I. Remembering Suit Splits When Declaring
Are you tired of trying to memorize all those a priori suit distribution tables? Here is a short cut that is easier to remember and just as good.
If the number of cards you and dummy hold are an even number, the probability is that the odd number of cards held by opponents will split as evenly as possible. The probability of this division is always more than 50% and gets greater as your holding progresses from 6-8-10 cards. Remember the Rule, forget the specifics.
If the number of cards you and dummy hold are an odd number, the probability is that the cards in the suit held by opponents will split unevenly. The probability of an even split increases as your holding progresses from 5-7-9 cards, but never reaches 50%.
The 11 card holding is an exception to that rule. Always play the suit to split evenly, 1-1. The odds of a 1-1 split are 52% and the 2-0 split 48%.
There are other applications for these rules. If you are declaring 3NT and LHO makes a 4th best lead of the 4 of spades, you can’t always tell with clever defenders whether the suit is 5-3 or 4-4. We know from our rule that an 8 card suit held by defenders is more likely to be 5-3 than 4-4, so in calculating the number of times to hold up in the suit, we might take that into consideration. Actually, there is another rule that makes that “hold up” decision simple for you. It is called the Rule of 7. You total the number of cards in the suit in your hand and in the dummy and subtract that number from 7, the result is the number of times you hold up in the suit. (e.g. If you count 5 cards, hold up twice if you can!)
One final thought before leaving this subject. Sometimes you have the option of splitting the outstandikng cards in your 7 card suit 3-3 or taking a finesse, and either chance will enable you to make your contract, but if you let the opponents in, they will take their setting tricks. There is a right way to do this so that you can preserve both chances. Always try to break the suit first. If that doesn’t work, you can still try the finesse, but if you do it the other way around and the finesse loses, you lose your second chance. While the finesse alone has only a 50% probability, by combining both chances you increase the probability of success to 67.5%.
II. Rules for Single Finesses
To avoid a lot of card table arithmetic, we have some general rules for simple finesses. These should comfort you, because most of them will be familiar to you.
a. If you hold 11 cards in a suit missing the King, you play for the drop. It is a slight favorite over the finesse.
b. If you hold 9 or 10 cards in a suit, you are correct to finesse against the King, but not the Queen or Jack. For example with AQJxx opposite xxxx finesse against the King. With AKJxx opposite xxxx, play AK from the top. Remember “ 8 ever, nine never”?
c. If you hold 7 or 8 cards in a suit, it is usually correct to finesse against the King or the Queen, but not against the Jack. For example with AQJxx, or AKJxx, as long as you hold 7 or 8 cards in the suit, finesse for either the K or Q. With AKQ10x opposite xxx, play for the 3-2 split.
d. If your opponents hold 5 or 6 cards in a suit, it is correct to finesse against the King or Queen, but not against the Jack. For example, if you hold AKQTx in your hand opposite xx, you would play the suit from the top and refuse the finesse on the Jack. Missing other honors, you finesse for them.
There are some further exceptions to these rules, but they will put you on overload. One prominent (but often misunderstood) exception is the “Restricted Choice” play. See Odds and Ends of Bridge Part 3 in next blog post.
III. Working with the Probability of Split Honors
If 2 honors are missing in a suit, bridge probabilities greatly favor finding the two honors split between the two defenders. If you see in the dummy AJ10, AK10, AQ10, these combinations all benefit from the split honors presumption. To demonstrate look at AJ10x in the dummy and xxx in the hand. There are only 4 relevant possibilities, K/Q both with West, K/Q both with East, and the two possibilities (yes 2!) of the missing honors being split between East and West. You will fail to make 2+ tricks only in the single instance where both the K and Q are held by East, one chance out of four so we say the success rate is of making 2+ tricks is 3:1 or roughly 75%. You surely want to try this when one suit that presents a split honor finesse before taking a 50% simple finesse in another suit.
Even if you only have AQ9 opposite xxx, put in the 9. With the A/Q you always have the finesse as a 50% probability. If you also hold the 9, you increase you chances for 2 tricks. If West holds J/10 doubleton, it will go x,10,Q,K on the first lead. On trick 2, you now drop the J making the A/9 good. The probability of the J/10 doubleton is 12.5%, so total probability of making 2 tricks from this holding is now 62.5%, not 50%. You should always go to this combination before trying a simple finesse in any other suit.
One split honor combination that is often overlooked is QJx in declarer’s hand. You will make a trick and have a stopper in 75% of the cases (where the honors are split or the A and K are both held by the East). Note the difference between this holding and Qxx in the hand and Jxx in the dummy. In this last holding, if the honors are split (again a 75% probability), you get no tricks and have no stopper. This is a suit that you never want to lead since if opponents lead it you gain a trick. If LHO doesn’t lead that suit on the opening lead, declarer can be reasonably certain the honors are split, since if LHO held the A and K in that suit, he would probably have led one of them.
You have probably been wondering why in certain situations we don’t just play for the drop of the Queen when we have the A and K in the suit. If it is a 9 card suit, we do – it is a 52% probability. If it is an 8 card suit, playing for the drop of the Queen doubleton with either opponent (a 27% probability) is a decided underdog under almost any circumstances.. Thus, if you have a choice to break a 7 card suit 3-3 (a 35% probability) or to drop the Queen doubleton from an 8 card holding (an 27% probability), go for splitting the 7 card suit 3-3. It is a significant favorite to be the preferred line of play.
Bridge is not an arithmetic test, but having a general awareness of the laws of probabilities will give you a better feel for the game and significantly better results. I know that any developing player’s mind is already on overload, so just start out by trying to recognize whether any particular play has a probability of greater or less than 50%. You don’t always have a choice, but when you do, try to take the plays where you have the odds working for you.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Odds and Ends of Bridge (Part 1)
I. Chance and Probability Theory
The likelihood of the occurrence of any event in Bridge is called a probability. For example, probabilities can refer to the location of specific cards, high card points, or distribution of the suits among the four hands. Probabilities are not guarantees. On one deal or a single play of the cards, calculated probabilities may lead you to an aberrant result, but over the long run probabilities will prove out within a very small variance. The moral of this story is that if you want the probabilities and odds to even out, play more bridge. The usefulness of probabilities is not to determine whether an isolated line of play will work, since if you have only one line of play, it makes no difference what the probabilities are, it either works or it doesn’t! On the other hand, if you have two or more chances to make your contract, and you are able to choose among them, then it is helpful to know which chance is more likely to succeed.
