A bridge too far
My partner and I had a 68% game in a 30 table field at the bridge club last night. That's, oh I don't know, doubling up twice in an orbit on awesome reads? Except for one early hand when I bid like a pussy, and one late hand when I basically forgot the contract I was playing in (how embarrassing -- that's like not noticing that you have a flush) I was “in the zone” as was my partner throughout. That the opponents fell over themselves taking questionable actions, to put it as kindly as possible, didn't hurt.
There was one interesting hand which reminded me in retrospect of the idea of “levels” in poker (you know, level one players just play the cards they have, level two players try to play the cards they have and the cards that others are representing, etc.)
I was playing a hand in hearts, holding eight hearts missing the jack and ten between my hand and dummy. On the first round of the suit, my right hand opponent played the jack. Now, on the surface, this is a situation where bridge players apply what they call the principle of restricted choice, but which rather less pretentious people refer to as the Monty Hall problem.
The relevant holdings (apparently) that RHO might have are singleton jack or doubleton jack ten. In the latter case, she might equally well have played the ten (when you have picked the right door, Monty might freely choose between the two wrong ones), so the weight we assign that holding is halved (we assume that her choice was restricted - you should always switch).
So, playing someone whom I knew to be a level one player, I assumed a singleton, which turned out to be correct, and made an extra trick. Not perhaps as satisfying as winning a buy in, but we bridge players have to take our pleasures where we find them.
Where does the level one, level two stuff come in? Well, a level four (or thereabouts) player in this situation would have realised (from the bidding) that we had exactly eight hearts. Such a player, holding three hearts to the jack ten, would have known that it could never cost to play the jack or ten on the first round (seeing A92 in dummy, and with the dummy leading the 2). This opportunity for deception could be used to make it incorrect for me to assume that the play of the jack or ten represents a singleton.
It's actually a really interesting situation, because the reason to play jack or ten from jack ten third is not to pick up a free trick when you have that holding, but to protect your partner's four card holding when you have a singleton. Just like the reason to “vary your play” occasionally is not so much for the possible return on this particular hand, though if it happens, that's nice, but to protect your action on your otherwise predictable holdings when you do have strong hands. And that's why, before you decide to vary your play, you have to think about the level of your opponents.
Oh my head hurts.
There was one interesting hand which reminded me in retrospect of the idea of “levels” in poker (you know, level one players just play the cards they have, level two players try to play the cards they have and the cards that others are representing, etc.)
I was playing a hand in hearts, holding eight hearts missing the jack and ten between my hand and dummy. On the first round of the suit, my right hand opponent played the jack. Now, on the surface, this is a situation where bridge players apply what they call the principle of restricted choice, but which rather less pretentious people refer to as the Monty Hall problem.
The relevant holdings (apparently) that RHO might have are singleton jack or doubleton jack ten. In the latter case, she might equally well have played the ten (when you have picked the right door, Monty might freely choose between the two wrong ones), so the weight we assign that holding is halved (we assume that her choice was restricted - you should always switch).
So, playing someone whom I knew to be a level one player, I assumed a singleton, which turned out to be correct, and made an extra trick. Not perhaps as satisfying as winning a buy in, but we bridge players have to take our pleasures where we find them.
Where does the level one, level two stuff come in? Well, a level four (or thereabouts) player in this situation would have realised (from the bidding) that we had exactly eight hearts. Such a player, holding three hearts to the jack ten, would have known that it could never cost to play the jack or ten on the first round (seeing A92 in dummy, and with the dummy leading the 2). This opportunity for deception could be used to make it incorrect for me to assume that the play of the jack or ten represents a singleton.
It's actually a really interesting situation, because the reason to play jack or ten from jack ten third is not to pick up a free trick when you have that holding, but to protect your partner's four card holding when you have a singleton. Just like the reason to “vary your play” occasionally is not so much for the possible return on this particular hand, though if it happens, that's nice, but to protect your action on your otherwise predictable holdings when you do have strong hands. And that's why, before you decide to vary your play, you have to think about the level of your opponents.
Oh my head hurts.
Labels: bridge
posted by Michael Albert at 8:35 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home