Question unrelated to today’s column:
VUL against not VUL, as Dealer, I held
S AJ97543
H Q
D Q3
C AJ5
I elected to forego opening 1S, and to make a “more descriptive” opening. Although holding seven Spades, I opened it at 2 Spades. (intended to give partner more room to explore for game, e.g. via 2NT response).
What’s best? 1S, 2S or 3S ?
Thanks

Hi Clarksburg,

Your question has provoked an emotional answer from me, which has nothing to do with aggravation, but everything to do with the importance of learning.

One of the worst (and most costly) sins any bridge player can make is to underbid and therefore distort what a preemptive bid should always mean. The purpose of preempting and weak 2 bids (WTB), as well as opening 3 and 4 bids, are among those types and must fit in accordingly.

Never, never, never open a WTB when a 1 bid is available and especially in spades, but in the other suits as well. The reason being is that it is miss informative to partner and could (should) put him in preemptive mode where his main purpose is to continue the preempt trying to throw nails in the path of the opponent’s bidding so that they will not have enough room to exchange information and reach their right final contract.

However when one possesses 2 aces and other defense (queens and jacks) it will eventually (if not immediately) be destructive to partner’s judgment with the end result.

It should never (or almost) be a pleasant surprise to one’s partner to find a much better hand (especially defensive) from partner’s supposed preempt, otherwise he will forever remain confused as to the purpose of what certain bids need to consistently remain, e.g very weak defensively enabling partner to further preempt (if possible) since, according to his exact hand, expecting the opponents to be cold for at least a game and sometimes perhaps a slam.

Thanks for your question, since many bridge players think, as you might, the opposite of the above, that having more than advertized is seldom a disappointment to one’s partner.

To me, it is worse than bad and I would MUCH rather have KQxxxxx, x, xx, xxx than the example you gave, where I do have an extra spade, but very little defense so that partner can much better gauge how to cooperate in our constant war against our worthy opponents.

Sorry for my rant, but you struck a nerve and the above is one of the distinguishing marks one must learn, as he quickly rises through the ranks to higher levels.

Without your comment this subject would not likely have come up and believe me, it is as important a concept as there is, in rising to the heights that, I am willing to bet, you are eventually going to achieve.

To then answer your specific question, 1 spade is as clear an opening as can be with neither 2 nor 3 spades a consideration.

I can suggest to Buffalo Soldier a method to cover all the bases. When Bobby overhauled my bidding system ten years ago, I became converted to Two Way Stayman which solves the problem you pose.

Two Clubs is NON FORCING to game while Two Diamonds is FORCING to game.

Thus, you can begin with 2C and if partner responds 2D (denying a major), you can rebid 3C to play it there.

If partner responds 2H, you can still bid 3C (NF);

And .. if you hear the hoped for bid of 2S, you can raise to either three or four as your judgment dictates.

The only option you give up is the transfer to hearts or spades, which I have experienced over the years is no great loss and also sometimes cause the opponents to come in at the three level if they are inclined.

Transfers not only are overrated as to who becomes the declarer, but also the big disadvantage of them is that they give the opponents extra bids to quantify their strength when deciding (or not) to compete.

All, in all, it has worked great for us. Try it, you might like it!

Thanks for the very clear and direct lesson! Not unexpected, as I would normally always open it 1Spade, for the reasons you gave (and had offered before). Something in the coffee that day…?
Ironically…in this case, with about 12 balanced and three Spades, Partner raised to 3 Spades and we played there, making four. The defense had a sure trick in every suit, but gave it away with a poor choice of opening lead. Every other pair in the room bid it to the “unmakeable” 4 Spades and also got an opening-lead gift. We got a 0% Board. So I got my well-deserved punishment, but for a roundabout reason!! Opening 1 Spade would have been not only correct, but also the way to play for average by staying with the crowd.
Won’t make that mistake again!

Hi Clarksburg,

Your attitude is indeed an inspiration and therefore your character, honesty, self-confidence, positive nature and self-effacing personality comes boldly forth.

I am only qualified to talk about playing bridge, but with your above proven qualities and with, at least some latent talent which would include problem solving, at least some numeracy, everyday logic and most important, a fierce competitive spirit, and, of course, if time gives you a chance, your bridge experience will always be a source of great pleasure to you and to all your future partners to come.

Good luck! You are well on your way to many great opportunities to both cherish the game itself and, above all, be a significant contributor to it.

der mr. Wolf

could you please comment on the term “masterminding”? (in bridge)

my understanding is that the term is used for example when the non-captain of the hand changes the bid defined by the hand captain disrespecting captaincy positions. another example is when after a penalty double partner
decides that it is take out simply because it is a low-level contract.

do masterminding occur in expert games? how destructive it is to partnerships?

thanks,

Florida Sunfish

Hi Peter (aka Florida Sunfish),

Mastermind as applied to bridge could be defined as, in your first example, a player who has relinquished captaincy to his partner, then overrides his decision.

However your second example of a misunderstanding about what is or is not a penalty double has nothing to do with masterminding, but everything to do with knowing one’s system.

As an exception, but somewhat closely related, once partner does make a penalty double he still takes it out (knowing his partner’s intent) since he appoints himself more qualified to make such decisions and, at the same time, then insults his partner’s judgment. This, indeed, is also masterminding.

Masterminding almost never occurs in expert games and, if it does, leaves a devastating mark which will usually tend to breakup that pairing either immediately or soon after (perhaps after no apology offered).