I don't get to play very often with my favorite partner, Kim. For some reason we don't always play our best together. Not because we argue at the table or anything like that, but there is something indefinable which seems to get in the way. I know other married couples have similar issues. Still, we each have a reasonable idea of how to play bridge and we often do well on a team, playing at different tables.
So, it was particularly satisfying to have a good game together in Bangor, ME on Saturday. We like to combine some family time with bridge and we always enjoy the Maine sectionals. They have great snacks, and the other players are invariably friendly and pleasant to play against. The games are run by Horace and Sonya and they do an absolutely fantastic job.
Our results up there vary but we always have fun. On this occasion, there were two sections of 11 tables (one section actually had 12 tables in the afternoon). We managed to go "North of 60" in both sessions, each time winning our "section". That was good for 2nd overall behind the perennial winners, Dick and Dottie. We were just slightly over a board adrift which could so easily have been made up. For example, we managed to start the day with only 1 matchpoint out of 16 on the first two boards: on the second of these, we were defending 3♥X and my hand was ♠J8 ♥Q543 ♦96542 ♣A7. Unfortunately, I don't recall the auction for sure, but I think it went something like this, starting with my RHO: 1♣ p 1♦ 1♠; X p 2♦ 2♠; p p 3♥ p; p X. After the ♥J lead, declarer won in hand with the K and led a small diamond to dummy's ♠T752 ♥A76 ♦AK ♣T962. Partner ruffed this with the deuce and led the ♣K. This is where I fell from grace. What would you do? Well, if you do any thinking at all you'll overtake with the Ace and shoot back a spade for +200 and 7/8 matchpoints (we might even get 500 but it wouldn't change the score). I played low, declarer ruffed the next club and then was able to pitch all of dummy's spades on good diamonds while I was forced to follow suit: -730.
But, we have really taken to heart the advice, dispensed by all the experts, on recovering from adversity: get over it and forget it. Unfortunately, in the early days of playing together I was sometimes replaced at the table by my sinister alter ego, "Norbert". On suffering a bad board, I would take on an expression "like my dog had died" and generally make my partner feel miserable. But several years ago, Norbert showed signs of ailing.
An example will be illustrative. Kim and I were playing at the Augusta sectional about three years ago. The afternoon session was going fairly well until we reached Dick and Dottie's table. On one hand they ended up in 6♥ which I doubled after Kim had made a very unusual (but incredibly effective) notrump overcall of 4NT (immediately over the opening bid). When 6♥ came around to me, I felt that the suits were not breaking favorably (and I was very short in partner's suits) so I doubled despite having no high cards at all. Exactly what I was trying to achieve is unclear. +50 would likely be a top on this hand. Anyway, partner laid down the ♦A and it didn't matter whether she continued diamonds, switched to a club or played a trump. All roads led to down at least one. Well, not quite all. Unfortunately, Kim inferred, very reasonably, that my double actually showed some values and reasoned that those values must be in spades. The resulting spade switch caused us to go from an 8 on the board to a zero. If ever there was a hand that might invoke bitter feuding it was this one. But, the actual arguing was all by our opponents. We stepped away to await the next round and didn't say a word. That hand really was the turning point (and the beginning of Norbert's end). We went on to win the event.
Finally, I think that this week we can safely declare Norbert's demise to be final and irrevocable. And not a moment too soon, I might add. Rest in peace.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Director!
I finally got around to taking the bridge director's test earlier this week. Not that I'm planning on performing any directorial duties any time soon -- I just started an all-consuming new job this week. My bridge playing, and writing, is going to be seriously curtailed for a while.
I'm not sure if I passed the test. I wasn't as well-prepared as I would have liked (I was better prepared a few months ago). There were a few questions where it seemed that more than one answer might have been right. But taking the test reminded me of some bad decisions that have been made against me over the years.
