Like most bridge players, I love slams. They take some skill in bidding but are generally easy to play. Since the opponents will be on lead a maximum of twice (if all goes well), their options for complicating your plan are limited. If you are going down, it usually happens fast.
A recent 12-board robot tournament gave me three possible slam auctions! On the first board, I decided that partner's 2♣ call, when he wasn't obliged to bid at all, was worth a slam try. But how to go about it? I settled on the obvious: 4NT.
On the lead of ♠Q, the dummy that came down was a slight disappointment in terms of high card points. But fit-wise it's a magnificent dummy. Life would have been a lot easier on a diamond lead as there would have been 11 top tricks and some, admittedly remote, squeeze possibilities. But even now there were good chances – if I could bring the hearts in. If lefty had ♥Qxxx, I would have to get back to my hand twice after running the clubs so I kept the ♠A intact. Once RHO pitched two hearts on the clubs [discarding isn't the robots' strong suit], I was pretty sure I was making (even if he'd kept Qxx I'd have him, as it happens, in a red-suit squeeze after cashing the top spade). Perhaps cashing the ♠A earlier and tightening the position would have been better, I'm not sure.
Surprisingly perhaps, most of the other pairs were in slam and this was worth only 3 IMPs.
On board 3, I hadn't any thoughts of slam myself but apparently my 4♦ call showed a rather better hand than I had. Well, as they say in bridge, it's better to be lucky than good. The lead of the ♠A would have scuppered my contract right away. But, I had some possibilities in the heart suit which fortunately got me to twelve tricks.
This was worth 12.5 IMPs. There were plenty of other pairs in 6♦, but I was the only one to make it, despite all getting the ♣K lead.
The third slam was a relatively normal (and sane) contract and only produced a 6 IMP swing. Even so, there are two possible trump losers. I wonder what he would have done if I had been so incautious as to advance the ♦J?
Despite some significant losses on four other boards, I managed to finish with almost 29 IMPs, largely due to these three slams. That was good enough for first place.
Showing posts with label Robot bridge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robot bridge. Show all posts
Monday, June 10, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
If you haven't gone down yet, there's still a chance
One of my favorite themes, as my regular readers know, is that you should never give up. I believe I have observed that this is a good mantra for the play of a particular hand, a session, or a bridge career. See for example my most recent effort in this genre: Never - ever - say die. Today, I'd like to talk about soldiering on when a particular hand looks hopeless.
But first, in the style of George Jacobs, let me tell you a story. I won't give the details away in order to protect the guilty, but Kim and I were having a good second session in a recent two-session event. There was nothing to play for, other than pride, since our first session score had not even reached the 40% mark! As is our custom on such occasions, we enjoyed a drink with dinner. Well, maybe it was two drinks. This was the last board of the event and all were vulnerable. Kim opened 2♣ (strong, artificial and forcing) and my RHO bid 2♦. I had a flat hand with four diamonds to the ten and the ♣Q. Our agreement is to double with any weak hand, regardless of shape. I was surprised to find Kim passing my double. How many diamonds could she reasonably have? At this point, my RHO, picked up the 2♦ card and asked the table "did I bid that?" Er, yes, we said. She then picked up the 3♣ card and placed it right on top of the 2♦ card, as if to obscure that bid. LHO and I both passed and Kim finished proceedings with a double.
After my lead, dummy came down with a balanced six-count, but with three diamonds and three clubs. At this point, we called the director over and explained what had happened; he offering to return if necessary. By the time the smoke cleared we were +1400 (Kim had a 28-hcp moose). We quickly determined that slam was impossible so it seemed that we had a top and didn't need a return by the director. My RHO's hand was something like ♠853 ♥T75 ♦Q5 ♣QT762, so what was that 2♦ all about? I admit I don't know. Most probably it was tiredness at the end of two long sessions. It's hard to imagine making any bid with that hand, even if the clubs were a major and could be bid at the two-level. I do have a sneaking suspicion that it might have been some sort of psych bid. In any case, we had received enough of those sorts of gifts to finish the second session with 68%.
So, back to my theme which is exemplified by a hand from a robot tournament. I think, judging from his sheer exuberance, that this must have been one of the younger robots playing as my partner. The auction followed the same lines at most tables. Only a handful were able to play in a more modest small slam. I was tempted to bid 7NT but thought better of it – if I could make 13 tricks in any strain, it would surely be a good score (though I admit that this argument doesn't hold as well as it might at, say, a club game).
