Meet St.Jude!

It’s time you were introduced to our resident writers here at Bridge to Nowhere, so let’s start with our chaplain and regular declarer of hopeless contracts, St Jude. Like his ecclesiastical namesake, Jude is used to lost causes – phantom sacrifices, slams off two aces, desperation switches that give away redoubled overtricks, that kind of thing. Hoping to improve his results, Jude has recently begun casting his eyes heavenwards when his dummies hit and whispering a silent prayer that his opponents renege. This makes him the only player in the room who is actually thinking when he stares at the ceiling.

See if you can match St Jude’s judgement in this hand from a recent teams match in the Sean Stack League, played at the Regent Bridge Club in the heart of Dublin 4 (the good saint apologises if he got some of the details wrong, he had to rush off to confession after passing partner in a cue bid and he forgot to pick up the hand records). Imagine you hold the following cards as South, second to speak, non-vulnerable against vulnerable, IMPs scoring:

♠ AK6 ♥ 82 ♦ AQT7632 ♣ 9

When Jude picked up this hand his right hand opponent opened 1NT strong. In accordance with the wishes of his partner (for the meek shall inherit the earth), he had agreed to play 2D as artificial, showing spades and another, so muttering a quick prayer he leapt in with 3D. The auction proceeded as follows:

West	North	East	South
		1NT	3♦
3♥	5♦	5♥	p
6♣	p	6♥	?

What now? Decide what action (if any) you plan to take, and read on to see how the hand panned out.

Fidgeting with his rosary, St Jude cast his eyes to the Great Dealer in the sky, and awaited His guidance. What was God’s will for him on this hand? Should he swing the axe, expecting at least two of his three top tricks to stand up? Perhaps there were two top spade winners out for the defence, and LHO was confidently awaiting a diamond lead into his void, in which case the double should steer partner away from the obvious lead? But the auction was very revealing – especially that 6C bid! Jude could tell that West had not read his Ecclesiastes recently ("A time to keep silence, and a time to speak", Ecc.3.7). Surely he had at least twelve, possibly as many as fourteen cards in the round suits to be bidding this way? At last Jude recalled the teachings of the church – “Only Jesus saves!” – and, remembering his namesake’s devotion to lost causes, he decided to pass meekly and pay off to the opponents’ vulnerable slam.

The full deal was as follows:

Dealer E Vul E/W Scoring - Lead	♠ T9732 ♥ 76 ♦ 9854 ♣ 74
♠ 5 ♥ AJT95 ♦ ♣ AK86532		♠ QJ84 ♥ KQ43 ♦ KJ ♣ QJT
	♠ AK6 ♥ 82 ♦ AQT7632 ♣ 9

Partner led a small diamond, ruffed in the closed hand. Two top trumps then hit thetable, followed by the rest of declarer’s cards: the four spades would go on the clubs, and there were stlll trumps to spare on the table to ruff declarer’s singleton. Jude quietly wrote up -1460 on his scorecard, and hoped his team-mates had the nous to drive that four-loser hand to slam.

When it came time to score up, he was overjoyed that for once he did not have to wait for heaven to get his reward, as his counterpart at the other table, on a near-identical auction, doubled 6H (Lightner style; suggesting that partner look for an unusual lead, in this case clearly spades). In one sense he was right, as the spade was the only lead to prevent the overtrick. However, it was only a technical triumph, as +1660 against -1460 proved to be 5 IMPs to the good guys. Kudos to you if you followed Jude’s reasoning and passed; even more so if you had the courage of your convictions and saved in 7D doubled for a likely -800!

The 2017 laws - some suggestions for improvements!

With the 2007 Laws now, one hopes, safely bedded down (though I dread the first time I need a ruling on the new Law 27B, Insufficient Bid Not Accepted!), Lawmakers are already considering what will need tinkering with in 2017. The game belongs to us, the players, and I suggest that the next revision should incorporate the following amendments, all of which represent standard local practice.

LAW 6: THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL

The deal must be performed in a light, perfunctory fashion, hand over hand, in order not to mix the suits too thoroughly. This is to ensure deals remain ‘flat’, and are not fixed in favour of the better players.

If a deal is passed out, it must be thrown in and redealt. The young super-scientists three tables down must not be allowed the benefit of their judgement and cardplay technique after a super-light opening!

