The SBU has an 'open to all' policy for its selection of international teams. Part of this policy means that it prefers pairs trials, as this gives newcomers an easy way into the process without having to find team mates. I expect the fact that this makes it more difficult for any sponsors to qualify is seen as a bonus.
The open policy means that there are a series of trials. Five pairs were exempt to the final trial this year and sixteen competed in the pre-trial for the right to join them.
Miro and I failed to star, finishing 11th and 6 VPs out of a qualifying spot. We were in bottom spot at the halfway point after a couple of crass bids and the format (and field) killing us. We 'stormed' back on Sunday, except for a 6-24 VP loss to Alan and Dee (Vegas team mates) when we just sat there and had slightly the worse of what seemed an average session, but left ourselves too much to do.
Overall we probably did play well enough to qualify, but when you are not playing particularly well you need a fair share of luck to get you through. And it did feel that we didn't get our share, but I guess that's always how it feels.
At least we showed that we can play throughout a long weekend, were strong at the end and we just needed the trial to last another day.
But disappointing.
Monday, 29 September 2008
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
World Mind Sports Games competition
Becky, of Master Points Press and bridgeblogging.com, is running a competition to predict the winners, and losers at various points, for the Open competition of the World Mind Sports Games.
Details are available on her blog.
MPP will give the winner a copy of The Lone Wolff, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't enter and reduce my chances of winning.
I'll post my picks next week, after the October 2 deadline.
Working out the odds
This potential slam came up in the first round the RBS Pairs last night at Berwick.
So the question is, how good is the slam?
There are two chances to make the slam. Establish the fifth heart for a second diamond discard or finesse South for the jack of diamonds. Luckily you can test for the heart break first and keep the diamond finesse in reserve.
You can establish hearts as you have four entries to table in trumps - three entries will be needed to ruff hearts and the fourth needed to cash the heart trick. In this process you also have to ruff 2 clubs, which means that you must be able to draw trumps in 2 rounds.
So the chances of making this contract by establishing hearts means that spades must be 2-1 AND hearts 4-4. The 'AND' means that we multiply the odds of each individual break.
Spades 2-1 = 78%
Hearts 4-4 = 32.7%
So odds of spades 2-1 AND hearts 4-4 = 78%*32.7% = 25.5%
So we will make the slam 25.5% of the time by relying on the hearts. This is an approximation as there are some heart distributions, such as tripleton KQJ in one hand, that are also good enough but have been ignored.
However (100-25.5)=74.6% of the time this will not work. In this case we will rely on the diamond finesse, which is a 50% chance.
So we will also make the slam when majors do not break but the finesse works = 74.6% * 50% = 37.3%
As these lines are independent we can add them together to give a 25.5+37.3 = 62.8% chance of making the slam.
In this case we get the chance to try both options. If we could only try one line or the other, the finesse is almost twice as good.
And, finally, this does not account for a diamond lead which will give you the slam directly unless there is a ruff.
|
|
So the question is, how good is the slam?
There are two chances to make the slam. Establish the fifth heart for a second diamond discard or finesse South for the jack of diamonds. Luckily you can test for the heart break first and keep the diamond finesse in reserve.
You can establish hearts as you have four entries to table in trumps - three entries will be needed to ruff hearts and the fourth needed to cash the heart trick. In this process you also have to ruff 2 clubs, which means that you must be able to draw trumps in 2 rounds.
So the chances of making this contract by establishing hearts means that spades must be 2-1 AND hearts 4-4. The 'AND' means that we multiply the odds of each individual break.
Spades 2-1 = 78%
Hearts 4-4 = 32.7%
So odds of spades 2-1 AND hearts 4-4 = 78%*32.7% = 25.5%
So we will make the slam 25.5% of the time by relying on the hearts. This is an approximation as there are some heart distributions, such as tripleton KQJ in one hand, that are also good enough but have been ignored.
However (100-25.5)=74.6% of the time this will not work. In this case we will rely on the diamond finesse, which is a 50% chance.
