The Kobayashi Maru
I sent this off to John Carruthers, editor of The Kibitzer (a local bridge publication) and thought other readers might like to see it. He kindly granted permission for me to re-publish it.
Most of the bridge we read about is the expert game where double squeezes, endplays and skilled play is the norm. In the bridge world duffers are prolific. Just about every competitive event is a pyramid in structure with precious few at the top and hordes of players of varying ability filling the lower tiers. On-line bridge is rife with players who call themselves expert who in reality, are not even close to that level. This hand comes from an on-line game (I sat South) where all the players designated themselves as experts. The evidence may not support such a claim. You be the judge.
For starters you are presented with a horrific scenario. Yes Virginia, sometimes they get the mine and you get the shaft. The opponents are vulnerable, you are not, IMP scoring and the auction proceeds:
You hold : T95 85 T942 T973
North East South West
You
1D Pass 2C Dble
P ?
Partner made a takeout double asking you to bid one of the majors. From your point of view, the opponents almost surely have game, and anything you bid will be doubled and harshly punished. Real experts are not afraid to double opponents at a low level and "into game" when they step out. So for now, you decide on pass. No one is saying this is right, but two clubs doubled is not game, and surely any bid you make will be doubled and going down more than the value of their game.
Sadly, the opponents know this too and the auction (to your horror) gets worse, not better:
North East South West
You
1D Pass 2C Dble
P P Rdble P
P ?
Certainly this is a horrific choice. Now they are in game, and overtricks (which seem likely from your hand) are looming. Do you run or sit it out?
This is the Kobayashi Maru. No way to win. Every choice meets with disaster. The true intent of the Kobayashi Maru is to see how one copes with adversity. It was allegedly “a test of character” or so the seasoned Admiral James T. Kirk tells a confused young Vulcan in The Wrath of Khan. There is no solution as there is no chance win. So, recognizing this for what it is you have a choice. You go for the number, or the opponents score a huge plus. If only you could get partner to go for the digit, instead of you. That would be fitting. Sad part is, partner’s bid was dreadful. Expert or not, you be the judge. The whole hand:
QJ84
K93
AQ87
J5
AK72 T95
T964 85
KJ6 T942
62 T973
63
AQJ2
53
AKQ83
East was a great sport under the circumstances. He did not quit in mid-hand (damn I hate that cowardice, imagine trying that at a tournament) instead he quietly finished the hand out, said thank you to his partner and the opponents then left the table. No fireworks, no accusations, no venom. He passed the test.
On the hand in question, East chose to pass and the contract was made with 3 overtricks (worth 400 a piece) so you do the math. The moral of the story? Like Mulder, trust no one. And of course, how we cope with adversity is part of who we are. My mom said, “if you never go for a number, you are not bidding enough”. She was right. On this hand, West was bad. Ok, appalling. Certainly not a call many expert players would make. Get over it. Migrate to a new game, make a mental note to only play against this person if at all, and move on. Deal with it with dignity, not anger. Remember, on-line bridge is like computer dating. You may be paired, but you are unlikely to connect.
C
East's pass was a bloody horror, worse than West's double. It says "Partner, I trust the opponents but not you." He should rely on partner to have enough shape to show a profit and bid a confident (yes, I know it's online) two spades. After that it's the opponents' problem. The pass says he expects to beat two clubs.
Posted by: kibbitzer | March 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM