♠♥♦♣ Planet Bridge

I've been asked for my notes on Gazilli so here they are. Now you no longer need to weigh up whether to jump rebid on your nice 5-5 shape 15 count, it's in the system!

Gazilli makes most sense in a 2/1 system where the 1NT response to a major opening can be a wide range.

Rebid structure
After opening 1♥ and hearing 1♠ from partner opener rebids like this. The structures if partner responds 1NT to either major opening are identical:

1NT	11 — 14	balanced
2♣	Gazilli
2♦	11 — 16	3+♦
2♥	11 — 16	6+♥
2♠	14 — 16	6♥ & 5♠
2NT	14 — 16	6♥ & 4+m
3♣	14 — 16	5♥ & 5♣
3♦	14 — 16	5♥ & 5♦
3♥	14 — 16	6+♥ (great suit)

Note that all 17⁺ hands go through Gazilli.

2NT rebid
Opener has shown a 6-4 shape with a better than minimum hand. Responder can now bid 3M to play, 3♣ pass or correct or 3♦ asking for the minor.

Gazilli
Gazzilli is a 2♣ rebid after a 1 of a major opening and is either natural showing clubs or conventionally 17⁺. The responses are as follows:

1♥ — 1♠ — 2♣ — ?

2♦	8+	any
2♥	5 — 7	2+♥
2♠	5 — 7	6+♠
2NT	5 — 7	3 suited short ♥
3♣/♦	5 — 7	6+♣/♦

1♥ — 1NT — 2♣ — ?

2♦	8+	any
2♥	5 — 7	2+♥
2♠	5 — 7	3 suited short ♥
2NT	5 — 7	5+♣ 5+♦
3♣/♦	5 — 7	6+♣/♦

1♠ — 1NT — 2♣ — ?

2♦	8+	any
2♥	5 — 7	5+♥
2♠	5 — 7	2+♠
2NT	5 — 7	3 suited short ♠
3♣/♦	5 — 7	6+♣/♦

Priorities
Responder with a weak hand should first look to bid a 7⁺ suit of their own then two of openers major with 2⁺ support finally a shorter suit or three-suited hand.

Follow Up
When responder bids 2♦ opener either rebids their major showing the weak option or any other bid 17⁺ GF.

If responder makes another bid they have a tight range of hands and opener is usually well placed to pick the contract or invite.

2NT and 3NT rebids
If opener rebids 3NT after Gazilli it shows 18 — 19 balanced, 5M332. The 2NT rebid can be used in one of two ways: to show 15 — 17 balanced (if you don't like 5M332 in your 1NT) or like the immediate 2NT rebid to differentiate a sixth card in the major suit.

Examples

West	East
1♥	1♠
2♣	2♦
3♣	3♦
3NT

West shows 17⁺ points, 5⁺♥, 4⁺♣ and a diamond stop. East has shown 4⁺♠ and 8⁺ points. The auction may be over at this point or East can bid on.

West	East
1♠	1NT
2♣	2♦
2♠	3♣

West has a natural 2♣ rebid, East shows 8 — 9 points by signing off in 3♣, 2NT would have been invitational.

West	East
1♠	1NT
2NT	3♦
3♥	4♣

At 3♥ West has shown 14 — 16 points with a 6-4 shape in spades and clubs. East has agreed clubs and is waiting for a cue.

West	East
1♥	1NT
2♣	2♥
3NT	Pass

West has 18 — 19 points balanced. East has 5 — 7 with 2 or possibly 3 hearts. East has denied a long suit.

West	East
1♥	1♠
2♣	2♠
Pass

East has 5 — 7 with 6⁺ spades. West has a natural 2♣ rebid or a poorly fitting 17 count.

So, would you or wouldn't you? Bid 5C with my hand that is:

Dealer: N Vul: Both	North ♠ K105 ♥ J10987 ♦ 54 ♣ 983
West ♠ Qxxx ♥ KQxx ♦ Axxx ♣ x		East ♠ AJxxx ♥ Ax ♦ KQx ♣ Qxx
	South ♠ 2 ♥ 3 ♦ J9xxx ♣ AKJxxx
Bidding:	P-1S-2NT-3S P-4S-5C(?)-P P-5S-P-P 6C(!)-X-P-P P	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

2NT is the minors, so I have already shown my hand.  Since we are playing min-max Michaels, partner said he thought my 5C bid was promising a monster distributional hand.  That is not the hand I have, to put it mildly.

I played 6C doubled for down 3, but because no one bid the spade slam, -800 was a bad board for us.

On the other hand, overbidding worked out well for us on this hand.  My four small spades and singleton diamond convinced me to take a shot at 3H and I ended up playing the hand at 5H and made it when west got end-played into leading clubs for me (or giving me a ruff-and-sluff).

Dealer: W Vul: EW	pard ♠ ♥ AK10x ♦ KQJxxx ♣ Jxx
West ♠ KQxxx ♥ Qxx ♦ xxx ♣ Axx		East ♠ AJxx ♥ Jx ♦ xxxx ♣ Qxx
	me ♠ xxxx ♥ xxxx ♦ A ♣ K10xx
Bidding:	1S-X-2S-3H 3S-4H-4S-P P-5H	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

Bridge players are quick to quote the Law of Total Tricks to bolster their excuses for overbidding. In fact, this Law has become the foundation for a new approach to bidding which makes little reference to the high card content of the hands being bid. Of course, it is known that The Law is subject to many conditions and restraints, a major proviso being that the trumps suits represented are well stocked with honours, which they usually are on the basis of probability. On the occasions where they are not well stocked, The Law may overestimate the total number of tricks available. That has been the observation of experts, including Larry Cohen. On that basis we propose a Second Law of Total Tricks, subject to verification that goes as follows.

The Second Law: The more controls one holds in the opponents’ trump suit, the lower the expected number of total tricks.

That appears to be common sense, but the history of science has taught us not to put too much faith in common sense and logic. First and foremost one must collect and examine the data. The key word is ‘expected’, implying Law2 is not always true, but that it is true more often that not. I suspect it is most appropriate when both ‘best’ trump suits are 8 cards in length. Think of it as akin to the observation, ‘gentlemen prefer blondes’. Not always true, of course, but generally something a girl can work with.

We shall examine the effect at work in hands played in the recent 2012 USBF Trials. First a deal where NS bid and made game missing the AKQ of trumps. With inescapable losers in the trumps suit, the HCP evenly divided at 18 to 22, and a division of sides of 8-7-6-5 one would expect that there was no way declarer could emerge with 10 tricks.

 

Dealer: South Vul: NS	North ♠   AQ ♥   KJ642 ♦   8 ♣  JT432
West ♠   T632 ♥   AT9 ♦   AKJ62 ♣  K		East ♠   J974 ♥   84 ♦   T9 ♣  AQ986
	South ♠   K85 ♥   Q73 ♦   Q7543 ♣  75

Hampson	Hamman	Greco	Zia
—	—	—	Pass
1NT	2♥	Dbl	Pass
2♠	Pass	4♠	All Pass

In theory the game should be defeated with a heart trick added to the 3 certain trump tricks, but on the auction that defence is impossible to find. Hamman at some point has to lead a heart away from KJxxx. He began with the ♣J and Hampson failed to rise with the ♣A in order to pitch a heart from his hand. He won the ♣K and led a trump. Hamman still had time to play a heart, but he continued with a second club expecting to give Zia a ruff. Surprise! An impossible game made against a credible defence.

The point of this demonstration is that there is a difference between theory and practice. Players bid and play according to the odds one encounters in practice. The bidding has a great deal to do with the outcome, as the bidding provides the information on which the decisions of the defence largely depend. Logic doesn’t work in a vacuum.

One may consider Hampson’s choice eccentric, but experience has shown that opening 1NT with a singleton ♣K can win points. It is a common practice in China, where Hampson may have picked up on it. Perhaps more significant is the poor defensive bidding by Hamman-Zia. As we discussed in a previous blog with regard to a 2♣ overcall, the effectiveness of  certain bids depends on the efficacy of countermeasures available. If Zia had been given a chance to show heart support, the heart lead would have been easier to find. Suppose Hamman had bid an Astro 2♣, showing hearts and a minor, and Zia had bid 2♥ over a Greco double. Then there would be no story to tell.

During the Trials we observed many pairs making game on a major 4-4 fit missing high honours in their suit. It didn’t appear to be a concern. As in the above example, success often depends on having a good minor suit to provide discards. Here is another.

Zia	Hamman	Milner	Zia	H. Lall	Hamman
♠ 8642	♠ QT95	—	1♣	1♦	1♠
♥  3	♥  AKJ	4♥	4♠	Dbl	All Pass
♦ Q9	♦AK3
♣ AK9765	♣ J84

This looks bad for whoever wins the contract. The spades are missing AKJ, the hearts are missing AKJ, the diamonds are missing AKQ. Only the clubs have a high degree of quality. We guess Zia’s game bid in spades was based primarily on his holding in clubs. The division of sides is 9-8-5-4, with the expected total trumps being 18. So what are the total tricks according to Deep Finesse? West can make 1♥, 7 tricks and theoretically South can make 10 tricks in 4♠. The Law appears to be fairly accurate despite the disparity in HCPs, however, to avoid 3 trump losers, Hamman playing in 4♠ must lead a low trump from dummy and put up the ♠Q when East follows low. In practice Lall went up with the ♠K from AK3 on the first round and gave Hamman no choice but to make his doubled game.

What is most significant about this deal is that Zia-Hamman had no means available by which to punish 4♥, down 3, against a dubious 4♠. How much better if in a forcing pass situation Zia can bring himself to pass with bad spades so Hamman can double 4♥ and make it stick.  Otherwise, a double must of necessity cover a wide range of holdings, and a game bid becomes a shot in the dark. Here is another example from the Semifinals of a 4-4 major fit missing top honours being used successfully as a trump suit.

Hamman	Zia	Milner	Zia	H. Lall	Hamman
♠ AQ5	♠ KJ	—	—	Pass	1♣
♥  J965	♥ Q432	Dbl	1♦	Pass	1♥
♦ 6	♦AT9872	Pass	4♥	All	Pass
♣ AQJT9	♣ 8

This time Zia-Hamman’s 4-4 major fit was missing ♥AKT, and the Lall-Milner 4-4 major fit, ♠AKQJ. Despite the lack of controls, and in the face of Milner’s double which presumably promised 4 hearts, Zia jumped to game on ♥Q432. The bidding was the same at the other table where Rodwell doubled and Justin Lall put Bathurst in game. From this we gather that the experts don’t put much weight on the need for a good trumps suit -  any 4-4 fit will do, provided one has a long minor that hopefully will provide tricks. In fact the heart game is better than 3NT which is vulnerable to an attack on the diamonds. The heart trumps provide protection in that area, while the club suit provides tricks.

Takeout doubles are non-descriptive these days, that is, they don’t promise favorable distribution. That is why they tend to be ignored by the opponents who bid their own values regardless. Here is an example from the Round of 16 featuring a solid citizen where getting into the auction with AK in an opponent’s suit proved expensive.

 

Dealer: West Vul: None	North ♠   A53 ♥   J72 ♦   AK84 ♣  Q64
West ♠   KT76 ♥   A9 ♦   QT73 ♣  A73		East ♠   QJ ♥   KQ854 ♦   J92 ♣  K52
	South ♠   9842 ♥   T63 ♦   65 ♣  JT98

Kranyak	Rosenberg	Wolpert	Willenken
1♦	Dbl	Rdbl	Pass
Pass	1♥	Dbl	Rdbl
Pass	1♠	Pass	Pass
Dbl	1NT	Dbl	2♣
Dbl	All Pass

 

Although one may opt to play in a trump suit missing the top honours, it is another matter to attempt to declare a hand when the main feature of one’s hand is controls in the opponent’s suit. Although it may be said that the doubler was unlucky to find the division of sides to be 7-7-6-6, the North cards are highly unsuitable for immediate action. After the redouble the scrambling began with nowhere to go.

The amazing feature of the deal was that the same double was employed by Justin Lall at the other table. He and Kevin Bathurst were successful insofar as they managed to play in a 7-card fit at the 1-level, rather than at the 2-level. Their -300 constituted a good save against a potential 3NT making 4. Bidding 3NT by EW is wrong in theory as the Total Tricks maybe less than 14 – the unexpected 3-3 heart split helps immensely.

A bad bid is less dangerous than it should be if the opponents are making the same bad bid. We see this effect time and again when both sides play the same flawed system. One of my favourite bad bids is 2NT by an opponent. It is a big winner in the long run for the side that can avoid it. Recently in a 7-board Team Match we won 23 IMPs on consecutive 2NT opening bids on my right, and there was nothing lucky about it. In one case the opponents reached 6♥ with 2 inescapable trump losers; in the other, 3NT with ♠x opposite ♠Jx, after a Puppet Stayman auction that failed to reveal the fatal flaw. Our teammates followed a different path and were successful in reaching 5♥ and 5♦, respectively. In the latter case, our teammate opened 1♦ because she didn’t fancy opening 2NT with a doubleton spade. A spade overcall then steered the partnership to the right contract. Information, information …. As David Burn so aptly put it, ‘where there is ignorance there is hope’, but actions shouldn’t be based mainly on hope.

Practical Percentages
It is obvious that there was a lot of hopeful bridge being played during the 2012 Trials, and it wasn’t until the latter stages that good bridge dominated. Earlier the bidding was largely ‘psychological’ in the opinion of a trans-Atlantic observer; it was a demonstration of style over substance. I equate the performance to that of a hedge-fund manager – praised when lucky, condemned when not. Justin Lall in a BBO conversation with ‘Mr Woolsey’ commented that he had learned from Kit’s articles that one should always play the percentages. We assume that his double defined above was considered to be the percentage action. The percentages take into account the possible reaction on the part of the opponents. If the opponents have no efficient way to cope with ill-defined bids, or misinterpret the bids, then the chances of getting away with bad bidding is increased.

A nebulous takeout double has low information content. The same applies to overcalls on bad suits. This means that the competitive bids on the opposition have to be flexible enough to cope on their own merits. One cannot count on the opposition having bid accurately and act according to that. Uncertainty has become their weapon. We see this effect in the hands above where players ignored the implications of a takeout double and bid their major 4-4 fits regardless. Ignoring the opponents’ bidding is not the best way to react – we need better methods than that. Flexibility is the key. I suggest an extension of the ‘forcing pass’ concept to part score bidding. In general that’s not the way it went, with partnerships snatching at games for lack of anything better to do.

Part of what makes bridge so fascinating is that it is so complex.  You cannot give a bridge student 15 rules - or 150 - and turn that student into an immediate expert.  Not only must one learn and then master the technical aspects of the game.  There is also the psychological "deep" game.

Did the defense try to lead you astray - or - are they honest Joe's?  Should you declare the same against Zia - or Joe Grue - as you would against a Sound Customer?

This week, John explains a few more bridge intricacies and mysteries.

Download 276.Mr.Sound.1

Last week, it was a 3-1 fit.  This time was not so bad. I had signed up as a substitute on BBO and found myself partnering a BBO Expert.  This was the bidding that had me playing a 4-1 fit in hearts:

<iframe height="500" src="http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=pn|opp,lakshmanok,opp2,bboexpert|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S23JQH38JKD58KAC8%2CS4KH2TQAD3469TQC4%2CS56H4579D7C569TQK%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2012%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7C3C%7Cmb%7Cd%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6H%7Cmb%7Cd%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CSA%7C" width="500"></iframe>

Silly me, to expect my expert partner to hold the majors.

Hospitality enhances a tournament.  Thus, the hospitality suite, room 215, will be open every day!

Prior to the morning session, we'll be serving coffee, juice, fruit and tasty baked breads.  Before the afternoon game begins, stop by for a cold drink and treats.  Then, when the last session ends, enjoy cheese & crackers, veggies & dip, desserts and more as you and other players share bridge tales of success and woe.

