Thursday,
April 08, 2004 9:57 AM
Hand
Evaluation -
Philosophy ( destructive bidding )
PITBULLS:
There are two ways or philosophies ( if you will ) to play IMPS . One is constructive
, the other destructive. The constructive way to earn IMPS is to maximize
partnership discipline
so as to be
accurate in bidding partials , games and slams. This partnership discipline
also assists defending & sacrificing decisions. In constructive auctions , partners bids are always taken at face value . The assumption of discipline is paramount
in all decision making.
By the term discipline , we mean opening bids have the values & defense measured in quick
tricks as expected for opening bids . We mean that 1st & 2nd
pre-empts never hold outside controls . Suits for
weak two’s are not destructive Jxxxxx or the like . Overcalls at the one or two level do not have bad suits. Vulnerability is respected & more
values are expected when vulnerable.
Psyches or
tactical bids are always done when partner is a passed hand &
always at favourable vulnerability. Disciplined take
out & penalty doubles & the appropriate use of the green pass card is
assumed with the partnership. 1NT overcalls have a stopper in the bid suit with
no singletons. In competitive auctions , bids have a meaning rather than “just pushing
them up “.
Constructive bidding brings out the
partnership element
of Bridge . Forcing passes show the beauty of the partnership element of Bridge . Single handed actions are rare & only if the hand dictates it.
Otherwise, you
try to get partners input by
inviting her to the party in all your bidding decisions. You respect your partners ability , so do not gamble poorly & risk going for huge sets. Trapping &
balancing are a big part of maintaining partnership discipline in bidding. The
gambling element of Bridge is done intelligently like in Poker games with pot odds & not like in a Casino with blind
luck.
Modern openers
without quick tricks were designed for & by destructive bidders.
There is no Bridge logic for these openers other than to “make them guess”
where them includes partner. Bridge players know the importance of controls so
taking them out of the opening bid structure ( requirement
) makes no theoretical Bridge sense. They are distorting opener bids to use
them as a tactic where the opponents are the incentive for opening rather than
partner & the language of bidding. They are opening to disturb the
opponents at the expense of partner. The lack of a quick trick requirement even
allows them to “open” even more hands to fool the opponents.
Semi-psyches ( modern
openers) are the main
tool for destructive bidders. Destructive
bidders are usually “solo artists” who have a partner only because the rules of
Bridge demand it or they are getting paid J.
The destructive approach to Bridge
is to win IMPS by causing the opponents
to go wrong . Good
partnerships also have that weapon in their repertoire but not at the expense of partnership discipline . If a bid
( opener or not ) might get partner as well as the
opponents , the bid is not made
in a constructive partnership. With the destructive partnership
, partner is fair game also. If you make a modern opener causing partner
to go wrong by doubling the opponents into game or bidding a slam going down , you deem
it the cost of doing business the destructive way. If you pre-empt with an
outside Ace thereby missing a slam or cause partner to make a pseudo sacrifice , you are “unlucky”
. If you overcall vul on a Qxxxx suit ,
go for 1100 you shrug your shoulders & say “these things happen”. If you
overcall 1NT without a stopper in the opponents suit ,
they cash 5 tricks in 3NT when another game makes it is “unlucky” . You
overcall 1NT with a stiff , partner bids a game in that suit & goes down
when 3NT is cold again it is “bad luck “ . You open a weak two vul with Jxxxxx ,
the opponents convert the balancing double so you go for 800 it is “unlucky” .
You play a 10 HCP 1NT vul against non vul & get doubled for 1400 with your partners coming
back with +460 in 3NT is unlucky. You overcall or open 1NT on 14 one time &
18 another time so
partner has to field it
. You get to 22 HCP games & go two down vul or
get misdefense & make it. You make a single handed sacrifice to 7♣
& push the opponents into a vul 7♥ that your partners do not get to . Unlucky ! Conventional toys like Michaels & Unusual
2NT bids are total undisciplined with a range of 0-40 HCP. Does not matter if partner has
any idea what your range is as the opponents being confused are more important than partner judging correctly in
competitive auctions. Again partner is
an unnecessary complication to your grand plan starting from the opening bid
on.
