Kim and I found some friends to team up with for the A/X Swiss on Sunday, my last day at the NABC in Philadelphia which was excellent (with the exception of the layout on the fourth floor which caused huge traffic jams at busy times). Yes, we could have entered the B/C/D Swiss but it is so much more satisfying playing good teams. On the other hand, that particular event is a proving ground for teams entering the Spingold the following day and the competition is brutal. A total of 119 teams signed up and the room was a Who's Who? of experts from around the world. We had no serious expectations of getting into the overalls (though we've done it before). But we did expect that we would have an enjoyable time playing good bridge and we were not disappointed.
Here's an example from our second match where we met ACBL Roaming Reporter, blogger and Minneapolis GLM Peg Kaplan (sitting East). If you click the GIB button you will see that, on this occasion, the singleton lead was the only card in West's hand to give me any hope at all. The contract and play to the first two tricks was identical at both tables (West pitching an encouraging club at trick 2). At my table, Peg gave the matter considerable thought before leading to the next trick. I was tempted to claim during this time, but then I realized that a claim would be just a little premature. After she held the third trick, I prayed that she would follow West's advice and lead a club (I would be able to claim then). But Peg knew that if I had six trumps and a stiff club, as seemed most probable,
the only way to hurt me was to establish a second heart trick for the
defense. So, she unerringly continued a heart and I was dead in the water. My teammate did follow West's advice and immediately shifted to a club and their defense was over. So Peg earned her team an 11 imp swing in a match they were otherwise going to lose by 2.
After the event started, amid a fair degree of chaos in our area, it was announced that there would be only seven rounds, making it one of the more expensive non-NABC events at a cost of 65 cents per board per person. Going into the last round, we had 62 VPs and three wins leaving us fairly well placed to scratch in X (we would have needed an 8-imp win). Alas, the team we met was a team of experts having (until then) a bad day and we ended up with only another 2 VPs. We enjoyed it though, especially round 5 where we got a little lucky and beat a team of top players from back home. This was largely due to a grand slam which I bid badly (but luckily) for a 13-imp gain.
This was the hand, one of the best I've ever picked up: ♠AKQT987 ♥AQ74 ♦A3 ♣–. Here's an auction which conforms to our system and would have legitimately got us to the right spot: 2♣ – 2♦(1) – 2♠ – 2NT – 5♣(2) – 5♦(3) – 5NT(4) – 6♦(5) – 6♥(6) – 7♠ (7). 1: game-forcing; 2: exclusion key-card Blackwood for spades with club void; 3: sorry, nothing; 4: got any kings? 5: yup, the ♦K; 6: what about the heart king? 7: got that one too! Even with the two red kings, this was not cold – dummy needed a second trump to ruff the heart loser – but she had that too! I could also have managed without the heart ruff provided that diamonds split 3-3. I regret to say that my auction was a lot less scientific than what I show here and not worthy of a
13-imp swing. But you know what they say: sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.
News today of the last board of the GNT Championship Flight makes me realize that even the top players can make the wrong decision on occasion. It puts my blunder from the GNTs into a slightly more favorable light. I don't think I've ever faced Joel Wooldridge at the table, but I've several times played his teammates (and lost). So I was surprised, and a bit shocked, by his double of the 4♠ cuebid with only the QT4! It was that call (in my humble opinion) that lost his team the championship.
Showing posts with label NABC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NABC. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Grand National Teams
Philadelphia! Kim and I are here for the Summer NABC to take part in the Grand National Teams (flight B) which starts this afternoon. We're on a six-person team, our teammates being Michael and Alya, Leo and Jay. I have a fair bit of confidence in our team -- we fairly cruised through the district qualifiers and all three pairs are established partnerships. However, we will be going up against the best teams from the other 24 districts and it isn't going to be easy!
I will try to post each day that we're still in the event, hopefully with some interesting hands from the competition. Failing that, I have some partially completed articles which I can publish.
Let's start with a few thoughts about team tactics. The standard mantra for team games is "bid your games!" While this is undoubtedly good advice, it seems to me that it is equally important to fight for the part-score whenever there are shapely hands about and, conversely, allow them to declare when everyone appears to be balanced. An incorrect game decision typically loses 6, 10 or 13 imps, according to vulnerability and how you went wrong. However, a hand on which the opponents make a part-score at both tables will lose 7 or 8 imps.
