Dear Mr Wolff,
in response to Mumbles about the opening lead… there’s also vertical/horizontal leads… which I find easier on the throat than German leads…
Regards,
Michael

Hi Michael,

Naughty, despite being funny, what does everyone make of the latest scandal? I read up the detailed concerns posted by the Israeli pair’s teammate. It is so sad that anyone would so lose their sense of perspective about what is ultimately a game. My own views are coloured by having once tried to keep someone alive at a bridge club via CPR. Sadly the guy (a lovely chap incidentally) died 90 mins later in hospital despite the fairly rapid arrival of paramedics. I’m ashamed to say that my inappropriate humour was present, even as I was hammering away at him. “What on earth did your partner bid” was the thought that came into my head. Very British WW1 humour, I suspect – see Bruce Bairnsfather cartoons.

regards,

Iain

Hi Michael,

Do you really think those four pairs really meant to cheat, or perhaps just were promoting a better game for everyone, with slightly different rules which covered solving some of bridge’s most vexing problems, such as blind opening leads, whether to come into the bidding with toss-up hands, or when to boldly preempt in hope of finding a fit.

It could be very naive of some of the bridge sheriffs for suspecting evil motives rather than just approved self-help.

It apparently is such a coincidence that those particular suspect pairs turned out to not be quite as good as they wanted to appear to be, but now they will probably try (at least their lawyers) and threaten their victims and other bridge lovers with dire money damages if their delicate well meaning clients are treated too harshly.

At least sometimes witch hunts produce wicked witches, and all of the last four partnerships caught surely, at least IMO, do travel by broomstick and likely have nothing but hate for our beloved game. Never to have the chance to play it again should be the choice, assuming no one could think of a harsher punishment, but what do I know?

Hi Iain,

Gallows humor no doubt, but didn’t Charles I wear triple underwear on a very cold early morning in jolly old England, when he was being escorted to the gallows for supposed treason (or whatever) since he did not want to be thought to be shivering like a coward.

At least to me that possible excuse has so much more logic to it than cheating at bridge.

I wonder if Grantland Rice, a long ago well known and respected Americn sports writer who once wrote something like when the one great scorer comes to mark against your name, he writes — not that you won or lost — but how you played the game.

It is likely that neither Grantland nor the great scorer would have approved what was just revealed in bridge.

hello Mr. Wolff

how does one submit questions for the Sunday piece? and is there a deadline?

thanks

Haha Bobby. If anything I think the game has gotten a bit too scientific. It is like opening theory in chess (now mapped out 10-15 moves instead of 5-10 in the game I learned in the 80s) or golf where classic courses were designed for 250 yard drives and are now being bombarded by 350 yard drives. Sometimes I wonder if the game would be better if the 1C card were removed from the bidding box or something else done to put less emphasis on precise bidding and more on card play and (legally) deceptive bidding. Maybe there should be more games where the participants throw out their detailed system notes and convention cards and just play classic Goren or EHAA. Perhaps the game wouldn’t be so intimidating to less ardent players.

You have said that third and fifth leads are easier to read than fourth best leads. Why? So many of us struggle with this. Thank you!

Hi Peter,

Just find an email address which gets directly to me, either this one, or the one mentioned within the column.

Somehow or other the question will be directed to me and I’ll personally be sure to handle it. Lacking that, just write on this column your query and I’ll promise not to confuse you too much.

Hi Slar,

The science usually involving better ways to discuss our sign language, bridge bidding, is what that has directly improved bridge playing across the board.

Back in the middle of the last century there were players around who matched up favorably with the best players of today, but not so in the bidding of that era, which was no where near as effective as it is today and worldwide.

In effect, though I do not necessarily disagree with you, I think the game has improved by bounds and leaps in going to extremes to have every possible useful bid in all of our quivers as we try and hit the target.

Yes, it can be confusing, no it is not for everyone, except perhaps only socially, for someone who does not love to think numbers and their application, the shortcut definition of numeracy.

With bridge being in the primary school systems of so many countries in Europe and all of China, no doubt bridge, as we know it, will not die out there as it might, here.

To achieve winning talent in our wonderful game, one needs to direct heart and soul to its learning. Without which no one will get good enough to really appreciate how good the game is for one’s mind, taking the form of solving problems, partnership communication, and a crash course in mostly arithmetic logic.

Of course, if one finds something he or she likes better, whether another human, an animal, or another powerful pastime, do not resist it, since something similar may never come that close in the future.

Yes the game can be intimidating to many, but, while only assuring them that it is worth it, they need to get into it willingly and see for themselves. Remember, not everyone will love it.

Hi Ronna,

My fellow writer likes 3rd and 5th while I like 4th.

Once used to either one of those popular choices, it will answer your questions for you. With 4th best leads the rule of eleven applies while with 3rd and 5th a similar “tell” will lash out after you.

In truth there is very little to choose between those two popular lead conventions, but the thing you must do, whatever your choice, both you and your partner MUST understand what you are doing.

Good luck and consult your local bridge guru. If no one fits the bill, you must be living on the moon or somewhere not easily accessible.

Hi Valdiviezo,

Yes, in bridge there is cheating and with hemp you likely refer to cannabis.

However in bridge you have to be off-the-charts selfish and a total dope to cheat which, in turn, destroys every thing around you, including honest people, but with using cannabis you might only just destroy yourself.

Definitely a socioeconomic issue which favors those who favor your pastime rather than ours.

Bobby,
I agree with all that but I want to add one thing. Bridge is a partnership game and good partners don’t grow on trees. Playing with a random partner generally entails dealing with idiosyncratic (at best) tendencies and at worst multiple bidding miscommunications. When the field is tuned like a fine-oiled machine and you and your partner are fumbling around in the dark, it gets frustrating in a hurry. A free-wheeling bidding style (like bridge had at its peak) would compensate to a point.

I’m fortunate enough to have a partner who is pretty close to me in ability but it isn’t like we are always able to play together. I’m very close to saying I’d rather play with the BBO robots than the invariable Guggenheim who is patiently sitting by partnership desk. (Other than the obligatory annual LM/NLM game, LM players generally won’t play with NLM players unless they are paid.)

I don’t have any easy answers to this, but if the game is going to flourish here, it needs to get more people to show up, ardent or not, whether they learned the game in school or not.

Hi Slar,

While it is difficult to argue with your pragmatic approach, the main problem as I see it, is what to put first, the horse or the cart?

With bridge in schools, I think the winning principle evolves, passion for the game which will last a lifetime if time and place allows.

With bridge not in the schools, the initial passion has to evolve itself without a prompt. Never forget that during the immense arrival of bridge in America (1930s+ signalling the arrival of Contract bridge replacing Auction) which then soon bridged itself to Europe, life was much simpler (before modern day life became so formidable).

Therefore I am only suggesting that bridge needs to be learned in a controlled environment by a very youthful audience who in time (not very long but maybe a couple of years) will then captivate the youngster (assuming he is not allergic to the qualities necessary to excel) and once learned always ingrained, never forgotten, and most always returned, even if circumstances in life do not always fully cooperate, especially early.

Perhaps only a dream, but my entire life span causes me to bet on such a thing. To succeed, we must set a model and then monitor it until it is sure to succeed.

Yeah. Maybe if my friends’ kids were playing bridge in school they might be compelled to get back into it themselves and not wait until they are retired. As it stands now, I have a number of friends who learned in college (if not earlier) and could easily be ramped up but I can’t get them in the front door. That rising tide would float all boats.