Views from the bridge table

Who's overcalling?

2010-05-26T21:05:00.005+01:00

Would you overcall in this situation (playing imps)?

red/white

pass - (1S) - ?

AQT74

KJ84

Partner is a passed hand and you are vulnerable (the opps not).

Stepping up or not?

I'd say the mainstream 'expert view' is pass (WTP?).

Anyone who's been reading my previous post should know a thing or two about my views on the subject of 2-level overcalls, "the suit quality paradox" especially. Here we have above average strength and a less than robust suit, still I'd overcall for sure.

This is a hand from the Bermuda Bowl final 2009 in Sao Paolo. A couple of the most successful players in ACBL-land both overcalled. Eric Rodwell and Lynn Deas both came in with 2D, an action not duplicated at the other table in either match.

Was this a desperate attempt to create a swing? I doubt it. This was board 22 (of 128 deals in Open final, 96 deals in Women) and after the first stanza, USA led Italy 54-19 in the Open but trailed China in the Womens with 27-68.

What was the outcome of this 'frivolous' action? Not much actually. It was a partscore deal with your side having the highest partscore, double-dummy, in 4D and opps cold for 3S. Everyone sold out to 2 or 3S (overcall or no overcall) making 8 or 9 tricks. Partner had K72/872/K95/T932.

Which probably begs the question: What's my point then?

My point is that a couple of players some people maybe would consider a notch above "mainstream experts" seems (to at least some extent) share my view that this is a winning strategy. How about that?

Partnership defence?

2009-08-26T19:08:00.002+01:00

Continuing where we left off, we could say that if declarer has 2-1, i.e. K of diamonds is the game-going trick, we will not beat it. Then our aim would be to make sure we won't fail to beat it when declarer is 1-2. If declarer's diamond is the J, partner could face a nasty decision. And if it's a low one, partner might have losing options as well. He doesn't know everything we does. Make it easy. Discard the Q of diamonds (the T would work also with the 9 visible in dummy). When declarer leads a diamond, partner will surely grab the ace and shift to something and we will know exactly how to cash out.

We could also say that we don't like to give up when declarer is 2-1. Can we trick declarer into going down, and minimize the risk of letting a beatable contract through if declarer's minor suit shape is reversed?

Our only option then is the 2 of diamonds (playing UDCA). By showing strength with the 2, partner will know we have the Q so if declarer leads a low, he'll take the ace. If declarer has Jx and believes you have the ace, he might try a 'chinese finesse' and let the J ride if not covered. Slam! The other variant is if partner gains the lead in clubs and shifts to a low diamond and declarer misguesses. Partner would never lead away from a holding including the J, so that might work. But, a suspicious declarer would probably get it right as with this particular dummy there is no hurry for the defenders to attack diamonds. So the only reason for doing that is 'trickery'.

Also, if we signal with the 2 and partner ducks a stiff J, declarer may put up the K and leave you regretting that one. On the other hand, maybe partner can deduce that you'd only try this from a 5-card suit, i.e. he'd duck the J from a Axx but win the ace from Axxx...?

Summing up: Going legit - help partner by ditching the Q. Possible con - signal with the 2.

This time either option would have worked as declarer held a glorious 9-count without the J of D.

KJTxxx

ATxx

As astout readers can gather from previous posts, the contract made at the table when the 5 was discarded and partner ducked the diamond.

Anyone wanting to add to this analysis in the 'search for truth' are welcome to post comments. We often learn the most from disasters.

Exploring 'the other side'

2009-08-26T10:05:00.003+01:00

Sometimes trying to beat a contract is a lot of hard work. Some actual clues, some assumptions (which may be worth nothing in the end) and some imagination. Here's a chance to defend 4S from the other side.

_____AQ84

_____87

_____K97

_____T754

___________7

___________KQ9

___________QT532

___________K932

1S - 3H (artificial limit raise)

4S all pass

Lead is 2 of H, showing an honour 4th (or the lowest from xx, Polish style). Declarer captures our Q with the A and quickly leads a trump to dummy and a low towards his hand. We have to find a discard. What will it be?

For starters, what do we know? If partner has led from xx, declarer has at least 5-6 and he's always making. So, put partner down for Jxxx and declarer Axxx. Winning the ace of H immediately and draw trumps is really strange with late heart losers unless there's a sure trick source in dummy (to discard H's) or an abundant trump suit where late ruffs are always assured. Vs this particular dummy, this line of play therefore strongly implies that declarer has 6 spades.

Placing declarer with 6-4 in the majors, how about the minors? With 30/03 nothing matters, he's always making/going down, so we have to assume 21/12. With declarer assured of 9 tricks (six spades in hand, ace of hearts and two ruffs in dummy), we need the rest. A heart (check!) and 3 minor suit tricks which means that partner must have both minor suit aces.

If declarer has a singleton diamond and a doubleton in clubs it's easy, ace of diamonds and A-K of clubs. If declarer has two diamonds and a stiff club, we need to con declarer from winning a trick with dummy's K. Can we do that with this holding? Are we even willing to go for a possible con if this means that we risk letting it through when declarer has a singleton?

Conclusion

2009-08-25T12:04:00.005+01:00

Anyways, our partnership agreement is that style 2 is the general methodology. So, declarer should have the Q. But, part of the attraction is the intellectual challenge/stimulation, right? Let's say we had chosen to adopt style 1 and take a closer look.

What can we deduce about the heart suit? Partner could always afford a heart with five of them, so declarer is very likely to have at least three. If declarer has at least three hearts, then game always makes if he's got the K as well, unless we take the ace and can cash three club tricks, i.e declarer having

KJTxxx

AKx

Jxx

That would give partner...

QTxx

QT5xx

K9x

... and I can't see the 5 of diamonds discard coming from this holding. I'd let go of my lowest diamond then to inform partner I have a high card there. That should help him see that ducking a diamond is useless and that setting tricks must come from other suit(s). The problem then is that partner wouldn't know which K to play me for. But that dilemma is solved by our second diamond play. We'd follow low with club interest and high with the K of hearts. This information is more important than length at this point.

So, after that diamond discard let's place the K of H with partner and it seems reasonable to place declarer with either the Q of diamonds or the K of clubs because otherwise he'd only have 9 hcp at most. (Sidequiz: would a heart discard indicate original length or show/deny another honour?)

Doesn't that mean we can now fly the ace of diamonds (anyway) and put partner in with K of hearts for a club through and collect the setting tricks?

The answer is maybe. What if declarer has a stiff club? Could he have a singleton? With a stiff K, declarer would probably have led a club from dummy at trick 3, or partner might have discarded a club from Jxxxx. But what about...

KJTxxx

ATx

Qxx

Now we have to duck.

Is 6-3-3-1 then a possible shape for declarer? I could see partner letting go of a diamond from a short holding with both K's.

KQxx

T5x

K9xxx

I'd discard the 5 of diamonds from this holding, not wanting to emphazise either sidesuit.

Edit: It has been suggested elsewhere that one would never discard from a three-card holding here, rendering this layout impossible. I say one should consider letting a diamond go from 532 as well. If you always discard from your longest suit(s), you'd be an easy read for a competent declarer. Here, if declarer has QTx (vs K97) this diamond discard might lead him astray, playing you for an original Jxxxx. Don't be too rigid in your approach here.

Summing up: The only time the setting trick could go away, by ducking, is when declarer has a stiff diamond and partner has discarded the 5 from QT532. Otherwise we just wait for declarer going down, getting one heart trick and either two diamonds and a club or a diamond and two clubs (catering to either layout). I can't construct a reasonable layout where partner would have QT532. And, as stated above, is that really possible with the actual partnership agreement? So, ducking must be right.

Anyone with a differing opinion?

Discarding - partnership signalling philosophy

2009-08-25T07:36:00.004+01:00

The most common signalling agreement when discarding is 'discourage/encourage' or 'show/deny strength'. This can be done 'directly', i.e. by playing a card in that suit, or 'indirectly', i.e. by discouraging one suit we may indicate strength in another because otherwise we might have chosen to discourage that suit instead. That's the easy definition. In real life many other things may factor in. Does dummy has a trick source? What did the lead reveal? How many cards does dummy have in a particular suit, can I afford to discard one? And so forth.

A very important aspect is what general signalling philosophy that your partnership applies. The main 'sides' are:

1) Obvious-shift style where the key word is INTENTION.

2) Actual holding (what do I have), where the key word is POSSESSION.

There are layers of this, but an easy example of this might be when partner leads an ace vs a suit contract and I have a weak holding in that suit. Style 1 would encourage or discourage depending on the holding in the suit partner would be most likely to shift to if I discourage. Style 2 would discourage, as we have nothing to contribute, and leave it to partner to work out how to continue (with the information that I don't have any strength in this suit). There are advantages and disadvantages to both and exceptions, such as cases when you intentionally choose to mislead partner because you can see it's correct (by looking at your hand and dummy).

It might actually even be proper to have a different terminology for these styles. Perhaps the INTENTION-style is best described by 'encouraging/discouraging' and HOLDING-style should be coined 'strength/weakness'. That would also be better from a disclosure perspective as it would give the declaring side a better understanding of your signalling methodology, something he/she is entitled to.

Well, I digress. Back to the defence vs 4S. The reason for the above is that playing style 1, a high diamond (relatively, according to UDCA) here wouldn't necessarily say anything about the Q if he really want another suit/shift. It would only say that he's got no interest in you playing a diamond if you're on lead. Playing style 2, the [relatively] high diamond would (should) pretty much deny the Q. When looking at this particular dummy it's hard to find a case where an exception might apply.

What's in a signal?

2009-08-24T21:00:00.007+01:00

Playing a top-bracket knockout at the Washington NABC's, red vs white, you look down at

J742

AJ86

AQ5

Playing a light, aggressive opening style, partner deals and passes and your RHO open 1S. First choice, pass or X?

Since you are outranked by the boss suit, you decide to pass and the bidding continues with 3H, alerted, on your left and 4S from opener. 3H is explained as being an artificial limit raise in spades and you decide to lead the 2 of hearts. Your agreement is 2nd/4th, Polish-style, so this promises an honour (4th) or is the lowest from xx. Dummy hits and this is the view:

_______AQ84

_______87

_______K97

_______T754

J742

AJ86

AQ5

The 2 draws the Q from partner and declarer wins with the A. Without further ado he draws trumps in two rounds ending in his hand. Partner follows low once and then discards the 5 of diamonds, playing upside-down count and attitude (UDCA). Declarer now leads the 4 of diamonds from his hand and we do what??

Initial analysis shows 8 hcp in the majors from declarer and a reflection that any late heart losers can be ruffed in dummy. 6 spade-tricks, HA, maybe a H ruff in dummy and the K of diamonds brings up the total to 9. If declarer has the Q of diamonds we can duck now without risk (not going anywhere) and get some more info. If partner has the Q, declarer might have a stiff and we need to grab the ace immediately.

What can we deduce from that diamond discard?

Fingerspitzgefühl

2009-05-22T08:25:00.006+01:00

Nation's Cup is an excellent 2-day invitational tournament held each year in Bonn-Bad Godesberg. 2009 was the 24th occurence, all organized by expatriate Swede Göran Mattsson. Everything is top-notch and the format is national teams, Germany as the host providing two, divided in two groups meeting in each other in a round-robin with the winners from each group squaring off in a final. The other teams continue in a Swiss for the remaining prizes.

This year the field consisted of 16 teams, Canada and a bunch of Europeans, and Sweden was represented by Ulf Nilsson - BG Olofsson and PG Eliasson - Thomas Magnusson. Teammates played well but we didn't play up to par and a 8th place finish was a disappointment for sure.

Here's a fine display of "fingerspitzgefuhl" by PG in our 2nd match. First take a poke at the auction:

AT2

KT987643

All red and the auction starts (1S) - pass - (2C) to you with 2C showing 10+ with 3-card spade support. Yes, this is Europe and bids that doesn't carry the same meaning as in the club game are allowed. It seems pretty obvious to bring the diamond suit into the picture, but at what level?

PG opted for 'the full Monty' and jumped to 5D which was greeted by RHO with a red card. The lead was the K of hearts and a decent dummy came down.

JT97654

AT2

KT987643

A surprisingly few number of hearts in dummy is the initial reaction. What can the opponents hands look like? We know spades to be 5-3 and hearts are very likely to be 5-6. If diamonds are 0-3 we're toast so assume 1-2. So this looks like 5-5-1-2 vs 3-6-2-2 with KQ of hearts to your left.

Ruff the lead and play the K of clubs to find out who has the ace. West wins and shifts to a spade. This pretty much guarantees that East has the ace of diamonds and PG played three rounds of spades, ruffing in dummy and a diamond to the king, dropping the offside queen for a gratifying +750 and 12 imps.

Full results are available here:

http://www.bonn-nations-cup.bridgeverband-westfalen.de/2009/Englisch/Englisch_00_Frame.html

What's up?

2008-12-10T20:50:00.005+01:00

As can be deduced, the blog isn't alive in any sense of the word nowadays. If you found your way here I hope you find some interesting material in the archive.

A short update:

I'm no longer playing with Frederic Wrang. That ended after the Europeans in Pau last summer.

I have a new partnership with BG Olofsson (BGO@BBO). We're headed for the NABC's next year on Bob Hollman's team with fellow Swedes, Upmark-Cullin.

The main reason for not blogging anymore is that my 'spare' time is spent on writing a book about slam bidding. Don't know the time table but progressing somewhat steadily.

For fun I entered, and managed to win, the 2008 Australian bidding forum (www.australianbridge.com) and will now be a panelist for at least a year. I will also write a couple of articles for the magazine.

I'm likely to resume the blogging at some point in the future but no predictions now.

Have a great 2009 bridge year.

Spingold decision

2008-02-05T08:12:00.000+01:00

Last summer in Nashville, Spingold semi on vugraph vs Meckwell in the second set I look down at:

J3
K9
A643
AJ652

All is vulnerable and Meckstroth opens 1H at my side of the screen. 'Nobrainer' pass or a 2C-overcall?

The warning signs are there and you can't count on weak opposition to bail you out if the overcall is wrong. They will extract whatever is there. But if partner is short in clubs, only the J of clubs is wasted and my hand is useful to a larger or lesser extent in diamonds and spades.

As you can 'guess', I have already made up my mind on my course of action in these situations. Why would I turn chicken now? I overcalled 2C. How did this go?

My overcall triggered a negative double from Rodwell and a 3C-raise from Frederic, passed out. At the other table there was the same opening, a 1S response and a 2H-rebid passed out when Hemant Lall [of course] didn't overcall. This was the full deal:

______QT8
______T87
______J52
______KQ93
K9752______A64
QJ_________A65432
KT9________Q87
T85________4
______J3
______K9
______A643
______AJ652

Sure was a thin opening in 1st position vulnerable but one also chosen by Antonio Sementa at the other table. 2H was an easy +140 and that QJ tight turned a 1 imp gain (-100) into a 6 imps gain (+110) when Jeff won the ace and continued H's.

That was lucky in a way, but on the other hand I caught a 4333 shape when a doubleton diamond would have made the overcall an easy winner, and had Meckstroth had AJxxxx maybe he'd bid 3H and Rodwell raised to 4H, permitting us to go plus on defence. Lot's of maybe's.

The overcall could have won in many ways, this was perhaps a 'flukie' kind of way but not that undeserved, in my [subjective] view.

As predicted, dummy had useful club honour's; there were no maybe involved in that 'fact'...

The 'suit quality paradox' and more

2008-02-04T08:58:00.000+01:00

I think the subject of overcalling is interesting. Let's start with my reflections and opinions of 2-level overcalls after opposing 1M-opening. This is an area I've been meaning to write about a long time but never gotten around to. As this issue stirred up some attention in my last post(s), let's move on and destroy any credibility I may have left ;-)

There seem to be a consensus among many experts I've talked to that you should have a good suit, preferably 6 or more, and not be shaded when overcalling at the 2-level in a lower ranking suit. This is a view that I don't share at all.

The main reasons for those requirements are that it makes constructive bidding easier (say the next guy jumps to game and now you can compete to the 5-level much more comfortable with marginal hands) and to lower the risk of getting nailed for a number. If you have HHxxxx, this would make it less likely of length/strength behind and you'd still take some trump tricks of your own.

I find it useful to overcall almost any hand with a 5-card suit IF the hand has above average strength, say a control-rich 12/13+ hcp and that a weak suit may be a better proposition than a good one! Doesn't this sound strange? Why would I think this?

Here are my general thought/views and reflections on the 2-level overcall and weak vs good suits:

1) It's very useful to get into the auction. See as many 'flops' as possible. This is nothing new at the 1-level, but it may be extended to a certain degree to the 2-level as well. The chance of finding a big fit should be exploited.

2) When you have a weak 5-card suit, the chance of finding big support (length & strength) with partner is greatly enhanced, i.e better chance of gaining a high-level swing, compared to then you have a strong 6-card suit. That's the 'suit quality paradox', that a weak suit is frequently better than a good one! See more below.

3) With a weak 5-card suit, you have a better chance of getting working points in dummy when catching a raise. Why? Say you give partner 6-9 points and a 3-level raise. If our suit is weak, then partner is more likely to have honours there (as more honours out of the total is 'taken' in other suits by us/opener when we have 12+ hcp with majority outside overcalled suit) pulling offensive weight. If our suit is strong, then partner can have at most one honour there and the other, say two honours, sit in other suits, with an opening hand 'over' then making it rather likely that at least one, maybe both honours being more or less worthless (maybe slight exaggeration, but you get the point).

4) If weak suit then more strength located in sidesuits and those honours are well positioned behind opener. Better trick-taking potential when hitting the flop (dummy) and we declare.

5) If weak suit and we get caught (p-p-X), partner should adopt a more active strategy of running in this style (i.e. permitting more free-wheeling overcall) and then most of our strength will be 'working' in the alternative contract. If I have Ax/Kx/Kxxx/KTxxx and overcall 2C over 1M, then after a reopening double and a runout by partner, we have 10/13 working points in that contract. Compare to Ax/xx/KJx/KQTxxx with 8/13 and worse shape.

6) Opponents more likely to misjudge the correct level. If I have a weak suit, then they are more likely to hold some honour strength there and may devalue that holding, more than is called for. Say opener has Kx of diamonds and started with 1S. That K of diamonds is more likely to be paper waste vs a constructive typical 6-card 2D-overcall than vs a 'free-wheeling' 5-card approach 2D.

7) The perception of the risk of getting nailed is disproportionate to the actual occurence ('selective memory', we remember those better). Ok, very subjective, but I've lived it and stand by that statement.

8) Getting into the auction early have so many ways that the opp's may misjudge that they wouldn't have otherwise. The nuisance value of 2m - 3m (raise) is a real one.

9) The risk of partner's lead in our weak suit turning sour isn't very big. On game level, they are most likely to end up in opened major, then I'm on lead, or in 3NT with partner on lead and then I'd prefer my long suit led with my sidesuit honours as potential entries to establish a cash my winners. Should they reach a contract after a negative double then I'm also on lead.

All this said I don't overcall nearly as much as I used to 10-15 years ago. Busy isn't always better; I'm much more selective.

Moving on, when considering overcalls with sub-par strength (i.e. less than an opening bid) in general, meaning both 1 and 2-level overcalls:

1) The key issue on marginal (for me) decisions. comes down to possesion of a [any] short suit or not. I think that factor is the 'biggie' when it comes to the number of favorable outcomes of an overcall.

2) The second factor is holding in enemy suit (but do see previous post). Strength there on an already sub-par hcp hand is a potential big minus.

