Non-Bidding

Harold Vanderbilt was a principal architect of what we now recognise as Contract Bridge. Revising the scoring of Auction Bridge in conversation with friends aboard the SS Finland, he became stuck for a term to capture the variations in bonuses and penalties. "How about 'vulnerability'" suggested his wife. Vanderbilt thanked her and carried on talking with the men only to summon her back, "what do we call the opposite?". "Non-vulnerable" she replied.

Unfortunately, that may be apocryphal. Vanderbilt didn't marry Gertrude Conaway until 1933, the brainstorming on the steamship took place in 1925. Maybe they had a long engagement.

Being vulnerable typically inhibits intervention. The immediate costs are higher and the likelihood of eventual sacrifice much reduced. But matchpoint pairs is a topsy-turvy world. These two hands were board six at my local club a fortnight apart. What's so special about that board? It is East-West only vulnerable. On each East, dealer, opened a weak no-trump which was followed by two passes. North held:

Assuming two hearts just shows hearts (more later), do you overcall?

The vulnerability is critical. If both contracts fail it is bad to bid at any form of the game. It is good of course, if both succeed. But at pairs it is significantly better to concede a lower number and going down non-vulnerable is cheap. But that ignores the opponent's state. Making two-major always scores +110 but if they are vulnerable and 1NT fails by two tricks, that is +200. That would almost be certainly be true if hearts makes nine tricks for +140.

Had the opponents also been non-vulnerable their defeat by one or two tricks is +50/+100, less than two hearts making. At matchpoints neither-side-vulnerable is the bidders' colours – at least at the part-score level. Paradoxically, with opponents vulnerable you should be keener to defend. The target is that you go down cheaply but they can make. Only intervene when you have distributional assets, not a balanced hand. Additionally here, with honours in all suits, you can help whatever partner leads.

North had the same decision on the second example, 1NT by East and two passes.

EW Vul.
Dealer East
  • QJ
  • 763
  • AK10965
  • Q8
  • K86
  • 1084
  • 832
  • K1062
N
W
E
S
  • A942
  • KJ95
  • Q7
  • A97
  • 10753
  • AQ2
  • J4
  • J543

Modern defences against 1NT typically exploit minor-suit overcalls for special hands. Here two diamonds would have shown a six-card major (with two-major that suit and a minor). Diamonds were showable at the three-level but that took the gloss off intervention and East was left to declare.

South led passively with the spade seven (usual against 1NT passed out) and East ducked North's knave. A reasonable shot but he might have done better to win in dummy and lead a heart. North switched to a diamond and the queen held. That was the last good news for declarer and he took only five tricks for the dreaded "kiss of death", -200 and hardly any matchpoints. Two or three diamonds was declared 12 times, two hearts by East once, 1NT by East at just one more table.

North might even have added more injury; with six diamonds on view and declarer known to have at least two, playing them from the top was indicated. Still, the board was really won in the not bidding.

Published Saturday 13.Oct.2018