The Tao of Gaming

Boardgames and lesser pursuits

Archive for the ‘Bridge’ Category

Your typical hand, and typical result


This is now officially the best hand I’ve picked up. When partner showed up with at most one king (with a step response of 2 Diamonds over my 2C opening showing at most a king and not much else) and a weak hand I contented myself with a six diamond bid, since I had no way to tell which king he had, if he even had one. And, with a 4-1 diamond break and no way to finesse in clubs, even that went down. Typical.



Written by taogaming

March 6, 2019 at 9:54 pm

Posted in Bridge

Two Slam Swings and Misses

Playing a tune-up game (for the upcoming North American Open Pairs) with Hank I pick up a nice hand:

S:AKQT98x H:AQJ:D:x C:xx

Hank opens 1 Diamond, which is usually unbalanced (with diamonds) or 6+ Diamonds. I bid 1 Spade, and Hank rebids 2 Diamonds. I fudge a force with 2 Hearts and after Hank’s preference to 2 Spades I see no reason not to just check on key cards with 4 No Trump. Hank admits to 2 Aces, so I bid 5 No Trump, confirming all the important cards (the Aces and K/Q of trump). Hank bids 6 Hearts, which shows the heart king and denies the minor kings.

I think that’s likely good enough for a grand. If Hank has 3 spades and six diamonds, no matter how his hearts and clubs divide it’s cold. If Hank had 5-4 in the minors (either way, I suspect I’d have heard two clubs. And with 3=4=5=1, he’d have raised spades.

I bid 7 Spades.

My LHO leads the queen of clubs and dummy is not a delight.

S:75 H:Kxx D:AQ7xxx C:Ax

I have to win the club ace. With any other lead I could try to ruff out the diamonds, but now I only have one entry. The only two times ruffing out works is if RHO has a stiff or doubleton King. (Finessing works anytime LHO has the diamond king. I guess I’m 50-50. I play the spade to my ace, RHO playing the jack. I run all the spades and then the hearts and take the finesse, but it losses and I’m off.

It’s only after the game that I notice that because RHO played the spade jack on the first round, I could have ruffed out the diamond king! I play diamond Ace, ruff a diamond high, my small spade to the seven, ruff a diamond high, and the heart king is an entry. This works anytime diamonds are 3-3 (as was the case) or if the diamond king is in the short hand.

Overall there’s a lot not to like on this hand.

  1. Bidding seven was greedy, but it’s a tune up game.
  2. I had a better bid than 1 spade. We play that a jump shift of 2 Spades (after 1 diamond) is a strong bid. It comes up so rarely I forgot. This would have been perfect.
  3. I missed the fall of the jack meant I had another entry.

Later on I pick up a normal looking hand. S:Axxx H:Q9xxx D:x C:xxx

LHO opens 1 Diamond, Hank passes and RHO bids 3 NT. I pass and contemplate my lead, but LHO isn’t done. He bids 4 Clubs (Gerber), RHO bids 4 Spades. I could double this in case they get to six diamonds, but I wouldn’t hate a heart lead, and I think I’d just be telling the opponents how to play the hand. LHO bids 6 No Trump and that gets passed around.

I’m still on lead.

3N was showing 13-15, so opener has 18 or 19. That leaves Hank with … bupkis. Maybe a queen. If he could have 3+ points an attacking heart lead would be tempting. But on this auction I should find the safest lead. That gets rid of a major. A diamond could pickle Hank’s Jxxx. A club could also do that. Hank could have doubled four clubs, but if he’s broke (maybe with Qxxx of clubs) would he?

In the end I settle on a diamond, and dummy is not what I expected.

S:T9 H:xx D:KQJT9xx C:AK

(Fixed dummy).

Good news. I haven’t given up a trick. Bad news. LHO shot out a slam on a running suit. If I had known that ….

LHO wins the diamond on the board and after a bit of fussing runs the spade ten. Gross. I win but the hand is over. I flash my heart queen with a raised eyebrow. Partner flashes the heart king in response and shrugs.

“50/50” says RHO.

Neither Hank nor I correct him. Sometimes bad bidding is it’s own reward, but I guess the lesson (as always) is don’t trust opponents at the club.

Written by taogaming

December 26, 2018 at 9:57 pm

Posted in Bridge

A not-missed not-squeeze

Playing with Roxie we’re having a decent game, except we play a spade slam in 3NT, likely off. I play the hand wide open to try and make at least 5, and when that fails I’m off. (As it turns out, the field is so week that I could have salvaged 3 match points out of 8 just playing safe to make, since two pairs missed game and one found a way to go down despite the fact that 7S makes. But before that all the hands have been good. But once the hand is over no point in dwelling on it, and I pick up:

S: 543 H:K754 D:AK C:J932

Roxie is second to act and opens 1 Diamond. I have an easy 1 Heart response and when Roxie bids 1 Spade I invite 2 NoTrump. (2 Clubs by me would be an artificial game force, but even if it wasn’t I think there’s no point). That buys the contract and LHO leads the 6 of clubs.

Dummy:    S: KQ72 H:QJx D:T7643 C:A

My Hand:  S: 543 H:K754 D:AK C:J932

I win the ace and think. (RHO follows with the 5). I could play for 3-3 diamonds, and unblock AK and get back with a heart and lead a diamond out. But if they are 4-2 I’ll lose 2 diamonds, two aces and two clubs (at least). I think I am going to attack hearts first. I could cross to my hand in diamonds to lead low towards the QJ. This will gain if LHO has a stiff ace or Ax. But with Axx or Axxx it won’t matter, and if RHO has the ace it doesn’t, either. And I don’t want to give up my diamond entries. I will want to lead spades towards dummy. So, I play the queen of hearts and it wins.

I play the jack of hearts and it wins. OK, that’s odd. If LHO has ducked twice from Axxx, I’ll pay off. I lead a third heart and RHO wins, LHO following.

