is to guess according to what is most probable given what is known at the time. Guided by the predominance of 3NT contracts, our Indian declarer might imagine a hand opposite that would contain about a third of the missing points and fulfill an 8-7-6-5 division of sides, the most likely division as well as one suitable for a NT contract. In this case one might assume a  4=3=1=5 shape with 8 HCP. So it is not unreasonable to assume a hand opposite that looks something like this: ♠ Kxxx ♥ Qxx ♦ x ♣ QJxxx. On a blind lead the timing may be there to establish the diamonds, and there is nowhere else one would prefer to play the hand.

Here is the actual 8=5=8=5 combination, which in character isn’t that much different from the most likely expectation.

Actually, partner was well stocked in both majors and the ♣JTxx were most useful, so it was not necessary to rely on the diamonds for tricks: 4 spades, 2 hearts, 2 clubs and 1 diamond make up 9 tricks. With 4 losers outside diamonds declarer must not create a 5th by finessing for the ♦K. 4♠ represented a 10 IMPs loss against a diamond partial. Well, one can’t apply this technique if partner’s bidding is all over the lot; someone has to provide real information, otherwise it’s like bingo.

Bidding a Grand Slam
The ACBL Bulletin contains a feature called The Bidding Box in which successful pairs compete in the bidding of 8 hands. The aim of the contest is to present possible bidding sequences using common practices. It is a question of the use of what limited information can be made available, rather than a test of alternative means of obtaining information. Indirectly it is a justification of common practices under trying circumstances. The judge’s scoring is based on a matchpoint scale with a top of 12. In the Dec 2014 issue the victorious pair was a married couple from our local club, Douglas and Sandra Fraser, who play a souped up version of 2/1. Their successes in the NABC Senior Mixed Pairs come as no surprise to those who know and admire their commitment to excellence.

Slam hands are a major component of the contests, and this is where detailed agreements such as those devised by Doug Fraser, come to the fore. Let’s have a detailed look at Problem 5 for which both pairs scored 10 out of 12 for reaching 7♦. The second-seat opener (East) holds 16 HCP and flat hand, for most an automatic 1NT opening bid. Responder holds 11 HCP. General rule: with 26 HCP between the 2 hands, no shortage, stoppers in every suit and a long minor, play in 3NT. However, pairs who bid 1NT-3NT are not likely to win many bidding contests.

Responder holds ♠ A7 ♥ 9 ♦ KT86532 ♣ A76 – 6 losers and 5 controls. A priori the most likely distribution for a 1NT opening bid is 4-4-3-2, and the most likely division of sides is 8-7-6-5. Responder does better by considering the most likely shape given by the a posteriori probabilities based on what he sees in his own hand. Here is a reasonable expectation based on 5=6=9=6 with 15 HCP opposite.

The argument for 3NT goes as follows. The opening lead in a major suit will be useful coming up to the strong NT hand with its tenaces. Slam may come down to playing the diamonds for 6 tricks and just 1 loser somewhat less than a 50% chance. Not many will bid slam on 26 HCP, and if they do they might be defeated. A jump to 3NT could result in a useful opening lead and lots of matchpoints. There is slam potential in responder’s hand, but can one explore slam without fully committing to it?

An aggressive responder might aim for a NT contract and ignore diamonds as a candidate trump suit. He can ask for aces (using Gerber) and hope for 5 cover cards for his 6 losers. That might lead to a risky 4NT, however, the Bidding Box hand is much better than expected (6 controls, not 5) so it proves rewarding to explore in a simple manner.