November 28th, 2009 ~ linda ~
6 Comments 
Some days I do feel like I am cursed and other days blessed. Yesterday I felt cursed. We played the first set of the Women’s Life Master Pairs and we played very well. When the sheets came out with one round to go we had 55%. That was somewhat disappointing. I would have expected to have around 58%, But this score wasn’t unreasonable. When we came back from dinner we had slightly under 50% which unbelievably was the second best score in our section of 13 pairs (we had a good final round, actually). The hands were matchpointed across two sections. All but one of the East-West pairs in our section was below average and vice versa in the other section. We were using for the first time I am aware of at an NABC a data entry device rather than score slips. There were many problems (corrections, server resets, etc.) all through the set. I wonder if that had anything to do with it. Also, although I would be surprised if this happened yesterday I wonder if this opens up any new cheating possibilities — certainly I don’t think everyone was as careful checking the score their opponents entered as they would have been with pickup slips.
Still maybe it was just bad seeding and bad luck. The reason for the big late drop in our score may have been a raft of score corrections by other pairs. Who knows? Still I have never seen such an incredible set of scores as in our section. This is not an excuse just a social commentary.
I also ran into Lynn Baker playing with Karen McCallum in the same event. Lynn was upset with the article I wrote about her during the World Championship. I reread it and I am going to provide you with a link to it
Blog About Womens Final In Sao Paulo
Let me start by saying that I personally did not make it to the Women’s championship in Sao Paulo. In fact, I didn’t even make it to the final of the Canadian Team trials. I know that it takes a great deal of effort and determination to be part of a team which wins a place in the championships and then makes it to the final ending in second place. This is indeed a great honor for all team members. I also did say that I personally know that it is hard to play your very best on Vugraph. I have played like a complete moron on the one or two occasions where I was the featured show. It is much easier being on BBO somehow. I did say that in the blog.
I do believe that the professional bridge players who play on sponsored teams are usually going to be better players than the sponsor. It only makes sense. The sponsor has selected the best players he or she can find and is paying them to play. A lot of what I said in the blog was about women’s bridge. I think it is worthwhile to have women’s bridge and I think that the quality is clearly inferior to open bridge. Again that only makes sense. So I agree with the organizers that it is best for the audience to see the very best bridge, the open event. And that is what they focus on – not the seniors and not the women’s. Yes I know that the seniors event is strong but the open event should be stronger.
When Women’s bridge is shown I think it makes sense to avoid putting most sponsors on Vugraph. It creates extra pressure for them and in most cases the audience will not see women’s bridge at its best . This is a logical argument and is not directed at a specific person.
I did discuss one deal Lynn played. It was misplayed at both tables — in 4S by the Chinese lady who was a professional and in 3NT by Lynn. Both of them should have got it right. Was some of it the challenge of playing under the lights? I don’t know. I will make one final comment. My experience is that many women bridge players are much better bidders than card players. Perhaps this is because they spend much more time practicing bidding. Most of them, clients and pros, are probably better bidders than I am and most of them have spent hours learning and practicing their system. More and more I am convinced that a lot of card play can be taught and learned. Maybe it is not getting the right percentage of training time. Of course there are some women who are great card players, but I am talking about the majority.
So Lynn, I congratulate you on your determination and the time and effort I know you put into the game. I congratulate you on your silver medal. I know you earned it. But sorry — you did misplay that deal. Maybe it was pressure, maybe it was being tired, maybe it was being on Vugraph. It is all understandable. Barry Rigal and others who did the commentary in the Vugraph room that day said the same thing. So did Mark Horton, who wrote up the match in the Daily Bulletin. As I too have learned, when you play in a public forum you are going to get criticized. Sorry.
If you still think I have been unfair to you or to women’s bridge, send me an email and I will publish what you say — or just add a comment to this blog.
November 26th, 2009 ~ linda ~
2 Comments
Tomorrow Ray and I head to San Diego. For the first time in a long long time I am going to play in two national events, the women’s pairs and the women’s board a match teams. Of course there is work to do too and one day to spend doing some sight seeing with Ray.