II. Using Probabilities to Help You Find Specific Cards
The underlying math of bridge sees 52 individual cards and each of 4 players having 13 pockets where cards can be located. Each time you identify that “x” pockets of a defender are occupied by certain cards, that defender has fewer empty pockets. If you also know the number of cards in that suit held by the other defender, you can fill up some of his empty pockets. We are only concerned with the opponents empty pockets!
For example, if LHO opens 2 spades and you end up playing a contract in 4 hearts, you can reasonably assume that LHO has 6 of his pockets occupied by spades, so he has now has 7 empty pockets. If Declarer looks at her hand and sees 2 spades and also sees 3 spades in the dummy, she knows that RHO started with 2 spades, so now RHO has only 11 empty pockets. This empty pockets stuff is the backbone of all probability calculations in bridge, called the Law of Vacant Places.
How can we make this useful at the card table? Let’s look at the above example. Assume that the success of the contract depends on locating a specific card in a suit other than spades. Since RHO has 11 empty pockets and LHO has only 7 empty pockets, the odds are 11 to 7 (64%) that RHO will have the card you are looking for. This little calculation can be applied any time you have the distribution in any single suit completely identified between the two opponents.
An adjunct to this principle is called the Law of Attraction. Length in one suit attracts shortness in another suit. Conversely, shortness in one suit attracts length in another suit. In this context, the terms “length” and “shortness” speak only to the relative holdings of a defender in two different suits, predicting that when the defender has length one suit he will have shortness in another suit. This is better explained by example.
Again, looking at our first example, since LHO has length in spades (very likely 6), the probabilities are that RHO has greater length in any other suit. Assume declarer has AJx in diamonds and dummy has K10x in diamonds, a two way finesse. Is it simply a random guess as to who has the Queen of diamonds? On this deal, declarer should always finesse RHO for the diamond queen. Two reasons:
1. Remember the “Law of Attraction?” We reason that LHO with 6 spades is likely to have the least number of cards in the diamond suit. At this point, it doesn’t matter how many more diamonds RHO has, as long as we recognize that the odds are that he will have more. Since RHO is most likely to have more diamonds, he is the most likely to hold the missing Queen of Diamonds (or any other specific diamond for that matter). What is important is not how many diamonds RHO has, as long he has more than LHO. If the seven diamonds break LHO 3 and RHO 4, the odds are 57.1% (4/7) that RHO has the Queen I.
If you remember the Law of Attraction, you don't even have to do the arithmetic or memorize card distribution tables. All you are trying to do is figure out which way to take a 50% finesse and you know the person with more diamonds is the favorite to hold the Queen! We don’t really care what the likelihood of success is, as long it is more than 50%. Alternatively, if your contract requires one of two finesses to work, in either diamonds or hearts, and one goes through RHO and the other through LHO, take the one through RHO for the same reasons. These conclusions come with the usual caveat about "all other things being equal." If you have seen the Q of diamonds fall out of LHO’s hand, don't ignore it!
2. I said two reasons. Here is the second! LHO opened a weak 2 bid. He likely has 6-10 hcps. Let’s say on average 8 hpcs. It is also likely that he has at least 5-6 of those points in spades. We could put a fine point on this, but this is not an arithmetic lesson. With 2 or 3 points outside of the spade suit, the odds are simply better that RHO has partner has the Queen of diamonds. This simply reinforces our decision to take our 2 way diamond finesse through RHO.
I have gone to great lengths (with endless repetition) to make this understandable for those who like to know “WHY?” It is better if you understand the analysis, but even if you forget, if LHO makes a weak 2 bid, just take all your finesses through RHO if you have a choice, and remember to save an entry to the dummy!
This example teaches another good lesson that even seems to escape good players. There is always a cost to entering a competitive auction. That cost is the information (strength, location and distribution) that you furnish by bidding, particularly when there is no substantial likelihood that your side will end up declaring a contract. One of the “Hallmarks” of good players is that they listen to the opponents during the auction and use the information they obtain against them.
The likelihood of the occurrence of any event in Bridge is called a probability. For example, probabilities can refer to the location of specific cards, high card points, or distribution of the suits among the four hands. Probabilities are not guarantees. On one deal or a single play of the cards, calculated probabilities may lead you to an aberrant result, but over the long run probabilities will prove out within a very small variance. The moral of this story is that if you want the probabilities and odds to even out, play more bridge. The usefulness of probabilities is not to determine whether an isolated line of play will work, since if you have only one line of play, it makes no difference what the probabilities are, it either works or it doesn’t! On the other hand, if you have two or more chances to make your contract, and you are able to choose among them, then it is helpful to know which chance is more likely to succeed.
II. Using Probabilities to Help You Find Specific Cards
The underlying math of bridge sees 52 individual cards and each of 4 players having 13 pockets where cards can be located. Each time you identify that “x” pockets of a defender are occupied by certain cards, that defender has fewer empty pockets. If you also know the number of cards in that suit held by the other defender, you can fill up some of his empty pockets. We are only concerned with the opponents empty pockets!
For example, if LHO opens 2 spades and you end up playing a contract in 4 hearts, you can reasonably assume that LHO has 6 of his pockets occupied by spades, so he has now has 7 empty pockets. If Declarer looks at her hand and sees 2 spades and also sees 3 spades in the dummy, she knows that RHO started with 2 spades, so now RHO has only 11 empty pockets. This empty pockets stuff is the backbone of all probability calculations in bridge, called the Law of Vacant Places.
How can we make this useful at the card table? Let’s look at the above example. Assume that the success of the contract depends on locating a specific card in a suit other than spades. Since RHO has 11 empty pockets and LHO has only 7 empty pockets, the odds are 11 to 7 (64%) that RHO will have the card you are looking for. This little calculation can be applied any time you have the distribution in any single suit completely identified between the two opponents.
An adjunct to this principle is called the Law of Attraction. Length in one suit attracts shortness in another suit. Conversely, shortness in one suit attracts length in another suit. In this context, the terms “length” and “shortness” speak only to the relative holdings of a defender in two different suits, predicting that when the defender has length one suit he will have shortness in another suit. This is better explained by example.