So we will also make the slam when majors do not break but the finesse works = 74.6% * 50% = 37.3%
As these lines are independent we can add them together to give a 25.5+37.3 = 62.8% chance of making the slam.
In this case we get the chance to try both options. If we could only try one line or the other, the finesse is almost twice as good.
And, finally, this does not account for a diamond lead which will give you the slam directly unless there is a ruff.
Monday, 22 September 2008
Why Europe lost the Ryder Cup
You need your top players to turn up:
Number of wins: 0
| Sergio Garcia | 1/4 |
| Padraig Harrington | 0.5/4 |
| Lee Westwood | 1/4 |
Number of wins: 0
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Tooting, Lima, Beijing
Carl, our man in Lima, will be the NPC for the Peruvian Juniors in Beijing next month at the World Mind Sports Games. Apparently he has been training the kids for the last 12 months and they are all looking forward to the event.
Borders v Edinburgh
The East District season opener is the annual Edinburgh against Borders match, held last night in Peebles.
Table 1
Result: 8 tricks, NS -200
Table 2
Result: 11 tricks, NS -750
As Grant said afterwards, it is hard to see what anyone should have done differently and it is an extremely rare deal where E/W can make 11 tricks in both black suits, with their combined 17 points, but N/S can only make 8 tricks in a red suit.
I played for Edinburgh a couple of years ago but this time I was on table 1 with Reg for the Borders, with Diana and Ros on table 2. The Berwick club is the only Borders team in the first division so provides the top two tables and five other clubs provide the other ten pairs.
Naturally the Edinburgh team is quite strong and I'm not sure if it ever loses this match. Iain and John were on table 1, practising before flying off to Beijing as part of Scotland's Open team; Grant and Sheila on table 2; not to mention the internationalists on table 3 and 4.
And so it proved again as Edinburgh won comfortably. Reg and I played reasonably well against Iain and John, bidding our games and not letting anything through. We were probably about 700 points worse than I'd liked, but not a bad performance.
We did have our successes. We combined well with Diana and Ros on board 4:
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Table 1
| West | North | East | South |
| John | Paul | Iain | Reg |
| p | 1NT | p | 2♦ |
| p | 3♥ | p | 4♥ |
| p | p | p |
Result: 8 tricks, NS -200
Table 2
| West | North | East | South |
| Diana | Shelagh | Ros | Grant |
| p | 1♦ | 2♣ | 2♥ |
| 3♣ | 4♥ | 5♣ | p |
| p | X | p | p |
| p |
Result: 11 tricks, NS -750
As Grant said afterwards, it is hard to see what anyone should have done differently and it is an extremely rare deal where E/W can make 11 tricks in both black suits, with their combined 17 points, but N/S can only make 8 tricks in a red suit.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Transfer Walsh
I've been playing transfer responses to 1♣ since November 2002 and they are probably the best thing we've introduced.
As mickyb said, "Majors are the most important suits. If you play Walsh, where you respond in a 4-card major rather than showing 4+ diamonds with a weakish hand, then you rarely bid 1♦ anyhow and logically it makes sense to use the cheapest responses to show the most important suits. Hence transfer responses to 1♣."
Our methods were originally derived from the Fallenius-Welland notes (PDF) that we found. Thus the responses to 1♣ are:
Our notes on continuations are fairly comprehensive but the method comes up a great deal, so it is a good investment of time and memory especially compared to some of the esoteric things we play.
There are other schemes available.
As mickyb said, "Majors are the most important suits. If you play Walsh, where you respond in a 4-card major rather than showing 4+ diamonds with a weakish hand, then you rarely bid 1♦ anyhow and logically it makes sense to use the cheapest responses to show the most important suits. Hence transfer responses to 1♣."
