First thoughts on the Scotland Open team

Scotland finished sixteenth in its group of the Open Series at the European Team Championships and did not qualify for the 'final' round robin. Was this a good performance?

I was part of the Selection Committee for this team although, as regular readers will know, I resigned from it last month. The Selection Committee ran the trials for the European team according to the regulations that it inherited, which in my view were seriously flawed but there was no mechanism to change them. Having said that, a different trials process could easily have resulted in the same team going. The selectors picked the winning team from the trial, selected the third pair (yes, this was a choice between two good pairs and not easy) and appointed the NPC.

The team had only one player with experience of playing a seven-day tournament and only four of the team with caps in the Camrose.Two of the partnerships had only been playing for one season and the third was in its second year. There were two junior (U-26) players, one of whom only finished his final exams in late May which seriously compromised preparation time for the event - this was never an issue for me, there are more important things in life than bridge.

This is all a way of saying that expectations were low. A highly inexperienced team, pairs doing vastly different amounts of preparation and at a time when the standard of bridge was improving throughout Europe.

Overall I thought the team did reasonably well. The group was more unbalanced than in Pau two years ago, with more stronger teams but also three weaker teams. Scotland dispatched the three weaker teams well and held their own against some of the stronger teams. It was inevitable that they would struggle against some of the top teams, but I guess they will be disappointed by the couple of heavy defeats to mid-table outfits.

I should stress that the differences between success and failure are small. My quick analysis suggests that Scotland were 0.75 imps/board away from qualifying in ninth place, or 15 imps per match, or probably one mistake per pair per match. This is more than avoiding the silly mistakes and it does require some good play to bridge this gap, but qualifying from the group stage should be the target in 2012.

An interesting and useful comparison can be made with Wales. Realistically speaking Scotland does not expect to beat England and Ireland in the Home Internationals at this moment in time, so coming ahead of Wales is the challenge. In the Camrose this year Scotland beat Wales twice but finished behind them in the final table.

In Ostend, as described earlier, Wales fell heart-breakingly short of qualifying, some 49 VP ahead of Scotland. What is the difference? Firstly the Wales team is stacked with experienced players who are used to playing international bridge, with established partnerships who have been playing together for a long time. Secondly, their pairs play in more competitive English events, including the team winning the Spring Fours earlier this year. Finally the Wales team also seems to be more of a team - part of this is the longevity of the partnerships, used to playing together in a team, but in preparation they have played serious events as a team and also practised together online.

Wales has a highly experienced squad of players that is more used to competing with good teams. Scotland should be looking to develop the same.

In summary, the team bettered my (low) expectations. Maybe a good question is whether they played anyone that they thought was unbeatable if they played to the top of their game? Perhaps Iceland or Norway, but certainly not Italy who they could easily have beaten. So why did not they not play their best all the way through? Well, no-one does of course, but I feel that experience of such an event and the consistency required when playing top players day after day were missing.

Hopefully the experience gained will serve both the players and the SBU well in the future. Introducing juniors into the team, at a time when the most experienced Scottish players seem to prefer the seniors events, is positive if we can build on it.

It will be interesting to hear from the players to see if the view from up close matches my view from afar!

Finally, money. Was this another waste of SBU money on an international event? NO, NO, NO. The SBU members have not made any contribution to the funding of the team for this event, none, nada, zilch, zip, zero, not a bean. The team is funded by a contribution from Bridge Great Britain, that is to be used solely for international events, and the team themselves. The SBU does not contribute. I think it should. The NPC should have all his/her expenses paid and the team should not be paying for any of its accommodation or travel. I'd also like to see the SBU help international pairs prepare, although I accept this is even less likely to happen.

It doesn't get much closer than this

Today was the last day of the first round robin of the Open Series of the European Team Championships. The top nine teams in each group would qualify for the 'final' round robin over the last four days of the championship.

Unfortunately Scotland were not in contention, but as the last matches reached their conclusion interest focused on the ninth qualifier from Scotland's group. Going into the round Wales were in ninth on 274 VP, then Hungary (273), Latvia (269) and Croatia (264) in contention.

Actually no-one thought Croatia were really in contention as they were playing leaders Italy. Wales played lowly placed Slovakia, Hungary were playing already-qualified Switzerland and Latvia had the easiest looking match against second-bottom Lithuania.

As it happened Croatia started beating Italy and continued doing well, but it was the two game swings that they earned on final two boards that would give them a surprise 25-5 VP win and they would finish on 289 VP. This match finished first and, at this point, Croatia held ninth place.

As I was watching the results board, Latvia got a game swing on their final board and finished their match winning 20-10 VP, leaving them also on 289 VP and a tie for ninth. Everyone started checking the tie-break procedures!

Wales had one board to play and they were standing on 286 VP, Hungary had two boards to play and were on 283 VP. Both teams had a good result at one table with the other table to finish.

Eventually Wales got a game swing on the final board to win 16-14 VP and finish on 290 VP.

Then the Latvia score changed to 290 VP too! There must have been an error entering a score on the bridgemate (which is a common occurrence).

Hungary got a game swing on the penultimate board to move to 287 VP. And they got another one on the final board to move to 290 VP. A triple tie!

The final result is that Latvia has qualified for the final, as they beat both Hungary and Wales. I'm sure both Hungary and Wales are gutted,

It was still a terrific performance by the Wales team, who won the Spring Fours earlier this year.

Bridge is an easy game

Just ask the internationalists at the European Team Championships who had to play this hand on Sunday morning:



The most unfortunate team was Lebanon, who contracted to make a doubled slam at both tables to lose 22 imps.

The biggest single loss was to the poor East of Denmark, who had to play six diamonds redoubled with his singleton trump: that was -2200 in the out column. A loss of 15 imps as the contract was not redoubled in the other room and both went down five.

It was a push in the Scotland vs Cyprus (Open) match in doubled diamond contracts.

Congratulations to those who managed to stop in four clubs doubled, surely the best that you can hope for, and to those who managed to play undoubled (about 8 of the 38 Open tables).

I guess you will read about this board in tomorrow's bulletin!

Hit the fire alarm and scrap the rest of the boards ...

... as one of the Scottish wags* said. It was half-time in the Scotland vs France match in Ostend and the Blues, as opposed to Les Bleus, were leading 22-2 imps. However the French team, stuffed with multiple world champions, came back to earn a 41-41 tie.

This is the second time that the team has been on vugraph against one of the favoured teams and performed well. But once again, save for a few minor errors, they could have won. I say this not as a criticism, but just to show how small the difference is between the very top teams and those in the lower half of the table.

Consistency is key in a long round-robin tournament. Brilliances are not required for a good finish, just avoid the own goals.

*not, as far as I know, in the football sense

Scotland stops working this afternoon?

Yesterday most of England stopped working at 3pm as the football team had its crucial World Cup game against Slovenia.

Today Scotland will be taking on Italy at 3.15pm in the European Bridge Championships and it will be shown live on BBO (for non-bridge players Italy are the Brazil of bridge and Scotland are ... Scotland). Even those who do not regularly use BBO can watch it at http://www.bbotv.com/vugraph/.

For some reason this is not a headline on the BBC web site, but hopefully Andy Murray will be done by three o'clock and the country will be able to focus on what is really important.

Update: Unfortunately the Scots could not build on the additional advantage of the Italians being told of their team's exit from the World Cup by the vugraph operator. A few missed chances late in the match meant a defeat by 58-34 imps. I guess the Italian football team were rueing their missed chances too.

Okay, definitely our fault

No excuses, the field was kind to Harry and me at the Russell Cup last night. The way was open to a 60+% score but a poor defensive display meant that we had to settle for 55% - an opportunity missed.

This was the interesting bidding problem of the night:



I was at favourable vulnerability playing 5-card majors and a 14-16 1NT. RHO is a known overbidder, a useful reputation to have if you think you are fairly sound within limits, and your partner rarely passes a hand with 13 cards. Your call?

There were nine and a quarter tables last night. Attendance down, not because of the lure of Argentina vs Greece but instead the start of the Europeans in Ostend today. I will be missing the next two Russell Cups (mainly due to the World Cup) but normal service will be resumed in three weeks time.

Further practice problems

Some hands to test partnership agreements from the Ostend practice game.



At unfavourable vulnerability, is pass forcing now? What about other vulnerabilities?



What do calls mean here? Is four hearts any minimum hand? Could you have a club control if you bid four hearts?



What does double mean here?



Your call?

Good luck

Final practice for the Open and Womens teams today. I was playing Carrotski Club with Iain again to give the Open team some practice against a multi-way one club system, with the Outreds at the other table playing their own version of a multi-way club.

In such circumstances, what is the best result? For the team, perhaps a convincing victory is best. However Iain and I are quite competitive and we were not there to be 'dead money', despite our inexperience as a partnership. The same could largely be said of our team mates, Charles and Vi, save they are vastly more experienced.

As it happened we won the first and lost the second match, by 5 IMPs and 16 IMPs respectively. Iain and I had the best butler from the Open team match, but were well behind Eric and Dee who were playing the Womens team. That match also finished 1-1.

The hand that most were discussing afterwards came from the second match.



It was East to open. Those playing a strong 1NT were left with the problem of whether to offer a quantitative raise first (and then find a fit if partner had values) or whether to use Stayman and then try. You would expect the methods of most pairs to be up to this.

I upgraded the East hand to show 17-19 points. No problem bidding the slam now!

So good luck to all three Scotland teams. The Open and Women start on Wednesday with the Seniors on Saturday and you can follow the action live on BBO. The results will be available on the EBL web site.

Below average

As the immortal Kenneth Williams said, "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!". That is what it felt like at the club last night, playing in the latest round of the Russell with Anne. Pairs would come to our table, bid a fairly normal contract missed by everyone else and depart with the matchpoints. But the frustrating part was that none of them went on to get a decent score, they seemed happy enough just hammering us.