One hurdle down.

RHO leads the ten of clubs, I cover with the jack and LHO wins the queen and then … cashes the king, RHO following with the 8. I pitch two diamonds from dummy.

That’s another hurdle.

LHO leads the club 7. I pitch a spade from dummy as does RHO (the 8).

I could cash the 13th heart, but I’m not sure what to pitch, so I think I’ll lead a spade first. This goes to 6-King-Ace. These opponents have been very accommodating. RHO leads a diamond and after I win I’ve got the following

S:Qx H:– D:Tx C:–

S:45 H:K  D:K C:–

I’ve already taken 2H+1D+2C five tricks and I have three good tricks. But I may as well try for the overtrick. I know that LHO started with 5 clubs and 3 hearts. RHO started with 3C+3H. If she started with four spades (quite likely) and both diamond honors (much less so) I’ve got a criss cross, and in any case a positional squeeze (by cashing the DK) can’t work, because if LHO is the sole guard of spades she’s already out of diamonds. For this to work I need:

          S: Q7 D:Tx

 S:T D:xx C:x         S:J8 D:QJ

         S:54 H:K D:K

I lead the heart king and pitch the spade. LHO pitches a club and RHO pitches a spade. I lead a spade to the queen and both follow (RHO with the jack), so its worked. Back to the diamond king and lead my spade five which is good.

But I’ve squeezed nobody. The actual hand was

          S: Q7 D:Tx

 S:8 D:QJ C:x         S:JT D:xx

         S:54 H:K D:K

I’ve no idea why RHO throw the spade stopper instead of a worthless diamond, but 2N+1 is a cold top, and after the last hand I’ll take it. And even thought it wasn’t on, at least I saw the possibility.

Written by taogaming

December 1, 2018 at 7:38 pm

Posted in Bridge

Tough to Gauge

Playing the two-session qualifier for the North American Open Pairs, and it’s been rough.  I joke that the NAP state finals are the toughest game I play but the city finals is usually easy. But today, we’re in danger of missing the cut.

I’m not playing particularly well, but also the hands are breaking against our system. Partner opens 1C with a 20 point hand that will normally open 2N and shut the opponents up. As I have nothing, he’ll go down. But by the time the auction gets back to him at four hearts, so he doubles, and it’s making with an overtrick. We have multiple times where our opponents have a serious disagreement as to the meaning of a bid, one side thinking its forcing and slammish, and the other invitational … and the opponents always land on their feet. (Our qualifier is small enough so that its a mixed field, not strictly flight As. And as you only need to be in the top half … like I said, it’s easy).

It’s that kind of day when I pick up.

♠:A9 ♥:AQ65 ♦:AJT63 ♣:A3

Our 2N opening is 21-22, and this is only 19 by book approximation, but I could upgrade…

  • all four aces? That’s worth 2 points (ish)
  • The AJTxx suit is worth six points (ish)

(K&R lists it as 21.5 HCP). But … I’m going to open 1 Club. Part of the reason to play the system is to handle hands like this. If I catch partner with 7 points we’ll have a much smoother auction. In particular we’ll might be able to agree diamonds much easier. If he’s broke, I can end in 1NT. If he has a hand that would go to game opposite 21, well, its matchpoints.  Also, a minor consideration is that the field may open 1 Diamond and if I miss a game they will certainly miss it, and I’ll play in 1N instead of 1 Diamond for a better score.

I have a smooth and uneventful auction:

1 Club* – 1 Diamond**;  [* Polish, ** Often, but not always, 0-6 HCP]

1 NT*** – Pass  [*** 18-20 HCP]

I get the seven of hearts lead and partner puts down an interesting dummy.

♠:J8xx ♥:T98x ♦:8xx ♣:Qx

Fascinating. If I had opened 2N we’d play it either in 2N or 4H. But that’s an “after the hand” thought. I have an easy play of covering the seven and it goes  ten – king – ace.

Entries to dummy are scarce. I could try a swindle if my LHO has the king of clubs by leading low the queen. Even if the queen lost to the king the opponents may decide I have long clubs and break another suit. It could work out well. But I decide to just cash my heart ace, and lead another heart, losing to the jack but setting up a heart winner (and entry) in dummy.

When I cash the heart ace RHO follows with the jack. This is good news. I now have two heart entries. Which means that I can take the double finesse in diamonds twice. I cross to dummy in hearts and RHO discards a (presumably discouraging) club four. When I lead the diamond it goes 9-ten and LHO wins the diamond queen.

LHO now leads the deuce of clubs. Odd. Well, there’s I have no choice. I play the queen and it holds. I play a small diamond (I should have played the 8) and RHO shows out and pitches another club I play the Jack and LHO thinks. Then ducks. So I cash the ace and throw her in with a diamond. She now leads the spade king! Amazing. I win the ace. At this point I have:

(Dummy)♠:J8 ♥:T ♦:– ♣:x

(Hand) ♠:9 ♥:5 ♦:3 ♣:A

I have a ridiculously good score already, but may as well try for a final swindle, even though I don’t imagine it will work. But as I’ve shown, these opponents are not flight As.

I play my diamond, pitching the spade eight, and then lead a heart, crossing to dummy. When I play the heart LHO appears to be in some distress and decides to pitch the spade queen, keeping her club King and small. If I had AJ of clubs left she was legitimately squeezed, but then the only hope is to bear the club king and hope I get it wrong instead of pitching the spade queen and hoping I don’t notice.

Making 5. +210.

This feels like a gift-wrapped top but as I’m walking away I reconstruct LHO’s Hand.

