Teaching

April 8th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

I have been resting for a while, a bit under the weather, but today I feel great.  I have been working with a student, Cora and we had some interesting hands.  One of the things about working with a student is that I you can always find both good things to say and new ideas or suggestions.  Today Cora worried that she had made a lot of mistakes.  I had already pointed out quite a number of good things she had done.  So I added that if I couldn’t find some things to point out she would need a new teacher.  

I love to talk about bridge (Ray would say I love to talk about anything).  Our discussions are far ranging.  Cora is a great student to teach because she is interested in everything and wants to learn everything.  

Here is an example,  With nobody vulnerable she passed in first chair.  It went 1  by East and sitting South I held

Linda AKJ543 54 64 K95

I weighed the merits of  1 and 2.  Later we had a long discussion about each bid.  Which one do you like?  A lot of the time I would bid 2 but here I bid 1.  Cora hated 2.  I explained how it might work well since you have some defense if they got too high.  Besides it is seldom wrong to take away two levels of bidding.  I don’t know if I convinced her but I like these bidding discussions.  Anyway the auction went

West	Cora	East	Linda
		1	1
2	pass	3	pass
4	all pass

Cora held this hand:

7
1062
J108752
Q108

Mark Horton who is visiting now would look at her hand and joke, it’s almost enough to double on.    The stiff spade is a terrific card and she led it.   Anyway she saw this dummy.

Dummy Q102 K83 Q9 AJ764

I played three rounds of spades as everybody followed.  The interesting thing is the order I played my spades and how she played her diamonds.  (I told you that this is an exceptional student.  I don’t have this kind of talk with some of my “serious” partners.)  After winning the J I played the K.  I think that should suggest I have something in clubs as opposed to diamonds or perhaps neither.  I think the A should show a diamond card. 

Cora played the 5 and then the 8.  What happened to the 2 and 3?  As it turns out it doesn’t much matter what I think.  Declarer who is 3-5-3-2 has an inevitable club loser.  Cora was trying to show me both nothing in diamonds and no desire for a club lead at the same time.  Interesting and not a bad idea.    A pair would have to be pretty deep into their carding discussions to work all of this out.  Now isn’t she awesome!

	Dummy Q102 K83 Q9 AJ764
Cora 7 1062 J108752 Q108		Linda AKJ543 54 64 K95
	Declarer 986 AQJ97 AK3 32

Nader Starts A Bulletin Board… Be one of the first to chat with the “President”

April 2nd, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

The Canadian Bridge Federation has started a Bulletin Board.  I think this is a terrific idea.  It is a chance for all Canadian players and anybody else who wants to help and provide suggestions to talk together  and directly with Nader Hanna, the President and the rest of the CBF board.

CBF Forums

Nader has started it with 6 forums.  One is on the Canadian Bridge Championships.  I KNOW I have lots to say about that and I know some of you do as well.  Lets start with BBO coverage, a bulletin of some sort and what about the number of boards in the women’s semifinals and finals. 

Another board asks the question: What does the CBF have to do to get Canadians to become a member?  What services do you want to see? 

So I am going to be posting.  Come on and join the fun. 

Who said “If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” 

And come and post even if you are from somewhere else.  I know you have ideas we can use.  Share and maybe we will let you win an Olympic hockey gold medal (not!)

Why I Love Bridge World

March 31st, 2010  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

I mean this in a good way.  In my bathroom I have a bookcase filled with back issues of Bridge World.  One of my favorite things to do is have a bath filled with bubbles while I read the magazine.  Even magazines from years ago are fascinating to me.  For example yesterday I read an article (many years old) about the use of 3C as a response to Multi 2D to ask partner about their holding in their second major suit.  The idea is to find a fit in responder’s major when there is no fit in opener’s suit.  Colin and I came up with a similar idea when we were working on our responses to Multi but we used 3C by responder to show a heart suit and 3D a spade suit.  The way suggested in the Bridge World article seems to me to work pretty well and has the advantage of keeping the 3D bid available for another purpose.  With a 6 card major and less than 3 in the other major opener bids his major.  With a three card fit opener can bid something else (based on  your agreement).

