I am no longer a selector but I still care and pay close attention. The Open Trials is the basis of selection for the Home International Series Camrose Trophy (Open Teams) and they concluded yesterday, following two weekends of play for the top twelve pairs.
The provisional results have been published promptly on the SBU site. I did hear a rumour that there is an appeal pending, although not expected to make a material change, plus the 'correction period' is a day or two. But really pleased to see the results put up so quickly.
The top four pairs were incredibly close and this time Sime and Matheson were on the right side of the 1 VP difference between third and fourth place. I believe that the first three pairs will be picked automatically for the first Camrose weekend at the start of January, and then the selectors have carte blanche for the second.
Congratulations to Brian Short and David Walker, Charles and Vi Outred, and Iain Sime and John Matheson. Given the season that they've had it is unfortunate that Spears and Murdoch finished in fourth, but I'm sure they'll be inked in for the second weekend whatever happens in the first.
In December the trials for the Lady Milne Trophy (Women's Teams) and Seniors Camrose will be held. It is heartening to see an increase in the participation of both these trials. Ten women's pairs is starting to suggest that it will be worth Scotland having two teams in the event in 2013. And sixteen senior pairs, including some new (young) faces, means that there is real competition for places.
Although there is an interminable debate about the format(s) used, it is good to see that more people are interested in representing their country. Perhaps this will encourage the SBU to fund the international teams more generously, at least to the extent of fully funding the team's travel and accommodation and all the expenses of its NPCs.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Beating your home town
Miro did not actually play, but I'm sure he was happy to see that the rest of us won the latest round of the InterCity League with a comfortable 28 imps win against Sarajevo. Miro will have been less pleased by Nadal's win over Djokovic and his own failure to qualify from the National Pairs heat.
One of the problems of the InterCity League occurs when most of the players actually play in the city that they represent. The league is not that serious and the cities will be flags of convenience for most (like Wales United), but in our case many of the team play regularly in Edinburgh and when there is a national heat on the same day, our team selection becomes pretty restricted.
Despite this we still managed to put out a team consisting entirely of internationals, apart from me of course.
Anne found a good switch on the very first board:
They found the same defence at my table, but I ducked the heart switch to win 11 imps.
I was playing with Phil and he had a tricky decision to make on board 8, but it could have been worse:
Phil tried four spades. This is a much easier call if you are a passed hand, as the inference of diamond support would be there. Not so in this case. And perhaps the toughest decision is when you get doubled in four spades. Pass or run? Phil was not tested and four spades made when the trump suit broke 3-2. I held three spades to the ace but with seven diamonds, so the best contract was five diamonds ... so running would have been right this time presuming that they are doubling when spades are not breaking or they can get a diamond ruff or two.
We gained 14 imps on this board when Anne and Jim bid and made five hearts. The big difference was that my hand made a weak jump overcall in diamonds and spades were never bid, so their North-South pair did not know of the double fit.
Finally a lead problem. You are not in a regular partnership and you have only agreed 'standard' leads and upside down (reverse) carding.
Which club do you lead?
Dummy tables with the queen of diamonds in a 3442 hand and partner plays the two of clubs. You win the trick. Which club do you lead at trick two (how do you convey solid clubs AND your spade entry)?
One of the problems of the InterCity League occurs when most of the players actually play in the city that they represent. The league is not that serious and the cities will be flags of convenience for most (like Wales United), but in our case many of the team play regularly in Edinburgh and when there is a national heat on the same day, our team selection becomes pretty restricted.
Despite this we still managed to put out a team consisting entirely of internationals, apart from me of course.
Anne found a good switch on the very first board:
I was playing with Phil and he had a tricky decision to make on board 8, but it could have been worse:
We gained 14 imps on this board when Anne and Jim bid and made five hearts. The big difference was that my hand made a weak jump overcall in diamonds and spades were never bid, so their North-South pair did not know of the double fit.
