Saturday, October 18, 2008

WMSG

I've watched less than I would have liked of the first World Mind Sports Games on the Vu-Graph at BBO. But when I could, it was fun watching England do so well. The Women and Seniors had great results, but I was really rooting for the Open team. They were up against really tough opposition, and not expected to medal. But they reached the final against Italy, and refused to be blown out by the huge favorites. Every time they fell behind, they found a way to close the gap, and while they didn't catch up, they stayed within striking distance and pushed the Italians all the way. I was very impressed by Townsend-Gold. Watching some previous events on BBO, they hadn't made much impression on me. But they had a great Games, and I wasn't surprised to hear that they were voted best pair at the games by some spectators. 

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Opening 2C And Responses

I have described in an older post what Agent 99 and I play. I wanted to put out another post, because there are a couple of good alternatives floating around that I would be interested in trying, and in hearing how other people get on with them.

An idea I used to like is an artificial positive set-up, perhaps similar to:
• 2D: any 0-3, or 4-7 with a 5-card or longer major
• 2H: any 8+ unbalanced or 10+ balanced
• 2S: 4-6 balanced, or 4-7 with a 5-card or longer minor
• 2NT: 7-9 balanced
The reason why I consider this sort of scheme playable is that while it seems harmful or perhaps just not useful to condense all positive replies into 2H, I have looked at hundreds of deals where a 2C opening is faced by a positive response. In virtually every case, the final contract should be a slam. So it actually makes sense to use only one bid for those hands, and use two or three responses to categorize the "semi-positive" hands.

A similar sort of philosophy gets a very different implementation as described by Martin Johnson at
http://www.freewebs.com/bobbybridge/
(some interesting stuff there). He calls it "Two, Weak, Transfer".
• 2D: A positive hand with at least an ace or 6 working points, unsuitable for any of the special higher responses. All hands of 10+ HCP and most hands with 1.5 quick tricks use this response.
• 2H: A negative response, the auction may stop at 2NT, 3 of a major or 4 of a minor
• 2S: A medium strength TWO-suited hand. Minimum strength is any hand that does not intend to stop below game, maximum of two kings or 1 quick trick.
• 2NT: A WEAK single suited hand with no side entry, and a decent suit. The bid denies two top honors, but any seven card suit qualifies as "decent".
• 3C, 3D, 3H: A good single suited hand minimum suit KQJxxx or AQ10xxx with no side king or ace, suit shown is the next higher (TRANSFER response).
Once again, there is a positive response and a negative response. But this time, the other bids are used to describe particular types of responder hands that are difficult to get across otherwise. I like this idea, because while I appreciate that the ideal auction has the opener as captain (because his hand is so strong), I also feel that standard methods provide too few mechanisms for responder to describe whatever contribution he might make. Discovering point count or controls can be done later: identifying shape, or that there is a suit without an outside entry, is both more difficult and more useful. That makes this set-up far better than, say, step responses.

For something completely different, you can go to Dr. Chris Ryall’s website
http://chrisryall.net/bridge/two/clubs.htm#responses
for his description of Paradox responses.
• 2D: Can supply a trick in support of either hearts or spades.
• 2H: Cannot supply a trick for hearts, may or may not have a trick for spades.
• 2S: Cannot supply a trick for spades, but promises a trick for hearts.
Both the 2H and 2S responses are a form of negative, bidding the suit that responder doesn’t like (hence, Paradox). They are therefore not forcing, if opener doesn’t have game in his own hand. An auction like 2C – 2H; Pass would probably make the opponents blink, but it’s perfectly logical. Suppose you open 2C on a hand that is single-suited with hearts, and you estimate 8 or 9 tricks in hand. Partner responds 2H, saying he has no help. Obviously, the thing to do is pass. Of course, that means the requirements for the 2H and 2S responses must be pretty tight – opposite a typical 2C opening, you really don’t need much to contribute a trick. But the general idea is interesting, and may be worth exploring.

Of the three methods, Martin Johnson’s “Two, Weak, Transfer” system has me the most excited at the moment. I’m going to run up some random 2C openings and try to compare possible sequences.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Misadventures In Manhattan

Slams were definitely a problem last week. Not just for us, the opponents didn’t do so well either.

E-W vul, dlr W

          ♠ J 10 9
          9 5 3 2
          9
          ♣ 10 8 6 3 2
♠ K Q 4 2            ♠ A 8 7 6
Q 6       [ ]      A K 10 8
K 10 2             A J 8 5 4
♣ K Q 7 4            ♣ -
          ♠ 5 3
          J 7 4
          Q 7 6 3
          ♣ A J 9 5

W    N    E    S
1♣   Pass 1   Pass
1♠   Pass 4♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This was distinctly un-enterprising from both sides of the table, but one of them has some excuse. Why West didn’t open 1NT (15-17) I have no idea. That would have made for a completely different auction, of course, but failing to make the bid seems very misleading. Certainly it seems to have fooled East, who would be worth a slam try in any sensible auction (and would probably drive to slam opposite 1NT). But having been primed to expect a minimum-ish opening with club values, she just pounded out 4♠, which West passed without a second’s thought - making all thirteen tricks after I led my singleton.

