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 hideous hog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hideous hog. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Abbot and the Hog
I'm a big fan of bridge humor, starting with the relatively serious S. J. Simon's Why You Lose at Bridge and Cut for Partners through all of Victor Mollo's Menagerie series to David Bird's many characters. Yes, there are other humorous bridge authors but none are as good as these three, in my opinion.
When I first came across the Abbot, I thought he was insufferable, with no redeeming qualities. But then I found that, like the Abbot of Cockaigne in Carmina Burana, he invites a somewhat grudging empathy in us. Indeed, he has become a much-loved character. Over the years, and the many books (and bridge bulletins) in which he and his bridge-crazy monks appear, I've come to realize something rather shocking: I'm rather too much like the Abbot myself for comfort. Indeed, the Abbot is one of the fictional bridge characters that we all should constantly try to avoid becoming.
He's a good player, though not quite the expert that he thinks he is. He's an advanced declarer, with skills to which many of us non-experts might aspire. But his bidding and defense are somewhat pedestrian and at a level that I hope I don't emulate.
What makes him such a good foil for Bird's jokes is his pomposity and his indifference to the points of view of his fellows. He is constantly performing the bridge equivalent of slipping on a banana skin.
As I mentioned, the worrying part is when I find myself thinking the way he does. For instance, at the club recently, I witnessed the following auction (we did not contribute): 1♦ – 1♠ – 1NT – 2♥ – 3♠ (!) – 4♠. I was on lead to 4♠ and I asked what the 3♠ bid was all about. I shouldn't have. I knew I wouldn't get a sensible reply. Presumably opener had just found another Ace or King in her hand. But no, 2♥ was forcing (!) and 3♠ now showed a max with three pieces. Dummy had some sort of unremarkable 9 or 10 count but the contract was nevertheless cold and, needless to say, generally not found at the other tables. I found this all very vexing. It's the kind of auction the Abbot might hear from the novices, resulting in him having to assign additional homework. Equanimity and serenity – that's what we should be striving for, not aggravation.
The Abbot's biggest sin, however, apart from gluttony perhaps, is pride. He can't stand it when his opponents don't realize that he is a grandmaster. But haven't we all grimaced when we make the theoretically correct but losing play only to have our LOL opponent smile and look at us as if we just learned to play the game yesterday?
What I find particularly funny and surprising about the Abbot is his Chauvinism (fortunately, I'm not guilty of that characteristic). For some reason, he has no patience for foreigners, especially when they speak with thick accents. Even the brilliant Italian monk Paolo (or Paulo), a relatively permanent member of St. Titus, isn't immune from the Abbot's barbs.
Still at the top of my bridge humor list, however, is the Hideous Hog and his fellow Griffins. I figured that, eventually, some advantage would accrue from all those misspent hours reading about the exploits of the denizens of the menagerie. That moment finally arrived this week.
As is well known, the Hog has more de facto aces and kings than his opponents and is consequently better able to afford to jettison aces when it suits him. I have rarely if ever gotten to jettison an ace – until this hand came up: ♠KT9 ♥654 ♦532 ♣KQ75. We were playing matchpoints at favorable vulnerability and my LHO dealt and passed. Partner opened 1♦ and RHO overcalled 1♠. 1NT seemed like the right call and LHO now raised to 2♠. Partner surprised everyone by bidding 3NT which closed proceedings. ♠5 was led and this magnificent dummy came down: ♠2 ♥QJ32 ♦AKQJ974 ♣A. I saw at once that I needed to jettison that ♣A as soon as possible and if only RHO would go up with the ♠A, I would get a chance. He did and returned a spade. I very much enjoyed calling for "small club, please." Making four with seven diamonds and three black cards was worth 9.5 of 11 matchpoints. Not everyone saw the need for this play, although it is possible that some crafty RHOs played their ♠Q at trick one.
We can't all be brilliant but we can at least aspire to the better behaviors of our bridge heroes.
When I first came across the Abbot, I thought he was insufferable, with no redeeming qualities. But then I found that, like the Abbot of Cockaigne in Carmina Burana, he invites a somewhat grudging empathy in us. Indeed, he has become a much-loved character. Over the years, and the many books (and bridge bulletins) in which he and his bridge-crazy monks appear, I've come to realize something rather shocking: I'm rather too much like the Abbot myself for comfort. Indeed, the Abbot is one of the fictional bridge characters that we all should constantly try to avoid becoming.
