Bidding as a Path

[kenrexford]

I'm curious as to what others think of a general proposition that I recently explored in our local club newsletter. The idea is that calls occasionally should be made as part of a discussion, regardless of whether the call meets the definition of the bid.

 

I have long felt this, as a general proposition. For example, after opening a major and hearing a forcing 1NT, 2♣ as a rebid often makes for nice auctions if Responder does not pass, no matter what Opener has in clubs. Sure -- there are conventions that reflect this. I am talking about "natural" bidding, where you bid 2♣ simply because the auction will be easier if you bid 2♣.

 

A similar theme is a transfer to a major after a 1NT opening, followed by 3♣ simply because the auction works out nice if you rebid 3♣. Who cares what you have in clubs?

 

A recent discussion involved apparent insanity, when Opener started with 1♠, heard 2♦, rebid 2♠ as saying nothing more about spades, heard 3♣, and the rebid 3NT to show hearts under control, with the length of the spade suit being unknown. Responder, with 2-1-5-5 with mild slam interest, had a problem.

 

This made me think. If Opener has six spades and hearts stopped, with a minimum, this system cannot allow him to show all that he has, largely because the 2♠ call says nothing and is a wasted step along the path. Well, a plausible "solution" would be for Opener to rebid 2♥, because this makes the auction better. His later rebid of 3♠ will finalize all messages he needs to send. Obviously, this works wonders when Opener has 6-4 in the majors. What if, however, he has 6-3 in the majors? Maybe ♠KQxxxx ♥AQx ♦x ♣Qxx?

 

If Opener rebids 2♥ with this hand, and if Responder does not have four hearts, the auction will develop very well. All will be better. The missing heart will likely be immaterial to the real world. Only if Responder holds four hearts will there be a problem, but (1) that problem might well not materialize, and (2) that "problem" might not be the end of the world anyway. The Moysian risk might turn out OK after all.

 

The question is not so much whether this alternative sequence is right or wrong or insane or creative. The issue is whether this sequence is inferior or superior to the traditional sequence in the long run. The traditional sequence leaves the spade length unknown. The alternative sequence falsifies heart length. Either has problems; either has upsides.

 

The big question, though, is the degree to which deviation is acceptable as a tool to functional, complete sequences. IMO, if bids are seen as snapshots separated from a complete sequence, deviation is frowned upon with the result of strained sequences. If, however, calls are made in the context of a "complete sequence" thinking, deviations are more common and acceptable, with more fluid complete sequences.

 

 

 

[barmar]

Basically, you're saying that when you're in a forcing auction, the first step can always be used as a temporizing bid, and might not be natural.

[kenrexford]

Basically, you're saying that when you're in a forcing auction, the first step can always be used as a temporizing bid, and might not be natural.

 

Not necessarily that simplistic. Another example or two, that are different:

 

1. Almost everyone will bid suits out of structure. E.g., you open a major despite 5-6 with a longer minor because the auction is easy.

 

2. Similarly, suppose with 2-1-5-5 you decide to respond to a 1♠ opening by bidding 2♣ rather than 2♦, prepared to reverse into 3♦ if necessary. This false 4-5 or 5-6 description might enable better sequences and thus be meritorious.

 

The idea is not just to shorten the requirements for the first rebid. Rather, the idea is to contemplate a full sequence that you will like, without strict requirements as to what the starting bid might be, and then to grab the starting bid that facilitates the sequence. That "start" could be with the opening bid, the first rebid, the first response, or at any other point in the sequence. That first act could be a pass, or it could be any other call.

 

A similar decision was made by Meckstroth in the Bridge Bulletin (and I picked that also before I saw his response). Basically, he had some 4-4-0-5 14-count with great clubs and great play. After 1♣ to the right, people came up with different calls, or passed. Meckstroth (and I) opted 1NT. Why? IMO, 1NT is the start of what would be expected to be the easiest series of possible sequences. Passing leads to strained sequences. 1NT can be a disaster, but the "total sequence" thinking suggests that a 1NT overcall will work best in the long run. It is clearly not descriptive, but who cares? He summarized as "I like bidding 1NT." I think the deeper meaning is that life is easy when you start with that initiating bid, rather than passing. Hence, the "like" is tied to future auction ease.