3) The control-ratio. This means the number of controls (aces = 2, kings = 1) you have in relation to the statistical expectancy for the number of hcp you have. Optimum would of course be an ace and a king and the worst would be a bunch of 'quacks'.

Let's end with a look at a real-life example of a weak suit overcall, a hand from the training weekend in Holland about a year ago against the Dutch Team Orange. You have:

---
QJ97
KJ86
AT765

White vs red, partner passes as dealer and your RHO (that would be me) opens 1D (11-13 bal/5M332 or 11-15 unbal with 4-card M). What's your call?

I'd expect a large majority, but I could be wrong of course, to pass and back in with double over expected spade bids if the level isn't to high. Jan Jansma, Hollands best player in my opinion, overcalled 2C and scored up a game minutes later.

______QT8
______3
______T742
______KJ843
AK963_______J7542
A8642_______KT5
93__________AQ5
9___________Q2
_________
______QJ97
______KJ86
______AT765

(Yes, we open 1D on those. See postings about this from last spring.)

The board was played 4 times (2 practise matches) and all reached 5C. But, at all other tables the opening bid was 1S and it was easier. Had Jan passed, I think their chance would have been gone. Would you bid 5C on that North hand after 1D-1S; 2S (X) 4S ? That's easier when the whole hand is on display. What if partner is 1-4-5-3 ?

Was the overcall wreckless or did good bridge pay off? I think he was justly rewarded.

Crackpot?

2008-01-31T23:14:00.000+01:00

It amuses me that the theory of not overcalling in a lower ranking suit at the 2-level with top honor fourth in enemy suit was deemed 'crackpot' over at BBO-forums, one of my hang-around places. Oh well - I'm crushed ;-)

But, I'll expound on the reasons, feeling a bit more motivated today. First a couple of qoutes: "I hate experts who give opinions without any valid theory behind it." and "... just consider the number of saves/preemptions that this approach misses. After all, on the hands he passes, partner rates to be short in opener's suit and so may well have a fit for ours... and we are staying out????" and from the same post "...it strikes me as almost certainly a long-term loser, in a big, big way."

Well, a post like that, not giving logical reasons, may have been a bit provocative but also a sort of a challenge. If you've read my blog and keep coming back, maybe you think I know something about bridge and would think about why there could be any truth in my statement. Over at BBO, most struck out :-)

I first made this observation in 1998 playing an international high-level team event in Holland. I've been keeping track ever since then and I'm no stranger to top-level bridge and I'd say I also analyse more matches than most living people (PS-bridge/BB-records etc, owning most World Championship books since 1958). Am I clueless or how can this overcall be wrong?

The reasoning (theory) behind the approach goes like this:

1) When we have length and defensive strength in enemy suit, that decreases the chances of them having a fit and IF they do then our holding is a liability for them, decreasing the chance of them making anything on a higher level (especially if our partner has some values).

2) When they have the values to be bidding and their honors aren't in their suit (i.e we have at least one top honor), that means that they are located in our suits or sidesuits; potential defensive tricks if we are playing (and we have points wasted not pulling any weight offensively). So, their offensive potential has decreased and our offensive potential has decreased.

3) When partner raises, as we have 9+ cards (often 10 as in 6-4) in 2 suits, we're less likely to find useful honors with partner. Only trump honors and aces/kings in sidesuits may help as we're short (31/13/22/12 etc) in the remaining suits. Queens or KQ in our stiff suit may be a little late when they cashed out the 5 first tricks against say 3C.

4) When they have the higher ranking suit, we have to contract for more tricks then they do if we want to declare. This makes it even less likely that we can do so profitable and it will always be tempting for partner, who will then have shortness.

5) With 4-cards in their suit, they don't have a fit in that suit that often (haven't calculated by how much). This means that the hand is quite often a misfit, with points fairly even divided between the sides.

6) Do you want to declare or defend under those circumstances?

7) What happens most of the time is that we go down after an overcall instead of them.

8) Could still work out, but we want to take percentage actions, right?

On that initial hand in Holland almost 10 years ago however, partner was short and sacrificed in 5C over 4S. It turned out to be a phantom which isn't surprising at all. But this sac scenario isn't making up the majority of the losses I've seen. Getting caught or just buying the contract when neither side has a paying fit/contract and going minus declaring instead of plus defending, doubled or not, that's the biggie!

The way I gained in the deal in my previous post, by opps missing a fit, is very rare but it was a nice bonus for the correct approach. The one from Teneriffe was getting caught for -300 with teammates going down 2 vulnerable for -200 at the other table.

Theory is one thing, empiric observations over 10 years is another.

Cracking, or taking the pot?

Edit: To clarify, the cut-off point to me seems to be TOP honour. Jxxx hasn't rendered bad results in the deals I've seen so far.

Different view

2008-01-30T15:08:00.000+01:00

My views on 2-level overcalls in lower ranking suits differs from the expert community at large. For one, I like 5-card overcalls and I think diffently about suit quality requirements (and more). That's for another entry or article.

One of my 'theories' is that you shouldn't overcall 2x over 1M with 4-cards headed by a top honour in their suit. Not even with a good 6-card suit of your own. It's not that it might not work out fine. It's that the odds of it not working out is so much greater that it's no contest. None. Zip.

I'm not in the mood right now for laying down the reasons why. Either accept it, reject it or think about it. As ususal, you decide for yourself.

(Btw don't confuse this with the writings of Mike Lawrence where length in enemy suit is considered a positive factor when overcalling. He writes about 1-level overcalls in a higher ranking suit.)

In 2005 I played the Open Europeans Champoinships in Teneriffe with Fredrik Nyström and told him about it. He was sceptical, of course, and the second day he couldn't contain himself and overcalled 2H over 1S with length in spades. The cost was 11 imps and that's one of the few times I've smiled while recording a double-digit imp loss ;-)

Anyways, this weekend I pulled up, playing imps:

Q743
J93
AKJ973
----

Partner passed and Cecilia Rimstedt opened 1S (11-16 5+) and I passed of course. How did this end up?

This was the full deal:

_____J86
_____T85
_____QT8
_____A754
5_________AKT92
KQ7642____A
5_________642
KQ632_____JT98
_____Q743
_____J93
_____AKJ973
________

They subsided in 2S after Pia Andersson responded 2H and passed a 2S-rebid. Cecilia made it while our teammates (Berteau-Nyström) played 4H making for +420 (the board was played 24 times, making a game 16 times). See how much easier to manage the auction after a 2D-overcall. Strange, right?

Some imps won feels better than others. Yet, I did nothing.

Mirage revisited

2008-01-20T10:38:00.000+01:00

No one is immune to the 'bridge mirage' syndrome. I repeat, NO ONE. Here's a deal from the last segment of the 2007 Bermuda Bowl final in Shanghai between USA1 and Norway where the mighty Zia fell victim. He had:

J73
T82
AT
97642

I watched on BBO vugraph when the bidding started 2C by Helness, pass by Zia, 3C positive by Helgemon and and partner (Rosenberg) overcalled 3S at all red. The bidding continued 4H to the right, 4S by Zia and 6C from LHO which was corrected to 6H, all passing.

N_______E______S_______W
________2C______p_______3C
3S______4H_____4S_______6C
p_______6H_____p________p
p

What would you lead?

I can't know what was going through Zia's mind, and I wasn't up to the task of asking him when we talked in San Francisco. A list of lead options might go like this:

1) Ace of diamonds. Unbid suit, we cash it, hopefully and see dummy.
2) A spade. Partner bid the suit viulnerable and should have something useful.
3) A club. Maybe declarer has a stiff and we can cut him off from the suit if he lacks an entry.
4) No choice.

Yet, Zia lead a heart. Why??

I can only speculate (imagine) how Zia's mind was racing off. Why no Blackwood? Dummy must have a void. Maybe void in diamonds as he would bid 5S with a spade void but can't show void in diamonds below 6C. Declarer removed to 6H, why? Maybe a club void over there. Then maybe partner can stop the club suit with the A/K there and we should lead a trump to remove a ruff/entry on the go.

Hrm. Yes, that's it. Let's lead the T of hearts in case dummy hits with xx and partner only has a lower stiff x (records say he led the 8 of H, but as I recall it when watching, his choice was the T).

_______AQT964
_______73
_______9843
_______5
K82_________5
____________AKQJ9654
7652________KQJ
AKQJT8______3
_______J73
_______T82
_______AT
_______97642

Not the best shot on the actual layout and it lost big against 6H going down at the other table after a more mundane lead (and no intervention). This is a prime example of the 'mirage', making far too much of too little hard evidence.

Well, knowledge of imminent danger (this syndrome can occur when you least expect it) can prepare us to overcome it, so:

Praemonitus praemunitus ("forewarned is forearmed") !

On a sidenote: As most probably knows, Zia is replacing Soloway on the Nickell team from the summer NABC on. So who is Hamman playing with in the Vanderbilt and the trials? What might be news is that Chris Compton, Dallas buddy and expert player, is the 'chosen one'.

Mirage

2008-01-19T13:45:00.000+01:00

A mirage (from the Latin mirare, meaning 'to appear, to seem') is something I can suffer from at occasion, and it stems from reading to much into the bidding and/or the opponent's choices and general quirks. Some sort of mutant form of table presence going wrong, diverting you from the main track. It sets your mind off on erroneous ways, causing you to stray from more straight logic or 'truth' (for lack of better word). This malady hit me on this hand from last Sunday when I had:

K32
10875432
7
kn4

Matchpoints, all white and LHO opens a weak 1NT (12-14), partner doubles and the next hand pauses, and then passes. Hrm.

I think the normal bid on this hand is 3H, showing a rather weak hand with long hearts and sufficient playing strength. Bidding 2H doesn't show the potential of the hand and could be just crap. Passing is way off for even contemplating, although it could be a winner.

And yet, 2H was what I bid. Why? Because I read to much into the pause without any knowledge of that person's skill level and ways. I asked about pass, which was just neutral and a suggestion to play 1NT. I got thinking that RHO probably had something like a 5-card diamond suit and some overall strength because otherwise, it would be better to run.

If RHO had some strength, this was maybe a partscore deal and partner was likely minimum for double and I therefore decided to just bid the nothing bid of 2H. See how wrong this thing went in my head? This was faulty thinking for more reasons than one. If my take on RHO is correct, a 3D bid may be forthcoming and I need to bid 3H anyways, but now maybe attracting a double if wrong.

So, I broke one of my own cardinal rules, "when in doubt bid the normal bid", here 3H, and deservedly paid a price when this was the layout:

______D10976
______ED9
______K10
______ED3
kn854______E
Kkn________6
E63________Dkn98542
K876_______10952
______K32
______10875432
______7
______kn4

I have no idea what the heck RHO was contemplating but it can't have been anything bridgerelated ;-) Pass was a really bad bid that worked fine here with me messing up with an probably equally bad bid and there is no excuse for me racing my mind in the wrong direction.

Result was a missed game - partner would have had an easy raise over a direct 3H.

Don't fall prey to the bridge 'mirage'.

Survivor

2008-01-18T11:43:00.000+01:00

Everyone is familiar with the expression: "the operation was succesful but the patient died". My partner, Magnus Eriksson managed to get it right the other way around: "the operation was a failure, but it was only way to save the patient"!

First look upon these hands as a play problem:

AQ43
AJ
AKJ87
T3

K972
Q62
54
AK92

After you open 1C (red/white), the next hand jump overcalls 3H and there's no stopping your partner after you admit to a spade suit over a takeout double. She puts you in a grandslam in spades after checking the 'vitals'; how would you play it on the ten of spades lead?

I think the best way, taking the preempt into consideration, is to cash two rounds of trumps and go about establishing the diamond suit in dummy. With the last trump with RHO, you're fine. A, K and another diamond ruffed, heart finesse and another diamond and finally enter dummy with a club ruff to draw the last trump and enjoy your grand, taking the final trick with the 'beer card', the mighty 7 of diamonds! Ain't life great?

Not so fast! Magnus was dealt:

865
9
QT632
J865

... and decided to 'fake' a heart void by doubling 7S! He of course hoped to scare the opponents into 7NT instead, making them think a heart lead would then give him an immediate ruff and he liked his chances much better in 7NT with those minor suit holdings.

Some people can't be bluffed (as many poker players probably have learnt the hard way) and everyone sat for it without any particular deliberation. I was about to lead a spade but now of course led a heart away from my K empty-seventh instead.

Oh, yes. You are right. This deprived dummy of an entry prematurely and he was belly up. Amusing? Yes. Deserved? Maybe less so..

Sometimes being too clever for your own good, is exactly what's best for you!

Shifting gears

2008-01-16T08:21:00.000+01:00

Temporarily reviving an old partnership, I played a 2-day pair event over the weekend with Magnus Eriksson. Neither exactly remembered the old relay club system that we used to get to the Spingold semi back then and we went with old familiar stuff, the Swedish 2-way 1C. Midway through the event, I picked up:

Ax
xx
xx
JT9xxxx

Partner opened 1C (11-13 bal or any 17+) and I bid 1D negative. Now I had a choice when partner rebid 1NT showing 17-19. Should I pass, maneuver to play in 3C, invite 3NT with 6+C or just blast 3NT?

People playing 4-way transfer would probably start by doing just that, but we weren't playing anything that sophisticated (dropped the relay club, remember ;-).

I opted for the straightforward 3C-bid; invitational. This triggered a slightly surprising 4C bid in return! What!?

Well, this was great news. My hand improved by a whole lot and I cuebid 4S and Magnus jumped to 6C, making 7. His hand was:

Jxxx
AKJx
A
AQxx

He picked off a couple of offside honors enroute to all the tricks and a shared top. The 1NT-rebid may appear questionable in some people's eyes. But, it isn't that strange in the 2-way club setting with a stiff high honor, because a 1M-rebid is still 2-way and may be a 3-card suit with 11-13. 1NT gives partner a better picture although it comes with a price with both majors considering it was matchpoints; a better partscore could easily go begging now.

As it turned out, bidding the correct, value bid (3C) led to the optimal contract. When in doubt, that (i.e. the bid that strikes you as normal/correct) should always be your choice.

'Creative' effort

2008-01-10T08:37:00.000+01:00

Against Thomas Berg, former teammate and the sports agent for rising female tennis star Caroline Wozniacki (http://www.carolinewozniacki.dk/), we got outmanuevered in a shrewd operation. He had

Q862
863
T5
9632

Vul vs not, partner opened 1NT showing 12-14 and the next hand doubles showing a strong hand. Any last thoughts?

Thomas found the creative 2H which was a success when we happened to play doubles as penalty over 2m and negative over 2M! I had an opening hand with 5H and eagerly awaited a reopening double that never came when Håkan had too many hearts and the contract drifted 5 off for a 2 imp gain vs 4H making +420 at the other table!

When successful, bids like 2H is called 'creative' or 'imaginative' or 'brilliant' (if Zia makes them), when unsuccessful, they're 'idiotic', 'lunatic', 'madness' etc. As always it's the outcome that decides the label... ;-)

Lesson of the day: play penalty doubles over 2M as well (if you don't already).

Little contract

2008-01-09T08:22:00.000+01:00

There's a reason written up hands seldom features the small partscores. There isn't often an early decision time that is suitable for that format. Both sides win tricks and the variation of continuations makes bad reading material.

Last match in Denmark I played a 2C-contract though after opening a 2-way 1C (11-13 bal or any 17+) and partner bid a nonforcing 2C after a 1S-overcall. I got the ten of diamonds lead and saw this:

8764
Q63
J
AK753

AQ5
T94
AQ54
864

After the first trick collected the J, K and A, I paused for reflection. How should we make this?

Clubs need to be 3-2, giving us 4 tricks and we have AQ of D and the ace of S. This brings the total up to 7. The final contract-winning trick could come from an endplay of West, giving us an extra spadetrick, from being able to ruff dummy's last spade in hand, the AKx(x) of hearts onside or HJx of hearts onside and a defensive slip with West failing to cover the 9 of hearts from hand or

The endplay seems pretty remote as this requires West to have AK of hearts so that East can't push a spade through, the same requirement as getting a trick with the queen of H unless West is bare AK. We can rule out AK onside as West would have led one of those puppies with that holding (not necessarily true 100% of the time but something to rely on when analysing the hand).

The best chance is therefore ruffing a spade in hand, but then we need West to be 5-3-3-2 and the last club with East and sever the defensive communication so that East can't remove our last club in hand as we'll have cash ace-king or suffer the loss of extra trump trick promotion by the defence.

Having reached this conclusion, we cash the queen of D pitching a H and lead a H to the queen and K. East shifts to his singleton spade and we win and continue hearts and are safe from harm, scoring +90.

______8764
______Q63
______J
______AK753
KJT93_______2
A76_________KJ82
T96_________K8732
QT__________J92
______AQ5
______T94
______AQ54
______864

Check for successful opposing layouts and play for the most (legit) likely one. Surprisingly often this gains; at least you can rest assured you gave it your best shot!

Greater reward

2008-01-08T08:32:00.000+01:00

The same match I picked up:
8
T98
AK642
AQ42

All red and partner passes, my RHO opens 1D natural (4+) and I pass. LHO jumps to 2S weak and partner surprisingly comes to life with a takeout double! Next guy passes and it's your call. What do you choose?

What are the choices? We could bid a feeble 3C or probe with 3D/3S. Maybe an invitational 4C or just stab 5C. What does partner have? This is a somewhat dangerous position for partner to get into, passed hand or not, and he should have some useful shape, maybe 5-card hearts.

Forsaking science for practicality, and with the extra chance that RHO might sacrifice with 4S with some hands he checked with this round, I pretty quickly decided to bid a confident 4H on my 'nice' T98. For 5C to be right it has to be a 2-trick better contract (11 vs 9) and I should be able to ruff some spade losers.

This was the layout:

_______A962
_______AJ62
_______T
_______9865
KQT753_______J4
73___________KQ54
53___________QJ987
J73__________KT
_______8
_______T98
_______AK642
_______AQ42

After West failed to find the trump lead (confident 4H instead of wiggling into it, maybe helped), instead opting for partner's suit, the hand played itself for a crossruff and +620.

Imps is sometimes, bidding wise, a strange mix of taking chances, going scientific and being practical with a sense for the auction. The trick is knowing when to pick the right club out of the bag and then the 'big shuffler in the sky' has a propensity for rewarding you.

Or am I only rambling to cover up dumb luck...?

Satisfaction not guaranteed

2008-01-07T08:19:00.000+01:00

Technique in card play has its own rewards. By trying to cater for various layouts you may, or may not, get the prize. Here's a hand from this weekend that came close to making a difference in the scoring.

K
Q97
AJ42
87652

AQ9653
AK54
9
A3

I played 4S after opening a 2-way Swedish 1C and getting a 1D-overcall to my left and got a K of clubs lead. How to play it?

It seems like a rather trivial deal with 5 likely spade tricks, 3 hearts and 2 aces. If spades or hearts break or a squeeze developes, we may get more. Is there any danger?

Well, if neither major breaks we may have problems. Say spades are 1-5 and hearts 4-2. So we immediately win the club, ruff a diamond, go back with a spade to the K and ruff another D. Now when I cashed a high spade, my LHO discarded a diamond. Ace of H, heart to the queen and the last diamond from dummy assured 10 tricks and an inner sense of satisfaction.

That feeling lost some luster when this was the whole layout:

______K
______Q97
______AJ42
______87652
7____________JT842
832__________JT6
KQ763________T85
KQJ9_________T4
______AQ9653
______AK54
______9
______A3

With hearts breaking, anyone could take 10 tricks and you could actually make 6 by playing for hearts 3-3 before leading the last diamond off dummy (the only declarer in slam, in another match, went 2 down). Just another wash at the comparison (don't know which line the other table in our match took though).

