Some days it is just not worth getting up. Solid rain for two days has turned our local river into a raging torrent complete with waterfalls off the fields. When it brightens up it means that the rain has turned to sleet and walking the dogs is no fun for anyone.
So perhaps it was naïve to expect that this was the time to be sitting indoors playing an online match. Our captain called off at the last minute, well actually it was after the last minute, and it was only thanks to Diana that we could play at all.
Alex and I started by misdefending a pretty simple game and followed it up by not finding the lead to beat 3NT. Then we bid a good game, that they passed out at the 1-level in the other room, only to find the trumps 5-0 and got doubled into the bargain. On the penultimate board we played in 3NT instead of the 5-3 major fit and naturally this was wrong.
And then you had to bid this hand?
Anyone who passes has the right idea!
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Tightening up
George and Brian took another 2% out of our lead last night in the club pairs, so with two more evenings it looks like it is going right down to the wire.
With 7½ tables we only played 21 boards so any mistake is costly, and we made a couple. We were also sitting in the opposite direction to George and Brian, so any good score would help them too. When we played them there were three flat boards but they had the cards and so they scored 60% on these boards - the vagary of playing matchpoints in a small field, swap the cards around and we take 2% from them!
The boards were largely unexciting. There were rumours of a misboarding at one point, as a pair noticed that 2♣ had been played twice by a hand containing a single club when their partner held six; but in both cases they had overcalled 1NT with 2♣ to show both majors and found that their partner preferred not to bid.
I'm not sure that I played this contract well, but it seemed to be effective as I was the only one to make 1NT:
Teams next week, so the battle will recommence in two weeks time.
With 7½ tables we only played 21 boards so any mistake is costly, and we made a couple. We were also sitting in the opposite direction to George and Brian, so any good score would help them too. When we played them there were three flat boards but they had the cards and so they scored 60% on these boards - the vagary of playing matchpoints in a small field, swap the cards around and we take 2% from them!
The boards were largely unexciting. There were rumours of a misboarding at one point, as a pair noticed that 2♣ had been played twice by a hand containing a single club when their partner held six; but in both cases they had overcalled 1NT with 2♣ to show both majors and found that their partner preferred not to bid.
I'm not sure that I played this contract well, but it seemed to be effective as I was the only one to make 1NT:
Teams next week, so the battle will recommence in two weeks time.
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
The cost of conventions
In this month's SBU News, BBO-er tecinaj writes about the cost of playing complex conventions - specifically the memory load. How many times do you have to forget that you are playing a convention before the losses exceed the gains over its lifetime? Her example was a Roman Keycard Blackwood mistake and these are almost always expensive.
Our friends found another way to make an expensive conventional mistake - forgetting who you are playing with. Generally this is more of an online error, as normally you can see your partner and you will remember whether you play Michaels Cue Bids or Ghestem with them. On BBO, it is much easier to forget. Of course they are in good company - I think it was Garozzo who had a similar problem once, playing with screens, and he forgot which partner was on the other side!
So LotG plays a simple system with few gadgets: 2/1 with a short 1♣, Strong Twos, intermediate/strong 1NT, forcing 1NT response to one of a major, inverted club raises, fourth suit game forcing, Stayman, Blackwood, jump fits in competition, Landy defence to 1NT, most doubles are take-out, cue bids in competition show support, carding mostly attitude. And that is it. Nothing else. No Michaels, Unusual Notrump, transfers, Puppet, support doubles, Lebensohl, checkback, Jacoby 2NT, RKCB, etc.
And she doesn't really miss any of it. The advantage of a simple system is that you rarely forget it. It also really helps to develop bidding judgement and allows you to expend more energy playing and defending contracts.
Having said all this, it is probably time to consider some minor tweaks. Playing a cue bid of the opponent's opener bid as a very strong hand has only come up once or twice, and neither of us know how to continue the auction. The cost of changing this and playing some Michaels variant is very low - the 'natural', or more precisely the 1940s use of the bid, is very rare and is not producing good results even when it does come up. The cue bid is an alarm-clock bid - your first thought is not, "that's a natural bid", and so you are unlikely to forget it.