When I saw the dummy, I was reminded of a similar exercise in grand slam futility mentioned in Mark Horton's excellent book Misplay these hands with me. Well, I had twelve tricks all day assuming the opening lead didn't get ruffed. But what chances were there for a thirteenth? Somewhere between no chance and a dog's chance, I calculated. But, and here is the key, I wasn't down yet.
There appeared to be no legitimate miracle. The only possibility was a squeeze-induced mis-defense. So, I simply ran all my tricks. The one thing that the robots are not good at is signaling. Note how East misplays at trick three by discarding ♦2. Doesn't his partner have a right to know that he holds the king? Surely all can see that spades and diamonds are the key suits on this hand. It's not like he's worried that partner will get in and lead diamonds pickling his K. If partner gets in, the grand slam is already down! In my opinion, the proper card to pitch is ♦T, implicitly denying the jack and showing something good, hopefully the K. Actually, from West's point of view, he knows partner has the king because if I had it, I would be claiming. At trick four, East compounds his error by discarding the ♠6. Given that he's going to have to pitch several spades, he might as well tell a good story. I think that the jack would be much more informative – the start of an echo to show an even number of spades and implicitly denying the queen. At trick five, he pitches the ♣9 prematurely. It's obvious that pretty soon, I'll be cashing clubs and he'll show out sooner than necessary and will have to pitch something else. Jumping from suit to suit makes it that much harder to pass a consistent message to partner. At trick six – well, by this time, I think he's thoroughly confused his partner so it really doesn't matter what he pitches.
At trick ten, he bizarrely pitches the ♦K while holding on to two spades (surely one is enough) and the ♦9 (which at this point is not equal to the king). After the next trick, I knew that there were still two spades out so clearly there was no point in trying to cash the deuce. Furthermore, I could be fairly sure that they held one spade each (why would anyone hang on to two?) I therefore tried my only hope, to promote the ♦J. When the 9 appeared on my right, it was a sort of show-up squeeze. I was able to go up with the ace, felling the Q.
I was the only declarer to make all the tricks. One other tried the same line but was thwarted by a Robot East who seemed to know what he was doing. The other twelve declarers playing the same contract from the same side all gave themselves no chance at all.
Anyway, the moral of this story is that when there is no legitimate play, try the squeeze. Defenders are notoriously bad defending against squeezes and you never know – they might help you out as my East did for me.
But first, in the style of George Jacobs, let me tell you a story. I won't give the details away in order to protect the guilty, but Kim and I were having a good second session in a recent two-session event. There was nothing to play for, other than pride, since our first session score had not even reached the 40% mark! As is our custom on such occasions, we enjoyed a drink with dinner. Well, maybe it was two drinks. This was the last board of the event and all were vulnerable. Kim opened 2♣ (strong, artificial and forcing) and my RHO bid 2♦. I had a flat hand with four diamonds to the ten and the ♣Q. Our agreement is to double with any weak hand, regardless of shape. I was surprised to find Kim passing my double. How many diamonds could she reasonably have? At this point, my RHO, picked up the 2♦ card and asked the table "did I bid that?" Er, yes, we said. She then picked up the 3♣ card and placed it right on top of the 2♦ card, as if to obscure that bid. LHO and I both passed and Kim finished proceedings with a double.
After my lead, dummy came down with a balanced six-count, but with three diamonds and three clubs. At this point, we called the director over and explained what had happened; he offering to return if necessary. By the time the smoke cleared we were +1400 (Kim had a 28-hcp moose). We quickly determined that slam was impossible so it seemed that we had a top and didn't need a return by the director. My RHO's hand was something like ♠853 ♥T75 ♦Q5 ♣QT762, so what was that 2♦ all about? I admit I don't know. Most probably it was tiredness at the end of two long sessions. It's hard to imagine making any bid with that hand, even if the clubs were a major and could be bid at the two-level. I do have a sneaking suspicion that it might have been some sort of psych bid. In any case, we had received enough of those sorts of gifts to finish the second session with 68%.
So, back to my theme which is exemplified by a hand from a robot tournament. I think, judging from his sheer exuberance, that this must have been one of the younger robots playing as my partner. The auction followed the same lines at most tables. Only a handful were able to play in a more modest small slam. I was tempted to bid 7NT but thought better of it – if I could make 13 tricks in any strain, it would surely be a good score (though I admit that this argument doesn't hold as well as it might at, say, a club game).
When I saw the dummy, I was reminded of a similar exercise in grand slam futility mentioned in Mark Horton's excellent book Misplay these hands with me. Well, I had twelve tricks all day assuming the opening lead didn't get ruffed. But what chances were there for a thirteenth? Somewhere between no chance and a dog's chance, I calculated. But, and here is the key, I wasn't down yet.
