Peebles Part II: Swiss Teams Session 1

Friday evening was the first session of the Swiss Teams. I was playing with Jun Nakamura Pinder, a regular in the Scottish Junior team, and currently studying at the University of Edinburgh. At the other table we had Jake Corry and Alex Wilkinson. Here's a couple of boards where we might have done better. On the first, still not entirely sure if we want to be in the slam:

♠ 6 ♥ K T 9 2 ♦ A Q 7 5 2 ♣ A 9 6 ♠ 7 5 4 3 2 ♥ Q 8 7 3 ♦ K 6 ♣ Q 2 * * * * ♠ 9  ♥ A J 6 5 4 ♦  J T 3  ♣ J T 7 5 ♠ A K Q J T 8 ♥ - ♦ 9 8 4 ♣ K 8 4 3

Jun Me W N E S 1♦ 1♥ 1♠  -  2♦  - 4♠ - - -

I'm not entirely sure that this auction is right, but I know that there was a heart overcall, and that I leapt to 4♠ while being slightly concerned that I was missing something. On the other hand, I do have 7 potential losers in the minors, and three small in Jun's suit (which I actually know is at least 5 cards from the start - we open almost all weak NT hands with 1♣, and play a 5 card diamond suit) really isn't a nice holding for a slam.

The slam essentially seems to rely on being able to play that diamond suit for 1 loser, which SuitPlay informs is a 54% chance. There's also some chance I can set up a heart trick.

If the ♥K was the ♥A, I wouldn't need anything much more than diamonds 3-2. Not sure if I could have bid any differently, a 4♥ auto-splinter seems a bit much with all the losers in the other suits, and as I said, it's not entirely clear we want to be in anyway. Unlike the next one:

♠♥♦♣

♠ K 7 ♥ 3 ♦ A K J  ♣ A K Q J 8 7 4 ♠ Q T 8 5 3 ♥ Q J 9 6 ♦ 8 4 ♣ 6 2 * * * * ♠ 6 4 2  ♥ A K T 7 5 ♦  Q 9 6 3 ♣ 5 ♠ A J 9 ♥ 8 4 2 ♦ T 7 5 2 ♣ T 9 3 Jun Me W N E S -  -  2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ -  4♣ - 4♦ -  4♠ - 6♣ AP

Jun's hand is huge, and really doesn't need much from me for slam to be a pretty solid prospect. Once I give a non-minimum response pretty much all he needs to know is that I don't have some horrible wasted values like ♥KQJ, and the slam is going to be no worse than 50%. Looking at the North South cards, it's more like 60% (50% for the spade finesse plus about 10% for the ♦Q dropping when the spade finesse is wrong). I guess there are also some potential squeeze chances when both queens are with West, but that would involve some pretty good card reading. However, this could easily have been much better. From Jun's point of view, there's no reason I couldn't have had the ♦Q, or even a doubleton diamond, to go with my spade control, which would have made the slam cold.

We had a pretty successful session, ending up about 15th out of the 70 or so teams competing and, more importantly, placing higher than the other team of people who were staying in our house. After just a drink or two in the bar, we headed back to Peebles for some much needed sleep, so we could be up bright an early for another day's bridge - Saturday being the Swiss Pairs, where I was playing with Alex Wilkinson.  

Peebles Session 1: Friday Teams

I played the Friday afternoon team at Peebles with Ian Angus. We had Jake Corry and Troy Van de L'isle at the other table. It's split into several sections, and then scored on total IMPs, which means you have to take full advantage when playing against the weaker teams, and that which section you're drawn in can have a big impact on your result. We had a good start, making 1NTX + 2 on the second board, and then spent most of the rest of the session doing vaguely sensible things, which were enough to win most of our matches comfortably, and get us joint second place overall. 

Here's one where both of us felt we might have done more:

Ian overcalled 3S, and I bid a normal 4D with my hand. It's possible that Ian should try something else now. It's not entirely clear he can though - would 4H just be some sort of general slam try? 

