Handicapping Open Group B in a Chinese Restaurant

September 20th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Here are the teams in Group B of the Open in alphabetical order.

Argentina

Austria

China

French Polynesia

Hong Kong

Hungary

India

Israel

Jamaica

Korea

Latvia

Mexico

Netherlands

Portugal

Russia

San Marino

Scotland

Sweden

It seemed a pretty straightforward group when I consulted the Oracle but since we were at the Mandarin restaurant (a yummy Chinese buffet) tonight for Colin’s birthday I decided to consult the fortune cookies for inspiration in forecasting group B’s finish. The cookie I got said “all your answers lead to questions”.

This wasn’t helping so I tried an online fortune cookie site and this is what it said

When you least expect it an idea you value may finally pan out.

Today’s advice: Trust yourself.

Both the Oracle and I like these four teams for the top spots:

China. Russia, Sweden and the Netherlands and there is just a snowball’s chance in October that Argentina or Hungary could sneak in.

This is my order:

1. Russia

2. Netherlands

3. Sweden

4. China

The Oracle likes Netherlands first and Russia second, but the cookie said to trust yourself.

Handicapping the Open

September 19th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

The groups has been announced for each division in the world mind sport games in Beijing.  I thought I would have some fun and see who I liked in each division.

I am starting by looking at each group in the open.  Today I am looking at Group A  which happens to contain the Canadian team.  The American team is one of the favourites in the event and I think Canada has a decent team this year and could do fairly well.

There are 4 sections in the open with 4 to qualify for the round of 16 in each section.  Group A has 17 teams.  Here is the list in alphabetical order

Albania

Brazil

Canada

China Macau

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Kenya

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Pakistan

Romania

Slovakia

South Africa

Trinidad

I think Italy is  the favourite to win this division.    The South Africa seems to be the same as the team that did so well in the Bermuda Bowl last year.  In fact, this is the only team from the top four in last year’s Bermuda Bowl that is in this division. 

Estonia, Trinidad and Kenya should be at the bottom of the table.  I don’t really know who China Macau is but I am going to assume they won’t be a contender.  I am not expecting  Albania, Finland and do  that well.

France, Brazil and Japan cannot be discounted based on their results in the Bermuda Bowl last . Pakistan and Ireland did quite well in Istanbul at the last Olympiad.  I think Denmark is likely to finish out of the money but has some chances.

So here are my picks for the top 4: South Africa, Italy, Brazil and Canada.

1. Italy

2.  South Africa

3. Brazil

4. Canada

Go Canada.  We have a good team this year and they can qualify.

5 Ireland

6. Japan

7. Denmark

An interesting play problem from rec.games.bridge

September 18th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

I read an interesting problem on rec.games.bridge yesterday and I am still thinking about it. 

You have to play this holding for no losers and 5 tricks (it’s the trump suit).  You are sitting South holding the K87

AQ932

K87

The first question is should you play the Ace or King first.

Two people commented that you should play the king first. I don’t see why. Let’s say that the suit splits 5-0. You can’t pick the suit up anyway. LHO can just cover the 8 and the 7 and his little spot will hold up. There is no situation where it is better to start with the king.

You play the ace and RHO drops the 5 and LHO plays the Jack.  Should you finesse the 8 playing LHO for a stiff Jack?

One answer which I like by Dave Flower is:

If LHO is Mrs Guggenheim, finesse the H8

If LHO is Papa. play for the drop

If LHO is the Hideous Hog, you will always guess wrong

There is a lot of truth in that answer.  In general with most opponents they probably are NOT false carding with J10X so you are in a restricted choice situation and should finesse.  Wait though RHO played the 5 (we are not told what he played at trick two but let’s say it is the 6.)  If this isn’t some sort of signal than someone has the 4 so I guess you need to rethink whether LHO is good enough to false card.

What if your opponent would routinely drop the Jack or 10 from J10x?  It is right to play for the drop then. 

But what are the odds? I believe that there is some restricted choice implications still in that with J10x he could drop the J or the 10. 

Many cases have been eliminated.

We know that there is no 5-0 split and RHO has the XX.  We can also assume that LHO would not throw the Jack from Jxx or Jx so we can eliminate these cases too.  If LHO has a singleton it is the Jack so we can eliminate a lot of 4-1 cases.  

Here is what I came up with but I am looking for help from the mathematicians out there.  There are now only three relevant cases since only one spot is still missing.

