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.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Slings, Arrows and Flying Cows
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are definitely one of the factors that make our game of Bridge so interesting. While the game isn't completely random of course, there is a large element of randomness. It's basically all about avoiding errors – of which there are many varieties. Did you know for example that if your partnership is absolutely average amongst your opponents, you can expect to score over 60% (or below 40%) about once in every thirty sessions?
One of the most difficult to overcome of the panoply of Bridge errors is the personal unforced goof (PUG). You know it also by another somewhat more scatological expression. When an expert makes this sort of error and is asked about it later, he or she can only come up with something like "a cow flew by."
I've thought about consulting a Zen master to try to help me eliminate these sorts of errors but I haven't found one yet. A regimen of water (plenty of it) and relatively light meals does seem to help. Brown rice seems to help a little. When Kim is my partner and I do something goofy she reminds me to drink some more water (or Gatorade if we have it). But if she's at another table, I'm liable to forget, with possibly serious consequences for my health, both bridge-related and otherwise.
Over the weekend, we went up to Newington, NH for the pairs on Saturday and the teams on Sunday. I've played with my pairs partner twice before. I had two partners for the Swiss, neither of whom I'd played with before. That made it all the more challenging and enjoyable. One of my teams partners was 13-year-old Zach, who might easily go unnoticed by comparison with his World Youth Champion brother Adam. But Zach is a terrific player whom I think could easily turn out better even than his brother.
On the first hand we played together, Zach opened a rather light hand. We found a fit and I was heading to a slam when I had to put the brakes on. We were missing two key cards. The trumps split 4-1 and I had to think about the hand for a while before coming up with a plan. My plan relied on a squeeze that I thought was probably about 75% or better based on the way the play went. I made the contract. Zach pointed out, very politely I might add, that I could have saved myself a lot of trouble ruffing an extra trick in dummy (a plan which I had thought was in danger of losing control). I was skeptical but eventually figured out that he was right.
We had a good time, though we seemed to be a little unlucky at times and, as a team, never really got into the groove until we'd already dug a deep hole. We just managed to scratch in B.
Here's an example of the kind of goof I referred to above (if I was a bit older perhaps I might call it a "senior moment"). I picked up a 4441 17-count and opened 1D. Partner jumped to 3NT. In my mind I was evaluating our chances based on his having 15-17 hcp (I wasn't too worried about clubs because he had to have at least four of them). I bid 6NT and it went down one. Where did I get that idea from? Nobody I know plays 3NT that way (including me), although I've certainly heard of such an agreement (it's part of the old Standard American, I believe). I just think the wires got crossed on the way out of my memory banks.
It's annoying as anything in Bridge can be. And it's hard for anyone else to even comprehend it. But if ever I find that Zen master, maybe I can do something to eliminate this sort of flying cow play.
One of the most difficult to overcome of the panoply of Bridge errors is the personal unforced goof (PUG). You know it also by another somewhat more scatological expression. When an expert makes this sort of error and is asked about it later, he or she can only come up with something like "a cow flew by."
I've thought about consulting a Zen master to try to help me eliminate these sorts of errors but I haven't found one yet. A regimen of water (plenty of it) and relatively light meals does seem to help. Brown rice seems to help a little. When Kim is my partner and I do something goofy she reminds me to drink some more water (or Gatorade if we have it). But if she's at another table, I'm liable to forget, with possibly serious consequences for my health, both bridge-related and otherwise.
Over the weekend, we went up to Newington, NH for the pairs on Saturday and the teams on Sunday. I've played with my pairs partner twice before. I had two partners for the Swiss, neither of whom I'd played with before. That made it all the more challenging and enjoyable. One of my teams partners was 13-year-old Zach, who might easily go unnoticed by comparison with his World Youth Champion brother Adam. But Zach is a terrific player whom I think could easily turn out better even than his brother.