He's a good player, though not quite the expert that he thinks he is. He's an advanced declarer, with skills to which many of us non-experts might aspire. But his bidding and defense are somewhat pedestrian and at a level that I hope I don't emulate.
What makes him such a good foil for Bird's jokes is his pomposity and his indifference to the points of view of his fellows. He is constantly performing the bridge equivalent of slipping on a banana skin.
As I mentioned, the worrying part is when I find myself thinking the way he does. For instance, at the club recently, I witnessed the following auction (we did not contribute): 1♦ – 1♠ – 1NT – 2♥ – 3♠ (!) – 4♠. I was on lead to 4♠ and I asked what the 3♠ bid was all about. I shouldn't have. I knew I wouldn't get a sensible reply. Presumably opener had just found another Ace or King in her hand. But no, 2♥ was forcing (!) and 3♠ now showed a max with three pieces. Dummy had some sort of unremarkable 9 or 10 count but the contract was nevertheless cold and, needless to say, generally not found at the other tables. I found this all very vexing. It's the kind of auction the Abbot might hear from the novices, resulting in him having to assign additional homework. Equanimity and serenity – that's what we should be striving for, not aggravation.
The Abbot's biggest sin, however, apart from gluttony perhaps, is pride. He can't stand it when his opponents don't realize that he is a grandmaster. But haven't we all grimaced when we make the theoretically correct but losing play only to have our LOL opponent smile and look at us as if we just learned to play the game yesterday?
What I find particularly funny and surprising about the Abbot is his Chauvinism (fortunately, I'm not guilty of that characteristic). For some reason, he has no patience for foreigners, especially when they speak with thick accents. Even the brilliant Italian monk Paolo (or Paulo), a relatively permanent member of St. Titus, isn't immune from the Abbot's barbs.
Still at the top of my bridge humor list, however, is the Hideous Hog and his fellow Griffins. I figured that, eventually, some advantage would accrue from all those misspent hours reading about the exploits of the denizens of the menagerie. That moment finally arrived this week.
As is well known, the Hog has more de facto aces and kings than his opponents and is consequently better able to afford to jettison aces when it suits him. I have rarely if ever gotten to jettison an ace – until this hand came up: ♠KT9 ♥654 ♦532 ♣KQ75. We were playing matchpoints at favorable vulnerability and my LHO dealt and passed. Partner opened 1♦ and RHO overcalled 1♠. 1NT seemed like the right call and LHO now raised to 2♠. Partner surprised everyone by bidding 3NT which closed proceedings. ♠5 was led and this magnificent dummy came down: ♠2 ♥QJ32 ♦AKQJ974 ♣A. I saw at once that I needed to jettison that ♣A as soon as possible and if only RHO would go up with the ♠A, I would get a chance. He did and returned a spade. I very much enjoyed calling for "small club, please." Making four with seven diamonds and three black cards was worth 9.5 of 11 matchpoints. Not everyone saw the need for this play, although it is possible that some crafty RHOs played their ♠Q at trick one.
We can't all be brilliant but we can at least aspire to the better behaviors of our bridge heroes.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Duplicate Bridge Player's Burden
You pull your cards out of the pocket, perhaps count them, sort them, and hold them, thirteen pictures and rags. Do you guard those tender flowers (think Rigoletto) with loving care? Do you accord them your highest level of custodianship? In short, do you take responsibility for them while they're in your keeping?
You certainly should. They are your wards, your charges. You must do with them the very best that you can and you should certainly treat them with respect. Perhaps they're all "tram tickets" and your role in the proceedings of the hand will be to follow suit, giving count as you go. Or maybe your RHO opens the bidding with 3♠ and you hold the following collection (vulnerable versus not): ♠AQ2 ♥AQ3 ♦AQ4 ♣J652. If you were a rubber bridge player, you could reason that there's only one person to whom you owe any (temporary) allegiance and that you simply don't like your 6-loser hand enough to bid at such a high level.