Game all, dlr S

          ♠ A Q
          8 6
          J 10 7 6
          ♣ A K J 6 2
♠ K 8 6 3           ♠ J 10 4
10 4 3    [ ]     J 7 5 2
9 3               K 8 5
♣ Q 8 4 3           ♣ 9 7 5
          ♠ 9 7 5 2
          A K Q 9
          A Q 4 2
          ♣ 10

S    W    N    E
1   Pass 2♣   Pass
2NT  Pass 3NT  Pass
Pass Pass

This one isn’t really a slam, but I wanted to include it for completeness. We scored 720 for the second time in the session – I don’t remember ever doing that before.

The opening spade lead forced a finesse at trick one. Partner then crossed to the A and ran the ♣10, crossed back to the ♠Q to cash clubs, and then took the diamond finesse. On the fourth round of diamonds, East (who had lost interest) discarded a heart, and that was thirteen tricks. I did give passing thought to 6 before bidding 3NT, but twelve tricks seemed a bit unlikely. Swap the East-West hands and declarer isn’t nearly so happy.

Against the previous pair of opponents, we’d racked up 720 on this one.

Game all, dlr E (rotated)

          ♠ Q 5 4
          A K J 3 2
          Q J 7
          ♣ A J
♠ J 8 6 3 2         ♠ 10 9 7
9 4       [ ]     Q 7 5
9 3               6 5
♣ K 10 6 5          ♣ Q 9 7 4 3
          ♠ A K
          10 8 6
          A K 10 8 4 2
          ♣ 8 2

E    S    W    N 
Pass 1   Pass 1
Pass 2   Pass 3NT
Pass Pass Pass

I didn’t think I had quite enough to jump to 3, even though I was impressed with my controls and partner was bidding to cover my losers. And I don’t see what else I might have rebid, so that means I have to place the blame with partner. Truthfully, he really is too good to close the auction with 3NT, and for all he knows 4 would be better anyway, even if there is no slam. So how about
E    S    W    N 
Pass 1   Pass 1
Pass 2   Pass 3
Pass 3♠   Pass 3NT
Pass 4   Pass 6
Pass Pass Pass

Knowing us, we would probably finish up in 6, but the layout is so friendly that everything makes.

In a different session, I played with Agent 99.

Love all, dlr N

          ♠ A Q 6
          A Q J
          A J 8
          ♣ K 7 6 3
♠ K 8               ♠ 9 7 3
9 5       [ ]     10 8 7 6 3 2
K 7 6 5 4 2       10 9 3
♣ 9 8 5             ♣ J
          ♠ J 10 5 4 2
          K 4
          Q
          ♣ A Q 10 4 2

N    E    S    W
2NT  Pass 3   Pass
3♠   Pass 4♣   Pass
4   Pass 4   Pass
4♠   Pass 4NT  Pass
6♣   Pass 6♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This finished in a reasonable contract, but with much confusion. I intended 4 as Redwood 1430, agreeing clubs. Agent 99 wasn’t sure what suit I was interested in, and treated it as a cuebid. So I thought 4 showed the ♣A, and 4♠ asked about the ♣Q (I was thinking 7♣ on a 4-4 fit might have play that 7♠ didn’t), and then I wasn’t sure what she meant by 4NT. Agent 99 thought 4 and 4 were cuebids, and was happy to hear 4♠ because she figured that set trumps. So then she proceeded with 1430, and didn’t know what to make of my answer.

In the event, everything depended on the spade finesse, and that was right, so the top score went to a pair that punted 7NT. But 6♠ is actually a very reasonable spot.

But what should our auction have been? Should 4 be treated as Redwood? I’m still inclined to think so, because if I want to press forward in clubs, it’s my only chance to use the convention. What if I prefer spades? Am I only allowed to bid 4♠, and rely on partner to make a move for slam if advisable? Perhaps so, and make sure to super-accept the initial transfer somehow if I really, really like spades. That sort of rationale would also work for spades and diamonds, or hearts and clubs, but it looks like we’re screwed if responder has hearts and diamonds. I’ll have to think on it some more.


Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Redeal

A quick update about the computer-dealt hands at the Manhattan.

At this time, the hands (or at least, the vast majority of them) are indeed being dealt by the computer as "random". (In fact, a lot of the "grunt work" of setting up the boards is being done by non-bridge-playing workers). So the complaints about computer-dealt hands are back in fashion, but my suspicions about hands being "adjusted" are out of play now.

So some people are bothered, but I'm actually happier.