Our methods were originally derived from the Fallenius-Welland notes (PDF) that we found. Thus the responses to 1♣ are:
- 1♦ shows 4+ hearts, 4+ HCP
- 1♥ shows 4+ spades, 4+ HCP
- 1♠ shows 4+ diamond, 4+ HCP, denies a 4-card major unless game-forcing strength
- 1NT shows 5-10 HCP, denies 4-card major and 6-card diamond suit
- 2♣ is an inverted raise, showing 4+ clubs and 11+ points
- 2♦ shows 4+ hearts, 5+ spades, 0-7 HCP
- 2♥/2♠ are weak, 6+ suit, 0-7 HCP
- 2NT is 16+ balanced
- 3♣ is pre-emptive, showing a hand that wishes to play here opposite a weak 1NT
- 1♥ shows 11-13 balanced, with two or three hearts. If three hearts then no ruffing values, essentially no weak doubleton.
- 1♠ is natural, implying 4+ clubs and 4+ spades and unbalanced.
- 1NT shows 17-19 balanced, may have 3 hearts
- 2♣ is natural
- 2♦ is a natural reverse
- 2♥ is a hand that would raise a normal 1♥ response to two. So for us this will be a balanced 11-13 with 3 or 4 hearts, or a minimum heart-club two-suiter
- 2♠ is natural, game forcing hand with spades and clubs
- 2NT shows 15+ points, with 3 hearts and 6 clubs, or 4 hearts and 5 clubs
- 3♣ is natural
- 3♦ shows 17-19 balanced with 4 hearts
- 3♥ is natural, but may be weaker than normal methods. Typically a good opener with hearts and clubs, unbalanced.
- 3♠ is a splinter
- opener's 1NT rebid is 17-19. This permits very light responses to 1♣ without the concern of partner rebidding 2NT
- opener's 2NT rebid is now available as something special, as it is not required to show 17-19 balanced. We use it to show the Bridge World Death Hand, strong with 3-card support with 6-card minor, or 4+ support with 5+ minor
- it gives you more space to develop the auction
- it allows a cheap double of a suit that the opposition could not bid at the 1-level. The benefits of this seem to be negligible in our experience.
Our notes on continuations are fairly comprehensive but the method comes up a great deal, so it is a good investment of time and memory especially compared to some of the esoteric things we play.
There are other schemes available.
- http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/twalsh.html
- you can complete the transfer with 3-card support, jump with 4-card support and leave the 1NT rebid to show 12-14 balanced with 1-2 hearts
First night at the club
Not my first night but Hels'. She has decided that she can take a couple of hours away from Scrabble study and is playing the RBS (pairs) and Scott Cup (teams) competitions at the Berwick club.
Last night was the first Scott Cup and our team mates were Diana and Margaret. We both had good cards, each with a single blemish, but our 79/120 VPs score was 15 VPs behind the winners.
However we would have reversed those placings if I had found the safe lead on this hand:
1Blackwood
So can you do better?
Last night was the first Scott Cup and our team mates were Diana and Margaret. We both had good cards, each with a single blemish, but our 79/120 VPs score was 15 VPs behind the winners.
However we would have reversed those placings if I had found the safe lead on this hand:
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Terry | Hels | Gerald |
| 1♥ | p | 2♦ | |
| p | 2♥ | p | 4NT1 |
| p | 5♥ | p | 5NT |
| p | 6♦ | p | 7NT |
| p | p | p |
1Blackwood
So can you do better?
Friday, 12 September 2008
BIL 5th Anniversary
The Beginners and Intermediates Lounge (BIL) is celebrating its fifth anniversary this month. Although I don't do regular sessions any more, I am a long-time supporter of the BIL and its founder/manager Maureen, so was very pleased to run a special session to mark the event.
So I asked four internationalists, Sheila and Anne from Scotland, Joan and Emer from Ireland, to participate in a 'vugraph' session and just play a few hands for the BIL audience. I was there to host the event and ask the players questions about why they bid what they did, why they played that specific card, and so on.
Things went very well and we had an audience of over 70 people, who all seemed to enjoy the event. I think the players did too, although I did find some troublesome hands for them.