♠:KQx ♥:7xx ♦:KQ7x ♣:Kxx

If the auction goes 2N-(stayman sequence)-4H …. woof. What do you lead? LHO is practically endplayed at trick one. Either lead a trump and solve that for me, or lead an honor or away from an honor with a likely broke partner. The more I think about it, the less sure I become. On a spade lead declarer can win and shoot back a spade and now she’s endplayed again. A spade gives me access to hook the hearts (for no losers!) and a club pitch. A club switch is death and a diamond switch leads to ace of hearts, heart, win the club switch pitch my losing club on dummies spade jack. Now I lose a spade, a heart, and a diamond + 420. An initial diamond lead is more complex, and I think I’m down, but its easy for it to make. (Of course four hearts played by my partner should go down easily, but most of the field will right side it, if they open 2N).

Maybe its not a top. Hard to gauge. We have a few minute before the next round but I’m not at all sure. Eventually, the round is called.

At the end of they day, we barely qualify. I come back to this board and look at it. One pair was in 4 hearts (making five!) and one pair went down in four hearts, but the field is mostly split between playing in one diamond and 2 NT (with one confusing pair playing in … one heart. How did that happen?) so I picked up 16/17 on this one.

We needed it.

Written by taogaming

October 23, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Posted in Bridge

The first rule of signalling at Bridge

I have another weekday off (for much the same reason) so I arrange another game with Roxie. This is a full 16 table game with a few strong pairs, but as in any matchpoint game, a lot of winning is simply getting the right hands against the right people and avoid mistakes. It helps that we both usually on the same wavelength as signalling.

Usually, but in a few situations I’m not sure. For example, declarer is in 5 clubs and Roxie leads the Jack of Spades:


Dummy —   S:AK72 H:J D:QTxxx :KTx

Me — S:98654 H:QTxx D:xxx C:x

With declarer holding the queen of spades (unless Roxie has led from QJ tight) I think my signal is suit preference. I don’t really love a heart, but I can stand it and I would hate for Roxie to lead a diamond away from anything. But Roxie may also take my spades as “Eh, just continue spades.” I’m hoping not. I play the 9 of spades (the highest card I can afford, since I’ll still have the 8). Declarer misplays the hand. He wins the spade queen, leads a diamond to the king, then the jack of hearts, queen, king ace. At which point Roxie thinks for bit, cashes the AQ of spades and leads a heart to my ten. Down one.

Later I confirm that Roxie does play suit preference in those “this suit is hopeless” situations (with a middle card indicating no preference, or suggesting a passive defense). Perhaps I should have played the spade 8, to show that hearts weren’t great, but that’s too subtle for us.

Later I pick up an unremarkable opening balanced twelve count and open. Roxie drives to 6NT, and was clearly thinking about a grand. After the opening lead I table my hand and claim all 13 tricks. (We were missing a king, and lacked the tools to figure out which king because we play number of kings). I figure this is an average … a few pairs will miss the slam, a few will have the tools to find the grand slam. (In fact, it’s a touch above average, the exact same number missed the slam as found the grand, but a few pairs played in 6 Clubs, which scores less).

My next hand (against the same pair) is more remarkable:

S:Q9xxx H:AKxx D:QJ9x C:—-

I open 1 Spade, and my LHO bids 2 Clubs. Roxie makes a negative double (showing 4 hearts and some values). RHO bids 3 Clubs and I decide to bid 3 Hearts only. Roxie may have wasted points in clubs, and I’d make a negative double with some 8 counts. At IMPs I’d bid game, but at matchpoints there’s a lot to be said for going positive. But if LHO bids four and Roxie passes, I’ll probably take the push. (Hank calls this the “San Antonio Gambit.” Don’t bid game, get pushed into it, and then make it. That’ll learn ’em).

LHO passes, but Roxie bids 4 Clubs.

RHO passes. Well, having already denied being able to bid game, I have a pretty good hand. Sure, I wish I had a control in … well, either diamonds or spades, but I have the AK of trump and a club void. Roxie may be looking at Kxxx of clubs and hoping it’s a control.

I bid 6 Hearts on the theory that my hand is pretty amazing for a hand that bid 3 only hearts. In any case I can’t really ask about aces with a void, and even if I’m off two fast tricks they have to cash them first. I’d probably love the ace of clubs lead.

Everyone passes and LHO asks if 4 Clubs shows a club shortage. “No, I think it’s just a general slam try.” She leads the diamond ace and Roxie tables a rather interesting hand:

S:Ax H:Jxxxxx D:x C:AJxx

Full marks for aggression. Roxie can place the club shortness in my hand, she has diamond shortness. The extra trumps are tricks. If I had the spade king instead of the diamond QJ, this would be a fantastic 22 HCP slam, needing only a nice trump break.

And, I note that on a spade lead I would indeed be down. As it is, I still look like I’m going down.  I play a diamond from dummy and RHO plays the diamond Ten. LHO switches to the club king. I win the ace (pitching a spade from hand), cash two rounds of trump (breaking) and play the queen of diamonds. LHO covers and I ruff and claim. I can pitch my spade loser on the jack and the one club I can’t ruff on the 9 of diamonds, so dummy has no more unaccounted losers.

RHO is saying that the diamond ten asked for a spade switch (just like Roxie and I agreed on the prior hand) and LHO counters that it wouldn’t matter, since I could fly with the ace and get the same result. But she states that she understood that the signal showed spades.

My opponents were good enough to be on the same wavelength. But that’s the second rule of signalling.

The first is to never give away a trick. If LHO had played the eight from her T8764, I would have ended up with a slow club loser (as long as she tenaciously kept her diamond Ten guarded). Making an impossible slam is a near top which, along with a few other gifts and no gross errors on my part — (A few “pushy bids” don’t count) give us a nearly 70% game and first overall.

Written by taogaming

October 21, 2018 at 10:30 am

Posted in Bridge

Right and Wrong Again

Towards the end of a practice game with Hank, I pick up S:Jxx H:AQ D:KJ9xxx C:QJ in fourth seat.

Both Vul, my LHO opens 3 Clubs. It is passed to me. Despite my 14 HCP and long suit my hand has a number of negatives.