1) J 10abc

2) J10  abc

3) J10c ab

Simplistically it is only right to finesse in one of them and I believe that 2 and 3 are more likely anyway than 1.  But with both 2 and 3 LHO could toss either the 10 or the jack but with one he has to throw the jack.  So it seems to me that the odds may be quite close in terms of finesse or drop.

The same story all over again

September 17th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

USA won the  match I was watching in the Buffett Cup 8.5 boards to 5.5 boards.  It was quite fascinating.   Would you believe it if I told you that Bob Hamman and Zia Mahmood reached 7S on two boards of this 14 board match and neither board had any play in primarily uncompetitive auctions?  The first board was off an ace and since Blackwood was used with a 5♥ response the most likely thing is that Zia miscounted.  We all make those sorts of mistakes under pressure on rare occasions. 

The second board is more interesting.  It was the very last board of the set and as usual the opponents did not get to slam at all.  How often that happens.   I was going to ask you to assess the blame.  The problem is that I have no idea what one of the bids meant in their auction.

Bob Hammond opened 1♠ in first chair with all vulnerable.  Zia held

What would you bid?  First is this hand a game force or not?  I don’t think so but I would hate it if I made a limit raise and my partner passed.  Still Bob knows we are vulnerable too and I can trust him to push for game.  If you want to make a game raise than I do like 4◊ splinter instead of 2♥.  The best thing about my hand is my diamond void so I may as well show it.  I also like to play that the splinter is limited.  If you play that than it is even more attractive. 

Over 4◊ Hammon bid 4NT.  I am not sure what responses they are playing.  If you can show one keycard and a useful void I suppose you should.  Zia bid 6♥.  This is not a response I am familiar with.  I suspect it isn’t a standard response.  If it is intended to show a void an ace and a heart feature it is an overbid.  Hammon went on to 7♠.

This is his hand

6♠ makes when hearts work out reasonably but 7♠ is Dead On Arrival.  Perhaps with the wasted honours in diamonds Bob shouldn’t have pushed so hard but a lot of the discussion of this hands depends on their agreements.  What exactly does the splinter show and what does 6♥ mean. 

In the other room Hamman’s hand bid 4♠ over the splinter.  Unless the splinter showed very minimal values this seems conservative to me.

I was thinking about how you would get to slam without the splinter.  Suppose that your auction starts 1♠-3◊ (4 card limit raise).  I know partner has a stiff diamond but that means this hand only have 4 losers opposite nothing in partner’s hand.  It seems to me it is still worth a slam try.  I think I would bid 4♣.  Partner should cooperate with 4♥ and I think I would press on.  But I have sympathy with those that just bid 4♠.  What do you think? 

Day 11 of bridge on the Internet … visiting momma

September 17th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  5 Comments 

I am going to start off the day at the ACBL website.

www.acbl.org

I feel like I am going to see "mother".

There is no doubt about it, there is a lot of stuff on this site besides looking up your masterpoint total.

On the front page there is a mention of the new laws with a link to www.ecatsbridge.org where you can read what has changed.

There is a notice that you can make recommendations for the Bridge Hall of Fame. I see that Jerry Machlin won the 2008 Blackwood contributions to bridge outside expertise at the table. I am interested to see that Canadians Sami Kelela and Eric Murray and later Shorty Sheardown won the Von Zedtwitz award for bridge old-time stars.

I look at the list of common conventions and see a small selection of bridge conventions, each one a page from the ACBL Bulletin’s Play Bridge feature.

There’s a calendar where you can find bridge tournaments worldwide. There are some super resources for teachers. Include an article which describes a study which showed that teaching bridge to kids makes you smarter. There is everything from detailed lesson plans to a template for printing business cards.

I find out the ACBL has about 160,000 members but there is nothing on the site that I can find that is going to make me a better bridge player. Should there be?

I am disappointed to see that the links that used to be on the site seem to be gone.

Ready for some chat I head over to Bridgetalk at www.bridgetalk.com, another active bridge forum. There are two major forums on bridgetalk, one on the laws and one general bridge talk. I am surprised to see that the forum discussing bridge laws is the active one. I register for the forum but I am going to have to wait to get permission to become a member. While I am sorting that out I ace a funny little quiz with questions like what is a Chinese finesse.

There is a poll on site. Today’s question is what is your favourite game, imps, match points or rubber bridge. I am not surprised to see that imps has the lead. There is also a link to computer humour. There is nothing about bridge here but as a former computer scientist I can empathy with this joke.

An artist, a lawyer, and a computer scientist are discussing the merits of a mistress.