 

 

 

[whereagles]

The big question, though, is the degree to which deviation is acceptable as a tool to functional, complete sequences.

 

It is acceptable if is succeeds and it depends on pard's profile as a person.

 

Austere, rigid people will look at you as a criminal if your idea works and will shoot you if it doesn't.

 

Sensible people, like those who have the priceless virtue of being able to see different points of view, will give you high fives if it works and simply smile if it doesn't. The more caring ones would even lie to you something like "I would probably have done the same".

 

Still, the idea of twisting bids for convenience's sake is old. I think it was Roth who used to do it and comment along the lines of "If I can get past this round..." I'll give you an example I witnessed:

 

Axx

--

AKJTxx

AQxx

 

You pard

1♦ 1♠

??

 

3♣ is book bid, but bidding might get cumbersome afterwards. There is so much from pard you need to know that it's better to make the slight underbid of a space-saving 2♣.

[Zelandakh]

Is this not done already to some extent? I mean things like gropes at the 3 level and Responder's 2NT rebid in a 2/1 auction. But I think calling it part of a discussion is a little misleading. When I make a call showing some suit and values and I have them I am taking part in a discussion; when I make a forcing call showing not very much trying to get more information I have stopped discussing and am moving along the path to asking. That I think the latter is often more efficient is why I believe in relay systems.

[hrothgar]

I think you're saying "I wish I were playing a relay system, but I'm not allowed to do so"

[kenrexford]

I don't think I have explained myself well enough.

 

Consider two ways of viewing an auction of three bids.

 

first bid shows x feature and y parameters. Second bid shows z feature and narrows y parameters. Third bid clarifies x feature.

 

I will make 3 bids. At the end, I will have established a narrow y parameters, z feature, and a nuanced x feature.

 

These sound the same, but they are not when you consider imperfect hands. The first auction type requires that each choice along the journey approximate the specific step best. The second auction allows more radical departure from the specific step definition if the end definition is the best.

[fromageGB]

I'm with Barmar on this one. While the idea of a relay-like bid is perfectly acceptable and almost normal when the bid is forcing, as responder I would frown upon Ken's sequence of 1♠ 1NT 2♣("natural", nonforcing) Pass if declarer is inventing a bid with a singleton, and likewise be horrified by whereagles's "slight underbid" of 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ Pass when the room is in the making 4♠.

[whereagles]

Where I live people don't support 1m-1M-2/3M on three cards. (Actually, for a time I was the only one doing it.)

[glen]

this is the old Al Roth "if I get by this round I'll be well placed"

 

... A similar theme is a transfer to a major after a 1NT opening, followed by 3♣ simply because the auction works out nice if you rebid 3♣. Who cares what you have in clubs?

The person who cares is partner, the one working with you to get to the best spot. If your distortions are so bad as to make your bids meaningless, you destroy the two-way conversation. Using your other example, after 1♠-2♦;-2♥, can responder still splinter with a 2-4-6-1, and if so how does opener's 6-3-1-3 unagree hearts? The two-way conversation is off the path and onto the rocks.

[kenrexford]

this is the old Al Roth "if I get by this round I'll be well placed"

 

 

The person who cares is partner, the one working with you to get to the best spot. If your distortions are so bad as to make your bids meaningless, you destroy the two-way conversation. Using your other example, after 1♠-2♦;-2♥, can responder still splinter with a 2-4-6-1, and if so how does opener's 6-3-1-3 unagree hearts? The two-way conversation is off the path and onto the rocks.

The simple answer is that you don't unagree hearts. You accept the Dummy and play it out. If you survive, great. If not, next deal.

