Was the Duke of Cumberlad hand mislplayed?

[Stig Holmquist]

The famous rigged hand was:

S:J-6
H:T-6
D:QJ
C:0

S:0 S:5-2
H:0 H:5-2
D:T-2 D:0
C:AQT8 C:6-2

S:AKQ
H:AKQJ
D:AK
C:KJ97

The Duke held the S hand and led the 7of C to shorten the trumps in
declarers hand. By doing this he lost control of the hand. If he had
led the A of a major he could have defeated the 7C contract.
Have I misunderstood something?

Stig Holmquist

[Wes Powers]

You are correct. Have a look at this site for details:
http://www.bridgeguys.com/DGlossary/DukeCumberland.html

There is, however, a slightly different deal, also called the "Duke of
Cumberland hand", where 7C makes with any lead. This one is the more
widely-known deal.
Details are here: http://www.bridgehands.com/D/Duke_of_Cumberland_Hand.htm

Wes

[Mark Brader]

Stig Holmquist:

> The Duke held the S hand and led the 7of C to shorten the trumps in
> declarers hand. By doing this he lost control of the hand. If he had
> led the A of a major he could have defeated the 7C contract.

Yes, he could have taken one or more tricks.

> Have I misunderstood something?

For one thing, you've misunderstood what the game was. The game the
Duke of Cumberland played in the 18th century would have played whist
-- the concept of a "contract" didn't arise until auction bridge was
developed around 1905.

The story is that on this specific hand the Duke's opponents made a
*bet* that they would take all the tricks.
--
Mark Brader That would be the opposite of "non idiotic",
Toronto assuming there's some good word for that.
m...@vex.net --Ken Jennings

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Stig Holmquist]

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:58:12 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Stig Holmquist:
>> The Duke held the S hand and led the 7of C to shorten the trumps in
>> declarers hand. By doing this he lost control of the hand. If he had
>> led the A of a major he could have defeated the 7C contract.
>
>Yes, he could have taken one or more tricks.
>
>> Have I misunderstood something?
>
>For one thing, you've misunderstood what the game was. The game the
>Duke of Cumberland played in the 18th century would have played whist
>-- the concept of a "contract" didn't arise until auction bridge was
>developed around 1905.
>
>The story is that on this specific hand the Duke's opponents made a
>*bet* that they would take all the tricks.

I came across this hand in the book "Bid Better, Play Better" by
Dorthy Hayden. She mentions it as "Perhaps the the most famous hand in
the entire history of bridge is the hand dealt two hundred years ago
to a Duke of Cumberland." But she discusses it in the context of
whist.

The hand might serve as a good example of sacrifice or psychy bid.

Stig