Just beat the drum. Next time...

Perfect play

2008-01-06T21:25:00.000+01:00

Once again playing the top division in Copenhagen with Håkan Nilsson this weekend, I had this collection:

AT7
765
A72
JT98

Partner opens 1NT (14-16) and next hand overcalls 2S constructive. What to do at all white when X is negative and 2NT is artificial?

I stabbed 3NT as a practical shot and Håkan got a low spade lead and this was what he had to work with:

AT7
765
A72
JT98

J6
AKT4
J95
KQ76

Not too shabby with 14 vs 9. Seems the contract hinges on finding an extra trick in hearts, either playing for H/Hx with overcaller (cashing AK and leading towards the T later) or hooking the T, playing for both QJ to be onside.

We can stall our decision a bit and after winning the J at trick 1, we play a high club which LHO wins and continues with the queen of spades and another one, RHO following 3 times. Håkan now cashed one high heart (dropping the 9 to his left) and played 2 rounds of clubs, ending in dummy. LHO followed and RHO tanked before discarding an encouraging low diamond. How do you tackle the hearts?

Håkan figured it was more likely that overcaller was 5-1-4-3 for his constructive overcall as he seemed to lack a high diamond H than for him to be 5-2-3-3 so he cashed the last club and hooked the heart for a wonderful +400. When teammates were +110 in 2S this translated to +11 imps.

______AT7
______765
______A72
______JT98
KQ542_____983
9_________QJ832
KT83______Q64
A53_______42
______J6
______AKT4
______J95
______KQ76

It wouldn't have helped East to insert a heart honour as we can just duck and still have the ace of D for a re-entry.

When faced with a choice (guess), try to postpone the decision as long as possible and hope to gather some clues along the way. Sometimes this actually works.

Meeting people

2007-12-11T08:11:00.000+01:00

Going to US nationals means, among other things, meeting old friends and new interesting people (and reconnecting with those you haven't seen for a while). One of my rising favourites is a relatively new acquaintance, Migry Zur Campanile from Israel. She's one of the best female players there is and her articles in Bridge Today is a great read.

Here's a deal from San Francisco (Women's BAM) where she showed off her lead capabilites. As I have a soft spot for great leads, I got to share this one:

The auction was:
pass - pass - 1D - pass;
1H - pass - 1S - pass;
1NT all pass

What would you lead from:

AT42
A63
J62
J83

Migry tabled the J of diamonds, a great choice from that holding, which is often overlooked by lesser players. Actually one of Gunnar Hallberg's favorites also. Layout:

______QJ73
______94
______Q875
______AK5
AT42________985
A63_________QJ42
J62_________AT93
J83_________Q2
______K6
______KT87
______K4
______T8764

The J went to declarer's K and after a club ducked to the queen, Val Westheimer could reach Migry's hand twice for diamond lead through and down 1 was good for a win on the board.

Check Migry's website at www.migry.com.

San Francisco NABC

2007-12-10T03:23:00.000+01:00

Bob, Fred, I and Jerry

San Francisco was a great place for the US Fall Nationals. We did so and so, nothing I would call a success but I guess we didn't embarass ourselves totally either. We won a 1-session BAM, a top-bracket consolation knockout (losing our first match on American soil a mere 14 hours after a 20 hour trip and 9 hour time-zone skip) with Mårten Gustawsson and Gunnar Andersson.

The Blue-Ribbons had us finish 31th out of 104 reaching day 3 (416 pair entering) and the North American Swiss saw us fade to 28th place day 3 (160 teams entering, 40 made it to day 3), playing with Robert Bitterman, Jerry Helms, John Diamond and Brian Platnick.

In the Swiss, a distributional layout started off day 3. The first 2 days boards were shuffled each match but the final day all matches played pre-duplicated boards. South, all white (deal rotated):

______T
______653
______AKJT9865
______A
A876_________KQ953
7____________982
Q73___________
98732________KJT65
______J42
______AKQJT4
______52
______Q4

The auction went:
1H - pass - 2D - 2S;
pass - 4S - 5D - pass;
6H - pass - pass - X all passed

1H was 11-15 5+suit, 2D was artificial gameforce with at least 3 hearts, pass after 2S denied shortness in spades and 5D was natural. 6H was a reasonable guess, or so I thought.

West obviously thought X was a general vote of mistrust for the contract and failed to lead a diamond, which of course would have resulted in a swift 2 off, instead opting for a surprise attack in clubs. This was lucky for us and I managed to take the first round finesse in diamonds after collecting the trumps for +1310 (need to, no re-entry otherwise after drawing trumps) for +9 imps vs 6D making at the other table.

Britain's David Bakshi found the text-book switch to a heart at his table against 6D, removing the entry to dummy prematurely and declarer was not prepared to finesse in trumps first time around and went down. Well done David!

Overcalling for the lead - the other way around

2007-12-09T21:26:00.000+01:00

Most are familiar with light overcalls with good suits to help partner finding the best lead. What may be overlooked is that overcalls may be made for the opposite reason, to find out what YOU are going to lead.

Still 1st division in Denmark, round-robin 36 board matches. I was dealt this one (red/white):

KT9863
J842
4
65

After pass on my right, I passed and LHO opened 1C. My RHO responded 1D and I slipped in a seemingly meaning-less 1S, Lauria-style (he's overcalling-crazy btw - and ranked no 1 in the world).

The next hand doubled, showing a good hand without suitable rebid and after partner passed and the guy on my right rebid 1NT, leftie raised to 3NT.

So now we pretty mych know a spade lead is unlikely to be successful. Therefore I led a heart.

_______A7
_______KT
_______AK2
_______AJ9843
KT9863______Q2
J842________AQ965
4___________T873
65__________Q2
_______J54
_______73
_______QJ965
_______KT7

Jackpot and we cashed out for +50 and 11 imps vs 520 and the other table.

If you think the opponents messed up an easy board, you are maybe correct, but this was arguably one of the best pairs in Denmark and when playing good opponents you certainly need to 'shove' them a little bit.

For whatever reason we won the imps, and you might come to a different conclusion than I do as to the reason for that occurence, we happily took them.

Analysing the auction

2007-12-08T00:01:00.000+01:00

Blind leads aren't always that blind. While there may not be much useful info at first glance, there can be inferences to guide you when taking a closer look. Here's a lead problem from the first division in Denmark against declarer Lars Blakset.

My hand:
Q52
J63
T7532
K5

The auction went:
1S - 2D (FG)
2NT - 3S
4S - 4NT (showing 3+ aces)
5C (cue) - 6S

So, what do we know? What would you lead?

Declarer seems to have hand with scattered minimum strength from 2NT-rebid and refusal to cuebid after 3S. Dummy jumped to slam after hearing a 5C cue. That indicate tricksource and weak clubs. So, I tabled the K of clubs. This was the layout:

_______AK4
_______A94
_______AQJ94
_______82
Q52____________83
J63____________QT52
T7532__________86
K5_____________QJ973
_______JT976
_______K87
_______K
_______AT64

Declarer can always make the hand by finessing in spades but went for the percentage line of AK of trumps and running diamonds, pitching clubs. One down when the diamonds didn't break and the trump queen didn't come down. After anything but a club lead, declarer can take the trump finesse in comfort and then try to run diamonds, combining the chances. With a club lead it was decision time right away.

Reaching for opp's bidding motives, i.e. why they bid the way they did can provide the crucial indicators. As always, buyer beware, remember some people just can't be trusted!

Aggressive action

2007-08-31T07:54:00.000+01:00

Round of 16 of Spingold we looked horns with Glubok-Ozdil and Coren-Rosenbloom, who the previous round beat 4th seeded O'Rourke (Jacobus, Bocchi-Duboin, Greco-Hampson). We were ahead by 22 going into the last quarter.

This last set Freddan and I played G-O and on the first board they bid good slam cutting the lead to 11. We were 'solid' at both tables the rest of the way going 74-0 on the remaining boards.

Here's a bidding decision from halfway in the set. I had:

2
JT2
AQ954
9643

All vul and Melih started on my right with 1S. Brian bid 1NT, partner doubled and RHO bid 4S in tempo. What's your call? Is this a problem?

I guess pass would be the mainstream choice, some lunatic might try 5D. I made an aggressive penalty double without trumps because this is a situation where partner wouldn't act on marginal values unless defensive tricks ('grave-yard'). This collected +500 and 7 imps (same contract undoubled at other table) on this layout.

_____86
_____K875
_____J72
_____K875
2___________95
JT2__________AQ95
AQ954_______T83
9643________AQJT
_____AKQJT743
_____63
_____K6
_____2

Swap the red kings and 4S makes but I still feel in retrospect that this was clear odds-on double.

Auction analysis often provides the key to going the right way in marginal situations.

High flyer

2007-08-29T19:12:00.000+01:00

Often some of the biggest results come when you've exposed yourself to a sizeable minus and the opponents misjudge and suffer instead. Some people are willing to take risks like that, by choice, others wouldn't dream of it.

What would you do with the following hand after partner opens a mini-NT (10-12) in 1st position with all white and the next hand passes?

J
J63
T96
T87542

Pass, transfer to clubs or go for the juggler with 3NT? Maybe you could catch the next guy with an awkward hand, passing it out. Maybe they bid 4M and are cold for slam.

Kit Woolsey, who's a pretty experienced guy by any standard belongs to category 1; he's willing to shoot it out. He is the one who wrote about 'loading the dice', the 'double flaw' theory etc (classic instructions!) about taking positions, in one of my all-time favorite bridge books "Matchpoints".

Kit bid a confident 3NT in a flash with his LHO on the same side of the screen.

I had xxxx/AKQ9x/AKx/Q and could see that 3NT was very likely to be based on clubs but also that the 'clear-cut' X might not be a winner. 3NT could make with a spade lead or they could escape to 4C when even 3NT undoubled would be a better score for us. On the other hand partner would be more likely to find a heart lead from shortness after X.

Brushing negative thinking aside I reached for the obvious X and another one after the 4C-runout, leaving it to partner to sweat it out.

This time, I can tell you, he wasn't exactly sweating...

______J
______J63
______96
______T87542
8642________K953
AKQ95_______T2
AK4_________QJ8
Q___________KJ93
______AQT7
______874
______7532
______A6

Kit didn't buy a great layout for his crew and this went a mere 6 down for -1400 with 4S going down in other direction. Wolff-Morse played 3NT, holding the loss to 14 imps.

As crazy as the 3NT-bid may seem at first sight, it could easily have turned out a winner. What if the K of hearts had been with my partner? Would I have doubled with xxx/AQxxx/AKx/Q? Probably not.

When they try to gun you down, don't be intimidated.
Turn the table.

What does he have?

2007-08-28T12:58:00.000+01:00

Still 2nd set, Woosley-Stewart. Apart from light initials actions going bad, most things go right. Here's a play problem.

K9
AJ84
T6
K8532

AQJT876
T5
8
A95

Stewart opens 1D on my left, playing Precision and after two passes I jump to 4S (white/red). He's not done and comes back with 5D. Freddan bids 5S (instead of X) and I'm left to play it after K-Q of diamonds are led (divides 7-3).

How to go about it? Play for clubs breaking (ditching your heart loser) or getting hearts right for a club discard?

Starting on trumps , LHO shows out 2nd round and we're reached the crossroads. The answer lies in the 5D-bid at unfavourable vulnerability vs a weak hand. That hand must have at least 11 cards in two suit and not an 'empty' secondary suit (i.e. KTxx or similar). So we play on hearts and make the contract.

_______K9
_______AJ84
_______T6
_______K8532
2_____________543
KQ73__________962
AKQ9732_______J54
6_____________QJT4
_______AQJT876
_______T5
_______8
_______A95

Put yourself in opp's position and see what hand(s) would be most likely for the auction.

Lights out

2007-08-13T08:44:00.000+01:00

I'm in favor of light opening bids but sometimes they go sour in unexpected ways. A bit unusual, this was the theme twice in the same set vs Stewart-Woolsey in the Spingold quarter-finals. First board of the 2nd set (we sat out the first), I opened 1H in first position white/red with:

T873
KQJ74
A
JT3

This pinpointed the heart situation and propelled them to a cold 6D after a 2D overcall when our teammates went down in 3NT on a heart lead after having the auction to themselves, costing us 16 imps.

Later, my partner had also in first position (red/white):

QJ9
84
A52
A9762

We open hands like this routinely and have the system to prevent us from getting to high without reason. This time it caught Woolsey with:

742
KQJ32
8
JT43

He jump overcalled 2H (favourable) and when we got to 3NT this was easily defeated on a heart lead.

_____QJ9
_____84
_____A52
_____A9762
AKT5______742
T76_______KQJ32
J963______8
85________JT43
_____863
_____A95
_____KQT74
_____KQ

At the other table my hand could open 1NT and after 3NT and a high spade lead, it was imperative for West to find the heart shift. That wasn't a clear by any standards and the game came home for 12 imps away.

I'm sure the Granovetters would enjoy these boards... ;-)

Lethal lead

2007-08-09T10:16:00.000+01:00

Still Swiss practise session, we sit down against the fierce Jon Baldurson of Iceland. 1NT (13-15) to your right, 3S from Jon (your LHO), showing 1-3-(54/45) and 3NT concludes the bidding. Your lead from:

J8xx
xxx
J8
T9xx

Freddan chose a killing heart on this layout:
____x
____JT9
____QT97x
____AQJx
J8xx_____AT97x
xxx______AKxx
J8_______Kxx
T9xx_____x
____KQx
____Qxx
____Axx
____Kxxx

Teammates were +180 for a 6 imp win. Still could have beaten it with a heart shift on a spade lead but if partner had Qxxx then a spade continuation might be required if declarer has four hearts. Partner needs Jx or xxx in diamonds for us to beat it.

Always satisfying to watch partner hitting perfectly!

Close call

2007-08-06T09:44:00.000+01:00

Spingold day 1, we got a bye because only 74 teams entered (we were no 13 seed). We did a practise session with the team at a Swiss. Freddan did well on this hand. He had:

KTx
Axx
A9x
KQTx

Partner opened 1D and he relayed to find out that my hand was 1-4-4-4 and 11-13 and placed the contract in 5C as I had bid NT on the way as a conventional reply(wrong-siding 3NT). Herbst (of Israel, can't tell which one of the brothers ;) led a trump.

x
QJxx
Axxx
A987

KTx
Axx
K9x
KQTx

Frederic won with the ace in dummy and led a spade to the king and ace and another trump return, taken in hand. The early play had revealed that the remaining trump was with RHO. He now ruffed a spade in dummy and led the queen of H. This lost to the K and LHO continued with the queen of D.

He won in dummy, entered his hand in hearts to ruff the remaining spade, led a diamond to the K and cashed the trumps, squeezing West in the red suits for +400.

At the other table, the auction was 1C - 3NT and as West had AJx/K9xx/QJTx/xx this was an easy +430 and we lost an imp.

There are worse ways to lose an imp.

Spingold semi

2007-08-01T07:47:00.000+01:00

Nashville was a pretty good tournament. We lost in the round of 4 to Nickell, the defending champs and repeat winners, after leading with 30 halfway and by 15 going in the last quarter. Somehow they always get the set of boards they need and a Meckwell rally turned around the match.

Teammates were great to be around and it was a lot of fun, apart from the strong disappointment after the last loss of course.

I know Meckstroth a bit from various occasions we've met over the years but only played short matches and pairs against him and Rodwell before. Playing 16 set boards against them at this stage was an interesting and quite different experience. Hard to explain without getting into 'psycho babble'.

Next time...

Timeout

2007-07-19T08:15:00.000+01:00

I'm leaving for Nashville tomorrow and after returning home for just a couple of days, leave for the National pairs here in Sweden. I'm not bringing my laptop so there probably won't be any postings in a couple of weeks or so. Back to normal 2nd week in August.

I'll probably have lot of material then and just need time/energy to write it up. (Still have many deals from Turkey, btw.)

See ya.

More lead theories

2007-07-19T08:13:00.000+01:00

When Johan Bennet (European Pairs Champion, Cavendish winner, Bermuda Bowl bronze) was doing his deep thinking about leads and doing simulations, almost 15 years ago, he came up with another one I've practised faithfully ever since. And this has been a big winner over the years. Trust me.

It concerns what lead strategy you should adopt after (1NT) all pass. He purposed this algorithm:
a) With a 5-card suit, lead it.
b) With 4333, lead the 4-card suit.
c) With 4432, lead the weaker 4-card suit.

Where the break-off point is concerning c) when the suits get closer to each other in quality hasn't been discerned. Some things are too tough to call.

I'm not breaking down the details, but higly recommend this approach. An important side-effect is that it also makes it easier for partner when making decisions later in the deal if you know this algorithm is followed. After 1NT-opening, not much information is disclosed on suits lengths.

The secret is out.

Rare species

2007-07-15T21:49:00.000+01:00

Some people use an opening bid of 4NT to ask for specific aces (5C-reply denying one). I used to play that one to but can only vagely remember one occurence in the 80's. In the last Swiss match from the second qualification stage in Turkey, I had this animal against the Auken team from Denmark:

AKQJ875
T
A
AKT2

I noticed I was in 4th position with all white and thought that this hand almost was a match for that convention, but usually someone finds a bid before that.

After three passes to me (surprise ;), I opened a strong 1C and got a 0-8 1D-reply. Still no opposing intervention. I now could roll out our 'little' version of the specific ace-ask, a jump to 3NT in this auction is just that (1H is relay with strong hands).

Partner replied 4C, no ace, and I called it quits in 4S. Dummy had:

3
KJ8653
T65
J93

The queen of clubs didn't come down doubleton and +450 was worth +11 imp when my hand drove to slam vs a weak 2 in H.

Eric Kokish sometimes refer to "the great shuffler in the sky" who distributes the opposing hands and determines the outcome of a contract (and where the imps end up).

In my mind, the great shuffler got this one right.

Hot shot

2007-07-13T12:09:00.000+01:00

There were an almost inordinary number of interesting lead problems in Turkey. Some were solved to satisfaction, some were not. We got the majority right but leads are a tricky business. Here's one of the easier. You have:

T84
Q6
7542
Q932

The auction goes:
- 1D
1H 1S
2C 2N
3D 3N
p

What's your choice?

It's often correct to attack dummys first suit in these sort of auctions as you know declarer is short (no preference). I led the queen of hearts and hit the jackpot.

_____A7
_____9743
_____KJ8
_____AJ75
T84_______Q953
Q6________AKJ852
7542______3
Q932______T4
_____KJ62
_____T
_____AQT96
_____K86

That's a way to keep partner happy ;-)

At least two players I know of (Bertheau & Martens) led a low H from the other hand after 1D-1H;1S-3N. Not so against teammates in our match after same auction.

I don't like that auction even if practical bidding surprisingly often, at the table, gets better results than a scientific, explorative approach. Against us North should have jumped to 5D over 3N as the stiff H was pinpointed.

When you're going scientific, don't forget to think.

Too much

2007-07-04T07:25:00.000+01:00

Competing against a strong 1C-opening is a delicate business. You try to make life difficult for the strong side by taking away space and/or add some confusion to the mix. There are two inherent dangers to this task: getting caught for a number or revealing to much information that can be used to find/avoid level/strain or helping out declarer.

It's often a matter of providing just the "right" degree of annoyance. Here's a deal from the Antalya round-robin where opponents went to the well one to many. I had:

KT432
JT6
4
QT92

Partner opened 1C and my RHO overcalled 1NT showing C & H or D & S. I passed as our agreement is that any action is forcing to game and the next guy jumped to 3C (pass/correct). Freddan jumped to 4H and after pass, I couldn't find reason enough to bid. I had a seriously good hand but partner may be just taking a shot at game, hoping/expecting something useful in dummy. With a very strong hand, partner do have the option of doubling 3C.