On the first hand we played together, Zach opened a rather light hand. We found a fit and I was heading to a slam when I had to put the brakes on. We were missing two key cards. The trumps split 4-1 and I had to think about the hand for a while before coming up with a plan. My plan relied on a squeeze that I thought was probably about 75% or better based on the way the play went. I made the contract. Zach pointed out, very politely I might add, that I could have saved myself a lot of trouble ruffing an extra trick in dummy (a plan which I had thought was in danger of losing control). I was skeptical but eventually figured out that he was right.
We had a good time, though we seemed to be a little unlucky at times and, as a team, never really got into the groove until we'd already dug a deep hole. We just managed to scratch in B.
Here's an example of the kind of goof I referred to above (if I was a bit older perhaps I might call it a "senior moment"). I picked up a 4441 17-count and opened 1D. Partner jumped to 3NT. In my mind I was evaluating our chances based on his having 15-17 hcp (I wasn't too worried about clubs because he had to have at least four of them). I bid 6NT and it went down one. Where did I get that idea from? Nobody I know plays 3NT that way (including me), although I've certainly heard of such an agreement (it's part of the old Standard American, I believe). I just think the wires got crossed on the way out of my memory banks.
It's annoying as anything in Bridge can be. And it's hard for anyone else to even comprehend it. But if ever I find that Zen master, maybe I can do something to eliminate this sort of flying cow play.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Forcing 1NT
I have a friend and occasional partner for whom the 1NT response to a major suit opening is unlimited and forcing even by a passed hand. If asked we say 0-37 hcp. That usually gets a laugh from the opponents.
But seriously, since the bid is forcing (at least by a non-passed hand for all 2/1 bidders), should it be unlimited? I don't think so. While it might at first sight appear arbitrary, I think that 2/1 responses should all be based on at least a healthy interest in seeking a slam while 1NT responses followed by game bids suggest no enthusiasm for slam unless opener has significant extras. Other 1NT responses are obviously not interested in slam. At best, they are invitational to game. At worst they hope to find a safe haven at the two-level.
Let's assume that we have three-card support for partner's 1-of-a-major opening bid (any more and we would not be considering 1NT, and with less we'd still need to find our best strain). Come what may, we're going to support his suit at our next turn. If we start with 1NT, a jump to 3M will not be forcing to game (a "three-card limit raise"). If we start with a 2/1 bid, and then support partner's suit at the lowest level, that will be forcing to game with slam aspirations. Another option is starting with a 2/1 and then jumping to game. Some people play this simply as the principal of fast arrival (PFA) and others play it as a "picture bid" showing cards primarily in the two suits bid.
So, a forcing 1NT followed by a jump to game shows a hand with three-card support and either:
So, what should you bid with this hand ♠K74 ♥AJ87 ♦J86 ♣A96 when partner opens 1♠? In my opinion, this is an absolutely automatic 1NT followed by 4♠, or even 3NT, (assuming partner makes a minimum rebid). But not everyone agrees with me.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate the possible responses as follows:
Thanks to Steve for pointing out that 3NT, for those who play it as a 4x3 hand with 13-15, is almost a perfect bid here. I generally don't play that so I didn't think of it. The only fly in this particular ointment is that we do not have diamonds even half stopped. Sure partner should have something, but on a bad day, partner might have only ♦Qx, they set up their diamonds then get in with the ♠A and cash for down 1. Not too likely perhaps but possible. He also feels that 1NT followed by 3NT should show a shapely hand, short in spades, that's actually improved by opener's rebid. That seems sensible.
So, how did our hand turn out? On this particular evening we were playing IMP pairs at the club and, as it transpired, we could do no wrong all evening. Opener's hand (that's to say my hand) was ♠AQ632 ♥K ♦AQT3 ♣J82 and the auction went (opps silent): 1♠ – 2♥ – 3♦ – 3♠ – 4♦ – 4NT – 5♠ – 6♠. 3♦ (the so-called "high reverse") showed extras, as did 3♠. 4♦ showed a control in diamonds and slam interest (valuing the ♥K perhaps slightly higher than it truly deserved but expecting a decent five-card suit). 5♠ showed two key-cards with the spade Q.
