Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:36 PM
Hand Evaluation – Tactics ( Up the Line Bidding
)
PITBULLS:
One of the worst concepts in Bridge (
maybe next to 4th suit forcing ) is bidding up the line. I think it was
invented by a matchpoint player, who wanted to ensure that their weak partners would always get to a 4 of a major game. In matchpoints , major suit partials score better than NT partials so up
the line bidding is a pure matchpoint concept. In IMPS ,
I feel up the line bidding is a losing strategy.
The worst fault of “up the
line” bidding is that you hide
your distribution from partner. There are two main hand types in Bridge – balanced or distributional. If you have a balanced hand
, describe it to partner by rebidding 1NT or 2NT. This unleashes the “power of
the weak NT”. You make them guess on
opening lead , guess on discards so Meckwell type 3NT games are brought home. Balanced hands are more defensive, so play worse than their
distributional counterparts. If there is
a 4-4 major fit to be found , let partner ( responder
) initiate the bidding. At least
she will know first that a balanced hand awaits her.
There
is an inference with natural
bidding provided by not
playing up the line bidding. You describe your real
distribution at the one level.
Now there is a thought !
You know by the one level that partner has 5 of her minor & 4 of a major rather than
3 of them & a flat hand. The excellent XYZ structure is based on this concept.
The
most important aspect of not playing up
the line bidding is ignoring
4-4 major fits & playing the correct contract of 3NT or
a minor game/slam. There are many
flat hands that 9 tricks are the limit but 4 of the major plays
exactly the same. The Spingold , Vanderbilt & Bermuda Bowl write ups are filled
with swing hands that getting
to 3NT with a 4-4 major fit was the winning
bid. Sometimes even with a 5-4 major fit if you have soft values with a source
of tricks , 3NT is the
superior contract.
Bypassing weak 4 card majors by responder
is quite often the winning strategy in IMPS . You have
a balanced hand with soft values
so describe your hand to partner by bidding some number of NT. In matchpoints this is
a no-no , as even a major suit Moysean
will earn you lots of matchpoints. The longer I play
this game , the more I feel all bidding should show
distribution ( patterns ) first , other attributes later. Ignoring your balanced hand by bidding a major makes no Bridge sense. I
feel you are concealing your true hand from partner. You are introducing
needless ambiguity involving the potential of
your hand.
Balanced
hands are a detriment in Bridge re
playability. Letting partner in on the secret at the earliest opportunity is the best strategy. This
is before partner makes a game try or a leap to game.
1♣-P-1♥-P
1♠ & partner is 4-3-3-3
with 4 spades & 3 clubs is terrible bidding & makes no sense to me. The hand may also
have soft values so needs to be right sided for NT contracts. Bid NT first
& ask questions re a 4 card major later. 2 way NMF does an
excellent job of that.
2 Way
NMF is an excellent tool to replace
up the line bidding. This 2 way NMF is actually just XYZ with a 1NT bid being the 3rd bid at the one level. 2 way NMF applies after a 1♣-P-1♦ response also
1♣-P-1♦-P
1NT
as the INT bidder may have
a 4 card major or two four card
majors for that matter. Also 2 way NMF applies after
1♥-P-1♠-P
1NT.
Remember
the purpose of playing XYZ or 2 way NMF
is to get rid of silly up the line bidding.
These conventions also have some nice built in toys but describing a
distributional hand via a major bid at the one
level is the primary purpose
of this approach. Having 2♣ as showing all invitational
hands & 2♦ as
all forcing to game hands is an excellent concept.
This unleashes jump preference & jump shifts as strong
& natural for all auctions where the bidding remains at the one level for 3 bids..