Today’s bridge game had the following: two grand slams (we bid one and the other was a hand that was one of the two sets we didn’t get to play, so didn’t get the chance), a 50/50 small slam bid against us, making (the only table to bid it, sigh) … and then there was the following:

S: KQ H: AKQJT7x D: Kx C: Qx

20 HCP, but is it really? The solid suit is worth more than ten points, but the honors in short suits …. ugh. (To my surprise, KNR counts it as 22! But the DK count is 20-, which strikes me as closer. There’s a strong argument for opening 1 Heart at matchpoints You might miss a game if partner has an ace or as little as the club king, if the diamond ace is right; but if partner can scrounge a 1 Spade or 1 No Trump response you can rebid 4 Hearts and that’s about right on values. Or you can open 2 Clubs.

I asked The Imp’s opinion; he shrugged. (Neither bid is perverse).

But I was in fourth seat. LHO passed and Partner …. preempted 3 Spades.

Can we make slam? I need two aces with partner. I dislike preempts with two aces (except in 3rd seat, sometimes heavy), but this partner has done it from time to time. But if I give partner the black aces slam seems at best 50/50, because we might lose two quick diamond tricks. What if I declared? Six Hearts of Six NT? That might work.

But how to investigate? I can’t just shoot Blackwood. (The Imp disagrees, but it is merely pro forma). This is matchpoints, I’m happy missing a 50/50 miracle slam.

What about 3 No Trump? This guards my diamond king, but we might be open the entire club suit, not to mention that LHO might lead a club to RHO’s Ace, and then a diamond through me ends the hand.

If I had any bid that said “I agree spades, and am slammish” I’d make it. (With some partnerships, 4 Clubs after a preempt is a modified Blackwood called “Weak Man’s Keycard,” but not in this one which would let me find out cheaply). So, resigned to being dummy, I bid 4 Spades which ends the auction.

Care to guess which game(s) or slam(s) make?

The answer

It turns out that the only making games are five of either minor … for the opponents!

———- NORTH S: — H: xxx D: QJT8xx C: KJTx

WEST S: A9765432 H: — D: 9x C: xxx –|– EAST S: KQ H: AKQJT7x D: Kx C: Qx

———- SOUTH S: JT8 H: 962 D: A7x C: A98x

Partner had 8 spades to the ace, void in hearts, 2 small clubs and three small diamonds. With the diamond ace offside, the opponents should have taken the first four tricks. (They did not). But with my RHO having a spade void and my partner having no hearts, I can never get in to cash my hearts

Even then the play is admittedly tricky. South must extract all of West minors while ruffing two spades, then deliberately lose a spade to West, pitching a heart from North. West must lead another Spade, letting South pitch another heart from North while ruffing.

I’ve mentioned my companion, The Imp of the Perverse from time to time. The Imp sometimes cajoles me, trying to replace good judgement with what he considers “fun.” Often the Imp is quiet; but when we’re playing Bridge he is quite chatty. Luckily, my particular Imp listens to Reason. He won’t consider an obviously bad decision fun. But if it isn’t obvious … or he can come up with a plausible argument …

Sometimes it is tough to distinguish The Imp’s blandishments from stylistic differences. For example, should you make a takeout double with a two card minor (assuming you have 4 cards in each major, enough points, etc)? A national champion told me “You need to pass those hands,” but I believe that East Coast (Washington) Style is more case-by-case.

At least, that’s what the Imp said.

One of my regular partners (who, like most people, cannot see the Imp or hear his soothing words) summed it up as “You think too much” and just advised me to bid the hands straight down the middle and let our natural advantages win us our fair share of games. The Imp scoffed.

In The Imp’s defense …. He is definitely not right all the time, but reasonably often and — right or wrong — his advice leads to spectacular stories. He makes me a sometimes difficult partner, but that means he makes me a difficult opponent.

At a two session special club game (Their “Fifth Tuesday of the Month” game), the Imp keeps motioning towards the “breakfast” spread. Homemade cinnamon buns (cooked with bourbon), a birthday cake, donuts, a crumble cake, ginger snaps, a banana pudding. A full table. In our younger days the Imp would gorge himself and talk up each morsel until I succumbed.

