L.Slawinski 1965

COB = Classification Of Bids

Translated by Roman Smolski

When an opponent asks you „What do you understand by your partner's bidding?”, you are required to tell him two things:

1) What you think partner's shape and strength is

2) The meaning of all partner's bids.

That is all that the laws have to say on the subject, apart from a laconic footnote to the effect that the meaning of a bid embraces distribution and point count.

This is not true! The Laws of Contract Bridge state only that:

Law 75 C:

When explaining the significance of partners' call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience; but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

Nevertheless, once upon a time the Contract Bridge Association of Poland had added the here described requirements to the Laws. Therefore, every player in Poland was sure that they were true (until Pikier #10 was published). However, from every evil comes something good. Thanks to it, COB was created, and SAND emerged from it.

We rarely hear such terms as invitational, signoff or mildly constructive. Most of the time, we have to be satisfied with being told the distribution and point count indicated by any given bid.

Do shape and strength accurately reflect the meaning of a bid ?

In theory – yes. In practice – definitely not !

To convince ourselves of this, let us take a concrete example:

You open 1NT (16 – 18) and hear partner bid 2© (natural, weak). If an opponent enquires about the meaning of the 2© bid, you give the „book” reply, which is

„At least 5 hearts and 6–7 points”.

However, this is not always true, as partner could have:

x x

Q J 10 x x

J 10 x x x

Q x x x x x x

x x

x x x

J x x x x x

x x

Q x x x

So you should add that if he has more than 5 hearts, he could have less points. Is this an improvement ? Only a marginal one, for partner surely cannot have:

x x x

A Q J x x x

x x

Q x x x x x x

Q x

Q x

x x

K Q J x x x x

x x x

With any of the above hands, regardless of the fact that he holds 6 or 7 points, he would jump straight to 4© rather than make a nonforcing response of 2© and risk playing there with a cold game. It would take too much time to explain all this, as you would be obliged to state how many points partner could have if he held 6 hearts, how many if he had 7 hearts, what honour cards in which suit he was likely to possess, whether he might bid 2© on a different type of hand for tactical reasons, and so on.

Since it is impractical to deliver a monograph on „The Meaning of a Response of 2© to 1NT” at the bridge table, we must find a more concise description than the vague „At least 5 hearts and 6–7 points”.

One obvious and more straightforward solution would be to say

„2© says that we have the balance of points”.

Unfortunately, while this would eliminate the problem of point count & suit length interdependence, it would also suggest that a response of 2© has the same general meaning as a response of 2 NT, ie invitational, which is not so:

„2© is only mildly constructive”.

It would seem, then, that you should describe 2© as a signoff. But once again this will mislead opponents; they will be under the impression that a response of 2© must be passed, in the same way that a response of 4© must be. There is, however, a significant difference – over 4© Opener will always pass (unless he discovers a couple of extra aces), whereas over 2© Opener can make a forward–going move with a particularly suitable hand. So apparently you should say „2© is in principle a signoff”, which just makes the matter more nebulous.

The desire for a factual explanation has thrown you into such confusion that you reluctantly return to your original statement:

„At least 5 hearts and 3–7 points. Nonforcing”

So the description isn't accurate, so you've extended the range by 3 points...

So what ? At least you cannot be penalized for giving an incorrect explanation; for it has not escaped your notice that right–hand opponent has been listening to your ineffectual meanderings with a deepening suspicion. Now he has the facts he required – partner's distribution and point count, and as a bonus you have informed him that it is nonforcing. That seem to satisfy him, for he nods his head in understanding and makes a bid. You breathe a little easier, as he could have called the Tournament Director and accused you of trying to mislead him, and the auction continues.

On reflection, it seems that the best possible reply would be:

My partner think that 2© is probably the best contract; the chance of making game is small. He expects either to make approximately 8 tricks in hearts, or to make more tricks in hearts than I would in no–trumps. Distribution and point count are immaterial; surely you know a little about bridge and can imagine the sort of hand he might have. You must also know that I am likely to pass; if I do bid, it will only be with a working maximum and a fit for hearts.

Why am I bothering to go into such detail ?

„2© is MILDLY CONSTRUCTIVE”

Is it really enough to say „mildly constructive” ? Apparently so, as from this description we can infer that:

2© is natural, at least a 5–card suit

2© is nonforcing and weak

2© is not exactly a signoff, but Opener will pass most of the time

The partnership strength is such that 2© is likely to be the correct contract.

Obviously, even a relatively inexperienced player can infer all this.

A weak player will probably continue to insist that you supply him with detailed information as to your partner's distribution and point count; but even armed with this he is unlikely to be able to judge the situation correctly.

