CONTRACT BRIDGE High Stakes When Omar Sharif Appears

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32214, 5 February 1970, Page 9

CONTRACT BRIDGE High Stakes When Omar Sharif Appears

(Contributed by J.R.W.) Some may be unaware that the famous bridge-player Omar Sharif earns his living as a film actor. He once said that the worst experience in his life occurred when making “Lawrence of Arabia”. He was on location in the desert for some months and none of the cast or crew played bridge. Since then he has certainly made up for lost time. About two years ago he formed the Omar Sharif Bridge Circus, so called because as he put it “if we do not play like lions, we play like asses”. The other members of the troupe are two Italian world champions, and two near world-champions, one French, the other Egyptian. They have been sponsored, generally by newspapers or tobacco companies, to play against the leading players of most of the capital cities of Europe. As the star attraction Sharif takes his part very seriously, often hiring a private plane to take him directly from a film set to the bridge table. £lO9 per 100 The latest exploit occurred at the Piccadilly Hotel, London, amid a blaze of publicity and ballyhoo. Two English internationals Jeremy Flint and Jonathan Cansino challenged the members of the circus to a rubber bridge match over 80 rubbers, of which Sharif was to play in at least two-thirds. At first sight the stakes were impressive: £1 a point, or as we put it in New Zealand £lOO per 100. In other words to go one down cost £5O. In addition there was a side-bet of £lOOO on each set of four rubbers.

Flint and Cansino’s share was carried by a consortium of members of Crockford’s Club, of whom it is understood there was no shortage of volunteers. Sharif carried the bets for the Circus which were probably tax-deductible anyway. But the sheer size of the stakes fulfilled its purpose. The public flocked to watch the play on colour television monitors, on Bridgerama, a cross between TV and a cricket scoreboard, and on Vu-graph, a diagrammatic presentation on a screen of the play as it occurred. 1

The match was not, however, primarily staged for the live audience. It was recorded to make a series of 30-minute television films. These will have sound-tracks added in six languages, one of which will be Japanese, and will be sold all over the world. The fees will no doubt help provide solace for the losers Nevertheless it must have been a little chilling at times to think of £3OOO hanging on the play of one card: N. S—Q 64 3 2 H—6 D—K 10 98 5 C—Q J W. E. S—K J S—B 7 H—A Q 8 4 2 H—K 10 9 5 D—7 6 4 2 D—Q J C—9 6 C—A 10 84 2 S. S—A 10 9 5 H—J 7 3 D—A 3 C—K 75 3 Sharif played this hand as South in a contract of four spades. West led a diamond won by dummy’s king and a small spade was led to the seven, the ten and the jack. West led a club won by East’s ace and another club was taken by North’s queen. Sharif now led the queen of spades from the table, East played small, and after much thought so did the declarer. West’s king won and the ace of hearts put the contract one down. No doubt every reader would at trick two bang down the ace of spades, thus confining the spades losers to one and making the contract. But before being too critical look at the very next deal (the positions at the table have been changed for convenience): N. S—Q 98 6 H—9 7 D—Q 8 7 C—Q 8 6 4 W. E. S—3 S—K J 4 H—Q 63 2 H—lo 85 4 D—A 94 2 D—K JlO 5 C—J 10 7 3 C—9 5 S. S—A 10 75 2 H—A K J D—6 3 C—A K 2 This time Cansino as South |

played in four spades; Sharif led the jack of clubs, won by the declarer. After making the ace of spades, South led another. East won the king and jack of trumps and the ace and king of diamonds defeated the contract. Had Cansino tackled the trump-suit in the way that Sharif did in the first example, he would have won a rubber worth 650 points. As it was his side lost a 1430 rubber a few deals later, and with it the £lOOO side bet on the result of a set of four rubbers. Over £3OOO had hung on the play of the spades.

How should the declarers have played? There is in fact little to choose between the two lines. With nine cards most of us would lay down the ace, and with eight take two finesses. The main thing is always to play it the same way. You may not always be right, but neither will you always be wrong.