  1. The QJ tight of clubs is likely worthless
  2. Lack of diamond intermediates, and in general most of my points are speculative.
  3. No singleton

But I’m in balancing seat, and it’s matchpoints. It may be wrong, but I’ve bid with worse. I bid 3 Diamonds and buy the contract.

LHO leads the 9 of spades without much thought and I buy a mixed dummy.

S:Qxx H:xxx D:Txx C:Axxx.

I really wish that spade queen were the diamond queen, because its looking worthless. The opening goes to RHOs Ace, and he snaps down the king and a small one, which LHO ruffs. She switches to a medium club.

If RHO has the stiff king, there’s nothing I can do. I mean, I’d rise with the ace if he showed it to me, but a ruff is more likely than a stiff king, and if my ace gets ruffed out its a disaster. I play small and win RHO’s 9 with my jack.

I now wake up from my imperfect thinking, and realize a few things.

  1. I’ve been playing automatically.
  2. I should have played the Jack of spades at trick one. RHO shouldn’t have gotten it wrong, but its a weak club game.  I’ve seen much worse already.
  3. I didn’t notice the spot RHO led to ruff. I assume it was low, since LHO led a club, but maybe not.
  4. All of that is in the past ….

So, let’s think about the future.  There are three trump left, the Ace, the Queen and a low spot. Can I do anything if all three are in one hand? Nope. If LHO has them, I’m boned. If RHO has them, I can’t get to dummy to finesse, since LHO certainly has six clubs for her bid. (In fact, she’s got exactly six clubs, exactly two spades, and at least one diamond).

Can I do anything if they are 2-1 with both honors in the same hand? Nope, same reasons.

OK, so assume one person has a stiff honor. That’s likely LHO, but let’s not worry. Can I do anything about it?

If it’s a stiff queen I obviously want to play the king. Whoever wins the ace will win, but can’t give their partner a ruff.

If it’s a stiff ace then I play low and knock it out and can eventually play the king and drop the queen. But I realize that’s an illusion. If I play low, then whoever wins can give partner a ruff and knows it. If LHO wins the stiff ace, the club king will smother my queen (she knows RHO doesn’t have it), I play the ace, and RHO gets his queen. I’m down one and have to take the heart hook to avoid down two. If RHO has the stiff ace, he can lead a spade. If I ruff low LHO overruffs with her now stiff queen, and if I ruff high the queen is set up. And I’m again taking the finesse for down two.

Down one will likely be below average, but should salvage some matchpoints. I double check my thinking (I’ve probably spent at least a minute considering it) and I think I’ve got it right. One quick consideration — if a player has a stiff ace, will they maybe not give partner a ruff by mistake? I think LHO will always try the club ruff. RHO may be worried about giving up a ruff and sluff. I can’t really gauge this, so after some consideration I decide to not count on it.

I play the diamond king and it goes ace-small-small.


LHO plays a small club and I play small and RHO ruffs with his queen, and when a heart comes back I am reduced to the heart finesse. It fails.

Double drat.

-200, the matchpoint kiss of death.

It’s only later on that I realize that I’d fallen asleep again.  LHO didn’t exit with the club king, she played small. That mistake means that I took a practice finesse.

I could have played my heart ace, a small diamond to the ten, then pitched the queen of hearts on the club ace.

Ah well. Baby steps.

Written by taogaming

September 3, 2018 at 10:58 am

Posted in Bridge

Thinking about Imperfect Thinking

Author’s Note — This is long and very self-absorbed, but has been weighing on me for a while.

I’ve wanted to be a Bridge expert since college. Not ‘expert’ in the sense of Life Master or one of the better club players, but “threatening to win a national event” expert. Or better.

In High School I’d expected to conquer chess, but achieved only tournament mediocrity after five years. Possibly — if I’d kept trying — I’d have pulled myself up into barely expert rank through sheer perseverance and the slow accumulation of knowledge. But I felt immensely frustrated, I wanted the fast accumulation of knowledge I’d encountered in so many fields. I can’t ‘see’ positions in my mind. I studied openings and would sometimes remember them, but often not. I studied endgames. I studied and studied but during games minutes would tick by. I would be “thinking,” but haphazardly. Loose thoughts, jumbled together in a tangled mass.

So I read and studied more.

One book gripped my psyche and captivated my thoughts. Kotov’s “Think Like a Grandmaster”. In the introduction Kotov tells about visiting a distant chess club andbeing asked to give an impromptu lecture. The crowd shouted requests, that Kotov review a master game or some new opening theory.

He demurs. “There’s no point in learning details if you can’t learn how to think. Let’s discuss thinking

Kotov sets up a position and turns to his audience, “Let’s imagine you’ve been asked to take over for a player who has fallen ill. It is our move, what shall we do?” The story — omitting much chess analysis — continues:

“There are two obvious moves (a kingside and a queenside move). Let’s try the a kingside attack. Does it work? Hm. …Kotov runs through a few moves… no, that last move seems to stop me. OK. What about a queenside pawn push? Hm … runs a few moves … no, that seems to be losing. It’s too slow. Back to the kingside. What if I prepare the sacrifice with this move? No. Hm. Still doesn’t work. Maybe if I do adjust my queenside pawn push.”

Kotov alternates between the two lines then exclaims Then you look at your clock and think “Oh my god, ten minutes have gone by! How could I have only analyzed two lines in ten minutes? I’m going to lose on time!”

And then Kotov grabs his king and castles, saying “So you just castle, without even thinking about it. Its probably safe enough.”

Kotov’s audience roars with laughter, and applauds. They recognize themselves. And I (a young teenager) recognized myself. Kotov then explained that Grandmasters think through a line only once, because they are sure their analysis is right and if they missed something, they are likely to miss it again. The rest of the book is his instruction on how to think. But I could never absorb the lessons, at least not to the level that satisfied me, and at some point I stopped playing Chess.

