Tuesday,
July 25, 2006 10:36 PM
Hand Evaluation – Systemic ( Up the Line Bidding )
PITBULLS:
One of the worst concepts
in standard 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. When 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. When 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 when 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 initiallymakes
no Bridge sense in my opinion. I feel you are concealing
your true hand from partner. You
are introducing needless ambiguity involving
the potential of your hand. Bidding distortion to solely show a 4 card major
which can be found later.
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 ( XYZ) 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..