The artist tells of the passion, the thrill which comes with the risk of being discovered. The lawyer warns of the difficulties. It can lead to guilt, divorce, bankruptcy. Not worth it. Too many problems.

The computer scientist says "It’s the best thing that’s ever happened to me. My wife thinks I’m with my mistress. My mistress thinks I’m home with my wife, and I can spend all night on the computer."

Back at the bulletin boards I see a discussion on whether it is legal to bid 2C showing a random hand. It was described as 4 plus in at least one suit but not a club one suiter. There was a bit of chat about

Somebody has posted a problem. Everyone vulnerable. Your partner opens 1♥ in first seat.  Your hand is

You are playing 5 card majors and forcing 1NT but a 2/1 os not forcing to game.  What do you call?

1♠ seems normal and I find everyone else thinks so too.  Is there another shoe to drop?

There is an interesting discussion about whether you should whether  after an opening 1♣ bid 1NT should show 8-10.  That has never worked for me.  I just don’t know what to do with a balanced 6 or 7.  Someone suggested transfer Walsh, which means apparently that 1♠  shows a 1NT response.  I guess 1◊ shows hearts and 1♥ shows spades and you aren’t allowed to hold diamonds.  There is a lot more, check it out if you are interested.  And comment here if you have something to say about transfer Walsh.

From here I figure since I have seen momma maybe I should see go see my home unit, Unit 166 at www.toronto-bridge.com

There is various useful things on this site but the thing that really pleases me is an online version of the kibitzer.  John Carruthers does a great job as the editor.  Andy Stark a Masterpoint Press author has written a column called Buy Me Some Peanuts and Crackerjacks which talks about who Robert Levi and Dan Jacobs won the Silodor open pair event at the 2007 Spring Nationals.  Apparently Robert passed on some advice: "bid a lot for the lead, play the vulnerability and go for the cheapest minus score."  Seems good advice to me.

There are many more articles.  So even if you aren’t a member of Unit 166 go and have a look it will be worth it.

You know what is my personal favourite bridge resource on the Internet.  It is the New York times.  If you type in almost any bridge person or concept, you can find a series of articles from the New York Times from the current Phillip Alder columns way back in time to Alan Truscott’s column.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/bridge_card_game/index.html?offset=90&s=newest&query=CARDS+AND+CARD+GAMES&field=des&match=exact

The link above will get you to hundreds of columns.  But let’s try soemthing fun.  I type in Linda Lee, New York Times bridge and guess what up come an article by Alan Truscott.  There is an article from March 27 1992 which mentioned that Ray and I were runnersup in the National Mixed Pairs.  That was kind of cool.

Typing in Eddie Kantar brought up a lot more articles.  The top article is titled

When a Champion Can Write, World Titles Meet Book Titles.

He reviewed the book Kantar on Kontract and of course he loved it.  As he said most deals are funny and he tells a story from the book.

Anyway, you try it.  It is a great treasure for bridge players and it contains the history of our game.

What a difference a preempt makes

September 16th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

I was watching the Buffett cup today and this fascinating hand arrived. It has two interesting lessons. Here is your chance to shine. In this case you are Zia and you are representing the US. Everyone is vulnerable and you are dealt.

On your right Lindqvist opens 1◊. What do you do?

If you are Zia you bid 3♣ and this has an amazing effect. (The same action was taken by the American in the other match to the same effect). Brogeland holds

He bids 3♥ over your 3♣ bid and hears his partner bid 3NT. It would take a very brave man to take any action now.

Lindqvist holds

You can see that 6◊ is pretty well cold and 7◊ has a play. Now here is the second lesson. One I have learned through bitter experience. In the other room the auction started out like this (his time with no opposition bidding).

Back to the Brogeland hand. What do you do now? You know that partner has presumably something like 2-2-5-4 or 1-3-5-4. You have all the top controls. But, 3NT does not show extra values. Your 2♠ bid was a game force and partner jumped to game. He doesn’t have a fit and he doesn’t have a lot extra. My bitter lesson is that I want at least 13 tricks to bid a grand. I reason is that an amazing amount of the time the opponents don’t even bid the small slam.

I don’t think you can really count 13 tricks here. You need some kings. I am not sure it is even with a grand slam try. But at the other table the West hand jumped to 7◊

As it turned out it could not be made on the lie of the cards. It isn’t that great a grand either. Maybe Bob McKinnon if he is reading this can give me the percentages. The result: the USA lost this board when 7◊ went one down.

