Bridging card game knowledge gap

The Claudette Sandecki column of March 23, 2016 about participation of a student in a bridge game is basically incorrect in its example.

Dear Sir:

The Claudette Sandecki column of March 23, 2016 about participation of a student in a bridge game is basically incorrect in the example it offers.

It isn’t about being able to count to 15 – have to count far higher – the number 15 applies to the number of words one uses to bid.

In competitive serious games this is strictly enforced; in social games (like the one described) not really enforced. The idea is to bid precisely without adding words/inflections etc. that give partner info beyond the bid – a kind of cheating in serious bridge.

But then few outsiders who write about bridge get it right – not easy, even if they are a good interviewer.

Only reason I came across this bit of info, is I write a blog about social bridge survival after I’m dead and gone (I’m 96). So I have a Google Alert for the phrase “play bridge” which sent me a citation for Sandeckei’s column.

Maggy Simony,

Cape Canaveral, Florida