Being a Strong Club system nut, I don’t like Sontag’s 1S opening bid. Berkowitz-Cohen’s system allows the 1C opener to find out if responder has 4-7 hcp after 1C – 1D (even with interference). Conceivably, B-C would have bid 1C – 1D – 1H – 1S (4+S and 0-7 hcp).

Sontag’s Power Precision did not have that possibility. But, I believe that may be the reason for opening 1S. I don’t know how B-S play 1C – 1D – 1M.

Thanks, David L

If me teammates are -110 every time, my IMPs will be +7, -4, -4, -4 (assuming I never go down more than one). If you are dealt this hand every single board of a 64 board match, you’ll lose by 80 IMPs! It’s even worse if you make an overtrick in 3D.

Of course, the catch is this: have one’s bids been legitimate? Keeping them so avoids many such problems. But how many times are the bids uninformative and not quite what partner has a right to expect? That’s the key.

Thanks for the rather long, informative and realistic article complete with actual hands, arithmetical truths, and at least, attempted bridge applications.

Although dressing it up in the most constructive way, accurate bridge reporting is very difficult with gremlins, like bugs at a picnic, all out in force. On the 2 club doubled hand toward the end there are two jacks of hearts reported, which might make a difference in considering the judgment involved by the players., even if the result was not affected. Experience suggests to me that I should bet that Ross, being omni-present and emotionally involved (very normal, even weeks later) is correct in everything he says about who was playing and what happened. Such are the state of affairs, when an excellent player, not to mention honest, like Ross, having lived the part, speaks up.

If you two will excuse an opinion I would like to offer one. Concerning the hand when Judy Gartaganis while playing Precision opened one spade with KJ98xxx, Jxxx, AJ, void and then jumped to 4 spades over partner’s (husband) raise and in a contested auction.

As far as I am concerned all well and good and very much a part of the game with the optimistic intention of being able to declare 4 spades, make it, and by doing so have a chance for a significant pickup.

The rub is what happened later on the way to the pay station. I cannot emphasize strong enough that if the bidding then does not stop (which, against excellent opponents, it often doesn’t, Judy MUST accept Nick’s double and assume that he is aware that she is bidding on distribution. Of course, if she was 7-6 or something really weird, sure she could run to 5 spades, but only if she had something like a 95% expectation of making 11 tricks. Here she was no where near that expectation and so should be faulted for overriding his double.

This, at least to me, is where many long matches are decided, in competitive judgment at high levels. The caveat to keep in mind is that in these cases the weak hand doubler must allow for partner to be bidding on distribution and not to double without a virtual cinch (usually a trump stack).

Either take my advice or not, but I think it needed to be said since, at least in my opinion, other very important determinates like defense, declarer’s play, system and opening leads are much less subject to the rigid discipline I am suggesting, having to do with aspects of high level competitive judgment.

As an aside, I think Ross’ poker experience should be and probably is an advantage in his ever climbing bridge potential since bridge psychology is a developed talent not a God given one, and playing poker, at least to me, represents a study of many mano-mano challenges, rather than purely scientific battles.

In my experience my initial suspicions of the opponents bids have almost always been ill-founded, so the percentages favor believing their bids, at least until the next round. I stopped chasing Will o’ the Wisps.

As Joey of the Sopranos says, everyone is their own worst enemy.