But at duplicate bridge, you have a responsibility. If not to the cards themselves, then to your partner, and teammates. In matchpoint bridge, your teammates are all the pairs sitting in the opposite direction to you, except of course for the ones at your table right now. Teamship with any one particular pair, is fractional, but nonetheless real. With the hand given, you are pretty much obliged to bid 3NT whether you fancy your chances or not. Yes, it could be horribly wrong. You could be doubled and go down five (1400) or even six on a really bad day. A defensive squeeze might even do you out of one of your aces for -2000. But does that scare you? As no less a personage than the Hideous Hog has said "Just because I had a difficult hand to bid, I was not going to shirk my duty." Do you shrink from taking bold action? Of course not. You have responsibility for these cards and so, like the Hog, you call 3NT with confidence and await your fate.
Or, if your not a fan of the Hog, how about Bob Hamman? It's hard to ignore advice with such pedigree: "When 3NT is one of the alternatives, choose it."
So, with all that background, what do you make of this ugly collection: ♠QJ83 ♥97 ♦KT ♣JT743? Do such waifs and strays deserve your special attention just like all the other hands? You bet!
You deal, vulnerable versus not, and pass. LHO opens 1NT (good 11-14) and partner doubles, showing values. RHO bids 2♣ (Stayman) and LHO bids 2♦. Partner's in there again with the red card. RHO now bids 2♥. This gets passed around to partner who doubles again (this is getting repetitive). RHO passes and its up to you. What are you thinking? Are you doing full justice to your wards? Let's say you pass for now and LHO now pulls to 2♠ which is passed around to you (partner doesn't seem able to double this one).
Are you tempted to pass? Heavens, no! Are you tempted to double? Are you sure you're giving your best? Remember, you're red on white. What about 3NT? They probably have an eight-card fit, possibly even nine. Clearly, the cards aren't sitting well for them but it's reasonable that there are 16 total tricks. Let's further guess that they can make seven tricks in spades. That means we can take nine in our best suit (clubs?). But if we have something like 25 or 26 high-card-points as seems likely, maybe we can take nine tricks in notrump too! We apparently have everything stopped. 3NT becomes the responsible call (which you should have made over 2♥X, by the way). If we are right, we gain 500 (600 instead of 100). It might happen that they can only take 6 tricks in spades and we can take 10 in notrump or clubs (630 versus 300). As it happens, our side can take eleven tricks in clubs or notrump while they can only take 5 in spades (660 versus 500).
The scoring table is on our side. Treat our friends the cards well. Be a hog: bid 3NT.
You certainly should. They are your wards, your charges. You must do with them the very best that you can and you should certainly treat them with respect. Perhaps they're all "tram tickets" and your role in the proceedings of the hand will be to follow suit, giving count as you go. Or maybe your RHO opens the bidding with 3♠ and you hold the following collection (vulnerable versus not): ♠AQ2 ♥AQ3 ♦AQ4 ♣J652. If you were a rubber bridge player, you could reason that there's only one person to whom you owe any (temporary) allegiance and that you simply don't like your 6-loser hand enough to bid at such a high level.
But at duplicate bridge, you have a responsibility. If not to the cards themselves, then to your partner, and teammates. In matchpoint bridge, your teammates are all the pairs sitting in the opposite direction to you, except of course for the ones at your table right now. Teamship with any one particular pair, is fractional, but nonetheless real. With the hand given, you are pretty much obliged to bid 3NT whether you fancy your chances or not. Yes, it could be horribly wrong. You could be doubled and go down five (1400) or even six on a really bad day. A defensive squeeze might even do you out of one of your aces for -2000. But does that scare you? As no less a personage than the Hideous Hog has said "Just because I had a difficult hand to bid, I was not going to shirk my duty." Do you shrink from taking bold action? Of course not. You have responsibility for these cards and so, like the Hog, you call 3NT with confidence and await your fate.
Or, if your not a fan of the Hog, how about Bob Hamman? It's hard to ignore advice with such pedigree: "When 3NT is one of the alternatives, choose it."
So, with all that background, what do you make of this ugly collection: ♠QJ83 ♥97 ♦KT ♣JT743? Do such waifs and strays deserve your special attention just like all the other hands? You bet!
You deal, vulnerable versus not, and pass. LHO opens 1NT (good 11-14) and partner doubles, showing values. RHO bids 2♣ (Stayman) and LHO bids 2♦. Partner's in there again with the red card. RHO now bids 2♥. This gets passed around to partner who doubles again (this is getting repetitive). RHO passes and its up to you. What are you thinking? Are you doing full justice to your wards? Let's say you pass for now and LHO now pulls to 2♠ which is passed around to you (partner doesn't seem able to double this one).
