Understanding Reverses lecture notes
If you missed my online class “Understanding Reverses,” a fairly extensive set of lecture notes is available for just $7 at http://onlinebridgelessons.com/comment.OBL.php The notes include all 23 hands that were presented during the 2-hour class, complete with all of the takeaway points in reference to each hand, as well as pre-class 11-page set of notes that provides both a theoretical understanding of reverses, a framework for follow-up bidding after a reverse, and a few ideas for how your understanding of reverses can enhance other bidding sequences. If you’re a novice-to-intermediate player who’s not 100% comfortable with reverses, this is really $7 well spent.
The Hidden Benefits of Passing
Disclaimer: It’s a bidder’s game. I get that. The evolution of bridge theory is that people bid more with less. 1S-3S used to be game forcing…then invitational…now, if you play Bergen raises, it’s preemptive. Strong 2-bids have given way to Weak 2-bids. 16-18 NT, as the strong NT default, is now 15-17. OK, OK…I GET IT.
But indulge me. I’m not here to talk you out of bidding. Really, I’m not. It does seem to me, though, that while I read lots of articles on the advantages of bidding (and here, I’m really just talking about overcalling, specifically), I don’t see much on the advantages of passing, such as they are. What I really want to leave you with is food for thought, and ammunition. So you don’t go on auto-bid every time it’s plausible. You should think about it. But to think about it, you have to know what you should be thinking about. That’s where this post comes in.
When your long suit is lousy, one advantage of passing is that your partner is less likely to get off to a bad lead. I’d rather overcall 1S on AQJ97 T52 64 865 than on J8532 K84 Q5 A52, even though the first hand has 8 points and the second has ten. Naturally, if it’s our hand, then I want to get my 5-card spade suit mentioned so we can outbid the opponents and buy the contract. But if it’s not, partner may easily blow a trick leading my “suit” on the second hand, when I have better honors that would help solidify whatever suit was his natural lead.
A second potential advantage to passing is that when the opponents get the contract, you haven’t told them anything about the distribution, so declarer has to figure things out on his own. I hope that as declarer, you’re using the opponents’ bids against them, by drawing inferences about their points and distribution. Well, guess what? They’re doing the same thing, too! If declarer is missing 7 spades, he may take an erroneous line of play based on the assumption that they split 4-3; that’s the most likely distribution for 7 unknown cards, and if neither defender bid spades, that inference is supported. But if you overcall, you’ve alerted him to the actual 5-2 split, and he may be able to use that information against you.
One of my favorite hands was a horribly trashy hand with 7 spades. I passed at my turn to bid; it wasn’t up to snuff for a preempt (I may have been in second seat, or vulnerable). I ended up on lead against 4H. I led a minor, which declarer won in hand. Declarer led a spade to dummy’s ace in order to take a heart finesse…and almost fell of her chair when partner ruffed the first round of the suit. She was not expected a 7-0 split in an unbid suit.
But really, I’m not saying don’t bid. But do take a moment to ask yourself how likely it is that you’re going to buy the contract. And if you don’t, are you going to get your partner off to the wrong lead? Are you going to help declarer play the hand? Just every once in a while, consider the pass. It gets so little respect nowadays.
Rebidding after limit bids
One thing that intermediate and novice players (henceforth: I/N) seem to lose track of sometimes is that hand evaluation is relative. Context is everything. I was reminded of this recently during an online lesson at Bridge Base Online. During a play & discuss lesson, responder had either a good single raise or a poor limit raise; basically, a balanced 10-count mostly lacking prime values (aces & kings). Raising 1S to either 2S or 3S (limit raise) would have been perfectly defensible. She chose to make the single raise. Her partner then bid an invitational 3S, and she passed, because she had already decided that her hand wasn’t very good.
It’s true that as a possible limit raise, her hand wasn’t very good. That’s why she chose to consider it a single raise in the first place. Having done so, however, when her partner invites game, her hand suddenly “became” wonderful. Her partner, knowing that she had a single raise (generally, 6-9 points, but potentially from a good 5 to a bad 10), was STILL interested in game. Given her failure to make a limit raise, she had about the best hand she could possibly have. What she neglected to do in the second round of bidding was take into account what she had already shown. Her partner’s invitation said, “I know you have something like 6-9 points; if you’re around the top of that range, I’d like to be in game.” By bidding 2S the first time, she’d already denied a limit raise (a good 10 points up to a bad 12). Given what her partner already knew – the limitations that the 2S bid put on her hand – she should be gung-ho and accept all invitations.
When partner invites, the question isn’t whether your hand is “good” or “bad” in the abstract, but whether it’s “good” or “bad” given what partner already knows. Context is everything.