There appeared to be no legitimate miracle. The only possibility was a squeeze-induced mis-defense. So, I simply ran all my tricks. The one thing that the robots are not good at is signaling. Note how East misplays at trick three by discarding ♦2. Doesn't his partner have a right to know that he holds the king? Surely all can see that spades and diamonds are the key suits on this hand. It's not like he's worried that partner will get in and lead diamonds pickling his K. If partner gets in, the grand slam is already down! In my opinion, the proper card to pitch is ♦T, implicitly denying the jack and showing something good, hopefully the K. Actually, from West's point of view, he knows partner has the king because if I had it, I would be claiming. At trick four, East compounds his error by discarding the ♠6. Given that he's going to have to pitch several spades, he might as well tell a good story. I think that the jack would be much more informative – the start of an echo to show an even number of spades and implicitly denying the queen. At trick five, he pitches the ♣9 prematurely. It's obvious that pretty soon, I'll be cashing clubs and he'll show out sooner than necessary and will have to pitch something else. Jumping from suit to suit makes it that much harder to pass a consistent message to partner. At trick six – well, by this time, I think he's thoroughly confused his partner so it really doesn't matter what he pitches.
At trick ten, he bizarrely pitches the ♦K while holding on to two spades (surely one is enough) and the ♦9 (which at this point is not equal to the king). After the next trick, I knew that there were still two spades out so clearly there was no point in trying to cash the deuce. Furthermore, I could be fairly sure that they held one spade each (why would anyone hang on to two?) I therefore tried my only hope, to promote the ♦J. When the 9 appeared on my right, it was a sort of show-up squeeze. I was able to go up with the ace, felling the Q.
I was the only declarer to make all the tricks. One other tried the same line but was thwarted by a Robot East who seemed to know what he was doing. The other twelve declarers playing the same contract from the same side all gave themselves no chance at all.
Anyway, the moral of this story is that when there is no legitimate play, try the squeeze. Defenders are notoriously bad defending against squeezes and you never know – they might help you out as my East did for me.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Never - ever - say die
In looking at my posts and drafts, I am a bit shocked to see that I haven't published in three weeks! Apologies to my regular readers. As always, I have many inchoate articles but none have seemed ready. So, at the risk of being accused of too much self-congratulation or just too much fluff, I offer this reminder that we can turn things around -- especially in the relative randomness of a robot tournament.
This is something of a follow-up to my earlier Never say die article from last year and another in my series on robot bridge (see previous posting). The basic premise is that, no matter how bad things seem in a session of bridge, you should never (ever) give up.
Admittedly, this is a far cry from doing well in a real-person two-session event, but the message applies even to a lowly 12-board robot tournament on Bridge Base Online.
I like to think of myself as not being a quitter, but there are times when, having invested only a dollar and a few minutes of my time, I am tempted to give up on one of these tournaments if I start badly. But I don't give up. The only time I give up is if I make a mis-mouse which is unfortunately all-too-frequent with my MacMouse (I've mentioned this here before). If, instead, I simply make a bad play or I take a losing gamble, I simply resolve to do better in the remaining boards.
The other day, I played such a tournament (matchpoints), and my early efforts did not augur well. On the first board, I was slated to go down 2 in 1NT but managed hold myself to down 3. That was a zero, as everyone else was able to take more than four tricks. On board 2, we failed to compete to the two-level on our vulnerable 7-card fit and allowed the opponents to properly take their 9 tricks in diamonds (36%). Then in 3NT, I didn't appreciate the likelihood of a K being either singleton (a "kingleton?") or doubleton when I was missing six cards to the KJ in the suit (30%). Then, my opponents defended accurately in another 1NT hand and I went down 2 for -200. Half the field got softer defense and only went down one (23%). So, after four boards I had a rollicking 22.16%. Was this an appropriate time to quit? Hell, no!
I came back with a 64%, 90%, 98%, 60%, 92%, 63%, 88% and finally 82%. These scores were good enough to get me up to 60.4% and a fourth-place finish.
I was particularly happy with this hand, which earned the 98%, especially because I so often don't take advantage of potential ruffs in dummy:
After the switch to the ♥Q, I sensed something a little fishy, like a 1-3 split but it seemed that no harm could come of another round of trumps (plus, these Robots can be tricky). The auction suggested that my RHO wouldn't be able to overruff any club or diamond ruffs I might want to take. So I resisted my normal urge to wipe the enemy trumps out, and set about doing some ruffing. I didn't have a lot of hope for the the diamond finesse, given the auction, but it worked!