Now, we come to the question of doubles. One of the more trying moments in bridge is going back to your table and explaining how you let them make 530, 670 or whatever. And, while it would appear that doubling their game contracts is relatively safe (unlike at matchpoints) there are several bad things that can happen. The least bad thing is that they were making anyway and you lose 5 imps. Or, worse, your double may tip declarer off to the best way to play the hand and now you are losing 11 or 14 imps! Even worse, you might jostle them into a better (and possibly higher-scoring) contract that does make. The sky's the limit on how many imps you swing here.
So, you should never double at teams? Not at all. But there are lots of ways that they can end up playing a doubled contract, especially when using cooperative doubles. Some of the juiciest penalty doubles come this way providing that everyone is being disciplined.
Finally, how do we cope when we find ourselves in a hole? There are two scenarios where this can occur. In a short Swiss match, it sometimes happens that your opponents bid and make a lucky contract that you know your opponents won't bid. Perhaps they had a misunderstanding about keycards but the trump king turned up onside and their slam rolled home. Generally, however, you should always have confidence in your teammates bidding and making normal games and slams. In a longer (knockout) match, you may not be sure you're down until the half-time comparison. There is a tendency for players to overbid wildly in the second half under such circumstances. This is entirely the wrong strategy and, like its American Football cousin, the "prevent" defense, usually ends up having the opposite effect.
The proper strategy is to be contrary. The opportunities for this occur when you aren't 100% sure whether to bid game or slam. If you think your counterpart will bid it, then don't. If you think he'll stay out, then bid it. If it's a 50% guess, then you will have trouble guessing what you're opponent will do but a team that is ahead will tend to do everything by the book (no risks). So that should help guide you.
I do enjoy team games -- they are the closest thing we have to "real" bridge. Wish us luck!
I will try to post each day that we're still in the event, hopefully with some interesting hands from the competition. Failing that, I have some partially completed articles which I can publish.
Let's start with a few thoughts about team tactics. The standard mantra for team games is "bid your games!" While this is undoubtedly good advice, it seems to me that it is equally important to fight for the part-score whenever there are shapely hands about and, conversely, allow them to declare when everyone appears to be balanced. An incorrect game decision typically loses 6, 10 or 13 imps, according to vulnerability and how you went wrong. However, a hand on which the opponents make a part-score at both tables will lose 7 or 8 imps.
Now, we come to the question of doubles. One of the more trying moments in bridge is going back to your table and explaining how you let them make 530, 670 or whatever. And, while it would appear that doubling their game contracts is relatively safe (unlike at matchpoints) there are several bad things that can happen. The least bad thing is that they were making anyway and you lose 5 imps. Or, worse, your double may tip declarer off to the best way to play the hand and now you are losing 11 or 14 imps! Even worse, you might jostle them into a better (and possibly higher-scoring) contract that does make. The sky's the limit on how many imps you swing here.
So, you should never double at teams? Not at all. But there are lots of ways that they can end up playing a doubled contract, especially when using cooperative doubles. Some of the juiciest penalty doubles come this way providing that everyone is being disciplined.
Finally, how do we cope when we find ourselves in a hole? There are two scenarios where this can occur. In a short Swiss match, it sometimes happens that your opponents bid and make a lucky contract that you know your opponents won't bid. Perhaps they had a misunderstanding about keycards but the trump king turned up onside and their slam rolled home. Generally, however, you should always have confidence in your teammates bidding and making normal games and slams. In a longer (knockout) match, you may not be sure you're down until the half-time comparison. There is a tendency for players to overbid wildly in the second half under such circumstances. This is entirely the wrong strategy and, like its American Football cousin, the "prevent" defense, usually ends up having the opposite effect.
The proper strategy is to be contrary. The opportunities for this occur when you aren't 100% sure whether to bid game or slam. If you think your counterpart will bid it, then don't. If you think he'll stay out, then bid it. If it's a 50% guess, then you will have trouble guessing what you're opponent will do but a team that is ahead will tend to do everything by the book (no risks). So that should help guide you.
I do enjoy team games -- they are the closest thing we have to "real" bridge. Wish us luck!
