Hels and I joined thirty others at the annual Xmas Party of the Berwick Bridge Club last night. After a good meal and some wine, the tables were rapidly cleared and set-up for play as Gerald directed a 14-board aggregate pairs.
Hels played with Reg, at his request, and seemed to spend most of the evening explaining the intricacies of our 2/1 system ! I played with Jean and the first two boards against R&H saw both pairs go 3 down in freely bid games. At least ours was a normal contract, but on the second board I held:
♠ Q x x
♥ K Q x x x x
♦ x
♣ x x x
and heard Jean open 3♦. After two passes Reg balanced with a double and Hels jumped to 4♥ - as this was a friendly event I did not double and the contract drifted off.
In the second round Jean forgot to pass my penalty double of 1NT holding an 8-count. Again, in the spirit of the season, she decided +110 in 2♠ was much friendlier than the +500 that was on offer :)
I then introduced Betty and Jean to the world of competitive bridge. I held
♠ Q x
♥ 10 x x x x
♦ x x x
♣ x x x
and thought that 1♠ was the obvious bid after Jean had opened 1♥ and Betty had doubled. Despite a worrying moment when Jean raised me, Betty (who held ♠10xxx) settled for game in diamonds safe in the knowledge that her partner had spade shortage.
Jean noticed that something was strange when the opposition's heart ace and king fell at trick 1, but did not translate this into my spade holding being so short and we let the game make. There followed a lot of questions about my bidding, so fun for all!
Unusual bidding abound and perhaps we should have more wine during the regular season. Jean had been saying that there must be a slam for us somewhere but we missed our opportunity when I held:
♠ Q 10 x x x x
♥ x x x x
♦ x x
♣ 10
Naturally this was a weak 2♠ opener for me. It was no surprise when the next hand doubled for takeout, but Jean's 4♣ was a bit of a mystery to me. However with the next hand bidding 4♦ I had an easy pass. The doubler raised to 5♦ and Jean now bid 5♥. This was an unexpected development but I was never raising to slam and was concerned when the contract was doubled. Even more personal ridicule when my hand was laid down as dummy, but I explained that our agreement was weak and no-one could object to that being an accurate decription of my hand. But this was our slam hand and so we had to settle for a doubled overtrick. Of course Jean was void in spades and just a diamond.
It'll be back to the grind in the new year, but this was a very enjoyable end to the bridge year.
Friday, 22 December 2006
Wednesday, 20 December 2006
Another game, another partner
My fourth game for the 49ers and I'm playing with Finlay. His regular team is two divisions below us but he is playing up for the one permitted occasion. As Finlay played in the Scottish trials, and represented the Seniors a couple of years ago, I am still going to be the junior partner.
We play the Nomads and have an inauspicious start when we lose -500 when they have no game available. Finlay was misled by an alert for a non-alertable bid and then felt obliged to bid when he asked a question about it: unfortunately he did not have anything like the values for his call and the opposition found it easy to double my raise.
I then misplayed the following slam:
♠
♥ A Q 10 x x x
♦ 10 x x
♣ A K J x
♠ A 10 x x
♥ 9 x
♦ A Q J x x
♣ 10 x
We bid to 6♦ and received the ♣Q lead. I won in dummy and lead a diamond to the jack and king. LHO returned a diamond.
Clearly the heart finesse must work. If LHO has a singleton club, then I should draw trumps and play for hearts to be 3-2. If he has a doubleton club, then I can win the diamond return, ruff a spade, return to the ♣10, draw trumps and finesse the heart for the contract.
I was overly concerned about the lead being a singleton. If this is the case, then it is almost certain that hearts will be 4-1 and I'll go down. However this did not stop me taking this line and I went down when hearts were 4-1 but the lead was from a doubleton.
Down at half-time the rest of the team roared back and we won by 2,000 points. Our second half performance was average: we missed a solid slam and the opponents bid a grand slam but we defeated a game that should make. Our slam was a style thing and we both blame the other for missing it! Certainly my bidding meant that I could always miss a good slam, but that shouldn't have been the case this time.