Twelve tricks are cold on the deal, but of the other 21 heart contract declarers, only two managed to take all the tricks, and one of those wasn't even in game!
BTW, did you spot that the robot sitting East tried to confuse me by playing his 9 and 7 before the 4? The robots like to do that in case there's a Rabbit at the wheel who might forget about the lowly 4. In this case, he just made it too easy.
This is something of a follow-up to my earlier Never say die article from last year and another in my series on robot bridge (see previous posting). The basic premise is that, no matter how bad things seem in a session of bridge, you should never (ever) give up.
Admittedly, this is a far cry from doing well in a real-person two-session event, but the message applies even to a lowly 12-board robot tournament on Bridge Base Online.
I like to think of myself as not being a quitter, but there are times when, having invested only a dollar and a few minutes of my time, I am tempted to give up on one of these tournaments if I start badly. But I don't give up. The only time I give up is if I make a mis-mouse which is unfortunately all-too-frequent with my MacMouse (I've mentioned this here before). If, instead, I simply make a bad play or I take a losing gamble, I simply resolve to do better in the remaining boards.
The other day, I played such a tournament (matchpoints), and my early efforts did not augur well. On the first board, I was slated to go down 2 in 1NT but managed hold myself to down 3. That was a zero, as everyone else was able to take more than four tricks. On board 2, we failed to compete to the two-level on our vulnerable 7-card fit and allowed the opponents to properly take their 9 tricks in diamonds (36%). Then in 3NT, I didn't appreciate the likelihood of a K being either singleton (a "kingleton?") or doubleton when I was missing six cards to the KJ in the suit (30%). Then, my opponents defended accurately in another 1NT hand and I went down 2 for -200. Half the field got softer defense and only went down one (23%). So, after four boards I had a rollicking 22.16%. Was this an appropriate time to quit? Hell, no!
I came back with a 64%, 90%, 98%, 60%, 92%, 63%, 88% and finally 82%. These scores were good enough to get me up to 60.4% and a fourth-place finish.
I was particularly happy with this hand, which earned the 98%, especially because I so often don't take advantage of potential ruffs in dummy:
After the switch to the ♥Q, I sensed something a little fishy, like a 1-3 split but it seemed that no harm could come of another round of trumps (plus, these Robots can be tricky). The auction suggested that my RHO wouldn't be able to overruff any club or diamond ruffs I might want to take. So I resisted my normal urge to wipe the enemy trumps out, and set about doing some ruffing. I didn't have a lot of hope for the the diamond finesse, given the auction, but it worked!
Twelve tricks are cold on the deal, but of the other 21 heart contract declarers, only two managed to take all the tricks, and one of those wasn't even in game!
BTW, did you spot that the robot sitting East tried to confuse me by playing his 9 and 7 before the 4? The robots like to do that in case there's a Rabbit at the wheel who might forget about the lowly 4. In this case, he just made it too easy.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Can you win this robot tournament - solutions
Last time, we looked at several problems in a 12-board robot tournament. Top was 25.
Board 1: ♠AT ♥AK98 ♦Q764 ♣K87. Partner invited game in hearts after his Stayman bid had been doubled by RHO. If you bid 4♥, you earned 16 or 23 if you found the (doubleton) trump queen (I didn't). If you passed you were below average with 5.5 or 10.5.
Running score after two: 36 (72%).
Board 3: ♠K72 ♥6 ♦KJ72 ♣AKJ64. You opened 1♣ and partner bid 1♥. If you were really disciplined and resisted the reverse, to rebid your nice clubs, you earned a healthy 19 (+110), assuming you didn't butcher the play. If you reversed, you received 13 for –50. If you rebid 1NT then you were getting either a top or a bottom depending on your play and the robots' defense.
Running score after six: 92.5 (61.7%).
Board 7: ♠A932 ♥K95 ♦AQT6 ♣KJ. You opened 1NT, partner bid 2♠ (Minor Stayman), you rebid 3♦ and the robot bid 3NT. If you made a move (I chose 4♦), you would have ended up with a 24.5 (only one other table bid the cold 6♦). I reasoned that the KJ were useful cards in clubs (they were) and that the robot wouldn't have bid 2♠ unless slam was reasonable.