I play a Ghestem variant with Alex, where we can show all three two-suited hands. But I think we can do without the problem of having a conventional 3♣ overcall so we'll probably settle on it showing the higher two suits. I prefer showing specific two suiters and we'll just have to make a simple overcall on the other hands.
My view is that the bid show guarantee 5-5 in the two suits. In terms of points, I think it can be any range when non-vulnerable and intermediate or better when vulnerable. Distribution is more important than the high-card values - good hands just have to bid again or double to show extra values.
We'll see if I can convince LotG to implement this for next season.
Our friends found another way to make an expensive conventional mistake - forgetting who you are playing with. Generally this is more of an online error, as normally you can see your partner and you will remember whether you play Michaels Cue Bids or Ghestem with them. On BBO, it is much easier to forget. Of course they are in good company - I think it was Garozzo who had a similar problem once, playing with screens, and he forgot which partner was on the other side!
So LotG plays a simple system with few gadgets: 2/1 with a short 1♣, Strong Twos, intermediate/strong 1NT, forcing 1NT response to one of a major, inverted club raises, fourth suit game forcing, Stayman, Blackwood, jump fits in competition, Landy defence to 1NT, most doubles are take-out, cue bids in competition show support, carding mostly attitude. And that is it. Nothing else. No Michaels, Unusual Notrump, transfers, Puppet, support doubles, Lebensohl, checkback, Jacoby 2NT, RKCB, etc.
And she doesn't really miss any of it. The advantage of a simple system is that you rarely forget it. It also really helps to develop bidding judgement and allows you to expend more energy playing and defending contracts.
Having said all this, it is probably time to consider some minor tweaks. Playing a cue bid of the opponent's opener bid as a very strong hand has only come up once or twice, and neither of us know how to continue the auction. The cost of changing this and playing some Michaels variant is very low - the 'natural', or more precisely the 1940s use of the bid, is very rare and is not producing good results even when it does come up. The cue bid is an alarm-clock bid - your first thought is not, "that's a natural bid", and so you are unlikely to forget it.
I play a Ghestem variant with Alex, where we can show all three two-suited hands. But I think we can do without the problem of having a conventional 3♣ overcall so we'll probably settle on it showing the higher two suits. I prefer showing specific two suiters and we'll just have to make a simple overcall on the other hands.
My view is that the bid show guarantee 5-5 in the two suits. In terms of points, I think it can be any range when non-vulnerable and intermediate or better when vulnerable. Distribution is more important than the high-card values - good hands just have to bid again or double to show extra values.
We'll see if I can convince LotG to implement this for next season.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Convention abuse
I made an elementary error last night.
Transfers are played by practically everyone (except LotG as it happens). And in the modern game they are finding their way into more and more auctions.
There are many reasons to play transfers. The oft-stated reason is to let the stronger hand play the contract, although as Scottish standard is a weak one notrump that is not much of an argument up here.
I believe it is because it gives you more room, space to describe your hand better, that is the principal reason that we play transfers. You can express more hands safely. For example, opposite 1NT, you can show a 5-card major and invite with 2NT, something that you could not do with simple Stayman and no transfers.
Naturally there is a cost, often a natural bid in a minor has to be sacrificed, but time has shown that the benefits outweigh the potential loss - the minors are so abused in today's game that I sometimes think that they'll abandon bridge for canasta or something!
There is another reason to play transfers. You can put the strong hand on lead. Or, as in the case above, you should forgo the transfer and bid 4♥ directly. I forgot that the benefit of having the stronger hand play the contract was worth little when a spade could be led through my hand. Whether Jon (mugsmate) had one or two spades, the contract was doomed.
The only benefit of transferring would be when the spades were 6-0, far less likely than the combined 4-2 and 5-1 breaks.
Luckily just a friendly game so no real damage, but it shows you should think before deploying your conventional toys.
Transfers are played by practically everyone (except LotG as it happens). And in the modern game they are finding their way into more and more auctions.
There are many reasons to play transfers. The oft-stated reason is to let the stronger hand play the contract, although as Scottish standard is a weak one notrump that is not much of an argument up here.
I believe it is because it gives you more room, space to describe your hand better, that is the principal reason that we play transfers. You can express more hands safely. For example, opposite 1NT, you can show a 5-card major and invite with 2NT, something that you could not do with simple Stayman and no transfers.