I love reading Challenge The Champs.  I try to create auctions in my head using methods I use with different partners to see where I wind up.  One thing I noticed is that to do well in Challenge The Champs (where the competitive bidding is minimal) you are best to play relay systems where one hand describes their hand, shape, controls etc.  I am sure it is a good method and I have noticed it works well in real life when I have been commenting on Vugraph matches.

But the second and third time around I read most everything.  The only thing I haven’t worked out yet is the Swiss Team Matches.  The problem (to me) is that the solutions never seem to make all that much sense to me.  At the very least they don’t seem inevitable.  I usually don’t do very well.  Perhaps that is saying something about my ability but it does annoy me.  On the other hand the play and defense problems are high on my list.  I like the occasional par contest problems.  Too bad we don’t have them any more.  Maybe somebody will create a contest for the Philadelphia World Championships.  Maybe Bridge World wants to step up and provide the material.

So today Ray brought the April 2010 issue into my office.   I was happy with our ad promoting three new books all of which should be useful for a Bridge World crowd.  First there was Love, “my Love”.  I have been answering questions for some readers and it is quite a lot of fun to talk to them.  (More please.)  The second is a very interesting book by mathematician Bob MacKinnon called Bridge Probability & Information and the third is The Mysterious Multi.  We are very pleased to advertise in this wonderful magazine.  Ray and I are big fans and supporters.

Michael Rosenberg had an article on the final of the Washington Spingold.  He is a wonderful analyst and I am sure I am going to enjoy it, but I haven’t read it yet.  I will though, soon.  I watched this match so it should be very interesting.  Don’t you love that there are 12 full pages of the magazine devoted to this story.  I do.         

But what Ray wanted me to read was Zia’s interview.  Get a copy of the magazine and read it.  He isn’t just saying the usual platitudes he has a lot to say about varying your play, how to win, bringing new players (and young players) to the game and more.  I can’t repeat the interview but I will say that his comments on how the ACBL is failing at attracting players while some countries are succeeding is spot on.  We need new approaches.  Here is a brief summary of the things he suggested:

a) Individual events at all levels  Make tournaments (and players?) more colorful and exciting.  (How about more nicknames, Zia?)

b) Substantial cash prizes.  (Just whisper the word Poker).

c) Bridge Holidays which combine tourism and some bridge.

d) More online bridge matches with expert commentary (perhaps edited).

e) Handicaps

He has some great ideas.  Go Zia.

And can any magazine not be wonderful if it has a story by Eddie Kantar called “Playing a suit for no trick!”

Thanks Jeff.

Busy beavers

March 31st, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

The crew at Master Point Press has been very busy the last few days.  Bridge blogging is now available on Facebook.  So if you are a fan of social media, have a look and become a fan.  You can read all your bridge blogs on Facebook on your smart phone or your PDA when you are not near a computer and need a fix.

We also have a terrific Facebook page for the ABTA Master Point Press Bridge Teacher of the Year.  I have to say that North America loves its bridge teachers.  The support for all the nominees has been incredible.  It seems that every day a package comes with photos and letters and support for another teacher across the continent.  Biographies and pictures of many of the nominated teachers are on the Facebook page.  I am only grateful that I am not going to have to pick the semi-finalists.  The ABTA committee will be doing that. 

I invited a number of people to become fans of the Bridge Blogging page twice.  This was not a mistake exactly.  I did it and then the staff decided they needed to change the page, deleted the old one and built a new one.  So ignore the first email and accept the second invitation.

