Cautious Bidder

The 2008-2009 Season

The new season approaches and I hope all Wiltshire members are girding their loins for the fray. In particular, I hope you are planning to enter most, if not all, county competitions, and I especially hope you are intending to enter all the TEAMS competitions that the county has to offer.

County bridge is an important stepping stone for ambitious players, and even for those who play the game purely for enjoyment (rather than to exploit the opportunity to grind their opponents into the dust) the teams game is so much more enjoyable, and so much fairer, than the unrelenting diet of matchpointed pairs upon which most of us subsist at club level, that it’s a crying shame that more of our game is not organised on this basis. The reason for this, of course, is convenience (pairs is so much easier to organise).

Thankfully, the county programme offers a range of teams competitions which should enable those tragic souls whose bridge experience is confined to matchpointed pairs to broaden their horizons.

The EBU magazine ‘English Bridge’ now features a debate on what the Editor considers to be a controversial topic, and I was amused to see that the April 2008 issue focussed on the question of which is the better form of the game - pairs or teams. Frances Hinden drew the short straw, and she argued the case for pairs with gusto. It is indeed the case that pairs is more continuously demanding than teams play, and some of the decisions which one faces in play and defence may be more complex, but of course that argument is defeated by the ridiculous randomness and the quite stupendous arbitrariness of most pairs competitions - especially in small fields of mixed standard with a limited number of boards in play.

A reasonable analogy is with the Premier League in football. Last season, somewhat predictably you may say, Manchester United won the title, closely followed by Chelsea, Arsenal, and, at a respectful distance, Liverpool. That is the essence of teams play. However much you hate them, the best team wins and the worst teams get relegated. As a Fulham supporter you will understand that there is nothing self-interested in my argument here. It is pure logic.

What if they organised football on the same basis as matchpointed pairs in bridge? The outcome would depend not only on the outcome of competition between the finest teams in the land (and Derby County). Oh no. Mangotsfield, Forest Green Rovers and Keynsham would also be in the mix. The title would not necessarily go to the side that managed to overcome the other top sides, but to the team that most effectively flattened Mangotsfield. What on earth is the point of that???????? Even more bizarrely, the result of the game between Mangotsfield and Keynsham, both of them completely hopeless, could well have a bearing upon the destination of the title. Forget the sublime skills of Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney et al - equally decisive at the end of the day (as we football commentators like to say) would be the small matter of whether the Mangotsfield goalkeeper remembered to insert his contact lenses before leaving the sanctuary of the changing hut. Ridiculous.

If you want to discover whether you can play the game, and you want to learn to play it better, play teams. Which brings me, slightly circuitously, to the forthcoming season and the menu of Wiltshire events on offer. There are three events in particular to which I should like to draw your attention.

First there is the Premier League (ok, the league). It’s an all-play-all teams event held on fixed dates in Devizes Town Hall. All you’ve got to do is turn up!!! What could be easier than that? By the way, it’s best to have a team of six since there are usually about ten matches, on different nights of the week throughout the winter. It’s the jewel in the Wiltshire bridge crown.

Next there is the County Knock-out. This, as the title implies, is a knock-out competion against other Wiltshite teams. Less demanding than the Premier League (especially if you get knocked out in the first round), it is also great fun.

Thirdly, there is the Cliff Sibley multiple teams, to be held at the Nursteed Centre on the 28th of September. This used to be a mixed teams event, meaning you had to have a man in the team, but that unreasonable restriction has been abandoned. You simply need four bodies.

I look forward to meeting you, and to doing battle at the bridge table from September onwards. I’ll be playing for Mangotsfield. 

July 23rd, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

John Armstrong

The Wiltshire IMP chuck

How many IMPs is it possible to lose in a single board? Well, the International Match Point scale grows tired at 4,000 points, decreeing that any team that loses a board by that total (or more) shall lose 24 IMPs. It’s not possible, on the face of it, to lose any more than that. But I will be very disappointed if your answer to my question is ‘24′. That would suggest to me that you have not given the matter sufficient thought. 

In fact, the question of how many IMPs have been ‘chucked’ on a given board, whilst of burning interest to competitive bridge players (especially those whose competitive instincts are directed against their own team-mates), is not one that necessarily yields a definitive, clear-cut answer. Indeed, I have in times past been amused to hear bridge players allocating the entire responsibility for losses to their team-mates, when a more generous or fair-minded view of the debacle might have led to a different allocation of responsibility. Not that that’s going to stop me on this occasion. What is the point of writing a column such as this if one is not allowed to indulge one’s baser instincts?

