Interesting 3NT

I watched this hand on BBO yesterday and thought it was quite interesting.

Click the Next button to see that West leads the ♦5 (4th from good, second from xxx/xxxx) and we win in hand.

We can count eight tricks, with two spades, one heart, two diamonds and three clubs, but this may involve losing the lead twice. Entries are also a concern, as we are in hand now but with only one guaranteed entry left.

What are our options?

If spades are 3-3, then we could play three rounds of the suit. This would generate an additional two winners but would lose the lead in the process. If would also bring our total to 8 tricks and we still need to establish a second club trick. Establishing the club trick would have to be done first because of the entry situation.

A second option is just to play on clubs and try for a fourth trick. This would need West to hold ♣K or ♣Kx, or ♣Kxx and East to hold the ♥K as we'll need an additional entry.

A third option is to play on hearts. This suit combination is one where the best line for four tricks is not an intuitive one - an exercise for the reader is to work out what the best line is! However, is the best line right here? Using tools, such as SuitPlay, give answers that presume unlimited entries, which is not the case here.

And we need to consider the dangers. If diamonds are 4-4, then we will lose two diamonds but have good chances if we play the right suit. If diamonds are 6-2, especially possible when the opposition do not play a weak 2♦, then we need a line that takes out West's entry first. And if diamonds are 5-3, then we probably do not have a chance unless West holds the ♣K or we can establish sufficient tricks without a second club trick.

What do you fancy?

More thoughts on this next year.

Update: this thread on the BBO Forums shows the thoughts of the forum regulars and illustrates the main lines.

Night on the tiles

LotG featured in the BBC1 programme, Imagine, yesterday. Scrabble: A Night on the Tiles was an excellent documentary on the game.

UK readers can see the programme on the BBC iPlayer for the next seven days. LotG appears after 32:30, when she demolishes Alan Yentob on word knowledge, meanings and anagrams, and then is featured throughout the rest of the programme.

Poncho also gets in on the action too.

Pivoting

Time for the Atholl Cup, the East District's Pivot Teams Championship. In the first round we would play JP's team and our captain showed his confidence by disappearing to Australia for a month. So Stephen stepping into the breach.

"I'd like to keep it really simple", said Dee as we discussed a system just before play. "So just weak-only Multi, Muiderberg Twos, inverted minors, etc." is apparently the definition of simple.

With snow making travel more difficult for the more remote of us, we started a little late but we were soon motoring along, helped by this hand:

Sam and Stephen bid confidently to 7♣ with no interference (at least they said that, they haven't shared their auction!), but I think our actions meant that it was almost impossible to bid the grand slam confidently although you'd hope to be in six. 17 IMPs to the good guys and a significant part of the 51-0 IMPs blitz in the first set.

The change of line ups did not seem to affect us as we won the second set 30-4 IMPs, so I was a little surprised that we were forced to play the final ten boards especially with the poor weather. We lost this meaningless set by 24-33 IMPs and will meet the holders (or at least some of them) in the quarter-final.

I thought Stephen played well, so the captain will need to decide who to drop!

Squeaking through

A late change to the InterCity League resulted in an extra knockout stage, the round of 16, and so more qualifiers of whom we were one. With Alex at 39,000 feet with Virgin Atlantic I was not playing and so Miro/Sandy and Anne/Sheila played a team that contained some of Miro's old friends.

It was always a tight affair. We got the two big swings in the first half when Sheila found the killing lead to beat a game (12 IMPs) and then a light opening bid propelled Miro into game and he found the line to make it (10 IMPs). But with the part scores swings going in the other direction we finished the set with a 4 IMP lead.

The start of the second half was tough and neither pair coped with this powerful misfit on the second board:

Sheila and Anne will have been a little surprised to gain 2 IMPs (against 6NT down two) but it is a very tough hand to bid.

There were three big swings. On the first board Anne/Sheila chose the wrong game, the opponents missed game (while Miro made ten tricks in 3NT doubled), and then Anne/Sheila let the opponents double them in 5♦ (played safely for 11) while Miro/Sandy doubled 6♦ and found they could not beat it.