Many years ago, before bidding boxes, before I/N games (or even stratification), before zero tolerance, I was at the Nationals in Detroit (1980). My partner and I were neophytes but we had something of a clue. I was declarer in 7S (possibly 7H) and I had plenty trumps in my hand, as well as a void in diamonds. LHO led a diamond and dummy went down. It was immediately apparent that I had 13 tricks and I hastened things along with a claim. Director! RHO also had a void and when the director arrived he ruled that because I did not include in my statement any specific plan if RHO ruffed the opening lead (as in "I will overruff"), the contract was ruled down 1.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that that ruling kept me away from bridge for the next 18 years or so. In fact, the ubiquitous smoking and the people literally yelling at each other were far more problematic. Having a new job and a new baby pretty much concluded the decision. But the ruling didn't help. I now know that, when declarer makes a claim and insufficient detail is given in the statement and there are trumps out, the opponents of the claimant are presumed to have won a trump trick if a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (law 70C3). A clarification in the rules states that "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Under-ruffing (or discarding) on this trick would not be careless, in my opinion. It would be bizarre. But the director thought otherwise. I have no idea if there were appeals in those days but the director certainly didn't mention it [it's not clear to me if there is any redress for this sort of thing anyway - the facts were not in question].
The next ruling occurred at my next NABC (Long Beach in 2003). I was playing in a I/N event limited to 300 mps. Neither of us had more than 100. We were winning the event until the last board. At trick 12, I was on lead and contrived to accidentally drop one of my cards on the table face up. Not very smart. The ruling was that I was deemed to have played the card. Down 1. 2nd place. That operative word here is accidentally in which case law 48A applies (declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally). Otherwise law 45C2a applies which states that the card is played if it is held face up touching or nearly touching the table. There was no disagreement that it had been dropped. Regardless, I think that a little slack could have been allowed in a I/N event.
The most recent bad ruling was a couple of years ago. It might have been at the Boston NABC or a local regional -- I just don't remember, but the director involved is a National Director (in the sense of directing at most of the NABCs around the country). While we were sorting our cards, my partner, the dealer, dropped the DK on the table. This situation is covered under Law 24B. There were two passes to me. The remedy for this situation is that I must pass at my first opportunity. However, the ruling was that I had to pass throughout. Quite a difference, especially as in this case I would have opened 2NT (20-21 hcp). LHO decided to make a very marginal opening bid (1C) and all passed. The fates had already determined partner's lead of course: the DK, which ran around to declarer's AQ. I think we ended up -110 for a bottom while most pairs our way made +400 or so.
That last ruling was just a plain error and quite understandable. In fact, we had to smile about it. The others were much more judgment-related and I found them to be quite upsetting at the time.
I will say this however. The general standard of behavior, ruling, and general comfort of all involved has increased markedly in the last thirty years! Bridge really can be fun these days!
I'm not sure if I passed the test. I wasn't as well-prepared as I would have liked (I was better prepared a few months ago). There were a few questions where it seemed that more than one answer might have been right. But taking the test reminded me of some bad decisions that have been made against me over the years.
Many years ago, before bidding boxes, before I/N games (or even stratification), before zero tolerance, I was at the Nationals in Detroit (1980). My partner and I were neophytes but we had something of a clue. I was declarer in 7S (possibly 7H) and I had plenty trumps in my hand, as well as a void in diamonds. LHO led a diamond and dummy went down. It was immediately apparent that I had 13 tricks and I hastened things along with a claim. Director! RHO also had a void and when the director arrived he ruled that because I did not include in my statement any specific plan if RHO ruffed the opening lead (as in "I will overruff"), the contract was ruled down 1.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that that ruling kept me away from bridge for the next 18 years or so. In fact, the ubiquitous smoking and the people literally yelling at each other were far more problematic. Having a new job and a new baby pretty much concluded the decision. But the ruling didn't help. I now know that, when declarer makes a claim and insufficient detail is given in the statement and there are trumps out, the opponents of the claimant are presumed to have won a trump trick if a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (law 70C3). A clarification in the rules states that "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Under-ruffing (or discarding) on this trick would not be careless, in my opinion. It would be bizarre. But the director thought otherwise. I have no idea if there were appeals in those days but the director certainly didn't mention it [it's not clear to me if there is any redress for this sort of thing anyway - the facts were not in question].
The next ruling occurred at my next NABC (Long Beach in 2003). I was playing in a I/N event limited to 300 mps. Neither of us had more than 100. We were winning the event until the last board. At trick 12, I was on lead and contrived to accidentally drop one of my cards on the table face up. Not very smart. The ruling was that I was deemed to have played the card. Down 1. 2nd place. That operative word here is accidentally in which case law 48A applies (declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally). Otherwise law 45C2a applies which states that the card is played if it is held face up touching or nearly touching the table. There was no disagreement that it had been dropped. Regardless, I think that a little slack could have been allowed in a I/N event.
