♠♥♦♣ Planet Bridge

I am working on SAYC on two fronts.  One is that I am mentoring Luise and her partner who are trying to work on a convention card (and on a system).  I am also working on editing an SAYC book.  So my teaching brain is thinking about SAYC.

I have always hated reverses.  As I get older and maybe wiser with more system knowledge I hate them less.  It always seemed that whenever my partner or I reversed something bad happened.  I remember sitting in on a lecture at a regional that Paul Thurston gave about reversing and it seemed to make sense at the time but I can’t remember what he said now.  Over the years I have developed my own system which many of my partners consent to play to humor me.  Its designed for minimum pain.

The idea is that you always bid 2NT (Lebensohl) on a weak hand and then over 3C make the descriptive (and nonforcing) bid you want.  Any other bid, be it fourth suit or a rebid of your major is game forcing.  It seemed to me that if you were forced to the three level you might as well just go there.  I can see some problems with this approach but at least it is clear and simple.

Now I am playing that the negative bid is either fourth suit or 2NT whichever is cheaper.  In this approach rebidding your own suit at the two level is still a game force so you will have to make the negative if you want out in your suit.  This seems okay to me and is still pretty simple.  It does have the advantage that you still have chances of playing notrump from the strong side when opener wants to play there even opposite a negative.

The book I am working on has rebidding your major as a weak bid although it is still forcing on opener.  So the auction 1C-1H-2D-2H is weak but forcing.  I am not sure why it has to be forcing if it is weak.  Some of opener’s rebids can be passed by responder but not I think fourth suit or a rebid of opener’s second suit (diamonds in the example).  2NT is still Lebensohl (for hands where you don’t want to rebid your major) and fourth suit seems to be natural and forcing.

I tried to explain some of this to Luise this morning suggesting the 2NT is the only weak bid method.  It was my KISS approach.  What do you think we should teach beginners.

I still hate reverses.

Even though many of us play cards for the intellectual competition, another important aspect is social. At the farmhouse of Karen's family, once the deserts (always more than one) were done, the plates were all cleared off, the table cloth put away, then a deck of cards were placed in the middle of the table. Playing cards was one of the bonds between the computer geek I am, and the farmer that

InterCity liga na BBO počela je u novom izdanju. Sinoć smo odigrali neriješeno prvi meč protiv Skopja. Meč sa košarkaškim rezultatom u kojem se bord bez pogreške na oba stola tražio svijećom. Namjestite se na omiljeno mjesto, uzmete čaj ili što već volite, laganu muziku i isključite se iz svijeta. Koncentracija na vrhuncu i najbolji bridž. Možeš misliti. Termin igranja u 21 poklapa se sa odlaskom djece na spavanje. Najdraža me imperativno moli da se igram sa djecom do 20 i 50. Onda starija želi gledati crtić na jubito. Počeli smo meč nakon što sam malu izbacio iz sobe što nije prošlo bez rasprave i suza. Igram prvi bord - pravi trenutak da mi draga dođe reći što misli o igranju bridža i meni općenito. Nakon kraće argumentirane rasprave o karakternim odlikama oboje supružnika koja je trajala do sredine trećeg borda (rekao bi što smo igrali ali stvarno se ne sjećam. Morao sam poći na BBO arhivu da vidim prvih nekoliko bordova.) povukla se sa bojnog polja i igrala sa klinkama. Šesti bord je bio kritičan, mlađa se usrala. Najdraža odlazi promijeniti pelene a zato vrijeme starija ulazi u sobu, procjenjuje odnos snaga i kreće u akciju. Za to vrijeme imate u ruci Qxx-Q109-x-KQJxxx i atakirate protiv 3 karo nakon što ste prelicitirali tref a partner je licitirao herc. Dijete za to vrijeme vadi kutiju sa kemijskim olovkama sa police, gracioznim pokretom otvara kutiju i prosipa sadržinu po kablovima po podu. Zatim uzima olovku u usta dok nogom (što zna da ne smije) pali gasi prekidač na produžnom kabelu. Atakirao sam 10 herc. Nakon što se najdraža vratila tokom osmog borda ispraznio sam sobu i zalupio vrata. Tada je meč krenuo čudnim tokom - ipak nekoliko push bordova. Do najdražeg - kad sam zaboravio da igramo Lebensohl. Nakon partnerovog 2NT kojeg sam pasirao protivnik je prelicitirao i ja sam šupio za 730. Eksplodirao sam kao Pajo Patak. Sad starija ide spavat. Mlađa plače dok Iva oblači stariju. Ustajem o stola uzimam mlađu (tri i po mjeseca) i ona se - umirila. Sviđa joj se zelena BBO podloga. Sa njom na koljenu igram jedanaesti i dvanaesti bord. Onda dolazi najdraža, uzima bord tj. dijete i sjeda pored mene i oboje zaspu. Tišina. Osjećam da je nešto u zraku. Doma više ne igram, blažen klub. Sljedeći meč uzet ću laptop ispod ruke i otići na neki WiFi spot sat vremena prije, namjestiti se, naručiti čaj i uz laganu muziku isključiti se iz svijeta. Molim Vas neka mi netko objasni što vrijedi igrati od kuće na BBO-u.

The BBO ICL League has restarted. We are in a round-robin group of eight teams and last night was the first set of matches.

Although everyone from last year's team said they wanted to play, almost all were unavailable for last night's match so Sandy and I spent a couple of days trying to find another pair. Eventually we found Mike and Ian: I've never met Mike as he lives in the US and only recently met Ian as he returned from working in the Far East. I played with Sandy for the first time, although as he now plays with Miro we did have a common understanding of the system.

We proved too powerful for our friendly opponents as we won comfortably, 77-0 IMPs over the 16 boards. Looking at the other results in our group the smallest win was 55 IMPs, so it does appear that there are four strong teams in our group who will fight it out for the top places.

The following hand is not difficult, but it would be nice to make it when diamonds are 4-2 and hearts are 4-1. For this you need to time the play correctly.



Click the Next button to step through my line.


Future matches on BBO over the next few Wednesdays, starting at 1945 (UK time).

There is one final type of signal and I use it a lot.  It is called a suit preference signal and yes, it is used to show what suit you prefer.  One very common use of this signal occurs when you are giving partner a ruff.  Suppose partner leads his singleton.  You can win the [...]

Jeff Rubens has taken the leading bridge magazine in the world and made it still better, but having said that, I do not approve of publishing what I consider simple sophistry in trying to win or even provoke a tired argument. In the March, 2010 Bridge World (under the Bits and Pieces section. p. 23), it is mentioned that sportsmanship dumping is alive and well in Texas high-school football.

It then describes a team, down by 4 points, and with little time left to play, but in possession of the ball, stalled out the last minute of the game rather than make an all out effort to win the game outright.

It then went on to say that the rules in that District made it so that if the subject team lost by 8 points or less in that particular game they would be a playoff qualifier beating out two competitors. Nothing could be further than this example being evidence of sportsmanship dumping since the rules made it such that this team had accomplished what it wanted to do which is to continue playing in the playoffs and did so by following the conditions of contest.

Sportsmanship dumping in bridge has only to do with allowing one’s status to not follow the spirit of competiton, either written or not written into the Conditions, but nevertheless playing to do whatever it takes to go on to the next level, keeping in mind that your team is responsible for representing the game as such and not using artificial negative tactics to further another team’s position rather than one’s own.

Yes, that spirit of the game means that even if the team feels that it would be better off if this team or that team could be eliminated by their team not playing up to their capabilities (and so felt justified in throwing that part of the competition), it would, in truth, be thought of rather, as a treasonous, despicable act and subject to severe discipline by the administration.

Sometimes, in the best interest of normal competition, a team may be confronted, usually by their up-to-then success, having to deal with ethical issues, not having any bearing on their direct success, but rather by what might happen down the road. In that event, every team is expected to adhere to fairness toward the rest of the field in general and not succumb to heinous, ugly unethical tactics.

I am embarrassed to admit I don’t read each month’s Bulletin from cover to cover as I once did.  Lifestyles, priorities, family, travel, blogging and cyberspace in general are all contributing excuses!   Major changes take place in our lives causing us to deviate from former routines and I was fascinated when I realized how different, upscale and so much improved the current issue is from the smaller copies which I savored and faithfully collected and filed away month after month when I first became a member in the late fifties.  In recent years, I gradually did more scanning than reading but for some reason I devoted much more time than usual these last few days and it was well worth the effort!  

Longtime Editor Brent Manley and his crew do a spectacular job in covering so many bases and there is a wealth of educational information I never realized was available.   It is likened to a monthly encyclopedia!  I especially enjoyed Letters to the Editor, specifically two which appeared on page 7. 

In “Perspective,” the Wolves’ new friend from right here in Las Vegas, Bob LaFleur, elegantly captures the difference between making Life Master back in the Sixties, Fifties and even Forties — pointing out the farther back you travel — the harder it was.  Today, with the glut of masterpoints available, it is the literal “piece of cake.”   His last paragraph was really a mouthful:  

“Being a Life Master does not mean what it once did, but being a millionaire doesn’t mean what it used to mean either.  Seeing all those bumper stickers proclaiming the driver’s child to be an honor student makes me think that the standards for honor students are lower too.   I doubt anyone who plays our game believes being a Life Master means you are an expert.   I have had more than my fair share of success at the bridge table, but I know that there is a vast gulf between my skills and those of the real experts of our game.”   A very realistic appraisal, in my opinion.  Well said!

Following Bob’s views was a Letter (”Old v. New”) from Michael Eyer, of Lake Oswego, OR.  After reading his short introductory bio, it is obvious he is no stranger to the game and has served in many worthwhile capacities for his unit and district.   I share many of his views about the thrill of mailing in fractionals and playing in non-flighted events.   Seems like an eternity ago — and I suppose it was.   Michael speaks of re-evaluation of earning points when times were harder, the creation of different Life Master Rankings for differentiation purposes and the plethora of “triple charity points for every game (although he points out that does not exist in the Portland area).     He closes his perspective with the following:

“It’s a wonderful game, but most ACBL rankings are meaningless unless there are asterisks for (1) when they started playing, (2) percentage of masterpoints achieved with professional help and (3) points won online and/or in limited fields.”   

I can’t resist closing with Marty Bergen’s oft-quoted remark:   ‘Points, Schmoints!’

The Blackwood convention (which uses a bid of 4NT to ask for number of aces) is probably the most utilized and most famous convention in the history of bridge. When Easley Blackwood devised it, he submitted a write-up about it to the Bridge World magazine. They rejected it!

We're getting ready for our move to the new building. As I was packing things in my office, I came across the rejection letter dated May 24, 1935. The ACBL archivist has the original. This is a scan of a photocopy (click to enlarge):

Experts of the old school recognized there was a difference between a raise on 3 small cards and a raise on 3 to the jack-ten. They defined a 5-card suit as being ‘biddable’ if the suit was headed by an honor. In this regard they were saying that suits worthy of bid had to have an honor content that was consistent with their advertised length. That is, a bid was informative to a high degree as the minimum honor content was in accordance with expectations, that is, with what was most probable.

Today’s experts tend to ignore the honor content of a suit when opening the bidding or when raising partner in competition. The Law of Total Tricks maintains that it is the degree of fit that is most important feature. Most of the time this makes little difference as good fits usually produce a requisite number of honor cards merely on the basis of probability, however, the exceptional cases can cause problems. One may think solely in terms of the Law for which adjustments must be made for poor trump quality, but additionally one may think in terms of information. Without restriction on the honor content of suit bids, those bids become less informative than they were traditionally.

Uncertainty as to the quality of the suits being bid may be of benefit in competitive auctions as the opponents may misjudge the situation. On the other hand when it comes to defending a contract, the opening lead is often critical. The more reliable the bidding of one’s partner the more likely one will find the killing lead. Observing on BBO hands played by experts, I conclude that one of the most common sources of failure on defence is due to the bidding of poor suits by defenders who above all wanted to disrupt their opponents’ auction.

The following hand from the Slava Cup is the most recent evidence of a situation where experts bid in an atmosphere of uncertainty for its own sake hoping that the opposition will get it wrong in the end, but in which they are the ones who make the final wrong guess and suffer most from their own misinformation.
 

Dealer: South Both Vulnerable		Welland
		♠	Q105
		♥	93
		♦	AQ954
		♣	K102
Von Arnim				Auken
♠	AKJ987			♠	6432
♥	AJ865			♥	K72
♦	—			♦	82
♣	95			♣	Q643
		Zia
		♠	—
		♥	Q104
		♦	KJ10763
		♣	AJ87

 

Von Arnim	Welland	Auken	Zia
—	—	—	1♦
3♣	3NT	4♠	5♦
5♠	6♦	All Pass

 
At the other table after a Michaels Cue Bid by West, East played in 5♠* off 1 for -200. The double was applied by North whose values appear defensive in nature. Roy Welland thought otherwise, and put pressure on the opposition by taking a 2-way shot at slam, perhaps imagining the aggressive Zia would hold the ♥ A.

