JEC’s table

July 7th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Jimmy Cayne plays a lot of team games.  The team games are invitation only and the players and opponents are very good.  It usually draws a crowd of kibbitzers.  I wasn’t planning to blog today but I happened to be watching a deal in a JEC team game and I have to say I was impressed with the defence of a fellow called Andrew Gumperz.  He was playing with Michael Crawford  against Steve Beatty and allan Falk.  Here was the deal:

Dealer: Vul:	Crawford ♠ AKJ10  ♥ J4  ♦ J873  ♣ 652
Beatty  ♠ Q4  ♥ AQ986  ♦ AQ5  ♣ AJ7		Falk  ♠ 982   ♥ 10762  ♦ 964  ♣ Q43
	Gumperz ♠ 7653   ♥ K3  ♦ K102  ♣ K1098

The opening lead was the ♠K and Crawford continued with the ♠A and ♠J.  Beatty ruffed the third round.  Now Beatty knew that Gumperz had to have the ♣K because of Crawford’s initial pass so he lead the ♣J hoping to get to dummy for a red suit finesse.  Now it was up to Gumperz.  If he takes the ♣K he knows that Beatty will be able to get to dummy.    He also knows that he can’t count on Crawford for many more high cards.  Once Beatty has a dummy entry he can finesse the ♥K, cash the ♥A and enter dummy on a heart to finesse the ♦K.  So it simply can’t be right to win the club.    So Gumperz ducked. 

Once that ploy failed Beatty played the ♣A and another throwing Gumperz on lead.  So Gumperz made another logical play.  He knew a heart would be fatal so he returned the ♦10 giving Beatty the diamond finesse.  Beatty won the diamond and hoping to endplay somebody played the ♦A and another diamond.  Gumperz dumped his ♦K under the ♦A and when Crawford won the ♦J he ruffed the fourth diamond with the ♥K promoting the ♥J in Crawford’s hand.  It is slightly more accurate to keep the ♦K and win the third diamond.  If partner has the ♥J (and without that you cannot defeat the hand) then a fourth club will promote a trump trick for the defence as well.  This play will work when Beatty has the ♦J as well.  Still a very pretty defence and one that deserved to be applauded by the kibbitzers.

The deal is interesting because Gumperz has to duck the club knowing that when he does he will be endplayed and forced to give declarer a finesse anyway.  But by ducking he picks which red suit finesse to give to declarer.  I particularly appreciate good defence because it really is the hardest part of the game.

The final round: Sweden versus France Part 2

July 6th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

I noticed that quite a few bridge players had joined Facebook as fans of bridgeblogging.  As a result I will try hard to make sure that these blogs work well on Facebook.  And welcome to you all.

After half the boards had been played Sweden had the lead and if they could hold they would make the top six.  Board 13 provided an opportunity for a swing. 

Board 13     Dealer: North Vul: Both	North ♠  J107 ♥ AJ85  ♦ A6  ♣ J1084
West ♠ Q654  ♥ K1043  ♦ 10873  ♣ 6		East ♠ 9832  ♥ Q962  ♦ 52  ♣ AQ3
	South ♠ AK  ♥ 7  ♦ KQJ94  ♣ K9752

When you look at all the hands you can see that 6♣ will make.  Is it a slam you want to be in?  You need to pick up the club suit for one loser missing four to the AQ.  With X-ray vision you can make the hand almost all the time losing only to AQX(X) offside.  But without peaking it seems to be 50% assuming you just play for the ♣Q onside assuming there are no helpful clues from the bidding or defence.  I believe the Hideous Hog said something about a finesse never being only 50%.  There is also a small chance of a diamond ruff.  In balance I don’t mind if I get there or I don’t until I do the scoring up at least.  Neither pair reached the slam although both did decide to play in the club game rather than 3NT.   This was the auction in the Open Room with no opposition bidding.

Fallenius’ 1NT bid showed clubs.  After Fredin showed support Fallenius showed his good spades and when Fredin suggested 3NT. Fallenius decided that Fredin, a passed hand was unlikely to have enough for slam.  Suppose Fredin held the ♣Q instead of the major jacks the slam would have been excellent.  And maybe it wouldn’t hurt to make one more try after 3NT.  But then again he was probably following the excellent rule ” don’t play partner for a perfect hand.”  The French auction was essentially the same (excluding system variations) up to 3♣ but here Volcker just bid what he thought he could make, 5♣. 

