Bridge is a fascinating game for a multitude of reasons. One of those reasons is that we are constrained in how we communicate with our partners. As we all know, when we bid, legal communication is quite limited. We have the various suits from 1 to 7 plus no trump, double, redouble - and the almighty pass. When we raise partner's 1 spade opener to two, our bidding box doesn't offer us a choice of: "mediocre raise to two," "middle of the road raise," and "right on the cusp of a limit raise" selections. No, we just have to evaluate each hand as best we can, then go with what we think is the best.
Needless to say, good bridge demands some thinking - and often, thinking versus not thinking takes time. The more time we take to make our bids and plays, however, the greater the odds that we have communicated information to our partner that is outside the bounds of what is "legal" than when we bid in tempo. Nothing whatsoever is wrong with taking time to think; we all do it. Yet, when we do so, we must appreciate that our partner is under a greater burden to not take any inferences from our extraneous actions.
Last week, Paul Gutterman wrote a nice article about some crossover between poker and bridge. This week, Paul shares with us the first of what we hope will be many columns on the important and perplexing issue of communication at the table.
Thank you, Paul - and - enjoy, everyone!