A 10 9 7
8 6 3 2
K J 9 7 4
K J 5
A 10 6 2
J 10 8 7 4
6 5 3 2
Q 9 7
K Q 9 6 2
K Q J 4
A 10 4
Q 5 3
A 5 3
Today we add a new term to the Gee lexicon, although, of course, we have seen the concept many times before. The Gee-spot may formally be defined as follows: The difference, as a percentage, between the optimal line on a contract and Gee’s actual line. Thus the Gee spot always ranges between 0 and 100.
An example may clarify. If Gee takes the optimal line on a contract, then the Gee spot is the optimal percentage minus the gee percentage, or zero, the minimum, in this case, since the two numbers are the same. This is, of course, unusual. If, on the other hand, Gee takes a zero percent line when there is a certain make available, the Gee-spot is 100% (optimal) minus 0% (Gee) = 100%, or simply 100. This, too, is unusual, though not unheard of; one of this week’s hands, for instance, had a maximum Gee spot.
As an exercise, let’s compute the Gee spot on a hand from last month. The optimal line: 99%. Gee’s line: 20%. Thus we have a Gee-spot of 99% – 20% = 79 (dropping the percentage, which is implied). Outstanding!
Yet the Gee-spot is impossible to compute for certain hands, like today’s. Gee ruffs the opening club lead and plays two rounds of trump and shifts to diamonds. The first round is ducked. East shows out on the second round. West takes his ace and leads a third round, ruffed by East, who returns a heart. Now Gee, crucially, instead of drawing the last trump and cashing diamonds, making five, ruffs his other small club and strands the diamonds in dummy by allowing East to ruff in on them with the last outstanding trump. He makes two club ruffs, four trump and a trick in each side suit for down 1.
Sure, the play is disastrous: yet what was the Gee-spot? If we reckon from the first trick, probably very small, since his line usually works when trump break (assuming he shifts to diamonds after two rounds of trump, and again, who knows?) And he was still about 80% to make right up until the moment he ruffed the second club, at which point he became 100% to go down. And if West had defended properly, winning the third diamond and shifting to hearts instead of winning the second and shortening his partner’s trump, again he would have gone down. It’s just too complicated — in this case. But many hands readily lend themselves to Gee-spot analysis, and I urge my readers to employ this useful heuristic.
OK, I just want to say I think this whole Gerard thing has gone way out of hand. I think all regular Gerard spectators, including myself, are cowards. All we do is sit around and laugh and mock Gerard for his bridge playing abilities. What kind of people does that make us? At least Gerard can say he is a better person, and laugh at us for that. The whole thing is making me sick, and all the spectators are just turncoats. We pretend to be his friend, we say hi to him and make conversation, but behind his back we are stabbing him senseless. Did he do anything to deserve this? No. Half the spectators don’t have a clue themselves. If we are going to say something about Gerard, we should say it to his face. G, I want to say I think you’re a terrible bridge player. I also don’t think that matters, and think you are a better person than most for putting up with this and being nice about it.
My SINCERE apology this time. And to the other specs, you repulse me, and I was repulsing myself. Not any more.
Now, I’m so confused I don’t know where I live or what my name is!!
I have some sympathy for your thoughts. However, consider the facts.
1. Gerard has put himself forth as an expert. Well, he is not the first person to do this that has, how shall I say, no discernable objective evidence to support this assertion. If it w ere only that, I do not believe that G would receive the amount of attention he does. Indeed every bridge player tends to think he is better than he is. I do too: untill I go up against Mark Lair or Grant or a REAL expert and get my lesson in humility.
2. Gerard has authored a “book” on bridge. This is the first step in his basically asking for the treatment. On what basis does he claim to have enough expertise in this subject to write a book on it?
3. Gerard has put himself forward as being a good enough bridge player to give lessons. (This was the point where I decided to become active in the criticism process.) I know from my early time in bridge that I would not know the difference from an expert and a pseudo expert. And I suffered from many local pseudo expert’s comment about the proper way to bid a hand or defend it or the proper carding or what ever. These comments hurt my effort to become a better bridge player. And Gerard is a pseudo bridge expert. When he gives lessons to novices and intermediates he is HURTING bridge in general, and those individuals in specific.
If he wants to be considered an expert let him:
1. Place in a national event. Not win it, just place, say, in the top 10. Hell, even the top 25 of a national ranked pairs event would do.
2. Then after he has done this, let him show his lehmans.