Scottish bridge is deeply saddened by the passing of Dr John Matheson, one of our greatest ever players. I was lucky to speak with John as my first pilot interview when starting my journey into bridge research eleven years ago. He seemed to enjoy the process and encouraged me to develop the interview questions and approach more bridge greats.

As I headed off on sabbatical to the USA, an unsolicited donation by John enabled me to pay for my first transcriptions of interviews with Justin Lall, Jeff Meckstroth, Michael Rosenberg and Bob Hamman. This sowed the seed for BAMSA and the last ten years of bridge research (see here for the journey of BAMSA). I am so grateful for his generosity and encouragement, which reflected the way he supported so many players in Scotland. John’s interview follows.

How did you first get into bridge?

Well I first started playing at University but I had looked at it before that. My parents used to get the Sunday papers. Terence Reese wrote in the Observer and the Sunday Times was initially Kenneth Konstam then Boris Schapiro. So I was reading these papers in my mid to late teens. I was a whist player anyway, then I started playing more seriously when I went up to University.

How long would you say it took you to become a reasonable player?

Well I played my first Camrose match with John MacLaren in 1968. By then I was 23.

What would you say most attracts you about the game? What do you like most about bridge?

Well it has many, many aspects and it’s the fact that it has all these aspects that attracts me. When I started playing it was more the technical side – watching the great dummy players and the great defenders. But there’s the psychology, and the partnership relationship and so on – that would interest me as well.

Could you say a bit more about that?

About the partnership aspect ? Well I would say initially I probably wasn’t a very good partner. More heated and more angry, well some of my partners were the same. As time has drawn on I have certainly realised the importance of being a good partner.

How have you gone about becoming a good partner?

I think just getting older helps a bit. The more knowledge you get of the game the more you understand the other person’s point of view. Initially, you start thinking of only one way of doing things. But take bidding. Certainly there’s many, many ways to bid a hand and you don’t always know all these different approaches when you first start. My first partner was John MacLaren, he was quite a bit older than me. Away from the table he was a very kind, generous man but at the table was fairly aggressive to me.

How did you cope with that?

Well, I did the best to get on with it. He had excellent judgement but wasn’t a systems man and wasn’t really into modern bidding. He did eventually play transfers but it took him a long time to do so! Once in one of our early Camrose matches we were playing an Irish pair who were playing Marmik, an early version of a Forcing Pass System so you passed with an opening bid and bid with a non-opening bid. So I said to John I know we don’t usually play much system but this pair is playing something very unusual so if this guy passes and I bid a heart have I opened 1H or have I overcalled 1H? Let’s just keep a free hand said John. So we went in against this pair with nothing agreed but they self-destructed so we didn’t have to worry too much but it seemed very uncomfortable to me sitting down against a pair playing very unusual methods with nothing agreed our way. That was a Camrose match so a match of some importance. But this pair, I can’t remember the names, about ‘69, ‘70 that sort of time… didn’t know their system very well so we just had to sit back and do very little and they lost some points that way.

When you said John sometimes gave you a hard time at the table, what did you do?

Well it is a test to keep one’s calm and keep thinking about the game while the other guy is getting on at you is very, very difficult. Sometimes you’re more intent on proving your own case or point… Of course this is playing into the opposition’s hands. I would try and keep myself calm. But then there’s the aspect of justifying yourself to the other guy without being too aggressive, which is a test in itself. Well, there’s all sorts of aspects to consider. There’s the opponents to consider, there’s the time factor and there’s good old partner to consider. Trying to blend that lot together can be quite a problem. … It’s more the issues of judgement. Which route to go in the auction. Have we actually discussed it ? Maybe we have discussed it. One thinks we have and the other thinks we haven’t. Is it in the system notes? If it’s in the system notes, how is it written down? Sometimes things are in black and white but partners have different interpretations.

What would you say you least like about the game?

Certainly, in the duplicate world, there’s a lot of manoeuvring for partnerships and people trying to put forward performances they haven’t actually achieved. You play in a big championship event with a team of six and find that some partnerships afterwards claiming that they’re the mainstay of the team.