Nowadays he’s also carrying some extra weight, so his heart isn’t really in it. I have a few pieces of pineapple and strawberries.

Early on the Imp doesn’t even have whisper much. We start against the director (the strongest player at the club who is not in my three-way-partnership¹), who is my RHO. Over her 1 Heart bid I something like

S: AQxx H:xx D: KJ C: Axxxx. The Imp doesn’t need to prompt me at matchpoints. We’ve had this discussion for years. Yes, a double could work out badly. But partner will prioritize spades and if we end up in diamonds the opponents will strive to compete (each assuming we have a real fit). Yes, I would prefer to bid Raptor, but this partner doesn’t play it. So I double, RHO raises to 2 Hearts and it goes all pass. During the player, declarer carefully watches my discards, assuming I started 4=2=3=4 and misses an overtrick. When she comments “I never thought you’d double with that hand,” the Imp pokes me to make sure I noticed the comment.

We move away from the breakfast spread, so now the game has the Imp’s undivided attention.

I pick up S:AQxxx H:QTxx D:8x C:xx and partner opens 1 Diamond. I have an easy 1 Spade bid. Partner rebids 2 Diamonds and the Imp clears his throat. This is another argument we’ve had so often I can hear his words. If he spoke up, he knows it would annoy me. A simple “ahem” is enough. But (for your sake)

Imp — Bid 2 Hearts. It shows 5 spades, 4 hearts. Perfect description. There’s a shot you can get to 2 Spades or 2NT and this is matchpoints. Either contract would outscore two diamonds.

Me (before I was corrupted) — 2 hearts is forcing. I admit it would be perfect if it wasn’t. And while 2 Spades will probably outscore 2 Diamonds (if partner has three), 2NT only outscores if it makes. They’ll know to lead a club its probably devastating. We probably have an 8 card fit in diamonds. Also, What if partner bids 3 Hearts? (If she has 4 hearts but not enough points to reverse) or worse, has three good hearts. Then we’ll be too high. And if partner has good clubs and 14, then she might bid 3 NT.

Imp — Yes, but Woolsey’s rule applies then.²

Me — And 3 Diamonds is strictly worse than 2 Diamonds. All downside, no upside.

Imp — It’s matchpoints, the size of the disasters don’t matter as much as frequency. In any case, fine, pass. Be the dummy. See if I care.

I bid 2 Hearts. Partner considers this only briefly before bidding 4 Hearts. Even the Imp looks surprised, but we’re both eagerly awaiting dummy. RHO leads the ominous diamond six.

It’s not the dummy we expect (6 diamonds, 4 hearts, ~14-15 points), but it might be the dummy we deserve.

Dummy S:x H:Axxxx D:KJT932 C:x

My Hand S:AQxxx H:Qxxx D:84 C:xx

The Imp nods approvingly. Partner might not have an Imp of her own, but at least she recognizes the amazing potential playing strength of her hand. (Not her fault if I don’t have my bid). Some would pass that hand instead of opening! Meanwhile I’ve got problems. I’m off two aces, at least a trump trick, and probably two diamond tricks and a diamond ruff to boot.

Another thing about the Imp — he picks his spots. He’s much louder when the opponents are weak. “Maybe it’s wrong, but they’re weak and two wrongs make it right!” is his mantra. Now he just has his shorthand of “Punish the weak!” as a closing argument. That might have been on my mind when I bid 2 Hearts. Now it’s time to deliver.

I’ve taken my time at trick one (The Imp is quiet … if too many of his bids result in disaster, I’ll stop listening …. for a while). I do an asset survey of spot cards. I have a number of options, and I should probably fly with the king, but there’s just a chance that LHO has lead from Q87 of diamonds. It would be a terrible lead, but I’ve played against this pair before. There’s a reason the Imp’s leering nods in their direction work.

I play the Jack and when RHO produces the queen I follow with the 4. RHO leads a club through. LHO wins the jack and tries to cash a high club. I ruff and cash the heart ace. RHO drops the king. Nice, but JT is still around, and a trick. But at least they won’t be on lead before the crucial point.