Again, looking at our first example, since LHO has length in spades (very likely 6), the probabilities are that RHO has greater length in any other suit. Assume declarer has AJx in diamonds and dummy has K10x in diamonds, a two way finesse. Is it simply a random guess as to who has the Queen of diamonds? On this deal, declarer should always finesse RHO for the diamond queen. Two reasons:
1. Remember the “Law of Attraction?” We reason that LHO with 6 spades is likely to have the least number of cards in the diamond suit. At this point, it doesn’t matter how many more diamonds RHO has, as long as we recognize that the odds are that he will have more. Since RHO is most likely to have more diamonds, he is the most likely to hold the missing Queen of Diamonds (or any other specific diamond for that matter). What is important is not how many diamonds RHO has, as long he has more than LHO. If the seven diamonds break LHO 3 and RHO 4, the odds are 57.1% (4/7) that RHO has the Queen I.
If you remember the Law of Attraction, you don't even have to do the arithmetic or memorize card distribution tables. All you are trying to do is figure out which way to take a 50% finesse and you know the person with more diamonds is the favorite to hold the Queen! We don’t really care what the likelihood of success is, as long it is more than 50%. Alternatively, if your contract requires one of two finesses to work, in either diamonds or hearts, and one goes through RHO and the other through LHO, take the one through RHO for the same reasons. These conclusions come with the usual caveat about "all other things being equal." If you have seen the Q of diamonds fall out of LHO’s hand, don't ignore it!
2. I said two reasons. Here is the second! LHO opened a weak 2 bid. He likely has 6-10 hcps. Let’s say on average 8 hpcs. It is also likely that he has at least 5-6 of those points in spades. We could put a fine point on this, but this is not an arithmetic lesson. With 2 or 3 points outside of the spade suit, the odds are simply better that RHO has partner has the Queen of diamonds. This simply reinforces our decision to take our 2 way diamond finesse through RHO.
I have gone to great lengths (with endless repetition) to make this understandable for those who like to know “WHY?” It is better if you understand the analysis, but even if you forget, if LHO makes a weak 2 bid, just take all your finesses through RHO if you have a choice, and remember to save an entry to the dummy!
This example teaches another good lesson that even seems to escape good players. There is always a cost to entering a competitive auction. That cost is the information (strength, location and distribution) that you furnish by bidding, particularly when there is no substantial likelihood that your side will end up declaring a contract. One of the “Hallmarks” of good players is that they listen to the opponents during the auction and use the information they obtain against them.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Welcome to the Rochester Area Bridge Association
There is now a direct link from the Rochester Area Bridge Club website to Tommy's Bridge Blog. A sincere thanks to RABA for giving me the link. I already have some Rochester area readers, but for those of you who may be checking the site out for the first time, let me give you an overview. I started the site about 9 months ago, and in that time I have made about 40 posts to the site. It is designed primarily for novices and intermediates, but I have had some very good bridge players tell me that they go to the site and that they find my material interesting, thought provoking and a helpful review. There are no commercial aspects to the site, I do it simply to promote interest in bridge, and do my part to help the game grow from the bottom up.
For my current readership let me introduce RABA. It is an organization that supports ACBL clubs in a 5 county area surrounding Rochester, New York. Currently there are 13 clubs that are members. Bridge is alive and well in Rochester with games available on any weekday and several evenings. While my tenure in bridge is not that long, I have played in a number of venues at all levels, and I can say that there is high quality competition in Rochester with good depth and a significant number of true experts. While some would say that I am easily entertained and would not know an expert if I saw one, it doesn't take all that much skill to know when your butt is being soundly kicked by a real master.
One thing I found unique to Rochester Bridge is that for the most part we no longer play dealt cards. RABA owns a Duplimate machine and related Dealmaster Pro software that enables the member clubs to access randomly dealt hands, all sorted into boards for their games. I do not know much about the logistics, but the software creates the hands randomly and the duplimate machine sorts the deck into 4 hands as indicated by the software. I am told that one skilled at using the system can do 24 boards in 10 minutes. So there is no shuffle and deal, you just sit down and play. As soon as the game concludes, you get a hand record equal to any I have ever seen at ACBL events. Yes, it costs money, but it the acquisition cost was funded by RABA so no individual club had to bear the capital outlay. After a short adjustment period, I think everybody enjoys the system, particularly the instant analysis provided by the hand record.
A word to everybody about how to use this site. When you click in you will see the blog with the latest post at the top. As you scroll down you can see earlier posts, but due to space limitations many of my earlier posts have been stored in the archive. You will see the archive access in the right margin of the blog page, organized by months. When you click on a month it will bring up the posts stored in that month. You can comment on any blog, and I welcome comments. I have been run over by experts, so if you have something to say, just say it. Comments go first to my Florida e-mail address where I can screen them. If the comments are of general interest and signed, I will post them unless you request that I not do so. You can also post anonymously. The comment link is at the bottom of every post. That will bring up a comment box for you to use. You can also e-mail the blog to someone else by using the envelope icon at the bottom of the blog. If you want to e-mail me, you can go to tommy@rochester.rr.com or tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com, I monitor both sites.
Under my Links, you will find one to Kitty Cooper's Bridge site. Kitty is expert at both bridge and web page design. On her site you can go to a section where she demonstrates how an expert plans and declares a hand. It is done in a format so that the reader can participate by answering questions as play proceeds. Let me know if you play the hand as well as Kitty does. Good Luck!!
Again, welcome to new readers. Thanks for coming. I have been averaging about 1 post a week, but have slowed down over the summer. I get most of my ideas at the table, so once I get back to my winter bridge schedule, I hope to have new material with increased frequency. If you have suggestions or requests, let me know.
For my current readership let me introduce RABA. It is an organization that supports ACBL clubs in a 5 county area surrounding Rochester, New York. Currently there are 13 clubs that are members. Bridge is alive and well in Rochester with games available on any weekday and several evenings. While my tenure in bridge is not that long, I have played in a number of venues at all levels, and I can say that there is high quality competition in Rochester with good depth and a significant number of true experts. While some would say that I am easily entertained and would not know an expert if I saw one, it doesn't take all that much skill to know when your butt is being soundly kicked by a real master.
One thing I found unique to Rochester Bridge is that for the most part we no longer play dealt cards. RABA owns a Duplimate machine and related Dealmaster Pro software that enables the member clubs to access randomly dealt hands, all sorted into boards for their games. I do not know much about the logistics, but the software creates the hands randomly and the duplimate machine sorts the deck into 4 hands as indicated by the software. I am told that one skilled at using the system can do 24 boards in 10 minutes. So there is no shuffle and deal, you just sit down and play. As soon as the game concludes, you get a hand record equal to any I have ever seen at ACBL events. Yes, it costs money, but it the acquisition cost was funded by RABA so no individual club had to bear the capital outlay. After a short adjustment period, I think everybody enjoys the system, particularly the instant analysis provided by the hand record.