Sylvia and I spent a bit of time on preparation. I would not say we are a practiced partnership and our system notes are quite a bit less than I am used to. We just started to play a few days before we headed to Penticton and then after playing in that, we played an event in Washington and then from time to time online. So we are playing quite a simple system which I think is the best thing to do in this situation. However Sylvia wanted to add transfer advances. The “notes” (about five lines) she sent were quite sparse. There is amazingly little online or written in an obvious place about this subject. I did find some information about Ruben Transfers but this wasn’t quite the same thing.
I had some notes for transfer advances when we overcall one of a major and they double (or bid 1S) and we are using that. I would be curious to know if anyone is aware of a good source of information on this topic. I even suggested to Ray that we organize a book about it, one of our ‘how to play it, how to defend against it’ series. Anyone want to write the book?
I managed to break my itouch last night and I had to face the prospect of going to San Diego without it. You should know I carry it all the time. It was a hardware problem and they just replaced my device immediately at the store. Wow. So I am happy about that.
Even if the bridge doesn’t go well I will be happy to be in a warm place surrounded by bridge people and playing the game we love. So as my son says “it’s all good”.
I will have a tiny computer in San Diego so I may or may not blog from there but I will save up the hands and I should have lots for when I get home.
November 21st, 2009 ~ linda ~
7 Comments
Our friends Fred and Margaret Lerner are having a round number anniversary tomorrow. We are going over tonight with others to help them celebrate. I have baked a cake, yes really. This is a picture of them at the Hawaii NABC a few years ago. Ray and I went as well and it was a terrific place to visit. If anyone from the ACBL is ready this my suggestion ..>>> do it again! Hawaii Ho. Here is another very nice picture of Margaret from the 2006 Toronto sectional
Fred loves to play in the Canadian Team trials and has played most years. This is less significant these days since you no longer have to qualify but at one time it was quite a challenge to make the National Final. Fred is such a versatile bridge player and so friendly that even when he was eliminated he always ended up playing anyway. Besides Margaret, Fred’s favorite partner was David Lindop in those days and he often plays with the Shoe, Michael Shoenborn. These days he often plays with his boss Jim Howie in important tournaments.
Margaret mostly just plays with Fred. Some years ago they modernized their bidding system but for them 4NT is always Blackwood and I believe just recently they converted to the keycard variety. Oddly Michael their eldest son was nicknamed Baby Blackwood because of their love for that convention. none of their four children play bridge although I have always thought that Sean their second son would have been a pretty good bridge player.
Both of them just love to play the game. We have played together on teams from time to time and some times we have gotten groups together for a home game. We really should have another one soon.
I can’t remember any specific hands that we played with them. I am sure Fred will be able to. I do remember that once when I played with Fred he agreed to play keycard but after years of regular Blackwood he had not fully explored this new convention and he was not familiar with the queen ask. I teased him about that for a long time.
So here’s to two bridge players who have stayed together for a long time, raised a family together and played a lot of bridge and still love each other very much. Many more years of happiness and good bridge.
November 20th, 2009 ~ linda ~
2 Comments
Master Point Press starting this year, will be sponsoring the American Bridge Association (ABTA) Teacher Of The Year. The idea was to honor a grass roots teacher. These are the people who are really important to the game. We all knew that there were some wonderful teachers out there. Barbara Seagram has been getting the responses but every so often a call winds its way to our offices and I end up talking to a person who loves their bridge teacher.
A few days ago I spent some time on the phone with such a man and then yesterday Thomas W Louchbaum was good enough to copy me on the email he wrote Barbara nominating his favorite teacher, Bruno Wolff Jr.
Here is some of what he had to say:
He taught me the game of bridge in a non-formal environment nearly 40 years ago. Even today I continue to gain knowledge; respect, appreciation and love for the game due to his continuing mentoring and friendship. I would say Bruno has an almost obsessive love for the game and interest in its promotion. He shares that passion with his friends and bridge students.
