2007-12-31 02:52


Hand Evaluation - Bidding Systems

PITBULLS:

            Parts of Karen Walkers series of articles . The 1st  5 habits are discussed in detail on her site . The remaining 7 habits have appeared in the ACBL Bridge bulletin & will appear on her site eventually.

The 12 Habits of Highly Effective Bidders 

In his 1990 book, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey described seven "habits" that successful people follow to improve their individual skills and their interaction with others. As Bridge players, we deal with the same two issues. Our success depends on how we perform as individuals and as partnerships, and the best players excel in both areas.

The main decisions we make as partnerships concern our bidding system. All experienced players have their own philosophies about what works and what doesn't, but some basic principles apply to all good systems. One habit that successful pairs have in common is:

   1.  They play a system that emphasizes constructive bidding.

We all know players whose convention cards are filled with sub-minimum opening bids, ultra-weak notrumps and 20 ways to preempt. If you load your system with too many agreements for showing weak hands, your accuracy can suffer when you hold stronger hands. Those will be half the deals you play, so it's important to find a middle ground between a system that's too stodgy and one that's too maniacal.

In the long run, the most effective systems are those that emphasize constructive bidding. Constructive doesn't mean conservative. It means that when you're deciding on meanings for your system bids, agreements that help you investigate games and slams should take precedence over those designed to find sacrifices or disrupt the opponents' auction. Your main goal should be to enlighten partner, not confuse the opponents.

A good system will accommodate your preempting style without sacrificing your ability to accurately describe your good hands. Problems can occur when you replace a constructive bid with a new convention or assign a weaker meaning to it. If you don't have a good alternative for showing the stronger hand, your preempting agreements can interfere more with your auctions than with the opponents'.

Some common problem areas include:

10-12 notrumps. Unless you play a strong club system, the 10-12 1NT opening can do a lot of damage to your other auctions. Since you have to open one of a suit with balanced hands of 13 to 19 points, you're left with an awkward range for your rebids. If you rebid 1NT with 13-16 and 2NT with 17-19, you'll often end up in contracts that are a level higher or lower than the rest of the field is playing.

Some pairs play that the raise can be made with absolutely nothing -- 0-5 or 6 points, with or without distributional values. This essentially turns the raise into a shutout bid because opener cannot safely bid on, even when he holds a monster.

"Nuisance" overcalls.  Super-light overcalls and takeout doubles create similar problems because they widen the point range for your actions. If you agree to make one-level overcalls with garbage hands, partner will never know whether you have four points or 14. That uncertainty may scare him into passing when he should be competing, or even bidding game.

Which is more valuable? When in doubt about the best use for a bid, choose the more constructive meaning if partner has opened. You rate to win more IMPs and matchpoints for making good slam decisions than for preempting the opponents out of games they may or may not make (or even want to bid).

How does your partner react when you propose a new addition to your bidding system? Some players have never met a convention they didn’t like – or wouldn’t at least try. The slower adopters will want to research the benefits and make the decision later (or never). Others may go into bargaining mode (“I’ll play your pet convention if you’ll play mine”).

There’s no shortage of new bidding theories and conventions to try, but if you aren’t selective, your system can become a patchwork of mismatched bidding toys. The most successful bidders use four criteria to evaluate all system changes. The habit they share is:

    2.  They choose bidding agreements based on value, frequency, simplicity and compatibility.

Value

The value of a new agreement is best judged not by what the bid itself shows, but by where your auction ends. The purpose of any system change should be to improve your ability to get to the optimal contract. A convention has little value if it pinpoints a specific type of hand but doesn’t help you bid to a contract you couldn’t have found without it.

Almost all conventions involve tradeoffs. One important consideration is the amount of extra information your auction is likely to give to the opponents. Another is the potential value of alternate meanings for a bid. Your decision to play a Flannery or Roman 2D should come after you evaluate the effects of giving up the weak 2D opening. If you add Lebensohl or the Good-Bad 2NT to your system, you won’t be able to make a natural notrump call in some competitive auctions. With conventional doubles – responsive, Rosenkranz, snapdragon – you lose the penalty double.

Frequency

When evaluating a new convention or treatment, consider how often it’s likely to occur. The frequency of suitable hands isn’t always a good indicator of a bid’s real value, but it may influence your decision. The more often you can take advantage of a special meaning for a bid, the stronger your justification for using it instead of an alternate meaning.

Simplicity

Your success with complex or rarely used bidding agreements may depend on how much time you have to practice and work on your system. However, even long-time, practiced partnerships recognize the value of sometimes opting for simplicity over science.

The danger of a complicated convention isn’t just that you might forget it when it finally comes up. It’s that keeping it in your system (and your head) can contribute to a “brain drain” that affects your overall energy and concentration.

If you include too many memory-intensive agreements in your system, your subconscious will always be working to keep the knowledge available. Even a relatively simple auction may trigger a minor panic -- “Is that one of the obscure agreements we discussed last year?” – and deplete the brain cells you need for the rest of the session.

Compatibility with your system and style

No convention can be evaluated in isolation. It has to be compatible with other elements of your system, and you’ll often need to make adjustments to handle the hands the agreement doesn’t cover.

The most important point to remember is that bidding systems don’t win events. Good judgment does. No matter what system you’re playing, if you know it well, make good basic decisions and commit fewer errors than your opponents, you’ll probably win.

3. They have system notes.

4.  They base bidding decisions on the principle of “game before slam”.

5.  They are not slaves to their systems.

There’s a fine line between “too rigid” and “too loose” when defining your conventions. The more requirements you impose on a bid, the less often you’ll be able to use it, so it’s important to find a balance between accuracy and frequency

 

 ©  2005 Karen Walker