Let's say you pick up what seems to be my average sort of hand these days:
xx, xxx, JTxx, Qxxx
The opponents bid rapidly and confidently:
1S – 2H; 3S – 4NT; 5D – 7S;
What do you lead?
It's a crapshoot, basically. Assuming the opponents have at least some idea what they're doing, dummy thinks he has a lot of tricks available. Almost certainly, he's counting on at least six spade tricks, and you have no reason to think he's wrong. He did bid hearts, so maybe he has a decent heart suit too. With no clues, you flip a coin and lead a club or a diamond. I'd probably lead a club, myself: if partner can produce the king, we may at least threaten to win a trick later.
Now suppose partner doubles the final contract. What do you lead this time? The classic answer is to lead something unusual. The only unusual lead this time is a heart. It doesn't look very promising from our hand, but maybe dummy is bidding based on a long suit, and declarer has more support than he is expecting. It's just possible that partner is void, and will ruff at trick one. This would be an example of the famous Lightner double. I don't know if it would be a good example, because from this sort of bidding, I would expect there to be a real chance that the opponents can run to 7NT if you double 7S. But perhaps partner feels that the gamble is worthwhile, since they are going to make 7S anyway if he doesn't double.
So far, so not-very-controversial.
What changes if the final bid on the sequence above is 7NT instead of 7S? Now I think the picture of two good suits is a lot clearer. People don't bid grand slams like this unless they can count the tricks, most of the time. I think declarer sees six spades, five hearts, and two aces in his mind's eye, and we're toast. But my original answer stands: flip a coin and lead a club or a diamond, and for me personally, it's probably a club.
Now the tricky one: what if partner doubles 7NT? What do you lead, and why? What does partner have? Is this a Lightner double?
I don't think this can be a traditional Lightner double. All it can mean is that declarer has screwed up at the most basic level, and partner is looking at an ace. If partner has a sure trick in spades or hearts, I don't think it matters what you lead: the contract isn't going to make. If partner has a minor suit ace, though, the lead may be crucial, because declarer may have thirteen tricks if you miss at trick one. So do you flip a coin again? I think so. I don't think a spade or heart lead can be justified, and I don't think there is any clear message from the double.
Partner led a spade, which is always wrong. I was looking at the AD, and mostly doubled just because we were already screwed if the contract made, so the double was “free”. Dummy hit with seven spades, so declarer didn't need a diamond trick. -2490 is a score you don't see too often, thank the gods.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Bridge As A Spectator Sport
There's an interesting discussion going on (in sort of slow motion) at Cathy Chua's blog, The Overtrick. The thrust of it is that Cathy wants to know how to improve Australian bridge, not just the overall standard, but particularly, how to make the top-level Australians fully competitive at World level, and bringing the Bermuda Bowl south and stuff. This is a big question, and I've no doubt a few other countries would be interested in a good answer.
Cathy contends that bridge is not taken seriously, either by the general public or by bridge players themselves, and that “professional” bridge players really aren't very professional. She thinks that if big prize money tournaments were available, so that players could actually make a living playing bridge (as opposed to teaching or writing or playing with sponsors), then the game as a whole would be taken more seriously by everyone. And as a result, the standard of play (at all levels) would improve.
I can see what she means, but I'm not sure I agree 100%. I think she's a bit too dismissive of the current “professional bridge players”. Even in sports that do have big money tournaments and international stars (say, tennis, for example) the majority of “tennis pros” toil away almost all of the time not in Grand Slam tournaments, but giving lessons and doing all the stuff that Cathy doesn't like. But I do think she's right that if there were a big money tournament circuit where top players could earn a living, that would indeed change a lot of people's perception of the game.
