Perhaps the beauty of this hand suggests the randomness of action, which in turn, allows sub-minimum values with NS, improperly overbid (without critical intentions) to reap an incredible harvest by not allowing West any good luck at all with his critical opening lead.
It is normally incorrect to lead aggressively, (CK) once partner has chosen defense, but East was sadly never in a valid enoough position to bid clubs.
That, together with the critical fall of the queen of hearts only added to the luck needed for NS to get lucky enough to score it up, with declarer going from being very sad after he opened his lead directing 1 spade (with only four) and having so much happen immediately.
No doubt, bridge appears sometime to not be at all fair, (certainly not, in this case, EW).
However, the unlucky side should not despair and only bear down to play the best bridge it can, since the “law of averages” is an immutable certainty and, in the long run, the better a partnership plays, not on any one hand or even several, but in the long run, no one will ever convince me that player’s luck doesn’t balance out, with over the very long haul, the better partnerships (not necessarily the best players) to bring home more than their share of the bacon.
Yes, East might have opened one club with his first turn to bid, and everyone should realize that sometimes lead direction becomes critical, but when it does is anyone’s guess, and cannot be relied on.
Patrick CheuMay 27th, 2022 at 7:02 pm
Hi Bobby, Had East opened 1C, South would most likely pass and the 4S contract not reached..me thinks seeing West’s defense is quite important here. Thanks Patrick
bobbywolffMay 27th, 2022 at 11:42 pm
Hi Patrick,
First, it’s very nice hearing from you.
No doubt different bids from players tend to
make for alternate final contracts, allowing results to reflect both talent and, to be kind, instead just “learning experiences”.
While the above happens frequently, methinks luck tends to even out, causing winners and losers, not always an accurate judge, but over the course of time, probably distinguishing the correct order of talent.
Making the phrase, “let the winner explain” not such a bad thing to accept. In any event it could be thought to be a reward, something worth fighting for.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Everyone,
Perhaps the beauty of this hand suggests the randomness of action, which in turn, allows sub-minimum values with NS, improperly overbid (without critical intentions) to reap an incredible harvest by not allowing West any good luck at all with his critical opening lead.
It is normally incorrect to lead aggressively, (CK) once partner has chosen defense, but East was sadly never in a valid enoough position to bid clubs.
That, together with the critical fall of the queen of hearts only added to the luck needed for NS to get lucky enough to score it up, with declarer going from being very sad after he opened his lead directing 1 spade (with only four) and having so much happen immediately.
No doubt, bridge appears sometime to not be at all fair, (certainly not, in this case, EW).
However, the unlucky side should not despair and only bear down to play the best bridge it can, since the “law of averages” is an immutable certainty and, in the long run, the better a partnership plays, not on any one hand or even several, but in the long run, no one will ever convince me that player’s luck doesn’t balance out, with over the very long haul, the better partnerships (not necessarily the best players) to bring home more than their share of the bacon.
Yes, East might have opened one club with his first turn to bid, and everyone should realize that sometimes lead direction becomes critical, but when it does is anyone’s guess, and cannot be relied on.
Hi Bobby, Had East opened 1C, South would most likely pass and the 4S contract not reached..me thinks seeing West’s defense is quite important here. Thanks Patrick
Hi Patrick,
First, it’s very nice hearing from you.
No doubt different bids from players tend to
make for alternate final contracts, allowing results to reflect both talent and, to be kind, instead just “learning experiences”.
While the above happens frequently, methinks luck tends to even out, causing winners and losers, not always an accurate judge, but over the course of time, probably distinguishing the correct order of talent.
Making the phrase, “let the winner explain” not such a bad thing to accept. In any event it could be thought to be a reward, something worth fighting for.