Rather than place my thoughts on the hands in the previous post in the comments section, I thought they were interesting enough for a new post.
On hand 1, the juniors were playing Precision so a 1♣ opener was not an option. I also tend to open 1♠ on these 5-5 hands but a natural club opener would have given you an even tougher decision - do you bid 4♠ after 1♠ (1NT) Pass (4♥) - ?
Both pairs were playing methods to allow them to distinguish between good and bad spade raises. I prefer transfers after 1M (Dbl) but some use a redouble to show a good raise.
Like Iain, my initial thought was that 4♠ was clear on this hand but it's not difficult to think of nightmare hands where you will go for a large penalty. In the end I think you just have to ignore these and put 4♠ on the table - it will probably make and some of the time they will save in 5♥. So put the pressure back on them.
On this hand, you can make 10 tricks in spades and they make 9 tricks in hearts.
On hand 2, I think anything could be right. The 6♦ chosen at the table gives partner a chance to raise when it's right (and when it's wrong) and I think that slower routes will only make it more difficult (it was also LotG's choice). The real winner was the 3♥ pre-empt.
As it happens, partner holds the ♦A, a doubleton spade, the ♥K and the ♣K so making all the tricks is simple. Playing in the small slam was still worth 5 IMPs on BBO (as many did not open 1♣).
Hand 3 is also tricky. I agreed with the 4♥ bid chosen - firstly the opposition may not bid over this, as hearts outrank diamonds, whereas bidding diamonds over 5♣ seems more natural; secondly your decision over 5♦ is no easier over whichever you bid, but it might be easier for partner to bid hearts than commit to a club slam.
At the time, most of the kibitzers were for doubling 5♦, but I was pretty confident that 5♥ would eventually be bid. The danger of a double game swing is just too much. Naturally 5♥ was doubled.
You can make 11 tricks in hearts. They will make 9 or 10 tricks in diamonds, depending on whether partner tries to cash the top two clubs. Making 5♥ doubled won 9 IMPs.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Juniors and Seniors
I hosted a table last night as our top junior pair took on Harry and Finlay from our senior team. The youngsters came out on top by 10 IMPs over 22 hands.
There were a number of interesting hands and these three could be suitable for a bidding panel. What calls would you give marks to?
1. EW Game; IMPs; Dealer E
1 3 spades, less than 8 points
2. Love All; IMPs; Dealer West
3. NS Game; IMPs; Dealer East
1 11-15HCP, 0-1 diamonds, 4-4 majors, 4-5 clubs
So put down that mince pie and let us know what you'd do.
There were a number of interesting hands and these three could be suitable for a bidding panel. What calls would you give marks to?
1. EW Game; IMPs; Dealer E
|
| West | North | East | South |
| 1♠ | X | ||
| 2♠1 | 4♥ | ? |
2. Love All; IMPs; Dealer West
|
| West | North | East | South |
| 1♣ | 3♥ | ? |
3. NS Game; IMPs; Dealer East
|
| West | North | East | South |
| 2♦1 | X | ||
| 4♥ | 5♦ | p | p |
| ? |
So put down that mince pie and let us know what you'd do.
Sunday, 21 December 2008
Xmas party
Back at the Berwick Club for the Xmas party. As always an enjoyable meal was served and then some non-serious, some may say drunken, bridge is played.
Gerald announces the partnerships. I'm not sure what his plan is, but I am paired with Marilyn. As she is one of the clubs newest members, having been in Jean's summer teaching classes prior to this year, it might be his 'make or break' strategy!
But Marilyn played very competently. Naturally we were playing Acol, with Strong Twos, Stayman, Blackwood and transfers. Later, perhaps when the second glass of wine kicked in, she admitted that although she knew Blackwood slams had always been out of bounds!
My contribution to the system was to ask for clear signals. Just play high if you like the suit and low otherwise, don't worry about count. This seemed to work fine.
The following hand proved too difficult for us.
Bidding strong hands is often a problem for beginners, mainly because you are unsure about which bids are forcing, which show strength, etc. I should really have bid 3♦ with my third bid, but this sounded less forcing than I wanted it to be. On this hand it would have worked a treat though.
Similarly Marilyn could have bid 3♦ with her third bid, but probably had no faith in me either!
Overall Marilyn played the cards well and defended with thought. Her pre-emptive bidding was surprisingly good but needs to work on her understanding of the strength shown when bidding. A couple of times she failed to force to game when holding an opening bid opposite my opener - but perhaps Gerald and Jean had warned her that I never seem to have my bid :)
Marilyn has an excellent attitude and has already got some good results on Thursday evenings. I'm sure we'll see playing on Tuesdays soon.
Gerald announces the partnerships. I'm not sure what his plan is, but I am paired with Marilyn. As she is one of the clubs newest members, having been in Jean's summer teaching classes prior to this year, it might be his 'make or break' strategy!