The most recent bad ruling was a couple of years ago. It might have been at the Boston NABC or a local regional -- I just don't remember, but the director involved is a National Director (in the sense of directing at most of the NABCs around the country). While we were sorting our cards, my partner, the dealer, dropped the DK on the table. This situation is covered under Law 24B. There were two passes to me. The remedy for this situation is that I must pass at my first opportunity. However, the ruling was that I had to pass throughout. Quite a difference, especially as in this case I would have opened 2NT (20-21 hcp). LHO decided to make a very marginal opening bid (1C) and all passed. The fates had already determined partner's lead of course: the DK, which ran around to declarer's AQ. I think we ended up -110 for a bottom while most pairs our way made +400 or so.
That last ruling was just a plain error and quite understandable. In fact, we had to smile about it. The others were much more judgment-related and I found them to be quite upsetting at the time.
I will say this however. The general standard of behavior, ruling, and general comfort of all involved has increased markedly in the last thirty years! Bridge really can be fun these days!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
More thoughts on defensive signaling
I was a little disappointed to get no response, comments, whatever on my earlier contribution to defensive signaling: Show and Tell – More on Defensive Strategy. Indeed the only reaction I got was from my own favorite partner who thought my idea was all wrong.
Yet, we had just suffered a bad result where, if we had both been following my ideas, we might have averted disaster. The scene was a pickup game against the GIBs: this was the hand. The opponents were in 2C doubled after my rather pushy negative double was left in. It turns out that they can always make 2C but there was just a chance that maybe we could get a heart ruff provided the HJ was led at trick 3. I led my trump to the 9, T and Q. At trick 2 declarer played a small club to partner's J on which my discard was the S9. According to my "show and tell" ideas, this card was purely informative (show in this case because there was no apparent defensive urgency). After all, I had to pitch something and I certainly had plenty spades to spare. Partner thought it was a more active signal (a "command") to switch to spades. Nothing really bad happened: according to GIB, we were never setting this contract. But partner was convinced that a H switch would have got us a ruff (and the setting trick).
So, what is it really that distinguishes between show and tell. In my previous blog I suggested it was all about distribution and level. The more distribution and/or higher level, the more urgency exists (and therefore telling is most effective).
But now, I'm thinking perhaps it has more to do with the dummy. Assuming that dummy is where the ruffs, if any, are going to occur (not always the case after a transfer or in the case of a dummy reversal), the dummy pretty much dictates the type of hand. If dummy has a good long suit with entries, or will be able to do some ruffing (bearing in mind that declarer may be able to throw dummy's losers on his own good suit and then ruff in the now short suit) then "tell" signals should prevail. The level of urgency has been increased by an "active" dummy.
Either way, in the hand in question, dummy was pretty much rubbish and would have required a few thousand volts to make it in any way active. So, signaling should be to show assets rather than directing the defense.
Now, does anyone have any comments? If I'm oversimplifying something, then let me hear it!
Yet, we had just suffered a bad result where, if we had both been following my ideas, we might have averted disaster. The scene was a pickup game against the GIBs: this was the hand. The opponents were in 2C doubled after my rather pushy negative double was left in. It turns out that they can always make 2C but there was just a chance that maybe we could get a heart ruff provided the HJ was led at trick 3. I led my trump to the 9, T and Q. At trick 2 declarer played a small club to partner's J on which my discard was the S9. According to my "show and tell" ideas, this card was purely informative (show in this case because there was no apparent defensive urgency). After all, I had to pitch something and I certainly had plenty spades to spare. Partner thought it was a more active signal (a "command") to switch to spades. Nothing really bad happened: according to GIB, we were never setting this contract. But partner was convinced that a H switch would have got us a ruff (and the setting trick).
So, what is it really that distinguishes between show and tell. In my previous blog I suggested it was all about distribution and level. The more distribution and/or higher level, the more urgency exists (and therefore telling is most effective).
But now, I'm thinking perhaps it has more to do with the dummy. Assuming that dummy is where the ruffs, if any, are going to occur (not always the case after a transfer or in the case of a dummy reversal), the dummy pretty much dictates the type of hand. If dummy has a good long suit with entries, or will be able to do some ruffing (bearing in mind that declarer may be able to throw dummy's losers on his own good suit and then ruff in the now short suit) then "tell" signals should prevail. The level of urgency has been increased by an "active" dummy.
