Watching the US open trial semfinal

June 4th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

I sat down to watch a few hands in the last segment of the semifinal.  I was hoping to catch some good and exciting bridge.  The Nickell team was leading the Welland team by about 35 imps.  As I sat down Garner was playing 2H.  This was actually a pretty good spot because in the other room Hamman and Compton who were having a spot of trouble were in 4H which was off at 4 top tricks.  2H was cold; basically if you drew trump you couldn’t go down.  You were off a three side tricks and your hearts were all high missing the A and Q.  If you were frisky the heart finesse did work for an overtrick.  Somehow Garner did go down when he didn’t draw trump for no good reason.  Had fatigue set in?

So there went 6 or 7 imps.  But that wasn’t the real problem on the next board, Hamman and Compton missed a great slam.  At the Garner-Weinstein table the auction went 1S-5H (exclusion) all pass.  They went -600 into their own vulnerable slam.  These things happen but I can’t help believing that the two boards were related.  That the unhappiness caused by the first board caused the disaster on the second board.

One of the real bright spots of our game in Montreal was that no matter what happened, even when I forgot the system we played the next board as if the prior board hadn’t happened.  Isabelle was truly great at the table. 

Then I watched one great hand played by Zia in a losing cause in the other match and I realized that sometimes you do get your money’s worth.  Here is the hand

Rosenberg

S A76

H 104

D A64

C Q10972

Zia

S Q95

H KJ32

DKQ107

C K3

With everyone vulnerable in the other room the East-West pair Levin and Weinstein bid to 3S and went for -400.  Zia playing South was down a lot.  In fourth he stretched a bit to open 1NT.  Martel bid 2S which I believed showed spades and a minor and Michael pushed on to 3NT.  The opening lead was the SJ and Zia won the SQ.  He now played the CK from his hand which held, Stansby throwing the C8.  If Zia needed 4 club tricks the only choice is to play a club to the queen hoping that Stansby has the CJ8 or to play for the C8 to have been a falsecard and for clubs to break 3-3 with Martel holding 5-1-4-3.  (All of which seems unlikely). 

Zia can make 9 tricks if the heart is onside and he brings diamonds in for 1 loser.  So he doesn’t actually need to play for a miracle club holding.  But when you think about it if Martel the spade bidder has the CA there is no need to play a club to the C10.  The CQ will win the trick. Zia still has a play to make the hand if everything else works.  The C8 also has a suspicious feel to it, doesn’t it.  Anyway Zia play a club to the CQ dropping the CJ and easily made the hand.

Well done.

Part 3 The Big Hand

June 4th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

We are going to travel across the table and look at the hand from the other side.  Vulnerable against not you hold

S AK2 H AJ75 D AJ83 C 42

Partner opens 2H showing hearts and a minor 5/5 (or 6/5) and you hear 3C natural by right hand opponent.  You love your hand but what to do.  Partner almost certainly has diamonds.  If partner has an ordinary hand like

S JX H KXXX D KXXXX C X

6 of a red suit looks pretty good although I personally had one that went down during the round robin that only needed one red suit to work in a similar situation (missing queen to four).  If partner has a good hand like

S XX H KQXXX D Q10XXX  C X

then 6H is on a finesse and no ruff.  On this auction finesses are a bit more likely to work.

You may notice that the key to the slam is partner’s club holding.  If partner has 2 clubs there is no slam, 1 club slam is likely to need at least a finesse and if partner is void slam is very good.  Is this hand worth a slam try?

If you want to make a slam try your choices are very limited.  You would like to draw attention to the club suit but how?  Any number of hearts or diamonds would be to play.  It is not completely clear what 3S is but it seems to me it should be natural.  So your only slam try is 4C.  I think double is basically penalty although partner may run with 6-5.

All in favour of a slam try – bid 4C; all opposed by 4H.

……………………

Lets say that you do decide to make a slam try.  The auction proceeds as follows back to you.