But having said that, I think that business model is only properly sustainable for a spectator sport. You only get the continuous infusion of cash if you get lots of people to put in a little each – paying customers, TV deals and the like. Can that ever work for bridge? I don't think so, not at the moment anyway. Even chess has such tournaments (which is a factor driving Cathy's perception, of course), but a key factor there, I think, is that a large percentage of people knows how to play chess. Very badly, it's true, but there is no need for spectators to actually appreciate the details on their own: that's what commentators are for. I mean, thousands, millions, of people watch Tiger Woods play golf. Not all of those people can actually play golf, they just understand enough to know that what he's doing is difficult. Bridge doesn't have the same penetration into the general public in terms of people knowing even just a little bit about the game. And I think the only way to change that is through the schools. I think we need to have high-school bridge clubs the way we have chess clubs. Get bridge onto the menu of after-school activities, recognized as being as brain-twisting as chess (in a different way), while being better in some ways because it is a social game where chess is essentially solitary. And get people playing (rubber) bridge at home, not just in duplicate tournaments. It will take a long time, no doubt, but you have to prepare the ground in terms of making an audience available. Not all the kids will grow up to be bridge players, but they will grow up to know what you are talking about when you mention bidding and ruffing.
Which doesn't solve Cathy's immediate problem. Is there something that can be done in the space of, say, five or ten years, rather than a generational approach?
Cathy contends that bridge is not taken seriously, either by the general public or by bridge players themselves, and that “professional” bridge players really aren't very professional. She thinks that if big prize money tournaments were available, so that players could actually make a living playing bridge (as opposed to teaching or writing or playing with sponsors), then the game as a whole would be taken more seriously by everyone. And as a result, the standard of play (at all levels) would improve.
I can see what she means, but I'm not sure I agree 100%. I think she's a bit too dismissive of the current “professional bridge players”. Even in sports that do have big money tournaments and international stars (say, tennis, for example) the majority of “tennis pros” toil away almost all of the time not in Grand Slam tournaments, but giving lessons and doing all the stuff that Cathy doesn't like. But I do think she's right that if there were a big money tournament circuit where top players could earn a living, that would indeed change a lot of people's perception of the game.
But having said that, I think that business model is only properly sustainable for a spectator sport. You only get the continuous infusion of cash if you get lots of people to put in a little each – paying customers, TV deals and the like. Can that ever work for bridge? I don't think so, not at the moment anyway. Even chess has such tournaments (which is a factor driving Cathy's perception, of course), but a key factor there, I think, is that a large percentage of people knows how to play chess. Very badly, it's true, but there is no need for spectators to actually appreciate the details on their own: that's what commentators are for. I mean, thousands, millions, of people watch Tiger Woods play golf. Not all of those people can actually play golf, they just understand enough to know that what he's doing is difficult. Bridge doesn't have the same penetration into the general public in terms of people knowing even just a little bit about the game. And I think the only way to change that is through the schools. I think we need to have high-school bridge clubs the way we have chess clubs. Get bridge onto the menu of after-school activities, recognized as being as brain-twisting as chess (in a different way), while being better in some ways because it is a social game where chess is essentially solitary. And get people playing (rubber) bridge at home, not just in duplicate tournaments. It will take a long time, no doubt, but you have to prepare the ground in terms of making an audience available. Not all the kids will grow up to be bridge players, but they will grow up to know what you are talking about when you mention bidding and ruffing.
Which doesn't solve Cathy's immediate problem. Is there something that can be done in the space of, say, five or ten years, rather than a generational approach?
Saturday, March 12, 2011
New Partner
I haven't been blogging much lately, as you may have noticed. At least part of the reason is that I haven't been playing all that often, and when I do play, I play badly. I find I'm not motivated to write about being a putz.
Not playing so often is partly a function of my schedule and partly that of my favorite partners. Both Elwood and Agent 99 have had personal issues that have cut into their playing time (Elwood especially), and I haven't been inclined to seek out new partners. That may be changing. Agent 99 is more or less back in the swing of things, and one of the teachers at the Manhattan has had a couple of games with me. She has been trying new partners because she wants to play more, so if this works out, there is at least the possibility of more games in the future. I will call her Rose.