Continuing the Scottish and Irish theme, I selected hands from Monday's match between their junior teams, which were actually the hands from the Italy-Poland match in the 2004 European Championships. A number of them struggled with the following bidding challenge problem:
Girls Aloud
Anne and Sheila explained:
1 Forcing to 2NT
2 Shows a minimum opener with nothing else to say. A heart rebid would show extra values
3 Natural, creates a game force
4 Natural
The decision to move forward probably lies with Sheila and, with hindsight, thought it was probably right to move as they could stop in 4NT.
Scotland Juniors
The final bid is quantative, but perhaps agreeing diamonds would have been better.
Ireland Juniors
gateway just blasted this slam, unconcerned about the possibility of two heart losers. Still hard to argue with success.
Italy Open Team
An artificial auction to the best spot. I won't try to interpret it.
Poland Open Team
I'm left feeling that North had values unshown.
Clearly not an easy hand!
Thanks to Maureen and her band of helpers the BIL continues to grow and go from strength to strength. Any beginners and intermediates who want to improve their game, get free lessons, and everything else that the BIL can offer should visit its website - you'll be very welcome in the club.
So I asked four internationalists, Sheila and Anne from Scotland, Joan and Emer from Ireland, to participate in a 'vugraph' session and just play a few hands for the BIL audience. I was there to host the event and ask the players questions about why they bid what they did, why they played that specific card, and so on.
Things went very well and we had an audience of over 70 people, who all seemed to enjoy the event. I think the players did too, although I did find some troublesome hands for them.
Continuing the Scottish and Irish theme, I selected hands from Monday's match between their junior teams, which were actually the hands from the Italy-Poland match in the 2004 European Championships. A number of them struggled with the following bidding challenge problem:
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Girls Aloud
| West | North | East | South |
| Joan | Sheila | Emer | Anne |
| 1♦ | |||
| p | 2♣1 | p | 2♦2 |
| p | 2♠3 | p | 2NT |
| p | 3♦4 | p | 3NT |
| p | p | p |
Anne and Sheila explained:
1 Forcing to 2NT
2 Shows a minimum opener with nothing else to say. A heart rebid would show extra values
3 Natural, creates a game force
4 Natural
The decision to move forward probably lies with Sheila and, with hindsight, thought it was probably right to move as they could stop in 4NT.
Scotland Juniors
| West | North | East | South |
| Phil | Ronald | ||
| 1♦ | |||
| p | 2♣ | p | 2♦ |
| p | 2♠ | p | 2NT |
| p | 4NT | p | p |
| p |
The final bid is quantative, but perhaps agreeing diamonds would have been better.
Ireland Juniors
| West | North | East | South |
| gateway | eman | ||
| 1♦ | |||
| p | 2♣ | p | 2♦ |
| p | 4NT | p | 5♥ |
| p | 6♦ | p | p |
| p |
gateway just blasted this slam, unconcerned about the possibility of two heart losers. Still hard to argue with success.
Italy Open Team
| West | North | East | South |
| Bocchi | Duboin | ||
| 1♦ | |||
| p | 2♣ | p | 2♦ |
| p | 2♥ | p | 2♠ |
| p | 2NT | p | 3♣ |
| p | 3♦ | p | 3♠ |
| p | 4♦ | p | 4♥ |
| p | 4NT | p | 5♥ |
| p | 6♦ | p | p |
| p |
An artificial auction to the best spot. I won't try to interpret it.
Poland Open Team
| West | North | East | South |
| Tuszynski | Kowalski | ||
| 1♦ | |||
| p | 2♣ | p | 2♦ |
| p | 3♦ | p | 3♥ |
| p | 3NT | p | p |
| p |
I'm left feeling that North had values unshown.
Clearly not an easy hand!
Thanks to Maureen and her band of helpers the BIL continues to grow and go from strength to strength. Any beginners and intermediates who want to improve their game, get free lessons, and everything else that the BIL can offer should visit its website - you'll be very welcome in the club.