When my LHO backed in with 4S (now knowing that his partner had D & S) and partner pushed on with 5H, I was handed a blueprint (partner void in spades, not too much in D) and I had an easy raise to 6H.

_______
_____AKQ98732
_____875
_____AK
AQJ7_______9865
7__________5
9632_______AKQJT
7543_______J86
_____KT432
_____JT6
_____4
_____QT92

I would've just overcalled D's with that East hand. I don't know the auction at the other table but slam wasn't reached.

There's a fine line between competeting and overcompeteting. Try not to cross it.

Busy summer

2007-07-02T06:47:00.000+01:00

On another note, we've taking a trip to the Summer NABC in Nashville.

We're playing the Spingold with Roy Welland, Christal Henner, Antonio Sementa and Chris Willenken.

Sounds like fun to me.

Forensic analysis

2007-07-02T06:38:00.000+01:00

An interesting deal for me, on the topic of bidding judgement, was this one. It's from the first half (bd 6) of the Open Team semi-final against the Indian team Texan Aces and it was a disaster for us.

What would be your action (vul/nonv) after 1C (16+ unbal / 17+ bal) from partner, negative 1D reply from you (any 0-8) and your LHO preempts with 3C which is followed by two passes?

Q5
QJT6
Q8764
94

I thought this was difficult. The choices are pass, X and 3D. Let's break it down.

Pass: Kind of feeble since partner may have passed with a decent hand. The vulnerability favors action in the sense that the award for a making game is premium compared to defending, but negative in the sense that an opposing penalty double risks a larger minus score. Our values are very defensive oriented and the lack of controls (no ace or king) makes it less likely that we'll make a game, either off in top tricks, defensive ruffs or a losing finesse into the non-preempter. We do have internal fillers in hearts to help overcome a bad break in that suit should it become our trump suit.

3D: Pathetic suit and risks losing the heart suit on a 4-4 fit. Also makes it impossible to defend 3C X if partner is loaded behind declarer. Does make it easier to reach 3NT if that's our best spot. Lack of aces/kings suggest that 3NT may make more often than 4H.

X: Most flexible call as we can defend right there, play a suit contract at the 3-level and it brings in several suits in the equation. Big downside is that you suggest/promise length in a suit which you don't have. If partner bids spades, we have to pass. With spades and another suit, we're probably ok if it's the majors as partner will bids hearts at 3-level and use the cue-bid at the 4-level to locate the best fit. Partner's pass however makes it less likely to find both majors unless minimum with short diamonds (which would be ok btw as we won't have much wasted then). If partner has 4-4 in spades and diamonds, he's going to bid 3S if not interested in game which's a con.

What should it be?

Eric Kokish has written "when in doubt, choose the most flexible action". There's a lot to that piece of advice and I X'ed.

Let's look at this auction from the other end of the table. You have:

AK982
K72
KJ
K73

What would be your call over 3C ? I think most would pass, as would probably I. If you'd gotten a 3C-opening on your right, I think you should overcall 3NT.

After 3D from partner, you should bid 3NT, burying spades. The semi-flat shape and lack of aces is worrying for 4S and the biggest warning sign of all: Kxx in the suit your RHO has preempted in.

What to do if partner X's ? Your choices are 3S, 4S and 3NT. What are the factors on this hand?

Let's give partner a semi-suitable hand:

Qxxx
Q9xx
Q9xx
x

What contract do you want to play? Well, as long as the preempter doesn't hold two aces, 3NT is going to make. How about 4S? That's going down whenever there's a ruff available. If partner has 4 card spades, 4S if better if he has an ace (by my estimations). Whenever partner has 3 card spades, you want to play 3NT. Give partner:

Jxx
QJxx
Q9xx
xx

4S has no chance, 3NT makes with spade queen onside. We can go on like this, but my money is on 3NT. The Kxx of clubs is worthless in 4S. Either partner is short or he's got length and then there's a ruff and the lack of aces will kill us.

Sometimes partner also X's with less attractive shape. Say you've got:

Jxx
AJxx
Qxx
xxx

You don't really want to sell out to 3C, do you? If partner has one of these, we must play in 3NT. So, for my money, I believe 3NT is a clear winner after X. And it's all in that Kxx of clubs.

At the table, I chose X, Freddan responded 4S and opp's X'ed for -500. Freddan suggested that I should have bid 3D and that he should have bid 3S.

______J
______954
______92
______AQJT853
Q5___________AK982
QJT6_________K72
Q8764________KJ
94___________K73
______T7643
______A83
______AT53
______6

At the other table, Craig overcalled 4C after (1S) - pass - (1NT) - ? and got out for -300. Teammates expected a pick-up from that one with 3NT on for +600.

So what happened in the other match? Since that was on BBO viewgraph, I've pulled the details from the archive. Let me tell you, this was not an easy deal to cope with.

Ramondt-Westra (Dutch Orange 2 team) opened 1NT and sold out after 1NT - pass - pass - 3C for +50 our/their way. Pachtman-Ginossar for the event winners Bessis (France/Israel) ran into the same 4C-overcall after 1S-1NT as the Texans did against our teammates, but after X then Ginossar tried 4H on my hand and also lost -500.

Teammates turned out, in practise, to have the worst result of all tables in play, losing imps to all the others in spite of getting it absolutely right to the extent that they could. Had Craig settled for 3C, I'm sure opener would've tried 3NT and the loss would have even greater. It's not a fair game in that sense; sometimes you can't win, just minimize the loss.

The bulletin provided their usual insight (duh!) reporting that "Wrang/Nilsson's strong club methods proved unable to cope with high-level club interference." As I've demonstrated this had very little to do with methods (after the 1C-opening) and everything to do with bidding judgement. Judgement that was not as fine-tuned at this point as it had been most of the week so far.

Time to close this casket.

Facts and the bulletins

2007-06-30T00:36:00.000+01:00

Craig/Scottish legend Irving Gordon/PO Sundelin

Apparently, bulletin staff don't always know what happens on a deal and assumes something. Time is short when you've got a report to write you may be forgiven, I guess. Case in print from the semi-final. I had:

J52
A532
T54
Q84

The bidding started on my right with an 2S showing 8-11 hcp and a (5)6 card suit (according to cc). LHO raised to 4S and it was my lead.

A blind lead from the minors did not attract my attention. I've seen more than a few of these where 4 tricks were cashable and the wrong lead resulted in overtricks instead, for example if a strong diamond suit would hit in dummy. I led therefore the ace of hearts. Dummy went down with:

_____QT63
_____KT8
_____A2
_____KJ65
J52
A532
T54
Q84

Partner discouraged with the 7 and I promptly shifted to a diamond to dummys ace, partner signalling strength this time. Declarer played a spade to hand, partner following (declarer only 5) and led the T of clubs. What do you do? Quick decision!

I played low as I could see only one heart, one diamond and I figured a club misguess was our best shot. Declarer ran it and made 10 tricks on this layout:

_____QT63
_____KT8
_____A2
_____KJ65
J52________8
A532_______QJ74
T54________KQ76
Q84________A973
_____AK974
_____96
_____J983
_____T2

Declarer could now repeat the club finesse but it didn't matter, it's easy to ruff your losers in dummy and come to 10 tricks. A misguess was our only shot. This deal cost 6 imps when our comrades missed this one in the first half against Texans.

According to the bulletin, I shifted to a low club in trick 2 and they claimed that a diamond lead and passive defence (including club cover) sinks the contract.

Think again.

Antalya - day 5

2007-06-26T20:55:00.000+01:00

Bronze team

Championships are officially over for us!

We got a bronze medal after a comeback win against the Polish open team (for Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai) in the quarter-final and losing against the Indian team Texan Aces (who beat Dutch Orange 1 comfortable in their QF) by 50-something in the semi.

The match against the poles was a real emotional outburst in the second half when we started coming back after being 26 down at the half. Freddan and I played very well and got them by bidding and playing practically double-dummy.

Here's a cool hand from the second half. I had:

A
KTxxx
ATxx
xxx

Red/white and a 11-14 Precision-style 2C-opening on my right, first position. I overcalled 2H, a bit agressively but you have to get in the auction. Next hand bid 4C, partner bid 5C showing void with support and tghe next hand passed. I was always going to slam now but wanted to check a bit for the grand slam so I tried 5D. Partner jumped to 6H and when the next hand sacrificed, after a tank, I bid 7H.

I figured we needed the grand making to be able to win the match (deja vu from Spingold QF against Zia; see 'Down memory lane' post). This is what I got:

QJ9x
AJxxx
KJxx
-

A
KTxxx
AT8x
xxx

I counted the hand and finessed LHO for the queen of diamonds to pick up 16 imps vs 4S X going for 800 at the other table !

After a short break we had to go back in for the semi and it felt like we were a spent team and the Indians were on a roll. It was over pretty quickly. Teammates were ok, Freddan and I got a few wrong. It wouldn't have mattered, I think.

Big thanks to our teammates who played very well and are absolutely fabulous guys to be around.

Antalya - day 4

2007-06-25T20:54:00.000+01:00

Where are the always stunning Lavazza girls who usually serves coffee at these events ??

The Norwegian match was a riot. We were up 63-2 at the half and they almost conceded but the 3rd pair wanted to play some so we played on pretty quickly (and sloppy) to end the match at 103-25.

Here's a nice system triumph on board 5 of the match. Freddan had:

A9543
AJ84
2
J84

Partner opens 1D in 1st position (nv vs v) showing 11-13 balanced/5M332 or 11-15 unbal with a 4-card major and the next hand X's. What should you do?

At the other table they bid 1S and rebid 2H over 1NT and went 1 down for -50. Freddan passed which could systematically conceal a constructive hand and the auction went (1S) - pass - (1NT=18-20) - ?

Frederic wielded the axe and led a low spade.

______JT62
______972
______987
______972
A9543_____Q7
AJ84______Q5
2_________KT43
J84_______AT653
______K8
______KT63
______AQJ65
______KQ

Spade went J, Q, K and declarer continued with ace of diamonds and the queen. I won and shifted to a low club. +800! Not a reason to abandon that treatment...

Second match (round of 16) we played the top ranked Bulgarian team which was a real close match. Our team were down 6 at the half and 18 with 2 boards left.

Not a lot happened at our table. We were pretty solid and only missed one chance (that I can think of at this moment) to gain imps.

There were a lot more action at the other table and Alon & Craig came through in the end with 2 big results after having recorded -670 on an early board in the set. They bid, and made, a grand from the wrong side of the table (a ruff was available for the defence) which they missed against us (it was right-sided at our table; no ruff possible).

On the last board Freddan made 2S for +110 and Alon got to 3NT vulnerable the other way and made it on misdefence. Win by 5.

Die another day.

Antalya - day 3

2007-06-24T20:44:00.000+01:00

Freddan checks when Fredin-Fallenius practise bidding.

We ended nr 6 in the Swiss and picked a Norwegian team for the knockout tomorrow. It was a little rollercoaster today with a huge loss against the Mahaffey team at table 2. We met Fredin – Fallenius and lost about all 50 imps right there at our table. They did everything right and we got a few wrong. 0-53!

Then we played the De Botton team with Hacketts and Sandqvist-Malinowski and won 62-0! Out of 10 boards, teammates doubled Nick & Arthur no less than 6 times, all contracts going down in various numbers !!

The last match we beat Denmark with Auken - SC et al 24-6 to finish in a top position. (Left out a few less interesting match results ;)

Here’s board 2 from Apteker-Mahaffey (N-S/E):

94
AQ5
975
AK872

A6
T983
AQ64
Q43

Auction went:

.......................(p)
1C – (p) – 1S - (2S)
p – (p) – 3C - (p)
3H – (p) – 3S - (p)
3NT all pass

1C was balanced or clubs, 1S was relay with balanced invitation or any strong hand.

Low spade lead to the ten and ace. Fredin cashed the queen of clubs and when the 9 came from RHO (me), he played a club to the 7 and picked up JTxx and 13 imp when the next hand discarded, with both red kings onside.

Alon didn’t copy that one after a similar auction and went 2 down. When opp's get those hands right, it's hard to win.

We're still standing and ready for the showdown tomorrow.

Dummy play

2007-06-23T22:27:00.000+01:00

The great Dane - Niels Krojgaard.

Another interesting deal from the last evening match was this 3NT against the great Dane. After 1S-1NT;3H-3NT, I got a low club (attitude) lead and looked at the following:

AKT653
K9652
4
A

87
A3
QJ7
QJ9532

I won the ace and ducked a spade from dummy to the 2, 7 and J. West cashed the ace of D, got a discouraging high diamond spot and got out with a low spade which I won in dummy.

When I now cash my spades, East discards an encouraging H and some low diamonds. With one spade left in dummy this is the position:

5
K9652
-
-

-
A3
QJ
QJ

What should I discard on the last spade?

I could now instead leave the spade trick and play two rounds of heart ending in my hand and win if West had the K of D (3-2-3-5).

If heart were 1-5 I should cash the last spade throwing my small heart and would win if:
a) West had the minor suit K's (reading the end game depending on West's discards - which minor to exit in)
b) West's singleton is Q/J/T, with East having to give dummy two hearts in the end after winning the diamond (this wouldn't work if West kept diamonds then but he had discarded one on the spades).

I believed hearts were 1-5 from the play but wasn't certain about the high diamond. I went for option no 2, cashing the last spade (stranding the heart K), and made it when Niels had the remaining honors. Full hand:

______AKT653
______K9652
______4
______A
QJ4__________92
7____________QJT84
AK98_________T6532
KT876________4
______87
______A3
______QJ7
______QJ9532

+600 was worth +10 imps vs a spade partscore.

Deals like this makes the time spent on a card game worth it.

Antalya - day 2

2007-06-23T21:21:00.000+01:00

Playing area.

Teammates had a bit of a rough day, especially in the morning match which we lost 7-23. We still won our group pretty easily and headed in to the Swiss A with 6 VP carry-over.

Swiss A consists of 7 rounds and 27 of 42 qualifies for the knockouts starting Monday (remaining 5 from Swiss B). We started at table one and won against a Russian with 17-13 and then lost to a Danish team (Pharmaservice) with 14-16. These were both high-scoring matches, 35-27 and 34-37 over 10 boards each!

Lead after opp's short auction goes 2C (Precision-style) - 3NT from:

KQ7xx
9xx
xxx
Qx

Leading a spade seems rather clear, but which one?

I tried a high one and this was the layout.

______T
______AKTx
______Qxx
______AKxxx
KQ7xx_______A982
9xx_________xxx
xxx_________xx
Qx_________J9xx
______Jxx
______QJx
______AKJTx
______Tx

Lousy bidding from the Russians with 6D on, which our teammates bid very competently. After a high spade, playing upside down count & attitude, the danger of blocking the spades loomed ahead if partner encourages with the 2. Freddan overtook with the ace in tempo and returned the 9.

Not really complicated, but yet so beautiful...

Antalya - day 1

2007-06-22T22:00:00.000+01:00

Just before kickoff. Alon/me/Craig/Frederic

We started today with 4 matches out of a total of 7 for the first roundrobin stage. 3 qualify directly and the remaining have another go in the repecharge. We are seeded 3rd in our 8 team group and have started well, amassing 90 out of 100 VP (best in any group so far). Tomorrow we face stiffer competetition (top seeds)

Our teammates have played very well. Craig has lots of robber bridge in London under his belt and has represented South Africa many times internationally. Here is a couple of deals where he showed his mettle.

First a lead against a slam after this auction:

N/N-S

(1D) - 2H - (2S) - 3H
(4H) - pass - (6S) all pass

You have:

Kx
KTxx
Axx
Txxx

Craig first played it cool with 3H to see what was going on (prepared to go on to 5H later) and then he led a club after listening to the auction, which was the killing shot on this layout:

_____Qxx
______
_____KQTxxxx
_____AJx
Kx___________x
KTxx_________AJ9xxx
Axx__________J9x
Txxx_________Kxx
_____AJT9xxx
_____Qxx
______
_____Qxx

As we played 5S for +680 this meant +13 imp instead of -13 imp.

Then he stuck his neck out in the 'grave yard' (se previous posts) by doubling nonv vs v after:
pass - (1S) - pass - (1NT);
??

... with x/K9876/Q9xx/K9x. This collected +500 when partner held QTxx/JT/AKx/AT8x!

We never exposed ourselves to this as I opened 1D instead on AKJxx/Qxx/Jxx/Jx. Next hand overcalled 1NT and Craig's hand drove to 4H going 2 down for +12 imp.

So far so good.

3NT as takeout - revisited

2007-06-19T08:26:00.000+01:00

Checking the bulletin from 3rd Open European Ch in Turkey today I came across this one from the mixed R32 match. You have:

AJ4
KT3
95
97542

The auction went pass from RHO, pass by you and 3S from LHO (Soulet) and partner X's for takeout. You are red against white, what would be your choice?

Espen Erichsen chose 3NT and made it after some discomfort (missguessing clubs) on a high spade lead for +600 on this layout.

_______7652
_______A4
_______AQT2
_______AQ8
KQT983_________
965___________QJ872
K_____________J87643
JT6___________K3
_______AJ4
_______KT3
_______95
_______97542

This was a 10 imp gain when a modest 2S-opening by Tor Helness at the other table was passed out for -150. Excellent off-shape takeout X of 3S by the way with a doubleton heart ;-)

If you played the Marston 3NT takeout reply convention, you would have passed 3S X, probably cursing the convention, and collected +800.

Another way to win with a convention; when it prevents you from choosing a bid that would lead to a lesser score. Funny game.

_________________________________________________
I'm leaving for Turkey myself tomorrow. Play starts Friday for Open teams and we're on team Apteker if you want to check up on us. I'll try to post everyday if I can find Internet access without too much hassle.

Showcase

2007-06-18T07:07:00.000+01:00

You don't win the datum in a national playoff without getting some deals right yourself. Here Freddan made short work of a game with perfect play.

AKT
J732
-
AKQ943

J52
T964
Q8732
J

After dummy showed 16-19 with 4 hearts and a longer undisclosed minor, South invited and game was reached from the weak side. West led a low ambiguous spade spot, declarer won with the ace, unblocked the J of C and led the 9 of H. West won the king and shifted to a low diamond ruffed in dummy.

Freddan now abandoned trumps and just pumped clubs. That was a winner on this layout (the only other declarer in 4H went 3 down with same lead).

______AKT
______J732
________
______AKQ943
8643_________Q97
K____________AQ85
KJ964________AT5
T86__________752
______J52
______T964
______Q8732
______J

It would have been better for the defence to continue spades, but it's not always easy to find the optimal continuations even for very good players (West is on all-time high top 10 master point list in Sweden).

With dummys trump length preserved it would have been human to fall prey to the temptation of another round of trumps, going down when East can draw two rounds and play a diamond with a trump left to prevent the club suit running and dummy now without entries.

Freddan's table presence is excellent and I'm sure he would have gotten it right anyway.

Such a joy to be the dummy ;-)

3NT as takeout

2007-06-14T12:37:00.000+01:00

Paul Marston was, and is, an innovator. He's the father of the Moscito system (still evolving) and had various bidding ideas back in the day. One of the early ones I saw from him was using 3NT as takeout in reply to partner's X of 3M.

If he still uses that convention, I don't know. Here are three deals from 1985-86 Australian Bridge magazine featuring Marston-Burgess, from actual play or bidding contests.

