I have resigned as a selector.
At the AGM last night the SBU membership effectively rejected the SBU Council's new selection policy, wishing instead to retain a decade-old motion permitting the AGM to control the Selection Committee.
Bizarrely it seems that last night's rejection was aided by some members of the SBU Council who ratified the policy last month. Presumably they should be considering their own positions, but perhaps it is just part of a game for them. It's not a game that I have the time or patience for.
I do appreciate that many spoke eloquently on our behalf and there was a lot of support given to us from the floor of the AGM, but it should not have been necessary.
The SBU remains embedded with the petty politics of a decade ago and creates an environment that is no fun to work in. I have zero interest in freely providing such an organisation with my spare time.
I thought we were making progress, but the SBU membership has said that they do not care*
Now I don't either.
*I may have taken journalistic licence too far here to create an impact. There was considerable support at the meeting for the motion and the aims of the selectors, but insufficient to beat the number of proxy votes cast. Do these proxies represent the membership? According to the constitution, they definitely do. I never realised so many people did care and I wonder why their view was so different from the majority at the meeting. But they have spoken.
Things may change at next year's AGM. Or not.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Missed contact
"Les, well done at the weekend, terrific win"
"Thanks ... mumble, mumble, Australia, mumble, mumble ..."
I was only just in time for my outing in the Russell Cup with Anne, so said hi to Les' partner. What I had missed in Les' drawl was that he was playing with Cathy Chua, who is one of the top Australian players and fellow blogger.
She probably wasn't too impressed with her partner as Les' first two efforts resulted in near bottoms but they improved to finish just above us. Anne and I had a good session that was not rewarded, too many boards being in the hands of the opponents where we had nothing to do. The only time I bid in the first six boards was to offer the opponents +800, but it was hard for them to appreciate the problem and I escaped (not that my bid was wrong, just poorly timed).
"Thanks ... mumble, mumble, Australia, mumble, mumble ..."
I was only just in time for my outing in the Russell Cup with Anne, so said hi to Les' partner. What I had missed in Les' drawl was that he was playing with Cathy Chua, who is one of the top Australian players and fellow blogger.
She probably wasn't too impressed with her partner as Les' first two efforts resulted in near bottoms but they improved to finish just above us. Anne and I had a good session that was not rewarded, too many boards being in the hands of the opponents where we had nothing to do. The only time I bid in the first six boards was to offer the opponents +800, but it was hard for them to appreciate the problem and I escaped (not that my bid was wrong, just poorly timed).
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Defending the Scottish Cup
Given the plethora of major events broadcast on BBO vugraph, there is always a danger that the Scottish Cup final will compare poorly in comparison to all the world stars on view. But I thought that both teams played very well yesterday, under increasing pressure as the match drew to a tense conclusion.
One area where both teams could have improved was slam bidding (although I should not really be the one to comment on this given my recent performances). I don't mind the Outreds missing a good slam after thirteen bids, because they are making a decision having explored the hand. But too often final decisions were taken early in the auction without appreciating the potential of the hand.
But there was certainly some world-class defending. I thought Les Steel produced the play of the day:
After Walker's lead of the club, Vi Outred led the king of hearts. Even capturing this with the ace is not automatic, but when you do there are a number of options. Walker probably has a singleton club, but then you have a natural club trick. Leading a club for a ruff will look exceptionally stupid if partner did have a doubleton.
There is also the option of switching to a spade hoping to force dummy and remove the entry to the clubs, however declarer might be able to cope with this by ducking a club later.
Eventually, after a lot of thought and sighing (according to the operator), Les led a club for Walker to ruff. Walker switched to the two of diamonds and they took two diamond tricks to defeat the contract. In this case it was obvious to Steel that Walker would not have another trump, but suppose Steel had a singleton ace of trumps. He would then need to decide whether the low diamond switch was asking for a club or showing a diamond honour - this is something that regular partnerships should know.