I mentioned in the exposition of this little problem that not all humans responded 3 to the Minor Stayman bid. I can only guess that those who bid 3♣ didn't bother to read the explanation of the call. Some simply rebid 3NT, essentially denying a four-card minor. Presumably they didn't read the explanation either. I have some sympathy for these folks. The explanations are often quite inaccurate, at least as far as strength is concerned. But when they say they have a particular shape, that is usually true. [Just today, I opened 2NT, next player bid 4♦ and my robot doubled; the explanation was "biddable diamonds" – he had a small singleton!]
Running score after seven: 117 (67%).
Board 8:
I probably just got very lucky but I bid 4♣ (splinter) which was worth another 24.5 when 11 tricks were there for the taking. If you did anything else (or if you didn't double at your second turn) you most probably scored a 13.5.
Running score 152 (67.5%).
Board 10: ♠K982 ♥T62 ♦K6 ♣AQ32. East dealt and opened 1♦. Did you double? If you did, then you won this board in a somewhat unusual way: you wrong-sided the resulting 3NT contract by the opponents. You will have suffered a twinge of dread when it went redouble on your left, but your partner was there with his 1♠ preference bid. Most probably you would have ended up with 18.225 for down one but I got really lucky when declarer went wrong and down two for 23.45 mps.
Board 11:
As you can see, if you took the spade finesse (or you just cashed the top two spades at some point), then you made ten tricks like most other declarers for 14 mps. The danger of a diamond switch was a lot less than it might have been. Somebody managed to take 11 tricks when West got pseudo-squeezed and pitched a spade.
BTW, I always look for opportunities to sow seeds of confusion in the defenders. I therefore took the club "finesse" at trick 3 to suggest to East that his partner might have the Q.
Running score: 189.5 (69%).
Board 12: ♠J943 ♥A76 ♦A8 ♣AQ97. After East opened 1♦ in third seat, double was the call most likely to succeed. A few bid 1NT which strikes me as being absurd (15 hcp vulnerable, with only Ax in the bid suit?). Some of those got lucky making 120 or even 150 when LHO didn't lead his partner's suit. But most got their just deserts with –100, –200 or even –300.
After your double, BTW, it went 1♥ by partner and 2♦ by East. Would you have doubled again? If you did, partner would have competed to 3♣ for down one and a shade over 7 mps. If you were disciplined and passed (or even if you raised to 2♥), West would compete to 2♠ going down one (12.5 as in my case) or, if you were lucky, two (18.75).
Final score: 202 (67.3%), good enough for 1st place.
I hope you've enjoyed this little quiz. It isn't hard to win a robot duplicate and I don't claim that it reflects any great brilliance on the part of the player. Like any duplicate, it needs luck, some gifts and some reasonable care not to end up in unusual, no-play contracts.
What makes a robot duplicate a particularly good event to use for a bit of fun like this is that the robots are fairly predictable. If there was an alternative play/call that some other human chose, we can see what the robots' reaction(s) would likely have been if you had done the same thing.
Board 1: ♠AT ♥AK98 ♦Q764 ♣K87. Partner invited game in hearts after his Stayman bid had been doubled by RHO. If you bid 4♥, you earned 16 or 23 if you found the (doubleton) trump queen (I didn't). If you passed you were below average with 5.5 or 10.5.
Running score after two: 36 (72%).
Board 3: ♠K72 ♥6 ♦KJ72 ♣AKJ64. You opened 1♣ and partner bid 1♥. If you were really disciplined and resisted the reverse, to rebid your nice clubs, you earned a healthy 19 (+110), assuming you didn't butcher the play. If you reversed, you received 13 for –50. If you rebid 1NT then you were getting either a top or a bottom depending on your play and the robots' defense.
Running score after six: 92.5 (61.7%).
Board 7: ♠A932 ♥K95 ♦AQT6 ♣KJ. You opened 1NT, partner bid 2♠ (Minor Stayman), you rebid 3♦ and the robot bid 3NT. If you made a move (I chose 4♦), you would have ended up with a 24.5 (only one other table bid the cold 6♦). I reasoned that the KJ were useful cards in clubs (they were) and that the robot wouldn't have bid 2♠ unless slam was reasonable.
I mentioned in the exposition of this little problem that not all humans responded 3 to the Minor Stayman bid. I can only guess that those who bid 3♣ didn't bother to read the explanation of the call. Some simply rebid 3NT, essentially denying a four-card minor. Presumably they didn't read the explanation either. I have some sympathy for these folks. The explanations are often quite inaccurate, at least as far as strength is concerned. But when they say they have a particular shape, that is usually true. [Just today, I opened 2NT, next player bid 4♦ and my robot doubled; the explanation was "biddable diamonds" – he had a small singleton!]
