Agreements and style

All the jurisdictions that I play in require that both members of the partnership play the same system. This regulation probably arose as a reaction to professional-client pairs, where some would skew the system so that the pro played more of the hands, for example, the client plays transfers but the pro doesn't.

However you are still permitted to have a different style than your partner and it is important that you know what your partner's style is for two reasons: firstly you must be able to describe your partner's bids accurately to the opponents, saying that partner has a weak two is not sufficient if, in practice, he only opens a weak two with 3-5 points; secondly, knowing what partner is likely to have can only help you bid!

In the Scotland vs Wales series of matches on BBO that Julian Pottage and I am running, three hands came up last night where style was the issue. So the questions are, what call would you make and what call do you think your regular partner would make?

We'll start with an easy one. First in hand at favourable vulnerability:

Three hearts, weak two hearts (or multi), pass or something else?

Next the other extreme, as you are second in hand at unfavourable vulnerability:

Some number of hearts, multi, two-suited two-level opener (Muiderberg (five hearts with 4+ minor), Polish (five hearts with 5+ other suit), restricted Muiderberg (five hearts with 5+ minor)), pass or something else?

Finally a higher level problem at love all:

In the match the one notrump opener was strong, but it makes little difference to the problem. What do you call: pass, double, five diamonds, something else? If you are thinking of passing or doubling it is highly likely that you will be leading very soon - what card is going to hit the table?

There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. But you and your partner should have an idea of what the other will do.

Bid up, play up

Julia sent me the most complete system card I've seen for my first outing of the season in the Russell Cup, although she did point out that it was far less than Samantha gives me for the two-board knock-out at Peebles.

Interestingly I only changed one thing on the card and, lo and behold, the change came up on the very first board and we both remembered. A good start!

We had one very exciting hand to play (well, Julia did):

 

(press Next to see the lead and dummy)

There were some subtleties that I read into the auction that, perhaps, were not there, but the play's the thing. What's your line?

I think there are two main lines to consider. You can play three rounds of clubs, discarding two hearts and then ruff a heart. This needs clubs 4-3 (62%) or, if 5-2, the hand with short clubs to only hold two diamonds. The alternative is the ruffing spade finesse (50%) and hoping for 3-3 spades or the hand with short spades to only hold two diamonds. It seems that playing clubs is best.

Julia found a third line though.

Julia drew two rounds of trumps, cashed the ace of spades and then crossed to the queen of clubs. She now played the queen of spades. If North does not cover, then she planned to ruff and revert to playing clubs intending to ruff dummy's losing heart. However when North played the king of spades, she ruffed a club back to hand and played the winning jack of spades, pitching a heart. Although spades were 4-2, South had no trumps remaining and the contract made.

As it happened, this was the only winning line as the full hand shows:

 

Overall we scored 60.5% so my task, to get a counting score for Julia, was done.

But a final problem on this hand. Some West players opened two spades. How would you bid now with the East hand?

The task in Lille

The Scotland teams will be departing for Lille in a couple of weeks so I thought I'd see how lucky they have been in the draw.

Open
There are four groups. Scotland is in Group C and will face:

ARGENTINA
BERMUDA
CANADA
ITALY
KENYA
MOROCCO
ROMANIA
RUSSIA
SINGAPORE
SLOVAKIA
SOUTH AFRICA
SWEDEN
THAILAND
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

The top four will qualify for the knock-out stages and I expect Italy, Sweden, Russia, Argentina, South Africa, Canada, Singapore and Romania to be competing for these places. So I think the Scotland team should set a target of a top ten finish as the 'stretch' goal for the event.

Women

There are three groups. Scotland is in Group A and will face:

Argentina

Australia

Canada

Chinese Taipei

Egypt

England

Guadeloupe

Jordan

Kenya

Poland

Russia

Spain

Turkey

The top five will qualify for the knock-out stages, together with the best sixth across the three groups, I expect England, Poland, Russia, Turkey and Canada to be competitive, with Argentina, Australia, Chinese Taipei and Scotland following. Making the knock-out stages should be the 'stretch' goal for the team.

Seniors

There are two groups. Scotland is in Group A and will face:

AUSTRALIA

BELGIUM

BRAZIL

CANADA

EGYPT

ENGLAND

FRANCE

GERMANY

HONG KONG

INDIA

INDONESIA

ISRAEL

MOROCCO

SINGAPORE

SOUTH AFRICA

TURKEY

The top eight will qualify for the knock-out stages. Predicting the performance of in the seniors is fraught with difficulty as the teams change a lot, but I predict Australia, Brazil, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Scotland, Indonesia and Turkey will be leading the qualifying places. After their success in the Europeans I am going to set the Scotland Seniors a very tough 'stretch' goal of making the semifinals, even though I think making the quarter-finals would be a tremendous achievement. Success begets success!

I'll be following all the teams' progress from Friday 10 August.

Not there

In most years this would be the week that I'd be packing ready to leave for the Summer Nationals in America. However as we went to Memphis for the spring event we are giving Philadelphia a miss.

This has given Alex and I some time to fiddle with our system before the EBU Summer Congress in Brighton next month and the English Premier League that starts in September. I am also helping some of the Scotland teams prepare for the World Bridge Games (aka Olympiad) in Lille next month, but otherwise it has been a quiet time.

I often watch my friends from the Berwick club playing on BBO, or perhaps stalk, pester and annoy are more appropriate terms. They play a light-hearted, free-flowing game and they will often try things online that they would be frightened to do at the club. Naturally I congratulate them when they do well and, when things go less well, try to ask an insightful question rather than just say that it was wrong.

I think it is true that most players on BBO tend to focus on the result rather than the rights and wrongs of the play. And it can be difficult when I am saying that you cannot pass that forcing two spades bid, because the player may have twenty points and be interested in slam, when that contract goes two down and I am advocating getting even higher!

But I did spot an interesting suit combination last night that so many club players get wrong because they play without thinking and I think that before the advent of dealing machines, suits always tended to break evenly.

It is not a difficult combination, especially when posed as a problem, but how do you play it for one loser with unlimited entries to both hands:

I'll give my explanation in a couple of days.