I have played bridge with Bruno at lunch time at work in person for many years. When we could no longer meet for lunch in person due to logistics, we learned to play on line during the noon hour. We also played at least monthly in the evenings either as partner or opponent now for those 40 years. Although some of the games I played with Bruno were organized and sanctioned ABCL games, the vast majority of them have been unsanctioned and organized entirely by Bruno. Those have not been for the attainment of master points but were basically social in nature. They were played in work conference rooms after work hours, at various friends’ homes and lately, because of the increased number of players interested in playing games so arranged by Bruno, at a Seniors Club facility. Many of the players at these games have been those that have been formally taught by Bruno. Almost all of them have been touched by his teaching, mentoring or friendship. I believe that virtually none of these games would have been held without Bruno doing the legwork by contacting people, organizing game locations, structuring and directing the games and doing all of the scoring. He has handled all of the logistics for these games and, other than the verbal thanks he receives form doing so, he has never to my knowledge accepted any compensation for these efforts.
I looked up Bruno Wolff on the web to learn more. The first thing I found was a free ebook on Bruno’s Big Club system In the foreword to the book I found out the Bruno was assistant dean emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I saw he contributed a top to the ACBL Teacher’s Hand Book
He encourages teachers to be flexible. He starts his classes by questioning the students to find out what each group wants and needs. Then he makes adjustments to his lesson plans to fit their goals and expectations. The best way to succeed is to give your students what they want and expect.
Wow that sounds like a teacher I could like. I find that Bruno is a member of the Pilot Club who has an ongoing project to help feed the hungry.
There’s a lot more but this blog isn’t really just about Bruno Wolff. It is about the truly special bridge teacher in our communities and the students that really appreciate them. I have no idea how the ABTA will be able to select a the award winner but I know that Bruno Wolff and those like him are already winners to the people in their community.
For more about this important award visit Master Point Press announces ABTA teacher of the year.
To nominate someone, students are encouraged to e-mail one or two paragraphs to Seagram ([email protected]) explaining why their teacher deserves consideration. Nominees must have at least five years’ teaching experience, and teach at least 75 hours a year. Nominations will close on April 1, 2010.
Let’s show the bridge teachers how much we really do appreciate them. I will be on hand when the Ray presents the award on behalf of Master Point Press and the ABTA to the winning teacher at the ABTA Convention in July. I know I will feel great pride to watching.
November 20th, 2009 ~ linda ~
3 Comments
Every so often partners make a bid that makes you sit up and think, “What!!!” Some times with a few expletives in your head as well. Here was one from yesterday. I was playing with Sylvia and I held
| S 43 |
| H AJ103 |
| D A108742 |
| C Q |
I was red on white in second chair. Perhaps you would have passed. Well influenced by my 10’s I opened 1D. Partner bid 2C game forcing and righty doubled. Perhaps you would have passed. I bid 2D. And now came the boot to the head. Sylvia bid 5H.
We don’t play Exclusion Blackwood ever. I have played it with some partners but I have never felt that Sylvia and I spend enough time working on system to deal with the complexities this introduces. So I have refused. Having eliminated that, what could it be. 3H would be heart shortness with a diamond fit in this auction since we were already in a game force. Was this really “I have this huge club-heart two suiter”? Whatever did righty have for his takeout double then. I suppose he could still have four hearts and maybe five spades?
Maybe this was a kind of Exclusion Blackwood for those who don’t play Exclusion Blackwood. “I have a heart void and I really wanted to make a slam try or even bid Exclusion Blackwood but I didn’t have that bid available.”? But she was willing to play in 6D no matter what.
Was she only looking for the DA? We do play step responses to 5NT. Here 6C would show the DA and 6D deny the two of the top three honors and specifically the DA. Maybe she forgot that?
Could this shows diamonds with me, maybe only 3, a heart void, a big club suit and the SA? Say:
S Axx H – D KQx C AKJxxx
So she needed the DA and a dub card for the grand but was willing to play the small slam no matter what?