Naturally there is a cost, often a natural bid in a minor has to be sacrificed, but time has shown that the benefits outweigh the potential loss - the minors are so abused in today's game that I sometimes think that they'll abandon bridge for canasta or something!
[1♥ showed 10-15 points and 4+ spades, EW were playing Submarine Club]
The only benefit of transferring would be when the spades were 6-0, far less likely than the combined 4-2 and 5-1 breaks.
Luckily just a friendly game so no real damage, but it shows you should think before deploying your conventional toys.
Friday, 26 March 2010
Pick-up problem
Agreeing a system for an 8-board BBO match is necessary but it may not be sufficient. Have you discussed what calls means after:
(2♦1) 2NT (Dbl) ?
1Multi, weak two in a major or 19-20 balanced
We discovered that we had very different ideas about the meaning of 3♠ and the bill was 1400. Luckily we were already losing!
(2♦1) 2NT (Dbl) ?
1Multi, weak two in a major or 19-20 balanced
We discovered that we had very different ideas about the meaning of 3♠ and the bill was 1400. Luckily we were already losing!
Thursday, 25 March 2010
A quiet affair
Perhaps not in the same league as Manchester United versus City, Celtic v Rangers or Liverpool v Everton, last night was the 'local' derby of Scotland v Wales in the BBO InterCity League.
Speaking to Mark, Camrose player and Wales captain, beforehand it seems like his team was up for the match and they all wanted to play. For a change he actually had to make captaincy decisions! Our team was more attuned with Internet bridge - everyone dropped out and we were left with just four standing.
It is not unusual for me to be the only non-international in our team, but this time I was the only player in the match not to have played for his or her country. My partner was Stuart, Under-21 international and easily (perhaps too easily) the youngest at the tables.
We lost the match 26:18 IMPs for a 13-17 VP loss. As the score suggests it was a quiet match. We misdefended a partscore early on, but it was the BBO 'Star' players who were responsible for most of the swings (losses) and Stuart and I had a fair game.
Stuart judged the following hand well (although I should really ask what the 2♣ meant!):
In the other room Pete raised spades immediately, perhaps due to his ruffing values. This convinced Kath to make a game try, although I'm not sure that it should, and they were soon two down in 4♠.
With three teams from our group into the knock-out stages, both teams remain on course to qualify.
Speaking to Mark, Camrose player and Wales captain, beforehand it seems like his team was up for the match and they all wanted to play. For a change he actually had to make captaincy decisions! Our team was more attuned with Internet bridge - everyone dropped out and we were left with just four standing.
It is not unusual for me to be the only non-international in our team, but this time I was the only player in the match not to have played for his or her country. My partner was Stuart, Under-21 international and easily (perhaps too easily) the youngest at the tables.
We lost the match 26:18 IMPs for a 13-17 VP loss. As the score suggests it was a quiet match. We misdefended a partscore early on, but it was the BBO 'Star' players who were responsible for most of the swings (losses) and Stuart and I had a fair game.
Stuart judged the following hand well (although I should really ask what the 2♣ meant!):
In the other room Pete raised spades immediately, perhaps due to his ruffing values. This convinced Kath to make a game try, although I'm not sure that it should, and they were soon two down in 4♠.
With three teams from our group into the knock-out stages, both teams remain on course to qualify.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Farquharson Trophy again
Jenny and I both firmly denied playing in this event last year, but the fact that I did a blog entry does support the case that we are both getting old and senile.
Only eleven tables this year. I thought we played better so naturally we scored worse. A couple of self-inflicted wounds were combined with a lack of field protection on some mundane hands, so our final score of 55% was only sufficient for sixth place, more than two tops behind the winners Anne and Brian.
Continuing the theme of the previous post, we had another of those 'full of nuances' auctions in the first half:
The first question is my rebid: I am pretty good for a simple 2♦ but the alternative of 2NT looks a bit much with such empty suits, especially at matchpoints. Jenny's 2♥ bid very much builds on the previous post - a delayed raise like this must show 1=3=5=4 with values that were too good for an immediate raise. It is non-forcing but with my concealed values I was now looking for the best game.
