Hi Dear Mr Wolff
The defense of course was quite aggressive and EW earned a well deserved top but perhaps the blame should be squarely apportioned to North for his double of two spades. By the initial double he described his hand. Perhaps his hand does not warrant second double forcing south to bid and incidentally, it appears that EW can make four spades with the favourable lie of the cards
Regards
Iain ClimieMarch 31st, 2020 at 2:38 pm
Hi Bobby,
It could have been worse; declarer might have refused to believe the lead wasn’t from KQ(x) or similar and ducked the first one to limit communication. The look on his face at T2 could be imagined!
Regards,
Iain
Bobby WolffMarch 31st, 2020 at 3:11 pm
Hi AVRR,
You are as right as you can be. Let me count the ways:
1. The defense (EW) was quite aggressive, particularly so with the choice of the unsupported diamond king, instead of the more mundane choice of a spade, the suit which was opened and raised.
2. Furthermore, after the fortunate lay of the diamond suit for EW, the switch to a low club, signaled by East (no spade) and executed by West, led to an extra defensive trick (diamond ruff), plus an eventual club ruff by East.
3. Yes, North was perhaps too aggressive with his 2nd TO double, since a pass instead certainly would have received a much better result, probably -170.
However, in retrospect what does all the above evaluation prove? If, (and that is a word which
necessarily is used so often in bridge post-mortems), West, while defending 3 hearts, would have chosen his 4th best spade, a lead which IMO would often have been picked (not that it should have been, but who knows?) it is likely that NS would have scored up +140, or no worse than -100, then at matchpoints probably receiving at least 75%+ or at IMPs perhaps +7 and at rubber bridge a valued part score instead of an horrific minus 300.
At the end of the hand, all the above becomes reality, certainly including your deft analysis about North’s overbidding with his 2nd TO double.
From here we should all begin to realize, in NT,
(synonym for spades), how delicate certain decisions become in bridge eg (North’s 2nd double) but is there a cure or a certain analysis of what is right or wrong when it comes to basic bridge judgment. Please keep in mind that often, who one’s opponents happen to be, becomes critical as to why or why not it is better to boldly bid, or rather to just go quietly.
It, at least to me, only leads to a final analysis of winners tend to win and losers tend to lose, with that result a more or less clarion call as to where that player or that partnership ranks at that minute on the valuation scale. It sometimes is ever changing, perhaps from hand to hand, but at the end of the day, month year or decade or longer, a likely correct analysis will present itself, but it also suggests a very long time before final judgment should mean much.
Thanks for your comment, which, as always, is right on target.
Bobby WolffMarch 31st, 2020 at 3:25 pm
Hi Iain,
Your post might remind all of us what a good definition of a bridge optimist may be, a declarer who ducked the opening lead of the diamond king in dummy and went down four and then said to all who would listen, “I’m glad they didn’t double and collect 1100 instead of only 400”.
Errol HartmanMarch 31st, 2020 at 11:20 pm
Hi Bobby, I'm writing not about this particular column, but your column in general. I've been playing bridge for only about 12 years, and have ~170 MPs. I've tried several times to get into reading your column which is in my daily newspaper. I find that it is too advanced for me. This seems quite unfortunate, since I'm an active tournament player, and if I'm having trouble with it, I suspect many others are too. You might want to consider doing something like the Sudoku columns do, which is to make the columns progressively harder Monday through Sunday. This might appeal to more levels of bridge players. I'd be glad to discuss further with you if you'd like more feedback.
Best,
Errol Hartman
Bobby WolffApril 3rd, 2020 at 7:39 pm
Hi Errol,
Somehow I received your above letter as email and have written you a personal explanation, perhaps a few days ago, not longer than one week.
If you desire and after reading it, you certainly have my permission to post it, but whether you do or not, is strictly up to you.
I appreciate your views and, of course, your suggestions, but, believe it or not, I do not remember anywhere near, what I did indeed, write to you.
Thanks for understanding, or at least attempting to, if, in fact, something was unclear to which, if you follow up, I will attempt to remedy.
Finally, good luck to you in your attempt to get better while playing our sensational game.
Bobby WolffApril 3rd, 2020 at 9:13 pm
THIS IS A DUPLICATE OF THE ABOVE.
Bobby WolffApril 3rd, 2020 at 7:39 pm edit
Hi Errol,
Somehow I received your above letter as email and have written you a personal explanation, perhaps a few days ago, not longer than one week.
If you desire and after reading it, you certainly have my permission to post it, but whether you do or not, is strictly up to you.
I appreciate your views and, of course, your suggestions, but, believe it or not, I do not remember anywhere near, what I did indeed, write to you.
