Friday, December-19-08

Hand Evaluation – Openers ( Culbertson )

PITBULLS:

          I lost faith in totalling HCP's as the only criteria for an opening bid about a 1/3 of a century ago. I thought just totalling HCP’s were a very poor criteria for evaluating a hand for an opening bid. Nothing has happened in my decades of playing the game has caused me to change my mind. I still “think in quick tricks”’ for opening bids & many other Bridge decisions because it plain works better. Culbertson & the whist players before him had a better grasp of the fundamental requirements for an opening bid than some “modernists”. They looked at the trick taking potential & the defensive potential  of a hand through how HCP's meshed with each other ( quick trick combinations ) . Through their card playing skill & experience , they realized that HCP combinations AK , KQ , AQ , Kx , QJ10 were more suited to taking tricks both defensively & offensively.  They did not like unsupported honour cards like Qx , Jx , Kx , KJx as these were iffy tricks. They downgraded queens & jacks as opposed to prime cards. These “soft “ honours needed luck on the placement of cards to realize their trick potential. Therefore , an opening bid  was defined as a hand that announced defensive & trick taking strength . This strength was diminished if finesses must win or partner can "cover your losses " with your unsupported kings , queens & jacks. These hands were not considered as opening bids. As we have mentioned in many articles , totalling HCP’s is not really evaluating a Bridge hand.

         Goren came around in the 1940's & tried to simplify the game of Bridge for the masses so he popularized the HCP method & applied this HCP criteria for opening bids. He kept the defensive quick trick criteria for opening bids borrowed from the Culbertson system though as he knew that there are many 11, 12 & 13 HCP hands that make just terrible opening bids. So much so , that they are not openers for most experts even today. Take this hand vulnerable in 1^st seat , for example. ♠Kxx ♥KJxxx ♦K ♣Kxxx , which would be opened by modern bidders & club players because "I have 13 HCP's Gerald". Look at this hand the way Culbertson would have evaluated it. He sees 3 unsupported kings & a stiff King which may be useless. The 3 bare unsupported kings add up to 1 1/2 quick tricks so the defensive & offensive trick taking potential is very poor. You might have 1 ½ tricks on defense or offense when cards are placed correctly. With bad luck , you may have no defensive tricks !!!  Unless you are a diehard slave to the HCP system , this hand is nowhere near an opening bid. I count the hand as an Aceless 10 with little defense that by the way also holds a stiff King L. With the same hand & the ♦Kx of diamonds , I would open the hand . Not because the hand totals to 13 HCP but because I can contribute two defensive tricks with my two quick tricks. 1 ½ defensive tricks though puts this hand in the semi-psyche category.  

          Why do modern bidders think they must open these hands with very little defensive or  trick taking potential ? Why add ambiguity to the game of Bridge by opening hands where partner must guess that you have defense or trick taking potential ? This hand was opened vulnerable vrs not where partner expects more discipline than on the terrorist vulnerability.  In the language of bidding what are they saying to partner by opening other than I am totalling scattered HCP's , partner . An opening bid must be something more worthwhile than that. Would it not be better to say that through an opening bid I have controls for defense or offense unless I have a working 14 HCP or more ? As a Bridge player , I would like partner to inform me of something when she opens the bidding. Telling me that she has very few defensive cards  & a collection of any honour cards that total 11 , 12 or 13 HCP is meaningless to me. Tell me of the quality of your HCP’s ( controls ) not simply a mere total.  Light opening bids are still opening bids requiring defense.  The less HCP’s  you hold , the more controls you should have.

Passed hands are not barred from the bidding. I would pass that hand & partner opens 1♣ with ♠A ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AQJ10xxx with 3 1/2 quick tricks and powerful playing potential. I bid 2♥ as a passed hand which shows a maximum passed hand with a club fit for partner. Partner bids 2NT which systemically asks for a stiff. I bid 3♦ so partner places the hand in 6♣ & claims for +1370. When the modern bidders open this garbage , they back pedal because they know that they have a dog hand. They are now reluctant to co-operate with partner on a slam venture ending up in 5♣ on this particular hand. Passing shows a "dog" opener in my system , anyway. Culbertson would approve. Rita & Gerald would not approve as you have 13 HCP . You & Rita , of course , must count your stiff King to open vulnerable.vrs nv opponents in IMPS .