We played at Berwick last night in the Bobby Allan, the SBU's simultaneous mixed pairs competition.
For us, and the other North-South pairs at the club, it was an unsatisfactory evening. Despite North holding the most points over the game, the hands consistently fell to East-West and we only played nine of the twenty-four hands (despite being more aggressive in the auction than most). Sitting North I only played three hands, and this was more than most!
This meant that we were largely at the mercy of our opponents and, when they generally did the right thing, we finished with an average score.
Of course, we were not perfect. But I reckon we'd have only scored 58% if we had eliminated all the errors so no chance of a decent finish. The scores also reflected this imbalance, with the best scores being two of the East-West pairs and the top North-South score only 58%.
However, this is really just the rub of the green. I would not want the organisers to 'fix' the hands and will happily play a random set (as we did).
Just next time can we have the cards please! :)
Friday, 30 January 2009
Thursday, 29 January 2009
International funding
In my post earlier this month about the Camrose, I wondered how the SBU Council and Selection Committee would seek to improve the performance of an international teams.
Since then I have attended a Women's coaching weekend which went very well. Encouragingly there was a significant waiting list and even some of the men asked if they could attend. I'm sure we'll do another one later this year.
I am also helping the Camrose team with their preparations for the second weekend in March. Definitely an unofficial coach as the team already has two of the better coaches on it, but I can assist with some of the system preparation and make their practice sessions more intense than some in the past (not least as we'll have BBO vugraph running in the background and provide them with analysis afterwards).
And I am also working with our junior players as they prepare for the Junior Camrose. Last year they came very close to winning and are keen to put this right next month.
But it is not only me who is putting in a lot of time for free. I know that there are so many people who are keen to help and want to see our international teams do well (the teams themselves also put in more effort than most appreciate).
So it is disappointing to hear that the SBU Council will be debating whether to cut international funding at the upcoming budget-setting meeting. If we are to improve performance then it will start at these Home Internationals and expecting players to contribute significantly to the cost of attending these events can only demotivate them and they will question whether it is worth the effort. As one Lady Milne winner has said, it is not as if we have a huge pool of talent to draw on.
I hope that the SBU Council will not cut the funding. Personally I'd like to see them fully fund the Home Internationals even if they take a different stance with the funding of European and World events.
Since then I have attended a Women's coaching weekend which went very well. Encouragingly there was a significant waiting list and even some of the men asked if they could attend. I'm sure we'll do another one later this year.
I am also helping the Camrose team with their preparations for the second weekend in March. Definitely an unofficial coach as the team already has two of the better coaches on it, but I can assist with some of the system preparation and make their practice sessions more intense than some in the past (not least as we'll have BBO vugraph running in the background and provide them with analysis afterwards).
And I am also working with our junior players as they prepare for the Junior Camrose. Last year they came very close to winning and are keen to put this right next month.
But it is not only me who is putting in a lot of time for free. I know that there are so many people who are keen to help and want to see our international teams do well (the teams themselves also put in more effort than most appreciate).
So it is disappointing to hear that the SBU Council will be debating whether to cut international funding at the upcoming budget-setting meeting. If we are to improve performance then it will start at these Home Internationals and expecting players to contribute significantly to the cost of attending these events can only demotivate them and they will question whether it is worth the effort. As one Lady Milne winner has said, it is not as if we have a huge pool of talent to draw on.
I hope that the SBU Council will not cut the funding. Personally I'd like to see them fully fund the Home Internationals even if they take a different stance with the funding of European and World events.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
LotG in the house
Back at the Berwick club for the next round of the pairs championship. Our score is largely determined by LotG's performance combined with the randomness of the a club pairs competition and she did well on these two hands.
1 negative
I'd clearly shown a fairly big two-suiter, but still a good decision to play in spades rather than rebid the 8-card suit ... at least on this hand where I made eleven tricks.
Then a play hand:
Perhaps not the most elegant auction and it did not look good when David led his singleton diamond. Winning in dummy LotG took the spade finesse, cashed the ♠A and then led a heart to the queen. When this held she ducked a heart to Terry's ♥10.
A diamond ruff would not help the defence now, as David would be ruffing a loser, but Terry erred slightly by playing a small club (thinking that LotG had five hearts). Winning in hand, LotG cashed the ♥A, happy to discover the 3-3 break, and played on diamonds, throwing Terry in with the last one who then found himself endplayed in clubs!