Most observers felt they would have found the killing lead of the ♥A. The question that is most relevant is this: could the defenders have bid in a more informative manner? If they had set up the correct defence, Welland would not have bid 6♦ , but would have had to be content with the par result of 5♠* off 1, as was achieved at the other table. As it turned out he and Zia benefited to the tune of 15 IMPs when Von Arnim led the ♠K.

One can see that the East-West defense should be centered on the heart suit. If they declare, they would prefer to play in spades. So the trick is to distinguish between the 2 situations. If over 3NT Auken had bid 4♦, that would have brought the hearts into play. Even a pass (shudder) would have been more informative than the bid of a suit that had no defensive value whatsoever. Occasionally defending against 3NT is not necessarily a bad idea. Down 3 would have been quite satisfactory. Von Arnim for her part might have simply overcalled 1♠. No need to panic, surely, and a more informative auction might develop allowing hearts to be introduced later. We cannot imagine a worse result than was achieved by her phony preemptive style.

Last week I was reminded of this hand when I arrived at a table where the North-South pair were discussing a previous misdefence. It seems North had led an unsupported Ace against a 5-level contract hoping for an attitude signal, which South could not acknowledge as such, since they always lead Ace from Ace-King. North maintained that against a high level contract their agreement no longer applied. Well, we can see Von Arnim had a similar problem. If she could have got an attitude signal on a lead of the ♥A, all would have gone well. It is a matter of being informed.

As it so happened when we finally got around to playing a hand against this pair, another high-level decision arose. As East I was dealt ♠ 543 ♥ QT942 ♦ — ♣ QT862, none vulnerable. North opened 1♦ on my right and I passed rather than bid a ratty unusual 2NT. Not holding spades, I do not expect to outbid the opponents. The bidding proceeded: 1♦ (Pass) 1♠ ( 2♥); 4♠ (???) What is your bid? Of course, 5♦ appears to be obvious, but it seems this is considered by many to be a stroke of genius. My 5♦ was doubled, and I bid 5♥, also doubled. Minus 100 was a clear top against 4 NS scores of 480 and 4 of 300. 5♠ would have been down 1 on a diamond lead, so the informative, lead-directing 5♦ bid was a sure way to achieve a top score. To be able to excel by merely using common sense does not constitute an entirely satisfactory state of affairs, but let’s maintain a clear perspective: it is better than not excelling.

The British Approach
A favorite form of British entertainment is the public inquiry in which political leaders are put to a friendly test with regard to the degree to which they can mislead the public without actually telling a lie under the legal definition. There were the Butler Inquiry, the Hutton Inquiry, the Baker Inquest, and, currently, the Iraqi War Inquiry. Like parliamentary question periods, these shed little light on the true nature of affairs, and whatever information is considered dangerous to the authorities is kept secret on pain of imprisonment and locked away for 70 years. In the same vein there was years ago the unconvincing Foster Inquiry concerning the accusation of cheating by Terrence Reese and Boris Schapiro in the 1965 world championships.

In the game of bridge ‘the British approach’ refers to the use of bids that are not intended to be informative while staying within the legal limit of their definition. Overcalling on a poor suit in a poor hand is a common means of achieving this end, as in this recent example from my club:
 

1♦	(1♠)	1NT	(2♥ )
2NT	(Pass)	3NT	All Pass	Opening Lead: the C♣

 
The overcall of 1♠ was made with a topless suit, a speculative toe-in-the-water effort made in the hope of eliciting a raise. The 2♥ bid on inadequate values was intended to show little support for spades. Despite these misleading bids the opposition proceeded to 3NT. The opening leader believed their bidding rather than his own or his partner’s, and led the suit in which he hoped his partner held complementary values. His feeling might have been that he had gained a great deal of information with little cost to himself, but in fact he had drawn a road map for declarer to follow. A tempo had been lost. The most probable outcome is a costly endplay after his minor suit exit cards have been removed and he is required to make a belated lead in a major suit. So it transpired.

We have further evidence to consider taken from Sally Brock’s feature in Bridge Magazine, Leading Questions: Quiz, a particular favorite of mine. Feisty Sally is a world’s champion, so we assume that she represents what is best in British bridge. In her quiz, experts are given an auction and a hand from which they are to choose their opening lead. A pattern has developed in which most often the normal opening lead gets the top (consensus) score, but it turns out not to have been the killing lead. Thus for the reader the problem becomes a 2-part question: what is the normal lead in theory and what is the killing lead in practice? (the Brits actually call it ‘the winning lead’.)

The most entertaining aspect of the feature is that for each problem she gives all 4 hands as they were dealt at the table. In the cases were the obvious lead is not the killing lead there is something fishy about the auction, something that invalidates the normal choice. The panelists are expected to draw correct inferences from the auction, then Sally Brock shows us why they are wrong. The message she is sending is that one cannot trust the auction as the protagonists’ bidding is unreliable. Distrust extends to one’s partner.

The first installment in the May 2009 issue set the tone. On the 5 problems presented, logicians Eric Kokish and Justin Hackett obtained a perfect score of 50, but David Bakhshi found all the killing leads, while finishing last in the consensus department with a score of 36. On Problem 4 he was the only panelist to find the killing lead of the ♣J from ♠J94 ♥J9 ♦8632 ♣JT72, after the sequence: 1♥ (Pass) 2♥ (3♦); 3♥ All Pass. Partner had interjected 3♦ on: ♠KQ6 ♥76 ♦AK974 ♣AQ9. To me the real question is whether East, rather than overcalling 3♦ after NS have established a fit, should have doubled on a balanced hand with 19 HCP thereby showing values in 3 suits at once.

Misleading bidding is disadvantageous in many ways when one ends up on defence. For that reason I prefer overcalls to be informative, that is, made on good suits, the exceptions being in the spade suit when there is a good chance of stealing the hand. I prefer competitive raises that imply that leading the suit is safe. Furthermore, I expect partner to lead the suit I have freely bid. Sally Brock doesn’t agree. She writes, ‘If partners are going to lead my suit it means I can’t bid unless I have a good one!’ Under such a constraint the overcall loses some of its disruptive potential, but this approach is pretty much a one-shot effort that puts a partnership at risk.

If the defenders are in the habit of bidding bad suits, a stopperless 3NT can escape the normal, killing lead. On the other hand leading to partner’s bad suit may give away the contract, a common theme in the quiz. So the game becomes one of bluff and counter-bluff. To reduce the guessing element, one should aim to play for what is most probable, and that involves providing partner with reliable information where it is most needed.

In the quiz of January 2010 Barry Rigal found all 5 killing leads, but scored a lowly 39, good for 10th place in a field of 13. He was the only one got this one right. You are West. South has opened 3♥ at game all, IMPs scoring, has been raised to 4♥ by North, which your partner, East, doubles. What is you lead from: ♠764 ♥Q5 ♦765 ♣KT876 ? The logical answer is ♠6, but the killing lead is the eccentric ♥5. South had opened 3♥, vulnerable, on a 6-card suit: ♠2 ♥AJT732 ♦KJ ♣J532. Although this bid is not illegal, one may say that it does not conform to what one usually expects of such a bid in the given circumstances, thus it is unusual, therefore, improbable.

The lesson I have drawn from these and similar examples is that it is difficult to find the killing lead when the auction is misinformative, therefore, a partnership will benefit if they misinform, yet, in spite of this, reach a playable contract that will make on a lead based on an assumption of normal, most probable conditions. A bidding system that uses limited opening bids has the advantage as the users know early in the auction whether they are aiming for game or for slam. If game is the limit, uninformative bidding may be the best option. There is nothing unethical in the sequence 1NT – 3NT, even if both partners are stretching the limits of definition. Also, one may take advantage of an opponent’s self-inflicted uncertainty. It may be ugly, but unusual is not illegal. There are risks as well as benefits to be derived from such an approach. The benefits are not so obvious when one bids speculatively only to end up on lead against an opponent who has not been intimidated. When in doubt one should ask oneself, ‘if I had not bid, what would I have led?’ To bid one suit tentatively and guess to lead another is a costly bad habit.

To get a 'full' win in the league, you have to beat your opponents by more than 2% of the total aggregate score. So last night's +670 was worth 2.34%, exactly 100 points to the good from our perspective. A little galling for the opposition though, who only needed a losing draw to ensure their Division 1 status, so they will have to rely on their final match.

There were a number of hands that I thought were interesting. Firstly, are you worth a slam try?
Then there was an interesting play problem, perhaps more so for the pair that bid to 4NT rather than the 3NT we were in:



North leads the ♠5. What is your line?

Miro and I had a good game against Troy and Anthony. The aggregate at our table represented 30% of the total, suggesting that we were both bidding and making more games than the other three tables. As Miro and I only let one game make, generally I think this is an indication of a reasonable level of play by both pairs.

Završeno je četvrto dubrovačko prvenstvo koje organizira bridž klub Dubrovnik. Zajedno sa Mercian Travel-om i okolnim klubovima pronašli smo formulu za lijep ali i održiv turnir. Sljedećih par dana možemo dvaput dnevno igrat male parske turnire u hotelu. Turnir počiva na uigranoj grupi igrača i ne može dalje napredovati (organizacijski i u broju stolova). Upali smo u jednu vrstu kvake 22: ako sami organiziramo veću salu u nekom od hotela strana grupa neće doći pa nam sala nije potrebna, a ako nastavimo igrati sa njima imamo problem sa mjestom u sali. Osim toga uvidio sam da Butler turnir u nedjelju ujutro nema veliku posjetu kad se igraju turniri tokom tjedna. Dubrovački igrači biraju kojim danom žele igrati dok mnogo igrača iz drugih gradova nedjelju ujutro (pogotovo ako je lijepo vrijeme) troše na razgledavanje grada ili mlaćenje kamenica u obližnjim restoranima. Termin igranja turnira nije sretno pogođen: od četiri turnira imali smo jednom buru koja je blokirala aerodrom Čilipi i jedan snijeg u Lici tako da popunjenost ovisi o lokalnim igračima koji dolaze autom. Ovogodišnji skok broja igrača je zbog dolaska nekoliko parova iz Crne Gore. Imali smo ukupno prijavu 42 para od kojih su tri opravdano otkazala u zadnji tren pa sam limitiran brojem stolova u sali morao stopirati prijave domaćih igrača i zamoliti nekolicinu da ne igraju. Lanjski turnir je pokazao da znamo sami sve napraviti: međutim za veći broj stolova potrebna mi je sudačka pomoć. Tko će raditi pored mene ako pređemo granicu od dvadeset stolova Kako nemamo drugog aktivnog lokalnog bridž suca brzo ćemo napuniti maksimum što jedan sudac pokrije. Sudac ovdje ne može biti netko tko će doći suditi jednom godišnje nego netko tko barem dvaput mjesečno bez problema odradi klupski turnir. Mercian možda ne preživi sljedeću godinu: turistički operateri u doba interneta ne prolaze dobro. Saznao sam da vlasnik već neko vrijeme pokušava prodati firmu i zbog svojih godina (debele devedesete) i zbog pada prometa. Svi britanski igrači su bili oduševljeni turnirom i druženjem ali nikome od njih to nije bio razlog dolaska u Dubrovnik. Njihovi sadašnji predstavnici Liz i Ian Ross sa kojima smo radili tri od četiri turnira prelaze u drugu firmu tako da je pitanje tko će sljedeći put doći i kako će izgledati naša suradnja. Sa druge strane članovi kluba traže da se turnir komercijalizira i da postane kao neki izvor financiranja rada kluba. BK Dubrovnik je od gradskog saveza športova prestao dobivati dosadašnjih 5000 kuna za rad kluba. Kako imamo ovaj turnir kao jedini posebni izvor financiranja ispada da bi sa nagradnim fondom od 75% uplata trebali imato 20000 kuna uplata tokom dva dana Ako pridodamo troškove za salu, sudačke tarife i bridž opremu i materijale koje sad ne plaćamo ispada da bi morali i smanjiti fond nagrada od 75% na vjerojatno najviše 60%. To je dakle turnir od 75 parova u petak i subotu te 50 parova u nedjelju - dakle turnir od četrdeset stolova. Ja to ne vidim - ovako svi volontiramo i imamo onoliko koliko se sami pokrijemo. Igračima su zagarantirane nagrade a klub nema gubitaka. Za korak više trebalo bi prvo srediti preduvjete: proširiti bazu domaćih igrača sa nekim šesnaest parova na tridesetak i bar još troje bridž sudaca koji mogu voditi redovne i izvanredne klupske turnire. Za stvari vezane za organizaciju i financije treba se još jače povezati sa sportskim organizacijama u županiji i napraviti bridž prepoznatljivim u Dubrovniku. Već sad imamo dobru suradnju sa hotelima i turističkom zajednicom ali sa gradskim struktrama, medijima i sportašima treba više raditi. Jasno mi je kako napraviti korak dalje, ali tko želi i hoće pomoći da se to planski ostvari kroz sljedećih pet-šest godina Evo nam teme za raspravu na sljedećoj klupskoj skupštini i na županijskom bridž savezu.

