Sunday, March 28, 2010
Bridgevaria
I feel I should give a shout-out to Bridgevaria.com, an on-line magazine about bridge. When you're looking for something to read or puzzle over, it's worth a look.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
brief hiatus
My non-bridge life has gone crazy just at the moment. Playing bridge seems unlikely for a week or two, never mind posting to this blog. Hopefully, things will calm down in that sort of time-frame, and I can get back into the swing of things before May.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Grand National Teams
We finally got around to playing the final of the GNT Flight B for our district today. Twenty six boards at IMPs for about 7 gold points and to decide who would qualify to go to New Orleans to represent NYC.
We weren't too intimidated by the opposition, but on the other hand, we didn't expect an easy ride either. Elwood and I sat down against a pair that we felt fairly confident against, while the Feuers tackled what I would consider the opposition's best pair. Having said that, it's fair to add that we got lucky in the first quarter. The very first hand we picked up was a brute.
I showed 5+5+ in the minors, and Elwood chose 5C, making 6. We were not happy with this as a start. When I put the dummy down, I commented that I had no idea whether we should be in 5, 6 or 7, and that was basically true. A few boards later, I picked up something like
Elwood again was shaking his head when he saw the dummy, but on this hand, a 4-1 spade break limited him to 11 tricks. He commented that if I made any sort of encouraging noise (I should really cue-bid 4H, for one thing) he would land in 6S. That said, we could expect a swing in our favor because of the bad break.
We did indeed gain 13 on that hand, and in fact we gained 10 on the first one, also. While agonizing over missing 6C, we had failed to notice that a 4-1 diamond break allowed 6C to be beaten by AD and a ruff. The Feuers didn't miss their chance, and our opponents should feel aggrieved that two good slams cost them 23 IMPs. I was pleased that Elwood and I stayed focussed after these shenanigans, and we earned a couple of game swings in the second quarter. When we scored up at half time, we were ahead 48-12.
The opponents switched partnerships around for the 2nd half (they were a team of 6 anyway, but also broke up the pair who stayed in when they brought in players 5 and 6). That didn't worry us, and Elwood and I stayed buckled down and didn't give anything away. Meanwhile, their other pair decided to press against the Feuers, which turned out to be a losing strategy. We won the second half 49-8, for a 97-20 total. Very satisfying.
We weren't too intimidated by the opposition, but on the other hand, we didn't expect an easy ride either. Elwood and I sat down against a pair that we felt fairly confident against, while the Feuers tackled what I would consider the opposition's best pair. Having said that, it's fair to add that we got lucky in the first quarter. The very first hand we picked up was a brute.
I showed 5+5+ in the minors, and Elwood chose 5C, making 6. We were not happy with this as a start. When I put the dummy down, I commented that I had no idea whether we should be in 5, 6 or 7, and that was basically true. A few boards later, I picked up something like
Elwood again was shaking his head when he saw the dummy, but on this hand, a 4-1 spade break limited him to 11 tricks. He commented that if I made any sort of encouraging noise (I should really cue-bid 4H, for one thing) he would land in 6S. That said, we could expect a swing in our favor because of the bad break.
We did indeed gain 13 on that hand, and in fact we gained 10 on the first one, also. While agonizing over missing 6C, we had failed to notice that a 4-1 diamond break allowed 6C to be beaten by AD and a ruff. The Feuers didn't miss their chance, and our opponents should feel aggrieved that two good slams cost them 23 IMPs. I was pleased that Elwood and I stayed focussed after these shenanigans, and we earned a couple of game swings in the second quarter. When we scored up at half time, we were ahead 48-12.
The opponents switched partnerships around for the 2nd half (they were a team of 6 anyway, but also broke up the pair who stayed in when they brought in players 5 and 6). That didn't worry us, and Elwood and I stayed buckled down and didn't give anything away. Meanwhile, their other pair decided to press against the Feuers, which turned out to be a losing strategy. We won the second half 49-8, for a 97-20 total. Very satisfying.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Acol Experiment
The Experiment proceeds. We've played three or four sessions so far, announcing to our bemused opponents that we're playing 4-card majors and a weak no-trump. There's no requirement to pre-alert them, of course, but we do, because the majority of them hardly ever meet anything except some variation of Standard American.
Our results so far haven't been earth-shattering, but they haven't been bad either. (When all's said and done, the quality of your defence probably has a bigger impact on your results than the quality of your bidding). But that's not the point of the exercise. Agent 99 is getting more comfortable with the feeling that most bids are natural, and her approach to a session is definitely more relaxed. We used to spend fifteen or twenty minutes before each game with her going through a little stack of index cards: her crib notes on various bidding sequences and conventions. Now we spend about two minutes talking about lebensohl (that's one zombie of a convention, you can't talk it to death), and that's about it.