Most of the food and drink is supplied by tournament committees.  For sweets, such as donuts, coffee cake, cookies and the like, we would greatly appreciate your donations!  If you can contribute, please either drop your sweet treat to the suite in room 215, or leave it at the information desk.  Thank you!

 

For most of us as soon as our hands were large enough to hold 13 cards our parents started with gentle lessons like "when defending no trumps lead your longest suit". Such early lessons are important for without such ingrained knowledge who, in their right mind, would lead ♦65432 expecting to set it up?

South	West	North	East
1♥	Pass	1♠	Pass
1NT	Pass	2♠	Pass
2NT	Pass	3NT	End

The auction makes more sense if you know NS play a weak no trump so South is marked with 15-17 high card points. It still doesn't meet the threshold of sensible but I'm on lead and my options look like this:

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

Not wanting to give partner the wrong impression I led the ♦6. Declarer won and played a spade to the King then hoping for a lonely Jack played the Queen. Bravely I continued the ♦5 which didn't win but another spade back to me allowed the suit to be cleared by the ♦4.

Some number of tricks later I came to the ♥A and delightfully my ♦32 were worth a trick each!

♠ Q 7 5 4 ♥ K 8 6 4 2 ♦ K J ♣ 9 8

One diamond by partner; one heart on my right. A fairly common agreement here is that one spade shows five spades and a negative double shows four (and carries no information about responder's minors). I'm of the opinion, however, that a negative double is a take-out double, not merely a substitute for bidding the unbid major. This hand, lacking support for either minor, is not a negative double in my book.

One spade is a possibility (I don't agree that it promises five), but I think the best action is to pass. If I pass and later show up with four spades and values to have responded, partner will infer that I have primary hearts (i.e., longer hearts than spades). He should not assume that I intended to sit for his reopening double. Indeed, with this hand, I would pull a reopening double to two spades. The purpose of the pass is not to try to collect a penalty; it is to describe my hand. Partner will be better placed to make a decision if he knows I have hearts and spades and not, for example, the same hand with hearts and clubs reversed.

I pass. LHO bids two clubs, and partner bids two spades.

Since I may have to show a preference to diamonds at the three level with a doubleton, partner should try to avoid this sequence without at least four-six in his suits. With a 4-1-5-3 pattern, for example, he should double. (This should be take-out of hearts, not of clubs. It needs to promise some club length so I can pass with a misfit.)

Before I make up my mind how high to raise, RHO doubles. I am surprised to discover that the opponents play this as a penalty double. I'm fairly sure LHO is going to pull to three clubs, so I redouble to advise partner that I fully expect to make two spades. Partner should have a fair picture of my hand: Spade support, primary hearts, and moderate values. Unfortunately, I don't think partner can assume I have four spades. I might, for example, be 3-5-1-4 and expect that the opponents are in serious trouble whether they choose to defend or not.

LHO bids three clubs as expected--pass--pass to me.

Since partner couldn't double, it sounds as if they've found a club fit. It's likely that partner is 4-1-6-2 and LHO has seven clubs. I don't think we are in a forcing auction, but I can't see selling out to three clubs. The opponents appear to have a nine-card fit and, even though we don't, we do have a double fit. So it is not a Law violation to compete. Besides, it's still possible we have a game.

It's tempting to bid three spades in defiance of RHO's double in order to confirm the fourth spade. But I like three diamonds better for two reasons: (1) Assuming RHO has four goods spades for his double, it's easy to construct hands where three diamonds makes and three spades doesn't. (2) If we have a game, it is more likely to be in notrump than in spades, and three diamonds might be just what partner needs to hear to bid it. If he has, say,

♠ A x x x ♥ x ♦ A Q 10 x x x ♣ A x

he can envision nine tricks in notrump after I bid three diamonds. (Assuming that his LHO would not double two spades with three-card club support, so that one holdup in clubs will be sufficient.)

Over three diamonds, partner bids three hearts. This should be natural, aiming toward a possible game in hearts. (One of the advantages of the trap pass is that it gives you a way to declare in your opponent's suit. It always delights the kibitzers when that happens.) But I suspect partner intends this as a cue-bid, so I will treat it as such.

Given what partner already knows about my hand, is three spades or three notrump more descriptive? My hearts are no better than partner has a right to expect, I have no help in clubs, and the fourth spade may be exactly what partner is fishing for. So three spades looks right. If a single heart stopper is all partner needs, he can bid three notrump himself over three spades. Since he has already expressed doubt with his supposed cue-bid, I would certainly pull with no heart stopper at all.

But I don't trust Jack to be that delicate. RHO thought he could beat two spades. How likely is it that we can make four? Three notrump is probably where we belong, so perhaps, opposite this partner, I should just be practical and bid it. If RHO doubles, I may change my mind. But, at 50 points an undertrick, I'll take a shot.

I bid three notrump, everyone passes, and LHO leads the jack of clubs (showing the ten or ace-queen-jack).

West	North	East	South
Thomas	Jack	Adrian	Phillip
	1 ♦	1 ♥	Pass
2 ♣	2 ♠	Double1	Redouble
3 ♣	Pass	Pass	3 ♦
Pass	3 ♥	Pass	3 NT
(All pass)
1Penalty double

As I said earlier, I would double two clubs with that pattern rather than bid two spades. I certainly would have doubled three clubs. That seems like an easier way to collect our game bonus.

Partner has one fewer diamond than I expected. So I will have to establish a spade trick. That means I can't afford to duck a club. It will be easy for West, with an entryless hand, to find a heart shift. I have to hope clubs are seven-one. If they are, I'll make this. If not, I'm down three.

I play the king; East plays the four. I play a low spade from dummy--deuce--queen--three. Yay! East surely would have hopped and played a club if he had one. So I must be making this. I cash the jack of diamonds--deuce--five--seven, then the king of diamonds--three--eight--ten. If I'd known the ten was dropping, I would have overtaken. I would then be able to make an overtrick on a strip squeeze.

I lead a spade to the ace as West pitches the deuce of clubs, then run diamonds. East pitches three, seven, nine of hearts. I pitch deuce, four of hearts and the club nine. West pitches the club three on the last diamond. Assuming the heart ace is onside, we are down to this position:

I play a heart from dummy. East can hold me to three by hopping and playing king and a spade to lock me in dummy. But he ducks, desperately hoping his partner has the king of hearts. I take the king and toss him in with a heart to make an overtrick.

I said I could have made four by force by overtaking the diamond. But that was just an impression I had. I do have communication problems. Does the strip squeeze actually work? After running diamonds, I would reach this position, needing three more tricks.

East had to hold three spades, else I could play ace and a spade, establishing a spade trick and forcing him to give me my king of hearts. In this position, I play a heart from dummy. If he ducks, I score my heart king and endplay him. If he hops and exits with a spade, I can toss him in with the the third round of spades to force him to give me my king of hearts. Sort of a combination strip/stepping-stone squeeze.

As much as I'd like to pat myself on the back for this result, I think East deserves most of the credit for his premature penalty double. He would have had a chance to double four spades if he hadn't doubled two. West helped, too, with his opening lead. A heart lead would beat this, but only because my hearts were worse than they should have been for my auction. Even if my hearts were only slightly better, a heart lead would not work. (Switch the eight and nine of hearts for example. If East doesn't overtake the ten, I duck it, and there is no winning defense.) So perhaps West's best chance was to find his partner with a doubleton club.

Our teammates defended four spades (undoubled) down one, so we start the match off with a 10-imp lead.

Table 1: +400
Table 2: +50

Result on Board 1: +10 imps
Total: +10 imps

For weeks I have been following ludicrous discussions on Bridge Winners about accusations, warnings, charges, appeals, AWMWs and various other ugly altercations between players, committees, directors and management.

No one knows better than Yours Truly the furor and frustration of not being in control — especially when you have done nothing wrong.   I won’t bore you with all the details as they are known by hundreds — from an incident that occurred about five years ago when my partner and I lost a preposterous appeal (unappealable by the bridge gods) and followed by an Award without Merit Warning.  I believe they bless you with three of them before any serious action is taken — like shooting, bludgeoning, hanging, etc.. 

My partner and I fought it but our arguments fell upon deaf ears.   All we wanted was to have the AWMW removed.   We had a meeting with Jay Baum (then CEO), Harriet Buckman (then ACBL President) and Legal Counsel for the League — Peter Rank — all to no avail.   It was at that point (about fourteen months after the debacle) that I told them candidly we had hired an attorney and were going to take legal action. It was then AND NOT BEFORE WE WERE ADVISED WE COULD DO NOTHING UNTIL WE CAME BEFORE SOME KIND OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS COMMITTEE (THEN HEADED BY GEORGIA HETH).  Why did it take so long to learn our rights?????   We had decided to go to the ends of the earth and if that meant COURT, so be it.   It took Bobby a few moments to represent our viewpoint (about the taking advantage of a 20 second huddle by our opponent whose partner balanced with 5 points) until they removed the AWMW.

With all the different viewpoints (forever involving politics — and now with Professionalism and money on the horizon), the ACBL better get their act in shape and do some serious thinking of how to handle these disputes.   I have less than no respect for the manner in which  matters are being handled at the present .. and hard to imagine them getting any better until some practical person finds himself or herself in charge and initiates a better policy .  We need an individual — one who really loves the game of bridge, has the time to devote to it and does not want to see it go down the drain!!!

While I was returning my Keystone Follies folder to my storeroom, I actually tripped upon a sheet of paper which had fallen between the crevice of two memorabilia boxes.   It brought a smile to my lips and I wanted to share with you something written thirty-six years earlier.

The background:  Charlie Solomon was teaching bridge at the Philadelphia Country Clubs and when he passed away in 1976, they were in need of a replacement.  Norman was unwilling to give up his Merrill-Lynch Vice Presidency so in desperation the group sought out some well known women players.   The long and short of it:   My friend Joan Weinrott owned a bridge school/duplicate and I had the ‘right’ last name (Mrs. Norman Kay at the time).   So, shockingly, we got hired as a pair.   Uniquely, Phillly had a woman’s team bridge league (consisting of about 25-30 country clubs with 25-100 members each).   Most  clubs consisted of six teams so Joan taught numbers 3-6 and I had 1 and 2.  We taught one day at each club every two weeks and the alternate week was when the match was held and we marked and critiqued the bid, play and defense (to the best of our ability).    We were far from experts, but had the jump on them.   All was going quite well until one night I received a call from a friend who played on one of the counterpart men’s country club teams asking me to teach at night.   Four afternoons and one evening was too much for me so I countered with a suggestion of not teaching, just going over and marking their bridge results with comments and explanations.   A DONE DEAL – until the first match when a friend delivered that evening’s match papers.

Here was my reaction — wearily written in the wee hours of the morning:

EAST WAS EAST AND WEST WAS WEST – WHEN RUDYARD KIPLING WAS LAID TO REST                              BUT TIMES HAVE CHANGED (DIRECTIONS, TOO) – GEOGRAPHY HAS GONE ASKEW

FOR NORTH AND SHOULD SHOULD PLAY AS ONE – A STANDARD BRIDGE PHENOMENON                             EAST AND WEST SHOULD DO THE SAME – A BASIC PREMISE – OF THIS GAME

BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED WEDNESDAY EVE – HOW OR WHY I CAN’T CONCEIVE                                     THEIR MOVEMENT SWITCHED TO MUSICAL CHAIRS –  MIXING UP BOTH SEATS AND PAIRS

MARKING BOARDS IS ALWAYS FUN – ESPECIALLY WHEN A TEAM HAS WON                                                  BUT THIS EXPERIENCE WAS THE WORST – A LOSING MATCH WITH HANDS REVERSED

IF ALL FOUR POCKETS HAD BEEN CROSSED – I WOULD NOT BE SO FULLY LOST                                        BUT YOU TOOK SOUTH AND MADE HIM EAST – THEN THE REST SAT DOWN WHERE YOU PLEASED           

THE ENIGMA BEGAN ON THE VERY FIRST DEAL – UPSET AND FRUSTRATION I CANNOT CONCEAL                BUT PATIENCE EARNED ITS OWN REWARD – YOU FINALLY SENT ME A “PASSED OUT BOARD”!                    

I KNOW YOU YEARN TO STRENGTHEN YOUR GAME – OUTBID THE OPPONENTS – PUT THEM TO SHAME    STOP IN A PARTIAL, UNBLOCK, OVERTAKE – I’D LOVE TO HELP YOU — BUT GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FIND YOUR SEATS AT ALTERNATE TABLES – CAREFULLY  READ THE GUIDE CARDS AND LABELS                       DO NOT REVOKE – OR LEAD OUT OF TURN – AND REMEMBER – FINESSES SOMETIMES YOU MUST SPURN

NOW HERE’S A REQUEST YOU MAY THINK ABSURD;  RECORD THE HANDS – AS THEY REALLY OCCURRED   THEN I WILL KNOW WHICH CARDS WENT WHERE – COME ON FELLAS – FAIR-IS-FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reminiscing through my hoards of bridge memorabilia of fifty-five years, I came upon a file entitled “Keystone Follies, 1972.”     That will be coming up upon forty years on November 10th,   I can remember it as if it were yesterday.   The primary event was the Fall Nationals held in Lancaster, PA by District 4 of the ACBL from the 10th to the 19th.   The attractive leaflet displayed opening greetings from the Governor of PA and Mayor of Lancaster and ACBL bridge officials.   It listed greetings from co-chairman Bill Gross and Charlie Gray who did bang-up jobs as well as the ACBL officers (Chairman Carl Rubin, President Percy X. Bean, Treasurer Jerome R. SIlverman, Honorary Member, Mrs. Stanley Smith and League Counsel, Lee Hazen (who put the league on their feet when their funds were insufficient to keep it going the first few years in the mid thirties).   It also listed the ACBL Executive Staff:   Richard L. Goldberg (Executive   Secretary; Ralph Cohen, Ass’t. Exec. Secretary; Terry Smith, Executive Assistant; and Robert H. Wilkins, Secretary to the ACBL BOD.   You veteran players will remember most of the wonderful National Tournament Directors listed ….  Bill Adams, Maury Braunstein, Bob Dischner, Harry Goldwater, John Hamilton, Jack Hudgins, Karl Johnson, Jerry Machlin, Phil Merry, Ken Stone, John Wiser and Phil Wood.  What a remarkable and lovable group of directors!!!

And now to the unique and topical plans of the Lancaster Red Rose Bridge Club … Schedule of bus tours:The National Wax Museum; The Amish Village, Inc; Quaint towns such as Bird-in-Hand and Intercourse; a Pennsylvania Dutch Market; an Amish Farm and House; Wheatland (the historic home of Pennsylvania’s  only President, James Buchanan); a Pennsylvania Dutch Market and Mill Bridge Craft Village with interesting exhibits and buildings.

But – that was hardly enough.   Beside the fun and games (actual tournament), we featured a Challenge Vu-graph Match.   The World Champion ACES of Dallas had accepted an invitation from District 4 to play a 60 board head-to-head match.   It was scheduled Wednesday, November 8 in the evening and Thursday November 9th in the afternoon and evening.   Representing the ACES were Robert Goldman, Robert Hamman, James Jacoby, Michael Lawrence, Paul Soloway and Robert Wolff (a fella I got to know in later years).   District 4 fielded a strong team of players with national and international reputations, including:   Mark Blumenthal, Robert Jordan, Harlow Lewis, Luis Pietri and Arthur Robinson.  Famed players Skippy Becker and Charlie Solomon were the non-playing co-captains.