Friday, December 2, 2011
Sleepless in Seattle (continued)
There are several aspects of NABCs that we really enjoy. The gifts for one. Yes, I am kidding but this tournament has been terrific on gifts. We have new umbrellas, mouse pads, space needle key fobs, luggage handle/identifiers, chocolates, multiple decks of playing cards... Another thing we enjoy very much is the chance to get to know better our friends and acquaintances from New England, typically by going out to dinner and going over the hands. I am at my very best in this phase of the game. This year, there have been fewer New Englanders than typical, but we've made the most of the social opportunities.
Another aspect that we really like is that you can play with World champions, national champions, etc. and learn how they play the game. In what other endeavor can you play against such people simply for the price of an entry fee? And, almost without exception, those top players are pleasant, courteous and never argue at the table. One of the more friendly and fun-loving experts, Dutch star Jan Jansma, came to our table during a regional open pairs yesterday. I was playing with my old buddy Dave, with whom I last played exactly three years ago at the Boston NABC.
I hope Jan won't mind if he sees this account of one hand we played. When they got to our table we were having a 70% game and I was "in the zone" (Oh, how I wish I could always play there!). On this particular hand, I picked up (favorable vulnerability) ♠K6 ♥KQ6 ♦JT ♣AKT532. I don't normally open 1NT with a six-card suit, but I observed an expert do just that earlier in the week and this seemed like the right time to try it. LHO doubled which was explained as five of a minor and four of a major (or better, presumably). Dave bid 2♥ (transfer) and I duly bid 2♠. Dave now invited with 2NT and I had a decision to make. I possessed only two spades but my hand had now become very suit-oriented. I figured the "minor" was diamonds (see how well I was playing?) and wasn't so thrilled with JT as a stopper. I therefore opted for 4♠. The club 9 was led and it didn't take J. P. Beaumont or Sarah Linden to deduce that this was a stiff (though not the kind of stiff they are used to dealing with). Partner tabled ♠AT932 ♥J72 ♦A5 ♣864. There was nothing to the play, fortunately. I had to lose two trumps and the HA and that was +420 for 24.5 out of 25 matchpoints.
We fell out of favor after that somewhat and met Kim and newly-crowned Life Master sister Kathy in the last round. Due to my atrocious play on the first board (I should have made 4♠ doubled) and my reluctance to wield the chopper on my beloved wife on the second, we donated 29.5 matchpoints more than we should to their cause, giving them 8th in section and dropping us to 8th (B) in section. However, this led to further sleeplessness, as they thought it would be fun now to enter the midnights, something I am really too old for these days.
By a series of miracles and some fine play by my partner Vincent and teammates we clawed our way into the final against current player-of-the-year leader, Joel Wooldridge. We stopped comparing after two adverse game swings and went home, finally and joyfully, to get some well-earned sleep!
Another aspect that we really like is that you can play with World champions, national champions, etc. and learn how they play the game. In what other endeavor can you play against such people simply for the price of an entry fee? And, almost without exception, those top players are pleasant, courteous and never argue at the table. One of the more friendly and fun-loving experts, Dutch star Jan Jansma, came to our table during a regional open pairs yesterday. I was playing with my old buddy Dave, with whom I last played exactly three years ago at the Boston NABC.
I hope Jan won't mind if he sees this account of one hand we played. When they got to our table we were having a 70% game and I was "in the zone" (Oh, how I wish I could always play there!). On this particular hand, I picked up (favorable vulnerability) ♠K6 ♥KQ6 ♦JT ♣AKT532. I don't normally open 1NT with a six-card suit, but I observed an expert do just that earlier in the week and this seemed like the right time to try it. LHO doubled which was explained as five of a minor and four of a major (or better, presumably). Dave bid 2♥ (transfer) and I duly bid 2♠. Dave now invited with 2NT and I had a decision to make. I possessed only two spades but my hand had now become very suit-oriented. I figured the "minor" was diamonds (see how well I was playing?) and wasn't so thrilled with JT as a stopper. I therefore opted for 4♠. The club 9 was led and it didn't take J. P. Beaumont or Sarah Linden to deduce that this was a stiff (though not the kind of stiff they are used to dealing with). Partner tabled ♠AT932 ♥J72 ♦A5 ♣864. There was nothing to the play, fortunately. I had to lose two trumps and the HA and that was +420 for 24.5 out of 25 matchpoints.
We fell out of favor after that somewhat and met Kim and newly-crowned Life Master sister Kathy in the last round. Due to my atrocious play on the first board (I should have made 4♠ doubled) and my reluctance to wield the chopper on my beloved wife on the second, we donated 29.5 matchpoints more than we should to their cause, giving them 8th in section and dropping us to 8th (B) in section. However, this led to further sleeplessness, as they thought it would be fun now to enter the midnights, something I am really too old for these days.
