Saturday, January 30, 2010

Serious partnerships

My last two or three sessions with Agent 99 haven't been stellar. What with one thing and another, it's been difficult to play together any more often than about once a week, and that's taken a toll, I think. I was reading a piece on the internet the other day (about a bidding system or treatment or something, I can't remember what, exactly). A comment the author made in passing rang a bell for me. He said something along the lines of "this is perhaps not for casual play, but for serious partnerships that play at least 100 times a year, it's worth it". My first reaction was "100 times a year? That's twice a week. And he doesn't count a partnership as serious unless you play at least that often... There aren't many serious partnerships around".
Now, maybe I was reading a bit more into that comment than the author intended. But I got to thinking back to periods where I was most successful. And the truth is, I was always playing with one regular partner almost exclusively, I was playing with my favorite partner at least twice a week, and we'd been playing together for at least six months. Whether or not that author intended to say it, I've decided I agree that if you want to be a "serious" partnership in terms of consistent results in serious competition, you need to invest heavily in the partnership in terms of time.
I don't think it's a function of what particular bidding system you use, or what types of competition you play in, or what level of opposition you face. I know Sartaj Hans (The Imp Chimp) was talking about “concept” vs “delivery” one while. It's been my experience that the only consistently effective way to improve delivery is repetition. You have to become familiar with and negotiate out how your partnership handles various situations. When you've coped with (or failed to cope with) enough different situations enough times, then you get a good grasp of what partner will expect/do in a new situation. And that means putting in practice time and playing time. I was hoping Sartaj, or someone, would come up with some other way to do it, but I don't think anyone has, really.
On the other hand, I don't know that my reaction was wrong, either. I see lots of players at the Manhattan that play two, three, four times or more each week. The club is open seven days a week, and there are some people who show up almost every day. But they play with multiple partners – very few are “serious” partnerships.

Anyway, I thought I would wrap this up with a couple of questions.

How serious are you about your bridge?

Do you have a partner that you are willing to invest the time in?

Do you think that you can be serious without putting the time in?

How is that working out for you?

Friday, January 22, 2010

Ethics? What are those?

Just a quick follow-up to the last post.

I was helping run a supervised play session the other day, when I saw the bidding at one table proceed 1C - Pass - 2C - Pass - Pass - Pass. The sweet little old lady who bid 2C had 5-card club support and 11 high-card points, so I asked why she didn't bid 3C. "I couldn't read my partner", she confessed. "I didn't think she had a good opening".

I managed not to scream too loud as I explained that you aren't allowed to bid based on your partner's facial expression.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Ethical considerations

Playing a session with Agent 99, there was a hand that infuriated me.



Looking at my hand, it is clearly not worth a raise to 4S, at first assessment. I was considering bidding 3D as a trial bid, when the double on my right changed my mind. If most of the missing cards are on my right, I figured that my minor suit honors had grown, and therefore I jumped to game.

Needless to say, this was not a success. In fact, I misplayed the hand because I expected more values on my right, and finished up going three down for a complete zero, when I should have escaped for one or two down for at least some matchpoints (most of the field actually reached 3S or 4S and went down). If the double had been up to strength, 4S would have been a much better contract, but I was misled in both the bidding and the play.

That was infuriating enough, but getting fixed by an idiot is a common enough occurrence that I should be able to get over it. However, a much more troubling aspect sprang to mind. East is sitting looking at 10 hcp and four trumps. West has made a take-out double potentially forcing her to bid at the three level, certainly showing (for almost anybody) something like opening bid values (or better). Why didn't she double 4S? Could it be that she knew her partner was inclined to bid on garbage? I think so, and I think not disclosing that understanding is an ethical violation. You can have your bids mean all sorts of things, but you are required to alert the opponents when the meaning is so far outside the norm.

Discussing this with the director after the game, he was inclined to agree, in principle. But his judgement was that they are both idiots and don't know what they are doing. Therefore, there wasn't really anything he could do. I can understand his point, and he's probably right. But at the same time, I'll be keeping an eye out for that pair in the future. They are just C players, but the doubler plays a lot, and is continually at the top of her section of the Ace Of Clubs race on the ACBL website. How much leeway does she get?

Monday, January 11, 2010

Slams

Playing with Agent 99, I find a lot of my blogging focus rests on slam hands. Our bidding style is usually pretty aggressive with strong hands, so we don't miss many. And often enough there's something interesting in the hand.

The first two hands came on consecutive boards against the same opponents. The first one pleased me greatly, because “proper” strip-squeezes are somewhat less common than mere simple squeezes.



The 2H bid showed 15-16 hcp with better hearts than spades, so the jump to 6NT indicated some confidence in my declarer play.

South led the S6, and I saw eleven tricks, counting one diamond. The twelfth could come from the spade finesse, or from an end-play (presumably after a strip-squeeze), or perhaps from a simple squeeze if the DA was taken immediately. I decided that the spade finesse was probably wrong, although after the explanation of the bidding, South had some indication that a spade lead might be good. So I took the SA, led a diamond to the DK, which held, and then unblocked the HQJ. Now the CK gave entry to finish the hearts, discarding diamonds in preparation for the strip-squeeze and the eventual throw-in of North to lead a spade. In accordance with my theory of the distribution, I next cashed the CQ, expecting the long clubs to be with South. However, South showed out. This left me a trick short, but on the other hand, made the spade finesse much more likely to win. So a spade to the JS and the KS completed the squeeze, and North was thrown in to lead a club. Not exactly the squeeze I'd been working on, but close enough.

