Hi Everyone,

While it is unusual for me to be the first one to
speak, the intriguing hand of today, at least to
me, is an exception.

In order to fully stamp logical to the accurate defense today, I would rather the bidding have gone, E. 2H, S. 2S, W. 3H, N. 3S, E. P, S. 4S, all pass. The “kicker” in the difference is that both the defenders will have heard South carry on to game on his own, not by the slight overbid by North of a jump to 4 S.

To me an alternative on the bidding is that West not to cash the Ace of diamonds, but instead lead a 2nd heart, but East (while playing IMPs or rubber bridge) would win, but before returning the third heart at least, attempt to cash the king of diamonds, having his partner West give a discouraging signal, therefore veritably forcing East to make the winning decision of returning to lead a 3rd heart.

My point is that I am not 100% sure that cashing the ace of diamonds before leading the 2nd heart is sure fire being in a perfect overruff position (perhaps Jxx, sans the 9, which might well be guessed) but rather giving East the option while holding the king of diamonds to cash that instead. On the current hand what is to keep South from originally holding: s. AKxxxxx, h. Qx d. Jx, c. Kx?

After all, it is even possible that East has the singleton 10 of diamonds, a card he would probably switch to if West had continued hearts at trick two. Also, as a sidelight I would raise to 3 hearts with West’s hand (as it is) if only to better describe it, rather than IMO slightly distort by passing.

Of course, the real gain with this hand is a simple fact of allowing the various back and forth logic involved to be open to discussion, enabling a proposed to be effected partnership a better shot at learning how one’s OX (endearing name for partner) really thinks.

Finally, with my proposed bidding, South showing a better than average playing hand by going on, might reek (at least according to me) that he would not be doing so while holding Qx of hearts and two losing diamonds (and what everyone sees in dummy in clubs), an always important inference to the defense (the caveat being, “let the defense match the overall bidding”).

Does our group agree or disagree and if so, or if not, is any other inference being missed?

HI Bobby,

I think the discussion above highlights how useful it is for regular and aspiring partnerships to go trough hand records after a session and see what went wrong, although a cooling off period can be required. A married couple I know have a cast iron rule of no after session discussions until the next day and a night’s sleep. It doesn’t stop the odd exchange at the table but I think their approach is sensible. They’ve been married for 30+ years despite being regular partners and neither is backward about coming forward, as the saying goes.

Regards,

Iain

Bobby, the one point of confusion that might arise from Kit Woolsey’s proposed line of defense is that east might conclude that west’s shape is 3=2=1=7 or 3=2=2=6 and is offering him a choice of suits to return. While it is unlikely, this is why defense always remains a cooperative affair; east must divine west’s reasoning from the card play alone.

I know that I have mistaken partner’s reasoning in similar situations, and have had partners do likewise to me, to intense mutual frustratration.

Bob

Hi Iain & Bob,

Since both of your discussions take on philosophical tones, I will further comment by doing likewise.

There comes a time with partnership defense
when “gut feel” enters the room. While in the severely limited field of top world experts, my guess that the sequence of thinking order would be first to remember not only the exact bidding, but also the tempo of each bid (theoretically only the opponent’s study can legally and therefore ethically be considered).
While delving into this, and no doubt, the very top players will tend to leave a trail of wrong inferences to their worthy opponents, but by so recognizing this legal stealth, can sometimes use it to advantage by “feeling” a tell mainly because even top players sometimes become stereotyped with their desire to deceive.

Not that they will, but at least in my view, this acquired talent is significantly more important in reaching the highest pinnacle of success, more than even an uncanny bridge technique or a genius IQ.

However others will surely disagree with my judgment and I am in no position to have any definite truth to my claim other than more than a few years of experience.

Obviously when bridge titans battle or so I have been told,, no one ever pitches a shutout nor even close to one, but rather each can add spurs to their bows awaiting the next bloodletting joust.

“Seek and thou shall find” is the motto of moving heaven and earth, and the types of battles above, should bring sophisticated smiles to those who not only survive, but in truth, chalk up another victory.

The above, if for no other reason, should emphasize the horror of players who have cheated or, of course, still do and therefore
should bear the torment of pure Hell when and if, they are ever caught.

Never thought I would ever have the nerve to
say the above, but in these turbulent bridge times and on a worldwide scope, that is exactly how I feel.

I think the key change you have made is the 3h bid by west, this bid is mandatory imho, and it helps the defenders in a great way. After seeing the dummy and the 2 Aces from prt, it is quite logical for east to see that the setting trick must come from spades, by a wau of trump promotion as West can’t have K spades on the action. As usual your input is most valuable and insightful to us mortals 🙂
Alex Alon
Israel