All this meant that we were 2 IMPs ahead when the final deal hit the table. Miro and Sandy had played this hand in 3♥, going down two vulnerable, so the match could not be tied. If the opponents had stopped in 2♥ then they would have won, but they bid all the way to game and when Anne/Sheila held them to the same seven tricks we were through by 5 IMPs. Phew!

The quarter-final is in early January and we play Happy City, a team featuring Garozzo and De Falco. Should be fun!

When it looks hopeless ...

LotG had overcome most of her jet lag by the time we sat down for the next round of the club pairs championship. And she managed to stay awake enough for us to win with 64%, well clear of the field.

Following some exuberant bidding, LotG had a difficult contract to play:

After this auction it is not silly to lead a trump even though the ♠K would lead to a swift defeat. LotG read the lead and then played for everything to lie well, as indeed it does. Even if North does not rise on the heart lead, a simple finesse for the ♥10 will do the job.

One aspect of LotG's game that others, at the club and elsewhere, would do well to copy is planning of the play before calling for a card from dummy. It is noticeable that she does this as a matter of course ... or was she just asleep?

I think it's Sunday ... must be teams then

The annual Gold Cup Congress at Peebles. No snow but freezing fog. "I'm just going out for a stroll ... or perhaps I'll wait for a while" seemed to be heard everywhere.

Our quartet was intact from last year and I played with Sam in the pairs and Jenny in the teams, with Sam and Tim at the other table.

LotG's imminent return from Malaysia meant that I missed the Friday afternoon teams, Stephen filling in to collect 4th place. I drove home late on Friday night, did the airport run first thing on Saturday morning, drove back to Peebles and then ate and drank played for two days.

The frustrating aspect to all this was not the driving, or missing an afternoon's bridge. No, it was not seeing Sime beat de Botton in the Gold Cup quarter-final. An truly excellent result for a 4-man team against most people's favourites for the event. Unfortunately they would lose in the semifinal to the Collins team: it was close but IMPs seemed to dribble away consistently throughout the match and efforts to get them back in the final two sets worked initially but (unsurprisingly) could not be maintained. I deduce all this from the set scores so I could have it completely wrong!

In the first session of teams on Friday evening the trend for the weekend was set. We won our first two matches narrowly, principally because our opponents perpetrated some horror on us but we did enough elsewhere to win, then we lost heavily when we did not do enough and played poorly, and then we'd crush the unfortunates who had to play us because we were below average.

When it came to the pairs things improved for Sam and I. The field at Peebles is of mixed ability and aspirations: a couple of international pairs, a number of experts - some of them playing together - and a lot of people who are playing the game at a very sociable weekend. Although I'm probably in the latter category, Sam was very keen to spend the hour before the start trying to drag me up this pecking order and patching many of the holes in our system. Clearly this had a positive effect as we finished 3rd=, our best finish in the event.

To be honest I don't recall us doing anything spectacular at all. I reigned in my more cavalier matchpoints attitude and we just played solidly all day. We were on table 5 for the last round and eked out a 14-6 VPs win, so it was surprising that we jumped up to third. We were well behind second and even a 20-0 win would not have been sufficient to beat them.

On Sunday our roller-coaster ride in the teams continued. Win some, lose some. We lost our final match and so did not feature in the final listings, but somehow we did win some money for being the third-best placed team for those who started Sunday evening in the ballroom.

We attended prize giving and then adjourned to the bar. Our team mates spent most of the time discussing this hand (I think I've remembered it correctly):

Specifically how to bid it of course, after a normal 2♣ - 2♦ (neg) - 2♠ - 3♣ start. What does 3NT now show? What do you bid over 3NT (or alternatively 3♠ if that is what you've chosen)?

I didn't find a pair playing natural methods who were happy with their auction on this hand.

As always it was an enjoyable weekend away from the table, meeting old friends and discussing the hands. Despite my role as selector people were still happy to chat to me!

Finally thanks to Sam and Jenny for putting up with me. Hopefully we'll do the same again next year.

A Selector's Life ... continued

[These are definitely my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Selection Committee or the SBU]

It has been a hectic six months, but we now have a Camrose team and an Open team for the European Team Championships. With no outstanding law suits!

