Bridge at My Club

Bridge blogs are full of complaints. I am here to complain about the complainers who deride the game as played at the local club. They express grievances at a director’s poor decision regarding unauthorized information (UI), but UI is derived from familiarity of the personal quirks of opponents and partners alike that are an integral part of the local game. If you drop into a club where you are unknown, beware the smiling, wrinkled faces that merely mask the devious minds – the face of Santa Claus, but the disposition of Mack the Knife. Initially you, as an unknown factor, will have a great advantage, but over subsequent sessions the room will learn to peg you and adapt their methods to combat your particular modus operandi. As your scores plummet you will come to realize it is a time for a change of strategy, and, zip, back up again your scores, until the field readjusts, and so it goes.

Scientists deplore the introduction of human factors into the game, (why can’t we act more like computers?), but really, doesn’t that add to the game’s challenges? Facing a married couple who have been playing together for 40 years, one needs to know more than what’s in a book of mathematical tables – one has to know something of human nature. They won’t always do what you would have done with the same cards, and you can’t expect the said couple to forget, much less forgive, all those annoying habits they have come to recognize over decades. It works both ways.

If you come to our club seeking a partner you will probably be assigned Edna, a former club owner, now, alas, suffering from Parkinson’s disease and confined to a wheelchair. Her most enduring memories include shaking (left) hands with Pete Grey, the one-armed outfielder for the St Louis Browns. Apparently what drives her still is an abiding desire to screw up a Precision auction as long as she’s still able to do so. Your pre-game preparation might go something like this.
‘Hello, my name is Edna and I’m a nonagenarian. Do you know what that means?’
‘Does it mean you belong to an ancient sect that rejects The Book of Genesis?’
‘No! It means I’m over 90 years old.’
‘Congratulations, I wouldn’t have guessed. Well, Edna, what do you play?’
‘I play whatever you play.’
‘Precision?’
‘No, not Precision’
‘Flannery?’
‘No, not Flannery.’
‘Drury?’
‘No, not Drury – you will find I always have my bids.’
‘Stayman?’
‘Yes. Last week I came in first without any of this fancy stuff.’
‘Now we’re getting somewhere. 15 to 17 No Trump?’
‘Not with 4-3-3-3.’
‘You don’t open 1NT with 4-3-3-3?’
‘No! I don’t use Stayman with 4-3-3-3. 4NT is always straight Blackwood.’
‘That avoids confusion. How about , no, not Ogust….’
‘I won’t start without my tea and cookie. The cookies are over there on the shelf.’
‘Lots of milk in the tea? I’m guessing here.’
‘Yes, please, if you would be so kind, but make sure it’s hot.’

I daresay anyone could have a good game playing with Zia, but here you would be facing a real challenge, but the same problem at the table that your opponents will be facing. The only difference is that they will be moving on after 2 boards. Still, bridge is bridge, and the most important factor is where the cards lie. It’s important to maintain your concentration. Here is a recent deal that was particularly upsetting to my partner, John, who once more was done in by the redoubtable Edna.

Ben, a naval veteran of the Korean War, has been witness to many astonishing feats in his day, especially in the port cities of the Orient, but even he took some time before passing Edna’s unusual 3NT. When John asked what 3NT meant, Ben shook his head and replied thoughtfully, ‘I don’t know.’ That made sense. Knowing Edna as we do, ‘impervious’ is the adjective that comes to mind, one should take him at his word. There is no need to call for the director. As South I would have bid a pass-or-correct 5♣, even 6♣ is a good save against 4♥ making, but in the light of history one can understand Ben’s reluctance to support with support. At the club passing with nothing is usually the best course of action, and doubling merely adds to the confusion, but, of course, one can’t double one’s partner even if at times you feel like it. As it was, John got to show both his suits and eventually reached the optimum EW contract.

Despite the wayward auction, on a club lead declarer has only to play the diamonds for one loser.  So, the ♣A ruffed, a heart to the lightning-fast ace, and the ♣K, ruffed, put declarer in his hand with the diamond suit foremost in his mind. John drew a second trump with the ♥K in dummy and ran the ♦8, losing to the ♦T. The ♠J was returned. A third trump to dummy allowed for a finesse of the ♦Q, losing to the bare ♦K for down 1, leaving us to wonder if there wasn’t a better play. Just because a play doesn’t work doesn’t mean it’s wrong, although it always feels that way. If it feels good, it might be wrong. Even if it feels good and is good, some smart-ass will tell you it’s wrong.

