2007-12-19 11:35

Hand Evaluation - Bridge World Magazine

PITBULLS:

There is a NY publication ( Bridge World ) founded by Ely Culbertson in the 1930’s that is still published today. This magazine is written for Bridge zealots & does not cater to beginners. Standard American bidding has evolved from contributions to this magazine by the experts of the day. By reading back issues , you can see how Bridge bidding has evolved from the 1930’s & all the decades that followed right up to present. Standard 2/1 bidding is essentially a collection of bidding ideas from experts throughout this time & documented by this magazine. The Master Solvers Club , bidding editorials , Challenge the Champs & tournament write-ups have been around almost as long as the magazine itself. These features were designed to discuss bidding theory & to show Bridge bidding judgment by the experts of that era.

Most Alberta Bridge experts have “grown up” with this magazine. Lee Barton , Dave Smith , Stan Cabay , Bob Crosby , Peter Jones & the Gartaganis for example have all subscribed to this magazine. The Pritchards , Vince Nowlan have lifetime subscriptions as do 90 % of all expert players. When I was on the winning Edmonton teams back in the 1970’s , plane rides to tournaments always had issues of Bridge Worlds for the trip. Barton & Smith would quiz each other with bidding concepts from the Bridge World magazine en route. My regular partners & myself would do the same thing. This was the way we kept up with bidding changes as reported by these New Yorkers like Edgar Kaplan. This is how we all learned to bid assisted by the experts of our time.

People like Barton & myself were never satisfied with “standards” from New York. In the 1970’s , Lee Barton , myself , Mike Chomyn & to some extent Stan Cabay came up with bidding ideas or collected bids from the Bridge World magazine that became known as Standard Edmonton . Most of which is still played today 30 years later. Lee will not admit it but I will. Some of our ideas did not pass the test of time. We were overly enthralled with splinters rather than suits. This was a mistake , so I have tried to rectify that with my articles. We encouraged “up the line” bidding. This too was a mistake , now that we can look back on it. Lee’s control asking bids did not catch on but the idea that controls are a very important hand evaluation concept so is still sound. Over emphasizing something means something else has to give. In Lee’s case , suits & Q bids had to give way to “single handed” control asking where partner became just a puppet to give specific information.

Back to the Bridge World. Bidding has evolved but not necessarily for the better. There was a “crazy period” in the 1990’s where being undisciplined was in vogue. I feel this stile originated from bored professionals who had to play with clients to make money. They had no chance unless they played a destructive system geared to making the opponents go wrong. Unfortunately , many tournament players even at the club level started to emulate them , thinking that this was the right way to play Bridge. Hence the term modern bidding or “Bridge is a bidders game “ where quick tricks were not needed for openers, proper suits for overcalls not required & suicidal weak two’s & threes were “standard” . From 2000 onward , according to the Bridge World editors , the ship is righting itself & the World Class players are deviating from this nonsense & even Zia has converted to constructive bidding. The Italian world class teams are excellent role models as they spurn “modern openers” & a destructive style.

I have played Bridge at a reasonably high level for 42 years. I played Bridge before 2/1 was invented so I was on the ground floor when 2/1 & forcing NT reared its ugly head. One thing I do know from playing these systems for so long is what does not work. Again my articles try to reflect my practical experiences & what I learned from 40 years of reading Bridge Worlds . Along with Tom Gandolfo & Stan Cabay , we have tried to fix the more obvious holes in Standard bidding. This was done by toning down splinters , recovering strong jump shifts by responder , introducing fit showing jumps as a passed hand, relaxing 2/1 forcing to game requirements . We also added an element of a forcing ♣ to our system by having a multi purpose 3♣ SJS. We have taken good 6 card suits from the clutches of the forcing NT & have defined jumps to show suits & distribution rather than HCP’s. We like to identify all flat hands with NT bids even when we have 4 card major support for partner. We dislike 4^th suit forcing so we bought into XYZ at the one level & new suit 2NT (godfather ) at the 2 level to try to remove some ambiguity from 4^th suit forcing.

The biggest change I have advocated , which is still a work in progress is to define a better use for the penalty double in competition. Since Bridge was invented , a double meant that the opponents were not going to make a contract because they ran into bad luck with their trump holding or are just too high. I feel that this use for the double in competition is a waste of a good bid. We prefer that a double in competition should “show cards” asking permission to compete again unless partner nixes the request due to having their suit. This means if we want to “bid our hand again” , we do so with a double when we have the defensive requirement. Partner can have some input , so a joint decision is made. We emphasize partnership Bridge & the penalty double is the most single handed bid ever invented. “Do not pull” MY penalty double as I am going to set them. Good riddance to that style of Bridge. Keep penalty doubles for matchpoints & try competitive doubles for IMPS.

Dabbling in Bridge Bidding Theory is not everybody’s cup of tea. Some prefer just the competitive aspect of Bridge or the social interaction or the psychological part of the game. Bidding is not a priority for these players. Bidding is just a means where they can get to their goal of playing or defending a hand. Bridge bidding is not an exact science so there is no black or white. Bridge is based on the odds so bidding reflects this fact. Bridge bidding is only correct to the extent that you shift the odds in your favour that your side reaches the correct contract. Getting experts’ opinions on bidding theory will help you improve your bidding. It did for my generation, thanks to the experts contributing to the Bridge World magazine. I am trying to do the same thing with my articles for those players who are serious about improving their game.