As this is ostensibly a blog about games, let me present a hand from a Bracketed Swiss (top bracket). (Skip ahead to the Post Hand Analysis, if you don’t care about the details).

Dummy S:QJx H:AJxxx D:Q98 C:Q9

My Hand S:Tx H:KTx D:KJxx C:K8xx

My RHO opened 1 Club, I passed, LHO responded 1 Spade and my partner doubled. RHO raised to two spades, and I bid 3 Diamonds, ending the auction.

I thought partner’s red suits would be equal (or diamonds longer), and could have bid 2N to let partner pick the suit, and I thought that when dummy came down, but I recognized that I could no longer do anything about that. Partner didn’t expect me to have the World’s Fair and compete to the three level, no doubt. Here’s the auction again:

1C   P  1S   X
2S  3D  All Pass

LHO led the club Ten.

After some thought I covered the queen and RHO won the ace. RHO then shifted to a diamond, ducked around to dummy’s nine.

My opponents have a Flight B national championship (I believe); they aren’t bad. Steady players. They make mistakes, but play steadily enough to win a long multi-day event against other Flight Bs.

What play should I make? Here’s my internal monologue:

First things first — Count! Spades are presumably 4-4. With 5-3 I’d have heard a support redouble.The opponents only have 18 points — RHO opened and LHO responded, so it could be 6 (on my left)-12 or 5-13 or 7-11 or maybe something like 4-14. Either opponent could be light. The latter is most likely if LHO has a stiff club, but RHO didn’t return a club.

LHO likely doesn’t have AK of spades, that would be an almost automatic lead.

[Not terribly extensive, but at least I did note those things and counted. That’s better than too many hands. Back to my thoughts…]

I see three options —

  • I could continue with diamonds. This will work spectacularly well if I pick up hearts. But RHO thought pulling trumps was OK. If I lead a trump I risk it going diamond ace and another
  • Or I could lead the 9 of clubs and win the king then ruff, then cross in hearts and ruff another club.
  • Or I could float the 9 of clubs. That 8 of clubs is taunting me.

If LHO led the T of clubs from JT tight (which is the standard lead) the last would be phenomenally bad. Can I tell? I don’t think I can. Restricted choice says its likely Jx, but I don’t know.

I considered the pros and cons of each, but I also spent a fair amount of the time wishing I hadn’t been dealt the 8 of clubs. And considering if I could make inferences from their defense.

In the end, I decided to play the diamond queen (ducked all around), then a diamond to the king (RHO showing out and LHO winning the ace). The opponents cashed their spades (honors split) and put me on the board with a spade (I pitched a club). Thinking again, I decided that

  1. If LHO had the heart queen then he’d be stronger than opener, and
  2. If LHO had the heart queen then from RHO’s point of view hearts were potentially running so a trump shift would be ludicrous.

Given these two data points I finessed against RHO’s heart queen with the ten (winning), pulled LHO’s remaining trump and claimed the rest.

+110, score it up. LHO hissed “Anything but a trump switch” and I looked like a competent bridge player.

I can, in hindsight, say that LHO had 4=3=4=2 shape, but I never found out what LHO’s other club was.

Post Hand Analysis

After the entire hand, I still wasn’t sure whether my play at trick 3 was right. Even analyzing it here, it feels close. Also, I may have played wrong at trick one (although I think I didn’t).

But when I wrote “I decided to play the diamond queen,” I lied.

A more precise description of my mental state: “Being frustrated by not being able to see the correct answer, I eventually just called for the diamond queen to end my indecision.”

Even though it worked, my thinking had stopped. I didn’t call the diamond queen because I knew it to be right (or even right on probability). I didn’t choose it after deciding that my options were too close to call, or a coin flip. I called it out of frustration, before I had finished my analysis.

After the hand I remembered Kotov’s story.

I console myself by remembering that everyone makes mistakes. Here are some I witnessed (or made) in that single day. These players are the best teams of the field. (I am perhaps median in the bracket for strength a few strong players are much stronger than me, but its mostly a bunch of us weak experts).

… Playing in NT with AKQ8x opposite a stiff 9 an expert cashed AKQ and failed to note that the JTx fell on her right, so she called for the low three instead of the high eight.

… Amusingly enough on that hand I (holding 7652) played the 76 on the first two cards and then the 5, because I noted fall of the JTx, so of course assumed the expert would. Given that, I wanted to continue to play my cards top-to-bottom as an unmistakeable signal that I was guarding the upper suit.

After I played the five, I thought “Maybe I should have saved my five because declarer might not have be paying attention.” I decided I was silly, declarer was a solid expert.

When she called for the three I had to sheepishly follow with the deuce. The two of us started laughing and apologizing to our partners.

… I saw an expert make a no hope play that cost a contract. That time I did think “What the hell, its IMPs” and baited her (risking overtricks to offer the failing option). She took it. Dummy instantly noted her mistake.

…(They were also in the wrong contract because she didn’t bid correctly).

… Prosaically — A revoke.

… A few days earlier partner opened 1NT with a singleton because “he had a club mixed in with spades.” We were playing online, the computer sorts the hands. He literally mis-saw a pre-sorted hand.

I’m no better. I chronicled a near-national qualification for Flight A North American Open Pairs and disasters include a hand where I literally could not remember the most basic part of my system. Not obscure, rarely used parts of Polish, mind you. (We all forget the rare stuff from time to time). Bread and butter bidding, in this case — splinters. They show up once a session. (Technically my problem was remembering multiple systems and not being sure which one I played. I was playing standard splinters, and had been for several years at that point).

One partner calls it “Chicken Braining” when you suddenly don’t know things. Where a song name suddenly is gone, or where you can’t remember something until you stop trying. That happens to everyone, I think, but for things like “songs you haven’t heard in a decade,” not “bridge conventions you’ve used for two decades on a weekly basis.”

