Daring Bidding at Contract

A Few Illuminating Examples of the Difference Between Daring and Rashness in Contract Bridge

R. J. LEIBENDERFER

THE longer one plays contract, the more one is convinced that daring in it, is more amply rewarded than in any other card game. But don't confuse daring with rashness. Daring at contract is not unsound, while rashness always is. Daring is predicated on sound analysis and never takes a chance unless the odds favour it. Rashness, on the other hand, is usually a leap in the dark, the taking of a chance without first considering whether or not the odds favour it. The writer, while watching a rubber the other evening, noted that one pair held eight successive hands that were strong enough to win the bid and score points toward game, but none of these was a game hand. Both members of this pair, however, were players who believed in trying for game on every "close" hand and, as a result, every one of these eight hands was set and resulted in a loss, instead of a gain. If these hands had been properly handled, they would have scored four games, by easy stages. They emphasized the importance of a partial score toward game and the rashness of trying for game, unless the odds justify doing so.

The best way to distinguish between daring bidding when the odds are with you and rash bidding when the odds are against you, is by an analysis of some example hands.

Example Hand No. 1.

Rubber game—Y Z-o; A B-4o. What is Zs proper bid? The actual bidding and the writer's comment follow:

The conventional bid with Z's hand is one no trump, but Z was no conventional bidder. He figured that A B, with a score of 4o points toward game were in a position to score game and rubber by making three odd in a minor or two odd in a major suit bid, so that it was highly important to block such a bid, if possible. A bid of one no trump certainly would not accomplish this result, but a bid of two no trump, especially raised to three by partner, would certainly do so and the resultant loss, if any, would probably be small. A bid of two no trump is only an over-bid of one trick and the odds in favour of making this bid certainly outweigh the odds against it, and (from that point of view) is a perfect example of daring at contract. A passed the two no trump bid and Y correctly bid three no trump. B passed, although he had a very strong hand in hearts but hesitated to bid four in fear of a double and a big penalty. Y Z then made four odd in no trump, game and rubber, because of Z's daring bid. A conventional bid of one no trump would have been passed by A and Y. The latter's hand was strong enough to assist a two no trump, but not strong enough to bid two no trump over a one bid by partner, particularly when vulnerable. As a result, B would have been able to bid two hearts and Y Z's game and rubber would have gone glimmering. Z couldn't bid two no trump without a heart stopper, nor could Y, with the king of hearts in the wrong position. The best Y could do would be to bid two spades or three clubs. This bid would be overbid by B with three hearts which could be made, thus scoring game and rubber for A B.

Example Hand No. 2.

Rubber game, Y Z-3o, A B-o. Z dealt and bid one no trump. A passed the no trump bid for, with eight set-up tricks and the lead, he would be foolish to warn his opponents of their danger. Y, however, bid two spades and B passed. Z had good help for spades so bid three spades, a game bid, to the score. Here is where A showed his daring. Most players would have bid four clubs, but A was too good a player to do that. He bid three no-trump, figuring that with a spade opening and eight set-up tricks in his own hand, he might very well manage to scrape up another trick in some way and so score game and rubber. On the other hand, no game in clubs was likely because of Z's no trump and Y's spade bid which indicated at least enough strength to prevent a game in clubs. As the three no trump bid offered a fair chance for game and the four club bid offered no chance for game, A wisely bid three no trump, a perfect example of daring bidding. All passed, Y opened a spade and A made three no trump because his partner held the ace of hearts. His daring bid was thus rewarded by a game and rubber that most players would have passed up. The fact that Y Z could have saved game by bidding four spades in no way detracts from A's clever and daring bidding. He seized the opportunity and they did not.

Example Hand No. 3.

No score, rubber game. Z dealt and bid one heart. A passed, Y bid two hearts and B passed. Z now decided to bid three clubs, and later to show the diamonds, thus making sure of obtaining the best bid of the combined hands. His hand was so strong that he felt certain that game and rubber were possible if the hand were played at the best bid. A passed the three club bid and Y bid three hearts, showing a preference for hearts over clubs. When B passed, Z hid four diamonds, a perfect example of daring bidding, so that he would be sure to play the hand at the best of his three suits. A passed and Y with the following hand:

correctly bid five diamonds, figuring that there was a better chance for game in diamonds than in hearts. Y's judgment was good, for at diamonds Y Z scored five odd, game and rubber, while at hearts, game was impossible as A held four hearts and B a setup spade suit. Thus, Z's daring bidding in showing his three suits, even though vulnerable, was duly rewarded.

Example Hand No. 4.

No score, rubber game. Z dealt and bid one spade. A was one of those players who love to make deceptive bids and decided that this was the right time to do some stunts, so he bid one no trump. Y had a very strong hand, so doubled one no trump. B and Z passed and A, still in a deceptive mood, bid two diamonds. Y doubled and B redoubled. Here is where Z should have sensed what A was up to for how could A have a sound bid of two diamonds, Y a double and B a redouble? Z should have bid two spades over B's redouble, but was still under A's deceptive spell and passed. A now had the stage set for the chance he had wanted so he bid two hearts. This Y doubled, thinking he had A in a position where he was trying desperately to squirm out of a bad hole. Fortunately for A, his partner B passed the two heart double, although he said afterwards that he was tempted to bid three diamonds but felt that his partner was "up to something". Z had another chance to save the situation by bidding two spades but a singleton heart in his hand made him think that his partner must have heart strength, so decided to pass. A, of course, made his bid easily and scored a game and rubber not possible in any other way. It was a fine example of rash but deceptive bidding, but don't try to follow A's example. This hand happened to turn out successfully, but in the majority of cases such bidding, particularly at contract, is a losing venture. This example is given, not to be followed, but as an indication of what to expect from certain types of players.