CNTC CBC thoughts
Vugraph in BBO had the last segment of the Canadian Team Trials labeled CBC Final 8/8.
If you are not Canadian you may not be aware that CBC stands for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is government supported Canadian television. We just wish that the final had been broadcast nationally.
Ray talked at length about the play on Board 23 but I want to make a couple of comments on the bidding. The players in each room got to the right spot although one bid the small slam and one bdi the grand.
Wolpert/Campbell  A2  AK87653  3  AKJ |
Korbel/Klimowicz 108 Q942 AK2 10532 |
|
In the OR Darren Wolpert had a chance to bid the grand slam but he simply could not count 13 tricks. In effect he knew the grand was quite likely to be on the club finesse as it was and he properly did not bid over 6.
I do not generally believe in bidding grand slams. Too often I find out that my opponents are in game. 7NT is almost exactly 50-50 with the small chance of dropping the Q in the first round. There are some remote chances of a helpful squeeze on some leads. I know that there are some variations in the play if you play in hearts but they have very small impact on the odds.
If your opponents bid the small slam and you bid the grand and make it, then you have won 11 imps, the difference being 500 or so (depending on which slams are bid). If you go down then the difference is 14 imps. So the mathematics suggest that bidding the grand is not a good idea. I am ignoring the possibility slim as it is at this level that the opponents are playing only in game. If you consider this it is overwhelming better not to be a 50% grand.
But in the other room where West opened a strong club North, Balcombe who held
Balcombe K943 – QJ10864 974
bid a preemptive 2. This increased the probability that the club finesse was working and made the grand slam more likely. So basically the system, forcing club, provided an opportunity for the opponents to enter the auction even at unfavorable vulnerability and changed the odds on the grand slam. So in this situation bidding the grand slam as Campbell did was the best action.
So the luck in the deal it seems to me was more related to the system that each pair was playing as much as it was related to the finesse working (or not).
Let’s look at one more slam decision for Wolpert (Board 23)
| Wolpert KQ A654 K9 A10843 |
You open 1NT and partner bids 4 transfer. You bid 4 and partner bids 5. Should you continue or not?
I admit that I do not know how they play this sequence and how it would fit into their system. So I will discuss it from my point of view recognizing that for Darren things may have been different. This is a fairly strong slam try, since partner is willing to bid past game. Partner is looking for controls and possible trump having a fairly freakish hand. He can’t be two suited since he would have shown the two suits. He might have a void and find Blackwood less useful. He is willing to try for missing the king-queen of trump and rather a lot of controls.
I am not sure what is happening but I can’t imagine any sensible hand partner could have where my hand wouldn’t be helpful. I would bid the slam. Darren didn’t. I would be interested in hearing why he chose to pass 5. Korbel had made a rather imaginative and gusty bid (I like it) with
Korbel AJ106542 – QJ64 Q9
In the closed room Klimowich just bid the spade game on what amounted to the same auction (although translated in forcing club).
Board 25 is interesting too.
Nick Gartaganis/Balcombe (not vulnerable versus vulnerable) 10 KJ98642 KJ5 107
In first chair Nick chose to open 3 while Keith Balcombe opened 1. I can see the problem 3 seems too preemptive and you don’t have a good enough hand for 1. Opening 1 did win the board in the end though with some confusion through in by blogger Ross Taylow Over 1 Klimowich who held
AKQ653 10 A32 KQ4
doubled and Ross made a “tactical bid of 1 holding
J42 53 Q1098 A652
This created enough confusion to keep Campbell- Klimowicz out of their good spade game. The auction continued like this
| Campbell | Balcombe | Klimowicz | Taylor |
| 1 |
DBL | 1 |
|
| pass | 2 |
2 |
all pass |
Campbell held
987 AQ7 764 J983
Do you think he should have bid? I do. In the open room where Nick opened with a preempt, Korbel doubled and they quickly arrived in 4.
Over all I thought the match was very well played and both teams are winners as far as I am concerned.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Linda,
Systemically he showed exactly a void in hearts by bidding the way he did. At the time I devalued the ace of hearts knowing that it was opposite a void. That being said this hand was my biggest regret of the match. I think my other cards are so good that I should bid a slam regardless.
Hi Linda
While it’s nice to be thought of as a sneaky player who made a tactical bid of one spade in the above auction, the truth is one spade was systemic, alerted and showed a typical 1NT response, as we play transfer responses over their takeout doubles.
Nonetheless, the “sound” of the auction may have played a small part in their ensuing conservatism.
Cute hands, thanks for sharing.
Thanks Darren. That does seem a sensible way to play the 5H bid.
Perhaps even more noteworthy regarding system differences would be the variation of the 6H/7H hand in the seniors teams?
One team chose, from all appearnces, to employ hesitation blackwood….guessed to raise 6H to 7H (inappropriately, as you noted)..got lucky…..then had the result rolled back according to our ridiculous rules, costing them the event.
It’s horrible to lose an event on a ruling. But if you are planning to bid 7H you should just do it and not risk an issues when you raise partner’s 6H to 7H.