Naturally eleven tricks was a good score.
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | LotG | ||
| p | |||
| 2♠ | p | 3♣1 | p |
| 3♦ | p | 4♣ | p |
| 4♦ | p | 4♠ | p |
| p | p |
I'd clearly shown a fairly big two-suiter, but still a good decision to play in spades rather than rebid the 8-card suit ... at least on this hand where I made eleven tricks.
Then a play hand:
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| West | North | East | South |
| David | Paul | Terry | LotG |
| 1♣ | p | 1♥ | |
| p | 2♥ | p | 4♥ |
| p | p | p |
Perhaps not the most elegant auction and it did not look good when David led his singleton diamond. Winning in dummy LotG took the spade finesse, cashed the ♠A and then led a heart to the queen. When this held she ducked a heart to Terry's ♥10.
A diamond ruff would not help the defence now, as David would be ruffing a loser, but Terry erred slightly by playing a small club (thinking that LotG had five hearts). Winning in hand, LotG cashed the ♥A, happy to discover the 3-3 break, and played on diamonds, throwing Terry in with the last one who then found himself endplayed in clubs!
Naturally eleven tricks was a good score.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Close is not good enough
It was frustrating to lose our Scottish Cup this afternoon. We were playing the #2 seeds (Steel, McGeorge, Walker and Cuthbertson), probably the best team in Scotland according to 'anonymous', and it could easily have been different.
We won a wild first half by 54-50 IMPs but it we could have had a match-winning lead if Miro had ignored the odds. We were in an excellent slam that just needed to find a queen - he had a two-way finesse and eventually played through the known long hand, only to find the queen with the shortage - a swing of 26 IMPs as they missed this in the other room. And then he went down in 3NT getting the vital suit wrong (but again playing with the odds) to lose 10 IMPs.
We lost the second half by 21-37 IMPs. Both our pairs missed a game (we were certainly more culpable) and this proved the eventual difference, but it was disappointing as we had made a thin slam, seen the opps take a slam sacrifice when game was probably not making and beaten a game. But Les and Bif flattened most of these, the gains were insufficient and we lost by 12 IMPs.
We won a wild first half by 54-50 IMPs but it we could have had a match-winning lead if Miro had ignored the odds. We were in an excellent slam that just needed to find a queen - he had a two-way finesse and eventually played through the known long hand, only to find the queen with the shortage - a swing of 26 IMPs as they missed this in the other room. And then he went down in 3NT getting the vital suit wrong (but again playing with the odds) to lose 10 IMPs.
We lost the second half by 21-37 IMPs. Both our pairs missed a game (we were certainly more culpable) and this proved the eventual difference, but it was disappointing as we had made a thin slam, seen the opps take a slam sacrifice when game was probably not making and beaten a game. But Les and Bif flattened most of these, the gains were insufficient and we lost by 12 IMPs.
Friday, 23 January 2009
A Quiet Evening
The league match against Craigleith and all of the South players were complaining about the number of really boring hands they held.
In fact it was an evening when very little seemed to happen at our table: I misdefended a couple of games when I failed to find the right switch, or continuation, at trick two or three but none were obvious. Brian was suffering similar problems on my right, having to make an early decision with insufficient information, but a lot of this proved fairly flat but would be filed in the 'chances' column.
Unlike the previous match, the top two tables were largely even after the match, but a good performance from Ben and Simon, and Veronica and Carolyn, at tables 3 and 4 meant that we won by 1,160 (4%).
My Atholl team mates, Alan and Dee, were playing for the opposition at table 2 so it was interesting to compare how we handled our strong hand of the night. You are to open holding:
♠ Axx
♥ Axx
♦ A9
♣ AKQxx
What do you open this hand if you are playing a 20-22 2NT or a 20-21 2NT, the upgrade available would be opening 2♣ and showing two point ranges above 2NT.
In fact it was an evening when very little seemed to happen at our table: I misdefended a couple of games when I failed to find the right switch, or continuation, at trick two or three but none were obvious. Brian was suffering similar problems on my right, having to make an early decision with insufficient information, but a lot of this proved fairly flat but would be filed in the 'chances' column.
Unlike the previous match, the top two tables were largely even after the match, but a good performance from Ben and Simon, and Veronica and Carolyn, at tables 3 and 4 meant that we won by 1,160 (4%).
