Simple is best — Today
This article details a contract bridge hand played in a team match, comparing two different bidding strategies that led to the same contract. It explains how a straightforward auction resulted in a successful play, while a more complex bidding method at another table led to a loss due to a defensive ruff.
Why it matters
It offers strategic insights and educational content for contract bridge players and enthusiasts, illustrating the impact of bidding and play decisions on game outcomes.
When this deal was played in a team match, both tables reached four hearts after an opening bid by West and a Michael’s Cue Bid by North. This table had a straightforward auction with South bidding what he hoped he could make. At the other table, they had some fancy bidding methods after the cue bid. They reached the same contract, but played by North, making it easier for EastWest to get a spade ruff. East led a spade to the ace and got a ruff at trick two. Had North, who knew the lead was a singleton from the auction, smoothly dropped his king under the ace, West might not have returned a spade. We’ll never know. Down one at that table.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in