|
|  A Q J 10 |
|
|
| K 3 2 |
|
9 8 5 |
|
7 6 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the defense can't do anything about it. To be sure, this "magic" loses a little of its lustre when we reflect that the opponents have the same opportunity playing against us. Which two statements -- that it's magic for us and magic for them -- dovetail in the imperative that you'd better be ready to take finesses that the people you're competing against will be taking. (That's not to suggest that you wanna finesse at every opportunity. Reasons for not finessing are discussed elsewhere.)
The finesse is doubtless by and large the first "advanced" play neophytes pick up (if I might for the nonce define "advanced" as anything beyond banging down top cards). Novices, to the best of my knowledge aren't often bamboozled by the task of learning what a finesse is. Nevertheless, bridgeplayers -- many obviously beyond the level of novice -- do have trouble with finessing and a lot of it. Indeed,when I started a category devoted to butchering fairly simple hands, amenable to common sense, I came to the conclusion that a failure to handle finesses, primarily a failure to take finesses, was the most frequent cause of kicking away a contract.
Originally, I postulated that a failure to count well was the primary cause. But when I reflected that there are several counts a declarer (and partner during the bidding) must make -- from hcp's, to the number of trump remaining out, sometimes the same thing with the best side suit, on to that all-important matter of how many winners are available and how many can be generated, I decided that if "Count" were divided into these sub-topics, failure to take natural finesses would stand out as the most common reason for booting away a fine contract.
Why so much trouble with finessing? Is it because they don't know when to take a finesse? Sometimes, that surfaces, but it's not a primary factor. Is it because they don't know what a finesse looks like? I'd say that's a bit more common than "when", but again I don't see it as a primary problem. No, I would say the reason for these declined finesses, these fine contracts kicked away stem from three causes to wit: odds, philosophy and character.
Let me start with the odds, the easiest topic to discuss in a bridge site. Actually, there are two ways in which a basic knowledge of the odds is germane to successful play. And I might even point specifically to picking up a stray queen when you hold 8 or fewer cards in the suit. We'll start with the simple fact that the odds aren't geared to reward you all the time. A 65% chance will over the long run reward you only 65% of the time. You can expect the play to go awry 35% of the time. But what do you want to deliver to your partner: 65% success or 35%? C'mon.
Further. . . finessing is built into the scoring system and is presumed (when called for) in the familiar figure of 26 points for a no trump or major suit game. The odds call for chancing a down one on a 50% finesse. If you go down one in a vul game, fr'instance, that has cost you 240 points (i.e., 100-point penalty and 140 you could've had). But a successful finesse brings you 620 points! On a 50% chance! C'mon. Who in his right mind wouldn't gladly trade 10 or 100 fifty percent down one's for 10 or 100 successful games on that scoring scheme?
Oh! You don't want to cough up even 50% of partials to the gods? Oh, come on.
Which brings me to philosophy. Of course you're going to miss some fine contracts when you could've dropped a doubleton Q fourth hand. What of it? A tournament isn't decided by one hand, though it may seem that way when you miss first place by a point or two. You play 26 boards. And if the duffers pick up a board by going against the odds here, you've gotta figure that over 26 boards you'll probably get that back and then some playing for likelihood. Well, if a duffer can trounce me on an occasional hand, doesn't it follow that one of these days those "against the odds plays" will group together for the session and he trounces me there? Handsomely?
Well, what of it? So you play again a few days later. And do your best.
Your partner is never going to be perfect. Nor will you be. And I would call it counterproductive to get upset over this state of affairs. What we're looking for, or should be looking for, I would say, is to make fewer mistakes than those other guys. And if we make more -- repeatedly -- I guess it's time for improvement, no? But that's what you're looking for: cutting your mistakes to a frequency where you come in first often. Not perfection. And you've gotta know that you can't control the game beyond that, beyond cutting errors down. And enjoy yourself.
And the third reason for a bunch of booted contracts (relating to finesses) I have termed character, which I might now term The Fear Factor. Often, distressingly often, declarers will be in a fine contract, depending on one finesse -- and they not only studiously keeps away from it, but wind up not even taking it!