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Exuberance of youth
It was the juniors of Scotland and Ireland taking each other on last night on BBO. Both teams are off to Beijing next month and I know they are all practising hard, so it was always going to be an interesting match.
Eventually the Scots won 73:31 IMPs, but it was tied at 31:31 after board 13 when a late spurt saw them home. It may appear that 104 IMPs is a bit wild for a 20-board encounter, but they were playing a wild set - when the stars of Italy and Poland played these hands in the 2004 European Championships Italy won 90-33!
During the match one of my friends whispered to me, "They do like to bid, don't they". They certainly do, and this was the hand she was referring to. Names have been withheld to protect the guilty.
Closed Room:
Result: 9 tricks made, NS +500
Open Room:
Result: 8 tricks made, NS +110
It is interesting to contrast these auctions with the originals:
Result: 8 tricks made, NS +110
Result: 8 tricks made, NS +100
Interesting to see the discipline at some of the tables.
You'll be able to follow both teams, and everyone else, playing in Beijing on the WBF website. It starts on Friday 3 October.
Eventually the Scots won 73:31 IMPs, but it was tied at 31:31 after board 13 when a late spurt saw them home. It may appear that 104 IMPs is a bit wild for a 20-board encounter, but they were playing a wild set - when the stars of Italy and Poland played these hands in the 2004 European Championships Italy won 90-33!
During the match one of my friends whispered to me, "They do like to bid, don't they". They certainly do, and this was the hand she was referring to. Names have been withheld to protect the guilty.
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Closed Room:
| West | North | East | South |
| p | 1♦ | 1♥ | |
| X | 2♦ | X | 4♥ |
| 5♣ | X | p | p |
| p |
Result: 9 tricks made, NS +500
Open Room:
| West | North | East | South |
| p | 1♦ | 1♥ | |
| 1♠ | 2♦ | p | 2♥ |
| p | p | p |
Result: 8 tricks made, NS +110
It is interesting to contrast these auctions with the originals:
| West | North | East | South |
| Zmud | Bocchi | Balicki | Duboin |
| p | 1♦ | 1♥ | |
| 1♠ | X | p | 1NT |
| 2♣ | 2♥ | p | p |
| p |
Result: 8 tricks made, NS +110
| West | North | East | South |
| Versace | Tuszynski | Lauria | Kowalsi |
| 1♦ | 1♥ | X | |
| XX | p | 1NT | p |
| 2♣ | p | p | 2♥ |
| 3♣ | p | p | p |
Result: 8 tricks made, NS +100
Interesting to see the discipline at some of the tables.
You'll be able to follow both teams, and everyone else, playing in Beijing on the WBF website. It starts on Friday 3 October.
Monday, 8 September 2008
Complexity
Reviewing last night's practice on BBO showed that I misdefended a hand. A couple of my mentors (not that they know they hold this position, but I try to read all that they say) have said that you should not use the GIB facility on BBO as it makes you lazy - this is very true, and so I try to avoid it, but sometimes it does let you spot a misdefence that otherwise would have gone unnoticed (especially over a whole session, in an otherwise 'boring' hand).
Miro lead the ♣A and correctly read my ♣6 as discouraging (upside down attitude). He switched to a spade won in dummy.
Declarer now drew three rounds of trumps, starting with the ♥Q, and getting the bad news of a loser in the suit. He then cashed the top spade to leave this position:
At this point declarer should have a good read on the hand, but not a 100% position. West must have at least three clubs, otherwise East would have played the ♣J on the first round. He has four hearts and at least two spades. If West has a third spade then declarer can cash the spade and play three rounds of diamonds ruffing in hand - the final heart will now endplay West.
You can still follow this line if West has at least three diamonds, as he will be squeezed to maintain the club control on the play of the spade. But if West has four spades (and therefore is 4=4=2=3) then you are going down on this line.
Balance of probabilities suggest taking this line and it works on this hand.
