Bridge can be compared to diplomacy particularly when many countries join hands at a table to come to a good contract where each country wishes to gain upper hand and be the declarer to play the game in its own way for substantial benefit.

Both diplomacy and the game of bridge are international games: engrossing and enchanting. In both games: (the game of cards and that of treaties) the hand, holding, calls and timing; and sequence of playing one’s holding are of utmost importance. Planning works better and prior knowledge of the playing system of the other party/parties comes handy when a diplomat or a bridger is placed (often relegated to side corner) in a tight situation. From there he has to dictate the terms and make it the brightest corner with sere observation, calculation and by covering the higher cards (or powerful moves) to gain an extra trick.

Observations, calculations and accurate moves are equally important. At any particular time when many players; the representatives of different countries are seen sitting by different tables but obviously there are only two sides; or two faces or two parties or two ways: the one who inflicts the blows and the other who faces or evades or hits harder to reverse the outcome.

Ironically enough, each diplomat tries to create a dummy or imaginary third party to make a scapegoat or to create a red-herring. They prove quite handy in delaying the matter, in shifting the responsibility and in creating a platform for better negotiations.

In both Diplomacy and Bridge the value of the holding is changed to some numerological figure and to symbolic names to pass on the information to partners and to hide the same information from the opponents. For it, many conventions are used. Most conventions are very popular nowadays as neither bridgers nor diplomats like to follow any one fixed convention in its purest form. They usually use mixed conventions. When they are asked to explain the meaning of their statements they create more confusion.

For the sake of comparison, one can claim that bidding in bridge is like leaking information to media in diplomacy; opening the hand is like the invitation in diplomacy; hand-play is like discussions in summits; defence is like unanimously releasing common agreed formula and certain points; result is like shaking hands with smiles all over the face for the much needed and awaited photographs. Mutual declaration is the score-sheet where points are changed into international match points and then to victory points for comparisons with other tables or countries. The common and uncommon denial of everything that happened at the table while talking or playing a deal is like the allegations and accusations of one partner which is defended well by another partner in the form of fresh accusations. Both in cricket and diplomacy all the rounds are played; decisions announced; awards distributed yet another date is fixed for meeting and discussion (for another tournament in the case of bridge) which is a new beginning to repeat ‘all the already discussed matters.’

Both are indoors games where there is least physical and all mental action; where the scores are calculated and compared at the end. But the result of every round is announced when that round of talk/ play is over. Lunch, dinner, snacks, tea, and other ‘refreshments,’ etc are served at the venue. The expenses are shared or borne by a third party.

Bridge and diplomacy are intellectual games in which the mental agility, alertness, endurance and the power to sustain are tested. Both are the games of highly civilized and well mannered people who are refined, cultured and have patriotic impulse.

In both games, ‘hidden holdings’ plays an important role. The fear of ‘hidden strength’ takes the sap and courage out of the opponent. The best player and the Diplomat is the one who has no hidden strength yet makes the opponent believe that he holds a few cards of high values. Without holding one must show that he holds all the missing cards; and when actually holding one must make the opponent believe that the missing cards are not in ‘one’s’ possession. The opponent will remain in dark or in fear and commit errors. At least, he won’t play his normal game according to the value of his holding.

All types of tournaments are played in bridge as well as in diplomacy from single, double and four-a-side tournament to single session, one day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 or 5 days to 20 days Tournaments.

The interest in bridge varies and grows with change in venue, tournament, partner and opponents. One gets bouncy pitches and double, too. Local and domestic tournaments have different values and others are different because the change of place marks a change in climate, humidity, directors, deals and quality of opposition, both in bidding and play.

One great similarity is that the pairs and teams themselves get eliminated. Of course, there are ties which are broken on the basis of the results of previous encounters. Such a system was introduced very late around the First World War. With the formation and functioning of international bodies the countries came together and the number of tournaments and summits were substantially increased. It created international leaders and players, and readily brought them together. The most experienced ones are called ‘Masters’ and are invited to take part in some tournaments held in this country or that. Their fame rests on the Master Point which raises their potential value in their country or federation.

The other similarity is the playing condition. Both the bridge players and the Statesmen play at the same venue, under the same condition, with the same cards against different opponents. The richness of the venue decides the importance given to the local, national or international meetings/ summits or tournaments. The prize money also has its definite say. The venues also change accordingly, to suit the season, mood, mode and statesmen/ players involved. The dates are usually announced on mutual understanding.

In national or international matches the bridgers are asked to play from four to six rounds a day. In any such political meetings four to six rounds of discussions are held on and for the record. At the end of that the results or declarations are announced. All the participating teams play simultaneously, while they take rest at the same time but in different rooms.

The mental and spiritual injuries in Bridge and diplomacy are more serious than the physical injuries. Unfortunately, there is no manager, coach, physiotherapist or psychiatrist in both games. If there are, they have never been a part of the games. The players play with serious wounds or injuries. In spite of reasonable play, decent performance and continuous wins, the teams are not allowed to enter the top four or even eight. The injury is doubled or redoubled and pain and agony (mostly agonising moments) are aggravated when from the first sixteen tables they fall down to the last sixteen or when they are not included in the final round (or eliminated from the final round; (but eliminated is not a politically rich and soothing part of ‘diplomatic language’). At such hours, words are spoken in a disguised way but they get the inner meaning who understand the ‘meticulously framed language.’ With numerous senior players and stalwarts (countries with more power) in the field, there is a really (and always) tough going in these powergames. One timely win in at prestigious places will give fame and power to the participating personality.

In both the games money is a serious problem at the lower level (local level or grass-root level may be a better coinage). The players starve there while the top players of top tournaments go-go and ga-ga in multi star hotels silently but luxuriously.

In both the games there is another great similarity. There is no scope for relaxation during action. One bad shot and the place is gone, a momentary loss of concentration and an agreement is floored; on the contrary one good call; and the game is home or in a moment of complete alertness an invincible opponent is defeated. It is true in both the games which have immense value. The value of ‘today’s action’ increases in future.

In the matter of performance, both these games (generally all the games) are the same. Simply because both these games give mental satisfaction and inner pleasure so the younger generation is interested in these games for power, pleasure and prestige.

No change in attitude is required in these games for natural show and natural play and natural result.