The prototype for this cast of mind was displayed by the declarer in 7 no trump, with 12 top winners and a finessing position againsts the Q of clubs, one direction, onsides, as declarer held J low in the closed hand, A K 10 in dummy. And he had no other means to a 13th trick than by either finessing successfully or dropping the Q. So this declarer, who could've finished off the play by about trick 2 or 3 by taking that finesse, a far likelier chance of a 13th trick than dropping a doubleton fourth hand. But he didn't. He dragged the play out trick after trick, fearing, evidently, making the play that sets him. But here's the corker. When he came to trick 11 and the key play is going to be made, he postponed going down two more tricks! He cashed the A K of clubs! Then he led a club to the Q on his left.
On other occasions, not so dramatic as kicking away a grand slam, declarers postpone a natural finesse until late in the hand -- and find that they have no entry to the hand he'd like to be in. And then a curious thing happens. Once these scaredy-cat declarers have booted the contract beyond their grasp, they seem to relax and say, well, sorry, pard. No, this isn't something I could know. But it seems that way.
To me, this is a matter of character. To face danger early in the hand, recognize what you have to do -- and do it. That would mean philosophically accesting the defeats with the knowledge that your level of play will pay off in the long run (we like to hope).
Click here to return to the first page.
and being such, I'm not going to offer a dissertation of what a finesse looks like and how to take one. If this page is not geared to experts, it is also not geared to rank neophytes. Finesses come in a variety of guises and the alert player should be picking them up as he gains experience at the bridge table. Further, if they appear in a variety of guises, there is also a variety of reasons for not taking a finesse, and I'm not going to list them here either. Each case has to be worked out as you come to it, and that is part of your task as a budding declarer.
Further, you have to remember that when bridge columnists touch on finessing, they're ten times as likely to be bad-mouthing one than to be encouraging it. The reason is fairly self-evident: because their shtik is hands with some complication, offering a surprise or two if possible, rather than a simple reference to a finesse that should have been taken. I have no argument with that policy. You do want to give consideration to ways of making your contract without a finesse. By all means.
Nevertheless, the combination of finesses being an early lesson and columnists' virtual dismissal of good finesses as the key to a successful contract can easily lead some to think finesses are something to put behind them as they get more sophisticated. This is to be avoided. You'll have to take your natural finesses, yes, after giving consideration to perhaps a better way of realizing your full potential, but take them when they offer the best hope, and if they lose, well, so it's part of the gamble on game and slam bids, no?
In weighing whether to finesse or not, here is one broad rule I would offer, which is that your natural finesses should be declined only for a positive reason, only because you have decided there is a good reason for declining to finesse. Otherwise, I think it a poor practice to decline finesses on a willful or haphazard basis. Sure you'll be a hero on occasions in dropping an honor against the odds. But you'll be a goat far more often than a hero, and I would say that you owe it to your partner to stick with natural finesses, to stay even with the field on them, and to pick up your points through skillful bidding and play rather than through haphazard plays that sometimes work out.
The reason I decided to do a piece on finessing here is the frequency with which finesses that should be taken are eschewed. Two recurrent situations mark one for a novice, to wit: declining a natural finesse because an opponent initiates a suit, and because an honor isn't covered. As for the former, your opponents can by and large see what finesses are going to work after the opening lead as well as, perhaps better than you can as declarer, and often it's as safe a lead as any. Further, if you're the nervous type that hops up when the opponents lead a suit, they have an added incentive to initiate a suit where a finesse is on for declarer.
Now, you might place some credence in an opening lead of an unbid suit. A high spot tends to deny any honors. Still, I've seen an opening lead of a 7 from a king, and declarer would have been looking at overtricks had he let it ride. After the opening lead, I wouldn't place too much credence on the carding of the opponents,. They're not there to guide you home.
As for leading an honor for finessing purposes and find that isn't covered, well I've discussed a number of reasons for not covering an honor. See"Reasons for not covering" Maybe your opponent has a reason for not covering, or thinks he has a good reason not to. If it's a natural finesse with little chance of dropping an honor fourth hand, you'd do well to stick with your decision (by and large, of course) and push it through. The opponents should not be part of the decision-making.
Oct 02: I have just come from going over every entry under "Finessing" out to Example 37. And I can testify that there are a few recurrent errors, to wit:
1. Declining a natural finesse because an opponent leads the suit.
2. Declining a natural finesse because an honor isn't covered.
3. On a hand with two finessing positions, getting discouraged when the first goes off, then declining to take the second, though only one working finesse was needed.
There are a few lesser mishandlings, such as declining to take a natural finesse for no reason a-tall. But I would encourage the reader to give serious attention to the first three.
people have visited this site.