The heart of bridge lies in partnership. This is what sets it apart from most other major games in the world. In particular, bidding requires us to work together with our partner to communicate information and solve problems collaboratively.

When we first form a partnership, we establish basic agreements, such as: Do we play Stayman and Transfers? From there, we explore options like: Do we use RKC or 1430 for our Keycard bids? As we gain more experience playing with the same partner, we start to understand their style. Are they a daring preemptor or a sound one? Do they pay attention to vulnerability? When they double, do they typically hold a strong hand, or do they tend to overstretch? These nuances become clearer over time as we continue to play together. But when it comes to constructive bidding tools, the agreements that often prove most valuable are those that bring our partner into the decision-making process.

Two heads are often better than one.

Instead of unilaterally guessing at the best final place to end the auction, we want to have tools that bring partner into the decision-making process - cooperative bidding tools.

Some of these bidding tools involve slam bidding. Quantitative bids are a good example of slam bidding tools that bring partner in, and enable cooperative bidding.

Example: Quantitative Slam Bids

1NT — 4NT
This auction asks partner whether they think a slam is possible.

1NT — 2♦
2♥ — 4NT
This auction shows a 5-card Heart suit and enough values to invite a slam, providing partner with information to decide if a slam is feasible.

Both of these Quantitative auctions involve partner in the slam decision-making process.

Another Agreement: Splinter Bid

Another agreement that involves partner in slam decisions is the Splinter bid. Splinters communicate fit, values, and shortness, encouraging partner to reevaluate their hand. If partner’s points are in the “right place”, a slam may be possible even with limited high-card points (HCP). Conversely, if their points are in the “wrong place”, it might be challenging to even make game.

As our partnership evolves, we can incorporate additional tools that invite judgment and reevaluation during the auction, such as a Help Suit Game Try. This is used after the partnership has bid and raised a major suit, clearly establishing the trump suit. By bidding a new suit at this point, we ask partner to reevaluate their hand, particularly their holding in Spades (good trumps always make us happy) and their help in the Diamonds (honors or shortness can be useful). We give partner a way to focus their thoughts and helps them to make the final decision

Example: Help Suit Game Try

1♠ — 2♠
3♦ — 3♠
Here, partner is signaling that they do not like their holding in Diamonds and believe a game is unlikely.

All of these bids ask partner to use their hand evaluation skills—combined with the information we’ve provided—to make the best decision for our partnership. Adding tools like these to your regular agreements fosters better cooperation and strengthens your partnership. Not to mention, it also ensures that if things go astray, it’s at least partially partner’s fault! Of course, I know you won’t actually blame them if things go poorly - but if you jump into game and then blast to slam and things go wrong, it is clearly going to be all your fault!

About the Author

Robert Todd is a professional player and teacher who you’ll find all over North America (and the world). He's the founder of Adventures in Bridge and you'll find him hosting events, either virtual or in-person, almost every week of the year! Robert's also the president of the ACBL Educational Foundation where he's working to build an institution to shepherd the long term good of bridge!