Back to the Berwick club last night to play in the Scott Cup with Jean this time. Reg, her regular partner in this competition, was away on district committee business.
Most were still talking about Liz's session on Sunday. As the evening wore on, the phrase "it's Liz's fault" started to float around the church hall with alarming regularity. In a great example of group bonding, the blame for any mishap was to be directed to her door!
Most of this seemed to be happening away from our table, where the bridge was fair without being spectacular and we finished just below average. Jean was pleased with one of the first boards where Liz's advice was to the fore. Holding ♠ K x ♥ Q J x x x ♦ x ♣ Q 10 9 x x, Jean saw the auction:
LHO...Me...RHO...Jean
1♦....1♥...1♠...?
and confidently bid 4♥, that made with an overtrick.
In terms of the Scott Cup, their second win on the trot means that Malcolm, Kathy, George and Brian are well position to win the trophy.
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Monday, 20 November 2006
Teaching tables
The teaching table facility on Bridge Base Online is used extensively by the hoards of teachers who give their time to the Beginners/Intermediates Lounge. A teaching table allows you to download prepared hands, stop/start/reverse play and sit in all four seats if you wish. It is an excellent tool.
Tonight though I think I found a little bug:
There were about 50 people at my session and I was the only one with this bidding sequence, so I imagine it is a bug in the client software for the table host under certain conditions.
It didn't cause any problems with the session but it is an interesting screen shot.
Tonight though I think I found a little bug:
There were about 50 people at my session and I was the only one with this bidding sequence, so I imagine it is a bug in the client software for the table host under certain conditions.
It didn't cause any problems with the session but it is an interesting screen shot.
Sunday, 19 November 2006
Competitive Bidding ... to the extreme
Today the Berwick Bridge Club had arranged a teaching session with Liz McGowan on Competitive Bidding. Players from other local clubs including Kelso, Duns and Dunbar, also attended. I was there to help Liz with the practical session as they would be more than 10 tables and it's difficult to cover this number on your own.
As always, Liz delivered an interesting and amusing session speaking for around 90 minutes. Tea and tray bakes from Berwick members were consumed prior to actually playing some prepared hands.
I have never seen so much bidding at a bridge club as I saw when everyone start practising! In retrospect, saying "Ignore your points, it is about ..." was probably the wrong thing for Liz to announce at the start because everyone only heard the "ignore your points" portion. At most tables, on most hands, everyone was bidding until the auction reached the five level, at which point someone would double.
Everyone seemed to enjoy the afternoon but I'll see whether this excessive competitive bidding is still evident when I play with Jean on Tuesday.
As always, Liz delivered an interesting and amusing session speaking for around 90 minutes. Tea and tray bakes from Berwick members were consumed prior to actually playing some prepared hands.
I have never seen so much bidding at a bridge club as I saw when everyone start practising! In retrospect, saying "Ignore your points, it is about ..." was probably the wrong thing for Liz to announce at the start because everyone only heard the "ignore your points" portion. At most tables, on most hands, everyone was bidding until the auction reached the five level, at which point someone would double.
Everyone seemed to enjoy the afternoon but I'll see whether this excessive competitive bidding is still evident when I play with Jean on Tuesday.
Thursday, 16 November 2006
Losing semi-finalists
Despite being up at the half, Blue Lightning lost its semi-final against the Big Guns of Romania by 135:150 IMPs.
It was a match of missed opportunities and I think the team feels that we threw it away rather than the opposition winning it. Nigel and Mike had two poor boards in the first set, costing 23 IMPs, and Alex and I misdefended two games to concede the same amount. Obviously we just need to get two of these four right to win easily.
All the boards that we have played can be downloaded from the Blue Lightning web site and viewed using the (free) BBO software. This allows you to play through every hand and use GIB to analyse where things went wrong (if you cannot spot it yourself). This aspect of play on BBO is superb for improving your game.
So this is the end of our great run. We have played 14 matches since May and reached what one of the team describes as the World Cup semi-final. As captain it has been a lot of hard work arranging all the matches but the team has been enormously supportive and, more importantly, responsive which has enabled us to get through a tough schedule. Now all I need to do is find another captain for next year!
