A very frustrating session with Agent 99 saw us barely making 50%, but with the feeling that we had made only one or two serious errors. Generally, in a 24-board session, you expect to give up two bottoms through stupidity, and get two tops from the opponents in return. That evens out, so then your final score depends on what you do with the other twenty hands. We felt like we hadn't given away more than the expected two bottoms, but in return, we got more bottoms instead of the compensating tops.
There were at least a couple of hands where we got a bad score because the opponents bid and made a game that couldn't be beaten – but most of the field wasn't getting there. And then there was this sort of thing.
This auction seems fairly ordinary and innocuous. The final contract certainly can't be beaten, and according to the computer analysis it makes ten tricks against best defence. We can make two hearts, but we can't make three, so at the vulnerability there's nowhere for us to go. Why am I whining? Because -130 scored exactly zero matchpoints, that's why. Three other pairs played in clubs, and they all took only nine tricks. Three pairs played in 1NT, which should not make, but they all did, one even made eight tricks. And the final table was allowed to make a heart contract our way. So the “par” result gets absolutely nothing.
This was obviously a tough field, though.
It's almost axiomatic that on any given slam hand, at least one pair will manage to stay in a part-score, and at least a couple more don't get past game. On this hand, everyone was in a slam. A couple of pairs bid 6NT, which would go down on a spade lead, but they both made. One of the pairs in 6D made all thirteen tricks, which is impossible. And so bidding and just making 6D, which is the par result, scored just 2 out of 7.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Misadventures In Manhattan
I usually find myself directing what we call 299er games, which means, basically, games for non-life masters. These can be, at times, frustrating, but often they are easy on the director because you don't get many difficult calls. And occasionally, things get hilarious.
The auction needs more than a little explanation, and can't be rendered by the handviewer software. With West the dealer, it began 1D – P – 1S – 1D, at which point I was called. (As can be seen, West seems to have had a heart mixed in with her diamonds, or else she would have opened 1H, but that set the scene for the ensuing debacle). I ruled that since making the bid sufficient to 2D would be a cue-bid of the dealer and therefore artificial, South was free to bid what he wanted but North was barred from the auction. South thought about this for a while, and decided to pass. West then bid 1H, and North shotgunned out his forced Pass. “Wait a minute”, says South. “That was insufficient too”. “So it was”, I agreed, but ruled that North had accepted the bid by passing. Now East bid 2C, and I was wondering if that was 4th suit forcing. West didn't alert, so perhaps it wasn't, but West did rapidly jump to 3NT, so it seems like she was expecting a better dummy than she actually got. I don't know if my rulings were correct or not, but I think justice was served when N-S got a near top because E-W are way too high.
I played with Agent 99 the other evening. We did scratch, at 53% or so, but the lack of practice was showing. I was especially disappointed with our last two boards.
I was disgusted with myself at the end of the hand. I should have realized that the singleton king was likely, and making 5H would have been a shared top. One down was below average, with some matchpoints salvaged because people were going down in 4H. And then came
Three rounds of hearts promoted the CQ for down one and a fat zero. I don't see how we are supposed to bid our cold game, but not many people got there. If Agent 99 should chance a double of 3H, we are pretty much guaranteed a reasonable score. Even one down on mediocre defence would be a solid average.
At least we did better than some. One North-South pair posted the smallest score I've ever seen – 18.97%. Amazing.
The auction needs more than a little explanation, and can't be rendered by the handviewer software. With West the dealer, it began 1D – P – 1S – 1D, at which point I was called. (As can be seen, West seems to have had a heart mixed in with her diamonds, or else she would have opened 1H, but that set the scene for the ensuing debacle). I ruled that since making the bid sufficient to 2D would be a cue-bid of the dealer and therefore artificial, South was free to bid what he wanted but North was barred from the auction. South thought about this for a while, and decided to pass. West then bid 1H, and North shotgunned out his forced Pass. “Wait a minute”, says South. “That was insufficient too”. “So it was”, I agreed, but ruled that North had accepted the bid by passing. Now East bid 2C, and I was wondering if that was 4th suit forcing. West didn't alert, so perhaps it wasn't, but West did rapidly jump to 3NT, so it seems like she was expecting a better dummy than she actually got. I don't know if my rulings were correct or not, but I think justice was served when N-S got a near top because E-W are way too high.
I played with Agent 99 the other evening. We did scratch, at 53% or so, but the lack of practice was showing. I was especially disappointed with our last two boards.