A word to everybody about how to use this site. When you click in you will see the blog with the latest post at the top. As you scroll down you can see earlier posts, but due to space limitations many of my earlier posts have been stored in the archive. You will see the archive access in the right margin of the blog page, organized by months. When you click on a month it will bring up the posts stored in that month. You can comment on any blog, and I welcome comments. I have been run over by experts, so if you have something to say, just say it. Comments go first to my Florida e-mail address where I can screen them. If the comments are of general interest and signed, I will post them unless you request that I not do so. You can also post anonymously. The comment link is at the bottom of every post. That will bring up a comment box for you to use. You can also e-mail the blog to someone else by using the envelope icon at the bottom of the blog. If you want to e-mail me, you can go to tommy@rochester.rr.com or tsolberg@tampabay.rr.com, I monitor both sites.
Under my Links, you will find one to Kitty Cooper's Bridge site. Kitty is expert at both bridge and web page design. On her site you can go to a section where she demonstrates how an expert plans and declares a hand. It is done in a format so that the reader can participate by answering questions as play proceeds. Let me know if you play the hand as well as Kitty does. Good Luck!!
Again, welcome to new readers. Thanks for coming. I have been averaging about 1 post a week, but have slowed down over the summer. I get most of my ideas at the table, so once I get back to my winter bridge schedule, I hope to have new material with increased frequency. If you have suggestions or requests, let me know.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Do You Have "Table Presence or Merely Presence at the Table?
On the completion of the auction, if an opponent asked you for a review of the auction, could you give one without hesitation or failure. If the answer is “Yes”, you are half-way toward acquiring bridge “table presence.” Well maybe 25%, because the next part (i.e. What does it all mean?) is certainly a much bigger leap. Those with table presence start the intelligence gathering process with the first action by the dealer. The process in some cases continues virtually to the end of the play. To limit the scope of the is post, I am going to focus mainly on gathering intelligence during the auction.
Let’s first define terminology: if we don’t know what table presence is, we have a slim chance of acquiring it. In a previous article I referred to the book “How the Expert’s Win at Bridge” by Bert hall and Lynn Rose-Hall. Here is what they have to say about table presence:
“People with table presence literally work out in some magical way what is going on at the table. They use inferences, deductive reasoning, and like any good poker player, they learn to read their opponents. Experts who acquire table presence concentrate on what’s going on, ask themselves the right questions, and use logic or deductive reasoning to figure out the hand and their opponents.”
The player’s that have the best table presence seem to be able to elevate the scope of their thought process, so that during the auction they appear to be thinking more about what inferences to take from the action by opponents than the problems presented by their own hand. All of us have kibitzed bridge games. Have you noticed how much easier it is to analyze the action when all you have to do is sit and watch? All of a sudden you are placing cards, values and distribution well ahead of the time that dummy is tabled. Mostly, this is because when we kibitz, we are not viewing the current deal as a problem of 13 cards, but rather 52 cards. But mystically, the ability to do this seems to disappear when we also have to manage one of the hands. This is the problem: we have to learn “to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Albert Dormer, a noted European and British expert, in discussing table presence, said: “ We must constantly ask ourselves why the other players have done or not done what they might have done.” The reason that I included Dormer’s quotation is that it focuses not only on what other player’s have done, but more importantly on what they might have done and did not do. Every expert knows that a pass at the table gives away important information about the hand. We all process the significance of a previous pass by our partner in the auction, but the experienced player knows that often passes by opponents can be more telling than those by partner.
When I was in law school I was fortunate to enjoy the friendship of the top student in our class. Law school exams are famous for detailing intricate fact patterns, and then simply at the end asking you “discuss the legal issues.” Since I wasn’t really challenging my friend for the top spot, I simply asked him one day to tell me his secret to success with law school exams. He looked at me and said one word, “WHY?” He continued “Look at every word in the question in isolation and ask yourself why was that particular word used. His example was “Why is it a red car and not a black car?” This not only worked for me in law school exams, but I find this simple inquiry equally applicable to acquiring better table presence at bridge. The inferences that you take from asking the question “Why” are obviously important, but not half as important as the fact that you remembered to ask.
Example 1: You hold an opening hand (13 hcps). LHO deals and passes. What does that mean? He has less than 12 hpcs, he cannot preempt or make a weak 2 bid, so apparently he does not have an unbalanced hand. The remaining 27 hpcs are probably equally spread between opponents and partner. If that is the extent of your analysis that is good enough. You have limited LHO’s hand and have a start on hand distribution. Just hold onto your answer and see if it gives you guidance later in the deal.
Example 2: You are dealer, you make an opening 1 club bid. LHO passes! If he can’t muster a bid over 1 club in this day and age, you can mark him down as broke. He could not even make a lead directing overcall, so he probably does not have a decent 5 card suit. Look for partner and RHO to have the better hands. Hold onto that thought!
Example 3: Same as example 2, but LHO makes an overcall of 1 spade. At the one level he doesn’t need significant values to make this call, but mark him down for holding at least 5 spades and a suit that can take a lead by partner. Hold onto that thought!
Example 4: Your are dealer and make an opening 1 spade bid. LHO makes a 2 heart overcall. He has opening hand or compensating values, at least a 5+ card heart suit with some solid values in it, and his distribution must be 5332 or better. He has less than 17 hcps, or else he would have doubled and bid. Hold onto that thought!
Example 5: You are dealer and make an opening bid of 1 club. LHO makes a take out double. He has opening hand values and beyond that his hpcs are still unlimited. He probably has 2 or fewer clubs and relative balance in the other suits, maybe 4432. What he probably doesn’t have is a 5 card suit. Hold onto that thought!
These examples are very basic. Even a relative novice could give you the analysis given enough time. The problem is that you must think to ask the question, then make a simple analysis that you can remember, do so in the time allotted to you and finally apply the information gathered to your plan for the hand. It not easy and that is why so few people have “table presence.” On the other hand, if you do not ask the question “Why”, you are never going to make any progress.
Let’s first define terminology: if we don’t know what table presence is, we have a slim chance of acquiring it. In a previous article I referred to the book “How the Expert’s Win at Bridge” by Bert hall and Lynn Rose-Hall. Here is what they have to say about table presence:
“People with table presence literally work out in some magical way what is going on at the table. They use inferences, deductive reasoning, and like any good poker player, they learn to read their opponents. Experts who acquire table presence concentrate on what’s going on, ask themselves the right questions, and use logic or deductive reasoning to figure out the hand and their opponents.”
