Try to recall the last time you made an insufficient bid. It might have been a purely mental error, but there’s a good possibility that you were actually misled by your visual perception of the auction. The culprit, discussed in last month’s column, is what psychologists call inattentional blindness -- a phenomenon that explains why our eyes and our instincts sometimes trick us into missing important details.
Even a relatively simple bridge deal requires us to keep track of a large volume of information, so we have to be selective about where to direct our attention. Visually and mentally, we naturally focus on what’s obvious and familiar, without actively looking for what seems unnecessary or unusual. The challenge is to think beyond the obvious and try to identify the other clues that are competing for our attention.
One reason this is so difficult is that we tend to focus on single aspects of complicated problems rather than on complete solutions. The simpler or more immediate decision is the one we usually deal with first -- how to play a specific suit combination instead of how to make the contract, what to bid at this turn instead of how to manage the entire auction.
Planning ahead will give you a better picture of all the issues that affect a bidding decision, even when your choice seems obvious. Start by asking yourself, “What can go wrong?”
Suppose partner opens 1H and you hold ♠AKQ109 ♥J864 ♦AJ7 ♣3 .
If you’re thinking only about your first response, you might choose 1S. It looks like a suit that “must” be bid, and you have enough strength that you aren’t worried about the auction getting too high before you can support hearts.
You don’t have to look too far into the future to see that what seemed like such a clear, easy response has left you with no way to accurately describe the rest of your hand. No matter what partner rebids, you’ll never be able to convince him that you have a slam try with four-card heart support. If he rebids 2D, your only forcing bid will be an awkward 3C, which will mislead him even further.
A moment’s consideration of your second bid would have persuaded you to start with a forcing raise (Jacoby 2NT or a 4C splinter). Even better, if you play Soloway-style strong jump shifts, would be a 2S response followed by a club rebid, which shows heart support and club shortness along with the good spade suit.
In other auctions, the clue that should draw your attention may be what didn’t happen.
LHO Partner RHO You
Pass Pass
Pass 1D Pass 1H
Pass 2C Pass ?
Red vs. white at matchpoints, do you pass or bid on with ♠3 ♥AJ6542 ♦83 ♣Q1043 ?
A 7-count isn’t usually worth an invite in this auction. If partner has the typical 12-14 points, 2C is probably high enough. He could, however, hold up to 17 points, in which case your extra playing strength might be enough to make a game.
If that were all you had to consider, you’d go with the odds and pass. There’s
more to guide you here, though, if you look past your hand and analyze the “dog
that didn’t bark”. Why have your non-vulnerable opponents, who have at least
nine spades, passed five times? Their show of weakness improves the chances that
partner has the hand with extra values. If you were leaning toward a raise to
3C, that inference makes your decision easier.
© 2016 Karen Walker