My Atholl team mates, Alan and Dee, were playing for the opposition at table 2 so it was interesting to compare how we handled our strong hand of the night. You are to open holding:
♠ Axx
♥ Axx
♦ A9
♣ AKQxx
What do you open this hand if you are playing a 20-22 2NT or a 20-21 2NT, the upgrade available would be opening 2♣ and showing two point ranges above 2NT.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Nice auction
Practising on BBO last night, Andrew and Alex had this auction to a grand slam:
1 Precision Club, any 16+ hand
2 5+ diamonds, 8+ points
3 Balanced
4 Puppet Stayman (unusual treatment, but reusing methods is easier on memory)
5 No 5-card major
6 4 spades
7 I've also got 4 spades
8 Exclusion Blackwood
9 two aces (excluding the ♥A) and the ♠A
10 That makes life easier
Right-siding the slam makes it easier to play but DM Pro suggests that it makes little difference as it is an 80% slam whoever plays it. Essentially the hand will make fairly trivially unless there is a 4-1 diamond break (or 5-0 trumps), and you will occasionally be able to overcome this hurdle too.
Well bid.
You'll be able to see more of Andrew and Alex at the Junior Camrose next month and then at the Junior Europeans in June.
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Andrew | Paul | Alex | Miro |
| 1♣1 | p | ||
| 2♦2 | p | 2NT3 | p |
| 3♣4 | p | 3♦5 | p |
| 3♥6 | p | 3♠7 | p |
| 5♥8 | p | 6♦9 | p |
| 7♠10 | p | p | p |
1 Precision Club, any 16+ hand
2 5+ diamonds, 8+ points
3 Balanced
4 Puppet Stayman (unusual treatment, but reusing methods is easier on memory)
5 No 5-card major
6 4 spades
7 I've also got 4 spades
8 Exclusion Blackwood
9 two aces (excluding the ♥A) and the ♠A
10 That makes life easier
Right-siding the slam makes it easier to play but DM Pro suggests that it makes little difference as it is an 80% slam whoever plays it. Essentially the hand will make fairly trivially unless there is a 4-1 diamond break (or 5-0 trumps), and you will occasionally be able to overcome this hurdle too.
Well bid.
You'll be able to see more of Andrew and Alex at the Junior Camrose next month and then at the Junior Europeans in June.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Being courteous
I spent the weekend as part of the coaching team for our top women players. One concept that some of the aspiring players were unfamiliar with was courtesy raises.
Consider this auction:
What does North's raise show?
Traditionally it would show extra values, perhaps an ace better than a normal takeout double. But a courtesy raise is one where this does not show extra values, it just means that you have 4-card support and you are competing for the part score. Strong hands cue bid (2♣) to show the very good raise.
A major benefit of this treatment is that it makes the 1♠ response to the takeout double more wide-ranging. If you hold a balanced hand with four spades and a scattered nine points, previously you needed to jump to 2♠. Now you can bid 1♠ more comfortably, knowing that partner will not pass if he has 4-card support. So the 2♠ jump response to the takeout double will guarantee a 5-card or strong 4-card suit.
A method that has little downside and is easy to learn.
Consider this auction:
| West | North | East | South |
| 1♣ | X | P/1♥ | 1♠ |
| p | 2♠ |
What does North's raise show?
Traditionally it would show extra values, perhaps an ace better than a normal takeout double. But a courtesy raise is one where this does not show extra values, it just means that you have 4-card support and you are competing for the part score. Strong hands cue bid (2♣) to show the very good raise.
A major benefit of this treatment is that it makes the 1♠ response to the takeout double more wide-ranging. If you hold a balanced hand with four spades and a scattered nine points, previously you needed to jump to 2♠. Now you can bid 1♠ more comfortably, knowing that partner will not pass if he has 4-card support. So the 2♠ jump response to the takeout double will guarantee a 5-card or strong 4-card suit.
A method that has little downside and is easy to learn.
Friday, 16 January 2009
New for old
Last night was the league encounter between my new team, Merchiston, and my team for the last two seasons, the powerful 49ers.
The 49ers had not lost since my debut for them, coincidently against Merchiston, in September 2006 and when you look at their line-up that is no surprise. I usually played on table 4 and they would have three international pairs ahead of me.
Last night was the same, although I play at table 1 for Merchiston. Our best Camrose pair last weekend, Iain and John, only play at table 3 for the 49ers!