“Small diamond”

RHO now grimaces and thinks while the Imp shivers expectantly. When she plays the seven he lets out an ungracious whoop! as my 8 wins and now the hand is under control. Queen of Hearts. Ace of spaces, ruff a spade, ruffing finesse against the diamond ace to set up diamonds. LHO can ruff in whenever, but the diamonds are set up and dummy still has a trump entry to get to the rest of the diamonds.

The Imp pulls out a cigarette and smokes it, languidly, and I admit it. That was good. Perhaps I should have flow the king of diamonds on trick one to really sell the fact that I had a singleton, but a) that inference would probably be lost on RHO and b) I’d feel terrible if it really was a lead from Qxx.

Later on I overbid and we get to 5 diamonds. After cashing two tricks the opponents never even try to cash their two spades, instead giving me an obvious ruff and sluff to let me make. Even the Imp’s eyes grow wide, and he stays silent. That wasn’t even a swindle, just legitimate terrible play.

During Lunch the breakfast tray beckons, but the Imp seems satisfied that I have a bit more carbs from the lunch table than I should.

After lunch I pick up S:QT8xxxx H:QJxx D:– C:Ax and it goes pass-pass to me. We are vulnerable.

This is a hard hand. There’s an argument for any of spades (1-4). But — perhaps shaken by the number of close calls I’ve had so far — I decide to open 2 Spades and the Imp merely shrugs. Anything could be right. I might miss a game (but partner is a passed hand). Hearts might be a better place to play, but Hank’s Rule (“7-4 hands are one suited”) applies. I have a seventh spade (normally a no-no for a weak two bid), but they aren’t great. Being vulnerable I’m more worried about -200.

LHO bids 3 diamonds (unsurprising) and partner bids 3 Spades. RHO thinks for a second and bids 3 No Trump.

Four eyes (mine and the Imp’s) narrow in thought. With a fit, our hand can be evaluated as a 5 loser hand with Losing Trick Count (Really 5.5 as I count Qxx as 2.5 losers, but with a 9 or 10 card, 5). RHO undoubtedly has the Ace of King of spades, but also probably a fitting diamond card to bid 3NT as a passed hand. Partner has no Imp whispering in her ear, so call it 7+ points.

(Hank’s Imp scares even my companion, so I couldn’t assume that if he were across the table from me).

And if none of them are in diamonds ….

I bid 4 Spades. It such an obvious two-way shot. I’ve got good odds of making, and if not maybe 3NT makes (via one spade, six diamonds and AK of hearts or something similar). “You don’t pre-empt and bid again,” is the rule. But the Imp has Zia on his side. And its not like I was bidding 2 Spades as a pre-empt. It was more a tactical decision. And now I have a lot of information.

It goes pass-pass and RHO doubles. LHO leads a top diamond and dummy hits with

Dummy S:Axx H:KTx D:xxxxx C:xx

With my queen of spades behind the KJx, there is nothing to the play. I lose a club, a heart and a spade. +790.

The Imp and I exchange a high five.

1. Me, Roxie and The Imp ︎
2. From “Matchpoints” — When presented with the choice between an underbid and an overbid, make the bid that is more likely to get you to the correct trump suit. ︎

Last month Bridge Base Online (BBO) announced that it was limiting players to 6 hands a day (unless they subscribed). End of an era … I remember logging onto BBO (and perhaps one or two other online bridge sites) back in ’93, and I still have a semi-regular team practice match weekly. I did actually pay to play a few games during Covid, but I do not particularly care to play online tournaments, or online against random people. I understand that BBO needs to make money, but it seems to me that they’ve made a windfall during- and post-Covid, often at the expense of physical clubs, and this seems like a short-sighted money grab.

Anyway, we decided to move to IntoBridge and it seems quite reasonable. One nice feature is a Daily Challenge (similar to BBOs weekly free robot tournament). Play five hands with robots in the other three seats, and see how you did against a celebrity (who played the hands with robots and recorded a video on youtube). I don’t often watch the videos, but it’s amusing. The Robots generally bid much better than BBOs, as well.

Anyway, FYI.

I was reading The Zvi’s discussion of the METR report on Hugging Face when another gamer sent me the 3quarks daily article where an AI summarizes the same report. For this discussion, the only thing you need to know is that there were many agents of a few two different “breeds,”¹ who started up a message board and communicated to (jointly) work towards a common goal.