The player’s that have the best table presence seem to be able to elevate the scope of their thought process, so that during the auction they appear to be thinking more about what inferences to take from the action by opponents than the problems presented by their own hand. All of us have kibitzed bridge games. Have you noticed how much easier it is to analyze the action when all you have to do is sit and watch? All of a sudden you are placing cards, values and distribution well ahead of the time that dummy is tabled. Mostly, this is because when we kibitz, we are not viewing the current deal as a problem of 13 cards, but rather 52 cards. But mystically, the ability to do this seems to disappear when we also have to manage one of the hands. This is the problem: we have to learn “to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Albert Dormer, a noted European and British expert, in discussing table presence, said: “ We must constantly ask ourselves why the other players have done or not done what they might have done.” The reason that I included Dormer’s quotation is that it focuses not only on what other player’s have done, but more importantly on what they might have done and did not do. Every expert knows that a pass at the table gives away important information about the hand. We all process the significance of a previous pass by our partner in the auction, but the experienced player knows that often passes by opponents can be more telling than those by partner.
When I was in law school I was fortunate to enjoy the friendship of the top student in our class. Law school exams are famous for detailing intricate fact patterns, and then simply at the end asking you “discuss the legal issues.” Since I wasn’t really challenging my friend for the top spot, I simply asked him one day to tell me his secret to success with law school exams. He looked at me and said one word, “WHY?” He continued “Look at every word in the question in isolation and ask yourself why was that particular word used. His example was “Why is it a red car and not a black car?” This not only worked for me in law school exams, but I find this simple inquiry equally applicable to acquiring better table presence at bridge. The inferences that you take from asking the question “Why” are obviously important, but not half as important as the fact that you remembered to ask.
Example 1: You hold an opening hand (13 hcps). LHO deals and passes. What does that mean? He has less than 12 hpcs, he cannot preempt or make a weak 2 bid, so apparently he does not have an unbalanced hand. The remaining 27 hpcs are probably equally spread between opponents and partner. If that is the extent of your analysis that is good enough. You have limited LHO’s hand and have a start on hand distribution. Just hold onto your answer and see if it gives you guidance later in the deal.
Example 2: You are dealer, you make an opening 1 club bid. LHO passes! If he can’t muster a bid over 1 club in this day and age, you can mark him down as broke. He could not even make a lead directing overcall, so he probably does not have a decent 5 card suit. Look for partner and RHO to have the better hands. Hold onto that thought!
Example 3: Same as example 2, but LHO makes an overcall of 1 spade. At the one level he doesn’t need significant values to make this call, but mark him down for holding at least 5 spades and a suit that can take a lead by partner. Hold onto that thought!
Example 4: Your are dealer and make an opening 1 spade bid. LHO makes a 2 heart overcall. He has opening hand or compensating values, at least a 5+ card heart suit with some solid values in it, and his distribution must be 5332 or better. He has less than 17 hcps, or else he would have doubled and bid. Hold onto that thought!
Example 5: You are dealer and make an opening bid of 1 club. LHO makes a take out double. He has opening hand values and beyond that his hpcs are still unlimited. He probably has 2 or fewer clubs and relative balance in the other suits, maybe 4432. What he probably doesn’t have is a 5 card suit. Hold onto that thought!
These examples are very basic. Even a relative novice could give you the analysis given enough time. The problem is that you must think to ask the question, then make a simple analysis that you can remember, do so in the time allotted to you and finally apply the information gathered to your plan for the hand. It not easy and that is why so few people have “table presence.” On the other hand, if you do not ask the question “Why”, you are never going to make any progress.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Responding to Weak 2 Bids (Part 2)
In Part 1 we viewed the bidding from responder’s side and discussed how to recognize invitational and game going hands and how to bid them. It did not surprise me that my commentary raised the ire of many supporters of the “feature’ treatment. Confidentially, I think they just did not want to admit that they had wasted all this time and energy on a bid calculated to be more counterproductive than helpful. Others wrote me that I was trying to make the game too simple (suggesting that it is impossible to simplify bridge) and that there are no substitutes for minds that cannot deal with significant complexity. Well, I reject that as well, and again suggest to those of my readership in the novice or intermediate category that you look at my simplistic “Red Light/Green Light” solution. The conservative nature of the treatment may cause you to miss a close game or two now an then, but it will never lead you to games you should not be in. Looking at it from a match point standpoint, missing a tight game will still get you no worse than an average minus, whereas being in a game that is hopeless from the start will almost guarantee a bottom.
What do you do as responder when you do not have an invitational or game going hand. Assume RHO has made a take out double. Here are some choices that I like, although as usual they probably do not enjoy universal support. If as responder you hold:
1. Kxx or Axx in partner’s bid suit, raise partner’s bid to the 3 level. This identifies these two specific holdings and will help partner with his opening lead if he has (god forbid!) bid a broken suit. Assume partner holds KJxxxx. It is probably cash out time and partner now knows that you hold Axx, so he can safely lead away from his tenace. Your failure to make the raise may also prevent partner from making an otherwise disastrous lead in his suit.
2. With more than 3 cards in partner’s suit, raise as you would under the Laws of Total Tricks. Thus with 109xx raise partner’s 2 spades to 4 spades. The concept is most reliable where the hands are unbalanced. If you have a square hand and the vulnerability is against you, it gets more risky.
3. With 3 cards in the suit not supported by the Ace of King you have two options.
(a) Note that the Law of Total Tricks would say raise partner to the 3 level. Since that bid is already taken (see 1 above), we need another bid to show this holding. That bid is a conventional 2NT which asks partner to bid three in his bid suit.
(b) If you have a suit that you would like led other than the weak 2 bid suit, you bid that suit. This is purely lead directing and says nothing about the length or playability of the suit. We don’t intend to play a contract in that suit, and if the bid is passed partner will safely correct at the 3 level (note that we do have 9 trump). Your bid may have saved partner from a disastrous lead that gives a trick away or may direct him to the killing lead. In matchpoints you do not have to set the hand, only take one extra trick.
4. Rarely it happens that you have a suit of your own that you think is probably better than partner’s suit. This becomes more appealing if you have shortage in partner’s suit. Don’t expect much support from partner since he is already known to have 6 cards in another suit. Since a simple change of suit would be lead directing (see 3b above), you will have to make a jump shift to show this hand. This better be a special hand!!!