These two semi-trailers were parked outside the new ACBL Headquarters last week. On Thursday, they were gone. No, they were not involved in our move. So then, why were they there?

The North American Bridge Championship (called NABC) gets under way later this week in Reno NV. The league sends a massive amount of supplies and equipment -- 21 tons! These semis are used to haul supplies from the ACBL warehouse (in Horn Lake MS) to Reno.

Here are some numbers:

* 1000 card tables
* 3600 bidding boxes
* 2000 decks of cards
* 19 pounds of rubber bands

There are also pencils, entry slips, computers, printers, and the list goes on. What about chairs? The host hotel (the Grand Sierra Resort) provides those.

The trucks arrive in Reno several days early so ACBL staffers can unload and set up.


An ACBL staff member loads one of the trucks. Shown on the forklift (above) are 60 card tables.

Images by MOJO and taken with my P&S. Click on either to enlarge.

=======================================
Here's an update on the ACBL headquarters move. There's a problem with the phone company getting things set up for internet and phone service, so the move is delayed. No new date, but it could be up to one month.

I surmised by the comments that many astute observers realized there was more to the story than the auction given — when the 4S bid rolled back to you (the 4H bidder).   Some of you inferred you might not have bid 4H originally (which surely has merit), but that was a ‘given’ — the way it was presented to the audience.  Here is what actually happened.  Opener (holding 96  AKQ92  KQ1092  5) was obviously taken back by her RHO’S 4S call and considered bidding on by her noticeable break in tempo (which is understandable with her hand) but decided to pass as did the 4S bidder.

Now the ethical dilemma arises — would you consider 5H (especially after partner’s hitch)?????   OF COURSE NOT!   UNTHINKABLE!   NO ETHICAL PLAYER WOULD (and not one of you who commented did so –  even WITHOUT KNOWING OF THE BIT — so I assume it is pretty automatic)!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (I might add an aside from a top player who wrote to me privately — and I quote, “My call is 1,000% PASS.”).  However, in all fairness I want to add both players are lovely gals and were relatively inexperienced (though not new to the game) and neither the huddler nor the 5H bidder knew they had done anything wrong.   Many club players think that is part of the game — perhaps like poker.   That is another issue which I will tend to later.  

MY QUESTION:    WHEN ARE NEW, OLD, EXPERIENCED OR INEXPERIENCED PLAYERS GOING TO BECOME EDUCATED TO THE ETHICAL PRACTICES OF THE GAME?    (THAT MEANS BIDDING BASED ON THE THIRTEEN CARDS FACING YOU — NOT BREAKS IN TEMPO)!

THE ANSWER:    WHEN THE OWNERS OR THE CLUB DIRECTORS RECOGNIZE THE FACT NONE OF THE ABOVE SHOULD HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE AUCTION BASED ON UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances (perhaps a void in opponent’s suit or some wild distribution like 6/5/) — you might justify bidding again.   However, one of the golden rules of bridge is an admonition about BIDDING THE SAME VALUES TWICE.  The result is really a secondary issue.   My prime concern is to educate the decision-makers (owners/directors/managers — whomever calls the shots) about the proprieties of the game.   It is the responsibility of the ACBL to make a concerted effort to go all out to train and re-train their directing staff.   In fifty years on the scene (and having witnessed key matches with both Norman and Bobby both nationally and internationally), I have been impressed with many at the ultimate level.   However,  donning a Regional or Sectional Director’s Cap (let alone at the club level) does not, in itself, mean you have enough bridge knowledge or savvy to understand what is involved.  Again, there are exceptions.  EDUCATION IN DIRECTING IS A ‘MUST’ if we expect to ascend to a level playing field.  

As you may have suspected, I was the disgruntled 4S bidder and was appalled by the 5H call.   I did not want to intimidate the nice lady on my right by calling the director immediately, so I commented politely, “We are all aware your partner had a problem before she passed 4S so I assume you are bidding based on your own hand.”   Embarrassedly (admitting she was aware of the situation because it took her about 30 seconds to succumb to her 5H call), she said, “I’ll take it back then.   It’s O.K.   Would you like me to?”    I countered, ” No, let’s play the hand and then we’ll decide what to do.”   5H ended the auction.    I didn’t have to wait that long.  Soon as the dummy was tabled (A4  J10873   85  J962), I called for the director who told us to play and score the hand.  Bobby and I assumed he was coming back to adjust the board.    The result was immaterial.   My problem:  Why should we have not been allowed to play 4S?     THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE .. rolling it back to where it legally should have been played — regardless of the result.  Incidentally, the director inferred he would give it some thought that night (a lot of good that was going to do — after the scores were entered and posted) and never said another word but allowed the score to stand.   I went ballistic and left the club.

I could have beaten 5H (though we could not make 4S), but I believe the important issue is the director’s LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR WORSE YET — JUDGMENT.  He allowed the 5H bid to stay and a week later when I saw him at the sectional and rehashed the hand, he added insult to injury when he told me he had checked with some of the ‘other club directors’ AND SOME OF THE SECTIONAL ONES TOO  — and they all tended to agree.   (Eons ago when I was a kid they used to say, “That and a dime will get you a cup of coffee” — but of course Starbucks, of late, has set different monetary standards!    If the original saying is foreign to some of you younger readers — the inference is –  “So what?  I’m not impressed.”  And, believe me, I am not!!

It is time the ACBL stepped in, giving more guidance and taking the responsibility for these situations more seriously or the game will continue to go to hell in a hand basket!!!

The auction started slowly in the penultimate match in the Sunday swiss at the El Cerrito sectional yesterday.  Our team was in contention and we needed a strong finish.  I liked my hand:

♠ AQ9xxx
♥ 10xx
♦ AKJ
♣ x

Partner, Bob, opened 1club, RHO overcalled 1D, I bid 1 spade and LHO bid 2H.  Now things picked up.  Pard jumped to 4H, presumably heart shortness with spade support.  Now my hand looked really strong so I bid blackwood.  In response to my 4NT bid I was floored to hear the bid of 5NT!  This promises two key cards plus a void.  Hmm...he has at least 4 spades to the king, the club ace, and a heart void.  My diamonds are golden after the diamond overcall.

There was really only one possible bid:  7 spades!  I got a club lead and awaited dummy: 
 
♠ K10xx
♥ void
♦ xxx
♣ AQJ10xx

♠ AQ9xxx
♥ 10xx
♦ AKJ
♣ x

It looked like a good contract, but it would pay to be extra cautious.  I would have liked to ruff my hearts on the board, but couldn't risk getting back and forth to my hand.  I certainly didn't want to risk LHO ruffing diamonds or overruffing clubs. I pondered the lead.  The failure to lead one of the suits bid by the opponents made me think the club lead might be a singleton.  That would be easy to find out later in the play. If it were indeed a stiff, I could take a ruffing finesse in clubs and set up the suit for several pitches.

The situation really left me with no alternative but to try to set up the clubs.  Accordingly I started trumps and was glad to see them break 2-1.  When I led a club from the board, RHO played the king!  (Unfortunately for him he was dealt Kx).  I ruffed it and claimed.  All of my losers could now either be ruffed or discarded on clubs.  Plus 2210 felt like a really good score.  I noted that Bob had definitely bid his hand to the hilt.

Sure enough, bidding the grand netted us 13 imps on a 23 imp win.  We went on to win the last match and had a decent second place showing (behind Rose Meltzer's team).  Our teammates, Linda and Dan F., played well and a good time was had by all.

Thinking about this hand later, I realized that we bid the grand slam with a combined total of 24 high card points.  When you realize that we were essentially playing with a 30 point deck (no points whatsoever in hearts), however, the relatively low point count makes sense.  Whereas 24 points would only be 60% of a full 40 point deck, we actually had 80% of the high card points in a 30 point deck.  The key to the bidding was, of course, learning about the heart shortness by means of the splinter, followed by the 5NT bid.

See you at the table!

I thought that Sondra Blank made a very nice bid on this hand.  Let’s see what you think.  Sondra held

AQ
Q742
Q64
10972

Isabelle opened 1 and Sondra bid 1NT(forcing).  West overcalled 2  and Isabelle bid 2 .  What should Sondra do?  Taking the inference that West had a lot of high cards in club and that Isabelle was quite likely to be short in them she realized the value of her major suit cards and just bid the game.  Had she simply made a game try then Isabelle who had a minimum might not have bid it.  Here was Isabelle’s hand.

K10832
AJ86
K92 
9

Now let’s look at Isabelle’s rebid.  While she does have a minimum her club singleton suggests that Sondra might well have a heart fit.  At out table North passed 2.   What should South do now with her 10 points.  She doesn’t really have a club stopper.  I suppose she might bid hearts but instead she took the “safe” route with 2 and that is where they played it losing a game swing.  So Sondra and Isabelle combined to get to this good game.  While game is not a guarantee as long as the major don’t split to badly you are a favorite.

Here is a hand that Colin and I didn’t get right and I confess I bid it like a dumkopf but I am interested in some thoughts (not so much about my dumb bidding but about how you think these things should be handled over forcing club).

I opened 1 in third and Colin made a negative 1 bid.  North a passed hand bid 2 and we really hadn’t discussed this situation.  Here is my hand 

AK106
A3
10 
AQ10843

What do bids mean now?  Should 3 be forcing one round?  Or do you have to jump or cuebid to create a force?  Is a double a three suited takeout?  I wasn’t sure and I managed to talk myself out of bidding at all (that is the dumbkopf part.  Suppose I do bid 3 like a mensch (I am exercising my inner Jewish here) and it goes 3 pass pass would you bid 3.  If you do you are a winner since partner will easily summon up 4.  (We ended ingeniously in 4 which won in imps because 5 doubled at the other table was only 1 down).  Colin and I did discuss this all and agreed to think about it but I think 3 here should show a good suit but not be forcing over the negative.  Colin held

QJ96
52
7643 
975 

(This hand bid 1 over an opening natural club bid and 4 was not far behind.)  I would be happy to here from strong clubbers about there thoughts.

I would like to share with you an email Bobby received and replied to today from a very frustrated bridge player (and I sympathize with his plight).   Before you read the correspondence, here is a bit of background I later learned upon my personal follow up:  The writer is a ‘relative newcomer to bridge tournaments,’ although he learned to play in grad school at the University of Michigan forty years ago — just to accommodate three frustrated housing students who wanted to be assured of a fourth.  He stopped playing until the Nineties when he entered his first duplicate at the local Senior Center one Tuesday evening.   In 1998, he got transferred to the Bay Area but didn’t resume playing club bridge again until 2004 and entered his first “tournament” in 2006.   I think we can all agree,
although attaining LM status last year, he is a relatively inexperienced player.  

Following is his factual request for Bobby’s opinion of the handling of the situation.   Perhaps you may think Bobby’s approach of not-mincing words rubbed off on me, but I can assure you it was always my way of thinking.   Perhaps, it has to do with my hometown of Philadelphia and the no-nonsense approach both the knowledgeable club and tournament directors assumed when they were called to a table.   It is hard to get accustomed to what I see as in many cases (with a few exceptions) of “fudging a decision” when they don’t know for sure — even after reading the sacred laws of the ACBL and having to consult with others directors — who may know as little or even less!   If rules are to be bent (which quite often are justified), it should be to establish justice.   EQUITY SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE BOTTOM LINE — without exception!

 

Hi Bobby:

Playing Sectional Swiss Teams:  After first hand passed, I opened 2nd seat vu 1 NT (15-17) with a nice 16 count, including some intermediates.  Third seat passed. My partner bid 2 C Stay man.  First hand passed.  I made a mechanical error and pulled out a pass card.  My LHO immediately said “I pass.”  He obviously saw my mechanical error and wanted to get his bid in immediately (he never even pulled out a green pass card.)  Realizing what I had done, I immediately said mechanical error.  He said, too bad, he had already made his bid.  I said “let’s call the director” and he didn’t want to even do that.  I raised my hand for the Director.

The Director came over and we explained what had happened.  She said, and I quote verbatim, that, “since the pass card isn’t right next to a positive bid card, that it was not a mechanical error.”  She added  “maybe you meant to pass later, and were thinking of that.”  So she ruled that my pass was legit, and so my partner got to play 2 C. 

The “good” news was my partner, with her 10 HCP, made 3 C for +110.  The vu 3 NT game was cold (we did not have a 4/4 major suit fit, and partner (said she) had an obvious raise to 3 NT after the 2 D bid I obviously meant to make), and thus the “bad” news was the director’s ruling cost us the 630 (a difference of +520), the value of 3 NT vu making 4.  The hand made 10 tricks at NT at the other table.   We lost the match by 2 Imps, instead of winning it.  We finished 2 VPs out of second in the cumulative scoring so her ruling also cost us second place overall.   Yes, I was at fault for pulling the pass card out goes without saying.