 

As for partner, you need the right partner type. I have said or heard partner say "Oh, you had that hand" countless times. This never causes partnership trust issues with those partners. In fact, my experience has been the opposite. My most trusting partnerships have been with people who are most willing for either of us to deviate for contextual reasons, perhaps because of a mutual recognition of the competence of the deviation logic. For example, I could probably chart out a proof that the higher the deviation likelihood, the higher the likelihood of making lucrative low level penalty doubles.

[whereagles]

just make sure it works.. even the most patient of partners will eventually get upset if "deviations" constantly fail

[kenrexford]

just make sure it works.. even the most patient of partners will eventually get upset if "deviations" constantly fail

 

True. The bigger picture, though, is that a "deviation" is not necessarily as deviate as the non-deviation auction. Consider the idiotic auction from a while back where Opener started 1♠, then rebid spades without showing anything about length, and then rebid 3NT just to show hearts controlled. Contrast this with manufacturing a 2♥ rebid with a fragment because you have a sixth spade.

 

Which is more "accurate" in the end:

 

I have 5-6 spades with hearts stopped.

 

I have 6 spades, 4 hearts (really 3), with hearts stopped.

 

The latter is a "lie." But, the latter is a better definition of a hand with six spades and AQx in hearts. The round two deviations makes the round 3 completion more accurate.

 

 

 

[jogs]

I have never been convinced of the value of relay bids. Wished it were possible to design a study to test its value.

[mikeh]

True. The bigger picture, though, is that a "deviation" is not necessarily as deviate as the non-deviation auction. Consider the idiotic auction from a while back where Opener started 1♠, then rebid spades without showing anything about length, and then rebid 3NT just to show hearts controlled. Contrast this with manufacturing a 2♥ rebid with a fragment because you have a sixth spade.

 

Which is more "accurate" in the end:

 

I have 5-6 spades with hearts stopped.

 

I have 6 spades, 4 hearts (really 3), with hearts stopped.

 

The latter is a "lie." But, the latter is a better definition of a hand with six spades and AQx in hearts. The round two deviations makes the round 3 completion more accurate.

I agree with Glen.

 

I like the fact that you are not afraid to challenge standard ideas, but on this one you are out to lunch, imo.

 

There are undoubtedly hands on which good players make bids that are distortions, but I think that if you look carefully at these situations they will be cases where there is literally no bid that isn't a distortion. Thus with 5M and 6m, and a minimum, almost all players open the major, but most would open the minor with any significant extras.

 

We open the major, with weak hands, because doing so is a lesser distortion than the alternative of reversing.

 

As for 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ as a distortion, this is partnership killing bridge. Heaven help you (bearing in mind that I am an atheist) should partner hold 4 hearts...good luck getting, ethically, back to spades.

 

If all you meant by this thread is that sometimes one must make a call that doesn't meet the systemic description of the call, then you have stated something that is so well understood by all experienced players that you have said nothing new. There are always hands that fall between the cracks in any system design. But when you go further, and suggest a deliberate misbid when a systemically accurate call is available, then you are playing solitaire, not bridge. More to the point, you seem to be revealing an attitude that suggests that you and you alone are in charge of your auctions. Roth did ok with that approach, but bridge was simpler in his day, his opps didn't bid very well (due to lack of methods), and the game has moved on. Plus neither you nor I are Alvin Roth :P Finally, Roth was famous for his 'mark time' bids, and if you are a student of the game you'll know that they were always a call made in situations in which ALL calls were distortions of some kind or another.

[awm]

Sometimes either partner or the opponents do something unexpected. When this happens, you will often be very poorly positioned for trying to "plan out the auction" by making bids that severely distort your hand. I suspect this situation will outweigh any gains, not to mention the (likely) damage to partnership trust.

[kenrexford]

In all fairness, though, most "deviations" end up being definitional eventually.

 

A case study in point.

 

A semi pro partner of mine and I both had an emerging tendency to fabricate a 2D rebid in a 2/1 GF auction after a 2C response, because the auction works better than after a bulky 2NT rebid. Eventually, 2D was no longer a deviation but alerted and defined.

