Bridge players’ brains are packed with bits and pieces of knowledge about all facets of our game. Besides the basic rules for bidding and play, we store countless guidelines for making strategic decisions. Some are arithmetic shortcuts -- “8-ever/9-never”, the Rule of 2/3/4 for preempts, the Rule of 15 for fourth-seat openings. Others emphasize general principles -- support with support, game before slam, “6-5, come alive”.
These concepts have served us well, so when we encounter a hand and an auction that fits one, we’re inclined to follow its advice. Which bidding principles can be applied to this problem?
Partner RHO You LHO
1D 1S Pass Pass
2D 2S Pass Pass
3C Pass ?
What’s your call holding ♠8764 ♥Q104 ♦J2 ♣K864 ?
When partner has shown two suits, the first rule that comes to mind is to choose the one with the most combined trumps. Here, both are 8-card fits, as partner is most likely 6-4 in the minors (with 6-5, he surely would have bid 2C at his second turn).
With equal fits, it’s natural to prefer the suit where you have greater length, especially if you factor in another widely accepted idea: A 4-4 fit is often superior to a 5-3 or 6-2.
A quick recall of those guidelines may convince you to pass 3C. If your thinking stops there, you’ve made what some psychologists call a “System 1” decision -- one based on instinct and past experience. For a more objective analysis, you have to consciously access your brain’s more rational function (“System 2”) and test your initial reaction.
That extra step in the decision-making process usually involves looking into the future. Before you make what seems to be an obvious “book bid”, take a moment to predict how the auction might develop. If you uncover potential problems, ask yourself if this situation warrants making an exception to the rule, then evaluate the alternatives.
Sometimes, the play’s the thing
On the problem above, your best guess about the rest of the auction is that the call you choose will be passed out. There’s more to consider, though, if you think farther into the future and predict how the play will develop. Often overlooked when making bidding decisions, an analysis of the play will offer the strongest argument for bidding 3D.
To start, imagine a hand for partner and a likely opening lead. Here, he might hold ♠J ♥65 ♦AQ10943 ♣AQJ10 . In 3D, assuming a spade lead and the ♦K offside, you can see nine tricks (five diamonds and four clubs, barring a possible ruff).
Now try the play in 3C. Spade leads will shorten partner’s trumps at trick two, then again when your RHO wins the ♦K. Partner won’t be able to pull all the trumps and will have no entry to his diamonds. If clubs break 4-1, 3C could be down three.
That scenario highlights some exceptions to the standard guidelines. In general, the weaker your combined strength, the more important it is to play in the long suit to maintain entries and trump control. A 4-4 fit offers an extra trick mainly when you have good high-card strength and your outside suits have quick tricks and “slow” losers. With weaker hands, a 4-4 plays better than a 6-2 only when you need multiple ruffs in dummy.
Bidding 3D is clear if you can get past the “rules”
and take advantage of the other information in your knowledge bank. As with many
bidding problems, you won’t find what you already know unless you turn on your
System 2 reasoning to retrieve it.
© 2016 Karen Walker