Three questions:

1. Was the ruling correct?
2.  How could the Director say what I might have been thinking, about maybe passing later?  My partner had yet to bid, and for all I know, could have had the remaining 24 HCP!  OK not really, but you get my drift.  There is no way anyone in the Western Hemisphere who is a Life Master purposefully passes 2 C in this 1 NT/2 C auction.
3.  Is it legal for my LHO to call out pass, and not even pull a green pass card out of his bidding box?  The Director said that didn’t matter.

Signed  (Name withheld by me)

Here is Bobby’s forthright reply:

Hi:

Chances are very good that the followings are FACTS:

1.  The director was trying to rule according to the laws, but his (her) supposition that you were thinking down the road, was sheer poppycock.
2.  Your LHO was doing as you said he was, by acting fast before you had a chance to legitimately correct your MECHANICAL ERROR.  Probably his vocal pass was a legal move, but……….
3.  Edgar Kaplan, who together with his committees, wrote most of our laws, but he had no confidence in any of our tournament directors, going out of his way to not allow them any discretion in law interpretation.
4.  I, as an Appeals Chairman, (and, of course, if I would have been called to your table) would have found a way to interpret your case so that equity would have been restored and allow you to change your bid (certainly since no UI had been passed).  In addition I would look for ways to penalize the opportunistic opponents who were definitely practicing INACTIVE ETHICS!
5.  As an appeals chairman I would have changed your result to both sides getting average, but your opponents being chastised for inappropriate opportunism.
If bridge is to establish itself once again as a Gentlemen’s game, we need to have gentlemen and ladies playing it.

Do not be too harsh on your TD since his (her) only crime was not having the foresight to do positive things which would, no doubt, leave lasting worthwhile memories.

I have been fighting these types of battles for what seems like forever, and have gotten 1/3 of the way to first base, but the foxes out there have stood in my way all the distance to the henhouse.

Good luck!

Bobby

The solution is simple — better training of directors — no matter what!

Last night I was playing again with Colin (he is my only son in case you are wondering) against Isabelle and Sondra and with them.

Colin with his favorite son, Marcus (picture from his facebook page)

Any time I play with Colin interesting things happen (ditto against Isabelle and Sondra).  Last night was no exception.  I am going to start with two lovely hands one that features Colin and one that features, moi.

Here is Colin’s hand.  I am going to tell it from his point of view first but I will mention some actions by the opponents later.  Colin held:

Q98632
4
AK653
5

Colin opened this 2 (white on red).  This shows about 4-9 (he is on the heavy side) with 5-5 in spades and a minor (or occasionally 6-5).  He might have opened it 1 too but I like 2 which is so descriptive.  Anyway, Isabelle bid 4 which shows clubs and a higher suit and I bid 4.  Sondra doubled ending the aution.  But for Colin this hand is about the play.  I did have a quick look at the hand and then I excused myself for a short break and I came back to see that Colin had taken the winning line.  Isabelle led the A and this was what Colin saw (hand rotated to make Colin South(

 

	Linda A75 107 Q92 Q1084
	Colin Q98632 4 AK653 5

Isabelle started with the A and continued with the Q which Colin ruffed.  So Colin knew that Isabelle was at least 5-5 in the round suits.  Sondra had to have tat least three spades with the top ones, one would think.  If Isabelle is 1-5-5-2 then the hand is easy since diamonds are splitting and Colin merely has to play spades for one loser.  So the question is how to play the hand for a worse distribution.  The two that come to mind are 1-5/6-1 and 0-5/6-2 or 0-5-5-3.

In the first case Colin has to make a diamond ruff in dummy and lead a trump towards the closed hand.  He can’t play the A and another because Sondra will win and play a third spade.  The elegant solution is to play a diamond to the Q and then a spade from dummy.  Sondra can win or duck .  Colin wins the Q and A and then can ruff a diamond if needed.  Rising on the K is no help for the defense.  That is how Colin played it and that was the winning line.  (Another alternative cashing he A and then playing on diamonds before eventually leading a trump towards his hand will work as well.)

There is no point in worrying about a 4-0 spade break, you can’t make the hand if they do.  Here is the whole hand.

	Linda A75 107 Q92 Q1084
Isabelle 10 AKQ932 8 AKJ96		Sondra KJ3 J85 J1074 732
	Colin Q98632 4 AK653

Now to my hand and this is about bidding.  See what you think: I held

Linda
AJ543
AK
AK8
A108

I counted it twice to get to 23 HCP (I really counted it about 4 times).  I opened a strong club an over Colin’s negative 1, I bid 2NT.  Colin transferred to hearts with 3 and then bid 4NT.  Now what could that mean?  Colin had at most seven high card points, I had 23.  He could not have a six card heart suit for this auction (for various reasons).  What do you think my favorite son has?  I deduced that he had a good five card suit like QJ10xx and some other points adding to seven.  He was looking for a fit slam.  Well although I only had two hearts they were going to help bring home five tricks and I had all those other aces and kinds.  He was quite likely to have a black king (the spade king would have been best).  The problem is that it may be hard to get to Colin’s hand enough in notrump and besides maybe I could set up spades with a ruff.  So I decided to play the 5-2.  Did I read too much into Colin’s bidding….  You know I didn’t or well it wouldn’t be “my hand”.  Here is his hand just as I imagined it (but without the right black king).

Colin 987 QJ765 92 KJ6

Well I was right to be in hearts.  In hearts I can get to Colin’s hand twice to play spade.  In notrump I am going to need the club finesse to create an entry (it is probably unneeded otherwise).  In hearts you can draw trump (crossing on the club) and then take two spade plays (ruffing the diamond to get there the second time.  It also means that you may be able to handle some 4-1 spade situations (when hearts are 3-3). 

So Colin had a hand that gave me a reasonable chance of making slam but this wasn’t as good as 50-50 and pehaps I shouldn’t have bid the slam.  There really was no way to find out his spade holding which was the key (assuming I was right about hearts).  Still this is not a terrible slam.  After hearts broke evenly I could pick up a lot of spade positions.  Of course I planned to play for K10x(x) or Q10x(x) pr KQ10(x)_ onside but I did have the quite reasonable possibility that righty would split from the KQx or KQxx and that is in fact what happened.

So I give myself full marks for figuring out what Colin had and half marks for getting to the slam. 

I am not done with interesting events from last night… more later.

The Camrose tournament was on this weekend and I had a chance to comment on a match this morning.  If you are interested in all the teams and results of this Great Britain contest check out:

Camrose Results

England was the final winner beating out the Republic of Ireland who were second.  Wales was third and  Scotland was fourth.  Northern Ireland was a distant fifth and a second Northern Ireland team (as hosts) labeled NIBU  even further down the scoring table

The match this morning pitted the two Irish teams.  the Republic of Ireland versus Northern Ireland team.  Oddly one of the pairs on the Republic of Ireland team was not listed as one of the three pairs playing (a last minute substitution perhaps).  The pair was Karel de Raeymaker (he had Belgian parents) and Anna Onishuk (who was born in Russia).  Hence the “unIrish” names.

Their partners in the Open Room were John Carroll and Tommy Garvey.

Playing for the Northern Ireland in the Closed Room where I watched was John Murchan & Ciara Burns with their teammates Hastings Campbell & Greer MacKenzie in the Open Room.

It was an exciting match at my table with lots of bidding.  At one point I thought that Karel should have a nice cup of tea, herbal not Irish, since he needed to take it down a notch.  But then perhaps his style was just not “my cup of tea”.  Do you like these weak 2 bids?  The first one was white on red (but in second chair)

Exhibit A

KJ943 J6 873 764

 

Exhibit B

QJ865
84
J104
Q84

All the bidding meant that Anna had to work extra hard and she was a fine declarer.   Perhaps the most interesting example of their style (Bid Boldly, Play Safe a la Rixi Marcus, the fine British Women Internationalist) was this deal.  Coming into Board 11 of 16 Northern Ireland was leading by 11 imps 22-11.  First let’s follow East during the bidding

954
KJ643
QJ6
K5

White nobody vulnerable partner opens 2NT and you transfer to hearts.  What now?  Personally I bid 3NT.  If partner takes a move in hearts then I am interested and not otherwise.  Karel invited with 4NT.  The auction did eventually squeak to a halt in 5 despite partner’s maximum (with no heart fit).  The opposite hand was

AQ102
A10
A75
AQJ6

In the other room your opponents were in a more normal 3NT making 4.  So it was up to Anna to bring home 5 and I will give you a hint the hearts are 5-1.  So let’s see how she did it.  I will rotate the hand to make Anna South

	North 954 KJ643 QJ6 K5
West J73 Q9753 K84 98		East K86 KJ643 QJ6 K5
	South AQ102 A10 A75 AQJ6

The opening lead was the 9 won in dummy.  She played a heart to the ace and the 1- covered with the Q and the K.  South showed out with the 6.  She now played on clubs.   ruffed the third round with the 7 while Anna discarded a spade and West got out a spade.  (Well anything else was worse).    Anna won in hand and it was effectively over.  She played another club and everybody discarded (but if West ruffs she overrufs and only has a diamond to lose.  If West discards a diamond she cashes her spade, ruffs a spade and can endplay North in a red suit.  Do you like it?  I did.  And that won her an imp (some imps are better than others.

However Board 15 was the deciding match of the set.  Coming into this board Ireland led Northern Ireland 24-18.  This hand was a bidding challenge. 

West
KJ83
83
AKJ108 
K8

Suppose you open 1NT white on red after your RHO passes.  (I wouldn’t with the weak doubletons.  What do you think?)  Anyway your partner bid 3 natural and forcing.  You bid 3NT.  Partner persists with 4 natural.  Your call?

Do you like 4?  I don’t know  natural (I guess).  When you aren’t quite sure where partner is heading this seems like a safe bet.

Now its up to partner.  Let’s see what he does?

East
A
AKQ974
Q5 
J1053

Partner continues with 4NT.  Darn if I know what that means.   Is it a notrump raise or keycard for diamonds or for clubs or for hearts or maybe no suit at all.  Anyways partner bids 5.  I hope they know what is going on now cause I am confused.  I supposed that West may be responding aces in a 1430 manner or maybe responding for hearts. East ended the torture with 6.  This doesn’t seem so bad except for one minor problem.  If hearts don’t break this is going down not to mention that playing it from the East hand you have to deal with a club lead.   Playing notrump from the East hand does give you more options.  Still with hearts not breaking and no spade miracle this should go down from either side most of the time. 

You guessed it.  Hearts don’t break and 6 has no chance at all.  Is this one of those times where 6NT makes?  Not exactly.  Here is the whole hand

	North Q1054 J1062 6  A974
West KJ83 83 AKJ108  K8		East A AKQ974 Q5  J1053
	South 9762 5 97432 Q62

Nope there really isn’t any legitimate way to make 6NT unless you guess hearts.  North (Garvey) started with a clever 10 after West opened with 1 and East had shown great hearts.  But let’s face it heart lead or no heart lead West was not going to guess em.  West played a second heart and got the bad news.  Now West (Hastings) ran the J.  And North made the rather remarkable play of ducky the ace.  Perhaps he felt safe in the knowledge that the hearts were not running, declarer couldn’t have more than one spade trick etc.  But he failed to consider what he would do if West had five diamonds.  Because after he ducked Hastings cashed all of dummy’s winners and then five diamonds.  His last three cards, all black where the K and the KJ.  As long as Hastings could guess the ending he was destined to take two tricks and make the hand.   So the 14 imps lost on this board was a result, not of the unusual bidding in the Closed Room (6 is a fine contract) but the defensive mistake by Garvey.  And that was the match.  The final score Northern Ireland 32, Ireland 24.

Paul added ….

This set was the first 16 boards of a 32 board match. In the second set Northern Ireland surprisingly increased their lead by 4 IMPs, playing against the top two Irish pairs, to gain a rare 17-13 VP win over their southern neighbours.

Hi all

In a week I’ll be in Reno, participating in the nationals. I have planned to play the IMP Pairs (with Drew Hoskins) and the Vanderbilt (with Geoff Hopcraft). Both partners are capable of creating action and generating imps and stories. I’ll post them here.

Here’s another Beowulf story from last week at Piedmont.

North

KQ5

K

AKJ6

A9763

South

AJ74

743

Q943

K5

West

North

East

South

 

11

pass

12

pass

23

pass

24

pass

3

pass

3NT

pass

4

pass

4

pass

6

a.p.

 

 

1. 15-17 bal or any 18+
2. 6+
3. Natural
4. Natural

I shouldn’t have ventured with 2, it shows (or should show) more than this crummy four card suit. On the other hand finding a fit might get a bit difficult if I can’t take the slow approach. Anyway, Geoff pushed to slam when he found out I was holding too.

