Last week I got an email from one of my readers — the other one is possibly away for the summer. His name was Paddy and he wrote as follows: ‘Dear Janet, I love your column [I warmed to him immediately] but I have been rather confused lately. I’m not a good player, and I have spent most of my life trying to win tricks as cheaply as possible, but recently you have featured several hands where you advocate playing an unnecessarily high card. I think learning players like myself would be better served by just reading about plain, old-fashioned good bridge.’
I take your point Paddy, but sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the two. Today’s hand is about plain old-fashioned good bridge, with one problem — the contract made. One tiny ‘unnecessary’ amendment brings it crashing down.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in