Finally a lead problem. You are not in a regular partnership and you have only agreed 'standard' leads and upside down (reverse) carding.
Dummy tables with the queen of diamonds in a 3442 hand and partner plays the two of clubs. You win the trick. Which club do you lead at trick two (how do you convey solid clubs AND your spade entry)?
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Gold Cup update
The draw for round two has arrived. We will play Iain Sime (John Matheson, Derek Sanders, Bif McGeorge). Iain, John and Derek comment on this blog occasionally so there will probably be a 'cone of silence' about the match save for the result, assuming we can find a date to play. Only Alex and I are currently not playing in the final trial for the Camrose teams.
The other big match in this round is Gillis versus Short, a match that will also comprise mainly of final trialists. Punch versus Piper will also have a high proportion of these.
The Scottish teams in round two are:
Cliff Gillis vs Brian SHORT
Maida Grant vs David Shenkin
Mike McGinley vs Mike Ash
Clive Owen vs Malcolm Copley
Sam Punch vs Douglas Piper
Iain Sime vs Paul Gipson
Ying Piper vs Harry Smith
The other big match in this round is Gillis versus Short, a match that will also comprise mainly of final trialists. Punch versus Piper will also have a high proportion of these.
The Scottish teams in round two are:
Cliff Gillis vs Brian SHORT
Maida Grant vs David Shenkin
Mike McGinley vs Mike Ash
Clive Owen vs Malcolm Copley
Sam Punch vs Douglas Piper
Iain Sime vs Paul Gipson
Ying Piper vs Harry Smith
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Balancing
It was not a good night. LotG's Berwick team played in the district knockout, losing to a lower division team by 380 (aggregate) points after handicap, and we lost to Manchester in the InterCity League by 18 imps.
I played with Anne and we had one major misunderstanding that cost us a game swing. The hands don't really matter so I'll just give the auction:
What values do you think that two spades shows?
I asked two experts and received less than definitive answers - I might even say that they waffled.
It just goes to show how little balancing is discussed. Or, more precisely, how continuations after a balance are not really discussed. We are all taught the 'transfer the king' principle but less about what to do later in the auction.
I expected the bid to show a sound takeout double. Anne thought it was better than that, especially considering the opponent's silence.
So who is right?
Of course no-one is right or wrong and a regular partnership would have an agreement, so perhaps the question should be 'what is likely to be standard in an irregular expert partnership?'
There are many ways to resolve such a question:
"The good shape and well-coordinated high cards suggest a raise. Two spades."
Given that I have most of Lawrence's books, and he has a credit at the start of my system notes, it is little surprise that my view is the same as his. Perhaps the bigger surprise to me, glancing through the book again, is how modern it still seems.
But at the end of the day the most important thing is that Anne has an agreement with Sheila, her partner. They are playing in the Scottish Open Final Trial this weekend, trying to qualify for their second Camrose caps. Good luck to them!
I played with Anne and we had one major misunderstanding that cost us a game swing. The hands don't really matter so I'll just give the auction:
I asked two experts and received less than definitive answers - I might even say that they waffled.
It just goes to show how little balancing is discussed. Or, more precisely, how continuations after a balance are not really discussed. We are all taught the 'transfer the king' principle but less about what to do later in the auction.
I expected the bid to show a sound takeout double. Anne thought it was better than that, especially considering the opponent's silence.
So who is right?
Of course no-one is right or wrong and a regular partnership would have an agreement, so perhaps the question should be 'what is likely to be standard in an irregular expert partnership?'
There are many ways to resolve such a question:
- you can blog and ask your readers
- you can seek a wider audience and ask at the BBO Discussion Forums, where you will receive a large number of views, most of which are sensible
- or you can find your copy of Mike Lawrence's book on the subject
"The good shape and well-coordinated high cards suggest a raise. Two spades."