So an excellent partnership effort that lost them 3 imps when their team mates went two off in three notrump.
There was good play and excellent defence in the third stanza:
The only legitimate line to make the contract is win the ace of diamonds and play for the queen of hearts to be doubleton in a hand that only holds two trumps. Then declarer could discard three losers on the hearts. This is not particularly likely. So Owen adopted the practical line of ducking the diamond and hoping that the defence either continued diamonds or, more likely, would switch to a trump and miss the club play.
Steel played a discouraging eight of diamonds (could he have played the ten?) and after considerable thought Walker found the switch to clubs. Well done!
This Steel gained 7 imps when their team mates played in one spade, really failing to cope with the opponents' multi-way 1♣ opener.
Finally, a board from the first set where Owen's defence gained him a game swing.
After a club lead, Walker cashed a second club and Holland pitched the six of diamonds. Walker continued with the ten of hearts to leave Owen with the decision of how to proceed. He actually knows a lot about the hand now, as Walker has shown five hearts and four clubs, so is almost certainly 2=5=2=4. The more you think about it the more that it looks like a spade must be right, as you can probably create a trick there. Owen duly found the switch and the game was defeated.
This gained Owen 10 imps. In the other room the East hand won the first heart and, not knowing the club distribution, switched to a diamond rather than a spade.
It was pleasing to see some excellent bridge from Edinburgh that would have graced any stage.
One area where both teams could have improved was slam bidding (although I should not really be the one to comment on this given my recent performances). I don't mind the Outreds missing a good slam after thirteen bids, because they are making a decision having explored the hand. But too often final decisions were taken early in the auction without appreciating the potential of the hand.
But there was certainly some world-class defending. I thought Les Steel produced the play of the day:
After Walker's lead of the club, Vi Outred led the king of hearts. Even capturing this with the ace is not automatic, but when you do there are a number of options. Walker probably has a singleton club, but then you have a natural club trick. Leading a club for a ruff will look exceptionally stupid if partner did have a doubleton.
There is also the option of switching to a spade hoping to force dummy and remove the entry to the clubs, however declarer might be able to cope with this by ducking a club later.
Eventually, after a lot of thought and sighing (according to the operator), Les led a club for Walker to ruff. Walker switched to the two of diamonds and they took two diamond tricks to defeat the contract. In this case it was obvious to Steel that Walker would not have another trump, but suppose Steel had a singleton ace of trumps. He would then need to decide whether the low diamond switch was asking for a club or showing a diamond honour - this is something that regular partnerships should know.
So an excellent partnership effort that lost them 3 imps when their team mates went two off in three notrump.
There was good play and excellent defence in the third stanza:
The only legitimate line to make the contract is win the ace of diamonds and play for the queen of hearts to be doubleton in a hand that only holds two trumps. Then declarer could discard three losers on the hearts. This is not particularly likely. So Owen adopted the practical line of ducking the diamond and hoping that the defence either continued diamonds or, more likely, would switch to a trump and miss the club play.
Steel played a discouraging eight of diamonds (could he have played the ten?) and after considerable thought Walker found the switch to clubs. Well done!
This Steel gained 7 imps when their team mates played in one spade, really failing to cope with the opponents' multi-way 1♣ opener.
Finally, a board from the first set where Owen's defence gained him a game swing.
After a club lead, Walker cashed a second club and Holland pitched the six of diamonds. Walker continued with the ten of hearts to leave Owen with the decision of how to proceed. He actually knows a lot about the hand now, as Walker has shown five hearts and four clubs, so is almost certainly 2=5=2=4. The more you think about it the more that it looks like a spade must be right, as you can probably create a trick there. Owen duly found the switch and the game was defeated.
This gained Owen 10 imps. In the other room the East hand won the first heart and, not knowing the club distribution, switched to a diamond rather than a spade.
It was pleasing to see some excellent bridge from Edinburgh that would have graced any stage.