If you didn’t get an invitation from me this is not a slight.  It just means that we are not currently Facebook buddies.  I am just a Facebook novice.  So invite me to be your friend.  I love friends.  And if you do a search at the top of your Facebook page using the word “bridge”,  bridge blogging should be right near the top.  Just follow the link and become a fan.  You can see just the blogs or you can see people’s comments to the page.  You can put in a comment too.  May I suggest: “I love it”!

Honors eBooks are now available on www.ebooksbridge.com with more coming and the newsletter should be going out today.  If you are not signed up for the newsletter and want it,  just go to the ebook site and become a member (it’s easy and free) and select that you want a newsletter, or just email [email protected].  May I recommend the free magazines and other free material available at ebooks bridge.  From now on I want to have a free download as a companion for every new book we do and make sure it is useful to everybody whether they buy the book or not.  So have a look and see what we have so far.

I have a new student I am mentoring for BIL on Thursdays.  She is a terrific player and very keen.  It has been a lot of fun.

This is Barbara Seagram month on www.masteringbridge.com.  I am pretty sure that Barbara is the best-selling author of bridge books in the last ten years plus.  Her books have been translated into many languages.  If you are a bridge teacher or student have a look.

Lots more but I have to go out with Ray and take our convertible for a spin.  It’s spring.  Hurray!

Board 55

March 25th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

I got an email from Dr Prakash Paranjape.  Prakash is a frequent commentator on BBO Vugraph matches and a Master Point Press author of Easier Done Than Said.  This is a lovely book  which revolves around deals from actual play (mostly in India).  This is all about brilliant declarer play. 

He had been watching the Vanderbilt but had missed part of the fourth quarter and he asked me what happened on Board 55.  So I had  a look at the board. which I have rotated

Both Vulnerable

East was dealer, and in both rooms the auction started with two passes and then 1.  Michel Bessis doubled.  Do you like that call?  Obviously it is a matter of style and with most people prepared to open one of a minor with a very short suit one can understand why a double would promise majors and not minors.  In the Closed Room Levin with the same hand passed.  At Levin’s table he heard 1 on his left which was raised on his right.  He decided to let things lie (with support fo only one unbid suit)  and that was the final contract.  In the Open Room, after his partner’s takeout double Thomas Bessis bid 2 over Stansby’s 1.  Martel bid 2 promising four and now Michel made a very aggressive bid.  He bid 4.  He did this because he was certain that his partner had a singleton or void in spades and as long as his partner had good hearts (e.g. AKxx)  he could more or less count nine tricks.  Three in the black suits, four trump and two ruffs.  And with 5 trumps partner would be even better placed.  Thomas was also quite likely to have a club fit with him, especially if he only had four hearts.  He liked the fit and he “took a shot”.

Now it was up to Thomas to make sure his “shot” hit the target.   The opening lead was the 5, which you win with dummy’s ace, throwing a club from hand.  One nice thing about this deal for Thomas was the knowledge that spades were 4-5.  Anyway, how do you play it?

Obviously you are going to need to make some extra tricks by ruffing.  If you can make 6 trump tricks you still have only 8 tricks.  Can you make 8 trump tricks?  That seems unlikely.  Setting up diamonds doesn’t seem to be good enough since you will have entry problems.  Maybe you can set up clubs.  No matter what, the first order of business seems to be to give up a diamond.  So you lead dummy’s diamond and your jack loses to Martel’s queen.

Martel returns the 7.  What do you do?  From the return it appears that Martel has the trump king — a trump return appears obvious otherwise.  You would prefer not to have a trump led by Stansby (and in fact that will defeat the hand as we will see later).  You are going to have to give up a trick to set up clubs.  With all the high clubs missing and with Stansby behind the A you cannot prevent him from gaining the lead on a club except in the very unlikely case that Martel had the KQJ.  But you may be able to lose a spade to Martel.  Here is an opportunity.  You could play low and hope that Stansby does not see the need to overtake his partner’s spade or you could play the 10.  That works if Stansby doesn’t or can’t cover or if Martel has started with the Q9xx.  You decide which play is better, since neither seem that likely to succeed.