We see, then, that the laws relating to the explanation of bids have (! Remember the footnote at the beginning) serious drawbacks:

– They do not require that you reveal the fundamental nature of the bid

– They tend to produce vague replies about shape and strength

– They push players into 'taking out insurance'.

Let me give you an example of this „insurance”:

During the course of a tournament, after my partner had opened 1§ my right–hand opponent overcalled 2♠. When I asked about the meaning of this bid, I got the reply: „A maximum of 12 points and at least 4 spades”.

Why didn't he simply tell me it was preemptive ?

Evidently he was afraid I would suspect him of being evasive.

Why didn't he give me more precise limits,
eg 8 – 10 points with a 6–card spade suit ?

Because he was afraid of being accused of giving false information, if his partner turned out to have 12 points and a 5–card suit.

So he preferred to „take out insurance”. Just in case.

What can be done to remedy the situation ?

The only cure appears to be COB, ie: CLASSIFICATION OF BIDS

Suppose we divide all bids into classes, define their meaning and introduce names and symbols; then we will have a workable system enabling us to define bids clearly and concisely. Not only will we be able to provide opponents with better explanations but we will also gain a deeper insight into our own bidding! Thus it will be easier for us to focus on the meaning of a bid rather than the point count it shows. Finally, the classification of bids will go a long way towards eliminating partnership misunderstanding as to the meaning specific bids in a given sequence, as well as considerably shortening system files. Instead of using long–winded and nebulous descriptions, we will be able to employ short, clear names for bids, and – on paper – even shorter symbols.

Since there is no doubt that COB is a worthwhile exercise, we must begin by deciding what criteria to use. Let us postulate that:

The fundamental character of any given bid can be defined by

the suggestions it contains as to the further course of the auction.

FIRSTLY

From these suggestions you can normally deduce the distribution and point count a bid shows, and also whether it is forcing or not.

More importantly: it is easier to deduce these things rather than attribute a specific meaning to each bid.

SECONDLY

It is these suggestions the opponents want to hear about, as it may be of paramount importance for them to know how the auction is likely to continue. Above all, they will wish to be told whether a bid is invitational, a signoff, mildly constructive, or whatever. Other information they are capable of working out for themselves, just as you are.

THIRDLY

These suggestions are often the only factual information you can give; you don't know what partner's hand is, and you can't visualise all the possible hands he might have – not that you need to, when you know what your bid is going to be. The meaning of partner's bid is almost always clear, be it invitational, preemptive, a defensive raise, and so on.

FOURTHLY

When you and your partner discuss your system, phrases such as „that's preemptive” and that's a negative will abound, as it is hard to establish definite limits for each bid; and anyway, it's not all that important, because partner is a bridge player and knows when to make an invitational bid and when to respond with a negative. However, it is clear that under these circumstances you cannot take full responsibility for the make–up of partner's hand, especially as he may not have valued it in the same way you would have done. The most important thing is to bid „in good faith”, ie according to the meaning of partner's bid.

We have proved, then, that the fundamental meaning of any given bid is the suggestions it contains as to the further course of the auction. As these suggestions depend almost totally on the division of „Bidding Control” between the two players, we must examine the very concept of „Bidding Control” in more detail:

At any point in a bidding sequence, control is divided

between the partners in a definite ratio

For example, after an opening bid of 1NT:

2§	=	Taking total control (Stayman)
2©	=	Taking control to a large extent (mildly constructive)
2 NT	=	Surrendering control (invitational)
3¨	=	Equal division of control („Let's bid a game”)
3 NT	=	Taking total control („This is the final contract”)

During the course of the auction, the division of control may change:

				Division of control
West	East		Meaning	West	East
1¨		=	Opening bid	50 %	50 %
	2¨	=	Limit raise	75 %	25 %
2♠		=	Game try	50 %	50 %
	3©	=	Game try	50 %	50 %
4¨		=	Mildly constructive	75 %	25 %
	5¨	=	Signoff	0 %	100 %

Let us try to classify bids according to the measure of control they assume, dividing them into 5 groups:

100% 75% 50% 25% 0%

Within each group there is a number of different types.

100% GROUP Bids taking total control

Asking Bids A

Any conventional asking bids such as Stayman, Blackwood, etc.

Relays R

A type of asking bid which deserves special mention because:

1) A relay is normally a general asking bid enquiring about shape and strength, not specific cards.

2) A relay is normally the most economical bid, ie the next highest one,
eg 1¨ over 1§, 1NT over 1♠, 2© over 2¨ etc.

Signoffs S

Conclude the auction and command partner to pass, except in the case of transfer bids (eg a Texas 4¨ over 1NT).