How do you react to that?

That annoys me and it’s something that’s difficult to confront. I’ve seen it in many, many aspects and as far as possible now I just try and refer people to the objective data. If we can get the adjusted cross-imps just go by that. Well it’s not perfect but it’s better than anything else.

What would you say are your most memorable moments?

Well the early Camrose matches – that was memorable. The first time I won the Gold Cup in 73 that was, although a Scottish team had won by then, it was very rare for Scottish teams to get to the final stages. And, of course, Dublin, the bronze medal.

How did that feel ?

It felt wonderful. There was a slight tinge of disappointment that we came so close to getting the gold. At one point half way through the last match we were within striking distance of the gold and then the big slam hands went astray and suddenly it fell down to just scraping the bronze. If you look back over the whole event there were hands where we could have mustered more points. Hands where you think “oh gosh”. Especially the matches against France who won the gold and Poland who won the silver there were boards in those matches where we could, with a little more care, have achieved enough to have won the gold. Anyway, bronze was very satisfactory.

How do you cope with that, when you are dwelling on hands afterwards?

Well, you have to rationalise it over a long event like that, several hundred boards. There are going to be lots of ups and downs. Areas where you say but for that we could have got gold. But you know that has to be the case in such a long event, although you feel disappointed… we could have done that – we could have done that.

How long would that stay with you?

Well as far as that bronze medal is concerned, that might have been a gold, it’s still with me in a sense. Still thinking about these hands. In the early days I took it hard. There are certain things you have to think about. Has it been all your fault? Is it your partner’s fault? Is it as a pair? Has it been the team’s fault? Some people get over it quite quickly by not blaming themselves whatsoever or blaming the pair in the other room. I think that’s usually unfair because most times it’s been a joint effort – not always but most times.

Talking of your big wins, the first Gold Cup was in ‘73. How many Gold Cups have you won?

Only two. In 2006, there was a big gap. Well that was a big relief I can tell you. One of the few times ever I must have tired – I made a system error late on, the second last set. I was playing with Brian Short at the time and we were playing transfer responses to an opening Club and I got it wrong. I don’t normally get systems wrong but I got that one wrong and it was such a tight, tight match. I was so pleased that it didn’t cost us the blasting Gold Cup. Did we win by 2? We won by a very, very small amount. And this could have cost it.

How does that feel at the table?

I would have felt terrible. I felt terrible as it was because it came so close to throwing it away with that error. … That is quite difficult to deal with when you know for sure that it is your error. I would say to myself that it happens to even the great players. I don’t think there’s a player who hasn’t made a mistake of similar dimensions.

You are not going to Bali, can you say why you decided not to?

Well initially we tried to talk ourselves into it. We realised it was going to be a long flight and we thought of flying Club Class to make things easier but the disability I thought was too much. I also wanted to make an early decision. I thought I can’t keep them hanging on waiting to see how my medical condition progresses. If the flight had been in Western Europe we would have been delighted to have gone, but a 16 hour flight. Also if there were any medical problems there I think we would have been flown to Australia – the medical facilities in Bali are not so good. … I’m disappointed that I’ve had to pull out but I did feel it was the right thing to do. I was trying to give them as much time as I could. If I hang on to see how I get on medically over the next year…I’m going to have to make a decision sooner or later so the earlier the better.

If you could play with anybody who would you choose?

I haven’t actually thought about it. That’s the first time I’ve ever had that question put to me. Off the cuff, I’d probably say Zia because I think he has the best psychology of the game. Remember I was talking of the different facets of the game. There’s no doubt Michael Rosenberg was a better technician than Zia, but Zia’s a practical at the table player. He knows what’s going on. He knows what the oppositions’ pauses mean and although he has a reputation for the flamboyant he does actually play down the middle constructive bidding. He knows what all the bidding means. His reputation is such that, he’s an extrovert, flamboyant character, he attracts the kibitzers. There’s usually something happening at the table.

It wouldn’t be intimidating playing with someone like that?