I remember in college (when I’d been playing for 3 years) making a boneheaded play and my mentor saying “You know better than that.” I remember the shame, because even at that point, I did. I couldn’t explain why I’d done the stupid thing.

I constantly bid or make plays I instantly recognize as mistakes; plays that make me mentally smack my head. I fail to count. I miscount. I can’t tell you the card partner played after the trick is over.

What’s so much worse, is that every once in a while, when I pay attention, I literally mis-see the cards played when I know exactly what I’m looking for.

The funny thing? I’m still a good player. Dangerous … but I rarely win. Too much chicken brain. I can remember the exact details of many of the hands I’ve played in the most recent session. People present me problem hands and I usually get them right. I really am an expert, albeit a weak one.

Kind of where I’d have ended up in Chess. My thinking is just as haphazard as before, but my study of Bridge put my chess study to shame. With so much study I can often recognize the critical point of a position, so I don’t have to think as deeply. It’s like hearing a very complex math puzzle and knowing the answer because I’ve already seen the puzzle solved. Sometimes I just do the obvious things instead of think. But other times hands I’d get right in a puzzle, I miss because I play automatically. Over a full session I’m likely to flub something stupid once or twice (if I’m lucky). Stronger experts don’t flub the easy stuff. And there’s luck … sometimes I can recover or the cards just don’t lie wrong to punish my mistake. (Sometimes my mistake gets lucky and does better than the right play).

At the club I win because the game is loaded with patzers. I won the last club game I played at. But Flight-A events?

I’m too erratic. I can’t really think.

One recent morning I woke up physical refreshed but mentally ambivalent and decided to write the day off. I went back to sleep.

Eventually I got out of bed at a time and sent a note to the office formalizing my status as absent-with-leave. Still feeling a bit groggy and meh, I decided to watch something uplifting and cheery and bright, with songs. (Moana). I felt a bit better, so I grabbed some lunch. Rather, I tried. But my favorite restaurant near my house has a “closed one day a month” policy (and two weeks once a year) that is eminently sensible if you are a restauranteur wishing to retain his sanity, but struck me as a gross injustice when staring at the locked door, craving Thai and only just then remembering their reasonable/infuriating “First Tuesday of the Month” policy.

I’ve had this restaurant be closed a few times in the last year, and each time I thought “Oh, right.”

After a pedestrian, non-Thai lunch I still felt tired, so I napped, and then finally I felt refreshed and OK. I decided to watch a movie that I’d had in my queue — The End of the Tour.

This movie recounts David Lipsky’s interview/road-trip with David Foster Wallace. I haven’t read any of DFW’s fiction, but I enjoy his essays. He writes well (of course), but also takes mundane topics in unexpected directions. And it stars Jason Segel. Now streaming on Netflix. Perfect for a lazy day.

But, much like the green printout sign on the Thai restaurant’s door, I had momentarily forgotten a fact.  David Foster Wallace committed suicide.  (On checking, nearly a decade ago).

The movie is not typical Hollywood. Two hours of writers talking about life, pets, writing, snack food, movies, fame, tobacco, addiction, and writing. It makes me wonder “Who thought this would make a good movie?” But, catnip to me. I routinely turn off movies after a few minutes, but I found this compelling even though nothing much happens.

Good movie. Uplifting it is not. And I had many strange thoughts that tie in with this essay.

(Don’t take this story to mean that I have severe depression. I don’t. But neither do I have the “can-do, turn that frown upside down, let’s face the world with gusty” spirit some people possess. Some days the thought of going out to meet the world fills me with dread. And I have enough resources to simply choose not to face the world, so I sit at home and watch TV, eat Thai food (or not), possibly play computer games or go to the bridge club or write about board games. I relax for one revolution of life’s game clock. This isn’t an “I hate my job” thing, either. I no longer go to the Gathering for ten days because even at five (sometimes less) the noise seems too loud, the colors too bright, and the crowd too maddening. I don’t have depression, so much as a preference for introversion. Perhaps they are related, but depression isn’t a problem for me).

Anyway, the movie is mildly depressing, but also intriguing because DFW spends an equal time contemplating important issues and a similar amount of time caught up with trivia. He describes Infinite Jest as about addiction and the question of “Why do we have so much more than prior generations, but are so much less happy?” (Which makes me want to read that, now). He deals with ethics and philosophy, and comes across as manic-depressive-ish. Not regarding energy, but on the politeness-axis. He is remarkably open in the interview, even dangerously unguarded despite knowing full well that the interviewer can crucify him, then suddenly acts paranoid and terse about letting Lipsky interview others. Wallace freezes up for hours, then suddenly is open and warm beyond measure.

And while I’m not depressed, over the last few years I’ve wondered if I’m losing my mind. Not just normal lapses due to age, or minor facts like the First Tuesday Thai Shortage, or which celebrities are dead. Driving home from a tournament I decided to stop by Trader Joe’s to pick up some things. I’ve been there 50-100 times. I could not remember if it was before or after the highway exit I took. I knew where it was, in the relation to the buildings around it. But not in relation to the exit ramp. Could I get there without turning around?

Didn’t remember.

This is literally two miles from my house, a road I have driven for a decade. A store I’ve been to maybe a few times a month in the years its been open. The exit I take to my house.

Couldn’t remember.

I’m in a meeting meeting where a person says “We’ll agree to do A.” And so I say “OK, we’re doing A.” and the entire meeting says “No, we just agreed to not do A.” I don’t think I mis-heard. These things don’t happen often.

Just enough to make me wonder what’s wrong. I would think it’s normal age related issues, but then I look back on my chess career (as it were) and realize that I’ve always had some problems like this, but I’d just said I’m absent-minded.

Last season of BoJack Horsman featured two episodes (and a few scenes) inside a character’s head, instead of the typical third person POV. One shows Beatrice Horseman (BoJack’s mom) reliving her childhood memories, and also seeing scenes as she seems them now — with dementia.