In practice, declarer played another heart and I erred in my discard. To be honest I did not give it much thought: a diamond was clearly out (declarer could have the actual hand, or Miro could have Jx), a club would mean that Miro must hold the ♣9 and I'd be open to an endplay, and the spade looked obvious as it was never making a trick.
What I had missed was declarer could play a spade, finesse the diamond, leaving this four-card ending:
Needing three tricks, declarer can play the last trump and Miro must discard a diamond, dummy pitches a club and I must discard a club. Now declarer cashes the ♦K and then leads a small club! Miro can either rise with the ♣K and concede a trick to declarer's queen, or play small and let me win to give dummy the ace of diamonds.
So my aim should be to discard all my clubs to stop this happening. Essentially I will guard the diamonds and retain a spade winner, leaving the clubs to partner.
Not so easy to spot but I'll be on the lookout next time!
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Miro | Paul | ||
| 1♥ | |||
| p | 1NT | p | 2NT |
| p | 3♥ | p | 4♥ |
| p | p | p |
Miro lead the ♣A and correctly read my ♣6 as discouraging (upside down attitude). He switched to a spade won in dummy.
Declarer now drew three rounds of trumps, starting with the ♥Q, and getting the bad news of a loser in the suit. He then cashed the top spade to leave this position:
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
At this point declarer should have a good read on the hand, but not a 100% position. West must have at least three clubs, otherwise East would have played the ♣J on the first round. He has four hearts and at least two spades. If West has a third spade then declarer can cash the spade and play three rounds of diamonds ruffing in hand - the final heart will now endplay West.
You can still follow this line if West has at least three diamonds, as he will be squeezed to maintain the club control on the play of the spade. But if West has four spades (and therefore is 4=4=2=3) then you are going down on this line.
Balance of probabilities suggest taking this line and it works on this hand.
In practice, declarer played another heart and I erred in my discard. To be honest I did not give it much thought: a diamond was clearly out (declarer could have the actual hand, or Miro could have Jx), a club would mean that Miro must hold the ♣9 and I'd be open to an endplay, and the spade looked obvious as it was never making a trick.
What I had missed was declarer could play a spade, finesse the diamond, leaving this four-card ending:
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Needing three tricks, declarer can play the last trump and Miro must discard a diamond, dummy pitches a club and I must discard a club. Now declarer cashes the ♦K and then leads a small club! Miro can either rise with the ♣K and concede a trick to declarer's queen, or play small and let me win to give dummy the ace of diamonds.
So my aim should be to discard all my clubs to stop this happening. Essentially I will guard the diamonds and retain a spade winner, leaving the clubs to partner.
Not so easy to spot but I'll be on the lookout next time!
Thursday, 4 September 2008
Don't touch or it may break
Practising on BBO last night we seemed to have more than our fair share of delicate sequences. New partnerships will always struggle with inferences that may be so fragile that a breathe of wind will break them, but we seemed to survive.
At least we seem to be on the right track.
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Miro | Paul | ||
| 1♣1 | p | 1♥ | 2♦ |
| p | p | X2 | 3♦ |
| p | p | X3 | p |
| 4♦4 | p | 4♠ | p |
| p | p |
- Natural or balanced 12-14/18-19, 2+♣
- Take-out
- Take-out, but now showing a pretty good hand
- Passing and leading a heart would have led to +800, but it's never easy to realise how poor the opp's bidding is. So Miro decided on a delicate call, hoping I'd realise that it showed two places to play, or three, or four!