At the table Thomas played low and Stansby failed to cover.  Declarer could then let Martel hold the trick throwing a club.  This is the position

There is nothing Martel can do.  If he returns a spade, declarer wins with the king in dummy, throwing a club from hand.  He can start setting up clubs with ace and a ruff.  Returning to dummy with a diamond ruff he leads another club (the last club is almost certainly held by Martel).  Suppose Stansby ruffs with the J: he over ruffs and ruffs another diamond.  He ruffs dummy’s last spade and has eight tricks in.  He now completes the crossruff by leading a diamond.  Ruffing high will not help West since declarer will then have two trump winners, the 10 and the Queen and if he ruffs low he still cannot prevent declarer from scoring two trump tricks.  You can try other variations but declarer can always succeed.

At the table, Martel returned a heart instead of a spade, and Stansby’s J forced the A.  The crossruff still works and produces ten tricks.  The last trick is the Q scored en passant.

Looking at Martel’s (partial) hand you can see that he did have the Q9 so that covering with the 10 at Trick 3 would have guaranteed the contract.  But Martel could have defeated the contract.  Instead of playing a spade back, a small trump return at that point (and not later as he did) will work.

Let’s look at the play to Trick 3 again, though.  Suppose that Stansby had covered dummy’s spade with the J.  Let’s say Thomas ducks and wins theJ with the A.  He still needs a discard for a club.  You can try it but nothing works.  He can’t afford to give up the lead because a trump comes back and he runs out of things to ruff.  In fact, the spade is the worst return because it helps declarer set up extra ruffs.

This was well played by Thomas Bessis.  It is hard to defend but I still think the defense should have prevailed.  Still a very interesting deal and a very challenging one to get right on both sides of the table.

Ken Rexford’s new book – Modified Italian Canape System

March 25th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

I couldn’t wait to get a copy of Ken Rexford’s new book (available only as an ebook at Ebooks Bridge).  Okay, not everybody is going to be interested in a canape system.

Some time before I was around to take notice a man called Charles Goren popularized the system called Standard American.  It changed and evolved over the years.  One major change was a move to five card majors.  But by and large the framework was the same.  Later on the idea of 2/1 was popularized by Max Hardy and others.  When I came back to bridge after a multi year, kids growing up, absence I learned it.  I played both as well as some Acol-like variations of Standard American.  Basically the structure was not all that different among all of them,

Finally my son Colin dragged me into the new world of four card majors, canape and strong club.  So when I heard that Ken had written about a system built around canape and strong club but with relays I was interested.  I have found that Ken is an excellent writer and he has some great ideas.

But Colin and I have been playing forcing club and I have been pushing Colin to add relays so I was pretty sure Ken would give me some good ammunition to present to Colin.  I have been watching the Vanderbilt for a lot of days and I noticed that players using similar methods were getting results impossible to obtain in more standard methods.

As I read the book I see that Ken is not prescriptive.  He explains a variety of approaches to responding to a strong club and then discusses the pros and cons.  The writing is excellent, clear and understandable.  But the most important thing is to find the part that explains relays, why they are SUPERIOR and how to play them.  The first few pages give a detailed description of the advantages of canape.  I have noticed some of these while playing the method and the discussion is quite interesting but in my quest for relays I skim over this for now.  Although Ken has a few interesting points along the way; for example

“I think that development of the structure when the opponents interfere is more important than the structure when

they do not, because the opponents interfere a lot.”  That’s a great point Ken and most people go exactly the opposite way.

I can see that this book can not be skimmed.  There is a lot of interesting stuff on each and every page.  Ken may be one of the most creative bridge theorists around today.

Its going to take quite a while for me to read the whole book but I intend to do so, and will report back at that time.