At  the time, Ian tried to blame himself, but looking at the hand again, I think it's clearer for me to bid again. It's pretty hard to imagine a hand Ian can have for his bidding where we don't have five level safety, so I can roll out keycard, and when he shows 3, I can count at least 5 spades, 2 aces and 6 diamonds (even assuming I have to ruff one), for 13 tricks, and I think I should bid the grand (this isn't completely clear, we could be missing the spade jack, and he might not have a 6th spade). We will at least find our way to slam this way. 

Here's another one, which I think might pose potential ethical issues:

At Paul Gipson's table, he chose to open a strong NT. This caused a problem for Jake, who wasn't sure whether he was playing a penalty double of a strong NT, and chose to show a hand with both majors. Before the auction was over, however, they realised they were sat at the wrong table, so it's not clear whether they would still have found their way to the spade game anyway. Paul wasn't willing to replicate this auction against the pair who arrived next ("there are some players I pysche against, and some I don't"), so the board had to be scrapped. Jun chose to open the North hand 1S, and Ian picked a weak 2D (we didn't realise we weren't supposed to be playing it until after declarer had wrapped up 10 tricks in NT).

Does it cause any ethical issues that North chose to open at all three tables where I know the auction? I know this is a "standard" psyche situation, but isn't that part of the problem? Should I alert all of my partners' 3rd seat openers at favourable as "possible psyche"?

Anyway, that was a successful first session, and my first M&S vouchers of the weekend with the first of three partners. We went off to the house, unpacked our bags, and started preparations for the first session of the congress teams.

A week of much bridge, Part 1. Phoenix Away

As I'm sure about 90% of the readership of this blog knows, I played in Peebles last weekend. Martin Stephens arranged for a group of approximately 8 of us (there was much argument over the exact number, as there was some chopping and changing over the course of the weekend, and we picked up an extra one on Saturday night) to make up a couple of teams for the main teams competition and partner off for the pairs. We all stayed in a house in Peebles, and it was one of the most enjoyable weekends of bridge I've had in a long time (probably ever). It didn't hurt that I also had a very successful weekend - 2nd in the pre-Congress teams, and then 5th and 7th in the Congress Pairs and Teams respectively. I intend to post something about each of the 6 sessions that were played over the weekend, but I'll probably spread them out over the next couple weeks, as I'm not going to be playing much over the holidays, so a. I have nothing much better to do than write bridge blogs and b. I won't have anything else to write about if I use up all of that material.

I'm going to start with a hand from the match which I played on Wednesday night, before I went to Peebles (and then I'll finish the series with one I played on the Tuesday night - that's 5 days bridge in 7 days. Luckily I have a very tolerant girlfriend!)

This is mostly a hand where the defence did really badly, but it's also a hand where I'm quite happy with my declarer play, as it's the first time I've ever successfully achieved a trump endplay (at least, deliberately):

Dealer: N Vul: NS	North ♠ QJT84 ♥ ♦ A82 ♣ KT954
West ♠ 9653 ♥ A ♦ KQ96 ♣ AJ62		East ♠ A ♥ KJ98743 ♦ T75 ♣ 73
	South ♠ K74 ♥ QT652 ♦ J43 ♣ Q8
Bidding:	W N E S - 3♥ - 4♥ - - X - - -	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

South led the club Queen, and I decided that I'd better see exactly how bad the bad news was in trumps. I led the ♥A, and North showed out. At this point, things are pretty hopeless. North is going to get in, and he's going to play another round of clubs, and then a third round of clubs, and South's going to ruff that, and South will still have a trump trick left. When all is lost however, you still have the option of relying on the defence to help you out. Unfortunately dummy doesn't yet have any cards I can ruff, so I can't start shortening my trumps yet. However, I played a ♠ to the A, and then a diamond to the K. North now came to my rescue with, I think, the only play to let the contract through. He won the ♦K, and switched to a spade. He later said he was worried that I was the one with a singleton club, this would mean his partner chose to lead the Q from ♣Q83, which I guess is not impossible, but not exactly textbook. I'm now home free. I ruff the spade, finesse the ♦9 (there's no way I can make this if I have another diamond to lose), and ruff another spade. Now a diamond to the K, and we're left with this: 