However, I left for last (at least to my way of thinking) the highlight of the National – an original show I penned and staged (under the direction of Carole Moscotti, production of Joan Weinrott and Chorographical direction of Ceal Sokoloff) which brought the roof down on Saturday, November 11th and Friday the 17th (with free pretzels and beer to follow the Opening Show and free cider and doughnuts for the concluding performance).  Such incentives!!!!

Oh, yes, between the above features, they held the 1972 Fall Nationals.   I recall it as if it were yesterday.   So much for memories as opposed to pips, dummy reversals and endplays.

 

If you're ever going to post a 70% game you want to do it during STAC week so you can win or score a high finish in the Western Conference for a lot of masterpoints.  Larry Hansen and I fell short yesterday, but in looking over the results, here are a couple of  hands that caught my eye.

I thought we had discussed how to explore slam after Stayman.  Partner didn't. And that's how I ended up playing this 3-1 fit:

Dealer: N Vul: NS	North ♠ AKxx ♥ AQx ♦ Axx ♣ AKxx
West ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣		East ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣
	Poor me ♠ Q10xx ♥ x ♦ KQxxx ♣ Qxx
Bidding:	2NT - P - 3C - P 3S - P - 4H(!) - P P! - P 2NT=22-24	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

The heart king was finessable and spades and diamonds split 3-2, so 7S was cold no matter how you played it. 4H wasn't.

I have been in the process of putting together a story that some might find amusing.  I have been "publishing" the story as a monthly running series in our local bridge club newsletter, which can be found in the "Library" at www.limadbc.blogspot.com.  The idea is to follow an eccentric bridge player ("Gil") at a tournament.  Deals discussed.  But, also a delving into the eccentricites of the bridge world.  Thought some might enjoy this.

Only able to play one session a day at the Gopher?  No problem!  You still have the opportunity to win gold points!

Play in any 2 session morning Swiss Team event - or - play in the side game series.  Compete in 2 or more morning, afternoon or evening side series games and you can go for the gold!

 

 

Playing on Bridge Base Online with the mighty robots, I picked up:
♠A J 5 ♥A K J 7 6 4 3 ♦10 ♣7 3.

I opened 1♥, left-hand opponent passed and partner bid 4♣ (a splinter bid), and RHO doubled. Over to you.

I didn't see any good way to get the robot to cooperate, so I asked for key cards with 4NT. Partner had one and I closed it out with 6♥.

West led the ♣J and here are the North-South hands:

East won the ace and exited with the ♠3. Now what?

You can ruff your club loser, but you only have 11 sure tricks in the form of: two spades, seven hearts, one diamond and a club ruff in dummy.

Before you decide how to play, let me give you a hint. The robots almost never lead away from the ♠Q in a case like this, so sticking in the ♠J won't work. I decided my best shot was if West had the ♠Q and long diamonds. In that case I have an easy squeeze against him. If that doesn't develop, maybe the ♠Q will drop.

I won the ♠A, led a diamond to the ace and ruffed a diamond. I drew trumps (they were 1-1) and ruffed another diamond. I ruffed my club loser and ran hearts. Here was the layout with one trump to cash:

Haha, look at what West did. I don't know how bots "think," but apparently he could see he was going to be squeezed, so he discarded down to the singleton ♠Q.

Here are all four hands:


For making slam, I scored 97.3%. Of the 38 players, 21 bid slam and went set. Fourteen bid and made game. Three of us bid and made slam. It was a baby squeeze, but you had to see to ruff out the diamonds (this is called isolating the menace) to set it up. You also had to win the ace when spades were led to keep the king in dummy for an entry. Notice that if dummy had a low club and the king was the ♠Q, it would be a laydown contract. But then, however, there wouldn't be a story, would there?

This week, John Koch presents us with a hand of interest in several respects. 

How would one bid his substantial hand in the face of vigorous competition?

Once declarer reaches game in what seems to be an utterly hopeless scenario - what then?

And, for the defense - sound advice.

Declarer, who may well have had a substantial dose of optimism during the auction, plays for a miracle and gets it.  John explains how we can all calculate to improve.

  Download 275.NotOverlyImposing.2

When Edgar Kaplan famously noted, ‘we lost the club suit in the 1950’s…’, he was referring to the proliferation of artificial 2♣ bids that served as asking bids in a constructive auction, 2♣ Stayman being the chief example. In the modern era the natural 2♣ bid has come into vogue as an overcall. Whereas in a constructive auction the 2♣ bid is a space-saver, in a competitive auction the 2♣ overcall is a convenient way to remove the opponents’ space with a minimum danger to oneself, or so it seems to many.

At one time bridge authors advised not to overcall with 2♣ without a 6-card suit and opening points, otherwise it was deemed too dangerous. Nowadays it is too dangerous to pass with an average hand containing a 5-card suit. The 2-level has become the battleground for the part score, as many average players have learned for themselves through experience. You needn’t understand a disease in order to catch it – exposure is enough. It’s the cure that requires understanding.

I prescribe two changes to the classical counteraction: first, limited negative doubles to be freely employed for flat hands with the primary aim to compete for the part score; second, transfers (2♦ and 2♥) to be employed at the 2-level to disclose a long major, and (2♠) to show a balanced hand game try, stronger than the negative double. This scheme is a simple application of methods that are being adopted by many expert pairs.

Slush Doubles
Negative doubles, according to Marty Bergen, are a way to transfer the captaincy to the opening bidder. In his book, Negative Doubles, he states, ‘Once the responder has shown some values, the road is paved for opener to investigate the possibility of game.’ Today the primary aim is not to get to games, rather it is to win the part score battles. At teams, if game is anywhere near close, pairs will bid it regardless of the niceities.

One may conclude that slush doubles cover a range of 8-11 HCP. What of the dangers of getting caught at the 2-level if the advancer redoubles? Opener may ‘escape’ to the suit in which he opened. That might work. If with a bad card combination one fears the effectiveness of a redouble, one is not forced to double, but if one has the inclination to compete, one has a method a partner understands.

Uncertainty shouldn’t be scorned, as sometimes it acts in one’s favour when the opposition thinks you have found a good fit at the 2-level. Overbidding is less of a problem than underbidding. If you don’t overbid occasionally you won’t generate many tops.

Transfers in Competition
In his 2002 book, ‘Double! New Meanings for an Old Bid’, Mike Lawrence returns to an old problem which is this: what does responder bid after 1♦  (2♣) with these hands:

1) ♠ KJT84  ♥ A7 ♦ J53 ♣ T94    and  2) ♠ A6 ♥ KJT63 ♦ J63 ♣ T63 ?

His general rule is that responder with ‘the wrong shape’ can’t make a negative double unless he holds 11 points. He admits that he would lie and double with hand 1, as he can correct partner’s 2♥ rebid to 2♠. What will partner make of that? Lawrence would PASS with hand 2, because he has no safety if partner responds 2♠ to a double. As we have found from our own sad experiences, there is no reward for missing a 9-card fit. It is quite possible your side holds the majority of the HCP as well as a 9-card fit.

Hands with a long major can’t be ‘the wrong shape’ when one is competing for the part score, especially so when the overcaller’s values are questionable. A solution to an old problem is to transfer to the major. This gets both hands 1 and 2 into the auction, a very important attribute, and removes them from the double category. We remove the problem of whether a new suit at the 2-level is nonforcing, forcing to game, or forcing one round, a problem mulled over by Lawrence in his earlier book, ‘Contested Auctions.’  It also removes the problem of losing a major fit because one had to double with hidden length.

Example from a Recent Sectional
First we show how an overcall on a lousy club suit had the effect of removing a partner from the auction with the result that a good 4-4 major fit was missed.

 

Dealer: South Vul: BOTH	North ♠   AJT ♥   JT983 ♦   A8765 ♣  —
West ♠   Q542 ♥   Q542 ♦   K42 ♣   Q7		East ♠   K973 ♥   AK ♦   9 ♣  K85432
	South ♠   86 ♥   76 ♦   QJT3 ♣  AJT95

Bob	West	John	East
—	—	1♥	2♣
Pass	Pass	2♦	All Pass

The auction proceeded without fireworks to the optimum contract. When the dummy appeared East, a retired math teacher who knows what he is doing, commented, ‘I guess you were hoping for a balancing double, Bob.’ I replied that I had given up such hopes long ago. The truth is that a balancing double may not improve the situation for NS. EW can escape to their best contract, 2♠, which is makeable. So the overcall opens up an otherwise dull prospect to some exciting possibilities.

From the point of view of the opening side, one might think that any action that ends up with an average score when an alternative action would have produced a big pickup should be considered a failure. This is too narrow a view, one that many adopt when all 4 hands are visible.  North could have made a balancing double, but the outcome it not certain.  Down 2 in 2♣* is quite possible, but it is also possible that 2♠* would make producing a bottom score for NS. North holds a 2-suiter, so does best to bid his suits. The void in clubs is a defensive liability. Also, if partner chooses to defend it is best if one holds top honours in the suit one has bid, which is the suit partner is most likely to lead.

The Law of Limited Resources
We have a simple observation that applies to the 2♣ overcall, which these days can be said to guarantee only 10+ HCP and 5+ clubs. We call it the Law of Limited Resources, a grandiose name for a simple arithmetic calculation that many ignore.

The more points you hold in an opponent’s long suit, the more points he holds in his short suits, and the lower the expected number of total tricks.

The above deal demonstrates this. South holds 5 HCP in clubs, and West holds 7 HCP in North’s heart suit, his announced trump candidate. South can assume North and East hold in total a minimum of 22 HCP. He holds 8 HCP, leaving West with 10 HCP. Clearly this is a part score deal where clubs are a bad fit for EW and hearts are a bad fit for NS. South can happily pass and await further action.

Opener is Allowed to Pass
 Responder may pass and hope for a balancing double from the opening bidder, but if there is no score to protect, a simple pass may be effective, as in the following specimen.

 

Dealer: East Vul: NS	North ♠   Q97 ♥   42 ♦   AJ2 ♣  AJ852
West ♠   AJ ♥   AK3 ♦   843 ♣  AT743		East ♠   5432 ♥   QJT965 ♦   95 ♣  6
	South ♠   KT86 ♥   87 ♦   KQT76 ♣  K9

West	John	East	Bob
—	—	Pass	1♦*
2♣	All Pass		*Precision

On the previous board we had seen West overcall in hearts with ♥ K7632, so we had had a rehearsal of his style. John led ♦A – ♦J, which I overtook to switch to the ♣9. When the smoke cleared West was down 3. +150 was worth all 38 matchpoints for us.

I had opened on a minimal hand, and when partner passed it appeared we didn’t have a score to protect; even +100 might be OK. As I had the ♣K, if partner had values in clubs and wanted to see me double, there were many EW points scattered about in the majors. Who holds the hearts? Obviously, not NS. If 2♣ were going down, it would be unnecessary to double it. Yes! 3♥ would have produced 9 tricks for EW.

‘Why didn’t you double?’ complained my partner grumpily.
‘Why didn’t you bid hearts?’ complained the disgruntled declarer.
It’s a rare deal where both sides are unhappy.

On the next deal we missed our 9-card fit. A slush double would have helped immensely.

 

Dealer: WEST Vul: NS	North ♠   KJ ♥   AT5 ♦   KQ7532 ♣  52
West ♠   Q98754 ♥   QJ86 ♦   J9 ♣  K		East ♠   A6 ♥   9732 ♦   T6 ♣  AQT73
	South ♠   T32 ♥   K4 ♦   A84 ♣  J9864

Bob	West	John	East
—	Pass	1♦*	2♣
Pass	2♠	All Pass

Letting West score 110 was worth 2 out of 38 matchpoints, and setting 2♠* by 1 would have been worth 8. It can’t get much worse than that, a disaster at IMPs as well, as NS can make 3NT in a straightforward manner. It was not a question of whether I should have entered the auction, but when. In general, the sooner one enters the auction, the better, but using the old rules, I could not double 2♣ negatively without a 4-card major. The classical criterion for the negative double does not fit the requirements of the modern game. This is why a filthy 2♣ overcall so often presents problems to major suit orientated systems. It is better if a double of 2♣ states simply, ‘I would have bid below 2♣, either 1♥, 1♠, or 1NT’. There are more bids to come, and if you would have bid without interference, you should be determined not to get shut out by a dubious overcall. One’s methods must reflect that attitude.

From the USBF 2012 Final
Having considered the problem before the USBF 2012 Trials, I was pleased to witness the following deal which turned out to be one of the most amusing of the 120 deals played.  A poor 2♣ overcall provided Meckwell with a gain of 6 IMPs.

 

Dealer: WEST Vul: NONE	North ♠   AT ♥   K8 ♦   J732 ♣  AT652
West ♠   974 ♥   62 ♦   AKQ84 ♣  K74		East ♠   KJ32 ♥   AJT953 ♦   965 ♣  —
	South ♠   Q865 ♥   Q74 ♦   T ♣  QJ983

Rodwell	Moss	Meckstroth	Gitelman
1♦*	2♣	2♦–>2♥	4♣
Pass	Pass	4♥	All Pass
* 11-15 HCP

As West, Rodwell opened a nebulous Precision 1♦ as did his counterpart at the other table.  Moss felt a 2♣ overcall was in his best interest although he had no particular final destination in mind. As we shall see he was most unfortunate to find his partner with excellent support. Meckstroth was able to transfer to his best suit, planning, no doubt, to follow up with an exploration of the spade situation. Gitelman applied pressure with a 4♣ raise of the mixed variety; his major suit queens representing defensive potential. Forced to make a decision at the 4-level, Meckstroth happily chose game in his long suit. Perhaps he reasoned, ‘if they have a 10-card fit, we must have a good fit, too.’

Gitelman lead a diamond and got his diamond ruff, a reasonable plan, but that defence proved counterproductive as it cleared away declarer’s losers and left him with winners. Meckstroth had little difficulty wrapping up 10 tricks, even though the ♣K was a wasted value. A good guess, or was it routine given what the opponents had told him?

At the other table Hamman and Zia as NS passed throughout missing their 10-card club fit. Good for them. Without their help Hampson-Greco could got no higher than 2♥, making 170. If one provides information more useful to the opponents than to one’s partner, it is better done in a suit ranked above the one they are likely to bid next. A 2♣ overcall shouldn’t shut you out, and it may help a lot.

 

 

Preempts:  Weak 2 Bids, Suit Quality, Self-Sustaining Suits and more // // ]]> JavaScript needs to be enabled for polling to work. Online Surveys by Constant Contact. . Click here if you experience problems responding to the poll Greetings Bridge Friends, Welcome back to Part 3 and 4 of our continuing preemptive bidding journey.  While [...]

Congratulations to Brian Thomas and George Martin who have won the Berwick club pairs championship. Although they only had a moderate session in the final round last night, we failed to get the 63% score needed to overtake them, falling about a top and a half short. Third in the event were Terry Harris and David Elder.

As often happens in mixed pairs fields, you need to get the right hands against the right pairs and last night our opponents generally played well and there were not many opportunities for us to score. Although Brian and George won the event by a margin of 0.5% with their best six scores, they also had a slightly higher average over all their games and deserve to get the trophy back.

The Berwick club closes over the summer but we'll be back in September. LotG remains the Berwick A captain, subject to any coup at the AGM, and will be facing the challenge of the top division for the first time. I expect it will be an exciting season.

Bernard Ludewig (1954 – 2012)

 

We thought we still had so much time!  But now Bernard Ludewig is not with us anymore. He died, which still seems inconceivable to us, on 21. March 2012.

On 24.11.1954, in Marburg, Bernard Ludewig was born as the son of a German father and a French mother. He spent his youth in Marburg, Koblenz and Belgium. From there he headed to Heidelberg to study at a university after having received his “Abitur”. Having grown up with a multilingual family, his studies did not turn out to be very difficult for him. So alongside his studies he still found a sufficient amount of time to optimize his skills in other important parts of his life – particularly in the game of Bridge.

