When you read this Ray and I will be flying to England.  We will be there for two weeks.  First in London doing some business, seeing some shows and meeting up with a relative or two.  We will be staying with Andy and Shireen.  You may know them as bridge players winning tons of masterpoints at the NABC’s they come to and you will no doubt have read Andy’s many contribution to Bridge World.  They also are into Barbu.  We may have a Barby blogger quite soon recommended to bridgeblogging by Shireen.

After that we are over to Bath to attend Mark Horton’s wedding.  Ray will be one of many best men including Brent Manley.  We will have more than enough for a spirited bridge game.  We have some more business to attend to and we will also be dropping in at the Buffet Cup which will be held in Cardiff.  If you have ever watch the BBC series Torchwood then you will know that is where the first few seasons were filmed.  We will definitely do the Torchwood tour.

I don’t know if I will blog from the UK.  I will have my beloved IPAD with me but Ray will have a small computer.  The most likely candidate will be the Buffet Cup.  The last few weeks have been quite hectic.  I finally saw a specialist about asthma which was making a nuisance of itself, I finished a book I was writing for Ray and we had a wonderful visit with my grandson Cassidy.  The most incredible memories will be of Niagara Falls.  Every time I see it I am awed.

By Bob Klein:  This hand is another in a series demonstrating how it pays to bid aggressively with distributional 2-suiters. In an on-line IMP match, I dealt, with both vulnerable:

♠  void
♥  J43
♦  AJT86
♣  KT875

I wouldn't always open this hand, but I felt feisty and liked my intermediate spots, so I bid 1 Diamond.  Partner bid 1 Spade, I rebid 2 Clubs, he rebid 2 Hearts (artificial game force), and I had an easy rebid of 3 Clubs.  Partner now leaped to 6 Clubs!  I passed, and LHO doubled.  Now I wasn't so happy that I opened the bidding. He led the king of hearts, and I looked at:

 ♠  K6432
♥  A96
♦  void
♣  AJ963

♠   void
♥   J43
♦  AJT86
♣  KT875

Here I was in slam with 21 combined HCP, not all of them pulling their weight.  Partner sure believed in 5-5, come alive!

How was I to find 12 tricks with this collection?  With only 2 quick tricks outside of trumps, I needed either 10 trump tricks or another trick or two someplace.  Now if this were the Spingold or a serious KO event, I might take 10 minutes or so to try to find the line with the best chance.  But this was on-line bridge, where that would be impossible; the opponents would keep asking me to play, and would be wondering if I fell asleep! 

I decided that 10 club tricks would be hard without the queen, so I looked around for other tricks.  The jack of hearts might be a trick, or the fifth diamond or spade king.  I decided to duck, hoping that either LHO would continue hearts or a possible squeeze might develop.   LHO cooperated by continuing hearts, which I ducked to my jack.  Now I started the cross-ruff by playing ace and another diamond, ruffed a spade, played a heart to the ace, holding my breath. It held. I ruffed another spade and another diamond.  Only low cards appeared.  I ruffed another spade and a fourth round of diamonds.  On the last diamond, the king and queen appeared.  Now I had to guess the ending.  I was now looking at

S  x
C AJ

D J
C KT

If LHO had all 3 clubs, I had to ruff the spade with the king and play a diamond, overruffing him.  This loses if he doesn't have the queen.  Or I could just play the ace and king of clubs, playing for any 2-1 split, and taking the last trick with the jack of diamonds.  I finally decided that LHO didn't need Qxx of clubs for his double, and in fact with that holding he might be reluctant to double for fear of giving away his holding.  With KQT of hearts, Kxxx of diamonds and the ace of spades, that would be enough to double.  If he had the queen of clubs also, he might have competed over 1 Diamond.  I decided to play for 2-1 clubs, the slam came home, and our team was +1540.  At the other table, they got all the way to 3 clubs for +150, so +1390 was worth 17 big IMPs. 

Good luck!

An old friend of mine and I several years ago had an auction that was a thing of beauty.  It may have been insane.  But, the fine line between insanity and genius is not for people like me to define.  The auction was one where partner and I made "cuebids" not for the purpose of slam or game exploration, but for the defense.

The situation was one where we are white, the opponents red.  We can take a sacrifice at six of a minor, which beats their red heart game, as we are down only three.  The opponents can make five hearts unless we get off to the best defense.

So, the real-world results were varied, but the most common scores were 5minor our way, doubled for -300; 5H their way making 650 with normal defense; or 6minor our way, doubled for -500.  Ideally, -300 looks great.

So, the auction.  My RHO opened 1H, and I, with both minors, bid 2NT unusual.  LHO raised to 3H, and my partner bid 4D.  Opener bid 4H, to me.

I wanted to know which minor to lead.  Maybe a club lead was best, but I had K-empty and did not want to spoil that card unnecessarily.  Maybe a diamond was best, but I also had Q-empty there.  Something like void-KJ-Q109xxx-K109xx.  What to do?

Well, 5D seemed too lazy.  I could try 4NT, which in theory should allow partner to pick the minor for lead, as 4D already set trumps, I figured.  But, assuming a lead to partner, won by him, I wanted a spade back as an option to consider.  So, my caqll was 4S, a cue for the defense.

LHO passed, which helped the plan along.  Had partner no interest, he could bid 4NT.  With a desire for a club lead, 5C.  With confirmation of diamonds for the lead, 5D.  In practice, his void in clubs screamed club lead.

The opponents would now be screwed.  If they bid 5H, I would lead a club to partner's void, ruffed.  He would lead back a spade, setting up a trick in spades.  When he gets in with the trump Ace, the spade is the setting trick.

That was the only defensive line to beat 5H.  The opponents, knowing that we had exchanged this info, would be forced to pick between a bad double and a worse 5H.  Sure, we might panic and bid 6D anyway, not knowing that the defense would work, but we would be better set.

In practice, partner had no idea what I was doing and just bid 5D.  Typical.  Though, it is hard to blame anyone for not living in my world constantly, and he usually kept up with my insanity/genius.

That said, don't forget opportunities to cue for the defense.  My partner, Ken Eichenbaum, recently trotted out a 5C call in competition for a club lead-director, which put a screeching halt to the opponents' thoughts of bidding 5S.  A club lead to his stiff Ace would have primed us for a juicy defense, a defense I would not otherwise have found.

With the passing of Harry Ross in Orlando, Florida on August 24th, 2010 (five days before his 82nd birthday), he left behind his adorable, vivacious wife, Susi Katz Ross — together with an incredible tale of trepidation, alarm, heroism, determination, frustration, love — and perhaps traces of karma.

Though many of us take so much of our lives for granted — beginning with our birth, childhood, rearing, schooling and all the normal experiences (including the many trials and tribulations associated with the bridge world), the individual sagas of Susi and Harry are beyond your wildest imagination.  The many stories of their tremendous successes at the bridge table cannot hold a candle to their own individual personal struggles for survival.

They were born in the same city.   What’s so unusual about that?   Sounds rather mundane, until you learn the City was Vienna, Austria.  Harry was welcomed into the world in 1928 and Susi eight years later in 1936.   By the time Harry was ten, Hitler was on the rise and Austria was one of his first targets.  Because of his astute parents, Harry left the city via the "Kindertransport" (a method where Jewish children were entrusted to sympathetic strangers to escape from Vienna, with no certainty for the parents they would ever see their children again).  Harry was on the very last Kindertransport to leave the city bound for England where the lucky escapees would be house fed and taught English.   In fact, the kids were treated so royally, they thought they were on vacation.   He spent two years in Great Britain and was fortunate enough to have loving relatives in San Diego who agreed to raise him.   Eventually, Harry (an only child) was reunited with his parents — when in 1956 he was able to afford to send for them and the family finally came together.

Susi was only two years old when the Nazis came to Vienna.  Her father, a furrier, went to Belgium as an interim step to get Susi and her mother out of Vienna, setting his sights on America.  It took two years before he could (believe it or not) bribe the Underground enough times to get his wife and daughter out of Austria heading for Belgium and the ultimate goal — a ship heading for America.  Susi recalled being carried papoose style on her mother’s back through a dark tunnel but the light woke her up, causing her to cry and the border patrol (the Gestapo) were alerted and all were turned back.  After three failed attempts by Susi (she was a pistol even then), the Underground made other arrangements for her to cross the border.  She was transported on a train by a sympathetic non-Jewish woman whom her mother had prevailed upon to pass her off as her own – with no assurance they would ever cross paths again.   However, like Harry, it had a happy ending and Susi’s family arrived in America in February of 1940.

Sadly Susi’s ordeal was not quite over after she reached freedom’s shores.  She had been taken desperately ill on the ship, diagnosed as scarlet fever, burning up with an unbelievably high temperature and whisked away by ambulance to a nearby hospital as soon as she arrived at her aunt and uncle’s 6th floor walkup.   However, when she recovered and was released, they found their suitcases on the sidewalk as her family did not want  their children contaminated.   As Susi added, "Understandable, but hard on your first day in America."

These are the stories you read about in books, watch on DVDs or see on the big screen — but this is a true, heartwarming story of staunch, heroic parents who knew no bounds for doing what had to be done to protect and save the lives of their children.  That ended some sixty years ago when Harry and Susi were safely harbored on American soil.

Since their respective migrations to America, there was much water under the dam.   Failed marriages for both played major parts in their histories — but when they came face to face in Reno in 1998, something clicked.   Susi had been divorced for twelve years and loved single life — enjoying her passionate drive for bridge.  They played a lot successfully together, Susi traveling up to Washington State and Harry flying down to Florida.   Meanwhile — a bit old to be boyfriend and girlfriend (although obviously in love).

Susi and I have been exchanging emails for the last six weeks since the severity of Harry’s sickness was known and the other day, I asked her — "when did you get married?"   "Funny story, " she belted.  "Harry met my mother and she loved him."  [And who didn't?  JKW].  "So after a while, knowing I didn’t want to ever get married again, my mother asked him .. now that you are so close to Susi, how should I introduce you to my friends since you aren’t married?"

The next week, Susi added, "Harry asked me to marry him and I accepted."  He was very convincing and like he said so many times before, we were a ‘fit’!"

A sad ending to a short marriage but a very beautiful and deep love story.

Our hearts go out to Susi who was a real trouper through these last several weeks (knowing the end was so near — but taking one step at a time and having Harry savor and enjoy each of his remaining days and doing what he loved most –  playing bridge and winning).  Harry is now at peace and Susi’s cherished memories, unrivaled happiness and joys of her ten years with Harry will afford her much comfort and pleasure in the sunset of her life.

Sometimes success on a hand seems impossible.  Your mind runs through various possibilities; none will allow you to reach the number of tricks you need.

Great players, however, try to imagine one more scenario where they can be victorious.  This week, John Koch tells of how one imaginative player found the sacrifice of a trick for greater riches.

Download 188.DoubtfulDoubles

Rather than write about the Russell Cup evening with Miro, where we scored 54% but was largely uneventful, I thought I'd discuss some hands that I've seen on BBO over the last few days.

All the hands feature imps scoring.
Do you sacrifice at love all?

Let's try and assess the likely outcomes. It is hard to envisage a hand for partner where we can make ten tricks, so bidding five hearts seems to be aiming for a best result of -300. If they can make five diamonds, then we will gain 3 imps.

However going three down also seems quite likely, especially if partner is short in clubs, and losing -500 will result in a 3 imps loss.

This would suggest that there is not much right or wrong with bidding. However our tricks as so soft that it seems far more likely that partner will go four down (losing 9 imps) than one down (gaining 7 imps), and when he is one down they may not make five diamonds.

In conclusion, sacrificing at equal vulnerability is quite dangerous as there is often a small upside with a major downside when it's wrong. Unless you are actually bidding five hearts with some threat of making the contract, then it is probably wrong to bid.
Use the Next button to step through to the decision point. What do we make of the hand and partner's discard of the seven of diamonds (standard attitude)?

Partner is marked with about twelve points and there is one card smaller than the seven of diamonds that we cannot see. Partner is unlikely to have five diamonds and would not discard from four if he held the ten of diamonds, so it seems that partner is discouraging the suit. The lack of an overcall suggests that partner does not have five spades, so this marks declarer with a likely 3325 distribution and partner with 4234.

So it is probably best to continue with a low spade at this point. You will get back in with spades and decide whether to lead a club, or diamond, later when you have some more information.

This is not a hand where there is a right answer, but one where you hope that an educated guess will work.

A really simple question and one that partnerships should know the answer to. I do not think that there is an 'expert standard' and, at a club, you can often tell by the speed of the double. But that is cheating and you should have an agreement. What is yours?

It is very easy to lazily bid four spades here, but consider 3NT too. On a club lead and continuation you could easily concede a ruff to the jack of spades and then be faced with picking up another suit. There is no guarantee that 3NT is the better contract, but it is worthy of consideration.

Or should you be thinking of slam? Absent a stronger raise from partner, like four clubs, I think your quacks suggest extreme caution.

Most players prefer to play in team matches against their peers, bad players because it’s easier to win, good players because it’s harder. An important difference from the matchpoint game is that the opponents one has to beat are not the diverse crowd situated throughout the room, but are the 2 pairs one’s team is facing directly. You must play well to win against a team of 4 good players. A large field makes for a fair game at matchpoints as the distribution of the scores on any given hand tends to reflect normal conditions. In a small field unusual results have more of an effect and there is more need to swing for top scores against the poorer pairs in order to win.

On many hands at teams the gains for bidding a higher scoring contract and equally balanced by the losses one encounters if the contract fails. On such hands the gain-loss ratio reflects the conditions at matchpoints, the difference being that at teams there is more at stake when bidding games. We shall study this important category in detail, the results being applicable to either matchpoint or team play.

At teams one is facing opponents whose tendencies are well known if not entirely predictable. It makes sense to adapt to some degree to the known quality of the team one is facing. Overall, adopting the tendencies of the opponents is equivalent to playing for a tie. The swing hands are those where there is maximum uncertainty whether or not a contract will make and/or whether or not the opponents will bid it. Traditionally the number of tie boards was considered an indication of a well-played match, but recently one finds players attempting frequently to increase uncertainty, thereby creating swings one way or the other, much to the annoyance of idealists who would prefer matches to won through accurate bidding and double dummy card play.

In our previous blog we considered the effect of the field on matchpoint strategy. Here we pursue the theory for team play where the potential gains and losses are not the same for every hand. There are 4 possible situations: 1) you bid a higher scoring contract and it makes; 2) you bid a higher scoring contract and it fails; 3) you stay in a lower scoring contract and a higher scoring contract makes, and 4) you stay in the lower scoring contract and the higher scoring contract fails. The probability of making the higher score is PM; the probability of the opponent bidding it is PB.

As previously we consider hands with just 2 outcomes. If the opponent is in the same contract, we assume there is a tie, so the score on that board is 0. If the opponent is in the alternate contract, either you gain an amount G or you lose and amount L, where G and L are in general different numbers of IMPs. Under the 4 situations listed above the expected scores, S1 through S4, are as follows:

S1	G x PM x (1 – PB)	S2	-L x (1 – PM) x (1 – PB)
S3	-G x PM x PB	S4	L x PB x (1 – PM)

The advantage to bidding the higher scoring contract that provides gain G is:

S1 + S2 – (S3 + S4) = PM x (G + L) – L

This is the gain factor. The optimum strategy is to bid the higher scoring contract if this quantity is positive and not to bid it if the quantity is negative. Let the potential loss, L, be represented by kG, where k is the ratio of L to G. One bids on if:

PM > k/(k + 1)

Under normal circumstances k lies within the limits 0.5<2. If the gain and the loss are equal, k=1 and the optimal condition becomes PM > ½, as with matchpoint scoring. If the potential loss is twice the potential gain optimally one bids on only if PM> 2/3, as in the case of bidding a grand slam at rubber bridge. At teams, the k associated with a vulnerable game is 0.6, so the game should be bid if PM>3/8.