Dealer: N Vul: NS	North ♠ QJ ♥ ♦ ♣ KT9
West ♠ 9 ♥ ♦ 6 ♣ J62		East ♠ ♥ KJ98 ♦ ♣ 7
	South ♠ ♥ QT65 ♦ ♣ 8
Bidding:	W N E S - 3♥ - 4♥ - - X - - -	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

When I play the last ♦, pitching my ♣, south has two choices. He can let it win, in which case I can just play my trumps from the top, as I'm never going to lose more than 2 trump tricks, or he can ruff. If he chooses the latter, he still only manages two trump tricks (even with his QTx over my KJ98), as whatever he plays back, he'll be thrown in with the next round, to lead away from the Q.

4HX bid and made. We still got soundly thrashed in the match, and our team is hovering somewhere around the bottom of the league (Phoenix were firmly at the bottom before this match). We've still not played GUU, St. Mungo or Gilmorehill in the league, who I think are the big three teams, so I imagine things are going to be pretty close come the end of the season.

PS - just found this website which generated the hands in this post. Seems much easier than what I've been doing in the past - anyone else have any alternative solutions? 

♠♥♦♣

Winter Pairs Round 4

4th of 7 rounds of the Winter Pairs tonight, and I think we've firmly established ourselves as not candidates to win it - our average score so far is just above average, and we'll need some spectacular showings in the new year to get our top 4 scores anywhere near 60%. Danny and Anna meanwhile, already have two scores in excess of 65% and one 55+ to their name, and they've only played in three rounds. If I were a betting man, I'd have money on them for the title... 

Not a great deal to report. We did a few silly things, were unlucky on a few. The first board was a defensive problem - not sure I should have got it right, but I'm glad I at least thought about the winning line.

I lead the ♦A from the South hand against 4♥, and had to decide which black suit to switch to. Partner's card should probably be suit preference in this situation - Norman played the ♦6, and I eventually decided to switch to a small club. I considered the idea of switching to a small spade and giving Norman a ruff when in with the ♥K (declarer clearly has entries to take the finesse, so I expect to get in with it), but decided that it was more likely we needed to set up a club trick. Wrong this time, but as I say, I'm not sure I could have gotten it right (East opened a weak 2♥ and West bid 4♥).

♠♥♦♣

There were some more fun boards... the auction on this one went 2♥ 5NT - 6♦ AP, which is an excellent contract, although 6NT makes double dummy (in practice, I think you have to choose between playing West for Kx or KTx in clubs, which are pretty much equally likely, I think, although maybe they're more likely to cover with one or other of the two combinations? (probably Kx)). 6♦ is a much better spot, although still not great- it needs the ♣ finesse and either minor to split. and I don't mind the auction too much. As Norman said afterwards, when else is he going to get the chance to jump to 5NT?

♠♥♦♣

Our first board against Danny and Anna raised an ethical question for Danny. I'm pretty sure I should have called the director, but didn't. I should probably start doing that... 

I opened a strong NT. Anna thought for a good while before passing, and Danny came back in with 2♣ showing majors, and they bid the cold 2♠. Without the hesitation, I think I'm always coming in, but I'm not sure I'd feel I was allowed to with the UI. Anyway, as I said, we didn't call the director, so if 1NT is any better (and I think I should make at least 6 tricks), it's my own fault we got a bad result on this one - although it's possible Anna had already won the board by deciding not to bid 3♦.

No more bridge scheduled until a match next Wednesday, and then a whole weekend in Peebles (I'm probably playing the Friday afternoon as well, so that's 6 sessions over the course of the weekend). Finishing the year with a bridge-related bang.

Who needs 3NT anyway?

Played in a club pairs game with Neil Wylie (whose name I think I mispelled last time I mentioned him). Neil is a very fun guy to hang out with - don't know exactly how old he is, but I'd say comfortably over 60. He quite often goes on 100 mile bike rides, and has great stories of playing bridge at the big rubber clubs in London a few decades ago. Last time we played a teams match we ended up in a lock-in in a nearby pub discussing Independence and Scottish real estate until about 2 in the morning...

