Partnership Rules

January 8th, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

In a previous post I mentioned a bit about Colbert’s rules.  Isabelle and I have some partnership rules too but they aren’t really about bidding.  I think they can be called the beer rules.  They are about transgressions that are worth a beer to partner.  (We have upgraded from coffee since Isabelle doesn’t like it).

Beer Rules

1. The notes are always right (until you change them) and you always lose any discussion (and a beer) if you don’t follow the notes .

2. Blocking suits or signalling with the setting trick costs a beer

3.  Failing to try to defeat a hand on defence when it is possible is beer offence.

4. Failing to take your 9 tricks in 3nt (or your 10 tricks in a suit contract) is beer e worthy.

5. We never questions partner’s bidding judgment or style  Its okay to
have a general discussion about preempt style, balancing etc.  Upsetting partner is worth at least 1 beer.

6.   It’s okay to make a mistake.  It’s not as good to make excuses but we don’t let either of those two things bother us.  No beer for the
mistake but a beer for the excuse.

Do any of you have any suggestions?

Canada’s Best Bridge Players

January 2nd, 2008  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

For a number of years I have been thinking about the idea of something like a Canadian Bridge Hall of Fame.  At New Years I was reminded of this idea when I was talking to Professor Silver about who are Canada’s bridge heroes past and present.  We both agreed that Eric Murray and Sami Kehela would be included and that being given who else should be added.  I thought I would see if any of you had nominees.  Dave suggested that there would be an age divide since younger players would not remember greats like Shorty Sheardown and certainly that may be true but I think enough of us still know these players that they would be included.  Here are some categories:

Top Players of the past: This is a category for players like Shorty who are no longer alive but who were great in their day and should no longer be forgotten.

Long-time Great Players:  This is the category for players who are at least 55 years old and have made a great track record.  They may no longer be playing serious bridge.  This is the category that Eric and Sami belong to.

Builders: People (alive or dead) who are recognized for a long-term significant contribution to the game but not specifically as a player.  Kate Buckman is one who comes to mind.  I might also nominate Barbara Seagram, David Lindop, Ted Horning and the world’s top bridge coach Eric Kokish.  People who are or were teachers, writers, bridge theorist etc.

Current Great: This is for players who are in the top ranks of bridge today.  They need not be 55 but they should have at least a 10 year track record of high level performance.  They can even be players who have defected to the United States or elsewhere in search of better earnings.  Geoff Hampson and Fred Gitelman seem like two possibilities.  But there are a lot more.

Great Women Players: Women with a strong track record as a players.  They may be current players or past players of any age.  I can think of quite a few people for this category.  However I would like to nominate my teammate and past partner Francine Cimon.  Francine in my opinion is currently the best women bridge player in Canada.  She has played internationally for Canada many times and won if I remember correctly 5 medals.

Please let me know your choices and if you like you can even add a category.

Colbert’s Rules

January 2nd, 2008  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

Colbert’s Rules

Playing with Ray in the CNTC qualifying a few days ago we met Dave Colbert in the final round. Some years ago Mike Cafferata one of Dave’s frequent partners wrote a series of article for Canadian Master Point in which he outlined a series of rules called Colbert’s Rules. These were the rules that Dave made his partners play and they still seem very good to me. To research this post I looked the articles up in Northern Lights a book we published a few years ago. If you haven’t read this book borrow a copy from your friends or buy one it is still a terrific book and lots of fun to read. It is the best of our old magazine Canadian Master Point.

Colbert’s rule #4 is one of our favourites. Ray and I quote it to each other from time to time when we are playing. It is:

Look for excuses to bid, not excuses not to bid

So it was funny that in our relatively short match against Dave two examples of this rule came up. The first time one of us invited and partner sank into thought before passing. This is almost a sure sign that Colbert’s rule has been broken and indeed it had been. The game was a good one and it made. A few hands later Dave showed us the way.

He held SK10X H AKX D AKQJX C Ax

and opened 2C when his partner bid 2H showing 3 points or less and no kings.  Dave decided to bid 3NT. At the other table our partners bid a more obvious 2NT which was passed by partner who could not offer any help with

S xxxx H xxx Dxx C 98xx

Dave figured that he had 8 tricks and even if partner could not make a contribution he had 9 on a spade lead and on any other lead he would have chances. I did lead a spade from S QJX H Jx D xxx C QJxxx and Dave quickly claimed 3. The whole hand was

At the other table the CQ was lead and this proved to be allow 9 tricks as well. In fact I believe the hand can be made on any lead.  Declarer ducks a club and runs diamonds.  Ray will have to either throw a heart or stiff his spade Ace.  If the former Dave can play a small spade if the latter Dave can play three rounds of hearts and endplay Ray in spades.

More Stayman – I Like It

December 27th, 2007  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Isabelle has made a lot of contributions to our system.  In some cases we had to pick – her way or my way and we did some of both.  This wasn’t always because one was better than the other, it was just because we had to chose.  SI liked some of the things she wanted to play because they made us more aggressive and more difficult to play against: things like 10-12 notrump multi with 2M showing 5+Major 5+minor and so on.

When we have looked at the technical aspects of the system such as how we wanted to play forcing and nonforcing Stayman or what to do over

1 of a minor – 1 of a major -1NT there was a lot of discussions as well as consultation with others.  But Isabelle also brought a lot of great ideas to our partnership.  One I like the best came from one of the Zaluski’s I can’t remember which right now.  It is simple but adds a lot so I thought I would share it.  Here it goes:

Over 2NT followed by Stayman, responder can bid Stayman again for more information.  Here is an example:

2NT-3C-3D-4C: more Stayman – tell me more about your distribution)

4D 5 card minor somewhere (relay to find minor)

4H  3 hearts and therefore 2-3-4-4

4S 3 spades 3-2-4-4

4NT 4-3-3-3 with a 4 card minor

2NT-3C-3H or 3S-4C

After a major suit responses show either a side minor suit or that the major is 5 cards

4D 4 card minor somewhere (relay to find the minor)

4of the M shows a 5 card suit

4S after responder shows hearts shows 4-4

4NT shows 4-3-3-3

It has come up a few times in practice and once in a game.  What do you think?

The Partscore Battle

December 19th, 2007  ~  linda  ~  6 Comments 

Isabelle and I are having a discussion about how hard you should fight for partscores at IMPS.  My contention is that we try too hard and take too much risk, having spent too much time playing matchpoints.  I came to this view a few years ago after going through a number of world championship books and counting the number of swings that occurred because of partscores.  I used the championship rounds where every hand was recorded. 

My conclusion was that the number of imps won and lost as a result of contesting a partscore after each side was bid out was very low provided that you defended well. 

The only real edge to bidding on was the cases where the defense should have prevailed and didn’t.  This was rare among these great players and didn’t factor in.  Most hands either:

a) the score was the same whether you bid on or not since you were getting about the same plus or minus either way

b) you might rarely turn a minus into a plus particularly if your opponents bid on

c) double partscore swings – where both sides made a plus were not common

d) you occasionally went for a number or turned a plus into a minus

The best way to fight for a partscore is to get into the hand early and bid it to the max then subside.    When the opponents have a good idea of their strength and/or when you are vulnerable you have increased the risk.

That being said when should you keep bidding in risky situations.  

I believe you need to push on if there is a reasonable chance that your side might make game or at the very least you have a high expectation that your side can make a higher partscore.

Isabelle and I were discussing this case as an example.  (I have changed it a bit to protect the guilty – not us by the way).

Opp    You  Opp      Partner
                              
1C      1NT      2H       Pass
Pass     ?

Your hand is S Kxxx H Ax Dx KJx Cx  AQ10x

You play double by partner would be takeout over 2H.

All Vul should you bid and if so what?

All NV should you bid and if so what?

The conclusion we came to was game was unlikely for our side and it is not at all clear that we have a playable partscore so the risk of bidding vulnerable outweighed the advantages. 

Not vulnerable we would bid double since this seemed most flexible, in case partner had hearts.  Responder should not pass without good hearts since this double is for takeout and tends to show heart shortness.

What do you think?  Am I too conservative in my thinking?

Why I Love Playing With Isabelle

December 13th, 2007  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

There are a lot of reasons why I love playing with Isabelle, she is positive with a sunny personality.  She knows a lot about some great new ideas.  She is a wonderful intuitive defender.  She has a lot of guts.  But last night’s game against Paul Thurston and Dave Woods reminded me of another reason.

Isabelle held SK8 H AJ1094 D 543 CK54

Paul opened a vulnerable 2H bid which must have been a bit of a surprise  Dave passed and I bid 3H which asks for a heart stopper for 3NT.  this was no problem from her hand so Isabelle bid 3NT.  Now I bid 4S.  this is not in our notes and we have never discussed it.  My experience is that with most partner’s venturing out into the unknown is high risk but I have a lot of confidence in Isabelle.  What does this mean and what should she do?  Isabelle deduced that I had a hand that was just too good to bid 4S and one where I didn’t want to start with double for fear it would be passed.  She had a terrific hand for me and so she cue bid 5C which soon saw us in 6S.  We were the only pair to reach that contract.  Here is my hand.

S AQJ1054 H void D AQ7 C AJ83

The hand is cold on the any lead on the lie of the cards.

We are close to being finished a complete version of our system notes.  That is not to say that it won’t grow and change.  Right now our notes are "only" 85 pages, less than a 1/3 as long as Eric Kokish- Beverly Kraft’s notes.  But we will have gone through most parts of the system. One area we struggled with recently is this follow-ons to 1 over 1 auctions like this:

1C-1H-2C

First of all what do you do as responder with a one suited heart hand on various strengths.  For example you have:

A) S xx H AKJxxx D xxx Cxx

B) S xx H AKJxxx D Qxx Cxx

C) S Ax H AKJxxx D Qxx Cxx

D) S AQ H AKJxxx D Kxx Cxx

On hand a you would like to bid hearts constructive, on hand B you would like to bid hearts invitational, on hand c hearts game forcing and on hand d hearts game forcing with slam interest.

We decided to play that 2H is constructive (hand a); that 3H is invitational hand b and that with c or d you have to bid 2D or 2S (ugly).  Anyone have a better idea?  The problem also occurs with balanced notrump type hands with slam try values.

Being On The Same Wavelength

December 5th, 2007  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

Most of the time Isabelle and I understand each other during the bidding.  Even more important is to be tuned into partner’s defense.  Isabelle and I do fairly well on defense. At the moment I think this is just as much a matter of instinct as it is technique. Both of us understand defense fairly well.  Usually we can get the message that partner is trying to send. 

I don’t believe in giving much count.  I think knowing where high cards are is much more important.  Besides I have seen too many hands where counters have given away the treasure.  Just the other day we played against a very good pair who decided to give me count when I needed to decide whether to finesse or play for a break.  Did I say give me count, sorry I meant give each other count.  So most of our signals are either attitude or suit preference.  We are still feeling this out at the moment.    If we lead the suit we would normally play attitude first, suit preference second unless there is some reason to play count.  We play upside carding.  Here is an example.

West    North   East    South

                                   1C

1D        DBL      RDBL    2C

2D        3C        3D        all pass

You North hold S Q974 H Q642 D 8 C Q1095

You start the CQ and dummy hits with

S AJ32 H A1095 D Q62 C62

To be fair, I am going to tell you that nothing you do actually matters.  The only discussion here is what does the signal mean.  Even an earthquake won’t break this contract.

On you CQ partner plays the C8 which holds the trick.  What does it all mean?

Partner is known to have club length and unless declarer is playing a pretty deep game from Ax partner has the AK.  Often in these situation when partner has known length in a suit the c8 has to do double duty.  First it is discouraging and second it is suit preference.  If you don’t like the suit you play a highish spot for the lower suit and a really high spot for the highish suit.  What does that make the C8?  Probably asking for a heart?

But when partner lets the CQ hold they probably don’t want clubs continued.   Then that C8 has only one job suit preference.  Maybe declarer has the CJ and that C8 is partner’s highest spot.  Ergo the C8 should ask for spades.  If you think this way then if partner wants a heart he should play the C3, right?

Isabelle read the card as a request for a spade and I think that is right.  Does any of this make sense to any of you?  Comments are welcome as usual.

Now on to a more interesting hand that I screwed up.  Why do I always want to focus on hands that I get wrong.  Maybe it is in the hopes of improving.

Here is the hand

Auction

West    North   East    South

                                   1C

pass      1H        pass   2NT

pass      6NT      all pass

S A107 HQ972   DAJ95  CK10

SKQ4   HK105   DKQ7  CAJ95

The opening lead was the S5 and I put the 10 in East following with the S9.  Now it seemed to me that if I could play the heart suit for 3 winners I wouldn’t need to find the CQ.  And finding the CQ wouldn’t be enough most of the time.  So I thought I should try to find the HJ.  If you decide to play a couple of winners first, you will find out that West started with 6S and East with 4 diamonds.   How do you play it?  What I did is play a H to the HK and when West won and returned a heart I still played him for the HJ.  My reasoning pitiful as it was, was that since he had made a passive lead he was more likely to have something in hearts and perhaps in clubs too.  Here is the whole hand.

Why Do Women Play Bridge Worse Than Men?

November 27th, 2007  ~  linda  ~  6 Comments 

I don’t think there is much debate that at the top levels men play bridge better than women.  If bridge had a true ranking system there would be no women in the top 25 players in the world.  There are very few women who could expect to be ranked in the top 100, maybe none.  At the world championships women have their own private event.  No men allowed.  Why is this necessary?

There has been a running argument that women’s events are a bad idea.  The theory is that women who play in these events do not develop their bridge skills as they would if they played against the very top players, that is the top men.  I do not believe this to be the case.  Despite the fact that women’s events are available there is every chance to also play in open events.  Besides only so many of either sex can play in the Bermuda Bowl.  In my personal experience I learned more from playing the Venice Cup than I did in all the open events I played.  This is not the reason that women are not up to men.

When I learned to play bridge first at the end of high school and then seriously in university I was one of less than a handful of serious women players of my age.  There were, at least in those days, many young male players.  What were the young women doing?    I wasn’t hanging out with them but I assume that they were studying or more likely socializing.  Women generally do not learn to play bridge or take it seriously until they are in their 30’s or older.  In my opinion this is one of the major problems.  It is very difficult to be a topflight bridge player unless you start young.  I don’t know why that is, perhaps the brain is less flexible.

When I went to university I studied mathematics.  My class was devoid of many others of my sex.  I have been asked on occasion to talk to women about careers in mathematics or engineering to encourage them to enter the field.  I do not have the statistics but I still think that there are fewer women in fields like this.  I can speculate that there is a difference in the brains of men and women.  

I have also noticed that women approach games differently.  Usually they approach driving differently too.  Women are much less likely to give the guy in the next car the finger when he doesn’t let them make a lane change.  I play an online role playing game called Everquest.  Almost all the healers in the game are women.  Almost all the tanks, big hulking warriors, are men.  I think there is a reason for this gender selection of roles.  It mirrors real life.  At the bridge table there are still women who need to "control the table".  But most of the time most women just want to play their best.  In  less serious competition, even regional events, some women seem to have more time and desire for the social niceties.

There is a gender difference, it relates to the psychological makeup and the psychological makeup of our species.  All these factors contribute to the lower probability of a woman being the best bridge player in the world.  I conjecture that just as in chess to develop top ranked women players you start with someone who has the right heredity and then you develop their bridge skills from an early age.  This might overcome the other obstacles.  It has in chess with  the Polgars, 3 Hungarian sisters who were nurtured in chess by their father from early childhood.  One of the sisters has made it to the final rounds of the playoffs for the world chess title, the first woman to do so.

Since clearly in both chess and bridge most women cannot compete in Open Events at the world championship level it seems to me that is reasonable that they have an event that they can play in.  Does this make them worse players?  I think not.  Most women work hard to prepare for these events, they practice, get coaching, play in other challenging events (often open ones).  I had not expected that I would get so much out of playing in world championships but it has been a terrific experience. 

