Page 0017

The Principles


of Bridge

Principles are the most grandiose form of bridge maxim.

They should not be confused with the Principal of Bridge,

the Chairman of the EBU; she, too, is grandiose, but only slightly,

and in an approachable sort of way.

Simon Cochemé

THE Principle of Fast Arrival dates back The declarers who played in 7™ on a spade

many years. In certain circumstances a lead faced a classic Restricted Choice won in hand. He had the luxury of being

jump to game (fast arrival) is weaker than position. They crossed to the ace of hearts able to delay the decision in hearts, and so

a lower bid, the latter leaving more room at trick two and East followed with the started by cashing a second diamond and

to investigate a slam. For example, over a jack. Some of you are wondering what the playing a heart to the ace, East dropping

traditional strong 2™ (or the Benji equiv- problem is. Eight-ever, nine-never, play the queen. Declarer then took all his top

alent), a raise to 4™ is considered weaker the heart king, right? But that is only tricks outside the heart suit, ending in

than a simple raise to 3™. correct when the four missing cards don’t hand. Now he led a small heart towards

The certain circumstances need to be include touching honours. Players invited dummy and the moment of truth had

agreed by the partnership. Take the to the Cavendish know that a Principle arrived. With East having pre-empted, it

sequence 1NT – 2™ (transfer) – 2´ – 3®. outranks a mere Mantra, and the Principle was very likely that he held a singleton

Half the world play this as forcing to 3´, of Restricted Choice says that East is twice heart, but Pepsi did some counting, as

half the world play it as forcing to game, and as likely to have started with a singleton experts are wont to do. West had shown

half the world haven’t discussed it. If it is jack than with queen-jack doubleton. Add up with six spades, three clubs and two

game-forcing, then 4´ is weaker than 3´. in the fact that West might have led a heart diamonds and so he couldn’t possibly

The Principle of Restricted Choice, first from two small, but would certainly not hold three hearts. Mathematical certainty

proposed by Alan Truscott, and vigorously have done so with Q-7-3, and the odds outranks even a Principle, so it was up

promoted by Terence Reese, states that the strongly favour coming back to hand and with the king, down with jack, and out

play of a particular significant card increas- taking the trump finesse. Unlucky. with pencil to record plus 1520.

es the likelihood that the player doesn’t have Meanwhile, at another table, Polish inter- I’m sorry if this example hasn’t shown

another equivalent one. So if you are national Jacek Pszczola, known as ‘Pepsi’ the Principle of Restricted Choice in a

missing Q-J-3-2 in a suit and a defender (really), was in 7NT as South after East had good light, but it is statistically sound,

plays an honour under your ace or king, opened 3t (not something you should try honest. If you don’t believe me, then I

then you should play him to have started at home). hope we meet at the bridge table before

with a singleton honour. There are three West led the nine of diamonds and Pepsi you see the error of your ways. r

equally-likely relevant holdings: Q, J and

Q-J. If you always finesse when an honour is

played, you will win two times out of three. A variation of the Principle of Restricted Choice arose in an American TV show,

Here is a deal from the 2009 Cavendish hosted by Monty Hall. A contestant was shown three doors with randomly placed

Invitational Pairs, played in Las Vegas. prizes behind them: a car and two goats. The contestant was asked to select a door

but, before that door was opened, the show’s host (who knew what was behind all

the doors) would choose one of the other two doors and open it to reveal a goat.

Love All. Dealer East. Now the contestant was asked whether he would like to stick with his original

´ K 10 9 4 door or switch to the other unopened door. What do you think he should do?

™ AK982 The producers of the show believed that it didn’t make a difference; two doors,

t 10 one car, it must be 50-50. When it was suggested that the contestant was twice as

® AK8 likely to win if he switched doors, there was a heated debate in scientific journals

´ J87632 ´ 5 about the statistics of the so-called ‘Monty Hall Problem’.

™ 73 N ™ QJ The key point is that two-thirds of the time the host had a restricted choice and


t 92 S t J87654 you should assume that he didn’t open the other door because he would have

® J62 ® 10 7 4 3 revealed the car. Look at it this way: if the door you initially selected had a car

´ AQ behind it (one third of the time), you lose by switching. But if the door you initially

™ 10 6 5 4 selected had a goat behind it (two thirds of the time), you win by switching.

t AKQ3 Of course, if you collect goats and you don’t drive a car, you might have a different

® Q95 strategy. August 2010 English Bridge 17


  1. Page 0001
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056