Either way, in the hand in question, dummy was pretty much rubbish and would have required a few thousand volts to make it in any way active. So, signaling should be to show assets rather than directing the defense.
Now, does anyone have any comments? If I'm oversimplifying something, then let me hear it!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Responding 1NT to a minor-suit opening
Generally speaking, we have so much confidence in our notrump hand evaluation that we are able to limit the ranges shown by notrump bids quite severely. Typically, an opening NT bid shows a range of just three points, rarely four (though I've known five!). As we go higher, the NT ranges become smaller (usually 2): 18-19 typically for the 2NT rebid; 20-21 for the opening 2NT, etc.
What about responding bids? Invitational bids are often 11-12. Game responses (3NT) are often played as 13-15 (or 13-16). A wider range here is OK, because most of the time, opener will simply pass. He won't go looking for slam unless he himself has 17+ (or 16+).
The tricky part arises with the 1NT responses to 1♣ or 1♦. Playing a 15-17 notrump (or 16-18), you can be confident in the knowledge that, if partner has a balanced hand, it will be in the 12-14 (or 12-15) range. In which case, you can bid 1NT with 6-9 (a four-point range) knowing that there is no biddable game. When playing 15-17, you can even bid 1NT with a 10 count, and probably not miss game. You might want to do this, for example, when partner opens 1♦ and you aren't strong enough to bid 2♦ or 2♣ (and you lack a four-card major).
However, playing a weak notrump of say 12-14, opener is likely to have a balanced 15+ when he opens a minor (he might also have an unbalanced hand but that's another story). If your range for 1NT is 6-9, you will miss some games unless opener stretches to raise with, say, a good 16 or 17, which can easily put you too high if responder has a minimum. The Kaplan-Sheinwold solution is to respond 1NT with 5-8 but that requires some other adjustments. The K-S solution of course was the inverted minor suit raise, defined as showing 9+ hcp, no four-card major and at least four cards in support. Note that the inverted minor concept required a little adjustment when it became applied to the "standard" bidding structure. The truly scary bid in the K-S system is the 2♣ response to 1♦. Not only does it not force to game, it isn't forcing to 2NT either. In theory, according to the book, you can respond 2♣ to opener's 1♦ even with ♠x ♥Kxx ♦xxx ♣QJxxxx!
I began to ponder all this after a hand at the club this week on which my partner and I, playing 12-14 notrumps, scored a big fat zero. I held ♠AJ4 ♥A92 ♦AJ84 ♣QJ3 and opened 1♦. Partner responded 1NT and I had to decide if it was possible we could be missing game. Given that I had 17 hcp, including three aces (even at notrump evaluations 4 points doesn't quite do justice to an ace), I felt it might qualify for a 2NT rebid. Given that partner was relatively short in the majors, I thought my hand looked quite fine: major-suit aces that could be held up twice and fillers in the minor suits where at least seven of partner's cards would lie. I therefore rebid 2NT and partner promptly passed.
As it turned out, partner held a decent 6-count: ♠T92 ♥J84 ♦QT74 ♣K75, but which was tragically mirrored by my hand. The opening lead was a low club and partner set about trying to find an eighth trick. Regrettably, it couldn't be done. The ♦K and the ♠KQ were all offside. My LHO, a grand-life-master observed that our system had caused us to overbid. I wasn't convinced. A balanced 23-count will, on average, take 7.6 tricks at notrump (according to Matthew Ginsberg). Often, declarer's advantage of seeing all his resources will push the total up to 8. I had a feeling that the problem was either the expert defense, or possibly the wrong-siding of the contract. Studying the results and the hand records later confirmed this. Only 7 tricks can be taken from whichever side declares. However, every other N/S pair had taken 8 (or even more) tricks in notrump (or 9 tricks in diamonds in one case). I don't know if every other pair had played it from the strong side (this seems unlikely) but I do know that even if I had passed 1NT and partner had made his contract, we'd still be getting a zero!
In truth, it's all about the opening lead. What do you lead from ♠653 ♥K753 ♦95 ♣A962? I would probably lead the ♥3, on the grounds that if I found either A or Q in my partner's hand all would be well. I'd want to reserve my certain trick (♣A) to help cash those hearts. Not so the opening leader at our table. Any heart (or the ♣A) gives away the eighth trick, even though partner has the ♥QT6. Any of the other 8 cards is fine. From the other side, the more "normal" opening lead, the hand is: ♠KQ87 ♥QT6 ♦K32 ♣T84. There are only five winning cards this time, none looking particularly appetizing: ♦32 ♣T84.
