The famous exchange between Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Gregory of Scotland Yard in Arthur Conan Doyle’s short story ‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’ will resonate with all good bridge players.
Gregory: ‘Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?’ Holmes: ‘To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.’ Gregory: ‘The dog did nothing in the night-time.’ Holmes: ‘That was the curious incident.’
Holmes was, of course, referring to the fact that the dog didn’t bark, therefore it must have known the intruder.
Making deductions from negative inferences is vital at the bridge table, too. You can often deduce as much about the opponents’ hands from what they don’t bid, or discard, or lead, as from what they do.
This hand, played by my friend Alice Coptcoat, is a good example (see diagram)
West led the ♥️2 to East’s ♥️J. Alice ducked, won the heart continuation, and cashed two diamonds. When West showed out (pitching a club), she stopped to think. She had eight top tricks, and the best chance for a ninth was from spades. West’s lead was ‘fourth highest’, so (unless it was a false-card), he’d begun with four hearts and one diamond. Should she play spades to be 3-3? The answer lay in what West didn’t lead: a club. He would surely have led one from five, meaning his probable shape was 4414. Alice cashed the ♠️K, then the ♠️A, and confidently finessed the ♠️10 – contract made.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in