At IMP scoring the gain factor changes from board to board according to the number of IMPs available for making the correct decision. If one bids the higher contract and the opponents don’t, the expected gain is (1 – PB) times the gain factor. If one bids the lower contract and they bid the higher one, the expected gain is PB times the gain factor. Of course, the gain factor turns into a loss factor if one makes the wrong choice and the opponents the correct one.

Minimizing the Loss, Maximizing the Gain
One may aim to minimize the loss when making the wrong bidding decision on a board, in which case one should avoid bidding the higher scoring contract under the following condition:

| S2 | – | S3 | > 0, such that

(1 – PM) L > PB x [ L - (G - L) x PM ], which can be rewritten as

1 > (PB + PM) – r x PM x PB, where r equals (k-1)/k.

Note the symmetry with regard to PM and PB which act interchangeably. If L equals G, r is zero, in which case one should bid the higher contract if the probability of making it plus the probability of bidding it is greater than 1. This is normal for uncontested auctions.

The gain for bidding the higher scoring contract and making it versus the gain got by bidding the lower scoring contract is given by the following expression:

S1 – S4 = G x PM – L x PB + (L – G) x PM x PB.

To maximize the gain, bid on if PM > k x PB – (k – 1) x PB x PM.

If L equals G, bid on if PM > PB, that is, if the probability of making the higher contract is greater than the probability that the opponents will bid it, even if PM is less than ½, which is contrary to the optimal strategy. To minimize the loss, don’t bid on if the probability of the opponents’ bidding the higher contract is greater than the probability it will fail, that is if PB > 1 – PM. To maximize gain and to minimize loss are not incompatible aims at IMP scoring, and a ‘comfort zone’ achieving both ends is possible.

Comfort Zone On boards where the potential loss and the potential gain are equal, bid the higher scoring if

PM + PB > 1 and PM > PB

The Max-Min Diagrams
In a previous blog we introduced text maps as shown below. ‘Yes’ indicates one should bid higher to achieve the aim, ‘No’, that one should not, and the dashes signify a toss up.

Maximize the Gain

PM/PB	.45	.50	.56	.60
.45	–	No	No	No
.50	Yes	–	No	No
.56	Yes	Yes	–	No
.60	Yes	Yes	Yes	–

Minimizing the Loss

PM/PB	.45	.50	.56	.60
.45	No	No	–	Yes
.50	No	–	Yes	Yes
.56	–	Yes	Yes	Yes
.60	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

The boxes that contain a ‘Yes’ in both diagrams are representative of the comfort zone.
The ‘maybe’ boxes clearly lie along diagonals that separate the Yeses from the Nos.

The conditions for maximizing and minimizing can be represented graphically by lines in a more detailed PM/PB diagram as sketched below. When G equals L the maximize line runs diagonally from the upper left corner to the lower right corner. The shaded area to the left of this line represents conditions in which the gain is maximized by bidding higher. The minimize line is a diagonal from the upper right corner to the lower left, the area to the right representing conditions in which the loss is minimized by bidding the higher contract. The diagonals cross at PM=PB=½, the point of maximum uncertainty. When the gain is not equal to the loss the point of intersection is elsewhere, where there is less uncertainty, as will be discussed in a later blog.

A decision to bid the higher contract can be associated by a point in the diagram that reflects the de-facto probabilities. If the point lies within the comfort zone, one has acted both to maximize the gain and to minimize the loss. If the point lies within the ‘no-no’ zone, one has chosen poorly on both counts. If the point lies in one of the other 2 zones, one has acted either to maximize the gain (on the left) or to minimize the loss (on the right). Another viewpoint is that any mistakes that are made are due to a miscalculation of PM, due to a lack of information on how the cards lie, or a poor prediction of the probable action of the opponents, PB. In a double dummy analysis PM is entirely dependent of the lie of the cards, but in practice the defence may benefit from any information received during the auction.

The Full Picture
Below is shown a map of the decision zones over a range of probabilities when the potential gain G equals the potential loss L, the situation that occurs most frequently with constructive bidding both at matchpoints and IMPs. The numbers given are the expected scores times 1000 for the higher contract on the left and the lower on the right. The aggregate for each contract is given below the line. So we have this pattern displayed for each pair of PM and PB:

S1	S4	(expected gain)
S2	S3	(expected loss)
S1 + S2	S3 + S4	(aggregate)

To obtain the expected scores in matchpoints, divide by 2000, add ½, multiply by the number of opponents playing in the same direction. To obtain the expected IMP scores for a nonvulnerable game, divide by 1000 and multiply by 6; for a nonvulnerable slam, divide by 1000 and multiply by 11.

PM		PB =	2/5	PB =	4/9	PB =	1/2	PB =	5/9	PB =	3/5
	-
2/5		240	240	222	267	200	300	178	333	160	360
		-360	-160	-333	-178	-300	-200	-267	-222	-240	-240
		-120	80	-111	89	-100	100	-89	111	-80	80
	-
4/9		267	222	247	247	222	278	198	309	178	333
		-333	-178	-309	-198	-278	-222	-247	-247	-222	-267
		-67	44	-62	49	-56	56	-49	62	-44	67
	-
1/2		300	200	278	222	250	250	222	278	200	300
		-300	-200	-278	-222	-250	-250	-222	-278	-200	-300
		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	-
5/9		333	178	309	198	278	222	247	247	222	267
		-267	-222	-247	-247	-222	-278	-198	-309	-178	-333
		67	-44	62	-49	56	-56	49	-62	44	-67
	-
3/5		360	160	333	178	300	200	267	222	240	240
		-240	-240	-222	-267	-200	-300	-178	-333	-160	-360
		120	-80	111	-89	100	-100	89	-111	80	-120

The small area in blue italics is the comfort zone wherein the criteria to maximize the gain and minimize the loss both require that the higher contract be bid. If one is to bid the higher contract outside the area, then one is deciding on the basis of either maximizing or minimizing in isolation. Bidding the higher contract if PM>½ results in a positive aggregate score, sometimes at the expense of a greater potential loss, as in the case of PM=5/9 and PB=2/5, a good contract unlikely to be chosen by the opponents. One gambles a loss of 45 to achieve a gain of 155, a good gamble. This is the situation where a superior system of slam bidding is likely to gain IMPs. Bidding the lower contract at PM=5/9 and PB=3/5, achieves a minimization of the loss by an average amount of 55, but at the average cost of 155, a bad gamble.

The area in the upper right represents a popular contract that is likely to fail. We often see the comment, ‘where there are 8 tricks there will be 9’, so it is very common that one rejects stopping in 2NT and moves on to 3NT even if the contract may prove to be a poor one. In theory one shouldn’t follow the field by bidding a poor contract, but one does so in order to minimize the potential loss. The condition of PM=4/9 is good enough for bidding a vulnerable game, but not a nonvulnerable game. When PB=5/9, PB + PM =1, and the potential losses are balanced between bidding or not bidding 3NT, but there is something to gain by staying in 2NT. This is an opportunity to swing some IMPs. In a recent 7-board Swiss Team match nothing much happened at my table, but I knew we had lost as on 3 of the boards the opponents had scored 120’s, all large losses for our side.

The Maximum Uncertainty Border
Many players live in doubt. The horizontal area representing PM=½ is of particular interest as it represents a border area where everyone is of necessity in doubt. The comfort zone lies below, the no-no zone, above. Along the line the aggregate scores are 0 whether one bids on or not. If one is inclined towards maximizing gain, one does better by staying in the lower contract when the opponents are not. If one is inclined towards minimizing the potential loss, one follows the inclination of the opposition to bid on. The area of maximum uncertainty as to the better decision is centered squarely at PB=½, when it doesn’t matter on average what one decides. A lot of mediocre players live in this neighborhood. They look to general rules to provide guidance in a difficult situation. Of course, on any particular hand decisions do matter, as that determines who come out on top, but on average it’s a toss-up. This is a fine characteristic for a game of chance as the best player does not have an advantage in a situation of maximum uncertainty, so the best player doesn’t always win. Under those circumstances the best policy is to lose gracefully.

In close decisions it is often boils down to a matter of hand evaluation, and there the good players have the advantage. Good players attempt to obtain an accurate estimate of PM and will act accordingly. They look at suit quality and the loser count, whereas mediocre players merely count up their points. Good players recognize texture. Based on the bidding, they anticipate the opening lead, and imagine the play from that point onward. Mediocre players may fear the killing lead and hope to escape it by ‘giving nothing away’ during the bidding, or may avoid the problem by staying low. It becomes a matter of personality. Sometimes, not often, the meek players win.

I have been carry around a small magazine article I read a while back while waiting in the doctor’s office.  I kept it because it had some interesting ideas that I hadn’t really thought of and I wanted to share it.

So if you have ever have had some “nerves” before an important event or wanted to have your best performance for when it really counted here are some ideas.  The article was written by Performance Expert Peter Jansen who works with Olympic athletes.  It is called Be Your Best.

So the following are excerpts and quotes from the article – with some bridge examples thrown in by me.

Mental fitness is perspective, energy management, imagery and focus.  Getting mentally fit sets the table for success.  ”I have a very excitable personality and learned that my excitability got in the way of performing my best in certain situations.”  ”If an endeavour is at all competitive, the mind can play a huge role in success or failure.”

Understand Pressure

While competing in a world championship is stressful, you rise to the occasion because you are “ready” not because you excel under pressure.  You need to learn to manage the arousal level.  Two factors drive up the arousal level – the perception of an event’s importance and uncertainty about its outcome.  When your arousal level gets too high, you can lose focus and make mistakes.  You think Roger Federer shakes when he is down love-40 and serving for the match.  He’s aced that serve thousands of times, so he knows he can again.  That’s not pressure.

Focus on the Now

How often have you heard the cliche take it one quarter, one period, “one hand” at a time.  In high-level competition, performance expectations can be overwhelming.  Thinking about the future isn’t beneficial.  You are aware of the ultimate objective but you need to narrow your focus to “What do I need to do right now?”  It is not constructive to think about the ultimate goal (like making your yearend sales figures).  What is constructive is thinking about the next chance to perform and improve.  Just as the sales person should concentrate on the next sale.

Be Self-Aware

Be mindful of the fundamental tasks you need to do (”like planning the defense or deciding on the opening lead”.) When you are through (”for example you are dummy”) focus on controlling your emotions and staying focused. (”If you are yelling at partner aloud or in your head you are not getting reflection time.”)

Managing mind, body and feelings is a learned skill.  Whatever you are doing notice what your are thinking or saying and decide if it is helpful.  We have the capacity to step back and observe ourselves and ask what is required in this situation.

Banish the Negative

Learn the skill of reframing.  There is always more than one way to look at a situation so you might as well reframe it in a way that is positive.  Your feelings move in line with your thoughts.  So if you think negatively (you are getting a bad score on this hand) the natural reaction would be to tense up, try harder or panic, none of which will help you to excel.  This takes time to learn!  If your memories of games are filled with thoughts or notes about what not to do then you are too negative.

There is a huge difference between trying to win and trying not to fail.  Trying NOT to do something is very hard.  When you are motivated by fear of failure you eventually reach the point of diminishing returns.

Visualize to win

Do you visualize winning by thinking of medals?  No!  That’s hope, not preparation.  Instead you visualize certain situations and how you will handle them.  Image are “events” to the body.  Don’t think of the goal as winning gold.  Strive each day to be better.  That is something we all can do.

I think some of these ideas are good advice for bridge players at all levels.  I know that some times new players are afraid to play dummy.  I know that some times I just don’t want to go down and compete.  Some times you start to panic when you have a bad result and have another one.  But I believe that we can borrow from sports psychology and learn techniques that will make the game more fun and improve our performance.

Peter Jansen has written a book called Igniting the Third Factor if you want to read more.

Busovina - CSI Konavle 21 : 9 (+30) Dalmatin - Vitezovi 4 : 25 (-59) 1. CSI Konavle 58 (+144) 2. Busovina 52 (+36) 3. Vitezovi 51 (+38) 4. Petica 50 (+28) 5. Dalmatin 35 (-51) 6. upica 23 (-194) Parovi zadnjeg kola ( do petka 24.9.2010) jer za vikend 25.9 i 26.9 igramo polufinale i finale. CSI Konavle - Vitezovi Busovina - upica Petica - Dalmatin

♠ A K 10 9♥ 5 4 2♦ K♣ A Q J 9 4

I open one club in second seat. LHO bids one diamond, and partner bids one notrump. In the post mortem, Jack will tell me I should bid two spades at this point. I disagree. I think two spades should suggest doubt about notrump. With three hearts and the diamond king, notrump looks like the right strain to me. The only question is how high to raise. Point count undervalues this hand because of the concentrated values. Against that, honors in the opponents' suit are worth less when partner shows values there as well. I decide the hand is worth only two notrump. Partner goes on to three, and West leads the nine of diamonds.

West	North	East	South
Pass	1 ♣	1 ♦	1 NT
Pass	2 NT	Pass	3 NT
(All pass)

East takes my diamond king with the ace, and I play the deuce. How easy will it be for East to find a heart switch? It depends upon his heart holding. It would probably be easier for him to switch from the king than from the ace. If he has the ace, he may think he needs that card as an entry.  From his point of view, I could have

♠ x x x♥ K Q x♦ J x x x♣ K x x,

in which case three rounds of diamonds would be the right defense.

East cashes the diamond queen--four--three. The fact that he's cashing the diamond queen is encouraging. If he intended to switch to hearts, he probably would have done so without setting up my diamond jack first. Is there any pitch I can make from dummy to encourage him along this path? A spade pitch suggests I don't have the spade queen.  It also suggests I intend to play hearts myself. Why would I need to keep all three of dummy's hearts otherwise? Accordingly, I pitch the nine of spades.

East, to my dismay, cashes the heart ace--six--eight--four, then plays the nine of hearts. The ten is the percentage play by restricted choice. It is also the play indicated by East's defense. East would surely not cash the diamond queen if he were planning on underleading a heart honor. He cashed it because he was planning on cashing whatever red tricks he could off the top. I play the ten. West wins with the jack and cashes three more heart tricks. Down three.


Everyone played three notrump. Two pairs made four; everyone else was down three like me, so we get four matchpoints. Unfortunately, this drops us to second place. We seemed unbeatable only a couple of boards ago.

Did my spade pitch somehow make East suspicious?  Would a routine heart pitch have been more effective? Just to make sure, I replay the board, trying each of the twelve possible discards from the dummy at trick two. East shifts to ace and a heart whatever I do.

Score on Board 18: -300 (4 MP)
Total: 141 (65.3%)
Current rank: 2nd

♠ A K 2♥ A Q 9 6 5 4♦ 8 4♣ K J

Two passes to me. I open one heart, LHO overcalls with one spade--pass--pass. One notrump seems about right. Two hearts is an underbid, and three hearts is an overbid. I could double, intending to correct partner's minor to hearts, but with no interest in playing either minor, that auction doesn't appeal. This hand is basically a heart-notrump two-suiter, so I bid my second "suit." One notrump.

Partner raises to two notrump. I have a minimum in high cards for this auction, but I carry on to game on the strength of the sixth heart. West tries a sneak attack. He leads the three of diamonds. (Not necessarily fourth best. The opponents play attitude leads against notrump.)

West	North	East	South
	Pass	Pass	1 ♥
1 ♠	Pass	Pass	1 NT
Pass	2 NT	Pass	3 NT
(All pass)

I play the five of diamonds from dummy. East wins with the king, and I drop the eight. It looks as if West might have ace-queen fourth and East king-jack fifth. West shifts to the ten of spades. This is something of a surprise. With jack third of spades in dummy, East knows spades can't be running off the top. He is apparently trying to establish the suit, hoping his partner has ace-queen fifth, or perhaps ace-queen or king-queen sixth, and that the defense has an entry. With king-jack fifth of diamonds, however, it would seem that diamonds would offer a better chance of establishing four tricks (not to mention that he might be cashing five diamond tricks off the top). So I must be wrong about his having king-jack fifth of diamonds. The shift doesn't make sense unless he has only four diamonds, making West five-five in the pointed suits. I check their convention card, and they do not play Michaels. So five-five seems like a lively possiblity.