Nevertheless, the hand prompted me to take another look at the details of the Kaplan-Sheinwold system, especially the 1NT response to 1m. Some of my partnerships have monkeyed around with this system such that we don't play it exactly as it was designed (admittedly, they too, made modifications and I think eventually stopped playing it). Yet, when you look at it, it really is an incredibly well-thought-out system.
What about responding bids? Invitational bids are often 11-12. Game responses (3NT) are often played as 13-15 (or 13-16). A wider range here is OK, because most of the time, opener will simply pass. He won't go looking for slam unless he himself has 17+ (or 16+).
The tricky part arises with the 1NT responses to 1♣ or 1♦. Playing a 15-17 notrump (or 16-18), you can be confident in the knowledge that, if partner has a balanced hand, it will be in the 12-14 (or 12-15) range. In which case, you can bid 1NT with 6-9 (a four-point range) knowing that there is no biddable game. When playing 15-17, you can even bid 1NT with a 10 count, and probably not miss game. You might want to do this, for example, when partner opens 1♦ and you aren't strong enough to bid 2♦ or 2♣ (and you lack a four-card major).
However, playing a weak notrump of say 12-14, opener is likely to have a balanced 15+ when he opens a minor (he might also have an unbalanced hand but that's another story). If your range for 1NT is 6-9, you will miss some games unless opener stretches to raise with, say, a good 16 or 17, which can easily put you too high if responder has a minimum. The Kaplan-Sheinwold solution is to respond 1NT with 5-8 but that requires some other adjustments. The K-S solution of course was the inverted minor suit raise, defined as showing 9+ hcp, no four-card major and at least four cards in support. Note that the inverted minor concept required a little adjustment when it became applied to the "standard" bidding structure. The truly scary bid in the K-S system is the 2♣ response to 1♦. Not only does it not force to game, it isn't forcing to 2NT either. In theory, according to the book, you can respond 2♣ to opener's 1♦ even with ♠x ♥Kxx ♦xxx ♣QJxxxx!
I began to ponder all this after a hand at the club this week on which my partner and I, playing 12-14 notrumps, scored a big fat zero. I held ♠AJ4 ♥A92 ♦AJ84 ♣QJ3 and opened 1♦. Partner responded 1NT and I had to decide if it was possible we could be missing game. Given that I had 17 hcp, including three aces (even at notrump evaluations 4 points doesn't quite do justice to an ace), I felt it might qualify for a 2NT rebid. Given that partner was relatively short in the majors, I thought my hand looked quite fine: major-suit aces that could be held up twice and fillers in the minor suits where at least seven of partner's cards would lie. I therefore rebid 2NT and partner promptly passed.
As it turned out, partner held a decent 6-count: ♠T92 ♥J84 ♦QT74 ♣K75, but which was tragically mirrored by my hand. The opening lead was a low club and partner set about trying to find an eighth trick. Regrettably, it couldn't be done. The ♦K and the ♠KQ were all offside. My LHO, a grand-life-master observed that our system had caused us to overbid. I wasn't convinced. A balanced 23-count will, on average, take 7.6 tricks at notrump (according to Matthew Ginsberg). Often, declarer's advantage of seeing all his resources will push the total up to 8. I had a feeling that the problem was either the expert defense, or possibly the wrong-siding of the contract. Studying the results and the hand records later confirmed this. Only 7 tricks can be taken from whichever side declares. However, every other N/S pair had taken 8 (or even more) tricks in notrump (or 9 tricks in diamonds in one case). I don't know if every other pair had played it from the strong side (this seems unlikely) but I do know that even if I had passed 1NT and partner had made his contract, we'd still be getting a zero!
In truth, it's all about the opening lead. What do you lead from ♠653 ♥K753 ♦95 ♣A962? I would probably lead the ♥3, on the grounds that if I found either A or Q in my partner's hand all would be well. I'd want to reserve my certain trick (♣A) to help cash those hearts. Not so the opening leader at our table. Any heart (or the ♣A) gives away the eighth trick, even though partner has the ♥QT6. Any of the other 8 cards is fine. From the other side, the more "normal" opening lead, the hand is: ♠KQ87 ♥QT6 ♦K32 ♣T84. There are only five winning cards this time, none looking particularly appetizing: ♦32 ♣T84.