The next hand was not so good.



The CQ was led, so I ruffed and led to the JD. My thinking was if the finesse won, I could ruff a club, cash the SA, and then play a heart. If the diamond finesse lost, a heart return would help me pick up the trumps, a club would let me ruff, a spade lets me finesse, and if it's a diamond, maybe they'll be 2-2.

No such luck. The diamond return was ruffed for down one (I guessed to drop the HQ). I still kind of like the line, but I don't really know what the best way to play the hand is. As the cards lie, nothing sensible works anyway.

A hand with voids came up in a different session.



We bid this very simply and directly, and I got a trump lead. I decided that ruffing spades seemed like the best plan, and that I needed thirteen tricks for a decent matchpoint score. So I won the CQ, and risked entering hand twice in hearts to ruff two spades low. Then two diamond ruffs provided the entries to ruff a third spade high and draw trumps – no problem.

We played the hand in the first round, and I figured that it was probably above average (slams usually are). Bidding 7C is difficult, with both players discouraged by a void in partner's first suit. But bidding 6C seemed so natural that I was sure others would get there. In fact only one other pair reached a slam – 6NT down 2. Is the hand really that tricky?

The next hand features a question of bidding theory.



With no particular agreement, Agent 99 and I were playing the old-fashioned style where a raise of the fourth suit is natural, indicating that opener has a three-suited hand. I therefore deduced that diamonds was the right strain, and that all her values would be working, so I simply jumped to the slam. This made in some comfort, eventually losing a trick to a failing club finesse.

When I play with Elwood, he favors a rebid structure where (after a 4th suit bid) Opener has a responsibility to show support if possible, or bid no-trumps if possible, or show extra length or strength in his own suits. The left-over “problem” hands are the ones that raise the 4th suit, and they tend to contain exactly three small cards in that suit.

Now, when Elwood described this, it all seemed well thought-through and sensible. But I'm not buying it 100% just yet. On this hand, for example, he would not raise clubs, he would bid 2NT. I could then show diamond support, and I suppose we might still get to slam. But I have to say, I'm less comfortable with that sequence. For one thing, I fear we might reach 6NT. That will probably make in practice, but it can go down, while 6D is very solid.

So what does a raise of the 4th suit mean to you?

The next hand was another slightly surprising top.



This presented no problems when (eventually) the SJ was led from dummy and got covered by the SQ. But we got a top when nobody else reached a slam. One pair even stopped in 3NT and went down.

It is something of a truism that big two-suited hands can be awkward to handle after a 2C opening. For us, since we use the Kokish Relay, the heart-spade combination is even more problematic. So maybe people were opening 1H, and that would make it very difficult to get to slam.

I don't disagree with the basic thesis, but I felt that anything less than a 2C opening just wouldn't do that hand justice. The result was that when I pulled 3NT to 4H, Agent 99 knew that she had too much to stop. Ten points opposite a 2C opening is a lot, and while the minor suit honors are perhaps of dubious value, the major suit honors have grown. I once had the computer generate a few hundred deals that included a 2C opening bid. My observation was that any time there was a positive response of about 8 hcp or more, you wanted to be in a slam. They don't always make, but looking at the two hands single-dummy, you wouldn't want to stay out of it. Agent 99 knows this, so she raised me to slam.

Friday, January 1, 2010

Misadventures In Manhattan

My Thursday evening games with Ralph often seem to produce some weird deals and even weirder results.

This one was just amusing.


East was end-played at trick one! She chose the D4, which I won in dummy with the DJ. Then SA and another spade, and the SQ appeared. So I ducked, of course, and there she was - end-played twice in the first four tricks.

This one was just amazing. Sitting North with West the dealer, I held: SJ HA982 DAKJ83 CAJ5

and the bidding proceeded

W    N    E    S

Pass 1D   1H   1S

2H   Dble Pass 4S

Pass Pass Pass

At favorable vulnerability, I was willing to take a swing at 2H. I have aces, I have four trumps and a singleton in partner's suit. Two down is worth more than our game (if we have one). But as good as my hand is, I don't know if I can make a move over 4S. Surely I must have something this good to chance the double? It sounds like partner has a long suit with nothing outside – can I visualize only one loser? Little did I know.

What a hand! I've never seen a ten-card suit before (in a randomly dealt hand). Naturally, 4S plus 3 was not one of our good scores.

Probably the best pair in the room had a horrible disaster against us.

I led the CQ, and declarer decided to cut down on ruffs by playing HA and another heart. Partner ditched a couple of diamonds while I was drawing trumps, so I was quickly able to claim down eight. I call that -800 the hard way. At another table, North liked his hand enough to double 4S. -1270 is another score you don't see too often.

I like being aggressive in the bidding, but sometimes I maybe take things a bit too far.

Just bidding 4S seemed pusillanimous, but 6S looked really ugly when I got a diamond lead. I actually managed to escape for down one, not that it helped the score.

I've tried a two-suited pre-empt before with some success, but this effort collected a big fat zero.

After two passes, I was faced with the question of what to open. Passing can't be right. It certainly appears as if LHO is about to bid spades, and I don't have much defence opposite a passed partner, unless our hands are a real misfit. Opening 2H seems wrong in several ways, so I see my main choices as being 1H and 3H. The three-level bid is unorthodox, but might present South with more of a problem, so I went for it. As you can see, the deal is a bit of a nightmare. Nobody can make anything, and 3H went down three.