Friday, June 09, 2006 11:06 PM

Hand Evaluation – Tactics ( Terrorist Vulnerability )

PITBULLS:

Expert partnerships assume discipline to define their style of Bridge. Partner is to be protected from making bad decisions by partnership discipline. Terrorists do not care if they blow up partner when they are trying their suicidal tactics against the opponents. I have written many articles on discipline as it pertains to opening bids , overcalls and pre-empting.

There are exceptions to disciplined Bridge where expert partnerships must give each other leeway. I have written articles on prevent defense where you “get in there” when the opponents obviously “own the auction” . I have written articles where you open light , overcall light & make tactical bids where partner is a passed hand. There is one last area in the game of Bridge where a lack of discipline is perfectly acceptable . This is “playing the vulnerability”.

When you are vul , you strain to being very disciplined. When you are equal nv , discipline also guides your bids. The one vulnerability where partner must give you leeway is nv vrs vul. This is called the terrorist vulnerability. This is where my pre-empts , opening bids & overcalls resemble those of destructive bidders. My overcalls are very light even at the two level. My pre-empts can be somewhat bizarre & are opened at the 4 level more often than other vulnerabilities. I am very “vulnerable opponent” cautious as to leads or impeding their progress.

This particular vulnerability “takes out insurance” when your terrorism does not work. You go for -800 with one of your adventures but lo & behold partners come back with +660 for a 3 IMP loss instead of a huge loss on the other vulnerability scenarios. On this vulnerability you can buy into the Bergen philosophy for destructive bidding & making them guess with your openers. Partner is aware that this could happen so “let’s roll”. Partner should believe the vulnerable opponents rather than nv partner. You can now open hands that the single handed players do vul vrs not to make them guess.

I hate psyching responses . This is due to the usual reason in that you bring partner down with you. I make an exception though nv vrs vulnerable with the right type of hand. My weak jump shifts with this vulnerability magically can lose the 6^th card. My forcing 1NT can all of a sudden have no HCP’s but a fit for partner. I keep the bidding open not because partner forgot to open 2♣ , but to do my best to prevent the vul opponents getting to their game. D.S.I.P. competitive double theory is very handy on these auctions. If I do have values & I wish to compete , I double. Partner can convert so the vulnerable opponents are in a mess.

I leap to game in a major more often on this vulnerability. Sometimes I have only 4 trump . Taking out insurance is doing your utmost to prevent them from reaching their game or getting partner off to the best lead if they do. My requirements for a 2/1 in competition get downgraded on this one particular vulnerability. Partner notices the vulnerability also so will keep her punitive XX card in the box when the opponents double the final contract.

Forcing pass theory has to be adjusted on the terrorist vulnerability. Limit raise or better traditionally turns on forcing when game is reached. On the terrorist vulnerability let’s do away with forcing passes altogether. We probably have already done as much damage aw can so let’s prevent some -790’s . In my mind , terrorism has a place in Bridge when the opponents own the hand , partner is passed hand & when you are nv vrs vulnerable. In all other instances, partner is to be believed rather than the opponents. Osama & Bergen & Cohen do not have it all wrong , they just go to extremes & over do it. Be a part time or ¼ of a terrorist.