There is an alternate line of play: Win the CQ, draw trump & lead a S to the 8, succeeding if W has S9 and at least one S honor or if W has 4S & either 4D or DQJ or has SKQ doubleton or third. Of course, this line is very much inferior to the line suggested. The problem with playing correctly is seeing that dummy may well be short of entries, DESPITE HAVING 19HCP! Thus this hand is a very good lesson: once the bidding is over, so is counting HCP, at least in your hand and dummy.

Hi David,

It is always helpful, as you did, to point out an alternate line, which will enable our best and brightest to compare options, as you also did, complete with annotations as is, with nothing more, a valid gage for comparison.

Methinks the important fact to appear is that one of two cards being split between the defenders (or both in the right hand) is approximately 75% (3 out of 4) while any one card is only 50% (1 out of 2). The other often percentage use is that of a suit breaking exactly equal, 3-3 (only 36%) or 2-2 (only 40%) should be enough to greatly influence would be excellent declarers to select the 75% chance than the lesser one, when, of course, given a choice.

Little by little we can learn critical facts by just the experience of letting the joy of learning become the spoonful of sugar which lets the medicine go down.

Being a novice to bidding systems, I’m curious how you would bid the following hand, from two perspectives: First-as a novice playing 5-card majors and weak 2’s; and Second-in your own preferred system. Thanks!

Vul: none
Dealer: South

South:
S – A,Q,10,6
H – A,6
D – 7
C – K,J,9,6,4,3
West:
S – 9,5,4
H – K,9,8,7,4
D – J,10,9,5
C – 10
North:
S – J,8,3
H – Q,10
D – A,Q,8,3
C – A,Q,8,2
East:
S – K,7,2
H – J,5,3,2
D – 7,2
C – K,6,4,3

Thanks!

Hi Al,

First, I’ll start with a forcing club system, wherein an opening 2 clubs shows long clubs (at least 5 and usually 6) with normal opening bid requirements.

South North
2 clubs 2 diamonds (Artif.)
2 spades 3 clubs (F and wait)
3 hearts cue 4 diamonds cue
6 clubs pass

Standard system
South North
1 club 1 diamond
1 spade 2 hearts (GF) artif
3 clubs 4 clubs (est clubs)
4 hearts cue 5 clubs (spades?)
6 clubs judgment Pass

An important thing for players to consider is the different onus on each while playing a forcing club system the 2 club opening is much more definitive than would be a natural 1 club opening in standard, allowing both partners to mentally establish the trump suit immediately and proceed to tick off distribution and controls. 6 clubs from South allows a heart guess at trick one and lacking that success still a spade finesse, now for either 13 tricks or, bite your tongue, only 11. Still a very good slam and basically cold against a non-heart lead.

Strangely, 7 clubs will often make with a winning spade finesse (may need a little more) but basically IMO impossible to bid, not that the partnership would want to.

Good luck!

Hi Bobby,

A couple of stray thoughts on suit combinations in today’s hand. In diamonds, if west had ducked the second diamond lead smoothly, would you be tempted to change tack and play for the drop based on table feel e.g. how twitchy does east look?

Secondly, the spade combination has real potential if east figures to be short. Leading small from dummy towards the 10 may cause east to jump in with Kxx or KQx giving various options on the next round. On today’s hand, I don’t think there are such pointers, and it wouldn’t work here, but the suit has potential as David noted.

regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

Your subjects are indeed interesting and deserve a well thought out answer.

At a certain definitive point, percentages, often important, but lesser so against read out competition (easier pickings) allows liberties (which I as coach or captain would encourage my very best players), to rely on. In other words, a really great player (of which there have not been all that many, at least during my era) should act on his “feel” rather than what the odds say to do.

However, when playing against equals (or near so) forget it, since they are as up to date with your mind as you, yourself are. Consequently all psychological tempos and other supposed “tells”, although appearing and “feeling” valid while declaring, are usually illusory.

Of all my opponents, Benito Garozzo with Georgio Belladonna a fairly close second stood out as examples of nothing less than brilliant bridge psychologists.

When I was very young and just sticking my toe into what I thought was “a big time bridge pool” I was told that when playing against Victor Mitchell and then got an “itch” to not follow a recommended line, better forget it and follow that line since Victor’s vibes were directed to make me a loser. And so it came to pass, which was a fortunate introduction to my attempting to improve, instead of to fall victim.

However, the two great Italian stars created another much more formidable task to deal with. I must say that, I, now looking back, must say that those “mind” contests are clearly the battles that I find myself remembering most.

Of course time itself, has blurred out other more important and significant events, which I will not go into now, but all in all, bridge, being my life, has not disappointed me in any shape and form, and I only hope the game itself will never die, in spite of not nearly enough effort here in my mother country to keep it from so doing.

Just too much effort in satisfying the “High Card Win Bridge Crowd” instead of the high-level game itself, plus the enormous greed of the professional bridge group who refuse to understand that dealing with these obviously lesser players (though in truth necessary benefactors) MUST not carry over to World Championships, lest we disgrace the game itself, leaving us with not enough to remember nor to entice the world’s administrators to raise our off-the-charts beautiful mind game to the real Olympic level.

I apologize for my digression, but feel that someone must continue to cry out for what our game vitally needs and cannot survive, at least in my beloved country, without.

Hi Bobby,

No apology required as the description of former greats was very interesting indeed. To what extent (if at all), like chess grandmasters having opening databases on computers, do you think the best players are better now than they used to be, is it bidding (and signalling) advances or a mixture? A modern team of fair players might have beaten Culbertson playing his 30s system, but level the bidding field and what then?

Iain

Hi Iain,

No doubt a modern team of fair players, perhaps a country who figures to finish between 30th and 40th in a field of 70 present world teams would be a 2 to 1 favorite to win a challenge match against Culbertson and his cronies playing his 30s system.

The only truth worth learning from that (assuming that fact is true) is how much contract bridge players have improved over the past 70+ years.

For what my opinion is worth I think our game has improved by bounds and leaps from the competitiveness of so many yearning to be as good as they can be, which, at least to me, speaks to how great and across the board in rules, bridge has become probably because of the time spent by the world’s best and brightest players.

Remember, perhaps in 1958 (when Charles Goren was featured on the cover of Time Magazine) there were estimated to be about 40 million bridge players in the USA as compared to only 8 million today, in spite of a great increase in our overall population.

Someone or something needs to take the blame for such a decrease and my guess it is a combination of several circumstances (more general options, children, because of the Viet Nam war, not wanting to do what their parents did, the birth control pill, the decay of neighborhood friends, and of course, TV and the overwhelming popularity of spectator sports).

Yes, no doubt the best players now are better than the best players long ago, but not because they are smarter nor worked harder to be successful, but because of the pressure from peers and better teaching methods which will always tend to raise the level of any and all things competitive. Needless to say the same applies to almost all, if not all, other popular sports. Better equipment, the opportunity to make money, and more personal time available probably also are major contributors.

Finally, no doubt defense and bidding have improved the most and far ahead of declarer’s play since the first two are strictly partnership efforts as opposed to the relative unilateral task of merely playing the dummy.

But do not forget, the above is just my opinion, causing others to rightfully disagree.