So having seen one possible slam swing pass on by, on the next board East-West had a slam opportunity and this time we can give Fredin, one of the defenders, all the credit for winning 14 imps.  He found the right time to make a very off-center bid, a pysch really and he caught Chemla in his web.

Board 14   Dealer: East Vul: None	Fredin ♠ 1097 ♥ J43  ♦ 105  ♣ Q10876
Chemla  ♠  AQJ532 ♥  A10765 ♦  – ♣  J9		Levy ♠ K84 ♥ 8  ♦ AK8643  ♣ K32
	Fallenius ♠ 6  ♥ KQ92  ♦ QJ972  ♣ A54

Fredin found a great time for his 2♣ bid.    After Fallenius showed a good club raise,  Chemla showed his hearts and subsequently asked Levy about a club control (5♠).  Levy bid the slam.  Fredin’s unusual bid would would not have been enough in and of itself.  On a non-club lead declarer can make the hand by setting up hearts and throwing clubs on the top diamonds.  Having bid clubs Fredin now led the ♣6.   Would anybody have been able to figure out what was happening?  

If I were Chemla I could drive myself crazy with this logic.  Fredin knew about the club control in dummy so it was reasonable to underled his CA.  But he must also have known that I would likely rise on the ♣K.  So maybe he doesn’t have the ♣A.  But then Fredin knew that I knew that he knew … so maybe he would try to double cross me and underlead the ace.  And so on.  Fallenius’ strong raise also suggested that Fredin might not have a normal 2♣ bid.  But who could blame Chemla for rising on the ♣K and going down.  In the Closed Room Volcker the South hand made a slightly unusual overcall of 1♥ but that did not prevent Upmark and Cullin from getting to the spade slam and this time when the ♣6 was led by Mari there was no reason to do anything but duck it.  This was 14 imps for Fredin and now Sweden have vaulted into a 27 imp lead.

France pick up a non-vulnerable game swing when they got to a game that might have been defeated but wasn’t.  But in the end Sweden prevailed and won the match 49 to 28, enough to ensure their place in the top six teams.

The final round: Sweden versus France Part 1

July 5th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

The twenty board set between Sweden and France in the final round was an important match for Sweden who needed to win to be sure of a spot in the top sixth and a Bermuda Bowl berth.  France who was out of the running was acting as a spoiler.  If you are interested in the details of the player’s systems you can find them at www.ecatsbridge.com.   Board 2 was a bidding competition.

Dealer: East Vul: N-S	North ♠ A1052 ♥ K1094 ♦ 63 ♣ J85
West ♠ K ♥ Q73 ♦ AKQ10874 ♣ 97		East ♠ 9876 ♥ A5 ♦ J ♣ AKQ1062
	South ♠ QJ43 ♥ J862 ♦ 952 ♣ 42

The diamond slam East-West is pretty good but getting there is the trick.  This was the start of the French auction:

I suppose that East, perhaps concerned about spades and perhaps dreaming about bigger things might bid 3♥.  If that is forward-going West might take the push (perhaps using some kind of ace asking structure like 4♦ or 4♥).  That was a pipe dream in the Open Room and East bid the expected 3NT.  Could the Closed Room get it right?

Here the Swedish East, Cullin, opened 2♣, Precision style, showing a limited hand with five or more clubs (and possibly a four-card major).  In this auction West’s 3♦ was game forcing showing at least six good diamonds.  When East emphasized his clubs and West his diamonds the pair cuebid their way to slam.  Cullin’s 5NT asked West to pick the slam.  Their system works well on this deal.  As a point of interest in the Russia-Iceland match both pairs got to the diamond slam but both were playing a strong club and the auctions were similar to the Cullin-Upmark auction while in the Italy-Israel match both pairs playing a more standard system open 1♣ and played in 3NT.  9 imps to Sweden.  By Board 6 Sweden was leading 18 imps to 2.

Dealer: E Vul: E-W	North ♠ 8 ♥ J103 ♦ Q9753 ♣ 6532
West ♠ AK6 ♥ K976542 ♦ 10 ♣ J7		East ♠ 1075432 ♥ A ♦ AJ862 ♣ 8
	South ♠ QJ9 ♥ Q8 ♦ K4 ♣ AKQ1094

I have noticed that the strong clubbers really open the bidding light.  Here Cullin in the Closed Room holding the East hand opened 1♠ .  My preference is to pass.  In the Open Room Levy did just that.  Strangely, the pair that opened light ended up selling out to a North-South partscore while the pair that did not open got to game.