Thanks for understanding, or at least attempting to, if, in fact, something was unclear to which, if you follow up, I will attempt to remedy.
Finally, good luck to you in your attempt to get better while playing our sensational game.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Dear Mr Wolff
The defense of course was quite aggressive and EW earned a well deserved top but perhaps the blame should be squarely apportioned to North for his double of two spades. By the initial double he described his hand. Perhaps his hand does not warrant second double forcing south to bid and incidentally, it appears that EW can make four spades with the favourable lie of the cards
Regards
Hi Bobby,
It could have been worse; declarer might have refused to believe the lead wasn’t from KQ(x) or similar and ducked the first one to limit communication. The look on his face at T2 could be imagined!
Regards,
Iain
Hi AVRR,
You are as right as you can be. Let me count the ways:
1. The defense (EW) was quite aggressive, particularly so with the choice of the unsupported diamond king, instead of the more mundane choice of a spade, the suit which was opened and raised.
2. Furthermore, after the fortunate lay of the diamond suit for EW, the switch to a low club, signaled by East (no spade) and executed by West, led to an extra defensive trick (diamond ruff), plus an eventual club ruff by East.
3. Yes, North was perhaps too aggressive with his 2nd TO double, since a pass instead certainly would have received a much better result, probably -170.
However, in retrospect what does all the above evaluation prove? If, (and that is a word which
necessarily is used so often in bridge post-mortems), West, while defending 3 hearts, would have chosen his 4th best spade, a lead which IMO would often have been picked (not that it should have been, but who knows?) it is likely that NS would have scored up +140, or no worse than -100, then at matchpoints probably receiving at least 75%+ or at IMPs perhaps +7 and at rubber bridge a valued part score instead of an horrific minus 300.
At the end of the hand, all the above becomes reality, certainly including your deft analysis about North’s overbidding with his 2nd TO double.
From here we should all begin to realize, in NT,
(synonym for spades), how delicate certain decisions become in bridge eg (North’s 2nd double) but is there a cure or a certain analysis of what is right or wrong when it comes to basic bridge judgment. Please keep in mind that often, who one’s opponents happen to be, becomes critical as to why or why not it is better to boldly bid, or rather to just go quietly.
It, at least to me, only leads to a final analysis of winners tend to win and losers tend to lose, with that result a more or less clarion call as to where that player or that partnership ranks at that minute on the valuation scale. It sometimes is ever changing, perhaps from hand to hand, but at the end of the day, month year or decade or longer, a likely correct analysis will present itself, but it also suggests a very long time before final judgment should mean much.
Thanks for your comment, which, as always, is right on target.
Hi Iain,
Your post might remind all of us what a good definition of a bridge optimist may be, a declarer who ducked the opening lead of the diamond king in dummy and went down four and then said to all who would listen, “I’m glad they didn’t double and collect 1100 instead of only 400”.
Hi Bobby, I'm writing not about this particular column, but your column in general. I've been playing bridge for only about 12 years, and have ~170 MPs. I've tried several times to get into reading your column which is in my daily newspaper. I find that it is too advanced for me. This seems quite unfortunate, since I'm an active tournament player, and if I'm having trouble with it, I suspect many others are too. You might want to consider doing something like the Sudoku columns do, which is to make the columns progressively harder Monday through Sunday. This might appeal to more levels of bridge players. I'd be glad to discuss further with you if you'd like more feedback.
Best,
Errol Hartman
Hi Errol,
Somehow I received your above letter as email and have written you a personal explanation, perhaps a few days ago, not longer than one week.
If you desire and after reading it, you certainly have my permission to post it, but whether you do or not, is strictly up to you.
I appreciate your views and, of course, your suggestions, but, believe it or not, I do not remember anywhere near, what I did indeed, write to you.
Thanks for understanding, or at least attempting to, if, in fact, something was unclear to which, if you follow up, I will attempt to remedy.
Finally, good luck to you in your attempt to get better while playing our sensational game.
THIS IS A DUPLICATE OF THE ABOVE.
Bobby WolffApril 3rd, 2020 at 7:39 pm edit
Hi Errol,
Somehow I received your above letter as email and have written you a personal explanation, perhaps a few days ago, not longer than one week.
If you desire and after reading it, you certainly have my permission to post it, but whether you do or not, is strictly up to you.
I appreciate your views and, of course, your suggestions, but, believe it or not, I do not remember anywhere near, what I did indeed, write to you.
Thanks for understanding, or at least attempting to, if, in fact, something was unclear to which, if you follow up, I will attempt to remedy.
Finally, good luck to you in your attempt to get better while playing our sensational game.