As a Selection Committee we have done our job but I cannot say that it has been a wholly satisfying one. We have not selected, but we have run the trials process within the narrow constraints defined by the SBU Council. Naturally, the Council is a remote body to most and so we get all the flak. People are quick to judge, criticise and vent, but when we ask for help they mostly fall silent – but I would like to thank the dozen people who have responded constructively to our request for comments on the process for next year: there will be feedback shortly.

Looking at the Open trials a number of points are clear:

• Scottish bridge is going through a transition. Many of our top players are now more interested in playing in the Women’s and Seniors teams rather than the Open.
• The Council’s ‘open to all’ policy is extending the trials process for no good reason. I think we need to let the selectors use their discretion in the main trials process.
• The prevailing feeling of the vocal minority – that any Selection Committee is out to pick established favourites and prevent other competitive players from getting a fair chance – is unhelpful and dealing with it is time consuming. Apparently this goes back a decade, but it is time to move on.

The Camrose trials were a close fought affair with little to chose between the top four pairs at the end. I think it is fair to say that two of the four pairs were most people’s favourites and the other two would have been on everyone’s short-list. The trials process did what we hoped it would.

Following the trial, it was disappointing that five of the top eleven pairs were not interested in playing in the European Team Championships next June. Prior to our existence Council had decided on a three team trial – something that I’m sure we shall propose changes to next time – but it provided an exciting test of judgement (choosing your team mates for one) and bridge. In something of a surprise, it was the Ash team (Mike Ash, Alan Goodman, Jim Hay, Frazer Morgan) who prevailed. They completely dominated the weekend and would have won whatever scoring method was used, so fully deserve their place. We asked Douglas Piper and Alex Wilkinson to be the third pair: they were the outstanding pair over the trials.

It is remarkable to see the progression of Jim Hay and Frazer Morgan, from ninth in the Trials Preparation Weekend (TPW) to the European Open team. It is open to question whether this is (a) an endorsement of an open policy, (b) an indictment of SBU bridge, or (c) a disjunctive trials process.

To my mind it is a little of each. There is little doubt that Jim and Frazer have improved immeasurably during the trials process and, in my mind, playing in the TPW was essential to their eventual success. The Selection Committee did not handle the TPW/main trials interface particularly well but I'm pleased to see that it all worked out well in the end. A failure of the process caused primarily by lack of time and something else to be remedied next year.

They then played exceptionally well in the Stage I weekend, but found the Stage II weekend more testing when faced with the stronger (exempted) pairs. Again this is the trials process working as it should. The fact that so few then wanted to play in the European Open is a symptom of an aging playing community and, arguably, the SBU funding arrangements, but Jim and Frazer took full advantage of the opportunity that came their way.

It is interesting to debate, as I’m sure many will, whether the European Open trial process has delivered our best team. Like national football teams, one can speculate but in the end it is the actual results that count – so we'll just have to wait and see

The selectors, most of whom were involved in some capacity at the last European Team Championships in Pau, are firmly of the belief that a team is required for a long World event. Gone are the days where one pair can play most of the matches and be the backbone of the team: rest days are gone and the team has to play three 20-board matches every day, so everyone has to pull their weight. This means that the team must function as a team and being able to get on with your team mates is essential. Just picking the top three pairs often will not deliver this.

Most of our top players have petitioned for team trials for the Camrose. I understand why and, as a competitor, prefer teams myself, but I don’t think it will deliver the results that they always expect. The European play-off highlights this, where the less experienced team demolished everyone in sight. To be honest I don’t find the team argument for Camrose events compelling.

The next challenge for the selectors is the selection of the team for the second Camrose weekend. A quandary is whether we should use the weekend to help the European team prepare, but obviously the performance in the first weekend will have a major impact on our decision.

In the next few weeks we have the Women's and Seniors trials. Numbers are up on last year, which is very encouraging, and I expect that these will run smoothly. As holders of the Seniors Camrose and Lady Milne trophies, I am sure that they will be fiercely competitive.

So what are my highlights to date?