Volcker overcalled 1NT and then bid clubs and West no doubt used to the light openings surprisingly sold out to 4♣ In the Closed Room South opened 1♣ .

Once East-West bid the game Sweden took the save and ended with -500.

Coming into Board 10 Sweden and France were in a virtual tie Sweden 18, France 19.  Board 10 showed that this match was not just about bidding.  Eddie Kantar wrote a book called Take All Your Chances and that is what this deal is all about

Dealer: E Vul: Both	North ♠ 6 ♥ A10754 ♦ KJ ♣ KQ954
West ♠ J43 ♥ 9863 ♦ Q10862 ♣ 10		East ♠ K85 ♥ Q ♦ A7543 ♣ J862
	South ♠ AQ10972 ♥ KJ2 ♦ 9 ♣ A73

Do you want to be in slam on this deal?  In the heart slam, you have to find the trump queen and you must be able to pick it up,  you need a club break or something else good to happen (as we will see).  So not good enough.  But when you look at all the hands it seems like 6♥ will have good chances while 6♣ will fail on the bad trump break.  The difference is holding that keycard, the trump 10.  (My bidding system does not allow me to check for that!)

In the Open Room Sweden did make a try but slam was not reached.

I think this is a decent auction and Sweden ended in the right place.  But would virtue be punished?  In the Closed Room this is what happened.

So much for science.  After Volcker blasted 6♥, it was up to Mari to make it.  And as we will see he had a blind spot.  Oddly this blind spot also occurred in at least one other match, where Russia also in 6♥ followed the same line.  The opening lead was helpful the ♦A.  Cullin continued diamonds, Mari winning.  When Mari led a heart to dummy the queen appeared.  Another hurdle over.  He now drew 4 rounds of trump while Cullin shed diamonds.  This was the position.

Dealer: E Vul: Both	North ♠ 6 ♥ 7 ♦- ♣ KQ954
West ♠ J43 ♥ – ♦ Q82 ♣ 10		East ♠ K85 ♥ – ♦ – ♣ J862
	South ♠ AQ109 ♥ – ♦ – ♣ A73

Now Mari cashed the ♣K and the ♣10 dropped (a hint perhaps?).  If East has four clubs (and surely West can’t be the one with the long clubs or he would have kept his 10!) there is no way to pick up the suit and North will surely go down.  But there is a ray of hope in the spade suit.  North should cash the ♣Q (preserving dummy’s entry) if the suit splits he can cash the ♣A and ruff a spade back in hand to claim.  But when the suit doesn’t split as here he still can fallback on spades.  He finesses the ♠Q cashes the ♠A and ruffs a spade.  The ♣A still in dummy provides an entry to the now good spades and voila!  But Mari made the natural (but wrong play of a club to the ♣A rather than cashing the ♣Q and voila, one down.  13 imps to Sweden instead of 13 imps to France a big 26 imp swing.  At the halfway point Sweden led 31-19.

To be continued …

Appeal… ing European Style

July 4th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

There were nine appeals at the European Team Championships (picking teams for 2011).  There is some chat and statistics in the Final Bulletin suggesting that the trend is down.  The ninth appeal is an interesting one (and also described in the Bulletin).  It is from the a late round (27) of the Open Teams, Board 6 in the Netherlands versus France match.

Dealer: East Vul: East-West	North ♠ A83  ♥ QJ9652  ♦ 64  ♣ J9
West ♠ KJ4 ♥ A873   ♦ AKQ  ♣ K72		East ♠ Q109   ♥ 4  ♦ 109753  ♣  A1085
	South ♠ 7652  ♥ K10  ♦ J82  ♣ Q643

The contract was 3NT played by West and North led the ♥2.   After that lead East-West were held to eight tricks.   The problem was that South’s final pass came after an agreed hesitation. At the end of the hand the director was called. West claimed that the hesitation suggested that South had hearts and influenced South to lead a small heart rather than the ♥Q.  Leading a top heart allows declarer to make the contract while leading a small heart defeats it.  The table director consulted some experts who all said that they would have led a small heart without the hesitation but that the hesitation did suggest that South had some hearts and made the choice easier.  Based on this the table director allowed the result to stand.  At the committee meeting South said that he was considering bidding 4♥  and if North had deduced this than a high heart was called for since South could easily have three little.  Nevertheless, the committee overturned the ruling finding that the lead of a high heart was a logical alternative.