Since East is hoping his partner has the ace-queen of spades, I must cooperate by playing the king, not the ace. True, the normal play with king third or doubleton would be to duck. But, if I'm confident both honors are behind me, I might play the king in an attempt to represent a stronger holding (like the one I have). I hope East's opinion of my game is high enough that he will give me credit for having made such a play.

West makes his own contribution to the illusion I'm trying to create by playing the spade seven. He knows good and well he wants a diamond return if his partner gets in. So encouraging in spades is a serious error.

Thanks to West's signal, I'm probably going to make this now if East has the club ace. Do I have any chance if West has the club ace? Will six rounds of hearts give him a problem? He will have to come down to five cards: two spades, the club ace, and ace and a low dimaond. That means he has to unblock the diamond queen, which shouldn't be a hard play to find. This line does have the advantage that I'm down only one if it fails. Or does it? To run hearts without disturbing my tenace in spades, I have to overtake one of dummy's heart honors. If East has ten fourth of hearts (not so unlikely given West is probably five-five in the pointed cards), that isn't going to work.

It's clearly better to hope East has the club ace. If I play the club king, he might even duck. Since he doesn't know I have six hearts, he might not realize that the king of clubs is my ninth trick. I play the club king--seven--deuce--ace. West shifts to the diamond deuce. Oops. West cashes his diamonds. Down two:


So what was East playing for when he shifted to a spade? If he wasn't planning on continuing spades if I played the king and his partner encouraged, what was the point of shifting?

This is our first zero. One pair made four hearts. One pair defended three spades and beat it a trick. Everyone else was down one in either three notrump or four hearts. Everyone? They do have three notrump down two off the top. And four hearts might go down two as well. Club to the ace, club ruff, cash two diamonds, and play another club. Declarer ruffs high and now has to decide whether West began with three hearts (draw two rounds of trumps, ending in dummy) or with two (draw one round of trumps, ending in dummy; club, ruff, overruff; another trump to dummy). If we had reached four hearts at our table, I probably would have chosen the first line and gone down two. Perhaps other Wests bid Michaels, cluing declarer in to their shape.

I could have salvaged three matchpoints by cashing out for down one, but I don't regret my decision. I don't we did anything wrong on this board. Sometimes you're just destined to get a zero. At least we're still in the lead.

Score on Board 17: -100 (0 MP)
Total: 137 (67.2%)
Current rank: 1st

Alan Parsons Project – Eye In The Sky

 

This deal was shared with me by an executive member of TBW magazine. If you don’t already have a subscription, go to http://www.bridgeworld.com

and subscribe. Your (bridge) world will never be the same.

 

Sidney Lazard held this hand as South , vulnerable vs. not in 1954, yes back before some of us were born.

 

     A3   8   AK92   AK9832

                  

             N           E         S          W 

 

               -         1C        P        1S

               P          P!        2N      3H

               P          4H       ?  

 

     

Once East failed to reply to his partner’s forcing response, the gig was up and it was clear to everyone the he had psyched.

When West continued brazenly with 3H, followed by East’s raise to 4H South could logically infer as follows:

: West has at least 10 major suit cards.

: East has a poor hand with 4/5 clubs and 4 hearts.

: North therefore is marked with modest values and at least 5 diamonds.

Accordingly Lazard leapt to 6 diamonds! Think about that for a second, it is a remarkable call.

As one in the know called it “This was surely one of the top inferential bids in the history of the game;” Indeed it was. The play was swift and merciless.

This was the hand:

 

aler: S Vul:NS	North ♠ Q10 ♥ J54 ♦ QJ8763 ♣ J4
West ♠ KJ7643 ♥ AHQXX ♦ 105 ♣ -		East ♠ 985 ♥ 10632 ♦ 4 ♣ Q10765
	South ♠ A3 ♥ 8 ♦ AK92 ♣ AK9832

 

1)     HK;

2)      HA ruffed.

3)      DK

4)      DQ

5)      CJ-Q-K.

6)     Run trumps reducing to 5 cards, with the lead in the dummy.

 

                                Q10

                                 J

                                 8

                                 4

 

              KJ                                     9

              Q97                                    -

               -                                        -

               -                                      10765

 

                                  A3

                                  -

                                  -

                                  K98

 

 

For the last 5 cards, East must keep 4 clubs (else ruff out) so can’t keep 2 spades. Then (marked) club finesse, king clubs, club ruff to squeeze West between the majors.  

Eye in the sky indeed.

Please bear in mind that the inferences available on the above hand are hardly analogous to the Piltch hand.

This story is as sweet as mangoes, the new Orleans story is more like cod liver oil, of foul odour and a bitter aftertaste. More on that later.

 

 

C

I was fooling around on Bridge Base last night when I had a pleasant experience. A BBO friend invited me to his table where I was partnered by a well-known expert and we had about 35 kibitzers. I was dealer and picked up this nice hand:

♠  T72
♥  AQ84
♦   A52
♣  AKJ

I opened 1 Club, partner bid 1 Spade, I rebid 2NT and she raised me to 3NT.  LHO led the jack of hearts, and I saw: 

♠  Q954
♥  K2
♦  Q6
♣  97643

♠ T72
♥ AQ84
♦ A52
♣ AKJ

I wanted to set up the clubs and the heart king was my only sure entry to dummy, so I won the first trick in my hand with the ace, then started the clubs with the ace.  RHO showed out, pitching a heart (a critical error as it turned out), so the clubs weren't going to come in and I had to find a Plan B.  I saw a possible 9 tricks: 2 spades, 3 hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs.  To get  there, I had to start the spades.  I led the deuce.  LHO won the king and continued a second heart (a diamond would have been better).   I won dummy's king, played a club to my king and played the ten of spades (to unblock).  It went jack, queen, ace.  RHO returned a heart, I won the queen and LHO followed with the ten.  My 8 of hearts was now good, so I was up to 8 tricks. If the spades came in 3-3, I would be up to 9, so I played my last spade to dummy's 9.  LHO showed out, but I still had a chance.  RHO had a good spade, but all his remaining cards had to be diamonds.  So I played dummy's last spade.  RHO won and returned a diamond, perforce.  I played low, holding my breath, and when LHO didn't produce the king, I was home with 1 spade, 4 hearts, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs. 

My expert partner sent me a nice message:  "I'm impressed!"  That's a great thing to read in front of 35 kibitzers!

Good luck! 

Last evening I received an email from a former Philadelphia buddy, who (like moi) migrated to Texas (and is still there).  His exact words that accompanied the caricature (if you recognized him) were:

We stumbled upon this portrait of great American while at American Art Museum in DC.  They think he’s playing poker (according to caption).  We think that’s amusing.  You could post this to blog and credit the museum.

In lieu of his suggested kudos to the Museum, I am posting it and crediting Mark Lombard for passing on the image of one of bridge’s most celebrated and generous bridge allies .. Warren Buffett.

We stumbled upon this portrait of great American while at American Art Museum in DC.  They think he’s playing poker (according to caption).  We think that’s amusing.  You could post this to blog and credit the museum.We stumbled upon this portrait of great American while at American Art Museum in DC. 

Hi all

Here’s a slam I butchered.

West

North

East

South

2 1

Double

5

6 2

a.p.

 

 

 

 

1. Weak
2. Not very scientific, but sometimes you take off the white gloves and enter while swinging your axe.

Dummy comes down:



King lead. Alright, this baby needs some work. I can count only ten tricks with a succesful hook. I won’t go into detail how I botched the contract, but my opponent threw me a trick-twelve-bone with a ruff and sluff.

It took me some overtime to formulate the most elegant plan. Draw two rounds of trumps ending in dummy. Play a to the Queen and exit with the Ace of and the Ten. This basically wins with the 3-3, King doubleton onside and various 2-4 holdings where East will be endplayed. Those last ones might be a bit difficult to read, though.

I think that’s as much optimization juice you can squeeze from that lemon.

West Dealer

NS Vul

North

J63

AKQ6

7

Q8542

West

92

85

KQJ943

J76

East

KT75

3

T8652

K93

South

AQ84

JT9742

A

AT

 

The last days of summer and the start of autumn brings a full schedule of events to Minnesotans!  Here are but a few of the tournaments and special games you might consider attending:

Fargo Regional - September 2nd through 6th

Paul Bunyon Sectional in Duluth - September 10th through 12th

ACBL Wide Instant Matchpoint Game - Thursday, September 16th; check with your local club

North American Pairs District Finals - New Brighton, October 2nd & 3rd; Club qualification required for participation (check with your local club for NAP qualifying games now!)

Autumn Harvest Sectional in Maplewood - October 8th though 10th

 

Jim, a guy I work with, played this deal at the local club last Thursday (low cards are approximate where not important):

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

Jim was South and declared 6♥ after the lead of a low spade. How would you play?

Most declarers drew three rounds of trumps (they split 3-2), then played on diamonds. Because of your strong spot cards, you're likely to bring in the suit. That's not a bad line, but Jim saw an extra chance.

He played only two rounds of trumps, then played the ♦K and another diamond. East discarded! He won the ♦A and led the ♦J. West covered (ducking would do no good), and Jim ruffed in dummy as East discarded again.

Now it was trivial to discard a club on a high spade, play the ♣A and ruff a club to draw the last trump and concede a diamond. In all, he took: five hearts, two spades, one club, three diamonds and one diamond ruff for his 12 tricks.

Here are all four hands (East-West cards are approximate):

                 ♠ A K J 8 6
                 ♥ K 9 6
                 ♦ K 2
                 ♣ A 4 2
♠ 4 3 2                        ♠ Q 10 9 7
♥ 10 8 3                       ♥ 5 4
♦ Q 10 7 6 4                   ♦ 5
♣ K 9                          ♣ J 10 8 7 6 5
                 ♠ 5
                 ♥ A Q J 7 2
                 ♦ A J 9 8 3
                 ♣ Q 3

Jim got a top for bidding and making 6♥. Three other declarers bid slam, but went set one. How would you have done?

Playing online last night, South was in 3NT on this deal:

               ♠ A 4 2
               ♥ A 2
               ♦ A J 8 7 6
               ♣ 10 8 5
==
               ♠ Q J 6 5
               ♥ K J 8 4 3
               ♦ ---
               ♣ A J 7 6

Spades was the unbid suit, so Kate led the ♠9. Declarer ducked and I won the ♠K and shifted to the ♦K. Declarer discarded the ♥3, Kate contributed the ♦2 and declarer ducked.

I shifted to the ♣3. Declarer played low and kate won the ♣Q. She returned the ♦3, and South took her ace, discarding a low heart from her hand.

She now had three spades, two hearts, one diamond and one club. She had to play on clubs or hearts for her game-going tricks. Because she had discarded two hearts, she was committed to play clubs -- she lead the ♣10. That lost to Kate's king, and we took two more diamond tricks for down two. Plus 200 was worth 8.51 IMPs for the good guys.

Here are all four hands:

               ♠ A 4 2
               ♥ A 2
               ♦ A J 8 7 6
               ♣ 10 8 5
♠ 9 3                         ♠ K 10 8 7
♥ 9 6 5                       ♥ Q 10 7
♦ 5 4 3 2                     ♦ K Q 10 9
♣ K Q 9 4                     ♣ 3 2
               ♠ Q J 6 5
               ♥ K J 8 4 3
               ♦ ---
               ♣ A J 7 6

Do you think declarer did anything wrong? Playing on the heart suit (instead of discarding two of them) means she needed the suit to split with the queen onside -- a definite long shot. But let's examine the play.

On my ♦K, Kate played the 2. Her count is known and her attitude is known, so what could it mean? She was giving strong suit preference for clubs. When she won her ♣Q, she returned the ♦3, again suit preference. I knew she had another high club card, South should have, too.

The board was played 72 times, and you can see what all the players did if you click here.

Grâce à la dernière Bermuda Bowl , aux albums de photos de Fernando Lema et peut être aussi au temps libre avant la reprise des cours, j'ai pu créer un Kaliedoscope de Gabriel Chagas et des albums de photos des Grands Maîtres WBF 2008 open et catégorie femmes. Je n'ai pu trouver aucune photo de la Grand Maître américaine Marylin Johnson ; merci à tout internaute qui pourrait combler le vide.

As we enter the waning days of Summer 2010, Unit 178's board is hard at work.

Below are the minutes from the August 21st board meeting.  Please review; you can keep up on all the activities, plans and decisions implemented by your board members!

Our thanks to all for their efforts.

Download Minutes8-21-10

How much time do you spend analysing your performance at the bridge table?

I don't do as much as some, but I probably do more than most following a major tournament. The same is true when I am helping an international pair following a major championship.

The initial problem when you start is the sheer number of boards to handle. A pair in the European Championships will play 360 boards over the event. Even over a Camrose weekend they will often play close to 150 boards.

My starting point is to try and systematically identify 'interesting' hands. If the data is available I'll generate three metrics and if the hand lies outside a certain threshold then it is marked 'interesting' and I'll examine it in detail. The metrics I use are: (1) imps swing in the match, (2) butler imps across the field and (3) imps against 'par'. I normally use a threshold of +/-4 imps as that seems to generate a manageable number of hands to inspect and find most of the hands that a pair would be interested in.

You may question the use of the par contract. Certainly par is often unattainable - doubling part scores for a one trick set, making slams in a 4-3 fit with a working finesse (as happened last night), dropping singleton kings offside when there are seven cards outstanding, etc. Although measuring performance against par is unwise, using it as a metric to find the interesting hands has certainly proved worthwhile.

Calculating par is not too difficult normally, but when I have the hand data I use the (free) Double Dummy Solver (DDS) from Bridge Captain to do the job as it is far quicker and more accurate.

The latest release of DDS also has some really useful features when you do have the hand data. I guess the best source of hand data for most people are the BBO records of an event and it is easy to input these. Those who play on BBO can also input their BBO deals directly into the tool using the 'Download BBO' option, which will take download all your hands played over the last day, week or month.

If you then look at the 'Scorecard' and use the 'Filter Hands' option, you get a simple data mining tool to investigate the hands. For example, the summary will show you how many times you open relative to the oppositions, are you more competitive in the auction, the ratio of hands that you play relative to your partner, the imps per board when you declare, etc.. Filtering the hands to slam contracts allows you to focus in on these quickly, often a source of imps in one column or another.

Overall DDS is a very useful tool and well worth a regular partnership investigating, especially if they play regularly on BBO.

When playing in a competitive game attitude is important. Matchpoint bridge is strangely abstract in that you playing against the players you may never face at the table, so one’s attitude towards the field becomes important. In a recent Regional my partner and I had a healthy lead after the first of 2 sessions in a seniors’ pairs game. The field was not distinguished. The second session began well, and when about a third of the way through my partner scored well in a doubled part score against our main rivals, I felt our position was unassailable. At this point thinking to consolidate our position, I decided to play down the middle and concentrate on reaching the par result. In this I was mostly successful as a later study of the hand sheets confirmed. Yes, there was one hand where I kept the wrong card in the endgame and allowed 3NT to make, but that was only slightly below par as the declarer had given us an opportunity by a misplay. Imagine my surprise when after 11 rounds we found we had fallen behind in the standings. A bad last round where so-so opponents fell into a high scoring minor suit partial (-130) sealed our fate. It was as if we had been riding high, wide, and handsome in a hot air balloon before I turned off the gas burner and set us to drifting gently to the ground, helped along by a nasty downdraft at the end. Our skills had not diminished suddenly, but my attitude had, and this reduced my alertness towards opportunities that presented themselves. Too late I recalled the comment of the late Paul Soloway, ‘I never play for averages.’