Deal 1

KQ83____J4
72______853
AK86____Q972
AT7_____J852

(3H) - X - (p) - 3NT
(p) - 4D all pass

Deal 2

7_______Q4
A42_____J873
KQ863___AJ9
AJ76____KQ84

(3S) - X - (p) - 3NT
(p) - 4D - (p) - 4H
(p) - 5C - all pass

Deal 3

AJ93___KQ5
AT6____83
AQ_____873
AJT4___K9863

(3H) - X - (p) - 3NT
(p) - 4C - (p) - 4H
(p) - 5H - (p) - 6C
all pass

Impressive (although the last one looks a bit weird to me). With a natural 3NT-reply I guess you'll pass.

I've never used this one myself but I like it. I've wanted to play it but no partner has been willing. It seems like a useful tool to sort out a potential messy situation. The times I've bid 3NT natural in this auction are so few I can't now remember a single one right now but I'm sure there has been some over the years.

If you try it, pls send deals where it came up, good or bad.

I am the judge - 1

2007-06-12T07:43:00.000+01:00

I got this deal in my mail and was asked for an opinion about it.

A_______KQx
AKxxx___Jxx
AKxxx___QTxx
Ax______xxx

1C - (2S) - X - (p)
3H - (p) - 3NT - (p)
4D - (p) - 4H - (p)
5D - (p) - slooooooooow pass - (p)

1C was 17+, 2S weak and X was 7+.

Suits broke normally and a making slam was missed. Should any critisism be handed out?

What about X? Information about the definition of 2NT is lacking. Had that been natural and gameforcing that would have been a winner. 3NT I don't like even if natural. Takes away so much space from a strong hand that hasn't had the chance to start describing its suits/features.

3H was pretty clearcut and 3NT was obvious in spite of heart support with KQx in spades and minimum values without any aces/kings in other suit(s). 4D was another no brainer. Then what?

I think East had an interesting choice over 4D. 4H was an ambiguous bid that could have been made on KQx/Jx/Jxx/QTxxx or similar. It doesn't guarantee 'real' heart support, more like Hx but have have xxx (as here). QTxx in diamonds is a really, really good holding. For game purposes H's are fine, for slam we'd want to play in diamonds.

I like a simple raise to 5D, which I'm sure would be a real minority view in a bidding poll. Everybody and his mother would consider a 4H-call a nonproblem. But 5D shows real diamonds, i.e. 4 or more, while limiting the hand and the lack of black suit cuebid suggests bad outside values. It conceals the heart length which may be important for both positive and negative inferences for partner (e.g. with AKxxx in H he may assume no losers). But 4H does nothing good for diamonds.

I'd therefore have prefered 5D to 4H, but 4H is acceptable. Maybe. The diamond QT is a strong indicator that partner has lots of aces/kings. Why?

Partner is likely to have either strong/semisolid suit(s) and is looking for A/K fillers or has lots of A/K's and is looking for fit. Diamond QT indicates the latter and that fitting length may be more important than fitting controls. If partner's hand is in between, he'll pass 5D.

What should West bid over 4H? Now the lack of confirmed fit comes breathing down his neck. Over 5D it would have been an easy raise to slam. After 4H, it's uncomfortable. He might have tried 6D (or 4S) but 5D is a forward going move and stresses the length/fit issue as he passes both 4S/5C where he clearly is able to cuebid at least one of them. He is afraid that while there may not be a lot of quick losers, it's also a matter of counting your winners and without prime fit, 12 tricks may be too far off.

He lacks interior spot cards to help overcome a potential bad break in either red suit. But he has all six aces! Partner will be conservative when faced with a marginal decision without any of them (which he obviously can't have when we're looking at all of them ;).

I think West could have done more over 4H but I like 5D as this should be "fit-asking". I think East failed to draw the correct conclusions about the bidding at that point when he really should have raised to 6D.

What about a jump to 5D over 3NT? I think that should show a minimum but good 5-6 hand, like x/AKJ9x/AKJTxx/K. A hand that needs a fitting hand with outside aces for slam and can't pass 3NT in comfort because slam may still make and 5D may be the game to play.

Verdict
West: 15%
East: 85%

This is the technical assessment of the auction.

Adjustment may be called for depending on your judgement of East's ability. Sometimes you have to take responsability, being the captain in the auction, and be willing to take the blame for a bad call if things go wrong because the technical and theorethically "correct" auction may not get the job done with the partner you have.

You need to know his strengths and weaknesses and use that knowledge. Therefore West maybe should get a bigger percentage for not just driving to slam (maybe 30-35%; with some East players even a lot more perhaps reversing the verdict). With some players West would get close to 0%.

Do remember that positive expectations goes a long way to getting good table results.

___________________________________________________
Send me your slam auction mishaps for clinic review. Names may be withheld.

Magic layout

2007-06-11T07:57:00.000+01:00

The magic layout didn't come up in my 6C (a contract which certainly didn't deserve to make) but some got saved on this hand. Without making excuses for not winning the event by playing better ourselves I do notice that this hand, from the 2nd last match, spelled m-a-g-i-c for the other medal winners.

West/all

______ED9843
______E1083
______2
______96
K1075_______kn62
Kkn2________764
Dkn_________964
KDkn7_______5432
_______
______D95
______EK108753
______E108

At our table West opened 1NT and I overcalled 2C for majors. Freddan jumped to 4H and made +650 on a club lead and cross-ruff. Our opponents got to 3NT against teammates which of course made on a club lead when the diamond suit was running.

Sjöberg-Axelsson, for the event winners (one VP ahead of us in final standings), won 11 imps for +660 (vs +150) and the 3rd placers (whom we beat on imp quotient) won 10 imps for +690 (vs +200).

Changing the diamond layout would've made at least a 5 VP difference in our favor (each table going several down in 3NT vulnerable for sizeable swings in all matches; number of VP's depending how many down).

And I would have one less story to tell.

Bidding decision

2007-06-08T06:32:00.000+01:00

Finding some more deals from the disappointing GNT, I had this hand:

A
J964
7
KQJT853

I opened 1D (11-13 bal/5M332 or 11-15 unbal with 4-card M) and rebid 2C, showing 4 hearts and 5+ clubs, after partner's 1S-response. With a maximum 4-6+, a had a 3C-jump available.

Freddan bid 2D, artificial gameforce with 5+ spades (with GF and only 4 spades, our intial response is 2C), and I rebid my clubs. Should this hand take further action after partner bids 3NT?

For many I think this would be an automatic pass, but I was concerned that 3NT might not make if partner doesn't have the ace of clubs. Spade lead or red suit lead and spade shift and this hand may be a dead duck.

There was also the possibility that partner had fitting extra values and slam would be making but his lack of sufficient club support forced him to fold in 3NT. He didn't bid 3NT directly, so there had to be some reason, which could be anything from right siding 3NT to exploring slam if I had a maximum with 3-card support (yes, we actually don't raise directly with 5431's, which probably put us in a 1% minority, but there are logical reasons for that of course).

The fact that the heart suit was kind of feeble pointed against a club contract but those could be discarded on dummy's high cards (possibly) if partner couldn't provide any help in that suit. Of course 5C could be down with 3NT making but the risk of the reverse outcome with the added chance of a making slam made a 5C jump a winning call in my view. I obviously had to have a self sufficient suit for that and I hadn't jump rebid 3C to show max so partner should know I wasn't trying for slam. With some "semi" slam interest I could try 4C + 5C over 3NT (still protected by failure to rebid 3C in a strong club context).

My 5C put partner a bit on the spot with J98xx/Axx/ATxx/A. He later agreed that he should have passed but at the table he felt compelled to raise to 6C with all those aces, not quite drawing the conclusions I hoped for.

6C went down of course, when the magic KQ pointed (to the left) in hearts failed to materialize. Played at 10 tables, two went down in 3NT on a spade lead (see!), one went down in 5H (?!), three made 5C (hearts played for two losers) and three made 3NT with an overtrick after a non-spade lead.

Did I make life to hard on partner? Maybe. On the other hand I don't have to change a whole lot in partner's hand for slam to be making. He did have 3 aces but otherwise a dead minimum for a gameforce against 11-15. With KQxxx instead of Jxxxx in spades, 7C would make with spades 4-3, and he would have bid the same way.

C'est la vie.

Look no further

2007-06-05T06:55:00.000+01:00

Almost as if by syncronicity, this deal showed up at the ongoing US trials for Shanghai.

Auction (Stansby-Rosenberg) was 1C-1S; 1NT (weak) - 3NT. What would you lead from:

64
73
K9873
K752

Even with a thorough comprehension of canapé leads, it would be hard to not lead a diamond at the table. Teammates might be less than forgiving if a club is wrong.

Nerves of steel would have gotten you the prize as the canapé lead, once again, was the trick winning move.

_____AKQT8
_____Q62
_____JT2
_____T8
64_________J72
73_________KT85
K9873______654
K752_______AQ9
_____953
_____AJ94
_____AQ
_____J643

The diamond lead gives away a trick and the contract immediately. After a club lead, declarer can still make it but may go down by finessing in diamonds at some point. The long suit lead also gives away information which helps declarer with the heart position, info which would be lacking after a club lead. We'll never know if Stanby would've had made it (given the chance) as the actual West led a diamond.

And another deal went to the evidence room.

___________________________________________________
Thanks to 'free' for reporting the deal; I haven't gotten around to the USBF deals just yet.

Going for the canapé lead?

2007-06-04T07:19:00.000+01:00

At the Swedish GNT, on viewgraph, I had the following collection:

KT65
J82
86543
4

The auction was 1D by partner, 11-13 bal/5M332 or 11-15 unbal with 4-card M (any 4441 or m-canapé), X by RHO, I passed and LHO jumped to 3C. RHO concluded with 3NT and I had to find a lead.

Thinking about the canapé lead theory and feeling that the diamond suit was pretty anemic (partner hadn't promised any diamonds but was unlikely to hold a void on the auction), I led a spade. This seemed like the best chance to build tricks with known strength in partner's hand (he could also have 5-card spade suit in our system).

This really struck out and let the contract make on this layout.

_____J73
_____AK7
_____72
_____K8653
KT65________98
J82_________QT65
86543_______KJT9
4___________AQ9
_____AQ42
_____943
_____AQ
_____JT72

This time we got no second chances to beat the contract. Tempo and a trick was lost. Was this unlucky or was justice made? I think it was unlucky but maybe I'm not totally objective. X implied shortness in diamonds so partner was very likely to hold at least three. 3NT was pretty aggressive and this time he was empty in H's.

This was sort of a reverse situation of the canapé lead theory in the way that the long suit would not give away a trick if partner was short. The 3C jump implied a source of tricks and that we needed to attack and it was the short suit lead that was the more attacking option. What about that.

I still like my lead. In theory anyway.

Canapé leads

2007-06-01T09:43:00.000+01:00

A topic that resurfaced in BBO forums last year http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=16087 was the question about what to lead vs 3NT with 5-4; the longer or the shorter suit?

The question was first raised on a blog http://freebridge.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-lead-with-5-4-against-nt.html and I commented, referencing Paul Marston from a long time ago. Paul, I even talked to him in person about his hypothesis at one time, claimed that leading the shorter suit will collect more tricks.

As I recently found the original article from Australian Bridge (February 1986) I thought it would be interesting to re-visit this theme. Paul was playing with Stephen Burgess, a very successful partnership, at the time and this was a joint observation. The main reason why long suit leads work out badly is that partner is usually short in the suit. "This should be no surprise, because if the opponents have no good fit, nor do you."

Paul:
"Ideally you would know when to take the risk associated with an attack and indeed it will often be clear that you must start aggressively by leading your long suit. The enemy bidding may have been very strong, or your cards may be lying very well for declarer and you will sometimes conclude that you muct pin all your hopes on your long suit lead striking blood. These clear situations, however, are not common so you will ususally have to fall back on general principles."

More:
"The 4-card lead has a balance of aggression about it. It may be hitting at declarer's weakest point and, if it is, the declarer will be helpless. The defenders will have good communications since both probably hold four cards in the suit, rendering such standard techniques such as the hold-up play useless."

So what was his verdict on canapé leads back then? Paul analysed a 500 deal sample (notrump hands of about game strength where the leader had a 4-card suit and a longer side suit), the 4-card lead took more tricks overall (773 vs 746 on the 180 deals where the lead mattered) and the 5-card lead beat 3NT more often (52 vs 40).

A potential problem is that partner may not later realize that you have another longer suit that should be attacked upon gaining the lead.

I've used canapé leads to good effect many times, more than once regretted occasions when I didn't honor this advice. Paul concluded:
"Canapé leads are a winning style overall, but not on every single hand."

Further down the road:
Johan Bennet has done general simulations (back in ca 92/93) on whether you should attack or not with a 5-card suit after 1NT-3NT (disregarding presence of 4-card side suit). His finding was that with an ace somewhere (not necessarily in led suit), you should lead the 5-card suit, otherwise go passive. To summarize his findings: you need an entry.

I always keep these observations in mind. Maybe you should too.

No more?

2007-05-30T07:25:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I got a SMS from our family doctor asking about the lack of updates here. I guess I should be thankful someone reads it. "Is it dead?", he asked (typical medical qustion ;).

No, but it's definitely slowing down. It takes time and effort and I now need a little rest from this. I've started a book project and is doing some teaching over the Internet. It all takes time and I'm not a full-time pro; I've got 3 little kids, a house and a full-time day job. Something's gotta give.

I'll write when I feel like or when I've played or read/watched something that can be written about.

In a few weeks I'll be going to Antalya, Turkey, for the 3rd Open European Championships. We'll be playing the team event with a couple of South Africans (Alon Apteker & Craig Cower) who's on their Open Team for Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai this fall. That should be a lot of fun and expect a report from that.

We're also booked for the fall NABC in San Francisco (the team events; anyone for the Blue Ribbons?).

Look back here from time to time (or use RSS feeds). I might go back to "posting frenzy" again if the mood comes back.

Meet the 'raccoon'

2007-05-24T07:12:00.000+01:00

"What did you do on board 21?" Teammates had played a partscore in spades and we were +800. They were naturally curious. "The raccoon", I replied. My hand was:

K32
AKJ94
A94
32

We were white vs red and RHO opened 1NT showing 13-16 (only a major if max). I contemplated overcalling a constructive 2H, but settled for the semi-obvious double in the end. They were vulnerable after all.

Bidding continued pass - pass - 2H! That's the raccoon! A bid that makes you mentally do a raccoon imitation, more or less, seriously rubbing your eyes in circles. Did my eyes just trick me! An unexpected bid in your best suit at a level and the foam starts to appear in your mouth. A raccoon is of course normally followed by a penalty double, if possible.

Partner did not have much, so it wasn't a 4-figure score but who cares. You still love that little creature.

Reasoning methodology

2007-05-23T07:23:00.000+01:00

A slightly lively auction ended with you having to select a lead against a doubled slam.

2H - (2S) - pass - (3H);
pass - (3NT) - pass - (6S);
X all pass

Partner opened 2H showing 9-12 and 6-card suit. After an overcall and ambigous cuebid, LHO jumped to slam, which partner expressed an opinion about. What do you make of this situation?

Partner is likely to have a minor suit void and the ace of hearts (he knows that's cashing from the bidding). It's not obvious to us which minor he's void in, so how should we reason? Are there any clues?

Go about it this way: If I hit the wrong minor, will we have a chance to recover? With this hand a club lead stands out. If partner has a diamond void, our holding in that suit is so strong that it's unlikely that declarer has 12 tricks (at least not without a serious sweat ;).

So it proved this time.

_______KD92
_______kn9
_______Ekn108753
_________
10_____________kn74
86_____________E107542
KD962___________
Dkn743_________E985
_______E8653
_______KD3
_______4
_______K1062

Freddan led a club for the reasons stated. Declarer went 2 down after ruffing in dummy and trying to cash the ace of diamonds..

'Recovery reasoning' (i.e. if my choice is wrong will we still have a chance?) is a helpful tool when deciding what to lead but also when trying to find the right shift when defending.

Revealing silence

2007-05-22T07:05:00.000+01:00

A recurring theme in bridge books are when pointless (according the the authors anyway) actions by opponents reveal the distribution and honor location, thereby mapping the play for declarer. Sometimes it's the other way around. Here's a hand from match 1 against Enjoy Lavec. Freddan had:

AT6
KQT963
T
AQT

In 4th position after three passes he opened 1H (11-15 5+suit). I responded 3C, minisplinter, and he continued with 3S, cuebid. I bid 3NT showing some slaminterest and after 4C, I bid 4H. Should you make another try for slam? If so, how?

Freddan tried 4S and I jumped to 6H.

J7
A87542
Q852
J

AT6
KQT963
T
AQT

Low diamond lead to the ace and another, ruffed in hand. Trump extracted (West discarding a diamond; looks 5-3) and you have a choice whom to play for the king of clubs.

As no opposing bidding despite both high cards and distributions, with LHO having KJxxx in diamonds and a likely spade H, a regular club finesse looks like a safe bet as he'd taken action over 1H with that K as well. And so it proved.

It was a classic case of 'the dog that didn't bark'. Watch those dogs.

Winners and losers

2007-05-21T07:22:00.000+01:00

There are winners and losers both on and off the table. This weekend we ended up in the latter group in the most exciting finish in the history of the event. Decided on the last board, the event ended with home team SanSac winning one VP before 2 teams (who played each other in the last round), with my team catching silver on better imp quiotient!

It looked like we controlled the event after 3 days but ended with 2 losses for a very disappointing finish. Frederic and I won the datum but faded in the end, playing well below our standard the last day. Time for confessions.

My single biggest weakness is playing too fast at times. Then things go wrong. Here is a classic mistake from the last match.

JT987
KT94
7
963

A653
A3
A96542
4

After a 1D opening on my right, showing 11-13 bal or 11-15 unbal with a 4-card major (same as our 1D-opening), I overcalled 2S, CJO (se previous posts on that subject). LHO made a negative X and partner jumped to 4S ending the auction. I got the 5 of H lead (3rd).

This is a real simple hand. Just grab the K in dummy and start setting up diamonds with the ace of H as a re-entry. Lapsing in concentration and playing to fast I inserted the 9 instead to the J and my ace.

At this point I realized my mistake but figured that I was still in the game. I now decided to finesse in hearts (with QJ, RHO might have 'false-carded' with the Q) to get rid of the club loser and go for the cross ruff.

This day justice was served when the lead was from 765, diamonds where 4-2 and spades 2-2 with split H's. I ended up -50 instead of +420, if playing correctly at trick 1, with the rest of the field going 3 down in 3NT the other way, never getting spades in the picture. 12 imp swing; shame on me.

Congratulations to Magnus Berg, Carl Ragnarsson (3rd win in a row), Torbjörn Axelsson, Emma Sjöberg (22nd birthday yesterday), Petter Fryklund and Erik Fryklund (20 years old).

Playoffs weekend

2007-05-17T08:41:00.000+01:00

2006 winners (L to R): Håkan, Anders Palmgren, Peter Fredin, Carl Ragnarsson, me

This afternoon the playoffs for the Swedish Grand National Teams start. 10 teams playing a round-robin through Sunday. Swan is broadcasting the event:
http://www.swangames.com/main/Bridgecast/bridgecast.html

I remember last year fondly. Playing my 12th playoff, I finally found myself on a winning team after being runner-up 7 times!

This year my teammates are Håkan Nilsson-Gunnar Hallberg, Fredrik Björnlund-Krister Ahlesved and Frederic Wrang. Only Håkan and I remain from last year.

Time to go to war.

