Misadventures In Manhattan

We’ve had some contenders for “stupid hand of the month” lately – thankfully, some of them were perpetrated by the opponents.

This one includes stupidity, but even more luck.

Love all, dlr E (rotated)

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

E    S    W    N
Pass 1♦   1♥   2♦
2♥   Pass 3♥   4♦
4♥   5♦   Pass Pass
Dble All pass

I really hate the 2♦ then 4♦ from my partner – I was raised in the Acol tradition, where you bid what you think you can make. In that style, he should bid some large number of diamonds immediately then keep quiet. Or, alternatively, make some other noise first (a cue-bid of hearts, perhaps) and then support diamonds. But you don’t say “I think all we can make is 2♦” and on the next round come out with “trick or treat”. All that achieves is confusing partner and giving the opponents more room to exchange information.

I’ve seen this sort of bidding from this partner before, so I expected the distributional hand, and that was why I chanced the sacrifice against their 4♥. Of course, I didn’t expect the two spade tricks that make the sacrifice a phantom.

From East’s demeanor, it was clear he held the trumps, so I ruffed the opening heart lead and played small to the ♦8. Then across with a spade and small to the ♦J. East was hanging on to the ♦AQ (nobody is quite sure why), so now I exited with the ♣K, noting the fall of the ♣J with some interest. Another heart from West (aagh! anything else is better) shortened dummy’s trumps enough that I could play winning clubs through East to trap the ♦Q - +550.

Two boards later, the same opponents were still brooding.
 
N-S vul, dlr W (rotated)

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

W    N    E    S
Pass 3♦   Dble 3NT
Pass Pass Dble Pass
Pass Pass

This was pretty much a tie for stupidity, but the opponents win the battle on the grounds of the result. The first round of bidding is actually sensible enough. I was just trying to stir the pot with the 3NT bid, planning to run to 4♦ when the water got too warm. But when East doubled again, the devil on my shoulder said, let it ride (obviously a stupid decision at the vulnerability). West didn’t want to bid 4♣, so decided to pass also, which might well have been the winning choice. However, she then didn’t lead a major suit. When the ♣6 held at trick one, I announced that I could see nine tricks. Our score of +750 compared favorably to the -450 that everybody else was racking up.

I don’t know what to say, really. Perhaps 4♦ from East would have got the message across that he really, really wanted to hear a major suit bid from West.

This one was from a session with Agent 99.

Love all, dlr W

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

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

The rule of thumb I grew up with was: if you don’t have partner’s suit, you can’t lead it, if you only have one, you don’t want to lead it, and if you have two, you better have a good reason why not to lead it. So we started with two rounds of spades, declarer winning the ♠Q at trick two. Now declarer made her first mistake, leading the ♣4 to the ♣10. (Leading the ♣J makes a lot more sense, because from the bidding and play so far, both the ♣A and ♣Q rate to be in front). Crossing back to ♥A, she tried the ♣J next, but it’s too late. I rose with the ♣A to clear the spades, and she’s in deep doo-doo. Back to the ♦A to lead the ♣8, but I still had ♣Q7 surrounding it. In dummy for the last time, she now led a second diamond and then hesitated forever. The mistake that wins the prize: she tried the double finesse of the ♦9. I now tabled my hand, for down three.

Actually, at IMPs, she might have an argument that the finesse is correct play. But at matchpoints, it must be correct to take the top winners and settle for down one. The contract is not outrageous, so there is a chance she would have company at -50. There was nobody else at -150.

Hiyo Silver

It’s silver points for a week again. So far I’ve only played one session. The field wasn’t large, considering, at 17 tables. But it made up for that with quality – it seems that a lot of the local pros had clients that wanted silver! So I was well pleased to have a session with few mistakes and scoring over 50%. We actually finished on 53%, and 7th place, but with one round to go we were at 55% and 5th very close to 4th. The last two boards dropped us out of contention without us making a gross error. But that’s the way of matchpoints when the field is tight.

We got off to a good fast start. First board:

Love all, dlr S

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

S    W    N    E
1♠   pass 4♠   All pass

Perhaps the jump to game is a bit ambitious, but the North hand looks very good for a raise to 2♠. Even if that’s all you do, South is worth a raise anyway. He only has five losers, and the sixth trump provides some compensation for the lack of honors. Nevertheless, we scored above average for this – some people didn’t get there.

Third board:

Game all, dlr N

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

N    E    S    W
Pass pass 1♣   pass
1♥   pass 4♥   All pass

West decided to pass over 1♣, and I decided I couldn’t pass with a singleton and a 5-card major. South should probably only raise to 3♥ (on most people’s evaluation scale, anyway) but he liked his controls and went all the way. When the ♥Q dropped, I had ten easy tricks and cashed out for all the matchpoints – nobody else reached this one.

We got another clear top on a psychological defence, pressuring a declarer who erred at trick one.