And he became a bridge player and put his heart and soul in it. The list of top rankings he received is long. He could look back upon nine German championships and numerous second- and third-rankings. Even though he loved team play more than pairs’ tournaments, he won his first German tournament in 1987 in the last-mentioned form. His greatest success as a sportsman was the win of the “Rosenblum-Cup” in 1990, the first big title a German team achieved in an open tournament. As the captain of the ladies’ national team,  which played an important role during many world- and Europe tournaments, he also became successful internationally. Bernard Ludewig’s calm and well-adjusted manner as well as his ability as a bridge player is what made him such a convenient captain. More importantly, he was a sportsman with all his heart – fair at all times, but still ambitious.

This personality with all the tolerance, warm-heartedness and serenity was definitely one of his strongest points which made him so unique. Also offside the “bridge table” he was a reliable, attentive and caring friend for plenty of job-related and personal acquaintances, especially for his children Katharina and Stefan, whom he gave everything, and is wife Susanne, who he loved so much and with who he celebrated their twentieth wedding anniversary last year – which is definitely not a matter of course anymore these days.

There are a lot of good bridge players but good partners are rare. Bernard Ludewig was not only the best bridge partner I have ever played with but also a cautious colleague and loyal friend over many years. Even when our career (and bridge-) paths parted, we stayed in touch. Sometimes we dreamed about the good old times together, when we drove to a bridge tournament in his sky blue Peugeot 404, with the last bit of money we could find, always accompanied by Wolfgang Ambros’ music and his “Watzmann”. During all of this time I never heard a single mean word from him, even when he stopped in four hearts with his 23-count hand after my weak-two-opening, going one down, he only said: “I already expected it to be quite close…” And when Georg Nippgen and I accidentally turned off the main fuse while trying to exchange a light bulb and his(Bernard’s) day work vanished, even then he reacted even-temperately and asked: “Which world champion was that?” He couldn’t have possibly known that it was the two of us who tried to solve the problem…

At last it might seem like a bitter irony of destiny that of all organs his heart was the one that failed – and he was a man with so much goodness and heart – and he had to pass away from us way too early.

Obituary – By Jochen Bitschene.

On a personal note.

Bernie was such a nice guy. I enjoyed all the championships we worked to-gather both at and away from the table. Will miss him in The Worlds for years to come.

My condolences to Susie and the family.

So how did we all do in the Spring Fours?

(#24) Ash - Mike Ash, Alex Gipson, Paul Gipson & Alan Goodman

We started in a triangle with David Ewart's team, who beat us narrowly in the Premier League, and Tommy Brass' team of England juniors. The match with Ewart was very tight again but we ended up losing by fourteen imps as both of us proved too strong for the juniors. So we lost a life.

On Saturday afternoon we played Gitte Hecht-Johansen and eventually prevailed by nine imps. A match that we should have won comfortably but they played well in the first sixteen boards and it needed a better second-half performance to get through.

On Sunday morning we played the young White House team from the Netherlands. They played very solidly  and ground out a thirty imp lead over the first twenty-four boards. Our attempts to generate some imps in the final set were successful, but they went in the wrong column. Well beaten and out of the main event. Our opponents have made it to the semifinal today.

Sunday evening we played in a triad qualifying one team for the Punch Bowl quarter-finals. We beat the juniors comfortably but lost to Miller and presumed we were out as they had been twelve imps up on the juniors at the half. However the juniors scored thirty imps against them in the second six boards and so we won the group on net imps.

We beat Hart comfortably in the quarter-final but then lost to Hackett in the semifinal.

Slightly better results than last year but overall I think we all felt that we should have played better over the weekend. However it remains the best weekend in the British calendar.

(#20) Sanders - John Murdoch, Sam Punch, Tim Rees & Derek Sanders

This team started well by winning their triad, beating Teltscher and some more English juniors. They struggled against Rosen on Saturday afternoon but went further than us in the main event when they beat Harris on Sunday morning.

Sunday evening they went out to Ewart, losing imps steadily and, not unlike us, the final score was made worse attempting to reduce the deficit.

Losing in the main event on Sunday afternoon means that you cannot compete in the consolation event, the Punch Bowl, but there is still the toughest Swiss teams of the UK year on Monday if you are not bridged out. Sanders and co were not and finished a close second, well clear of third, in the Hamilton Cup, just 6 VPs behind Catherine Seale and her Bulgarian squad.

(#13) Teltscher- Willie Coyle, John Matheson, Victor Silverstone, Bernard Teltscher, Kitty Teltscher & Tom Townsend

Willie and John's team started slowing, losing a life to Sanders in the triad. Then they scraped by Nelson by one imp on Saturday afternoon before beating Hackett more comfortably on Sunday morning.

Then they beat a very good Norwegian team on Sunday afternoon. Monday morning and they beat the Irish, English and Swiss Mossop team by 15 imps. On Monday evening they despatched Rosen, previous winners, overturning a half-time deficit and will play Liggins on BBO vugraph on Tuesday morning.

A tremendous performance from a team containing three of Scotland's Seniors team for the European Championships next month. Losing a life in the triad and then going unbeaten for two and a half days is a really tough way to do well in this event!

Cooper - Jenny Cooper, Moira McGregor, Robert McPaul & Laura Porro

Jenny's team had a very tough triad, with European champions and Croatian internationals. However they started very well and were almost leading the group at the half on Friday evening. However on Saturday morning the experienced teams pulled away but it was still a creditable performance.

Unfortunately they drew the Scottish Kane team in the once-defeated pool. Not ideal when you travel to a major tournament and have to play your next-door neighbours. The Kane team proved too steady and they exited the main event.

When you exit the main event early you still have a tough schedule with a complete round-robin to play on Sunday with only two teams from eight qualifying. After a couple of close defeats not much seemed to go right but they did enough against the Smith team to prevent them qualifying, just to show that they were still playing right to the end.

They finished just below average in the Swiss on Monday. Not the first time that these players have had a tough weekend in Stratford, but hopefully they will be able to maintain their Friday form next time.

Kane - Danny Kane, Helen Kane, Stephen Male & Mike McGinley

First time I've seen this team at Stratford and they faced a tough triad containing the holders. Unsurprisingly they did not beat them but finished second to earn a better draw in the next round. As I've mentioned they despatched Jenny's team with little fuss.

Then they had to play a team with three of the winning Dutch Bermuda Bowl team (Louk Verhees,
Simon de Wijs and Ricco van Prooijen). They remained in contention for twenty-four boards but struggled in the final quarter trying to make up the difference.

Slightly unfortunately their triad for the Punch Bowl qualifier including the holders of the main event again, who had been dumped out of the main event very quickly. They still proved too tough and the team qualified for the Swiss on Monday, where they finished in mid-table.

Morrison - Frazer Morgan, Phil Morrison, Phil Stephens & Alex Wilkinson

The Scottish juniors and ex-juniors faced the Camrose and Gold Cup winning Hinden team in the triad and only lost by four imps. Having played so well they nearly undid the good work but narrowly beat the O'Connor team. They then beat Sarah's boyfriend, Mike Bell, to earn themselves a short at the Dutch world champions. From what I heard they proved just too solid.

As the Sanders team discovered, the disadvantage of losing on Sunday evening is that you cannot play in the Punch Bowl, but a good performance from the team and hopefully we'll see them at more tournaments. They finished just below average in the Swiss.

Smith - Roy Bennett, Jim Hay, Adrian Orlowski & Harry Smith

Just to show what can happen in the triads, the team finished bottom but beat the number six seed, Janet de Botton's team. A great performance against an all-star team.

Unfortunately they were then drawn against the Ventin team. Ventin had flown in from Argentina, with his partner, and two Swedish professional players waiting, but had forgot to actually tell the EBU that they were coming. This left them in the competition but not seeded. However it was a close match and they only lost by thirteen imps.

Into Sunday and the round-robin. The team started slowly and looked out of contention when I looked at the scores, but a strong finish saw them miss out on a Punch Bowl quarter-final by a single vp as they finished third in the group.

However they regrouped for Monday and finished in a highly creditable third place in the Swiss.

St Clair - Anthony Bates, Robert Clow, Dee Harley & Anna St Clair

Anna's team also had a thirty-two board match against the Dutch and got duly splattered in a match they thoroughly enjoyed. They comfortably beat the other team in the triad but did not find their opponents in the next round so easy as they lost to Teshome by 38 imps.

On Sunday in the other round-robin group they also started slowly but could not emulate the second half of the Smith team and finished down the table. They finished one place above Jenny's team in the Swiss.

Neil Kimelman on the silver medal team shared some hands from the Canadian Team final with me.

3/8 Board 13.

Dealer North. Both vulnerable.

Dealer: North Vul: Both	North ♠ 7 ♥ AJ864  ♦ AJ109 ♣ J105
West ♠ A54  ♥ Q103  ♦ K432 ♣ A84		Kimelman ♠ KQ1092  ♥ 72  ♦ Q7  ♣ KQ93
	South ♠ J863  ♥ K95  ♦ 865 ♣ 762

Don Pearsons-West and Neil-East was in 4♠ got the five of hearts lead from South, won by the North’s Jack. The next heart won by South’s King. The diamond switch went to North’s Ace. Given the chance, Neil guess the spade position and picked up the Jack, made 10 trick for + 620.

At the other table, Vincent Demuy as West was in 3NT. North led the ten of Diamond won by dummy’s Queen. Vincent also guess the spades to make 10 tricks for +630. Pushed the board.

Board 15.

Dealer South. Nouth-South vulnerable.

 

Dealer: South Vul: N-S	Korbel ♠ AK74  ♥ AKJ5  ♦ Q1064 ♣ 7
West ♠ QJ865  ♥ 108743  ♦ 32 ♣ 2		East ♠ 93  ♥ Q62  ♦   ♣ KQJ109654
	South ♠ 102  ♥ 9  ♦ AKJ9875  ♣ A83

 

It was a spirited auction. 

West	North	East	South
			1♦
2♦	2♠	5♣	5♦
Pass	5♥	DBL	Pass
Pass	5♠	Pass	7♦
Pass	7NT	All Pass

East led the King of clubs.

Daniel Korbel as North drove to 7NT. He played skillfully. Won the club lead with the Ace. Played two rounds of diamonds. Then cashed the Ace and King of spades. Run the rest of the diamonds. Executed the double squeeze and made 13 tricks for +2220 win 2 VPs.

This was the position with four card ending.

When Daniel played the eight of diamond, West had to keep the Queen of spades otherwise the seven of spade in dummy would be good, so he let go the seven of hearts, North could discard the seven of spades. East in turn was squeezed between hearts and clubs. 

 

Dealer: South Vul: N-S	North ♠ 7  ♥ AKJ  ♦   ♣
West ♠ Q  ♥ 1087  ♦   ♣		East ♠   ♥ Q62  ♦   ♣ Q
	South ♠   ♥ 9 ♦ 8 ♣ 83

  

At the other table Jonathan Steinberg and David Sabourin had bid and made 7♦ for +2140.

 

We played in an Open Pairs event at a sectional on Saturday and ended up sixth overall (gaining 2.5 silver points) for posting 62% and 53% sessions. The somewhat poor performance is, I think, part of becoming familiar with a new system. Our defense is as tight as it was, but we are not yet very good at evaluating hands (as opposed to merely counting high-card points) and making the right bids.

First of all, why bother learning a new system when we were quite comfortable with 2/1? Here are two hands that illustrate the two key benefits (in my mind) of playing Precision.

One reason is that strong hands in the range 16-21 become much easier to bid. For example, this is a hand that partner opened 1C (16+) points, following which we had a pretty natural game-forcing auction to 4H.  Playing 2/1 or SAYC, this hand would be somewhat harder to bid.  You open 1D, hear 1S and now what?  Do you have the right shape to reverse to 2H? Do you have the right shape and strength to bid 2NT? Will you ever discover your 4-4 heart fit?

Dealer: E Vul: None	North ♠ K1074 ♥ Q5 ♦ 1093 ♣ KQJ2
ME ♠ AQJ63 ♥ J1094 ♦ 64 ♣ 75		PARD ♠ 9 ♥ A732 ♦ AKQ8 ♣ A1084
	South ♠ 852 ♥ K86 ♦ J752 ♣ 963
Bidding:	1C*-P-1S-P 1NT-P-2H-P 3H-P-4H	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

Double dummy, 5H should make, but I played it on cross-ruff lines, making only four.  I took the club lead with the Ace, played the ace heart, and three rounds of diamonds, discarding my club. Then, I cashed my ace of spades and planned to ruff three spades in dummy and three clubs in hand to come to 11 tricks.  South over-ruffed the final spade, however, so I got just 10 tricks. I should not have pulled that initial round of trumps. Even though I needed to ruff only thrice, I can use the Ace to avoid the over-ruff at the end. Still, in spite of this misplay, we got a top board, probably because most pairs were in 3NT.

Dealer: W Vul: NS	North ♠ K ♥ 93 ♦ AKQ9652 ♣ 874
ME ♠ J6542 ♥ A84 ♦ 4 ♣AJ109		PARD ♠ A1073 ♥ J72 ♦ 73 ♣ 6532
	South ♠ Q98 ♥ KQ1065 ♦ J108 ♣ KQ
Bidding:	1S(!) - 2D - 2S - P P - P	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

Note the unsavoury choice faced by South because of my decision to open my 10-point hand. If she makes any strong bid (3S? 3H, if forcing), they'll get to an unmakeable game contract. And if, as here, she doesn't show her points, her partner passes and lets us play a cold contract at the two-level.

Dealer: E Vul: EW	North ♠ KQ64 ♥ K87 ♦ KQ42 ♣ 97
ME ♠ A2 ♥ Q10654 ♦ A83 ♣ AQ8		PARD ♠ J10953 ♥ 3 ♦ J65 ♣ K1052
	South ♠ 87 ♥ AJ92 ♦ 1097 ♣ J643
Bidding:	P-P-1NT(!)-P 2H*-P-2S-P P-P	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

USA had to pick one team this year, not the two they chose in the Bermuda Bowl.  18 teams started and in the end to the original top seeds:

Nickell,Katz, Hamman-Mahmood, Meckstroth-Rodwell playing Diamond,  Platnick,Greco-Hampson, Moss-Gitelman.  

There is a story here.  Diamond, the team that has just not quite been able to win a team trials and Nickell, with Hamman perhaps coming near the end of his incredible bridge playing career.

We all knew that the bridge would be interesting and fun and good and we all wondered if Diamond could break the curse of the bridesmaid.  The last segment of the Final started with Nickell having a 30 imp lead against Diamond 240-210.  

The first two boards presenting some bidding challenges and the two teams traded double digit swings.   Board 2 shows what happens when a psyche goes bad in an interesting way.

 

Dealer: Vul:	Rodwell/Moss ♠ AQ865   ♥ 6532   ♦ A962   ♣ -
Hampson/Zia  ♠ J9   ♥ 94   ♦ Q543   ♣ 98532		Greco/Hamman ♠ K73   ♥ AK10   ♦ 107   ♣ AJ1076
	Meckstroth/Gitelman ♠ 1042   ♥ QJ87   ♦ KJ8   ♣ KQ4

 With North-South vulnerable Hampson was in first chair and he took advantage of the vulnerability to open one spade.  Greco bid two clubs, game forcing and when this was passed back to Rodwell it was obvious what was going on.  Rodwell picked double as his most flexible choice.  Now what do you think Meck should do?  He does have 12 high card points.   Have they ever discussed this situation!  Anyway he bid two hearts.  Rodwell might have given this a bump but he passed it.  So there they were in two hearts when they almost certainly would have been higher without the pysche.