Nevertheless, the hand prompted me to take another look at the details of the Kaplan-Sheinwold system, especially the 1NT response to 1m. Some of my partnerships have monkeyed around with this system such that we don't play it exactly as it was designed (admittedly, they too, made modifications and I think eventually stopped playing it). Yet, when you look at it, it really is an incredibly well-thought-out system.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Gosh, what a hand!
Back in the day, there was no problem picking up a hand like ♠KQ76 ♥KQT542 ♦AK7 ♣– and hearing RHO open 1♣. You simply bid 2♥. No problem. But then we realized a jump overcall was much more frequent (and useful) if it showed a weak hand. So that left a problem: what to do with a good one-suited hand (GOSH)? To qualify as a GOSH, the hand should probably have a decent suit and 18+ hcp or a very good suit and 16+ hcp.
I learned a simple rule from the excellent Robson and Segal book mentioned previously in this blog: if, having already doubled, you next make a new suit bid that, if you had bid it immediately would have been a jump overcall, you are showing a GOSH. Although this bid isn't forcing on a partner with a Yarborough and a misfit, it is surely highly encouraging.
A few examples should clarify:
A raise of partner's suit can't be a GOSH, obviously (unless perhaps you double-raise).
When is doubler's new suit not a GOSH? This really needs to be discussed with your partner first. But suppose the auction proceeds:
I learned a simple rule from the excellent Robson and Segal book mentioned previously in this blog: if, having already doubled, you next make a new suit bid that, if you had bid it immediately would have been a jump overcall, you are showing a GOSH. Although this bid isn't forcing on a partner with a Yarborough and a misfit, it is surely highly encouraging.
A few examples should clarify:
- 1♣ X p 1♦ p 2♥: a GOSH with hearts (nothing to say about the other suits)
- 1♣ X p 1NT p 2♥: ditto
- 1♣ X p 1NT 2♣ 2♥: ditto
A raise of partner's suit can't be a GOSH, obviously (unless perhaps you double-raise).
- 1♣ X p 1♠ 2♣ 2♠
- 1♣ X p 1♠ p 2♠
When is doubler's new suit not a GOSH? This really needs to be discussed with your partner first. But suppose the auction proceeds:
- 1♣ X p 1♦ p 1♥: the classic "equal-level conversion". You haven't raised the level of bidding but you're saying that you don't really have diamonds – you have a hand with both majors which is not suitable for a Michael's bid. Perhaps something like ♠KJxx ♥AQTxx ♦xx ♣Ax or ♠AJxx ♥AQxx ♦xx ♣Axx.
- 1♦ X p 1♠ p 2♣: you basically have a decent hand with clubs and hearts, perhaps with only two or three spades. ♠Kxx ♥AQJx ♦xx ♣AQxx. Similar to the equal-level conversion situation except that we have raised the level so it's not equal-level any more. This one definitely needs to be discussed with partner.
Monday, September 20, 2010
The gift box
One of my partners likes to talk about the gift box being open. There's no sense in being presented with a gift if you're not going to accept it.
Here's an example from last week's instant matchpoint game. Nobody was vulnerable and I dealt myself ♠KJT3 ♥AK6 ♦KJ4 ♣J54. As we were playing a 12-14 notrump, I opened 1♣ and LHO bid 1♠. Partner doubled and this was passed back to me. I had just been handed a gift, but the box wasn't open. I woodenly bid 1NT, partner raised to 3NT and I made 400 (the par score). However, this did not matchpoint well, as others made four. I played the hand assuming the overcaller had the missing high cards. She didn't. The overcall was based on a balanced six-count with five spades to the AQ8. All I had to do was pass the double. Surely, whether I can take 7 tricks in notrump (opposite a balanced six count with four hearts) or 9 tricks (opposite a 10-count), this looks like a hand to defend. 100 (versus 90) perhaps in the former case, 500 (versus 400) in the latter. Admittedly it's a close call. Still, I had been offered a gift but the box wasn't open.
Let's spend a little more space thinking about the role (and importance) of gifts at the bridge table. There are usually more ways to break something than there are to fix something. This is the reason, for example, that most genetic mutations are short-lived: they probably cause something to work less well. But every now and then a mutation improves survival for an organism in a specific environment and it gets retained.
