The Bellwether
by Jim Munday
This column focuses on the psychology of
the game, along with an unusual look at the "science" of luck. Mathematicians and poker theorists
have studied the subject, and found that luck is, by its nature, streaky. In Texas Hold 'em poker,
it would not be unusual for a person starting with KK (the 2nd best possible starting hand) to
lose 5 or 6 times in a row with those cards. Over the years, I have noticed a similar pattern
at the bridge table. It has not been a scientific study by any means, but bad splits seem to
run in bunches. Early in a session, sometimes a hand will come up that I will use as a bellwether,
to see if the cards are going to be "friendly" that session. If the cards are friendly on that
hand, I will lean towards aggression the rest of the session. If they are not, I will be more
conservative. Not significant adjustments, but if I had a close decision, it might sway me
one way or the other. Here is an example of a bellwether hand, from a recent club game:
I held the following in 1st seat with nobody vul: 
Kx 
QTxx 
QJx 
JTxx.
The auction begins:
| You |
LHO |
Partner |
RHO |
| Pass |
Pass |
2(1) |
2 |
| 3 |
3 |
Pass |
Pass |
| ? |
1) Intermediate (think of a weak 2 with an extra ace)
The HCP's look to be evenly distributed between both sides. With a 10 card fit (at least), passing is
too conservative, but no action clearly stands out. Having limited myself with the 3C bid, I now chose
to make an aggressive 3NT bid. It is a flawed bid, in that having only 1 diamond stopper, we will need
to take 9 tricks without losing the lead. This hand lacks quick tricks, and even if clubs run, we
may not succeed. Partner will recognize that we are counting on the club suit, with an unsuitable hand
he will pull 3NT, so I took a chance. This is the type of situation where the bellwether comes in, I knew
it would take some luck to make, but I'd at least get a sense (in theory) about how the cards were running.
3NT was passed out and partner produced:
AQTx xx x AQxxxx.
A great catch in dummy, but the sort of hand he should hold
to pass 3NT. The club finesse worked and the contract succeeded. Applying the theory, I then erred on
the side of aggression during the session. I don't keep track of the % of finesses that win, or suits
that split evenly, but I do get a sense during the game. It's not foolproof, and the situation
doesn't present itself all the time, but it does factor in to my decision making.
Here's a hand from the recent regional in Monterey where I took a conservative stance:
Vulnerable in 3rd suit, I picked up a most promising collection: xx Axxx AKQxxx x.
The auction begins:
| Partner |
RHO |
You |
LHO |
| Pass |
Pass |
1 |
Pass |
| 1 |
Pass |
? |
Partner's 1H bid has made a great hand even better. We have a convention that describes this
hand quite well --- a 4D bid here would show 4-6 in the red suits with strong diamonds and a
good offensive hand, but not many high cards in the black suits. I would make this bid, however,
partner is a passed hand, and the chances of slam are very remote. Thus the 4D bid would only
help the opponents on defense. This hand was towards the end of the session. Finesses were not
working and trumps had been splitting badly all day. I made a very conservative (for me) 3H bid
which partner passed holding these cards:
xxx QTxx xx KQxx.
As it turned out, 3H was too high. The defense was accurate, the club ace was offside, trumps
did not split, and a trump misguess led to down 3. It's uncanny. I can't really explain it,
but bad luck (and good) just seems to run in bunches.