At the other table they had a more normal auction passed, Moss opened one spade and Hamman ventured one notrump.  Gitelman doubled and Zia redoubled for rescue.  Hamman pulled to two clubs and Gitelman just bid 3NT.  The auction had made it quite easy for Zia to play a club and now when Gitelman made the obvious diamond play 3NT went down three.  At the other table Meckstroth did make two uptricks in two hearts but only because Greco defending the partscore did not give Hampson a ruff.  So Nickell won ten imps on the board because Hampson’s pysche had keep them out of game which did not make.

The last hurrah for Diamond came on the second last board.  Down by 14 imps, iin the Closed Room, Nickell had gone down 200 in a vulnerable slam.  If Hampson-Greco avoided the slam it would narrow the margin to about an imp with one board to play.

 

Dealer: South Vul: Both	Rodwell ♠ 97   ♥ 109762   ♦ 108762   ♣ 8
Hampson ♠ AJ   ♥ QJ3   ♦ AK9   ♣ J7653		Greco ♠ KQ10   ♥ AK5   ♦ Q543    ♣ A94
	Meckstroth ♠ 865432   ♥ 84   ♦ J   ♣ KQ012

 

 

Hampson	Greco
1NT	4♠
6♣	6NT
all pass

 

Meckstroth, South passed.  Hampson opened 1NT, 14-16.  Greco bid four spades which was a mild slam try, described as weaker than 4NT.  This was a conservative position probably influenced by his 4-3-3-3 shape.  But Hampson who had a fill 16 with a five card suit could not be blamed for bidding a slam.  He bid six clubs along the way to give Greco a choice of slams and this was converted to 6NT.  As it turned out there is no play for 6NT and this ended Diamond’s chances.  There was some discussion during the bidding about whether Hampson might take a swing by not bidding the slam.  But even if her had been inclined to do that he could not have had any idea about where they stood in a match that was as close as this one.

 

 

 

♠ 7 6 2 ♥ A Q 6 2 ♦ Q 8 4 3 ♣ K 2

One club--pass--one heart to me. I pass. LHO bids one spade, and RHO raises to two spades. I pass again, and two spades ends the auction. Partner leads the six of diamonds (third and lowest).

West	North	East	South
Jack	Stephen	Phillip	Sam
			1 ♣
Pass	1 ♥	Pass	1 ♠
Pass	2 ♠	(All pass)

Partner would lead the jack from jack-ten-nine-seven-six. So the six must be third best from an even number. There is no six-card holding where the six is third best, so partner must have four. That means declarer is 4-1-4-4 and we unfortunately have only one heart trick. Where will six tricks come from? If partner has the club ace and a trump entry, perhaps I can get a ruff. But that's still only five tricks. This isn't going to be easy to beat. I start by discouraging in diamonds to suggest a club shift. Declarer plays the diamond deuce, then leads the four of spades from dummy--six--ten--queen. Partner probably has the ace or king as well, since declarer would be unlikely to take a first-round finesse against the queen. And indeed he does. Partner cashes the ace of spades--five--deuce--three. Well. Two trump tricks.

Now the ace of clubs is enough to beat it, although it's unlikely partner has that card. If he did, he probably would have tried to give me a club ruff instead of surrendering his second trump entry. It appears he has slow club tricks and is trying to protect them by drawing trumps. Is this going to work? If I play a third trump when I win my heart trick, will declarer have trouble coming to eight tricks?

Partner shifts to the seven of hearts, and declarer plays the eight from dummy. It looks right to play the ace. If I play the queen, declarer can take a ruffing finesse against my ace and establish his suit. If I play the ace, declarer might not realize that I know he has a singleton and he might not suspect me of this falsecard. So he may try to ruff out the queen in partner's hand.

Perhaps that's a vain hope. But it's hard to see how it can hurt to play the ace. I do so, and declarer ruffs with the king of spades. So he's 4-0-4-5 instead of 4-1-4-4. Declarer has two diamond tricks, the heart king, and four trump tricks on a crossruff. If he has the club ace, that's eight tricks. If he doesn't, he can establish an eighth trick in hearts. I don't care for our prospects.

Declarer plays the nine of diamonds. Partner covers with the ten, and declarer ruffs in dummy. Declarer apparently has the ace-jack of diamonds left. Declarer leads the ten of hearts, I play low, and declarer pitches the club three. That's his eighth trick. He probably wasn't expecting the ten to hold. He was willing to concede a heart trick to set up dummy's jack. Declarer plays the ten of clubs. I cover with the king--ace--seven. That makes nine tricks.

For some reason, declarer abandons his cross ruff. He plays the nine of spades to dummy's jack as partner pitches the five of diamonds. Declarer had nine tricks on a crossruff. He must be trying to take ten by establishing clubs. We are down to this position, with declarer apparently hoping to lose only one more trick:

Declarer plays the six of clubs to his jack. Partner wins with the queen and cashes the nine. How was this line supposed to yield ten tricks? If I had queen doubleton of clubs left, I would just hop and exit a club, leaving declarer with a diamond loser in his hand. Hooking me for the club nine might make some sense. If I had it, partner would have to lead a red suit for him after winning the club queen. If declarer wasn't going to do that, he should have just kept up the crossruff to guarantee nine tricks.

I pitch a diamond. Partner plays a heart. Declarer, apparently still believing partner has the heart queen, finesses, and I score my queen. Making two.

As the cards lay, declarer could have made ten tricks by starting hearts at trick two. Maybe our teammates will get to four spades and make it.

I get the first part of my wish. They got to four spades. But they went down two. We lose five imps but hold on to win the match and pick up 19 out of 30 victory points. Next week, we start Match 6 against Thomas and Adrian, who play Dutch Doubleton.

Table 1: -110
Table 2: -100

Result on Board 8: -5 imps
Total: +12 imps (19 VP)

For one reason or another I haven’t seen much of the US Team Trials,   This year the US gets to send only one team so it would seem the competition would be more intense.  In the end though the top two seeds: Nickell and Diamond are playing the final.

At the halfway point it is close with Diamond just 9 imps ahead of Nickell 145-136.  But a lot of Nickell’s imps came in the fourth quarter where the two teams top lineups faced each other.

One deal I found was interesting was Board 54.  If you play 2/1 you will have noticed that the diamond suit is a particular problem.  You can often have short diamonds for your opening and the auction one diamond-two clubs is problematic.    

Board 54 was a diamond/club hand.  In the Open Room Hamman-Zia had one of those 1♦ -2♣  auctions and they ended in a great spot.

  

Hamman ♠ K85   ♥ 5   ♦ AK63   ♣ AK1043

 

Zia opened with one diamond and Hamman bid two clubs.  Zia bid 2NT and Hamman bid three diamonds showing his diamond-club hand.  Now Zia bid 3NT.  What do you do now?

You have a great hand, all controls.  It just feels like this hand belongs in slam somewhere.  The ruffing value in hearts might be very important.  But on this auction you might only be on a 4-3 fit.  A bit of a tough call.  Hammon put out his oar with four diamonds and they soon were in six diamonds.  

 

Dealer: Vul:	Hamman ♠ K85   ♥ 5   ♦ AK63   ♣ AK1043
Hampson ♠   ♥   ♦   ♣		Greco ♠   ♥   ♦   ♣
	Zia ♠ A732   ♥ AJ104   ♦ QJ8   ♣ Q5

 

Six diamonds requires careful play.  Hampson led the spade jack and Greco deposited the spade queen on it as Zia won the spade ace.  If clubs work you have twelve tricks assuming diamonds are no worse than 4-2.  What if clubs are 4-2 and the club jack is in the long hand.  If you have to ruff clubs high you are going to need a 3-3 diamond break.  One of the problems is you won’t necessarily know how each suit is splitting.

Does the spade queen provide any hints?  If you believe spades are 5-1 does that suggest anything? 

There was some discussion amongst the experts on the panel but it seemed to them and to me that the right line is to draw trump and then play on clubs looking for other chances along the way.  Zia agreed and drew trump in three rounds ending in dummy.  This was the position.

 

North ♠ K8  ♥ 5 ♦ A ♣ AK1043

South ♠ 732   ♥ AJ104   ♦  - ♣ Q5

Now Zia made an interesting play.  He led a heart to the heart jack.  Of course if clubs work this doesn’t cost anything.  It doesn’t work to give up a club if they don’t work.  A heart return would disconnect the North-South hands with only eleven tricks.  On the hand the heart jack held.  Now he was up to eleven top tricks.  He led a spade from hand and Hampson had to split.  The long spade provided his slam going trick.  Sweet.  This was the whole hand.

 

Dealer:  Vul:	Hamman ♠ K85   ♥ 5   ♦ AK63   ♣ AK1043
Hampson ♠ J10964    ♥ 632   ♦ 975   ♣ 97		Greco ♠ Q   ♥ KQ987  ♦ 1042   ♣ J862
	Zia ♠ A732   ♥ AJ104   ♦ QJ8   ♣ Q5

 Over in the Closed Room Moss was North and Gitelman was South.  When Gitelman opened one diamond, Moss made a forcing raise of diamonds. Gitelman rebid 2NT which  at least suggested three diamonds and Moss bid four diamonds key card for diamonds.  The five club response showed two aces and the diamond queen.  Moss now bid six clubs with the North hand.  I am not sure what this meant but it sounded to Gitelman like a grand slam try and he bid the diamond grand slam.  Gitelman gave it a try playing for clubs to come home and diamonds to break.  He reversed the dummy by ruffing two hearts.  But when the clubs did not break he was down one.

I sometimes point out challenging hands and errors but very interesting good bridge is being played.  I love watching it and I wish both teams good luck today.

Knockout Team events are most popular!  Thus, this year the Gopher Regional will offer five (!) bracketed knockout events!

A new knockout begins every day, Monday through Friday.  Then, on Saturday, knockout fans can play in the Compact KO, starting in the afternoon session.

Go for knocking out the opponents and go for the gold!

 

Everybody having a good time.

Here are some of the people that who make this Championship so enjoyable. Thank you very much.

2006,2007,2008.2009,2010 and 2012.  What do those years all have in common?  In each of those years Pamela Nisbet has won the Canadian Womens Team Championships.  And she has done it on very different teams with different partners.  No wonder the Demme team wanted her to play on their team this year!  Clearly if you want to win, get Pamela!

Below in her first victory!

The 2006  CWTC GOLD MEDALISTS
Heather Peckett, Marcia Christie, Pamela Nisbet, Rhonda Foster

There were, sadly, only six teams entered in this years CWTC with the winner representing Canada in the World Mind Games in Lille.

I was drafted (for the trials only) to temporarily replace Julie Fajgelzon who was too sick to play.  

During the Round Robin it looked like the Fung team: Kismet Fung,Susan Culham, Francine Cimon, Brenda Bryant, Samantha Nystrom and Isabelle Smith were going to have an easy team.  They beat everybody else in the Round Robin and were in first place with quite a lead over second.  Demme,  Ina Demme, Hazel Wolpert, Linda Wynston, Debbie Bennett and Pamela Nisbet pipped out our team for second place and Macnab held the fourth spot.

Fung easily handled Macnab in the semifinal and we lost to Demme.  Thus Fung met Demme in the final.  And the final is rarely easy.  I was on the train coming home from Montreal and by the miracle of BBO and my iphone I got to watch the whole match.  The train was very late so I was glad to have some fun bridge to watch.

Fung ended the first quarter with a small lead.  During the second quarter Demme took the lead with a 71 to 60.  They added another 17 imps in the third quarter and went on to win 150 to 128.  As you can see it was a close match all the way.  So you can find many boards where if the players had made some slightly different choices the result could have gone the other way.  On the last deal of the second quarter Demme picked up 12 imps.

 

Dealer: West Vul: Both	Smith/Wolpert ♠ A865   ♥ K75   ♦ K9   ♣ 9732
Thomson/Bryant ♠ 3   ♥ Q10963   ♦ A1062   ♣ K54		Wynston/Cimon ♠ Q1094   ♥ AJ4   ♦ J8   ♣ QJ106
	Nystom/Demme ♠ KJ72   ♥ 82   ♦ Q7543   ♣ A8

Imps is all about bidding (and making) vulnerable games.  In the Closed Room Cimon, East opened 1♣  in third chair.  Bryant bid 1♥  and Cimon was prepared to pass that out opposite a partner who had not opened the bidding.  Demme balanced with a double, Bryant bid 2♥  and Wolpert bought the contract with a 2♠ bid.  A red suit lead from East was fatal so when Cimon led a heart Wolpert was able to bring home her contract.  Things were however, more exciting in the Open Room.

Wynston started with 1♣  in third and here Nystrom overcalled with 1♦ .  Thomson bid 1♥  and North, Smith doubled showing spades.  Now Wynston could use a support double to show three card heart support.  When Nystrom bid 1♠  Thomson jumped to her vulnerable game, 4♥ .  Now Smith had a tough decision.  Perhaps expecting a bit more from Nystrom she pushed on to 4♠ .  4♠  on the lie of the cards is quite unpleasant.  Nystrom did well to get out for down 2 and -500.  But as it turns out accurate defense will defeat 4♥ .  So the second quarter ended with a useful 12 imps to Demme.   And this resulted in Demme taking over the lead as the quarter ended.

I am copying Mike Yuen’s picture of the winners below.  Thanks Mike

2012 CWTC Gold Medal Winners Debbie Bennett, Lesley Thomson, Linda Wynston, Hazel Wolpert, Ina Demme and Pamela Nisbet.  

Ray and I have already bought tickets to Lille and we will be there for part of the event to cheer our teams on, report, and do some Master Point Press business.  See you there, ladies.

 

All bridge players know too well that accurate slam bidding can be critical.  One misstep; huge swings can occur.  But if you think that you and your partner are the only ones to have difficulties with this rare area of the game, think again!  Even the best of the best can go wrong when in the slam zone.

Currently, the Open Team Trials is being played in Schaumburg, a suburb of Illinois.  The final day of the semi-final matches can be viewed at Bridgebase Online's vugraph show.  Nickell has a substantial lead against Milner.  And Diamond has even a greater total against Lee (which includes hometown boys Steve Garner and Howie Weinstein).  But, those of us who have been kibitizing are well aware that the winds of war can change decidedly mid-match.  So, if you have the opportunity, be sure to tune in today, and both Saturday and Sunday for the thrilling final match-up.

Our thanks to Mike Cassel for writing up some of the slam debacles of these elite players.  And, be sure to catch Suzi Subeck's Daily Bulletins, too, detailing the action.  Suzi does a fabulous job - as do all the tireless and devoted volunteers at the USBF Team Trials.  Suzi has been publicizing our upcoming fall USBF Regional every day in the Bulletin; we appreciate it greatly, Suzi!

Enjoy Mike's column, Suzi's writings - and, of course, the great show in Chicago!

Download USBF Semifinal.Milner vs Nickell

 

 

In one of the most exciting Semi Final match yesterday. Two old friends from Winnipeg, Todd and Cannell played each other to a one IMP decision. 

In to-day’s final with one set to play for the day. L’Ecuyer gained IMPs in all 4 sets. There will be another 64 boards to play.

L’Ecuyer  37 + 41 + 25 + 36 + 52 + 45 = 236

  Todd       19 + 32 + 19 + 23 + 26 + 12  = 131 WD

We have a WINNER.

 

L’Ecuyer :  Nicolas L’Ecuyer, Vincent Demuy, Leslis Amoils, Derren Wolpert, Danny Miles and Daniel Korbel Are the Canadian Champions. Well done.

 

Todd (Bob Todd, Doug Fisher, Neil Kimelman, Don Pearsons, David Sabourin, Jonathan Steinberg)

The match will be 128 boards played over 2 days. You can watch them in action on BBO.

Here is a nice defence by Leslis Amoils and Derren Wolpert in the 4th quarter of the final. After the Ace of spade, Les played another spade, so when he got in he with the king of hearts. He was able to reach Derren with the club ace in order to lead another spade for a trump upper cut.