It is common for experienced players to advise otherwise. In his book Matchpoints (1982) Kit Woolsey begins by stating, ‘what we are trying to do when we play bridge (or any other game of imperfect knowledge) is to minimize the expected or average cost of being wrong.’ This appears to suggest the need to minimize potential losses by going with the field in close bidding decisions. What many, like me, forget is his following definition, ‘the cost of being wrong is the difference between the result of the action in question and the optimal possible result which would be achieved if the winning action were taken.’ The cost is not calculated against the field action but against the odds present in the lie of the cards. One cannot afford to miss opportunities for a good score.

‘There is no security on this earth, only opportunity’ – General Douglas MacArthur

It is not difficult to treat the problem theoretically where there are just 2 alternative contracts possible. So we might think of the bidding outcomes as a game or a partial, or a slam and a game, or a grand slam and a small slam. Competitive bidding situations commonly involve more than 2 possible contracts, but that can wait for now.

What to Expect in Theory
The number of players doesn’t affect the theoretical results concerning the expected scores which depend solely of the probabilities of 2 events: PB, the probability that a given contract will be bid by the opposition, and PM, the probability that the given contract will make. You will score 1 for every opponent whose score is below yours, score ½ for each opponent who has the same score as yours, and score 0 for each opponent whose score exceeds yours. For ease of explanation we often illustrate the problem in terms of a slam being bid, but the reader may keep in mind the method applies to the other situations mentioned above.

There are 4 possible situations: 1) you bid slam and it makes; 2) you bid slam and it fails; 3) you stay in game and slam makes, and 4) you stay in game and slam fails. The probability of slam making is PM, so the probability of its failing is 1 – PM. The probability of the slam being bid is PB, so the probability that it won’t is 1 – PB. The expected scores under each situation are as follows:
 

Situation 1	PM – ½ PM x PB		Situation 2	½ PB – ½ PB x PM
Situation 3	½ PM – ½ PM x PB		Situation 4	½ + ½ PB – ½ PM – ½ PM x PB

 
We denote the sums, S1, S2, S3, and S4, respectively. The sum S1 + S2 equals the expected score when one chooses to bid the higher level contract; S3 + S4 equals the expected score when one chooses to stay in the lower level contract.
 

S1 + S2	=	PM + ½ PB – PM x PB
S3 + S4	=	½ + ½ PB – PM x PB
So that		S1 + S2 – (S3 + S4)	= PM – ½

 
Clearly, one should choose to bid to the higher level if there is a greater than 50% chance of making it, regardless of what the field is doing. This is a nice result for idealists as one should in theory bid according to an evaluation based on the cards alone. An accurate evaluation requires accurate information, and inevitably there is uncertainty due to the inadequacies of the bidding system. The worse one’s bidding, the more inclined one is to go with the field. It helps in this regard if everyone bids according to the same rules.

The field has an expected score of average (½), so no matter how crazy the crowd, if you follow the crowd, you can expect an average score. That is part of the survival kit of the mediocre player. One might imagine that the probability of bidding a contract should reflect the probability of its making, that is, the field will tend to bid contracts where PM>½ and avoid those where PM<½. The critical decisions will occur where PM is somewhere in the vicinity of ½, that is, where there is maximum uncertainty as to whether the contract is more likely to make than not. However, the field has its preferences and tends overbid games. A 50% chance of making a major suit game requires more than a simple finesse, as one must take into account the possibility of a 4-1 split, an eventuality most players ignore both in the bidding and in the play. On the other hand the field tends to underbid minor suit slams, as most pairs do not have the methods to explore for slam and stop in 4NT. Why, then, are so many good players affected by what the field is bidding?

Baseball and Bridge
Over the long run of a baseball season it is a part of the game that a team experiences ups and downs. So it is at matchpoint bridge: one doesn’t score above average on every hand, and sometimes a disaster occurs at random. The baseball strategy employed for making the playoffs is to beat up on the poor teams while breaking even with the rivals. It is hard to win a matchpoint event if one gets a string of averages against pairs who are handing out tops to others. On the other hand, one should be content to achieving an average against the best pairs, as that means one hasn’t fallen behind them in the race for a top position. To achieve an average one bids as the field bids.

Matchpoint games differ from team games in the same way that the baseball season differs from the playoffs. To get to the playoffs a team needs home run hitters who are considered good if they hit a home run once in 20 at bats. They hit mistakes. They are like the players who take advantage of poor pairs. Once a team gets to the playoffs, the game changes, as a team must face another good team. Now accuracy and consistency are most important, and an ability to bunt may become critical. Often the heroes are steady players who never made the highlights during the season. So it is at bridge. Tactics vary with the players at the table and depends on the quality of the field.

Strategic Bidding and Maximum Uncertainty
At matchpoints sometimes one may wish to minimize the potential loss and sometimes to maximize the potential gain. The 2 strategies can be analyzed mathematically as follows.

The difference (S1 + S2) – (S3 + S4) can be broken down into the following 2 components:

S1 – S4	representing the difference in gains for being in the right contract, and
S2 – S3	representing the difference in losses for being in the wrong contract.

 
One may attempt to maximize the gain for bidding correctly, or attempt to minimize the loss for bidding incorrectly. A very important condition is a probability of ½, which represents a condition of maximum uncertainty as to which contract the field will prefer (PB=½), or which contract will make (PM=½). In such cases, maximizing the gain or minimizing the loss are contrary strategies: as S4 goes up, S3 must go down. If S4 is greater than S1, then S3 must be less than S2. Here are some numerical illustrations.
 

Conditions	I	II	III	IV	V
	PM = ½	PM = 3/8	PM = 3/4	PM = ½	PM = ½
	PB = ½	PB = ½	PB = ½	PB = 1/3	PB = 2/3

 

S1	3/8	0.28	0.56	0.42	0.33
S2	1/8	0.16	0.06	0.08	0.17
S3	1/8	0.09	0.19	0.17	0.08
S4	3/8	0.47	0.19	0.33	0.42

 
Condition I is the condition of total (legitimate) confusion. There is symmetry with regard to bidding slam or staying in game. It matters not one iota, on average, whether one bids on or not. The gains are the same, the losses are the same.

Condition II represents the situation where half the field overbids to a contract with a poor chance of making. The worst possible result is got by not bidding the popular game and it makes (Situation 3). So to minimize the loss one bids the game the field favors even though the chances of making it are poor. To maximize the gain, one sensibly avoids a game that has a poor chance of success.

Condition III represents a situation where half of the field misses a very good slam, possibly stopping in 3NT. To maximize the gain, one should bid the slam, even though one gets the worst score if it happens to fail. To minimize the loss, one avoids the slam, but is likely to score poorly.

Condition IV represents the field’s obvious blind spot, avoiding a so-so minor suit game. The best score is got by bidding and making it, the worst by going down. It doesn’t cost much to stay in a partial (and there may be a bonus when some go down in 3NT).

Condition V is the reverse situation in which the field is eager to bid a 50-50 game. In this case the highest expectation is for bidding against the field, staying in a partial, and making it, while the lowest expectation is for not bidding the popular contract that happens to make.

Minimizing the Effect of Being Wrong
Given a choice of mistakes, under what conditions is it better to bid a contract that fails (Situation 2) than to not bid a contract that succeeds (Situation 3)? The expected advantage for overbidding versus underbidding is ½ (PB – PM). If one is making a mistake, it is better if one has lots of company. The worst outcome possible is got by bidding an unlucky but unpopular slam, as represented by Condition III.

When in doubt one may decide to bid on the basis of what the field may be doing. That will minimize the potential loss, but it may not get one to best contract, as illustrated by Conditions IV and V. Under these conditions the best and the worst scores are got by bidding against the tendency of the field. Under Condition IV, PM + PB < 1, whereas under Condition V, PM + PB >1. In the next blog we shall show this is an important distinction in a team game.

Maximizing the Effect of Being Right
There are those of us who prefer to back their own judgment rather than follow a field that is too often flawed in its approach. The question for us is this: which correct decision is likely produce the highest score on average: bidding a makeable slam (Situation 1) or by staying out of a slam that doesn’t make (Situation 4)? In what way does the decision depend on the probability of slam being bid by the field? The difference in the expected scores for staying safely in game or bidding successfully to slam (S1 – S4) is given by the following expression:
 

Expected Gain	= ½ (3xPM – 1 – PB)
	= PM – ½ when PM equals PB

 
The expected gain for bidding on is a positive quantity when 3xPM is greater than 1 + PB. (Condition IV) This tells us that one may justify bidding a slam that is less than 50% successful if the field tends to avoid it. For example, if 2/3 of the field will avoid a particular slam, one needs only a 45% chance of making it to gain more by bidding slam than by stopping in game. This is swinging bridge, as it risks a large loss albeit in a good cause. On the other hand, if the opponents are more likely than not to bid the higher scoring contract, one need a better than 50% chance of success in order to justify staying low as well. Thus, if 2/3 of the field is expected to bid a slam, one maximizes the expected gain by avoiding the slam with less than 5 chances in 9 of making (PM=56%). Here is an example of this phenomena.
 
Beating the Field

			Torturous	Exchange
♠ KQ85	♠ A93		2 NT	3 ♣
♥ AQ3	♥ KJ5		3 ♠	4 ♠
♦ K543	♦ A107		4 ♥	4 NT (invites)
♣ AK	♣ J432		5 ♦	5 ♥
21 HCP	13 HCP		5 NT	Pass

 
Most responders would not hesitate to bid 6NT immediately on the basis a faith in HCP totals and a near certainty that the field will do the same. Normally with 33 HCP between the 2 hands, 6NT would be a favorite to make, but there are some abnormalities to be noted on a double dummy basis. Most importantly with regard to probabilities, the distribution of HCPs is not consistent with the length of the suits held. One would expect the opener to have better diamonds and worse clubs. The ♣ AK doubleton is a bad feature. The responder’s longest suit is headed by the ♣ J, so there is little prospect for establishing a long trick in the suit. The ♥ J is wasted, the 1 HCP it represents would be much better placed if added to the ♣ J to make it the ♣ Q. In addition the division of sides is an unpromising 7-7-6-6 rather than the more usual 8-7-6-5.

The probability of making slam is less than the probability of bidding it, so the hands represent a situation where one might profit hugely by going against the field. There are 10 tricks off the top, so some luck is needed to move the total up to 12. If spades split 3-3 one can get a functioning squeeze going in the minors when the player with the ♣ Q holds 4 diamonds. Declarer might get lucky if a defender without the ♣ Q discards a diamond from 9862.

A well-informed player has good reasons for downgrading, however, the knowledge needed to make a fine judgment requires an informative sequence of several revealing bids that convey doubt. Given a choice either partner might decide not to bid the slam and the pair will probably score very well indeed by merely taking their 10 tricks off the top. However, most players would not bid in this way – either they consider it dangerous, or they like to take charge, or they are not capable. If the slam just happens to make, a pair that stays out of it will score poorly. Maybe unlucky, but one mustn’t complain.

Bidding Maps
It is helpful to visualize the decision making process by way of a bidding map with PM and PB as the co-ordinates. The simplest version is a flat map that displays the decision to bid on or not without indication of the elevations involved. Here are the flat maps for matchpoint decision as to whether to bid on (Yes) or not (No) or Flip a Coin ( –).
 

Minimize Loss

PM/PB	.45	.50	.56	.60
.45	–	Yes	Yes	Yes
.50	No	No	–	Yes
.56	No	No	–	Yes
.60	No	No	No	–

 

Maximize Gain

PM/PB	.45	.50	.56	.60
.45	No	No	No	No
.50	Yes	–	No	No
.56	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
.60	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

 
The minimum loss map merely reflects the symmetrical rule, ‘bid on when PB>PM, don’t when PM>PB’ This yields a bad decision when poor games are being bid throughout the room, but many players go with the field in this situation, compounding the error. This is a situation where a brave judgment to pass based on poor trump quality can result in a good score.

The maximize gain map reflects the rule, ‘bid on if 3xPM is greater than 1+PB’. The maximize map yields the better approach as it conforms more closely to the optimal rule of ‘bid on if PM>½’. When PM equals 0.5 (maximum uncertainty as to whether the higher contract makes) and PB is greater than 0.5 (a suspicion most will bid it), one maximizes the gain by stopping short and minimizes the loss by bidding on.

When I hear a player reflect, ‘I thought we might make slam (or game or NT), but there won’t be many in it’, I think, ‘there goes a player so good he can afford to pass up golden opportunities.’ At the end of the game I find he usually scores above average, yes, but he is not near the top. Such a player does better at teams. In the next blog we shall investigate why this is so.

Afterword: Hugh Kelsey’s Advice
In his book Match-Point Bridge (1970) Hugh Kelsey presented the conservative view with regard to bidding close games. He wrote, ‘the game should normally be bid, for most players are healthily aggressive in their bidding habits and a fifty-fifty game will be bid more often than not. If there appears to be any reasonable chance of success you should wish to be in game.’ His advice is equivalent to minimizing the loss when one makes the wrong decision. He notes, ‘The good player does not like to gamble on close bidding decisions…. He therefore chooses to play down the middle on such boards, relying on superior judgement on the competitive hands to pull his score above average.’

This advice seems to me to be poorly argued. There is a limit to the accuracy one can obtain from a bidding sequence, true, but that accuracy may be lessened by interference, so there is more scope for error, not less. We see that all the time. Bidding space is reduced. Superior judgement depends partly on the information made available by unreliable opponents, so one can be mislead, whereas bidding in an uncontested auction depends on the information provided by one’s usually reliable partner who has your best interests at heart.

After the opening lead is made, declarer has a firmer grasp on the probabilities involved. He may feel more in command of the opportunities presented. That is an essential psychological factor. No one argues that declarer should do what the poorer players are doing, finesse at every opportunity, rather one concentrates one’s efforts on besting the average players. One must be prepared to take advantage of a particular lie of the cards that provides an overtrick, even if there is some risk involved due to the fact that most players will not make the same play. For example, a partial elimination and endplay is a common way of achieving this, but one must rely on fairly even split in the side suits, otherwise one may suffer an untimely defensive ruff resulting in a poor score. The difficulty with adopting the same positive attitude during the auction is that the uncertainty when bidding is greater than the uncertainty when one sees 26 cards. Nonetheless there may be more clear mistakes made in play than in bidding.

The argument that one should bid with the field does not even assert that the risk outweighs the gain, for as we have shown, there may be great profit obtained from staying out of popular unmakeable contracts. No, the advice reflects what Pliny the Elder observed 2000 years ago, that the best plan is to rely on the mistakes of others. If one is a good player in a bad field, that cynical approach can be successful, but remember what happened to Rome – it fell to the barbarians in 476 AD.

Afterword 2: Matchpoints as Democracy
Matchpoint scoring is a democratic process. On every hand each pair has a vote on the best contract. Rarely is there complete agreement, but usually a consensus is achieved. The plebiscite may be worded as, ‘does such-and-such a contract have a better than 50% chance of success?’ A player votes ‘yes’ by bidding it. Insufficient punishments are handed those who made a mistake when they joined the majority, whereas the system comes down hard on dissenters who got themselves in trouble even though their motivation was sound and they would be correct more often than not. Their rewards are posthumous. In theory if a self-interested majority votes for a particular contract, it is most likely to be a sound one, but in practice a large number of voters may not have the foggiest idea, so they just goes along with what they think others think. The average player feels safest in the middle. He reacts conventionally the way he has been taught. Often he is left to ask himself, ‘what went wrong?’ That happens a lot, not just in politics.

The majority know that much of what they are being told comes under the euphemistic heading of ‘Wishful Thinking’, but they continue to have faith that vast improvements can accrue from small adjustments here and there. They tend to blame themselves for bad results, not the system, accept punishment for their supposed misdeeds, and feel that next time they’ll get it right. But the next time around another problem that requires fixing crops up unexpectedly somewhere else. They listen to those who propose patches that will make things better. Filling out a convention card is like filling out an income tax form – legal advice is required to take full advantage of the loopholes offered. Most react unfavorably to lying, because they themselves have never been taught how to do it properly. The majority abhors fundamental change and embrace expediency. They sacrifice the future to the past. They keep coming back for more, because it’s a great game.