Running score after seven: 117 (67%).
Board 8:
I probably just got very lucky but I bid 4♣ (splinter) which was worth another 24.5 when 11 tricks were there for the taking. If you did anything else (or if you didn't double at your second turn) you most probably scored a 13.5.
Running score 152 (67.5%).
Board 10: ♠K982 ♥T62 ♦K6 ♣AQ32. East dealt and opened 1♦. Did you double? If you did, then you won this board in a somewhat unusual way: you wrong-sided the resulting 3NT contract by the opponents. You will have suffered a twinge of dread when it went redouble on your left, but your partner was there with his 1♠ preference bid. Most probably you would have ended up with 18.225 for down one but I got really lucky when declarer went wrong and down two for 23.45 mps.
Board 11:
As you can see, if you took the spade finesse (or you just cashed the top two spades at some point), then you made ten tricks like most other declarers for 14 mps. The danger of a diamond switch was a lot less than it might have been. Somebody managed to take 11 tricks when West got pseudo-squeezed and pitched a spade.
BTW, I always look for opportunities to sow seeds of confusion in the defenders. I therefore took the club "finesse" at trick 3 to suggest to East that his partner might have the Q.
Running score: 189.5 (69%).
Board 12: ♠J943 ♥A76 ♦A8 ♣AQ97. After East opened 1♦ in third seat, double was the call most likely to succeed. A few bid 1NT which strikes me as being absurd (15 hcp vulnerable, with only Ax in the bid suit?). Some of those got lucky making 120 or even 150 when LHO didn't lead his partner's suit. But most got their just deserts with –100, –200 or even –300.
After your double, BTW, it went 1♥ by partner and 2♦ by East. Would you have doubled again? If you did, partner would have competed to 3♣ for down one and a shade over 7 mps. If you were disciplined and passed (or even if you raised to 2♥), West would compete to 2♠ going down one (12.5 as in my case) or, if you were lucky, two (18.75).
Final score: 202 (67.3%), good enough for 1st place.
I hope you've enjoyed this little quiz. It isn't hard to win a robot duplicate and I don't claim that it reflects any great brilliance on the part of the player. Like any duplicate, it needs luck, some gifts and some reasonable care not to end up in unusual, no-play contracts.
What makes a robot duplicate a particularly good event to use for a bit of fun like this is that the robots are fairly predictable. If there was an alternative play/call that some other human chose, we can see what the robots' reaction(s) would likely have been if you had done the same thing.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Can you win this robot tournament?
Continuing my series on robot play, I offer this little diversion.
Any time I can get in a normal contract at a robot tournament (i.e. Bridge Base Online, ACBL Robot tournament), I figure I have a good chance for a good score, especially now that the human plays his robot partner's declarations. Those of you who saw my last blog (The hitchhiker's guide to bridge – part 1) will know the kind of thing I mean where we are not in a normal contract.
The trouble is, it's rare when playing with the robots to put together twelve normal contracts. In this tournament, however, I managed to get to what I consider normal contracts on every hand and, with some careful though not brilliant declarer play I managed to come out on top.
I was fortunate that Leo LaSota wasn't playing in this tournament! He just topped 10,000 BBO points. Congratulations, Leo!
There are 26 humans in this event so that top on a board is 25.
Board 1: ♠AT ♥AK98 ♦Q764 ♣K87. You open 1NT and partner bids 2♣, Stayman. RHO doubles and you bid 2♥. Partner raises to 3♥. Your call? I should add, BTW, that in all but one of the 26 auctions, the bidding to this point is identical.
On board 2, you end up defending 3♠ for down one. The only odd thing about this is that your robot partner does some strange carding in the diamond suit which results in some human defenders going astray. Through no great brilliance on your part, you manage to snag 20 mps.
Board 3: ♠K72 ♥6 ♦KJ72 ♣AKJ64. You open 1♣ and partner bids 1♥. Opps are silent. Your call?
We'll skip over boards 4 and 5 which were reasonably normal major suit game contracts (going down in the second one when North decided that his 9-count with a singleton in my original major suit was worth an invitation), earning 16 and 10.5 mps respectively. And we'll skip the next one (6) too where we defended a normal 3♣ contract earning an 11.
Board 7: ♠A932 ♥K95 ♦AQT6 ♣KJ. You, like almost all of the humans, open 1NT and partner bids 2♠, described as "Minor Stayman 4+♣; 4+♦; 10+ total points." You dutifully bid 3♦ (many didn't) and the robot now bids 3NT. Your call?
