Entertainment

BRIDGE

I FIND some deals intriguing, some mystifying. I rarely view one as frightening, but a deal from the ACBL Fall Championships scared the heck out of me. It was written up in the Daily Bulletin by a top player and theorist. It terrified me because:

(1) He made a call that wouldn’t have occurred to me

(2) It worked (and he won the event)

(3) He published the deal, implicitly advocating his action for players of lesser experience and judgment.

Our protagonist opened two hearts (weak) as East. When North balanced with a double and North-South came to rest at two spades, East reopened with a double! West ran to three hearts, but when North tried three spades, West doubled and led a trump. South played low from dummy and must have been shaken when East produced the queen. South took five tricks, minus 800.

I suppose I’m dumb enough to argue with success. A recent trend has been away from soundness and discipline toward adventuresome bidding that discounts the partnership nature of the game. Now a respected expert makes a limited, descriptive bid, then acts again even though he has a trustworthy partner.

True, the event was Board-a-Match Teams, where risk-taking is common. But if this is the direction in which competitive bidding is headed, we’re in trouble. Maybe experts can survive and thrive with eccentric judgment decisions. Other players had better try to win by sticking to sound principles.