Some of you may have noticed a reference to the CBF Fund Raiser planned for September 2011 in the comments to Nadar’s blog about Canadian Team Selection.  There will be lots more publicity about it later on but I did want to say that the work has started.

We have a date approved for a fund raiser next year.  It will be a cross country simultaneous, a one session sectionally rated event on Saturday afternoon.  We are hoping that alongside it will be other things like expert auctions, silent auctions and the like.

And you know that I need some help.  Being committee chairperson is a lonely task without committee members.  So far Pamela Nisbet and Michael Yuen have agreed to help out but I do need a lot more help than that.  So if you are interested in helping let me know.  There are many different ways that people can help.  But if I call or email you and ask for help don’t be too surprised.  I have learned that waiting for the telephone to ring is not very effective.  (Is it waiting for email to beep?)

I have been busy editing a new pocket guide.  It has now been handed off to Ray who is quite grumpy about it.  He doesn’t understand why I can’t follow the style guide and why I can’t write to length.  I admit that I could make his life a bit easier.  But anyway the great moment is when it moves off my desk and on to his.

Between that and a few projects I am working on and ebook creation and policy I have not been playing much or blogging much.  My grandson Cassidy is arriving for a visit on Friday along with a return visit from my girl friend Victoria who decided she needs a break from life in the South Carribean on a gorgeous sailboat.  Okay I guess so.  She misses the fitness club!  And just after that we are off to England to attend Mark Horton’s nuptials along with various meetings.   Then there is New York and Philadelphia and then Orlando.  Hmm.  I really miss home when I traveling this much.  But Orlando should be nice since Colin, Luise and their children will be coming along.

Back to asking for help… why should you care about the bridge teams?  That is a question I think about some time.  How can I ask people to raise money for teams when there are people who are homeless or there are some terrible diseases and so on.  Is it really worthwhile?  I think that our teams provide inspiration to young players and really to us all.  It allows the best players to aspire to something.  It can make us proud.  It is no different really than the Olympics or the World Cup.  Intellectual sports are just as important as the jock kind.

So if you have any suggestions, any ideas and especially if you will help please let me know.

Back in harness with Diana at the Russell Cup and another up and down evening. We finished below average when we scored poorly on a lot of hands which had very little to do with us, but we did have our little successes.

The full results have not yet been published, but we were probably the only pair to reach the best slam on board 22:
How do you play the contract on the lead of the eight of spades?

We did well on the following board, perhaps because the defender on lead had been reading some of earlier work.
When we scored the board we were the only pair in game, everyone else idling in two hearts. I still prefer the two notrump rebid even if it is a little light in values. Anyhow, it was clearly the right contract when the king of diamonds was led. Although at imps leading a small diamond is probably right, giving away cheap tricks at matchpoints is a more important objective and it is hard to criticise the lead. A simulation that I did, admittedly when holding five diamonds to the king and queen, suggested that a top honour lead was significantly better at matchpoints. Lucky board for us then.

Finally a nicely timed defence against a spouse:
I don't know when the lead of the 9 from K98 (and similar holdings) came into vogue. It is very popular but I don't recall ever seeing it in the books on defence that I read in my youth. It probably cost an second undertrick here, although Deep Finesse can always make six tricks.

Although I had signalled for a heart switch, Diana could also have switched the queen of spades and although you would need to continue with a small one to maintain defensive communications.

Often, bridge is a function of using logic - and being eagle-eyed at the same time.

If declaring against expert opponents, you ask yourself:  "Why are they defending as they are?"  The answer to this question can be the key to judging what next move to take.

So it is today in John Koch's column.  An excellent lesson in how to calculate what a winning line should be!

Download 187.TheFirstDiscard

Scottish junior international Jun Pinder is featured in the Tip of the Week at Barnet Shenkin's World of Bridge site. It features a hand from the Summer Congress at Peebles.

However just to keep his feet on the ground, Barnet has misspelt his name. I did try to get it changed but apparently too difficult, so (s)he'll have to live it down.

Infamy?

Although eBooks have been around for quite a while they are only just now starting to become part of the mainstream.  Things are still changing very rapidly for eBook retailers, publishers and readers.  Apple’s entry into the eBook market with the launch of iBooks and the iPad has indeed been a game changer.

If you are a bit of a skeptic, I’m here to tell you that eBooks do have some advantages.  Because they are electronic they can be loaded onto several devices.  You can carry hundreds of books with you and reference them whenever you want.  If you see a book you want you don’t have to wait.  You can download your book to your reader and have it in a few minutes.  eBooks can also provide some enhanced features like links, definitions, audio, videos and more.

If you decided to join the eBook world there are a number of readers to chose from based on price and features.  The two most famous right now are the Kindle and the iPad.

The Kindle is a pure reader and that is its only function.  The Kindle is easy to read.  Like all readers you can adjust the font size (so you don’t have to squint) and look words up in the built-in dictionary.  One thing that people really like about the Kindle is that you can get your book (from Amazon only, though) from any location where you can get access to the phone network (although a small fee applies for each use).  With WiFi, you can also mail books to your Kindle from other sources.  However, you will have to convert your books (via Amazon) if they were bought elsewhere unless they are a PDF.  Until recently the Kindle was quite expensive, but competition has caused Amazon to drop the price significantly.

I love the iPad.  The advantage is that it is multifunctional.  You can play games, read a newspaper, listen to music, read your email, watch a video, type notes and so on.  Oh yeah, you can read books too.  You can buy books from Apple but books bought at the Apple store, right now at least, can only run on an Apple device.  However, you can load books from other sources in ePub format or PDF format.  To read books on the “i” device, you simply download a free copy of iBooks and add your .epub or .PDF books to your library in iTunes.

There are other readers you might also want to consider, for example, the Kobo is a low cost reader which works well.

eBooks and Bridge Books

It is relatively hard to convert bridge books to ePub format, since the hand diagrams and auctions have to stay together and you need to incorporate special suit symbols.  It takes time and know-how.  If you buy a non-Master Point Press title, be warned, it may not be readable.  It’s a hard job to create good bridge eBooks (believe me, we know!).  PDF’s are much easier to work with and most books in that format should work well on most devices.

PDF’s are most suitable for use on a computer and ePub format (or equivalent) are best for readers, although both can be used with suitable software on either device.  Most vendors charge separately for each format.  But at Master Point Press we plan on providing purchasers with both formats at no extra cost, so you can enjoy your book effectively on your PC or your reader, whatever way you want.

At the moment most vendors will be very helpful.  If you have a problem, lose a book or get the wrong thing, they will provide a replacement.

If this all sounds a bit complicated, it really isn’t.  Even if you only have a computer you can download a PDF version of your book and read it, or download an ePub version and read it that way (you will also need to download a free ePub reader).

Printing: All Master Point Press PDF’s can be printed.  If you want a printed copy use your PDF version and print it from your PC (or just print out that critical page or two).  This is generally true of many PDF’s from other sources (although some may be locked to prevent printing).

Free Downloads: There are lots of free downloads around that you can read on your reader.  www.eBooksBridge.com has a number of books and other material.  If you look around you will find there are free books in all formats available, especially books that are no longer in copyright.  Robinson Crusoe anyone?

Pricing: eBooks almost always cost less than the comparable paperback.  After all, there is no printing cost so the publisher can charge a bit less.  But the cost of developing a book is the same and with a retailer, an author, an editor, a designer and more to pay, well-produced books will still cost more than a few cents.  At this point the business arrangements between the publishers and online retailers are in flux so not every book will be available from every source.  All Master Point Press eBooks (and some others) will be available at www.eBooksBridge.com as well as other sources upon completion.

If you are interested in selling a bridge eBook contact us at editorial@bridgeblogging.com.  We have a program for publishing bridge books as eBooks with a high return to the author.  For more details refer to the Honors eBooks FAQs at www.eBooksBridge.com.

How it feels to be the captain on an online bridge team:

All bridge players can probably look back (usually with grinning faces) to what (when first introduced to the game) they thought was ‘BRIDGE.”  I am not poking fun at our initiation (heavens, no!) but rather demonstrating how both the game and our reflections upon it have changed over the years. 

We all had varying opening exposures – through our grandparents, parents, school buddies, college friends – a myriad of people who were fascinated by the concept of the game and resultantly caused us to turn our heads.

Today, the catch phrase is CONVENTIONS.  They are only as good as the players employing them, using them when appropriate and not forgetting either the nuances or recognizing them when they arise.  I can speak from personal experience, tracing my heritage over many decades.   Most of us started out as starry-eyed beginners completely captivated by this new attraction.   As most, I progressed from home games to duplicates and then through the cycle.   By 1965 I was a dyed-in-the wool disciple of Kaplan-Sheinwold because of Norman’s alliance with Edgar Kaplan, its co-designer.

As most bridge players, I loved what is sarcastically referred to by Bobby as “comfort zones.”   They are methods which cause people to be secure in their auctions, knowing exactly what each bid means   It did not necessarily guarantee to be the most advantageous method of handling certain situations, but it gave solace to its users that they were secure in their understanding.  One of my favorites was the popular Forcing No Trump without which I felt I could not survive (and I did put up some mild resistance at the beginning – but soon faltered because of the success we enjoyed adapting the NF treatment). 

As the old adage goes, all good things must come to an end – and so did my beloved Forcing No Trump.  I never thought the day would arrive when I would not have my security blanket (by an unpassed hand) of being able to respond with 1NT (5 to a bad 12) and then make an invitational jump to the three level with three card support.   However, over the last six years sitting across the table from Bobby, I have witnessed (with unyielding conviction) how important it is to not go beyond 1NT which so often is the best contract in a matchpoint venue.  Of course, as a passed hand, we use three and four card Drury, but how, pray tell, do you show a limit raise by a NPH with only three trumps if you fear that 1NT might be your first and last call?   Easy!   You muster up all the moxy with which your years of experience have blessed you and unperturbed, boldly jump to three of the major.  Partner assumes it is four but would not have a seizure if only three appeared as dummy was tabled.

The reason we employ 1NT as a non-forcing tactic is that it allows partner who opened with a balanced modicum of points (11+ to a bad 14) to be able to pass with some humdrum 5-3-3-2 or 3-5-2-3 distribution.  No guarantees – but it has served us well. 

To select a topic such as this departs from my normal blogging repertoire, but I was reading a commentary on other treatments of support (such as Bergen Raises, etc.) and the spirit moved me to share this with you.  It is frightfully out of character for me, I confess, as I am still very much a humble student of the game and  preaching about system modifications is hardly my long suit or area of expertise!!  Forgive my fall from grace.

This blog is expired, please visit my new website www.bridgewinners.com

Hi all

Here’s me shamelessly plugging away. I think what René is working on is going to be big.


www.bridgebig.com

By Bob Klein:  Bridge Base Online (BBO) is a fun place to play bridge.  I have developed a set of acquaintances who often invite me to play in team matches.  Some of them are players I can rely on to be experts; others, who claim to be experts, are of uncertain skill.  Often a good player will invite me into a game and pair me up with someone I haven't played with before.  When this happens, there are times when I have to make decisions without firm partnership agreements or confidence that my partner will know to do the right thing. 

Last night, I picked up this interesting collection in a team game with both sides vulnerable:

♠  Axxx
♥  AQJxxx
♦   Kx
♣  x

RHO dealt and opened 1 Club.  Do you double or overcall 1 Heart?  I decided to double.  There were only 5 losers, so I felt it was strong enough to bid hearts the next time if partner didn't respond in spades.  The auction proceeded pass, 1NT, pass back to me.  Now what?

The most important thing playing IMPs is to bid your vulnerable games.  Since partner has shown some values, I wanted to bid a game.  It looked to me as if this hand should be played in either 3NT or 4 Hearts.  If I had been playing with Jenn or anyone whom I could trust to be an expert, I would have bid 3 Hearts, which should be virtually forcing and giving partner a choice of games.  However, I was playing with a new partner and didn't want to risk being passed out, so I just bid 4 Hearts and hoped for the best.  Everyone passed, LHO led the jack of clubs, and I looked at:

♠  xx
♥  Kxx
♦  Jxxx
♣  KQxx

♠  Axxx
♥  AQJxxx
♦   Kx
♣  x

Not a bad catch.  Partner had nice trump support, so I had a reasonable play for the contract.  There were 3 obvious losers, one each in all of the plain suits.  I had to somehow take care of all of my low spades, and avoid a second diamond loser.  There were two possible approaches:  (1) ruff one spade low and one high, and pitch a diamond on a club winner; (2) ruff one spade, pitch one on a club winner and play a diamond toward the king, hoping RHO had the ace.  Line (1) risked promoting a trump trick for the opponents if trumps were 4-0 or if they could manage an uppercut by continuing clubs when LHO had 3 trumps and only 2 or 3 clubs.  Line (2) risked the ace of diamonds offside and had some problems managing entries to dummy. 

I covered the club.  RHO won the ace and shifted to the king of spades.  I ducked this trick as LHO encouraged.  He contined with the spade ten.  I decided to play him for the ace of diamonds and go for line (2).  I took the ace, ruffed a third round of spades low in dummy (LHO followed with the jack), pitched the last spade on a high club, played a heart to the ace and another to the king (hearts were 4-0 with LHO having all of them), then played a diamond toward the king.  RHO stepped up with the ace and played back a club.  I held my breath and ruffed low hoping that I wasn't being uppercut.  Fortunately, LHO followed, so I drew his trump and brought home the game. 

Good luck!

Cilj obrane je razviti pik tihove kod Westa. Igrate karo damu.Ako dri igrate pik a kad uete sa asem herc igrate pik ponovo. Ako izvoa uzme asa karo i igra herc uzmete asa i igrate pik. Partner kad ue sa trefom igra karo do vaeg kralja. Vratite pik. Ako izvoa igra tref kojeg partner uzme on igra drugi karo do vaeg kralja! Karo tih je komunikacija. Igrate pik. Kad uete sa herc asem igrate pik. 3NT S8 10 6 5 4 K Q 9 8 6 3 Q 10 5 A J 9 8 10 7 4 8 5 4 K 8 7 7 3 A 5 3 K Q 10 9 7 9 3 2 K Q 2 J 6 2 A J 2 A J 6 4 Ovo je prvi bord sa desetog juniorskog parkog prvenstva u bridu u Opatiji. Analiza je pokazivala da ima osam tihova, a gotovo svi su radili devet. Samo su na jednom stolu u U21 izlicitirali 3NT - gdje su igrali nai igrai: ilovi i Moretti su doli do 3NT. Na pik atak izvoa je stavio desetku i doao doma sa devet tihova. Odigran je prvi me treeg kola ljetne lige: upica - Petica 5 : 25 (22-76). upica: Lovjer - Novak, Batini - .Ivelja Petica: Obad - Cvjetanovi, Stankovi - Golubovi

Undoubtedly when the words Bridge Circus are mentioned, everyone thinks back to the fascinating world of the Omar Sharif Bridge Circus in the late sixties and early seventies which journeyed to several major cities featuring exhibition matches attracting thousands of enthusiastic bridge players. 

I, particularly, reflect upon it with fondness as I coordinated it in Philadelphia and my late husband Norman Kay played on the ‘local’ team in the three cornered matches between the Locals, those Dallas Aces (with a fella named Wolff) and the Circus (consisting of the some of the exalted Italian Blue Team, Claude Delmouly and, of course, Omar himself).