Defending T-Walsh

2007-05-16T07:05:00.000+01:00

T-Walsh has for some unknown reason (to me anyway), internationally, become the name for transfer responses to 1C (natural/balanced).

This transfer treatment to 1C was likely developed independently in various parts of the world. In Sweden Nilsland/Wirgren/Lindkvist, "the Scanians", developed it in the mid-80's. Nilsland-Wirgren played it in their highly sophisticated system Super Standard (collecting bronze in Rosenblum 1986). This system was published in a book 1990 (still available as e-book from Scania Bridgekonsult).

The question today is how you should defend in 4th position after 1C - pass - 1D/H - ? There is no clear 'standard way' or established 'best practises' but here is my prefered defence:

X = general strength, doesn't promise length in other suits, typically balanced or strong unbalanced. Next X is T/O from both, a subsequent 3rd X is penalty from both regardless.

1-lvl cue = 8+hcp, 4-card other major & 5+minor. Lowest club-bid is pass/corret, NT-bid asks for long minor.

1NT = constructive overcall in bid suit: 1C - p - 1D - 1NT = 5+D or 1C - p - 1H - 1NT = 5+H (also works for 1C - p - 1S - 1NT = 5+S).

"cue" = ca 9-13 hcp w/6+suit, natural: 1C - p - 1D - 2D or 1C - p - 1H - 2H.

2-lvl cue = ca 12-16 hcp w/6+suit, natural in shown suit: 1C - p - 1D - 2H or 1C - p - 1H - 2S.

As always as long as you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time.

Bid with me

2007-05-14T18:59:00.000+01:00

Playing imps, I had:

KT3
AQ3
JT764
A2

RHO opened 1C (all vul) and I had my first choice: X or 1D.

I like overcalling 1D and dislike doubling with 5332, but this hand would be overdoing it. Bad diamond suit and not enough to take unilateral action again. Better double and be done, which I believe would be an easy majority vote anyway.

Next hand raises to 2C and partner cuebids 3C which RHO doubles. What does partner have? Even for long-standing partnerships, how many knows exacly what partner has? With both M's, why not make a responsive double? Many questions, how about some answers...

This was a regular partnership, but this sequence was not discussed and it wasn't an auction we had encountered before. I figured partner wanted to create a gameforce immediately and didn't guarantee both M's, but strongly suggested it.

Does the double of 3C change anything? Yes, without it, I would bid my suits up-the-line. Now I think 3D should show 5 cards, as I could pass otherwise. I also think 3D denies a M. With a major I could also pass and besides, I'm a strong advocate for overcalling with 5431's so I'm unlikely to have a M once I show 5D's.

I wouldn't treat this as a Manco/Mancoff situation with bids showing/denying certain holdings in enemy suit. Partner is looking for M-fit, not stoppers for 3NT. Partner continues with 3H. What now?

I think this shows 5+suit as I don't have 4, but I'm not sure partner shares my view. Well, he's up to something but I just raise to 4H. I think my diamond suit should be better for 4C. Partner isn't done and tries 5C, doubled once again! What is going on?

Partner is clearly interested in slam, but what does he want from us? I don't think it's clear but chose XX to show first-round control and partner bid 5D. No escape - what's your choice?

With a spade control and prime trumps H's, we're now required to bid slam. Does it matter which one? Not being sure if partner had gotten the message about 3D, I decided to jump to 6D despite the weak suit, offering a choice. I hadn't overcalled 1D, had I?

Partner passed, club lead and dummy surfaces with:

974
KJ9762
AK83
-

KT3
AQ3
JT764
A2

Considering the opponents relative silence with an 11-card fit, I play for the trump queen to drop with it does and all the tricks, and a 12 imp gain.

This was a tough hand, and I'm not sure if the relative mild opposing bidding made it easier or more difficult. I didn't really envision his hand, but sometimes you don't have to.

There are situations where the key is trying to figure out partner's hand but there are also situations where this isn't necessary. Evaluate your holdings within what partner can expect and trust partner knows what he's doing.

Be flexible. Don't get stuck trying to figure out partner's hand when you don't have to.

Invite paradox

2007-05-09T07:40:00.000+01:00

Sometimes hands come up that are a bit paradoxical. Take this hand:

KJ86
Qxx
QJ8x
xx

Partner opens 1NT showing 14-16. Now you have enough to invite game, but only in NT. Your values are to slow for 4S with only one K and no A's. 4S may be a make, but will be against the odds, imps or mp's.

So, try Stayman and pass over 2S and bid 2NT over 2D/2H! Isn't that a kind of paradox? Partner's hand when this one came up:

QTxx
xxx
A9
AKJ8

After a trump lead with both minor finesses off, 8 tricks was the limit. Maybe one should even pass 1NT, but I think that's a bit to pessimistic.

When inviting, to what contract? Controls, i.e. aces and kings, are very important, especially in 4M/5m. In 3NT you can survive with compensating middle cards, lot's of 9/10's.

Take into consideration that hand evaluation may differ even at game level.

Listen to the auction - part 2

2007-05-07T07:05:00.000+01:00

You have:

KJ9
43
KT74
T975

Auction starts on your left by Fred Stewart with a multi 2D showing a weak 2 in either major or some strong alternatives. Kit Woolsey on your right bids 2S, to play in spades and may have game interest in hearts, and he jumps to 4H over Fred's 2NT showing H's and better than minimum. What do you lead?

A member of the Australian OzOne squad chose a passive T of clubs in a BBO practise match against a Bramley squad, resulting in -650. I think a spade is clearcut when you think it through. What does Woolsey have if he doesn't have any game interest vs a weak 2 in spades? Spade honors? Not.

N/NS

______T843
______JT8765
______A2
______Q
KJ9__________AQ65
43___________92
KT74_________J8653
T975_________A5
______72
______AKQ
______Q9
______KJ6432

Even with a spade lead, East may go wrong. He may cash the ace of clubs, hoping for 2 spades, a club and a heart instead of shifting to a diamond (fearing that the club in dummy goes away on a diamond H). After a club lead, it was all over. No second chances.

At the other table, the contract was a heart partscore and letting the game make made a 17 imp difference. Not that it mattered that much in a practise match. Ususally hurts anyway ;)

Listen, think, lead...

Another signalling situation

2007-05-04T07:37:00.000+01:00

Partnership agreement check. This one was put up on a Swedish bulletin board by Jan Lagerman.

______AK85
______J
______AQJ8
______JT96
963
A9843
53
AK8

West/NS, auction:
1H - (X) - 4H - (4S) all pass

You lead the obvious high club and partner plays an inconclusive 5 of clubs, playing upside-down attitude, as declarer follows with the queen. What's next?

We can see 3 tricks for the defence (the other high club is cashing since partner would have played the 7 with 75432) and the setting trick must be a club ruff or the K of diamond (if partner has it). So, we cash the ace of H and awaits partner's signal. So far - so good.

The issue is how partner's signal should be interpreted. Either...
a) suit-preference -> low H = club ruff and high H = shift to D
b) attitude -> low H (encour.) = shift to D and high H (discour.) = club ruff

Playing standard attitude and suit-preference, these signals will be the same this time (high H disc = club ruff works out for both 'schools' regardless) but with upside-down attitude you better know how to handle this as it points in different directions.

Our preference/agreement is attitude and partner will know what to do.

Mis-clicking

2007-05-02T07:21:00.000+01:00

Playing online creates its own breed of mistakes. sometimes players are 'multi-tasking' and concentration lapses causes mishaps. Mis-clicking is, I believe, the most common one. Here's one from the highest level.

I was watching part of one of the weekly Cayne matches on BBO the other Sunday - a real treat. The matchup I kibitzed was Helgemo-Helsness vs Fantoni-Nunes. One one deal, Geir had this hand:

KJ
K762
J2
AK432

Partner opened 1S and Geir responded 2C (red/white) when Fantoni overcalled 2D. Tor jumped to 4D (splinter) and Geir trotted out Blackwood. Fantoni wasn't done and came back in with a re-raise to 6D! Tor passed, showing odd number of key-cards. What would you bid?

Double seems kind of obvious, knowing that slam can't make when partner only has 1 ace. Helgemo passed! Which was a better decision than doubling as it turned out that 6D was cold!!

______KJ
______K762
______J2
______AK432
T9864_________
98__________AJ43
T6__________AKQ987543
J875__________
______AQ7532
______QT5
_______
______QT96

Who would have thought that 6S was a winning sacrifice?

Pass looked really weird, even if you sometimes get the feeling that Geir really can see through the backs of the cards. Checking the evidence (emailing Tor), it turned out that Geir indeed had mis-clicked, intending to double.

You got to pick your occasions for those.

Controlling the losses

2007-04-30T06:23:00.000+01:00

Facing a couple of Austrians in a team game, I came across the following collection, red vs white:

KQT8xxxx
xxx
Ax
-

LHO opened 2H (weak) as dealer and RHO responded 2NT, forcing. What would you do?

I think most would bid 4S, but I'm very hesitant these days to be aggressive in 4th position after both opp's has gotten a bid in there. The odds for getting good dummies or pressuring opp's into overbidding has seriously decreased. I repeat: seriously decreased. It has finally hit me how much, after spending a considerate amount of time looking through these auctions (actions).

This time though, I probably should have bid 4S anyway. I settled for 3S. I was vulnerable against not and not having doubled 2NT, partner should expect more playing tricks than honor strength. The next hand bid 4H and partner was on the spot with:

9
Tx
A9xx
KQJTxx

I think double is the correct call, but maybe I'm just influenced by what was right this time. I try to look at each call objectively when analysing an auction, post-mortem, but it's not always easy to do that. At some subconscious level, there is always the risk of a biased view. I'm not sure what I would have done over a double. 4S looks a bit tempting, doesn't it?

Anyway, partner hoped for a different kind of hand with me; at this vuln, the 2NT call may have been a semi-psyche with a prime fit and I could easily have had a stiff H. He tried 5C, immediately X-ed, I retreated to 5S and the inevitable X followed.

K of heart lead. This did not look good.

9
Tx
A9xx
KQJTxx

KQT8xxxx
xxx
Kx
-

As always, it's not over til' it's over. RHO fell for the old 'play to fast' trap. Sensing blood, he quickly overtook with the ace and shifted to a low spade. Where would we be if our opponents, even the competent ones, played well all the time?

I ducked in hand (with no expectency of a 2nd spade trick, i.e a spade holding without the J, East would have just cashed the ace) winning in dummy as West discarded. The extra entry meant that I could setup club tricks with the ace of diamonds as re-entry to discard hearts and got out for -200. This proved to be a push when the other table played 4S X.

Stop to think both when things look good and when things look bad. Every trick makes a difference. (Sometimes even obvious things need to repeated out loud! ;-)

Listen to the auction

2007-04-27T07:07:00.000+01:00

Leading against slams may be nerve-wrecking, especially if you get it wrong. Anonymous auctions can be a nightmare and may be a pure guess without any attractive holdings. Often the opponents have had some sort of long(er) dialogue which means that there are pointers in the right direction available. Sometimes it's downright obvious, sometimes almost obvious; take a little time and the 'solution' stands out.

Take this hand:

97
A62
AKT952
98

Auction (with you silent!):

2C - 2D;
2S - 3C;
3S - 3NT;
4C - 4H;
4N - 5D;
6S all pass

2C strong, 2D waiting, 3C second negative (I guess), 5D 0 keycards.

What do you lead?

Let's see. Declarer has a seriously good hand and launched into Key-Card Blackwood after learning that dummy had a heart control but lacked a diamond one. And we have 2 aces. Don't you think declarer is void in diamonds and has pretty good black suit holdings? I think the heart lead stands out; it's only a matter of which one to pick. This time it didn't matter as long as you picked the right suit.

______2
______KJ5
______J64
______J76432
97____________T85
A62___________Q743
AKT952________Q873
98____________T5
______AKQJ643
______T98
________
______AKQ

When this hand came up in the Bermuda Triangle Teams Cup final last weekend, no other than Adam Zmudzinsky didn't lead a heart, going for the 'auto-pilot' high diamond instead. Declarer guessed hearts for +10 imps.

Wait a second. Was this a mistake or a deliberate choice by Zmudzinski? Maybe he didn't miss the fact that declarer was void, maybe he just tried to lead safely; going for a layout where the heart lead would cost a trick, even knowing the king would be in dummy.

I think it was a mistake (xx in clubs increases chances of club length in dummy; declarer not likely to have genuine 2-suiter) and that a low heart is indicted. Whether the mistake was based on faulty reasoning, according to me, or not listening to the auction, i.e. missing the 'pointers', we'll never know.

On some layouts where a low heart lead is 'wrong', the trick may come back. Say declarer has Qxx vs KTx in dummy and no discards coming in other suits. After winning the queen he's likely to lead low to the T next time. If declarer has Jx vs Kxx(x), a low heart gives him a losing choice.

Everybody makes mistakes; mistakes that could have been avoided. Even the very best.

Great service!

2007-04-26T07:12:00.000+01:00

One of my new favorite guys are Masakatsu Sugino from Japan. He's the author of PS-bridge, an utility to create PDF-outputs from PBN-notation (and indirectly from all kinds).
http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~psbridge/

The best part is that he [automatically] creates and publishes PDF's of all vugraph matches from BBO!
http://psbridge.gotdns.com/bbo/allvug/

No need to sit at the computer with .lin-files. Just print them out and study the action at your leisure - when commuting or whatever.

Even better is that he's a real service-minded guy with a desire to widen the audience. I contacted him about doing conversions for other stuff. The weekly Cayne-matches with high-profile players were my first thought. Getting the .lin files is the issue though. BBO is contacted and hopefully will provide those (anybody else out there who has collected them?).

My other suggestion was the Oz-one team BBO practise games, where files were published on their site (see links). Voila! Less than 24 hours after my intial contact, they're up!
http://psbridge.gotdns.com/bbo/ozone/

Keep up the good work! The bridge community is grateful for your efforts.

Partscore advice

2007-04-25T07:19:00.000+01:00

Every now and then I witness people getting this one wrong after partner opens 1NT. It concerns how to handle 5332-hands with a major suit and scattered strength. Here's a piece of advice you can take to the bank. Don't try to use your judgement, just transfer or bid your major (depending on your NT-methods).

You can't get 100% right, but it's so overwhelming, you can stop reading. In one recent international match (names withheld;), our contestants were dealt:

Qxx
Jxxxx
Q9
KTx

... and faced a 14-16 1NT-opening across the table. This seemed like an occasion to forego this advice and both passed. After the defence collected 5 diamonds and 2 spades with 9 tricks cold in a heart contract, another deal went to the evidence room. This time partner held:

JTxx
AKQ
xxx
AQx

It's impossible to know what is right on any given hand, therefore consistency is needed. Always opt for the major.

Trust your partner - or use your brain

2007-04-24T06:42:00.000+01:00

I failed to solve the following defence vs a partscore. The auction:

(1C) - 1H - (X) - pass;
(1S) - pass - (pass) - X;
(pass) - 2C - (2S) all pass

(1C) = 17+
1H = natural, not trash
(X) = any 0-4

I balanced with double, but sold out to 2S. Partner led the 8 of D, playing Scheider-Rusinow (1 or 3 higher).

_____T98
_____Q5
_____T7652
_____Q75
___________Q73
___________J8
8__________A943
___________A983

I won the ace and returned the 3 for partner to ruff. Partner shot back the 2 of C to my ace and declarer's T. How to continue?

Well, as I knew declarer had only 5 trumps (possibly 4) and another high diamond, I continued diamonds for partner to ruff without really analysing the deal. Auto-pilot. So wrong!

There wasn't really any need to analyse the deal; just follow the directions. Freddan's low club meant he didn't want another ruff. So, shift to hearts.

_______T98
_______Q5
_______T7652
_______Q75
A4____________Q73
KT9742________J8
8_____________A943
J642__________A983
_______KJ652
_______A63
_______KQJ
_______KT

Now declarer can't reach dummy to finesse in trumps without me getting the over-ruff for the setting trick. If I decided that partner may have led the wrong club and analysed the deal, this would also be the indicated shift. The fact that no other pair beat the contract either is a poor consolation (and certainly no excuse). Competing to 3C would have been even better.

Follow partner's advice. Or use your brain. Hopefully one of them steers you in the right direction...

Going passive or active?

2007-04-23T07:13:00.000+01:00

When leading, a lot of players always opt for longest/strongest, others always look for the most safe alternative. Some well-known names, Tony Forrester and Peter Fredin comes to mind (among others), would rather drink toilet water than lead away from a K vs a suit contract.

I'm in the mixed zone. The auction influences the choice to a large extent, as it should of course, and I also look for 'middle of the road' vs NT, i.e not most attacking or the safest.

I'm more passive vs suit than NT as long suit tricks come into play in the latter case. By this I mean that even if the lead costs a trick, it may come back later, if you can cash established tricks (with no little trumps out there preventing that ;-)

Freddan had to find a lead vs 3NT from:

Q654
A742
976
J6

The auction went 1S (4+) - 2C (gameforce with bal or clubs) - 2NT - 3NT. What would you lead?

Here the choice comes down to a heart or a diamond. Frederic started with the 7 of D (not risking a beer on that one ;) playing Schneider-Rusinow, a choice I like without any useful heart spots. That was a real killer on this layout:

_____KT2
_____K98
_____KT43
_____KT8
Q654______J7
A742______J5
976_______AJ82
J6________Q7543
_____A983
_____QT63
_____Q5
_____A92

South somehow managed to open with 1S instead of 1H. After the diamond lead, we beat it which only happened at a couple tables in the rather large field (50+ tables).

Too many players are addicted to aggressive leads. A lesser number are addicted to passive leads. Stay away from addiction and when in doubt: go passive.

Attention to detail

2007-04-20T07:22:00.000+01:00

Last weekend was a qualification weekend for the Swedish GNT. 10 locations, 6 teams each, round-robin with the winner coming through for the play-off in May (also round-robin format). We won our heat and I'll share some interesting deals. The deals were duplicated across the field and imps-across-the-field (IAF) tabulated (we ended up a bit over +0.7; solid but not more).

First a 3NT (dealer S/E-W vul).

7532
72
KJ98643
--

AJT4
KQT
A5
K987

At many tables, after a strong 1C (or 2-way) and a negative 1D-reply, East preempted with 3H and South tried 3NT.

After the H9 lead to the ace and a low club shift to the J, club back to the ace and another one, many declarer won the K and finessed in diamonds. When RHO turned up the Qx and cashed a couple of clubs, the declarers blamed their bad luck thinking they went with the odds. With the known long H's and 4+ clubs, they surely did, didn't they?

Well, let's say you like to be thorough and cashed a couple of high hearts and the ace of spades. Now you find spades 5-0 and hearts 2-6. How about those odds? Do you play East for 0-6-2-5 or 0-6-1-6?

______7532
______72
______KJ98643
_______
KQ986________
93__________AJ8654
T7__________Q2
QJ53________AT642
______AJT4
______KQT
______A5
______K987

Declining the finesse is now the indicated play. At our table declarer 'guessed' right for +430. Yes, guessed, because he didn't cash his plain suit winners. Our teammates got doubled in 3NT and ran to 4D, also doubled. This made for +610 and +5 imps.

Sometimes bad luck is just justice in disguise.

The grave yard - part 3

2007-04-19T07:09:00.000+01:00

Finding examples for the fact that acting with shortness in opened major after (1M) - p - (1NT) is seriously dangerous is rather easy. This is something that even the world champions seems to have failed to grasp. The only good results come when you can catch the opponents, which of course happens from time to time. It's more frequent that you get spanked.

Here's a deal from the Cayne team game at BBO the other weekend.