The hand in question arose in the Oxfordshire Congress Swiss Teams, held last weekend. I was partnering Katharine Hodgson and our team-mates were the long-suffering Andrew Law and Bob Bannister.

This was the hand. West was the Dealer. Kathy and I sat North/South. We were vulnerable; East/West were not.

                                      3

                                      K1087632

                                      85

                                      K74

                           86                      AKJ9742

                           void                    Q

                           AKJ942               Q10763

                           Q10832               void

                                      Q105

                                      AJ954

                                      void

                                      AJ965

At our table, West opened One Diamond; I overcalled Three Hearts, my rule on these occasions being to bid one more than would occur to anyone else; East bid Three Spades; Four Hearts from Kathy; Four No Trumps (??!) from West; Five Hearts from me; Six Diamonds from East; passed out. West, needless to say, made thirteen tricks, for a score of +940.

What do you think of that?

East/West had missed a laydown Grand Slam, which on the one hand might be considered a good result from our point of view. Admittedly, Kathy, who with my encouragement has been trying to give up the sensible tablets, could have competed to Six Hearts. Come to think of it, so might I. But what would have happened then? Might not East/West have bid on to Seven Diamonds? Viewed in that light, our decision to defend Six Diamonds appears rather well judged.  Had our opponents bid the Grand, we would have had to ’save’ in Seven Hearts, going two down for -500, this being the theoretical par result on the hand. More likely, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that we would have passed out Seven Diamonds, or even doubled it, incurring a far heftier minus score of 1440, or even 1630. That at least was to be our defence.

So I was not too dismayed by our -940, and, were it not for a couple of other absolute horrors that I had managed to perpetrate on other boards in this same set (no chance of them being written up, no sirree) I would have looked forward with reasonable confidence to scoring up. Admittedly we were 10 IMPs down against the theoretical par result on the hand, but against the making Grand Slam we were 11 IMPs up!

At the other table in our match the bidding began similarly, but West, Bob Bannister, sensibly bid Five Clubs at his second go. Andrew bid Six Diamonds, but now South competed to Six Hearts. This was passed round to Andrew, who felt he was in no position to bid Seven Diamonds with confidence. He doubled Six Hearts. So we were booked for a 12 IMP loss on the board rather than an 11 IMP gain.

But wait. Andrew is on lead against Six Hearts doubled. He kicks off with the King of spades. His partner and declarer both follow. He gazes at the Q10 of spades in the dummy. Someone has the thirteenth spade. Might it be declarer? Yes, it might. If declarer has the missing spade, the Ace of spades is cashing. What if he fails to cash it? Might not dummy’s losing spades be discarded? On what? Goodness knows. On oranges and lemons. And so it comes to pass. Andrew attempts to cash a second top spade. Declarer ruffs and, in the fullness of time, discards a losing club from hand on the promoted Queen of spades in dummy. Six Hearts doubled, making, for a score of +1660 to North/South.

Scoring up, in an atmosphere of mild hysteria, we discover that -940 and -1660 comes to 2600, which is 21 IMPs away. When order is restored, I attempt, in the interests of team harmony, to calculate the cost, in IMPs, of Andrew’s lead of a second spade. ‘9 IMPs’, he suggests hopefully. ‘If we defeat Six Hearts we still lose 12 IMPs on the board’. ‘That’s because you failed to sacrifice’, he adds meaningfully. ’Ah, but you could have bid Seven Diamonds’, I tell him. ’In which case we’d probably have gained 11 IMPs instead of losing 21′. A true reckoning, I tell him sternly, is that he’s just cost us 32 IMPs.

I  have to say that none of my team-mates looked convinced by this particular argument, not even Kathy. But I think I’ve proved my point. It’s possible to lose more than 24 IMPs on one board - far more. 24 IMPs is a mere bagatelle. 32 IMPs is more like it.

