About that Title

Large segments of this web page were written many years ago (1978). I wrote a book then for the same reason I'm writing this page now, which was because I wanted to, not because I expected fame and fortune. Indeed, I don't believe I even sent it out for a couple of years.

In 1981 I had the good fortune to place a few selections in the ACBL Bulletin, where indeed I had an irregular column for a couple of years. At that time I did send the manuscript out, thinking my fame had doubtless preceded me (just kidding, just kidding) -- and it came back faster than it went out! So I didn't try that again.

But I seem to have something like a compulsion for writing about bridge, and indeed, have often played hands on my computer until I find one I can write about. I then save it on disk, where it will doubtless remain until I pass on to a better world, if there is one.

At the time, I entertained two ideas for a title, to wit: Bridge for Bright Beginners and Bridge for Advanced Beginners. I wanted to convey the message that the book wasn't for rank novices who didn't know the hierarchy of the suits, or had spent only a couple of months at the table. It was directed toward people who know a bidding system and have a fair amount of experience at the table, preferably in duplicate, while at the same time holding no pretensions to expertise.

Unfortunately both titles had the same drawback, which was that each had already been used. It was sometime during the intervening years, after referring to myself somewhere along the line as a square, that I thought, why, that's really what I want to convey in a title. So I guess I'd better explain what I mean by that word, which indeed, underlies the whole philosophy of the book. What I mean is that my orientation is overwhelmingly toward the basics of the game -- a sound grasp of a bidding system, the ability to count accompanied by a willingness to count (tricks, high card points, cards remaining, the score), a good sound grasp of what wins tricks, along with, well, a willingness to cooperate with your partner and the ability to draw elementary inferences based on the presumption that your opponents are neither dolts nor geniuses.

Now, of those who do not demonstrate a good grasp of the basics but who can cite six, seven, eight or more conventions they like to play balanced against those who do show a good grasp, what would you suppose I'd cite as the ratio? Well, a hundred to one would be an understatement. That's the way I see it.

So that gives rise to another reason why I'm fonder of this title: It's not really for beginners, bright or otherwise. It's for, well, all those making elementary errors. When I wrote the book, I said that over a third of all mistakes were made by Life Masters. Today, with an ever larger percentage of material drawn from OKBridge, the self-ranking from novice up to advanced and expert is more germane, and an easy majority of errors drawn from that source are from the latter two categories. I have no expectation that anyone seeing himself as an advanced or expert player would be likely to peruse these pages. But that's not my concern here, where I'm only saying that I think the present title is more descriptive of the book than the two earlier (contemplated) titles would have been.

I don't go for subtleties, the situations that take a while to work out even looking at 52 cards. I am not referring to occasional misguesses where it's a tossup whether your play will be right or wrong, depending on who's holding certain key cards. I don't refer to reasonable misguesses as errors. The situations covered here are dirt-plain, basic and recognizable at the time of play. Indeed, I would say they're basically a matter of common sense and the ability to count. (I am presuming a knowledge of a bidding system here. Given that, the errors I'm covering are largely a matter of common sense.) Perhaps "common sense" is a little too facile a term. I don't suppose the basic principles of good play, such as covering an honor or even counting winners as declarer, can look like common sense to a rank novice. So I'm going to amend the term without withdrawing it entirely. I believe the errors covered are or should be largely a matter of common sense to experienced players. But I would hope this web page will bring some inexperienced players to the point where it then becomes largely a matter of common sense for them.

Which brings me to a long-term observation about bridge columnists. Now, I admire their columns and read them every day and often marvel at how they can find daily hands that offer one trick to go this way or that, depending on who recognizes the subtleties and possibilities on the hand. A few hands, call it 10%, are rather simple and obvious. But I would say the majority are not that easy to work out in the time allotted in the moderate haste of actual play. Yes, yes, I know the type of person who would say, "What! Gasp! You can't work all of 'em out in about 30 seconds!" Well, the answer is no, and I very much doubt that you can either, fella. Professional columnists don't want to get too elementary for obvious reasons. They write what sells and they do a fine job.