I received a low heart lead and was able to wrap up 12 tricks without difficulty once the ♦K was discovered to be in its proper place (actually I'm supposed to make all the tricks because the ♥Q is doubleton) but this wasn't matchpoints. A club lead (rather more obvious on the auction) would have been somewhat more awkward however as I would be required to unblock the ♦T, something I doubt I would have done, not knowing that the 9 was going to fall singleton.
So, I think we were both somewhat guilty of over-bidding resulting in a less-than 50% slam (I need the diamond K onside and the ability to keep finessing from dummy or a non-club lead). If partner's response had been 1NT I think we'd have been able to rest more safely in game. As it turned out, we'd still have won, but by a less impressive margin.
But seriously, since the bid is forcing (at least by a non-passed hand for all 2/1 bidders), should it be unlimited? I don't think so. While it might at first sight appear arbitrary, I think that 2/1 responses should all be based on at least a healthy interest in seeking a slam while 1NT responses followed by game bids suggest no enthusiasm for slam unless opener has significant extras. Other 1NT responses are obviously not interested in slam. At best, they are invitational to game. At worst they hope to find a safe haven at the two-level.
Let's assume that we have three-card support for partner's 1-of-a-major opening bid (any more and we would not be considering 1NT, and with less we'd still need to find our best strain). Come what may, we're going to support his suit at our next turn. If we start with 1NT, a jump to 3M will not be forcing to game (a "three-card limit raise"). If we start with a 2/1 bid, and then support partner's suit at the lowest level, that will be forcing to game with slam aspirations. Another option is starting with a 2/1 and then jumping to game. Some people play this simply as the principal of fast arrival (PFA) and others play it as a "picture bid" showing cards primarily in the two suits bid.
So, a forcing 1NT followed by a jump to game shows a hand with three-card support and either:
- a non-picture-bid hand (if you have the picture bid agreement mentioned above);
- a hand that is not interested in slam opposite a typical minimum opener (PFA).
So, what should you bid with this hand ♠K74 ♥AJ87 ♦J86 ♣A96 when partner opens 1♠? In my opinion, this is an absolutely automatic 1NT followed by 4♠, or even 3NT, (assuming partner makes a minimum rebid). But not everyone agrees with me.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate the possible responses as follows:
- 1NT: 9
- 3NT: 7
- 2♣: 6
- 2♥: 5
- 2♦: 2
- 2NT: 0
Thanks to Steve for pointing out that 3NT, for those who play it as a 4x3 hand with 13-15, is almost a perfect bid here. I generally don't play that so I didn't think of it. The only fly in this particular ointment is that we do not have diamonds even half stopped. Sure partner should have something, but on a bad day, partner might have only ♦Qx, they set up their diamonds then get in with the ♠A and cash for down 1. Not too likely perhaps but possible. He also feels that 1NT followed by 3NT should show a shapely hand, short in spades, that's actually improved by opener's rebid. That seems sensible.
So, how did our hand turn out? On this particular evening we were playing IMP pairs at the club and, as it transpired, we could do no wrong all evening. Opener's hand (that's to say my hand) was ♠AQ632 ♥K ♦AQT3 ♣J82 and the auction went (opps silent): 1♠ – 2♥ – 3♦ – 3♠ – 4♦ – 4NT – 5♠ – 6♠. 3♦ (the so-called "high reverse") showed extras, as did 3♠. 4♦ showed a control in diamonds and slam interest (valuing the ♥K perhaps slightly higher than it truly deserved but expecting a decent five-card suit). 5♠ showed two key-cards with the spade Q.