In the end we are disappointed to lose to a team with (at least) three world-class players (BBO stars). At least we can set our targets high next time.
It was a match of missed opportunities and I think the team feels that we threw it away rather than the opposition winning it. Nigel and Mike had two poor boards in the first set, costing 23 IMPs, and Alex and I misdefended two games to concede the same amount. Obviously we just need to get two of these four right to win easily.
All the boards that we have played can be downloaded from the Blue Lightning web site and viewed using the (free) BBO software. This allows you to play through every hand and use GIB to analyse where things went wrong (if you cannot spot it yourself). This aspect of play on BBO is superb for improving your game.
So this is the end of our great run. We have played 14 matches since May and reached what one of the team describes as the World Cup semi-final. As captain it has been a lot of hard work arranging all the matches but the team has been enormously supportive and, more importantly, responsive which has enabled us to get through a tough schedule. Now all I need to do is find another captain for next year!
In the end we are disappointed to lose to a team with (at least) three world-class players (BBO stars). At least we can set our targets high next time.
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Craigleith dismissed
Next round of the league and the 49ers comfortably beat Craigleith. I was playing with Sam, renewing our partnership, but playing a full twenty-four boards this time.
As the only non-international partnership on the team we were playing on table 4, presumably against the weakest Craigleith pair: captains nominate who plays where but it seems rare for them to do anything but put their pairs in ability order.
The first half was unusual if only because I played nine of the twelve boards. Despite a couple of dubious contracts we did well in the set, aided by our opponents missing an obvious slam (Iain actually bid and made the grand on a double squeeze). We also bid a thin game missed at the other tables on the following cards:
Board 6; Aggregate; Dealer East; EW Game
West
♠ K J x
♥ A x x x
♦ x x
♣ A K Q x
East
♠ x x
♥ Q 10 9 x
♦ A x x x x
♣ x x
Game in hearts is not a thing of beauty, especially played by East. A quick simulation using Deep Finesse (whose analysis is based on perfect defence and play) suggests that it is a ~30% chance (45% played by West). However, when diamonds are 3-3, hearts 3-2 and well positioned, it is an easy game to make and so we got a big swing for this. Most of the other tables played in a strong 1NT.
The second half was less comfortable as a couple of undiscussed situations arose. Actually, they would be undiscussed for most partnerships but a regular pair would recognise analogous situations - if both cases we took the route of least complexity and suffered part score swings as a result. But we continued to defend well and our final score was 2,000 points better than our team-mates who also sat East/West, so we made a significant contribution to the final victory.
As the only non-international partnership on the team we were playing on table 4, presumably against the weakest Craigleith pair: captains nominate who plays where but it seems rare for them to do anything but put their pairs in ability order.
The first half was unusual if only because I played nine of the twelve boards. Despite a couple of dubious contracts we did well in the set, aided by our opponents missing an obvious slam (Iain actually bid and made the grand on a double squeeze). We also bid a thin game missed at the other tables on the following cards:
Board 6; Aggregate; Dealer East; EW Game
West
♠ K J x
♥ A x x x
♦ x x
♣ A K Q x
East
♠ x x
♥ Q 10 9 x
♦ A x x x x
♣ x x
Game in hearts is not a thing of beauty, especially played by East. A quick simulation using Deep Finesse (whose analysis is based on perfect defence and play) suggests that it is a ~30% chance (45% played by West). However, when diamonds are 3-3, hearts 3-2 and well positioned, it is an easy game to make and so we got a big swing for this. Most of the other tables played in a strong 1NT.
The second half was less comfortable as a couple of undiscussed situations arose. Actually, they would be undiscussed for most partnerships but a regular pair would recognise analogous situations - if both cases we took the route of least complexity and suffered part score swings as a result. But we continued to defend well and our final score was 2,000 points better than our team-mates who also sat East/West, so we made a significant contribution to the final victory.
Friday, 10 November 2006
Up at the half
Our BBO League team, Blue Lightning, has a 109-77 IMPs lead over 'Big Guns' at the halfway stage of the semi-final play-off.