So we were delighted to beat them convincingly. Of course we do have internationals on our team with Miro, Veronica (Lady Milne), Simon (Scrabbler), Ben (English Junior), Andrew and Gyles (Scottish Juniors): I don't know about David but it may be that I am the only commoner in the match!
The real stars for us last night were Simon and David, who were about 2,700 points better than par. Veronica and Ben, taking on Iain and John, were responsible for the rest of our winning margin of 3,160 win.
For a change, a hand where I will tell you the right line and I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader of why this is so:
North leads the ♥6 and the ♥10 and your ace. You draw trumps in three rounds, North having three.
You should now play a heart.
Update: David informs me that he played chess for Scotland Juniors.
The 49ers had not lost since my debut for them, coincidently against Merchiston, in September 2006 and when you look at their line-up that is no surprise. I usually played on table 4 and they would have three international pairs ahead of me.
Last night was the same, although I play at table 1 for Merchiston. Our best Camrose pair last weekend, Iain and John, only play at table 3 for the 49ers!
So we were delighted to beat them convincingly. Of course we do have internationals on our team with Miro, Veronica (Lady Milne), Simon (Scrabbler), Ben (English Junior), Andrew and Gyles (Scottish Juniors): I don't know about David but it may be that I am the only commoner in the match!
The real stars for us last night were Simon and David, who were about 2,700 points better than par. Veronica and Ben, taking on Iain and John, were responsible for the rest of our winning margin of 3,160 win.
For a change, a hand where I will tell you the right line and I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader of why this is so:
|
|
| West | North | East | South |
| 1♠ | p | 1NT | p |
| 3♠ | p | 4♠ | p |
| p | p |
North leads the ♥6 and the ♥10 and your ace. You draw trumps in three rounds, North having three.
You should now play a heart.
Update: David informs me that he played chess for Scotland Juniors.
Thursday, 15 January 2009
What are you reading today?
I'm reading Stacy's excellent series on The Client's View of bridge.
And Linda's reviews of the IPBA 2008 winners.
Two bridge blogs that should definitely be on your reading list. And you should contribute (comment) too, as I do.
Country Strife, Town Mouse and Musings from the Merse are non-bridge Scottish blogs that give an insight into life in the borders. But you can be fairly sure that if one mentions Scrabble then it is LotG's site.
And Linda's reviews of the IPBA 2008 winners.
Two bridge blogs that should definitely be on your reading list. And you should contribute (comment) too, as I do.
Country Strife, Town Mouse and Musings from the Merse are non-bridge Scottish blogs that give an insight into life in the borders. But you can be fairly sure that if one mentions Scrabble then it is LotG's site.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Pivotal moments
First round of the Atholl Cup, the district pivot teams, saw Sam, Alan, Dee and I take on Laura's team. Winning every 10-board set meant a comfortable victory in the end.
I played with Dee first and it did not take long for us to completely stuff up the defence to a 3NT that only had 8 tricks when it started but seemed closer to 12 by the time we'd finished. And our other disaster, playing a 5-2 heart fit when we had discovered our 4-4 spade fit, only cost an extra undertrick so our good boards (well, more precisely, Alan and Sam's good boards) saw us through to a lead of 44-21 IMPs.
The second set with Alan was quieter. Sam and Dee got a good penalty but (I think) missed a making game, and Alan's 'sam-like' pre-empt pushed the opponents into a non-making slam. So we finished the set with the scores at 71-38 IMPs.
We were pretty confident at this point as we had our most experienced partnerships for the final set. Laura's team made some efforts to close the gap but, as often happens, IMPs just seemed to flow the other way. When the curtain fell we had won by 104-52 IMPs.
There was one wild hand from the final set:
Your bid?
And there was one interesting defensive problem:
You are playing 5-card majors and a strong 1NT
You lead the ♦3 to the ♦8, ♦9 and ♦A. Declarer leads a spade to partner's ♠A and she returns the ♥5.
Declarer plays the ♥K and you are now on lead with the ♥A. What do you play now?
We play Mrs McGowan in the next round, who'll no doubt be gunning for revenge after last year's match.
I played with Dee first and it did not take long for us to completely stuff up the defence to a 3NT that only had 8 tricks when it started but seemed closer to 12 by the time we'd finished. And our other disaster, playing a 5-2 heart fit when we had discovered our 4-4 spade fit, only cost an extra undertrick so our good boards (well, more precisely, Alan and Sam's good boards) saw us through to a lead of 44-21 IMPs.
