Dubious Logic

Is bridge a sport?

Bridge is a sport. Well almost. It has been granted an opportunity at the 2002 Winter Olympics to participate as an 'Attraction Sport'. Before any new sport is approved to participate fully in the Olympic Games, this sport is usually demonstrated before the public and the IOC. It is now planned that such a demonstration will take place before the start of next February's events in Salt Lake City. This process is well established – there has been much manoeuvring in the committee rooms - and there is cause for optimism that bridge players might well be competing for Olympic gold in Turin, 2006.

Except I'm not really sure what I think about this. I recognise that there are manifest advantages to being treated as a sport globally and nationally. It is a convenient label and one that might serve well all the way down to a very local level. The search for funding and sponsorship, for from national events or small lottery grants for local bridge clubs, will be much eased by sport's recognition. I know that bridge is a good game - you don't have to persuade me of that - and it's not that I don't realise that there are many of the attributes of sport that are essential to success at bridge. It's just, well, more of a game and for me, not sporty enough…

As a member of the bridge press (however lowly) I am getting a lot of material exhorting me to spread the word and I would be delighted to get some feedback on this issue. What do you think? For those with email, gets to me directly or write to the newspaper and it will reach me eventually.

But what of those attributes that make bridge at least sport-like? Concentration is certainly up there. Late in a knock-out match at this year's Spring Fours, how do you play this four spade game against silent opponents on the lead of the knave of trumps?

Of course the answer is the same as you would in the first set. But tiredness is a big factor in long events, and long matches and in tough games, it is the well rested and the well prepared that survive. By economising on the simple hands they save themselves for the crucial deals. Viewing the lead with suspicion I felt that the diamond honours were favourite to be offside. So it was pointless and perhaps dangerous to cross to dummy to lead a diamond toward the KQ – I didn't want to have to start ruffing clubs in hand, shortening my trumps prior to running my side suit. But it was South who won the diamond king with the ace and played a club. Winning the ace I played a spade to the king and a discard from North – things were not going well. Ruffing diamonds and a club brought this position.

Surprisingly South had turned up with four diamonds and four spades. He still had two trump winners but I only needed two tricks. I seemed to be able to make the contract by either (a) cross to the heart king and ruff a club (b) advance the winning diamond and wait for South to lead into dummy's heart tenace. Option (a) works when South was originally 4-2-4-3, (b) when he was 4-3-4-2 – there doesn't seem much in it. Except that I chose (a) and it was wrong.

My whole line had all the hallmarks of tired play – lack of calculation and playing on 'hunches'. I failed to analyse the initial approach, preferring to fall back on general, but hazy, principles. Rather than be afraid of the ruffs in hand I should have seen that was one route to the contract. If South ducks the diamond ace then six trumps and four outside tricks is game. Later in the end-game I could have avoided the guess by ruffing a club earlier without playing to the heart ace. You have to be match fit to play this game, that's for sure…

Published Saturday 19.May.2001