However, Las Vegas bridge, an altogether different format, has had a rather unsettling home base since 1994.  A duplicate club known as Bridge World was started by Steve Levy and together with the late Loretta Brown, ran it for about a year and a half.  Years before that Steve ran a bridge game at The Draw Bridge, owned by Howard and Sandy Tuft.   Steve eventually retired and Loretta was left holding the cards.  She moved to a large facility south of Jones and Sahara, nearby the Chevron Station.  A couple of months later, they were uprooted to Bugsy’s Saloon on the same corner and before very long used a tax firm (H & R Block) facility during their off-months and renamed the club Bridge World II because of all the moves.   From there they moved to a restaurant off of Sahara and Valley View.  Then, confessed by one of the present owners whose name shall remain anonymous, they found themselves in a horrendous roach infested bar called Larry’s Hide-a-way.  That was not what bugged them, however,   It was a falling ceiling tile that had been reported by the player (whose table it fell upon) to the Health Department that forced them to find another location.   Their next stint was at The Palomino Bar, just North of Cheyenne on Rancho, for a couple of months.   Because of the love of the game, this band of traveling bridge gypsies hung in.

FINALLY, in late 1997, Loretta learned that a non-profit licensed group could rent a space in a lovely Las Vegas facility called the Charleston Heights Art Center, a magnificent building, where Bobby and I finally caught up with this industrious group of vagabonds.   It was bright, spacious, clean, with lots of bathrooms, a kitchen and tons of parking — besides being centrally located.   They moved there on January 2, 1998 and stayed until this past week, bidding it a fond farewell on Saturday, August 7.  Although the location was as letter perfect as a bridge club could be, the City had other obligations and from time to time we got ousted (and transferred to other City owned facilities) but people like sleeping in their own beds and playing hot scotch was a terrible inconvenience.  The club ran daily games Tuesday through Saturday — but had to close shop on Sunday and Monday — to the disappointment of many retired residents who adore playing whenever they get the chance.

Loretta, who had been playing less and less (only Fridays for the last four years of her life as she was no youngster) passed away in August of 2008.   Loretta’s chief liaison was a popular, outgoing lass by the name of Dixie Perkinson (a director and certified teacher).   Dixie fell heir to the club and its supplies, but still had the responsibility of paying the rent.  Another staunch bridge devotee and lovely woman, Joanne Euler offered to ‘buy in’ and become a partner, an offer which Dixie graciously accepted.  In January of this year, another terrific, soft-spoken gal, Jane Rubin, joined as owner and director — making for a lovely threesome.

The new club (3200 square feet) is set up for about twenty-five tables but in a pinch for special games could hold as many as forty. Food, coffee, tea, etc., is served prior to and during the game.   It is a warm and friendly atmosphere in which Dixie (our own Perle Mesta) never fails to mention any visiting guests and asks our group to welcome them with open arms.  Of course, we use Bridgemate (without being able to review earlier results as in the beginning – or any scores for that matter); the scores go directly to the computer and are posted (with one round to go) and then the Finals immediately after the game.  Naturally hand records are provided for the earlier prepared hands and if you have to run out early, you can get the game recap that evening on your computer.  As good as it gets!

One aspect of the duplicate which has made Bobby and me very proud is that no favoritism is shown, rulings are made fairly and equitably, huddles, hitches and their country cousins have been outlawed for the most part, and it is a delightful experience.   They are now open seven days a week (12:30) and Wednesday evening (6:30).

The game is called the THE LAS VEGAS BRIDGE WORLD, located in an office building just west of the corner of Flamingo and Lindell – a short cab ride from The Strip.  So …  if you are visiting Sin City and feel the need to take a break from blackjack, poker. roulette or the slots — c’mon over.  We’d love to see you.  There are always strays looking for partners and a good chance if you come alone, you can be paired up.

Our Grand Opening is this Friday, August 20th at 11:30 (Speaker/Lunch/Bridge) and we predict Blue Skies, Green Lights and a PERMANENT HOME AT LONG LAST.

I noticed that I got a recently comment on a blog I wrote a little while ago called Why Bridge Is Dying Part 1.   At the time I suggested that complex conventions were not really the problem because you could play and enjoy bridge playing a very simple system.  I just received an interest comment from Caroline:

If you would like to know why bridge is dying, I will give you my experiences in trying to learn it. The first time, the players supposedly “teaching” me would play entire hands at lightning speed, then say, “So you see what we did and why?” and then zoom into the next hand without ever explaining anything. The second time, my husband and I tried learning together. The experienced players treated us as a nuisance at best, and at worst as so much bloody meat in the water for them to butcher. THEY had a fabulous time; we were disgusted at how cut-throat and hypercompetitive they were.

Maybe if experienced players would actually want to take the time to explain every single thing patiently, newbies might stick with it. As for my husband and I, we ditched Bridge and decided to stick with Rummy and Pinochle–less complicated, more friendlyl\

I would suggest you take some classes (not online at first) with some of the wonderful gifted teachers that are around.  You might run into somebody coming into class in costume to emphasize a point or they may have lots of ways to make it fun and easy.  If you unsure of where to find a teacher near you the American Contract Bridge League has a  Find A Bridge Teacher feature.  But ask around.  Just like all other classes there are some teachers that are going to give you the best experience.  You could look at the facebook page for the Bridge Teacher of the year for 2010 which has all of the nominated teachers and their location.  These are teachers who have really enthusiastic students.

Now once you have found a good teacher and learned even a bit they are likely to have games and classes with other people of your level.  I have never seen one of these games be anything but friendly and entertaining.  They are a great place to meet people too.  Bridge does not need to be complicated.  My mom has played bridge for almost 50 years and while she has added a convention or two it is much the same still.  It is wonderful to see how excited and enthusiastic she has been when she has done well with a bridge hand.  And losing never bothers her; “I didn’t get the cards,” she says.

If you chose to become a serious competitor things change.  Bridge is a complex game and you can become better and better at it.  There is always something new to learn.  That will be true even if you become a true master of the game.  That is the best thing about the game really.  I like rummy and it can be fun to play.  I know that I became better at it over time as I learned to watch and understand discards and track and remember what had happened.  But it is not a challenge in the same way that bridge is.

Bridge keeps you young.  Bridge keeps you thinking.

So give it another chance.  If you want to play online some time I would be happy to mentor you and I promise to do my best to do better.  Email at linda@masterpointpress.com even if you just want to chat.

And I know that despite all of our grumbling some of the time all of us who write or read these blogs want to welcome you to be part of our little village.

Here's a thought.  Not sure how to crystalize this into practice.

Every so often, you see the hand where two possible strains offer reasonable trumps.  For instance, maybe you find out that you have a minor fit and a major fit.  Maybe 1S-P-2C-P-3C-P-3S as the start.

In this situation, a recurring theme is that of deciding ultimate strain in a potential slam.  For example, if Responder has Kxx in spades, and Opener has Axxxx, perhaps a spade can be pitched from the short side in a club contract, allowing the spade suit to be played for no losers, if the contract is 6C.  Or, maybe 6C simply reduces the risk from a 4-1 spade stack.  What's worse is if we only have the spade ace and are missing both King and Queen, where 6C might be able to handle that.

Alternatively, however, 6C might not be as good for the same reason, and maybe a club pitch or two might help 6S to make.

The key to these situations is in the Queens, primarily, and secondarily in the Kings.  So, what sometimes happens is that you use RKCB in spades, find out perhaps the bad news, and then bid 6C (and hope that partner takes this as a placement of contract and not a grand try).

It seems to me that there might be an alternative to consider.

Let's take the auction out a bit, in general terms.  1S-P-2C-P-3C-P-3S start.  Cues and seriousness and the like end us at the point of, say, someone bidding 4H as Last Train or as a cue.  Whatever.  Now is the witching hour.

Suppose, also, that something about the "cues and seriousness and the like" suggests or proves that Exclusion RKCB is not an option.  So, at this point, you might end up in a situation with an "ask or answer" structure.

What is that, you ask?  Well, simply put, 4NT is RKCB, but anything above 4NT is an answer to an "assumed 4NT" from partner.  Hence, if partner bids 4H Last Train (spades agreed), I would bid 4NT to ask questions, or I could bid 5H to instead answer, "Two without."  I can ASK or ANSWER.

So, why "ask or answer?"  I mean, which do you elect to do?  I typically, in these situations (where partner and I have agreed to do this) answer with primes but ask with body.

There might be a slightly better way to handle this in the two-fits scenario.  Or, a more precise rule. 

If I am looking at the spade Queen, I am not as concerned about the "which strain" question.  If I am not looking at the spade Queen, though, I can ask and place the contract in clubs if I have the club Queen.  But, what if I have neither (and cuebidding has not answered this question, yet)?

Or, what if some Queen is unknown, but important?  In some auctions, for instance, the spade queen might be known, but not the club Queen, because no cue was available to show that card.  Finding that card later might be quite a task.

Here, then, is the thought.  One might decide that you ask with the key unshown key Queen but answer without the key Queen.  The side-suit, alternative-strain Queen is the default "key Queen."  The part about asking with the key Queen is tactical, as captaincy is with the person looking at the key Queen.  The part about answering without the key Queen is definitional, as captaincy is transferred to the person who may or may not be looking at the key Queen but now knows the answer as to the partnership holding by virtue of the definition.

I am still not sure how this would develop as a theory, as far as designation of the key Queen, handling a two-queens scenario, and the like.  But, I think there is something to think about here.

Our emotions once we see dummy can alter throughout a hand.  Sometimes, dummy comes down and we are pleased; our contract appears secure.  Then, a surprise alters that belief.  We must look for an innovative method to achieve success.

Today's hand fits the above description.  John Koch explains how to morph from contentment to worry - and back again to a happy ending with a cool coup.  Keep your cool at the table, and it can pay dividends!

Speaking of "cool" - it is most cool that John writes these columns for us every week.  I know John has been thanked previously for his superb stories.  As far as I am concerned, however - John cannot receive enough appreciation for his fine efforts.  Thank you, John!

Download 186.GrandCoup

Back into the Russell saddle and playing with Dave. With Dave spending so much time on the golf course I decided to make it easier for him and play the card of his regular international partner. Slightly worried that he said it would be good practice before the trials but once I had removed Smith Peters it was fine.

Dave is a good partner who only criticises his own actions. I thought his comments on this hand were instructive:

Dave was quite critical of his second pass, feeling that double was obvious as it was likely that I had a 5-card minor suit on this auction. I didn't think it was so clear-cut. With my void and minimal values I was not inclined to double a second time and Dave thought that he would have passed that anyhow. Declarer made eight tricks and we scored 7/22 matchpoints.

Dave judged well on board 19:
At matchpoints I think I would still have opened a weak two bid with Dave's hand, despite being adverse vulnerability and in second seat, although at imps I probably would have passed. My atypical 1NT overcall had the crucial effect of dissuading North from sacrificing as happened at three tables. Eleven tricks were made and not even a diamond lead can prevent this.

The wild hands continued on the next hand:


Dave was not sure what to open his hand as any level could be right. Unsurprisingly no-one bid the slam and when North failed to lead the ace of hearts (!!) Dave made all the tricks by establishing the diamonds. The heart lead would prematurely remove an entry from dummy.

I misdefended this hand:




Dave led the ten of hearts and I mistakenly covered the queen of hearts. This defence needs Dave to have three hearts, which is not impossible, but it would have been better to duck. Then Dave can win the next trick and lead a second heart to establish my suit while I still have a diamond entry. Perhaps easier in the puzzle book than at the table at matchpoints.

In the end we failed to score the 57% that Dave needed to improve his score in the competition, but we had an enjoyable game. Sometimes it is just tough to get a good score at matchpoints.

I was inspired by the blog of Howard Bigot Johnson, dated August 15th, entitled Law Report, about psychological abuse at the table.   It was amusing to read but really struck a chord with me — recalling the hundreds of partnerships I witnessed in action both in national and international competition over five decades.   Not everything is sweetness and light as one would have you believe just because of a preponderance of scalps on the walls and zillions of masterpoints.

One of the most famous American partnerships of all time were always at each other’s throats, trying to assess blame upon the other.  It appeared to be almost as important as victory.   Egos are a major part of the game and even the strongest and the best wrestle inwardly with this problem.  I speak only of the male species as I was not privy that much to females at the top level (or at least what I considered the top level).

Probably the prime example of ugliness, I witnessed with my own eyes and ears:   After a match in a social setting, in the presence of the Sponsor and the Captain (the latter of whom would never sink to such depths), one of the players turned to his teammate and opened fire in a calm, seemingly sweet voice, probing, “You DIDN’T get to the slam?”   Obviously, it made, but it was impossible to bid (at least by intelligent expert standards who could not see through each other’s cards to know it meshed perfectly with few high card points).  The pair on the wrong side of the swing, were too gentlemanly to dignify such an ugly remark — but to this day, I find it hard to look at this famous pompous ass who tried to make his teammates look bad in front of the sponsor (who may have been too naive to even understand the undercurrent of the conversation).

I see this form of one-upmanship all the time with the sarcasm, arrogance and misguided blame assessment with the lower lights, but believe me, it happens at the higher levels as well — especially with the predominance of professionalism in bridge turning our game into a doggy-dog world.   As I have professed many times before, Money is in first and Bridge a far second.  I have seen the tasteless transition, the unscrupulous attempts at stealing sponsors, the ploys used to encourage the sponsors to shell out additional money for more events needed to qualify for world championships — and the beat goes on.

Elite international bridge competition will never rival the days of old when our country was represented by true experts who did not buy their way onto teams, but earned the right by innate talent, natural ability and brilliance.   I fear those days may be gone forever as I hear the death toll in the distance.

When a community pulls together to improve, it's a beautiful sight.  And - that is what we saw in Unit 178, when players from all over contributed to purchase a Duplimate (duplicating machine) and electronic scoring devices.  Our players have been enjoying the fruits of everyone's donations. To thank all those who gave, the unit decided to celebrate with a marvelous evening of food, fun and bridge.  President Marv Ridesel and wife Mary cooked up loads and loads of yummy treats.  Some other folks brought additional treats.

They needed it; I never saw so many people turn out for an event at the Twin Cities Bridge Center as I did for the "Thank You" party!  Teri and Chip Blu contributed with the Center, and the one and only Larry Oakey ran the bridge show.

Having the opportunity to be part of such a giving bridge world is something special.  Thanks to all who make it so!

And - more faces of those who came out to celebrate are below.

 

♠ A 4 2♥ 5 4 2♦ 10 7 6♣ A Q 5 3

LHO opens one notrump (15-17); RHO bids two hearts, a transfer to spades. I pass. LHO bids two spades, which is passed around to me. Without spade shortness, I have no reason to balance. I pass, and partner leads the king of hearts:

West	North	East	South
			1 NT
Pass	2 ♥1	Pass	2 ♠
(All pass)
1Jacoby-transfer

We lead ace from ace king (an agreement I don't care for). So partner should have the king-queen of hearts plus an additional five to seven high-card points. I discourage with the deuce of hearts. Declarer plays the three, and partner shifts to the eight of clubs.

I can't imagine this is a singleton, not so much from the opening lead as from the fact that partner didn't act over one notrump. If it's a doubleton, it might be useful to retain communication. I can't afford to duck this altogether, since partner might have king-nine-eight or jack-nine-eight. So, when declarer plays the four from dummy, I play the queen.

Declarer wins with the king and returns the jack of clubs, partner following with the deuce. If I could trust partner's carding, I would win and give him a club ruff. The deuce should show that he began with a doubleton, since partner should give present count here. But I know from past experience that Jack doesn't know that.

It seems more likely that declarer is trying to drill an entry to dummy to lead a trump toward his hand, and he probably wouldn't do that with king-jack fourth of clubs, because the risk of running into a ruff would be too great.

Of course, a clever declarer might lead the club jack with the specific intention of stopping a club ruff. Since declarer is off the trump ace, he knows there is no legitimate way to stop a club ruff if one is available to us. So it costs him nothing to lead the club jack, hoping I'll duck it. I myself executed a similar maneuver on Board Two of the first match. But I don't think Jack is that clever, so I duck. As soon as I duck, a paranoid thought occurs to me. Could partner have switched to a second-highest eight of clubs from nine-eight fourth? If he did, perhaps my combination of plays will teach him not to do that again.