Playing at our club where the uncertainties are greater than previously thought theoretically possible, it pays to distrust the bidding and gather information on card placement before committing to a line of play in a critical suit. In the face of partial knowledge one is supposed to assume what is most probable. Cashing the ♠AK entails a little risk, but if one does that before drawing the last trump it enables one to ruff a third spade and conclude North began with a tripleton spade and a singleton heart. Entries to dummy are few, so declarer must unblock some intermediate trumps to preserve entries. Here the conclusion would be that the diamonds sit 2 in the North and 3 in the South. This is exactly the way it was.

There are 2 ways to approach the diamond suit under these circumstances. One way is to finesse twice starting by running the ♦8, as John did. The other is to play the ♦A first and see what transpires – a discovery play rather than an attempt to drop a singleton ♦K. If the ♦T appears from the North, go to dummy, lead the ♦8 and cover South’s card. .The Principle of Restricted Choice tells us it is 2:1 that North was dealt ♦KT rather than ♦JT. Let’s compare the results for the 10 possible combinations. In loving memory of my high-school algebra teacher, ‘Grumpy’ Gordon, let a and b stand for the missing low cards.

Combination	Number	♦A First	Run ♦8
KJT – ab	1	W	W
KJa – Tb	2	W	W
KTa – Jb	2	W	W
Kab – JT	1	L	W
JTa – Kb	2	L	W
Jab – KT	1	W	L
Tab – KJ	1	W	L

Playing the ♦A first loses in 3 cases out of 8. Ironically this sequence scores up the game. The commonly held belief is that optimally one runs the ♦8 and finesses the ♦Q on the second round. This loses in 2 cases. The key combination is JTa opposite Kb. If Ben plays the ♦J on the second round, it is twice as likely to be from ♦KJa than from ♦JTa.

There is more to the story. The optimum play clearly depends on whether you feel Ben is capable of playing the ♦J from ♦Jab on the first round. If you are a stranger to our club, you won’t know Ben, so you could assume that he is capable of this expert play. But if, based on his scruffy appearance, you feel Ben is not up to the extravagant expenditure, you would assume he would never play the J from J53 on the first round. Under that assumption, the optimum play is to go up with the ace on the second round once the 2 low cards have appeared from his hand. Then one loses only in one case out of ten, Kab opposite JT. Technically, John’s play of the ♦Q on the second round was a compliment to Ben’s abilities. Maybe, Ben, knowing John’s expertise, had purposefully double false-carded? Intriguing thought; sometimes it’s hard to distinguish between accident and intent.

As the cards lay, going on a voyage of discovery would have accomplished nothing. The standard plays are based on what is most probable, so discovering the cards are placed where they most probably are adds little. That is the reason why so many play carelessly. However, one gains when the cards are not distributed as expected. Suppose John plays off the top spades before playing a second trump. The defensive signals may suggest Edna held 2 spades and Ben, 5. The distribution of the diamonds is now most probably 3 in the North and 2 in the South. That recommends an alternative line of play with this 7-card ending and the lead in the dummy.

The ♦8 is led and South’s jack is covered, leaving the old lady helplessly endplayed. What sweet revenge that would have been against an old nemesis! Playing off the ♠AK to a 7-card ending works most of the time when North holds 3 spades and 2 diamonds, as we have seen, but in this case success is guaranteed. So technique should have overcome psychology, which is the way we scientists would like it to end.

Well, that was just one of the exciting hands played that day that could have been dull, but weren’t. The local club presents the participants with problems they will not find in textbooks. If one wants to win, it is nobler to win by making smart plays, rather than sitting back and profiting from the opponents’ frequent mistakes. One should strive to actively take advantage of the opportunities presented. On the given deal 5 out of 8 players declared in 4♥, only one making an overtrick. Let’s give Edna some credit for her initiative in pushing us higher. Three players were in 5♥, only one making it. Playing off the ♠AK early as suggested would result in a 90% score. So good declarer play would be amply rewarded. On the other hand, bad play is not punished as much as it would be in an expert game, which keeps the majority coming back for more. As the less fortunate transgressors often remark, ‘we had company, partner.’ Which is nice.