Born
in 1936, JEAN-PAUL MEYER of
Quite
often I meet bridge players who ask me why
chess computers are so efficient compared with
bridge computers. There are plenty of reasons; you probably know most of
them and this is not the place for such
arguments. But one of the important reasons is that programmers in chess have
succeeded in computing several steps in advance by building up what is called an
'algorithm'.
Until
machines devoted to bridge improve their performance (Zia's £1 million
bet that computer could beat him still looks safe), you
had better count on your own brain to win at bridge, and it would be a good idea
to build your own algorithms. If it works perfectly (unfortunately there is no
such thing as perfection) you should have no problem playing and defending
efficiently.
To
be more pragmatic, let me now give you my BOLS bridge tip:
When
playing, either as declarer or in defence, your first concern should be
to foresee what will happen two or three, or some Top even eleven, tricks
later.
Many
articles have been written to emphasize
the importance of making a plan at trick one,
but often a new plan has to be
launched in the course of play. Your
own algorithm should warn you what is going to happen before it is
too late.
Let
us see one example:
ª | 5 | ||
© |
Q
7 5 4 |
|
|
¨ |
Q
J 10 |
|
|
§ |
A
J 6 5 3 |
|
|
|
N |
|
|
|
|
ª |
Q
10 9 4 3 |
|
W
E |
© |
K
J |
|
|
¨ |
A
4 |
|
|
§ |
K
10 9 4 |
W |
N |
E |
S |
|
|
1♠ |
Pass |
1NT |
Pass |
2♣ |
2♥ |
Pass |
2♠ |
Pass |
2NT |
Pass |
4♥ |
All |
Pass |
Partner
leads a trump to your jack and declarer's ace. Now South plays the two of
diamonds, seven from West. You take with the ace.
You cash your king of hearts. All follow.
What is going on?
Your opening bid showed a five-card suit. Partner has shown no support so should have at most two spades; that gives South a 5-5 major two-suiter. Partner showed an even number of diamonds, so you can construct the full deal:
East Dealer | ª |
5 |
|||
|
N-S
Game |
© |
Q
7 5 4 |
|
|
|
|
¨ |
Q
J 10 |
|
|
|
|
§ |
A
J 6 5 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
N |
|
|
ª |
K 8 |
ª |
Q
10 9 4 3 |
||
© |
10
3 |
|
W
E |
© |
K
J |
¨ |
K
9 7 6 5 3 |
|
|
¨ |
A
4 |
§ |
Q
8 2 |
|
|
§ |
K
10 9 4 |
|
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
ª |
A
J 8 7 2 |
|
|
|
|
© |
A
9 8 6 2 |
|
|
|
|
¨ |
8
2 |
|
|
|
|
§ |
7 |
|
|
What
next? You could play a spade 'safely'. Really? Let us check the algorithm:
Trick
4: ace
of spades
Trick
5: ace
of clubs
Trick
6-9: clubs and spades
cross-ruffed Trick
10: club ruffed
Trick
11: diamond
Your
partner takes his king and must play a diamond for two high cards in the dummy
(diamond and club). So here you are! At trick four,
after the ace of diamonds you should play back
a diamond! Who said, 'Both sides playing
the same suit, one is crazy'?
South
was right to play a diamond and had
not your brain done a little bit of work, no doubt declarer would have collected
his reward for the work of his own brain. Both algorithms were good, but here
the last word belonged to the defence!
A diamond return leaves declarer with no chance to make his contract.
When
playing, either as declarer or in defence, your first concern should be
to foresee what will happen two or three, or some Top even eleven, tricks
later.