The second set with Alan was quieter. Sam and Dee got a good penalty but (I think) missed a making game, and Alan's 'sam-like' pre-empt pushed the opponents into a non-making slam. So we finished the set with the scores at 71-38 IMPs.
We were pretty confident at this point as we had our most experienced partnerships for the final set. Laura's team made some efforts to close the gap but, as often happens, IMPs just seemed to flow the other way. When the curtain fell we had won by 104-52 IMPs.
There was one wild hand from the final set:
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Keith | Sam | Lucy |
| 2♥ | 2NT | p | |
| ? |
Your bid?
And there was one interesting defensive problem:
| ||||||||||
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Paul | Lucy | Sam | Keith |
| 1♥ | p | 1NT | X |
| 2♣ | p | 2♥ | 2♠ |
| p | 4♠ | p | p |
| p |
You are playing 5-card majors and a strong 1NT
You lead the ♦3 to the ♦8, ♦9 and ♦A. Declarer leads a spade to partner's ♠A and she returns the ♥5.
Declarer plays the ♥K and you are now on lead with the ♥A. What do you play now?
We play Mrs McGowan in the next round, who'll no doubt be gunning for revenge after last year's match.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Scotland in the Camrose
Disappointingly Scotland lie at the foot of the table after the first Camrose weekend, failing to win any of their matches.
At such times it's very easy to criticise the nearest to hand, be it the players, NPC, selectors and/or selection process, preparation, their methods, etc and, being Scotland, I'm sure that will happen!
My view is that, generally speaking, they just did not play well enough. That is subtlely different from 'not being good enough'. The standard at the Camrose, in terms of international competition, is not high and it seems capable of also dragging down the couple of world-class pairs that play. Looking at the butler the (apparently) strongest two team, England and Ireland, had two of their three pairs below average.
No, I think people severely underestimate the pressure of playing in this event, and its intensity. It will be interesting to hear from those playing if it differs from other international events.
It takes a lot of hard work to become a top pair and I know that our three pairs do put in a lot of time preparing for these events. What I think that they lack is the consistency that comes with playing tough bridge regularly and they are not going to get this playing in Scotland at the moment.
I don't think many in Scotland thought that a better team was available (following our European pairs deciding not to play this year). It is probably fairer to say that we believe that there are quite a few teams who look a similar standard and the trials just picks a random selection from them. What would be interesting to know is which of them will be poring through all the records available to assess areas of weakness and potential improvement - I'm available to help if anyone wants it.
The fundamental problems, as I see it, are:
- the level of competition found in Scotland is insufficient to prepare our top pairs for international play;
- we do not have enough strong pairs;
- our top pairs are largely content with the situation (aside from the losing), given the other priorities in their lives - that is, they do not (appear to) have the combination of time, money and inclination needed to play in top events in England, Europe and abroad;
- we do not invest in coaching.
We are not going to fix this situation quickly but I hope the SBU Council and the Selection Committee care about our international performances to start addressing some of these problems.
Finally the event was fully broadcast on BBO and it is amazingly easy to find the right plays when you can see all the hands. Decisions are crystal-clear when you can see what works. Some of the BBO commentators are playing in the second weekend in March and it will be interesting to see if they are so perfect at the real table.
I have started a thread on the SBU East Forum discussing the weekend's performance. Scottish readers, in particular, are invited to contribute.
Edit: Apologies but I misread the Ireland butlers - only one of their pairs was below average.
Bid carefully, play carefully
I don't normally write up hands where I do something sensible, but I thought the following hand illustrated that you just have to count your tricks when playing this game even on a simple hand.
1 14-16, perhaps not everyone's choice
2crap capp, showing any single-suiter
3 Stayman
Naturally West lead out three top clubs. A simple count of your tricks shows 5 spades (unless 5-1), 4 hearts and 1 diamond .... that seems enough! So the key is that you must not ruff the third club, as a 4-2 heart break will now defeat you. So just discard a diamond, hope the hearts are not 5-1, and you'll be able to draw trumps and get to all your tricks even when hearts are 4-2 (more likely than a 3-3 break on a random deal, more so here where West has shown long clubs).
Not a difficult hand, but you'd hate to go down by playing carelessly.