Quadruple overtime
I spent most of yesterday commenting on the Scottish Cup final. Admittedly not the big final of the day where Dundee Utd were thrashing Ross County, but certainly the equivalent in the bridge world.
STEEL, the holders, and OUTRED were scheduled to play four sets of sixteen boards. The match was tight throughout but at the end it appeared that OUTRED has won by six imps. The BBO commentators all congratulated them and we all disappeared.
I then got a phone call from the club asking if I could commentate on the extra boards. During the last set Steel and Walker had been lambasted by the BBO commentators for an atrocious defence to a partscore, including crashing their trump honours, giving ruff and discards and then getting the endgame wrong. Apparently not all of this was actually true and they had managed, at a minimum, to beat the contract and the match was tied at 121-121 imps after 64 boards.
[Update: one of the players suggests that 'atrocious' is an adjective better applied to the skill of the commentators on the relevant deal rather than the defence! Luckily I was at the other table.]
So they played an extra eight boards. Still they could not split the teams when this finished 10-10. The conditions of contest, standard in Scotland, said it would now be decided by TWO board matches.
Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, we had run out of pre-dealt boards. This left the BBO commentary team with the slight issue of how to talk without seeing the cards, but naturally this made little difference to us. I did think that Fridrik's analysis was poorer though. Luckily the vugraph operators (Julia and Stephen) were still in their seats and provided a running commentary.
The first two board match was also tied, at 5 imps each. So another 2-boards. This time the tie was split when an extra undertrick meant that STEEL had won by 3 imps. Congratulations to Les Steel, Dave Walker, Bif McGeorge and Derek Sanders, commiserations to Charles and Vi Outred, Clive Owen and John Holland.
STEEL, the holders, and OUTRED were scheduled to play four sets of sixteen boards. The match was tight throughout but at the end it appeared that OUTRED has won by six imps. The BBO commentators all congratulated them and we all disappeared.
I then got a phone call from the club asking if I could commentate on the extra boards. During the last set Steel and Walker had been lambasted by the BBO commentators for an atrocious defence to a partscore, including crashing their trump honours, giving ruff and discards and then getting the endgame wrong. Apparently not all of this was actually true and they had managed, at a minimum, to beat the contract and the match was tied at 121-121 imps after 64 boards.
[Update: one of the players suggests that 'atrocious' is an adjective better applied to the skill of the commentators on the relevant deal rather than the defence! Luckily I was at the other table.]
So they played an extra eight boards. Still they could not split the teams when this finished 10-10. The conditions of contest, standard in Scotland, said it would now be decided by TWO board matches.
Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, we had run out of pre-dealt boards. This left the BBO commentary team with the slight issue of how to talk without seeing the cards, but naturally this made little difference to us. I did think that Fridrik's analysis was poorer though. Luckily the vugraph operators (Julia and Stephen) were still in their seats and provided a running commentary.
The first two board match was also tied, at 5 imps each. So another 2-boards. This time the tie was split when an extra undertrick meant that STEEL had won by 3 imps. Congratulations to Les Steel, Dave Walker, Bif McGeorge and Derek Sanders, commiserations to Charles and Vi Outred, Clive Owen and John Holland.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
One last problem
Finally another play problem from the Spring Fours:
South leads the seven of clubs (3/5 from good, top of 3+ small, low from doubleton) around to your jack. While bemoaning the fact that you are not in seven diamonds on this lead, you still have to make 6NT.
What is your plan?
South leads the seven of clubs (3/5 from good, top of 3+ small, low from doubleton) around to your jack. While bemoaning the fact that you are not in seven diamonds on this lead, you still have to make 6NT.
What is your plan?
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Problems, problems, problems
I've been taken to task for being tardy in providing some problems from last weekend. In my defence I have been writing a report for the magazine and did not wish to use the same hands here, but that is now done and so the stage is set. All the problems are IMPs.
Your lead?