Our score was disappointing. We were probably a good 3 tops above average at halfway, and managed to slip to slightly below (possibly related to the pint of beer at half time...), but it was fun as always, and these two (consecutive) boards were the highlight:

	Neil		John
W	N	E	S
	1♥	-	1♠
-	2♣	-	2♦
-	3NT	-	6♣

My bidding might seem a little crude, but I don't think there's too much wrong with it. I was pretty confident I wanted to be in a slam when Neil rebid 2♣, and could have just jumped to 6♣ then and there, but decided to give him a chance to show some delayed spade support. There's no point fishing around for slam after Neil's bid 3NT, as playing in 5 of a minor is always going to be a disaster when we have this many points, so I just bid it. I'm quite glad I did, because that meant it was even more fun when I did essentially the same thing on this board:

	Neil		John
W	N	E	S
		-	1♣
X	1♠	-	2♣
-	3NT	-	6♣

I was planning to reverse with the South hand, which might not be textbook, but I think gets across the playing strength more accurately than anything else. When West doubled, and Neil bid spades, I was worried we might be in some sort of misfit, and settled for a simple 2♣ response. However, all that changed when Neil showed some genuine values by jumping to 3NT. Not only did this show values, it also pretty much promised that some of them were in hearts (West has promised hearts, I've done nothing to suggest that I might have a heart stop). Assuming Neil had at least 1 club for this bid, and probably 2, I really couldn't picture a hand where 6♣ didn't have any play, and decided once again that there was no point fishing around, and just bid it. With the heart finesse giving you plenty of entries to dummy, you have time to ruff out the spades, draw trumps and pitch the 4th heart on the 5th spade, which means you don't even need to worry about the position of the 9 of hearts. Another reasonably good slam, bid and made.

♠♥♦♣

A few rounds later, we had this auction: 

	Neil		John
W	N	E	S
		-	-
-	1♥	-	1♠
-	3NT	-	6♥

I wasn't really sure what to bid on the first round. Having already passed, I guess a splinter in ♦s is probably the right move on the South hand, but I decided I would bid 1♠ and rebid 4♥. When Neil leapt to 3NT over 1♠, showing something like 18+, I again couldn't really visualise a hand where 6♥ didn't have play, and just bid it (this time it's my own fault we don't have room to explore - having not supported hearts on the first round, I don't think there's any way I can agree them now, and have time to settle in 4♥, or even 5♥ if it turns out that things aren't looking good for the slam). Three leaps to slam, three comfortably making contracts... who needs 3NT?

One loser

Here's another hand I meant to include, from Wednesday's National Pairs qualifier - playing in 4S with the West cards, on a heart lead, what is the best chance of playing the spade suit for 2 losers? Does it depend o the quality of the opposition? I ran the Jack, hoping for a cover from Qxx. Is there anything better?

National Pairs Qualifier

The SBU apparently has some sort of initiative to make the National Pairs more inclusive, and is encouraging clubs to make their heat an ordinary club night, with the top 40% of the field qualifying for the next round (a semi-final, apparently). This seems likely to lead to much larger participation than the usual set up (in which the clubs hold a heat alongside their usual club night). It also seems likely to mean that a lot of people who don't usually qualify in national competitions sneak through to the next round - finishing in the top 40% on an ordinary club night is certainly within the powers of the majority of pairs. Anyway, Norman and I managed to sneak in (4th out of 11, so we actually had a place to spare), despite having what we initially thought was too many disasters. I think some of our early bad boards must have gotten better, like the one below...