My LHO starts with the Ten of , and I take stock. I have two paths, establish the or try to ruff two in dummy. If the opponents had started with the latter plan would have been fairly easy to execute. But the lead creates some transportation problems. So I decide to establish dummy’s .

After winning the King of I draw two rounds of trumps with the Ace and King, the Ten hasn’t shown up yet. Next I cash the Ace and ruff a with the 9, LHO discarding a . I cross to the King and ruff another with the Queen. This is the position:

North

Q5

K

J6

6

South

AJ7

743

-

-

My plan was to cross again in , extract the outstanding Ten, cash the and pitch dummy’s losing on my long for thirteen tricks. I fell off the bridge when East ruffed the to dummy and cashed the Ace for down one.

North Dealer

EW Vul

North

KQ5

K

AKJ6

A9763

West

T8632

QT85

87

T2

East

9

AJ962

T52

QJ84

South

AJ74

743

Q943

K5

 

Mere minutes later the solution hit me. A surge of pure, redeeming insight made me want to crawl back in time and replay those last couple of cards.

Instead of crossing to dummy with another , I should have exited in . The opponents can take their trick but now dummy’s void and Queen function as entry to draw the last trump. Combining the chances of any favourable split with an unfavourable split but a well placed Ace of . It might be talking towards the cards, but assessing the value of that extra overtrick in 6 should have steered me in the right direction.

	First weekend	Second weekend	Total
England	99	97	196
Ireland	100	82	182
Wales	78	89	167
Scotland	72	78	150
Northern Ireland	57	57	114
NIBU	40	43	83

Let me offer to all knowledgeable players something for their consideration.   This is not a trick hand.  
Here are the conditions.

Both vulnerable; Dealer is South; the Auction proceeds:

South     West     North     East
  P            1H          1S          4H
4S             P          P            ?

Here is East’s hand:   A4    J10873   85    J962

What is your call?     PART II tomorrow.

Happy New Year! I see I haven't blogged for a while.
(I was forced to edit the title of this post, it was attracting some odd and unwelcome comments)

I have been playing a number of club games with Peter and placing in A, so that's great. I am also on an IMP League team, we got off to a bad start with 2 losses but had a much needed win and morale boost in our last game. The losses were, in part, due to my lack of discipline. This is a reoccurring theme and one that Peter has been working on with me. My ACBL Bulletin was delivered today and wouldn't you know it, Frank Stewart is in on this too.

Discipline in the bidding is taking the action you know is best when a tiny voice in your head is urging you to take a flyer. Discipline is having a reason to bid and being willing to pass when no bid is just right. Discipline is acknowledging that you have a partner and letting him use his judgement.

I am going to print this out and stick it to my PC.

I would like to add, discipline is having the hand for your bid. Here is a good example, playing on BBO with a semi regular partner.

I am dealt K5, JT6, T843, KT92 rho passed, yes I passed, LHO opened 1C, partner doubled
(P) P (1C) X
(1S)P (P) X
(P) 1N

I like my 1N bid but now partner jumps to 3N and I start to feel sick.

My dear partner tables; JT,AQ4,AK65,AQ83 making 10, thanks p!

That's all I wanted to say, I am working hard on becoming a disciplined bidder.
And finaly, I have given up caffeine! Day 5 and the headaches are barely noticeable now but for the first 4 days they were excruciating.

Bridge is a game of mistakes, it has been said (perhaps too frequently).  We all make mistakes and perhaps the most annoying is misunderstandings in the auction.  I was doing commentary on the Camrose match yesterday between Scotland and Wales.  I was in the Closed Room and the great Michael Rosenberg was doing commentary in the Open Room.  Needless to say our table had only a small number of kibbitzers.  Ray said they were all the immediate family of the players.

At out table Board 23 was a flat looking 3NT.  You might argue about the best line but on the lie of the cards all lines led to the +600 range.  Later on the result from the other table came in win 14 imps!  What could have gone wrong?

This morning I decided to have a look at the deal and the comments and see if I could figure it out.  When the deal was started Michael looking at the result in the other room was giving a profound discussion about how the play should go.  The bidding started out the same in both rooms.  Here was the East hand and the auction to the point that diverted from the Closed Room

AKJ
Q107 
Q432 
AQ7

West passed in second chair with all vulnerable:

Gary Jones	Dafydd Jones
pass	1
1	2NT
3	3
3	?

While it wasn’t alerted it appeared that at least initially both partners understood that 3 was not natural but some sort of “new minor forcing” asking opener about majors.  It is hard to imagine that up to that point the partnership was confused since even relatively inexperienced pairs would agree that they played that convention (or not).  

After the 3 bid in most of my partnership if I know bid 3NT partner knows that I have four hearts and four spades.   I use the bid of 3 as a slam try in hearts.  But in some partnerships perhaps if you now bid 3NT it would suggest that you had five hearts and deny spades and give partner a choice of the 5-3 in hearts or 3NT.  In those partnerships to check if opener has four spades you need to continue with 3.  

My guess is that Dafydd was “playing’ the former.  So she thought that Gary had made a slam try and that they had found a 5-3 heart fit.  As a result she cuebid 4.  Now over to Gary.

10652
AK85 
1097 
104

He was playing 3 using the second approach and only showing 4-4.  Therefore he thought that 4 was a cuebid in support of spades and since he had a minimum he signed off in 4.   Perhaps Dafydd should have wondered about this bid.  Partner was denying controls in diamonds by bypassing that suit but in any case partner had (from her perspective) forced to the five level.  Was partner worried about heart quality or just diamonds?  She might have signed off in 5 but instead she decided to emphasize the quality of her clubs, deny diamonds and see where partner was heading.   So she bid 5.  Now Gary knew that things had gone off the rails and decided to just bail out before things got worse.  If either of them had bid 5 (the other one would surely have passed) they actually had some chance of making it.  5 had no chance and went 3 down.  5 would have been play from the same side and had it received the same diamond lead as 5 would have made.

Here is the whole deal and an very interesting comment by Michael Rosenberg

	Q983 J97  J85  K63
G. Jones 10652 AK85  1097  104		D. Jones AKJ Q107  Q432  AQ7
	74 643  AK6  J9852

At the end of this deal Michael said:

“By the way, these kinds of disasters typically only occur behind screens,  Which is why I tend to rule against pairs who “extricate” themselves when there are no screens.”

Let’s think about this deal a bit more.  Clearly Gary knew when Dafydd bid 5 that something very bad had happened.  I kind of think he might (and I emphasize the word might) have figured out that Dayfdd thought that he was making a slam try in heats.  Similarly Dafydd might (and this is much harder) have worked out that the 4 bid didn’t make a whole lot of sense in the auction and have passed or gotten out in 5.  But behind screens they didn’t couldn’t handle it.  Suppose that Gary had heard Dafydd explain the meaning of the 3 bid to his opponent.  How much easier it would have been to get out in 5 over 5 and how easy it would have been to explain to the director or the committee how he had been “awoken” by the bid.  And so on… you can see how in those cases… with the best of intentions the offending side is helped by hearing the explanation.  And that is Michael’s point.

But, how can you handle it when bad things happen on your side of the table.  Its not your fault that your hearing the explanation and you do your best to ignore it.  Some times you have been awakened by the bidding and you do what you think is reasonable under the circumstances.  Is the committee supposed to think, “just shoot them, they had a misunderstanding.”  Somehow there must be a place for working things out at the table.

Still I think Michael has a point.  A strong point I never really thought of before.  And I will be more understanding of committee rulings which are very harsh on convention breaks even when they rule against me (well maybe not when it happens but when I calm down a few hours later).

And my sympathies and congratulations to the Jones’ who went on to play good bridge on the remaining boards and did their best when they got confused.  It is bad to have a disaster on one board but it is much worse to have one on the next board as well.

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

       West   North   East   South
       1♦    Pass    Pass   1♠  
       Dbl    2♠     Pass   4♠
       All Pass

West didn't want to lead from one of his aces, so punted with the ♠6. Declarer won the 8, drew a second round, then led a club towards the king.

West won the ♣A and exited with the ♣Q. What would you do?

If declarer wins the ♣K, he has no good discard. Declarer played low and ruffed it. Next, he led the ♥3 and West was caught in a Morton's Fork. If he rose with the ♥A, declarer's queen would be good, and he could discard two diamonds on the king and jack of hearts and another on the ♣K. West, therefore, played low and the ♥K won the trick. The ♣K was played next and declarer discarded the ♥Q. This meant South could claim -- he would lose two rounds of diamonds and ruff two in the dummy.

=======================================
Here's an update on the ACBL headquarters move. There's a problem with the phone company getting things set up, so the move is delayed. No new date, but it could be up to one month.

Commenting on the Turkish Team Championship this interesting hand came up.  First take the North hand:

AJ3
A976 
AJ42 
43

Suppose you play 1NT is 15-17 but you upgrade to open 1NT.  Partner transfer to spades and then bids 2NT.  What would you do?  I assume you would bid 3 and you would play it there.  Partner has 

South

Q10852
KJ10 
85 
Q75

Or suppose as in the Closed Room you opened 1.  Responder would bid 1 and depending on your style you would rebid 1NT or 2.  Either way you are going to play in partscore.  Let’s look at what happened in the Open Room

The auction started off with 1NT and East vulnerable against not held

East

94 
Q85 
97 
KJ10982

East was going to be on lead against no trump so no lead directing bid was required.  But in any case East doubled to show a one suiter.  South redoubled and West dutifully bid 2.  Now East the spade hand could have smacked this.  It was going at least one down and more if as seemed possible West misguessed clubs.  But instead East bid 3 an invitational hand with spades.  Now with nothing wasted in clubs despite the minimum North went to the spade game.  Let’s look at what happened then.

	North AJ3 A976  AJ42  43
West K76 432  KQ1063  A6		East 94  Q85  97  KJ10982
	South Q10852 KJ10  85  Q75

Not unreasonably the opening lead was the A.  West switched to a high diamond won by the ace.  With the K onside declarer only had to locate the Q.  East had to have it on the bidding since he had no other high cards.  So the game was made for a 7 imp swing.  There are more downsides to getting too active than just going for a number.

We have finished with selecting for this season, with the final appointments made this evening.

Now we can get on with trying to make our teams as successful as we can. And think about next season, and the season after that. If we are not dismissed. Or ridiculed. Or whatever.

First up is the second Camrose weekend from Belfast, starting tomorrow (Friday) evening. I have written elsewhere that you can never satisfy everyone, but I hope that the vast majority feel that we have our strongest team playing. Good luck to Dave, Brian, John, Brian, Iain and John and their NPC, Mike.

Follow the action live on BBO.

The ACBL will move its headquarters from Memphis to Horn Lake MS, approximately 10 miles south. The move date is the weekend of March 12 -- 14.


Above is a shot of the reception area that they are calling the Pre-function Area. Pre-function area? Well, excuuuuse me.


Above is another shot of the Pre-function Area with the receptionist's desk straight ahead.


An example of a cubicle is shown (above). The workers are still assembling them, but they tell us everything will be ready by time we expect to move.


Above is a shot of a cubicle that isn't finished.


They call this (above) the break room, but it's used mostly for lunch. The majority of the employees bring theirs.

One of the conceptual difficulties one encounters in the bridge literature is that one suit is often treated as being independent of the other suits. So we encounter lists of percentage plays in a suit taken in isolation. This can be helpful, but it gives the wrong impression from a theoretical perspective. Suits are intertwined. Here is an example in which an expert asked, ’is there a clear-cut solution?’
 

♠ K97	♠A86532		1NT (15-17)	2♣ (transfer)
♥ KJ64	♥AQ9		2♠	4NT (RKCB)
♦ A9	♦72		5♦	5♥
♣ AJ53	♣K9		6♠	Pass
7 losers	6 losers

 
The bidding is unknown. We assume responder evaluated his hand according to the losing trick count as 6 losers opposite a strong 1NT opening bid will often produce a slam. The 5 controls are worth an equivalent of 17 HCP, provided opener can come up with 3 spades to the king. As things turned out the 1NT bidder was happy to bid the slam after an encouraging 4NT RKCB. The lead was a not unexpected ♦K. Declarer won and played 2 rounds of spades hoping for a 2-2 split. The opening leader showed out on the second round, so the RHO had a sure trump trick. Unlucky? The problem was how to arrange a diamond discard on a club or heart winner before the RHO won his trump trick.

There are 3 possible plays that achieve the happy result: 1) play the ♣K and finesse the ♣J, discarding a diamond on the ♣A; 2) play 3 rounds of hearts and discard a diamond on a winning heart; 3) play 3 rounds of clubs hoping the queen falls and the RHO can’t ruff. Viewed in this light one might be inclined to hope the hearts are favorably split, but that is the wrong approach. Well, perhaps the club finesse is a reasonable shot, as the LHO has already shown up with the ♦KQ. Wrong again. Let’s see why #3 is the correct approach, as noted by Tim Bourke.
 