Given that I have most of Lawrence's books, and he has a credit at the start of my system notes, it is little surprise that my view is the same as his. Perhaps the bigger surprise to me, glancing through the book again, is how modern it still seems.
But at the end of the day the most important thing is that Anne has an agreement with Sheila, her partner. They are playing in the Scottish Open Final Trial this weekend, trying to qualify for their second Camrose caps. Good luck to them!
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Competitive bidding
After the screens of the Premier League it was back to full-frontal bridge in the Royal Bank at Berwick. For a change, rather than focus on our play I thought I'd discuss two hands that people asked me about from the session as I think that they illustrate some important principles.
The first question is your requirements for a takeout double opposite a passed partner, in this instance at unfavourable vulnerability (the red background for W and E in the bidding box show that you are vulnerable). Can this still be a shapely eleven points?
If North had passed then you would probably have to jump to three clubs to show your points. This is a little uncomfortable on a poor four-card suit in such a balanced hand but you really have little choice.
But in this case North has bid, so things change. First, you have been released from your obligation to bid, so any action shows some points. Now you can bid two clubs and can consider whether to call again on the next round as it is unlikely to get passed out (and if it does you are probably in the right place). I believe a jump to three clubs should show a more distributional hand after North's bid, at least a five-card suit. Using the opposition's bidding to improve the accuracy of your own is key in competition auctions.
Another way to understand whether three clubs is right is to consider partner's hand. In this case, even though partner has four-card support and a solid takeout double, you probably need to find the jack of clubs or find hearts 3-3 to make the contract.
But swap partner's black suits, so now holding 4-4 in the majors, and three clubs is looking pretty sick as a contract. And suppose partner decided to double holding 4-4 in the majors with only two clubs? You may think that partner should not do that, but it is often essential to get into the auction at matchpoints when holding the majors and it is a reasonable strategy to double when you have the majors, almost independent of your minor suit holdings.
You should have your own partnership style and understanding, but jumping to the three level without five cards when it is a minor is best avoided if you can.
The second hand features Michaels and continuations:
Again the first question is about partnership style. What do you need for a Michaels Cue Bid? Can you do on very weak and/or very strong hands? What about in-between?
On this hand you are vulnerable and partner is a passed hand. This means I will not use Michaels on a very weak hand, but otherwise any hand with at least five cards in both majors is fine.
After North's double, which in this case just showed clubs, partner's two hearts shows real preference for hearts over spades, otherwise he would pass (note that over a double two diamonds should really show diamonds with no interest in the majors).
Of course preference may not mean much, partner may have two hearts and no spades at all, so you have to take care when advancing.
In this case, three hearts is not the best advance to show extra values. Two spades would show both the extra values and the additional spade length, plus it leaves room for partner to show where values lie (even though we can guess where those values will be).
Bidding four hearts at the end is a typical club player's bid. Three hearts showed extra values and left partner in a good position to judge. He has passed and you do not have any more extras. It is time to trust your partner and pass four clubs. I know that this is tough at the table, as you do appear to have a very good hand, but you have shown that.
As you can see, four hearts is a poor contract. If you can get to dummy it will need the heart finesse to work and a favourable spade lie - poor odds at matchpoints, although not so bad at imps. On this hand it was right to take the plus score from letting them play four clubs.
LotG and I finished second on the night with 57%, but a long way to go in the competition.
If North had passed then you would probably have to jump to three clubs to show your points. This is a little uncomfortable on a poor four-card suit in such a balanced hand but you really have little choice.
But in this case North has bid, so things change. First, you have been released from your obligation to bid, so any action shows some points. Now you can bid two clubs and can consider whether to call again on the next round as it is unlikely to get passed out (and if it does you are probably in the right place). I believe a jump to three clubs should show a more distributional hand after North's bid, at least a five-card suit. Using the opposition's bidding to improve the accuracy of your own is key in competition auctions.
Another way to understand whether three clubs is right is to consider partner's hand. In this case, even though partner has four-card support and a solid takeout double, you probably need to find the jack of clubs or find hearts 3-3 to make the contract.