1. Seeing two young players earn places in the European Open team is very encouraging.
2. We are now using screens in all the trials we can. This replicates championship conditions and most pairs actually prefer it.

And the lowlight?

Well, it is a bizarre world. Everyone complains, publicly and privately, about the cost of sending teams overseas. None appear to realise that the cost of sending teams overseas is funded by Bridge Great Britain and the players themselves, the SBU members do not contribute at all. Perhaps if the SBU invested something in its teams then our best players would want to play, we could invest in some coaching, and we could try to improve the competitiveness of our internationalists.

And the statistics for the past six months:

• I have sent 355 emails and received 654 on Selection Committee matters
• We have published the minutes of five meetings
• We have published and revised the Conditions of Contest for six trials
• We have run five weekends of trials, generating three teams
• We have completed a consultation process on the format of next year's Camrose trials

As I said last time, selecting teams is not a great interest of mine. I’d prefer to work on getting them playing at a higher standard. I’m not entirely sure how to do this, but taking an interest in our strongest partnerships, seeing them playing competitively regularly and monitoring progress might be a good starting place. As the selecting is coming to a conclusion, this is an area that we are starting to think about.

Finally, I should thank those who have helped most during the last six months. Anne Perkins, our Secretary, does all the real work and far more than most appreciate. The Tournament Directing team is enormously supportive and donate a lot of time to the trials. Fiona Abbott has been at most of the trials, has given a lot of support in the background, and shown a real interest in developing our international teams - it is largely due to her unflagging support that we have made the progress we have.

So it’s good luck to our Camrose team next month in Edinburgh. As it is important to have a patriotic buzz at the event I hope to see you there!

Missing the boat

As it happened we probably needed to win our last match by 12 IMPs.

I was playing with Sheila and despite one bad board we were winning by a solitary IMP with two boards left. A poor decision and indecisive play by me meant that we lost the match, which turned into a larger margin when the opponents bid a lucky¹ game on the last board.

This was one of the wilder hands:

Sheila had a tough decision over 4♥. The spade length is a negative, but everything else about the hand is positive and I think her 5NT bid is well judged. Unfortunately the opposition also did well in defence.

At the other table, the style of opening 1♥ with my hand showed its downside when they could not get back to diamonds and they also went one down, but in 5♥.

¹a lucky game is the same as a thin game, but it depends on who bids it ... them or us

Yuck!

The penultimate round of the InterCity League is not the time to have a poor game, but that didn't stop Alex and I last night. We bid a slam missing KQJ9x of trumps, missed a game when we thought the other had no points, and finally took an inadequate penalty for a vulnerable game. This explains the 33 IMPs loss.

Anne and Sheila had a solid game against a pair who could do no wrong. We played a pair who made many mistakes but landed on their feet every time, and then we played like 'brain-dead drongos'.

Sorry team!

Taking care

With LotG away, Jean was our team's substitute again in the Scott Cup but this time she had the dubious pleasure of partnering me. She played well and we finished second, a mile behind the winners who had an enormous score.

I thought one hand was a classic intermediate problem:

North leads the ♥2.

Assuming the lead is honest, then you appear to have 2 hearts, 2 clubs and at least 5 spade tricks. There are many dangers on the hand, including 2-0 spade breaks and the diamonds lying badly.

It looks clear to duck the opening lead and hope that North has led away from the ♥K. If not, then you will be able to discard a diamond on the ace of hearts.

But how should you play trumps? If you look at the odds tables, then with two cards missing the king then you should play for the drop. But you should always look at the entire hand - play is rarely about one suit in isolation.

If spades are 1-1, then playing the ♠A will guarantee the contract. If North has both spades, then you are going to need to guess the diamonds. But what if South has both spades?

It certainly looks like finessing the spade is not going to work - if it loses then you are on a diamond guess at best.

But we can do something if South has both spades. Cash the ace of spades, and then cash the winners in hearts and clubs.

Then lead to spade to South's winning ♠K and she is endplayed. You will make the contract independent of the diamond position.

So we make the contract when spades are 1-1 and when South has both spades even though we do not finesse. It is only when North has both spades that we need to play diamonds to advantage.