CONTRACT BRIDGE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22465, 8 July 1936, Page 7

CONTRACT BRIDGE

OPENING NO TRUMP BIDS DEFINING THE STRENGTH BV FIXFSSE In contract it does not pay, of course, be too bookish, and, as players progress in knowledge, they inevitably tend to use their own imagination—otherwise they bccoiuo too stereotyped and stodgy. This departure from rote is no more noticeable than in no-trump bidding, either as an opening bid, an over-call or » response to partner's opening bid over an intervening bid by some opponent. Opening no-trump bids, according to the approach-forcing system, should follow a rather definite distribution and honour trick strength—the former 4-3-3-3 and the latter four to five honour tricks, with a shading down to three and a-half, provided the hand contains eight honour cards. Inasmuch as this is a recent innovation, there are plenty of players who stHl follow the old type of no-trump opening—round about three honour tricks and possibly a distribution. It is necessary, therefore, to know what kind of no-trump your partner may open with, for your replies are modified accordingly. If you play tho "strong" no-trump you can raise your partner on less than if you play tho old no-trump. Opinions locally vary i 8S to which is the best line to follow. In the strong no-trump it does not matter if you are vulnerable, or not vulnerable, the hand is strong enough to open in either case. With tho old type of opening there always has been a line of demarcation between the vulnerable and non-vulnerable hands, the former requiring about an honour trick more. Advantages Compared Here are some of tho advantages that are adduced in favour of the strong no-trump. Hands with a 4-3-3-3 distribution undoubtedly reduce the playing strength at a trump contract, and are therefore more suited to no-trump, and if tliero should bo a biddable four-card suit in such a hand the fact that it is not mentioned tight away can hardly cause a loss owing to the lack of distributional values, especially if partner's hand is of a similar typo. There is finite a difference between the 4-3-3-3 and 4-4-3-2; the latter has a short suit and if one of its four-card suits becomes trump there is available a rutting trick. In addition, the hand contains a second four-card suit, in which a long card may possibly be established. By reserving the opening no-trump to the 4-3-3-3 distribution the bidding is at once directed into what is, for the time being at least, what looks like the best contract, and the responding hand is given such precise information as to his partner s holding and support for any suit. If he, tho responder, has a balanced hand ho knows perfectly well that no suit ho may name will olTer any prospect better than no-trump, since ruffing and long-suit possibilities cannot be counted on. The great advantage to my mind is that there is a reasonable possibility that any five-card or longer suit in the responding hand will be capable of development at no-trump on account of the protection promised by the opening bidder. With the requisite outside strength, or with a fairly good fivecard suit, the no-trump call can lie raised: a simple take-out in a suit is reserved for weak hands of a certain type, and here is a clear-cut message for partner that is missing with the old style of no-trump opening. On tho same premise a forcing take-out (very helpful in slam bidding) can be made on a fairly good six-card suit with less than two honour-tricks. This cannot be done if not playing the distributional no-trump. > Partner's Role as Rescuer Another advantage is that the partner may no longer fear to rescue when the opening- no-trump bid is doubled, and the possibility of finding a weak .doubleton in the opening hand. Whatever the rescue suit ho can bo confident that the no-trump hand contains at least three cards in support. Further, whether doubled or not, and no matter how weak the responding hand, the no-trump can be taken out in any six-card suit, even though the hand is a yatborough. A six-card £ lJ it offers three and perhaps four, long cards which will win tricks as trumps, but never ut no-trump when the hand contains no entry. Therefore, if it is necessary even to bid up to three to sign off, it will be worth whilo increasing the contract by two tricks to gain three, and perhaps four. Against these advantages, what is there to offer by adhering to the three honour-trick no-trump? There is generally some- sort of a bid in a suit available in such a hand, even if it •is a three-card club suit to a single honour with enough support in the other suits to rebid no-trump if partner makes some response. On the other hand there is definitely a good deal of ambiguity as to the possible strength °f an old no-trump opening* it may mean as low as three and as high as 4J-plus honour-tricks. The partner with li-plus may pass and a possible game be sacrificed. There is too wide a range which only the opener is aware of. That is why, in my opinion, Culbertson in his earlier teachings advised against opening a no-trump with any biddable four-card suit in the hand; a suit bid paved the way to approach bidding because of the available reply of a negative one no-trump from partner on hands which it would have been impossible to raise an opening ono notrump. Seeing Chance of Game With the strong distributional notrump, however, the responding hand is generally in a position to see at ?nre if there is a chance lor game, and |f he is able to raise the no-trump legitimately, he can safely leave it to bis partner to do the rest. In addition, be can practically raise a strong opentog one no-trump to three on the same strength (two to two and one-half honour-tricks, according to the number of honour-cards in the hand) as was required to raise the old one no-trump to two. Iho same arguments apply t () the much criticised opening two no-trump. ]'ith additional strength and the 4-3-3-3 distribution in the opening banc. " is an unusual responding hand which cannot raise to game; whereas with the old two no-trump opening there ttas always % doubt as to the exact strength and also distribution held b.v the partner. I have often seen trouble of some sort follow this opening: either the bid'was made on just too little ,? n Kth and an optimistic partner raised to three no-trump and went fl °wn one or two tricks; or else the opening two no-trump was stronger *" an usual and the partner this time Passed a'nd a game was missed. As 1 ? av e mentioned above, tho weakness jjj adhering to the old no-trump openis in my opinion the rather wk'® of strength, which may be held the partner has to guess at.