A Religion, not a Science

I didn’t play in the ACBL 2012 Instant Matchpoint Game, but I did pick up a booklet by Larry Cohen’s comments on the hands. There are usually some good pointers to be got from the analysis of the individual hands, however, the older one gets the grumpier one gets, and I can’t say that I derived much satisfaction from what I read – quite the contrary. Cohen was talking down to the great majority of players who don’t really know very much about hand evaluation apart from point counting, so his comments were not intended to educate the public. Standard American with a 2/1 base is a religion, not a science, and it was basically a matter of comforting the believers in their distress.

In his introduction Cohen makes the point that a player doesn’t need a lot of conventions to do well. That’s comforting to some, but so what? There are games in which the worst pair in the club comes out the winners, but that is not a justification for ignorance and bad methodology; it is merely a demonstration that randomness can play a large part over the short term. Using superior methods pays off in the long run, and those based firmly on logic are not that difficult to remember once one grasps the reasoning behind them.

A major theme repeated throughout was that players should open flat hands with 12 HCP, and that opening with 11 HCP is optional. This is an approach that goes back over 40 years to the introduction of Precision methods, with the major difference being that Precision as a system was designed with this in mind, whereas 2/1 is based inconsistently on solid opening bids.  Here is a deal that gave the 2/1 apologist problems.

Playing Precision I would have no qualms about opening the North hand with 1♦. This bid doesn’t promise more that 2 diamonds, and is intended primarily as a foray into to finding a 4-4 major suit fit. Cohen suggests that 1♦ is the right call even with 2/1. There is a hidden advantage to be had –  the promised diamonds are so poor that the opponents may be disadvantaged in the bidding and play. South has an easy 1♥ response and North an easy raise, but now it becomes rather fanciful as South contents himself with a jump to game opposite a hand that on the bidding could have slam potential. South has a 6-loser hand, but Cohen makes no note of that refinement. As we can see, there may be no wastage in diamonds, so the normal bid by South is a natural and exploratory 3♣. As we noted above, Cohen’s aim is not to describe better methods, but to provide the reader a simple route to an adequate resting place.

One concern expressed was that if North passes, South may pass and the hand gets passed out when 12 tricks are available in a heart contract. That was a problem back in the 50’s. Nowadays South in third seat unashamedly opens 1♥ with his 6-loser hand. What now? Well, Cohen doesn’t recommend methods in general, but here he advocates the Drury convention, a much needed patch, in what form we are not told. If North can show 4-card support, inventive bidders may get to the optimum 6♥ , but it is not necessary as scoring 680 will result in an 82% score. As Cohen notes, ‘apparently the field doesn’t reach 20 HCP games’, or didn’t back when these hands were first played.

On another board he comments, ‘if the side with the cards just does something resembling normal bridge, they get a decent score.’ This is in contrast to his recommendation on the following deal, which demonstrates what separates the good bidders from the field is mainly a matter of ignoring the rules effectively.

West	East
♠ 96	♠ T32	1♥	3♥ *
♥ QJ652	♥ AK43	4♥	Pass
♦ AQ75	♦ T4
♣ A3	♣ JT95		* limit 10+HCP
6 losers	8 losers

If we consider the loser count we conclude that normally EW should play in 4♥ on their solid 9-card fit. If we consider the HCP ranges, we conclude they shouldn’t. It would be nice to be using Bergen Raises, but, remember, we are pretending we don’t need them. It is not convincing to talk up the East hand to 10 points, as Cohen does. It makes sense to assign it 8 losers, subtracting a loser from the heart suit. With 6 losers and 2 heart honors West has an automatic raise to game. Playing ‘normal’ bridge using HCP evaluation EW will score 46% for making 170, whereas a 620 gets them to 81%. Myself, I don’t consider 46% a decent result under these circumstances, but as Ovid noted those many years ago, one marches most safely in the middle of the crowd.

With regard to results, when playing in a common contract there is a great benefit to a declarer in arriving there with the minimum exchange of information. Imprecision has its value when it makes for a helpful opening lead. Sometimes bad bidding pays off. There are occasions when a player with a strong hand can get the information he needs without telling much about his own holding. This is a question of system design, so system does make a difference. Board 19 provides us an example.