I was disgusted with myself at the end of the hand. I should have realized that the singleton king was likely, and making 5H would have been a shared top. One down was below average, with some matchpoints salvaged because people were going down in 4H. And then came
Three rounds of hearts promoted the CQ for down one and a fat zero. I don't see how we are supposed to bid our cold game, but not many people got there. If Agent 99 should chance a double of 3H, we are pretty much guaranteed a reasonable score. Even one down on mediocre defence would be a solid average.
At least we did better than some. One North-South pair posted the smallest score I've ever seen – 18.97%. Amazing.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Gold Cup
I mentioned in a previous post that I'm cheering (long distance) for the Nick Stevens team. Well, the results of round 4 are in and the draw for round 5 is out. Nick and his crew won quite handily in round 4, but to get to the quarter-finals, they have a serious hurdle to jump. In round 5 they face the team captained by Patrick Collins (Derek Patterson, Gerald Tredinnick, Stuart Tredinnick). These are the number 2 seeds, and have actually won the Gold Cup previously, and they have been the losing finalists the last two years. So not an easy match ahead, but I know my guys can win if they play up on the day. I think Collins ought to just give it up, to save themselves the agony.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Grand Slam
I hadn't played for two and a half months, but I broke the drought last night at the Manhattan. It's STAC week again, so I played with Agent 99 to see if we could collect some silver. We overbid like crazy, which seemed to be a winning strategy as we finished up with over 64%, which was good for second place East-West. We only had one real bottom, but there were a few boards distinctly below average. One in particular is driving me crazy.
I played in 6S, claiming all 13 tricks when the opening club lead wasn't ruffed. That was a poor score, 2.5 out of 11 matchpoints, as a number of people found a grand slam or 6NT. I want to bid this to 7S, but I have been struggling to find a convincing sequence when we start 1H – 1S; 1NT (15-16 hcp). Even if we were playing strong jump-shifts and started 1H – 2S; 3S I'm having trouble getting to where I can count thirteen tricks with any degree of certitude. Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious because we're out of practice, or perhaps I'm expecting too much exactitude. But I do like to be pretty sure for grand slams. I'll punt small slams with the best of them, but not grands.
I played in 6S, claiming all 13 tricks when the opening club lead wasn't ruffed. That was a poor score, 2.5 out of 11 matchpoints, as a number of people found a grand slam or 6NT. I want to bid this to 7S, but I have been struggling to find a convincing sequence when we start 1H – 1S; 1NT (15-16 hcp). Even if we were playing strong jump-shifts and started 1H – 2S; 3S I'm having trouble getting to where I can count thirteen tricks with any degree of certitude. Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious because we're out of practice, or perhaps I'm expecting too much exactitude. But I do like to be pretty sure for grand slams. I'll punt small slams with the best of them, but not grands.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
GNT Flight B
Well, Elwood and I have formally withdrawn from the team to represent NYC in New Orleans. It's a bit sad, all things considered, but we had no choice. My wife has been (and still is) very ill, and Elwood has his own domestic troubles of a different sort. I haven't even been playing bridge for the past couple of months, except for a little time on BBO (and I really don't like online "bridge"). Elwood commented that this year was his fourth attempt to win the thing, and now he finally has the chance, he can't go. C'est la vie, but it still sucks at least a little.
I hope the Feuers get the chance to go with another pair of teammates. They played very well, and really deserve to go.
I hope the Feuers get the chance to go with another pair of teammates. They played very well, and really deserve to go.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Maastricht Challenge
I'm currently working my way through Maastricht Challenge, by Tim Bourke, which consists of 60 single-dummy declarer play problems.
Tim Bourke is amazing. You find hands he has composed or identified all over the place (I see him credited regularly in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin magazine), and they usually don't involve anything exotic for their solution. But at the same time, they aren't easy, and they are usually instructive.
Maastricht Challenge is no different. Almost every hand has me a bit baffled, at least at first glance. And almost every hand looks so obvious once you see his explanation. That's a great achievement for an author: not many manage it. You need to get the problems difficult enough to not get solved at a glance, but easy enough that you are not talking over the head of your potential audience, and you have to explain the solution clearly. Hugh Kelsey, for example, wrote very clearly, but his problems were usually very difficult. Tim Bourke's hands are generally accessible to more players, which makes finding that balance more difficult, in my opinion.
He says in the introduction to the book:
“Many of the problems use this “Likely Count” logic in the recommended solution. In order to feel comfortable with this concept as well as the variety of themes in the problems, I strongly recommend reading and re-reading this book until you know the problems by sight. I have used this approach on all the quiz books I own and have found that the technical reach of my game is the better for this.”