Declarer plays the heart ace--nine--seven--five, then leads the eight of hearts. Partner plays the jack, and declarer ruffs in dummy with the six of spades. Declarer then surprises me by leading the ten of clubs. I win with the ace, and everyone follows.

Obviously I was wrong about declarer's trying to force a dummy entry, since he made no use of his entry once he was there. Have I been hornswaggled? Did he sucker me into ducking the club ace so he could endplay me with it? Maybe Jack is cleverer than I thought.

Do I have a safe exit? A spade switch will cost a trick if declarer has queen doubleton. It's safe if declarer has the king. But it seems unlikely he has the king. If he does, why didn't he lead a spade toward his hand when he was in dummy?

How about diamonds? Declarer has at least seven more high-card points. He's surely missing a spade honor, since he hasn't touched trumps. That means declarer must have at least four high-card points in diamonds. So he has either the ace or the king-jack. Either way, it can't hurt for me to switch to a diamond. Accordingly, I play the six of diamonds--five--king--eight.

Partner plays the heart queen, and declarer ruffs with the seven. As a general rule, it's wrong to overruff with a natural trump trick unless doing so allows you to separate trump tricks that will otherwise crash. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I pitch the seven of diamonds. Declarer plays a diamond to his ace and a diamond back to the queen. I ruff, and we still have two natural trump tricks for down one:


Declarer made it easy fo us by playing diamonds. But, in fact, he had no way to avoid the ruff. This was the position, with the lead in dummy:


If he plays spades instead of diamonds, I can hop and play a diamond myself, scoring a ruff whenever partner has the spade king or when declarer has king doubleton and can't reach dummy to play the third round of trumps. (On this particular layout, I don't even have to hop with the ace. If I duck, we will eventually score my long club.) Note that it would indeed have been fatal for me to overruff dummy's seven of spades with my ace.

Declarer could have made his contract by playing on diamonds earlier. Ruffing the heart to dummy accomplished nothing and paved the way to our reaching this end position. With best defense, I don't think he can make it after he takes that first heart ruff.

We get ten matchpoints. Four pairs made two spades. One other pair went down, and one pair went down a trick in one heart. Presumably South opened one heart and bought it. It hasn't been a lucky session for weak notrumps and four-card majors--at least not for those sitting the other direction. Fortunately, partner and I have been spared those problems.

Score on Board 16: +100 (10 MP)
Total: 137 (71.4%)
Current rank: 1st

The EBU believes it is in a tough position, trying to balance how to protect its tournament players from the complexity of the WBF card with the desire to make Brighton attractive to foreign players.

When I first came across the WBF card it was very confusing to complete but it does not take long to learn how to read it. And then most prefer it because there is so more information provided on it.

I think the EBU is wrong.

Firstly more people are familiar with the card, perhaps not your average EBU club player but most tournament players can certainly cope.

Secondly, the newer EBU card is equally obtuse. Our EBU card is crammed with as much information as we can fit into it - hard to say this is less confusing.

Thirdly, few of our opponents actually looked at our convention card anyway. They wanted us to effectively pre-alert our methods - naturally we were happy to do this but it is a practice that the EBU do not really approve of ... this is what the convention card is supposed to be for!

It is hard to believe that any English players are not going to attend Brighton because of a convention card that they may meet. They are far more likely to miss it due to the poor behaviour that seems to be increasing tolerated. I wonder if disciplinary penalties are rarely awarded because this would decrease the numbers attending too?

However they will lose foreign attendees if they are not treated pleasantly. No welcome this year, no encouragement, just YOU CANNOT USE A WBF CARD.

So I suggest that the EBU follows Scotland and permit the WBF card at ALL levels of the (tournament) game. Or do they believe that the Scottish beginner is really that more intelligent that the EBU tournament player?

While we’re waiting for Philadelphia I share an incredible card reading by Claudio Nunes. It was at the 2008 Olympiad (or World Mind Sports Games) semifinal.

In the other semifinal both north-south pairs reached four spades and went down on a trump lead when they tried a diamond to the queen and later a finesse with the ten. While in Italy vs Norway Helgemo-Helness subsided in 2 spades making three. Nunes-Fantoni reached the game and a trump was led. He drew trumps as Tundall discarded a small heart. A club went to the jack and the next club was taken with the ace. Groetheim played a small heart to his partner’s ace who played another club. Nunes cahed the last club and discarded a heart from dummy as west parted with a heart and east with a diamond. Now Nunes made the key play of leading the queen of diamonds to the king and ace. He returned to hand with a heart ruff and played a diamond to the eight making the contract.

This diamond handling is good only when west has the king and nine of diamonds or when east has the king and west the jack. This is a lot worse (looks like 50%) then the basically 75% play which the other two declarers tried.

Maybe he could deduce from the opening lead and defence that this is more probable though it’s hard to see how.

The Swiss Teams was a disappointing affair and travelling back home individually probably did not make any of us feel a lot better. Alex and I played poorly for the whole weekend and it was little comfort that Anne and Sheila were probably not at the top of their game all the time either. In most of the matches one of us would gift a few imps to the opponents and this meant that we were struggling to get the consistently good scores that you need to make one of the finals.

As I've said before, missing the finals leaves you in the Bowl on the Sunday and I've never had any enthusiasm for this. A co-operative team effort did in the first Sunday match and things never really improved. Just depressing really, but I'm sure we'll all bounce back. At least the company was good!

The best hand of the weekend did not feature any mistakes:

If you click Next you will see Alex's line of play for twelve tricks (or at least what I recall it was).

At the other table they also reached six diamonds and Sheila decided that this was the time for a lead of low trump. As you might imagine, Anne was not very pleased with this! However, declarer decided to try and ruff two spades in dummy so rose with the ace of trumps. When he tried to ruff the second spade Sheila was able to ruff with the jack of diamonds leaving Anne with a natural trump trick to come.

As is oft said, but is rarely true in a slam, "if you want a ruff, lead a trump"!

None of the Scottish teams reached the finals, but there were a number at the event and they finished in the following places in the Bowl:

4= Irving Gordon & Sandy Duncan, Brian Spears & John Murdoch
12= Iain Sime & Fiona McQuaker, Paula Leslie & Liz McGowan
18= Paul Barton & Cliff Gillis, Sheila Macdonald & Maida Grant
22= Alan Goodman & Mike Ash, Sam Punch & Stephen Peterkin
22= John Matheson & Willy Coyle, Kitty Teltscher & Steve Eginton
24= William Whyte & Jonathan Davis, Justin Hackett & Paul Hackett
30= Frazer Morgan & Myles Ellison, Basil Letts & Shivam Shah
40 Martin Holcombe & Janet Barnes, David Barnes & Nigel Guthrie
54= Ronald Gaffin & P Maiolani, H McGinley & S J Hale
66= Dee Harley & Malcolm Copley, Jim Power & Andrew Symons
107 Jane Jensen & David Jensen, Susan Aitchison & Jim Forsyth
127= Anthony Bates & Robert Clow, Fiona Greenwood, Troy Van De I'lsle & Anna St Clair

Numbers for the weekend were similar to last year, but I do know that the EBU did not make any friends with their treatment of one Scottish pair who had only brought a WBF convention card with them and were forced to fill in an EBU one between matches. The increased number of Scottish visitors is helping to hide the downturn in numbers and it would be helpful if they had been told this on entry. Of course they played with their WBF card last year with no problems.

Before continuing with this historical accounting of the original Dallas Aces, I must fess up to my inspiration.  It emanated from my two “Lees” — originally Ray Lee, in his blog on “Bridge Jeopardy” on August 10th and then a follow up email from my computer Guardian Angel, Luise Lee, who always bails out my blogs and comments when in trouble.

Ray’s Question No. 10 about the Aces found me on Bobby’s den sofa for over an hour listening again to the saga of Bobby’s many mind-boggling experiences stemming from his association with Ira and the original formation of the Aces — far from what the public knew or the history books reveal. 

Thus, I decided to fill you in a few interesting tidbits which have been left out of the bridge annals.   At the end of 1968 (after Ira was placed on the Disabled List — so to speak), Bobby played with Jim Jacoby while Bobby Goldman, Billy Eisenberg and Mike Lawrence wheeled in a threesome for some practice sessions.   However, it did not take long before the Aces became whole again as Hamman reconsidered in early 1969, joining the team playing with Lawrence (along with Jacoby/Wolff and Goldman/Eisenberg). 

Hamman had a previous commitment that year (and a great one at that with Eddie Kantar) where they qualified to represent the country so he did not play full time as an Ace until after that.  The Aces first success came in 1970 in Stockholm with the above three twosomes and won again in 1971 in Taiwan.   However, Hamman was now playing with Eisenberg and Lawrence with Goldman.   It is of further interest to note that all three celebrated pairs were employing different approaches:   Jacoby and Wolff (Orange Club); Hamman and Eisenberg (Black Club); and Lawrence and Goldman (Aces Scientific).  In fact, I recall Goldman going public with a book of the same name.

All was not peaches and cream in ‘71 despite their victory.  Hamman and Eisenberg were having a tough go of it and did not play most of the last few sessions.   Sometime after their return to the States, Billy left Dallas and headed for California where he either met or resumed his friendship with Hugh Heffner of Playboy Bunny Fame and Billy was no stranger to the scene.  As I recall, Billy also won a major backgammon tournament — a man of many talents.   Billy was one of the most charming, entertaining and likeable persons I ever met and he would be a popular celebrity anywhere he chose to settle.  

As an aside, I must mention that I knew Billy, as they say,  way back when.   In Philadelphia, my late husband Norman and I were friendly with a promising ‘unknown’ by the name of Bobby Goldman and our good friend Gabby Coren had played against Billy Eisenberg in New York and made what we  in call in Yiddish  a “schitach” (matching up two likely mates).  Eisenberg was already an Ace and it was his influence that convinced the group to select his former partner Goldman to join them — over another talented contender.  No one can deny that it is a small world.   I didn’t even know Bobby Wolff — but I had the inside scoop on how Goldman and Eisenberg latched onto each other.

After Billy’s departure, Soloway joined the team — playing with Hamman (a partnership that reunited on the Nickell team after Bobby got ‘dumped’ — partly by obvious political pressures from other teammates with whom he was not in good favor).  Also, in all fairness to Bob, he was just itching to try lots of those new fangled conventions.  That was (and is still not) my Bobby’s cup of tea — so Hamman turned to a player who was amenable to Bob’s bent.

1972 was the year the Aces, as we knew them, took off in different directions.  However, Hamman and Wolff gravitated to each other and the media seemed to refer to all future teams on which they played as The Aces.   They did remain a revered partnership, believe it or not, for twenty-six years.    

The well was running dry for Ira and the salaries were ebbing.  My husband was drafted by Ira to work for Michigan General; Bob Hamman went off into the insurance business which he had been building up in California when invited, but declined, to become an Ace in ‘68.  Hamman’s eventual success was not impeded by the sheer, cold facts that Ira was a substantial client; Bobby Goldman, a very bright young man with computer and mathematical skills (and with recommendations and plaudits from Ira) went into some other successful venture; Mike Lawrence went back to Berkeley; and Jimmy Jacoby returned to the tournament trail which he happily gave up when Bobby asked him to join The Aces.  

Today, of the six original Dallas Aces, Jacoby and Goldman are gone.  Jim died in 1991 at the age of 58  and Bobby (endearingly called “Goldie”) passed on in 1998 at 60.   Eisenberg, Hamman, Lawrence and Wolff are still busy plying their respective trades in some fashion.

The Aces on Bridge Column, started by Ira, was bought out by Bobby from Ira’s Estate when he died in 1982 and with Joe Musumeci’s help collaborated on it for a couple decades.  Ira would be pleased to know it is still appearing in well over a hundred newspapers all over the world (and also can be found on our bridgeblogging site courtesy of United Media/United Features and Ray Lee).

That, my friends, was what true unadulterated professionalism was all about way back them.   Once Ira took a back seat to his six expert representatives (though not willingly, for damn sure), The Dallas Aces emerged as the first all-professional bridge team in the world and owe Ira Corn a debt of gratitude for allowing them to make bridge history.  Ira passed on fourteen years after he put the Aces on the map and was deservingly inducted into the ACBL Hall of Fame a year or so after it was resurrected in 1995 after a thirty year hiatus.  Ira’s dream came true albeit not exactly as he envisioned its unique Place in the Sun.

To my knowledge, the only other uncontaminated professional team is the one Madame LaVazza, the lovely Italian coffee magnate, created –  where she metes out the salaries to her beloved sixsome and beams as she proudly roots and cheers from the bleachers.  No strings attached!

1.  Harold S. Vanderbilt

2.  Joseph B. Elwell.  Like Culbertson, Elwell had a bridge-playing wife, who was arguably the stronger player of the two.  Elwell’s wife may well have been the real author of most if not all of his books.

3.  Contract Bridge Blue Book.  He followed later with a Red Book and Gold Book, which also did well, but the Blue Book was far and away the most popular.

4.  The number of cards they held in the heart suit.

5.  The Smother Squeeze does not yet exist; the rest are real.

6.  George Burns.  Chico Marx was another comic who played bridge, and in fact appeared on Goren’s TV show.

7.  Bill Anderson.  (If you got that one right you are a real bridge history buff, and/or you live in Toronto.)

8.  Helen Sobel, who should be fondly remembered for this remark alone, never mind the dozens of great hands she played.

9.  The reference is from Lewis Carrol’s The Walrus and the Carpenter. ‘A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk, along the briny beach; we cannot do with more than four, to give a hand to each.’

10.  Mike Passell.  Alan Sontag says that he and Peter Weichsel were the last two Aces hired by Ira Corn himself.

Forty-two years ago a unique idea was conceived to organize and sponsor the first All-Professional Bridge Team in the world.   Although that was how it was planned initially, an unexpected snafu changed the scenario in a dramatic fashion.    If you read The Lone Wolff, you may recall the first chapter was curiously entitled “Firing Ira!”   So, let us backtrack for a moment to understand the circumstances that altered the original blueprints.

The year was 1968.  The Dallas Aces was the brainstorm of a wealthy businessman by the name of Ira G. Corn, CEO of Michigan General (a twenty-two company conglomerate).  While watching the world championship in New York in 1964, Ira had a vision.  Because of his business successes, he had tremendous self-confidence and set out to arrange  the first all-professional bridge team of its kind.  However, he stood at ground zero and recognized that he needed help.  That’s where my husband came into the picture.

He approached Bobby, who was living in San Antonio at the time, with the idea of enlisting his smarts as Bobby would be in a position to recruit the nucleus of the team and with Ira’s money and the help of his bright and talented significant other, Dorothy Moore, as the coordinator, the three of them could set the wheels in motion.   A sophisticated bridge coach was hired to round out the trio, but was soon replaced by retired Strategic Air Command Lt. Colonel, Joe Musumeci, who was accustomed to running a tight ship, keeping everyone in tow.   He never got involved or intruded in any technical bridge issues or decisions.   Joe was ideal for the position as he knew his place, performed his role with great aplomb and was considered a key factor in the Aces eventual chain of successes.

Bobby enlisted his friend and frequent partner, Ozzie’s son, Jim Jacoby (who already resided in Dallas).  Jim happily accepted.  His other candidates (Chuck Burger, Bob Hamman, Eddie Kantar and Sami Kehela) had their doubts and respectfully declined.  Bobby was still in search of four other players until he was  knocked for a loop when Ira informed him HE planned to play  – reducing the magic number to three.  Eventually Bobby recruited Billy Eisenberg, Bobby Goldman and Mike Lawrence, rounding out the sextet.  The original partnerships were Billy and Bobby, Jim and Mike and Bobby and Ira.   They did o.k. locally but lost in the third round of their first National Team game, the Vanderbilt in New York in March of 1968.  Their next NABC was the Spingold in Minneapolis that summer and though they squeaked by the first two rounds were trailing again.   Without Ira in the lineup, they would have been up 40.   Obviously, everyone was disappointed.  The prospects were dim and the mood was glum.  Though they had never discussed “The Ira Situation,” Bobby could see the handwriting on the wall.  He asked Ira to join him for a walk, departing the playing space where he decided to take matters into his own hands. 