5. If you do not have a holding that fits on of the above options, simply “PASS.” The negative inferences of a pass will not be lost on a good partner.
With all that I have said, I will pass on two pieces of wisdom from my excellent partner, Howard Christ, that are worth thinking about. First, “the pass card is the most under used card in the box.” Second, “unless you think partner needs to know, don’t over inform declarer.” Now that I have preempted his comments, let me say that I think there is more danger that partner will give up a trick on the opening lead than your bid will tell declarer something he does not know about the weak 2 bidder’s hand, or for that matter, your holding.
If you use these treatments, you will need to “alert” all bids by responder other than a pass or raise to game.
What do you do as responder when you do not have an invitational or game going hand. Assume RHO has made a take out double. Here are some choices that I like, although as usual they probably do not enjoy universal support. If as responder you hold:
1. Kxx or Axx in partner’s bid suit, raise partner’s bid to the 3 level. This identifies these two specific holdings and will help partner with his opening lead if he has (god forbid!) bid a broken suit. Assume partner holds KJxxxx. It is probably cash out time and partner now knows that you hold Axx, so he can safely lead away from his tenace. Your failure to make the raise may also prevent partner from making an otherwise disastrous lead in his suit.
2. With more than 3 cards in partner’s suit, raise as you would under the Laws of Total Tricks. Thus with 109xx raise partner’s 2 spades to 4 spades. The concept is most reliable where the hands are unbalanced. If you have a square hand and the vulnerability is against you, it gets more risky.
3. With 3 cards in the suit not supported by the Ace of King you have two options.
(a) Note that the Law of Total Tricks would say raise partner to the 3 level. Since that bid is already taken (see 1 above), we need another bid to show this holding. That bid is a conventional 2NT which asks partner to bid three in his bid suit.
(b) If you have a suit that you would like led other than the weak 2 bid suit, you bid that suit. This is purely lead directing and says nothing about the length or playability of the suit. We don’t intend to play a contract in that suit, and if the bid is passed partner will safely correct at the 3 level (note that we do have 9 trump). Your bid may have saved partner from a disastrous lead that gives a trick away or may direct him to the killing lead. In matchpoints you do not have to set the hand, only take one extra trick.
4. Rarely it happens that you have a suit of your own that you think is probably better than partner’s suit. This becomes more appealing if you have shortage in partner’s suit. Don’t expect much support from partner since he is already known to have 6 cards in another suit. Since a simple change of suit would be lead directing (see 3b above), you will have to make a jump shift to show this hand. This better be a special hand!!!
5. If you do not have a holding that fits on of the above options, simply “PASS.” The negative inferences of a pass will not be lost on a good partner.
With all that I have said, I will pass on two pieces of wisdom from my excellent partner, Howard Christ, that are worth thinking about. First, “the pass card is the most under used card in the box.” Second, “unless you think partner needs to know, don’t over inform declarer.” Now that I have preempted his comments, let me say that I think there is more danger that partner will give up a trick on the opening lead than your bid will tell declarer something he does not know about the weak 2 bidder’s hand, or for that matter, your holding.
If you use these treatments, you will need to “alert” all bids by responder other than a pass or raise to game.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Responding to Weak 2 Bids
Visualize that your partner has opened a weak 2 bid in 1st or 2nd seat. Partner’s work is over, do not expect to hear from him again unless you make a forcing response. As responder, your work has just begun. While the weak 2 bid is meant to create headaches for the opponents, sometimes that turns around when you discern (horror of horrors) that you actually have a hand with some real values. In those cases, if you and your partner do not have effective systems and the communication skills, you will likely be “hoisted on your own petard.”
The first decision that responder has to make is “when I add my values to what my partner is likely to have for his weak 2 bid, is a game, or even a slam, a practical possibility. I cannot emphasize too strongly that you must make this analysis on tricks, not high card points. Except for the trump suit, all honors other Aces and Kings, or Queens supported by Aces and Kings, are to be disregarded. Partner has more losing tricks than winning tricks, and you need to cover several losers in partner’s hand if game is a prospect. This introduces the concept of “cover cards”.
Count cover cards as follows:
A=1 cover; AK=2 covers; AQ=1 1/2 covers; KQ=1 cover Kx=1/2 cover.
If you have a singleton or a void and at least 3 cards in partner’s bid suit (2,3,4 is OK) , you can count the shortness as a cover card. If you have at least 4 cover cards you have a “green light” to explore the hand further. To get the answer, you need to find out how many tricks partner can take in his own hand so you can add his winners to your cover cards. Thus, if you have 4 cover cards, you can make a game in a major if partner can take 6 tricks.
If partner has any discipline at all, it is almost guaranteed that he can take a minimum of 5 tricks and a maximum of 6 tricks. So if partner opened with AKxxxx, xx, xxx, xx, that is 5 tricks. If partner opened with KQxxxx, xx, Axx, xx, that is 6 tricks. If partner opened with QJ10xxx, xx, Kx, Kx, that is 5 tricks. If opener has 7 tricks in his hand, it is too good for a weak 2 bid and should be opened with 1 of a major. If partner only has 4 tricks in his hand, the hand is too weak to open at any level and the thing to do is to pass and see what happens. Remember, if you pass originally with QJ10xxx, xx, xxx, xx, you are not barred from further bidding, and if you do pass and then make a call later in the auction, partner will not misinterpret your strength.
So, assume I hold 4 cover cards, I need to make inquiry. Suppose I only have 3 cover cards, it should be safe to pass. If I hold 5 cover cards, I can bid game without inquiry since 5+5=10. Almost universally, the inquiry bid is 2NT which is forcing. There are many response systems that can be used after partner bids 2NT.
One such system is generally known as “feature” in which opener bids any suit at the 3 level if he has an Ace or King in that suit outside the trump suit and rebids the opened suit if he does not. It is both simple and worthless! A respected bridge author has said “I consider feature an absurdity”. I could not agree more. Find something else, even if you have to make it up.
