East has to play the SQ briskly though as it is an obvious lead from QJ9. To what extent would having a think before playing the SQ from QJ9 be sharp practice though, trying to look like you had AQxx,?
Regards
Iain
bobbywolffMay 17th, 2024 at 1:58 pm
Hi Iain,
You, as you so often do, have brought up a crucial subject (although excellent bridge theorists may not agree), to which winning at the upper level, becomes the difference.
At least my take on this, always to be, and regarding the way to win (where the talent is ever present) to be one step (better than two steps) ahead of which opponents, at that specific moment(usually in the play, but sometimes even in the bidding). Also, before I continue on, an odd number of steps ahead, instead of an even number of mind thoughts is necessary so that, by example, the winning bridge psychologist, at that moment, won’t
have (even #) overthought your then adversary by, overrating his ability to compete and is 2 steps behind you, causing that even # for you to lose that battle for the simple excuse of overrating (necessary to not do) that specific opponent or opponents who you are then competing against, with bridge “mind games”.
My explanation is perhaps obligook to some, but deadly understood to others, to which I feel somewhat sad to
report.
bobbywolffMay 17th, 2024 at 2:09 pm
Hi again Iain,
I should have completed my say, by reminding all of us of a witty comedian’s tip, perhaps a 100 years ago or more, when he or she responded (after winning the bridge hand). “You can’t fool me, I’m too ignorant”!
bobbywolffMay 17th, 2024 at 2:26 pm
This time to all who have not tuned off.
And classically, Mrs. Guggenheim is substituted for that culprit, who is an even # of thoughts behind. Don’t worry everyone, these were my, at last, final words.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Bobby,
East has to play the SQ briskly though as it is an obvious lead from QJ9. To what extent would having a think before playing the SQ from QJ9 be sharp practice though, trying to look like you had AQxx,?
Regards
Iain
Hi Iain,
You, as you so often do, have brought up a crucial subject (although excellent bridge theorists may not agree), to which winning at the upper level, becomes the difference.
At least my take on this, always to be, and regarding the way to win (where the talent is ever present) to be one step (better than two steps) ahead of which opponents, at that specific moment(usually in the play, but sometimes even in the bidding). Also, before I continue on, an odd number of steps ahead, instead of an even number of mind thoughts is necessary so that, by example, the winning bridge psychologist, at that moment, won’t
have (even #) overthought your then adversary by, overrating his ability to compete and is 2 steps behind you, causing that even # for you to lose that battle for the simple excuse of overrating (necessary to not do) that specific opponent or opponents who you are then competing against, with bridge “mind games”.
My explanation is perhaps obligook to some, but deadly understood to others, to which I feel somewhat sad to
report.
Hi again Iain,
I should have completed my say, by reminding all of us of a witty comedian’s tip, perhaps a 100 years ago or more, when he or she responded (after winning the bridge hand). “You can’t fool me, I’m too ignorant”!
This time to all who have not tuned off.
And classically, Mrs. Guggenheim is substituted for that culprit, who is an even # of thoughts behind. Don’t worry everyone, these were my, at last, final words.
Victor Mollo was the villain!