Here's one where I just bid ridiculously, but somehow ended up with an above average result:

I counted my tricks on the enormous East hand, and somehow came to 8, and decided it was only worth a strong 2 in diamonds (Norman likes to play a multi with 5 strong options...), which led to this auction:

John		Norman
W	N	E	S
			-
2♦	-	3♥	-
3NT	-	-	-

After Norman showed a hand that wanted to play in 3 of my major if I was weak, I was afraid to go past 3NT (I still hadn't correctly counted my tricks). I'm not really sure how I came to 8, as 7 + 2 is clearly 9, but I was so convinced that I even argued with someone afterwards who made the clearly correct opening bid of 2♣ (Mike, if for some reason you end up reading this, I'm sorry, I was being an idiot - you were right). Amazingly, as you can see, 3NT + 4 was enough for an above average score on this board, which makes my bid even more terrible. With 14 top tricks, we really should reach the grand slam, but as it turns out, 6NT would have been good enough for all the matchpoints.

♠♥♦♣

Here's one that I misplayed, leading to a terrible matchpoints score (this was in the first round, which I think is partly why we thought we hadn't had a good score - the first and last rounds always loom extra large:

We bid to the normal contract of 3NT, and North lead the ♠7. South's 8 told me this was from a four card suit, but I didn't think it mattered - I could see a pretty clear line to making the contract. If you play both rounded suits to avoid South getting the lead, you have 4♠s, 2♥s and 3♣s. I did just this - win in dummy and play a ♥ to the J, ace of clubs, club to the K, and back to hand with a spade to play a third ♣. This line gets 9 tricks unless there is Qxxx of clubs with South, in which case you still have the chance of ♦A onside, or of the opponents not being able to cash diamond tricks (although this is pretty slim). It should still be good enough for 10 tricks - I can afford to cash the 4th spade and the ♥A before I exit in clubs, but I didn't do that, so I deservedly got a terrible matchpoints socre. Admittedly, lookinag at the traveller, everyone else got a diamond lead, which presumably made things much easier for them (they're forced to take the club finesse now, so should end up with 11 tricks) but that's no excuse. 

Playing twice next week - the next round of the Winter Pairs, in which we'll need to register our first actually big score if we're to be in with a chance in the competition (there are only 4 rounds left), and just a friendly club game with Neil Wiley tomorrow, which should be good fun.

East District Swiss Pairs

Played in the East District Swiss Pairs with Martin Stephens last weekend. We didn't manage to scrape a prize, despite qualifying for the "bronze" category... it was also the weekend of the Camrose Trials, so there were a few people in the pub afterwards, and we had some fairly lively discussion of the hands. It was good fun, and hopefully we'll get some of the same people out in Peebles in a couple of weeks. Not going to write up many hands, but here's one that got very different results at several different tables. 

♠ A T 9 8 6 5 ♥ 7 ♦ 8 2  ♣ A 9 4 2 ♠ Q 7 ♥ K T 6 5 4 ♦ Q 9 6 3 ♣ 6 3 * * * * ♠ K 2 ♥ Q 9 8 3 ♦  A K 7 4 ♣ T 7 5 ♠ J 4 3  ♥ A J 2 ♦ J T 5  ♣ K Q J 8

Danny Kris W N E S - 1NT -  2♦  -  2♥  -   -  -

Yes - that is what actually happened at the table of Danny Hamilton and Krzysztof Nguyen, who went on to win the second bronze prize. Having decided not to open the north cards, their opponent was then willing to let them settle in 2♥. At our table, Martin decided that with 7 losers and two aces, and a clear re-bid, he was going to open 1♠. This worked out well, getting us to 4 in comfort. I'd probably still bid 4 if he'd opened 2♠, but with less confidence. 

Our fourth match of the day was against Jun and Yvonne, both Scottish junior internationals, who we've been playing with a reasonable amount at Martin's house, meeting up in the pub for discussion etc. The match was good fun, although I assume we were loud enough to annoy some of the other people in the room. The big board in that match was this one, which I didn't bid particularly well, but ended up in an excellent contract, which unfortunately stood no chance of making... 