J853
-
AJ983
K874

Reisig and Nunes had this hand as dealer, white vs red, and passed but neither could resist a take-out X after (1H) - p - (1NT) came around to them. This certainly looks attractive with the best possible shape, 4 card spades and favorable vulnerability. So, how bad did it end?

Full deal:

______K742
______AKJT3
_______
______AQT6
J853_________AT9
____________Q98764
AJ983________T42
K874_________2
______Q6
______52
______KQ765
______J953

Helness-Helgemo nailed Fantoni-Nunes in 2S after XX by Geir for 3 down and +500 with no game on for their side. That was good (bad) for -14 imps!

At the other table Seamon-Cayne extracted +1400 vs 3D! East, Garozzo, first tried 2D then 2S and got preference to 3D. Losing that many tricks looks like a 'misclick' or two; I guess the 'great one' didn't give it his best effort.

My view should be pretty clear by now.

The grave yard - part 2

2007-04-18T06:36:00.000+01:00

As much as Duboin showed good judgement in the earlier post (by passing after RHO X), he couldn't restrain himself when he was in the same position on this deal from Yeh Bros in China this spring vs USA2.

J
Qxxx
Ax
KJT8xx

Imps/red vs white and the bidding started the familiar (1S) - pass - (1NT) - ?

Duboin overcalled 2C, which was followed by a take-out X and all pass.

______KT864
______T5
______JT874
______6
AQ973_______52
K972________AJ8
KQ2_________965
9___________AQ754
______J
______Q643
______A3
______KJT832

Soft defence by Grue-Cheek resulted in only two down, -500, but still a 12 imp loss when teammate Madala went two off in 3NT the other way. The auction started 1S - 2C at that table so getting into that auction wasn't an alternative.

When bad results happen, you may want to take stock and reflect if it was bad luck, a random result or an anti-percentage action that caused it. If you can't decide for yourself, ask around.

Always look out for the potential misfit auction and remember that sometimes, it's wiser to fold.

The grave yard

2007-04-17T06:46:00.000+01:00

Here's a field excursion to the Europeans Teams Championship last year in Warshaw. It's from match 22, board 7 (W/all, deal rotated) and our contestants were dealt:

x
AKJ9
xxx
Axxxx

The auction went (1S) - pass - (1NT) to you. What's your call?

This is an auction that frequently causes trip to the cementary. The primary danger sign is shortness in LHO's major suit. Here's the full deal:

_______QJ873
_______Q83
_______J97
_______93
AK962________T4
75___________T642
Q3___________AKT42
KQ87_________JT
_______5
_______AKJ9
_______865
_______A6542

This is what I've got:
In Netherlands - Belarus, both Muller and Zhuravel doubled but Medusheusk and Ramondt saved them by bidding 2C, leading to 2S.
In France - Germany, Mouiel doubled but Marsaal didn't. Elinescu bid 2C over X.
In Spain - Polen, Tuszynski and Wasik both doubled once again leading Skrzypczak and de Pablos to bid 2C. At this table Wichmann wasn't satisfied which this and doubled 2S on the way out for -670.
In Israel - Italy, Laura and Liran both doubled but here Duboin knew to pass (Fohrer didn't) and collected +400 on defence vs 2D.
For Sweden Björnlund doubled, that was passed out and desperate defence resulted in -580 (2S went down at the other table).

So why is this a dangerous auction? Well, if I have a stiff and they haven't located a prime fit then partner as probably 4+ cards in that suit and the risk of not finding a prime fit our way has increased (a lot). This is a potential misfit auction and those must be handled very carefully without extra values. Any marginal call should be avoided and X is, in my view, a clear anti-percentage action on the hand in question.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that so many felt compelled to double and I'm even shocked to see so many 2C calls (after X). As for our contestants, some were punished, most were unscattered. The datum in Warshaw was N-S +100 (lots of declarers went down in 2S).

Tribute

2007-04-16T07:28:00.000+01:00

2006 winners of Chairman's Cup in Sweden. Johan to the far right.

Two weeks ago we suddenly lost a dear friend, fine player, excellent bidding theorist and very popular bridge teacher/educator, Johan Ebenius (1965-2007).

We became friends almost 20 years ago and as a partnership we played the Junior European Championships, notched up two wins in the Swedish first division and a win in the Chairman's Cup at the Swedish Bridgefestival (a 6-day round-robin/knock-out team event with international participation) last summer.

As a tribute to him I'll share a deal from the 2005 first division (which we won).

S/all vul

______AJ87
______A2
______AKT32
______K2
T963_______K4
KT74_______QJ963
97_________J865
A83________QT
______Q52
______85
______Q4
______J97654

We were playing the Swedish 2-way Club and I opened as North with 1C (11-13 bal or any 17+), East overcalled 1H and Johan passed as South. After 2H and X, Johan bid 2NT as Lebensohl (to sign-off in 3C) and West competed with 3H after 3C by me.

Johan was the most aggressive balancer/part-score fighter I've ever seen. Something deep inside him made it very hard for him to pass at times; he persisted with a 3S-balance on the way out! Even knowing his style, I couldn't resist raising to 4S. This wasn't a good contract and looking at all four hands it's not hard to find a way for the defence to beat.

West led a low H and Johan went to work. He won in dummy and discarded his remaining heart after 3 rounds of diamonds as West ruffed. West now continued hearts and it was all over. Johan ruffed in hand, led a club to the the K and ruffed a diamond with the queen of S, followed by spade to the ace and a low to East's king. Dummy could later ruff and extract the outstanding trump and enjoy the last diamond for a sweet +620.

Rest in peace. We all miss you.

The 'kiss'

2007-04-13T07:19:00.000+01:00

Playing a 1-day pairs event a couple of weeks ago (ended a disappointing 4th; 1 board from 1st), this typical match-point decision came my way.

D943
EK10
Dkn7
D108

I opened 1C, prepared (playing 5-5-4-2 and 15-17 in occasional partnership) nonv vs vul, as dealer and raised partner's 1S response (Walsh-style) to 2S, which only is made on 3-cards with unbal/semibal.

When RHO balanced with 3H, in tempo, what would you do?

I think it's clear to double in matchpoints. Opps are vul and you need to protect your implied score in 2S making +110/140. Partner could be very weak with 3H making and 2S going down at least one with all those 'quacks'. Sure. But the odds heavily favors double; partner rates to have some values both from a statistical viewpoint (busts are rare) and from opp's 1st round silence.

_____Kkn87
_____kn9
_____1063
_____kn965
E62________105
632________D8754
E942_______K85
K72________E43
_____D943
_____EK10
_____Dkn7
_____D108

3H went one down for +200, the dreaded 'kiss of death' in matchpoints. This proved to be a shared top while +100 (defending undoubled) had been close to average, actually, with 2S just making. The 14-16 NT-range is popular in Sweden which meant that many opened 1NT instead, burying the spade-fit, and scored +90.

Sometimes 'wild' doubles aren't really wild; just mathematically correct matchpoint decisions. Not always the winning decision, though.

Hiding the major (again)

2007-04-12T06:14:00.000+01:00

Anders Wirgren-Johan Bennet (Cavendish winners -91, Bermuda Bowl bronze -95) have been opening 1C with 5M332 routinely a number of years now (11-13/17-19 bal/semibal or clubs). They have a choice of opening bids with this pattern, but 1C is the predominant choice with minimum hands (only 1M if suit is 'rebiddable').

Not opening with the major gives you 2 ways to win. For me, the primary benefit is that you can use this to your advantage as responder knowing that opener has better playing strength/shape when the auction gets contested (i.e should you make a negative X or how high should you raise with support?).

The secondary way to win is that it's frequently better to initially just show hand-type (bal/unbal) before suit(s) and this way your choice of developing the auction means that you'll get a bigger edge if the opener becomes declarer as less is revealed to help defenders.

By having a choice of opening bids, you give yourself the freedom to exercise your judgement but you take away the, in my view, primary edge.

Anyways, Anders sent me this deal from an outing in Denmark, showing us edge no 2 in all its beauty...

Eknx
108x
Exx
Dkn9x

Kx
EK7xx
Dxx
10xx

Anders was South and opened 1C, Johan transfered to 1NT and then raised to game. West led the J of diamonds.

Low from dummy and RHO won the king and shifted to the queen of H (!). Anders won and attacked clubs to the queen and king. East continued his attack on hearts and the low heart return was ducked to dummy, with West discarding. An easy +430 when the majority of the field were 2 down in 4H.

Will this way of treating 5M332 catch on to a wider audience?

Surf's not up

2007-04-11T07:02:00.000+01:00

Momentum comes and goes like tidal waves. Sweden was struggling this year in the round-robbin of the White House tournament invitational team tournament in Holland. Take a seat.

You pick up (imps, all white) :

9xx
KQ87x
9x
QJx

Your Russian RHO opens a multi 2D (weak 2 in either major; could be 5) and you pass (I wonder if Lauria would slip in 2H? ;). LHO bids 2H, pass or correct, and partner overcalls a natural 2NT ("16-19"). What would be your choice?

Passing is not an option, if anyone was contemplating that for even a split second, so it's a matter of which game. Just raising to 3NT has a lot going for it; you know partner has the ace of hearts and your spade length also favors notrump. A weak doubleton may be a liability if that suit is led but the lack of aces/kings may mean that 9 tricks is a better shot. Remember that for 4H to be a better contract than 3NT, the major suit game has to produce at least 2 tricks more (10 vs 8).

A reasonable line of action is to check for a primary fit in H and otherwise play 3NT. That's was the choice of the Swedish South and a 3C ask fetched 3H showing 5-card H's! The euforia was short-lived, as this was the full deal:

_______KJ2
_______AJT63
_______KQT6
_______K
Q____________AT8765
94___________5
AJ32_________875
AT9632_______875
_______943
_______KQ872
_______94
_______QJ4

2NT was a practical bid, under pressure, with the North hand. 4H was quickly down after a minor-suit lead and spade shift when North covered the queen (nonv the spade suit could easily have been 5-cards) and 3NT proved to be the only making game.

I'm sure South was kicking himself as raising to 3NT probably was his first thought. And, I think he would have if they hadn't been 'out of sync'. Momentum, real and perceived, is a powerful force.

Sometimes you just can't seem to catch a single wave.

Modest intervention - big consequence

2007-04-10T07:13:00.000+01:00

This was a less than stellar performance from the local imp-league in January.

Kxxx
AK9x
Txx
Tx

Imps/all vul. The bidding started with two passes and a 1D-opening to me and I felt like overcalling 1H. This isn't my normal style, but sometimes one's got to try new things to widen the horizon. The complete auction:

(pass) - pass - (1D) - 1H;
(2C) - 3H - (4H) - pass;
(4S) - pass - (6C) all pass

Full deal:

_______A984
_______T6532
_______Q2
_______J3
T____________QJ32
QJ84___________
853__________AKJ96
AQ975________K864
_______K765
_______AK97
_______T74
_______T2

Easy make for +1370 and -15 imps. The 1H-overcall was the difference between a partscore and a making slam! The board were played across the room at 12 tables resulting in 1 slam, 3 games and 8 partscores. Our team-mates had the following auction:

pass - 1D;
1H - 1S;
1NT - pass

Not really close ;-)

As for my overcall, I probably deserved some punishment...

Down memory lane - part 2

2007-04-09T07:43:00.000+01:00

My first US trip was in May 1990. I went to New York and Atlantic City with Magnus Lindkvist. On the agenda were the classic Cavendish Invitational Pairs and the Omar Sharif Individual (which Zia won and writes about in his autobiography).

Magnus and I were staying with the late Edgar Kaplan in his combined living quarters and Bridge World office. Quite an experience. No memorable finishes in either event but this deal against Paul Soloway in the Cavendish is hard to forget.

Q
Qxxxx
ATx
xxxx

This was Paul's hand and the auction started with a Swedish 2-way 1C (11-13 bal / any 16+) to his right. After a positive reply showing 5+ spades by LHO (that would be me) and a relay sequence, opener having a strong hand, the auction eventually came to a halt in 6S and he had to lead.

There seemed to be some confusion about the later parts of the bidding; probably a wheel or two had come off. Dummy had shown 55 in blacks but declarer seemed to believe something else and the ensuing ace-asking mechanism probably had misfired as well (as a consequence).

A lone, young, female kibitzer leaned over to see Paul's hand as he led the obvious ace of diamonds to check dummy. This was the view (Paul and dummy screen-mates):

_______KT9xx
_______x
_______xx
_______KQJxx
Q
Qxxxx
ATx
xxxx

Partner discouraged and Paul shifted to a heart as this was the most likely trick to disappear if the defence had another ace. About 10 seconds later, declarer claimed.

______KT9xx
______x
______xx
______KQJxx
Q___________xxx
Qxxxx_______Txxx
ATx_________Jxx
xxxx_________Ax
______AJxx
______AKJ
______KQxxx
______x

This was some contract. It required the ace of diamonds lead, suit breaking 3-3, a heart away from the queen (unless finesse working) and a non-club continuation. Not to forget that the trumps queen had to be neutralized, one way or the other. Now all the clubs in dummy went away on red cards for +1430, cross-imped.

Paul didn't say anything. Sabine Zenkel (Auken), the kibitzer, left the table.

I love this game...

Road sign

2007-04-06T07:49:00.000+01:00

What would you do with:
AK9x
9
T97xx
98x

...playing imps (none vul) when your partner opens 1H (11-16, 5+suit) and your RHO doubles?

My guess is that a lot of players would bid 1S, just as if there had been no double. My experience is that in this type of situation, you should pass with shortness in partners suit without 6+ suit or genuine 2-suiter (55+) even with values for bidding.

Being short in partner's suit is road sign for 'danger' and passing *always* leads to better results than bidding. What's most likely to happen is that you go down in a partscore instead of going plus on defence. With a better hand you can/should XX of course.

Here's the hand (from the archives), played in the Swedish top division:

________
______AQJT65
______J85
______AT72
J8753________QT42
432__________K87
KQ6__________A3
J5___________KQ64
______AK96
______9
______T9742
______983

The auction went:

1H - (X) - pass - (2S);
3H - (4S) - X all pass

Ace of H was led but when partner continued with the queen (instead of J/T), I misstakenly shifted to a diamond instead of a club and the defence lost a trick. +300 was a still good for +9 imps then teammates went +100 defending a heart partscore.

As always, a single deal proves nothing. But you can take my word for that passing is the percentage call.

Or don't - the choice is yours.

'Being Ulf' - part 2

2007-04-05T07:17:00.000+01:00

On all 3 deals I was a defender and succeded in diverting the declarer from making the contract by playing 2nd hand high. This is not really a difficult play, just something that you should keep in mind and be able to do 'in tempo' or you ruin the 'illusion'.

Deal 1

______AQT62
______AT
______K76
______654
KJ9_________543
KQ954_______J7632
Q___________984
QJ93________T2
______87
______8
______AJT532
______AK87

Playing 6D, declarer won the K of H, ruffed a heart to hand and led a spade up. I inserted the K and that convinced declarer that spades weren't breaking, so he turned his attention to the club suit instead, playing 3 rounds without touching trumps. A 4th round saw him ruff high in dummy and finesse in diamonds...

The only other table in slam (imp-league match, same boards all matches) made an overtrick.

Deal 2

______K2
______A654
______KJ872
______J5
T984________Q76
Q2__________K3
A65_________QT43
AQ96________8732
______AJ53
______JT987
______9
______KT4

4H with spade T lead, 2nd round East played the queen. Declarer now abandoned spades and played heart to the ace and another one. Down 1, a bit unluckily, when I could win and push a club through and there were no winning choice.

Deal 3

______87
______AJ
______QJT42
______K653
653__________KJ4
KT72_________983
8____________97653
QT742________J8
______AQT92
______Q654
______AK
______A9

6S on a diamond lead, heart finesse and spade to the king and ace. Declarer went for the 5-1 trump break by leading a low to dummy, which I won the the J to give partner a ruff for the setting trick.

Be on the lookout for '2nd hand high' plays.

'Being Ulf' - part 1

2007-04-04T07:14:00.000+01:00

The January 2006 issue of Bridge Today contained an article by friend (and former teammate) Anders Wirgren, entitled 'Being Ulf'. It contained 3 declarer play problems (imp scoring), all of which I was a part of. Here they are:

Deal 1

AQT62
AT
K76
654

87
8
AJT532
AK87

You play 6D after a 1S - 2D start. West leads the K of hearts. You win and ruff the remaining heart in hand to lead a spade up. West follows with the K and you win the ace. How would you continue?

Deal 2

K2
A654
KJ872
J5

AJ53
JT987
9
KT4

Contract is 4H after the 1D - 1H; 2H - 2S; 4H. LHO leads the T of spades, showing 0/2 higher. With the intent to discard a club on the 3rd spade (queen is onside, we know that from the lead), you win the K at trick 1 and continues with another. On this trick RHO plays the Q and you win in hand. Plan?

Deal 3

87
AJ
QJT42
K653

AQT92
Q654
AK
A9

On this deal, from the Swedish top division, you opened a strong 1C, got a gameforcing 2D response and differing views about supporting partner later with a weak doubleton got you to the optimistic contract of 6S. West leads the 8 of diamonds. You need to clear trumps and hooking the queen is a good start, so you enter dummy with heart so the J and lead a spade. On this trick East plays the K and you win. Now what?

Continued tomorrow.

Missing data or divine guidance?

2007-04-03T07:05:00.000+01:00

Going through the Vugraph archive from the recent Vanderbilt in St Louis, this lead problem came up in the quarter-final between Nickell and Tuszynski. Hamman had (all white):

Q6432
QT
54
QT63

Kowalski opened a Polish 1C, Hamman passed, Tuszynski bid 1D (0-6), Soloway passed and the bidding continued 1NT (19-20) - 2NT; 3NT all pass.

What would you lead?

At the other table, Wojewoda led a low spade against Meckwell's 2NT - 3NT auction; wouldn't we all? Something tells me that the Vugraph operator forgot to fullfill his duties at the featured table as Hamman tabled the queen of hearts!! Full deal:

______T7
______J86432
______A86
______A2
K85__________AJ9
95___________AK7
Q972_________KJT3
J875_________K94
______Q6432
______QT
______54
______QT63

How's that for a hit? 3 down and +11 imps compared to the +430 Rodwell brought back. Soloway must have overcalled 1H in real life or that Bob Hamman looks like a man with divine connections...

Anyone who saw this 'live' on BBO?

Italian preempts

2007-04-02T07:14:00.000+01:00

Is this title an oxymoron? In the Australian OzOne forum, Hans Sartaj wrote about the Italian's, having just lost to them again in Yeh Bros Cup. He states "Italians hardly ever open a 3-level preempt" among other interesting observations (I could add an item or two from my own experience).

Let's go to St Louis NABC, a couple of weeks ago, for the Vanderbilt semi-final between Henner-Welland (event winners) and Cayne. Sartaj's statement was substantiated already on board 1.

N/none

_______QT65432
_______864
________
_______Q53
K987__________
3____________AKQJ5
KQ652________T984
AT6__________J987
_______AJ
_______T972
_______AJ73
_______K42

Open room auction (action):

----3S - X - 4S
6D - p - p - X all pass

Henner-Welland made the typical preempt with 3S as North. This is normal to most people (I believe), although there are some who hate prempting with a void. East (Cayne) got in a small jam; you will find players voting for pass, double and 4H. Cayne chose the flexible take-out double, which probably would be a majority choice.

After Sementa raised to 4S, Seamon took a practical stab at 6D (infering the spade void from the bidding), doubled on the way out by Sementa. Probably more worried about missing a grand than going down in a small slam moments earlier, Seamon had to concede down 1.