What do you think it was?
I decided for better or worse that if she was asking me to pick a slam I was picking hearts and if she was asking me to pick between 6D and 7D I was picking 7. So I bid 6H. the next bid I heard was 7D. Here is what she actually held
| S AK9 |
| H – |
| D KQJ5 |
| C A108752 |
7D was a fine spot and easily made by setting up clubs. So she was looking for some help in clubs and the DA I suppose.
I told her after that I didn’t mind if she wanted to challenge me with bids like this. For I have learned at the school of Colin Lee.
November 17th, 2009 ~ linda ~
1 Comment
Here is a deal from a match we played on Sunday. First let’s look at the West hand which I held:
| S Q |
| H – |
| D AQJ10853 |
| C AQ1063 |
Sylvia opened 1H and the first bid is pretty easy. I bid 2D, game forcing. Now partner bid 2H and I made the obvious bid of 3C. Partner bid 3NT. You aren’t going to play there so what should you bid next. Since your diamonds are pretty self sufficient there is an argument for 4D. But for better or worse I thought that 4C would give a better picture of my distribution. It has another advantage. If partner prefers diamonds you have some space to make a slam try without committing to slam. After all this hand really only has about 3 losers. Partner bid 4D and I made my slam try with 4S. Now its Sylvia’s turn
Sylvia has a hand of gold on our auction. She knows that I am likely 6-5 with a big hand. She has controls in both major suits and even better her minor suit cards are awesome. She just jumped to 6D. Well done.
Suppose I had bid 4D what can she do to suggest her great hand without going passed game? The only bid I can think of is 4S. This must be a cuebid in support of diamonds. Now I think my hand will probably bid slam. But then it is harder to realize the extreme strength and shape of the West hand without that extra cuebid that I had a chance to make.
These type of hands are always tough. At the other table the auction did start:
1H-2D
2H-3C
3NT-4D
?
The East hand has to go out on a limb a bit and make the cuebid and then the West hand has to take it the rest of the way. It is easier for my hand to make the cuebid. So as it turned out our auction “timed out” well.
November 17th, 2009 ~ linda ~
6 Comments
Both Jonathan Weinstein and Franco Baseggio have blogged about this deal which appeared in the NY New York Times on Monday. This was the headline.
Swedish Trial: A Whole Lot of Squeezing Going On
When I noticed it was about a composite squeeze so of course I couldn’t resist looking at the deal
Now since I just finished official work on Love’s squeeze book today you would think I would want a squeeze holiday. Well apparently not. Phillip Alder’s column included a very long auction to arrive in 7
. He explains some of the bidding and you will be intrigued to know that South was able to determine all of North’s major high cards even including the J.
The opening lead was the 10. This is my thought process when I look at this deal. North-South have lots of tricks if spades split so the issue becomes how do you make the hand if spades split badly. Clubs and spades can be guarded by only one opponent. The heart guard may be split or held by one opponent. What squeezes are available if spades don’t break? Is it best to try to isolate the club menace? How should I play the hand to keep most chances working? That is how I have been trained by Love!
I suggest you follow the link to the New York Times column now to read all about this deal played at the Swedish trials by Peter Bertheau. Here is an abbreviated account according to Alder:
Bertheau, seeing 13 top tricks if spades were 3-2, drew trumps (West discarded a club), played a spade to his ace and returned a spade to dummy’s king, getting the bad news when Peter Fredin (East) threw a heart. Now South cashed dummy’s last two trumps and then hearts. West is triple squeezed and has to give up at least one suit. This leads to a double squeeze >>>> ergo composite squeeze, a triple squeeze on one opponent followed by a double squeeze to yield one trick and in this case one grand slam.
What Jonathan points out in his blog which is an open letter to Phillip Alder that while Betheau’s line is pretty (who couldn’t love a composite squeeze) it is not the best line. After trick 5 when West had shown up with the spades and had thrown a club the hand was 100%.