Finishing my blogland journey right here on Bridgeblogging

September 16th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

I realized that I had been talking about some of the great bridge bloggers across the web and I hadn’t mentioned any of the bloggers on Bridgeblogging. So I am going to remedy that right now with a discussion of some of the more frequent bloggers. Michael Yuen blogs a lot and all of it is interesting. It only has a little to do with him being captain of the Canadian Youth team, a lot of it relates to his knowledge and love of the game. I am starting with the problem in the most recent blog. You are supposed to bid the north-south hands. You get to bid the north hand and I will bid the South hand for you but you have to play my system. (Warning we play 12-14 notrump). I open 1◊ which shows four diamonds. You have

♠ 2

♥ K1086

◊AKJ8

♣K1052

Your turn. I am pretty sure you would bid 1H and I bid 1NT. This promises 15-17 HCP and a balanced hand (obviously). I can still have three hearts. Here are your choices. You can bid 2◊ Game forcing and asking about majors initially

3NT You probably have spades and I don’t have enough for slam

3 of a minor would be invitational so I am guessing you don’t want to do that.

You bid 2◊ and I bid 2♥ showing three hearts but I could still have four spades. Here are your choices

3♣ Emphasizes your fear of spades and directing the lead for the opponents against 3NT

3◊ Diamond support. Maybe expressing uncertainty about 3NT or looking for a diamond slam

3NT You probably have spades and I don’t have enough for slam

I assume you bid 3◊ otherwise why didn’t you bid 3NT in the first place. I bid 3♥.

I am willing to cooperate in a diamond slam if that is where you are heading and I have a heart control. Here are your choices

3♠ I will take it as a last try for 3NT but if you pull 3NT to 4D I will know it is a cuebid

4♣ Cuebid and pretty serious slam interest

4◊ still some slam interest but looking for opener to really take a push I would think.

5◊ Diamonds are likely better but I don’t have enough for slam

You bid 3♠ going for it and over 3NT by me you bid 4♣. I bid 4♠. What do you do? Do you bid the slam? Of course you do. There we are Michael. Partner has the right hand for you. I admit it is harder over a strong notrump

♠ A874

♥ AJ2

◊Q1097

♣ A3

Next is my husband Ray. Ray’s best characteristic is that he can write very well and he is one of the best editors on the planet. He does however lack my imagination. His most recent blog talks about Frank Vine. I remember reading Frank Vine’s humorous stories and I am looking forward to this collection. I haven’t seen any of the stories yet. The story about North from the Bridge World Master Solvers’ club sounds like fun. The solver is always south and north is his long suffering partner. Ray likes to blog about books and the problems in the bridge world but when he blogs about championships he is very good. I hope I can convince him to do some blogging during the world championships. Our son Colin also blogs about the development of our system (which is on temporary hold). He should be back at it after Boston.

Judy Kay-Wolff has just started blogging. If you don’t know Judy let me telling you that besides being married to Bobby Wolff and being an avid bridge player Judy has several other wonderful characteristics. The first is that she is about the same height as me. My height is top secret but what Ray always says is that I dream of being five feet. Judy is an incredible shopper and bargainer. She is one of the most determined people I know and one of the nicest. In her latest blog she draws such a wonderful picture of bridge in the 60’s and 70’s that it makes me long to go back. I would definitely trade hand records for playing charades with the Truscotts. I read the comments and see that others also long for the old days.

Bob Mackinnon is for the technically inclined. If you want to be a better bridge declarer you can certainly learn something from him. He also has a lot to see about bidding. Bob and I have been in correspondence for several years and I enjoy the discussions. The problem in the current blog is how to play hearts missing five to the ace jack. You are in a slam and can only afford one loser. First I think about it in my non-mathematical way. The closed hand has all the trump and when you lead up to the KQ LHO takes the king with the ace. Would an expert declarer duck the ace with Ax? Playing against weak opponents I think I would take the finesse since AJ doubleton must be less likely. Anyway, read Bob’s blog for the answer.

Cam French would be censored in most bridge magazines. His articles are triple X rated about the dark side of bridge. He is an entertaining writer. Professor Silver is an occasionally blogger but his stories are always fun. I have played with him on BBO and he really plays just like he writes.

Bobby Wolff doesn’t blog that often but when he does it is always very interesting. I have (sadly) learned that there is much more cheating in bridge than I ever thought. I always knew there was a lot of politics. I responded to his last blog about bridge and the Olympics. He makes the important point that bridge is one of the few competitive activities that you can compete at the world level and still be comparably old. He also talks about how wonderful it is to represent your country. I know this to be true.

