[mikl_plkcc]

I am reading some old bridge material, and it mentioned

Quote

Except in No Trumps guarded Queens are not safe to reckon on, and five small trumps in the Dummy are of no greater value than four, as the excess fall to the Declarer's leads.

Quote

On the other hand, if he has four or five small Trumps and little or no side strength, he should not be led into raising on them, for in most instances some of them will fall to the Declarer's higher Trumps.

The book gave examples of raising partner's major by counting tricks, which mainly comes from honours and shortages rather than trump lengths. For example, it advised against raising 1♥-(1♠) with ♠xx ♥xxxxx ♦Kx and ♣xxxx because the strength was not above the opener's assumed average, but raise with ♠Kxx ♥Qx ♦KQxx ♣Axx because it contained 1 trick more than the assumed strength, or ♠ ♥xxxx ♦Kxxx ♣Qxxxx where the ♠ void and 4 small trumps together were counted as 3 tricks.

However, in modern bidding, the hand with 5 small trumps support is a good preemptive raise from 1 to 4 to shut out the opponents, even if it doesn't necessarily mean taking more tricks.

When and why did the bidding style changed to, in competitive bidding, bid according to the length instead of the strength?

[DavidKok]

1997 seems as good a guess as any, I think that's when "To Bid Or Not To Bid" was published. Though likely the knowledge was old hat by then, and it was just a good writeup?

The idea for bidding with shape regardless of strength is that if we are outgunned we are due a negative score anyway, but we might profit by controlling how negative we go. Additionally, by applying pressure, we can cause problems for the opponents. They may well misguess whether to play or defend, or get to the wrong strain or level.
The impression I get is that back in the day people were much more conservative, and much more attached to notions of point count. People simply did not think to include such preemptive raises in their competitive agreements.

[jdiana]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-17, 10:30, said:

1997 seems as good a guess as any, I think that's when "To Bid Or Not To Bid" was published. Though likely the knowledge was old hat by then, and it was just a good writeup?

1992 (It's my current reading project. ) According to Marty Bergen's foreword, the original Law of Total Tricks article by Jean Rene Vernes was published in 1969!

[DavidKok]

The original article is older yeah, I mistakenly thought it was from the early 70s but it's even older than that! Thanks for correcting me on the 1992 date.

I cited Larry Cohen's book and not the original article as the book gave the theory a lot of exposure, when the article was far less known. So I think the book is a more plausible pivot for popular bidding theory.

[HardVector]

Cohen and Bergen with the Law of Total Tricks forever changed the bidding landscape in this regard.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the LTC was also a method that put more focus on shape / trump fit, but the Law (especially the success of the Bergen-Cohen partnership)
changed the landscape. Bergen was a big fan of the power of the 9th trump.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikl_plkcc]

DavidKok, on 2025-February-17, 10:30, said:

1997 seems as good a guess as any, I think that's when "To Bid Or Not To Bid" was published. Though likely the knowledge was old hat by then, and it was just a good writeup?

The idea for bidding with shape regardless of strength is that if we are outgunned we are due a negative score anyway, but we might profit by controlling how negative we go. Additionally, by applying pressure, we can cause problems for the opponents. They may well misguess whether to play or defend, or get to the wrong strain or level.
The impression I get is that back in the day people were much more conservative, and much more attached to notions of point count. People simply did not think to include such preemptive raises in their competitive agreements.

The risk of issuing preemptive raises is that the opponents in the field (in a pairs competitions) stops at the 2-level against other tables who plays non-preemptive raises, and our 3-level preempt with 9 trumps and little strength goes down vulnerable, or worse, get doubled.

For example, in the auction
1♥ - (1♠) - 3♥ holding 0 HCPs, 3 small ♠, and 4 small ♥ vulnerable, expecting the opponents holding the values for game, it frequently ends up -200 against other's -110 making 2♠, or worse, the opponents 4♠-1 because they only have 8 ♠, and if someone dares to double it for business resulting in -500, the whole tournament is lost.

If my holding is a ♠ void instead, of course, even using old methods, my values are enough for a raise.

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-18, 05:25, said:

The risk of issuing preemptive raises is that the opponents in the field (in a pairs competitions) stops at the 2-level against other tables who plays non-preemptive raises, and our 3-level preempt with 9 trumps and little strength goes down vulnerable, or worse, get doubled.

For example, in the auction
1♥ - (1♠) - 3♥ holding 0 HCPs, 3 small ♠, and 4 small ♥ vulnerable, expecting the opponents holding the values for game, it frequently ends up -200 against other's -110 making 2♠, or worse, the opponents 4♠-1 because they only have 8 ♠, and if someone dares to double it for business resulting in -500, the whole tournament is lost.

If my holding is a ♠ void instead, of course, even using old methods, my values are enough for a raise.

Why do you want to bid 3H with 4333 shape, 0 HCP being red? Given the condition, pass is a real option,
most likely the only sane one. And the Law does NOT suggest bidding 3H.

[akwoo]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-February-18, 05:25, said:

The risk of issuing preemptive raises is that the opponents in the field (in a pairs competitions) stops at the 2-level against other tables who plays non-preemptive raises, and our 3-level preempt with 9 trumps and little strength goes down vulnerable, or worse, get doubled.

For example, in the auction
1♥ - (1♠) - 3♥ holding 0 HCPs, 3 small ♠, and 4 small ♥ vulnerable, expecting the opponents holding the values for game, it frequently ends up -200 against other's -110 making 2♠, or worse, the opponents 4♠-1 because they only have 8 ♠, and if someone dares to double it for business resulting in -500, the whole tournament is lost.

If my holding is a ♠ void instead, of course, even using old methods, my values are enough for a raise.

If you pass, and your opponents are the only ones to find the 4♠ game and make it (because everyone else took away the bidding room necessary to find 4♠), the whole tournament is also lost.

Modern bidding became competitive for two reasons: (1) people realized -100 is better than -110 at matchpoints, and (2) bidding got good enough that, if you don't force opponents into mistakes by taking away their bidding room, you will lose.

(But - note - I always count 4333 hands as having 3 cards in each suit, and 5 card suits only have 4 cards if I don't have a singleton or void somewhere. That's because these hands are often one under in total tricks.)