If you ruff a club, either clubs break 3-3 (as is the case) in which case a simple club ruff brings home the bacon by setting up ziggy as the slam going trick or you will know exactly who has the club guard. If it is West you have a simple squeeze and if it is East you have a double squeeze. Since you are in effect playing the hand double dummy you can’t really go wrong.
Very nice point, Jonathan.
He goes on to say that West must first throw a heart to give declarer any problem since it will create ambuguity in the ending
Now Franco went down another path. One that I was thinking of myself. He supposed the hand was in notrump and he looked at the best strategy by the defenders and declarer. To simplify the problem a bit he ignores extreme distributions on defense. Declarer is going to run all the diamonds after testing spades. At that point declarer has arrived at this position:
North
Q 4 3
J
–
A 8
South
–
A K 9
K 10 9
West is known to have two spades remaining. He has therefore cannot be guarding both hearts and clubs and has given up at least one of these suits. Declarer has a reasonable chance of guessing the ending from West’s pitches. The Weekly Trout (Franco) does speculate on how the defender can give declarer the maximum chance of going wrong through his discards. The problem with that is that it requires pretty perfect knowledge by the defender of declarer’s hand fairly early on. While dummy was fairly well described in the auction declarer’s hand is less well known. A lot can be deduced from the contract and the fact that declarer didn’t claim. If you are interested in game theory as applied to bridge and how to play and defend compound squeeze you will want to read The Daily Trout.
Can I add anything? Not much to the fine analysis performed by the others. It is interesting to think about omniscient opponents but let’s remember the defenders are at a disadvantage. In contracts like these they need to help each other. That means they need to be careful about their discards and they need to signal. In addition, early on they don’t have that clear a picture of exactly what declarer has. That is an argument for playing a fourth round of trump early. On this deal for example, even if West works out that he needs to throw a heart on the third round of trump, will he really feel good about throwing one on the fourth round? If he throws a club on the fourth trump then it seems that playing three rounds of clubs and ruffing one will put declarer in a very good position even when clubs don’t now break. Even if he does throw a heart you may still work your way through the ending.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is how much information gets passed around these days on the net. First this hand was played on BBO. Then a commentator (Roland Wald) passed on the information to Phillip Alder. Then Phillip wrote about it in the New York Times and so on… Cool isn’t it.
November 16th, 2009 ~ linda ~
4 Comments
Sylvia and I played 25 boards against Sondra and Isabelle today. I knew it would be fun and it was. The first twelve were in a team game where our side did get drilled and in the second 13 we played head on head and held out own. We out pipped them by a couple of imps or so.
Here is a lead problem Isabelle faced. You hold
| S A2 |
|
|
| H 1075 |
|
|
| D Q762 |
|
|
| C K954 |
|
|
Partner opens 2D multi. The next hand overcalls 2NT which gets passed out.
The SA does seem like a reasonable lead. If partner has hearts unless they are splitting 2-2. Dummy will have a singleton heart and might have looked for a better spot than notrump. It does seem highly probable that partner has spades. Unfortunately this showed one of the downsides of multi. Partner had six heart (the opposition hearts were 2-2) and four spades on the side. A heart lead beats the game. Declarer has the AK tight and has to give up the lead twice to make even eight tricks. On the lead of the SA Sylvia made 4.
On the next hand I had a lead problem against 3NT. Here is my hand
Isabelle opened 2C in fourth and then rebid 2NT. Sondra transferred to 3NT and they played there. Not much help from the bidding. The argument for a spade lead was that it was less likely to give a trick away completely. The argument for a heart lead is that you needed less help from partner. Some times I have a feel about these situations. This time I didn’t I am willing to listen to anyway who wants to tell which one is right. As it turns out a spade lead will beat it for sure. On a heart or club lead declarer will always make it. On a passive diamond lead declarer is going to have to guess awfully well. So if you lead a pointed suit you win. Here was the whole deal
| |
S A92 |
|
| |
H A95 |
|
| |
D AQJ109 |
|
| |
C K9 |
|
| S KJ54 |
|
S Q765 |
| H 10763 |
|
H KJ42 |
| D 82 |
|
D 543 |
| C J53 |
|
C A2 |
| |
S 108 |
|
| |
H Q8 |
|
| |
D K76 |
|
| |
C Q108764 |
|
Sylvia and I did pretty well to get to 4S on the deal below. I am not sure I love my bidding but it got the job done. We were not vul against vul.