I tried 2♠ to try and get a clue. With HHx in hearts I think Jenny should probably bid 3♥ and then we'll play in the better heart game, but over 3♦ I just punted the notrump game. To be fair to Jenny this is not an auction I've seen before and the choice of 3♥ is more obvious when you spend time thinking about these auctions afterwards. Both games made but we still scored 14/18 matchpoints for +600 as only one pair played in hearts, which made despite a 4-2 trump break.
It's a shame that more SBU News subscribers do not play in the competition, as it is one of the friendlier one-day events. Sign up and come along next year!
Only eleven tables this year. I thought we played better so naturally we scored worse. A couple of self-inflicted wounds were combined with a lack of field protection on some mundane hands, so our final score of 55% was only sufficient for sixth place, more than two tops behind the winners Anne and Brian.
Continuing the theme of the previous post, we had another of those 'full of nuances' auctions in the first half:
I tried 2♠ to try and get a clue. With HHx in hearts I think Jenny should probably bid 3♥ and then we'll play in the better heart game, but over 3♦ I just punted the notrump game. To be fair to Jenny this is not an auction I've seen before and the choice of 3♥ is more obvious when you spend time thinking about these auctions afterwards. Both games made but we still scored 14/18 matchpoints for +600 as only one pair played in hearts, which made despite a 4-2 trump break.
It's a shame that more SBU News subscribers do not play in the competition, as it is one of the friendlier one-day events. Sign up and come along next year!
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Much ado about nothing
No, not the latest controversy over selection! Rather a 2 IMPs win in the InterCity League that translated to a 15-15 VP draw.
I played with Miro and there was a new international partnership at the other table - Seniors Camrose veteran Harry playing with recent Peggy Bayer (U21) winner Stuart. I'm not sure if they've ever met, but probably better if they hadn't otherwise Stuart may have been more concerned at partnering someone who can often bid more like a junior than he does!
As it happened, it proved to be an unexciting match that was dominated by some lacklustre bridge. Stuart played fine and it was his more experienced team mates that made the errors, mainly due to playing too fast, that cost us a decent win.
Next week a more local affair as we take on Wales United. I'm sure that's an oxymoron.
I played with Miro and there was a new international partnership at the other table - Seniors Camrose veteran Harry playing with recent Peggy Bayer (U21) winner Stuart. I'm not sure if they've ever met, but probably better if they hadn't otherwise Stuart may have been more concerned at partnering someone who can often bid more like a junior than he does!
As it happened, it proved to be an unexciting match that was dominated by some lacklustre bridge. Stuart played fine and it was his more experienced team mates that made the errors, mainly due to playing too fast, that cost us a decent win.
Next week a more local affair as we take on Wales United. I'm sure that's an oxymoron.
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Ping!
The sound of our winning run in the club pairs championship coming to an end. We could only manage a second place last night, half a top behind Brian and George. We maintain a reduced lead in the event but with three rounds to go it is still wide open.
Amongst the carnage of a normal club night, there is still a sense of satisfaction when you show good judgement and do the right thing for the right reasons, and even better when you are rewarded for it. We were the only pair to find the par contract on this deal:
We play a simple 2/1 system with practically no gadgets but, like many Europeans, we open balanced hands with 1♣ when they are outside our 1NT range. Even such a basic system delivers a lot of subtle inferences in this auction - does yours?
So the 1♦ opener shows 4+ diamonds and an unbalanced hand (otherwise 1♣). If it is only 4 diamonds, then the hand will be 4441 distribution with a black suit singleton (as we'd open 1♣ with 4=1=4=4).
We do not play inverted diamond raises, but even if we did I feel that 1♠ is the best response. With my holdings in the rounded suits I want to play the hand and a forcing diamond raise could let partner bid spades first. We are also playing matchpoints, so finding a spade game is much more attractive than playing in 5♦.
LotG's 2♠ call can be made on a variety of hands. She may hold a minimal 4=4=4=1 or 4=2=5=2. We do raise freely with 3-card support, so 3451 and 3154 distributions are also possible and perhaps even 3x6x. She cannot have 3-card support with 5 diamonds without a singleton, as that hand would have been treated as balanced and opened 1♣.