But Marilyn played very competently. Naturally we were playing Acol, with Strong Twos, Stayman, Blackwood and transfers. Later, perhaps when the second glass of wine kicked in, she admitted that although she knew Blackwood slams had always been out of bounds!
My contribution to the system was to ask for clear signals. Just play high if you like the suit and low otherwise, don't worry about count. This seemed to work fine.
The following hand proved too difficult for us.
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Marilyn | ||
| 1♣ | p | 1♦ | p |
| 1NT | p | 2♥ | p |
| 2NT | p | 3NT | p |
| p | p |
Bidding strong hands is often a problem for beginners, mainly because you are unsure about which bids are forcing, which show strength, etc. I should really have bid 3♦ with my third bid, but this sounded less forcing than I wanted it to be. On this hand it would have worked a treat though.
Similarly Marilyn could have bid 3♦ with her third bid, but probably had no faith in me either!
Overall Marilyn played the cards well and defended with thought. Her pre-emptive bidding was surprisingly good but needs to work on her understanding of the strength shown when bidding. A couple of times she failed to force to game when holding an opening bid opposite my opener - but perhaps Gerald and Jean had warned her that I never seem to have my bid :)
Marilyn has an excellent attitude and has already got some good results on Thursday evenings. I'm sure we'll see playing on Tuesdays soon.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
KO teams
Reg is the convenor for the Border Knockout Teams. This year he had seven entries and was getting kicked out by the women from his team, so he asked Malcolm, LotG and myself to form a team and make it eight entries even.
We played the quarter-final today. It is a handicap competition and we were giving our opponents 2,250 points start. Over 24 boards that seemed quite a task and it did not seem any easier during the first half as I held boring, flat 8 counts on nearly every hand. We had no game contracts ourselves, but we did beat one game and got a 500 penalty from 1NT so it did seem that we should get some of the handicap back. As it happened, Reg and Malcolm also got a penalty and we'd wiped out the deficit by half-time.
The second half went well at our table. We bid our games, defended three part scores well and they missed a slam, so I was confident of a decent win. Unfortunately our team mates also missed the slam, and a game, and misplayed a game ... but we still emerged winners by +400 after the handicap.
So a much smaller win than expected, but a win is a win!
Next up are Reg'sloose lost women.
We played the quarter-final today. It is a handicap competition and we were giving our opponents 2,250 points start. Over 24 boards that seemed quite a task and it did not seem any easier during the first half as I held boring, flat 8 counts on nearly every hand. We had no game contracts ourselves, but we did beat one game and got a 500 penalty from 1NT so it did seem that we should get some of the handicap back. As it happened, Reg and Malcolm also got a penalty and we'd wiped out the deficit by half-time.
The second half went well at our table. We bid our games, defended three part scores well and they missed a slam, so I was confident of a decent win. Unfortunately our team mates also missed the slam, and a game, and misplayed a game ... but we still emerged winners by +400 after the handicap.
So a much smaller win than expected, but a win is a win!
Next up are Reg's
Monday, 15 December 2008
The 4am shift
Forecasts of snow, Xmas round the corner, not leaving the bar until 4am, I must be playing in the Gold Cup Congress at Peebles.
As last year I played the pairs with Sam and then the teams partnering Jenny with Tim and Sam. We started off with a 5th place in the Friday afternoon teams, worth a small prize, and then scored about 45 VPs in the first three matches in the Swiss Teams.
Friday also saw our conquerors in the Gold Cup, McGinley, lose to de Botton in the quarter-final of the Gold Cup.
Saturday was the Swiss Pairs. Sam and I came 8th last year but could only manage 11th this time. Coincidently Tim and Jenny were on the same score as us at half time and at the end, but we always managed to avoid playing each other. Sam and I played reasonably well but could not get near the top of the field early enough ... perhaps we needed another couple of rounds!
Meanwhile de Botton and Collins were winning their semifinals and would meet in the 64-board final on Sunday.
After the bridge on Saturday we had a quick drink in the bar and then went to one of the parties happening around the place. Despite trying to leave around 2am, Fiona persuaded a number of us not to go and we continuing chatting until 4am ... including one of the de Botton team who would be playing later in the morning!
It was the continuation of Swiss Teams for us on Sunday. Three wins in the afternoon left us well positioning but a heavy defeat in the evening left us too much to do. We finished with two big wins and, if results went our way, could have won, but in the end we finished 3rd well behind the first two. But we'd have settled for that prior to the event.
The Gold Cup final had a tremendous finish. It was relatively close throughout and de Botton entered the final set about 15 IMPs up. But a few poor boards near the start meant it was down to 4 IMPs with 4 boards to play. In the end the match was settled by the play of a 2♣ contract and de Botton won by 1 IMP.