West 4H bid if it means anything probably shows heart shortness.  This means that if a heart honour is missing it is onside.  What does partner’s pass mean.   Based on the earlier discussion it ought to show a hand which has some extra offensive strength (no double) but probably not a powerful offensive hand.  It likely shows a stiff club most of the time.  But of course you have never discussed this all.  In our system pass and pull is not stronger than pass so pass would be a neutral bid, leaving the decision for 5H (not for 6H) to partner.  It would suggest you are not interested in 6H I think.  Unfortunately you don’t really have a cuebid.  5D would be an offer to play there.  Double here would be for penalty and it is not an unreasonable choice you do have a lot of defensive cards.  You could, of course, take a shot at 6H,    What do you do and why?

………………………………………

I don’t think pass is that helpful.  Partner already passed suggesting they had some extra offence but not that much.  Unless you intend to bud 6H if partner bids 5H it isn’t going to really help.  So pass only if that is your plan.

If partner has a singleton club 6H is going to need at least a finesse most of the time.  If it is the heart finesse you are probably safe but it could be the diamond finesse which is less clear.  Taking a shot at 6H is not bad.  I think double is okay but the vulnerability makes it unappealing. 

So I think either 5H or 6H are reasonable choices.  If you chose 6H you win the CWTC!

6H is a very good contract and the heart finesse is onside as expected.

6-5 come alive – part 2 of a hand

June 4th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Yesterday we were looking at a hand with a lot of action.  You had opened the bidding 2H showing hearts and a minor at least 5-5.  Your hand

First I give you this hand.  Vulnerable versus not

S 108 H Q109864 D K9642 C void

First are you in a "forcing pass" situation.  Despite the fact that you have opened with a preempt partner has made a slam try and you are vulnerable.  Therefore from your sides perspective the hand belongs to you and you are not going to let them play the hand undoubled.  So to that extent the answer is yes.  But they are not going to play 4H.  Therefore I think the meaning of your bids are a bit different then normal.

Have you discussed this situation?  I must confess that Isabelle and I have not.  Double here could show a hand that has some extra power but not extra shape.  That is, a hand that is on the high end of the high card range.  If partner wants to defend you can but it is not a penalty double of clubs.  But there is an argument to playing that double says I have a bad hand and if West had bid 5C I would have doubled.  This is an attempt to stop your partner from bidding in front of you without a good reason.

What is pass?  If you believe double is penalty oriented then pass is a neutral bid.  It is suggesting that you are happy to continue on but you can’t make a clearcut decision yourself.  5H would then show extra offence particularly a hand that has extra shape.  Do either of these bids show a first or second round club control?  I think both suggest a second round control but with 5C available it seems to me that 5H should tend to deny a club void.  It is not so clear with pass but surely this is such an important feature that perhaps if you have enough to pass you should bid 5C.  I don’t know.

One of the problems here whatever you do is that you are not on firm ground.  Since you have not discussed this situation with partner when you pass or double (or perhaps even if you bid 5H) partner may not get your message.  To me this argues for being more aggressive with your choice if you can.

You also have 4S, 4NT and 5D as choices but none of them seem appropriate here. 

Now how do you rate your hand.  You are on the low end of the high card range but the points you have are in your suits.  More importantly you have both a sixth heart and a club void.  This is an offensive hand opposite a slam try not a defensive one.  You are not good enough to just bid a slam but I think it would be a good idea to show the club control.  The problem with pass is that after East bids 5C you are not as well placed if partner now bids 5H.  If partner passes you will of course bid 5H.

What does partner have?  Partner is likely to have a club or two but I can’t conceive of a hand where partner doesn’t have a lot of controls, after all you did preempt.  Partner has a good fit with one and more likely both of your suits.  One other positive is West has provided some very useful information (assuming you believe her) she is short in hearts.  This means that if there are any finesses in that suit they are likely to be onside.

In retrospect I like 5C.  You are never selling out to 5C.  Even if partner doubles you will pull it to 5H.  Why not tell partner about the most significant feature of your hand, that she doesn’t know.   However pass is reasonable.  It does suggest that you have a more offensive hand than double.

Let’s say you pass and the auction continues:  

What now?  Have we arrived?  Can you seriously consider bidding 6.  Partner’s 5H bid showed extra offence.  We do not play that pass and pull is stronger so 5H was the strongest bid available to partner.  5D would not have been a cuebid but a suggestion to play in that spot.  I really don’t think you can bid now, do you?  I think your chance to push to slam was over 4H.  Now you just have to hope that you can make 5H.

Next time, the South hand.