But swap partner's black suits, so now holding 4-4 in the majors, and three clubs is looking pretty sick as a contract. And suppose partner decided to double holding 4-4 in the majors with only two clubs? You may think that partner should not do that, but it is often essential to get into the auction at matchpoints when holding the majors and it is a reasonable strategy to double when you have the majors, almost independent of your minor suit holdings.
You should have your own partnership style and understanding, but jumping to the three level without five cards when it is a minor is best avoided if you can.
The second hand features Michaels and continuations:
On this hand you are vulnerable and partner is a passed hand. This means I will not use Michaels on a very weak hand, but otherwise any hand with at least five cards in both majors is fine.
After North's double, which in this case just showed clubs, partner's two hearts shows real preference for hearts over spades, otherwise he would pass (note that over a double two diamonds should really show diamonds with no interest in the majors).
Of course preference may not mean much, partner may have two hearts and no spades at all, so you have to take care when advancing.
In this case, three hearts is not the best advance to show extra values. Two spades would show both the extra values and the additional spade length, plus it leaves room for partner to show where values lie (even though we can guess where those values will be).
Bidding four hearts at the end is a typical club player's bid. Three hearts showed extra values and left partner in a good position to judge. He has passed and you do not have any more extras. It is time to trust your partner and pass four clubs. I know that this is tough at the table, as you do appear to have a very good hand, but you have shown that.
As you can see, four hearts is a poor contract. If you can get to dummy it will need the heart finesse to work and a favourable spade lie - poor odds at matchpoints, although not so bad at imps. On this hand it was right to take the plus score from letting them play four clubs.
LotG and I finished second on the night with 57%, but a long way to go in the competition.
Saturday, 13 November 2010
Premier League - Day 5
After forty boards we were one imp behind Cope in the match that would probably decide who would remain in the challenge for promotion, especially as Fegarty and Dhondy were winning their matches.
Unfortunately Alex and I had a very poor final set and we finished losing by sixty imps, leaving us out of contention. The set started badly when we decided to play a 5-3 major fit in notrumps rather than the suit and then we bid a grand slam that had little play (to be fair the opposition bid a lot on this hand otherwise we'd have avoided it pretty easily). That was 26 imps after two boards!
Then our opponents bid a stupid game and we both defended it even more stupidly to let it make. Finally we let a slam make that we could have beaten although it was not easy and there were always winning lines.
It was little compensation that our team mates did not have a positive card either, so they just made the defeat a little bit worse.
It is a disappointing end to the event. More so as our opponents really just took advantage of our errors.
We are not playing today and the team will decide this evening if we are needed for the final match. The other two pairs will have played a lot of bridge over the two days but, with nothing at stake, we'll not mind if they want to get some more practice.
Unfortunately Alex and I had a very poor final set and we finished losing by sixty imps, leaving us out of contention. The set started badly when we decided to play a 5-3 major fit in notrumps rather than the suit and then we bid a grand slam that had little play (to be fair the opposition bid a lot on this hand otherwise we'd have avoided it pretty easily). That was 26 imps after two boards!
Then our opponents bid a stupid game and we both defended it even more stupidly to let it make. Finally we let a slam make that we could have beaten although it was not easy and there were always winning lines.
It was little compensation that our team mates did not have a positive card either, so they just made the defeat a little bit worse.
It is a disappointing end to the event. More so as our opponents really just took advantage of our errors.
We are not playing today and the team will decide this evening if we are needed for the final match. The other two pairs will have played a lot of bridge over the two days but, with nothing at stake, we'll not mind if they want to get some more practice.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Leaving it late
I was back in the seat with Philip opposite in the InterCity League last night. Once again our defence was not overly tested as we held most of the cards, but the boards ran very flat and the score was only 16-17 imps after fourteen boards.