What about some hands? Well I find these weekends quite tiring and all the hands seem to collapse into a singularity, but these two seem to have escaped:
Your opening bid?
I passed and the auction continued ...
The other interesting hand was just an opening bid problem:
Your call at green (nv v vul)?
As last year I played the pairs with Sam and then the teams partnering Jenny with Tim and Sam. We started off with a 5th place in the Friday afternoon teams, worth a small prize, and then scored about 45 VPs in the first three matches in the Swiss Teams.
Friday also saw our conquerors in the Gold Cup, McGinley, lose to de Botton in the quarter-final of the Gold Cup.
Saturday was the Swiss Pairs. Sam and I came 8th last year but could only manage 11th this time. Coincidently Tim and Jenny were on the same score as us at half time and at the end, but we always managed to avoid playing each other. Sam and I played reasonably well but could not get near the top of the field early enough ... perhaps we needed another couple of rounds!
Meanwhile de Botton and Collins were winning their semifinals and would meet in the 64-board final on Sunday.
After the bridge on Saturday we had a quick drink in the bar and then went to one of the parties happening around the place. Despite trying to leave around 2am, Fiona persuaded a number of us not to go and we continuing chatting until 4am ... including one of the de Botton team who would be playing later in the morning!
It was the continuation of Swiss Teams for us on Sunday. Three wins in the afternoon left us well positioning but a heavy defeat in the evening left us too much to do. We finished with two big wins and, if results went our way, could have won, but in the end we finished 3rd well behind the first two. But we'd have settled for that prior to the event.
The Gold Cup final had a tremendous finish. It was relatively close throughout and de Botton entered the final set about 15 IMPs up. But a few poor boards near the start meant it was down to 4 IMPs with 4 boards to play. In the end the match was settled by the play of a 2♣ contract and de Botton won by 1 IMP.
What about some hands? Well I find these weekends quite tiring and all the hands seem to collapse into a singularity, but these two seem to have escaped:
|
Your opening bid?
I passed and the auction continued ...
| West | North | East | South |
| p | 3♣ | X | 5♣ |
| ? |
The other interesting hand was just an opening bid problem:
|
Your call at green (nv v vul)?
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Of course the play is important
When you have eventually got to the right contract, you do then have to play it properly. I think Miro and I got to the spot last night, but I failed to make the contract (by misplaying it).
1 Precision, 11-16 HCP, 6+♣ or 5+&clubs w/4-card major
Douglas leads the ♣K. How do you play the hand?
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Miro | Alex | Paul | Douglas |
| 2♣1 | |||
| X | p | 3♣ | p |
| 3♠ | p | 4♥ | p |
| 6♦ | p | 6♥ | p |
| p | p |
Douglas leads the ♣K. How do you play the hand?
Monday, 8 December 2008
Pre-emptive assistance
Tomasz is captain of a team in the Polish 2nd Division. We have known each other, in an online sense, for more than six years and played against each other in various leagues, ladders and other competitions.
Tomasz is trying to tune his team up for the next part of their season, so I've been arranging practice matches with them. Of course it does us no harm to tune up either!
In the two (12-board) matches last night I played with Dee, practising for the Atholl Cup (pivot teams) next month. There were two hands where aggressive pre-emptive bidding actually seemed to help rather than hinder.
Open Room
Closed Room
1 Polish Club
Dee and I struggled and any thoughts on how we could do better would be welcome.
Dee thought I had denied a heart control when I cue bid 4♣, whereas I didn't want to show shortage at the 3-level and preferred to show my values. Of course, I could have jumped to 4♥ over 3♦, but this would just endplay Dee as I held both minor aces.
Alternatively I could have splintered initially, but this would have been game forcing and I didn't think the hand was worth that, especially with the poor trumps. However it's always tough when one player holds a void in partner's best suit.
In the other room Cliff's 3♥ pre-empt forced my hand into a slight overbid, and the auction worked out well to cue bid hearts on the next round. I don't think the end of their auction is particularly convincing but it was successful and we lost 11 IMPs.
The boot was on the other foot in the other example:
Open Room
1 Polish Club
Closed Room
1 Weak, both majors
In the Open Room, Cliff and Raf's quiet approach left West with a problem of getting all his values across and East never wishing to introduce his relatively poor second suit.
In my room, the more revealing auction allowed Dee to get both suits into the game and my slam bid was obvious - 13 IMPs to the good guys.
Tomasz is trying to tune his team up for the next part of their season, so I've been arranging practice matches with them. Of course it does us no harm to tune up either!
