Saturday 30 November 2013

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
WNES

-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 
YvonneMartinJunJohn
WNES


-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.

Sunday 24 November 2013

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
NeilCharlesJohnVi
WNES

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
NeilCharlesJohnVi
WNES

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
NeilCharlesJohnVi
WNES


-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...

Saturday 16 November 2013

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
SureshNormanBillMe
WNES



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:

WNES



-
  - 
-
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
SureshNormanBillMe
WNES



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
SureshNormanBillMe
WNES

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...

Sunday 10 November 2013

Grand ambitions

I'm going to be playing in the East District Swiss Pairs with Martin Stephens in a couple of weeks, and we decided to do some bidding practice, since we haven't played together in the best part of a year, and have changed our system since then.


The hand above came up. I don't actually think there's anything particularly wrong with our auction - I must have a pretty big hand, to bid 2♠ rather than 1♠, as we play 1♠ as forcing, so the slam is never going to be a bad shot, and from my point of view, Martin would hardly have punted the slam missing all three top honours in spades (although that might be a less certain inference). 

However, the question did come up of what Martin could have bid if he'd wanted to make an ongoing move without just jumping to 6♠. Up until that point in the auction, he hasn't really shown any extras (3♣ was just bidding out his shape), and so really wants an alternative to 4♠ than shows ♠ support. We both agreed afterwards that 4♣ is probably a reasonable option - it's clearly forcing, can hardly be an attempt to play in clubs on this auction, and he could have bid 4♦ if he wanted to agree diamonds below game level. if I took 4♣ as a slam try, I'm not really sure what I'd bid. All I really care about once Martin has shown ♠ support is whether he has the ♠A, but I'm not sure I can find that out. Would a grand slam force apply here? And if it did, could he be expected to bid the grand with only one of the top three honours? I'd probably just end up punting the grand anyway. Anyone have a more scientific auction that gets them to the grand?

Winter pairs, November

I played in the Winter Pairs with Norman last Wednesday. We won the night comfortably with just over 60% - which wasn't all that impressive given that we'd been gifted at least 8 tops over the course of the evening. It's a good baseline score, although we'll have to get some bigger than that if we want to win the competition, which is an average of the top 4 scores over the 7 months that it's played.

Here's one that I probably underbid, although technically the game shouldn't make....





I opened 1♦, and raised 1♠ to 2♠. The South hand is really awkward to value. it has 14 HCP, and no aces. However, it only has 5 losers. I thought for a while, but eventually decided that 2♠ was enough, especially at pairs. At several other tables, South found a raise to 3♠, and they reached the decent game in spades. Hugh McCash was one of the Souths to bid 3♠, and at his table the defence went ♦A, ♥A, ♥ to the K, ♦ ruff, for one off, one of only two norths in the room to make less than 10 tricks, and somewhat unlucky. Hugh's partner, John DiMambro dropped ♥10 on the first trick, hoping to put the defence off. However, this should never work. Playing standard attitude, East would never play the 9 from 943, and would probably not encourage hearts holding K943 and the ♣A, so West really doesn't have another option than to play for his partner to have the ♥K, whichever card North plays.

♠♥♦♣

Here's one from early on, where Norman made what I think is a clear tactical error, although it's not the sort of problem you often get faced with.





WNES



-
1NT
2♠- -
3♥
3♠--
-



I alerted Norman's 2♠, and East asked what it meant, before pausing for what was probably a good 5-7 seconds, and then passing - this is why Norman's decision to come back in with 3♠ was, I think, a clear mistake - West was almost certainly making an illegal bid, so we were already guaranteed whatever score we could manage in 2♠, just by passing. There's almost no hand West could have which would justify him bidding on this auction, and his actual hand doesn't even come close, so we might as well play 3♥, and get the adjustment if there's been any damage. We'd have taken something between 4 and 6 tricks in defence to hearts, so would definitely have gotten a better result than 4 down in 3♠...

Another point about this hand is that our opponents became *very* irritated when we called the director after this auction. This is a problematic attitude that many players have - calling the director is treated as an accusation of cheating. It's quite off-putting, and unfortunately it means they often get away with auctions like this. On this hand, I don't *think* West realised that he was essentially cheating by bidding again on this auction, however, that doesn't mean that he should be allowed to benefit from his ignorance. Incidentally, this reminds me of a hand Norman and I played in the men's pairs last year. I'll give you the auction and the West hand:


♠ Q T x ♥ A x x x  ♦ Q x  ♣ K x x x
WNES
1♣2♠--
?



2♠ was weak, and I think it's a pretty close call as to whether you should come back in with a double. However, what actually happened at the table is that East pulled the pass card out of his bidding box before asking South what the range for the 2♠ was, and then putting it down on the table, and I think with this UI, it's clear-cut to pass. On this occasion, our opponents (who will remain nameless) were good enough to know what they were doing, but the director decided not to consider pass as a Logical Alternative, and let the result stand. I've shown the hand to various people, and pretty much all of them do double without the UI, but once partner starts speaking, I really think you are obliged to pass - a good reason to keep quiet when you're hoping for partner to re-open with a double.

I have to say that, even as a fairly experienced player, I'm still never quite sure at what point to call the director in this sort of situation - do I call when the dodgy bid is made? At the end of the auction? After the hand has been played? And if I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure that no-one else in the room is sure either, which is probably why so much of this sort of thing goes unpunished at club level. It wouldn't bother me so much, but letting people get away with this sort of thing punishes those who go out of their way to play by the rules.

