I just have this nightmare feeling (for one player anyway trying the line of taking CK and leading a small spade to the 10) that West will hold K9x xxx AJ QJ8xx here when the spade J loses and an inspired East finds the D switch from K98xx so EW get a ruff.
Assuming East has one top diamond honour, taking an early (high) club ruff, drawing trumps and hoping the DJ is onside is basically 34% as trumps will need to be 3-2. Hoping for spade J onside (again with trumps 3-2) is similar but with the significant extra chance of West blundering with SKJ but minus the possibility of walking into a D ruff as I described. So I think I prefer your line especially given the likely E-W row if it works. That factor is more important at IMPs than pairs, though – in the latter case a fighting EW are going to mess up the next few hands too when we don’t want them to!
Regards,
Iain
Bobby WolffFebruary 28th, 2023 at 3:44 pm
Hi Iain,
Thanks for taking the time to find a more or less other reasonable attempt to score up this difficult game contract.
And your point about bringing extra stress while playing a longer match instead of the hit and run nature of pair competition, emphasizes the different overall winning philosophy down to a gnat’s eyebrow.
Yes, a special kudo should always be available to those of us who go to maximum winning legal methods, rather than to pretend that careless overall plans wind up just as well.
Iain ClimieFebruary 28th, 2023 at 3:54 pm
Hi Bobby,
I must admit to having tried a small piece of psychological warfare in an English Gold Cup match back in the early 1980s. We had a team of 5 so I sat out the first 8 and the oppo, although not on paper as strong as we were, were fighting hard after the first 3 sets of a 48 board match and were almost level. I played in a 6N contract and after 4 or 5 tricks the lie of the cards was clear so I asked “You don’t really want me to play this do you?” They looked at me quizzically so I said “Look it makes on an automatic double squeeze from here; I’ll talk you through the play and you can defend with full sight of my hand if you want.” I told them the line and the various options, showed them my hand and offered to let them play through it if they wanted. After that they seemed a bit unnerved. They should have remembered that playing well still beats being a good player (or thinking you are).
Regards,
Iain Climie
Bobby WolffMarch 1st, 2023 at 4:59 am
Hi Iain,
Yes, I agree that your claim likely served you well with rattling the opponents into their not playing the rest of the match up to snuff, but whether, that specific hand did the trick or not, no one will ever know for sure.
Was what you did against the rules? An emphatic NO!, but whether you should have done it? Probably not, but it may have then provoked later some kind of necessary character improvement in one or more of your opponents who had to suffer the unnerving you mentioned. Whether you agree or not, it is worth others now lending their opinions, keeping in mind that you sheepishly have suspected that possibly that challenge may have been, at least slightly, not called for.
One thing for sure, if in fact your opponents did feel disadvantaged, causing a glitch with their confidence, they will profit from that experience, if losing that match actually was caused by your claim (which will be impossible to tell).
“No harm, no foul” is a basketball chant by the officials, but does it apply here?
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Bobby,
I just have this nightmare feeling (for one player anyway trying the line of taking CK and leading a small spade to the 10) that West will hold K9x xxx AJ QJ8xx here when the spade J loses and an inspired East finds the D switch from K98xx so EW get a ruff.
Assuming East has one top diamond honour, taking an early (high) club ruff, drawing trumps and hoping the DJ is onside is basically 34% as trumps will need to be 3-2. Hoping for spade J onside (again with trumps 3-2) is similar but with the significant extra chance of West blundering with SKJ but minus the possibility of walking into a D ruff as I described. So I think I prefer your line especially given the likely E-W row if it works. That factor is more important at IMPs than pairs, though – in the latter case a fighting EW are going to mess up the next few hands too when we don’t want them to!
Regards,
Iain
Hi Iain,
Thanks for taking the time to find a more or less other reasonable attempt to score up this difficult game contract.
And your point about bringing extra stress while playing a longer match instead of the hit and run nature of pair competition, emphasizes the different overall winning philosophy down to a gnat’s eyebrow.
Yes, a special kudo should always be available to those of us who go to maximum winning legal methods, rather than to pretend that careless overall plans wind up just as well.
Hi Bobby,
I must admit to having tried a small piece of psychological warfare in an English Gold Cup match back in the early 1980s. We had a team of 5 so I sat out the first 8 and the oppo, although not on paper as strong as we were, were fighting hard after the first 3 sets of a 48 board match and were almost level. I played in a 6N contract and after 4 or 5 tricks the lie of the cards was clear so I asked “You don’t really want me to play this do you?” They looked at me quizzically so I said “Look it makes on an automatic double squeeze from here; I’ll talk you through the play and you can defend with full sight of my hand if you want.” I told them the line and the various options, showed them my hand and offered to let them play through it if they wanted. After that they seemed a bit unnerved. They should have remembered that playing well still beats being a good player (or thinking you are).
Regards,
Iain Climie
Hi Iain,
Yes, I agree that your claim likely served you well with rattling the opponents into their not playing the rest of the match up to snuff, but whether, that specific hand did the trick or not, no one will ever know for sure.
Was what you did against the rules? An emphatic NO!, but whether you should have done it? Probably not, but it may have then provoked later some kind of necessary character improvement in one or more of your opponents who had to suffer the unnerving you mentioned. Whether you agree or not, it is worth others now lending their opinions, keeping in mind that you sheepishly have suspected that possibly that challenge may have been, at least slightly, not called for.
One thing for sure, if in fact your opponents did feel disadvantaged, causing a glitch with their confidence, they will profit from that experience, if losing that match actually was caused by your claim (which will be impossible to tell).
“No harm, no foul” is a basketball chant by the officials, but does it apply here?