 

Similarly, delayed canapé rebids evolved in the same manner. This is where, for example, the first rebid is a fragment as a cheap call that later enables a third round bid in a four card suit that couldn't be bid earlier because of reverses, but with near reverse strength. The sequence is now definitional, with the first rebid known to be suspect and explained as such.

 

I have pre alerted in the past that many calls might be one shy of expected length because of this, as these exceptional sequences were emerging. The beauty was, from experience, was that some of the new treatments later definitional were sufficiently self protecting to be capable of evolutionary development with a good partnership willing to allow evolutionary deviation.

[hrothgar]

I have never been convinced of the value of relay bids. Wished it were possible to design a study to test its value.

 

Do you play Stayman?

[uday]

OP seems to suggest that you should make calls that lead to the best final contract, without worrying so much about what you're showing to pard or the opps

 

The robot does this all the time, and since i'd rather have it be sane than brilliant, we damp down this tendency as fas as we can. I know it still does it, no need to sidetrack this discussion w/GIB reports :)

 

 

One example: You hold (say) 3154 and some values. Pard opens 1H. It is possible that 1S is a better call than 1N. Among other things, it sometimes prevents the opps from competing in spades, and as long as pard will have 4 spades for any spade raise, nothing bad will happen if he raises

 

Similarly: You hold (say) 1543 and GF+ values, red vs white. Again, pard opens 1H. It is possible that a "strong jump shift" into spades followed by a H-raise ( primary H, so there is no danger of playing in spades) is the answer; among other things, it preserves room, shuts the opps out, and may result in a favourable lead.

 

 

As long as partner is willing to go along with this style I think it is quite playable but in ACBL-land, anyway, I can't imagine how I'd alert these things; I suspect we wouldn't be allowed to use this general approach to bidding in a world where bids are as tightly regulated as they are.

[mikestar13]

Edgar Kaplan's Liar's Code (from a novice-intermediate level teaching book of his in the 1960's, don't recall the title):

 

1. Never lie unless necessary.

 

2. Tell the least lie possible.

 

3. When in doubt, lie about suit length rather than hand strength.

 

4. When in doubt, lie about a minor suit rather than a major suit.

 

5. Tell a small lie now, if not doing so will cause you to tell a big lie later.

 

This seems to me what Ken is aiming at.

 

I agree with the code, though I would soften rule #3 a bit in view of the modern and reasonable "shape first" concept (the words "shape first" had not been uttered when EK wrote). However, rule #2 governs strength as well as shape, and it seems better to me to distort my shape rather than show a ace more than I have. I would gladly show a queen more than I have, though EK did not advocate this (though I bet he practiced it--he was a much better card player than his target audience).

 

I think Ken is on the right track, but his examples don't all pay as much attention to rule#2 as I would.

[barmar]

Rule #3 is followed whenever you make a "fake" reverse or jump shift into a 3-card suit. Opener needs some way to show extra strength, and standard bidding doesn't provide ways to do this with all hand shapes.

[kenrexford]

Rule #3 is followed whenever you make a "fake" reverse or jump shift into a 3-card suit. Opener needs some way to show extra strength, and standard bidding doesn't provide ways to do this with all hand shapes.

That's the issue. Almost no system handles all hands in all auctions. The hole exists. How do you handle the situation? Follow a path designed for a different hand with steps that are increasingly flawed to a really bad end, or switch to a path that better approximates the actual hand when you get to the end?

[mikeh]

That's the issue. Almost no system handles all hands in all auctions. The hole exists. How do you handle the situation? Follow a path designed for a different hand with steps that are increasingly flawed to a really bad end, or switch to a path that better approximates the actual hand when you get to the end?

 

Try framing the proposition in a balanced fashion. You have created a false dichotomy, acceptance of which would logically compel acceptance of your point of view. However, you miss-describe both your approach and the approach used by almost everyone else.