Bridge TV

March 22nd, 2010  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

There is nothing better than watching a wonderful event like the Vanderbilt from my home.  We may never interest television in broadcasting it but just having the event live on BBO is awesome.  I can also get caught up with the last quarter the next morning if it happens late at night my time.  And thanks to the wonders of the Internet I can even print out the Daily Bulletin and read it over my morning coffee if I choose.   What a privilege.

So this morning I opened up the 4th quarter match in the final of the Vanderbilt.  Starting this quarter Fleisher had a 24 imp lead in a very low scoring match, 78 to 54.  The first board was interesting.  Do you want to be if 4 or not if you look at the north-south hands?

Nobody vulnerable; North Dealer

I have been in worse.  Most of the time you are going to need to play spades for no losers.  That already puts the contract at worse than 50%.  The king must be onside and you have to avoid losing a trick to the 10.  There is a very high probability of a club ruff as well.  So in balance it is not worth being there not vulnerable.  If the opponents are silent you probably won’t get there and that is what happened in the Open Room after North opened 1NT.  But in the Closed Room things were a bit different.  Here Martel was playing weak notrump so he opened the North hand with 1.  Let’s look at the whole deal

I know that many will find Michel Bessis’ 1 overcall offensive but there is an argument for entering an auction with a 5-5 hand.  So what if it is not the lead you want?  I leave this to the theorists.   Stansby bid 1.  I do like Thomas Bessis’ bid now. (For the rest of this blog they will be Thomas and Michel.   Michel is the father and Thomas is the son.  I am sure they will forgive me even though we have never been introduced.)  With great defense against spades,  4 is a good pressure bid.   Its one of those Silver Certainty Principle bids… if he bid 3 then Martel would have bid 3 and when he bid 4 Martel bid … 4.  So in the room where things were least likely to split you wind up in with most aggressive contract.  9 imps to Zimmerman to whittle the Fleischer lead to 13.

On the next hand the weak 2 (Ray calls it the nuclear weapon) struck.  South held

South

96

K76

KJ10987

J2

In the Closed Room where Martel and Stansby play Flannery, Thomas was able to open 1NT and East-West subsided in 2 making.  In the Open Room Helgemo opened a weak 2 which in the end had the effect of pushing the opponents up a level.  3 went down 1 and the score showed now only a 9 imps deficit.

On the next board 5 came back when Helgemo overcalled 1 with 1NT, not vulnerable on

South

Q8

AK6

AQ53

10973

and found partner with a three count, 4-4 in the blacks.  There was no better place to play it and with the cards unfriendly this was –300.

Board 25 was another big swing.  Here is your first chance to win the Vanderbilt.  You are vulnerable against not in fourth chair.  Helness opens 1 and Helgemo bids 1 and it is your turn.

Weinstein

AJ3

74

A3

AKQ862

3 in your system is ‘intemediate’ — it shows a decent hand and a good suit, it is not preemptive.  So you bid a) pass b) 2 c) 3 d) 1NT e) other.

Those who chose (e) other, with the idea of bidding 3NT, are the winners.  It is going to be hard for partner to bid 3NT over your bid.  You have the stoppers after all.  I think there is a reasonable argument for just bidding it.  But certainly 3 is descriptive.  Levin held

Levin

Q84

QJ652

Q102

54

He could hardly move and so Weinstein played in 3.  Tomas just bid 3NT on the same auction in the Closed Room so he was the winner.  This is a good vulnerable game and seeing both hands you know you want to be there and indeed making that decision is worth 11 imps.  Zimmerman had taken the lead by 4 imps 92-88.

I like this next deal very much.  It shows an interesting principle.  You can often make bad games.  Defense is the hardest part of the game and it is very easy to get it wrong.  That is partly why bidding a lot works out so well, especially if you are great declarers like Meckwell.  This was the last swing hand of the match and sealed the victory for Zimmerman.

Both Vulnerable Dealer North

Tomas	Martel	Michel	Stansby
		1	pass
1	1	pass	2
DBL	pass	3	pass
3NT	all pass

Martel leads the 3, you put in the 9 and Tomas wins the 10.   Declarer plays three rounds of clubs.  Martel follows to the first round but then high-lows in diamonds.  Your card is marked as Smith Echo.

