July 2008 - 54

ADVANCED PLAYERS

Bidding Matters

Karen Walker
www.kwbridge.com
The 12 Habits of Highly
Effective Bidders
7. They strive to be sensible, not
brilliant. (continued)
"I PLAY THE HOFFMEISTER NO
TRUMP." So proclaimed the plastic
badge sported by P.J. Hoffmeister, a
character in Richard Powell's 1968
novel Tickets to the Devil, set at a
national tournament in Miami Beach.
P.J., who has all of 53 masterpoints,
believes he'll achieve bridge immortality if he can convince the masses to
play his system.
Many players enjoy making up their
own systems and conventions. Unlike
P.J., few are hoping for fame. Most
just want to improve their systems
and experiment with new ideas.
Some "mad scientists" end up inventing new systems that look perfect
on paper, but don't translate into good
results at the table. The pitfalls are
demonstrated by some of the failed
ideas I've tried over the years.
Brilliant Idea #1:
"Unusual Michaels"
The proposal: After the opponents
bid two suits (1-Pass-1, for
example), the fourth-seat bidder has
five ways to show two-suited hands.
Double and 1NT are sound and light
takeouts (at least 4-4 in the unbid
suits). Longer suits are described
54

by cuebidding opener's suit (5-5),
cuebidding responder's suit (5-6) or
jumping to 2NT (6-5).
The most valuable system additions
solve problems or correct deficiencies, rather than merely enhance your
current methods. The ideal target for
a new use is an "idle" bid that doesn't
already have a meaning in the auction
you're trying to improve.
Not all of these bids are idle, and
that's the problem with this gadget. It
offers pinpoint accuracy if you hold
a two-suiter, but muzzles you when
you're dealt a strong notrump or a
natural spade overcall. This fine-tuning for two-suited hands isn't worth
the sacrifice of two natural bids.
Brilliant Idea #2:
Four-way Bergen Raises
The proposal: After partner opens
one of a major, the original Bergen
meanings for 3 (four-card limit
raise) and the jump raise (preemptive)
are retained. The 3 response is
modified to show either a four-card
constructive raise (8-10 support
points) or a three-card limit raise.
Opener bids 3 to ask, and responder retreats to three of the major with
the weaker raise. Any other bid shows
the limit raise.
The three-card limit raise is normally shown by responding with a
forcing 1NT, then jumping in opener's major. It's difficult to describe
these values if opener jump-shifts
over 1NT, so the two-way 3 was
devised to allow responder to show
support with his first bid.
That's a worthwhile benefit, but
there are risks in assigning multiple
meanings to one bid. Many ingenious
new conventions have been tunneled
by the pesky opponents, who won't
always allow you to complete the asking sequence. After 1 by you and
3 by partner, how do you determine
partner's hand type if your opponent
overcalls? You can dream up ways to

try, but they involve tradeoffs (giving
up a penalty double, for example)
and the potential to get too high when
partner has the weaker hand.
Brilliant idea #3:
"The Nothing 2"
The proposal: In a 2/1 system,
opener's rebid of 2 over a 2
response is an artificial catchall that
denies extra length in his major and
adequate stoppers for a 2NT rebid.
In most 2/1 systems, opener shows
this hand by rebidding his major,
which doesn't promise extra length.
Follow-up bids will usually clarify
opener's "real" length, but these auctions can be awkward.
The benefit of the Nothing 2 is
that opener guarantees at least six
cards when he rebids his major. If he
rebids 2, you have maximum room
to investigate other games.
This seems perfect, but at-the-table
testing has uncovered its weaknesses.
Using a bid to deny a holding means
it's not available to confirm one, and
giving up the natural 2 has proved
costly.
We've had three Nothing 2
auctions since adding it to our system. On the first, opener held four
diamonds, but since his 2 rebid
was artificial, we had to search for
stoppers in both "unbid" suits. It was
a painful auction that ended in 3NT
from the wrong side. On the second,
we missed a good 6 because opener
couldn't show five-card diamond
length. Our third use of the 2 rebid
elicited a lead-directing double and
we scored one fewer trick in 3NT
than the field.
At best, the Nothing 2 needs further evaluation. These results suggest
that it trades one problem for another
(or three), and perhaps the original
"problem" wasn't serious enough to
warrant a fix. We'll look at ways to
evaluate and test bidding inventions
in the next installment.
r
Bridge Bulletin
http://www.kwbridge.com
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2008
