K 9 6 5
Q 6 4
Q 7 6 4 2
Q 6 4
Q J 10
A 10 8 3
10 8 3
A K 10 7 5 3 2
K J 5
8 7 4 3 2
K J 9 5
Today we have a special treat. Guest commentary from Gerard himself! Last night I quoted Gee as follows: “Sorry partner, I knew it was a swing board and did not use it to bid 6.” I also claimed the hand in question never made 6. I now yield the floor.
How can you say it never makes? I am most upset by your commentary of it, which means, in plain English: This guy (me, Gerard) is a lunatic. He does not know what he is talking about!
31 tables played this contract so far, out of which, 2 bid and made 6, 23 did not bid slam but made 6, 3 made 5, 1 went down 1 in a 5 contract and 1 played the other side. This is a huge percentage of success for a board that cannot make. [Ed.–This summary is accurate.]
Just by looking at the results showing that 90% of the players made slam, don’t you think you look a bit ridiculous when you make fun of me in public by stating that I am a fool for thinking this contract makes?
Seems to me you are placing judgement on something way above your head. So I will try to spell it out for you.
Almost everybody made 6… I did not make 6, only 5… I was one of the 3 unlucky ones who had a nasty lead, and Genes was one of the 3 lucky ones who made an odd but lucky lead. Lucky because there is no logic to that lead, but it just happened to work. I played the hand in a 4 contract, but if I had followed my instinct and bid the slam contract, the lead might very well have been different, more similar to the other tables, in which case it would have made 6… Like everybody else…
I did not bid slam because I used my head instead of my gut feeling (By the way, you did not praise me for using my head either). [Ed.–I think it would be patronizing to praise what looks like an absolutely obvious four spade bid.] If I had used my gut feeling instead of my head, Genes would have used his head instead of his gut feeling and made one of the two logical but wrong leads available to him. Only two other players did the same thing as Genes did.
But this is what happens when you play with and/or against great players. [Ed.–Hmm. Wasn’t the diamond lead illogical but lucky?] Success or failure has to do as much with strategy, psychology and dare as with technique, and that’s why, you people come to kibitz us competitors at our tables.
In the case of this board, Genes succeeded by dare, I missed by lack of dare. [Ed.–I think Gee’s being a bit hard on himself here. I wouldn’t call four spades a cowardly bid.]
Yes, on paper and for you specs looking at all 4 hands, this contract does not make. At the table, we have to figure things out by ourselves, without help from anyone and we need to have a vision. We don’t use the paper. It is not always as clear as for you in specs. And even what is clear to me may not be clear to the opponents.
On paper, this contract does not make and Genes’ lead is a poor lead. In reality, that contract makes and Genes’ lead was a great lead. I maintain what I said. I did not dare continue all the way to slam, and I was wrong. If I had dared, Genes would probably not have dared making an odd lead and I would have had the big score, even if you, in spec, would have thought I was crazy. [Ed.–Seawind showed up with a near-maximum hand, along with the crucial ace of diamonds. We will assume Gee would check for aces before bidding six. Even so, it is very difficult to construct a hand on which slam is a favorite. The best I can do is Jxx Kxxx Axxx Qx, or the same hand with the diamond K. This is a barely conceivable two spade raise and slam is about 90%. On the actual hand, even if we assume no diamond lead, you need the HK onside, the CQ onside, and trump 2-1. I book six at about 20%.]
I made the comment to the specs, before the hand was played out, that it was a swing board. I knew it when you, upstairs, did not even have a clue about it. I know you did not, else you would not have written, sic: “discussing a hand on which six never makes.”
If six never makes, how come so many players made it? [Ed.–Because they didn’t get the best defense. However, I should not have said six never makes. I should have said six is an awful contract and cannot make without help.] And if so many made six, how come you, specs and critics, are unable to recognize it is makeable… It is written here, black and white on paper that the slam contract makes. Because you lack of imagination and foresight.
Against all odds, I had a sense that it could make and I stated it before the action took place to the specs and after seeing the results and realizing that on paper it could not make.
If I had dared, I would have won it. But I did not dare….this time!
Does that justify that you publicly denounce my stupidity and ridicule me for it?
It must hurt you badly not to be able to have these visions since you have this craving for making me pass for a fool and try to make me lose face in front of all the spectators who come to see me play. I say me… not you.
Looks to me that you need to demolish me so you don’t have to face your own limitations…
If I could do it all over again, I would bid 6S and Genes would not have made that lead. That same psychologic war takes place between all contestants in any competitive activity. The stronger the competition, the more intensely this intellectual confrontation plays out.
I am not ridiculous, or dumb, or a lunatic. I am a competitor.
Please correct your writing.
[Ed.–Ask and ye shall receive. I thank Gerard for his contribution, and so, I’m sure, do my readers.]