But my beef is that there is a wide gulf between what the columnists cover and the errors committed by self-styled advanced and expert players and Life Masters, not to mention those not yet at that level. That's basically why I wrote the earlier book and now this web page. I believe it covers a territory that no one's covering and that needs covering, just plain, ordinary, common and often costly errors. (I'd like to see a collection of hands from columns, say five or ten years old, presented on an OKBridge tournament limited to advanced players and experts. Of course, with fallible players sitting both directions, half the time you want to test for a key play, it gets wiped out because somebody else at the table hands over tricks on a foolish play and the key decision is never reached. Still, even those plays might tell us something.)

And I never cease to marvel at how commonly players want to know about and talk about all advanced, sophisticated techniques and yet cannot meet the most elementary challenges at the table. This was most flagrantly demonstrated by the student in a beginners' class who brought in a hand from a bridge column that involved reaching grand slam by two consecutive diamond cue bids by a hand holding A K in that suit. The student wanted the bidding explained. Now, I can assure you that the hands where you can reach grand slam only by being savvy enough to cue bid a suit twice (facing a partner who recognizes what it means) will occur in the neighborhood of once for every million times you're going to need an intimate knowledge of the bidding system (not only for your bids but for understanding your partner's). A partner wants to play Bergen minor suit raises but fails to employ Stayman with 4 hearts! And yes, I had four of 'em myself. A novice wants to discuss the Jacoby 2 NT convention, but opens a hand on the one level with 9 hcp's and on the next hand goes to the 2 level in a new suit on 9 hcp's and continues bidding over a non-forcing bid! It never ceases to amaze me how so many screw up their priorities so often.

A Life Master grimaces at missing a laydown , 28-hcp grand slam where we were in 6 diamonds. She asks the local expert, "How do we get there?" Well, of course, once you know it makes 7 no, any sequence you offer will infallibly get you there. Now, this local expert also played the hand. And where do you think he and his partner wound up? Why, in six diamonds! I'm not kidding. So she's asking a guy who himself didn't get there -- the presumption being that it's his partner's fault, I guess -- how to get to seven no after he knows it will make seven no! Now about a month later, with five clubs to the A K and ace-low in hearts, the bidding went a club by me, spade on my left, pass, two spades, pass, pass, 3 hearts, double, loud and clear. At the end of the hand, she was down 6, vulnerable for 1700. Now let's translate that down 6 to tricks won and we find the answer is 3. And I had 3 "quick" tricks. Even if her nemesis had a void in clubs, a club lead would shorten his trump holding. So for all practical purposes, she came in at the 3 level and didn't win a trick! I can only say you can count the 28-hcp laydown grand slams you'll reach in a lifetime on the fingers of one hand, while the number of times you'd better have a good grasp of your trick-taking potential at the 3 level vulnerable will exceed 5 in one month if you play much bridge. Come to think of it, it wasn't my student who offered the most flagrant example of getting priorities screwed up.

It never ceases to amaze me. And what should your priorities be? The most frequent situations. That's where your priorities should lie. I'd better add the obvious while I'm here. It's got to be a lot more discouraging to your partner to see you miss obvious plays than those that require a savvy perception.

OKBridge is really a marvel. Long before it was introduced, I thought I'd like to have one section at a regional tournament with every bid and every play by every player. I was going to go over the common, ordinary mistakes and write a book entitled, "Why You Lose at Bridge", a not very flattering title, even if an honest one. I never thought I'd see that in my lifetime. Now OKBridge has given me that in spades. I can go over a tournament with more than a hundred pairs, covering every bid and every play for my perusal. No, I'm not going to write that book. A large part of what I'd say will be given on this web page. But the record is there and I think the interested reader can learn a lot by going over why some pairs are making 3 no, for instance, and others fail to, not to mention the near inevitable extremes where several declarers make two overtricks or even 3 and several go down two. There's a lot to learn, and I'm grateful for the introduction of OKBridge.

And one last thought: What I am offering here is not touted as the final step toward a formidable game, but the first step. Okay? I'm not saying it's all you need. I will admit to a belief that the material covered here will be sufficient, if you and a partner really nail down everything, to make you a formidable pair at the local level and a competitive pair in sectionals and regionals. Beyond that, I grant that it's child's play compared to the level played by Eddie Kantar et al. But even in referring to that level, I would call the material here a necessary first step if you aspire to reaching it.