Which reminded me of my bridge game yesterday (and earlier this week).

Bridge partners are jointly working together to get the best score possible² and there are a variety of “breeds” (in terms of levels of understanding). Each agent/player has different information, but the partnership shares the same goals …

Even though most of the AI agents were the same breed (HIPM), they did not all necessarily agree on the best course of action. Partially that’s because they each had their own subtask goal, but they’d all learned new/different information in the process of working towards it, which affected them.

And there is limited bandwidth.

Like bridge players. Same goal, but tacit (shared training) information, different real world information, and limited bandwidth.

Which come up in two games this week, with two partners.

My partner yesterday is an expert (better than me, but not ridiculously better). But she has a few unusual preferences in convention card and bidding (which affects us)³ but I trust her baseline and can (mostly) mentally figure out the differences myself. For example, in one of our earliest games together we had the following auction:

1H-1NT*; (*Semi-forcing 1NT — Opener is only allowed to pass with a 5332 hand with a minimum or subminimum)

2C-2S*; (*Undiscussed)

I made the 2 Spades bid in complete confidence that my partner would recognize it as an Impossible 2 Spades. (I had already denied spades, since I had bypassed 1 Spade in favor of 1 NoTrump). This is not merely because she’s an expert … there are several players of my calibre that might be flummoxed by this bid … because they learned bidding by rote and the person who taught them never mentioned it. ⁴

And in fact she did recognize it, although not as confidently as I’d hoped. (“We’d never discussed that auction…. so I hoped you knew what it should mean.”)

(It should mean — “I have the one of the best possible hands in support of your newly bid minor.”)⁵

With that as the background, before the game I brought up an issue I wanted to clarify. “I seem to recall that you mentioned Equal Level Conversion in our last game. Do we play it?” “Yes.”

Now armed with the knowledge that my partner plays ELC, a few hands later we get the following auction:

(1H)-Double-(P)-3 Clubs;(P)-3 Diamonds

Is 3 Diamonds an Equal Level Conversion? Yes. But should the ELC convention apply at the 3 level, after a jump? I’m sure that partnerships who have discussed everything (and I’ve been in one or two of those) might have an answer (you can never discuss everything).

It may be that there’s a theoretical discussion that answers it, but all the discussions I’ve read of ELC (including the one I linked before) are silent on the issue.

(And since I play Raptor⁶ in many partnerships, I’ve never had to explore ELC in depth, because Raptor covers all the hands that would want to use ELC).

So my partnership was in the same place as the AI agents. We had similar background and goals, we’d made an agreement, but a very shorthanded one “We play ELC (No Further Discussion/Definition).”

Were we trained on the same data? After a brief internal argument as to whether it should be ELC (or forcing) which left me undecided. I fell back onto the “Assuming I am wrong, which mistake would be less devastating?” … at matchpoints either one could be a zero, so I fell back again onto “The ELC hands are weaker and (therefore) it is more probable that she has that hand” and treated it as ELC and passed.

Wrong.

Partner (being a well-aligned agent) admitted after the hand that she’d made the bid before realizing it might fall into a gray area⁷. (And ethical enough to not give any hint of a signal when I was thinking).

Earlier this week my college partner (whom I’ve played with for almost four decades, but most of his partnerships are in the DC area) had a technical argument about what a bid should mean. I’d never heard of his interpretation, it is one of those “East Coast vs West Coast⁸” things.

I gave yesterday’s partner the auction (without naming either of our interpretations of what it should mean) and she said “(West Coast Meaning/The One Tao Thought), what else could it possibly be?” So with one partner

I have no grand point.

I just thought it was interesting that AI agents sometimes suffered the same indignities as Bridge Players.