  <iframe class="iframe-class" frameborder="0" height="400" scrolling="auto" src="http://tinyurl.com/839do58" width="500"></iframe> 

At the other table North after the Ace of spade switches to  club, can’t beat it anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For those who like to keep up to date on the activities of Unit 178 - May 19th's Board Meeting agenda below!

Download May19agendaPDF

The Canadian Women Team winners.

 

 The IMP Pair winners.

 

The CNTC B winners.

 

The CNTC B Silver medal team.

 

 

Playing at the club today, I had this feeling that we were having a very bad game. I misevaluated a couple of hands and that contributed to the general feeling of moroseness.  See if you can do any better.

I was sitting South on this hand when partner opened 1S.  What would you bid?

Dealer: N Vul: NS	Pard (North) ♠ KQxxx ♥ ♦ Kxxx ♣ KQxx
	Me (South) ♠ Axxxx ♥ xxx ♦ Qx ♣ AJx
Bidding:	1S - P - ?	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

How good is your hand with 11 hcp?  Since we are playing Precision, partner was limited to 15 HCP, so I just raised to 4S.  As you can see, 6S is cold.  Would upgrading my hand to bid Jacoby 2NT have helped us find the slam?

Dealer: S Vul: NS	Partner (North) ♠ KQ10xx ♥ J10xx ♦ x ♣ J10x
	Me (South) ♠ Jx ♥ KQxxx ♦ KQx ♣ KQx
Bidding:	?	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

If you open 1H and hear back 3H, what do you do? If you open 1NT, what will partner do? Did you stay out of 4H missing four aces?  We didn't. I opened 1C (Precision 16+) and were inexorably led to 4H.

Dealer: S Vul: NS	Partner (North) ♠ K10 ♥ xx ♦ Jxxx ♣ KJxxx
	Me (South) ♠ AQxxx ♥ Axx ♦ ♣ AQxxx
Bidding:	1C* - P - 2C - P 3C - P - 3NT - P 6C	HTML Bridge Hand Layout Creator

Can you find the slam scientifically?  No other pair did anyway and this top board and a few other lucky contracts toward the end of the evening enabled us to finish with a 60% game.

The top 4 teams are :

Josette Levesque – Chantal Dube – Sylvie Levesque – Yves Decelles

Terry Visentin – Michael Shaw – Jenna Tichon – Ken Goodridge – Neil Goodridge

Duval – Johanne Sevigny – Jean-Pierre Longpre – Liliane Theberge – Lydia Simard

O’Loughlin – Watson – Roberts – Michael Moore – Steven Mehta – Catherine Kinsella

In the Semi Final the match up : 

Levesque  24  + 38 = 62  VS Duval 12 + 49 = 61 

Visentin  26  + 52 = 78 VS O’Loughlin 40 + 21 = 61

In the Final. 32 boards.

Levesque  66  + 30 = 96 VS Visentin 30 + 31 = 61

Levesque is the CNTC C Champion, Congratulations.

 

 

 

 

The round robin is over and our team, ended up in 5th just missing out the KO stage, oh well can’t win them all. Thanks to Karl, Leo and Rod for the most enjoyable event.

Baran won the round robin and they picked Domansky, the boys from Thunder Bay.

The Senior Team match up in the Semi Final will be :

With one set to play Baran opened up a useful lead of 59 IMPs. 

Baran  32  + 41 + 34 + 57 = 164 VS Domansky 16 + 8 + 24 + 2 = 50

Baran NPC: Dan Jacob, Robert Lebi, David Lindop, Jurek Czyzowicz.

Domansky : Don Domansky, David McLellan, Roland Laframboise, Larry Hansen.

 

In the Curry and Silver match, both team pulled their goalie resulting in a wild shot out.

Curry  29 + 77 + 25 + 13 = 144  VS Silver 22 + 22 + 74 + 39 = 157

Curry : Bert Curry, J Mark Siegrist, John Bowman, Bill Bowman. 

Silver : Joseph Silver, John Cuoba, John Carruthers, Martin Kirr.

The final will be 64 boards on BBO.

Baran  27 + 45 + 27  + 21 = 120  VS Silver 38 + 16 + 27 + 62 = 143

Silver won Gold and Baran won Silver. Well done and Good luck in the Worlds.

 

 

3/4 place Teams :

 

 3/4 th The Curry teaam. Bert Curry, J Mark Siegrist , John Bowman and Bill Bowman.

 

 

On August 11th, Unit 178's annual Charity Game is scheduled.  Unit members are invited to propose the charity of their choice as this year's worthy recipient.

Your proposal should include your name and the name of a 501(c)(3) qualified charity.  In addition, include a brief explanation of the worthiness of the charity, the willingness of charity representatives to attend the event, plus your ability to help with a silent auction and other aspects of the event.

Please submit your proposal by June 1st to Linda Brammer or Sue Jackson (sjackson@smumn.edu)

We will have new Canadian Champions this year in both the Open and the Women.

In the Open : Rayner and Roche part of last year’s winning team lost in the Quarter Finals yesterday. Doug Baxter, Mike Hargreaves did not play this year. David Lindop and Jim McAvoy are in the Seniors.

In the Women : Last year’s winners Joan Eaton, Karen Cumpstone,Sandra Fraser and Katrin Litwin did not enter the Championship this time around.

In the Open Semi Final :

Cannell  39 + 24 + 50 + 36 = 149  VS Todd 23 + 64 + 35 + 28 = 150

Cannell (Drew Cannell, Daniel Lavee, Paul Thurston, Jeffrey Smith, Pierre Daigneault and Kamel Fergani)

Todd (Bob Todd, Doug Fisher, Neil Kimelman, Don Pearsons, David Sabourin, Jonathan Steinberg)

L’Ecuyer 42 + 42 + 49 = 84 VS Janicki 19 + 15 + 11 = 34  WD

L’Ecuyer (Nicolas L’Ecuyer, Vincent Demuy, Leslis Amoils, Derren Wolpert, Danny Miles and Daniel Korbel)

Janicki (Paul Janicki, Morrie kleinplaz, Bob Kuz, Barry Senensky, Waldemar Frukacz and Stephen Copper)

Todd won by 1 IMP!

To-morrow’s Final will be

L’Ecuyer VS Todd. You can watch it on BBO. 

 

In the Women Final 72 boards. You watch this on BBO.

Fung 36 + 24 + 30  + 38= 128  VS Demme 25 + 46 + 47 + 32 = 150

Fung (Kiz Fung, Susan Culham, Francine Cimon, Brenda Bryant, Samantha Nystrom and Isabelle Smith)

Demme (Ina Demme, Hazel Wolpert, Linda Wynston, Lesley Thomson, Debbie Bennett and Pamela Nisbet)

Congratulations to the Demme Team they are the 2012 Canadian Women Champion.

 

CNTC B

Renaud 43 + 21 + 51 + 59 = 115  VS Larrivee 61 + 8 + 45 + 35 = 149

Renaud (Andre Renaud, Carl Levesque, Gerard Turcotte and Robert Tremblay)

Larrivee (Jason Larrivee, Rupa Krishnan, Pamela Keim and Duddow Cooney)

Larrivee WON. Well done.

 

 

 

 

Gold Rush Pairs!  What are these increasingly popular events? 

GR Pairs are two session events with an upper limit of 750 masterpoints.  Some of the points awarded, however, are precious gold.  As the number of tables in the Gold Rush Pairs increases, so do the masterpoint awards for the players in the concurrent Open Pair games.

Gold Rush Pairs are being offered on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at the Gopher.  If you are eligible, give them a whirl!

 

The first bank holiday weekend in May sees the British bridge community descend on Stratford-upon-Avon. Not the entire community, as the event is never full these days, but certainly the cream as they fight it out for the the EBU Shapiro Spring Foursomes.

It  is comfortably the toughest weekend tournament of the year, starting on Friday night and finishing on Tuesday evening, a double-elimination event based on 32-board matches.

This year there are 48 teams registered and feature a number of travelling Scots:

• (#13) Teltscher- Willie Coyle, John Matheson, Victor Silverstone, Bernard Teltscher, Kitty Teltscher & Tom Townsend
• (#20) Sanders - John Murdoch, Sam Punch, Tim Rees & Derek Sanders
• (#24) Ash - Mike Ash, Alex Gipson, Paul Gipson & Alan Goodman
• Cooper - Jenny Cooper, Moira McGregor, Robert McPaul & Laura Porro
• Kane - Danny Kane, Helen Kane, Stephen Male & Mike McGinley
• Morrison - Frazer Morgan, Phil Morrison, Phil Stephens & Alex Wilkinson
• Smith - Roy Bennett, Jim Hay, Adrian Orlowski & Harry Smith
• St Clair - Anthony Bates, Robert Clow, Dee Harley & Anna St Clair

Only the top thirty-two teams are seeded, based on EBU Gold Points, and that process generates a pretty random order with last year's winners seeded seventh. Throw into that mix all the foreign players means that the seeding doesn't matter, all that counts is who you play and how well you perform.

The semifinal and final wil be shown on BBO on Tuesday.

Good luck to all of us.

Alex's succinct analysis of our performance in the ICL match last night gave the rest of the team no chance to recover as we slipped quietly out of the competition. A disappointing end to the event.

Our conquerors, Praha, will probably play the holders in the quarter-final, a match I expect will go a long way to deciding the winners of this edition of the league.

British interest remains strong with three teams in the quarter-finals: Manchester, Wales United and Cardiff (who are presumably disunited?). Good luck to them all next week. The rest of us will be back in October.

Right now, eight teams are battling away in Chicago for the right to become the United States representative in international competition.  Three "home grown" guys are playing their last boards for the right to move to the final four:  Steve Garner with Howie Weinstein, and Joe Grue with regular partner Curtis Cheek.

Sometimes the difference between success and failure is a function of where a jack is located, or whether a suit splits 3/3 or 4/2.  Sometimes success arrives with good card reading and a squeeze - as in John Koch's excellent column for this week.

If you haven't been following the action at Bridge Base - there is plenty more to enjoy this week!  And - speaking of enjoyment; John's column is just below.

Download 274.ForceofHabit.1

The final article on LTC in the May Bridge Bulletin is generating additional questions.

Q:  Can you please reprint how to count losers?
A:  This is from the Dec. 2011 Bridge Bulletin article.  For more information you may purchase a copy of my booklet on Losing Trick Count, available on this site.


1. Count losers only in the first three cards of each suit.  The 4^th, 5^th, 6^th,etc. cards in a suit are not counted as losers. There are never more than 3 losers in a suit.<o:p></o:p>
2. With 3 or more cards in a suit count the A, K and Q as winners; anything lower as a loser.
3.  With a doubleton, count the A or K as a winner and anything else as a loser.  With a singleton, only the ace is a winner; anything else is a loser.<o:p></o:p>



Q:  You mention Bergen raises in your article.  Can you elaborate?
A:  This is the introduction to the Bergen raise section reprinted here from my booklet.





Q:  Will you be writing more about LTC?
A:  Yes!  As more and more bridge players experiment with LTC and realize the positive impact it has on their game, I receive more comments, questions and book orders.  As more bridge teachers teach it to their classes, I predict a groundswell until most players embrace the concept and it becomes the established norm.

Remember--you can use LTC even if your partner doesn't!  When your partner admires the fact that you were the only pair in the room to get to game (or were the only pair to stop short of a game that didn't have a prayer) and asks you how you made your bidding decisions, you can explain that you were just following LTC principles.  Your partner will then come to this site to order a copy of the book--or at least go back and read the articles in the Bridge Bulletin.
*******
If you would like to be notified when new LTC publications or material is available, please let me know by sending an email to:  Jennife574@aol.com.  Feel free to include a message or merely put "LTC updates" in the subject line of your email and you'll be added to the mailing list.

See you at the table!

In the Open after  4th quarter.

Cannell 44 + 54 + 38 = 136  VS Sinno 47 + 27 +16 = 78  WD

Cannell (Drew Cannell, Daniel Lavee, Paul Thurston, Jeffrey Smith, Pierre Daigneault and Kamel Fergani)

Sinno (Rajaa Sinno, Baha Faha, Ghassan Menachi, Jay Saks, George Retek, Philip Silverstein)

 

Carriere 27 + 19 + 38 + 30 = 144  VS Todd 49 + 28 + 24 + 58 = 159

Carriere (Ronald Carriere, Frederic Pollack, Larry Crevier, Marc-Andre Fourcaudot, Renald Davidson, Michael Gamble)

Todd (Bob Todd, Doug Fisher, Neil Kimelman, Don Pearsons, David Sabourin, Jonathan Steinberg)

 

L’Ecuyer 54  + 59 + 69  = 182  VS Zaluski 50 + 28 + 10 = 88  WD

L’Ecuyer (Nicolas L’Ecuyer, Vincent Demuy, Leslis Amoils, Derren Wolpert, Danny Miles and Daniel Korbel)

Zaluski (Edward Zaluski, John Zaluski, John Cook, R Elwin Brown, Herve Chatagnier and Rene Pelletier)

 

Janicki 56  + 16 + 46  + 49 = 167  VS Rayner 45 + 31 + 29 + 23 = 128

Janicki (Paul Janicki, Morrie kleinplaz, Bob Kuz, Barry Senensky, Waldemar Frukacz and Stephen Copper)

Rayner (John Reyner, Michael Roche, Piotr Klimowicz, Nader Hanna, Roy Hughes and David Turner)

The match up to-morrow will be

Cannell VS Todd

L’ Ecuyer VS Janicki

 

In the Women. After 4 quarter

Fung 63 + 44 + 73 + 65 =  245  VS Macnab 15 + 40 + 31 + 17  = 103

Fung (Kiz Fung, Susan Culham, Francine Cimon, Brenda bryant, Samantha Nystrom and Isabelle Smith)

Macnab (Kathie Macnab, Elizabeth Lagacy, Anne Mahoney and Trisha Fleet) 

Demme 32 + 35 + 67 = 134  VS Caley 39 + 14 + 2 = 55  WD

Caley (Sylvia Caley, Barbara Saltsman, Sondra Blank, Linda Lee, Deanna Godel and Hope Wener)

Demme (Ina Demme, Hazel Wolpert, Linda Wynston, Lesley Thomson, Debbie Bennett and Pamela Nisbet)

 

In the final :

Fung VS Demme

 

In the CNTC B

Henault 29 + 20 + 15 + 67 = 131  VS Renaud 58 + 15 + 63 + 12 = 148

Henault (Alain Henault, Eric David, Marius Moldovan and M. Xavier Combey)

Renaud (Andre Renaud, Carl Levesque, Gerard Turcotte and Robert Tremblay)

 

Beenard 58 + 15 + 41 + 32 = 170  VS Larrivee 62 + 45 + 56 +  44 = 207

Benard (Nicole Benard, Raymond Boyer, Louis Dessureaux, Guy Duchesne, Louise Mascolo and Diane Majdell)

Larrivee (Jason Larrivee, Rupa Krishnan, Pamela Keim and Duddow Cooney)

In the final :

Renaud VS Larrivee

 

 

Am in Montreal PQ play in the Canadian Senior Team Championship. This year some may say the senior championship is stronger then the open by the number of good players in the event.

11 matches in the round robin then 4 teams play in the KO.

I am playing with Karl Hicks, Leo Weniger and Rod MacKenzie all from Halifax NS.

Here are the team rosters.

Team 1. Baran NPC. Dan Jacob, Robert Lebi, David Lindop, Jurek Czyzowicz.

Team 2. Don Domansky, David McLellan, Roland Laframboise, Larry Hansen, Bob Todd, Doug Fisher.

Team 3. Alex Fowlie, Dick Anderson, John Morgan, Bill Koski, Juday Chapman.