By a series of miracles and some fine play by my partner Vincent and teammates we clawed our way into the final against current player-of-the-year leader, Joel Wooldridge. We stopped comparing after two adverse game swings and went home, finally and joyfully, to get some well-earned sleep!
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Sleepless in Seattle
My efforts in the NABC have not been my best and as a result, I've had a few restless nights. Well, that's a relative term: I could sleep through WW III but I do sometimes find myself obsessing about hands in the middle of the night. Kim and I played the first day of each of the Life Master Pairs and Blue Ribbon Pairs. Easily our best bridge of the tournament came in the first session of the Blues when we were briefly in third place in our double section (on the "burner" sheet). Unfortunately, I had made two very bad decisions in the auctions of the last two boards and we dropped out of the "money" by 1 match point (top was 25).
Two of my most challenging declarer play hands came in regional team games rather than in the big events. In each case, we were in the last round, and in a major-suit game. In the first hand (4 spades), dummy was ♠AKJ7 ♥K9 ♦KT8642 ♣2 while I held ♠8765 ♥J7 ♦Q6 ♣AJ765. The lead was a somewhat surprising (and erroneous) ♥A. In fact, anything but a heart would make my job impossible, but this lead actually gave me a chance. Entries were scarce and, after a heart continuation to my K, I "wasted" a valuable dummy entry by testing trumps with the A. The gift I had been given was now given back. At the other table, a diamond was led and, thinking this was a singleton, RHO went up with the Ace and tried to give partner a ruff. It was a doubleton. After that, declarer couldn't find a way to go down.
Last night's challenge was this hand (in 5♥) in the last round of a "B" round-robin (bracket 2):
Dummy: ♠– ♥AKQ97 ♦T642 ♣AQ32
Declarer: ♠J2 ♥JT84 ♦AKJ98 ♣74
LHO had opened the bidding with 2♠, Kim doubled, RHO contributed 3♠ and I had to decide what was best. 4♦ (or another double) would have turned out best perhaps, but I bid 4♥. Kim "cue-bid" spades with 4NT and I, suffering from my usual last-round funk, thought that she'd asked about key cards (which would have been 4♠). I therefore bid 5♣ showing one. Had I bid the proper 5♦ (showing a control in diamonds), we'd have ended in 6♥ and I'd have had no chance to make my contract. As it was, we stopped in a safe 5♥. Don't they say that the ones that look easy are the ones you should pay special attention to?? They do.
Let's see if you can make 5♥. The lead is the ♠A (RHO contributing the T) and whenever you decide to play hearts you will find that LHO doesn't have any. Answer to come in the comments.
Two of my most challenging declarer play hands came in regional team games rather than in the big events. In each case, we were in the last round, and in a major-suit game. In the first hand (4 spades), dummy was ♠AKJ7 ♥K9 ♦KT8642 ♣2 while I held ♠8765 ♥J7 ♦Q6 ♣AJ765. The lead was a somewhat surprising (and erroneous) ♥A. In fact, anything but a heart would make my job impossible, but this lead actually gave me a chance. Entries were scarce and, after a heart continuation to my K, I "wasted" a valuable dummy entry by testing trumps with the A. The gift I had been given was now given back. At the other table, a diamond was led and, thinking this was a singleton, RHO went up with the Ace and tried to give partner a ruff. It was a doubleton. After that, declarer couldn't find a way to go down.
Last night's challenge was this hand (in 5♥) in the last round of a "B" round-robin (bracket 2):
Declarer: ♠J2 ♥JT84 ♦AKJ98 ♣74
Let's see if you can make 5♥. The lead is the ♠A (RHO contributing the T) and whenever you decide to play hearts you will find that LHO doesn't have any. Answer to come in the comments.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Not for the faint of heart
Of course, we knew that the Reisinger is considered by many to be the toughest event in the ACBL calendar. But what the hell, Kim and I decided to enter it anyway. The tricky part was persuading another pair of equally crazy masochists to join us. Fortunately, Matthew and Doug from Chicago were up for it. I had assumed that it would be a big event, somewhat similar to the Open BAM earlier in the week, maybe even bigger. But no, only 39 teams entered. The other experts entered the Swiss. But in our event, there were more world and national champions per square foot than any place I've ever been!
