Help
Quote
I have always enjoyed writing about bridge and have, from time to time, considered starting a blog. The fact that I don’t play in tournaments any more makes that problematic, since I no longer have an endless supply of source material. But I decided to make a go at it anyway. I think there is a void in the bridge literature that I can make some attempt to fill.
Bob Hamman has stated that most people play bridge by asking themselves what they should do. Instead, they should be asking themselves what is going on. Once you figure that out, what to do will often suggest itself. I think he is right about that, and I think bridge literature is partly responsible. Bridge books and articles focus on the unusual and the spectacular. They can get you in the habit of looking for opportunities to shine, which isn’t what you should be thinking about. The late John Lowenthal, my partner for years, was perhaps the king of doing the unusual, especially on defense. But he always found these plays by being alert to what was going on, not by simply looking for opportunities to do something unexpected. If declarer spurned a finesse John expected him to take or failed to attack a suit that John expected him to attack, John would ask himself why. Frequently, the answer to this question would reveal the entire deal. Then John could be creative and think about finding some way to deflect declarer from the winning line. And, often, he succeeded.
What I am going to attempt to do in this blog is to show by example how one should think about the game. The focus will be on process, not on results. How do you figure out what is going on? How do you try to conceal what’s going on to the opponents? How do you try to clarify the position to partner? These are the skills that separate the expert from the intermediate player more than the ability to execute a backwash squeeze. And, for this purpose, almost any deal can provide material for discussion.
What I propose to do is to play a series of deals against Jack and report on each one in detail, focusing on the questions I ask myself and how I reach each decision. This blog will probably not be of much help to a beginner, but I think it will be instructive for an intermediate player. And my expert friends will finally see what is going on inside my head when I’m in one of my interminable huddles.
I am going to make a commitment to be scrupulously honest in this report. There will be no rearranging the cards to make the deal more interesting (although I may discuss how the play might have gone on a different layout). And there will certainly be no Mulligans. If I make a mistake, I'll report it and try to figure out why I made it. Since there is no time pressure, I hope I won't make too many mistakes. Of course, I may make some that I don't even notice. I will count on you to point them out.
I have Jack set to play Bridge World Standard 2001 for both North-South and East-West. After I play each deal, I will have Jack replay it against itself, giving me a result to compare against. I will be South, but, following convention, I will always make South declarer in the diagrams. Thus my reported compass direction may change from deal to deal.
Bob Hamman has stated that most people play bridge by asking themselves what they should do. Instead, they should be asking themselves what is going on. Once you figure that out, what to do will often suggest itself. I think he is right about that, and I think bridge literature is partly responsible. Bridge books and articles focus on the unusual and the spectacular. They can get you in the habit of looking for opportunities to shine, which isn’t what you should be thinking about. The late John Lowenthal, my partner for years, was perhaps the king of doing the unusual, especially on defense. But he always found these plays by being alert to what was going on, not by simply looking for opportunities to do something unexpected. If declarer spurned a finesse John expected him to take or failed to attack a suit that John expected him to attack, John would ask himself why. Frequently, the answer to this question would reveal the entire deal. Then John could be creative and think about finding some way to deflect declarer from the winning line. And, often, he succeeded.
What I am going to attempt to do in this blog is to show by example how one should think about the game. The focus will be on process, not on results. How do you figure out what is going on? How do you try to conceal what’s going on to the opponents? How do you try to clarify the position to partner? These are the skills that separate the expert from the intermediate player more than the ability to execute a backwash squeeze. And, for this purpose, almost any deal can provide material for discussion.
What I propose to do is to play a series of deals against Jack and report on each one in detail, focusing on the questions I ask myself and how I reach each decision. This blog will probably not be of much help to a beginner, but I think it will be instructive for an intermediate player. And my expert friends will finally see what is going on inside my head when I’m in one of my interminable huddles.
I am going to make a commitment to be scrupulously honest in this report. There will be no rearranging the cards to make the deal more interesting (although I may discuss how the play might have gone on a different layout). And there will certainly be no Mulligans. If I make a mistake, I'll report it and try to figure out why I made it. Since there is no time pressure, I hope I won't make too many mistakes. Of course, I may make some that I don't even notice. I will count on you to point them out.
I have Jack set to play Bridge World Standard 2001 for both North-South and East-West. After I play each deal, I will have Jack replay it against itself, giving me a result to compare against. I will be South, but, following convention, I will always make South declarer in the diagrams. Thus my reported compass direction may change from deal to deal.