East
♠ A x x
♥ A K x x x
♦ A K x x
♣ x
West
♠ -
♥ x x
♦ Q x x
♣ A K J x x x x x
West North East South
............1♥...1♠
.2♣...2♠....3♦..Pass
.5♣...All pass
Clearly I could have just bid 6♣.
We play the Nomads and have an inauspicious start when we lose -500 when they have no game available. Finlay was misled by an alert for a non-alertable bid and then felt obliged to bid when he asked a question about it: unfortunately he did not have anything like the values for his call and the opposition found it easy to double my raise.
I then misplayed the following slam:
♠
♥ A Q 10 x x x
♦ 10 x x
♣ A K J x
♠ A 10 x x
♥ 9 x
♦ A Q J x x
♣ 10 x
We bid to 6♦ and received the ♣Q lead. I won in dummy and lead a diamond to the jack and king. LHO returned a diamond.
Clearly the heart finesse must work. If LHO has a singleton club, then I should draw trumps and play for hearts to be 3-2. If he has a doubleton club, then I can win the diamond return, ruff a spade, return to the ♣10, draw trumps and finesse the heart for the contract.
I was overly concerned about the lead being a singleton. If this is the case, then it is almost certain that hearts will be 4-1 and I'll go down. However this did not stop me taking this line and I went down when hearts were 4-1 but the lead was from a doubleton.
Down at half-time the rest of the team roared back and we won by 2,000 points. Our second half performance was average: we missed a solid slam and the opponents bid a grand slam but we defeated a game that should make. Our slam was a style thing and we both blame the other for missing it! Certainly my bidding meant that I could always miss a good slam, but that shouldn't have been the case this time.
East
♠ A x x
♥ A K x x x
♦ A K x x
♣ x
West
♠ -
♥ x x
♦ Q x x
♣ A K J x x x x x
West North East South
............1♥...1♠
.2♣...2♠....3♦..Pass
.5♣...All pass
Clearly I could have just bid 6♣.
Monday, 11 December 2006
Scots win Gold Cup!
In a tight and extremely tense final, WALKER (Walker, Cuthbertson, Murdoch, Piper, Short, Matheson) beat Byrne by 2 IMPs to be the first Scottish team to win the Gold Cup since 1982.
The match was broadcast live on BBO and I was commentating at the time (although I did keep fairly quiet as there were some real experts on there). The final, like both semi-finals, was tight throughout and the teams were only separated by 1 IMP as they entered the last eight boards.
Fittingly it went to the wire and it would be Dave Walker that had the opportunity to win, or lose, the trophy on the last hand. Play had already finished in the Closed Room and Dave was playing a 4♠ contract that he needed to make. The hand revolved around the club suit, and how to play ♣KJ62 opposite ♣9843 for two tricks (with plenty of entries).
Michael Rosenberg, widely regarded as the best dummy player in the world, said he'd probably think for 10 minutes and then go down. Suitplay, a program that computes the odds and lines, has three lines that have the same 80% chance of success. Two of these work, one fails!
Michael suggested that playing to the ♣K was probably slightly better, as the opening leader may have led a club holding the ♣Q (and less likely to lead the ♣A). The ♣A10 actually sat over the ♣K, so Rosenberg would have had a tough decision on the second round.
Dave played as Rosenberg suggested, the ♣K losing to the ♣A, but all decisions were resolved when a club was returned and he has now won the Gold Cup for the first time. Only Matheson (in 1973) had won the event before. They now get a couple of months off before starting their defence in March with a home match against Blodwell.
The match was broadcast live on BBO and I was commentating at the time (although I did keep fairly quiet as there were some real experts on there). The final, like both semi-finals, was tight throughout and the teams were only separated by 1 IMP as they entered the last eight boards.
Fittingly it went to the wire and it would be Dave Walker that had the opportunity to win, or lose, the trophy on the last hand. Play had already finished in the Closed Room and Dave was playing a 4
Michael Rosenberg, widely regarded as the best dummy player in the world, said he'd probably think for 10 minutes and then go down. Suitplay, a program that computes the odds and lines, has three lines that have the same 80% chance of success. Two of these work, one fails!