In the closed room Nunes held the North hand and passed (surprise ;-). After Balicki-Zmudzinski started 1H - 2D, he tried a modest 2S and the bidding continued 3D - 3NT, just making for -11 imps.

"...worry of generating a random result impacts their bidding style. It makes them conservative on preempting (avoid going for 800) and aggressive on bidding game (avoid game-swing)."

Food for thought.

Point of discussion - cuebidding

2007-03-30T07:24:00.000+01:00

Cooperative slam bidding isn't easy. Look at this hand from the final Swiss match in Montegrotto. You have:

9xx
-
AQT9
AKQJT7

Partner opens 1D, showing 11-13 bal/5M332 or 11-15 with 4-card major and unbalanced hand. Your RHO overcalls 1H (red vs white) and you jump to 3C, a gameforce with 6+suit. Partner bids 3NT and you have your first decision to make; pass or invite slam. If moving on, what's the best way/bid?

Bidding 4H should show a void and gets that vital fact across, but you'd really like to fetch a diamond cuebid from partner and leave more room for exploration and the possibility to sign-off in 4NT (4H also sets clubs and 4NT is no longer natural). Let's say you bid 4C and partner raises to 5C. Would you bid on?

That was correct this time as dummy tabled Kx/KJxx/KJx/98xx and the A of spades where onside (no swing in the match).

First question is, must partner cuebid? When should he signoff in 4NT? When in 5C? This is both a matter of finding the optimal way of handling a situations like this and personal ability and style.

When you had a choice to cooperate previously and didn't (i.e. bid 3NT in example) and partner moves again, my view is that you have to cuebid on any excuse. Repeat: ANY EXCUSE. Being ace-less isn't one of them. Having wasted values may be a reason, but since you bid 3NT partner expects wasted values. You have to focus on remaining useful cards/shape, not thinking 'I have only 6 working hcp when my opening bid promised 11/12+'. And, you have to make sure partner is on the same page. This means that there are hands that can just raise, and there are hands that can signoff in 4NT.

With KQJ/KQx/Jxxx/xxx, I'd bid 5C.
With QJx/AQxx/Kxxx/xx, I'd bid 4D.
With QJxx/KQJx/Kxxx/x, I'd bid 4NT.

Obviously, it's impossible to get to the right contract every time; we have to work the percentages and try to avoid bad slams and get to the good ones. My point is that certain situations calls for, almost demands, cuebids even with devalued hands with wasted values. Especially when a minor suit is the designated trump suit, as there is less room available below slam 'commitment' (when major is trumps, after 4M, you can go with 5-level cue's).

Back to the deal in question, I think that cue-bidding was called for over 4C, and I think the strong hand may have raised to slam anyway since partner didn't bid 4NT, whereby indirectly suggesting useful values.

Work on your cue-bidding 'philosophy'.

Down memory lane

2007-03-29T07:37:00.000+01:00

I've played maybe half a dozen NABC's, but only once in a regular partnership (otherwise with clients on pick-up teams). The exception was the 2002 Summer NABC in Washington DC for the Spingold. My regular partner was Magnus Eriksson, who doesn't play much these days, and we played with a couple of Danes; good friend and excellent player Lars Munksgaard (Rosenblum quarter-finalist in Lille -98) and sponsor Claus Christiansen.

Claus had played successfully as a junior (national level) and then stopped for almost 30 years, building a large multi-million medical corporation (MD and research scientist). He had started playing again a few years earlier and wanted to try the American scene. Magnus is, by the way, the father of Cecilia and Sandra Rimstedt. Cecilia is already a World Junior Pairs Champion and NABC winner and Sandra just got selected for the Swedish Ladies Team this summer (both still teenagers!).

This time the Spingold was a special event for us; lady luck was on our side. After beating a couple of weaker teams (one contained all-time great Marshall Miles; a favorite author) by large margins, we ran into Welland-Fallenius, Garner-Weinstein and Moss-Gitelman in round of 32. We won by 2 imps. Next up was Shugart-Robson and Forrester-Brogeland. We won by 1 imp. Claus was 'unconscious', in a positive sense, playing way out of his league. The rest of us did pretty well, but Magnus and I was a bit sloppy against Shugart.

For the quarter-final, we got Schwartz-Becker, Zia-Rosenberg and Cohen-Berkowitz. Claus lost it a bit but Lars was good and our partnership played really, really well. A hand I'll never forget was the following against Berkowitz (S) - Cohen (N) in the second set:

AJx
x
QJx
AJ987x

KTxx
KJxx
Txx
Kx

S/all vul, auction (Precision-style):
pass - pass - 2C - X;
2D - pass - 3C - pass;
3NT all pass

Magnus (West) led a low diamond to my (East) ace and we cleared diamonds, Magnus having Kxx. Berkowitz tanked and continued with the J of spades from dummy, letting it ride and winning the trick. He thought some more and led a low club to the queen - king - small. This looked good. If the ace of hearts was onside, 9 tricks were easy now, 4 spades + 3 clubs + 1 diamond + K of hearts.

Should he give up on all those club tricks in dummy? They were down 34 after the first set and every imp counts. Would RHO really be tricky at this point, with a game at stake? He finally muttered 'I'll trust the guy' and led a club to the 9. One down. A swing of 16 imps compared to +110 at the other table (+5 instead of -11 imps).

My hand:
Qxx
AQxx
Axxx
QT

I had plenty of time to think the hand through before the club play. Declarer was 100% to hold this exact hand after the spade trick, considering he was a passed hand and hadn't gone for the clubs right away. I went for the queen gambit, gambling on him not playing for me to have done so rather than following with the ten, deciding that him dropping my queen was a greater chance/risk. Besides, moments like this don't come that often. I'm no chicken.

The last quarter, we were up by 13 going in, and were slugging it out against Zia-Michael. On board 8 a slam decision had to be made. We were playing a full relay system (denial cues etc) and by the time the auction had reached 4S I knew the whole hand, barring some loose J's. Our combined resources included ca 34 hcp and a 5-3 diamond fit, but I knew we were off the K of clubs. The grand depended on the club finesse (and 'reasonable' breaks). I figured we needed this finesse to be on to pull out this match (Zia-R had bid a slam on a finesse on board 1 of the set that I thought our teammates would miss, which turned out to be correct).

So, I jumped to 7D and wrote down for all the kibitzers that the king of clubs was missing; that this was a deliberate decision and not some bidding error/misunderstanding. The K was onside with Michael (he left the table after the hand and was out for 5+ minutes) and we won 13 imps on that board. A kibitzer next to me leaned over and said 'this is why I love relays!'. My analysis was proven correct. We won by 9 (the final segment ended 55-59!).

For the semi-final, we played Jacobs-Katz, Lauria-Versace and Bocchi-Duboin. Playing 4-handed all the way, we finally lost; this time by 10 imps (68-78 over 64 boards), and Jacobs went on to win the event.

Family and regular work has kept my away from NABC's for some years now.

I'll be back.

Signalling advice

2007-03-28T08:01:00.000+01:00

This deal came up last weekend ago in a match. Opponents bid 1S (11-16 5+suit) - 4S and partner leads the K of diamonds (Rusinow; promising the A). You see this:

_______JTx
_______AKJxx
_______J9xx
_______Q
_____________xx
_____________Q9xxx
K____________QTx
_____________xxx

What diamond to you play?

Many players would now encourage the lead, especially since they don't want a shift to another suit with this holding. Against suit contracts, the standard expert practise when holding Qxx over dummy's Jxxx after partner leads high showing A-K combination is to discourage. Encouraging show ability to ruff or suggests a holding that avoids setting up the J in dummy if partner continues.

On this deal, let's say you do discourage and partner shifts to a heart won in dummy. Which heart do you play and why?

This must be a singleton. Partner, if expert, should also recognise the diamond position and wouldn't shift to a heart with this dummy unless hoping for a later ruff. So, play the queen! This shows the queen of diamonds (Qx/Qxx). A low heart indicates a possible entry in clubs (A/K) and a middle heart denies an outside entry. Full deal:

______JTx
______AKJxx
______J9xx
______Q
Axx__________xx
x____________Q9xxx
AKxx_________QTx
xxxxx_________xxx
______KQ98x
______Tx
______xx
______AKJT

This deal eluded the defence at both tables (East encouraging on the lead twice). I think our teammates should have gotten it right, but not having played that much together, they were on different wave lengths.

Get a working knowledge of 'standard' situations. Or pay up.

Camrose exhibit

2007-03-27T06:59:00.000+01:00

In an early post I showed a deal where I didn't overcall a natural 2C with 3-5-1-4 shape. I mentioned a Camrose deal that got me thinking that one should be careful with club length. Here the evidence is submitted to the "court":

W/all vul/imps

_______2
_______K9865
_______AQ2
_______AQT8
AT64_________Q9
A72__________QJT3
5____________KJT864
K9642________5
_______KJ8763
_______4
_______973
_______J73

At one table Justin Hackett overcalled 2H after a Precision 2C-opening (against Ireland's Garvey-Carroll) and bought it for 3 down, -300.

At the other table Arthur Malinowski and Niklas Sandqvist (our old Swedish buddy!) also opened 2C, playing a Polish Club variation, but here Hanlon passed and Nick tried 2D and then 3D after 2S-reply. That drifted 3 off as well for 12 imps to Ireland.

Admittedly, on this North hand passing a more attractive, but still only the Irish reached for the green piece (and it wasn't even St Patrick's Day). And you can bet there are English players who thinks this was an unlucky result (the English commentators on BBO did).

I know how I feel. What do you think?

The 'beer dilemma'

2007-03-26T07:12:00.000+01:00

Playing a district playoff match for the Swedish 'GNT' (grand national teams), my teammate, Krister Ahlesved, got to 6D on the resources below (I don't want to know how ;). As my opponents were satisfied with a mere game, a lot of imps were riding on the result.

AJxxxx
xx
Axx
Kx

-
Axx
KQ7xx
A8xxx

This called for a favorable layout after a heart was led to the ace. 3 rounds of clubs (discarding a H on the ace of spades along the way) saw LHO ruff in with the J of diamonds as declarer discarded the obvious H loser from dummy. When a small trump was returned, the only successful opposing distribution was JTx vs xx, so Krister ducked to the queen, cross-ruffed, setting up the long club (ruffing with the ace of trumps). The king collected the remaining trumps and he was left with the 7 of D and the 8 of C.

The 7 of D is internationally known as the 'beer card'; if you win the last trick with it, partner has to buy you a beer later. In Sweden, the 8 of C has a similar long historical tradition.

So, what would it be? Should the last trick in the winning slam be completed with the 'national' card or the 'international' card?

The mental anguish was too much. He claimed.

Think first

2007-03-23T08:05:00.000+01:00

Here's another 3NT from Italy, day 2 of the teams. We bid 1S-1NT; 2D showing 11-13 with 54+ and I jumped to 3NT, a bit aggressively (my favorite Kokish qoute: 'You can't cut it too fine' ;). West led a low H (attitude).

AKJ9x
x
KJ98x
xx

xx
KJT8
Qx
KQ98x

Not exactly a 'claimer' ;-) RHO inserted the 9 (queen would, of course, have been better for me) and I won with the J and attacked diamonds. RHO won the 2nd round as LHO followed with the ten (good) and returned a low H. I played the K and West won the ace and tanked. This meant that the ace if clubs was onside as he would've had a hard time not continuing hearts with a sure entry.

After about 2 minutes, he emerged with a low spade which I won in dummy as East contributed the T. What's going on?

I cashed 2 diamonds in dummy discarding clubs as West pitched a club and a heart. After a club to the K felling the J, I decided that LHO was 4-5-2-2 and led a spade to the K, dropping the queen, making 4. Why? Well, this particular East wouldn't play the T from Tx, in my view. Once I got a clue of the opposing distribution, this became the indicated line.

Think first? Yes, West made the classic mistake of scooping up the K of H first (on partner's return) and THEN started thinking. If he had followed low, keeping defensive communications alive and establishing a long H, it's very likely that I would hook the spade immediately as it wouldn't be possible to try a high spade first. I'd be 2 down instead.

Winning a trick is good - knowing what to do after that is even better.

Take the lead

2007-03-22T08:32:00.000+01:00

Leads are a complicated area. You have:
AT
Jx
KT9xxx
A9x

1H on your right and 2D overcall by you, negative X from LHO, partner passes and LHO bids 2H, all pass. Imps, what's your lead?

Magnus Lindkvist used to say "I ask myself 2 questions: Can I get a ruff? Can partner get a ruff? If the answer is no, then lead trumps!" It's a bit simplisticly put, but it is certainly good advice.

Frederic led the ace of spades, looking for a ruff, and the Austrian former star player, Franz Terraneo, slipped on this innocent looking partscore in the Swiss A-final:

KQJxx
543
xx
QJT

xx
AQT986
AJx
xx

Ace of spades lead and continuation, suggesting the suit breaking 2-4. He tried another high spade, discarding a club from hand, ruffed with the 7. Frederic underled the ace of clubs to my K and another spade saw a missguess when the T of hearts of over-ruffed with J and LHO got out with the club ace.

Franz now had to concede a trick in both red suits for 1 down when RHO had 4-2-2-5 distribution. Would Freddan really have led a spade from the actual holding with Kx in hearts?

Everybody makes mistakes. Make sure the opponents' don't go unpunished.

Making a difference

2007-03-21T08:07:00.000+01:00

Concealing a 5-card major with 5332 and minimum values made the crucial difference on deal 1 of the first Swiss match. This was the deal:

JTx
QJxxx
Axx
Ax

AK987
T9
Kxx
Kxx

I haven't got the full layout (hand-dealt) but LHO had Qxxx in trumps and Kx in H. We bid:
1D - 1S
1NT - 2C
2D - 3NT
4S

1NT was 11-13 and 2C followed by 3NT showed choice-of-games with 5332. West now chose to lead the king of H and when he continued the suit, 4S came home for +620. At the other table the auction started 1H-1S and Mårten led a diamond for a painless +100.

Was this a random positive result for this treatment or did we deserve a swing due to a better systemic approach?

Put me down for no 2.

Supporting - shape beats strength

2007-03-20T08:57:00.000+01:00

Handling weak hands with somewhat attractive shape can be tricky. Frederic had this collection against a relatively weak Italian team.

T8x
Txxxx
QT8xx
-

All vul, partner opened 1S showing 5+ (11-15; denies 5332) and RHO overcalled 2C; would you pass or get a 2S-bid in the auction adhering to the 'raise on any excuse' principle?

Freddan raised to 2S and the bidding continued 3S by LHO, 4H (!) by partner and he passed. LHO went on to 5C which came around to you. What would you do now?

First of all, is pass by partner forcing? I guess a lot of partnerships play it that way, but I don't. Appreciating the full value of the shape (visualizing diamond shortness across the table), Frederic pressed on with 5H, passed out (a bit surprisingly!).

High club was led and this was my view.

T8x
Txxxx
QT8xx
-

AJxxx
AQJ9x
-
Txx

Looks good as no double suggests the H finesse is on and that spades break. Ruffing in dummy and hooking the hearts was disppointing as LHO won and got out with the last remaining trump, East encouraging diamonds.

So it came down to the spade suit and I had to decide whom to play for Hx. If to the left, low spade from hand and if to the right, low spade from dummy to the J (which also caters for stiff K/Q and KQx). Reasoning that RHO's 3S and in tempo 5C indicated 10+ minor-suit cards, I went for spade from dummy.

This wrapped up +650 which meant 15 imps when teammates were +600 in 5C. Full deal:

_______T8x
_______Txxxx
_______QT8xx
________
K9x___________Qx
Kx____________x
xxx___________AKJxx
AQxxx_________KJxxx
_______AJxxx
_______AQJ9x
________
_______Txx

Raising on any excuse brought in the imps. Again.

Canapé jump strikes

2007-03-19T08:08:00.000+01:00

The CJO reared its head in the 2nd session pairs in Italy. All red, Precision 1D in front of me and I had:

Qxx
AJxx
AK98xx
-

I made a jump overcall of 2H showing 4H and longer undislosed minor (ca 11-15 hcp). Partner raised to 3 and I bid game of course. West led the J of C and dummy came down:

Kxx
K7xx
xx
Q98xx

Qxx
AJxx
AK98xx
-

Partner's raise was aggressive for sure. Winning pairs involves bidding thin games to a much larger extent than the textbook percentages suggest. Reasons for this includes declarer's advantage, sub-par leads and the frequency of less than perfect defence.

I ruffed and played 3 rounds of diamonds ruffing in dummy as West discarded a club. Ignoring the trump finesse I played the top trumps ending in hand as the queen dropped to my left. I left the last trump and made 5 by leading D's. LHO should have ruffed in but didn't. This was a top score, not so surprisingly, as even finding hearts was hard to do; bidding game even more so.

Maybe this convention should be called BJO - Best Jump Overcall's.

Too late

2007-03-16T08:18:00.000+01:00

Playing bridge way past midnight may be a challenge, especially when staying wake is your top priority. Here I need to come clean when I realized too late that I misplayed a game.

Day 2, first teams session way past midnight, Frederic got a nasty bidding decision with K/Kxxx/A/KJ87xxx after a 14-16 NT by partner and his RHO overcalled 2S. He bid 2NT showing invitational or better with 5+ clubs or a weak competetive hand with long H's or long D's. Partner declined invitation with 3C and system now dictated a 3S cuebid to show gamegoing values with C's (3red would've signoff). Partner now bid 4H (natural) suggesting no (or unsuitable) spade stopper. What to do?

After about 4 minutes, Frederic passed, finally deciding that bad breaks was a bigger possibility after the overcall on apparent minimum values and knowing that I was minimum or bad club fit. Weak suit quality a potential problem, although I could still have 5-card H's. The layout (S/all white):

________K
________K7xx
________A
________KJ876xx
AQxxxx__________JTx
98x_____________Tx
xxxx____________QTxx
________________QT9x
________9xx
________AQJx
________KJxx
________Ax

A low diamond was led to the ace, heart to A, K of diamonds and West followed with the heart 8! Hour was late, West replaced with D (i.e. no revoke), spade discard from dummy and I noted trumps broke and therefore cashed H Q. When East followed with ten, it hit me like an express train. Now clubs were 0-4 and I was was down on a hand that looked like a missed slam!

Low club from hand after discarding the spade in dummy is a 100% line (not cashing a 2nd H). Hey, even club to the ace in trick 2 makes it as long as I continue low C from dummy after 2 rounds of spades. No 'harm done' in the end as teammates were +300 in 6C X and the match ended with a blitz for us.

It still hurts.

_______________________________________________
I'll be away playing over the weekend, posting resumes Monday.

Game on the line

2007-03-15T11:45:00.000+01:00

This match wasn't letting up. On the very next board, my hand looked like this: Axxxxx/xxx/JTx/x

The auction started the same at both tables: 1NT (14-16) by LHO and partner overcalled, red vs white, with a constructive 2H. Now the paths diverged. The Swedish RHO, Krister Ahlesved, passed and so did the others, leading to +170 when the normal maximum was 9 tricks.

My RHO made a take-out X and I jumped a bit aggrressively to 4H, properly X-ed to my left. Mihov led the K of spades, but on this deal there were no cows within miles.

Axxxxx
xxx
JTx
x

-
AKJ9xx
Kxx
QJxx

Frederic made short work of the hand, composing himself like a true professional after the previous mishap. Ace of spades ditching a diamond, club from dummy, RHO jumps ace and shifts to the obvious trump. Frederic inserts the J, felling the T, ruffs a club and leads a diamond, conceding a club later for +790.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.