Is this a record, you may ask? I very much doubt it. Some of you will be familiar with the Tollemache inter-counties Teams of Eight competition. You will recall that the two East/West pairs in play score up with the two North/Souths. In other words, each result, whether positive or negative, is doubled. So, come the Tollemache, it will be possible for us to lose not just 32 IMPs on a single board, but double that amount! Or possibly, who knows, some higher figure. This, I’m sure you’ll agree, is something to which we may all look forward. 

July 2nd, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

A tale of (six) Six Diamonds

Last weekend saw the Inter-Counties Teams of Four competition, otherwise known as the Pachabo. The Pachabo is one of the toughest and also most enjoyable of all the inter-counties events. It has a unique scoring method which combines point a board (requiring a ‘Pairs’ mentality) with a X-IMP or ‘Teams’ scoring element which is too complicated to describe here, but which fortunately, these days, can be left to Bridgemate to sort out. Wiltshire was represented by four members of the team that won our Premier League - Pat Davies, Keith Sharp, Keith Williamson, and myself. Our one pedigree performer was accompanied by three mongrels, and the two Keiths had first played together less than three months ago, so we were more hopeful than confident, but still determined to maintain the county’s honour. As it happens our fate rested largely on the fate of six hands played (or playable) in a contract of Six Diamonds. Pat and I were North/South throughout.

This was Board 7.

                                     10

                                     KJ1063

                                     J7652

                                     87

                   AJ763                         Q954

                   Q9842                         A75

                   104                             Q

                    K                                Q10652

                                      K82

                                      void

                                      AK983

                                      AJ943

Pat opened 1D as South; West overcalled 3D showing the majors; I bid 5D; East competed to 5S; and Pat bid a sixth diamond. This contract, typical of competitive teams play, is really quite hopeless, but when West kicked off with the Ace of spades, followed by a low heart, Pat had her twelve tricks. Five Diamonds just made at the other table.

Then we had three Six Diamonds hands (out of three) in one match! This was the first of them.

                                      6

                                      A1072

                                      A83

                                      AJ654

                        AQ9872              J10543

                        Q53                    J94

                        J106                   Q

                        7                        9832

                                      K

                                      K86

                                      K97542

                                      KQ10

Pat and I didn’t get close to Six Diamonds on this one, mainly because in the North seat I never admitted to diamond support on any occasion. Instead I played in Four Hearts, just making. They did bid 6D at the other table. As you can see, the slam requires a 2/2 trump break, so went one down. A lucky one for us.

This was the second board of that match.

                                      64

                                      KQJ1087

                                      K

                                      J1097

                          873                   AQ9

                          void                   A9653

                          AJ1087               Q954

                          AQ864                3

                                      KJ1052

                                      42

                                      632

                                      K52

At our table East/West contented themselves with Five Diamonds, just making. The two Keiths were more ambitious, bidding to Six Diamonds. This was on the hopeful side, although we’ve all been in worse. As it was, declarer was always going to lose the King of spades and the trump King. Had one of those cards been right the contract had play, although there would still have been work to do.

This was the decider.

                                      72

                                      KQ10963

                                      6

                                      QJ105

                            K9                  A10863

                            J854               void

                            AQ5                KJ10983

                            AK43               92

                                       QJ54

                                       A72

                                       742

                                       876

At our table East/West languished in 3NT, played by West, who had opened One Heart. I led the King of hearts (note that Pat cannot afford to overtake), but I’m afraid I then switched to a club, which gifted Declarer ten tricks. It didn’t much matter because the two Keiths, unfazed by their unhappy experience on the previous board (and therein lies an important lesson), bid confidently to Six Diamonds and made all thirteen tricks. Thanks chaps.

Then, later that evening, we had this - another triumph for our team-mates.

                                       K98

                                       K63

                                       J5

                                       87654

                            104                   AQ52

                             85                    AQJ2

                             KQ84                A10763

                             AJ1092              void

                                          J763

                                          10974

                                           92

                                           KQ3

At our table East was Declarer in 3NT. The defence had its comical side as Declarer took a couple of successful finesses and then craftily left the Ace of clubs high and dry in dummy as he cashed a string of red suit winners. Pat and I both clung on grimly to our clubs, enabling Declarer to emerge with thirteen tricks. That’s not the kind of defence that you see written up very often, although all credit to Declarer for his deceptive play. Not that it mattered. Tournament bridge is a bidders’ game, and Keith and Keith were far more effective in doing justice to the East/West cards. Their auction was not the most convincing, but another Six Diamonds was reached. This is certainly a reasonable spot, and as you can see the cards were kind.