This is one of the few times that I have seen a ruling rollback a lead based on a hesitation during the auction.

So is leading a high heart a logical alternative.  I think it is.  But for interest let’s check the players on Vugraph.  In the Poland-Italy match North did not bid over 2NT at the table where Italy was East-West.  East showed some interest in minors and West (Duboin) bid 3NT.  North led the ♥Q.  At the other table the Italian North also led the ♥Q after North overcalled 1♥ in a strong club auction.  In the Turkey-Russia match, where North overcalled a strong club with 1♥, West rebid 1NT and East 3NT.  West led the ♥Q.  In the Closed Room where Russia held the big hand, they had an uncontested auction exactly the same as the Italian auction, North led … okay you guessed it, the Q♥.

In the Netherlands-Fance match West went down in 3NT.  Paulissen of Sweden after overcalling 2NT with 3♥ did in fact lead a small heart.   At the other table they played 5♦ a contract that is cold on the lie of the cards (and definitely the best spot).  In the Israel-Bulgaria match that I happened to be watching there was no opposition bidding although the Israeli East did suggest that he had a problem in hearts (and I admit that changes things) the ♥Q was led against 3NT.  In the Open Room, Israel played 3♥ doubled after interferring in a forcing club auction (for -500).  And finally in the England-Iceland match 3NT was defeated at both tables.  In an uncontested auction the English West had suggested some problems in hearts and Haraldsson lead a small heart.  In the other room Gold, for England led a small heart.  He had shown an unspecified major over a forcing club.

What does all this prove?  A high heart is probably somewhat more likely than a low heart but there is certainly ample evidence that the ♥Q is a logical lead!  I think that the director may not have asked the rigth question when consulting the experts.  He asked them what they would have led and from that drew the conclusion that the ♥Q was not a logical alternative.  Perhaps he should have asked them what they considered leading and whether a top heart was a logicial choice.  In any case, asking a few experts what they would hypothetically lead was not enough to establish the needed information.  One problem is that once the director presents this to you as a lead problem I think you are more likely to pick a small heart. 

Pehaps the more interesting argument and one that doesn’t seem to have been discussed by anybody was did the hesitation really suggest a heart.  The committee seems to discount the idea that South might have been thinking about doubling for a spade lead.  In any case I think the committee got this one right.

What do you need to overcall at the two level

July 3rd, 2010  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

In most of my bridge career (recognizing I stopped playing for a few decades and bidding changed enormously) I felt quite happy to overcall with a decent five-card suit at the two level as long as I had about an opening bid or better.  Then some of my newer partners suggested that AQxxx was not good enough to overcall.  I started to think about this and to please them I tried to upgrade my overcalls.  But I never really felt all that good about it.  Sure, sometimes you went for a number but a lot of the time it was important to get into the auction.  Perhaps there is an argument for requiring a six-card suit for a minor overcall.  I am happy to hear from people with strong feelings about this.

In this hand from the final round of the European Open Team Championship would you overcall or not:

Your partner passes and Caviezel (Italy) opens 1♠  .  You are vulnerable aginst not.  Is this time to overcall.  Yah or nay?

Pros: you are short in spades, you have near an opening bid, your heart suit is let’s say decent,  you have a second suit of sorts and if partner hates hearts you have support in either minor.

Cons: You would much rather have a minor ace than the spade ace, you have a minimum, partner is a passed hand and you “only” have five hearts. 

You could make a takeout double but would you with five hearts.  I guess it is a bit safer?  But if you have the values for a takeout double don’t you have the values to overcall.

In the Open Room  South passed and the hand was passed out.  In the Closed Room Mariani for Italy bid 2♥  and partner raised to 4♥.  Here is partner’s hand:

Do you think North should have bid over one spade pass, pass?  I don’t think so.  He thinks you are short in spades and yet you didn’t bid so you can’t have much or worse you can have a non-fitting hand.  Perhaps you think he should have opened?  I think there is an argument for that.  But this is a lot of punishment for not opening a marginal hand.

Over the 2♥  overcall Baroni  bid 4♥  which made for 11imps.  Of the six tables playing on BBO nobody opened the North hand and all but one overcalled the South hand.  A few East-West took an unprofitable save in 5♦.  Here is the whole deal:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠  Q10974 ♥   K1092 ♦   8 ♣   AJ5
West ♠ J6  ♥ 6543  ♦ 1065  ♣  Q743		East ♠  K8532 ♥  – ♦  AKQ32 ♣  K82
	South  ♠  A ♥  AQJ87 ♦  J974 ♣  1096

USBC – Segment 7: Where it all happened

June 29th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Coming into the seventh of eight segments in the final of the US Team Open Team Championship Diamond led Fleisher by 3 imps.  In this segment Fleisher scored 57 imps and Diamond could only muster 3.  Fleisher was in the lead, never to lost it again.

The biggest swing was on Board 102.

Board 102

Vul: East- West

Dealer East

First let’s look at the action at Weinstein’s table in the Open Room.  The auction took place in 4 quick bids.  East opened 1♠, Levin overcalled 2♦, Diamond bid 5♦ (exclusion).  What do you do sitting North holding?

If you believe your opponents than you might pick Weinstein’s call.  He bid 7♦.  East doubled and that ended the auction.  We shall see the fate of this contract in a moment.

In the Closed Room the auction had a slower pace.

4♦ showed majors and Fred Gitelman raised diamonds.  He did not have the information that Stansby had a void.  Martel’s pass over 5♦ is forcing.  When Stansbly reopened with a double which showed values Martel jumped to the spade slam.  Moss can’t really move over this.  Should Gitelman take another bid? Obviously it’s right on the deal.  He doesn’t have any defense.  The ♦A is highly suspect.  I think it is very tough but maybe it was the time to just take out some insurance.  6♠ is cold for 1430 and 7♦, four down, goes for only 800.  This was 12 imps for Fleisher.

Board 99 was another big swing.  Here one pair was in the heart game and made six while the pair actually in the slam went down.  But then the pair in four had a different objective.  Here is the deal and here is how Moss who was in 6♥, with no opposition bidding, played it.  The opening lead was the ♦4.  Martel played the ♦Q and Moss won the ♦A.  Martel and Stansby play fourth best.  Take a moment and decide how you will proceed.

At the table, Moss decided to try for a spade trick and led a spade to the king at trick two.  If this had worked (say West won the ace) then he could ruff one diamond in dummy.   He had to lead a spade at some point anyway to provide communication to his hand.  Say he ruffs a diamond.  He could cross to his hand on the ♣A to get a second diamond ruff but after cashing the ♥K he would have no way back to his hand to draw trump except through a spade ruff.

It seems better to set up the spade ruff right away and it will provide a convenient pitch if the ♠A is onside.  In fact if the spade is onside this works quite well.  Say West wins the spade and returns a club.  You win in hand, ruff a diamond and if you judge the clubs are breaking you can just draw trump.  Or you could ruff a second diamond reserving the spade pitch for a club.  Your choice.

But what if the spade is wrong?  Does it hurt your chances in anyway?  After all if you plan to ruff diamonds right away, you were going to have to lead a spade from dummy giving up on the spade trick completely.  Is it really a problem to lead spades at trick two?

Let’s look at the whole deal now

When you lead a spade at trick two (whether you put up the king or not) you can be defeated.  Let’s start with the assumption that you put up the ♠K.  Now the trick is for the defense to make it as hard as possible to ruff two diamonds.  Obviously a diamond is a helpful return for declarer.   Suppose the defense returns a spade, using an entry that declarer needs later as he ruffs diamonds.  That is what happened at the table.  Now Moss can ruff a diamond, return to hand on a club ruff a diamond but this is the ending.

You are in dummy (you can cash the ♥K or more likely you cashed it early and when you come off dummy with a spade ruff, Stansby’s ♥J will be promoted.  That means that had Stansby returned a heart when in on the spade declarer would have prevailed.  But either a spade or a club leads to defeat.  And even without foreseeing all the consequences a spade return seems natural.

The same principle holds true if Moss had ducked the spade at trick two.  If Martel wins though three suits are now eliminated, spades, hearts, and diamonds.  So only a club lead will lead to the ending above and this may be very hard to find at the table.

So is it right to play a spade at trick two in principle (it’s obviously wrong on the lay of the cards)?  50% of the time you will have improved the situation and 50% of the time you will have created the possibility of a promotion.  But the promotion only matters when Stansby has exactly Jxx of trump.  (There are some obscure cases with a stiff ♥J where you are very likely to go down after playing spades early as well).  But then the problem is that even when the spade is onside you really only need that when clubs are not breaking.

The simplest line and one that works is to ruff a diamond at trick two, give up a spade, win the return, and ruff a second diamond.  That is how the hand was played by Levin in the Open Room but then he was under no pressure to make 6.  One more interesting point is that the diamond lead by Stansby created the problem in the first place.  Obviously a spade lead or a trump lead makes the hand fairly easy and Moss can try for a spade trick if he wishes.  Moss has to be a little careful on a club lead and win it in dummy to preserve entries to his hand.

So most of the time this slam will be made on this lie of the cards and many others.  It was a good slam and Gitelman-Moss did well to get there and although it is scant recompense for losing imps here is their excellent auction

The two alerted bids (shown with stars) allowed Gitelman to show a game forcing hand with three card heart support.

And the winner is …

June 28th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Two teams met to determine one of the two places in the Bermuda Bowl in the Netherlands in 2011.  The Fleisher team included Chip Martel, a professor of computer science, who won the World Open Pairs in 1982 at the age of 29 playing with Lew Stansby, still his partner.  Lew is now a professional bridge player after a career as a commodity trader.

Here is an interview between Chip and Glen Ashton (Bridge Matters) from 2001 after Chip had won his third Bermuda Bowl.  I had the pleasure of watching Lew and Chip play many sessions in Chicago.  They play a simple system, they don’t put pressure on themselves and they don’t make many mistakes.

During the BBO sessions several commentators made comments along these lines: “L and W” are hard to beat.  “L and W” are playing terrific bridge.  They were talking about Bobby Levin and Steve Weinstein.

Bobby Levin was the youngest player to win the Bermuda Bowl in 1981 when he was 23 and partner Steve Weinstein is the youngest player to win an NABC  when he won the LM Pairs in 1981 at the age of 17.  There is a  story about Bobby Levin Orlando 1998 republished on Claire Bridge.   The article talks about  Bobby’s failures as well as his successes (like going down in the Bermuda Bowl in a cold grand slam he could have claimed at trick one.)

Marty Fleisher the captain, an attorney and investment advisor also had some early victories, winning the intercollegiate championship at 19 and reaching the finals of the Grand Nationals in 1976 at the age of 17.  He plays with Michael Kamil, a professional player.

The Fleisher team entered the event with a bye to the Round of 8.  But they would have a hard route to the final, with a 244 to 231 victory, beating the number one seed and surely one of the greatest teams in the world, Nickell, who failed to mount a sufficient comeback in the last segment.

The opposition in the final was Diamond, no doubt the favorite on BBO since founder and Canadian Fred Gitelman was on the team playing with his long-time partner Brad Moss.  Also of Canadian origin, Geoff Hampson was playing with his long-term partner, Erico Greco. 

Captain John Diamond playing with Brian Platnick, put this team together.  If asked to name some of the best current bridge players in the world those in the know would have picked members of this team.   Diamond- Platnick and Hampson-Greco play a Precision style forcing club which they use to give them license to open very weak hands.  Their convention cards say 10 points non-vulnerable and 11 vulnerable.  They are in the auction a lot and can steal the hand.  Gitelman and Moss play a standard 2/1 system but they are very thoughtful players and can walk the edge with creative bids from time to time.

During the final, there were hands of beauty and also a few spectacular mistakes.  The match was decided in the seventh segment, boards 91-105 which Fleisher won 57-4.  There was some excitement at the start of the last segment but Board 110 ended much hope of a comeback.

Board 110

Vul: None

Dealer East

In the Open Room Levin and Weinstein had an unopposed auction and bid to 4♠ and made it.  But in the Closed Rom this was the auction:

Hampson’s 1♠ was near the top of the range for a non-club opener with distribution.  Greco made a practical bid of 3NT over Stansby’s heart preempt.  Hampson showed his second suit with 4♣ and might have passed Greco’s preference bid of 4♠.  But his 6-5 hand has a lot of trick taking potential and he knew that Greco had at least a bit of a fit for each black suit.  If Greco had some aces then a black slam would likely have a chance.  He had to find a way to win imps back and this could be the board.  He invited Greco to slam and when Greco responded positively with 5NT he game him a choice of black suit slams.

The ♥A was led and there were decent chances to make the slam.  Martel played the ♥3 intending to show and even number of hearts, playing upside carding.  But it was impossible to determine who had the ♥4.   Stansby took what he though was his best chance to defeat the contract and tried to cash the ♥K.  As we will see in a moment only a diamond shift would have given Hampson no chance to make the contract.

