The 3 D’s of Bidding – Describe, Deceive, and Declare

In a previous blog I put forth my opinion that the success of Meckwell lies primarily in their keeping to their agreements through thick and thin. I gave an example where Jeff Meckstroth made a bad 1♥ overcall of 1♦ on ♠ K843 ♥AJ98 ♦Q63 ♣86. There are hands with which one might overcall profitably on a 4-card suit, a favorite tactic of Marshall Miles, but this wasn’t one of them. I commended Eric Rodwell for keeping to their agreements by raising to 2♥ on ♠ QJT6 ♥ T62 ♦A82 ♣742, even though the result was a loss of 12 IMPs when the other room their rivals played in 2♠ making 140 on their 4-4 fit. Now we have been told that this overcall was not an aberration on the part of Meckwell, but more or less standard expert spin with an upside. (See the expert comments to the previous blog, for which I am grateful.)

Well, because a cold is common doesn’t mean you want to catch it. Let’s uncover recent evidence of the cost of violating partnership agreements by following the adventures of the USA Hampson Team, Precision players all, who finished a disappointing 4th in the competition for the Yeh Bros Cup won by the Netherlands’ team. I am a great admirer of the Precision System and feel that in the hands of great players it provides a distinct advantage over the opponents without the need for misdirection. Here a master-mind at work against an underdog team of very capable Indian players.

Dealer: South Vul:  None		North: Gupta
		♠	A3
		♥	Q753
		♦	Q43
		♣	KJT5
West: Cheek				East: Grue
♠	Q762			♠	J984
♥	A964			♥	KT8
♦	AKJ8			♦	72
♣	2			♣	9873
		South: Satya
		♠	KT5
		♥	J2
		♦	T965
		♣	AQ64

West	North	East	South
			Pass
1♦	Pass	1NT	All Pass

The result was down 3 for a loss of 7 IMPs on the board when the EW opposition played in 2♠ making 3. West might have a flat 11 HCP hand, but East is required in today’s game to reply on a bare 4 HCP. If normal light action results in disaster, partner will be sympathetic. Competing on slim values is going to be advantageous when EW have a spade fit, otherwise one is courting disaster. Declaring in 1NT without an 8-card fit may actually keep the opponents out of a 3NT that fails because of a poor 7-7-6-6 division of sides. As one can see, Cheek held an excellent hand and would have raised 1♠ to 2♠ whereupon a normal result is achieved. Unlucky? No, just another deserved and unnecessary loss due to masterminding on insufficient evidence.

Quite often in competition one should merely describe as best one can the nature of one’s hand and let the IMPs fall where they may. Here is another horrible result from the USA-India match brought on by reluctance to bid descriptively.

Dealer: South Vul: Both		North: Gupta
		♠	Q872
		♥	9
		♦	QJT654
		♣	52
West: Cheek				East: Grue
♠	5			♠	9
♥	A843			♥	K52
♦	AK82			♦	92
♣	T743			♣	AKQJ986
		South: Satya
		♠	AKJT643
		♥	QJT76
		♦	7
		♣	—

Cheek	Gupta	Grue	Satya
			1♠
Dbl	Pass	2♠	4♠
Pass	Pass	5♣	Pass
Pass	5♠	Pass	Pass
Dbl	All Pass

Venkatramen	Meckstroth	Chokshi	Rodwell
			1♠
Dbl	4♠	5♣	5♠
Dbl	Pass	6♣	6♠
Dbl	All Pass

First we analyze the auction involving Meckwell. Over a limited 1♠ doubled Meckstroth, North, bid a straightforward 4♠ that forced East to guess at the 5-level, which normally belongs to the opponents. Rodwell bid one more. 5♠ makes, but Chokshi made the good decision to pull to 6♣ which was fated for down 1. Can we blame Rodwell for taking out insurance at the 6-level based on his hand? No.

Contrast that with the actions at the other table where Gupta took his time and ended up stealing the pot. Over 1♠* he felt that immediate action was not required – after all, unlike Rodwell, Satya had not limited his hand significantly. If Grue had merely described his hand by a jump to 5♣, there may have been a different story to tell, but he stalled with a non-descriptive cue-bid, eventually backing in with the 5♣ bid he was always going to make. Unfortunately Gupta proved to be the better general when he was able to pressure Cheek into an ill-advised double based on what appeared to be 3 quick tricks with more to come in clubs. The resultant loss was 13 IMPs. Could it have been worse if initially East had bid a straightforward and informative 5♣?

