My early bridge education came in an informal game at the K-Room, a campus coffee shop where about a dozen of us played rubber bridge (and cut classes) every weekday. We were all just social players and a lot of what I learned there was far from good bridge.
One staple of K-Room Standard was that if there were three passes and you held a balanced 13 or more points, you should open 3NT. There was plenty of positive reinforcement for this bid, as the defense tended to be sloppy enough that 3NT would usually make.
Shortly after I began playing duplicate, I tried this bid at the campus club and went down three. When I saw my more experienced partner shaking his head, I asked, “Isn’t 3NT the normal bid?" None of the other three people at the table could answer because they were laughing too hard.
That was the first of many bidding ideas that I had to discard when I started playing with and against better players. The next to go were “You must respond with 6 points” and "Always show your 4-card major".
I learned these were not absolute commands when my partner opened 1C, RHO overcalled 1S and I bid 2H with ♥Kxxx and an 8-count. Partner fast-played the next hand so he’d have time between rounds to teach me negative doubles.
If you played party bridge before duplicate, you may have been taught similar “rules” – perhaps not as silly as the 3NT opening, but just as flawed. Many included the words “always" or "never", and you followed them because everyone else in your group bid that way.
Did you ever hear any of this advice when you were learning the game?
Don’t open 1NT unless you have all four suits stopped.
Never pass partner’s 1C opening if you have fewer than four cards in his suit.
Bid notrump to escape from a misfit.
4C is always Gerber.
A double of an overcall means “I was going to respond that suit”.
When you move up to duplicate play, you soon find that your opponents are using different rules. You start rethinking your old bidding ideas and adopting new ones, and the most successful players keep doing that as long as they play. When they judge that their current style and methods need improvement -- or have been wrong all along -- they make adjustments.
In this series, we’ll look at common bidding guidelines that you may want to reevaluate, rework or abandon. These include faulty theories that are based on myths, misconceptions and sometimes local customs (“Everyone in my club plays it this way”). Others are bidding styles and treatments that might have once been effective, but don’t work well in the modern game.
In many cases, the problem isn’t the concept itself, but confusion about when and how to apply it. Here’s a popular agreement that seems simple enough, but is often misused:
Not vulnerable in first seat, what’s your call holding ♠KJ ♥Q8643 ♦J10654 ♣K ?
If you rely on the Rule of 20 to make opening-bid decisions, this hand qualifies (your high-card points plus the number of cards in your two longest suits add to at least 20). Should you follow your rule, treat this hand as an exception or stop using this evaluation method? More about this in the next issue.
© 2020 Karen Walker