As an aside, note that this gives us a lot of definition for other rebids. A 1NT rebid would be weak, showing either a singleton spade (1=4=4=4 or 1=4=5=3 or, rarely, 1=3=5=4) or six diamonds with a doubleton spade (more likely to rebid 2♦ with a singleton spade and six diamonds). A 2♣ rebid would deny a weak hand with 3 spades but may be a stronger 3=1=5=4 distribution that plans to support spades with the next bid.
Back to the hand. From my view, slam is unlikely opposite a minimum raise. If LotG has 4-card spade support, then I want to play in the spade game. If she has 3-card support, then there is shortage opposite one of my doubletons and 3NT does not look a good spot. With fair spades and the lead coming up to my short-suit honours, even the 4-3 (aka Moysian) fit looks like it will score better as I would need to make two more tricks in diamonds to beat it. This seemed unlikely, so I jumped to the spade game.
The lead was the ♦J to the queen and ace. Failing to play me for five diamonds led to a trump return and I was able to make the rest when I found the ♥Q for a complete top. Even if the defence finds the diamond ruff and the ace of clubs, we were still getting all the matchpoints as most of the field was making 5♦ except for the brave souls who tried 3NT and found that six tricks were the limit!
Amongst the carnage of a normal club night, there is still a sense of satisfaction when you show good judgement and do the right thing for the right reasons, and even better when you are rewarded for it. We were the only pair to find the par contract on this deal:
So the 1♦ opener shows 4+ diamonds and an unbalanced hand (otherwise 1♣). If it is only 4 diamonds, then the hand will be 4441 distribution with a black suit singleton (as we'd open 1♣ with 4=1=4=4).
We do not play inverted diamond raises, but even if we did I feel that 1♠ is the best response. With my holdings in the rounded suits I want to play the hand and a forcing diamond raise could let partner bid spades first. We are also playing matchpoints, so finding a spade game is much more attractive than playing in 5♦.
LotG's 2♠ call can be made on a variety of hands. She may hold a minimal 4=4=4=1 or 4=2=5=2. We do raise freely with 3-card support, so 3451 and 3154 distributions are also possible and perhaps even 3x6x. She cannot have 3-card support with 5 diamonds without a singleton, as that hand would have been treated as balanced and opened 1♣.
As an aside, note that this gives us a lot of definition for other rebids. A 1NT rebid would be weak, showing either a singleton spade (1=4=4=4 or 1=4=5=3 or, rarely, 1=3=5=4) or six diamonds with a doubleton spade (more likely to rebid 2♦ with a singleton spade and six diamonds). A 2♣ rebid would deny a weak hand with 3 spades but may be a stronger 3=1=5=4 distribution that plans to support spades with the next bid.
Back to the hand. From my view, slam is unlikely opposite a minimum raise. If LotG has 4-card spade support, then I want to play in the spade game. If she has 3-card support, then there is shortage opposite one of my doubletons and 3NT does not look a good spot. With fair spades and the lead coming up to my short-suit honours, even the 4-3 (aka Moysian) fit looks like it will score better as I would need to make two more tricks in diamonds to beat it. This seemed unlikely, so I jumped to the spade game.
The lead was the ♦J to the queen and ace. Failing to play me for five diamonds led to a trump return and I was able to make the rest when I found the ♥Q for a complete top. Even if the defence finds the diamond ruff and the ace of clubs, we were still getting all the matchpoints as most of the field was making 5♦ except for the brave souls who tried 3NT and found that six tricks were the limit!
Thursday, 11 March 2010
New online season
The BBO ICL League has restarted. We are in a round-robin group of eight teams and last night was the first set of matches.
Although everyone from last year's team said they wanted to play, almost all were unavailable for last night's match so Sandy and I spent a couple of days trying to find another pair. Eventually we found Mike and Ian: I've never met Mike as he lives in the US and only recently met Ian as he returned from working in the Far East. I played with Sandy for the first time, although as he now plays with Miro we did have a common understanding of the system.
We proved too powerful for our friendly opponents as we won comfortably, 77-0 IMPs over the 16 boards. Looking at the other results in our group the smallest win was 55 IMPs, so it does appear that there are four strong teams in our group who will fight it out for the top places.
The following hand is not difficult, but it would be nice to make it when diamonds are 4-2 and hearts are 4-1. For this you need to time the play correctly.
Click the Next button to step through my line.
Future matches on BBO over the next few Wednesdays, starting at 1945 (UK time).
