Duplicate

Duplicate

I am not a serious duplicate bridge player like Jim, but I have learned enough to enjoy playing.  Contract bridge now seems like a game in which chance is as important as skill.  Unlike social bridge where it’s good to be lucky in being dealt good card, in duplicate that luck doesn’t matter.  Everyone plays the same hands, so ability to bid and play are primary, although it still helps to be lucky.  The last time we played I ended up in a three no trump contract even though my partner and I had only three clubs between us. The highest card we had in clubs was the Queen.  Our opponents had ten clubs. If they had attacked by leading clubs until they ran out of the suit, they would have taken the first five tricks and decimated the contract. They led clubs only once and I made the bid plus one more trick — that’s luck!

The first group I joined took the game so seriously that there was very little talk during the afternoon.  People were patient with me, but there was an underlying sense of impatience with me not knowing the unspoken customs of play, such as not talking about anything unrelated to the game. At first  I didn’t have a convention sheet. Of course, I didn’t know many conventions to write down.  When people asked what my partner’s bids meant, I often had to admit that I didn’t know.

Once or twice my partner and I did well, but largely I believe because by chance our mistakes turned out to yield higher scores than standard bidding and play.  I liked my partner, the director and most of the players.  The director advised me not to worry about unfriendly players because after a few hands they would move on.  The director kept the game moving.   Eventually I decided I was not obsessive enough for that particular group.

With the second duplicate group I started by subbing in for partners who could not attend a game for one reason or another.  At the end of the session I would say I enjoyed playing and would ask the person I had played with to request me as a partner when his or her regular partner was unavailable.  There was one exception.  Once a woman who had just been my partner disappeared with a speed that Houdini would have envied.  I think she didn’t want to listen to me asking her if she wanted to have me as a partner again.  Now I play regularly with the same man.

I enjoy playing defense.  Mucking around with someone else’s plan has an element of controlled disorder that I find satisfying.  I am now beginning to better appreciate the offensive strategies needed to make a bid.  I am working at learning when to bid above the value of a hand and take an expected loss. Sometimes opponents get fewer points for setting us than they would have gained by making a bid.  I am gradually learning more about scoring the hands.

In this group talking about things besides bridge is acceptable. That slows down the game.  Also the director will delay starting if someone who promised to play is late.

I’ve noticed that even in the more relaxed atmosphere of the second group people get emotionally engaged in the game.  The director is called when there is a disagreement or uncertainty.  I’ve heard people argue about the director’s decision.  Loudly.  One player picked up a board (a thin piece of metal shaped like a board with slots holding the four hands to be played) and threw it across the room. She announced her team would take a zero on the rest of the hands. Then she led her partner (her husband) out of the room. Another player insulted his opponents using quite colorful language.  He apologized some weeks later.

Historically, bridge resulted in a murder.  If I have the story correct one man insulted his wife for not making a contract bid. Next he insisted she bring him his gun from upstairs.  Eventually the man ended up shot and killed.  His wife went to trial and claimed she acted in self-defense.  I don’t know if she was convicted.  Reportedly analysis of the hand by experts showed unless the opponents made a mistake the contract bid could not be made.