We were rubbish! We managed 10 wins out of 52. Yes, you read that right. We scored only slightly above 20%! In baseball, the "Mendoza line" for batting average is .200 but I generally think of the bridge Mendoza line as 30%. We thus achieved almost a super-Mendoza! We were, obviously, not among the 20 teams to advance to day two.
It's amazing that they allow palookas like us to enter this rather exclusive game, but they do. I could write up several stories from the day but many of them would simply demonstrate our ineptitude, or lack of experience at this level of bridge. Board-a-match scoring adds its own wrinkles to the game too. Here's a tricky decision I got wrong against Bill Gates and Sharon Osberg.
My hand was ♠KJ8653 ♥97643 ♦9 ♣T. Kim opened 1♦ and I bid 1♠ (we don't play weak jump shifts). Kim rebid 3NT and I made what turned out to be a good decision by bidding 4♥. I soon found myself in 4♠, Osberg led ♣A and the dummy that came down was surprisingly good: ♠AT ♥A8 ♦AKQJ854 ♣52 (I might have opened 2♣ with this hand, although that could easily work out badly, using up too much room to describe the hand). Sharon continued with ♣K which I ruffed. I could see immediately that we might have missed a slam if the ♠Q was on side. Would they be likely to be in 6♠ at the other table? Gates doesn't play with World Champions on his team but they are very good players. It seemed to me that, missing a key card and the ♠Q, they would likely stop in 5♠. In any case if slam was making and they were in it, we'd already lost the board. What would be the best way to make 5♠? Assuming our teammates didn't lead a heart, my counterpart would likely play off the two top spades and start on the diamonds, guaranteeing the contract if the spades were 3-2 and making an overtrick if the Q was doubleton. Of course I had a slight luxury in that I could afford to finesse the Q provided that Sharon didn't switch to hearts if she could win it. So, by finessing against the Q, I would win if Gates had it. She hadn't played a heart yet and maybe she wouldn't even then, I deluded myself. As it was, she had the ♠Qxx and was keen to demonstrate to Gates the "Merrimack coup" by sacrificing her ♥K. Curtains for me. I had gambled and lost: down 2.
I think I should have taken the money by making my game on the grounds that if 6 was making and they were in it, we'd lose anyway. Playing my way gave a 34% chance of making 6 and would make exactly or be down 1 or 2 (depending on the diamond split) if RHO had ♠Qxxx (11%). But 55% of the time I was down 2 for sure. Playing to make would result in +450 68% of the time. I didn't guess sufficiently accurately what was happening at the other table.
What did happen? Our opponents played in 3NT and our teammates led a club (the good news). But (bad news) the clubs split 5-5 so that contract was down only 1 and we lost the board. As it turned out, playing to make the contract (as would be appropriate in an IMP team game) would have worked beautifully.
My hand was ♠KJ8653 ♥97643 ♦9 ♣T. Kim opened 1♦ and I bid 1♠ (we don't play weak jump shifts). Kim rebid 3NT and I made what turned out to be a good decision by bidding 4♥. I soon found myself in 4♠, Osberg led ♣A and the dummy that came down was surprisingly good: ♠AT ♥A8 ♦AKQJ854 ♣52 (I might have opened 2♣ with this hand, although that could easily work out badly, using up too much room to describe the hand). Sharon continued with ♣K which I ruffed. I could see immediately that we might have missed a slam if the ♠Q was on side. Would they be likely to be in 6♠ at the other table? Gates doesn't play with World Champions on his team but they are very good players. It seemed to me that, missing a key card and the ♠Q, they would likely stop in 5♠. In any case if slam was making and they were in it, we'd already lost the board. What would be the best way to make 5♠? Assuming our teammates didn't lead a heart, my counterpart would likely play off the two top spades and start on the diamonds, guaranteeing the contract if the spades were 3-2 and making an overtrick if the Q was doubleton. Of course I had a slight luxury in that I could afford to finesse the Q provided that Sharon didn't switch to hearts if she could win it. So, by finessing against the Q, I would win if Gates had it. She hadn't played a heart yet and maybe she wouldn't even then, I deluded myself. As it was, she had the ♠Qxx and was keen to demonstrate to Gates the "Merrimack coup" by sacrificing her ♥K. Curtains for me. I had gambled and lost: down 2.