Here is a comic example of being too clever for one’s own good, by which we mean, by making a deceptive bid that serves to steer the opposition to a winning contract that they would not have reached if left to their own devices. We catch the world’s best pair indulging in ineffective deceptive bidding on the first board against a supposedly lesser Norwegian team that knocked them out of the finals. Board 1 – experts like to get in early.

Dealer: North Vul: None		North: Meckstroth
		♠	8
		♥	432
		♦	98654
		♣	QJ83
West: Brekka				East: Salensminde
♠	AQJT742			♠	53
♥	K75			♥	AQJ9
♦	A			♦	J2
♣	AK			♣	T9765
		South: Rodwell
		♠	K96
		♥	T86
		♦	KQT73
		♣	42

Meckstroth	Salensminde	Rodwell	Brekka
Pass	Pass	1♦ *	Dbl
Pass	2♠	Pass	4NT
Pass	5♦	Dbl	5♠*
Pass	5NT*	Pass	7♥
All Pass

Rodwell’s 1♦ promised 11-15 HCP with as few as 2 diamonds. After 2 passes one might want to throw sand in the opponents’ faces, but the question always to resolve is, ‘which way is the wind blowing?’ A descriptive weak 2♦ might tempt me, and North would make a precipitous jump raise to 5♦, slated for a loss of -1400, but in Precision 2♦ is not a weak 2. The best descriptive call undoubtedly is pass. ‘Saved by the system’ works for me.

Brekka had his double, and Salensminde made a straightforward jump to show where his values lay. Isn’t it nice when partner bids a suit in which he holds honors? Brekka began an asking sequence. Rodwell took the opportunity to show he really had diamonds, which only served to convince Brekka that the spade finesse was working and that there were no wasted values in diamonds. So he bid the wrong grand slam! And it worked! The Norwegian’s bad bidding aided by Rodwell’s indiscretion gained 11 IMPs when in the other room Cheek-Grue stopped in a sensible 6♠. So we ask once more, would the result have been worse if Rodwell had bid systematically and passed throughout? What does ‘being clever’ entail beyond keeping to one’s system, drawing the right conclusions from partner’s bids, and going with the odds at the time of decision?

My confession in the spirit of St. Augustine. At the local club on the day I am writing this, against the top pair, I opened an abhorrent 2NT on ♠ AQ2 ♥ KQ965 ♦KQ76 ♣A. I would classify this as a mastermind bid related to the Standard American system we were playing.   Had I been playing Precision, I would have been worried about missing a slam in a 4-4 fit in diamonds, and after a strong 1ß opening bid I would have had the methods available for reaching it, but under the circumstances the chances of reaching 6♦ were slim. 6♦ would have gone down on an unsuccessful spade finesse, but no one here bids minor suit slams, even ones that make. Garozzo smiles. Yes, we had an 8-card heart fit, but happily partner raised to 3NT with help in clubs. On a club lead we scored a top at 660 on a logical misdefence. With everyone in 4♥, we would have scored a bottom if the ♠K were onside, but a 50% plus chance for a top represented good odds against this pair who normally defend well. Playing a bad system gives one excuses for taking matters into one’s own hands. There is a need in some to take charge. I think that is why so many masterminds like to play loose systems for which even a weak hand has the built-in opportunity of busily screwing up the auction and forcing a bad decision.

In the days of whist during Victorian times it was considered akin to cheating to act out of the ordinary in order to confuse an opponent. The term ‘false card’ has come down to us, but not the ethical implications. Although it still causes considerable annoyance to its victims, misinformation no longer a question of morality but one of practicality in the face of the uncertainty with which the game is imbued. In our machiavellian world of rampant individualism, there is no bad bid, only bids that turn out badly. There are 3 aspects to bidding common to most public communications: deficient description, deplorable deception, and dauntless declaration. As Hilary Clinton said with regard to her ‘smart’ diplomacy, it is primarily a matter of maximizing the chances of success.  This resemblance of our game to Realpolitik makes it worthy of serious study.

Bidding what you think you can make has its attractions to those who like to make the decisions for the partnership, but as every farmer who wants to make cheese knows, you have to have a co-operative cow, and there’s the rub. Information nourishes the brain. There is a close mathematical connection between probability and information, so uninformative bids, like false cards, result in an inaccurate estimation of the probabilities involved. The information content of bids is where dispassionate analysis should be focused. It is time to devise effective countermeasures to misinformation. God knows, we have enough evidence by now.