Our only significant loss to this point had been board 11, when Philip had this decision:
What is the difference between double and two hearts? Is the hand worth either? Comments welcome.
Board 15 decided the match. The auction was the same at both tables except for the final call.
Making the slam was worth 13 imps and we gained a further twelve when their declarer took a sub-optimal line in game and our defence managed to give him a losing option. Twenty-five imps on the final two boards gave us a 21-9 VP win.
Next week, a local derby as Edinburgh take on Manchester.
Our only significant loss to this point had been board 11, when Philip had this decision:
Board 15 decided the match. The auction was the same at both tables except for the final call.
Next week, a local derby as Edinburgh take on Manchester.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Gold Medal winners
Brian's photographs from the medal ceremony. The team, and supporters, can be seen although not necessarily in a single photo!
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Champions League?
Wednesday night is often UEFA Champions League football and I wonder how much the BBO InterCity League affects attendances? At least Edinburgh has a team in the bridge league even if we are not setting the world afire.
It might appear that we were following a second-team policy last night in our match against Argentario, as we had two scratch pairs playing. As it happened only Philip and I needed to discuss a system as the cards were all our way. However we did not make the most of it and a friendly matched finished 41-41 imps.
I thought we both showed excellent judgement on this hand:
Eleven tricks are the limit in notrumps (only ten in clubs) and this was worth 13 imps when they bid slam in the other room.
I thought we were pretty unlucky on the penultimate board:
The club layout meant that we would finish down two (Deep Finesse can make three notrump but humans will always go down) and lost 8 imps when they conservatively played in three clubs at the other table.
More intercity action next Wednesday. Unlike the football we do not shut down for winter.
It might appear that we were following a second-team policy last night in our match against Argentario, as we had two scratch pairs playing. As it happened only Philip and I needed to discuss a system as the cards were all our way. However we did not make the most of it and a friendly matched finished 41-41 imps.
I thought we both showed excellent judgement on this hand:
I thought we were pretty unlucky on the penultimate board:
More intercity action next Wednesday. Unlike the football we do not shut down for winter.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
I've been simming
The last two Tuesdays have been Simultaneous Pairs events at the club. I don't normally play these but, like buses, sometimes they all come along at the same time.
The first was the SBU Sim where I played with Diana after LotG called off sick. We score 63% and finished 12th overall.
Last night was the Eastern District Sim and I played with Mike, Chairman of the District. It is Mike's first year of office and he is trying to meet and play in every club, and this was Berwick's turn. Berwick is probably the furthest for him to travel, although not the most difficult since it is just down the A1 from Edinburgh.
Despite starting with two poor-looking boards we did manage to finish top of the field. Our worst board was the first, where Reg made a successful punt:
Perhaps I should have bid two spades to make it more difficult, but Reg's decision to bid 2NT with the doubleton ♠QJ was key. It must be said that it is a good call that most would miss. Spades have not been raised so there is some chance of finding partner with some support; also some may underlead the ♠AK. The result at the end of the day was 10 imps to Reg and Jean.
The final results should be on the East District web site in a few days.
The first was the SBU Sim where I played with Diana after LotG called off sick. We score 63% and finished 12th overall.
Last night was the Eastern District Sim and I played with Mike, Chairman of the District. It is Mike's first year of office and he is trying to meet and play in every club, and this was Berwick's turn. Berwick is probably the furthest for him to travel, although not the most difficult since it is just down the A1 from Edinburgh.
Despite starting with two poor-looking boards we did manage to finish top of the field. Our worst board was the first, where Reg made a successful punt:
Perhaps I should have bid two spades to make it more difficult, but Reg's decision to bid 2NT with the doubleton ♠QJ was key. It must be said that it is a good call that most would miss. Spades have not been raised so there is some chance of finding partner with some support; also some may underlead the ♠AK. The result at the end of the day was 10 imps to Reg and Jean.
The final results should be on the East District web site in a few days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)