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Alex | Paul | ||
| 1NT1 | |||
| 2♣2 | X3 | 2♦ | 2♠ |
| 3♣ | 3♦ | p | 3♠ |
| p | 3NT | p | 4♥ |
| p | p | p |
1 14-16, perhaps not everyone's choice
2
3 Stayman
Naturally West lead out three top clubs. A simple count of your tricks shows 5 spades (unless 5-1), 4 hearts and 1 diamond .... that seems enough! So the key is that you must not ruff the third club, as a 4-2 heart break will now defeat you. So just discard a diamond, hope the hearts are not 5-1, and you'll be able to draw trumps and get to all your tricks even when hearts are 4-2 (more likely than a 3-3 break on a random deal, more so here where West has shown long clubs).
Not a difficult hand, but you'd hate to go down by playing carelessly.
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Hedy
| Hedy Brown (1913 – 2008) |
|---|
| The EBU has reported the death of Hedy Brown a few weeks before her 96th birthday. Hedy was a founder member of both Berks & Bucks CBA and Reading Bridge Club, which she attended regularly until the end. A Grand Master, Hedy was very successful on the national women’s bridge scene, and also won the Portland Pairs, aged 84, with Nigel Guthrie. Her zest for bridge was unmatched and she will be much missed by all her many friends. |
I first met Hedy in 1985 when I moved to Berkshire and played occasionally at the Reading Bridge Club. She and Willy, her husband, would be at the club early to grab their sitting seat (whatever movement was played) but this genteel old couple were demons at the table, their competitiveness and desire to win apparent to all.
Willy's health failed a few years ago but continuing playing at the club right up to the end. It's no surprise that Hedy was the same. After Willy passed away she continued playing at national tournaments and was a regular visitor to the Brighton Congress.
Aside from the Portland Pairs success with Nigel, her other achievements included a number of good performances in the Whitelaw Cup, the National Women's Teams. I think it was 2005, when she would have been 91, that she reached the final for the third time in five years but her team had to concede due to illness. The next club evening she was very keen to stress that it was one of the 'junior' members of the team who was the problem.
So Hedy joins Willy at the great table in the sky. I'm sure that they'll be a match for most.
RIP.
Fine line between genius and madness
Back at the club for the first pairs event of the year. LotG was away, so I played with someone else ...
What is your initial reaction when your right-hand opponent opens a strong bid, say 2♣ showing 8 playing tricks in an unknown suit?
Many club players just think that this is a good time to keep quiet, they have a bad hand and the opposition have the points, why should I bid?
Stronger players think that the way to stop them finding their best contract is to bid aggressively, especially with distributional hands. Our third hand showed the problems that this approach can cause.
6-4 distributions are powerful and I thought 3♠ was the obvious bid at favourable vulnerability. And look at the problem it has created for the opener. The auction is now at the 4-level and he has yet to show his suit. Even more of a problem when I've actually bid it!
As it happened, Mike took a pragmatic view and just punted the notrump slam. This was successful, but forcing the opponents to guess means that you are really winning the war, if not the battle. Others did not bid the slam, but this was more because Mike didn't really have a 2♣ opener in the first placer (he was fighting fire with fire!) but Margaret really came through for him with a 1-loser 6-card diamond suit.
Have you discussed this auction?
1 Transfer to hearts
What do double, 2♥ and 2NT show here?
The meaning of double often depends on the strength of the 1NT. If strong, then I think most play it as showing diamonds. If weak, then most (but not all) play it as showing a hand that would have doubled 1NT for penalty.
2NT shows a distributional 2-suiter. Which two suits depends on the meaning of 2♥ - if this shows a takeout double of hearts, then 2NT shows any two suits; but if it is Michaels, as I often play, then 2NT shows the minors.
Well my partner decided that 2♥ was too risky undiscussed and so bid 2NT holding 6-5 in the blacks. We eventually doubled 4♥ for a good score.
So my partner did well on that hand, avoiding a potential misunderstanding in the auction with a well chosen call. That was not the case on the following hand:
Partner opens 1♦, what is your bid?
This is an awkward hand in Acol and SAYC as you have no forcing minor suit raise. A 4-level splinter is not appealing so you are forced into responding 1 ♥.
Unsurprisingly, partner now rebids 2♣. You are still lacking a bid to show support so you have to roll out fourth suit forcing (2♠) and over this partner responds 2NT. Finally you can show some level of support and force with 3 ♦. Now you stand a fair chance of bidding the cold diamond slam.
Not supporting partner and then putting down solid 5-card support, a king in his second suit and an ace is unlikely to endear you to him. Especially when you are playing inverted minor suit raises and did have a forcing raise available.