I think I should have taken the money by making my game on the grounds that if 6 was making and they were in it, we'd lose anyway. Playing my way gave a 34% chance of making 6 and would make exactly or be down 1 or 2 (depending on the diamond split) if RHO had ♠Qxxx (11%). But 55% of the time I was down 2 for sure. Playing to make would result in +450 68% of the time. I didn't guess sufficiently accurately what was happening at the other table.
What did happen? Our opponents played in 3NT and our teammates led a club (the good news). But (bad news) the clubs split 5-5 so that contract was down only 1 and we lost the board. As it turned out, playing to make the contract (as would be appropriate in an IMP team game) would have worked beautifully.
Here's an example of the kind of play you don't experience too often at the local bridge club.
Kim was in 4♠ with Norwegian World Champions Tor Helness on her left and Geir Helgemo on her right. The heart suit was AQT3 in dummy and J762 in hand. Kim led low to the T and it held. She now had two heart tricks, one ruff already in and the ♣A for sure. Six more trumps on a complete cross-ruff would provide an over trick, assuming one trump gets overruffed at the end. After returning to the ♣A, she led another low heart. What if Helgemo was out of hearts and ruffed in returning a trump? That would mean only 9 tricks. So she repeated the "marked" finesse, losing to the K. The contract could no longer be made. Helgemo's original holding? ♥Kx! Just one more lost board? Yes, but in fact, Helgemo's decision to duck his K was going to allow Kim to make 11 tricks if she plays all out and finesses the ♣Q in her hand. So, while it was a brave and, for us, unusual play, it turns out that the guy some believe is the single best player in the world (but ranked #11 by the WBF) actually made an error. But it induced a matching error from our side and in the end worked very well. Our two hands were ♠A983 ♥J762 ♦– ♣AQT63 (declarer) and ♠Q765 ♥AQT3 ♦T852 ♣8 (dummy).
Other notables that we faced at our table: Gitelman/Moss, Levin/Weinstein, Pepsi/Lev, Doub/Wildavsky, Cheek/Grue, Koneru/Chorush, Bocchi/Ferraro and other well-known players.
If we make it to Seattle next year as we hope, I think I'm going to skip the Reisinger and try the Swiss. There's typically only a few World Champions playing in that event and many more teams overall. Still tough to qualify but at least within the realms of possibility.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Orlando bridge gods smile at last
A welcome break from the intensity (and elimination) of the (open) Blue Ribbons came in the A/X Swiss. Our first lucky break was meeting up with Saul and Ed buying a pairs entry. We decided to team up for the Swiss.
There were many good teams among the 40 entrants, many of which had like us been kicked out of the Blues. We were using the 30 victory point scale which emphasizes winning above all else. You get 15 for a tie but only 12 for a 1 imp loss. This is Bobby Wolff's scale and I think it really is better than the 20 point scale. We won the first match handily but got the flip side of the coin when we somewhat surprisingly lost the second match. Two more wins put us in 6th place for the dinner break which helped make the meal pleasant and relaxing. Incidentally, Kathy and her partner were with us and they were lying 2nd in the B/C/D Swiss.
We met a team of Polish internationals after dinner and lost fairly badly. Then we went up against Billy Miller's team. The first six boards were uneventful but I had a feeling that we were losing the match. We were but only by one (but as mentioned that would have gained us only 12 VPs). I picked up the following beautiful hand in fourth seat, vulnerable against not: ♠AKQJ763 ♥7 ♦AJ972 ♣ –. This was going to generate some action, I thought :) Kim somewhat surprisingly opened 1NT (15-17) and this looked like a fairly easy hand in our methods (e.g. 1NT 2♥ 2♠ 5♣ ...) where 5♣ would be exclusion keycard Blackwood. Needless to say, the opponents were not going to make it easy at those colors. It went 3♥ by Miller and I had to decide what to do. We play that 4♦ or 4♥ are transfers providing that they are jumps or cuebids. In any case, 4♥ would be forcing so that was my call (Kim alerting appropriately). LHO put in 5♥ and Kim, bless her, accepted the transfer with 5♠. Now it was up to me. I didn't know what else was in her hand but the one thing I needed her to have was the ♥A obviously. I therefore bid 6♥. Now she bid 6NT. This worried me a bit (what if she has only KQ or Kx of hearts?). But I wasn't sure 6NT would yield even twelve tricks opposite my hand so I bid 7♠. There was always the possibility, admittedly slight, that Miller wouldn't lead the A even if he had it, thinking my sequence showed a void. Anyway, Miller led a trump and Kim scored up 7♠ and we won 13 imps, giving us 25 VPs instead of the 12 we would otherwise get. Kim's hand was ♠T92 ♥AQ ♦K6 ♣AQT754.