| Sylvia |
| S 5 |
| H A65 |
| D AKQ65 |
| C A985 |
| |
| Linda |
| S AQJ642 |
| H 4 |
| D 842 |
| C J32 |
Sylvia opened 1D. Isabelle overcalled 1H and I bid 1S. Sondra showed a weak heart raise with 2D. Sylvia bid 3C and I didn’t know exactly what to bid. I sort of wanted to raise diamonds. Anyway in the end I bid 3S. It seemed about right in values and even a small spade fit would make it the right spot. Sylvia always raises with a stiff in these situations (it’s quite often right) and it worked out fine on the hand. You are probably going to make 5D too.
A deal I enjoyed a lot because you don’t see it too often was this one. I held
| Linda |
| S A9 |
| H AQ964 |
| D AJ7432 |
| C – |
Isabelle opened 1D which was a bit of a surprise. Undaunted I bid 1H and Sondra bid 2C. Isabelle bid 2D. Now that really was a surprise. It went 2D which was only worth a couple of imps but it was fun to defend. The diamonds were 6-6-1 with Sylvia having the void.
Here is one of those deals where Sondra and Isabelle did well. The auction is interesting. I am going to give you Sondra’s hand because Isabelle made most of her decisions with the opening bid
| S AJ |
| H J872 |
| D 10872 |
| D KQ3 |
You are not vulnerable against vulnerable and you hear partner open 2S. This shows 10-14 HCP and a six or seven card spade suit. You bid 2NT which asks for a description. Partner bids 3S showing a maximum hand, balanced. Where do you decide to play it? Sondra picked 3NT which I think has some pluses and minuses. Your red suits are a bit weak but partner has at least two in each suit so perhaps the opposition can’t take too many tricks there.
As it turns out the nine trick game is the only one that has a play. Partner does have a lot of help in the red suits. Partner has
While it may seem awkward to play LHO me has every high card so the heart finesse works, you only have one spade loser (the ten comes down), the diamond AQ are both onside and I can wiggle and waggle but I will have to give you a tenth trick. Sondra played it well and I defended it well but frustratingly she held the better position. Well done.
There were two slam hands our way in the team game. Both 6D. We got to one and missed one and so did Francine and Pamela. Here is the one that they found and we didn’t. I think they did well to get there. Let’s see what Pamela did
| S KQ1032 |
| H KJ7 |
| D A732 |
| C 6 |
Francine opened 1D and you bid 1S. She rebid 1NT. You bid 2D game forcing checkback I believe. Francine bid 3D showing five and denying four hearts or three spades. So you can put her at 5-3-3-2. Pamela cuebid hearts and when her partner cuebid spades she pretty well made the decision to go to slam. She bid keycard and Francine showed enough. Partner hand is
| S A4 |
| H 943 |
| D KQ1064 |
| C AJ4 |
Played from Francine’s side it does need a bit of luck. You don’t really want a heart lead which might lead to immediate defeat and you probably want either diamonds or spades to break or you will have your work cut out. Everything works on the deal but a sneaky heart opening lead from the HA might win. Even Francine would likely get that one wrong. At our table it would have been played from the right side since I opened a weak notrump. Our auction timed out a bit differently and Sylvia would have had to commit to the four level on a minimum hand. She did know I was 2-3-3-5 but I was a complete maximum and she had no way of cuebidding without committing to the four level whereas the auction at the other table made it easy for Pamela to make a try with 3H. Maybe I should have upgraded my hand to 15. I do have a pretty terrific hand for a weak notrump. I did consider it. Then we would have played the wrong side slam too!
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related