Are you tempted to pass? Heavens, no! Are you tempted to double? Are you sure you're giving your best? Remember, you're red on white. What about 3NT? They probably have an eight-card fit, possibly even nine. Clearly, the cards aren't sitting well for them but it's reasonable that there are 16 total tricks. Let's further guess that they can make seven tricks in spades. That means we can take nine in our best suit (clubs?). But if we have something like 25 or 26 high-card-points as seems likely, maybe we can take nine tricks in notrump too! We apparently have everything stopped. 3NT becomes the responsible call (which you should have made over 2♥X, by the way). If we are right, we gain 500 (600 instead of 100). It might happen that they can only take 6 tricks in spades and we can take 10 in notrump or clubs (630 versus 300). As it happens, our side can take eleven tricks in clubs or notrump while they can only take 5 in spades (660 versus 500).
The scoring table is on our side. Treat our friends the cards well. Be a hog: bid 3NT.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Hideous Hog meets Miss Mouse
I can't really imagine the Hideous Hog playing against the GIBs on BBO, can you? But I was taking a short break the other evening and a perfect Hog hand came up (spots approximate):
♠KQT82 ♥AK ♦AJ654 ♣8 ♠62 ♥QJT842 ♦73 ♣KT5
The Rueful Rabbit (actually just one of the GIBs) opened 1♠ and I, doing my best H.H. imitation, bid 1NT, forcing. R.R. bid 3♦ and naturally I called 3NT. 3♥ would have allowed the Rabbit to bid spades again and we couldn't allow that, now, could we. Fortunately, the Rabbit knows that it is against the law to take the Hog out of a 3NT contract.
The opening lead was a low club. Prospects were somewhat dismal given that the ♣K was the only possible entry to my hearts (after unblocking). But there was a ray of hope if RHO had the ♣A. He did and I played low obviously. On the club return, I again played low and pitched the ♥A from dummy. The defense persisted with another club (I think this GIB must have been the Walrus in disguise) and I was able to pitch the ♥K while winning in my hand with the ♣K. I now began to reel off six hearts (they split 3-2) and had every hope of making the contract (all would depend on the club distribution and the location of the ♠A).
It was, however, at this point that the best laid plans went awry. True to form, the Hideous Hog is not an aficionado of online bridge. A slight slip of the mouse caused the D7, the aptly named "beer card", to be played instead of a fourth heart (I had indeed just enjoyed an Ipswich IPA).
I never found out whether I would have made my contract as I decided to elect the only recourse for a mis-mouse against the GIBs: quit the game!
But I would love to have the opportunity to jettison Aces and Kings, à la Hog, in a real game. Preferably, the Life Master pairs, but any flesh-and-blood game would do.
The Rueful Rabbit (actually just one of the GIBs) opened 1♠ and I, doing my best H.H. imitation, bid 1NT, forcing. R.R. bid 3♦ and naturally I called 3NT. 3♥ would have allowed the Rabbit to bid spades again and we couldn't allow that, now, could we. Fortunately, the Rabbit knows that it is against the law to take the Hog out of a 3NT contract.
The opening lead was a low club. Prospects were somewhat dismal given that the ♣K was the only possible entry to my hearts (after unblocking). But there was a ray of hope if RHO had the ♣A. He did and I played low obviously. On the club return, I again played low and pitched the ♥A from dummy. The defense persisted with another club (I think this GIB must have been the Walrus in disguise) and I was able to pitch the ♥K while winning in my hand with the ♣K. I now began to reel off six hearts (they split 3-2) and had every hope of making the contract (all would depend on the club distribution and the location of the ♠A).
It was, however, at this point that the best laid plans went awry. True to form, the Hideous Hog is not an aficionado of online bridge. A slight slip of the mouse caused the D7, the aptly named "beer card", to be played instead of a fourth heart (I had indeed just enjoyed an Ipswich IPA).
I never found out whether I would have made my contract as I decided to elect the only recourse for a mis-mouse against the GIBs: quit the game!
But I would love to have the opportunity to jettison Aces and Kings, à la Hog, in a real game. Preferably, the Life Master pairs, but any flesh-and-blood game would do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)