Naturally there was also some poor decision making by us. Much of this was just down to understanding, or not, partner's style. Most people presume that I cannot bid, despite my runaway successes in the last couple of bidding challenges. Then they assume that I never have my bid, especially where there is competition and it is clear that the pack has at least fifty points in it.

While it is true that I am rarely maximum for my bid (as Zia said about Michael Courtney), like most 'experts' there are some situations where I can be completely trusted. For example, if I make a game-forcing jump rebid then I will have a huge hand. Others where you can fairly sure, so I will not be making random pre-empts second-in-hand when vulnerable very often.

The problem in the Russell, which for most is their single outing in a year with me, is deciding which rules I obey and which I am more flexible about. For that reason I always think of myself as a difficult person to partner.

Anne survived, although some way from a counting score. Next week I am playing with Harry. I think we are all frightened by the thought of this!

Tight match

We lost our Gold Cup Plate match yesterday by 23 IMPs. It was close throughout and, as always, came down to a few hands. At least it was 48 boards so no complaints about having enough opportunities. But it was a strange set of hands - Alex and I did not have a single sequence of one club followed by a major suit response, something that normally comes up once or twice every eight hands.

A little perversely we played against Alan and Adrian throughout. They played extremely well considering it was their first outing - Adrian subbing for Sam as she travelled back from Asia. They got the major decisions right and even the minor misunderstandings seemed to work out on the day.

They set me a problem on this hand:



Your call (at favourable vulnerability)?

Do you agree with my call of five hearts? At the other table Harry bid five diamonds, but you'll be faced with the same decision. If you pass, what are you leading?

Overall I thought Alex and I played reasonably well, although we were overcautious when defending a couple of doubled contracts. We were unlucky on a couple of hands: bidding a good game that went down and then an excellent slam, missed at the other table, that failed despite being better than 70%.

A big night

With thirteen and a half tables I think it was the biggest turnout that I'd seen at the Russell Cup. Iain reckoned it was pre-World Cup fever and that many will be watching Brazil next Tuesday; I thought it had just been a dreich day when it should be summer!

I didn't play particularly well and that dragged Reg and I down below average. We had our share of tops but they didn't compensate for the misjudgement and errors that we offered.

South was put through the mill on boards 7 and 8.



Few in the field coped with this hand. Only one pair, Harry and Finlay, bid and made six clubs. A number played in diamonds, suggesting the North (opposite a passed hand) opened two notrumps when the partnership was, unfortunately, not playing minor-suit Stayman. A couple of intrepid souls tried six notrumps, doomed to failure when the king of clubs is offside, although it is hard to tell if this was just a matchpoint attempt at a good score. And one pair doubled their opponents in two spades to score just above average, although a very strange way to do that.

The computer restored the balance on board 8, with eleven major cards for South:



To make life even worse for South, LHO is there with an opening bid and CHO is probably bidding diamonds first. At our table Reg opened one club and it was a weak two diamonds overcall, but I can imagine that it was also opened with a weak one notrump with diamond overcalls at the two- and three-levels too.

The winning matchpoint strategy was to bid spades and never bid hearts, as the remaining points are on your left and LHO has a natural lead of the king of hearts. Those playing in hearts scored just above average due to a couple of random results (six spades and four diamonds!). The place to avoid was three notrumps as best defence will hold you to nine tricks.

A digression

I read a number of other bridge blogs but Phillip Martin's is one of the best.

So if you want to know how to follow in declarer's suit when holding QJ109, I suggest you check out his latest post.

Why us?

Back to the Russell Cup and a run out for Carrotski Club with Iain. I presume the system is similar to the Swedish Club but with Lithuanian overtones, but Iain might provide the true heritage.

The first round was an indication of things to come. Keith and Peter bid two slams in three boards, which gave us two matchpoints from thirty-two, and we proceeded to spend the rest of the evening watching our opponents do the right things. Reg, who said he'd had a terrible evening, took us to the cleaners by not bidding a non-making game and then not leading his suit against three notrump which was exactly the right thing to do. And even the pair who finished last with 33% bid and make a slam against us that only one other managed to do.

I thought that there were only a couple of hands where we could do better. Conceding -1400 is rarely good, but it only cost a couple of matchpoints given our opponents had already bid game. And then there was this slam:



With no opposition bidding both of us took a rosy view and the poor slam was reached. I misplayed the spades (though LotG got it right when asked - exercise for reader, no need to post an answer) but with the same result as the best line I did not make four tricks on this layout. I could have endplayed North to make it, but played for South to hold the king of diamonds.

Suitplay tells me that there is a 36.6% chance of making four spade tricks from this holding, but when there is Q9xx onside there is also a chance of the diamond king lying onside which adds about another 5%. So a poor slam but not an awful one.

Iain and I will be back in harness in a couple of weeks helping our European pairs in their final practice - playing against Carrotski is more useful than a constant diet of weak notrump and 4-card majors.