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Miro | Paul | ||
| p | |||
| p | 1♥ | 1NT1 | p |
| 2♥2 | X | p3 | p |
| 3♣4 | p | 3♠5 | p |
| 3NT6 | p | 4♣7 | p |
| 5♣ | p | p | p |
- Not perfect, but nor is double. Over a 3rd hand opener I thought this was best ... well I did at this point
- Stayman, with invitational or better values
- OK, I'm less happy about my overcall now
- Natural, forcing
- Perhaps I get my nervousness across by showing spade values
- So the question is, does this sequence imply doubt or show help in the heart suit
- It seems I could lose the first six heart tricks with the club game cold ... so I'll run. Wrongly of course, as 3NT has additional chances over 5♣
- Luckily clubs were 2-2 and the contract made
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Miro | Paul | ||
| 1♦ | p | ||
| 1♥ | p | 1NT1 | p |
| 2♦2 | p | 2♥ | p |
| 2♠3 | p | 2NT4 | p |
| 3♣5 | p | 3♠6 | p |
| 3NT7 | p | p | p |
- 12-14 balanced, 5+ diamonds
- transfer to hearts, showing 5
- 4 spades, invitational or better values
- minimum, no fit
- natural, 3+ clubs
- 3 good spades
- choice of games
- Contract made 10 tricks
At least we seem to be on the right track.
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
Summer is over
Final round of the Russell Cup last night. I have only played seven times this year and made no attempt to defend the title, but Reg and I probably had a marked effect on the result with our last two boards (sorry Iain!).
We started the evening well but the break came too soon and our results dived after tea and cakes.
A couple of undiscussed auctions came up in fairly common situations:
1NT=12-14
So what does my double mean? Perhaps in days gone by it would be penalty, but I think the more common and practical use is a takeout double, showing values with no clear bid. In this case Reg had an easy pass and we got a top with +300 against no game.
123-24 balanced or any game forcing hand
Perhaps in your local club the strongest opening bid is shown respect and the opposition leave the auction to you. When you play against stronger players they try to consume space even at adverse vulnerability and you need to understand the competitive continuations.
Naturally pick-up partnerships never discuss these. I think that expert standard is for double to show a very weak hand, pass shows values (with no clear bid) and suit bids are natural. However I'm sure that there is a significant number of players that reverse pass and double.
Finally, how weak do you have to be to overcall a weak 1NT? Only playing a natural defence, my best effort was:
I'm not sure why Reg passed when he can bid a natural 2♣, but passing out 1NT at love all rarely gets you a good score so I balanced with my solid heart suit. It would be fair to say that the defence was not optimal, but they did struggle to realise who held all the top hearts and defended accordingly. I escaped with seven tricks and a 60% score. As they say, it's easier to declare than defend.
Thanks to Iain, Dee, Anne and all the others who have run the Russell Cup over the summer, and to all my partners who have put up with my dislike of matchpoints. See you all next summer.
We started the evening well but the break came too soon and our results dived after tea and cakes.
A couple of undiscussed auctions came up in fairly common situations:
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Reg | ||
| p | 1NT | 3♣ | |
| X |
1NT=12-14
So what does my double mean? Perhaps in days gone by it would be penalty, but I think the more common and practical use is a takeout double, showing values with no clear bid. In this case Reg had an easy pass and we got a top with +300 against no game.
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Reg | ||
| 2♦1 | |||
| 3♥ | p |
123-24 balanced or any game forcing hand
Perhaps in your local club the strongest opening bid is shown respect and the opposition leave the auction to you. When you play against stronger players they try to consume space even at adverse vulnerability and you need to understand the competitive continuations.
Naturally pick-up partnerships never discuss these. I think that expert standard is for double to show a very weak hand, pass shows values (with no clear bid) and suit bids are natural. However I'm sure that there is a significant number of players that reverse pass and double.
Finally, how weak do you have to be to overcall a weak 1NT? Only playing a natural defence, my best effort was:
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Mike | Reg | Derek |
| 1NT | p | p | |
| 2♥ | p | p | p |
I'm not sure why Reg passed when he can bid a natural 2♣, but passing out 1NT at love all rarely gets you a good score so I balanced with my solid heart suit. It would be fair to say that the defence was not optimal, but they did struggle to realise who held all the top hearts and defended accordingly. I escaped with seven tricks and a 60% score. As they say, it's easier to declare than defend.
Thanks to Iain, Dee, Anne and all the others who have run the Russell Cup over the summer, and to all my partners who have put up with my dislike of matchpoints. See you all next summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)