22 English Bridge December 2016 www.ebu.co.uk
Partners: For Worse . . . by Simon Cochemé
W
hy is it that so many players still feel they
have to discuss the bidding or play after
every hand? The rudeness to opponents
has certainly decreased in recent years, but the need
for an exchange of views with partner, often
acrimonious, still seems almost irresistible.
It was much worse in the old days, of course. Rixi
Markus was notoriously difficult to play with and I
remember watching her in the first part of a mixed
pairs event at Juan les Pins in the mid '80s. She was
partnering a young German international and by
the end of the tenth board he was in tears. Another
time, Rixi was playing with Martin Hoffman and
they were arguing so fiercely that a kibitzer assumed
they must be married! Are married couples worse
than other partnerships? Are they bringing
extraneous baggage to the table ('I would have
made 3NT if you had remembered to ring the
plumber')? I have certainly seen players who were so
rude to each other they just had to be a married
couple - they certainly weren't a Civil Partnership.
(Definition: a bridge game - the only time a
husband wants to do his wife's bidding.)
I was at the table when Italy played England in the
final of the Olympiad in Beijing in 2008, and I was
surprised that Lorenzo Lauria and Alfredo Versace,
an established partnership, seemed to have
something to say after every board, lowering their
heads to communicate under the screen. They were
speaking Italian, so maybe they weren't talking
about the bridge ('Shall we go back to that Smooth
Duck restaurant again tonight, Lorenzo?' and
'Wasn't it great, Napoli beating Juventus last
night?'), but I doubt it.
The rules say that all conversation at the bridge
table should be in English, unless the opponents
agree that you can use another language, so Lauria
and Versace shouldn't have been talking in Italian. I
am reminded of the story of a heavily-accented
Scottish player who was asked by his opponents to
use English, and was aggrieved to have to tell them
that he was speaking English!
Silence can be golden. Another Italian pair, Pietro
Forquet and Guglielmo Siniscalco, had a disaster on
an early board of a match against France in 1956,
running from a making 7´ doubled, to 7NT
doubled, down six. Not a word was said at the end
of the hand; the Italians just got on with the next
deal. It was their opponents, unnerved by the lack of
recriminations, who were affected by the incident,
and who quickly conceded their advantage and
went on to lose the match.
Misunderstandings should be discussed and
resolved after the session, away from the table. Even
then, instant tinkering with the system, based on
one poor result, is not necessarily a good idea -
you'll be creating a system to cope with the last
problem, not one that will work for the best in the
long run.
Assuming a fledgling partnership survives its first
game or two, it should be able to develop its system.
There will be a couple of conventions and
agreements to add. I'm sure you'll recognise the
need for these:
™ 'When my 1NT is overcalled, is your double for
penalties or take-out?'
™ 'When you open 1® and they overcall 1t, could
my response of 1™ or 1´ be on a four-card suit,
because a double would promise 4-4 in the
majors?'
™ 'We need a wriggle for when they double our
1NT.'
The conventions that were agreed before the first
game may need to be refined or enhanced:
®'What does a 2NT response to one of a major
mean on a passed hand? It can't still be Jacobean,
can it?'
®'I thought if you bid Stayman and then bid a
minor at the three level, it was a sign-off, but we
missed a slam.'
®'We agreed to play 2NT as Ogust opposite a weak
two, but what if there has been an overcall - what
does 2NT mean then?'
Bridge with a Twist
Bridge with a Twist
click
link