Martel and Stansby

SMITH SIGNAL vs NT (but S/P if attitude already clear)

You are on lead with the Q.

What is going on in the spade suit?  Could partner have five to the jack?   Would declarer bid 3NT on 10x?  Partner hasn’t thrown away any spades.   Would he really overcall vulnerable on spades as bad as that and maybe a couple of diamond cards?  He doesn’t even have the nine or ten.  So maybe he has red cards.  Maybe he has Jxxxx Kxx AQxx x.  So what do you do?

……………………………………………………

Stansby played a small spade from his king and the hand was over.  3NT made.  On BBO the operater was asked if that was really the play.  “Yes”,  he said.  Here is the whole deal.  (It has been rotated).

In the end did Stansby trust Tomas Bessis and assume he had a spade stopper, or was there some signaling problem?  Somehow I think it was the latter because when the hand was over it was Martel who said “Sorry partner.”

We don’t know how this all went wrong.  But if the defense cashes the spades for one down the board is a push instead of a loss of 12.  The Fleisher team would have won (assuming no changes in the remaining boards!).  The final deficit was 10 imps.

Whatever happened I have walked down the same path (and probably you have too).  And so today in this hard fought match with both teams playing beautiful bridge most of the time, in the end it turned out that an unusual error cost Fleisher the match.

Vanderbilt Day 4

March 20th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

I have been watching (and commenting) on so much bridge that the word squeeze is starting to trip from my tongue with great regularity (thank you Clyde E.) The bridge is so very good most of the time its a pleasure to watch (except some times when the players go into deep meditation).  If you haven’t watched up till now … jump on in.

I have talked about avoiding grand slams but some times keeping out of even a small slam is the challenge.  In this hand from the third quarter yesterday the imps went to the team that didn’t get to slam.

Nobody Vulnerable

Casen	T. Bessis	Krekorian	M. Bessis
2 (weak)	3	pass	4
DBL*	pass	pass	RDBL
pass	4	pass	5
DBL	pass	pass	?

Casen having opened a weak two bid in hearts got to tell partner to NOT lead a heart (the double of 4) and to ask for a club lead (the double of 5.  M. Bessis had already shown slam interest, the A, and a club control.  In fact one might argue that he could have passed his partners sign off in 4.  I know that he was thinking that partner might not realize he had the club ace (not the king) and that partner’s pass of 5 was somewhat encouraging but he can now throw away (see card hurtling into the air) the Q.  I think he should signoff in 5.  But he redoubled now to show that he had a first round club control T. Bessis bid the slam.  On a club lead with the king offside (as expected) the slam had no play.

In the other room where they also had some warning about clubs (Helgemo got in a lead directing club bid) they managed to stop in five and win 11 imps.

I am much more in favor of being in bad game especially vulnerable.  The odds are way more in your favor.

Let’s tale this example

Both Vulnerable

North made a very strange bid these days.  He opened 2 showing a very good hand with hearts.  I thought that bid was completely obsolete.  South thought his rubbish might be just enough for game and bid 4.

Looking a the two hands 4 seems a bit of a stretch.  You are going to be able to ruff one club, so if hearts break and the spade finesse works you might lose a club, a diamond and a heart,  But there are other changes.  A spade lead will make life a lot easier.   A red suit lead is less friendly.  Here the opening lead was a trump and the spade was offside but the hand was cold.  Why?  The Q was singleton.  Here was the whole hand.

I like the clean simple auction.  With less to work on you might get a helpful lead.  This was worth 10 imps when the other table struggled to 2.

I had a look at the second segment with Lynch against Strul yesterday.  The score on 16 boards was Lynch 24 Strul 84 which averages out to an astounding 6.75 imps per board.  

In some cases I would say that the Strul team did something good and in some cases they had the luck.  How would you bid this hand.

