Some players don't like to preempt in one suit when they have a good holding in a major suit on the side. Others feel that preempting with a void on the side is somehow evil, especially when opening with a weak two. Is it OK to preempt with a side void? How about two voids? Two voids and a five-card major? Just ask rising star Zach Grossack. Here he is playing with Kim against the robots on BBO a couple of months ago. Did someone say "unfavorable vulnerability?"
Even Victor Mollo and his Hideous Hog never quite pulled off anything like this. Note that, despite the defense holding all four aces, all four kings and a jack, they can do no better than three tricks! And, no, this was not part of a "Goulash" tournament. Kim and Zach won a whopping 15.5 imps on this hand.
If you follow the play, you will see that the West robot makes an error when he doesn't capture the diamond queen with his king. This leads to an ignominious -990 and, adding insult to injury, the robots helplessly (or haplessly?) each contribute an ace to the last trick, won with Zach's last trump. You just can't make this stuff up!
When I first saw this hand, I thought that the hand actually belonged to North/South even though they held only 11 hcp! But then I realized that E/W can legitimately make four spades (with careful play). They can also make 3NT (or four clubs) but not if North has already bid four hearts!
Zach was the only human North to play this board. Fifteen robot North's failed to appreciate the offensive potential of a three diamond opening.
Showing posts with label Zach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zach. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
WWZD
Many congratulations to the USA1 Youngsters for winning the silver medal in China at the 14th World Youth Team Chamipionships. We had a special interest in this team because one pair of the team was made up of local brothers Adam and Zach Grossack. Adam already has a World Championship title to his name – for the Youngsters Individual in the WBF event in Philadelphia two years ago. Zach recently won the 0-5000 Life Master Pairs in Philadelphia with our friend Don and placed 4th in an open National event last year in Toronto. Zach plays weekly with Kim so I hear a lot of Zach stories (almost all good!).
We were watching the action in the middle of the night (via BridgeBaseOnline) when USA1 surmounted a 56 imp half-time deficit in the semi-final versus Israel to win by an apparently comfortable 32 imps! In fact, they won the last thirteen boards 74-0.
Alas, they were not so fortunate in the finals against a strong Polish team.
Meaning no disrespect to Adam, whom we simply don't know so well, I have irreverently entitled this blog entry WWZD (What would Zach do?) in recognition of the latest trend amongst those of us who have had the pleasure of partnering Zach – sharing hands where we tried to copy the 15-yr-old Zach's bidding style. That, by the way, is about as far as we can get in emulating Zach. He apparently has X-ray vision because in the actual play, he usually knows the result of the hand after the first few tricks!
Here's my own submission from yesterday's Sectional Swiss. I held the following hand: ♠QJ ♥A4 ♦AJ63 ♣K9642. I opened 1NT (15-17) and partner invoked Stayman. I denied a four-card major and partner now bid a quantitative 4NT. Well, by pure logic with my 15-count, I should pass. But I tried to think about partner's hand. While he might have as many as eight major suit cards, he might conceivably have only five. Whichever major suit cards he had, mine should be useful, unless he was short in spades, in which case it was possible that even 4NT wouldn't make. In any event, I thought, suppose partner had opened a strong notrump ahead of me. Wouldn't I want to be in a minor suit slam somewhere? So, I "took a view" and bid 6♣. If partner didn't have support for clubs, perhaps he could bid 6♦. Anyway, he passed, becoming declarer (because of the Stayman bid) and was able to make the slam for a 10 imp gain. His hand was ♠AT5 ♥J85 ♦KQ72 ♣AQ8. Would Zach actually have bid 6♣? I don't know. But he sure does love minor suit slams!
We were watching the action in the middle of the night (via BridgeBaseOnline) when USA1 surmounted a 56 imp half-time deficit in the semi-final versus Israel to win by an apparently comfortable 32 imps! In fact, they won the last thirteen boards 74-0.
Alas, they were not so fortunate in the finals against a strong Polish team.
Meaning no disrespect to Adam, whom we simply don't know so well, I have irreverently entitled this blog entry WWZD (What would Zach do?) in recognition of the latest trend amongst those of us who have had the pleasure of partnering Zach – sharing hands where we tried to copy the 15-yr-old Zach's bidding style. That, by the way, is about as far as we can get in emulating Zach. He apparently has X-ray vision because in the actual play, he usually knows the result of the hand after the first few tricks!
Here's my own submission from yesterday's Sectional Swiss. I held the following hand: ♠QJ ♥A4 ♦AJ63 ♣K9642. I opened 1NT (15-17) and partner invoked Stayman. I denied a four-card major and partner now bid a quantitative 4NT. Well, by pure logic with my 15-count, I should pass. But I tried to think about partner's hand. While he might have as many as eight major suit cards, he might conceivably have only five. Whichever major suit cards he had, mine should be useful, unless he was short in spades, in which case it was possible that even 4NT wouldn't make. In any event, I thought, suppose partner had opened a strong notrump ahead of me. Wouldn't I want to be in a minor suit slam somewhere? So, I "took a view" and bid 6♣. If partner didn't have support for clubs, perhaps he could bid 6♦. Anyway, he passed, becoming declarer (because of the Stayman bid) and was able to make the slam for a 10 imp gain. His hand was ♠AT5 ♥J85 ♦KQ72 ♣AQ8. Would Zach actually have bid 6♣? I don't know. But he sure does love minor suit slams!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Slings, Arrows and Flying Cows
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are definitely one of the factors that make our game of Bridge so interesting. While the game isn't completely random of course, there is a large element of randomness. It's basically all about avoiding errors – of which there are many varieties. Did you know for example that if your partnership is absolutely average amongst your opponents, you can expect to score over 60% (or below 40%) about once in every thirty sessions?