Thank you for your comments; here is another challenge

June 3rd, 2008  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

Many people have sent me comments in email or via the BLOG to let me know what they think of what I have said.  Some have provided helpful bridge advice and some have just told me I am full of it.  I love it all.  Keep it coming. 

One good thing about the current circumstance is that  Isabelle and I have an opportunity to do some system work.  We have played quite a bit in the last while and we have noticed some areas that could be better.  I am certain I will be seeking your advice on some of it.  But I will save that for another day.

Here is a hand Isabelle and I have been chatting about it.  I am not going to say who had what hand although some who were at the tournament will obviously know.  I am interested in your comments.  It is stars one of my favourite system features two of a major showing 5-5 (or possibly 6-5) in the bid major and a minor.  It is a weak hand but can be as much as 9.

First I give you this hand.

S 108 H Q109864 D K9642 C void

You are in first chair vulnerable and your extra heart length and good heart spots convince you that there is no problem opening 2H.  LHO who at favourable vulnerability bids 3C.  They are playing the defence you provided and this is marked as natural.  Partner bids 4C and RHO bid 4H.  It is your call?  Now I know you expect me to give the rest of the story but I am going to stop right here.  I want to hear with you think.  

So up to you.

The luck factor and picking teams

May 31st, 2008  ~  linda  ~  5 Comments 

I am not making excuses I made mistakes.  I personally could have easily found 7 imps.  But there is also a luck factor.   I suppose that is why we hope that 72 boards are enough.  That in that number of boards luck will even out.  But sometimes it just doesn’t.  Anyway, I vote for more boards.  It still won’t eliminate the luck factor but the dice just can’t keep coming up against you, can they?

Don’t worry that is my last comment about luck.  I wrote a BLOG before I went to Montreal about how we should pick teams.  At the tournament they asked the players if the CNTC should be imp pairs.  I am sure noone said yes.  Why would you?  The CNTC (and the CWTC) are fun events.  I had a great time.  Yes, even me, the loser.  But it still seems to me that we are not getting the best teams.  I know we could take the group that competed in the CNTC and pick 3 or 4 pairs and declare them a team and have a much better team than any of the finalist.  Not to say that there is anything wrong with whoever wins the event.  Just that it still won’t be the best we can do.  It is true on the women’s side as well. 

I love the idea of a program like the juniors where we put time and money into a group of elite players and eventually select our team from that pool.  That’s the way to go.  Not hope the players form good teams and that we Canadians are lucky enough that a truly good team wins.

A hand from four points of view

May 31st, 2008  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

Bridge matches are won or lost on the bidding. How would bid this hand from the CWTC final (and CNTC semi final) in each compass direction?

You can start off as me. Your opponents are vulnerable. Your hand is

S AQJ52 H A865 D Q106 C2

You open 1S. We will be back to you in a moment.

Now lets move across the table and you can sit behind Isabelle. You have S 10864 H KQ974 D 94 C109. You hear the auction go Pass-1S-2NT to you. You can bid 3S which is a less than a limit raise, or bid 3D limit raise or better or preempt with 4S. What would you do? . Lets consider some hands partner might have. We play 12-14 notrump in this position so if my hand is balanced I either have extra values or very good spades. 3S is the book bid. A weak hand with some spades does describe your hand. The argument for bidding 4S is the vulnerability. Even if you go down a couple it may not make any difference and it uses up a lot of the opponent’s space because slam is a possibility. On the other hand it might just push the opponents to a game they wouldn’t reach. Ray who is the preempt expert in our house does not like 4S at all. I could go either way. Isabelle chose 3S and her counterpart at the other table bid 4S. Lets see what happens next.

The bidding at our table continued 3S-4C back to me. Your RHO (Leslie) bids 4C. Your turn. Are you a bidder? I can’t personally see any reason to bid at all. Partner has nothing and your defence against 5C is limited. But I am open to anyone’s opinion.

Now before we see the finale. You are my RHO Leslie sitting East. Here is your hand: S K9 H K64 D 32 C J108743. What do you bid over 3S and what do you bid over 4S. First what are you methods? I was thinking about what 3NT, DBL and 4C meant. One of these bids should be a game try. Should double show high cards with both offence and defence? Should it be a game try? Should 3NT be a game try asking partner to bid her better suit? I have no idea but I think it is interesting. I would definitely take DBL as forward going. With 6C I would probably bid 5C over 4S. I know I am vulnerable but partner knows that too. She can hardly be much worse than x xx AKXXX AKXXX. On this hand 5C will make if the heart ace is onside and 4S will make or might be down 1 depending on the exact distribution and positioning of the hearts. Over 3S it is not as clear. I could bid 4C now and see what happens I suppose. What do you think?

Now you are LHO, Pamela. You have S 73 H 10 D AK875 C KQJ43.

The auction has been Pass-1S-2NT-3S-4C to you. You have bid 2NT and heard partner bid 4C freely. Is this one good enough for 5C or have you said your peace? Well I hate missing vulnerable games but I would pass. It does seem like you might be off 3 major suit tricks but it is possible partner has one covered. Partner would need to provide some help with the majors and enough to cover your diamond loser. I suppose partner could have S x H Jxxxx D QXX C AXXX . If partner has a really offensive hand they might have made a game try. But they don’t have much room. I suppose the final factor in deciding to pass is that your hand really couldn’t be much worse to bid 2NT.

An interesting hand. As you can see  4S is a make and 5C is down 1. So if you were aggressive with either the North hand or the East hand you did best.  At our table we sold out to 4C which made 4 and our opponents bought it for 4S making.

My opinion: I think that Isabelle made the right choice it worked out badly and the aggressive choice came home. Some days are like that.

If you can meet with triumph and disaster

May 30th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

.. and treat those two imposters just the same (Rudyard Kipling).

After losing the Canadian women’s championship by 7 imps over 72 boards, I realized how very fragile winning and losing is. In the third set (the last one for Isabelle and I) we did not bid a non vulnerable 5D game which was completely on a one way trump finesse. There were no extra chances. If the King of diamonds was offside we win the championship, if onside we lose. A flip of a coin, that was all. We were the better team but we didn’t play in form and we definitely didn’t have the luck.

I don’t mean to be ungracious. The winners played their hearts out and I congratulate them. I know when the Wolpert team lost to us they were very disappointed. I went over and hugged each one of them. I felt so sad for them. Everyone who competes knows success and failure. To be a winner you have to put it out on the line and accept losing. There can be no winning without that.

I hate to lose. I think all those who compete successfully must feel the same way. But losing is really the time when you can learn the most and become better and stronger. This was in the end just another event. The best part of the tournament for me was how well our team got along. I wasn’t really expecting it. Diana and Sharyn played very well and they were a pleasure to play with. I am so glad they are back together. They will do Canadian bridge proud. Julie and Francine played a solid game too. Paul is a wonderful captain and I truly hope one of the winners will pick him.

Isabelle and I had some great sessions. Best of all when we had problems we just let it go and went on. It was amazing. To master that is an important skill for both of us: more important than performing a guard squeeze.

I still had some performance anxiety. You know that horrible feeling just as you begin a match where you are nervous. I couldn’t sleep well. I have to work on that.

What else did I learn? This is the first time that I have come in second in an event like this. I didn’t realize exactly how it felt. I have some advice for the organizers. Get a picture of both teams at the beginning of the final. Loan them medals if you have to. It is hard to round up the losers after the scoring, especially if they lose by 7 imps. Our picture has only 3 players in it, including me.

There were a lot of interesting times in the event and some fun hands and ideas but I will save those for tomorrow when I am more awake.

It’s hard when an event you have been looking forward to is over. Isabelle and I have to choose our next goal, perhaps the fall nationals in Boston. I would I confess like to play in the European championships or something like that but that may not be possible. Well, that one is for another day.

How should we pick teams to play for Canada

May 22nd, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

I saw George Retek in Kingston on the weekend and he was talking about the selection process for the Canadian Open Team.  He was concerned that our results in the last few years hadn’t been spectacular, to say the least. 

One question is do we have any team that could compete and do well in the Bermuda Bowl?

We have some problems there because we are not all that deep in top class players and when people form their own teams they do not necessarily chose the best pairs available.  There is a lot of geography, friendships and history to consider.  The fact that some of our top players end up in the US is another problem.  Then since we have so little money some players can’t afford it or can’t get the time off school or work or whatever.

There are several other problems too as Ray noted in a previous post.  Pairs or players win and drop out and the team adds a replacement who may not even have played in the event.  It is at the discretion of the team to pick the best choice and they may not be equipped to do that.  And so on.

Is there a better way?  Some countries use a selection process and that does seem to me to have some advantages but we are way too democratic to do that I think.  Perhaps a pairs trial is the only way to go.  George Retek was suggesting that.  It does allow less well known up and coming players a chance to be on the team which would be unlikely unless they could find at least another 2 equally good players to form their CNTC team.  It circumvents the geography problem and if it works it would allow Canada to have some very good pairs all on one team.  I am not saying that we would always get the best pairs, no competition produces that result but we are likely to get 3 of the better ones.

If we could bring ourselves to using a selection committee perhaps we could take the top pair and 2 of the next 5 to be chosen by the selection committee.  Okay, I know you will all hate that.

What about the women?  There are just so few good women players I am sure what process is going to work.  There is an argument for a pairs trial here too.  If we were to do that then I would like to see some development work done to help our women players improve before the trial, something like the process we are starting to use for the juniors.

I hear the old arguments about chemistry but does it really matter?  You play as a pair.  It’s more fun to play on a team with people you like but I don’t think you get a better result.  I suppose that if someone on your team bit you (as happened in the women’s championship recently) that might affect your play but since in this case it was her partner the team had nothing to do with it.

Okay I admit that a supportive team can keep everyone’s morale up and give you the courage to go on there and try your best even after things are going badly so yes it might help sometimes.  Perhaps the captain (or in my case the husband) can perform this role instead.

Anyway I wish everyone who is competing in Montreal the best of luck, especially our team. 

A Corridor Hand

May 21st, 2008  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

The Kingston Regional was a lot of fun.  I played in my first Midnight Game in quite a while and my team managed to eek out a victory against the Smith team.  The hands were wild because half of them had been ghoulied (the half dealt at the Smith table).  The hospitality was great with free wine and beer and free food, good food.  One highlight was listening to Captain Paul’s lectures.  The one I listened to was on reverses and it reminded me that I hated reverse auctions that start with responder rebidding her major at the two level: you know 1D-1S-2H-2S.  The auctions always seem a bit difficult after that.

At a bridge tournament you always wind up trying to bid or play a hand when someone thrust some paper at you and your partner.  Here was a hallway hand that Jeff Smith gave Isabelle and me. You have X AKXXX Q 109XXXX

I force open you a few rules. You are playing 2/1 but 2C is not a game force if you bid 3C at your next opportunity. It shows a good club suit and invitational values in that auction.

Partner opens 1S and you bid? I bid 1NT (F) although during the discussion there was an argument for 2C by Marty Caley (who was prepared I assume to bid 3C later). Partner bids 2C! over your forcing notrump and RHO bid 2D. Partner’s bid shows 2+ clubs but partner will only have 2C when 5-3-3-2 so if they have 2 clubs they must have 3 hearts. What now intrepid readers?

I made an outré bid I admit of 4D. I was taking a bit of a risk that partner had 3C at least. I think 3C (Jeff’s bid) is very reasonable. Let’s follow this path for a while. Over 3C it goes 3D and partner bid 3NT. Your bid?

Did you find the master bid of 4H? Partner has to have at least 3 hearts or 3 clubs so you have a place to play this hand and it just seems to me that when you are 6-5 you want to play a suit contract. Over 4H partner will likely bid 5C and you will play there although partner who was 5-2-2-4 with the KQJX of clubs and both missing ace might get the idea and bid 6C. 4H is such a wild bid it must show some sort of shape like this even if it is a bit inconsistent with the 3C bid.

Back to 4D, Isabelle who was bidding the hand with me bid 4S over 4D and I just couldn’t bid 6C with such lousy clubs and we subsided in 5C. As it turned out 5C works best because the opening lead is a stiff heart and when his partner wins the CA he gets a heart ruff, very unlucky. Passing 3NT was not a winner since you do not have enough tricks without the club suit and you only have a single diamond stopper. I told you not to play 6-5 in notrump.

Isabelle and I got to a few very neat slams. Here is one auction from Sunday. Here is Isabelle’s hand. S xx H xx D KQ109xxx C QX. You are vulnerable. The auction starts 3S on your left. 4H by partner, 4S your call? Isabelle bid 5D. It went 5S on your left and 6C from partner – what is she doing to you? Is 6C a grand slam try? I think 6C is pick a slam but in any case you are going to bid 6D. It goes double all pass. I held

S x H AJ109xx DAJ CAKxx

After the lead of the SA the slam is fairly easy but I believe clubs break so you are okay on an unlikely heart lead. However a trump lead will beat the hand.

Of course we did have some problems.  Here is a hand I got wrong but it seemed very reasonable at the time. 

You have Ax A10xxx AQxxx x. This time you are not vulnerable. The auction starts

You Opp Partner Opp

1H Pass 1S 2C

2D* Pass 2S 3C

?

* usually denies 3S

What do you like now?

Marty Caley suggested double which keeps all your options open. The choice at the table was 3D. How do you like that?

Here is the other hand

Kxxxxx QJ K10x xx. Would you take a bid on that hand now? As you can see 5D is laydown, 4H is a good contract and 4S (probably the third best) is decent too.

As partners said you have three makeable game contracts, you should find one. We played in 3D.

Overall I think we both felt very good about our play and I hope it will give us confidence for the very important bridge next week in Montreal.

The Long Drive Home

May 20th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

I drove home from Kingston with Dave Colbert and Mike Cafferata who were my last round opponents in the Swiss.  They were at the other table and Dave was playing my hands.  We spent a lot of the car ride home talking about this hand which I played in four spades while Dave was in four spades doubled.  It is interesting how we each played it.  Here is the hand:

As I remember it Isabelle opened 1D and East overcalled 1H.  I made a negative double which conveniently showed the other two suits and West bid 2D showing about a limit raise in hearts.  Isabelle bid 4H and I bid 4S which was the final contract.  The opening lead was a heart and now I spent 5 minutes thinking how to play it.  Its up to you now.

…………………

Here’s what I did.  I ruffed the heart, led a club to the A and lead a spade up playing the king when West played low.  The hand was soon over when East won drew 3 rounds of trump and cashed to hearts.  I think all lines need 3-2 diamond break and a 3-2 spade break.  My line needed the spade ace onside.  If it was I was home.  If he wins the spade ace and taps me say.  I ruff cash the SK and play diamonds pitching my hearts.  They will make their remaining trump eventually.  West does best to duck the spade, I win the king and let them take their 3 trump whenever they want.

Here is what happened at the other table.  I am not sure about the auction although I am sure it was similar but Dave was doubled in four spades by Jeff Smith sitting East.  Now Dave knows the trump ace is almost certainly over the SK.  What is his best line?  Dave decided that the trump were 4-1 and he led the S10 off dummy.  (Obviously you can’t make it on that distribution).  Jeff won and played a heart.  Dave won and played 3 diamonds, Jeff discarding on the third diamond.  Now Dave was toast.  If he played any more diamonds the short hand would ruff in and he couldn’t play another spade.  If he does Jeff wins and plays another heart.  There are no more trump in dummy so Mike has to win.  He can cross to dummy on a club but Jeff can ruff in on the next diamond killing the dummy.  In the end he was one down.

There is one other line that might work and I did consider it at the table.  I think this is the one Dave should have tried since it works when the spade ace is offside if clubs are 3-3 (along with spades 3-2 and diamonds 3-2).  Basically you set up clubs and only use the 3 top diamonds as pitches.  Here’s how it works.  You play 3 top diamonds throwing your last two hearts.  If the AQJ of spades holds the short diamond they should not ruff.  Now you play three rounds of clubs ruffing in dummy.  These are your remaining cards

Now you lead a spade from the dummy. You need to lead the S10 from dummy.  The idea is that you keep the Spade K there to overruff West (the short hand).  You lead a spade and the defence wins and you ruff in hand.  Now you play clubs.  If West every ruffs you overruff with the spade King.  Since both your hand and dummy have winners you don’t care which hand you are in.  East takes his two trump tricks at any time.

I don’t think this is the best line when you don’t know where the SA is but it is certainly the best line if you do.  Even if clubs are not 3-3 this will work if the club queen is onside (and you finesse) or if the club queen is doubleton.  I don’t how the clubs are but I really wish I played the hand this way.  It would have been a great story.