I read something not long ago that mentioned a passage by John Keats in context to this subject. I believe Dr. Rosenkranz was the author of the article I read so diligently.

[Dr. George Rosencranz of Mexico, a scientist, is the founder of Syntex Corp and the inventor of the birth control pill. He is a leading international Bridge player and has made numerous original contributions to Bridge theory. – Master Spades]

Anyway a passage was mentioned by Keats from "Letter to G. and T. Keats" that went something like this.

"Negative Capability, something that allows a man capable of uncertainty, doubts, or some unknown, without any other irritant to reach after fact and reason."

All of us know the basic skills to play Spades. Most of us know the advanced skills to play. Many of us have discussed conventional topics with regular pards. How many, however, delve into the intricate bidding, defense, and play regarding captaincy? Just who is the captain during the bidding, during the play? Can this role quickly change? Can I change it assuming my pard is the captain?

Captaincy in Spades

Let's discuss first the simple side of captaincy and quickly isolate the most common ones first. Let's start by stating that anytime you bid 1 or less your pard is the captain! Granted, exceptions to this rule can and will occur but for now it's safe to assume if you nil or have a busted nil your pard is definitely in control of things. Before someone bashes me let me remind you that you could assume a role of captaincy after going nil when it appears that you must set your own nil to set the opponents and stay alive in some game. This by the way would answer one question mentioned earlier about deviation and role reversals.

Another simple captaincy rule should include the "Spade Lead!" Who decides? How is it decided? Quite frankly, I have a table feel based on my hand and partner's bid and what the opponents are doing that dictates it for me, but is it always clear? Absolutely not! But (and this is a very big but) if partner leads a spade, he assumes that because of the previous plays that it is warranted, or he has already made his bid and feels that some high level bid you've made dictates this action.

Should we have agreements that state a spade shift is mandatory a.s.a.p. anytime our table bid is x number or higher, or anytime an individual bid is y number or higher? I feel that the captain should decide, "captain" being the high bidder. If he decides to break the spade suit then we follow his lead. Even if it looks like disaster for our hand we have to keep partnership harmony and return the suit. Is it better to lose a hand, or to lose a partner?

Captaincy is involved in 10-bids. We are not in a position right off the shoot to discern whether to bag or set so we await clues from our pard and opponents to make an intelligent decision. If pard makes a decision to set we follow his lead. If pard makes a decision to bag we follow his lead. Regardless whether pard's decision was good or bad we follow his lead. The only thing worse than missing a set on a 10-bid is taking three bags and missing the set. All too often the captaincy rule is violated and we have a double-whammy to deal with. One pard setting and seeing a set while one is bagging and seeing a 3-bag pop and both defending two different ways. If we have an agreement with flaws regarding captaincy we are still better off than we would be with nothing in place.

The trick, I suppose, is to discern when to "captain." Who makes the first move? I think this is something that will come out of each and every serious partnership and cannot be defined perfectly. I can tell you that playing both sides of the table are wrong and will cost you many wins. All too often a dominant player will captain both sides trying to guide the partnership when holding a non-captain type hand, or in some other scenario where his partner should be making the decision for the pair. A decision made by a player that should be making the decision, even if this player is the weaker of the two players, is still much better than a decision made by stronger player when the call is not his to make.

You can dominate the partnership in many ways and even I suggest strongly that a weaker player allow the stronger player more room to operate freely but it is still crystal clear that the captain rule not be violated. Several things occur when you try to maximize and play the hand that is not yours. First, you steal a valuable learning experience from your partner. Secondly, when you goof you try to fix the blame on your partner who should have captained the hand in the beginning.

Bagging and Captaincy

Under normal setting conditions we typically play second-hand low and third-hand high. In a bagging-type scenario this rule drastically changes. We invert by playing second-hand high so third hand must make a decision. The captaincy will be decided by the first player to make a move that appears against the grain. Normal conditions will see both sides vying to make a decision each holding back until more information is known about the hand. At some point in the hand one side or the other will feel an advantage has been obtained and make some captaincy move. It could be the first high-card ditch, or some anomaly like taking some trick after one side has obtained the bid they contracted for. Regardless which happens that individual has assumed responsibility! If his decision proved incorrect then it can be discussed in future post mortems, but for now we follow this person's lead.

An old rule exists and goes something like this. "Never finesse against your partner!" It's merely an extension of these captaincy rules. If pard is bagging, then take a bagging position. If pard is setting or appearing to set then take a setting position. Typically this rule applies when pard leads some small card and you hold a king and are just scared to death to play it in third position for fear of losing it. You have to trust your partner's lead and play your high card in an attempt to promote whatever he is leading from.

Bidding and Captaincy

We certainly have captaincy rules on 7- and 5-bids if we're employing conventional meanings. I personally do not use the 7-for-dnil bid but many double nil supporters use this tool. I suppose if you do, then the 7- bidder has made a captained choice/request for his pard to dnil. This is not an option! Thus this bidder by default assumes a captain position. The same is almost true of the 5-bid that is inviting a nil. This highly invitational bid is certainly a captain action but still allows the responder to make a decision. Once the 5-bidder has described his hand with this bid he is out of the picture. The 5-bid states that one of the top two spade honors are held and a hand that should provide support in all the other suits. Once this clarity is given about the hand, this bidder's action is over. His bid is so accurate that now it becomes his partner's choice to captain the team. He can do this by nilling or by any other action. He has info about the spade suit and a reasonable clue about distribution. With these tools he is better placed to decide the defensive or offensive actions for the team.

I also firmly believe that the partner that finalizes a bidding auction that ends with a total of 12 or higher should be the captain! He had the chance to make a much less riskier bid but did not. Since he has placed the partnership at possible risk we should assume a neutral table position and let this partner decide the defense/offensive action for our team. When I speak of defensive/offensive actions I am basically talking about passive or active play. When we are passive we take a very safe, non- attacking approach and when we play aggressively we try to establish winners quickly by leading away from honors or leading honors.

This same concept is also applied when a nil is bid by an opponent. On many occasions we bid low as the last man, much lower than we could in an attempt to foil the nil. If we do this or if we make a bid of a questionable 11 or 12 we are taking the offensive position to set the niller's partner. As the last man to bid we had an option to go either way. Normally we should take the push to set the niller's partner if he has bid before the nil and at a level of 4 or higher. In this scenario, the risk versus the gain is right and if we bid 7 or higher it sends the invitational set command to partner. By default it is a "captaining" action and the other partner should accept the invitation.

Regards,
Ruffkid1 (Jay Tomlinson)