Board 8:
Your call?
On board 9, you open 1♣ and your robot partner bids 1♠ with five spades to the ten, three hearts to the queen, four diamonds to the K and two small clubs. You struggle (remember the human has to play all hands now) to go down only one but succumb to a two trick set for 10.5 matchpoints. The play for down one which would score 21.5 is, to me at least, not only a double-dummy play but one that I would call triple-dummy. The play is likely to be found only by a computer playing double-dummy.
Board 10: ♠K982 ♥T62 ♦K6 ♣AQ32 (all vulnerable). East deals and opens 1♦. Your call?
[I originally showed the wrong hand here - my apologies]
Board 11:
Everyone is in the same contract and the lead is always the same. Clearly time to maximize your tricks. What's your general plan? Will you take the ♠ finesse at the risk of going down when they switch to a diamond?
Well, you've managed to lead the field for the last several boards so all you have to do now on the last one is to avoid an average minus or a bottom.
Board 12: ♠J943 ♥A76 ♦A8 ♣AQ97 (we are vulnerable). West deals and East opens 1♦ in third seat. Your call?
Answers to follow tomorrow.
Any time I can get in a normal contract at a robot tournament (i.e. Bridge Base Online, ACBL Robot tournament), I figure I have a good chance for a good score, especially now that the human plays his robot partner's declarations. Those of you who saw my last blog (The hitchhiker's guide to bridge – part 1) will know the kind of thing I mean where we are not in a normal contract.
The trouble is, it's rare when playing with the robots to put together twelve normal contracts. In this tournament, however, I managed to get to what I consider normal contracts on every hand and, with some careful though not brilliant declarer play I managed to come out on top.
I was fortunate that Leo LaSota wasn't playing in this tournament! He just topped 10,000 BBO points. Congratulations, Leo!
There are 26 humans in this event so that top on a board is 25.
Board 1: ♠AT ♥AK98 ♦Q764 ♣K87. You open 1NT and partner bids 2♣, Stayman. RHO doubles and you bid 2♥. Partner raises to 3♥. Your call? I should add, BTW, that in all but one of the 26 auctions, the bidding to this point is identical.
On board 2, you end up defending 3♠ for down one. The only odd thing about this is that your robot partner does some strange carding in the diamond suit which results in some human defenders going astray. Through no great brilliance on your part, you manage to snag 20 mps.
Board 3: ♠K72 ♥6 ♦KJ72 ♣AKJ64. You open 1♣ and partner bids 1♥. Opps are silent. Your call?
We'll skip over boards 4 and 5 which were reasonably normal major suit game contracts (going down in the second one when North decided that his 9-count with a singleton in my original major suit was worth an invitation), earning 16 and 10.5 mps respectively. And we'll skip the next one (6) too where we defended a normal 3♣ contract earning an 11.
Board 7: ♠A932 ♥K95 ♦AQT6 ♣KJ. You, like almost all of the humans, open 1NT and partner bids 2♠, described as "Minor Stayman 4+♣; 4+♦; 10+ total points." You dutifully bid 3♦ (many didn't) and the robot now bids 3NT. Your call?
Board 8:
Your call?
On board 9, you open 1♣ and your robot partner bids 1♠ with five spades to the ten, three hearts to the queen, four diamonds to the K and two small clubs. You struggle (remember the human has to play all hands now) to go down only one but succumb to a two trick set for 10.5 matchpoints. The play for down one which would score 21.5 is, to me at least, not only a double-dummy play but one that I would call triple-dummy. The play is likely to be found only by a computer playing double-dummy.
Board 10: ♠K982 ♥T62 ♦K6 ♣AQ32 (all vulnerable). East deals and opens 1♦. Your call?
[I originally showed the wrong hand here - my apologies]
Board 11:
Everyone is in the same contract and the lead is always the same. Clearly time to maximize your tricks. What's your general plan? Will you take the ♠ finesse at the risk of going down when they switch to a diamond?
Well, you've managed to lead the field for the last several boards so all you have to do now on the last one is to avoid an average minus or a bottom.
Board 12: ♠J943 ♥A76 ♦A8 ♣AQ97 (we are vulnerable). West deals and East opens 1♦ in third seat. Your call?
Answers to follow tomorrow.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The hitchhiker's guide to Bridge: part 1
The instruction DON'T PANIC was written in large letters on the front page of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, according to Douglas Adams in the novel of that name (1979). It is also a good thing to remember at times when playing bridge.