So far I've noticed a couple of poor results from using the natural 2NT and 3NT responses to 1 major in a somewhat undisciplined fashion. We've agreed that they should show less than 3-card support, so that should eliminate the issue of missed 5-3 trump fits. The light opening style has caused problems for the opponents a few times, and the willingness to just jump to a reasonable-sounding final contract has engineered a swing or two. I'd say that, on balance, we're at least breaking even on how effectively we're bidding.
So far, so good.
Our results so far haven't been earth-shattering, but they haven't been bad either. (When all's said and done, the quality of your defence probably has a bigger impact on your results than the quality of your bidding). But that's not the point of the exercise. Agent 99 is getting more comfortable with the feeling that most bids are natural, and her approach to a session is definitely more relaxed. We used to spend fifteen or twenty minutes before each game with her going through a little stack of index cards: her crib notes on various bidding sequences and conventions. Now we spend about two minutes talking about lebensohl (that's one zombie of a convention, you can't talk it to death), and that's about it.
So far I've noticed a couple of poor results from using the natural 2NT and 3NT responses to 1 major in a somewhat undisciplined fashion. We've agreed that they should show less than 3-card support, so that should eliminate the issue of missed 5-3 trump fits. The light opening style has caused problems for the opponents a few times, and the willingness to just jump to a reasonable-sounding final contract has engineered a swing or two. I'd say that, on balance, we're at least breaking even on how effectively we're bidding.
So far, so good.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Silver Points
Another STAC week has come and gone. Say what you like about masterpoints being meaningless and silly, but if you offer silver points, you meet players you haven't seen for months. The Manhattan (and the other clubs, I'm sure) was jumping this past week. The hands come from the ACBL, and their computer seems to deal even crazier stuff than our computer.
Here are a couple of judgement calls.
Do you say anything? I think I'm passing at any form of scoring. Ralph decided to risk a double. The good news was that both the ace and king of hearts stood up. The bad news was that those were the only two tricks for the defence.
How about here? Partner tries to calculate his pre-empts, but at this vulnerability he'll be aiming for 3 or 4 down. You have some good stuff for spades – nice trumps, good controls. You have potential for tricks in the round suits if partner can help, and whatever you're missing is probably on your right and finessable. But that argues for defence, also, as does the vulnerability. Actually, the only really wrong answer is pass. But if you double, there's some chance of screwing up and only beating the contract one trick (although it's down three double-dummy). If you bid 5S, North will double, expecting his partner to have a good hand (not unreasonably), and partner will wrap up eleven tricks without any difficulty.
When's the last time you had 8-card support? I was sitting waiting for Ralph to open 2H or 3C or something equally useless, and he went and opened 1D. Now what?
I gave up on science and just bid 5D. That was just right, looking at our two hands. Ralph's diamond suit was three small, of course, so the two missing were the ace and queen. We got a 2-0 break – offside, alongside another ace. Down 1.
Playing quietly in 2S making nine tricks was worth 10 out of 11 matchpoints. A number of people played in 3NT, going down, and we out-scored those in clubs. I count this one as a victory for the weak no-trump.
This slam was the opposition's way, and the hand managed to trip up most of them. Only three pairs reached a slam, two making 7S while one pair managed 6NT+1. Everybody else languished in game, with a grand slam available in three denominations. At our table (and probably at others also) the auction started P - 1S - 2NT (Unusual), which I guess makes things more difficult. But for three-quarters of the field to not even reach a small slam seems poor to me.
Here are a couple of judgement calls.
Do you say anything? I think I'm passing at any form of scoring. Ralph decided to risk a double. The good news was that both the ace and king of hearts stood up. The bad news was that those were the only two tricks for the defence.
How about here? Partner tries to calculate his pre-empts, but at this vulnerability he'll be aiming for 3 or 4 down. You have some good stuff for spades – nice trumps, good controls. You have potential for tricks in the round suits if partner can help, and whatever you're missing is probably on your right and finessable. But that argues for defence, also, as does the vulnerability. Actually, the only really wrong answer is pass. But if you double, there's some chance of screwing up and only beating the contract one trick (although it's down three double-dummy). If you bid 5S, North will double, expecting his partner to have a good hand (not unreasonably), and partner will wrap up eleven tricks without any difficulty.
When's the last time you had 8-card support? I was sitting waiting for Ralph to open 2H or 3C or something equally useless, and he went and opened 1D. Now what?
I gave up on science and just bid 5D. That was just right, looking at our two hands. Ralph's diamond suit was three small, of course, so the two missing were the ace and queen. We got a 2-0 break – offside, alongside another ace. Down 1.
Playing quietly in 2S making nine tricks was worth 10 out of 11 matchpoints. A number of people played in 3NT, going down, and we out-scored those in clubs. I count this one as a victory for the weak no-trump.
This slam was the opposition's way, and the hand managed to trip up most of them. Only three pairs reached a slam, two making 7S while one pair managed 6NT+1. Everybody else languished in game, with a grand slam available in three denominations. At our table (and probably at others also) the auction started P - 1S - 2NT (Unusual), which I guess makes things more difficult. But for three-quarters of the field to not even reach a small slam seems poor to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)