Hampson ruffed.  He was going to have to ruff at least one club in dummy to set up the suit.  If clubs didn’t break he might be able to throw one club on dummy’s ♦K and one on dummy’s heart winner .  So Hampson set about clubs cashing two rounds and then leading a third club.  Stansby thought for a moment and then ruffed with the ♠9 to force dummy’s ♠Q. 

At this point the play and bidding suggested that Stansby had seven hearts and two clubs, leaving him with four pointed suit cards.  There is no way to make the slam at this point if Stansby had a singleton spade since there are not enough entries to dummy to perform a trump coup aganst Martel’s jack fourth of spades.  The only hope is that the hand is as shown with Martel having three spades.  That makes Martel 3-2 on to have the ♠J.  Whether Stansby held the ♠J or not it was the right play to ruff with the ♠9 so that does not really provide any information to Hampson.

Hampson. therefore. played the odds and took the spade finesse losing to the ♠J.  Had he risen with the ♠K dropping the ♠J, the slam would have been his.  He would have won 11 imps instead of losing 11 imps.  While the 22 imp difference would not have been quite enough to win the match, this deal appeared to stem the momentum that had been building for the Diamond comeback although looking at the scorecard I can see no other place where Hampson-Greco could have gained more imps.

To take any chances away from Hampson, Stansby had to switch to a diamond at trick two.  Without a diamond lead after ruffing a club (and guessing right about the ♠J) Hampson can run his winners.  Martel will be squeezed in the minor suits.

trial

June 28th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Division A (Bulls) After 6 rounds

Division B (Bears) After 6 rounds

Play continues Saturday with 7 more rounds.  Play will complete at about 8:30 CDT

The leaders in each division after 6 rounds:

Welland Roy Welland Steve Garner Ron Smith Chris Willenken Howard Weinstein Billy Cohen

Chan Lapt Chan Renee Mancuso Christal Henner Sheri Winestock

For more information and some interesting deals go to Saturday Daily Bulletin

Mission Possible?

June 26th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Now, gentlemen, let us do something today which the world may talk of hereafter

Admiral Collingwood before the Battle of Trafalgar.

Two great teams in the semifinal played Thursday and Friday and one had to lose.  Nickell started the last 15 boards down 236 to 185, 51 imps.  That is a lot to overcome against a good team in form.

The boards provided a few opportunities but not enough and winning would have required a significant mistake or two by Fleisher and they were just not going to fall on their swords!

Nickell did make the most of almost all their chances and had all the big swings.  Nickell picked up their first swing on Board 109, the third board of the set.

Board 106 Both Vulnerable (hand rotated)

	Weinstein AJ1097 1052 A92 Q7
Meckstroth Q54 Q98 QJ1064 J5		Rodwell (Martel) 832 A3 83 A98432
	Levin K6 KJ764 K75 K106

Levin ended in the heart game after Weinstein showed an invitational hand with three trump.  The opening lead was the Q,  How do you play the hand?  You really would like to get rid of your potential diamond loser in case you have two trump losers.  One possibility is to play on clubs.  If you can set up a club discard then you can afford to two in the trump suit.  And that is what Levin did.  Unfortunately the club jack was doubleton offside and there were two trump losers but other bad things happened and it went down 3.  This might have been duplicated but at the other table Martel who had A98432 doubled an artificial club bid for Hamman to ask for a club lead, definitely not the lead the defense wanted as it turns out.  14 imps towards the comeback.  The game was not reached at either table in the other semifinal.

On the next board though in a competitive auction Hamman and Zia pushed too hard for a non-vulnerable 5 game in a competitive auction while Levin and Weinstein judged better to stop in 4 making.  5 imps to Fleisher.

A bit later on Hamman and Zia got to a decent heart slam and got a favorable lead to make it easy while Weinstein and Levin ground to a halt in 4NT. 

	Levin AK5 KQJ53 9 Q872	Board rotated
	Weinstein Q102 A104 AK32 K105

Weinstein	Levin
1NT	2
2	2
2NT	3
3	3
3NT	4
4NT	all pass

After Levin had shown clubs and hearts with slam aspirations and cuebid spades twice Weinstein took a conservative path and chose to play in 4NT.  12 more imps.  In the other match Diamond reached the slam and also had clubs led.

There were too more significant swings to come for Nickell. two slams and a partscore but the deficit was just too great.  The most interesting of the swings was this deal.

