Bridge used to be my number 1 game. You will notice that most of the games people are familiar with I used to play. I have over 100 bridge books and I was disappointed to read in the guardian one of the top players of all-time refer to a computer's analysis rather than his own as to the outcome of the hand.
The article in question is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/aug/05/zia-mahmood-bridge
While the article presents an interesting hand it is not so complicated as to be unsure about the outcome.
I am assuming that the only error is in the diamond pips when describing the lead.
It is clear that the contract is still one off after a diamond lead.
Count the winners without drawing trumps:
2H + 2D + 4S
and the four spades are iffy.
Alternatively:
there is still 1H , 1D and 3S
the final spade must be lost as otherwise the opponents will set up the club suit.
The best play would club ruff followed by 10 Hearts even if this holds the final trick takes work.
It is not the first time that I have heard a player refer to computer analysis as beyond human. For me a computer can be faster with bridge but it is not like most games the human's can always find the best line double dummy it will just take longer. It is sad that it looks as if soon the computers are going to be used to stop us thinking about problems we can solve ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment