Well Done Demme (and Nisbet does it again)

May 5th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

2006,2007,2008.2009,2010 and 2012.  What do those years all have in common?  In each of those years Pamela Nisbet has won the Canadian Womens Team Championships.  And she has done it on very different teams with different partners.  No wonder the Demme team wanted her to play on their team this year!  Clearly if you want to win, get Pamela!

Below in her first victory!

The 2006  CWTC GOLD MEDALISTS
Heather Peckett, Marcia Christie, Pamela Nisbet, Rhonda Foster

There were, sadly, only six teams entered in this years CWTC with the winner representing Canada in the World Mind Games in Lille.

I was drafted (for the trials only) to temporarily replace Julie Fajgelzon who was too sick to play.  

During the Round Robin it looked like the Fung team: Kismet Fung,Susan Culham, Francine Cimon, Brenda Bryant, Samantha Nystrom and Isabelle Smith were going to have an easy team.  They beat everybody else in the Round Robin and were in first place with quite a lead over second.  Demme,  Ina Demme, Hazel Wolpert, Linda Wynston, Debbie Bennett and Pamela Nisbet pipped out our team for second place and Macnab held the fourth spot.

Fung easily handled Macnab in the semifinal and we lost to Demme.  Thus Fung met Demme in the final.  And the final is rarely easy.  I was on the train coming home from Montreal and by the miracle of BBO and my iphone I got to watch the whole match.  The train was very late so I was glad to have some fun bridge to watch.

Fung ended the first quarter with a small lead.  During the second quarter Demme took the lead with a 71 to 60.  They added another 17 imps in the third quarter and went on to win 150 to 128.  As you can see it was a close match all the way.  So you can find many boards where if the players had made some slightly different choices the result could have gone the other way.  On the last deal of the second quarter Demme picked up 12 imps.

Dealer: West Vul: Both	Smith/Wolpert ♠ A865   ♥ K75   ♦ K9   ♣ 9732
Thomson/Bryant ♠ 3   ♥ Q10963   ♦ A1062   ♣ K54		Wynston/Cimon ♠ Q1094   ♥ AJ4   ♦ J8   ♣ QJ106
	Nystom/Demme ♠ KJ72   ♥ 82   ♦ Q7543   ♣ A8

Imps is all about bidding (and making) vulnerable games.  In the Closed Room Cimon, East opened 1♣  in third chair.  Bryant bid 1♥  and Cimon was prepared to pass that out opposite a partner who had not opened the bidding.  Demme balanced with a double, Bryant bid 2♥  and Wolpert bought the contract with a 2♠ bid.  A red suit lead from East was fatal so when Cimon led a heart Wolpert was able to bring home her contract.  Things were however, more exciting in the Open Room.

Wynston started with 1♣  in third and here Nystrom overcalled with 1♦ .  Thomson bid 1♥  and North, Smith doubled showing spades.  Now Wynston could use a support double to show three card heart support.  When Nystrom bid 1♠  Thomson jumped to her vulnerable game, 4♥ .  Now Smith had a tough decision.  Perhaps expecting a bit more from Nystrom she pushed on to 4♠ .  4♠  on the lie of the cards is quite unpleasant.  Nystrom did well to get out for down 2 and -500.  But as it turns out accurate defense will defeat 4♥ .  So the second quarter ended with a useful 12 imps to Demme.   And this resulted in Demme taking over the lead as the quarter ended.

I am copying Mike Yuen’s picture of the winners below.  Thanks Mike

2012 CWTC Gold Medal Winners Debbie Bennett, Lesley Thomson, Linda Wynston, Hazel Wolpert, Ina Demme and Pamela Nisbet.  

Ray and I have already bought tickets to Lille and we will be there for part of the event to cheer our teams on, report, and do some Master Point Press business.  See you there, ladies.

World Mind Games in Lille

April 19th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

If you haven’t noticed the World Bridge Federation has announced that the Bridge Olympiad part of the World Mind Games will be held in Lille France from August 9th to August 23rd.  If you fancy a trip to Lille you do not need to qualify as your country’s entrant into the WMG, you can play in the fifth World Mixed Transnational Teams.  

The Opening Ceremonies are on August 9th with all the Round Robins starting on August 10th and completing on August 15th followed by the Round of 16.  The transnationals start on the 17th in parallel with the quarterfinals of the major events.  It all ends on Wednesday the 22nd with the Closing Ceremonies the next day.

For detailed information look at Information Letter 1.

Lille is in North France near the border with Belgium and the event is being played at the Lille Grand Palais.  There is a list of recommended hotels ranging in price from about 100 euros to 172 euros.  A Euro is currently $1.31 or so.

Ray and I have already booked four days in a nice small hotel in Lille for four days during part of the Round Robin and the start of the knockout and the Transnational Teams.  We hope to see a lot of our friends there.

All of the hotels on the WBF list are a very close walk to the venue.

So now I have to plan the rest of our European trip.

Good luck to all of you who will be playing in trials.  I hope you all win.  There is a chance that I will be filling in at the Canadian trials but I won’t be playing in any case.  I will fill my usual role as a blogger/publisher.  It will be fun to see the World Mind Games close up since I missed it last time.

A Bidding First for me

April 18th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

All of us have opened the bidding with all the bids at the one level, two level and suit bids at the three level.  I suspect that almost everyone has also opened the bidding 3NT, four of a suit and five of a minor.  After that it gets a bit dicey.  In your bridge career have you every opened the bidding 4NT, five hearts, five spades or 5NT.  In fact have you even discussed with your partner what all those bids mean?

I have opened 4NT but never five of a major or 5NT (although with serious partners those bids have been discussed!).  But how many of us have had the opportunity to open at the six level?  I had a first the other day when I opened this hand with six clubs in first chair at favourble vulnerable.  There was a bit of a discussion about whether or not it is a good bid.  Try to picture a hand where you would open six of a minor in a similar position.  Then look at my hand and decide.  Was it a good bid or not!

Here is my hand:

Ray who came over to look at my keyboard when I yelled at him to look loved the bid.  He called it a Goldilocks bid.  Not too cold, not too hot, just right. And since I think of Ray as my preempt guru I thought that was praise indeed.

By the way, if your partner opens six clubs can you ever bid the grand?  What would you need?   The ace of trump and another ace?   Three side aces?  It doesn’t matter you can’t bid seven no matter what?  Probably the latter!

Anyway partner Barbara Saltsman did actually have the perfect cards for me to make the grand but certainly not enough to bid on.  She held:

This was a bit unfortunate not because we didn’t bid the grand but because the opponents were going nowhere.  Had she held something without the ace and king of spades we would still have made six clubs and the opponents could have had at least a good save in that suit.  In fact she didn’t even need any of her high cards to make the grand. A doubleton diamond and three clubs was good enough when clubs split one-one.  And even a “bad” club split of 2-0 would have guaranteed the small slam opposite a shapely yarborough.

So the end result was a bit mundane winning only a four imps.  But still a Linda first (actually a Lee first since Ray has never made that bid either).

Let me know if you have opened a suit at the six level in your career and better yet made it!

Part 4: Vanderbilt Victory – the last quarter

April 3rd, 2012  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

The third quarter  of the Vanderbilt also went to Amoils, but narrowly.  They had now “won” every quarter and led Diamond 102 to 45.  Still 57 imps is not too much to overcome in 16 boards.

I was going to watch this exciting set live.  One thing was likely, there were going to be a lot of swings.  

In fact on the final 16 boards there were by my count eight swings of 8 imps or more.  But there really wasn’t a lot of deals that leant themselves to the kind of fireworks that  Diamond was looking for.

The final result Amoils 138 and Diamond 88.

Board 63 is interesting in that it shows how Brad Moss managed to interfer enough in a forcing club auction to keep his opponents out of a good game and he did it at unfavorable vulnerability.  If you have watched Moss and Gitelman play a lot (as I have) you will notice that Brad has a way of creating swings on otherwise straightforward deals.  Keep in mind he was vulnerable against not.

Cheek opened one club, strong artificial and forcing.  Moss bid 1NT which shows apparently minors. For Cheek-Grue , based on the discussion that was reported at the table both two clubs and two diamonds showed 5-4 in the majors one way or the other. Grue doubled to show values.   I am sure that anyone who has played forcing club has discussed what happens over interference at length.  The problem is that it is hard for partnerships to discuss every possible situation.   

1NT has taken a lot of space away.  Should this particular double set up a game force or 5+?  Maybe you like 5+?  You want to indicate it is your hand.  But then what?  

Dealer: Vul:	Moss  ♠ J3   ♥ KJ64   ♦ Q85   ♣ AJ74
Cheek  ♠ 92   ♥ AQ9   ♦ AK1074   ♣ K32		Grue ♠ AKQ4   ♥ 753   ♦ 932   ♣ 1096
	Gitelman ♠ 108765   ♥ 1082   ♦ J6   ♣ Q85

Gitelman bid his “better minor” with two clubs.  Now how does Cheek-Grue double this for penalty if they want to?  Is a double here by Cheek takeout or penalty?  What we do know from the subsequent auction is that a double by Grue is for takeout.  I suspect the idea is that both partners doubles are takeout and that with a penalty double Cheek passes and Grue doubles and vice versa but I am not sure.

It is hard to understand the choice made by each partner without understanding all the options.  I might have bid 2NT with Cheek’s hand if it showed a 16-18 notrump.  When auctions like this get confused and you have a big lead sometimes it is better to just try to get back to a normal place.  Anyway he passed and Grue doubled for takeout.

Over the takeout double Cheek bid two diamonds.  Assuming Moss’ 1NT was minor is it clear that this bid is natural? Anyway I would have bid 2NT to show a balanced hand with a both minors stopped at this point.

Now Grue bid two spades which he obviously thought was forcing and this got passed out.   I assume Cheek thought that Grue had about 5-7 points with five spades and he doubled in the first place because he wasn’t good enough to bid two spades directly.

We have all been in tortured auctions like these where the bidding enters unfamiliar grounds and each partner has to work out what every bids means and the confusion sets in.  Not too long ago I had a huge blowup with a partner over an auction not so different from this one.  This generally leads to a lot more discussion about the specific situation!

For example. when does Grue’s bid stop being forcing.  If Grue’s original double does not show more than 5 or 6 points than his double might be forcing up to two spades.  If that is the case he really can’t afford to bid two spades in this auction.  (He could try three clubs which is what I would have bid anyway.)

Cheek-Grue played in their 4-2 spade fit which faced a 5-2 break and couldn’t bring it home.  At the other table their opponents  had an uncontested (no suprise!) auction to arrive in 3NT.

Conclusions: If I ever need a swing on a board could you send over Brad Moss.  The man is a genius at getting swings.  Second, every partnership, especially in competitive auctions will arrive at a place which is not discussed or not discussed enough and they are either guessing at what bids mean or differ about the meaning of bids.  I have written about the confusion caused to world class pairs by a simple double of Blackwood as an example.  Third: You can never discuss everything.  The best thing you can do is to try to simplify the auction when you are not sure of what bids mean.  Of course, that isn’t always possible.  I like to have some metarules too that come into play when you are out of system.   And most important, accidents happen, forgiveness of each other is golden.  Winning the Vanderbilt probably made forgiveness pretty easy in this case. 

Part 3: Vanderbilt Victory – Second Quarter, Advantage Amoils

April 1st, 2012  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

Just about every swing went Amoils way in the second quarter.  By the end of the second quarter Diamond had scored 9 imps for a total of 25 while Amoils had scored 47 imps for a total of 71.  

A lot of the time it is all about the bidding and Board 22 was an example of that.  It was one of those hands where players competitive spirit plays a role or as one of the commentators said; “Let the fireworks start.”

Starting in the Closed Room West is dealer.  I am going to show all four hands.

Dealer: East Vul: E-W	Grue/Platnick ♠ A83   ♥ Q103   ♦ 10   ♣ J87432
Gitelman/Bessis  ♠ Q72   ♥ AJ   ♦ J852   ♣AK96		Moss/Del’Monte ♠ KJ1094   ♥ 976542   ♦ 5   ♣ 9
	Cheek/Diamond  ♠ 65   ♥ K8   ♦ AKQ7643   ♣ Q10

East-West is vulnerable and Moss is first to bid.  I remember something about 6-5 come alive but here the vulnerability is unfavorable for heroics and Moss passes.  Cheek who is operating on the fun side of the vulerability decides to open his hand a gambling 3NT which in there system shows a solid suit with an outside king.  I have never liked that bid much and in fact don’t usually play it if I have a choice.  Is this a good hand for it?  It seems to me like you have too much especially at favorable vulnerability.  Gitelman who had defense whatever declarer’s suit turned out to be was content to pass opposite a passed partner. 3NT got passed out.  The whole auction was one bid!  Gitelman started a top club and with the bad diamond break the hand was doomed for at least two down.  In fact declarer went three down for +150 for the Diamond team.  This didn’t look too bad since a spade game looks to be quite a challenge.

In the Open Room the auction also started with a pass. Diamond opened with one diamond which showed two plus diamonds and 11-15 points.  He certainly had all of that.  He did play gambling 3NT in much the same way as Cheek but judged (as I would have) that he was too good for that bid.  West passed and North bid 1NT.  Now the action started.  Unfavorable vulnerability or note, Del’Monte was not going to be shut out with 6-5 (he is Aussie, you know) and bid two diamonds showing majors.  Diamond bid two hearts which apparently showed a heart stopper and denied a spade stopper.  Bessis who had a good hand for the auction bid the spade game.  Now this put a lot of pressure on Platnick.  The opponents just bid a vulnerable game with lots of shape.  Partner apparently does not have a spade card.  Your side has the balance of the high cards but just.   And you know that Del’Monte has a lot of distribution.  Now what does this auction actually mean?  Can you tell what partner has?  Does Diamond have to have clubs?  

Obviously Platnick knows more about there system and style than I do.  But one train of thought might be:

“The two heart bid is a try for notrump.  Diamond has a limited hand but thinks he has tricks opposite my limited (1NT) response.  He probably has solid diamonds, a heart stopper and maybe something in clubs.  Why didn’t he open Gambling 3NT?  

Maybe he has something like

x Kx AKQ9xx Qxxx

Is that consistent with the bidding so far? “

As you can tell it is hard for a third party to understand all the nuances of this auction.  It is probably  even be hard for a participant.   So Platnick took out “insurance” against the spade game and bid five clubs.  Diamond corrected to diamonds and Bessis found the double.  This went for 500 which would have been an okay save if you could make the spade game.  But you can’t quite.  The defenders will come to two hearts, a spade and a diamond most likely.  8 imps for Amoils

Which all leads back to the idea that maybe 6-5 come alive is not such a bad idea.  Or maybe I should learn to love Gambling 3NT.

Part 2: The Vanderbilt Victory – Final First Quarter

March 31st, 2012  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

The first quarter of the final of the 2012 Vanderbilt was a low scoring session with Amoils outpipping Diamond: 24-16.  While the result was only an eight imp lead for Amoils. this must have been a disappointment to Diamond who had employed the strategy of putting their strongest lineup in to start the event: Hampson, Greco, Moss and Gitelman.

There were only fours swings of more than an imp or two:  4 imps, 6 imps, 8 imps and 13 imps.  Board 6, the 13 imp swing, is an interesting hand and a bit difficult to analyze, at least for me.  Let’s start with the Open Room 

With East-West vulnerable, Wolpert sitting East was the dealer and opened one spade.  Amoils bid two hearts, game forcing and Wolpert rebid two spades.   What do you like now?  Amoils made the practical bid of two notrump, despite the imperfect diamond stopper.  Wolpert continued with three diamonds which makes you feel much more comfortable about that diamond stopper.  You can expect some shape from partner for this bid but partner may already expect you to have two spades for your two notrump bid and with clubs well stopped it seems reasonable to play three notrump.  It also might well play better from your side since you have tenances in both the red rounded suits.  3NT is passed out.  Hampson leads the club ten (which shows the jack or shortness) and this is what you see. 

Amoils ♠ Q2   ♥ AQ632  ♦ Q3  ♣ AQ85

Wolpert ♠ KJ875  ♥ J  ♦ AK872  ♣ 93

You win the club queen.  3NT is almost a lock after the  ten of clubs lead.  At the table Amoils led the spade queen from hand and when Greco, South, won this nine tricks were certain.  Amoils now had eight tricks.  Two spades, three diamonds, two clubs and a heart.  If Greco plays hearts you have nine tricks even if all suits break badly (you duck the heart to the jack).  If South leads a club (as happened at the table) your club spots protect you.  You duck to dummy’s nine and north cannot continue clubs.  If needed you can concede a heart for trick nine  Here is the whole deal.

Dealer: Vul:	Hampson ♠ 106  ♥ K8  ♦ 10954 ♣ KJ1074
Amoils ♠ Q2   ♥ AQ632  ♦ Q3  ♣ AQ85		Wolpert ♠ KJ875  ♥ J  ♦ AK872  ♣ 93
	Greco ♠ A943  ♥ 109754  ♦ J6  ♣ 62

It probably seemed like a routine 3NT game.  While it is true that a passive lead from Hampson (say a diamond) would make life more difficult for Amoils the contract can still be made with good declarer play.  (For example, North can be easily endplayed on a diamond to provide the ninth trick, the defense having taken a spade, a club and a diamond on some lines.).

The problem on this hand is to get to 3NT rather than four spade when East is 5-5.  The auction started off in a similar fashion with the same first five bids

Two spades was alerted and was apparently very weak by agreement.   At this point Amoils chose 3NT while Fred bid three spades.

What is the difference between three spades and three notrump?  It starts with the question would you bid 2NT with three spades or one spade and does two hearts promise five hearts?  I think that for most pairs bidding 2NT more or less denies three spades in this auction.  Persumably you would employ another auction if you were 3-4-3-3.  Can you have a singleton spade?  Could you be 1-5-3-4 or something like that and be unable to bid three of more your minor because it shows extra in your system?  If you could have a spade singleton then bidding three spades here should probably show two decent spades or perhaps some worries about the fourth suit (clubs) or maybe extra values with some thoughts of slam.  This gets deep enough into your system that I suspect for many pairs would not have an easy answer to this question.

Fred does have secondary spade support and he has already denied primary spade support by bidding 2NT over two spades.  Whatever this delicate difference might suggest it encouraged Moss to bypass 3NT on with four diamonds.  After all not only is he two-suited but all his v alues are in his suits.  From his point of view a diamond slam might be possible (less likely a spade slam) when 3NT is a terrible contract.  Gitelman had no problem signing off in four spades.  It was now up to Moss who is a very good declarer to make the spade game.

One of the problems with playing four spades is that you are playing from the “wrong” side.   That is, the club tenance is in dummy and Cheek attacked it at trick one with the club six.  Grue won the club king and returned the spade ten won in dummy with the spade queen. 

The second problem with playing the spade game is you need ten tricks not nine.  How would you continue?  This is a very tricky hand to play and you have only small clues from the opponents from the play so far. One plan is to play for a trump split.  If you play trump now and ths suit breaks (or the 10-9 is doubleton) you iwll have four spades, three diamonds, a club and potentially two hearts.  You win the club return, draw trump and concede a heart.  If the trump are 4-2 (excluding 10-9 doubleton) you have two trump losers and a club so you can’t afford to concede a heart but you have the chance of a diamond break.  This seems pretty reasonable but unfortunately it doesn’t work on the lie of the cards. 

Double dummy you can make the hand in a few ways which more or less depend on things like the heart king being doubleton.  But it seems to me that Moss took the best line.

On a good day Moss would have made four spades but this time you needed to be in 3NT. 

Part 1: Vanderbilt victory; a hand from the semi’s

March 30th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

Back in the first quarter of the semi’s I suspect that both the Falk team and tthe Amoils team were happy to have made it this far, but hoping for more.

Sometimes a board which looks unimportant at one table turns out to be a surprising swing.  So it must have seemed to the players in the Closed Room who played a two club partial in the Closed Room making 3 on Board 7.   While this was a decent result (as two clubs can be defeated on best defence). it hardly seemed like a “big board.”   But things took a different turn in the Open Room.  It was partly set up by a conventional double.  Lets look at the auction and play from the East West hands.

Cheek ♠ AK965  ♥ 96  ♦ J852  ♣ 95

Grue ♠ 4  ♥ AJ874  ♦  63 ♣ A8763

Everybody was vulnerable and South was the dealer.

Friedland, North. opened one diamond in third chair and Grue overcalled one heart.  Dahl sitting South bid two clubs.  So far the auction was identical at both tables.  But in the Closed Room two clubs was passed out.   In the Open Room Cheek doubled two clubs which very conveninetly showed five spades and two hearts (and of course some values).  Grue had a good hand try for a doubled vulnerable penalty and passed.  Now look at the West hand and cover the East hand mentally.  What would you lead?  Take your time because it is important!

Cheek led a top heart and this is the only lead that gives the defence of a two trick set.  This was the whole deal.

Dealer: Vul:	Friedland ♠ Q1083  ♥ KQ5  ♦ K10974  ♣ Q
Cheek ♠ AK965  ♥ 96  ♦ J852 ♣ 95		Grue ♠ 4  ♥ AJ874  ♦ 63  ♣ A8763
	Dahl ♠ J72 ♥ 1032  ♦ AQ ♣ KJ1042

Grue had the advantage of knowing his partner’s major suit distribution.  So it was pretty easy to make the fine play of ducking the heart king in comfort.  Now Dahl cashed the top diamonds in his hand and led a trump.  Grue won with the club ace and returned a his spade.  Cheek cashed the second spade and returned a heart.  Grue took his two heart tricks and led a third heart.  Dahl was forced to ruff the third heart high and had to lose two more trump tricks for down two.  500 for Amoils. 

In the Closed Room Falk was sitting West and Lusky, East while Les Amoils was South and Darren Wolpert was North.

Falk led the top spade which makes the communication for the defence too difficult to set the contract two tricks.  At trick two he switched to a high heart which was ducked by Lusky.  Now Amoils led the queen of clubs from dummy.  When you have a lot of trump as a defender you like to keep the top trump around for a while.  This gives you some control in the trump suit.  But here Lusky might have been able to work out that a safer defense was to rise on the club ace, cash the heart ace and give partner a heart ruff.  Falk who passed in first chair was very unlikely to hold six spades to the ace and king.  So Falk could ruff the heart, take the spade ace and give Lusky a spade ruff.  Two spades, the club ace, a heart and two ruffs would be enough to set the contract.  In any case once he ducked the club queen,

Amoils crossed to his hand on the diamond ace and played a top club.  Now Falk had no more trump so the heart ruff was gone.  Lusky got out a diamond.  Here was the position.

Dealer: Vul:	Wolpert   ♠ Q108 ♥ Q5  ♦ K10  ♣ –
Falk ♠ A965  ♥ 6  ♦ J8  ♣ –		Lusky ♠ –  ♥ AJ74 ♦  – ♣ 876
	Amoils ♠ J7  ♥ 102  ♦ –  ♣ J102

Amoils won the diamond queen.  He knew Lusky had four hearts left.  The play suggested he did not have another spade (since he could have returned one when in on the club ace).  So based on that Amoils executed a neat plan, a strip and endplay.  He cashed the top clubs and threw Lusky in on the final club throwing spades from  from dummy.  Lusky who was down to all hearts was endplayed.  He could cash the heart ace but then had to play a heart to dummy’s queen allowing Amoils to also cash the diamond king to make his contract. 

So Board 7 which might have seemed a quiet board ended up as a 12 imps win for Amoils at the start of their run to victory.

Wow.. Les, Darren and team win the Vanderbilt

March 26th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

With a passel of grandchildren visiiting I have found some time to watch (and comment) on the Vanderbilt and what a joy.  Watching two teams with many Canadian men from the Toronto area battling it out in one of the most prestigious team games in North America. It doesn’t matter to me if some of them now live in Florida or Las Vegas and other points in the US, I watched them grow up.

I watched the final with mixed loyalties.  I wanted both teams to win!  Congratulations to Les Amoils and his crew and also to the Diamond team.  Both teams will be winning events for a long time into the future.

I will write up some deals after the grandchildren leave tomorrow.

A big congratulation to the winners of the NAP

March 16th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  6 Comments 

Jordan Cohen and Barry Senensky, representing District 2, were the winners of the North American Pairs. 

Serensky and Cohen at the Memphis NABC

Cohen and Serensky just managed to qualify for the final when they had a poor evening session.  But they really poured it on in the final. Jordan remembered something his father had told him; “Late in a matchpoint session pay attention to guys who are not in it any more.” He pointed out that they might not be concentrating and were more likely to give up some tricks. Jordan was able to got almost all the matchpoints on two boards in the same round from one such pair when he took advantage of small defensive errors to make extra tricks on squeezes!