Announcing masteringbridge.com

September 15th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Master Point Press has a new baby. We have just launched a new website called masteringbridge.com directed primarily at those who are learning bridge and those who teach bridge. We had noticed that there were limited resources on the web for bridge teachers in particular. The website has bidding and play practice aimed at beginners, downloads from our books to make it easier for teachers to use them (or just use the downloads as resources). There are articles aimed at teachers and at students from a variety of authors and bridge blogs aimed at students.

The one area that interests me the most is a bridge teacher’s forum moderated by Maggie Sparrow, a prominent Canadian bridge teacher. Anyway, even if you don’t fall into either of these categories have a look at the website and let me know what you think

www.masteringbridge.com

Competing after interference over weak notrump

September 15th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

Ray and I have been walking through our system notes, getting ready for the bid event in Sydney! One of the issues we have been debating (and I use the word literally) is how to handle this situation:

Partner has opened 1NT (12-14) and you have something like this:

You

♠ Q654

♥ KJ43

◊ 2

♣ A1043

S Q654 H KJ43 D 2 C A1043

If RHO passes depending on your agreements you might pass or bid Stayman with the idea of forcing partner to pick a major if he doesn’t show a four card major. That is over 1NT-2Cx-2Dx you would bid 2Hx asking partner to pass or correct or you could bid 2NT with some trepidation. You do this because you hope that you have a four card major suit fit and if you do game is possible. While tempted to bid I would probably pass 1NT. Suppose though that RHO bids 2D natural. Do you still want to pass? I don’t. It is more likely now that you have a major suit fit. Isabelle and I play that a double here is takeout. It does mean that you can’t double 2Dx for penalty in the direct chair and the opening notrump bidder is not likely to balance with a double so you do have some issues if you would like to make a penalty double. What is more useful takeout or penalty.

One issue with a takeout double is that the bridge gods don’t always deal us such a perfect hand as the one above. Suppose the auction has gone 1NT-(2D natural) and you hold

A)

♠ QJ54

♥ K3

◊ 52

♣ A10432

B)

♠ QJ54

♥ K32

◊ 52

♣ A1043

I suppose on this hand if you want to compete you can Lebensohl your way to 3C and give up on a spade fit and if you really don’t want to defend on hand b) you can double even if it means that sometimes you wind up in a six or seven card heart fit. If you always promise about 9+ HCP for this action and therefore some defence, opener can decided to leave the double in for penalties on ill fitting hands with diamond length.

The next question is what do you do when their overcall shows two known suits? For example, the opponents play that 2D shows both majors. Does the double here show values and at least one major with some penalty intent or is it still takeout and if so of what?

Right now I think we are going with penalty doubles in all cases but I am not sure that I like that very much. Any suggestions?

Playing bridge against the big boys

September 14th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

How nice to have a chance to play online against Chris Compton and Bob Hamman and have a great auction in front of 158 kibbitzers?.  But first an opening lead problem for you.

You are sitting in Bob Hammond’s sea,  North red on white and you hold

♠ 7 ♥  109873 ◊ K765 ♣ Q63

Here is the auction you hear:

What do you lead?

Answer at the end of the post.

Dave Grainger and Jon Rice had an opportunity to shine on this hand against Hamman and Compton.  Here is David Grainger’s hand.

♠ AQJ9865 ♥  void ◊K8 ♣ KQ83

With everyone vulnerable, Chris Compton (South passes) and you open 1♠.  Partner bids 2◊ (playing 2/1) and you bid 2♠.  Partner bids 2NT and you bid 3♠ and partner bids 4♠

. 

Over to you.  What is your bid and your bidding plan?  David bid 5♣ and partner bid 5◊. 

Now David  was going to slam but he wasn’t done.  He continued 5♥and partner bid 6♣.  David had only one more problem the ♠K.  So he made a grand slam try with 6◊ and Jon knew he had what was needed.  Here was Jon’s hand

♠ K7 ♥ KJ72 ◊ AJ97 ♣A54

A grand slam in spades that noone else bid and no Blackwood in sight (not even exclusion).  Yes, Virginia you can bid a grand slam without asking for aces!

Answer to opening lead problem

You have to lead a diamond.  Partner has a trump trick and you can take three quick diamond tricks.  Anything else allows declarer to pitch two diamonds on high clubs.