What has all this to do with bridge? Well, there are more ways to bid/declare/defend a hand badly than there are ways to do it well. Let's imagine that to bid and make 6♠ successfully on a particular board, there is really only one reasonable pathway. Making a different bid at some point, or making a different play in the declaration will result in a lower score. Some of those mistakes will result in a score of, say, 650 and some will result in 230 or -100.
If you're one of the good players at the club, you will make your 6♠ along with two or three others. The field will score less. But you're unlikely to get a clear (unshared) top, unless you're a contender for a Bols Brilliancy Prize. Other good players will do the same as you. Occasionally, 6♠ might make an overtrick on a esoteric squeeze which will be missed even by the other good pairs. But my experience says that this doesn't happen very often.
But what if your opponents bid 7♠, missing the ♠A, you double and they manage to go down 1. You've almost certainly "earned" a clear top. See my comments below on earning bottoms - in this case, it was the opponents who thoroughly deserved their zero.
My point is that good play can earn you good scores, but not tops. To get tops, you need gifts. And, of course, the "gift box" must be open.
Unfortunately, along with gifts, there are fixes. Fixes and gifts are the yin and yang of duplicate bridge. It's hard to precisely define a fix, but let me try. A fix happens when your opponents make a poor decision in the bidding or play but it turns out well for them. Examples abound but here's the sort of thing. You are playing two intermediate players and it's clearly their hand. They sail past 3NT without really thinking and land in 4♣. Perhaps they're not really familiar with the concept of fourth-suit-forcing. All the average and good pairs bid the normal 3NT (plus a few that bid ♣). You guessed it: 3NT and 5♣ fail on an unusually foul lie of the cards and 4♣ makes exactly.
So every gift is potentially nullified by a corresponding fix. In what follows, I will define the number of "gifts" as the net of gifts and fixes.
What about bottoms? I am confident that the converse is true. You can quite easily generate zeroes on your own account, while fixes are unlikely to give you a clear bottom (there's usually two or three tables where the fix occurs). An example of a self-inflicted zero? That's easy: making a close double and then allowing them to make.
A score over about 60% is almost certain to have benefited from (a net of) several gifts, unless you're Zia filling in at the local intermediate/novice game. I estimate that the gift factor at your local club is about 15% (plus or minus 7.5%). Let's say a good pair plays reasonably well and doesn't make too many silly errors. With no net gifts let's say they will score 50%. But if the opponents are generous, they might score 65%. Everything depends on the gift factor. In the Life Master Pairs, the gift factor is somewhat less, but still significant. I'd guess something like 4% either way.
By contrast, a score of less then 40% (the Mendoza line of duplicate bridge) is almost certain to have benefited (if that's the right word) from several own goals.
Bridge is such a fascinating game!
Here's an example from last week's instant matchpoint game. Nobody was vulnerable and I dealt myself ♠KJT3 ♥AK6 ♦KJ4 ♣J54. As we were playing a 12-14 notrump, I opened 1♣ and LHO bid 1♠. Partner doubled and this was passed back to me. I had just been handed a gift, but the box wasn't open. I woodenly bid 1NT, partner raised to 3NT and I made 400 (the par score). However, this did not matchpoint well, as others made four. I played the hand assuming the overcaller had the missing high cards. She didn't. The overcall was based on a balanced six-count with five spades to the AQ8. All I had to do was pass the double. Surely, whether I can take 7 tricks in notrump (opposite a balanced six count with four hearts) or 9 tricks (opposite a 10-count), this looks like a hand to defend. 100 (versus 90) perhaps in the former case, 500 (versus 400) in the latter. Admittedly it's a close call. Still, I had been offered a gift but the box wasn't open.
Let's spend a little more space thinking about the role (and importance) of gifts at the bridge table. There are usually more ways to break something than there are to fix something. This is the reason, for example, that most genetic mutations are short-lived: they probably cause something to work less well. But every now and then a mutation improves survival for an organism in a specific environment and it gets retained.
What has all this to do with bridge? Well, there are more ways to bid/declare/defend a hand badly than there are ways to do it well. Let's imagine that to bid and make 6♠ successfully on a particular board, there is really only one reasonable pathway. Making a different bid at some point, or making a different play in the declaration will result in a lower score. Some of those mistakes will result in a score of, say, 650 and some will result in 230 or -100.
