Rules to break and follow

There is a module near the end of the teaching course from the English Bridge Education and Development (EBED) worryingly titled 'Breaking Rules'. Worrying because, having got so far, students have cleaved strongly to 'rules' – or, at least, they think they have. The premiss is uncontroversial: with so many hands and so few bidding options, concessions must be made. However this is when the teacher discovers how earlier lessons reside in students' minds.

My experience was typified by the sub-topic of pre-emption: I began by repeating the sacred tenet that a two- or three-level pre-empt should not include a side four-card major (at that time, of any quality). I could tell immediately this was news to everyone (this happened every time). Some things are simply 'stickier' than others and playability in other suits is not one of them. Also that bridge does not provide equal opportunities to all suits.

This hand would provide a salutary example: teams, both sides vulnerable, right-hand opponent opens a might-be-short one club:

Against a nebulous opening it is more tempting to pre-empt and, as is well recognised, pre-emption is a temptation in itself. Nevertheless one diamond was selected and the full auction was:

West
North
East
South
1*
1
1
X
2
2
2
4
All Pass

Partner's double surely had something to do with hearts (usually hearts with diamond tolerance) and he proudly tabled his "well placed spade honours": AQ97 AK92 105 875. Both partner's red suits might have been better but he had to do something in the melee. Hearts were 3-2, diamonds 2-2, the club ace onside – 11 tricks.

The real problem came in the other room where West opened a weak no-trump. There North selected a semi-pre-emptive three diamonds and played there, also 11 tricks but losing 11 IMPs. That this situation has no clear answer emphasises the necessity to get students away rigid rules and to risk-reward appraisals.

The next deal arose in a 'Relaxed Pairs', which attracts a large number of current learners and recent graduates.

NS Vul.
Dealer North
  • Q108732
  • KJ64
  • K
  • 102
  • J4
  • A85
  • A964
  • K965
N
W
E
S
  • ---
  • Q109732
  • Q
  • AQJ873
  • AK965
  • ---
  • J1087532
  • 4

North had the first decision: a weak-two or pass? I would pass – intending to catch up later. My test is that if my long suit plays badly opposite a singleton and my side four-carder is good enough to jump-support it is clear to wait. Only three of 14 Norths opened two spades – maybe it's only my lessons no-one remembers.

East next: faced with North's weak-two, all three bid clubs, not hearts. After pass, four (of 11) opened one club, five with one heart and two passed. I am beginning to think it has less to do with taught rules and more to with high-cards, both in total and in suits, without regard to rank.

Once the auction reached South it was fragmented but most bid diamonds over clubs and spades over hearts. Another frequently encountered phenomenon: bidding goes up one level at a time, without any rude jumps. No teacher says that of course, it just happens. This is no new debate: rules-led and concept-led learning both have better advocates. But what developing players clearly need is a blending of the approaches.

Published Saturday 16.Jan.2021