Another system is called “Ogust”, developed by a now deceased bridge expert. In Ogust opener shows whether he has a good hand and/or a good suit as follows: 3 clubs=bad hand, bad suit; 3 diamonds= bad hand, good suit; 3 hearts= good hand, bad suit; 3 spades=good hand good suit; 3NT top three honors in the bid suit. If you do not have a lot of experience and a facility for remembering a lot of bidding detail under pressure, this treatment can easily get mixed up and cause more problems than it solves. First, you have to agree with partner on what is a bad hand or suit and what is a good hand or suit. My personal guideline is that a good hand is 8+ hcps and a good suit is 2 of the top 3 honors. If this is not complicated enough, I should warn you that not all players using Ogust agree on the order of the responses. Some show the hand and suit in exactly the reverse order, so before you play the system with a new partner, you have to ask about the Ogust responses. Even if you get all this worked out, you still have to translate partners response into his trick taking ability. I would not assume partner can take 6 tricks unless his response shows a good hand and a good suit.
I think bridge is already too complicated. There is not an unlimited amount of storage space in our brains. Every time we take on excess baggage in the form of a complicated system, something else has to give, and often it is not an even trade. For novices and intermediates, I suggest using a simple system that I call red light/ green light. Following a 2NT inquiry, opener bid 3 clubs if he can take 5 tricks and 3 diamonds if he can take 6 tricks. Now responder simply adds together opener’s winners and responder’s cover cards. If you get to 10, bid 4 in the major, and if not rebid the opened suit at the 3 level. This is not invitational, it is a sign off!If the suit is diamonds, you need to work on a total of 11.
Say what, you want to play 3NT! Jack Brawner, who writes for the Florida Bridge News, asked Jeff Meckstroth when to bid 3NT and when to bid 4 of the major against a weak 2 bid. Meckstroth replied “are you getting bad results when you bid 3NT?” When Brawner said Yes”, Eric replied, “there is your answer, don’t bid 3NT.” Brawner says that now he never tries for 3NT and that he is well ahead of the game.
In the next post we will wrap up with a quick discussion on responses to weak 2 bids when you don’t have game potential.
The first decision that responder has to make is “when I add my values to what my partner is likely to have for his weak 2 bid, is a game, or even a slam, a practical possibility. I cannot emphasize too strongly that you must make this analysis on tricks, not high card points. Except for the trump suit, all honors other Aces and Kings, or Queens supported by Aces and Kings, are to be disregarded. Partner has more losing tricks than winning tricks, and you need to cover several losers in partner’s hand if game is a prospect. This introduces the concept of “cover cards”.
Count cover cards as follows:
A=1 cover; AK=2 covers; AQ=1 1/2 covers; KQ=1 cover Kx=1/2 cover.
If you have a singleton or a void and at least 3 cards in partner’s bid suit (2,3,4 is OK) , you can count the shortness as a cover card. If you have at least 4 cover cards you have a “green light” to explore the hand further. To get the answer, you need to find out how many tricks partner can take in his own hand so you can add his winners to your cover cards. Thus, if you have 4 cover cards, you can make a game in a major if partner can take 6 tricks.
If partner has any discipline at all, it is almost guaranteed that he can take a minimum of 5 tricks and a maximum of 6 tricks. So if partner opened with AKxxxx, xx, xxx, xx, that is 5 tricks. If partner opened with KQxxxx, xx, Axx, xx, that is 6 tricks. If partner opened with QJ10xxx, xx, Kx, Kx, that is 5 tricks. If opener has 7 tricks in his hand, it is too good for a weak 2 bid and should be opened with 1 of a major. If partner only has 4 tricks in his hand, the hand is too weak to open at any level and the thing to do is to pass and see what happens. Remember, if you pass originally with QJ10xxx, xx, xxx, xx, you are not barred from further bidding, and if you do pass and then make a call later in the auction, partner will not misinterpret your strength.
So, assume I hold 4 cover cards, I need to make inquiry. Suppose I only have 3 cover cards, it should be safe to pass. If I hold 5 cover cards, I can bid game without inquiry since 5+5=10. Almost universally, the inquiry bid is 2NT which is forcing. There are many response systems that can be used after partner bids 2NT.
One such system is generally known as “feature” in which opener bids any suit at the 3 level if he has an Ace or King in that suit outside the trump suit and rebids the opened suit if he does not. It is both simple and worthless! A respected bridge author has said “I consider feature an absurdity”. I could not agree more. Find something else, even if you have to make it up.
Another system is called “Ogust”, developed by a now deceased bridge expert. In Ogust opener shows whether he has a good hand and/or a good suit as follows: 3 clubs=bad hand, bad suit; 3 diamonds= bad hand, good suit; 3 hearts= good hand, bad suit; 3 spades=good hand good suit; 3NT top three honors in the bid suit. If you do not have a lot of experience and a facility for remembering a lot of bidding detail under pressure, this treatment can easily get mixed up and cause more problems than it solves. First, you have to agree with partner on what is a bad hand or suit and what is a good hand or suit. My personal guideline is that a good hand is 8+ hcps and a good suit is 2 of the top 3 honors. If this is not complicated enough, I should warn you that not all players using Ogust agree on the order of the responses. Some show the hand and suit in exactly the reverse order, so before you play the system with a new partner, you have to ask about the Ogust responses. Even if you get all this worked out, you still have to translate partners response into his trick taking ability. I would not assume partner can take 6 tricks unless his response shows a good hand and a good suit.
I think bridge is already too complicated. There is not an unlimited amount of storage space in our brains. Every time we take on excess baggage in the form of a complicated system, something else has to give, and often it is not an even trade. For novices and intermediates, I suggest using a simple system that I call red light/ green light. Following a 2NT inquiry, opener bid 3 clubs if he can take 5 tricks and 3 diamonds if he can take 6 tricks. Now responder simply adds together opener’s winners and responder’s cover cards. If you get to 10, bid 4 in the major, and if not rebid the opened suit at the 3 level. This is not invitational, it is a sign off!If the suit is diamonds, you need to work on a total of 11.
Say what, you want to play 3NT! Jack Brawner, who writes for the Florida Bridge News, asked Jeff Meckstroth when to bid 3NT and when to bid 4 of the major against a weak 2 bid. Meckstroth replied “are you getting bad results when you bid 3NT?” When Brawner said Yes”, Eric replied, “there is your answer, don’t bid 3NT.” Brawner says that now he never tries for 3NT and that he is well ahead of the game.
In the next post we will wrap up with a quick discussion on responses to weak 2 bids when you don’t have game potential.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The"X" Factor - Do You Have It?