The final Six Diamonds is actually a ‘nearly’ 6D which, rather fortunately, Pat and I failed to reach despite my making a perfectly disgusting opening bid.

                                       53

                                       J

                                       KQJ832

                                       Q843

                               AQ10             J74

                               K1073            Q9654

                               54                 106

                               10762            J95

                                           K9862

                                           A82

                                           A97

                                           AK

I’m afraid I opened the North hand One Diamond. I claim that I don’t make bids like this very often, but I have to admit that I make them more often than anyone else I know. Commonly, as here, I spend the rest of the auction sliding under the table as my partner makes repeated slam tries. Mercifully Pat passed my final plea for mercy (5D), although I know many partners who would not have done. Actually, Six Diamonds isn’t so awful, but with the Ace of spades offside it isn’t going to make. We lost the point a board because at the other table North/South played in 3NT, somehow collecting eleven tricks, but the damage could have been far worse.

When the dust settled we found that we had scraped into the top half of the field (actually, 14th out of 28), with a VP score that was half a point above average. Honour was satisfied. What’s more we enjoyed it. If the opportunity comes again, I think we’ll do better, having learned from this experience.

June 19th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

In the Lion’s Den

Last weekend saw the EBU’s annual Spring Congress, held in Bournemouth. A sprinkling of Wiltshire players attended, but the only pairing to distinguish themselves was that of Eric Smith and Christine Macfarlane of the Bath club (Christine is actually a member of Avon). They qualified for the ‘B’ final of the Pairs, which meant that they finished in the top 56 of a field of 130 battle-hardened tournament players - highly commendable given this was Christine’s first venture at this level, whilst Eric also plays relatively few tournaments. Apparently they had taken their spouses to Bournemouth, promising them that Sunday would be a free day, only to have to break their promise when they qualified for the B final, thereby requiring their bridge participation for a further day.

Normally in these circumstances I ask for a hand or two, but Eric and Christine were more preoccupied with the conduct of their fellow bridge players. Christine told me she was struck by the lack of friendliness shown by some opponents, and their apparent win at all costs attitude. One incident stood out. Eric and Christine achieved an above average board againast one pair, following which the North player berated his partner in a very loud voice for a minute or more, declining all the while Christine’s suggestion that he enter the score. Christine said that in that case she would have to call the Director, to which his response was: ‘You can call the Director - I don’t care’. Christine did indeed call for a Director, but either she was not heard or no Director was immediately available since none came before the move for the next round was called.

Having moved to the next table, and still perturbed by the behaviour of this player, Christine mentioned the incident to her new opponents, one of whom was himself an experienced Director. Having heard what Christine had to say, he then called a Director, who spoke first to Christine and then to the North player at the previous table. North was still in a state of high dudgeon, and unrepentant. He was warned about his behaviour, and Christine and Eric believe he was fined some number of matchpoints.

The following day, in the B final in which Eric and Christine were participating, this same player was again to be heard berating his partner. A friend of his shouted across the room to him, telling him to desist. A player at a neighbouring table (not Eric or Christine!) called the Director once more. The ill-tempered one and his partner were then ejected from the tournament. According to Eric, “the room went very quiet and then everybody enjoyed their bridge!”

What to make of this? Well, it has always been the case that some players cannot contain themselves when their partner makes errors (as they see it) and so become personally abusive. Being a competitive type, I always take it as a good sign when opponents abuse one another, and am generally prepared to let them get on with it - although it can be very annoying when time that should be available to play the next board is taken up by the opponents having an argument (or even indulging in protracted analysis). I can remember once stupidly becoming involved in an altercation with an opponent who was indulging himself in precisely this way. The fact is, of course, such behaviour is extremely rude and, for some opponents, will undermine their enjoyment of the event. It may even lead them to conclude that they would rather spend their time in some other fashion - strolling with their spouses along Bournemouth promenade, perhaps. Hence the EBU’s efforts to promote good behaviour at the table.

