Sunday, October 08, 2006 3:47 PM

Hand Evaluation – Shooting vrs Inviting

PITBULLS:

Most modern experts “shoot” to their games rather than inviting with distribution. This style does a number of good things. 1) Puts pressure on the opening leader to lead blind 2) prevents penalty or lead directing doubles that are more common on invitational auctions 3) Conceals your hand from the defense 4) uses the mathematics of the IMP scale ( lucky games making ) .

Given this modern inclination , I think some “obvious” invitational sequences should ( could ? ) be forcing. I had a hand with Perry where we got to the wrong spot. Perry held ♠AKQJxx ♥xx ♦Kx ♣10xx & opened 1♠ . I bid a forcing NT with ♠Jxx ♥AKxx ♦Q10x ♣Qxx & Perry rebid 2♠. Bidding 3NT by me would have worked with this hand but percentagewise concealing your spade fit is not the way to go. I bid 4♠ which was defeated with two ruffs.

Why not have 3♠ as forcing to game & offering a choice of contracts between 3NT & the major ? You do not know declarer’s hand type so let her decide the best game. Perry had a source of tricks for NT , so 9 tricks in NT was easy. We went two down in 4♠ as the opponents negotiated a diamond ruff & a club ruff. These type of invitational bids are lame in practice anyway. A raise to 3 spades does not give any more information other than scattered HCP’s. Alternatively, have a leap to 3NT giving a choice of games between NT & 4 of partner’s major.

Quite often you bid a forcing NT with hands holding as many as 13 HCP. You bid a forcing NT , partner bids another suit . A jump raise is only invitational . Why not have this bid forcing instead showing doubt between a major game or 3NT ? You can always jump to 4 of a major with hands obviously better suited to a game in the major. Alternatively you can always leap to 3NT. With invitational hands, use fit showing jumps instead. At least partner has some ammunition on which to base her decision.

One of a major followed by a forcing NT , a rebid & then 2NT would work much better if it were forcing one round rather than the traditional invitational bid that could be passed. Stopping on a dime in 2NT was built for matchpoints. In IMPS, who cares in what partial we play the hand. Having this bid forcing one round , allows opener to clarify her hand type so leaping to 3NT is not necessary. A number of escape sequences could be built into this structure. You can assign a meeting to a leap to 3NT as giving a choice of contracts with partner’s major.

There are probably other invitational sequences better used as forcing but I can not think of them now. As long as you have other ways of inviting like fit showing jumps you do not need the traditional invites. In matchpoints , where accuracy is paramount obviously all invitational bids must remain. In IMPS, where the idea is not to miss games , there is a case for dropping invitational bids altogether. Just blast to game or make a forcing to game bid. As some of my old partners used to say , bidding game is a “game try”.