To Bid Or Not To Bid … Grand Slams

November 26th, 2007  ~  linda  ~  1 Comment 

I am in beautiful San Francisco at the Nationals.  Now I could be enjoying the sights or I could be playing in a national event but actually I am spending a lot of my time in my room working on our system notes or playing bridge with Isabelle on BBO.  Most of my friends here think this is really quite funny.  

Isabelle and I bid some hands in partnership practice.  We usually don’t run into too many problems partly because the hand generator program doesn’t provide much in the way of competitive bidding.  Also we are starting to master our standard sequences.  So I was happy to play when asked in a team game.  It was billed as USA against Spain.  Most of our opponents were Spanish Women Internationalist.   We were pretty successful throughout most of the match and actually only lost imps on one board – but that was a doozy.  Back to that one in a minute.  First one where we did very well.  I give all the credit to Isabelle.  This was her hand

S J H AK10765 D AK984 C A.

Here is the auction:

Isabelle    Linda

1H            1S

2D            3S

4D            4H

?

Isabelle passed and it turned out to be a fine decision.  My hand was

S AK542 H 93 D 732 C 85

There were no miracle holdings in either red suit so 5 was the limit of the hand.  When 6H was bid in the other room we won 11 imps.  Well done Isabelle.

Okay time for the disaster.  There have not been very many times where I have lost 20 imps on a board and this was one of them.  the sad thing was that we were destined to lose most of them.   Here is the hand from Isabelle’s point of view.  You have S AK4 H KQ965 D K95 CA10. Isabelle opened 1H and 1 bid 2NT showing 4H and at least 16 dummy points.  Isabelle asked me about my shape and I showed a spade singleton.  This is the auction so far

Isabelle    Linda

1H            2NT

3D            4C

at this point Isabelle can ask for controls, cue bid or Blackwood.  She chose the later bidding 4NT.  I responded with 5H, 2 without the trump queen and she bid 5NT showing all the key cards.  I continued to cooperate with 6C the club king.  What now?

We have all the aces and kings, a 5-4 fit and I have a spade ruff.  Here only risk is that she has a diamond loser if the diamond queen is missing.  She knows I have some undisclosed values to make it to 16 dummy points.  Do you bid the grand?  Do you make one more try with 6D.  I guess this bid is looking for something more that is useful.  Isabelle bid the grand, 7H.  Now I have a philosophy that you do not bid grand slams unless you can count 13 tricks but surely if there ever was a hand for it this must be it.  Anyway you get the expected trump lead and I put down this slightly disappointing hand.

S 5 HAJ82 D AJ43 CKJ87.  Don’t you wish you could turn in the three jacks for one queen? 

S AK4

H KQ965  

D K95 

C A10

S 5        

HAJ82 

D AJ43

CKJ87

Now how do you play it.  This looks like one of those deals where if you could see the opponents cards you would make it.  You start off with two rounds of trump, they break 2-2 and a club to the CA.   Watch the club spots for a little hint, West playing the C6 and East the C2.  Now you play the C10 and East sinks into the tank before playing the C3.  Do you finesse?

Isabelle had other plans.  Her idea was to ruff the third club and if the queen didn’t come down hope she had a club diamond squeeze or she could pick up diamonds. 

So she rose CK West following with the C4 and ruffed a club West showing out Isabelle cashds the top spades ruff a spade and played the last 2 trump arriving at this ending leading the last trump.  When west held the CQ Isabelle through dummy’s CJ. 

H 5

D K95

D AJ4

C J

She decided to play East for the DQ and played the DK and another.  When East followed low she knew she was going down.  East held the Q10x of diamonds so you couldn’t pick them up.

Did you finesse the CQ?  Did you notice that West gave count! and that East hesitated with the CQ.  I guess that means that the ladies from Spain are honest types.

Now before you decide with me that you should not bid grand slams, let me point out that they also bid the grand at the other table.  They got the D8 lead and figured out that diamonds were not working so in the end they took the club finesse and made it.  Had we bid only 6 we would have lost 13 imps anyway. 

We did win the match pipping them out 25-20.