♠ 6 ♥ A 9  ♦ K T 9 7 5 3 2  ♣ K T 7 ♠ Q J 8 2 ♥ Q 8 5 2 ♦ - ♣ Q 9 8 5 2 * * * * ♠ K T 4 3 ♥ 7 4 ♦  J 8 6 4 ♣ 6 4 3 ♠ A 9 7 5  ♥ K J T 6 3 ♦ A Q ♣ A J

Yvonne Martin Jun John W N E S - 1♥      -   2♦  -  2♠   -  3♦ - 6NT

After Martin just kept bidding diamonds on the second round, I figured 6NT was likely to be a reasonable spot, and just bid it. If it made, this would have been enough for more than 90% of the matchpoints, as almost no-one else was in a slam, and those that were were in diamonds. However, when Yvonne found the spade lead I could no longer handle the 4-0 break in diamonds, and had to hook the club (which was right), and then hope for Qxx of hearts with Jun (I couldn't work the entries to play for Qxx of hearts with Yvonne, and I don't think it matters which opponent I play for the Q, as I'm playing for hearts 3-3. Unfortunately, the Q was wrong, and I ended up going about 4 off... (I figured playing for 1 down was a waste of time, and I was correct - even those in 6♦ were making it, as they could ruff the hearts out.

Unlucky, but my bidding was still terrible - there's no reason Martin shouldn't have the ♠K for his bid as well, in which case I can easily count 13 tricks. Even with his actual hand, 7♦ makes every time the diamonds are 3-1 or better, and 7NT is almost as good (just needing heats or clubs to generate an extra trick between them, which seems pretty likely), so my leap to slam was a little bit premature - I should probably just bid 4♦, or 4♣ if that would be a cue bid. 

Anyway, it was a good event, nice to have a gang of younger players (as well as Danny, Krzysztof, myself, Martin, Jun and Yvonne, Jake Corry organised and played in the event, and Martin's wife Sally was playing with one of the juniors from one of the Edinburgh clubs. Hopefully well get slightly better results at Peebles.

Edited to add: Danny also wrote up an account of his experience at his blog.

St Andrew away

We were "away" at St Andrew this Wednesday. St Andrew is another bridge club in the West End of Glasgow - it's about 500m from the Buchanan, and their first team is pretty strong. We had some illness in the team, so I was playing with Neil Wiley rather than Norman. We play fairly simple Acol, with a couple of quirks - Neil likes to play Gazilli discards. A high minor suit card is suit preference for spades, a low one suit preference for hearts, and the same with major suit discards showing minors. 

We were playing against Charles and Vi Outred. They are a fairly good pair, but they play a quirky bidding system, and can be relied to get themselves into trouble at least once or twice a session. In the first half, we beat 1NTXX by two tricks, and 2NTX by four tricks, and ended up with a fairly solid score.

Here's one I played in 3NT. North's 2♦ showed a decent (8-11) weak two in one of the two majors. South led the K♠.:

♠ x x x ♥ A K x x x ♦ x x ♣ J x ♠ x x ♥ x x x ♦ A K x x ♣ K T 9 x * * * * ♠ A J x ♥ Q J T ♦  Q J x ♣ A 8 x x ♠ K Q T x x ♥ x ♦ x x x x ♣ Q x x

Neil Charles John Vi W N E S 2♦* 2NT -  3NT  -  - -

I ducked the spade king, Vi switched to a heart. Charles won this, and cashed the ♥K, before playing back another spade. I now have 8 tricks - one spade, one heart, four diamonds and two clubs. I don't see much point in ducking this spade - I'll still have 8 tricks, but I'll also still need to get an extra club trick, so I won, and ran all my tricks in diamonds before coming back to the club queen. As I had hoped, this cause some trouble for South:

♠ x ♥ x x ♦  ♣ J x ♠ - ♥ x ♦  ♣ K T 9 x * * * * ♠ J ♥ Q ♦  - ♣ A 8 x ♠ Q x ♥ - ♦ - ♣ Q x x

Neil Charles John Vi W N E S 2♦* 2NT -  3NT  -  - -

On the last heart, Vi has two ways of giving up the contract - she either pitches a club, which gives up immediately, or pitches a spade, at which point I can endplay her with a spade, which picks up the club suit (I still have to guess, but as the honours are split, I'm going to guess right. As it happens, she chose to pitch a club, and I cashed out for an overtrick (although I did get a bit of a fright when Charles accidentally discarded a spade on the first club!). 