Anne, Graham and Alex played a good first 24 boards, unlike me, and their efforts combined with poor slam bidding from the opposition gives us a good chance of reaching the final. However many of the Big Guns have played for Romania so I am sure they will come back fighting when the match resumes next Wednesday.
This was all a big turnaround after the first four boards when we were 0-39 IMPs down! I doubled a part score that made two overtricks, Alex and I misdefended a stupid game contract and then missed a thin game. However we got this all back in the next five boards when we bid the best game, the right slam and they missed a good slam bid by Graham and Anne. A couple of part score swings gave us the first set by 48-42 IMPs.
The second half started well for us when they missed a slam after I opened 3♠ holding ♠ J109xxx ♥ - ♦ 109xxx ♣ xx. They went down in a poor grand slam on board 3 and on the next Alex and I bullied then out of a making 3NT to give us a 35-9 IMPs lead in the set after four boards.
There were three more big swings. Anne and Graham bid a good 6♣, based on a 6-5 fit, when the suit was unbid at our table. Aggressive competitive bidding pushed our opponents into a poor 3NT which we doubled for +800, on a part score hand, and finally Alex and I misbid, and then I misplayed, a major suit game to leave the score at 61-35 IMPs for the set.
A lot of poor bridge means that IMPs have been flying around. Hopefully things will settle down a bit next week.
Anne, Graham and Alex played a good first 24 boards, unlike me, and their efforts combined with poor slam bidding from the opposition gives us a good chance of reaching the final. However many of the Big Guns have played for Romania so I am sure they will come back fighting when the match resumes next Wednesday.
This was all a big turnaround after the first four boards when we were 0-39 IMPs down! I doubled a part score that made two overtricks, Alex and I misdefended a stupid game contract and then missed a thin game. However we got this all back in the next five boards when we bid the best game, the right slam and they missed a good slam bid by Graham and Anne. A couple of part score swings gave us the first set by 48-42 IMPs.
The second half started well for us when they missed a slam after I opened 3♠ holding ♠ J109xxx ♥ - ♦ 109xxx ♣ xx. They went down in a poor grand slam on board 3 and on the next Alex and I bullied then out of a making 3NT to give us a 35-9 IMPs lead in the set after four boards.
There were three more big swings. Anne and Graham bid a good 6♣, based on a 6-5 fit, when the suit was unbid at our table. Aggressive competitive bidding pushed our opponents into a poor 3NT which we doubled for +800, on a part score hand, and finally Alex and I misbid, and then I misplayed, a major suit game to leave the score at 61-35 IMPs for the set.
A lot of poor bridge means that IMPs have been flying around. Hopefully things will settle down a bit next week.
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Simultaneous Pairs
Last night the Berwick club played its heat of the East District Simultaneous Pairs. For a change it was a teams format where all scores were compared with 'team mates' from the 2003 Camrose match between Scotland and Ireland.
In an event like this you'd like most, if not all, pairs to finish with a positive score. I'm sure the organisers achieved this by picking the 28 boards where Scotland did exceptionally well at both tables, In these boards Scotland outscored Ireland by 147-13 IMPs and you may well think that this would be sufficient for Scotland to win. However, on the other 62 boards Scotland were demolished by 12-185 IMPs and Ireland won the match by 52-38 VPs.
I played with Reg again and we got a good start when our first opponents went two down in a grand slam. Looking at what happened in the match illustrates how the scoring helps both sides: our Scottish team mates had a bidding misunderstanding and avoided the poor slams, so we scored +9 IMPs; our opponents' team mates found that the Irish also bid the grand slam, going down two tricks, so for them it was a (BrE) flat/(AmE) push board.
We finished with a score of 117-18 IMPs on the 24 boards that we played. We lost IMPs on three hands with our only major loss when we played a game from the hand that allowed a killing opening lead: just unfortunate and not our fault as such.
Reg played board 11 well (our team mates defeated the contract when the Irish declarer misplayed it, and the Scottish declarer also made it, so very difficult to get negative IMPs again).