 

1. The common approach used by good players around the world when faced with a systemic hole or crack, uses the principle of the least distortion. This, you imply, leads to 'steps that are increasingly flawed'. Nonsense. That's why we use the principle of the 'least' distortion tempered by a tendency to use, when options are available, the cheapest distortion, maximizing the bidding space available to recover. Is this perfect? No. No approach that incorporates misdescription into the auction is going to be perfect.

 

2. Your method, of an intentional and substantial distortion (suggesting, for example, 5=4+ majors in the auction 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ on a 5323 hand) is said by you to 'lead to a path that better approximates the actual hand'. Nonsense.

 

No sequence, after your 2♥ call, will ever persuade partner that you lack 4 hearts. Now, is this going to be fatal? Most often, no. But give partner 4 hearts and you are doomed. And give him a doubleton in each major and you may well be in 3N (or higher in NT) with no heart stop and inadequate length.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand the specific controversy, as I expected a different one.

 

The example of the 3 card heart rebid might have been extreme, to make a point. Consider perhaps a simpler example, which avoids the idol majors.

 

You are dealt 6313 with 18 HCP. You open 1S because that's obvious. Partner bids a forcing 1NT.

 

The book says rebid 3S. The auction now sucks, and you know it. Before you bid 3S, though, you recall how nice the auction is after a 2C rebid, and you expect to be able to jump to 3S if the auction survives one round. Which call, then, is better? Can you improve in the future by redefining 3C as not gf?

 

The conventional wisdom seems to be one of step by step calls. I understand that to be the case. So what? Maybe cw is wrong in some areas. The 3S rebid with 3 hearts seems wrong to me.

 

a series of approximations out of context does often compound. This is even more so when you force partner to approximate, as well. The 3S rebid forces partner to pick whether he is closer to 4S, 3NT, or pass. A 2C lie allows him to approximate with more nuance. A conventional tweak to 3C is a good compromise.

 

An entire auction view, both self focused and empathetic, seems superior to me for these reasons. Obviously, partner will never play you for the deviation, which could cause a problem. I don't deny this. But, to ignore the cost of the accepted sequence is rather biased. I could just as easily point to the resulting miss of the 5-3 heart fit, or in the heart fragment example the insanity of not spotting the 6-2 spade fit, but your analysis seems to discount that problem with no reason.

[mikeh]

 

 

You are dealt 6313 with 18 HCP. You open 1S because that's obvious. Partner bids a forcing 1NT.

 

The book says rebid 3S. The auction now sucks, and you know it. Before you bid 3S, though, you recall how nice the auction is after a 2C rebid, and you expect to be able to jump to 3S if the auction survives one round. Which call, then, is better? Can you improve in the future by redefining 3C as not gf?

 

 

In fact, the book suggests you bid 3♠ with an 18 count you deem not to be a gf, and you bid 3♣ with an 18 count you deem to be a gf. I expect you recognize that not all 6313 18 counts are equal :D

 

Indeed, some players (me, for one) have incorporated this systemically. For me, the 3♣ js is gf, with one of 3 hand types: a single suiter in spades, a black 2 suiter, or precisely 4 hearts.

 

As for the auction sucking after 3♠, no it doesn't. Yes, once in a long while, we will miss a good heart contract, but that is about the only significant downside.

 

Meanwhile, I shudder to think of what happens after a 2♣ rebid. Absent a systemic agreement (either explicit or implied, and you'd better be squeaky clean on alerts), you can never catch up after 2♣ (especially if it gets passed).

 

I am not dismissing the entire idea. In a very good partnership, we played the auction 1♠ 1N 2♣ was virtually unpassable, because we defined our 3♠ rebid, on 16 to bad 17 counts, as requiring good texture in the major. AK6432 wouldn't be enough....we'd want AK108xx or such. Thus we passed 2♣ only if we expected to pass a standard 3♠rebid and, of course, held 5+ clubs. We alerted the 2♣ call. Others have explicitly agreed that 2♣ is a 1-round force.

 

However, my point is that when you adopt these ideas, you are in fact modifying your system, unless you are doing this only with partners with whom you very rarely play. So you are no longer 'distorting'...you are playing an agreement, whether you like it or not.