Game all, dlr W

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

W    N    E    S
Pass Pass 1♦   Pass
1♥   Pass 2♦   Pass
2NT  Pass 3NT  All pass

I started prosaically enough with the ♠4, and declarer foolishly played the ♠10 from dummy. Partner won the ♠K and returned the ♠8, covered by the 9 and Q. Obviously, partner’s only possible entry was the ♦Q, so I switched to the ♦9. This gave declarer something to think about. I had an easy safe exit in hearts, so why switch to a diamond? Was I trying to talk him out of a winning finesse? Declarer won the ♦A and crossed to a club to lead another diamond, but that didn’t really help him. Eventually, he decided I was being a smartass and finessed. Down one, with everyone else making, and many of them taking ten tricks.

AQ opposite K can be a difficult suit to cash out, unless you’re defending against us.

N-S Game, dlr S

          ♠ A K Q J 3
          ♥ K J 9
          ♦ 8 2
          ♣ J 6 4
♠ 10 4               ♠ 9 8 2
♥ 5 4       [ ]      ♥ 10 8 6 2
♦ A 10 6 5 4         ♦ 9 7 3
♣ K 9 8 7            ♣ A Q 2
          ♠ 7 6 5
          ♥ A Q 7 3
          ♦ K Q J
          ♣ 10 5 3
S    W    N    E
1♦   Pass 1♠   Pass
1NT  Pass 3NT  All pass

Partner didn’t want to open his feeble club suit, but the result was disastrous. A natural diamond lead lets him run home with ten tricks. Instead, West led a club, and the defence cashed out for down one before he even got started. For variation, half the field was in 4♠, and that has four top losers for down one also. Nevertheless, that was making almost all the time too.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Shuffling

As I’ve mentioned before, I play most of my bridge at the Manhattan Bridge Club. In response to customer requests for hand records after tournaments, the club has recently acquired a dealing machine. This is actually a pretty cool piece of equipment, when it’s working well. It’s hooked up to the PC, and the computer tells the machine which cards belong in which hand. An ordinary deck of cards is loaded in, and the dealing machine scans the face of each card, recognizes it, and feeds it into the correct (north, south, east or west) pile. You can either (manually) take the hands from the machine and put them in the board, or (this is the really cool way), if you have special boards that open up, you can put the board in the machine and then it deals the cards straight into the board. You just take out the board, close the lid, and move on to the next hand. Since the computer knows all the cards, it can produce the hand records, including double-dummy analysis by Deep Finesse.

So much to the good. But the introduction of this machine caused an immediate backlash against “computer-dealt” hands. The customer is always right, even when he’s wrong, so the management made a change to appease the new bunch of complainers. The hands are now shuffled and dealt by hand, so there is no basis for the “computer-dealt” complaint. The results of the manual shuffle are entered into the computer, and so (using one deck of cards really) a full set of 36 hand layouts are generated that can then be used by the dealing machine. Everybody is happy now, yes?

Well I’m not. Over the past few sessions, I’ve noticed a marked increase in the number of “interesting” deals. Misfits, slams on low point-count hands, singleton kings offside, etc suddenly seem to be cropping up all over the place. I have no evidence, of course, but it seems clear to me that at least one of the people doing the shuffling and dealing isn’t just entering whatever hand comes up. He is selecting for interesting or challenging hands, perhaps even adjusting things by moving a card or two around. This is understandable, in the sense of being a very human thing to do, when you are stuck with the tedious task of dealing and entering into the computer a set of thirty six hands. But I don’t need my games to be like a scenario from one of Hugh Kelsey’s books. I would be much happier with computer-dealt (ie truly random) hands.

The reason why people don’t like random deals is, as everyone knows, that they are used to seeing human-dealt hands that haven’t been shuffled properly. That typically results in hands that are noticeably too balanced, on average. So when they get a truly random set, where 4-3-3-3 is a rare hand pattern and most hands have a 5-card suit, they feel that things are “wild”. They aren’t: the usual hands are too tame.

Almost everyone uses some form of riffle shuffle. That is OK, as far as it goes, but most people shuffle three or four times and start dealing. If you really want to use a riffle shuffle, you should do it at least seven or eight times to get something approaching randomization. When’s the last time you saw anyone do that?

Many moons ago, when I was starting my duplicate career, there was a magazine article that outlined a very simple yet very random shuffle. You actually deal the cards, into a random number of piles, in a random order. To help avoid any unconscious bias, you can have someone else specify (occasionally) which pile a card should go onto, or whether it should start a new pile. (The piles don’t have to be the same size: if one has two cards and another fifteen, it doesn’t matter). I usually finish up with six or seven piles. These are then picked up in random order (and again, someone else can have input as to which pile goes on top next). The end result is a thoroughly randomized deck. And statistical analysis had been done to prove that the results are indeed more random than typical common shuffling techniques produce.

No particular skill is needed, because all you do is deal, mechanically speaking. This makes it a good method for children who haven’t mastered the necessary dexterity for other shuffles. The chief complaint I’ve heard (once I explained what I was doing) is that it takes too long. I think this complaint is bogus. For one thing, it doesn’t actually take all that long to do. For another thing, the complaint mostly comes from the people who don’t shuffle properly themselves. If they riffled nine times instead of three, they might rethink whether dealing the deck out takes too long.

This method gained some adherents back in the 1970s, but never became really widespread. I think that’s a shame, and if I could, I would try and make it better known.