Board 11; IMPs; Dealer South; Love All
North
♠ 5 2
♥ A K 5 3
♦ A K Q 8 7
♣ J 9
South
♠ Q 9 4 3
♥ Q 9 8 4
♦ 5 2
♣ A 4 2
Reg played 4♠ on the lead of the ♦10. Two rounds of trumps revealed that East held four, so Reg played diamonds discarding his clubs as East ruffed the fourth round. East continued with his last trump but Reg was in control and conceded two spades making the contract with four diamonds, one club, four hearts and a spade ruff.
This was the same line that Ken Baxter took in the event.
In an event like this you'd like most, if not all, pairs to finish with a positive score. I'm sure the organisers achieved this by picking the 28 boards where Scotland did exceptionally well at both tables, In these boards Scotland outscored Ireland by 147-13 IMPs and you may well think that this would be sufficient for Scotland to win. However, on the other 62 boards Scotland were demolished by 12-185 IMPs and Ireland won the match by 52-38 VPs.
I played with Reg again and we got a good start when our first opponents went two down in a grand slam. Looking at what happened in the match illustrates how the scoring helps both sides: our Scottish team mates had a bidding misunderstanding and avoided the poor slams, so we scored +9 IMPs; our opponents' team mates found that the Irish also bid the grand slam, going down two tricks, so for them it was a (BrE) flat/(AmE) push board.
We finished with a score of 117-18 IMPs on the 24 boards that we played. We lost IMPs on three hands with our only major loss when we played a game from the hand that allowed a killing opening lead: just unfortunate and not our fault as such.
Reg played board 11 well (our team mates defeated the contract when the Irish declarer misplayed it, and the Scottish declarer also made it, so very difficult to get negative IMPs again).
Board 11; IMPs; Dealer South; Love All
North
♠ 5 2
♥ A K 5 3
♦ A K Q 8 7
♣ J 9
South
♠ Q 9 4 3
♥ Q 9 8 4
♦ 5 2
♣ A 4 2
Reg played 4♠ on the lead of the ♦10. Two rounds of trumps revealed that East held four, so Reg played diamonds discarding his clubs as East ruffed the fourth round. East continued with his last trump but Reg was in control and conceded two spades making the contract with four diamonds, one club, four hearts and a spade ruff.
This was the same line that Ken Baxter took in the event.
Sunday, 5 November 2006
BBO League update
Our semi-final in the BBO League will start on Thursday at 1900 GMT with the first two 12-board sets. Kibitzers and supporters welcome!
Central adventures
Just over two hours drive north is Dundee, where the Central District held its first red-pointed Swiss Teams yesterday. As it's the home club for Andrea (and Jenny), I was invited to play with him in the event and formed a team with Richard and Ian.
Twenty-two teams took part and the standard was not high. It still took us four rounds to get to the top table where we promptly lost when I misdefended a game, but a large win in the last round whilst the top two teams played to a draw allowed us to sneak through to win the event by 1VP.
I'm fed up of writing about my misplays and misdefences, so here is a hand I think I played well in the fourth round.
IMPs; Dealer South; Game All
North
♠ Q 7 3
♥ A J
♦ A K 5
♣ A Q 8 6 5
South
♠ A K 2
♥ K 6 4 3
♦ Q 8 7 4
♣ K 10
After I opened 1NT (14-16), Andrea discovered that I did not hold three clubs to an honour and settled for 6NT.
The opening lead was the ♦3.
This looks a pretty simple hand as you only need 4 clubs to make the contract (93%). So I won the lead in dummy and lead a club intending to play the ♣10. However East showed out!
Time to take a think!
Eventually I decided to win the ♣K and play for a squeeze in case the diamonds did not break. If West held four diamonds or four hearts then he would be trivially squeezed. If East held four (or more) hearts, then the situation is set for a double squeeze as neither player will be able to keep four diamonds.
So the first thing to do was lose a trick to rectify the count. Although I did not expect the heart finesse to win, it was the natural play. So a heart to the jack won the trick and now I could play for an overtrick. Cashing the ♥A, ♠K and ♥K showed that East started with five hearts and the double squeeze would work. So I just cashed all the spade and two diamond winners and finished with the top two clubs from dummy. When East threw a diamond on the last club winner, I pitched my heart loser and West would have been squeezed in the minors.
The nice point about this play is that I never needed to worry about who was squeezed.