West	East
♠ T87	♠ AQ6	—	2♣
♥ T	♥ AKQ92	2♠ (3 controls)	2NT (ask)
♦ K543	♦ A6	3♠ (minors)	4♣
♣ AQ872	♣ K95	5♣	6NT
7 losers	4 losers	Pass

Cohen envisions a bidding sequence that begins 2♣ – 3♣, after which it proceeds with 6 rounds of bidding along cooperative lines to 7♣, when even 6♣ is in jeopardy. Perhaps this is a whimsical effort that mocks the folly of elaborate bidding techniques. The average result was 660. A score of 690 was worth 78%.The opening lead is critical, whether in game or slam.

In the proposed action West immediately informs East unambiguously of his 3 controls. East bids 2NT as convenient way to get distributional information from the weaker side. He does not bid hearts, as that information will be of little value to West, who will not be making the final decision. West shows his minor suit concentration, and East can sign off in 3NT if he holds the field in contempt. He may support clubs in order to gauge the strength of the suit. When West shows a decent club suit, East simply bids 6NT in the hope of garnering tricks from clubs and hearts. He knows a king is missing, and expects it is the ♠K.

After this auction South is on lead with ♠ KJ43 ♥ J543 ♦ Q982 ♣ J. I would think that a heart lead is probable, after which 13 tricks are likely. Of course, if East bids hearts along the way, he won’t get that lead, and declarer may have to guess the winning club play.

The Majors Factor
2/1 methods are geared towards major suit bidding from the get-go. Here is an example of a good opening bid in the minors that is passed, then becomes the basis for belatedly driving the auction in the wrong direction by misinforming the stronger partner.

West	East
♠ AQT72	♠ 8	—	Pass
♥ KT763	♥ A42	1♠	1NT
♦ AT	♦ K873	3♥	3NT
♣ A	♣ KJ872	4♥ ??
4 losers	7 losers

The auction suggested by Cohen is horrible; West might pass 3NT when 12 tricks are available in a heart contract. The initial 1NT bid is nonforcing, but is forced upon East because he is using Drury, a convention approved by Cohen. West must jump wastefully to 3♥ leaving very little room for exploration. Can East possibly sign off in 3NT with 4 controls in a 7-loser hand and a useful singleton in spades? This is just another example of the tail wagging the dog, so often encountered with 2/1 methods. Here is an improvement that comes about when East opens the bidding without prejudice.

West	East
♠AQT72	♠ 8	—	1♦
♥ KT763	♥ A42	1♠	2♣
♦ AT	♦ K873	2♥  (forcing)	3♥
♣ A	♣ KJ872	4NT	5♣ (1 key card)
4 losers	7 losers	6♥	Pass

The argument against opening 1♦ then bidding 2♣ is that ‘it distorts the minor suit lengths’. Is that a big deal? It is a minor distortion, compared with the repeated NT bids in the previous auction that distort both the shape and the high card content. The above deal shows once more that at matchpoints getting to the right strain can be more important than getting to the right level – 4♥ making 680 scores a surprising 79%.

There is another approach that often works: start with your best suit. Surprised?

West	East
♠AQT72	♠ 8	—	1♣
♥ KT763	♥ A42	1♥	2♥
♦ AT	♦ K873	2♠	3♦
♣ A	♣ KJ872	4NT	5♣ (1 key card)
4 losers	7 losers	6♥	Pass

West has the stuff of which reveres are made, so he saves space by responding 1♥ . East follows the approved practice of making a 3-card raise with ruffing potential. The auction proceeds smoothly from there. West should not be disappointed with the dummy. It would be awkward if West had responded 1♠, as East would have had to bid 1NT on a singleton, but that is what he did anyway as a passed hand. He does have stoppers in 3 suits, and at matchpoints it is unlikely he would want to opt for playing in a minor partial.

Well, those are some of the hands where EW had sufficient power to bid constructively to a high level. It is strange that so many of the problems revolved around finding the best major suit fit when supposedly that is what everyone is striving to do. Getting to makeable slams is not a top priority when just getting to the right strain is problematic for most in the field. I feel one does better to bid what you’ve got rather than bidding on what you hope partner has. Does the same philosophy apply in contested auctions? We’ll consider that in the next blog that features more hands from the 2012 ACBL Instant Disaster Game.