Join Bridge Winners
Thinking Ahead

Here's a (matchpoints) hand that I think illustrated the need to "think ahead"

North
107542
43
Q10
KQ53
East
J983
1075
8765
J10
W
N
E
S
P
P
1
1
1
P
2NT
P
3NT
P
P
P
.

You're East. Partner leads the Q. Your holding  the T leads you to imagine that partner has the J - and quite possibly the A.

Declarer wins the K then proceeds to cash the AK. Partner discards the 9 upon the second . Declarer inquires after your carding methods, to which you respond  UDCA "with partner being marginally more honest than I am". Then follows a to the Q, then the T to the King and Ace - leaving:

                      T75

                      4                       J8

                      Q                       T5

                      K53                     875

                                                    J

 

Next comes the A. Your play?  The 5 would complete the count, which is almost certainly what partner needs. What about the T instead, to clear up worries about that card? You've thought about this, right? Well, suppose you're a little sleepy and would like to go over this again.

Can you do this ethically? If you're thinking, partner will surely impute that you had a choice. Is that of itself UI? Are you bound to play quickly (read: in tempo) when you'd like to make up for your laziness by revisiting the situation?

At the table, the player with these cards felt he HAD to play quickly, (and did): given that this is a story, out flew the inferior T.

Partner, with AQJ86, naturally placed declarer with the remaining  95, and chose to switch to a low

West
6
AQJ86
AJ9
9864
North
107542
43
Q10
KQ53
East
J983
1075
8765
J10
South
AKQ
K92
K432
A72
W
N
E
S
P
P
1
1
1
P
2NT
P
3NT
P
P
P
D
3NT South
NS: 0 EW: 0
 

Imagine the stress felt by the guy (East) who butchered the suit. Very fortunately declarer was unable to take advantage of the faux pas.

One down.  

 

Back to thinking ahead: presumably it's best to refrain from commenting on the hand while still at the table in that the opponents might think it ill-mannered. But later? Surely both of you were aware of what happened - it might be good to apologize for your misplay 's misleading partner. And partner would do very well (unless you seem to be blind) to refrain from any comment at all. The rest of your session will be otherwise impacted. Pointing out errors, particularly with asperity, is a sure recipe for disenjoyment, and worse.

Good players are a dime-a-dozen. Good partners scarce.

To recap: it's important to try to visualize the hand early on, and be able to revise as necessary.

Witness the imagined ethical dilemma of having to refrain from making it clear that you had a choice of plays on that 2nd trick.

Further, gratuitous elaboration (or your explanation of carding, here) while well meaning, is at best iffy.

Expressing exasperation is counter-productive: partner (and perhaps you) will only play worse. 

 

 

By the way, do you imagine that had East spent a little more time over the play to that 2nd trick the opponents would have had recourse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

14 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top