We won the last two matches with small but significant scores and ended up in 8th overall, 2nd in X. Kathy's team ended 4th in the other event. So, it was a good day. The Orlando bridge gods smiled on us at last :)
There were many good teams among the 40 entrants, many of which had like us been kicked out of the Blues. We were using the 30 victory point scale which emphasizes winning above all else. You get 15 for a tie but only 12 for a 1 imp loss. This is Bobby Wolff's scale and I think it really is better than the 20 point scale. We won the first match handily but got the flip side of the coin when we somewhat surprisingly lost the second match. Two more wins put us in 6th place for the dinner break which helped make the meal pleasant and relaxing. Incidentally, Kathy and her partner were with us and they were lying 2nd in the B/C/D Swiss.
We met a team of Polish internationals after dinner and lost fairly badly. Then we went up against Billy Miller's team. The first six boards were uneventful but I had a feeling that we were losing the match. We were but only by one (but as mentioned that would have gained us only 12 VPs). I picked up the following beautiful hand in fourth seat, vulnerable against not: ♠AKQJ763 ♥7 ♦AJ972 ♣ –. This was going to generate some action, I thought :) Kim somewhat surprisingly opened 1NT (15-17) and this looked like a fairly easy hand in our methods (e.g. 1NT 2♥ 2♠ 5♣ ...) where 5♣ would be exclusion keycard Blackwood. Needless to say, the opponents were not going to make it easy at those colors. It went 3♥ by Miller and I had to decide what to do. We play that 4♦ or 4♥ are transfers providing that they are jumps or cuebids. In any case, 4♥ would be forcing so that was my call (Kim alerting appropriately). LHO put in 5♥ and Kim, bless her, accepted the transfer with 5♠. Now it was up to me. I didn't know what else was in her hand but the one thing I needed her to have was the ♥A obviously. I therefore bid 6♥. Now she bid 6NT. This worried me a bit (what if she has only KQ or Kx of hearts?). But I wasn't sure 6NT would yield even twelve tricks opposite my hand so I bid 7♠. There was always the possibility, admittedly slight, that Miller wouldn't lead the A even if he had it, thinking my sequence showed a void. Anyway, Miller led a trump and Kim scored up 7♠ and we won 13 imps, giving us 25 VPs instead of the 12 we would otherwise get. Kim's hand was ♠T92 ♥AQ ♦K6 ♣AQT754.
We won the last two matches with small but significant scores and ended up in 8th overall, 2nd in X. Kathy's team ended 4th in the other event. So, it was a good day. The Orlando bridge gods smiled on us at last :)
Monday, November 29, 2010
Notes from Orlando
I had hoped to regale all my faithful readers with tales of derring-do in the National events here at the 2010 Orlando NABC. Unfortunately, we haven't really distinguished ourselves much.
I played the first day of the life master pairs with Dave Marshall, playing reasonably solid bridge in the first session. After dinner, I hit some sort of wall, however, and made bonehead plays, one after another. Needless to say, we did not qualify for day two.
We played a session of compact KO the next afternoon, declining to continue in the consolation in favor of checking in to our condo and doing the grocery shopping.
Sunday saw us back in action in the Open Board-a-match, Kim and I together and the Marshalls at the other table. I played about as well as I've ever played I think in the afternoon. I was in the zone. In round two against Barry Rigal, I managed a winning lead against a 4S game and followed that up by executing an end-play against Barry in a 2S contract to halve the board. So far, so good.
We had a few too many team errors, however, and ended up with only 10.5 boards out of 26. One round that was predictably bad perhaps was against a team with three current or recent world champions. In the evening, we did better and, if I personally had not had a cow-fly-by moment, we would have been average. We still wouldn't have qualified, obviously.
The format, board-a-match, is generally considered one of the very toughest forms of bridge. There are no easy part score deals (as there might be in a team game) and there is no field to support you when you don't go all out for the maximum tricks. There's just you and the other table. Every board, however boring it may appear at first, is a potential battleground. Kim and I really enjoyed the event, though. We love playing against the "stars", even though we get star-struck all too often [but the more we play against them, the more ordinary it will seem, we hope].