Michael suggested that playing to the ♣K was probably slightly better, as the opening leader may have led a club holding the ♣Q (and less likely to lead the ♣A). The ♣A10 actually sat over the ♣K, so Rosenberg would have had a tough decision on the second round.
Dave played as Rosenberg suggested, the ♣K losing to the ♣A, but all decisions were resolved when a club was returned and he has now won the Gold Cup for the first time. Only Matheson (in 1973) had won the event before. They now get a couple of months off before starting their defence in March with a home match against Blodwell.
Friday, 8 December 2006
Gold Cup Congress
This weekend sees the last major event of the Scottish bridge year with the Gold Cup Congress at Peebles. The congress is held alongside the semi-final and final of the Gold Cup and so a cast of dozens will be traipsing to the borders.
I'm giving it all a miss, although on Sunday I shall be commentating on the Gold Cup final on BBO. The SBU, and in particular Margaret, is providing coverage of the entire 64-board final. Hopefully my 49ers team mates, David and Malcolm, will win their semi-final tomorrow and provide us a Scottish team to cheer on.
I'm giving it all a miss, although on Sunday I shall be commentating on the Gold Cup final on BBO. The SBU, and in particular Margaret, is providing coverage of the entire 64-board final. Hopefully my 49ers team mates, David and Malcolm, will win their semi-final tomorrow and provide us a Scottish team to cheer on.
Monday, 4 December 2006
It's not over until it's over
Yogi Berra's aphorism was never so true as in yesterday's Eastern District red-pointed Swiss Pairs. Tim and I, a first-time partnership, led by 19 VPs going into the last round but failed to score and our opponents, Nicol and Jim, shot past us - a disappointing result.
No-one at the table believed that this would happen after the match finished. I thought we had lost by 5-15 VPs and hadn't considered a whitewash. I found Nicol and Jim in the bar before the presentations to tell them they had won and they refused to believe initially.
We had one bad board. Tim failed to open with a pre-emptive bid, a call made at practically every other table, and so we defended a part score and missed a making game for a bottom. But the rest of the hands looks fairly flat but the solid games made by our opponents were either missed or misplayed by a lot of the field. In the end, I blame 'the field'!
Up to this point we had flown through the event. We played and defended solidly and didn't have any system problems. We did miss a couple of slams that we probably should have bid, but a steady run of positive scores put us in control of our destiny.
Other Berwick players threatened to do well but the last round proved decisive for them too. Malcolm and Kathy did not lose a match, but a draw in the final match denied them third place. Reg and Alan got to table 6, but Sam and Diana (of Peebles fame) despatched them and so they slipped to twentieth while the girls finished seventh. Reg, sitting in the same direction as us, also misestimated his score and suffered a similar fate - no protection from 'the field'.
This is my first full year of playing bridge in Scotland and my fifth top-three placing of the year in nationally-rated (red-pointed) events. Hopefully I will get more firsts than seconds in 2007.
No-one at the table believed that this would happen after the match finished. I thought we had lost by 5-15 VPs and hadn't considered a whitewash. I found Nicol and Jim in the bar before the presentations to tell them they had won and they refused to believe initially.
We had one bad board. Tim failed to open with a pre-emptive bid, a call made at practically every other table, and so we defended a part score and missed a making game for a bottom. But the rest of the hands looks fairly flat but the solid games made by our opponents were either missed or misplayed by a lot of the field. In the end, I blame 'the field'!
Up to this point we had flown through the event. We played and defended solidly and didn't have any system problems. We did miss a couple of slams that we probably should have bid, but a steady run of positive scores put us in control of our destiny.
Other Berwick players threatened to do well but the last round proved decisive for them too. Malcolm and Kathy did not lose a match, but a draw in the final match denied them third place. Reg and Alan got to table 6, but Sam and Diana (of Peebles fame) despatched them and so they slipped to twentieth while the girls finished seventh. Reg, sitting in the same direction as us, also misestimated his score and suffered a similar fate - no protection from 'the field'.
This is my first full year of playing bridge in Scotland and my fifth top-three placing of the year in nationally-rated (red-pointed) events. Hopefully I will get more firsts than seconds in 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)