	Hamman A105 1085 AQ52 AJ8	Board rotated
Stansby 63 9 KJ1087 75432		Martel Q9874 76432 63 K
	Zia KJ2 AKQJ 94 Q1096

Zia	Hamman
1NT	2*
3*	4NT
5	5
5NT	6NT
all pass

Hamman’s 2 bid could have shown a weak hand with clubs so Zia’s response showed a maximum.  After that Hamman chose to bid the slam.  The opening lead was a 3 and Zia chose to rise with the A believing that Stansby was unlikely to lead away from the K into the strong hand.  One he had made that incredible play the diamond finesse insured the contract but Zia also guessed to play spade correctly taking all the tricks.  In the other room the auction was a quick 1NT-3NT making 6.  In fact no other pair reached the slam.

Audacity, audacity, always audacity

June 24th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

Audacity, audacity, always audacity was the favorite quote of General Patton.  Another way of putting it might be “Fortune favors the brave.”

At the end of the first 15 board segment, Weinstein led Diamond 32 imps to 25.  I was doing commentary in the Closed Room and it seemed to me that Sher-Jackson seemed timid in their bidding.  This is pretty unusual thse days where most players bid “on air”.  But so far it was working for them.  However this same style was put to the test in segment two.  On Board 18  at favorable vulnerability Diamond opened 1 in third chair showing two plus diamonds and a limited hand. 

Sher

K95

7

AK62

AK1092

Sher overcalled 2 a bid that I like.  Some of my partners insist you need a six card minor to overcall but this one looks like six cards to me.  Now Jackson, who had passed originally, bid 2.  What would you do? 

Sher bid 2NT.  I would bid 3NT.  I do have 17 great points and partner should have about ten for this.  Jackson though he had said his piece and passed.  Here was his hand

Jackson

A1032

K10542

Q10

65

Counting up high card points I notice that this pair has 26 high card points with all the 10’s as well.  This is enough for game, fellows, and in fact there is an overtrick available.  3NT+1 in the Open Room, 2NT+2 in the Closed Room and 10 imps for Diamond.  Okay, in the closed room West did not open but this should not have caused a problem.  Both tables in the other match got to 3NT.  Rodwell holding’s Sher’s hand bid 1NT over a third chair 1 bid.  You might not love this bid but it did solve all problems.

Board 16 was a similar situation.

Sher/Gitelman

2

AKQJ1082

6

J873

In first chair vulnerable against not, Gitelman opened 4 and the auction proceeded Blackwood and then 6.

In the Closed Room Sher opened 1, a bid that is not to my taste.  The auction continued

Diamond	Sher	Platnick	Jackson
	1	3	3
5	pass	pass	5
all pass

I admit it is hard to recover after opening 1 but partner bid 5 all on his lonesome.  This was not a save it was a freely bid game at unfavorable vulnerability.  General Patton would have bid the slam.   If this was too bold for him then, Sher should have perhaps bid 5 over 5. Jackson held:

Jackson

AK7543

974

A87

6

This is another hand that baffles me:

Sher

KQJ

7542

54

AJ93

In second chair partner opens 2 Precision.  This shows 11-15 with 6 or more clubs.  You asks and partner bid 2 “extras with no four card major.”  What do you do?  This time you are not vulnerable so if you are nervous about not having hearts stopped I can understand.  Maybe you try 2NT.  But signing off in 3 seems timid to me. Once again Sher-Jackson held between them 26 HCP and failed to reach game.   In the other room the auction was different and the opponents were in the auction in spades but their opponents did get to 3NT. 

Jackson

4

AK

K1073

KQ7542

3NT was bid at both tables in the other match but 6 was missed by Martel and Stansby when Stansby passed out the 4 opener.

One more exhibit.  This time a grand which is obviously tougher.  There was interference but every table had similar interference and the slam was reached at every other table.

Sher

AK

J532

AK

AQ1094

Jackson

6

AKQ1087

Q10643

5

Sher was in first chair, not vulnerable against vulnerable and decided to open 2NT.  I think the hand is too strong for this and the other players opened either 2 or in one case a strong club.  Anyway East, Platnick, bid 3.   Jackson just bid 6 and there they played.  I understand that the interference made it hard but I am not crazy about this auction at all.

So this segment was the story of dozen of imps moving in one direction when one pair perhaps intimidated by the circumstances left most of their bidding cards in the box.

Maybe they can come back.  We will see.