The people have no faces. She can’t tell them apart.

The other episode was called “Stupid piece of Sh*t” and voices BoJack’s internal monologue: telling himself what to do, to be nice, to not eat food he doesn’t want, to limit himself to one drink.

For all the terrible things he does, he knows better. But he ignores his good intentions. Then he berates himself. (The episode title refers to BoJack calling himself a stupid piece of shit over and over).

It sounded like my internal bridge monologue when I just make a decision without thinking. “Why did I do that? I know better! You stupid *(#&.” Then, in the closing scene, BoJack’s daughter Hollyhock confesses that she has the same internal voice and asks “But, that’s just a stupid teenage girl thing? It will go away, right?”

BoJack assures her it does.

I forced my wife to watch the episode (she hates the show), because I felt like “Finally, someone gets it.” At the time, I felt such elation that one other person …. the writer of some TV show … had the same voice nagging them, berating them.

Thankfully– for me its mostly about being good at games. I’m not driving a Tesla into a swimming pool or getting blackout drunk or driving people away. I’m not suicidal. I’m just annoyed and insulting myself due to avoidable Bridge mistakes. Hooray for the relative unimportance of my terrible decision making!

Every time I sit down to play I tell myself, “this time, I’m going to pay attention, and I’m not going to make a bid or card play and just instantly recognize it as wrong. I’m going to think it through, I’m going to pay attention.”

Sometimes I don’t make it through the first hand.

The End of the Tour conveyed that DFW was self-aware, but not able to improve despite his awareness. (The movie does not touch on his abuse of women). As I said, not uplifting. BoJack suffers the same way.

After my day off I returned to work. Afterwards I swung by the used book store to see what they had and bought several Wallace books. One of them was “This is Water“, a college commencement speech presented in a nice little format and — as such — a ridiculous thing to buy, even used for five dollars.

Wallace talks about compassion, perseverance, and overcoming the problems of mundane existence. It has the following

Think of the old cliché about “the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master.” … It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in the head. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger.

(DFW hung himself).

A few days before seeing The End of the Tour I was tinkering with this article (even then several thousand words), struggling to describe my thoughts about being not-as-clever as I wish, feeling stupid about bridge, my patterns of thought. Parts of this essay are nearly a year old. (The parts with DFW are new). Trying to determine how much of this is just:

  • narcissism — I face problems that everyone faces
  • laziness — I don’t work hard enough, and could overcome these issues more effort
  • improper strategy — I have to accept my problems, but find superior work-around to solve them
  • Impossible to fix

I scheduled it to post (again) then pulled it (again) a week before I saw The End of the Tour and picked up the books.

So you’ll understand why another line from This is Water hit so hard.

Worship power — you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart — you will end up
feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.

I want to re-iterate, I don’t feel depressed. Maudlin, perhaps. One reason I write about games is that it feels easy. Writing about other issues — I could stare at a blank page for hours and never put words down. I have. Writing on a deadline is one of the most terrifying things I’ve done.

And there is nothing inherently wrong about writing about games, or Baseball, or Harry Potter Fan Fiction, or Movies. Good writing is good writing. I don’t pretend all, or even the majority of my writing, is good. But I’m proud of this blog despite wishing I could get better (and spending some time on the mechanics of the craft). But (unlike Bridge or Chess) I never thought “Well, I will become recognized for being a good writer.” So there’s no pressure. My inner voice has sometimes chided me about writing, but infrequently.  In the movie David Foster Wallace (the character) says something like (Paraphrasing) — “it’s fine, even great that Infinite Jest has become so popular and talked about, but even if it were read by only a handful of people I wouldn’t feel like I’ve wasted years of my life writing it.” I assume that David Foster Wallace (the person) said something similar. That struck me as a remarkably healthy attitude, one I wish to have.

Much of what I’ve written here is ephemeral, but I feel the same way about writing and want to feel the same way about the things my inner critic does nag me about.

I’ve long known about my mental quirks — just as many people take Psychology to try to solve their problems, my interest in Cognitive Science is trying to figure out my patterns of thought. (My interest in Cognitive Biases, Less Wrong, HPMOR are likely influenced the same way). For example, after quitting Chess I discovered studies that some people just don’t have as powerful of “a mind’s eye,” and adjusted my bridge strategy to use more literary memory techniques. I don’t exactly burn the midnight oil keeping up with latest science, but I do pay attention. After all, I’ve been calling myself a stupid piece of shit since I failed to master Chess. I’d like to get over it.

Last year Scott Alexander posted a book review that contains

Unbeknownst to me, over the past decade or so neuroscientists have come up with a real theory of how the brain works – a real unifying framework theory like Darwin’s or Einstein’s – and it’s beautiful and it makes complete sense.

I eagerly read Scott’s post, which is difficult to summarize but says your mind is tries to reconcile top-down predictions against with bottom up sensory data (in a Bayesian framework). It will focus attention, discard data, and modify beliefs to get the best fit. It’s a compelling story (although there are problems).

It felt right (especially the attention focusing and data-ignoring) and explains quite a bit. It provided a framework to handle some (possibly most) of my mental lapses. If you expect to see something, you may see it if the data is only off a bit. (Who hasn’t mistaken a heart for a spade at some point? Just not at the most important tournament of their life….) It’s somewhat comforting.

Sadly, it doesn’t give me any practical advice about my problems, other than not to take bridge too seriously (and general mindfulness).

For all my complaining, my mind is phenomenally sharp. (Another of the reasons I’ve unscheduled versions of this post several times is fear that it reads as a humble-brag). I’ve taken pride over my quick thinking, but then feel ashamed because that’s like taking pride for being tall. Nobody picks their height, and nobody ever said “I thought being dumb seemed like the better choice.”

I can’t say I worked hard at it. It just happened. (I am firmly in the camp that you should praise children for effort, not brains, because people can improve their effort). I’ve developed strategies for maximizing my abilities and hiding my limitations from everyone.

