|
I arrived at North Penn one Wednesday (a rarity for me) and noticed there were four dudes standing around one of the tables, each holding and staring at a dollar bill without letting the others view it. I heard one of them call out “five 7s,” another said “six 3s” and then I heard “Challenge,” “Challenge,” “Challenge.”
I realized they were playing “Liar’s Poker,” a betting game made popular on Wall Street in the ‘70s and ‘80s, and one that had cost me a few bucks many years ago. The game involves both perceptive intuition and lots of bluffing. There was even a book and then a movie called Liar’s Poker, all about the investment traders at Salomon Brothers.
To begin play, the contestants take out a dollar bill and hold an auction whereby a bid of (say) six 5s means that bidder claims the total number of fives in the serial numbers on all the players’ bills, including his own, will total at least six. In turn, each participant can either bid higher (six 8s or seven 3s, for example) or “challenge” the previous call. In a four person game, the auction ends after three consecutive challenges, similar to three passes in bridge. Once that happens, everyone checks the serial numbers to determine whether the bidder has succeeded. If he has, the others all pay up, but if he overbids, he owes each of the challengers. For additional insights into Liar’s Poker, click here .
Remarkably, there are elements of this bidders game that can also be found in bridge. Just as in Liar’s Poker, bridge auctions often involve intuitive thinking and bluffing. When you bid preemptively or balance or take a save, you do not necessarily expect to make your bid, rather you are hoping that the opponents will not find their best spot or that they in fact wind up bidding too high.
When I introduced myself to the Wednesday poker foursome, the first to reply told me “My name is George Santos.” The second one also announced “My name is George Santos,” and strangely enough, so did the other two, yet none of them looked like the expelled congressperson from Long Island. It felt like an episode of To Tell the Truth.
I couldn’t resist asking them how people would know who was who – and I got a great answer from George Santos #1: “Oh, we just use the middle initial for the direction we will be sitting in -- today I’m George E Santos and I’ll be playing with George W.” I didn’t dare ask what happens when there’s a Howell.
As luck would have it, the four Georges played each other in round one and after the game I enjoyed discussing one of those boards with George E. He held the following cards in 2nd seat, all white:
♠1082 ♥A109853 ♦AKQ9 ♣void
The auction began:
N---E---S---W
(P)---1♥----(2♣)--3♥
(3♠)..4♥--..(4♠)--.P
(P)---?
The 3♠ bid by passed-hand George N was surprising, but George E admitted he had little trouble bidding 4♥ on the second round. He had a 5-loser hand, and when his partner George W jumped to a preemptive 3♥, that likely eliminated one or two of his trump losers.
Then came 4♠ from George S and things got a bit more complicated. George E chuckled and admitted: “I started wondering if we were playing Liars Poker at the bridge table. My opponents had clearly found at least an eight-card spade fit, so my partner had no more than a doubleton. Although I thought they were bluffing, I was concerned I might have only three defensive tricks unless George W was somehow short in diamonds too. I decided to take the push to 5♥, expecting that would end the auction. It sure didn’t!”
George E continued: “The 5♥ bid was passed around to George N and he was not to be outbluffed! His 5♠ bid appeared rather quickly and it was back to me, so what in the heck do you do now?” I had of course already played the board, so I just shrugged.
George E confessed that “I took my sweet time before exhaling and placing the 6♥ card on the table. I guess George S had seen enough of my shenanigans, so he swiftly and laughingly proclaimed ‘challenge’ as he banged down the double card.” The bluffing had finally ended.
Here’s the full deal for this bluff-a-thon:
| 