1. Mostly an unknown agent labelled “HIPM,” but a few GPT-Sol 5.6 ︎
2. See S.J. Simon’s “Why you lose at Bridge” for a discussion of “Best Score Possible” vs “Best Possible Score” and the realities that make the two different … he calls this the “Half a loaf” theory. ︎
3. Just as an example, she prefers to open 5Spade+5Club hands with 1 Club, which I know Danny Kleinman recommends but I’ve never seen anyone else play it, as expert standard has gone to MAFIA. “Majors Are First In All (instances)” ︎
4. I have been burned several times by assuming that all bridge players have read as many theory books as I have, and while I don’t think I’ve ever had a partner miss this, they’ve missed other things I consider equally obscure. ︎
5. With a few rare exceptions, such as a splinter. So it is stronger than a direct raise to 3 of a minor. ︎
6. Man, I wrote that a decade ago? ︎
7. Of course, I might never know if she meant that or was just being polite. ︎
8. We played together in Baltimore … and there is a system/dialect called “Washington Standard.” It mostly know where it does not agree with local standard, which is more West Coast. ︎

A (incomplete) list of the mistakes me and my (expert) partner made today

Indefensible — Missed that I could be squeezed out of my ace¹. Missed a suit count signal, so missed given a ruff . Didn’t fake a jump shift² and instead only shows an invitational hand, missing a game. Forgot to hold up an ace at a suit contract (for communication reasons).

Defensible — We’d agreed to play “Equal Level Conversion” (ELC)³, but did not discuss if it applied after advancers jump or at the three level which left us both guessing on an auction. We used to play inverted minors, but no longer do, and I couldn’t remember which was which. Accidentally grabbed a low card instead of an honor and gave up a trick. A debatable line in an awkward contract and a few very close bidding decisions that didn’t work.

Bad Luck — Partner twice made the technically correct play when the naive/simple one scores better. (Amusingly, on the second one I was paying attention as dummy and correctly diagnosed why she was doing it at the time).

Anyway, given our relatively small number of mistakes/bad luck, we won (although only by 0.5 Matchpoints).

1. I did actually consider cashing out, but thought it was squeeze proof, missing a key suit combination. Fortunately, declarer also missed it. ︎
2. By jumping into a 3 card minor … with a non expert partner, I get raised or dropped too often. But an expert knows sometimes you have to do that and will never pass and rarely raise. ︎
3. A takeout doubler may convert clubs to diamonds without promising extras, just showing that it was actually a two suited double, not three suited. ︎

About a month ago, I started a new feature on the blog called Discussion Thread where I pose a question or a situation and seek your input and comments on the issue to gain greater understanding and to encourage thoughtful feedback. The response to the first post about In-Game Retribution was positive and there were a lot comments and opinions shared. I now wanted to do another post in the series but focus on the subject of Zones of Control and their importance in wargames.

A Zone of Control, typically referred to as ZOC, is the area immediately surrounding a military unit that exerts tactical influence over adjacent spaces, which in turn restricts enemy movement, closes up gaps in a line preventing enemy units from moving through, forces combat or triggers some sort of reactive action such as opportunity fire or engagement without the passive player needing to occupy those hexes or take any actions. They are designed to create some sort of resistance to enemy units as they approach. Mimicking real world combat and adding in this concept of awareness of enemy movement.

I think that everyone has an opinion on the subject of ZOC’s and these opinions are mixed regarding complexity, the type, being rigid or sticky, and their in-game effects, but there is a consensus that they simulate well the concept of military friction and holding frontline positions. Let’s take a quick look at the different types of ZOC’s and I will share my thoughts on each.

First up, is the rigid/locking ZOC where units must halt their movement the moment they enter a space where an enemy unit is exerting a Zone of Control. The ZOC in this case forces the moving unit to terminate its movement for that turn. I very much prefer these type of ZOC’s as I think that they really simulate the concept of prepared and even sometimes dug-in troops have the advantage and can force advancing units to stop trough interlocking fields of fire or heavy gun projection on the area such as off-board artillery.

Next, we have the soft ZOC where advancing enemy units can move through enemy ZOC influenced spaces, but suffer some sort of movement point penalties, attrition, or extra costs. I also really like this concept as it typically functions similarly to more rigid ZOC’s by costing a +2 or +3 movement cost which typically ends a units movement but not always. I have seen moving units have to take a step loss to take an extra move or more simply extra movement costs such as the placing of a disrupted marker or the like. This type really focuses on the pressures and cost of moving into and through these Zones of Control but are simpler than the more rigid variety.