Although everyone from last year's team said they wanted to play, almost all were unavailable for last night's match so Sandy and I spent a couple of days trying to find another pair. Eventually we found Mike and Ian: I've never met Mike as he lives in the US and only recently met Ian as he returned from working in the Far East. I played with Sandy for the first time, although as he now plays with Miro we did have a common understanding of the system.
We proved too powerful for our friendly opponents as we won comfortably, 77-0 IMPs over the 16 boards. Looking at the other results in our group the smallest win was 55 IMPs, so it does appear that there are four strong teams in our group who will fight it out for the top places.
The following hand is not difficult, but it would be nice to make it when diamonds are 4-2 and hearts are 4-1. For this you need to time the play correctly.
Click the Next button to step through my line.
Future matches on BBO over the next few Wednesdays, starting at 1945 (UK time).
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
One hundred to spare
To get a 'full' win in the league, you have to beat your opponents by more than 2% of the total aggregate score. So last night's +670 was worth 2.34%, exactly 100 points to the good from our perspective. A little galling for the opposition though, who only needed a losing draw to ensure their Division 1 status, so they will have to rely on their final match.
There were a number of hands that I thought were interesting. Firstly, are you worth a slam try?
Then there was an interesting play problem, perhaps more so for the pair that bid to 4NT rather than the 3NT we were in:
North leads the ♠5. What is your line?
Miro and I had a good game against Troy and Anthony. The aggregate at our table represented 30% of the total, suggesting that we were both bidding and making more games than the other three tables. As Miro and I only let one game make, generally I think this is an indication of a reasonable level of play by both pairs.
Update: our opponents, the Grosvenor Aces, duly had a 'massive win' in their final match to secure their position in the top league.
There were a number of hands that I thought were interesting. Firstly, are you worth a slam try?
North leads the ♠5. What is your line?
Miro and I had a good game against Troy and Anthony. The aggregate at our table represented 30% of the total, suggesting that we were both bidding and making more games than the other three tables. As Miro and I only let one game make, generally I think this is an indication of a reasonable level of play by both pairs.
Update: our opponents, the Grosvenor Aces, duly had a 'massive win' in their final match to secure their position in the top league.
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Camrose result
| First weekend | Second weekend | Total | |
| England | 99 | 97 | 196 |
| Ireland | 100 | 82 | 182 |
| Wales | 78 | 89 | 167 |
| Scotland | 72 | 78 | 150 |
| Northern Ireland | 57 | 57 | 114 |
| NIBU | 40 | 43 | 83 |
Thursday, 4 March 2010
A select few
We have finished with selecting for this season, with the final appointments made this evening.
Now we can get on with trying to make our teams as successful as we can. And think about next season, and the season after that. If we are not dismissed. Or ridiculed. Or whatever.
First up is the second Camrose weekend from Belfast, starting tomorrow (Friday) evening. I have written elsewhere that you can never satisfy everyone, but I hope that the vast majority feel that we have our strongest team playing. Good luck to Dave, Brian, John, Brian, Iain and John and their NPC, Mike.
Follow the action live on BBO.
Now we can get on with trying to make our teams as successful as we can. And think about next season, and the season after that. If we are not dismissed. Or ridiculed. Or whatever.
First up is the second Camrose weekend from Belfast, starting tomorrow (Friday) evening. I have written elsewhere that you can never satisfy everyone, but I hope that the vast majority feel that we have our strongest team playing. Good luck to Dave, Brian, John, Brian, Iain and John and their NPC, Mike.
Follow the action live on BBO.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Making it hard for ourselves
The club teams has developed into a two-horse race, and we are a furlong behind. Reg, Malcolm, George and Brian have won three evenings to our solitary one, but if we win the last two we would still win the trophy on countback (as our seventh result would be better than theirs).
This is the situation that has developed after they won last night, scoring 101/140 VPs. As we beat them 14-6 VPs, I guess they won the rest of the matches very comfortably while we could only muster a total of 91 VPs for second place. Looking through our card there was little scope to really do much better - just a matter of which boards you played, and who you played them against.
One decision was interesting (at least I thought so):
Ros will be away for the next evening, so we'll be relying on our super-sub to bring home the win!
