This particular hand is truly one to foster spotty play (at best) from inexperienced but very decent bridge partnerships. The terrible fate of having to survive a defensive hand which might (probably should) be defeated but to do so, needs very clear thinking, a circumstance
not easily conducive to the defenders after allowing a make. An East-West partnership who can bounce back, to play at a high level, immediately (or close) after allowing a make here,
is a blessed one, who, in the fullness of time, will be sound winners in the near and distant future.
Finally, a perfect hand for me to explain what I think may be the difference with top-level bridge partnerships. Call it bouncing back in spite of being fixed by the devilish disadvantage
of an unusual distribution not often seen, nor soon conquered, but failing with this one is NEVER a proper excuse for not succeeding with the upcoming competition.
Iain ClimieJune 19th, 2024 at 2:08 pm
Hi Bobby,
If West leads an aggressive D at T1 and South reasonably plays 3 rounds of clubs, West ruffs and plays another D locking South in hand and declarer will now lose 1H, 2S and a ruff. After all C4-3 Is far more likely than H Kx onside
Hi Bobby,
Your questions on bidding and leading have always been so on-target and pedagogically perfect that I like to ask my students a “Bobby Wolff Question” before each lesson — and, unprodded, several students have said they really enjoy these tidbits.
So I went to older columns from several years back and . . .
All I saw was comments. No columns. Just comments.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Everyone,
This particular hand is truly one to foster spotty play (at best) from inexperienced but very decent bridge partnerships. The terrible fate of having to survive a defensive hand which might (probably should) be defeated but to do so, needs very clear thinking, a circumstance
not easily conducive to the defenders after allowing a make. An East-West partnership who can bounce back, to play at a high level, immediately (or close) after allowing a make here,
is a blessed one, who, in the fullness of time, will be sound winners in the near and distant future.
Finally, a perfect hand for me to explain what I think may be the difference with top-level bridge partnerships. Call it bouncing back in spite of being fixed by the devilish disadvantage
of an unusual distribution not often seen, nor soon conquered, but failing with this one is NEVER a proper excuse for not succeeding with the upcoming competition.
Hi Bobby,
If West leads an aggressive D at T1 and South reasonably plays 3 rounds of clubs, West ruffs and plays another D locking South in hand and declarer will now lose 1H, 2S and a ruff. After all C4-3 Is far more likely than H Kx onside
regards
Iain
Hi Bobby,
Your questions on bidding and leading have always been so on-target and pedagogically perfect that I like to ask my students a “Bobby Wolff Question” before each lesson — and, unprodded, several students have said they really enjoy these tidbits.
So I went to older columns from several years back and . . .
All I saw was comments. No columns. Just comments.
Comments are fun — but . . .
Steve