I have rotated the hand but Brogeland and Saelensmith were vulnerable against not with no opposition bidding.

Brogeland (who I could watch any day) open 1 and heard 1.  He bid 1NT. 2 was game forcing and Brogeland showed his hearts.  Now Saelensmith bid 3 and they more or less cue bid their way up to 6.   If spades work  you are a pretty good candidate to bring this home.  Even if diamonds are 4-1 if you can navigate a ruff you will have five diamonds, two aces and five spades.  Still it isn’t a great slam.  Is this another example of don’t be too aggressive in the slam zone.  As it turned out the Lynch team had a disaster in the other room and had a minus playing in a bizarre spot.  So had slam not made the Strul team would have converted a big plus into a push. 

There were a lot of bridge gremlins lurking around the corridor on this board.  I was doing commentary in the De Kniff-Zaleski.  In the OR they managed to get all the way to 7.  I am sure they are not reading my blogs about grand slams!  In the CR, Bompis and Quantin for the Zaleski team managed to play in a sensible 3NT.

Vanderbilt More Predictions! Day 5

March 20th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

First how did I do yesterday.  My predictions in bold.

John Diamond
vs
Martin Fleisher (winner)

While the Diamond team lost to Fleisher I wasn’t entirely wrong in picking them since I did hedge with

“ If they are ahead or not to far behind going into the last quarter I predict Diamond will continue on.”  They were far behind going into the last quarter and couldn’t catch up. 

Carolyn Lynch
vs
Aubrey Strul (winner)

Right!

John Onstott
vs
Pierre Zimmerman (winner)

Right!

Martin De Knijff,

vs

Romain Zaleski (winner)

Right!

Are you impressed!  I am.  So with the help of the grey haired Oracle its time for more predictions.  So with only two matches to call

Zimmerman (France, Norway, Switzerland)

Pierre Zimmerman, Franck Multon Michel Bessis; Thomas Bessis,  Tor Helness; Geir Helgemo

versus

Strul (USA, Norway, Italy)

Aubrey Strul,  Michael Becker, Fulvio Fantoni; Claudio Nunes; Erik Saelensminde,  Boye Brogeland

This is really tough (as it should be in this sournd) but I have to go for Strul.  Just think that the Norwegian-Italian combo will prove too tough for the rest of Europe.

And now

De Knijff (Mainly Sweden)

Martin De Knijff,Frederic Wrang, Peter Fredin, Bjorn Fallenius, Fredrik Nystrom, Peter Bertheau

versus

Fleisher (USA)
Martin Fleisher, Michael Kamil, Chip Martel, Lew Stansby, Robert Levin, Steve Weinstein

Fleisher is a great team by De Knijff is battling for the honor of Sweden.   If that proves right the currency in the final is going to be mainly euros.

Vanderbilt Day 3

March 19th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  5 Comments 

All matches in the Round of 16 in the Vanderbilt figured to be tough, top players battling it out.  The third quarter match between Nickell and Zimmerman was no exception.

I want to start by highlighting a principle I use when playing lesser events and it appears that it sometimes applies in great events too. 

Don’t bid grand slams that aren’t claimers. 

A reasonable amount of the time the opponents are in game.  Helgemo and Helness found this out on Board 39.  Here are the two hands.  Perhaps they had a tiny warning from the opposition bidding but it was very tiny indeed.

With everybody vulnerable Helgemo was in second chair.  His opponent passed and he opened 1

Zia	Helgemo	Hamman	Helness
pass	1	1	Dbl
2	DBL	pass	4
pass	?