This is the situation that has developed after they won last night, scoring 101/140 VPs. As we beat them 14-6 VPs, I guess they won the rest of the matches very comfortably while we could only muster a total of 91 VPs for second place. Looking through our card there was little scope to really do much better - just a matter of which boards you played, and who you played them against.
One decision was interesting (at least I thought so):
Ros will be away for the next evening, so we'll be relying on our super-sub to bring home the win!
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Back in the saddle
After a disappointing result at the weekend, it was straight back to the table for a relegation league match.
It was a case of déjà vu. As we finished, about +1,500 on the night, we met Christine and Carolyn. Once again there were positive too, despite sitting in the opposite direction. This time though our team mates were even better than us and we had a huge win. Merchiston are now safe from relegation, looking good for a sound mid-table performance and two wins in the final matches would mean a top four finish.
We would have been better if I had played this contract with a little more thought.
After JP's deceptive lead of the ♦4, systemically fourth-best, I misread the hand (playing John for 0445) and went one down. At least I led the first spade from dummy unlike one poor unfortunate declarer who found that leading the ♠K from hand was a quick way to lose a lot of tricks.
Both pairs did well on the next hand, finding the par contract.
I had to improvise a little as I thought my hand was far too strong for a normal mixed raise, so with the favourable vulnerability decided to add a trump. It probably did not matter given Miro's 6-4 distribution, but one down was a good score against their making club game. Of course, you'd hope that this would be flat, but it rarely is.
It was a case of déjà vu. As we finished, about +1,500 on the night, we met Christine and Carolyn. Once again there were positive too, despite sitting in the opposite direction. This time though our team mates were even better than us and we had a huge win. Merchiston are now safe from relegation, looking good for a sound mid-table performance and two wins in the final matches would mean a top four finish.
We would have been better if I had played this contract with a little more thought.
After JP's deceptive lead of the ♦4, systemically fourth-best, I misread the hand (playing John for 0445) and went one down. At least I led the first spade from dummy unlike one poor unfortunate declarer who found that leading the ♠K from hand was a quick way to lose a lot of tricks.
Both pairs did well on the next hand, finding the par contract.
I had to improvise a little as I thought my hand was far too strong for a normal mixed raise, so with the favourable vulnerability decided to add a trump. It probably did not matter given Miro's 6-4 distribution, but one down was a good score against their making club game. Of course, you'd hope that this would be flat, but it rarely is.
Monday, 1 March 2010
Tripped at the first
It was actually the second round of the Gold Cup, but the first match for us and Clive Owen's North-East team. They often seem to get dragged into the Scottish side of the draw, presumably as there were an odd number of Scottish team, they are a north-eastern team and so are 'close' to Scotland, plus they have a Scottish pair so are halfway there anyhow.
Probably fair to say that both of us would have hoped for an easier draw and it proved to be a close affair. We built a small lead but lost most of it in the fourth set to lead by 1 IMP after 32 IMPs. But they scored 26 IMPs in the next set and we could only recover 10 IMPs in the final eight boards to go out.
Anne and Sheila played well, with Alex and I being responsible for the three double-imp losses. On one, Alex took the losing but best line in a different, reasonable, game contract; on the second I pushed for slam and found the five-level was not safe; and on the third we had a small bidding misunderstanding and bid the worst game of many bad games, but our opponents found a less worse one. As I said, it was pretty close throughout.
We'll now go into the Scottish Plate, if anyone has entered. Owen gets to play Piper's team, another tough draw as it tends to be up here.
Probably fair to say that both of us would have hoped for an easier draw and it proved to be a close affair. We built a small lead but lost most of it in the fourth set to lead by 1 IMP after 32 IMPs. But they scored 26 IMPs in the next set and we could only recover 10 IMPs in the final eight boards to go out.
Anne and Sheila played well, with Alex and I being responsible for the three double-imp losses. On one, Alex took the losing but best line in a different, reasonable, game contract; on the second I pushed for slam and found the five-level was not safe; and on the third we had a small bidding misunderstanding and bid the worst game of many bad games, but our opponents found a less worse one. As I said, it was pretty close throughout.
We'll now go into the Scottish Plate, if anyone has entered. Owen gets to play Piper's team, another tough draw as it tends to be up here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)