A Small Victory

November 15th, 2007  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

I really like playing with Isabelle.  We try to work hard in our practices but somehow it is always fun too.  Our practice Tuesday evening was no exception.  I was reminded of Sabine’s book – I love this game.  It always seems that there is something interesting and something to learn.  Things are never dull at out table for long.

Board 3 brought the first real swing of the match.  You have an agreement that you open light preempts when not vulnerable.  In first chair you have

S AQJ8754 H 84 D 107 C J10.

You are not vulnerable against vulnerable.  Is this too good to preempt?  Should you open 4S or pass?  I chose to open 3S.  Isabelle had S 93 H Q10 D AK98532 C KQ.  As you can see 4S is on a finesse for the trump king.  As it turns out the finesse is offside and we mad exactly 3.  Since I got a diamond lead I didn’t even take the finesse which is just as well since there is a diamonds ruff.  Since this game is at best 50% and there is less chance than usually for defensive error if the finesse is wrong. I am not unhappy to miss this one. 

Board 7 brought a triumph of sorts.  Here’s how it went down.  I held S Q1032 H K93 D J83 C K87 as South, all vulnerable.  The bidding went:

West    North    East    South

                                    Pass

Pass     1S         DBL      2H*

Pass     2NT       Pass     ?

* constructive 4 card raise

We are playing 2 things in the auction that I am just learning.  Over the double we are playing transfer advances which is why 2H is not hearts.  2NT is part of a system called Nagy game tries which combine long and short suit approaches.  It suggests that Isabelle does not have short suit since she would likely bid that suit as a game try instead.  My response is supposed to be the lowest suit I would accept a game try in, which is clearly clubs.  Is this a good hand for the auction?  I thought so.  Despite the soft values my honours figure to be well placed after the takeout double.  I have good spots but I am 4-3-3-3.  I decided that I wanted to be in a vulnerable game if she was making a try of any sort.  But since she probably has a flat hand and I certainly do maybe 3NT would be the spot.  This is not a bid in our system but I made it anyway.   Isabelle has no problem with these at the table inventions and took it correctly as an offer to play and there we landed.  Here is the whole hand

On the natural club lead this hand has a lot of chances, Isabelle played it very well and as it turned out we did make it.  Clearly 4S has no play.  However I admit that even vulnerable, 3NT is not a good contract.  You be the judge did I overbid?  If I had responded 3C would Isabelle have bid 4S I wonder. Perhaps you think Isabelle is being a bit aggressive on the hand.  But then again you can’t argue too hard with success.  Bill Milgram put it well.  You don’t win matches by avoiding games but by getting to bad games and making them.  Bid boldly, play safe is our motto.

There is a chapter in a great bridge book I was reading lately by  Danny Kleinman and Nick Straguzzi called Human Bridge Errors.  This is Cthonic, the bridge computer’s attempt to help us humans play bridge better than our cell phone.  The chapter is called Lose Lips Sink Ships.  The idea is that sometimes when you bid you help the opponents out.   All vulnerable I held

S VOID H A9742 D A10 C AQJ942.  I opened 1C and Isabelle bid 2C limit raise or better in clubs.  Jeff Smith bid 3S.  At this point I was sure I wanted to be in slam.  Vulnerable for his bid Jeff had to have most of the spade suit which meant that most of Isabelle’s points had to be useful.  In fact her hand is unlimited and if she has the HK we might even have more.  I bid 4D to try to induce a heart cue bid and settled for 6 when Isabelle bid 5C.

Her hand was

S 97 H QJ D KQJ2 C K10873

and I was soon able to claim.

Right now we are working on our multi defense.  So far we are trying out a compromise system that starts off like this in direct chair

DBL   general takeout with an emphasis on the majors, balanced 19+ or any very strong hand

2H     Takeout of hearts

2S      Takeout of spades

2NT    15-18

All 3 level bids good hands and good suit but Natural

4C     Clubs and a major

4D     Diamonds and a major

With a weaker overcall you pass and bid later.  I don’t like the ambiguity in the four of a minor bid and I am not sure any of it is sound. 

The triumph mentioned in the title – we won the match.  It felt quite nice since on our previous attempt despite playing quite well we scored badly.  Its not always about the score but I did enjoy the little victory.