Bobby, this was indeed well played, but as is often the case in a squeeze position, the defense’s tempo and carding likely telegraphed the winning line for declarer. If East planned his discards in advance and stiffed his jack of spades smoothly, there’s a reasonable chance declarer would simply take the spade finesse. His actual line would then fail as the club jack would be the setting trick.

Similarly, if East were not dealt the jack of spades, but say AJ10x of clubs and 9xx of spades, he would want to dissuade declarer from the winning spade finesse. He would pitch away the jack of clubs and come down to S9 and C A10 and hope declarer tries the ‘Miami end play’. Of course, one would hope his pitch of the jack of clubs was smooth and in tempo, and not agonized, since that would be coffee housing.

It’s funny, when many poker players hear comments like that last one, they just don’t get it, since masking your cards and position with your behaviour is a standard ploy in poker, yet abhorrent in bridge.

Hi Ross,

As always, you seem multi-faceted in your talent and ability to produce probing questions, which, at least to me, go right to the heart of your topic. In one simple blog, you have managed to dissect this AOB hand into a learning experience regarding both high-level bridge playing, featuring card reading and the unique ethics of the game.

Reading cards from the declarer’s standpoint is very much concerned with all that has happened up to the zero hour, e.g. the moment of decision. As you know so well, the evidence comes from the bidding of the opponents or as Hitchcock may have surmised “the dog which did not bark”, plus the opening lead (especially if there was no howling whatsoever), and, of course, the order of discarding as well as the honest tempo of the opponents.

Honest tempo should mean just that, no extra time or especially added emphasis on plays when none is warranted. Bridge was originally and I hope still, now thought of as a gentleman’s game played by ladies and gentlemen who are straightforward and basically without guile in physical actions designed to deceive.

Why is that, someone may ask, as do your poker friends? Probably because of it being a partnership game wherein the only legal authorized information which can be passed is done so through the bidding and the play of the cards themselves. In poker, being an individual contest, it is definitely player beware, since so called coffee-housing is not only allowed, but rather, totally expected. Probably in a perfect world, (which has not been seen, especially lately) bridge might be, but hasn’t up to now, allowed physical deception between opponents. Until that ethic changes we should be bound by the way our grandparents played and that is “No phony acting or expression” has a place in our game.

Having said and accepting the above, actually contributes to making bridge the superior intellectual game of choice, since I doubt if anyone can dispute that chicanery, other than the aformentioned bidding and play of the cards, should be allowed to influence the result. The problem solving needed in playing solid, excellent bridge is difficult enough when proper bridge ethics are used, crying out to all who are interested to not add advantage to ones who feel differently.

As in the hand you discuss, I have always firmly believed that those who think and react quickly, similar to in basketball, to those who can jump higher, have won the right to be favored by the rules. Likewise in most forms of competition, physical and mental attributes should and do play great parts in achieving success. Some of the greatest players in our history would certainly, if defending the subject hand, have discarded in a certain way, possibly differently, depending on who the declarer was, in order to get him or her to adopt the wrong end position. That is where the real talent and psychological abilities come into play which only adds, at least to me, to the great allure the game already has.

Perhaps your poker friends would like to challenge the way bridge is played, they themselves opting for an anything-goes policy. If so, it may prove to be an interesting discussion and one in which a person’s real personality will come sallying forth.

By the way, what say you?