Note that although I think I played this pretty well (at least, I carefully made sure I was in hand when I'd finished cashing my red suit winners..), the defence was far from optimal. I think they beat it if they pick pretty much any other sequence of plays, in particular, I think I stand almost no chance if Charles just plays another spade when he wins the first heart. Vi's club pitch also initially looks like a mistake, but in fact it gives me a chance to go wrong if I have the jack (I might guess the suit wrong, playing her for all the remaining spades). However, this isn't actually possible if Charles is strict about is 8-11 weak two.

♠♥♦♣

Here's another big board that we got exactly right, and Charles and Vi had another attempt at a bidding mix-up, although it didn't actually matter too much:

♠ 9 ♥ 9 4 2 ♦ A T 6 5  ♣ A J 7 3 2 ♠ A K 7 ♥ K J 8 7 3 ♦ J 8 3 ♣ T 9 * * * * ♠ Q 8 5 4 3 ♥ A Q T 6 5 ♦  - ♣ Q 5 4 ♠ J T 6 2  ♥ - ♦ A Q J 7 4 2  ♣ K 8 6

Neil Charles John Vi W N E S - 1♦(*) 1♥ 3♠(*)   4♦ 5♦   -       -   5♥ AP

I decided not to open the East cards, which was probably a mistake, but it turned out ok on the actual hand. 1♦ showed either clubs or diamonds. As soon as Neil bid ♥s, I knew we were playing in a game. Vi didn't quite know what Charles intended by the 3♠ bid, and had to leave the room while he explained it as a splinter with support for either minor. I might be better off just bidding 4♥ now, or even 5♥, as I'm pretty sure they're going to bid 5 of their minor, and I'm not going to let them play there, but I'm not sure that partner won't just bid slam now on some hands where that isn't right. Anyway, we ended up in the best reasonable spot (technically they can make slam in either minor, but it involves taking a backward finesse in clubs, playing Neil for exactly T9, so it's not likely in practice), for a massive score on the board. Unbelievably, there was one table where neither side was in game!

Anyway, despite this, and a few more huge results (they bid a silly slam which drifted an easy two off), it wasn't enough for us to win the match, and we lost 11-5, I think in the end. Still, I think we'd have settled for that before we started, and it was certainly an interesting set of hands.

East District Swiss Pairs with Martin Stephens starts in about 1 hour (I'm posting this on the train), I've no doubt there'll be at least a hand or two to report from that...

Bridge Over the River Clyde

The title for this post is my new favourite bridge-relate-pun-that-should-have-been-the-title-of-this-blog. I could have saved it for a match where we actually played on the other side of the River Clyde, but  I couldn't wait. 

This week we had a home match against a team from St Andrew bridge club in Glasgow. It was not St Andrew first team, (we have them next week), and I can't actually remember the name of the team, but they have several good players, and we played at table 1 against Bill and Suresh.

♠♥♦♣

♠ K 6 ♥ Q 9 7 6 ♦ Q J 9 2 ♣ Q T 3 ♠ A 8 7 2 ♥ A J 5 4 2 ♦ 7 6 ♣ 8 3 * * * * ♠ Q J T 9 5 4 3 ♥ K T ♦  A 5 3 ♣ K ♠ - ♥ 8 3 ♦ K T 8 4 ♣ A J 9 7 6 5 4

Suresh Norman Bill Me W N E S 4♣   -  - 4♠ -       - 5♣ -    -    5♠ - -  -

With just 2 cards in the majors at favourable vulnerability, I nearly opened 5♣, since I figured I'd probably regret letting the opponents play in 4 of either major, but Norman likes to keep the pre-empts relatively sound, so I eventually settled for 4♣. East had no trouble bidding over this, but my pre-empt allowed Norman to push the opponents to the 5 level, where they had no chance of making after the ♣A and a ♦ switch. As it turns out, the ♦ switch isn't particularly necessary, as the hearts can only be set up for one diamond discard in any case.

