February 2020 - 54

Intermediate Players

Boehm on Bridge
BY AUGUST BOEHM

Simple Simon
"Why You Lose at Bridge" by British
author S.J. "Skid" Simon is unique in
the game's literature, a delightful mix
of wisdom and wit, and in many respects as relevant today as when it was
published in 1945. It bears periodic
rereading for players of all levels. One
of Simon's pet projects was to teach
an appreciation of bidding up "bad"
hands, i.e., hands whose playing value
far exceeds their meager point count.
For instance, holding:
♠Q 8 5 4 3 ♥K 7 ♦8 7 4 ♣6 5 3,
with only your side vulnerable, lefthand opponent opens 1♦, partner
doubles, RHO passes, and you bid 1♠.
Opener jumps to 3♦, partner goes to
4♠, and RHO bids 5♦. It's up to you.
Bid 5♠, Simon says, and expect to
make it. 5♠ will not occur to a player
who sees only 5 high-card points and
lots of losers. It will be much clearer to
someone who asks himself the simple
question, "How much worse could my
hand be?" Partner bid 4♠ to make
on the basis that you might hold four
low spades and little or nothing else.
Instead, you have a fifth trump headed
by an honor and the invaluable ♥K in
a suit partner advertised with his takeout double. Simon cites a few possible
hands for partner:
♠A K J x ♥A J 10 x x ♦x ♣K Q J
or
♠K J 10 x ♥A Q J x x ♦x ♣A Q J.
Each time, 5♠ should make and the

54 Bridge Bulletin February 2020

penalty against 5♦ doubled rates to be
inadequate.
As his "supreme example" of bidding
up bad hands, Simon gives you:
♠6 4 3 ♥K 5 ♦6 5 4 2 ♣8 6 3 2.
You are East in the diagram below,
complete with Simon's punctuation.
West

North
1♦
2♦
3♣
4♣!
4♦
5♦!! Pass
6♠!!!! Pass

East
Pass
Pass
Pass
5♠!
?

South
2♣
3♦
5♣
Pass

In Simon's era, West's repeated cuebids showed first-round control in the
opponent's suit and the equivalent of
a strong 2♣ opening. Simon suggests
that a master bid of 7♠ "now stands
out a mile." Why? Partner evidently
holds a huge major two-suiter because
he has forced a grudging preference
from you at the five level. On that
flimsy basis, he expects to make 6♠.
He can't possibly expect you to hold
the ♥K, the filler for his second suit,
yet he thinks he can make 6♠ without
it. Therefore, he must be able to make
7♠ with it. He either holds 13 superb
major suit cards or a terrific 6-6 with a
singleton ace on the side.
Naturally, a bid like 7♠ requires
faith in partner, but isn't that the essence of partnership bridge? Not long
ago, a similar situation arose in a club
game. Both vulnerable, you hold:

♠A 5 2 ♥7 5 3 ♦10 7 6 3 2 ♣10 6.
RHO opens 1♥, you pass, LHO
jumps to 4♥, and partner intervenes
with 5♥, passed back to you. What
do make of partner's unusual call? It
should be an extension of Michaels,
spades and a minor, which figures to be
clubs because of your diamond length.
Partner must hold a whale of a hand -
not only is he abandoning the chance to
play 4♠, but he is committing you to a
minor-suit slam via 5NT if you don't fit
spades. Ask yourself the key question,
how much worse could your hand be?
Much worse. You actually fit partner's
spades, plus the glorious ace to boot.
I suggest that you jump to 6♠ and I
imagine Simon would beam approval.
Partner's hand was:
♠K J 10 9 6 4 ♥- ♦- ♣A K Q J 8 5 4.
If you merely bid 5♠, why on earth
should partner go further? Two spade
losers are quite likely, especially since
the weak declarer's hand will often
lack an entry to take a spade finesse,
even if the queen is onside.
I intend these illustrations, apart
from any entertainment and instructional value, to provide an introduction
to my next series, Along the Spectrum.
When evaluating your hand in an
extended sequence, think beyond highcard points. Try to sense where your
hand lies on the spectrum, bad - medium - good.
◾
February 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of February 2020
