The Aces on Bridge: Saturday, April 19th, 2014
It's frightening to think that you might not know something, but more frightening to think that, by and large, the world is run by people who have faith that they know exactly what is going on.
Amos Tversky
| South | North |
|---|---|
| Both | ♠ 10 5 4 ♥ J ♦ K J 4 ♣ A K 10 9 7 2 |
| West | East |
|---|---|
| ♠ A K Q 6 3 2 ♥ A 9 7 2 ♦ 6 ♣ Q 6 |
♠ J 8 7 ♥ 8 6 3 ♦ 10 9 7 5 ♣ J 8 4 |
| South |
|---|
| ♠ 9 ♥ K Q 10 5 4 ♦ A Q 8 3 2 ♣ 5 3 |
| South | West | North | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♥ | 1♠ | 2♣ | Pass |
| 2♦ | 2♠ | 3♠ | Pass |
| 4♦ | Pass | 5♦ | All pass |
♠K
There was a wide range of systems in use at the NEC tournament in Japan last April.
Perhaps the most exotic of the methods in play was that of Martin Reid and Peter Newell. I have slightly expurgated their sequence to make it look less unusual to an American’s eye, although the auction basically went as shown below. But whatever the peculiarities of the auction in today’s deal, it produced arguably the most spectacular declarer play of the tournament.
When David Beauchamp led out two top spades against five diamonds, Reid ruffed and led a low heart to West’s ace and East’s upside-down-count heart eight, which suggested an original odd number of cards in that suit. Back came a third spade and Reid ruffed, cashed a second heart as South completed his echo, then ruffed a heart in dummy as both opponents followed.
At this point in the deal, Reid knew from the auction that East had only three spades and he appeared to have only three hearts. Declarer cashed the club ace and, when no honor appeared from West, it seemed reasonable to play him for a doubleton. If so, East would hold three clubs. So ruffing out the clubs and playing for diamonds to be 3-2 would not work; East would be left with the long trump.
So Reid cashed the second top club, ruffed a club with the diamond eight, and when it held, was able to score a high crossruff for the last four tricks. Very nicely done.
Your partner is looking for a spade stopper to play three no-trump, though he may be about to bid on, looking for slam in one of the red suits, with a spade control. You don't have to know which yet; rebid four diamonds, since in context you have no real extras for your opening bid. Let partner decide where to go from here.
BID WITH THE ACES
| ♠ 9 ♥ K Q 10 5 4 ♦ A Q 8 3 2 ♣ 5 3 |
| South | West | North | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♥ | 2♠ | Dbl. | Pass |
| 3♦ | Pass | 3♠ | Pass |
| ? |
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Bobby,
Can you comment on the original auction so we can see some of the complexity?
hi Bobby,funny how the hand depends on one card,the eight of diamonds making a trick,with the 9 and 10D missing,which happens to be in the four card holding(4-1 break),what does that tell us about the odds of certain missing card needed to be where they are? Declarer’s nerves must be jangling when he ruffs with the eight of diamonds…success or failure a fine line..regards~Patrick.
Hi Ryan & Patrick,
Since both of your questions and discussion are along philosophical lines let me just answer by giving you my take of what happened.
Ryan, the bidding was along accepted modern principles except for perhaps North’s 3 spade cue bid. I, instead, would have taken that opportunity to pass, indicating that I didn’t have heart support (at least 3 of them or possibly even a strong doubleton), 4 diamonds to raise his secondary suit, a spade stopper to bid NT and although my clubs were rebiddable the minimum nature of today’s 2 over 1 would have left me passing and suggesting to partner that he make the next move.
South would then have rebid his diamonds, upon which North would have raised to four and then South may have carried on, assuming his partner’s 2 club bid was GF, but, if it wasn’t South may have passed and this hand would then have not made headlines.
Yes, Patrick, success and failure are often decided by a fine line which seems to favor brilliance or not by a nervy declarer, who in this case was possibly looking for a singleton in the vulnerable 2 spade bidder’s hand (in this case diamonds) to justify his bid.
While some talents, like genius in music and/or art, require being born with them, extreme bridge talent, especially with feeling where the cards are, is brought about by experience of playing against those particular players and what they usually do, pertaining to their philosophies.
The above is the reason (at least IMO) why much experience is needed to compete at the very highest level. The technical abilities needed to play world class bridge require numeracy, total concentration, partnership harmony and agreement, plus dedication, but until players have had the table experience of understanding their opponents, card reading (perhaps the most important commodity) will only grow, but not without being there, doing that.
That, in turn, would (should) demand that bridge be allowed in schools around the world just to teach our best and brightest students how important it is to know how others think and why. At least to me, very few specialized courses can match learning bridge, in order to think in a sophisticated way, especially if the student intends to eventually assume an important performing and creative capacity.
Until the ACBL accepts the above and helps get it done (or at least makes a mighty effort in trying) we will be lost in the desert in not appreciating what our great game can do for our youth.
Sorry for the rant, but the above is the way I feel in notrump and it simply MUST be done, instead of only catering to the lesser social, relatively meaningless exercise of what could be called “High Card Wins”.