There are probably several different aspects of the game where the exhortation is relevant. One is defending a contract with a good side suit. There is a tendency to panic unless we have a good count on declarer's hand. Another common situation is defending a doubled part score, especially when partner is the chief hawk and our hand is dove-like.
The situation that is the subject of this blog occurs during the auction. It's a common mistake of beginners in bridge to keep running from doubled contracts. Just the other day, I doubled a contract at the two-level (we were slated to earn 500) but the opponents panicked and ended up in the exact same suit, but one level higher. We enjoyed our 800.
Here's a situation where the BBO robots demonstrated that they too are subject to this type of panic attack. The hand occurred in a robot tournament, costing me a decent showing. To add insult to injury, the tournaments now require the human to play all the hands so I was the one playing the ridiculous contract. Assuming that 4♦ gets doubled it would have been worth approximately 12 IMPs to us (-100 against a vulnerable game). 4♠ doubled should also have been -100 although the two times it was played resulted in -500. That would have been worth 4.8 IMPs. The actual contract of 5♥X (-800 although I could have escaped for -500) was worth -4.1 IMPs.
It was all so unnecessary – and a direct result of panicking. 4♦ hadn't even been doubled yet. You would think that my robot partner would be happy to have three cards in each of my announced suits. But no, he bids his own suit. When that gets doubled (surprise), he pulls to the strain that he previously eschewed. That gets doubled and he pulls yet again.
Are there any lessons to be learned (by the robot) here? The first lesson is that when partner has promised a two-suiter and voluntarily bids one of the suits "to play", then that suit is at least as good as the other suit and will usually be better. How do we know it's "to play?" In this case, it's clear from the auction that the opponents hold most of the cards and that the robot is broke. A raise would be unthinkable and a preference is only desired with significantly better hearts than diamonds.
The second lesson is that three card support (here in each of partner's suits!) is very good to have. Don't try to bid your own suit, unless it's at least eight cards long!
The third lesson is that once the opponents start doubling, they are likely to double everything in sight. The fact that they doubled 5♦, doesn't in any way suggest that 5♥ would play better. And that's going to be doubled too.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy playing these robot tournaments. The robots are patient, they are fast. They never criticize my inept play. Occasionally they go off the rails, as above, but mostly I love them for being competent, if not brilliant, and dependable partners.
There are probably several different aspects of the game where the exhortation is relevant. One is defending a contract with a good side suit. There is a tendency to panic unless we have a good count on declarer's hand. Another common situation is defending a doubled part score, especially when partner is the chief hawk and our hand is dove-like.
The situation that is the subject of this blog occurs during the auction. It's a common mistake of beginners in bridge to keep running from doubled contracts. Just the other day, I doubled a contract at the two-level (we were slated to earn 500) but the opponents panicked and ended up in the exact same suit, but one level higher. We enjoyed our 800.
Here's a situation where the BBO robots demonstrated that they too are subject to this type of panic attack. The hand occurred in a robot tournament, costing me a decent showing. To add insult to injury, the tournaments now require the human to play all the hands so I was the one playing the ridiculous contract. Assuming that 4♦ gets doubled it would have been worth approximately 12 IMPs to us (-100 against a vulnerable game). 4♠ doubled should also have been -100 although the two times it was played resulted in -500. That would have been worth 4.8 IMPs. The actual contract of 5♥X (-800 although I could have escaped for -500) was worth -4.1 IMPs.
It was all so unnecessary – and a direct result of panicking. 4♦ hadn't even been doubled yet. You would think that my robot partner would be happy to have three cards in each of my announced suits. But no, he bids his own suit. When that gets doubled (surprise), he pulls to the strain that he previously eschewed. That gets doubled and he pulls yet again.
Are there any lessons to be learned (by the robot) here? The first lesson is that when partner has promised a two-suiter and voluntarily bids one of the suits "to play", then that suit is at least as good as the other suit and will usually be better. How do we know it's "to play?" In this case, it's clear from the auction that the opponents hold most of the cards and that the robot is broke. A raise would be unthinkable and a preference is only desired with significantly better hearts than diamonds.
The second lesson is that three card support (here in each of partner's suits!) is very good to have. Don't try to bid your own suit, unless it's at least eight cards long!
The third lesson is that once the opponents start doubling, they are likely to double everything in sight. The fact that they doubled 5♦, doesn't in any way suggest that 5♥ would play better. And that's going to be doubled too.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy playing these robot tournaments. The robots are patient, they are fast. They never criticize my inept play. Occasionally they go off the rails, as above, but mostly I love them for being competent, if not brilliant, and dependable partners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)