The destructive style is based on poor gambling . You are gambling that the opponents do the wrong thing & partner
does not get in the way
by believing you . This style of Bridge works best in weak fields
where you are taking advantage of the opponents inexperience in dealing with
such situations .
Your system is geared towards destructive bidding so single
handed decisions are the norm . What this does of course is erode partnership discipline
& trust. I was playing against a team recently that
employ such tactics. Partner opens two spades vul , you hold ♠Jxx ♥KJ109x
♦xxx ♣xx , RHO passes . If you play undisciplined weak twos vul,
you are scared to take tactical action. If you bid 3, you may go for a tremendous set if
partner has xxxxxx for example. For a disciplined partnership
, this hand is a natural for a 2NT bid or a 3 spade bid as the opponents are in
the +26 HCP range . Partner this time had quite the weak two ♠KQ109xx ♥Axx ♦xxxx ♣void
so 4 spades makes . 3NT , 5♣,
5♦ all make the
other direction but you can jam the opponents out of the auction.
Playing this destructive style , partnership confidence
is put at risk . Responder must deal with the ambiguity of partner not having
what she announced for an opening bid. In competitive auctions ,
you believe the opponents
rather than partner. In fact , the opponents guide you through the auction rather than partner. This works
well if partner does not
have his bid
with a modern opener but back fires if partner does have his bid & the opponents do not . The destructive style is by necessity a “master
minding” approach .
You cannot pass the ball to partner as either of you might not have your bid .
The opponents escape unscathed because you are “compensating” for partner not
having his bid . This is a win win
situation for the opponents . Sacrificing
is a pure gamble as we do not know if we have defensive tricks or not as that
is not a requirement for a modern opener apparently.
Slam bidding is one of the victims in this destructive style.
Partnerships who do not trust
each other leap to game
quite often . Slams that require delicate Q bidding
are missed . Actually games are missed because you
make very heavy invitational bids
in case partner “does not have a opener” after he has
opened. Leeway is given because there is that nagging doubt
doe partner really have an opener ? Does partner now
accept the invitation if he just has what he has shown or does he bid game
because he is not an Ace short of his opener ? Opening leads take a beating playing the undisciplined style. If
you lead from Kx against 3NT after a weak two auction , you risk hitting the opponents AQJ10 suit . Unlucky as overcalls
& weak twos are just to disturb the opponents
so not for leads !
We have caved
into destructive
bidding on one vulnerability only
( the terrorist vulnerability) . With this one
vulnerability only, we
bid like Meckwell & the other pros who subscribe
to modern bidding. The other 3 vulnerabilities , we play disciplined
partnership Bridge. On the terrorist vulnerability
, we put pressure on
partner to read the situation & give us leeway the pros get
on all vulnerabilities.
Keeping the opponents from their rightful
vulnerable games is just too large a prize.
The style of Bridge you
choose, I guess is up to the
partnership. There are many players in Edmonton & the world that subscribe
to Bridge as a bidders game , let them figure it out
& colour is for kids. They open flat 5-3-3-2 twelve HCP’s with
little or no quick tricks. Partner somehow must field it as if there is an “undo”
in Bridge. Frankly , I will not play Bridge the destructive way ,
as I feel insulted by all the straight Casino like gambling. There is an element
of gambling in Bridge but I think the game is above that .
The partnership element of Bridge is just to huge a factor to sacrifice in
order to play this destructive style . Modern openers are a form of terrorism , the way I see it. Terrorism
is not the way to play Bridge. With destructive bidders
, it is always “feast or famine” . They win big when their tactics work . They lose big & far more often when their tactics
fail. In the Thursday nite IMP games it is proven
statistically over the years. The modern bidders win big once
, than for the next long stretch they end up on or near the bottom. The constructive
bidders win often but when they do not , they are 2nd
, 3rd, 4th & remain in the top half.
This is the way the law of probabilities dictate it to happen. Live by the sword , die by the sword for the solo artists & modern
bidders. Quoting George Bush , “you
are either with the terrorists or against them”. Not hard to figure out my position L.