The less often you lose, the more often you win.

Rather than search for the winning percentage, it is often easier to look at the losing percentage. The location of the ♣Q depends on the number of clubs held in the defenders’ hands, and there is no indication that the RHO has many more clubs that the LHO. We conclude the finesse has roughly a 50% chance of losing.

Playing off the hearts will work as long as the RHO has 3 or more hearts. Let’s look at the combinations available in hearts taken in isolation:
 

Split		0 – 6	1 – 5	2 – 4	3 – 3	4 – 2	5 – 1	6 – 0
Combinations		1	6	15	20	15	6	1	Total = 64

 
The 3-3 split stands right in the middle and is included in the winning category, so the LHO will hold 3 or more hearts more than 50% of the time. That observation alone makes the heart play superior to the club finesse. The LHO will follow to 3 rounds of hearts for 37 out of 64 combinations, which translates to roughly a 40% chance of failure. The playdown of the hearts clearly has a lesser chance of failure than the club finesse.

The chance of failure by playing 3 rounds of clubs hoping to drop the ♣Q can be calculated in the same way. A full calculation is burdensome at the table, so we consider only a few of the more even splits to get a rough estimate. Whereas the even-numbered heart distribution was shaped like Mt Fuji with one peak in the middle, the odd-numbered club distribution is shaped like Table Mountain with an extensive central plateau.
 

Split		2 – 5	3 – 4	4 – 3	5 – 2
Relative Weights		60	100	100	60		Total = 320

 
The third round of clubs will be ruffed in the ratio of 60 to 320, roughly 19% of the time. This represents clearly a lesser risk than playing on hearts. Success may depend on what transpires during the next phase of play.

The Chance of Success
With regard to the first 2 strategies, either one wins or one loses on the completion of the play in the suit. However, with regard to playing 3 rounds of clubs, there are card combinations for which declarer neither wins nor loses: the queen doesn’t drop, but the RHO doesn’t ruff. Failure has been avoided, so there is now an additional chance to win, namely the hearts may be played down with the hope that the RHO holds at least 3 hearts. It has become a case of 2 chances are better than 1.

A represents the number of combinations where the initial club play works.

B represents the number of combinations where the initial club play fails.

C represents the number of combinations without a resolution.

A + B + C represents the total of all combinations allowed.

We start with a division of sides for the defenders of 4=6=9=7. The lead is the ♦K. Early in the play West shows out of spades so we assume he began with ♦KQ and a singleton spade, whereas East has 3 spades and at least 1 diamond. This leaves us with 10 vacant places in the West hand and 9 in the East hand. However, West had to discard something on the second round of spades. What information has that sent us, and by how much does it affect the odds?

If West were to discard a heart, declarer would be happy enough to play on clubs as planned. If West discards a low club, that might raise concerns that West is long in clubs (5) and, therefore, that East has only 2 clubs. If West discards a diamond, declarer proceeds happily in his plan in a neutral state of mind. In theory one assumes the discard was a random selection from the unseen cards in West’s hand. The appearance of a diamond, heart, or club doesn’t materially affect the odds, so we stick with the vacant places 9 and 10 for the sake of convenience. On that basis we do our probability calculations.
 

Probability of initial failure	16.8%		(15631 combinations)
Probability of success	36.5%		(33682 combinations)
Probability of neither	46.6%		(43065 combinations)

 
The club plays have left us with combinations where the club splits of 3-4 and 4-3 represent over 80% of the remnant combinations. We are now working on the high plateau of card distributions in accordance with the general tendency of proportionally more even splits as the cards are played out without incident. It is matter of calculating with high expectations for how many of these combinations are the hearts evenly split as well. This is tedious to do by hand, but I did it. The probability that the heart play will succeed is 67.4%. So the probability of success overall is given by the following:

Probability of success = 0.365 + .466 x .674 = .679
Probability of failure = .321

A rough approximation is suggested:
Probability of success = 1/3 + (1/2) x (2/3) = 2/3
Probability of failure = 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3

If one employs the a priori odds for the club splits, the probability of failure in the first phase is less, close to 1 in 7.

The full deal was as follows:
 

		♠	A86532
		♥	AQ9
		♦	72
		♣	K9
♠	4			♠	QJ10
♥	8532			♥	107
♦	KQ1093			♦	J854
♣	Q94			♣	10872
		♠	K97
		♥	KJ64
		♦	A9
		♣	AJ53

 
Again thanks go to Tim Bourke for bringing an interesting problem to my attention along with the correct solution. He is developing a computer program that should prove very useful for calculating compound probabilities for complex situations. In the end one hopes to develop from such results insights which will serve as good guidance at the table.

The bridge world is comprised of all sizes, shapes, sexes, personalities, nationalities and talents.   Bobby and I (at the LV Sectional this week) came across one of the most obnoxious opponents I ‘ve had the displeasure of playing against in 55 years and I’ve fallen victim to quite a few.   This clown I would call a pure, genuine, unadulterated creep.   You know me, I don’t mince words!!!!!  Although Bobby has seen so many of them over his sixty years in competition, shrugs them off, laughs and doesn’t pay them much mind.   Bobby’s boiling point is reached with any kind of cheating, stealthy attempts at helping one’s partner and taking obvious advantage of breaks in tempo.    I, on the other hand, (besides the aforementioned) find haughtiness despicable which equates to fixing the opponents and giving each other a congratulatory ‘high five’.  I am much more conscious of trying to be courteous but I go off the deep end when someone deliberately gloats (after taking a ridiculous, successful idiotic approach which by some anti-percentage fluke works) — as the opponent (poor soul — forgive him as he knows not what he did — and never will) doesn’t know any better.   Let me elaborate a bit further.   As you are quite aware, my blogs zero in on history, memory lane or causes which I feel are worth fighting for and making the public aware of their danger to the dignity of the game.   Professing to be an expert (or self-styled one) is not my bag.  By now you are prepared for my off-the-wall experience of yesterday in a Glitter Gulch Pair Game.

This tremendously large aberration of a creature seats himself on my right and his humongous circular name button (which he apparently proudly wore as his calling card) seemed to go along with his stature and almost knocked my eyeballs out.    O. K. — to each his own  — if for some stupid reason he wanted to flaunt his presence and make himself known. That’s his egotistical prerogative — a welcome mat of sociability.   Many players wear cute little name tags — even including their home town.   I rather enjoy seeing them.  It makes for a friendly homey atmosphere.

And now for the hands — which made me see stars.

Holding:    K93   Q10  AK4  Q9643

Non vulnerable, the bozo, sitting East, opened 1C with the above hand.   Partner (in the West chair) responded 1S (our style leans to a rebid of 2S — but that is immaterial and not crucial) and opener responded 1NT.   Partner jumped to 3H and rather than loving his hand more than before (by jumping to 4S or choosing either the ubiquitous call of 4D with the intention of converting to 4S) or even a a pussy-footing underbid of 3S (last choice), he denied a secondary fit and chose 3NT.   Dummy produced:   AJ1087  AK642  J7  2   (I guess it never occurred to his partner to show her 5/5 by rebidding 4H — but, alas, here they were in 3NT.  If I had x-ray eyes or the advantage of a wired partnership, it would have had the good sense to lead a club and not led the diamond 10, giving declare an extra trick at the get-go when his DJ held.

Here were our hands:  (North)  Q5  J987   862   AJ107      opposite mine (South)  642  53  Q10953  K85

The brain surgeon who was declarer, won the diamond jack;  played HQ and the H10 to the HA and HK, getting the bad news, then cashing the top diamonds, throwing a heart and a club, played SK and a spade to the SA, dropping the DOUBLETON SQ.    HAD THAT NOT BEEN BAD ENOUGH (holding only eight of them), BUT THEN HE TURNED TO BOBBY and beamed, stating ‘G-O-O-D  M-A-N!”   I was so infuriated by everything about his appearance, demeanor and mouth, I wanted to get the metal board and toss it at him, but I controlled myself.   In retrospect, I am not sure whether banishment would not have been worth it had I taken perfect aim.   (Result: -660 where as the field made ether +650 or +680).      

So much attention is focused on table protocol: not touching anyone else’s cards without asking permission first; bidding in tempo; no private understandings; alerting when imperative; the absence of alerts; warnings about failure to alert; cautions about rudely telling the opponents how they could have made the hand or a lead that could have beaten their contract; conflicts of interest, personal agendas and the ineptness and partiality of some people serving on Appeals Committees, the politics prevalent in so many factions of the ACBL, etc. –  it’s  time we dedicate more time to teaching some members to act civilized at the table.    So here’s another NO-NO   Penalize the opponents for making ugly and gratuitous remarks.   That’s as bad as it gets!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No wonder a lot of first-timers or newcomers drop out of duplicates.  People do not like being abused, insulted or having their nose rubbed in it and it is totally inexcusable behavior.

In our case, it was just a case of a worse-than-hopeless bridge player with no clue of the game, an irritating manner — and the intentional delight derived from adding insult to injury or pouring salt on the wound.     The only remark I made was, “You’d be a good candidate for Miss Manners.”   He departed the table with a grin — and obviously, NO REMORSE!  Maybe I am getting too old for this game.  I expect more!!!!!

Whist is the granddaddy of modern-day bridge. Next in the evolution was bridge whist (also called bid whist), then auction bridge which was thought to have been first played in 1903 or 1904. Contract bridge came along in 1926 and auction lost its popularity.

In auction bridge, the aim was to keep the contract as low as possible because declarer's side was credited with the number of tricks won, whether game or slam was bid or not.

The book shown above was copyrighted in 1920 by Milton Work. Work was considered the greatest authority on auction and contract bridge from 1917 through 1931. He popularized a high-card point count system that Goren took, simplified and gave to the masses. Work also is credited with developing the losing trick count method of hand evaluation. He's a member of the ACBL Bridge Hall of Fame.

The book is charming and has mostly good advice. Here's a sample:

"A player who has bid his full strength, should thereafter be silent."

Good advice -- too bad some players today don't follow it. Notice the term he used for takeout doubles below:

"There are two kinds of doubles: Informatory and Business. Informatory are made for the purpose of conveying information to the partner who is expected to overbid. Business doubles are made with the expectation of defeating the adversary and for the purpose of increasing the score."

Work wasn't quite on the mark with this:

"Declarer, in the absence of conflicting information, should base his play upon the probability of an even division of the cards. That is, with seven of a suit in his own hand and Dummy, he should play for each of the adversaries to have three. In the long run, playing for the even break will net many tricks."

Actually, a 3-3 split is only 35% while a 4-2 split is 46.88%. With a combined nine cards in a suit, the 3-1 split is slightly more likely than the 2-2 division.

"One of the best and most servicable means of giving information is the Come-on signal, which is made, when not attempting to win the trick, by the play or discard of an unnecessarily high card. For example: the Ace and King of a suit being led, the play of the 6 followed by the 5 constitutes a signal, as the 6 is an unnecessarily high card. The meaning of this signal is that the player who makes it desires the continuation of the suit in which it is made.

"The signal is still used by some players to mean, 'I can ruff the third round,' but it seems foolish to limit it to any such narrow meaning."

Again, it's too bad so many modern-day players don't follow this tried-and-true advice.

Here's a hand from his book that was played in an auction tournament:

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

North opened 1NT and South bid 2♠, ending the auction.

West led the ♣Q. How would you play it?

The suggested line is to overtake the club with the ace and advance the ♠Q. After West covers (probably not best), you win the ace and lead another spade to your hand.

Next you finesse in diamonds and end up taking 13 tricks: six spades, five diamonds, one club and one club ruff in dummy. In auction, because you took all 13, you're credited with a grand slam!


I scanned the book cover and the table of contents (shown just above). I borrowed the photo of Work from the ACBL web site. Click on either scan to enlarge.

The club teams has developed into a two-horse race, and we are a furlong behind. Reg, Malcolm, George and Brian have won three evenings to our solitary one, but if we win the last two we would still win the trophy on countback (as our seventh result would be better than theirs).

This is the situation that has developed after they won last night, scoring 101/140 VPs. As we beat them 14-6 VPs, I guess they won the rest of the matches very comfortably while we could only muster a total of 91 VPs for second place. Looking through our card there was little scope to really do much better - just a matter of which boards you played, and who you played them against.

One decision was interesting (at least I thought so):

Ros will be away for the next evening, so we'll be relying on our super-sub to bring home the win!

I noticed that I had been rather negligent in answering questions people left for me on my blog.  So here are some answers.  Please feel free to ask lots of questions and I will try to answer your more promptly next time! Tammy posted this question: I am a beginner bridge player and had a question on [...]

Hi all

They haven’t fixed their initcap problem, and their mailing room isn’t quite up to speed, but Oracle finally sent me my OCP certificate.