These National events are surprisingly relaxing in some respects. First, a two-board round lasts 16 minutes and generally we're done within ten. That allows plenty time for getting a glass of water, refocusing after a bad result, etc. Second, the other competitors are almost universally pleasant and respectful. And finally, with very rare exceptions, you never ever hear RHO whining to LHO, why didn't you switch to a spade? How could you bid 3H? etc. And of course you never have to wait while the opponents ask each other how many clubs they had on the last hand!
And the standard of bridge is so high. Bridge against good players is actually much more predictable than club bridge. They never make stupid bids that just happen to work out well. Nor do they embark on an inferior line of play only to find that it works best on this hand.
We think it's really excellent training for going back to the bridge club and making the most of every hand.
Tomorrow, we try again in the Blue Ribbons.
I played the first day of the life master pairs with Dave Marshall, playing reasonably solid bridge in the first session. After dinner, I hit some sort of wall, however, and made bonehead plays, one after another. Needless to say, we did not qualify for day two.
We played a session of compact KO the next afternoon, declining to continue in the consolation in favor of checking in to our condo and doing the grocery shopping.
Sunday saw us back in action in the Open Board-a-match, Kim and I together and the Marshalls at the other table. I played about as well as I've ever played I think in the afternoon. I was in the zone. In round two against Barry Rigal, I managed a winning lead against a 4S game and followed that up by executing an end-play against Barry in a 2S contract to halve the board. So far, so good.
We had a few too many team errors, however, and ended up with only 10.5 boards out of 26. One round that was predictably bad perhaps was against a team with three current or recent world champions. In the evening, we did better and, if I personally had not had a cow-fly-by moment, we would have been average. We still wouldn't have qualified, obviously.
The format, board-a-match, is generally considered one of the very toughest forms of bridge. There are no easy part score deals (as there might be in a team game) and there is no field to support you when you don't go all out for the maximum tricks. There's just you and the other table. Every board, however boring it may appear at first, is a potential battleground. Kim and I really enjoyed the event, though. We love playing against the "stars", even though we get star-struck all too often [but the more we play against them, the more ordinary it will seem, we hope].
These National events are surprisingly relaxing in some respects. First, a two-board round lasts 16 minutes and generally we're done within ten. That allows plenty time for getting a glass of water, refocusing after a bad result, etc. Second, the other competitors are almost universally pleasant and respectful. And finally, with very rare exceptions, you never ever hear RHO whining to LHO, why didn't you switch to a spade? How could you bid 3H? etc. And of course you never have to wait while the opponents ask each other how many clubs they had on the last hand!
And the standard of bridge is so high. Bridge against good players is actually much more predictable than club bridge. They never make stupid bids that just happen to work out well. Nor do they embark on an inferior line of play only to find that it works best on this hand.
We think it's really excellent training for going back to the bridge club and making the most of every hand.
Tomorrow, we try again in the Blue Ribbons.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Reno mixed pairs
What a great time Kim and I had. We peaked early (a "section" top in the first session), comfortably qualified with a healthy carry-over but had a disappointing final evening session -- opponents stingy with their gifts and a few too many errors on our part, including one absolute zero (unusual on a 90 top).
But there were some memorable hands. I had two successful end-plays in the first session, a strip-squeeze in the second session and I made a great lead in the final session. I'll give you the last as a quiz. Your hand is: ♠A73 ♥J7 ♦AQ9874 ♣K8. The bidding went thus:
Which card do you lead? I'll post the answer as a comment.
Meanwhile, several of our friends scratched (top 50) in this event which started with around 400 pairs. Gloria and Steve were fourth! Awesome.
But there were some memorable hands. I had two successful end-plays in the first session, a strip-squeeze in the second session and I made a great lead in the final session. I'll give you the last as a quiz. Your hand is: ♠A73 ♥J7 ♦AQ9874 ♣K8. The bidding went thus:
| RHO | Me | LHO | Kim |
| 1♣ | 1♦ | X | p |
| 2NT | p | 3NT | p |
| p | p |
Which card do you lead? I'll post the answer as a comment.
Meanwhile, several of our friends scratched (top 50) in this event which started with around 400 pairs. Gloria and Steve were fourth! Awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)