Fortunately, it is only a few undisciplined idiots who completely ‘lose it’ in the manner described. Equally fortunately, the EBU has some excellent Directors who know how to deal with rudeness and will not tolerate it. One should never be afraid to call the Director in these circumstances. A more complicated question, perhaps, is what to do about the general lack of friendliness that Christine observed. My own experience is that most tournament players exchange greetings with players they know reasonably well, but that in many instances there will either be no greeting exchanged, or else it will be cursory and monosyllabic. That, I’m afraid, is the culture. Bridge at tournament level is a tough game, requiring concentration. To greet one’s opponents is pleasant, but I’m not going to be upset if it doesn’t happen. There is much less friendly exchange than at club level. This is partly because, in a bridge club, everyone knows everyone else; and it’s partly because, in a bridge club, most players give limited thought to the bridge. There are plenty of pleasant tournament bridge players (as well as some not so pleasant), but for the time they’re playing bridge they tend to concentrate on that alone. Hence, at Bath for example, some people find Wednesdays more friendly than Tuesdays or Thursdays. In short, when tough bridge is being played (or so some of us fondly imagine), social niceties and friendliness are less in evidence. I don’t think we’re about to change that. But of course it’s no excuse for rudeness or displays of temper.

One other factor that may be relevant here is the development of professionalism in bridge - I mean in the sense that some players quite fancy being paid to play. They may not be particularly good bridge players - many, in fact are resoundingly ordinary - but they have hit on the brilliant wheeze that if they can persuade some poor sap (I mean, of course, some rich sap) to pay them for the privilege of being their partner, they need never work again. That’s always assuming they ever worked in the first place, which they generally haven’t. Professionalism at this level has several potential adverse consequences, one of which is that bridge players with dodgy temperaments partner players who they don’t know well, and may not even like, and for whom they may have little respect as bridge players. It’s a recipe for poor behaviour. I’m not certain, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the player who indulged his witless bad temper before Christine and Eric was party to just such an arrangement. In which case he needs to get a proper job. 

May 30th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | 3 comments

The EBU Strategy Document

Those who attended the recent Wiltshire AGM (which I was unable to do) were treated to a debate on the EBU’s proposals - the Strategy Document - for a radically revised mechanism for financing the parent body through its affiliated clubs, and also for a scheme to achieve universal EBU membership amongst the membership of those clubs (or amongst those that remain affiliated, the cynics would say). The vote on what is really a very dramatic change in the EBU’s finances is due to take place on 4th June. Phil Green is Wiltshire’s representative, and all those wishing to influence the outcome of the debate are invited to contact Phil - see the link on the right hand side of the Wiltshire Home Page. Those merely wishing to take issue with me can place a comment on this site in the usual way. Cautious Bidder is a comment site, so nothing I write here has any status - beyond the not inconsiderable status, I like to think, of its being my opinion.

The first thing to say is that the EBU is taking a considerable gamble. Any change of this magnitude represents a gamble, and the EBU is gambling that the number of clubs that will opt to disaffiliate from the parent body will not be so substantial as to undermine its core strategy and its core objective of significantly boosting membership. My response to this is broadly favourable, principally because I respect the EBU leadership for taking action in the face of a looming problem - that of declining membership - rather than just sitting on their hands and leaving the next generation of administrators to tackle the problem, which by then will be far worse. (I am also a member of the Welsh Bridge Union, which has responded to a far steeper decline in membership, and an even steeper decline in tournament entries, by doing precisely nothing.) So whatever you think of these particular proposals, the EBU deserves credit for grasping the nettle. No-one can say they’re just a bunch of time-servers.

I have nothing to say about the detail of Pay for Play. The sum proposed strikes me as quite modest, but then, as a committed tournament player who gets a lot out of the competitive side of the game, perhaps I would think that. Compared with the cost of tournament entry, it really is trivial. But how does it look from the perspective of club players who are interested only in a relaxed game of bridge at their local club? Why should they have to pay more to support spheres of the game which are of no interest to them?

There are, I think, two answers to this. First, in any sport it will be the case that modest practitioners contribute to supporting more rarified levels, the benefits of which they themselves will never enjoy. In my own case I derive benefit from tournament bridge, but not, thanks to selectorial oversight, from international bridge. It is the nature of any competitive sporting structure that the perks are not divided equally. If I want to enjoy them, I need to play better (I mean, find better partners and team-mates). Secondly, and this is the more important point, it is not the case that players who simply enjoy the club game and have no interest in tournaments derive no benefit from the EBU. For example, somebody taught them to play the game - where did that person get their knowledge? Somebody developed the rules governing their play. Somebody gave thought to bridge ethics. Somebody contributes to promoting the game through the media (not much, admittedly), which in turn encourages interest, which in turn feeds in to club membership. I wouldn’t want to get too high and mighty about this - we’re not talking Hitler invading Poland - but to a limited extent those clubs not affiliated to the EBU, or which now threaten to disaffiliate, are prepared to be parasitical upon the parent organisation.

