Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Truth or Consequences

I don't typically like to redundantly blog about a recent news article - but I couldn't resist propagating and virally duplicating the points of Michael Ledeen in his May 17th WSJ commentary "Bridge - Not Chess is the Ultimate War Game".  Mom and Dad taught me card sense (although I think card sense is a DNA gene), and the game of Bridge.  The real teacher I had was Rich M. (my college buddy) who was a top ranked chess player also. 

Michael Ledeen's observation about player feints is exactly why I love the game:

"Frequently a player will have to decide whether he would rather tell the truth to his partner (thereby informing his opponents) or deceive the enemy (thus running the risk of seriously fooling his ally across the table).    Nothing like this exists in even the greatest board games. They permit some feints, to be sure, but not outright lies. Great bridge players are great liars—as are brilliant military leaders and diplomats and politicians."

Luckily Rich M. put up with my lies that I claimed were true and legitimate "Goren" methods of playing.  Our friendship was sealed when I declared that our Bridge partnership was officially over in a dispute over an exception to the Blackwood convention after a cue bid of an ace.   Reflecting back - it was my error but Rich was the bigger Bridge partner to apologize. 


Now S.S. is my regular Bridge partner and he gives me great "Bridge Mercy" also in my lies (or convention ignorance).  When asked by opponents what my bid means he always responds - "I have no clue".   It supports what I have put on my convention card under Special Conventions:  "Don't trust anything this guy says .... he is a Cowboy bidder:  :)  "

A Bridge game is quite a intriguing practice of ethical paradoxes.  Every bid and play of the hand is a choice of Truth or Consequences. 

No comments:

Post a Comment