One of the most difficult to overcome of the panoply of Bridge errors is the personal unforced goof (PUG). You know it also by another somewhat more scatological expression. When an expert makes this sort of error and is asked about it later, he or she can only come up with something like "a cow flew by."
I've thought about consulting a Zen master to try to help me eliminate these sorts of errors but I haven't found one yet. A regimen of water (plenty of it) and relatively light meals does seem to help. Brown rice seems to help a little. When Kim is my partner and I do something goofy she reminds me to drink some more water (or Gatorade if we have it). But if she's at another table, I'm liable to forget, with possibly serious consequences for my health, both bridge-related and otherwise.
Over the weekend, we went up to Newington, NH for the pairs on Saturday and the teams on Sunday. I've played with my pairs partner twice before. I had two partners for the Swiss, neither of whom I'd played with before. That made it all the more challenging and enjoyable. One of my teams partners was 13-year-old Zach, who might easily go unnoticed by comparison with his World Youth Champion brother Adam. But Zach is a terrific player whom I think could easily turn out better even than his brother.
On the first hand we played together, Zach opened a rather light hand. We found a fit and I was heading to a slam when I had to put the brakes on. We were missing two key cards. The trumps split 4-1 and I had to think about the hand for a while before coming up with a plan. My plan relied on a squeeze that I thought was probably about 75% or better based on the way the play went. I made the contract. Zach pointed out, very politely I might add, that I could have saved myself a lot of trouble ruffing an extra trick in dummy (a plan which I had thought was in danger of losing control). I was skeptical but eventually figured out that he was right.
We had a good time, though we seemed to be a little unlucky at times and, as a team, never really got into the groove until we'd already dug a deep hole. We just managed to scratch in B.
Here's an example of the kind of goof I referred to above (if I was a bit older perhaps I might call it a "senior moment"). I picked up a 4441 17-count and opened 1D. Partner jumped to 3NT. In my mind I was evaluating our chances based on his having 15-17 hcp (I wasn't too worried about clubs because he had to have at least four of them). I bid 6NT and it went down one. Where did I get that idea from? Nobody I know plays 3NT that way (including me), although I've certainly heard of such an agreement (it's part of the old Standard American, I believe). I just think the wires got crossed on the way out of my memory banks.
It's annoying as anything in Bridge can be. And it's hard for anyone else to even comprehend it. But if ever I find that Zen master, maybe I can do something to eliminate this sort of flying cow play.
One of the most difficult to overcome of the panoply of Bridge errors is the personal unforced goof (PUG). You know it also by another somewhat more scatological expression. When an expert makes this sort of error and is asked about it later, he or she can only come up with something like "a cow flew by."
I've thought about consulting a Zen master to try to help me eliminate these sorts of errors but I haven't found one yet. A regimen of water (plenty of it) and relatively light meals does seem to help. Brown rice seems to help a little. When Kim is my partner and I do something goofy she reminds me to drink some more water (or Gatorade if we have it). But if she's at another table, I'm liable to forget, with possibly serious consequences for my health, both bridge-related and otherwise.
Over the weekend, we went up to Newington, NH for the pairs on Saturday and the teams on Sunday. I've played with my pairs partner twice before. I had two partners for the Swiss, neither of whom I'd played with before. That made it all the more challenging and enjoyable. One of my teams partners was 13-year-old Zach, who might easily go unnoticed by comparison with his World Youth Champion brother Adam. But Zach is a terrific player whom I think could easily turn out better even than his brother.
On the first hand we played together, Zach opened a rather light hand. We found a fit and I was heading to a slam when I had to put the brakes on. We were missing two key cards. The trumps split 4-1 and I had to think about the hand for a while before coming up with a plan. My plan relied on a squeeze that I thought was probably about 75% or better based on the way the play went. I made the contract. Zach pointed out, very politely I might add, that I could have saved myself a lot of trouble ruffing an extra trick in dummy (a plan which I had thought was in danger of losing control). I was skeptical but eventually figured out that he was right.
We had a good time, though we seemed to be a little unlucky at times and, as a team, never really got into the groove until we'd already dug a deep hole. We just managed to scratch in B.
Here's an example of the kind of goof I referred to above (if I was a bit older perhaps I might call it a "senior moment"). I picked up a 4441 17-count and opened 1D. Partner jumped to 3NT. In my mind I was evaluating our chances based on his having 15-17 hcp (I wasn't too worried about clubs because he had to have at least four of them). I bid 6NT and it went down one. Where did I get that idea from? Nobody I know plays 3NT that way (including me), although I've certainly heard of such an agreement (it's part of the old Standard American, I believe). I just think the wires got crossed on the way out of my memory banks.
It's annoying as anything in Bridge can be. And it's hard for anyone else to even comprehend it. But if ever I find that Zen master, maybe I can do something to eliminate this sort of flying cow play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)