One development of bridge, seldom touched upon, has to do entirely with what may be designated the “lost tricks.”

Hands that play themselves are, to an extent, colorless and featureless accessories of the game; but the “lost tricks” are the “might have beens” of bridge that rankle in the memory long after the rubber is finished.

They are usually found in hands that require a thorough understanding of the score, good judgment and keen perception, and are lost many times because of a lack of understanding between partners.

There can be nothing more trying to one’s finest nervous sense than to play with a partner in whom one has little confidence, who makes each situation as difficult as possible, gives no correct information as to his own hand by the play of the cards, nor seeks to take advantage of the information correctly given by his partner.

There is one essential to bridge which must never be overlooked, nor can its importance be too strongly impressed upon all players, and that is, that to play the game well involves the closest kind of a business partnership in which implicit confidence must exist. Evil effects attendant upon deceit cannot be too highly overestimated, nor can such play be too severely condemned, if your aim is to attain, as nearly as possible, the standard of perfection.

All players must understand that rules are but the mere convention of the game, holding it to certain conformity, that, it is evident, is necessary for its preservation and the perfect enjoyment of its enthusiastic devotees. Certain rules, that govern the technicalities, are absolute, as they are in any game of cards, but rules in general are not the masters of bridge; rather should they be considered as second to circumstance and the fall of the cards. Brilliant plays are made in contravention to rules, yet we would not attempt to deduce from that fact the theory that rules are not essential to the game.

There are those disaffected individuals who rail at everything. To them rules are bogey men; conventions are pitfalls. They scoff at partners who play as such, and argue weakly for disconcerted play in which one puts down a card, his partner another, and for all the information that either conveys to the other a pinch of snuff would be generous recompense. You might as well take a chance on a card of any denomination or of any suit, as to try to adhere to a union of forces with such a school of philosophy to guide you.

Do not be influenced by theories somewhat wildly and illogically advanced by players thus minded. Time and experience will assuredly teach you that heresies fail in bridge, as they fail in other subjects where cool, philosophical reasoning will lead to a sane and intelligent understanding.

Never forget that the dealer is in the possession of the strength of twenty-six cards all the time. If you, with half that force, play at random, and your partner, with no more numerical strength than you possess, is also playing a fourth of the game on his individual account, with no particular interest in what is being done with the other three-fourths of the fifty-two cards, it is surely not common sense to imagine that you and your partner are likely to be superlatively blessed with success.

United play in bridge is absolutely essential to success. This has been demonstrated from the inception of the game, and those who are most mindful of this fact are those who see fewer ghosts of “lost tricks” stalking dejectedly about as they recall the hands of the past.

Occasions do arise however when you may deceive the dealer and not your partner. If you wish the dealer to finesse, it will often pay to play a high card second in hand, holding a small one. For instance, with King, Jack, nine, four and three in dummy, the dealer leads the Ace and then a small card. By playing the ten from the ten, five, deuce on the second round of the suit you may lead the dealer to believe that you hold the Queen or no other card in the suit, and this may tempt him to finesse.

When Ace and Queen are in dummy over your once guarded King, you will probably be led through and your King be captured. It will pay you at times, especially if the card next to the King is a nine or ten, to lead the suit in the hope that the dealer will play the Ace second in hand and that he will infer from your lead that the King is in your partner’s hand.

Should you and your partner hold all the remaining cards in a suit, do not hesitate to play or discard a card of the suit so as to mislead the dealer and make it difficult for him to count your own and your partner’s hand.

To enumerate the many situations wherein tricks are lost and where partners go astray would need a keen observer and a pencil and pad at almost every rubber that is played.

It is usually accepted that a short suit is led for the purpose of establishing a ruff. Very good. Yet players are often met who complain about being forced after showing a desire to ruff. Then avoid giving the invitation. Your partner can only read it as you played to him and followed out your own suggestion as he felt in duty bound to do.

It is not invariably necessary that you open a short suit and play for a ruff. It does seem to be a common impulse. There appears to exist a desire on the part of most who play bridge to do something with trumps, and players are always eager to begin their employment, hoping to see Aces and Kings go by the board. Your short suit lead may establish that suit for your opponent, and bring disaster through an effort to make a small trump trick; while, on the other hand, the lead of your long suit may force and so weaken the dealer’s trump hand as to make it impossible for him to take out the trumps against him.

Tricks are lost by players not showing the correct numerical strength of their long suit. A player who leads the deuce from a six card suit assuredly would not have done so had he confidence in the ability of his partner to read or count his hand.

Frequently the under card of a sequence is led, or the highest card of a sequence is played second or third in hand, and repeatedly that has cost a trick or two because it conveyed misinformation.

One who continually leads the top of long, weak suits against a declared trump, gives misinformation and often leads his partner to believe that he is opening a short suit, and frequently a trick or two is lost by the dealer obtaining discards.

The player who continually refuses to part with the best trump should bear in mind that ruffing with the commanding trump rarely loses a trick, and often gains one.

Remember that the partner who doubles usually has trump strength, and so do not strew his pathway with obstructions by forcing him when it is most fatal to his chances.

There is one type of partner who is particularly trying. He is that persistent individual who, having acquired the notion of establishing his long suit at “No-Trump” keeps at it with a bland faith that would be amusing were it not so vexing. With little or no chance of ever getting in, he sacrifices the only hope of saving the game by refusing to switch off and see what his partner has got.

Think, too, how your partner must feel when marked with a card of your established suit, and in the lead, he witnesses a discard on your part of one of your good suit, and is met with the feeble apology that you had a “King or Queen to protect.”

It is a maxim in bridge that the weaker hand should always consider itself subordinate to the stronger, ready to sacrifice the high card holding so that it will be a gain to the partner in the end.

How selfishly and at what cost partners will decline to unblock because it appears to them to mean the sacrifice of too high a card. Too long they cling to their Queens and their Kings only to see the great army of “lost tricks” obtain fresh recruits because they would not, or could not, read what their partners were vainly trying to publish before them.

Another rather cool invitation and one bound to be fraught with disastrous results is when you request your partner to play for a suit in which you have neither length nor strength. It would be just as logical to ask him to play for cards in your adversaries’ hands.

It is always good practice in bridge not to attempt to play for too much. To bring in two suits is, of course, a very delightful sensation, but it is a great deal better to confine your efforts to bring in one sure suit than to attempt two with the result of getting neither. Bear in mind that when one is a bit greedy, “lost tricks” are likely to foot up rapidly.

Before the subject of “lost tricks” is abandoned it is well to call attention to what may be sacrificed by bad makes. Players overanxious to win will attempt declarations which they know to be unsound, being influenced by a speculative impulse rather than by sound judgment.

Countless rubbers are lost—not tricks, but rubbers—because players do not know the score and, because they lack that information, are not playing with an intelligent idea as to how many tricks are absolutely essential to save the game.

In conclusion bear this in mind for it is a justifiable loss of a trick: Do not hesitate to lose when the only chance is to find in your partner’s hand the card that will save the game; you may be astonished to ascertain how often this will happen during the ordinary course of play.

Play so to perfect your whole game as to take care of the “lost tricks.” The winning tricks, it will quickly be discovered, take care of themselves.