Together with Geoff Hopcraft I’ve been experimenting with a homebrew precision 1 opening: Beowulf. A 1 opening shows 15-17 balanced or any stronger hand. There are just two responses possible to 1: 1 showing any 6+ and 1 showing a bust. After that the bidding takes a surprising natural turn. So the relays and asking bids I’ve always been so very fond of have been sacrificed to robust natural proceedings. I can’t tell yet whether this is systematic imp positive, but if so, our competitive agreements more than make up for it. As always the 1 is the Achilles heel of conventional systems, ours being nebulous to the n’th power, for it can be as short as zero.

Here’s an example of Beowulf in action:

West

North

East

South

 

 

 

11

pass

12

pass

1

pass

2

pass

2

pass

2

pass

3

pass

4NT

pass

5

pass

6

a.p.

 

 

1. 15-17 bal, or any 18+
2. 6+ hcp

After 1 the auction switched to natural mode and Geoff launched himself to slam.

During the auction Geoff figured the side fit would provide enough tricks for slam. As the cards lie slam barely qualifies as questionable. In order to enjoy the long Geoff needed to discard one on the top . Then the two top would have to survive before ruffing a third one high. After that he had to draw the remaining trumps ending in dummy to enjoy the . But at that point there are still only eleven tricks (four , five and two ). The twelfth needed to come from the suit, but when the Ace proved to be off side we wrote -50.

South Dealer

NS Vul

North

873

5

KQJ97

KT84

West

J4

Q874

T5

Q9763

East

Q62

J963

832

AJ2

South

AKT95

AKT2

A64

5

 

I enjoyed the 3 bid best, I could show a big hand and my exact distribution, and we were just at the 3-level! I’ll keep you posted with more Beowulf action.

While count is very important, a lot of the time, what partner really needs to know is whether you like a particular the suit or not.  We call this type of signal an attitude signal. Attitude signals are used on a lot of occasions but they always serve the same purpose to tell partner that you [...]

Every good thing must come to an end — so they say.   Bobby and I are here at the Sectional in Las Vegas at the Riviera.   I was not around in the early days (although I spent part of my honeymoon at the Flamingo in ‘63).   I believe before the Riviera, the tournaments (Sectionals) were held from about 1984 to the very late nineties at The Union Plaza and were run primarily by Martha Beecher and Grace Matthews.   They were extended from four days to seven because of their enormous buildup in popularity.   In fact, I understand their success rate improved for the Spring Sectional (300%), Summer (400% to 1,000 tables) and Fall (200%) over that period and each were awarded a plaque for such a tremendous feat.   Apparently, then the tournaments were moved to the present site.

Sadly, though the Riviera boasts a tremendous history in the entertainment field (and attractive bridge tournaments), the people presently in charge have announced they are moving on to Bally’s — not too far away, initiating their new home with the Regional in June — a couple weeks before the Bergen-Cohen Reunion Seminar at The Wynn.   Las Vegas is a popular site — even with the present economy.

Since Bobby and I live in a delightful suburb called Summerlin (far from the maddening traffic of the Strip), our only missions here are to pick up out of town guests staying ‘downtown’ or to attend the local tournaments where we are as I write.   The attendance was good yesterday as not only are the bridge devotees in this area very upbeat and bridge-crazy (not all bad)  — but many motor from local states (or even fly in) for the fun of the bridge and the gambling.    So Friday night we will bid The Riviera a fond farewell and look forward to our debut at Bally’s, which I hear is adjacent (and connected) to ‘Paris,’ a rather ‘new’ hotel/casino in comparison to the legends of the fifties when this city was more like a ghost town.

After a disappointing result at the weekend, it was straight back to the table for a relegation league match.

It was a case of déjà vu. As we finished, about +1,500 on the night, we met Christine and Carolyn. Once again there were positive too, despite sitting in the opposite direction. This time though our team mates were even better than us and we had a huge win. Merchiston are now safe from relegation, looking good for a sound mid-table performance and two wins in the final matches would mean a top four finish.

We would have been better if I had played this contract with a little more thought.



After JP's deceptive lead of the ♦4, systemically fourth-best, I misread the hand (playing John for 0445) and went one down. At least I led the first spade from dummy unlike one poor unfortunate declarer who found that leading the ♠K from hand was a quick way to lose a lot of tricks.

Both pairs did well on the next hand, finding the par contract.



I had to improvise a little as I thought my hand was far too strong for a normal mixed raise, so with the favourable vulnerability decided to add a trump. It probably did not matter given Miro's 6-4 distribution, but one down was a good score against their making club game. Of course, you'd hope that this would be flat, but it rarely is.

It was actually the second round of the Gold Cup, but the first match for us and Clive Owen's North-East team. They often seem to get dragged into the Scottish side of the draw, presumably as there were an odd number of Scottish team, they are a north-eastern team and so are 'close' to Scotland, plus they have a Scottish pair so are halfway there anyhow.

Probably fair to say that both of us would have hoped for an easier draw and it proved to be a close affair. We built a small lead but lost most of it in the fourth set to lead by 1 IMP after 32 IMPs. But they scored 26 IMPs in the next set and we could only recover 10 IMPs in the final eight boards to go out.

Anne and Sheila played well, with Alex and I being responsible for the three double-imp losses. On one, Alex took the losing but best line in a different, reasonable, game contract; on the second I pushed for slam and found the five-level was not safe; and on the third we had a small bidding misunderstanding and bid the worst game of many bad games, but our opponents found a less worse one. As I said, it was pretty close throughout.

We'll now go into the Scottish Plate, if anyone has entered. Owen gets to play Piper's team, another tough draw as it tends to be up here.

Today was a day full of bridge and HOCKEY and bridge and cheering and the closing ceremonies.  I realized something, this Olympics really brought Canada closer together, it really brought out our patriotism.  We went from polite and deferential to proud and boisterous.  Don’t worry it won’t last but it has been fun.  My daughter who lives in Vancouver saw it all.  She was near Stephen Harper (the P.M.) at the curling.  She cheered Canada in the Canada-Russia hockey game.  But she decided to watch the final hockey game at home.  I think the pressure (and the ticket prices) were too much but she did go downtown afterwards to celebrate with her whole family.  I was playing bridge during the hockey game and giving the table updates.  “It’s 2-1 oh no they tied it with a few seconds left and so on.”  I played some “hockey” bridge too i.e. a terrible bid just about the time the US tied it.  Sorry Sylvia.

Tonight I played with Colin and Isabelle and Sondra in a team game and later head on head.  Colin and I did have a good set.  Here is a bid that Colin got right.  I don’t make these bids with everybody!  Colin held

K7
AK52 
AKJ
10964

White on red he opened 1 strong and artificial.  Sondra bid 2 majors or minors and I bid 3 natural and positive (game forcing).  Isabelle bid 3 pass or correct and Colin raised clubs with 4.  Sondra passed and I bid an undiscussed 5.  Back to Colin.  My terrific son bid 7.  He was quite happy about it when dummy came down.  I held

void
Q6
Q762
AKQJ852

When the opening heart lead was not ruffed Colin claimed saying “Glad we were on the same wavelength!”  It was my highest ever splinter.  Do you like it?

We had another cool slam during the team game.   I held

K102
AKQ10854 
void
J85

Nobody was vulnerable and I decided to open a slightly light Namyats showing about 8 tricks with hearts as trump.  So sue me for 1/2 a trick.  Colin bid 4 over 4 showing a slam try with controls in two suits, spades and another.  I show my diamond control and Colin bid the heart slam.  He had:

AJ3
J 
10875
AKQ72

Now you may notice that seven is very good.  And we discussed how to get there afterwards.   Colin’s first problem is that he doesn’t know if I have first or second round control of diamonds.  He also doesn’t know my trumps are solid.  At the other table my hand opened 1 which I can hardly argue with and Sondra bid a very aggressive 2 on Q98754 and out.  Colin’s hand bid clubs which should have made it easier.  Anyway this was there whole auction

Linda Opponent	Sondra	Colin Opponent	Isabelle
1	2	3	pass
3	pass	3NT	pass
4	all pass

Their auction doesn’t seem that bad although the heart hand should really like the K102 of spades after partner bids notrump and the nice juicy club fit.  Partner almost certainly has a heart for the notrump bid….hmmm.

Anyway I think seven is hard to get to.  Does anybody see the way?

Isabelle and Sondra got to some nice slams too.  They had a nice auction to their own grand slam.  We were silent throughout.  

Sondra held

AKQJ
AK 
AQ7
J1094

She opened 1 which is forcing and shows a variety of different hands.  Isabelle showed a limit raise in clubs.  Sondra relayed asking Isabelle about her hand and Isabelle showed some values in hearts denied values in diamonds and showed a maximum.  Sondra bid keycard and Isabelle showed all the missing ones.  Sondra could them bid the grand.  Isabelle held

9
J86 
10864
AKQ63

Colin and I would probably have a decent shot at this playing forcing club after I showed a positive with five clubs.  But how do you get there in a different system.  Playing with Julie, we can show a balanced 24 count and South can show 5 clubs, that might work.  North is awfully big.  A nice auction ladies.  This was not reached by the BBO field.  Funny in 12 boards we played 7 once each way.  Amazing.

And then Neil Young sang as the Olympic flame when out Long May You Run

 

"Long May You Run"
We’ve been through
some things together
With trunks of memories
still to come
We found things to do
in stormy weather
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Although these changes
have come
With your chrome heart shining
in the sun
Long may you run.

When your right-hand opponent opens the bidding and you hold a balanced 16-18 HCP your options are pass, double, or 1NT. Let’s explore these:

1. If you pass, your left hand opponent is likely to pass, bid 1NT or raise his partner to the 2-level. In the first case your partner may well have a 5 or 6 card suit with insufficient values to compete, in which case he will pass and you are likely to get a bad result. In the second case, if your right-hand opponent rebids his suit you and your partner are in the same bind. In the third case, what can you bid at your next turn? It is certainly risky to force your partner to take some action at this point; but you again are likely to get a bad result if partner has a 5 or 6 card suit with some values, in which case he will probably sell out even if it is your hand.

2. If your right-hand opponent has opened in a major, if you are balanced without AT LEAST three-card support for the other major you will disappoint partner. Even if you do satisfy this criterion, your double is ambiguous. You could have one of two kinds of hands; a strong hand or a mere opening bid with shortness in opener’s suit. It will be difficult to clarify which of these hands you have on the next round (especially if you have 3-card support for partner), and it will be even harder if partner has jumped or if the opponents compete.

3. So what’s the problem? You can bid 1NT, the perfect descriptive bid, and solve all your problems. The problem is that conventional wisdom requires that you have AT LEAST one stopper in right hand opponent’s suit, so if you don’t you are restricted to the first two flawed options. In my opinion, your best option is to bid 1NT even without a stopper. It lets partner get into the auction if he chooses to and if he passes and also has no stopper you should have plenty of losers to pitch while the opponents are running the first five tricks.

4. But, if you wish to avoid going against conventional wisdom (horrors!), I propose a highly effective convention that has no down side to it and can be arrived at by simple logic even if you don’t have an agreement (so, technically it is not really a convention per se), which I call the “Jackass Convention” in honor of a well-known Washington expert who called me a jackass when, as his partner, I overcalled 1NT without a stopper. [Note – since he insisted on playing a reopening 1NT as a full 1NT opener I thought that if I passed the odds of his reopening with any balanced hand, even with a full opening bid, were rather slim, so that I felt compelled to take SOME action with my 17 point hand. Ironically, he raised to 3NT, which was cold even though he didn’t have a stopper either, but only from HIS side so I went down. At the other table our opponents passed my hand, reopened 1NT with his hand, and played a part score]. The jackass convention plugs the hole created by a 1NT overcall with no stopper and comes into play when partner has game going values, also without a stopper, and wants to probe for the right spot.

The Jackass convention – when partner has overcalled 1NT, a 3-level cue bid of opener’s suit at any time asks him if he has a stopper. If he has a stopper he bids 3NT, otherwise he bids something else (what depends upon his partner’s prior action).

As usual a cue-bid of opener’s suit at the 2-level asks partner to bid a four-card major if he has one or else to bid his best suit. So, if the 1NT bidder’s partner has started with a 2-level cue bid and then cue-bid again at the 3-level, the 1NT bidder, if no stopper, merely retreats to another 4-card suit if he has one or else rebids his prior suit. If the 1NT bidder’s partner jumps immediately to a 3-level cue-bid, the 1NT bidder, with no stopper, bids his lowest ranking 4-card suit. If the NT bidder’s partner makes a forcing 2-level bid other than a cue-bid (usually a transfer) and follows with a cue-bid at the 3-level, the 1NT bidder, if no stopper, merely retreats to partner’s implied suit.

Well, can't let the Olympics pass by without a brief comment.