Your call?
Your call? Partner could have doubled 3♣ for penalty.
You lead the ♣9 to partner's ♣J. He continues clubs and declarer ruffs. Declarer leads a spade and you rise with the ♠A, partner playing the ♠10 (to show an even number). What do you lead now? [This hand has been edited since the original post]
Finally a play problem - click the Next button to step through the play:
Which spade do you play from dummy?
Update - results now posted in the comments
Your lead?
Your call?
Your call? Partner could have doubled 3♣ for penalty.
You lead the ♣9 to partner's ♣J. He continues clubs and declarer ruffs. Declarer leads a spade and you rise with the ♠A, partner playing the ♠10 (to show an even number). What do you lead now? [This hand has been edited since the original post]
Finally a play problem - click the Next button to step through the play:
Which spade do you play from dummy?
Update - results now posted in the comments
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Second second
Final night of the season for us at the Berwick club and the last evening of the club teams. We were not in control of our destiny but needed to win to stand any chance, but unfortunately we failed to do that by 2 VPs. So George, Brian, Reg and Malcolm retained the trophy by a single point with 3 wins and one third, to our single win and 3 seconds.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
The End of the Long Weekend
I'll write up some of the more interesting hands later, but a quick summary.
Matheson and Coyle were the leading Scots in the main event; they played through to Monday morning when they lost to Penfold and her Bulgars. We lost our final life in Round 4 (Sunday morning), as did Spears although they took their opponents into extra time.
The other three Scottish teams played in the Punch Bowl on Sunday. Two had chances of qualifying for the KO stages with a couple of matches to go but faded to finish mid-table.
We won our Punch Bowl triad on Sunday evening to play in the quarter-final on Monday. In this we played the Franklin team that we had knocked out of the main event in a wild match - we had been down by 30 IMPs over 16 boards but came back in the second half to win by 15. This time we only gave them a 6 IMPs lead over the first half and had another strong half to win by 18.
In the semifinal we had a tight match against Pryor. We were slightly concerned to be ahead by 1 IMP at the half, a rare opportunity to protect a lead, but we handled it well and used it as the basis for a 5 IMPs thrashing.
In the final we played the young Hydes team. There were no making games in the first eight boards and keeping the bidding low was best. Naturally we were slightly better at this and had a 15 IMPs lead at the half. The second half had a couple of exciting boards but was generally flat and we won by 18 IMPs.
Exciting to win, nice to have a little prize money (although why is there no prize for second!) and a good 'practice' for Mike and Alan as they continue to prepare for the Europeans next month.
Matheson and Coyle were the leading Scots in the main event; they played through to Monday morning when they lost to Penfold and her Bulgars. We lost our final life in Round 4 (Sunday morning), as did Spears although they took their opponents into extra time.
The other three Scottish teams played in the Punch Bowl on Sunday. Two had chances of qualifying for the KO stages with a couple of matches to go but faded to finish mid-table.
We won our Punch Bowl triad on Sunday evening to play in the quarter-final on Monday. In this we played the Franklin team that we had knocked out of the main event in a wild match - we had been down by 30 IMPs over 16 boards but came back in the second half to win by 15. This time we only gave them a 6 IMPs lead over the first half and had another strong half to win by 18.
In the semifinal we had a tight match against Pryor. We were slightly concerned to be ahead by 1 IMP at the half, a rare opportunity to protect a lead, but we handled it well and used it as the basis for a 5 IMPs thrashing.
In the final we played the young Hydes team. There were no making games in the first eight boards and keeping the bidding low was best. Naturally we were slightly better at this and had a 15 IMPs lead at the half. The second half had a couple of exciting boards but was generally flat and we won by 18 IMPs.
Photo taken by Gordon Rainsford
Exciting to win, nice to have a little prize money (although why is there no prize for second!) and a good 'practice' for Mike and Alan as they continue to prepare for the Europeans next month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)