I hadn't thought about it, but this is exactly what I've done with the quiz books I own. And I think Bourke's right – my game is better for having done that. So Maastricht Challenge is going to get the same treatment.
Tim Bourke is amazing. You find hands he has composed or identified all over the place (I see him credited regularly in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin magazine), and they usually don't involve anything exotic for their solution. But at the same time, they aren't easy, and they are usually instructive.
Maastricht Challenge is no different. Almost every hand has me a bit baffled, at least at first glance. And almost every hand looks so obvious once you see his explanation. That's a great achievement for an author: not many manage it. You need to get the problems difficult enough to not get solved at a glance, but easy enough that you are not talking over the head of your potential audience, and you have to explain the solution clearly. Hugh Kelsey, for example, wrote very clearly, but his problems were usually very difficult. Tim Bourke's hands are generally accessible to more players, which makes finding that balance more difficult, in my opinion.
He says in the introduction to the book:
“Many of the problems use this “Likely Count” logic in the recommended solution. In order to feel comfortable with this concept as well as the variety of themes in the problems, I strongly recommend reading and re-reading this book until you know the problems by sight. I have used this approach on all the quiz books I own and have found that the technical reach of my game is the better for this.”
I hadn't thought about it, but this is exactly what I've done with the quiz books I own. And I think Bourke's right – my game is better for having done that. So Maastricht Challenge is going to get the same treatment.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Gold Cup
Just a quick note to keep the blog alive. The 2010 Gold Cup is in mid-stream in England. This is the premier teams contest in the UK, and I carry some fond memories of it from my early years of bridge. This year I'm trying to keep an eye on the Nick Stevens team (Nick Stevens, Paul Bowyer,
Jim Mason, Duncan Happer, Gary Watson, David Jones). Gary Watson and I went to the same grammar school, and taught ourselves bridge there, and were partners for our first few years of duplicate play. When we eventually parted ways (more a case of growing apart, rather than a sudden divorce), Gary formed a partnership with David Jones. I don't know how often they play together, but that means their partnership has been extant, at least off and on, for more than thirty years. I find that slightly amazing, and somewhat admirable. Gary was a great talent, very quick when it came to calculations at the card table, and when combined with his extrovert personality and good sense of humor, that made for some interesting bidding. Probably the ensuing thirty-odd years of experience have calmed him down a bit, but I haven't seen him in all that time, so I'm hoping that the team makes it well into the final weekend and I can watch him on BBO.
Nick Stevens actually went to the same school, a year below us. He didn't play in our card school, though. He learned from his parents, at home and in the clubhouse at the golf course. But the three of us became friends at Hinckley bridge club (the local club, frequented by Nick's parents and several teachers from the school, who were all complicit in making us both more frequent and better players). I have a feeling that Nick first played with Paul Bowyer back at that time too, so that would be another very long-standing partnership.
The team is the 14th seed. I think they are actually capable of winning the event, and I'll be rooting for them (from a distance). For now, I'm just watching for results on BGB
(http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/goldcup/default.htm).
Jim Mason, Duncan Happer, Gary Watson, David Jones). Gary Watson and I went to the same grammar school, and taught ourselves bridge there, and were partners for our first few years of duplicate play. When we eventually parted ways (more a case of growing apart, rather than a sudden divorce), Gary formed a partnership with David Jones. I don't know how often they play together, but that means their partnership has been extant, at least off and on, for more than thirty years. I find that slightly amazing, and somewhat admirable. Gary was a great talent, very quick when it came to calculations at the card table, and when combined with his extrovert personality and good sense of humor, that made for some interesting bidding. Probably the ensuing thirty-odd years of experience have calmed him down a bit, but I haven't seen him in all that time, so I'm hoping that the team makes it well into the final weekend and I can watch him on BBO.
Nick Stevens actually went to the same school, a year below us. He didn't play in our card school, though. He learned from his parents, at home and in the clubhouse at the golf course. But the three of us became friends at Hinckley bridge club (the local club, frequented by Nick's parents and several teachers from the school, who were all complicit in making us both more frequent and better players). I have a feeling that Nick first played with Paul Bowyer back at that time too, so that would be another very long-standing partnership.
The team is the 14th seed. I think they are actually capable of winning the event, and I'll be rooting for them (from a distance). For now, I'm just watching for results on BGB
(http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/goldcup/default.htm).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)