Two can be almost as sad as one...but not quite as lonely as the number one! "Ohhhhhh, One is the loneliest number that you'll ever bid." OK, enough of the
Three Dog Night medley but it serves as a great intro into the subject of this article.

One-bids from first- and second-position bidders present a host of problems for their respective partners. This article will be an attempt to describe the various considerations and a convention I employ to discern my partner's holding.

The N-1 Principle

The N-1 principle describes what all first- and second-position bidders should do to protect a possible nil bid or a busted nil bid from a partner who must bid later.
We bid 1 less than our normal bid to protect partner in these situations. Partner can then bid 1 without a worry or he can adjust his bid by adding 1 to his normal bid. If he planned a 2-bid he can bid 3 instead, and so forth.

The Ominous 1-Bid

What can partner have when he places a 1-bid on the table? Well let's throw out all freaks based on games that dictate some bizarre action. I call actions like this "stirring the pot" but let's save that for a future article. We have all made some off-color 1-bid holding a 4-bid or higher in some attempt to lure the opponents into bidding higher hoping to set them or else with the intention to bag them to death. Once we disregard these occurrences we are faced with only three possibilities.

A.) Partner has a busted nil hand. (He does not have a 1-bid, but he cannot bid nil due to intermediate spot cards.)

B.) Partner truly has a 1-bid and cannot apply the N-1 principle. The theory also applies in the cases where partner may nil. Any decent player realizes that a 5-bid might easily make 6 or 7 with a pard that has not nilled but might just as easily turn into a 4-bid or less when partner nils. The N-1 principle caters to this possibility as well.

C.) Partner has a real 2-bid and has exercised the N-1 principle.

The Problem:

It's my bid and I have witnessed this ominous 1-bid land on the table and now I must make my decision. I have a very normal 3-bid and must decide what to do. Should I add 1 and make it 4 to up our combined partnership bid in case my partner has underbid by 1 using this N-1 principle? Should I subtract 1 from my bid and make it 2 just in case partner has the "Busted Nil" hand?

I think without the presence of rocket science we will all assume the worst possible case and underbid by 1. Now we have placed a 2-bid on the table opposite a partner who has bid 1. The total bid for the table is eleven!

Hmmmmm! If partner has a real 2-bid and is reducing it by 1, and my bid is also reduced by 1, we well might, if the card gods smile (make that a wink), set our opposition. Now let's say the table total is 10. If pard has a 2-bid and we have cooperating opponents (as we do many times on a 10-bid, throwing high cards away right and left so worried about the impending bags) we have found ourselves another great opportunity to set them.

"What is the real problem then?" The crux of the problem is what our partner actually has for his bid – either a real 2-bid, a real 1-bid, or a busted nil bid. We must have some method to discern his holding and be able to react quickly once he provides us with that information.

The "Spadeweiser Convention"

My convention is quite simple actually and can be modified easily to fit various styles that partnerships employ in their carding methodology.

Regardless what the opponents have bid the 1-bidding partner must signal to his partner which hand type he holds, A, B, or C.

Normally when suits are led for the first time we signal attitude and then count, or simply count when the opponents are breaking a suit. With a 1-bidding partner however he may need some flexibility with his carding to show his various holdings as previously discussed.

One might spend the rest of his days online picking up good partner after good partner that all appear to be trying to take all the tricks they can after placing a 1-bid on the table and you will not be in any position to tell whether they hold a 0-bid, 1-bid, or 2-bid without some real discussion and/or conventional means. When I mentioned they are trying to take all the tricks they can I meant they are playing the cards up the line or in a sequential order from lowest to high.

Since we have three distinct scenarios to consider we must also have three patterns to signal with. Any 2-bidder or less typically has quite a few rags/grunts/ small cards or spots that he can readily dispense without significant disaster. Many more times than not this person will have an abundance of 2's through 9's.

The 1-bidder should with a real 2-bid hand (and has used the N-1 principle and deducted a trick) start by playing his lowest card followed by a higher one at his next opportunity to follow in the suit.

Note: This does not apply to his pard's lead because we must retain our normal attitude signals towards pard's opening lead and continuations in the suit that he has picked. When the opponents lead, however, things will be quite different. We will play intending our first card as the beginning of this "Spadesweiser Convention."

The exceptions will be as follows. When we are forced to play second-hand low because we hold some honor card in the suit the opponents have broken on the opening lead, or some subsequent lead and we are in second position to play, if we hold Ace and a few other cards it is still right to duck this lead. Granted we fool partner temporarily but we are still better placed by ducking this trick and will surface later in the continuations of said suit.

The other exception involves covering an honor. If the opponent leads a Jack or Queen it would be right to still cover that card holding a higher honor card in the suit. If one opponent nils after we have bid 1 and we are in a nil defense, exceptions to this signal may very well be likely.

In the event one of these exceptions does occur we will still signal our partner appropriately on our next opportunity as the opponents attack another suit. As I mentioned previously we are going to play our lowest card on the first signal followed by higher card on the subsequent play to indicate a 2-bid. This ascending order of the cards is pointing upward as a memory aid.

When we have the 0-bid we will play our cards in a descending order, high to low.

When we hold the real 1-bid we will employ a "MUD" pattern -- Middle, Up, Down. If we held the 952 we would start by playing the 5 first, then the 9, and then the 2 completing the signal.

"Spadesweiser" seems appropriate as a name considering I was playing Spades and tossing a few Buds as the idea came to me. As a final note one might want to invert the meanings of the ascending order to indicate just the opposite. Then show the 0-bid by inverting the descending bid to show the 2-bid. If you do invert these signals you can simply announce that you play "Reverse Spadesweiser."

Regards,
Ruffkid1 (Jay Tomlinson)