Team 4. Roger Dunn, Jean Castonguay Suzanne Dussault, Gisele Caron.

Team 5. Gary Westfall, Andrew Firko, Roman Klein, Ron Sutherland, Gary Bernstein, Steve Caplan.

Team 6. James Priebe, Lewis Richardson, Michael Cafferata, David Colbert, Ray Jotcham, Stephen Mackay.

Team 7. Bert Curry, J Mark Siegrist, John Bowman, Bill Bowman.

Team 8. Joseph Silver, John Cuoba, John Carruthers, Martin Kirr.

Team 9. Fernand Pollack, Pierre Belisle, Nicole Treblay, Pierre Gaudreau, Serge Saint-Laurent, Richard Cordeau.

Team 10. Charles Martineau, Andre Chartrand, Janyne Provencher, Sylvain Mayer, Caro;e Coveney, Michel Coveney.

Team 11. Doran Flock, Dave Smith, James McAvoy, Duncan Smith.

Team 12. Leo Weniger, Rod Mackenzie, Michael Yuen, Karl Hicks.

 

Canadian Senior Teams All Session April 2, 2012 Scores after  3 rounds

Team   Wins   Score

11    3.00   69.00 Doran Flock – David Smith – James McAvoy – Duncan Smith  

2    3.00   64.00 Don Domansky – David McLellan – Roland Laframboise – Larry Hansen – Bob Todd – Douglas Fisher  

1    2.00   61.00 Boris NPC Baran – Dan Jacob – Robert Lebi – David Lindop – Jurek Czyzowicz  

7    3.00   54.00 Bert Curry – J Mark Siegrist – John Bowman – Bill Bowman  

5    2.00   53.00 Gary Westfall – Andrew Firko – Roman Klein – Ronald Sutherland – Gary Bernstein – Steve Caplan  

9    1.00   45.00 Pollack – Pierre Belisle – Nicole Tremblay – Pierre Gaudreau – Serge Saint-Laurent – Richard Cordeau

12    1.00   44.00 Leo Weniger – Roderick Mackenzie – Michael Yuen – Karl Hicks

10    1.00   37.00 Martineau – Andre Chartrand – Janyne Provencher – Sylvain Mayer – Carole Coveney – Michel Coveney  

3    1.00   36.00 Alex Fowlie – Richard Anderson – John Morgan – William Koski – Judy Chapman – Barry Pritchard  

8    1.00   37.00 Joseph Silver – John Guoba – John Carruthers – Martin Kirr  

6    0.00   24.00 James Priebe – Lewis Richardson – Michael Cafferata – David Colbert – Ray Jotcham – Stephen Mackay  

4    0.00   16.00 Roger Dunn – Jean Castonguay – Suzanne Dussault – Gisele Caron

 

Scores after  6 rounds

Team   Wins   Score   Rank  

1    4.00  115.00   1   NPC Baran Baran – Dan Jacob – Robert Lebi – David Lindop – Jurek Czyzowicz  

7    6.00  114.00   2   Bert Curry – J Mark Siegrist – John Bowman – Bill Bowman

11    4.00  104.00   3   Doran Flock – David Smith – James McAvoy – Duncan Smith  

 2    3.00   97.00   4   Don Domansky – David McLellan – Roland Laframboise – Larry Hansen – Bob Todd – Douglas Fisher  

8    4.00   96.00   5   Joseph Silver – John Guoba – John Carruthers – Martin Kirr  

9    3.00   94.00   6   Pollack – Belisle – Nicole Tremblay – Pierre Gaudreau – Serge Saint-Laurent – Richard Cordeau

10    4.00   93.00  7/8  Martineau – Chartrand – Janyne Provencher – Sylvain Mayer – Carole Coveney – Michel Coveney

12    3.00   93.00  7/8  Leo Weniger – Roderick Mackenzie – Michael Yuen – Karl Hicks  

5    2.00   82.00   9   Westfall – Andrew Firko – Roman Klein – Ronald Sutherland – Gary Bernstein – Steve Caplan  

3    2.00   72.00  10   Alex Fowlie – Richard Anderson – John Morgan – William Koski – Judy Chapman – Barry Pritchard  

6    1.00   67.00  11   Priebe – Lewis Richardson – Michael Cafferata – David Colbert – Ray Jotcham – Stephen Mackay  

 4    0.00   53.00  12   Roger Dunn – Jean Castonguay – Suzanne Dussault – Gisele Caron

Canadian Senior Teams All Session April 2, 2012 Scores after  9 rounds

 Team   Wins   Score  

1    6.00  165.00 NPC Baran Baran – Dan Jacob – Robert Lebi – David Lindop – Jurek Czyzowicz  

7    8.00  162.00 Bert Curry – J Mark Siegrist – John Bowman – Bill Bowman  

2    5.00  156.00 Don Domansky – David McLellan – Roland Laframboise – Larry Hansen – Bob Todd – Douglas Fisher

11    6.00  151.00 Doran Flock – David Smith – James McAvoy – Duncan Smith

12    5.00  149.00 Leo Weniger – Roderick Mackenzie – Michael Yuen – Karl Hicks  

 8    6.00  141.00 Joseph Silver – John Guoba – John Carruthers – Martin Kirr  

5    4.00  136.00 Gary Westfall – Andrew Firko – Roman Klein – Ronald Sutherland – Gary Bernstein – Steve Caplan  

9    3.00  127.00 Pollack – Pierre Belisle – Nicole Tremblay – Pierre Gaudreau – Serge Saint-Laurent – Richard Cordeau 10   

5.00  127.00 Martineau – Andre Chartrand – Janyne Provencher – Sylvain Mayer – Carole Coveney – Michel Coveney  

6    3.00  126.00 James Priebe – Lewis Richardson – Michael Cafferata – David Colbert – Ray Jotcham – Stephen Mackay  

3    3.00  109.00 Alex Fowlie – Richard Anderson – John Morgan – William Koski – Judy Chapman – Barry Pritchard  

4    0.00   67.00 Roger Dunn – Jean Castonguay – Suzanne Dussault – Gisele Caron

 

The Canadian National Team Championship Quarter Final.

Cannell (Drew Cannell, Daniel Lavee, Paul Thurston, Jeffrey Smith, Pierre Daigneault and Kamel Fergani) VS Sinno (Rajaa Sinno, Baha Faha, Ghassan Menachi, Jay Saks, George Retek, Philip Silverstein)

Carriere (Ronald Carriere, Frederic Pollack, Larry Crevier, Marc-Andre Fourcaudot, Renald Davidson, Michael Gamble) VS Todd (Bob Todd, Doug Fisher, Neil Kimelman, Don Pearsons, David Sabourin, Jonathan Steinberg)

L’Ecuyer (Nicolas L’Ecuyer, Vincent Demuy, Leslis Amoils, Derren Wolpert, Danny Miles and Daniel Korbel) VS Zaluski (Edward Zaluski, John Zalusk, John Cook, R Elwin Brown, Herve Chatagnier and Rene Pelletier)

Janicki (Paul Janicki, Morrie kleinplaz, Bob Kuz, Barry Senensky, Waldemar Frukacz and Stephen Copper) VS Rayner (John Reyner, Michael Roche, Piotr Klimowicz, Nader Hanna, Roy Hughes and David Turner)

The Canadian Women Team Championship.

Fung (Kiz Fung, Susan Culham, Francine Cimon, Brenda bryant, Samantha Nystrom and Isabelle Smith) VS Macnab (Kathie Macnab, Elizabeth Lagacy, Anne Mahoney and Trisha Fleet)

Caley (Sylvia Caley, Barbara Saltsman, Sondra Blank, Linda Lee, Deanna Godel and Hope Wener) VS Demme (Ina Demme, Hazel Wolpert, Linda Wynston, Lesley Thomson, Debbie Bennett and Pamela Nisbet)

The CNTC B Semi Finals.

Henault (Alain Henault, Eric David, Marius Moldovan and M. Xavier Combey) VS Renaud (Andre Renaud, Carl Levesque, Gerard Turcotte and Robert Tremblay)

Benard (Nicole Benard, Raymond Boyer, Louis Dessureaux, Guy Duchesne, Louise Mascolo and Diane Majdell) VS Larrivee (Jason Larrivee, Rupa Krishnan, Pamela Keim and Duddow Cooney)

 

 

♠ K 8 4 ♥ J 9 5 4 2 ♦ Q 9 4 ♣ 8 3

I pass in first seat. RHO opens one club in fourth seat. There is little point in a one heart overcall. I pass. LHO bids one spade, and RHO rebids one notrump (15-17). I pass, and LHO raises to three, ending the auction. I lead the four of hearts.

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Sam	Jack	Stephen
Pass	Pass	Pass	1 ♣
Pass	1 ♠	Pass	1 NT
Pass	3 NT	(All pass)

Declarer plays the six from dummy, partner plays the ten, and declarer wins with the ace. If partner has king-ten third of hearts, we have a shot to beat this. When I get in with the spade king, I play another heart. If declarer misguesses and plays the queen, he will go down.

Another way to beat this is to run diamonds. If partner has ace-jack fifth or ace-jack-ten fourth of diamonds, I can shift to a diamond when I'm in with the spade king. True, if partner has ace-jack fifth, declarer can block the suit by playing low from dummy. But he's unlikely to do that.

How will I know which suit to play? One way to solve this problem is with Smith echo. Partner can play high (or low if you prefer) on declarer's first lead to encourage a heart continuation and can do the opposite to suggest a shift. We don't play Smith echo, however, which, in general, is fine with me. Though on this particular deal, I have to admit it might be helpful.

Opposite a reliable partner, Smith echo would not be necessary. It would already be clear to continue hearts. With a diamond tenace over dummy and ten third or doubleton of hearts, partner knows good and well he wants a diamond shift when I get in, so he would simply play low at trick one. That might blow a trick, but it's hard to see how it can blow the contract. So, if partner could be trusted, it would be wrong to continue hearts only if partner's heart ten were a singleton.

Since Jack is not up to offering that kind of help, I just have to go with the odds. At the moment, the percentage play is to continue hearts. Better to play partner for one card (the heart king) than for two (the ace-jack of diamonds). But the odds may change as I get more information. In particular, if I find out declarer has three hearts, I know a heart continuation is pointless. Even if partner has the king (and somehow worked out not to play it at trick one) and even if declarer puts up the queen, I have no re-entry.

Declarer plays the deuce of clubs--eight--king--five. This is why I said above that Smith echo might be helpful. I can't tell whether the five is high or low, so this time it would not have helped even if we were playing it.

Declarer leads the ten of spades--five--six. Partner is surely giving correct count here. So declarer must have ace doubleton of spades. That means he is unlikely to have a doubleton heart. He might rebid one notrump with a 2-2-4-5 pattern, but that is the only way for him to have two hearts. (Personally, I might have a 2-2-3-6 pattern as well, especially if the club suit is below par for a three club bid. But Jack claims he would not bid one notrump with six clubs.)

On the other hand, there are two patterns for opener where partner has five diamonds: 2-3-3-5, and 2-4-3-4. Since each of these patterns is a priori more likely than 2-2-4-5, partner is more than twice as likely to have five diamonds as he is to have three hearts. So, even though it is playing partner for two high cards instead of one, a diamond shift is now the percentage play. And that's before taking into account the possibility of partner's having ace-jack-ten fourth of diamonds. The only reason I haven't taken the spade king and played a diamond already is that declarer's line of play is bugging me. Why is he taking a spade finesse with ace doubleton? I'm the dangerous hand. He doesn't care if partner wins the spade king. So why risk blocking the spade suit? Or losing to a stiff king in my hand? Why not just play ace and another spade?

Take the hand I've almost decided to play him for, for example:

♠ A x ♥ A K x ♦ x x x ♣ A x x x x

Does declarer's line of play make any sense? What's he going to do if the queen of spades holds? Unless the king is doubleton onside, he can no longer run the spades. He must hope for a three-two club break.

The same thing is true if declarer has the diamond ace instead of the heart king:

♠ A x ♥ A x ♦ A x x x ♣ A x x x x

Again, ace and a spade looks pretty routine. What does taking the spade finesse even gain?

That last question is the key. If I can answer that, I should be able to call declarer's hand. What taking the spade finesse gains is it avoids giving up the lead, provided two spade tricks is all you need. So there are two things that must be true about declarer's hand: (1) It is dangerous to give up the lead even to RHO. (2) He must have exactly seven tricks outside the spade suit.

For (1) to be true, declarer must be missing both the diamond ace and the heart king. Then it is dangerous to lose the lead even to partner, since I might be able to gain the lead in one of the red suits in order to lead the other. If declarer is indeed missing both red honors, I should win and switch to the jack of hearts. If declarer covers, he is down. If he guesses to duck, I can switch to a diamond, hoping partner has the jack as well or that declarer misguesses and plays the king.

Condition (2) is the toughie. I don't see how to satisfy that condition without giving declarer six clubs:

♠ A x ♥ A x ♦ J x x ♣ A Q x x x x

With this hand, a spade finesse makes sense. If declarer plays ace and a spade, he could go down even if the spade king is on his right. The spade finesse guarantess the contract if the spade king is onside and retains chances if it isn't. I'm not saying it's the right play. That's declarer's problem, not mine. It is at least a reasonable play, which is all I care about when drawing inferences as defender. The spade finesse is not a reasonable play with either of the previous two hands.

The only problem is, this hand violates Jack's constraints. He says he can't have six clubs. Since it's the only hand I can think of where a spade finesse makes sense, I guess I have to admit defeat. Either I'm missing something or declarer is misplaying the hand. I don't know what declarer has, so I have to fall back on simply making the percentage play.

I shift to the four of diamonds--king--ace--five. So far so good. Partner plays the three of diamonds--ten--queen--deuce. I still have time to switch to a heart if I change my mind and decide declarer was 2-2-3-6 after all. But I'm sure partner would have led a high diamond, not a low one, if he didn't have the jack. I play the nine of diamonds to partner's jack, and partner cashes two more diamonds. Down two.

Even after seeing declarer's hand, I don't know what he was up to. He has two reasonable lines: (A) Play ace and a spade or (B) play a club to nine, intending to play on spades if the clubs don't come home. (B) is better double-dummy, but (A) may gain by being less transparent. (If the club finesse loses, East's heart return gives the show away. If West has the spade king, he cannot go wrong when he gains the lead.) The line South chose makes no sense to me.

I said before that declarer would be unlikely to duck the diamond if I shifted. But maybe I was hasty in saying that. Shifting from the queen or jack of diamonds is attractive, since it might work by force. Shifting from ace of diamonds is considerably less attractive, especially when for all I know hearts are running. On top of that, ducking in dummy is actually the percentage play (by a factor of two to one) any time I have only three diamonds. In retropect, I think a good declarer might well get the diamonds right.

Whether our teammate got the diamonds right or whether West didn't find the shift I can't say. But, one way or another, three notrump made at the other table. So we pick up 13 imps.

Table 1: +200
Table 2: +600

Result on Board 7: +13 imps
Total: +17 imps

The 2012 European Team Championships will be held in Dublin next month and, once again, I will be running a prediction competition.

First prize this year is an evening's bridge with me at the Russell Cup in Edinburgh or the Berwick-upon-Tweed Bridge Club (second prize two evenings?) or two 12-board BBO tournaments. I will pay the table money but you have to make your own travel arrangements. I appreciate that prizes are reaching a nadir, but there is always the kudos of winning.

Each entry should specify the top 6 teams, in placing order, for each of the three competitions (Open, Women, Senior). You can only have a single entry, but you may change your selection at any time before the entry deadline.

Points will be awarded as follows:

First place = 32 points
Second place = 16 points
Third place = 8 points
Fourth place = 4 points
Fifth place = 2 points
Sixth place = 1 point

for a maximum of 189 points.