On the first hand West opened a 12-14 notrump in fourth.  Jordan South balanced 2♠  showing spades and a minor.  East doubled and this was passed out

Dealer: Vul:	Barry ♠ 9xx  ♥ 98  ♦ Kx  ♣ A987xx
West ♠ J10  ♥ KJxx  ♦ AJxx  ♣ KJ10		East ♠ Axx  ♥ Qxxx  ♦ Qxx  ♣ xxx
	Jordan ♠ KQxxx  ♥ A10x  ♦ 109xx  ♣ Q

West got off to a good lead the ♠ J.Jordan won win the ♠ Q and played a diamond up to the king and continued diamonds.  East won the ♦Q and played the ♠ A and another clearing the suit.  Jordan continued with a diamond and West won and cashed the fourth diamond before switching to a heart.  East played the ♥ Q and Jordan ducked.  If East returns a club at this point the contract will be set.  But East erred and made what seemed to be a reasonable return of another heart.  This gave Jordan the opportuniity he needed.  Jordan cashed the remaining spades and West was squeezed in clubs and hearts.  2♠x doubled and making.

On the next board believe it or not, Jordan was able to make an extra tricks (and a lot of matchpoints) when East once again made a small error and allowed Jordan to squeeze West in the same two suit.

Walking the bidding tightrope

March 10th, 2012  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Top experts make huge mistakes;  not very often or they would lose that title.  Sometimes it seems that they make a mistake that would never happen in your club game.  Sometimes these mistakes are particularly spectacular.  Why does this happen?  I think many players have made bidding too complicated.  There is too much to remember and too much to figure out.  And as a result accidents happen.  Not to mention the effect on morale when a disaster happens.  It can take you right down to Zone 3.

So it was strange, but not all that strange. to watch two incredible results in the finals of the Germany Open Team Trials Round 2.  Board 31 was the first board played in the Closed Room.  Look at the bidding on the North-South hands hands.

Sitting North, vulnerable vs not in third chair you open 2♣ (strong).  I might have just opened 4♥  in fourth.  I suppose we could have more but that seems somewhat unlikely and I don’t really want the spades waltzing in at this vulnerability.  Anyway East (Gromoller) bids 2♠ . … in waltz the spades. 

Partner, Felmy, bids 3♣  natural and positive.   And Rehder, West, makes the unpleastant interjection of 4♠ .  What now?  Khanukov bid 5♥ .  I am not sure this is the right action but it seems reasonable to tell partner about your seven card suit.    Knowng you have a double fit maybe you should just bid 6C.  Anyway,  Partner bids 5♠  which really hasn’t made your hand any better.  So you singoff in 6♣ .  Let’s walk South for  a minute.

 It’s your turn.  Do you bid over 6♣ ?  Let’s look at the auction again.

I think in this auction 5♥  is a suit and it is not forcing.  6♣  is suggesting clubs as a place to play it (a good suggestion as it turns out.)  If partners hears were solid would he bid 6♣  I don’t think so.  Anyway Felmy bid 6♥  and now Khanukov whose partner is known to have a wasted spade card (probably the ace) and likely the ♣ K also has the ♥ A and opened with a pass.  Now Khanukov bid 7♥ .  The trump ace doubled and so it was +200 for East-West.

Board 32 pass quietly but then comes Board 17.  If I told you that a pair a this table ended up voluntarily bidding a slam in spads on a 4-1 fit with minimal opposition bidding which pair would you pick as the culprit… north-south or east-west.

If you picked North-South you would be right.

Khanukov ♠ AK32  ♥ 4  ♦ K3  ♣ AQ7632

Felmy ♠ 6  ♥ AQ10985  ♦ Q9  ♣ K984

 Here is the auction.  Apparently the mistake was the interpretation of 2♦ which North thought showed spades.

Khanukov ♠ AK32  ♥ 4  ♦ K3  ♣ AQ7632

Felmy ♠ 6  ♥ AQ10985  ♦ Q9  ♣ K984

You can think about the auction if you think 2♦ shows hearts as Felmy did and if you think it shows spades as Khanukov did.  Did Felmy realize at the end that Khanukov thought he had spades and bailed.  Did he think 6NT might be even worse?  Anyway they are in the wrong place and no bid by South will fix it now.

So here you are.  You have bid a grand slam off an ace and you have played a slam in your 4-1 spade fit in the first three boards.

But one thing about team games … you shouldn’t give up.  As it will turn out there are some wild and wooly things going on by your opponents in the other room (but on different boards).