Monday, July 03, 2006 2:31 AM

Hand Evaluation – Openers ( Old Time Religion )

PITBULLS:

            I took an absence from tournament Bridge during the 1980’s & most of the 90’s up to when I went into self employment in 2001 . I played mainly rubber Bridge during that period.  During that time , something happened to the game of Bridge for whatever reason. I am reviewing the Spingolds , World Championship , Vanderbilts from about 1980 to present from the Bridge Worlds. During the early 1990’s , Meckwell & some Polish pro’s playing a forcing ♣ system changed the nature of the game of Bridge for some. Openers with time honoured principles of requiring defensive values measured in quick tricks became almost non-existent , vulnerability was not respected , decent suits were not needed for overcalls at the one level or two level & of course pre-empts were suicidal. Some Bridge writers advocated changing the requirements for an opening bid ( quick tricks ) that has existed for over 65 years to just counting HCP’s. Bridge has always been a trick taking game not a HCP taking game J . HCP’s do not necessarily equate to tricks unless they are aligned in quick trick combinations or you have good fortune. HCP’s which are soft or “unsupported” have a lower percentage chance of becoming tricks. This is why an opening bid is defined as at least 13 HCP’s with 2 ½ quick tricks. Partner knows that you have actual trick potential for either defense or offense. It is easy to see why garbage openers upset the idea behind opening bids. They con poor partner as the dreaded semi-psyche. She makes bad decisions caused by her own partner unless the opponents make them first.

Some pro’s sole justification for this drastic opening bid philosophy change according to them was to open even more hands to make the opponents guess. They never do explain how partner is supposed to handle these garbage “semi-psyches” though. What a very convenient religion for the “solo artists” to buy into as they “just need a chair” across from them anyway.  All the terrorist tactics that I see in Ray Grace & Osama , Willard etc who do it all the time today were prevalent starting in the 90’s. The Bridge World editors were sarcastic as disasters were reported on by the dozens but it did not deter the pros because in their mind they got better results by forcing less experienced people to go wrong at the expense of partnership discipline. They played with clients so partnership discipline was sacrificed to get results in weak fields. When the good results outnumbered the disasters , they were ahead. The weak fields made sure that was indeed the case. The client got his results & the pros the money. The Pros felt that they had to do something as the clients could not defend. Out of necessity, they tried to change the opening bid to a tactic which fooled the opponents just like a psyche did. They created a new religion that playing the hand & competing was the only thing that mattered in Bridge. Partnership discipline was sacrificed & not needed with a client anyway..

            In the 2000’s ,  it is starting to shift back the other way. Whew ! The fad is almost over because the novelty has worn off. You are not catching people by surprise anymore. Competitive doubles have been invented & improved to counter some of these tactics. The Italians & Dutch are way more disciplined than the Meckwells so their lack of discipline are beating themselves except at matchpoints . I must accept the fact that there was a “crazy period” in Bridge where the Bergen types advocated no quick tricks for garbage openers , color is for kids , pre-empt & overcall with garbage. From the Bridge World write ups , Bergen was responsible for single handedly destroying some matches with his lack of discipline so he has not been invited to play on serious teams for a decade now. 

            People from my era of Bridge feel that the so called “modern garbage way” of bidding is just plain pigeon shooting that Barry Crane did in matchpoints in our day. Crane opened any hand 10 HCP’s & up & his partners had to field them. He was out to destroy the opponents’ auctions at the expense of partnership bidding. Terrorism starts with the opening bid. However,  the disease is far more rampant than I first thought spreading to overcalls. In a local club game recently Peter Jones had ♠Kxx ♥xxx ♦Jx ♣AK10xx vul vrs nv . I was playing with Mavis , opened 1♦ , Jones passed & Mavis bid 2NT. I bid 3NT . Mavis played  it very well & endplayed Peter away from his spade King to make +460 . Excellent result  ? no a dead zero. Everybody & I mean everybody in the field overcalled 2♣ with Peter Jones hand vul & went for numbers ranging from –500 to  -1100 . Peter Jones matter of factly said “everybody here bids that way" . Where did they get this from ? Who did they get this from ? I saw somebody advising Nancy Cook she should have made a two level overcall with 12 HCP’s holding  a very bad 5 card suit. Nancy refused to overcall at the two level so he thought Nancy made a bad bid !!

            I play quite a bit in local club games with tormentees & I get tops or above averages for passing out hands. In the local club field , hands do not get passed out. Quick tricks are not needed for openers so if their queens & jacks come up to 11,  they open. Who taught them this ? Who are they emulating ? Do they see Osama , Ray & Klimo doing this so they think this is Bridge ? Do that get it from Bergen’s books ? I do not think they are doing it because the only wrong bids in matchpoints are bids that do not work ! I think they just do not know any better as they lack HCP hand evaluation skills & understanding HCP concepts. Their style is derived from Bridge ignorance rather than adhering to any destructive or constructive philosophy. I also use tactics to destroy the opponents’ auctions but an opening bid is “off limits” for that purpose. There are other ways to be destructive in Bridge without sacrificing partner.  Poker is made for single handed bluffing as everybody else are opponents. In Bridge , you have a partner unless you do not care for that particular “opponent”.