Before I walk across the table and discuss responding to preemptive bids, we need a little change of pace. Having been involved in various forms of competition most of my life, I became acutely aware that in athletic endeavors it is not always the most gifted athlete that steps up to the podium to take the trophy or medal. In all forms of competition and at all levels, there is an “x” factor that enables certain competitors to succeed when on paper they should be doomed to failure. They have a mindset that convinces them that losing is not an option and that, no matter what the odds or the state of adversity, victory is right around the corner if they will only bear down and tough it out. These people are what I call “Grinders”, and while they are often identifiable, no one seems to be able to explain exactly why they succeed.
I got to wondering whether this “x” factor was only present in competitions involving physical skills, or whether it can also be a factor in games such as bridge. This sent me to the Internet and a site that mentioned the “x” factor and referenced a book entitled “How the Experts Win at Bridge” by Burt Hall and Lynn Rose Hall (1996). Who? People that know me would bet that you could not find a bridge book title that I didn’t know about, but there it was. Having already used up my bridge book budget for 1997 and beyond (by February no less), I decided to ask before I ordered. I sought out the only person that I know of who has read more bridge books than I have, my bridge teacher, Pat Peterson, of Hernando, Florida. Pat’s response was a little surprising. She said “Of course I know the book, I own it and refer to it often, it is a wonderful practical resource.” I next looked at the used book sites to see if I could find it “on the cheap.” Amazing, in a world where bridge books are being discounted before they hit the shelves, this book was offered only at its original price of $16.95. That in itself was quite a recommendation, so I gave up a week of bridge games and bought it. When the favorite bridge books of the experts was published in a recent Bridge Bulletin, almost all of them listed How the Experts Win at Bridge. It turns out to be one of the most practical bridge books that I have ever read. It is not a “wishy-washy” presentation. The authors give you clear direction.
Sure enough, in a section entitled “Some Final Thoughts on How to Advance your Play,” I found a subsection on The “X” Factor. It turns out that this element was first mentioned in a Bridge Bulletin Article by Roselyn Tuekolsky in the January 1996 Bridge Bulletin. In summary, both resources concluded that there is an “x” factor in bridge that is vitally important to the success of all top level players. It is an elusive quality that transcends talent—often described as guts, competitive spirit or simply killer instinct. People with the “x” factor never give up. Even if they are hopelessly behind in a knockout match, they do not understand that; it never enters their mind that they cannot win, and as a consequence they often find that +1400 that turns the match around. They apparently do this by simply summoning their resources and going for the jugular until the bitter end. Often it is not as dramatic down 5 vulnerable doubled. The classic situation in bridge is when opponents have found a game contract that is apparently impregnable, and a defender, refusing to give up, finds a way (such as an uppercut or trump promotion) to bring the contract to its knees.
Now that we have examined the concept, I am sure you are saying, of course, I know people like that, but who wants to play with those miserable unhappy people? A grossly unfair statement. Often competitiveness is mistaken for unpleasantness simply because the player is in what I call “the zone”, and has shut out the world to completely focus on the problem at hand. If they did not have that single minded skill, they would not have the “x” factor. Simply stated, not all highly competitive bridge players are unpleasant and not all unpleasant bridge players have the “x” factor.
The expectation of duplicate bridge is that anyone paying an entry fee is entitled to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the Laws of Bridge and ethical behavior) to succeed at the cost of the other participants. Your entry fee does not entitle you to play with smiling conversationalists: conversely it does not entitle others to treat you with rude behavior. No one, even the super talents, is excused from the application of the “zero tolerance” standard. Admire those with the “x” factor; if you want major success, find out how they summon it up. Find one for a partner if you can. If I told you who they are, you would be stealing all my partners!
I got to wondering whether this “x” factor was only present in competitions involving physical skills, or whether it can also be a factor in games such as bridge. This sent me to the Internet and a site that mentioned the “x” factor and referenced a book entitled “How the Experts Win at Bridge” by Burt Hall and Lynn Rose Hall (1996). Who? People that know me would bet that you could not find a bridge book title that I didn’t know about, but there it was. Having already used up my bridge book budget for 1997 and beyond (by February no less), I decided to ask before I ordered. I sought out the only person that I know of who has read more bridge books than I have, my bridge teacher, Pat Peterson, of Hernando, Florida. Pat’s response was a little surprising. She said “Of course I know the book, I own it and refer to it often, it is a wonderful practical resource.” I next looked at the used book sites to see if I could find it “on the cheap.” Amazing, in a world where bridge books are being discounted before they hit the shelves, this book was offered only at its original price of $16.95. That in itself was quite a recommendation, so I gave up a week of bridge games and bought it. When the favorite bridge books of the experts was published in a recent Bridge Bulletin, almost all of them listed How the Experts Win at Bridge. It turns out to be one of the most practical bridge books that I have ever read. It is not a “wishy-washy” presentation. The authors give you clear direction.
Sure enough, in a section entitled “Some Final Thoughts on How to Advance your Play,” I found a subsection on The “X” Factor. It turns out that this element was first mentioned in a Bridge Bulletin Article by Roselyn Tuekolsky in the January 1996 Bridge Bulletin. In summary, both resources concluded that there is an “x” factor in bridge that is vitally important to the success of all top level players. It is an elusive quality that transcends talent—often described as guts, competitive spirit or simply killer instinct. People with the “x” factor never give up. Even if they are hopelessly behind in a knockout match, they do not understand that; it never enters their mind that they cannot win, and as a consequence they often find that +1400 that turns the match around. They apparently do this by simply summoning their resources and going for the jugular until the bitter end. Often it is not as dramatic down 5 vulnerable doubled. The classic situation in bridge is when opponents have found a game contract that is apparently impregnable, and a defender, refusing to give up, finds a way (such as an uppercut or trump promotion) to bring the contract to its knees.
Now that we have examined the concept, I am sure you are saying, of course, I know people like that, but who wants to play with those miserable unhappy people? A grossly unfair statement. Often competitiveness is mistaken for unpleasantness simply because the player is in what I call “the zone”, and has shut out the world to completely focus on the problem at hand. If they did not have that single minded skill, they would not have the “x” factor. Simply stated, not all highly competitive bridge players are unpleasant and not all unpleasant bridge players have the “x” factor.
The expectation of duplicate bridge is that anyone paying an entry fee is entitled to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the Laws of Bridge and ethical behavior) to succeed at the cost of the other participants. Your entry fee does not entitle you to play with smiling conversationalists: conversely it does not entitle others to treat you with rude behavior. No one, even the super talents, is excused from the application of the “zero tolerance” standard. Admire those with the “x” factor; if you want major success, find out how they summon it up. Find one for a partner if you can. If I told you who they are, you would be stealing all my partners!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