So far, we are playing a very standard version of 2/1 Game Force. I am trying to let Rose drive the system selection. Going forward, that will probably become 2/1 with a weak notrump using forcing and non-forcing Stayman. She is currently learning that set-up from another partner, and promises to teach it to me when she's a bit more comfortable with it. But for now, we're using 14+ to 17 and four-way transfers.
There are one or two little glosses that have been added.
* Her chosen defence to 1NT is Cappelletti, not my favorite, but reasonably effective most of the time.
* We also play Capp in the sandwich seat after the opponents have started 1minor – 1NT.
* The balancing 1NT overcall is 11-14, as usual, and she likes to play checkback with it, answering as normal with 11-12 and bidding 2NT with 13-14. Responder can then repeat Stayman with 3C, if necessary. (This is the same treatment that Elwood and I were using after our 15-18 1NT rebid.)
* After an auction that starts 1m – 1M; 2M Rose likes to play 2NT as an artificial inquiry, with Ogust-style responses, so that Responder can discover whether Opener has 3- or 4-card support, and whether he is at the 11-13 or the 14-16 end of his putative range.
* Our 1NT rebid is 12-14 at the moment, so Rose has us playing New Minor Forcing by a passed hand, and Two-Way NMF by an un-passed hand.
So far, I have restricted my input to suggesting using Capp at the four level after the opponents open a Gambling 3NT (seems like a no-brainer to me, given that Capp is our NT defence, but I had to argue for it). And I'm also arguing, not yet successfully, for using the Woolsey double against opponents' strong 1NT openings. It fits in perfectly well with Capp, but Rose is unfamiliar with it, and rather suspicious.
Still, let's see what develops – it's very early days yet.
Not playing so often is partly a function of my schedule and partly that of my favorite partners. Both Elwood and Agent 99 have had personal issues that have cut into their playing time (Elwood especially), and I haven't been inclined to seek out new partners. That may be changing. Agent 99 is more or less back in the swing of things, and one of the teachers at the Manhattan has had a couple of games with me. She has been trying new partners because she wants to play more, so if this works out, there is at least the possibility of more games in the future. I will call her Rose.
So far, we are playing a very standard version of 2/1 Game Force. I am trying to let Rose drive the system selection. Going forward, that will probably become 2/1 with a weak notrump using forcing and non-forcing Stayman. She is currently learning that set-up from another partner, and promises to teach it to me when she's a bit more comfortable with it. But for now, we're using 14+ to 17 and four-way transfers.
There are one or two little glosses that have been added.
* Her chosen defence to 1NT is Cappelletti, not my favorite, but reasonably effective most of the time.
* We also play Capp in the sandwich seat after the opponents have started 1minor – 1NT.
* The balancing 1NT overcall is 11-14, as usual, and she likes to play checkback with it, answering as normal with 11-12 and bidding 2NT with 13-14. Responder can then repeat Stayman with 3C, if necessary. (This is the same treatment that Elwood and I were using after our 15-18 1NT rebid.)
* After an auction that starts 1m – 1M; 2M Rose likes to play 2NT as an artificial inquiry, with Ogust-style responses, so that Responder can discover whether Opener has 3- or 4-card support, and whether he is at the 11-13 or the 14-16 end of his putative range.
* Our 1NT rebid is 12-14 at the moment, so Rose has us playing New Minor Forcing by a passed hand, and Two-Way NMF by an un-passed hand.
So far, I have restricted my input to suggesting using Capp at the four level after the opponents open a Gambling 3NT (seems like a no-brainer to me, given that Capp is our NT defence, but I had to argue for it). And I'm also arguing, not yet successfully, for using the Woolsey double against opponents' strong 1NT openings. It fits in perfectly well with Capp, but Rose is unfamiliar with it, and rather suspicious.
Still, let's see what develops – it's very early days yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)