I received a low heart lead and was able to wrap up 12 tricks without difficulty once the ♦K was discovered to be in its proper place (actually I'm supposed to make all the tricks because the ♥Q is doubleton) but this wasn't matchpoints. A club lead (rather more obvious on the auction) would have been somewhat more awkward however as I would be required to unblock the ♦T, something I doubt I would have done, not knowing that the 9 was going to fall singleton.
So, I think we were both somewhat guilty of over-bidding resulting in a less-than 50% slam (I need the diamond K onside and the ability to keep finessing from dummy or a non-club lead). If partner's response had been 1NT I think we'd have been able to rest more safely in game. As it turned out, we'd still have won, but by a less impressive margin.
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.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Doubling intervention after we've found a fit
Here's a common auction: we open 1♥, lefty passes, partner raises to 2♥ and righty comes in with 2♠. The good news is that we have one call available that we didn't have before (double), but do we really know how best to use that call?
I once had this exact auction a number of years ago now. It was at a sectional and my right-hand opponent had earlier given a talk to the I/N players entitled "overcalls -- how to make them safely", or some similar title. RHO now came in with 2♠ (I think all were vulnerable but I'm not sure) and I held a hand something like the following: ♠AQT4 ♥KQ543 ♦A2 ♣K7. I doubled and we scored 800 for a top. It felt pretty good.
The snag is that I've played a lot of hands since then and I don't think anything quite like that has ever come up again. If I have a good hand in that same auction, it's much more likely to look like this: ♠A2 ♥KQ543 ♦AQT4 ♣K7. This isn't all that bad. I can either shoot straight to game (a slight overbid but could easily be right) or I can make a game try with 3♦ or 2NT.
What do I do with this hand, though: ♠92 ♥KQ543 ♦AQT4 ♣K7? If I bid 3♦ with this hand, how will partner tell the difference between this and the previous hand? Some partnerships, including one of mine, play that 2NT is the "good-bad" 2NT (is there an ugly 2NT?). This is a pretty good convention and partner will know that we don't have ♠2 ♥KQ543 ♦AQT94 ♣K7 which we would show with 3♦.
Sometimes the opponent will have the cheek to bid 3♣ (or 3♦) which will prevent us from using the 2NT treatment.
I believe there's a much more flexible call available: double! If we happen to catch partner with a good balanced hand with useful spades, he could pass, especially if they are vulnerable (seeking the magic 200). But most of the time, he'll either sign off in 3♥, bid 4♥ (or perhaps 3NT) or bid an available minor suit as his own game try. The double here should show a semi-balanced hand typically with a small doubleton in the enemy suit and of course only five hearts. It shows a little extra (it denies having made a "rule-of-20" type of opening) because every now and then partner will pass and it would be nice to set their contract!
It's basically a question of frequency and the arithmetic of the scoring table. Let's say both sides have 20 hcp. If you believe that, on average, the total trumps will predict the total tricks and, if you go one step further and believe in the so-called Hillyard Corollary, you will predict that our side will take the same number of tricks as our total trumps and their side likewise. I do stress that we are talking about averages here. In the long run! I'm not claiming that this will work out exactly on every hand. Far from it. I'm an LOTT-skeptic too. But let's say that both sides have an eight-card fit in their major, with no particularly good double fit. We'd expect each side to be able to take 8 tricks. Now, if they can make their 2♠, we'd prefer to bid 3♥, especially if we aren't vulnerable. So, even though we may not be close to making game, we still want to compete!
We still need good judgment. Let's say our hand is ♠972 ♥KQ543 ♦AQ4 ♣K7. It would likely be very dangerous to compete here. Even if we get to play 3♥, we are likely to lose the first three tricks especially if they only have a seven-card fit. And LHO may have some useful heart holding and double for penalties.
Those of you who play the "maximal" double will have very little difficulty adapting to this scheme. It will now not matter at all which of the other three suits they compete in. Double will always have approximately the same meaning.
