Chief Executive's dilemma Although I am very suspicious of people who lust after power, I have to admit there are situations where seizing control is justified.
For instance, when I take my grandchildren out for trip, I take charge because I am older and wiser than they are, though they would probably disagree with the second bit.
This gives rise to what I call the Chief Executive's dilemma - what do you do when you know what is the right course of action and others don't understand the complexities of the situation.
This is especially difficult when those who don't know have the voting power to embark on a course of action that you know will lead to disaster.
Suppose I have been invited to take part in a high-rollers' bridge game which requires me to put up a £10,000 stake.
Not having a penny to my name, I persuade 10 rich local businessmen, none of whom has ever played bridge, to bankroll me for £1,000 each.
I should stress this is a thought experiment, so there is no need for reality to intrude.
They agree, but only on condition that the group will be organised on democratic lines.
Because of my superior bridge-playing abilities I will be the Chief Executive, but I will have to get their agreement before playing every card.
Remember, this is a thought experiment.
Things go well and, when the final hand is dealt, our consortium is in a winning position.
Dummy
Spades K,Q,10,9,7,5,4, Hearts 5 Diamonds 4,2 Clubs 6,5,3 Declarer
Spades A,J,8,6 Hearts A,J,3 Diamonds A,5 Clubs K,7,4,3
I have to make 10 tricks from these combined hands with spades as trumps and the money's ours.
The left hand opponent (LHO) leads the King of Hearts (indicating that they also hold the Queen).
Good bridge players always count their tricks and in this case seven trumps plus two aces = nine - one less than required.
A first glance the best chance of a tenth trick lies with the King of Clubs, but that requires the Ace to be with the RHO - an even money chance.
But I have a better idea and when it comes round to my turn to play (declarer) I suggest putting on the three.
Unfortunately one of my backers has been reading a book on bridge for beginners and points out that if I play the Ace, I can trump the other two Hearts and avoid losing any tricks in the suit. Several of the others murmur their agreement, which is not surprising because he is perfectly right.
However, I KNOW that the winning strategy is to play the three, but how am I to explain this to my committee - after all, it's their 10 grand on the line.
And how am I going to tell them that my master plan actually involves losing two tricks in Hearts.
The winning line involves technical manoeuvres such as a throw-in play, loser on loser, and a ruff and discard, none of which are easy to explain to non-bridge players.
So, I resort to a little white lie.
"If I play the three, when my LHO leads another Heart away from the Queen, I will make both the Ace and the Jack", I say.
Ah! they sigh in unison, we hadn't thought of that, and they all vote for the three to be played.
And we all lived happily ever after.
Of course, had I been totally truthful, what I should have said is "if" not "when" LHO leads another heart and I might also have added that being a good player and seeing dummy only had one heart to start with he was not likely to do anything so foolish.
But that might have put them off voting for the winning line.
Unfortunately, real life isn't like a game of bridge.
Bridge is a closed system where the options, though various, are limited by the fact that there are four suits, each comprising 13 cards - 52 in all.
So there are provable right answers.
Real life is rather more complicated which is why, in a democracy, it is important that, no matter how sure those in power are that they are right, a full and frank disclosure of all the pros and cons is essential.
It is not sufficient just to win the vote - you must also win the argument.
PS I will be interested to hear from any non-bridge players who can see how playing the three of hearts leads to almost certain success.
So, why play the three of hearts?
Well, as I said above, superficially success seems to depend on the position of the Ace of Clubs - a 50-50 shot.
But, if LHO can be forced to lead a club, the position of the Ace is immaterial. i.e making the King of clubs becomes a certainty.
Therefore, the first requirement is to ensure RHO doesn't gain the lead.
The only possible way RHO can do so is with a diamond.
So, after gaining the lead on the second round you draw trumps and then jettison dummy's second diamond on the carefully preserved Ace of hearts
You then play Ace of diamonds and trump a diamond (cutting the opponents communications by ensuring that RHO can't obtain the lead with a diamond) before leading Jack of hearts which LHO is forced to win with the queen while you throw away one of dummy's clubs. This is known as a throw-in play.
There are now no red cards in either hand (an elimination play).
LHO is on lead and must either lead a club - promoting your king as the tenth trick - or one of the red suits.
If the latter, you jettison another of dummy's clubs (restricting your losers in that suit to one) and trump in hand (a ruff [trump] and discard play)
The end result is that you have lost two heart tricks + Ace of clubs, but avoided the possibility of losing a diamond and three clubs.
Just goes to show that the obvious, common sense solution is not always the best.