If that is the broad thrust of my opinion on the matter, there remain of course very important questions about the EBU’s stewardship. In fact, one of the potential benefits of a broadened membership base is that the EBU will be exposed to greater scrutiny, including from members highly sceptical of the benefits that they personally derive from the arrangement. The EBU needs to demonstrate that it spends its money wisely. The number of staff employed at Aylesbury is equivalent to that required to run a medium-sized country. I suppose they’re all doing something useful, but it’s not unreasonable for the membership to have to be convinced that that is indeed the case.

Other ’savings’ have been mooted - such as allowing members to opt out of receiving the magazine, or the competition diary. Surely not the magazine - it is the core symbol of an activity held in common. And it is actually aimed at the club player. I suppose the diary could be made optional, although whether that would save enough money to pay for the increased administrative costs must be doubtful.

My own pet bugbear is masterpoints. I’m a Grandmaster you know (capital ‘G’) which means, given the level that I play the game, that I’ve played in an awful lot of tournaments. So what? The EBU claims that masterpoints are a measure of ‘lifetime achievement’. Who do they think they’re kidding? Masterpoints are Gold Stars for grown-ups. I actually became a Grandmaster in quite a rush, in 2004 when I began to play in Wales. In Wales they give them out like Smarties. Not satisfied with the speed of your progress up the rankings? Play in Wales! Then, having achieved the exalted rank, I was looking forward to the one tangible benefit that I could discern - playing in the Grandmaster section of the EBU Ranked Masters tournament. Whereupon the EBU promptly invented another top rank, that of Premier Grandmaster, effectively demoting me just as I’d been promoted. The *******s! Talk about being a hamster on a wheel.  The whole scheme is an insult to the intelligence, and until the EBU comes up with something a bit more meaningful it should stop wasting our money. Lifetime achievement, my foot. (Actually, I might have a go at concocting something myself, but that will be the subject of another post.)

Meanwhile I shall give my grudging, highly circumscribed and enormously influential support to the EBU’s proposals.  

May 18th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

Bid these hands with me

This is all I need to draw hoots of derision from all quarters - a parody of a Terence Reese title. But there again, I have always enjoyed risk, and risk - or the correct calculation of risk - is the theme of this post. Yesterday, the 4th of May, I played in a Wiltshire combination in the Swiss Teams at the Cheltenham Congress. We (which is to say, Katharine Hodgson, Bob Bannister, Andrew Law and myself) were awful. More particularly, our bidding was awful. More particularly again, our slam bidding was awful. This, in my experience, is pretty much routine. Whenever any team of which I am a member performs poorly by our own standards, it is because our bidding is X certificate. Beyond a certain (modest) level, bridge is a bidders’ game. Most events are not thrown away through poor card play - they are tossed to the four winds through execrable bidding. That can be in the game or the slam zone - I’m looking at slams (or possible slams) today, but I could equally have chosen to examine poor decisions at the game level.

Before examining the hands, I’m going to suggest a few principles. The key to bidding good slams, and staying out of bad ones, lies in the first four (or at most, five) bids in the auction. If those are accurate, the decision whether or not to bid a slam should be fairly straightforward. Good slam bidding has nothing to do with the deployment of the Blackwood convention, in any of its forms. It does not even have much to do with cue bidding. It rests, almost entirely, on the partnership having the bidding judgement and bidding language to describe their respective holdings over those first four or five bids. After that, you’ve cracked it. You’ll know whether you’re in the slam zone. And - here is the second principle, following on from the first - IF YOU’RE IN THE SLAM ZONE, BID THE SLAM! You don’t need Blackwood, and even cue bids often function as no more than reassurance for the faint-hearted. That’s all there is to it - bid your hands accurately for the first four or five bids, and then, if you’re in the slam zone, bid the slam.