♠♥♦♣

As usual at these sort of events, if we'd just cut out a few errors we could have had a score well in excess of 65% on this set of hands, and probably more than 70 was there for the taking. We'll have to have at least a couple of rounds where we actually take it if we're going to challenge for the competition.

Sunday 3 November 2013

Buchanan at home

We played against Buchanan at home on Wednesday. Hillhead, the team that I play for, is also based at the Buchanan, so this was a local derby of sorts. Buchanan are also the other team that came up from the second division last season, so probably one of the teams we need to beat if we're going to stay in the first division. We were playing against Betty and Peggy at table one, and here's one hand that where we were on the right side of some slightly sub-optimal bidding by the opposition. Not sure we would have done any better....

E deal, Love all
♠ T 5 4 3
♥ 9 7 4
♦ A Q 9 5 3
♣ Q
♠ Q J 2
♥ A 6 2
♦ K T 8 4 2 
♣ 6 3
8
1017
5
♠ A 9 7
♥ K Q 
♦ -
♣ A K J T 9 7 5 2
♠ K 8 6 
♥ J T 8 4 3
♦ J 7 6
♣ 8 4

Norman
Me
WNES
2-
2♦-3♣-
3♦-3NT-
4NT-5♥-
6NT---
The opponents were at least both on the same page throughout the auction - agreeing that West's 4NT was Blackwood in ♦s. As you can see, 6♣ is an excellent contract, and I think probably East cards should be more insistent about playing in clubs. Either jumping in clubs earlier, or maybe just responding 6♣ to partner's 4NT (whether this is BW or not). There's also some question of what you should open with the East cards. It's true that 1♣ is unlikely to be passed out, but how are you going to communicate the size of the hand after you open 1♣? As little as Kx xxx xxxxx xxx opposite and the slam is almost totally cold, Give partner the ♥A and a couple of other honours, and you might we'll want to be in 7♣. I think you have to open this hand with whatever your strongest opening is. All the better if that happens to be 2♣, so you're not wrongsiding anything.


Despite declarer apparently having 12 tricks, 6NT really shouldn't stand much of a chance - there's no entry to the heart ace, and no reason to allow one, but it made at at least one table. I didn't really hear the story of the play, but I guess North pitched a heart at some point, which I think then exposes his partner to some sort of strip squeeze and endplay in the majors. The ending would be something like the one below.


S deal, Love all
♠ T 5
♥ 9  
♦ A Q 
♣ 
♠ Q J 2
♥ A 6 
♦  
♣ 




♠ A 9 7
♥ K  
♦ -
♣ A 
♠ K 8  
♥ J T 
♦ 6
♣ 



Norman
Me
WNES
2-
2♦-3♣-
3♦-3NT-
4NT-5♥-
6NT-
South has to pitch the last diamond in order to prevent giving declarer a trick in either major, but now E has a choice of methods to endplay him. Either unblock the hearts, cash the spade ace and play a spade, using the S hand as a stepping stone to the&♥ A, or overtake the ♥K, and play the 6 to endplay S. Of course either of these plays might look very silly if N has the ♠K all along, so it does need declarer to read the position pretty well.


Incidentally, when we played this board, I was on lead against 6NT, and picked a ♦, which meant we didn't have to get our discards right. I mostly led a diamond as it seemed to be the lead least likely to give away a trick - I think probably Norman could have doubled 6N for a diamond lead. it's possible he was worried that the opponents could make 7♣.


The more sensible contract of 6♣ is cold when the trumps split - you just give up a trick to the ♠K at some point, and you've got a comfortable 12.



♠♥♦♣


Here's another one which was all in the bidding.
W deal, Game all
♠ A J 8 2
♥ A 8  
♦ J 5 3
♣ 6 4 3 2
♠ Q 5 4 
♥ K Q 9 6 3 2
♦  9 8 7 6
♣ -
10
711
12
♠  K T 9 7 3
♥  J T 7 4
♦  A K T  
♣ T
♠ 3 
♥ 5
♦ Q 4 2
♣ A K Q J 9 8 7 5

Norman
Me
WNES
2♥-4♥5♣
   -
-
   -

I had a long think before bidding with the South cards. I'm still not sure I made the right call - there must be plenty of hand partner can have good enough to beat 4♥ where 5♣ doesn't make, but on the other hand, partner could still have a pretty strong hand on this bidding. I could easily pass when 6♣ was on... The contract obviously depends on not losing more than 2 diamonds. This can be done either by making sure the opponents open up the diamonds, or if both diamond high cards are in the same hand. Unfortunately, there's no way to give up the lead in a suit that isn't diamonds, so just leading up to the diamond honours in turn was the only option. After the ♥K lead, and with the Q of spades coming down on the third round though (I figured I might as well ruff two rounds of spades just in case there was KQx in one hand - however unlikely this was on the bidding), this was pretty much always going to work - with the ♣6 eventually proving a useful late entry to the dummy to lead a diamond to the Q.

Turns out bidding 5 clubs was the right decision - the opponents are almost always going to make 10 tricks in hearts, and will make 11 unless we're quick enough to get our spade ruff. We eventualy won the match by a couple of hundred points, which translates to an 8.5/7.5 victory on the scale. Turns out that to draw 8-8 you actually have to have a 0 point margin of victory, which is pretty unlikely, so this is as close to a draw as it's possible to get.