Entry Deadline: Monday 11 June, 2012

Each team will score the minimum of your placing for them and their final position, for example:

• if you place a team in fourth place but they win the event, then you get the points for fourth place
• if you pick a team as the winner but they finish second, then you get the points for the runner-up.

Information on the participating teams and the format of the competitions.

Email your entries to me, or message paulg on the BBO Forums.

PS The decision of the organiser is final in all aspects of this competition
PPS All entries will be published following the closing date
PPPS Feel free to send this on to others
PPPPS The organiser is eligible to win the competition!
PPPPPS nadir, noun, the lowest point of anything, especially the absolute depths, e.g. of despair or degradation.

I hope you have enjoyed the series of six articles on Losing Trick Count published in the Bridge Bulletin from Dec. 2011 until May, 2012.  Thanks for all of your comments and questions, many of which have been reprinted here. In addition to the Bridge Bulletin articles and the Losing Trick Count booklet (for sale on this site), I am continuing to write about this subject which is so important for accurate hand evaluation.  I have collected some great hands and continue to find useful ways to use Losing Trick Count.

If you would like to be notified when new LTC publications or material is available, please let me know by sending an email to:  Jennife574@aol.com.  Feel free to include a message or merely put "LTC updates" in the subject line of your email and you'll be added to the mailing list.

Some have already purchased the LTC Teacher package so that you can teach a seminar to your own students.  For information on teacher packages please contact me.  If you'd like to attend a seminar on Losing Trick Count in your area, be sure to let your bridge teacher know about the teacher package and have them contact me.

I'll continue to answer questions and post comments on this blog site and I'd like to hear from you.  I'm interested in your LTC success stories and will attempt to provide analysis when you come across hands where the formula doesn't seem to work.

See you at the table!

The Canadian National Team Championship is taking place in Montreal PQ from the 28th April to the 7th of May 2012.

The winner of the Open, Women and Senior Team Championships will represent Canada in the upcoming World Bridge Game in Lille this summer.

In the Open there are 18 teams. 1st stage is a complete round robin for four days then the top 8 teams will play KO till we have a winner.

In the Women there are 6 teams. They will also play a complete round robin, the top 4 teams will play KO.

The Seniors will play a 2 days Swiss. Top 4 will play KO for one winner. Even starts on Wednesday the 2nd of May.

It will be a very strong field this year looking at all the players sitting out the Open Teams.

In the Open: 

It is the 3rd day and we have a log jam at the top of the table.

After 10 matches there are 6 teams with the 173 VPs tied for the lead.

L’Ecuyer, Janicki, Cannell, Krnjevic, Zaluski, Sinno all at 173 VPs. Then Martineau at 168 VPs, Carriere at 161 VPs rounding out the top 8..

It had often been said that you can’t win the championship in the round robin, you can only lose it.

There are still seven matches to be played between to-day and to-morrow. While is true that all the rest of the teams still have good chances to made the KO stage. However it’s time to make a move to keep in touch with the leaders.

After round 12 of 17.

The top 8 remain much the same.

1 Cannell 219. 2 Sinno 212. 3 Janicki 211. 4 L’Ecuyer 206. 5 Krnjevic 205. 6 Zalucki 199. 7 Carriere 198. 8 Martineau 188.

Todd made a move to 9th with 188 VPs, only 3 VPs out of 8th.

After round 13.

1. Cannell 237. 2 Sinno 227. 3/4 Janicki. 3/4 Carriere 223. 5/6 Zalucki. 5/6 Krnjevic 222. 7 L’Ecuyer 219. 8 Todd 211.

Martineau 195, Weniger 190 and Rayner 189 in a dog fight for a play off spot.

After round 14.

This was the last match of the day.

1 Cannell 255. 2/3 Zalucki. 2/3 Carriere 243. 4 Janicki 242. 5 Sinno 238. 6 Krnjevic 236. 7 L’Ecuyer 235. 8 Todd 227. 9 Martineau 211. 10 Rayner 201. 11/12 Wang. 11/12 Weniger 200. 13 Mayer 196. 14 Brough 183. 15 Boucher 171. 16 Castonguay 170. 17 Chevalier 163. 18 Tremblay 132.

It will be a sleepless night for some as teams down to 12th position still have a chance to make the top 8.

This was the last match of the day. There will be 3 more matches up for grabs to-morrow. 

After the 17th and last round.

The top 8 teams are :

1. Cannell 308 VPs. 2 Carriere 304 VPs. 3 L’Ecuyer 295 VPs. 4 Janicki 287 VPs. 5 Sinno 284 VPs. 6 Zaluski 283 VPs. 7 Todd 279 VPs. 8 Rayner 266 VPs.

Rayner step on the gas and won all 3 matches to-day to make the playoff. Amazing!

In the Women’s:

After 2 matches.

It is Fung at 38 VPs, Macnab at 36, Demme at 30 and Caley at 26. Dupont and Thompson both at 24.

All six teams are still alive and I would expect any team that played average to make the KO. 

After 3 matches out of 5.

1 Fung at 58 VPs. 2 Macnab at 46. 3 Caley at 44 and 4 Thompson won a match to move into 4th with 43 VPs. Demme with 42 VPs at 5th.

Still anybody’s ball game.

After the 4th Match.

1. Fung 76 Vps. 2 Caley 69. 3/4 Demme. 3/4 Macnab 59. 5 Dupont 47. 6 Thompson 46.

The 5th and 6th place team still have a mathematical chance of making the playoffs. They have to win their match and hope for the best.

To-morrow the match between Fung and Caley will decide the standings.

There is a big advantage for winning the round Robin, winner gets to pick their Semi-final opponent. With 2nd playing whoever is left.

After 5th Match.

1 Fung 97 VPs. 2 Demme 79 VPs. 3 Caley 78 VPs. 4 Macnab 76 VPs.

Fung went undefeated in the round robin. They picked Macnab in the Semi- final. So Demme will play Caley in the other.

 

 

 

The Vancouver Regional final table count was 1510 at the end of the tournament, 50% more then two years ago! Much thanks have to go to tournament chair Cam Doner, Monica Angus, Jane Youngberg and their team of volunteers.

 

It was announced that the next Regional had been booked in the same location, the River Rock Hotel Casino 7th April – 13, 2014. Better make plans early.

Bruce McIntyre better known in this parts as McBruce, did a fantastic job with the Daily Bulletin. He also duplicated all the boards for the Regional. 

 

Playing with Keith Dowdall, Jadwiga Polujan and Bob Gwirtzman. We won the Peter Morse KO Team on Saturday. Thanks team, everybody played well.

Keith and I bid and made this slam which helped us to the win. 

Board 19. Dealer South. East-West vulnerable.  

Dealer: South Vul: E-W	North ♠ 984  ♥ 74 ♦ 10986 ♣ 8654
West-Keith ♠ AJ10752 ♥ AQ63  ♦ A4 ♣ J		East-Michael ♠ Q63 ♥ 8  ♦ K32 ♣ AQ10973
	South ♠ K ♥ KJ10952 ♦ QJ75  ♣ K2

 

The auction. 

West	North	East	South
			1♥
1♠	Pass	2♥	Pass
3♥	Pass	4♣	DBL
RDBL	Pass	4♦	Pass
4NT	Pass	5♣	Pass
6♠	All Pass

The lead was the eight of clubs. Once South open the bidding, Keith was able to play him for everything.

Made 12 tricks for +1430 and won 13 IMPs.

At the other table they played in game, made 12 tricks for +680.

 

Michael Dimich’s team won the Sunday Swiss running away. They clinched the event before the last match!

 

 

Our District's GNT Finals are complete - and - we have excellent teams representing our district in Superflight, A, B and C.

Please check out this post at District 14 for all the details!  Congratulations and good luck in Philadelphia this summer to all our winners!

As you can see on BBO, the US Team Trials to select the team for Lille is progressing apace in in Schaumburg, Illinois at the moment.

For teams that did not gain the seeding points required for a bye (that is, 15 of the 18 teams), it is a long and costly event if you are going to win. They will play ten consecutive days of top-level bridge with about 50-60 boards a day. Given all the other days of bridge in the season, not to mention the target competition in Lille, a normal 'working' person would not be able to take the amount of time off work necessary, so they are excluded from the process.

The entry fee for the event is $360, but on top of this there is a $300 session fee per day. So if one, or two, of the 15 teams reach the final, the cost of winning the trials (or, worse, losing in the final) will be $3,360. This strikes me as quite a lot of money and about double the cost of playing at one of the Nationals. Nothing to some of the wealthy sponsors, of no concern to the professional players, but good amateur teams are not going to show up.

Of course this is the American way and, with so many professionals and sponsors, unlikely to change. But those who extol the virtures of this approach for other countries might like to consider whether this is fair for all.

This year the Vancouver Regional is being held at the River Rock Casino. What a difference the location made. After 4 days the table count is already at 1127 tables! 

The playing site/Casino is conveniently located in Richmond. Only miles from the US boarder, made it that much easier for US players to get here. For those driving, there is free parking, If not the Skytrain station is right at the front door. For those that come from the island the express bus from the ferry terminal drop you off across the street. Vancouver International Airport is only minutes away.

 

 I played two sessions of the Monica Angues KO with Susan Peters and the McCunes.

 

 

Spotted at the tournament all the way from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Sharon and Roger Anderson won the Friday Open Pairs by one matchpoint!

 

 

The Poker tourney on Monday was won by Rhoda Tafler. With 33 players in the field, the pot was over $300, she also won an E-reader.

 

Playing with friends from Saskatoon SK we made the overall in the Thursday Swiss.

 

 

Not playing in the GNT this weekend - or - (sniff sniff) - knocked out?  Then do consider playing in the Sunday Swiss!

Full sectional rating!  You do not need to have played on Saturday to be eligible!  Great hospitality!

The flyer for this fine event is linked below!

Download Swiss Flyer

An opening bid of "two diamonds" can be used in a variety of ways.  Some people go for the old fashioned method:  a weak two bid in diamonds.  I suppose a few die hards are out there who go really prehistoric; 2 diamonds is a strong bid with a good diamond suit!  Others go for the more European of "multi" two diamonds - which is generally a weak two bid in one of the majors, or a strong hand, OR....

Well.  I'll let Steve Gaynor tell us about the treatment he and wife Jean prefer - along with a most amusing hand!

Thanks, Steve!

Download Two Diamonds

The Scotland teams for the World Bridge Games, previously known as the Olympiad, in Lille later this year have been announced. They are:

Open:
Jim Hay & Jun Nakamaru-Pinder
Charles & Vi Outred
David & Cathy Gerrard
npc: tba

Women: 
Anne Symons & Sheila Adamson
Liz McGowan & Sam Punch
Maida Grant & Sheila Macdonald
npc: tba

Seniors:
Iain Sime & John Murdoch
John Matheson & Willie Coyle
Brian Short & Alan Goodman

There were no trials, I believe due to lack of people interested in playing in the event. The SBU cannot be blamed for this, as the WBF made life difficult for many with a very late announcement of the location and timing of the championship, and then putting it in August, a time when many will already have made holiday plans. Personally, given the number of trials this season, I'd have selected the teams and not worried about more trials; of course that is not permitted in Scotland so the selectors must be pleased that they were not required.

In such circumstances it is pleasing to see that the Women and Seniors teams look competitive. Both teams use the core of the Home International and European teams with the introduction of the 'unlucky' fourth pair from the Euro trial.

Whereas it is very disappointing that none of the Camrose or Euro Open team are available for the event, the inclusion of Jim and Jun, who only missed out on a European spot by four imps, is especially pleasing. If there had been trials, I would have exempted them and made others compete for the remaining two places. A great opportunity, deserved after their performance in the Euro trial, for a young talent and an old codger to experience the challenges of bridge at the highest levels. I know that they will prepare thoroughly.

Although the Open team is not the strongest that Scotland could send, the Outreds and Gerrards made the semifinals of the Euro trials and their challenge is to maintain that standard over a long competition. David is also the only player on the team with Olympiad experience. I expect that they will prepare thoroughly too, if only to keep Jim quiet.

Naturally I wish all three teams the best of luck. I know supporters in Lille during August will be welcome and there is also the opportunity for everyone to play in the World Transnational Mixed Teams. If you've not already made plans.

I know this is supposed to be a bridge blog. But I hope you won't mind if I take time out to discuss an interesting end position in a game of a Words with Friends I played recently.

I should say at the start that I'm new to this game and not particularly good at it, though I do find it fascinating. As in most games, the interest comes from balancing competing objectives. You want to make high-scoring plays. But you don't want to leave opportunities open to your opponent. You also don't want to leave yourself with an awkward combination of letters such that you will have a hard time finding a good play at your next turn. I am not yet confident in my judgment in evaluating these trade-offs. But I am confident that the key to becoming a good player is to develop that judgment. That seems to be more important than having a large vocabulary. I have memorized all the two-letter words. But I seem to have a considerably smaller repertoire of three-letter words than many of my opponents do. Just looking over a few active games, I see words like NOH, OKA, and KIR, and I can assure you that I was not the one who played them. Not knowing such words, however, does not seem to be as much of a disadvantage as one might think.

The highlight of any Words with Friends  game for me is the end position. Now, when you know what tiles your opponent has, you can plan everything out. It's almost like analyzing an endplay in bridge, except that there are more variations to worry about. Take, for example, the following end position in a game I recently played against Robb Gordon:



See what I mean about vocabulary? Robb just played NOUS. Who nous that was a legitimate English word?

I am down 51 points. There is one tile left in the bag. I cannot win unless I get a bingo. The good news is I do have a seven-letter word: MATURED. The bad news is there is no place on the board to put it. (TOYE is apparently not a word. I tried it. Although TOYO, which I tried earlier in the game, is a word. You can test words out by playing a two-letter word you know is invalid, like OO. If the game tells you OO is not word but remains silent about TOYO, you can conclude TOYO is a valid word. I was at first unsure whether such experimentation was ethical or not. But, after asking around, I discovered the consensus is that it's perfectly OK.)

Since I can't play a bingo now, it would be a mistake to play more than one tile. With only one tile left in the bag, I would not be able to play a bingo on my next turn. Perhaps, I thought, I should simply pass. If Robb's play enables me to play MATURED and go out on my next turn, maybe that's enough to win.

What will Robb play if I pass? There are eight tiles remaining: AOORRUS and a blank. If Robb has the blank, I'm in big trouble. If he has AOORRS and a blank, for example, he can play ARROYOS on C13 (making TOYO and AWES) for 55 points. If he has AORRSU and a blank, he can play UPROARS on B13 (making TOYS) for 51 points. And if he has AOORSU and a blank, he can play AMOROUS in the same spot for 50 points. It appears I am going to have to hope that the tile left in the bag is the blank. In that case, Robb has AOORRSU. What will he play then? The highest scoring word I see is OURS on C8 (making ZAGS) for 25 points. If he does that, I can play MATURED on B6 (turning OURS into TOURS) for 89 points, enough to win. That looks like my only chance. So I pass.

After passing, it occurs to me Robb would never play OURS. He can see it leaves the double double wide open. Even if he hasn't bothered to work out what letters I have, he knows it's a risky play. ROARS in the same spot is safer, and it happens to score the same 25 points. If he plays ROARS, I will lose. Then it hit me that I had made an error. Since I had to assume the blank was left in the bag anyway, I didn't need to pass. I could afford to play my U on C2, making NU for 6 points. I would then draw the blank and could still play MATURED if Robb played OURS. The difference is, now I could also win if he played ROARS. In fact, I win bigger. I could play MORTARED on B3 for 95 points. Sigh. What a moron!

As it happens, it didn't matter. Robb did have the blank and played AMOROUS as anticipated. But perhaps if I had made the correct play, the Scrabble gods would have rewarded me by putting that blank back in the bag where it belonged.