The auction makes for a pretty pattern, but that isn't the reason I chose to mention this hand. We knew we'd done pretty well to make a plus score, but at the other three tables, the scores were -620, -550 and -620 for our team. At one table, there was this auction:

W	N	E	S
			-
-	-	1♠	3♣
3♠	-	4♠	5♣
-	-	-

Our other South decided to pass the South cards (too strong for a pre-empt, too weak to open, apparently), but apparently it was time to bid after the opponents opened 1♠, and then came back in again after the opponents bid game (if you're going to do this, why not just open 5♣?). Unfortunately, North hesitated over 4♠, so there was no question of letting the result stand, and the score was corrected to 4♠ making. At the time, there was some debate about this, but I don't really see why - I don't think you can make any other decision, which is why North's hesitation is terrible.

At another table, the opponents ended up in 5♣X, and this was an easy make when our West decided to lead the ♠A. I think taking a look at dummy is a good idea, but leading the ♥A seems like it's probably less likely to give anything away. The opponents made 4♠ with less controversy at the other table, for a total of about 1500 points out on this one board... 

♠♥♦♣

We were about 3000 points down at half time, so probably both gambling a bit when we bid this one:

♠ Q 9 6 ♥ T 8 5 4 ♦ A Q J  ♣ A J 4 ♠ J ♥ J 7 6 3 ♦ K 8 6  ♣ K 9 5 3 2 * * * * ♠ A T 4  ♥ 9 2 ♦  T 9 7 5 4 3  ♣ 8 7 ♠ K 8 7 5 3 2 ♥ A K Q ♦ 2 ♣ Q T 6

Suresh Norman Bill Me W N E S 1♠      -  2♣  - 3♠ - 6♠ -    -      -

On the ♥3 lead, and with the club finesse right, it only remains to pick up the spade suit. When a spade to the Queen lost to the Ace, and East played back another ♥, I had two reasons to get it right - even if this wasn't a restricted choice position, the K♣ has to be with West if I'm to have any chance in this contract, so I should place spade length with East. I played a club to the Jack, and ran the ♠9 on the way back, for 1430 points in. No-one else bid the slam, so they weren't put to the test in the spade suit, although at the other tables, everyone only made 11 tricks.

♠♥♦♣

Finally, here's a less exciting hand, but one that I think I definitely misplayed: 

♠ K Q 8 ♥ 8 5 ♦ K 9 5 3 2 ♣ J 5 4 3 ♠ J T 6 4 ♥ A K 6 ♦ A J T 8 7  ♣ 9 * * * * ♠  5  ♥ 9 7 4 3 2 ♦  Q 6 4 ♣ K 8 7 6 ♠ A 9 7 3 2 ♥ Q J T ♦ 5  ♣ A Q T 2

Suresh Norman Bill Me W N E S -  -  1♠      - 2♠ - - 3♦ - -   3♠      - - -

The lead was the 9♣. This is pretty obviously a singleton, I think. I drew two rounds of trumps, ending in hand, and now I was in trouble - I couldn't manage to draw trumps and then make two more club tricks, as I didn't have the entries to dummy. I crossed to dummy anyway, and played a club to the Q, but it was ruffed, and I had no way to take another club finesse.  I'm still not entirely sure how I should have managed this hand, but I think I can do it even after E shows out in trumps, Things probably go better if I decide to duck a trump trick right now, or I can play a ♦ to the K at pretty much any point while I still have an entry to dummy. This is one of those hands where lots of things seem to work, but I managed to pick a route that didn't.

I think the reason I went wrong is that I was thinking about the play in 4♠, where I have no chance unless the trumps are 3-2, which is pretty much a textbook psychological error. When things look (relatively) straightforward, you should think about the way they can go wrong. I very rarely take the trouble to envisage what will happen if trumps break 4-1 before I start playing a hand (probably at least in part because of how many hand-shuffled boards I've been playing lately....). It's a habit I should get into.

We lost the match 11-5 in the end, although I think we acquitted ourselves quite well. 11-5 next week against St Andrew would be an excellent result. Hopefully will play a bit more bridge this week, as I'm trying to get some practice in with Martin before next week's East District Pairs, and Jess is away in Amsterdam, so I have nothing else to do in the evenings...