Hello Mr Wolff

Very nice deal. Very nicely defended – a lesson in proper card visualisation in art of defending well.

best regards

Shantanu Rastogi

Was the text supposed to read:

“West’s TWO diamond bid is risky, …” ?

Hi Shantanu,

Thanks for the kind words about the defense and for the, as you say, enabling card visualization, which makes it happen.

The bad news is that, while at the table, partner is not always as cooperative as is East in today’s hand, thereby sometimes creating doubts in a defender’s mind as to his overall bridge analyzing skills.

The answer is to always hang in there, not allowing less than optimum scores influence the mood, but rather always seeking the right play, bidding and defense regardless of the result.

While the above is easier said than done, the best players have the tougher minds, not easily dissuaded from always attempting to be as good as one can be and not succumbing to the sometime imposters of victory and defeat.

From a writing point of view I am disappointed that the first paragraph referring to a 3 diamond bid, which was printed, but never made by West was in broad view and thus confusing. However, like a bridge player, who is trying, but, of course, not always succeeding, we must continue to plow onward.

The art of both good bridge playing and reporting is well worth risking, in spite of the tacks in the road often close by.

Hi Jim2,

Another crossed in the writing!

Yes, but it may have been meant to refer to West’s third round double, which was only asking partner to do something intelligent rather than to sell out to a 2 spade undoubled contract by the opponents.

The playing of bridge, and believe it or not, the writing also has to do with partnership (in writing there are perhaps 6 to 8 eyes involved instead of the 4 in a bridge partnership) and sometimes, since there are no hidden cameras ever present, there is too much room for sloth, resulting in carelessness.

However no excuses and only an apology will ever be proper, since try as we may, our efforts too often come up less accurate than is acceptable and therefore confusing to the poor reader.

My choice for the north hand would be to bid one NT over the opening heart bid. South will transfer to spades and the final contract will more than likely be two spades. I doubt west would take another bid if north bids a NT instead of two clubs. But then there would be little to talk about and this column would not have even been on the blog!

Hi Jane,

Where the three key words in real estate, are location, location and location, the three key words in partnership bridge bidding are planning, planning and planning.

You’ve done yours with today’s North hand and although the lack of quick tricks (no aces) standout, with a heart lead I am with you. The problem could only become if your LHO had other suits to attack and by doing so would put paid to your club tricks, too late to develop.

However, I, like you, would love partner to either just bid spades or transfer to them, showing at least 5 and allowing my QJx to be valuable.

Good luck and thanks for the plan.