And … with AQx the technical play is the Q first, isn’it ?

Hi Angelo,

True if east has more high cards when that play preserves west’s potential winners. Here east should perhaps play A then Q with AQx although the failure to rise with the J suggests declarer does not have Kxx or similar, so the Q from AQx is tempting anyway.

Regards,

Iain

Hi Angelo,

It is either yes or no, depending on several factors:

1. Which defensive hand has the entry or entries. If the opening leader has the only possible entry(s) then, if only for clarification, the ace and then queen would be more practical.

2. When the 3rd seat player has the entry (usually unbeknownst to declarer such as a key ace, rather than a finesse into one defensive hand or another) then playing the queen will threaten declarer and cause him not to duck for fear of an immediate lead back through his king with the opening leader having the ace (jack or equivalent), which could (would) be sometimes embarrassing to a declarer who had other possibilities of making the hand if he took his king originally.

3. No doubt many controversial factors could exist, such as, while 3rd seat is doing the right thing (by craftily playing the Q from AQ), the opening leader, at first glance, might easily assume that declarer has both the king and the ace causing judgment to be used by the defenders which, in turn can lead to ethical problems, because of tempo.

4. Suggests strongly that the match point game as opposed to rubber bridge, total points or IMPs, is an often bastardized game against what bridge is supposed to be. and this hand is a perfect example of that since West, by overtaking and using the bidding as evidence is sure that declarer will need at least one diamond trick to add up to his contract making trick so that West (the opening leader) can be sure of a set by overtaking his partner’s queen and continuing with his high club spot cards.

5. Finally, a comment by me which will be construed as controversial by others, once 3rd seat wins the ace and continues the queen, if East did hold another but West did not overtake, this situation, unfortunately, would happen too often by excellent partnerships, but if so they might have a way (even without by planned nefarious ways) to do the right thing in “guessing right” as to what 3rd seat held and furthermore it would be virtually impossible to prove that they were not telling the truth, since the argument of “technically” playing the queen wouldn’t necessarily be correct because of the pragmatic reasons given in the above rhetoric. For example East might have the 3rd club but also the Q10x of spades and decided to try and make it easier for partner to immediately know the club situation in order to avoid a disaster later in the hand.

Bridge rulings and appeals later can be very sticky, not to mention difficult, and experience and much expert bridge knowledge should be expected from the chairman, otherwise cheaters or even others who are marginally unethical can sometimes get away with bridge larceny.

Precedents are the likely answer with thorough recording and reporting as well as automatically being available to all important (high-level) committees are the eventual answer, but strangely the ACBL appears to be against such things, making me highly suspicious of why!

The WBF, being a voluntary organization, run by very intelligent successful, ethical people, (not that the ACBL is not) want only the best and fairest for bridge, but unfortunately many of the highest level WBF people are not as well versed in the very highest, world-class game and are therefore inexperienced in all the above innuendoes and need a very hard working, knowledgeable, and most important, dedicated leader.

Perhaps the animals (in this case either vicious or, at the least, poisonous) are running the zoo, in the ACBL when highly visible, annotated and distributed precedents are not an integral part of the process.

Angelo, see what you wreaked from your simple enough question?

Hi Iain,

Again we were both writing when we decided to answer Angelo’s important question.

Your comment is noted and with an intelligent response, while my rant had other priorities.

One fine day I might get across to the powers who, at the very least, are capable and want to be the underlying not discussed reasons for why this or that happens.

Bridge is a social game for many and that has been much hashed out, especially the priorities associated with differentiating the high card win group from the world class hopefuls which, in turn is indigenous to our group where from the best to the rank beginner, unlike any other competition to which I am familiar, compete against each other often.

Obviously my priorities are not to denigrate the high level game are of course, monitor it as it fades into oblivion in the Western Hemisphere. My attempts are always to make it fairer and worthy of being played only by the highest level ethical participants. It has made me big enemies with others who view it differently, both as to marketing and to ethical responsibility. So be it, but it is my hope that there is room for both views and while the social game, because of the aging is thought to be in jeopardy, my overall view is that to save only that for as long as practical is not worth doing, if, in fact, the baby (high level game) goes out with the water because the real reason of elongating the lesser game is preserving bridge jobs, at appropriate salaries, plus political perks (ACBL BOD).

Yes, it is easy for me to say, because my livelihood (because of my advanced age) is not being threatened, but my love for the off-the-charts great game itself, causes me great consternation when, in by beloved USA, its future is being mistreated to an extreme.

Hi Bobby,

This seems like an appropriate occasion to pose this question.

Many years ago a regular partner and I played a very aggressive defensive game at pairs. Basically in a competitive auction, one of us would almost always double the final contract if we thought it was likely to go down. If one of us let a contract pass out undoubled, in retrospect, it probably changed the way one’s partner defended that particular hand.

Neither of us ever discussed this and I don’t think we were even consciously aware of this, but I think it definitely fit what Edgar Kaplan called “old black magic.”

Had we become aware of this “understanding”, how should we have dealt with it? You can’t, for full disclosure, pre-alert the opponents that “If we think we can beat you, you will be playing the contract doubled.” Sounds like an attempt at intimidation.

I’ve posed this question to several directors and gotten the response that nothing we did was wrong, but it would seem to me that active ethics demands more than “not wrong”.

How do you see this?

Thanks,

Ted

Hi Ted,

It seems like your answer will allow me to keep my perfect record of only hearing from totally honest people when just once I would like to hear from someone not so honest.

Could it be that the NSH players know who they are and naturally are avoiding being recognized as such?

While your summation is certainly not 100% wrong, it is minor enough to be not worth delving into, much less causing a stir about.

Anyone who thinks that could be a factor, and I guess, at least by some, it might appear to be, in actuality and as a certainty, it is benign enough to not need further treatment.

To overestimate my scrutiny, I would further say that any player who would worry about what you (& partner) do, is not aware of other transgressors who are multiple degrees more dishonest without ever any consideration of what they are doing, at least sometimes known as kidding oneself or probably only in some state of denial.

If it would quiet your conscience you might insert on your convention card, we are more likely to make more penalty doubles than most partnerships, but your partnership must assume the risk if you decide to allow for that.

Even then, the first time that the opponents do not allow for a bad trump break (which they get) after your partnership has doubled, they will probably call the TD and claim damage, so perhaps I am wrong in my attempt to achieve nirvana.

The old following applied adage, “I cannot totally explain it, but I know advantage taking in bridge when I see it” and your partnership tendency probably does not resort to that.

Good luck and let me know, if able, your results, which I predict will eventually show a small minus.