Competitive bidding is of course a huge subject. A significant proportion of the boards we play involve competitive bidding. So we ought to know what we’re about without needing a seminar to tell us what to do. So why are you here tonight? Perhaps because you don’t always get it right. Note that we’re talking exclusively about pairs, match-pointed pairs that is. The thinking behind competitive bidding in pairs is quite different to that which applies to other forms of bridge such as teams or rubber bridge. As a result, actions recommended in a pairs event would be quite wrong elsewhere. I’ve extracted tonight’s material from the book Competitive Bidding at Pairs, written by former Burnham member Peter Hall. Peter presented a series of seminars at SBBC many years ago, and his book was distilled from this material. Many Club members developed their game under Peter’s guidance, and there are still one or two of us left. I was wondering just what I could usefully extract for a single seminar, while producing something that would be helpful at the table. We don’t have time to study a book every time we find ourselves involved in competitive bidding, so I’m going to develop just one theme – How are we doing? This is the question we need to ask ourselves every time we’re contemplating some kind competitive action.

We enter our result on the Bridgemate, and we eagerly await the percentage. Obviously we want this to be as large as possible. Actually, we need to state our objective a little more precisely, because the percentage is simply a calculation derived from our match-point score. This may seem a trivially obvious point to make, but focusing on our match-points is what drives many of our competitive decisions

Whilst the cards are still in the board, we’re at 50%. Once the auction starts, our probable share of the match-points is likely to change. Not all hands involve competitive bidding; sometimes one side or the other has a fairly clear route to a fairly obvious contract, and the division of the match-points is going to be determined by decisions in the play of the hand. That’s another story. This doesn’t mean that the defending side has no part to play in the auction: sometimes by bidding a suit, doubling a cipher bid, etc has the aim of getting partner to make the best lead. But this isn’t really competing – we’re just sticking an early oar into the proceedings.

Surely this hand will be played in 4♠ at every table, making 11 tricks unless EW get off to a heart lead. With nothing to go on, and no mirror on a long stick, West is likely to kick off with ♣Q. But if NS faff around, giving East an opportunity to show his hearts, there will be three losers

Things have moved on since Peter’s book was published in 1996, and I would expect everyone here to take the same action. This was Peter’s first example of how to bid with match-points in mind, and I thought I’d kick off with it to make you all feel comfortable.

EW can make 8 tricks in spades. NS will make 9 tricks in hearts. If North fails to take action over 2♠, NS will get virtually no match-points out of the board. If East competes to 3♠, NS can allow it to play for a middling +100, or can double for a top score of +200..

So we decide to bid 2♣ showing both majors, and North responds with a game-inviting 3♠. What are our chances of making 4♠. I’d say 60%+.

In teams or rubber bridge the answer’s clear – we bid 4♠. But this is match-pointed pairs.

Bidding 4♠ would have improved the score of 33/42 to 40/42 if there are 10 tricks available, but turns 33/42 to around 4/42 when there are only 9 tricks.

Whilst the cards are still in the board, we’re at 50%. Once the auction starts, our probable share of the match-points is likely to change. Not all hands involve competitive bidding; sometimes one side or the other has a fairly clear route to a fairly obvious contract, and the division of the match-points is going to be determined by decisions in the play of the hand. That’s another story. This doesn’t mean that the defending side has no part to play in the auction: sometimes by bidding a suit, doubling a cipher bid, etc has the aim of getting partner to make the best lead. But this isn’t really competing – we’re just sticking an early oar into the proceedings.

So, how do we assess this situation? It’s quite likely that many pairs will have been allowed to play in 2♥ for a plus score. East has ventured in as a passed hand in the non-protective position at the 2-level. So How are we doing? Answer: Not at all well – we’re looking unlikely to be picking up many match-points here if we pass [or bid a suicidal 4♥!]. We’ll have to be taking this contract 2-off doubled to achieve a good match-point score, but we’re on a hiding to nothing otherwise, so we double.

We could be conceding a score of -530, but we weren’t getting much out of this board anyway, damn their rags.

Bidding 4♠ would have improved the score of 33/42 to 40/42 if there are 10 tricks available, but turns 33/42 to around 4/42 when there are only 9 tricks.

Most players will open 3♠ on this hand, but let’s say you decide to pass: partner is as yet unlimited, and this isn’t a ‘pure’ pre-emptive hand.

Partner opens 1NT, and you transfer to spades. Question is: Do you now make a game try? Well, had you opened 3♠, partner would almost certainly have passed with a balanced 12-14. And opponents haven’t seemed disposed to get involved thus far, so they’re hardly likely to come in over 3♠. We can match the tables where South opened 3♠ and played there by passing 2♠. And if there are only eight tricks available, we’re beating them. If North is sitting with three aces and decides to punt 4♠, it’s going to depend on the ♠K finesse – a 50/50 shot.

South estimates that they’re doing pretty well as things have proceeded. It’s unlikely that NS have 4♠ on, and 3♠ might be failing. So NS are probably sitting at 60-70% right now. So Pass is the right option.

Of course, events might have follows a different course. EW have found what looks like a good contract, and a 3♠ opening pre-empt might have kept West quiet. So now, the answer to How are we doing? is rather different, and our best chance of salvaging some match-points is to bid 4♠.

In this case, we might just be catching up with those pairs where South had opened 3♠. But we feel we’re in quite a poor position now, so we don’t have much to lose.

We all know that pairs events are scored by master-points, but we sometimes forget that at the table. If we assess that we’ve already got a good master-point score on a board, we don’t risk losing most of it simply to gain a slight mprovement. There’s no certainty in bidding at bridge, so we aim to keep the odds on our side. We take actions playing pairs that would have us drummed out of a team or banned from rubber bridge.