LAW 8: SEQUENCE OF ROUNDS

A. Movement of Boards and Players

The players are not allowed to be responsible for the movement of boards between rounds, as they are incapable of grasping such complex instructions as ‘move the boards clockwise’. The Director should perform this function himself, or engage a reliable firm of couriers (FedEx, or TNT) for such purpose.

B. End of Round

In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the next round.
But if any table has not completed play, or if East has not reached the punchline of the joke he is telling, or if any player is still staring at the ceiling and wondering whether dummy’s 9 of clubs is high, the round continues for that table regardless of how visibly frustrated the arriving pair are.

LAW 9: PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY

A. After Attention is Drawn to An Irregularity

1. (a) Calling the Director is the equivalent of a criminal accusation, and should only be undertaken in the gravest of circumstances.
(b) When addressed by a Director, players should be briefed to give only their name, masterpoint rank, and number. The Director is like the police: an interfering busybody who should not be invited to poke his nose into affairs that do not concern him.
(c) The four players at the table are assumed to be grown ups, and should be relied upon to sort out their own problems. In case of dispute the player who can shout the loudest is deemed to be in the right.

More suggestions to follow in the coming weeks!

The Beer Card

Welcome folks, from your friends at the Bridge to Nowhere team!

This will not be your standard bridge blog, earnestly discussing issues of theory, or dissecting the play of a hand with mathematical precision. We gave chess to the mathematicians, and look what they did to it! No, for us bridge is a visceral game, one played in the heart, not in the brain, whose pleasures are to be found in the happy banter of human contact and the shared beer in the bar afterwards...

With this in mind, we thought we should introduce our fellow Irishmen to the concept of the 'beer card', a staple of bridge among students (and underdeveloped adults) in the rest of the world game. The basic idea is that every time declarer takes the last trick with the 7 of diamonds, either in his own hand or in dummy, partner owes him a pint of his favourite tipple. Certain conditions apply, of course:

· The contract cannot be diamonds (too easy!)
· Declarer must make his contract
· Declarer cannot have jeopardised his contract in any way, purely for the purpose of scoring the 7 of diamonds at trick 13.

The same principles apply in defence: if a defender scores the last trick with the 7 of diamonds (a much harder task), his partner likewise has to get the next round in. Purists argue that only when the 7 of diamonds scores the setting or contract-going trick should it be rewarded with beer; but most players believe that any excuse for a pint is a good one, and reward any beer-card finish which results in a plus score (hey, for us, making a plus score is cause for celebration in itself!)

We met a defender in one of Dublin’s top bridge clubs the other week who was well aware of the ‘beer rule’, and who displayed a real concern for North’s wealth, but no consideration at all to an extremely thirsty declarer:

Dealer S Vul All Scoring MP Lead	♠ T98 ♥ 843 ♦ KJ754 ♣ A9
♠ ♥ AQJT6 ♦ Q9632 ♣ K75		♠ 76542 ♥ 952 ♦ T ♣ QT63
	♠ AKQJ3 ♥ K7 ♦ A8 ♣ J842

West	North	East	South
			1♠
2♠	p	3♥	3♠
p	4♠	p	p

One of our number was South (as you may already have guessed). He opened 1S, which was overcalled 2S Michaels, showing 5-5 in the reds. North showed well-deserved contempt for partner’s declarer play by passing, East gave weak preference, South repeated his spades and North grudgingly found the fourth. On the lead of the diamond 3, how would you play?

Our hero played low from dummy and won with the A in hand. He then took a top trump, discovering the bad break. After due thought he ran the spade suit (you don’t know if trumps are drawn until you see both opponents show out), on which West threw one club and four hearts (including the Ace – a valiant attempt to avoid an endplay in diamonds). South then ducked a club all round to East’s T, receiving a heart return to his K. He then led the 8 of diamonds, which was allowed to hold the trick, and crossed to the Ace of clubs in the following 4-card ending:

	♠ ♥ ♦ KJ7 ♣ A
♠ ♥ ♦ Q96 ♣ K		♠ ♥ 95 ♦ ♣ Q6
	♠ ♥ 7 ♦ ♣ J84

Now he led the Jack of diamonds off the board, hoping for West to take and exit with the 9, allowing the 7 of diamonds to score for a well-earned pint. Alas West ducked, leaving the 7 to be taken by the 9 at trick 13 and South to buy his own drinks for the rest of the evening...