Finally, I have seen more fluid ZOC’s such as when units can pass adjacent to enemies, but doing so might trigger attacks of opportunity or reactive fire at a disadvantage such as providing the units projecting the ZOC a positive DRM in their attacks or attacking with a column shift on the Combat Results Table. This concept is that moving or advancing units have less cover, less caution and open themselves up to attack more so than those that are forced to stop.

I think that all 3 of these types have their merits and downsides but their use typically depends on the situation represented in the design, the mindset or experience of the designer and the varying historical troop quality and fire power of the units. A line of tanks dug in is much more fearsome and demands a different level of respect in their ZOC projection than say a small arms squad of soldiers who do not have heavy weapons such as LMG’s. And I think that all are viable in design.

Then there is the lack of Zones of Control. I am not a fan of this concept at all but have found that it is typically used in more introductory wargames that are less complex and focuses on being less of a simulation than a traditional hex and counter affair. Many years ago, and at a time when we were still early in our wargame learning journey, I played a game called Paul Koenig’s Market-Garden: Arnhem Bridge from Victory Point Games. I think that I was attracted to it because of the subject of Market-Garden and the inclusion of Allied airborne units. In looking at the game, the main focus and goal is to move toward the bridge and capture it. The path to move to the bridge is through fairly dense urban hexes with a road leading right to the on-ramps.

Strategically, a German commander would have lined the streets with their best units to prevent the enemy from simply riding right down the middle of the street to the bridge. This commander would have given orders to fire on anything approaching and would have had reserve units located in the buildings to the left and right of the streets to prevent small unit interdiction through the back alleys. These units would have taken up positions to bring heavy fire upon any approach hex and this is typically simulated in other games through the use of a Zone of Control. This ZOC would typically cause advancing units to stop while taking fire from an adjacent unit but in this design, the units just kind of ride on by, waving to the nasty MG-42 nests on the 2nd floor of the buildings and blowing kisses to the Panzers hidden in or behind the piles of rubble!

In reviewing the history of the campaign, one of the major problems the British had in advancing on the bridge was that relatively small German forces had taken up positions in the woods and on the outskirts of the city and effectively pinned down most of the advance of British forces toward Arnhem. This, in my opinion, is a major design flaw and should be house-ruled or cause a redesign of an otherwise fun and good playing game. I have illustrated this point with the pictures below where the British 4-6 Infantry unit simply moves right down the street between 4 better groups of units (an 8-9 Tank, three 6-8 Mobile Infantry and a crack 6-6 SS unit) without taking fire or being stopped! Seems silly doesn’t it?!?

I really tend to prefer the sticky/rigid/locking Zones of Control that seem to be found in most of the hex and counter wargames we play. I am more ok with the less restrictive soft or fluid ZOC’s in a tactical wargame where I can hold actions to then inflict opportunity fire on advancing units. But, as I said before, once you introduce the big guns in the form or tanks or heavy artillery, I really like the sticky/rigid/locking Zones of Control. Is this a taste thing or am I in the minority?

So what are your thoughts on the importance of Zones of Control? Can you enjoy and play a game that doesn’t have them? What is your preference in their stickiness/level of exerted influence in a game? What games do them best? Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I will come up with a few more of these posts over the next few months to share and I hope to see lots of comments and reaction.

-Grant

It has been two months (nearly) since my last Bridge game, one of the longest spells I’ve gone without in decades. It’s a unit game and (annoyingly) the top four pairs are all in our section …. in our direction. Thankfully we are in the top four … after a few rounds where mostly good stuff happens, my opponents (two Little Old Ladies) have given me an overtrick when I should be down in the prior board when I pick up:

S: KTx H: A7652 D: A5 C: T73

With nobody vul, Partner opens 1 Diamond and RHO bids 1 Spade. I have a standard 2 Hearts bid (no longer game forcing, merely showing 10+ HCP and 5+ Hearts). LHO passes and partner bids 3 Hearts. Now I have a problem. I only have 11 points, but aces are undervalued and my king of spades is almost certainly in the right place. Passing could be right, but four hearts could be cold. On the downside, I wish I didn’t have exactly 3 spades …. either two spades or four would be better, likely.