             I think this type of Bridge was started by bored or desperate pros who delighted in what they could get away with in weak fields so have been so re-enforced with good results against bad fields. A combination of intimidation & in some cases borderline ethics with partners giving them unbelievable leeway. Bridge is a game based on random events so is based on the laws of probabilities. These tactics cannot work in the long run for good Bridge results unless the opponents let them get away with  it. This , in my mind , is what is happening though for terrorist re-enforcement. Nick & Judy have bought into the Meckwell style with Judy giving Nick unbelievable leeway for his tactical destructive bids. They play a forcing club system so garbage openers are almost systemic. After some serious thought , I have bought into the modern destructive religion nv vrs vul only. I call this the terrorist vulnerability. I believe you can call me a ¼  or  part time terrorist  where the opponents must guess vul. :) . I rely on their vul bidding to guide me competitively.

            Give me the old time religion where partners had openers with defense measured in quick tricks , overcalls were lead directing with suits & pre-empts were not suicidal. Competing was not random but based on hand evaluation. It is definitely buying into a religion which I refuse to buy into. Competing is not my god . Competing is important but a partner is more important. No wonder some people criticized my opening bids incessantly for well over a year calling me a woose for not opening hands with 10 , 11 or 12 HCP’s with not enough quick tricks . Some of these hands were even poor responses in my opinion.  They were unbelievably adamant that I was wrong with my opening bids , overcalls & pre-empts style as I was not being destructive enough to the opponents . They were trying to convert me to their religion preached by Bergen of using an opening bid as a destructive tool to make “them guess”  !!  Suicide pre-empts & overcalls also came with the territory. They had no fear of their ”meeting with Allah” by going for a huge set. They actually brag that they do not need quick tricks to open ! They also bragged that going for huge numbers once in a while was systemic & brilliantly competing ! Better to be thought a Bridge fool than opening your mouth & prove it !

No wonder some people disagreed with almost everything I was advocating in my articles as I am going against the grain of the 1990’s Bergen & Cohen religion but not them. Bergen is their role model for “Bridge is a bidder’s game”  & mine is Ely Culbertson for “Bridge is a partnership game” :) . I feel that the two Bridge philosophies cannot co-exist. Partner is odd man out. You do not need to think with Bridge hand evaluation skills to know when or  how to bid , you just randomly bid & damn the consequences. When an atrocious bid does not work , you tell your teammates you were competing ( the catch all excuse ). When you cause them to guess wrong before partner guesses wrong , you are a single handed hero. You make a bad bid but they make a worse one , so blind luck is all Bridge now comes down to. You do not need forcing pass theory , just bid again regardless to get the “last word in”. Simple. You are changing Bridge from a game of great skill involving hand evaluation to a game of chance ( luck ) like at a Casino. Most Bridge players appreciate the skill that is necessary to play partnership Bridge at high levels.  Satisfaction is job one.

        I did not realize how deeply this Bergen doctrine had spread after being away from tournament Bridge during the 1990’s.  As George Bush says you are either with the terrorists or against them. I am still against the terrorists after reviewing these matches covering 25 years . I am also making my own conclusion from my 43 years of playing the game that this destructive style is very wrong for a partnership game. The style is fine for pro’s playing with clients as you are entitled to make a living. Beyond that , I think this is a phase that Bridge went through starting from the 90’s  & is ending this decade with the Italians as role models. I sure hope so. For now , it suffices to know that these “religious fanatics” do indeed exist , so act accordingly & defend yourself. Like terrorists with suicide vests they blow up themselves , partner & their team. They are out to destroy your auctions at the expense of themselves , partner & team. They are dangerous to themselves as they think they are right with the stubborness only a religious fanatic can have. Scary stuff , when they are on your team or worse still your partner. I screen my partners & teammates that are on a terrorist watch list. I want no part of them . It is simply no fun for me & they are on the wrong track. They ignore the advice of the Bridge greats who have said otherwise for 60 years but instead buy into an obnoxious fad led by Bergen & Cohen . They say Cohen & Bergen are leading Bridge in a better direction for the good of the game !!! They have the audacity to think the millions that have played Bridge the disciplined way for 50 years are too feeble minded to see the profound advantages of their religion. I just do not buy into the terrorist religion & throw away 43 years of Bridge judgment I have accumulated by avoiding garbage bidding during that time. I still want to enjoy Bridge not play Russian roulette. Dodging bullets from your own partner seems to be all this type of Bridge amounts to L. I fail to see the attraction or the Bridge logic of their tactics.