The dialogue on page 5 of TLW went something like ……

“Ira,” I said, “we’ve been practicing and working and we’re at a point now …”  (Bobby fumbled for words and was about to lose his nerve).  “Suddenly, I just blurted:  There’s no way in the world the Aces can be anywhere close to what you want them to be if you continue to play. “  Ira puffed on his cigar and stared at Bobby coldly. 

Bobby continued, “Ira, I know you love the game, but you are so far away from where you should be as a player.   It’s like we’re a Class D Bush League Team trying to win The World Series.  Actually, it’s even worse than that.   We can’t hide you in right field.   You’re right there.”

Bobby couldn’t believe what he was saying and concluded by adding … “If you feel that you have to play, maybe we should disband the team.  Everyone knows your intentions were stellar.   It has nothing to do with that.   It has to do with ….”  He just couldn’t go on pleading his case.   Bobby feared being thrown off the team and had visions of being jobless as he headed back to San Antonio, when suddenly he was hauled back to reality by Ira’s voice … “Well,” said Ira gruffly, “you better win.” 

They lost the next day … sans Ira!

To be continued …..

The local bridge club where my wife and I play on Thursday nights has a Newsletter, yours truly as the "Editor."  The pdf's of the monthly newsletters are now available at http://www.limadbc.blogspot.com/, in case anyone is interested.  a lot of folks like "the Bickersons on Bridge," which is intended to have a touch of self-depricating humor.

If you've never attended the Nebraska Regional, then you should consider rectifying that condition in August of 2011.  With a huge turnout, free lunches, Omaha Steaks to win and much more, it truly is a highlight of District 14.

Another exciting feature of the regional is the opportunity to hang out with celebrities.  In addition to the sprinkling of star pros like hometown boy Steve Garner, you can try to beat the billionaires!  Every year, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates attend to eng age in their favorite pastime:  tournament bridge.

Check out District Director Sharon Anderson's blog to see many of your Minnesota friends striking a pose with Bill and Warren. 

I admit that when I am mentoring a decent player I don’t prepare lessons.  My new approach now with Cora is that I pick a bidding area (yesterday’s was strong hands) and we practice bidding and then we play random hands.  Lately we have been using the robots.  The robots are an interesting experience.  In some ways they are perfect opponents.  They play very fast, well really too fast.  They give full disclosure on every bid.  They never fight or argue or complain.  They play rather well.

The problem with playing random hands is that you have to be ready for everything.  Most of the time this is fine.  But sometimes … Here is one of the sometimes.  We were not vulnerable  versus vulnerable (although I don’t know if the robots really play the vulnerability).  I held:

Linda ♠ K83 ♥ KQJ5 ♦ 1094 ♣ AQJ

I opened 1NT and it went pass, pass.  Now the Righty Robot balanced with 2♠ showing 4 or more spades and an unknown minor.  I passed and this is how the auction went

RR	Linda	LR	Cora
	1NT	pass	pass
2♠	pass	2NT	pass
3♦	pass	pass	DBL

What does this double mean?  I admit at the time my brain was in sleep mode and I didn’t give it proper thought.  Partner was not good enough to bid over 1NT so no more than 7 points. If I think about it partner is unlikely to have more than two diamonds.  With three spades one imagines that Lefty Robot would pass out two spades and LR has 3 or more diamonds.  There are not enough diamonds left for partner to have more than two.  Partner is quite likely to have spades though.  If I go through this logic partner probably has spades, hearts and clubs and a maximum pass and is doubling for takeout.  In which case I should bid 3♥.  Should the bid be for takeout always.  I am deducing some of this by looking at my own hand.  Yes, probably.  So I completely goofed when I passed.  Partner made a good bid.  Not only that but when asked I said the bid was penalty.  My brain still asleep.

Here was Cora’s hand.  (It’s true she might have bid over 1NT in the first place).

Cora ♠ 10974 ♥ A963 ♦ - ♣ K9854

We probably wouldn’t have reached the best contract of 4♥ after the original pass.  That was the normal result.  But it would have been better than 3♦ doubled making.   So Sorry Cora – You Were Right.

I am not turning in my mentoring credentials just yet.  But I will try to think about my bids and my answers more and avoid sleep mode.

It's Friday and the second weekend starts this evening with the first three rounds of the Swiss Teams.

Meanwhile the midweek events have been concluding. Liz, Mike, Sandy and Irving led into the final round of the Seniors Swiss, but a small loss allowed another team to jump over them and push them into second. Eight rounds of swiss teams is not really sufficient and it always seems unsatisfactory when few of the contenders actually play each other. It's all in the timing!

The EBU has posted the Midweek KO bracket and it makes interesting reading. As previously reported, Bates beat Punch in the quarter-final. But the missing information was that Sam Punch's team had been making hay with the Scottish juniors, beating Jim by a solitary imp in the first round and then taking care of the Wiseman team more comfortably in the second. No news yet whether Bates made the final.

Sam and Stephen have finished the week by winning the Mixed Pairs Championship. Their score of almost 66% winning by one and a half percent. In a field of 121 pairs Yvonne and Ralph Wiseman probably put in the junior performance of the week coming 6th. Other Scots in the top half included Fiona Greenwood and Robert Clow (16th), Liz McGowan and Mike Ash (24th), Jim Forsyth and Olivia Hackett (27th), Nigel Guthrie and Susan Aitchison (35th), Dee Harley and Anna St Clair (60th). There were two junior teams in the Open Teams, but they failed to make the top half.

Finally it is the birthday for one of the junior squad today. It may take a lot of time and effort and a team performance, but I expect to see photos of the 'beach bumps' when I arrive in Brighton this afternoon.

Would you like to attend the Louisville NABC next spring?  The North American Pairs could be your springboard!

The first weekend in October, all players who have qualified in club games are welcome to compete in the District 14 NAP Finals.  The event will be held in New Brighton, a northern suburb in the Twin Cities.  You can check specific times, dates and qualification brackets in the NAP flyer.

The NAP is an exciting way to compete against your peers and have the opportunity to win a subsidized trip to an NABC!  If you have not yet qualified for the Finals, be sure to find a NAP club game in your area.  Do well in the NAP today - and find yourself heading to Louisville next March!

Thanks to Matt some of the Midweek KO Results are now available and it seems that two of the Scottish teams met yesterday. Of course hard to tell how Scottish they were in their entirety but Antony Bates team had a comfortable win over Sam Punch.

It seems that the juniors had been knocked out on Tuesday as they were all back for the afternoon Open Pairs. David McCrossan and Ruaridh Ellison led the Scottish way with a top ten finish, with Jim Hay and Craig Bradnam and Ralph Wiseman and Stuart Bradnam also finishing above average.

In the Mixed Pivot Teams experience led the way with Liz McGowan, Mike Ash, Sandy Duncan and Irving Gordon finishing third. They are also lying fifth with four rounds to go in the Seniors Swiss Teams, having blown their final match yesterday afternoon, so will be looking for a strong finish to allow Mike and Liz to double up.

Jim Hay, Joan Mercer, Ruaridh Ellison and Stephen Rose finished just above average with the other two junior teams (Jun Pinder;Stuart Bradnam;Abigail Wilson;Craig Bradnam, Yvonne Wiseman;Ralph Wiseman;Myles Ellison;Shivam Shah) finishing with small negative scores.

This evening is the Mixed Pairs and I expect Joan, Abigail and Yvonne are holding out for the best offers. I just suggest they stay away from the phrase 'turning tricks' however appropriate it may sound at the time.

There have been so many varying opinions about qualifications (or lack of them) while commentating on BBO. Of course, everyone has his or her own vantage point as to what they are seeking while glued to their computers. The various talents of the performers have to do with experience, level of competition, ability to analyze, verbalization skills, quickness of mind, believability, sense of humor, good interaction with fellow commentators  — and so many other pertinent factors.   Some look upon kibitzing as sheer entertainment, casual relaxation and nothing more — while others, who have more pressing agendas, gage it differently and are more interested in the pearls of wisdom of an expert analyst as a learning experience rather than just amusing repartee.   That’s why they serve chocolate and vanilla.  Enjoyment is the name of the game.

While considering the above, visions of two individuals in the bridge world danced through my head.   Though both were addicted to the game, their life’s accomplishments were like night and day — as were their successes at the table.  

The first individual must have had an exceedingly high I.Q. as he worked diligently on The Manhattan Project. For those too young to remember (or were not on earth at the time), it was the code name for an operation conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bombs.  Obviously to have qualified for acceptance in this earthshaking (no pun intended) program, he must have been near genius with extraordinary scientific skills — though bridge was no walk in the park despite his sponsoring a host of top players as his partner.

The second person who came to mind was a total bridge nerd.   And yes — we certainly can lay claim to more than our fair share.   By dictionary definition, a nerd is an unstylish or socially inept person who is slavishly dedicated to intellectual pursuits (in this case, of course, our dear game).  I was fortunate enough to have been invited to play with him half a dozen times and though his name is not a household word because he cannot afford to travel regularly to the big events, this fellow has the most astounding natural instincts and ability, tremendous table feel, gut feelings on probabilities and usually emerges near the top even when playing with a client.  He piles up tons of points annually and yet I doubt if he could open a can of soup with an electric opener.

So what does this all mean?  I really believe these two opposite ends of the totem pole prove that intelligence is not necessarily the key factor in success at the table.  It may help when push comes to shove — but card sense is in and unto itself!

As to the identity of my two mystery friends — I’ll never tell!

Hi all

I’m probably kicking an open door, but Vegas is a wicked city. There’s so much eyecandy even an armed and thickskinned Viking will suffer an indigestion. And you’d better bring a boatload of cash to unlock good times. Here’s a picture, from left to right: KJ, Dennis, me, Remco and Jerome. We’re admiring the inside view of The Venetian at an hour past midnight!


Somewhere late Saturday night, Dennis suddenly stopped in his tracks and pointed towards some redhaired woman.
“So?”, I asked.
“Do you know who that is?”, he responded.
“No clue.”
“That’s Rihanna playing blackjack over there.”
“… Diana.. who?”

I understand she’s one of the biggest popstars around right now. Man, I’m so out of touch.

Let’s just stick at what I’m reasonably good at, Beowulf in action:

North Dealer

NS Vul

North

A

A84

K92

QJT764

West

KQT43

QT3

65

K52

East

J9762

KJ75

84

93

South

84

962

AQJT73

A8

 

West

North

East

South

 

1 1

pass

2 2

pass

3 3

pass

3 4

pass

4

pass

… 5

a.p.

 

 

 

 

1. Unbalanced, 0+
2. Forcing, 4+
3. Forcing, 5+
4. Limit, nothing but

I agree the bidding looks rather painful and overly complicated.

When East led a Geoff had no problem collecting twelve tricks, he lost just a trick to the King of . If the finesse had been right thirteen tricks would have been reasonably easy. On the other hand, had East led a ten tricks would have been our limit. Funny, on the best lead it’s either four or seven. I don’t remember seeing such a deal before.

Alright, I’m gonna hide under some umbrella… ella… ella

I’ve stolen the title for this blog from a forthcoming MPP book, which just happens to be a novel revolving around cheating at bridge, the difficulty of proving it, and the conundrum of what to do with the culprit(s) when it is finally proven.  I wanted to comment on an incident in the New Orleans Spingold, which has already been the subject of much discussion and controversy on various bridge forums.

First, the deal in question:

You are playing the round of 64 in the Spingold against a much higher seed.  You start the second quarter about 40 behind, and this board comes up early on:

♠ –  ♥ A x x  ♦ A Q x x   ♣ A K Q 7 x x

You are red against white, and RHO opens 3♠.  Your call.

No, this isn’t a quiz; that was just to give you a moment or two to think about how you might proceed.  What happened at the table was the holder of this hand, Howard Piltch (a professional player but not a top-ranked expert), bid 6♦ .  This was a dramatic winner when dummy hit with essentially king fourth of diamonds and out and both minors behaved well.

There’s a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the forums, but let me try to distil it at least into what is undisputed in terms of further facts.

1) At no stage did Mr. Piltch claim that his bid had been a mechanical error or some other kind of accident.  His partner claims it was a ‘state of the match’ attempt to generate a swing.

2) The boards were dealt at the table, apparently with all four players present.  Mr. Piltch made only one board of the eight, which he remembers as being Board 8 (not the one in question).

3) The director was consulted at some stage by the opposing team, but did not change the table result.  The opposing team did not lodge an appeal (they won the match by more than 100 IMPs) but did express an intent to pursue the matter in a Conduct and Ethics hearing.

This, you will I’m sure recognize, leaves many questions unasked and a great deal of information ungathered, which makes the whole ‘Was he or wasn’t he?’ discussion somewhat academic.  So I’m not going to go into that at all.  However, there are some possibly new points that are perhaps worth making here.

First, since this was a dealt board, and had not yet been played at the other table, presumably the only direct cheating method available would be introducing a stacked deck.  Lest you feel this is unlikely, let me mention that there have been at least two well-proven cases of deck-substitution in the Toronto area alone.  One of the perpetrators, after being banned, later showed up playing on OkBridge – using two different user accounts and playing in partnership with himself, incognito, to improve his rating. Once a cheater…

Second, how much evidence is required to convict a player of cheating?  This is where bridge courts separate from real life.  Alan Truscott (in The Great Bridge Scandal) remarks that it’s very difficult to prove cheating from hand records, but that it is possible to prove the reverse.  Terence Reese, in his apologia Story of an Accusation, understandably argues that the hands tell the tale in either event.  Reese was of course famously acquitted after a judicial hearing presided over by a non-bridge-player, who applied the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to the case.  Allan Falk, an expert bridge player and also a prominent Michigan attorney, wrote a fascinating essay for the MPP edition of TGBS, in which he points out that nowhere except in criminal courts is this standard applied.  Elsewhere, in both sports tribunals and real life (and O.J. Simpson’s first two trials are a well-known example), the test is ‘preponderance of the evidence’.  So too it is (or should be) with bridge.

Third, and perhaps most interestingly, is the issue of whether Mr. Pitch’s past record should have any bearing upon people’s willingness to believe him guilty of some kind of wrongdoing in this instance.  The question of prior record is another where we needs must part company with criminal procedure.  The previous convictions of the accused are not revealed in court until a conviction has been recorded, and are taken into consideration only for the purposes of sentencing.  However, in bridge, one instance alone is rarely enough to convict.

Arthur Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  So when the disparity in ability between players is great enough, the lesser mortals will find it difficult to understand how the experts get to the right spot, and make brilliant leads and plays, apparently ‘seeing through the backs of the cards’.  Eventually the experts may even be suspected of cheating.  ‘Strange’ bids too can attract accusations, yet bidding is far from an exact science (look at any magazine bidding panel, and you’ll see 30-odd experts all arguing vehemently that five different bids are each the only correct action).  So much is ‘style’, or even table feel.  It is when actions deemed ‘unusual’ work out a high percentage of the time, or when a player finds the brilliant lead on just too many occasions, that antennae start to quiver – and when probably something is indeed going on. Any single occurrence may mean nothing – a lucky guess, an opponent flashing his hand, a flight of fancy that happened to work, or some such.  It is the multiple, as these incidents repeat themselves, which begins to make the case – and since we so often play against different opponents, it takes a while for anyone to notice.

Thus we have the ‘Recorder’ system, and the ability to look at a player’s track record of unexplained incidents, a record that taken as a whole may add up to an unappetizing picture.  As one forum poster put it, “If I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.  And, if I was told that the person who bid 6♦ on this hand was the person who is being discussed above, that would end all doubt for me.”

In the words of Ian Fleming, ‘Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.’

This week, John Koch explains how being bold can pay off at the table.  In this column, everyone was "bold."  He who best calculates how to handle aggression and active bidding shall win the spoils!

Download 184.FinesseObligatory