Bridge is a partnership game. Taking unilateral decisions in the auction means that you will be the hero or zero and is not a route to long-term success.
So I say involve partner, and let him take his fair share of the blame.
What is your initial reaction when your right-hand opponent opens a strong bid, say 2♣ showing 8 playing tricks in an unknown suit?
Many club players just think that this is a good time to keep quiet, they have a bad hand and the opposition have the points, why should I bid?
Stronger players think that the way to stop them finding their best contract is to bid aggressively, especially with distributional hands. Our third hand showed the problems that this approach can cause.
|
| West | North | East | South |
| CHO | Mike | Paul | Margaret |
| p | 2♣ | 3♠ | 4♦ |
| p | ? |
6-4 distributions are powerful and I thought 3♠ was the obvious bid at favourable vulnerability. And look at the problem it has created for the opener. The auction is now at the 4-level and he has yet to show his suit. Even more of a problem when I've actually bid it!
As it happened, Mike took a pragmatic view and just punted the notrump slam. This was successful, but forcing the opponents to guess means that you are really winning the war, if not the battle. Others did not bid the slam, but this was more because Mike didn't really have a 2♣ opener in the first placer (he was fighting fire with fire!) but Margaret really came through for him with a 1-loser 6-card diamond suit.
Have you discussed this auction?
| West | North | East | South |
| 1NT | p | 2♦1 | ? |
1 Transfer to hearts
What do double, 2♥ and 2NT show here?
The meaning of double often depends on the strength of the 1NT. If strong, then I think most play it as showing diamonds. If weak, then most (but not all) play it as showing a hand that would have doubled 1NT for penalty.
2NT shows a distributional 2-suiter. Which two suits depends on the meaning of 2♥ - if this shows a takeout double of hearts, then 2NT shows any two suits; but if it is Michaels, as I often play, then 2NT shows the minors.
Well my partner decided that 2♥ was too risky undiscussed and so bid 2NT holding 6-5 in the blacks. We eventually doubled 4♥ for a good score.
So my partner did well on that hand, avoiding a potential misunderstanding in the auction with a well chosen call. That was not the case on the following hand:
|
Partner opens 1♦, what is your bid?
This is an awkward hand in Acol and SAYC as you have no forcing minor suit raise. A 4-level splinter is not appealing so you are forced into responding 1 ♥.
Unsurprisingly, partner now rebids 2♣. You are still lacking a bid to show support so you have to roll out fourth suit forcing (2♠) and over this partner responds 2NT. Finally you can show some level of support and force with 3 ♦. Now you stand a fair chance of bidding the cold diamond slam.
Not supporting partner and then putting down solid 5-card support, a king in his second suit and an ace is unlikely to endear you to him. Especially when you are playing inverted minor suit raises and did have a forcing raise available.
Bridge is a partnership game. Taking unilateral decisions in the auction means that you will be the hero or zero and is not a route to long-term success.
So I say involve partner, and let him take his fair share of the blame.
Thursday, 1 January 2009
Pet peeves
Happy New Year!
Judy Kay-Wolff's blog is often worth a read. Currently she is blogging about some of Bobby's hang-ups, but which she means bidding or defensive conventions that he feels helps the opposition more than the users.
One of them is the lead of the jack denying a higher honour, often known as 'jack denies, ten implies'. I commented on this and received a thoughtful and interesting reply from Bobby. You can see all the comments on this post.
My pet peeve, with Scottish bridge, is the insistence on giving count signals all the time. I'm sure that most players do not realise how much information they are giving to a declarer who is watching when, most of the time, their partner does not really need to know.
To be fair, a number of the Berwick players have started to randomise their cards when playing against me now that I have pointed it out. This can only be a good thing in my opinion.
Judy Kay-Wolff's blog is often worth a read. Currently she is blogging about some of Bobby's hang-ups, but which she means bidding or defensive conventions that he feels helps the opposition more than the users.
One of them is the lead of the jack denying a higher honour, often known as 'jack denies, ten implies'. I commented on this and received a thoughtful and interesting reply from Bobby. You can see all the comments on this post.
My pet peeve, with Scottish bridge, is the insistence on giving count signals all the time. I'm sure that most players do not realise how much information they are giving to a declarer who is watching when, most of the time, their partner does not really need to know.
To be fair, a number of the Berwick players have started to randomise their cards when playing against me now that I have pointed it out. This can only be a good thing in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)