I decide to bid the game. Maybe the field is there. Maybe I get an extra trick or two, at which point I’m probably still equal/ahead of the game …. as long as I’m in four and the field is in three or four. (Nothing would be worse than to stop in three making five when the field is in four making four). I could aim at 3NT by bidding 3S (asking partner if she has a spade stopper). But even if she does we may have a problem elsewhere and I’d hate it if she thought I was slammish.

So … I bid Four Hearts which ends the auction.

LHO leads the eight of spades and dummy is … unpleasant.

(Dummy) S: 9xx H: K3 D: K97xx C: AQx

S8 led

(My hand) S: KTx H: A7652 D: A5 C: T73

Partner had a tough position. I’d forced her and she had no obvious rebid. I like the 3H bid in practice, but now I’m in 4H … first things first, LHO wins the Spade Ace and plays the Queen, which I cover. Thankfully LHO follows with the deuce. If that had been ruffed … I still have a spade loser, a club loser and at least one heart loser in addition to the spade I’ve already lost. Am I in a weird contract? If so, I might go all out to make. Well, RHO Had AQJxx of spades, so the overcall seems normal. My bid seems normal. 3H seems normal-ish (and everything else looks worse). I think the field is likely to be in hearts, so … I don’t think I’m going to do anything wild. Just try to go down less than normal. Otherwise I might play for 3-3 diamonds and start those without pulling trump.

I mull a while, trying to decide how many rounds of trump to pull, whether to duck one, etc. In the end I decide to play a heart to the king and back to the ace. On the second round LHO drops the heart queen. Hmmm.

A good player would randomize between the queen and jack¹. Chthonic would take no inference from this, but LHO isn’t that good and I’m human. I think that LHO started with Qx of hearts and RHO still has JT of hearts left (and higher than mine). So now I run a diamond to my ace and back to dummy’s king. This time RHO follows Jack then Queen. I suspect LHO has T8 and dummy has 9xx, but I don’t really have anything better to do. I lead a small diamond, planning on pitching my losing spade. Who knows, LHO might try to cash her last diamond.

RHO ruffs with the heart ten. This is clearly the mistake I needed to get in the game. I still pitch my losing spade, but now I have a slim hope. RHO tries to cash a spade. I ruff and lead another heart. RHO (as expected) wins the heart and tries to cash another spade … it is a lot to ask for LHO to be squeezed, but at least I know the D9 menace is in the right spot. LHO discards a club and I discard the now useless diamond in dummy.

When I lead a club from hand and LHO plays the club Jack I know the squeeze has worked. Here was the position at Trick 9

               Dummy D: 9 C: AQx
               
D: T C: KJx                       Spade: x (plus 3 cards)

               Heart: x C: Txx
        

The lead of the spade has inflicted a suicide squeeze on my LHO. Ironically, leading a club into dummy’s AQx would have left me a trick short … but any player good enough to do that would never have ruffed the diamond loser earlier.

I cover the jack of clubs with the queen, play the ace, dropping LHO’s king, and then say “Of course I would have never bid four hearts without the club ten.” I got lucky to have KJx of clubs onside (although as it turns out, since clubs were 5-2, it wouldn’t have mattered if RHO had the jack) but on the whole I’m pleased as punch with this hand.

(Although it turns out that the nobody else was in 3H or 4H, so that part of my analysis was way off. The other strong pairs were all in NT and the weak pairs were all over the place, usually way too low).

We get 2nd in our section/direction, but that’s nowhere near the overalls. Seems fair, given the luck I used on that hand.

1. To clarify, if they started with QJx and played x then one of the equal honors. ︎

Weiter geht es mit Teil 2 des Illustrator's Diaries mit Franz Vohwinkel zu Skybridge!

Diesmal tauchen wir ein in die Illustrationen von Skybridge - mit denen alles begann! Von Franz Vohwinkel.

Weiter geht es mit Teil 2 des Designer Diaries von Skybridge und den Autoren Franz Vohwinkel und Michael Rieneck!

Wir werfen mit den Autoren einen Blick hinter die Kulissen der Entwicklung von Skybridge!

Baut in Skybridge eine Brücke zwischen den Welten! Unser neues Kennerspiel erscheint zur SPIEL 2025 auf Deutsch und Englisch.