Hamman overcalled 1 and Helness made a negative double.  I am not sure what their agreement is  the double obviously shows spades.  Zia raised hearts and Helgemo’s double showed three card spade support.  Helness had enough to jump to the spade game and Zia passes.  What now?  You have a lot of playing strength for sure.  If partner has three aces a grand seems possible.  If partner has a two aces and clubs controlled then you are likely to make 6.  Do you like 4NT?  I am not sure – its not a bad bid.  You could be passed the last thing that makes if partner doesn’t have a club control and you are missing the heart ace… Say

AJ1075
K2
Q42
QJ3

but that is a bit unlikely.  Helgemo heard 5 0 or 3 and signed off? in 5 in case partner had zero (avoiding going down more?).  Partner corrected to 6 and now it was up to Helgemo.  Really the only thing likely to beat seven is a bad spades split if partner is missing the jack or an immediate diamond ruff.  But then the little bell goes…. are you SURE they will be in slam at the other table.  And what about the diamond grand? If partner has a diamond or two or three that will definitely be much safer.  Why not bid 7 and let partner pick.

Helgemo bid 7 and I assign him no fault.  It is a very good grand and they did well to get there.  But the spades are 4-1 with Zia holding the J983 and you can’t make it.  You can however make the diamond grand. 

Here is the whole deal

So what happened in the Closed Room.  Meckstroth and Rodwell bid the small slam right?  Wrong.  They bid 3NT.  Here was their auction

M. Nessis	Meckstroth	T. Bessis	Rodwell
pass	1	2	Dbl
3	DBL	3NT	all pass

With Meckstroth’s hand limited Rodwell was hardly thinking slam.  The 2 bid disrupted their auction.  I don’t know why Rodwell couldn’t (or wouldn’t) bid the five card spade suit.  Perhaps its not forcing. 

So there you have it another sad story where a good grand fails and the very distinguished opposition doesn’t get to slam at all.

The next deal is one where dummy play wins the board.  This was from the second quarter match between Diamond and Gordon.  Both declarers are excellent players.  But one made 3NT and one went down.  Luck or skill?  With no opposition bidding you arrive in 3NT after you open 1NT and your partner shows five hearts.

The play to the first few tricks was the same.  Both table got the lead of the 7.  Declarer played the 10 and that lost to the K.  One tiny difference, Greco go the return of the 8 while Aa got the subtle falsecard of the 4 when East returned a spade.  Both declarers after winning the A played the 2 from dummy and in both case East hopped up with the A and returned a spade. clearing the suit.  Both declarers pitched the 2.  So what now?  If spades break you could just give up a club.  You have four heart tricks, two spades and two diamonds.  But if spades are 5-3 then if the long spades has the A you are going down.  Another approach is to try to guess diamonds or even cash the top two diamonds and if the queen does not come down give up the A.  Each approach has some pluses and minuses.

Aa now decided to finesse the diamond into the “safe” hand.  If West had five spades and East had he Q perhaps he also had the A. 

Let’s move to the other table where Greco took a different (and I think better) approach.  He ran the hearts first.  Remember, he only needs one more trick.  He played the Q and when West played the 10 he overtook with the K and cashed the hearts throwing a club and two diamonds from his hand and keeping all his options open. 

This was the ending

North who had two hearts had to make three pitches and all of the pitches were clubs including the 10 and the 9.  South had only one pitch to make a club.  What does Greco know?  From the play it seems to me that West is very likely to have the A.  The hint is that East hopped up on the A.  I admit is is a very small hint but it makes it more likely. If so he probably has 5-2-2-4.  If he had five clubs to the A109 he probably would have led that rather than xxxx or xxxxx in spades.  The defender’s carding at Greco’s table suggested that the spades were 5-3.  So West had two diamonds to East’s three.  I suppose even if this was all the information you had it is enough to suggest you take the diamond finesse through East.

But I think there is another subtle thing here. it seems even clearer to rise on the  A when you KNOW you have diamonds stopped.  Maybe that is reading too much into that play.

I don’t know how he figured it out but Greco did finesse that way and it was right.  Great declarers figure these things out.  I am not saying that Aa is not a great declarer just that yesterday Greco played this hand better and he got it right.  Here is the whole deal