No. A number of years ago I used to go to rubber sessions in London. I dropped out of bridge for a long time. From about 1974 to 1990 I played very little bridge. But with my very understanding wife I’d have a week’s holiday and play rubber bridge for high stakes and, of course, Zia was one of the characters there. Certainly, at rubber particularly, he keeps a non-stop chatter going, but he is an entertainer. That in itself, without being aggressive towards you, you’ve got to make sure you don’t lose focus. You could easily do that with Zia at the table. He’s non-stop. … Anyway back to your question. Zia would be one or perhaps one of the great Italian players such as Bocchi.

You said there was a period when you didn’t play so much. Was that mainly because of your job?

Yes. Professional and family reasons. The children were born in ‘73 and ‘74 and the practice was busy. Of course in those days doctors did their own out of hours calls. Although we did have a rota I was tied to that at weekends although eventually I got my hands on organising the rota. I was always very fair, but if I could predict ahead… if this was Scottish Cup Final day I could juggle the rota around.

I struggle having a busy job and busy bridge life – any advice?

I think these days with the Internet it should be easier. Partnerships can develop without meeting up. In those days you had to meet face to face.

How do you find playing bridge online – are you a fan?

Well, I am a fan except I’m not very good with the keyboard. But I definitely feel it’s one of the benefits of the Internet – BBO sessions. I had a practice match playing with Iain against Jimmy Cayne. This business about alerting – you only alert your own bids, not partners – that threw me. We had a Gazilli auction and I was trying to alert Iain’s bid and I couldn’t so I made a mistake because I couldn’t alert his bid but I’m sure you get used to these things.

I know we’ve touched a little on this but, overall, what do you think makes a good player?

Take Zia as a classic example. He is a good technician without being the world’s best. He’s a great psychologist which I think is important. He’s pretty good at partnership harmony.

So, the key qualities of a good player: good technician, good psychologist and good at partnership harmony.

Those are the key things, team harmony as well. I don’t like criticism of team-mates for a variety of reasons. Often you don’t even know what their agreements are so it’s silly to get into a discussion about who should have bid what. Maybe they have completely different agreements to ourselves.

Could you expand a bit more on ‘great psychology’, what for you does that include?

You have to give weight to the opponents’ bidding: is it genuine? How much reliance can you put on their knowledge of the game.: could they be bluffing me? You need a good all round understanding of the game to know how much to rely on their methods. You need to understand what their bidding is. Then in defending how much emphasis to put on the cards you play, whether to signal or not to signal, whose side is it helping more? Same as declarer… The flipside of that is, if opponents are signalling, what do you read into that? If you’re declaring, how strong are the defenders: have they got the inferences right, how much reliance to put on the defence? Its a lot of things to think about at the same time.

In relation to partnership harmony, is there anything else to add?

Partnership harmony is interesting. As soon as you get together the partnership harmony test occurs. What system are we going to play? Who’s going to give in? I think that’s the worst. One of them has to give in. If one is a strong NT specialist and one a weak NT specialist one of us will have to play one or the other. We can’t find a compromise between the two, I don’t think it works that way. Usually it’s the more experienced player who gives way but sometimes they feel so strongly that they can’t. I do think the best thing in the early discussion about system is not to get a whole hotchpotch of bits and pieces but to get one or the other.

How important do you think system is in terms of getting the right system?

Well I think the right system for the partnership is important. Any system I play I like to have simplification, consistencies and ways of remembering the system. I need it nice and simplified in a memorable fashion.

So you have helpful rules…

These memory aids, I mean you only do certain things certain ways. You don’t introduce new suits with weak hands if you can get the strong hand to play it. So if you do introduce a new suit you are stronger. I’ve worked hard at trying to reduce inconsistencies. We play Multi Landy defence to 1NT. We play Multi Landy if opponents overcall 1NT. We play Multi Landy against the gambling 3NT. So there’s a series of consistencies.

What’s your view on the scenario that you’re comfortably ahead in a match which you should go on to win, do you change your game?