And of course, since our direct double is essentially a cooperative double, so to will partner's be. If we have a hand like ♠AQT ♥KQ543 ♦92 ♣K7 we will obviously be passing 2♠. But partner may have 8 or 9 hcp, together with spade shortness and he can double. We will be delighted to pass. So, we may yet achieve our 800s and 1100s.
But, to reiterate, it is unusual for these competitive auctions to result in big penalties. We therefore use the double more as a way of describing a hand that wants to compete. And that comes up far more frequently.
I once had this exact auction a number of years ago now. It was at a sectional and my right-hand opponent had earlier given a talk to the I/N players entitled "overcalls -- how to make them safely", or some similar title. RHO now came in with 2♠ (I think all were vulnerable but I'm not sure) and I held a hand something like the following: ♠AQT4 ♥KQ543 ♦A2 ♣K7. I doubled and we scored 800 for a top. It felt pretty good.
The snag is that I've played a lot of hands since then and I don't think anything quite like that has ever come up again. If I have a good hand in that same auction, it's much more likely to look like this: ♠A2 ♥KQ543 ♦AQT4 ♣K7. This isn't all that bad. I can either shoot straight to game (a slight overbid but could easily be right) or I can make a game try with 3♦ or 2NT.
What do I do with this hand, though: ♠92 ♥KQ543 ♦AQT4 ♣K7? If I bid 3♦ with this hand, how will partner tell the difference between this and the previous hand? Some partnerships, including one of mine, play that 2NT is the "good-bad" 2NT (is there an ugly 2NT?). This is a pretty good convention and partner will know that we don't have ♠2 ♥KQ543 ♦AQT94 ♣K7 which we would show with 3♦.
Sometimes the opponent will have the cheek to bid 3♣ (or 3♦) which will prevent us from using the 2NT treatment.
I believe there's a much more flexible call available: double! If we happen to catch partner with a good balanced hand with useful spades, he could pass, especially if they are vulnerable (seeking the magic 200). But most of the time, he'll either sign off in 3♥, bid 4♥ (or perhaps 3NT) or bid an available minor suit as his own game try. The double here should show a semi-balanced hand typically with a small doubleton in the enemy suit and of course only five hearts. It shows a little extra (it denies having made a "rule-of-20" type of opening) because every now and then partner will pass and it would be nice to set their contract!
It's basically a question of frequency and the arithmetic of the scoring table. Let's say both sides have 20 hcp. If you believe that, on average, the total trumps will predict the total tricks and, if you go one step further and believe in the so-called Hillyard Corollary, you will predict that our side will take the same number of tricks as our total trumps and their side likewise. I do stress that we are talking about averages here. In the long run! I'm not claiming that this will work out exactly on every hand. Far from it. I'm an LOTT-skeptic too. But let's say that both sides have an eight-card fit in their major, with no particularly good double fit. We'd expect each side to be able to take 8 tricks. Now, if they can make their 2♠, we'd prefer to bid 3♥, especially if we aren't vulnerable. So, even though we may not be close to making game, we still want to compete!
We still need good judgment. Let's say our hand is ♠972 ♥KQ543 ♦AQ4 ♣K7. It would likely be very dangerous to compete here. Even if we get to play 3♥, we are likely to lose the first three tricks especially if they only have a seven-card fit. And LHO may have some useful heart holding and double for penalties.
Those of you who play the "maximal" double will have very little difficulty adapting to this scheme. It will now not matter at all which of the other three suits they compete in. Double will always have approximately the same meaning.
And of course, since our direct double is essentially a cooperative double, so to will partner's be. If we have a hand like ♠AQT ♥KQ543 ♦92 ♣K7 we will obviously be passing 2♠. But partner may have 8 or 9 hcp, together with spade shortness and he can double. We will be delighted to pass. So, we may yet achieve our 800s and 1100s.
But, to reiterate, it is unusual for these competitive auctions to result in big penalties. We therefore use the double more as a way of describing a hand that wants to compete. And that comes up far more frequently.
Monday, October 18, 2010
R.I.P. Norbert
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)