I have one further suggestion, in keeping with the above. Give up Blackwood. It’s probably only serving to mislead you as to the information you really need in order to determine whether a slam is ‘on’. Instead, employ the 4NT bid as a means of saying to partner: ’As ever, partner, I have bid my hand accurately to this point; I know that a slam may be on, but I have no more to offer; please employ your bidding judgement (for which I have the utmost respect) in deciding whether to bid the slam or not. So this is my third bidding ‘principle’: abandon Blackwood altogether (and Gerber, obviously).

Now to the hands. I’ll give them in the order we encountered them. In the interests of team spirit (hah!) I won’t identify the guilty parties on each hand. In fact it’s best if I consign the bidding on these hands to a merciful oblivion. I’ll simply suggest what might be a reasonably simple, and reasonably effective, auction. I’ll make South the Dealer each time. I’ll also rule out opposition bidding, of which there wasn’t much in any event. For a simple and enjoyable evening’s entertainment, print off a copy of this post, scissor out the individual hands, and bid them with your favourite partner. Have hours of care-free fun!

Hand 9

Q103

A2

AKJ87

Q72

#

AJ754

KJ

Q10952

K

Suggested bidding: 1S - 2D - 3D - 4H - 4S - 5D - 6D - PASS

This is aggressive. The slam is on the spade finesse (working, as it happens). You don’t mind whether you’re in this one or not.

Hand 22

K74

AK

K94

AQ953

#

AJ83

43

AQ62

J72

Suggested bidding: 1NT - 6NT - PASS

Hand 25

653

42

K109

K7652

#

A4

AK97

AQJ653

A

Suggested bidding: 2C - 2D - 3D - 6D - PASS

Hand 32

AK76

Q82

A83

AK8

#

Q3

AK75

10652

QJ7

Suggested bidding: 1NT - 2C - 2H - 4NT - PASS

Hand 35

AKQJ97

Q6

J

K1072

#

8532

A

KQ9643

A4

Suggested bidding: 1D - 1S - 2S - 4C - 4H - 6S - PASS

Hand 37

K102

J4

AK5432

A7

#

AQ

AQ32

J1086

Q108

Suggested bidding: 1H - 2D - 2NT - 4D - 4H - 5C - 6D - PASS

Hand 47

AQJ10942

AKJ10

void

K8

#

7

87

AQ54

QJ10953

Suggested bidding: PASS - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3C - 3D - 3NT - 4C - 4D - 6C - PASS

Hand 48

A2

AK963

A

A9743

#

KQ874

J74

107

KJ8

Suggested bidding: PASS - 1H - 1S - 3C - 3H - 4C - 4S - 4NT - 5C - 5D - 5H - 6H - PASS

OK, I admit it, it was useful to have Blackwood available on the last one, but only because you wanted to explore the possibility of a Grand Slam. I wish that one hadn’t come up. In bidding Grands you generally do need to check on key cards. But for the most part you don’t need to do that when bidding small slams.

I hope the above doesn’t strike you as artificial. I haven’t distorted the bidding to make a point. The only agreements additional to those learned at any beginners class are: a) minor suit agreement at the 4 level is forcing at least to game; b) the fourth suit forces for one round (and forces to game at the three level); c) the three level is for bidding out shape; d) the four level is for cue bidding; and e) if you’re in the slam zone, bid the slam.

Of the eight reasonably straightforward bidding problems presented above, seven have a clear right and wrong answer (on the first, the slam is a 50/50 proposition). At Cheltenham, when bidding these hands, our team scored 3 out of 7. Given that these were not a difficult set of hands, ’must do better’ would be the kindest verdict. 

May 5th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | 4 comments

Simultaneous Pairs - the secret of my success

I occasionally amuse myself by thinking up ridiculous titles for books and articles, and the above falls into that category. I have never enjoyed much success in this form of the game and have no ’secrets’ to impart - other than to choose a weak heat, obviously. But I do continue to play in these events, being prepared (just about) to make my little donation to the EBU/BGB/WBU in return for some intelligent commentary - although that’s more in hope than expectation in the case of the WBU, where I find myself too distracted by all the typos and grammatical howlers to concentrate on whatever pearls the commentator has to advance.