I'm not a particularly patriotic Canadian.  I think we should have done much better in the 65 years since WWII ended considering our vast natural resources, our paltry national defense budget, our trade relationship with the United States and our lack of the racial strife/problems that plague our neighbor to the south.  I was appalled by the massive deficits we ran up in the '80's (my formative years, politically) and by our (relatively) high unemployment rates.  I didn't (and still don't) think much of our unelected senate, our 'notwithstanding clause' in the charter of rights and freedoms, having a foreign 'queen' as head of state (figurehead or not) and the inclusion of a fictitious 'god' in our national anthem (not that I think much of national anthems in the first place.)

Still, I've been extremely delighted by the performance of Canadians in the Vancouver games.  I am frankly disgusted by those who characterize the 'Own the Podium' campaign as anything but an unqualified triumph.  Canada has won more gold medals than ANY OTHER COUNTRY (a stunning achievement in its own right, but even moreso when you consider that Canada didn't win a single gold medal the last two times we hosted the Olympics.)  Aside from the women's curling team, I haven't seen a single Canadian falter or choke.  Weather and mechanical failures aside, the Vancouver games have been awesome, and actually gave this cynical ex-pat reason to feel proud of his native land.

As I was admiring this hand yesterday, I was surprised to hear partner open 1 club:

♠ AQJ10xx
♥ void
♦ AKJxxx
♣ x

I bid 1 spade.  His next bid was downright shocking:  3 clubs!

This was certainly an exciting hand, but I bid a calm, forcing 3 diamonds.  He bid the expected 3NT.  What now?

Without a practical way to learn all I needed to know, I decided to jump to 6 diamonds to try to complete the description of my hand (strong, distributional).  Bob had one last surprise in store for me.  He thought briefly, reached into the bidding box and produced the bid of 7 diamonds!  Well, well, this should be interesting.  I got a spade lead and awaited the dummy.

♠ void
♥ Axx
♦ Qxxx
♣ AKQJxx

♠ AQJ10xx
♥ void
♦ AKJxxx
♣ x

Very  nice.  He was probably just as surprised to hear my jump to 6 diamonds, looking at first round controls in 3 suits plus good diamond support!  It was not, as they say, a play problem.  2140 was a good score, but not a top as a couple of other pairs also bid the grand.  With all of that strength, it would be hard not to.

I do, however, have a lingering question--with vulnerability favorable to the opponents, why weren't they bidding large numbers of hearts?!

See you at the table!

                             .The Kinks – You Really Got Me 

                                       (click on link for the musical accompaniment)

 

I love a good psyche, or a play or bid that demonstrates creativity in a unique and imaginative way. Recently I was the victim of a conspiracy between my RHO and my partner, who took the bait, hook, line, rod, reel and sinker. It was a perfect storm of duplicity, and I said that with admiration. Victor Mollo explored some of these like ploys in The Finer Arts of Bridge. A worthy read.

All vulnerable, imps, allegedly an expert game.

You hold:   3  K1083  AK103  K1097

You hear your partner in first chair open one heart. RHO passes, what is your call?

There are many choices including Jacoby 2NT, a splinter, 2 clubs, and 2 diamonds.

I don’t like two clubs because I fear a later lead-directing double if we reach six. Personally I think it is easier on partner, and auctions in general if you establish trumps and your general and type as early as possible, hence I would vote for Jacoby 2NT.

And you?

Bet you didn’t do what this person did. They chose to call one spade on their singleton! Of course psyching a higher ranking suit comes with extra risk, that you won’t be able to curtail your partner’s enthusiasm and control the auction. Look how things went from there.

 N       E     S     W

1H      P     1S!    P

1NT    P     2D   P

2NT    P      3C   P

3S       P     4NT   P

5H     

Now my partner holding: J106 AQ  Q4  65432 might have reflected that he had a better hand for poker than bridge. Seduced into believing that he had an apparent trump trick with his J1064 of spades, he decided to help my opening lead skills by directing me, with a double of 5hearts.

To my mind it is a silly double, reflecting a dire impatience and a profound lack of expertise (people do it with crappy holdings all the time), and this case, it may keep them out of their apparent slam in spades. If they get to 6 spades, and you feel the urge, you can certainly double that which will in all likelihood direct dummy’s first bid suit – hearts.

Well, a funny thing happened on the road to lead direction. To my partner’s horror, the auction proceeded Redouble, pass, pass back to him. He passed, and found himself on lead, and his queen of hearts not so favorably positioned.

N       E     S     W

1H      P     1S   P                                                                                                                        

1NT    P     2D   P

2NT    P      3C   P

3S       P     4NT   P

5H     Dble Rdble  All pass

The opponents quickly chalked up 1600 (a rare number) and the gloating started. I didn’t chastise or even comment to my partner, he was reeled in and too greedily grabbed the bait. South cast a spell and it worked brilliantly. I stayed at the table (we were drilling them before and after this result) and we had a nice game.

They would have bid and made a small slam anyways, so the loss should not have been so severe. Alas several NS pairs elected not to bid a slam missing the AQ of trumps and we paid the full price.

I love fishing, and once in a while – you catch a lunker. South nabbed a big one, but he should be careful, next time his partner might hang him by his own petard.  

The north hand held: A2  J9542  J52  AQ8 which played well opposite

                                   3  K1083  AK103  K1097

with the red queens onside and the jack clubs falling singleton.

I was doing commentary in the eleventh round of the Izmir Teams Championship 2010

Izmir Turkey above, on the Aegan Sea looks quite lovely.  But I am going to talk about just one board, Board 6.  East-West were vulnerable.  This hand is interesting both bidding and play.  East opened 1NT and South held

109543
void
72
J107642

South who was, no doubt, influenced by the vulnerability bid 2 (spades and a minor).  West bid a forcing 3 and North passed.   East held

Q76
A962
Q53
AK9

What do you like here?  I might bid 3 to see if partner could add something to my iffy spade stopper.  I might bid 3NT with a diamond fit and at least some control of spades.  East bid 3 which I am sure was meant as natural.  South passed and let’s look at the West hand

AJ8
KQ8
AJ10984
8

West was definitely thinking slam and bid 4NT.  I am not sure if this was intended as Blackwood but anyway partner bid 5.  I am pretty sure that East was responding to keycard for hearts.  South doubled showing a heart void which propelled East to bid 6NT rather than 6. 

But the double is going to affect the play as well (or it should have).  Let’s put the hand together

	North K2 J107543 K6 Q53
West AJ8 KQ8 AJ10984 8		East Q76 A962 Q53 AK9
	South 109543 void 72 J107642

South led the J and East won and play the Q.  (South missed the inning spade lead).  North won and returned a club.  East won pitching a spade.  West now run diamonds.  North is as it turns out squeezed in three suits.  North should be thinking, I need to hold five cards.  I know partner has no hearts so I must no matter what hold four hearts.  Therefore I can only hold one spade and no clubs.  North should throw the spade early and similarily the Q.  In fact the Q should go before the 5. 

Now let’s go back to East.  Suppose that North had come down to that ending.  East would then run hearts.  The idea is to squeeze South in spades and clubs.  We arrive at this ending after all the hearts are run:

	North K J – -
West AJ – – -		East – 9 – 9
	South 10 void – 10

Now East has to decide if South has two spades K10  and North is holding the J and the 10 or the spades are as pictured.  If South held the K he would have had 6 spades king and five clubs jack rather than the 6-5 he actually held.  It does seem a bit more likely.  But, the opening lead was a give away.  South would not have lead the J without the 10.  So East should get it right.  So it turns out that not only did South fail to find the killing spade lead but the J was a bit of a disaster.  If South had led a small club and North had played in tempo throwing a spade earlier and the clubs out of order, I think there is a quite reasonable chance that East would get it wrong.

At the other table where there was no opposition bidding South did lead a small club, but East had an even tougher job on the run of the clubs (with no idea about the heart distribution and pitched a heart early on so declarer had no problem here either. 

This hand is not a pure double squeeze.   North was triple squeezed on the last diamond forced to give up spades or clubs.  So I suppose this is not unlike a compound squeeze.  Once North gave up clubs then the double squeeze was set up.   Even if North did not have the only spade stopper he would still have been triple squeezed.  Suppose South held the Q, North would have had to hold his K and abandon clubs, a guard squeeze.  What if South could stop spades on his own with say the KQ?

Now East has no role in guarding spades and can just hold clubs and hearts and there is no double squeeze, the entries just don’t work out. 

I fell down the stairs yesterday.  It is a twisty staircase from the attic to the bedroom on the second floor.  I saved myself with my right arm but it paid the price.  My right arm hurts a lot when I type (or really when I do anything at all).  I think I did something unspeakable to my right tricep and maybe part of the shoulder.

I mention this by way of an excuse for less blogging and even more mistakes than usually.  Many of you have pointed out errors I have made and some of you have just ignored the little typos.  I thank all of you.  I can’t help it.  My brain is wired that way.  It moves quickly but not accurately (a butterfly with a broken wing?)

I really want to thank the squeezer who downloaded the Problem Hands from Clyde E. Love.  He found some interesting points although as it turned out the analysis of the squeeze was not wrong in either hand. We are updating the Problem Hands right now – fixed should be online in a day or two. Thanks to Rainer Herrmann.  Any more feedback would be welcome.  The squeeze deals can be downloaded for free at www.ebooksbridge.com.

Thanks also to Richard Pavlicek who found the dreaded 12-14 combo in my blog on www.masteringbridge.com.  I am writing a bit about signaling for bridge students.  One of the things I am thinking about now as I am about to do attitude signals is how to explain to students when count is appropriate and when attitude. 

I have a busy weekend playing bridge coming up so I hope my arm isn’t too distracting.  I am thinking about buying some kind of support.  I can actually type but I have to be careful to make sure my upper arm doesn’t get moved while I do it.

In between playing bridge there is the men’s curling final and some hockey games to watch.  If the Canadian men make it to the final I will be watching it while playing bridge.  I am not sure how Colin will cope since he is my partner at that time – he will have to work out how to get a computer near the TV.

We are making a lot of progress on our new design for bridge blogging.  It is going to have a lot more pictures including bloggers pictures on the home page.   So watch for it in a few weeks.

"So you were playing the same boards as us?", a question often posed at the end of a team-of-eight match. Normally though it is followed up by someone (or two) saying, "sorry, we had an awful set", but that didn't happen last night.

Being one off the bottom of the division is not a great place to be, but still having to play three of the other relegation hopefuls means a reasonable chance of avoiding the bottom two slots and the dreaded dance-off drop.

Miro and I had a reasonable game, finishing +2,420 on aggregate. Meeting Christine and Carolyn on the way out, they were about +1,600 sitting in the other direction so it seemed like we'd have a big win. So it was surprising to find that the win was only +700, just about the minimum for a full win (being aggregate scoring, you need to win by 2% of the total score for a 'full' win, otherwise it is classified as a winning draw).

Our team mates though were not looking sheepish, rather just interested in how on earth we had achieved such a score. We knew that our opponents had missed three games, but only one was a bad effort and the others needed a fair amount of luck. Our performance had been solid though we did defend very soundly and perhaps this was the difference.

Looking at the hand records, the par score was +720 in our direction, which seemed about right. However achieving par can sometimes only be done by seeing all four hands, although overall you hope that it balances out. We failed to achieve par on two slam hands, but I think you'd all agree that these are not easy hands to get to par:



Pretty tough to get to 6♦.



Hard to bid the small slam, let alone the par score of the grand slam.

Still a win is a much needed win. We'll all be back on Monday evening to try and ensure our top division status.

David Berkowitz, the popular, good-humored New Yorker who recently migrated to Florida, was the sole electee to the 2010 Primary Hall of Fame.   Though the election was officially closed on February 15, 2010  (for some reason agreed to by those in charge, they delayed the ballot opening for ten days — until today, February 25th), announcing they were waiting for straggling ballots to arrive.  Whether it affected the final tally remains a mystery and a rather strange position to take since a deadline is a deadline.  But, go fight City Hall!   I do think the whole process has to be re-thought and re-vamped — but that is the responsibility of the ACBL.

In any event, knowing Dave (and his much better half, Lisa) for more than twenty years, I am proud that his voluminous achievements were recognized.  On the other hand, I am surprised that another of the remaining nine candidates did not receive the required minimum but I did feel he was clearly the favorite — on the basis of a long-standing list of victories in a variety of  categories.   I am sure it is a popular triumph and David’s induction will take place at the Hall of Fame Banquet to be held at the New Orleans NABC this summer with his long-time favorite partner (now retired from tournament action) — Larry Cohen, doing the honors.

Larry departed from the tournament scene recently, but accompanied by his lovely wife, Maria, runs exciting cruises, continues with his ever-popular Newsletter and private classes.   In fact, we locals will be lucky to have The Las Vegas 5-star resort, The Wynn, host a Marty Bergen-Larry Cohen Bridge Reunion Seminar three days from June 22-24, 2010 (and enjoy all that Sin City has to offer in addition to the duplicates, lessons, one-on-ones, etc).  I don’t have any of the details available, but if you are interested, there may still be openings and I am sure you can find it somewhere on the internet. 

It is always nice to see good things happen to good people!