Everyone does. We spend our entire lives working on them.

In terms of raw processing power I was dealt a great hand. I just have trouble focusing it. So, I put myself into projects where my strengths are obvious and my weaknesses are minimized. I spend time “thinking about thinking” because I’ve recognized that I’m good when I can enumerate options and rely on prior analysis, and not nearly so good when I have to do the work ‘at the table.’ (That is true for everyone, of course, but since I have real issues focusing at the table, especially true for me).

For some reason, I don’t mind working through a problem by writing. (Hence this post).

I’m not bad at it, even if I still mumble “Stupid” to myself a few times a session.

One of my bridge partners had a stroke last year.

It affected his game (especially in the first few months of his recovery). His concentration drifted. He got tired quickly. Things you’d expect. Textbook symptoms.

But surprises, too. His bidding became wildly aggressive (he even noted it), and he was not exactly on the low end of the aggression spectrum before. He’d quickly claim the contract when there were obvious plays for overtricks (at matchpoints as well as IMPs).  He’d sometimes notice after the hand (or session). Sometimes not. After a few months of recovery, he’s pretty much back to normal, but I sometimes spot a mistake I think he wouldn’t have made, pre-stroke.

And I have absolutely no problem with that. He’s had a stroke, why would I be annoyed at a lapse? I’m not a monster.

Here’s the first point to this long winded essay: its abundantly clear to me that the stroke is responsible for many of my partner’s mental errors.

I’ve spent 25+ years telling myself “concentrate,” “think clearly,” or “visualize the position in your head,” and not being able to. Telling myself to watch the opening lead and remember it, then forgetting. Falling into the rhythm of the game instead of counting. I spent decades berating myself, and just the last few years wondering … am I just not wired up in a way that lets me get this consistently right?

Is this just the intellectual equivalent of color blindness? There are people with aphasia, autism, who can’t read faces. Am I just missing some component?

I’m beginning to think so.

Sherlock Holmes couldn’t be Sherlock Holmes if he were a friendly guy interested in talking to other people. That’s the literary conceit, anyway … but isn’t it true? I see plenty of people trying to will themselves to be good at something, dedicating years of study to it, and being … mediocre, or worse. They can almost improve, but there are hard limits in many cases. I can’t taste what a super-taster does. That’s just a physical difference.

Ever since grad school I’m haunted, feeling that I’m an intellectual Moses, able to see the promised land but never destined to set foot in it. A lack of focus is fine in High School or College, but in Grad School everyone had my mental power and my inability to focus cost. Hard. I can’t make the cut to true expert…. in pretty much anything. I can get close. I’m not asking to hit the home run in the bottom of the ninth in game seven. I’m the guy toiling in the triple AAA league just hoping to make the big leagues. Crash Davis who hasn’t even achieved 18 days in the show.

“What if I’ve always been wired wrong?” That thought takes the wind out of me. Because if I’m wired wrong it sure looks great from the outside world. If I’m missing one component, I have several others most people lack.

But if I’m missing some block, can’t I just be kinder to myself?

Then I think “That’s an arrogant self-pitying thought, you asshole. You’ve heard lots of praise from people who’ve wished they could trade places with you. Just be better.” And I worry that this feeling (“It’s like colorblindness — unsolvable”) is just wishful thinking. An excuse to not get things right.

If I lost my legs I wouldn’t be surprised that I couldn’t walk (even if I still regretted not being able to). But I want to be able to solve my problem, and if I can I definitely should.

I remember an aphorism that “Sometimes there isn’t a problem to be solved, just facts you have to understand.” But now I’m thinking “Worship your intellect and you will end up feeling stupid” and it’s clearly true. I have. I could have used that advice decades ago. I should be kinder to myself.

Maybe I can find a better strategy to compensate. Perhaps I should meditate. Who knows.

I hope I’d have conquered this one after so many years of trying, across so many domains (not just games), but even trying to not worship my intellect I still naturally want to maximize it.

And now — after spending hours on this essay another quote from This is Water literally woke me up a few mornings ago:

Here’s one example of the utter wrongness of something I tend to be automatically sure of: Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the
absolute center of the universe

I’ve seen others’ struggle. Watching BoJack my thought was “Ah, one guy gets it.” Reading HPMOR and the fundamental attribution error and knowing all of this about Cognitive Science and thinking about this since the stroke, and I’m just now entertaining the thought that “Everyone gets it.” (Or, if not everyone, a huge section of the population). And I’m looking back on my essay and re-reading my line about how David Foster Wallace seems self-aware and how that struck me.

Everyone else is self-aware. I’ve known that, of course. (I’m not a monster). But I don’t experience it. It’s the water I swim in. I’ve been struggling with this for decades, and now I wonder just how many people are.

I only noticed that David Foster Wallace was self aware because I can heard it in his voice (technically Jason Segel’s). Even then I had to literally have it spelled out for me in an essay. I hear Wallace … and BoJack  and all of Kotov’s audience and so many other characters who seem more alive than people I deal with because I got a glimpse of their point of view…. struggle with problems they intellectually know how to solve and can’t overcome.

And I see them fail. Kotov didn’t produce a room full of Grandmasters, but his book may have helped us all a bit.

I read David Foster Wallace’s speech about how to live a good life and avoid dying inside before you kill yourself.

But David Foster Wallace killed himself. With all his awareness, his depression wasn’t a problem he could solve.

Before I knew — intellectually — that I wasn’t alone. I’d struggled trying to get my inner critic to quiet down, while still trying to improve, but now I don’t feel alone. That won’t solve my problems, but it makes me feel like I should be kinder to everyone, including myself.

And that’s something.

PS — One of the final reasons I didn’t post this last year is that I felt it would be of no interest to anyone else, which I now see as the exact same lack of empathy as before. You can read This is Water, online.

Written by taogaming

August 12, 2018 at 11:30 am