Well, I don’t change because I feel you can start to swing things twice over if you’re not careful. What seems to be best bridge maintains its weight throughout. People will disagree with me, they’ll say ‘Avoid the big swings if at all possible’. But that’s not so easy to judge at the table, at least, I find it not so easy to judge. In other words you get into this phase ‘they’re going to push for slam in the other room, we’d better try, even though I think it’s against the odds, for slam.’ Of course, maybe they’re just playing their normal game and you lose points through pushing for this slam. There’s no easy way round it. That’s when you feel you’re ahead. The more interesting is if you feel you’re behind. If you’re behind I do employ one or two things which I think are likely to create a swing without actually going against the odds. For instance, partner opens a strong NT, then, if it’s quite close as to whether I would use Stayman or not, I tend to forget about Stayman and bid 1NT – 3NT and hope it works out.

And another scenario, going back to your tight Gold Cup Final, say you had a big decision on the penultimate board: you can either take the risky aggressive action which would be your normal style or you have a safe option. What do you do? You know this could be win or lose.

I would stick with what I consider my normal game, my normal action. That’s what got us where we are. It’s very difficult to start changing style, I would stick with the normal style. My partner will be expecting me to do what I’m about to, let’s do it.

And if it goes wrong?

If it goes wrong, it just goes wrong. If the downside is it goes for a big penalty I would hope I had understanding team-mates but you don’t always have that. But I wouldn’t let that put me off.

Changing the topic a bit, what is your favourite bridge book?

Well, I’ve got several. ‘The Expert Game’ by Terence Reese was a wonderful book, and one of his early books, not quite so relevant today ‘cos bidding has changed, ‘Develop your Bidding Judgement’. It wasn’t a system book but about developing hand evaluation and bidding judgement in competitive and non-competitive auctions. The other book I would recommend is Jeff Rubens, ‘The Secrets of Winning Bridge’. It’s about hand evaluation again. Apart from books I would strongly recommend subscribing to ‘Bridge World’.

What advice would you give to aspiring players to improve?

Nowadays, besides reading that lot, they can look at BBO matches, especially if you can get some good commentators. Also, I think having somebody to refer to. Having a mentor. I would advise against having too many mentors ‘cos sometimes you can get too much conflicting advice

Moving on to talk about trials – what do you think is the best format?

The first thing is they must be long trials. I know people talk about the crowded calendar, but long trials and go by the result of the trials. You can have this endless debate about pairs trials or teams trials. I think long teams trials produce the purest result, but to give young up and coming pairs a fair crack at the whip I think pairs trials are a reasonable alternative – as long as they’re long.

What’s long?

Well, the final trial has to be at least two weekends. That’s the final stage. The long teams trials we had, say, about 10 years ago for the Open team going to Europe were quite satisfactory. I think going to Malmo we had a 128 board final and a 96 board semi-final, so that was a fair test. That was actually teams trials but the initial part started as pairs and then the pairs formed four teams of 4.

To finish off, do you have a favourite bridge hand or is that too difficult? You probably have lots of favourites.

I can tell you a funny bridge hand. Playing very high stakes rubber bridge in London, I was in 4SX. I didn’t realise it, Zia didn’t realise it and Lord Lever didn’t realise it, but dummy only had 12 cards. I remember, Barry Myers was kibitzing, he was the host in St James’ Bridge Club, and I could see he was just about to burst out laughing but he couldn’t say anything. The whole hand was finished, I made my contract and scored up. It was only later I turned to Harold Lever, because as I was playing the hand I was counting his distribution you see, and I said ‘Your shape was such and such’. He said ‘It was nothing of the sort’, and it was only then that Barry burst out laughing. All of us sitting there playing for massive stakes, a 12 card dummy and a very important contract and none of us realised it was a 12 card dummy. Obviously I wasn’t cheating because I kept the conversation going. I made 4SX and it was scored up so it counted, I was allowed to have it stand.

Thank you John, that was fantastic.

For more of John’s words of wisdom see The Art of Becoming a Top Bridge Player (2024) published by Master Point Press (available on Amazon). The book is theme-based around partnership dynamics and player development. It includes extracts from other interviews with top players from UK and USA.

More info here on John’s bridge life