It may come as a surprise that Asking Bids and Signoffs are grouped together; however, a signoff is simply an asking bid with only one reply: „Pass” (or make the bid I have commanded you to make).

75% GROUP Bids taking most of the control

Dampers D

Are usually describes as „signoff in principle” or „mildly constructive” and are mid–way between Signoffs and Invitations. Their meaning can be described thus: "Pass – unless you have undisclosed extra values (and game is a possibility), or a misfit in my suit and can sensibly investigate an alternative contract”

1©

1♠

1§

1¨

1NT

2©

1¨

2§

2¨

2©

2§

2¨

Rescues R

Warn partner that further bidding is likely to result in the concession of a large penalty, and suggest that the partnership stop in the lowest possible playable contract. In effect they say: „Either pass or move to a safer contract; a disaster is in the offing”.

1¨

1©

pass

1♠

1NT

××

2§

2¨

Any SOS redouble.

You will have noticed that Rescues are a stronger suggestions to pass than Dampers, and thus take more control; however, they are both closer to the 75% Group than any other, and in this regard total accuracy is impossible.

50% GROUP Bids which divide control evenly

Informatory Bids

Are purely natural bids, which neither take nor surrender control. They simply inform partner that you have enough values to bid without limiting your hand.

an opening bid

1NT

2§

1©

2¨

1♠

2§

pass

2©

2ª

3ª

3§

a take–out double

3 NT

4§

Openings

Begin the auction, ie either an opening bid or the initial overcall your side makes in a defensive sequence. In principle they are Informatory Bids, but in view of their specialised nature and frequent use it is advisable to put them in a separate category.

Invitations I

Transfer control of the auction to partner, saying: „Bid on if you are maximum or have extra values” ( game tries, no–trump probes, cue–bids ).

W	E	W	E	W	N	E	S
1♠	2♠	1©	3©	1♠	2¨	pass	2 NT
3♠

Preempts P

Basically, all bids are preemptive to some extent, but for our purposes a Preempt is defined as a bid intended to disrupt the opponents' auction, suggesting that they have a high–level contract available, and if doubled expecting to obtain a reasonable score based on the statistical probability of partner's hand.

25% GROUP Bids which give partner most of the control

Upholders U

Keep the bidding open, warning partner of a poor hand and not much chance of a higher contract. Reasons for keeping the auction alive rather than passing may be:

1) Partner could have a very strong hand

2) Opponents might protect and win the part–score

3) Correcting to a better contract.

	W	N		W	E
	1©	1NT		1©	2©		any artificial negative responses

In practice, bids of this nature are often called „negatives”; however, I do not recommend this as the term „negative” has a much wider meaning. Besides, it implies that all bids can be classed as either negative or positive, which is illogical.

0% GROUP Bids which concede all control to partner

Responses

Are diametrically opposed to the 100% Group, comprising:

Replies to any asking bids

Pass in response to a signoff (or a 4H over a Texas 4D)

... and so on.

Now we will see how much easier it is to describe bidding using COB:

Responses to 1NT:
2§	=	A ( Stayman )
2©	=	D
2 NT	=	I
3¨	=	Game forcing (of course an Informatory Bid)
3 NT	=	S
4§	=	A ( Gerber )
4¨	=	S ( Texas )
4©	=	S ( Texas )

A natural auction:

West			East			Any other comments are superfluous, except to say that: 1) Unless otherwise stated a bid is assumed to be natural, ie it shows values in the suit bid; 2) If there is no symbol next to a bid, it is assumed to be an Informatory Bid, unless it is clearly something else, eg a Response or an Opening.
1¨
			2¨	=	U
2♠	=	I
			3©	=	I
4¨	=	D
			5¨	=	S

Sometimes more complex situations arise, when a given bid cannot be labelled by any of the mentioned categories. Should this occur, a double labelling may be used. For example:

U(I) = an Upholder which at the same time is an Invitation

I(P) = an Invitational which may be revealled as a Preempt

COB can be made even more concise with the aid of the following abbreviations:

f = forcing

ff = game forcing

S = any Suit

X = any suit or no trumps

M = a major suit

m = a minor suit

This concludes our description of the classification of bids.

From a logical point of view it is by no means perfect, but since its inception in 1961 it has been used to good effect by the author and his acquaintances, in 1967 the Polish national team used it to describe their systems, and now in Poland it is an obligatory tool for describing bidding systems (but...no one executes it!). So it appears that it is useful in discussing and establishing what a given sequence means, but also in explaining the meaning of bids to opponents – provided they have read this booklet.

Besides, I think that all restrictions on bidding and not Carthage, should be destroyed.

to The Pikier

Translated by Roman Smolski (from the version October 1978, first version in 1965)

Booklet published in May 1989 ISBN 83–85077–49–9