Diary of a Bridge Pro #22

Take the Game, 
Discuss the Slam

  Last day of the Nationals today. The weather has stayed fine, a rare burst of rain here and there but mostly sunny and not too warm, a pleasant breeze. The Blue Jays have been playing a home stand here all week, just a few minutes walk from the playing site - most days we can see the fans coming and going, streaming down the sidewalk past the Metro Convention Center where the bridge has been played, resplendent in their branded Blue Jays baseball gear.

  For me, it's been a great nationals - no good results (until today - I'm optimistic that Oshlag and I will win the inaugural Oshlag Fast Pairs - we qualified second of around 120 pairs, and Fast Pairs is an ideal event for me) - 

  No good results at the tables but I saw zillions of old friends, did what I could to restore and repair frayed friendships, landed at least three new clients - that's the game we're really playing here, after all.

  Minimal trauma, lots of joy - what more can you ask for from a tournament?

  *****

  One quick bridge hand, why not?

  I held KQx, KQJTxx, AQ, Tx - No one vul, Richard passed in first position - my RHO opened Three Clubs - I overcalled Three Hearts - Richard cue-bid 4C - I countered with 4D - he returned to 4H - I let it go.

  I could have pressed on toward six, perhaps with a Blackwood call of 4NT - I did, after all, have a very strong overcall - but I'm in this game to try to win the event, not to play marginal sixes - 

  I spent some time this week recounting the attitude of the old-timers (all long-deceased now) who played money bridge in the Thirties, when there was no work for anyone - the standard stake was 1/4 of a cent a point - there were thousands of tables in play every day - probably several hundred in New York alone, and also here in Toronto, certainly in Chicago, Philadelphia, LA - anytime of day from noon on, perhaps until dawn, a person could front up at a bridge club and find a game - the bridge craze was entering its peak (that peak crested in the 1950's and continued into the 70's with a slow descent into oblivion, at least for money bridge of the type I'm describing) - a reasonably skilled player could make a fair living playing in those money games then, just as a reasonably skilled poker player with good discipline can make a decent living now playing No Limit Hold-em.

  That kind of game, rubber bridge for reasonable stakes, rewarded a certain sound style, a sound approach - unlike our current system, which rewards social skills, that model rewarded bridge skill. 

  So today, one can have a good career in bridge going down in slam all day long, as long as the clients are happy. In that era, if you didn't make game on the hands where your side could (like this one), then your family might not have dinner that night, or an apartment next month. Different era.

  *****

  The first money club I played at was the Westchester Bridge Center in my hometown of White Plains - as a thirteen year old I went there every day the summer before ninth grade and gambled at bridge and backgammon until I'd won enough to quit my paper route - the second money club I played at was "The Gotham", run by a Greek immigrant known as "X", next to The Dakota on West 72nd Street in Manhattan.

  There was a regular player there, a consistent winner named Jack Foster. "Wacky Jack" he was called sometimes, which was a bit unkind - solid player, not great, but solid. He pulled a modest living from the game, and excelled at playing with weak players, excelled at getting the best out of them and also at exploiting the errors of weak opponents.

  Certainly he understood the mathematics which argued for avoiding marginal slams - you'd need the contract to be playable, the cards to lie favorably, the contract to be makeable, the declarer to be up to the task.

  As we said, failing to score a game contract because you played in a marginal slam was anathema to this way of thinking - money was too important - partners often didn't have what you played them for - kind of like the hand I described above.

  So, Jack developed a saying, which allowed him to make his safe game contract (by then the stakes had risen to two cents a point, this was forty years on from the thirties) and also keep his partners happy and engaged:

  "Take the game, discuss the slam".

  Here's the hand I've been talking about, it appears in today's Daily Bulletin, there's a worthwhile point in the play. Here's the deal:

After the lead of the spade six (fourth highest), it was apparent that the clubs were divided seven zero - certainly West would have led a singleton club if he had one, after his partner opened 3C.
  I won the spade lead in dummy and led a trump towards the king-queen-jack-ten sixth in my hand. RHO leapt with the ace of trumps and tried to give his partner a club ruff, by leading the king. His partner did have the expected club void, but with 5=1=7=0 distribution he had no heart remaining to ruff with.
 I won the club ace on the table, drew the remaining trump, and placed the known cards: RHO had the king-queen-jack-ten seventh of clubs and the ace doubleton of hearts - that was already a huge hand for a three club opening, so I figured there was no chance he had the king of diamonds too.
  Quite straightforward, then, after winning dummy's club ace, to draw trump, strip the spades, and play ace and queen of diamonds to endplay lefty, forcing a ruff-sluff.
  Plus 450 was worth 68% of the matchpoints, plus 420 would have been worth only 26%.
  Not an especially hard play, but most of them aren't - that's how bridge works.
  Key Takeaway: Mathematics and pragmatism dictate that you should avoid marginal slams, whatever form of scoring is in force. Or, as Wacky Jack Foster liked to counsel:
  "Take the game, discuss the slam."
  Gotta hop.

---