At the other table declarer was in 7NT. Although I think my line is clearly best, declarer chose a different line that seemed to have zero chance of success and went down two for a large win to us.
Twenty-two teams took part and the standard was not high. It still took us four rounds to get to the top table where we promptly lost when I misdefended a game, but a large win in the last round whilst the top two teams played to a draw allowed us to sneak through to win the event by 1VP.
I'm fed up of writing about my misplays and misdefences, so here is a hand I think I played well in the fourth round.
IMPs; Dealer South; Game All
North
♠ Q 7 3
♥ A J
♦ A K 5
♣ A Q 8 6 5
South
♠ A K 2
♥ K 6 4 3
♦ Q 8 7 4
♣ K 10
After I opened 1NT (14-16), Andrea discovered that I did not hold three clubs to an honour and settled for 6NT.
The opening lead was the ♦3.
This looks a pretty simple hand as you only need 4 clubs to make the contract (93%). So I won the lead in dummy and lead a club intending to play the ♣10. However East showed out!
Time to take a think!
Eventually I decided to win the ♣K and play for a squeeze in case the diamonds did not break. If West held four diamonds or four hearts then he would be trivially squeezed. If East held four (or more) hearts, then the situation is set for a double squeeze as neither player will be able to keep four diamonds.
So the first thing to do was lose a trick to rectify the count. Although I did not expect the heart finesse to win, it was the natural play. So a heart to the jack won the trick and now I could play for an overtrick. Cashing the ♥A, ♠K and ♥K showed that East started with five hearts and the double squeeze would work. So I just cashed all the spade and two diamond winners and finished with the top two clubs from dummy. When East threw a diamond on the last club winner, I pitched my heart loser and West would have been squeezed in the minors.
The nice point about this play is that I never needed to worry about who was squeezed.
At the other table declarer was in 7NT. Although I think my line is clearly best, declarer chose a different line that seemed to have zero chance of success and went down two for a large win to us.
Friday, 3 November 2006
What are the odds ...?
Typically bridge players use SuitPlay to calculate the percentage plays at bridge, but it would not have helped calculate the odds of a tie in a team-of-eight match using aggregate scoring. This was the result of last night's Eastern League match for the 49ers against Falkirk.
Unfortunately I made a couple of expensive errors. I find it extremely frustrating that these errors creep into my game especially when I am playing with good partners (and it was a Scottish International last night) but think it is principally down to concentration. I have always found it difficult to play league matches in the evening, and gave up when living down south, and the 1-2 hour drive to a venue is unhelpful. In particular I rarely seem to feel 'part of the match'. Clearly something I need to work on.
One costly error was in the following auction:
Love All; Dealer West ; Aggregate
West
♠ Q 10 8 3
♥ 9 8 2
♦ A K Q 8 7 3
♣ -
West North East South
1♦ Dbl 1♥ 2♠
3♦ 3♠ 4♦ Pass
?
At this point I have a clear pass, since partner will not be able to ruff all my spades on a diamond lead or even just a trump switch. But I just bid 5♦, got doubled and went down three. The opposition's bidding did not help, as they only held seven spades between them and never bid their nine-card club fit, but it was still a silly bid.
Unfortunately I made a couple of expensive errors. I find it extremely frustrating that these errors creep into my game especially when I am playing with good partners (and it was a Scottish International last night) but think it is principally down to concentration. I have always found it difficult to play league matches in the evening, and gave up when living down south, and the 1-2 hour drive to a venue is unhelpful. In particular I rarely seem to feel 'part of the match'. Clearly something I need to work on.
One costly error was in the following auction:
Love All; Dealer West ; Aggregate
West
♠ Q 10 8 3
♥ 9 8 2
♦ A K Q 8 7 3
♣ -
West North East South
1♦ Dbl 1♥ 2♠
3♦ 3♠ 4♦ Pass
?
At this point I have a clear pass, since partner will not be able to ruff all my spades on a diamond lead or even just a trump switch. But I just bid 5♦, got doubled and went down three. The opposition's bidding did not help, as they only held seven spades between them and never bid their nine-card club fit, but it was still a silly bid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)