In the two (12-board) matches last night I played with Dee, practising for the Atholl Cup (pivot teams) next month. There were two hands where aggressive pre-emptive bidding actually seemed to help rather than hinder.
|
|
Open Room
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Dee | ||
| 1♣ | p | 1♠ | p |
| 2♠ | p | 3♦ | p |
| 4♣ | p | 4♠ | p |
| p | p |
Closed Room
| West | North | East | South |
| Rafal | Cliff | ||
| 1♣1 | p | 1♠ | 3♥ |
| 3♠ | p | 4♦ | p |
| 4♥ | p | 5♣ | p |
| 5♠ | p | 6♠ | p |
| p | p |
1 Polish Club
Dee and I struggled and any thoughts on how we could do better would be welcome.
Dee thought I had denied a heart control when I cue bid 4♣, whereas I didn't want to show shortage at the 3-level and preferred to show my values. Of course, I could have jumped to 4♥ over 3♦, but this would just endplay Dee as I held both minor aces.
Alternatively I could have splintered initially, but this would have been game forcing and I didn't think the hand was worth that, especially with the poor trumps. However it's always tough when one player holds a void in partner's best suit.
In the other room Cliff's 3♥ pre-empt forced my hand into a slight overbid, and the auction worked out well to cue bid hearts on the next round. I don't think the end of their auction is particularly convincing but it was successful and we lost 11 IMPs.
The boot was on the other foot in the other example:
|
|
Open Room
| West | North | East | South |
| Cliff | Rafal | ||
| p | p | p | |
| 1♣1 | 1♠ | 2♣ | 2NT |
| X | p | p | 3♠ |
| 4♥ | p | p | 4♠ |
| X | p | p | p |
1 Polish Club
Closed Room
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Dee | ||
| p | p | 2♣1 | |
| X | 3♠ | 4NT | p |
| 6♦ | p | p | p |
1 Weak, both majors
In the Open Room, Cliff and Raf's quiet approach left West with a problem of getting all his values across and East never wishing to introduce his relatively poor second suit.
In my room, the more revealing auction allowed Dee to get both suits into the game and my slam bid was obvious - 13 IMPs to the good guys.
Friday, 5 December 2008
The play's the thing
Hamlet was wrong, it's the bidding that counts. Playing a match against a Polish team, we failed to bid the slam on the following hand so were expecting to lose points.
But it is interesting to consider the play, especially considering our opponents were in 7♠.
Firstly, how do you play the hand as given?
We missed the slam when West passed and North opened a Precision 2♣ (11-15 HCP, 6♣ or 5♣ w/4-card major).
Would this auction change your line in the grand slam?
|
|
But it is interesting to consider the play, especially considering our opponents were in 7♠.
Firstly, how do you play the hand as given?
We missed the slam when West passed and North opened a Precision 2♣ (11-15 HCP, 6♣ or 5♣ w/4-card major).
Would this auction change your line in the grand slam?
Monday, 1 December 2008
Trials update
The SBU Camrose trials finished yesterday.
The top three pairs will play in the first Camrose weekend next month in Wales.
John and Iain were my favourites to get a place, but the next two pairs have done well to qualify. In particular, I believe that Anne and Sheila will be the first female pair to represent Scotland at this level. They've had a good season and will be kept busy next year as, unsurprisingly, they also lead the Women's team in the Lady Milne in April.
The original Conditions of Contest said that, depending on their performance, pairs could be replaced by those finishing in places 4-6 for the second weekend - there was some talk that this may be changed but I've yet to hear anything.
I do hope that the selectors will actually do something when it comes to the second weekend, rather than just rely on a bare set of numbers. This is not a particularly popular view up here, not least because of selectorial (mis)judgements in the past, but if you pick a new pair for the Camrose then I think they really should play in both weekends.
If we want to build an Open squad for the future, then we really need to invest in new pairs as they come up and give them a proper chance.
| 1 | John Matheson & Iain Sime | 226 |
| 2= | Liz McGowan & David Liggat | 213 |
| 2= | Sheila Adamson & Anne Martin | 213 |
| 4 | Cliff Gillis & Rafal Wolanski | 206 |
| 5 | John Murdoch & Brian Spears | 203 |
| 6 | Alan Goodman & Dee Harley | 199 |
The top three pairs will play in the first Camrose weekend next month in Wales.
John and Iain were my favourites to get a place, but the next two pairs have done well to qualify. In particular, I believe that Anne and Sheila will be the first female pair to represent Scotland at this level. They've had a good season and will be kept busy next year as, unsurprisingly, they also lead the Women's team in the Lady Milne in April.
The original Conditions of Contest said that, depending on their performance, pairs could be replaced by those finishing in places 4-6 for the second weekend - there was some talk that this may be changed but I've yet to hear anything.
I do hope that the selectors will actually do something when it comes to the second weekend, rather than just rely on a bare set of numbers. This is not a particularly popular view up here, not least because of selectorial (mis)judgements in the past, but if you pick a new pair for the Camrose then I think they really should play in both weekends.
If we want to build an Open squad for the future, then we really need to invest in new pairs as they come up and give them a proper chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)