I played last Wednesday (in Wales) in the latest exercise, styled the ‘The British Spring Simultaneous Pairs’. As usual, there were some instructive hands. For example, what do you bid, holding

10

KQ108

Q109652

76

when the bidding goes (all Vul), on your left 3C; X by partner; pass; to you? I believe it is right in theory, and in this case it was proved right in practice, to bid 4H. A minimum response of 3D or 3H is just too feeble, whilst a cue of 4C hardly appeals given partner’s likely response of 4S. Partner held

AQJ6

A9643

K7

QJ

Climbing aboard a familiar hobby-horse, this hand reminds me of the four main explanations for bad bidding, these being, in rank order:

poor judgement;

an inadequate bidding vocabulary;

silly system; and

lack of bottle.

It’s the last of these that would probably explain a failure to bid 4H on this auction.

What about this one? - a little harder, perhaps.

K108642

Q32

K6

KJ

You open 1S and partner makes a standard limit raise of 3S, promising four spades and values to invite game. Well? You don’t have a wonderful hand (no Aces), but nor is it a deeply shaming one. And you do have six spades. I’m convinced that with a ten card fit it is right to bid 4S, even at matchpoints. This met with success on this occasion, the full lay-out being

                                           J

                                           AJ865

                                           Q9843

                                           105

                             K108642                  Q753

                             Q32                         104

                             K6                           A75

                             KJ                            A732

                                           A9

                                           K97

                                           J102

                                           Q9864

The commentator, Brian Senior, disagreed. Although 4S makes on this occasion, he argued that it was fortunate (doubleton heart) and that Pass is correct at opener’s second go. Well, I’ll beg to differ. The sixth spade swings it for me. And in fact, even if you give West a third heart (rather than, say, the fourth club), there are still chances, albeit not quite bringing home the bacon on this occasion. The odds are still pretty good, I reckon, and when you factor in defensive error, as I generally do…………

Speaking of which, how would you and your partner bid this hand?

                                       KQ7                   4

                                       6                       K8432

                                       AKJ65                Q2

                                       8753                  AKQ104

I was West, the Dealer. This was our auction. (I’ll give my thought processes - my partner refuses to divulge hers).

1D(1)            1H

2C(2)            2S

3NT(3)          4C

4NT(4)          5C

5NT(5)          6C

PASS(6)

1. Unimpeachable, for once.

2. What a suit - let’s hope this deflects a club lead

3. What fabulous spade stops - worth a jump to make it plain to partner that she needn’t look beyond no trumps.

4. She’s looking beyond no trumps. Please, partner, don’t make me play in 5C at matchpoints………….

5. Oh, for goodness sake……….

6. Let’s get it over with.

The three of spades is led. Thank-you, partner. Nice clubs. South takes her Ace of spades and switches to…..the seven of diamonds. Win in dummy. Draw trumps. Discard dummy’s five hearts on the King, Queen of spades plus my three spare diamonds. Claim. Well bid partner. Nowadays they give Green Points for this, I believe. 

April 11th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

No Hearts Partner!

No Hearts Partner??!! by Phil |Green

The law on asking whether or not a player has run out of a suit, Law 61B, was changed some years ago. The current situation is that declarer can ask a defender; dummy can ask declarer; and the defenders can ask declarer. However, defenders are not allowed to ask each other. This latter restriction is in fact optional in the Laws and the EBU chose to prohibit such questions. A new revision of the Laws is being introduced from 1^st August this year and the EBU is changing its approach, so defenders will now be able to ask each other.

The recommended form of the question is: “Having no [suit-name], partner?” As always, you do not have to use the exact recommended wording, but must be consistent in the way you enquire and respond, to avoid giving unauthorised information to partner.
 

The following amusing incident occurred at a recent club evening. I do not think it is within the Laws, whichever version is being played. I was playing with a partner who I had not played with for some time and this incident from the last board of the evening showed that she had retained her sense of humour and might even play with me again one day.

Despite not being a regular partnership we managed to reach 6♥, but since my partner as West opened with 2♦ and I relayed with 2♥, I ended up playing the hand as East. South led K♣ and switched to her singleton spade. Lazily I played the 10 from dummy, but was awake enough to put the Ace on the Queen. Then I realised I needed to get to dummy to draw trumps. I chose the safe option of leading my remaining club, intending to ruff high. Note that leading a spade would in fact have thrown the contract away. As I placed my 9♣ on the table, partner enquired: “Having no HEARTS, partner??”

Phil Green 8th April 2008