If you're one of the good players at the club, you will make your 6♠ along with two or three others. The field will score less. But you're unlikely to get a clear (unshared) top, unless you're a contender for a Bols Brilliancy Prize. Other good players will do the same as you. Occasionally, 6♠ might make an overtrick on a esoteric squeeze which will be missed even by the other good pairs. But my experience says that this doesn't happen very often.
But what if your opponents bid 7♠, missing the ♠A, you double and they manage to go down 1. You've almost certainly "earned" a clear top. See my comments below on earning bottoms - in this case, it was the opponents who thoroughly deserved their zero.
My point is that good play can earn you good scores, but not tops. To get tops, you need gifts. And, of course, the "gift box" must be open.
Unfortunately, along with gifts, there are fixes. Fixes and gifts are the yin and yang of duplicate bridge. It's hard to precisely define a fix, but let me try. A fix happens when your opponents make a poor decision in the bidding or play but it turns out well for them. Examples abound but here's the sort of thing. You are playing two intermediate players and it's clearly their hand. They sail past 3NT without really thinking and land in 4♣. Perhaps they're not really familiar with the concept of fourth-suit-forcing. All the average and good pairs bid the normal 3NT (plus a few that bid ♣). You guessed it: 3NT and 5♣ fail on an unusually foul lie of the cards and 4♣ makes exactly.
So every gift is potentially nullified by a corresponding fix. In what follows, I will define the number of "gifts" as the net of gifts and fixes.
What about bottoms? I am confident that the converse is true. You can quite easily generate zeroes on your own account, while fixes are unlikely to give you a clear bottom (there's usually two or three tables where the fix occurs). An example of a self-inflicted zero? That's easy: making a close double and then allowing them to make.
A score over about 60% is almost certain to have benefited from (a net of) several gifts, unless you're Zia filling in at the local intermediate/novice game. I estimate that the gift factor at your local club is about 15% (plus or minus 7.5%). Let's say a good pair plays reasonably well and doesn't make too many silly errors. With no net gifts let's say they will score 50%. But if the opponents are generous, they might score 65%. Everything depends on the gift factor. In the Life Master Pairs, the gift factor is somewhat less, but still significant. I'd guess something like 4% either way.
By contrast, a score of less then 40% (the Mendoza line of duplicate bridge) is almost certain to have benefited (if that's the right word) from several own goals.
Bridge is such a fascinating game!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Poet Laureate of Bridge
Did you know that I am the reigning Poet Laureate of bridge? I thought not. It hasn't been well-publicized. But I have a certificate from the ACBL to attest to the fact.
At the Reno tournament this year, a limerick contest was set up as the entertainment on the evening that was St. Patrick's Day (March 17th in case you come from a different planet). Whether or not the limerick is a truly Irish form of poetry is very much open to question. The form was popularized by the Englishman Edward Lear (1812-88). In any case, you can learn more on Wikipedia.
I decided to enter the contest after reading about it in the Daily Bulletin at the start of the tournament. I got a little carried away and submitted five entries, although I admit that the first one I came up with was the best. The judges apparently thought so too and I successfully challenged all comers to win the prize of $60 and the certificate, at least until next St. Patrick's Day.
Here is my winning entry:
This game of bridge is a breeze,
I bid six notrump as a tease,
I sure got my kicks
When I wrapped up twelve tricks,
Lucking into a stepping stone squeeze.
In future blogs, I may share with you some of the others too.
At the Reno tournament this year, a limerick contest was set up as the entertainment on the evening that was St. Patrick's Day (March 17th in case you come from a different planet). Whether or not the limerick is a truly Irish form of poetry is very much open to question. The form was popularized by the Englishman Edward Lear (1812-88). In any case, you can learn more on Wikipedia.
I decided to enter the contest after reading about it in the Daily Bulletin at the start of the tournament. I got a little carried away and submitted five entries, although I admit that the first one I came up with was the best. The judges apparently thought so too and I successfully challenged all comers to win the prize of $60 and the certificate, at least until next St. Patrick's Day.
Here is my winning entry:
I bid six notrump as a tease,
I sure got my kicks
When I wrapped up twelve tricks,
Lucking into a stepping stone squeeze.
In future blogs, I may share with you some of the others too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)