Cautious Bidder

Wiltshire success in the Portland Pairs

When I joined my first bridge club, in the early 80s, Pairs tournaments enjoyed higher status than they tend to do these days, and the Portland Pairs (British Mixed Pairs Championship) was a prize much sought after. In those days there was a qualifying competition, held at regional centres over two days, and a national final at a single venue, again over a whole weekend. Now, with professionalism increasingly a feature of the top stratum of tournament play, many of that rank (and others who fondly imagine themselves to belong to it) tend to regard Pairs tournaments as small beer not really worthy of their attention. The event that has probably suffered most is the Portland Pairs, which the EBU, in a classic example of the self-fulfilling prophesy, has reduced to a one-day, 48 boards Simultaneous Pairs. That doesn’t however mean that it can’t be enjoyed, or that you don’t need to play well in order to achieve a good score. 

This year the Portland was held on 30th March, with Bristol  Bridge Club being the nearest heat for Wiltshire players. Two Wiltshire pairs distinguished themselves. Katharine Hodgson and Roy France finished 2nd in Bristol with a score of 57.48%, which meant that they finished 41st overall in a field of 371; while Gayle and Colin Webb came 3rd in Bristol with 56.23%, which meant they were 53rd nationally.

I asked Kathy and Colin if they would provide me with examples of their brilliance, but typically, and somewhat unlike many of the ‘top’ players referred to above, they were only prepared to give me examples of hands where things went wrong for them. This was one given to me by Colin.

                                      A86532

                                      A10

                                      QJ3

                                      106

                          KQJ107                void

                          K962                   Q873

                          K6                      10874

                          Q9                       AK532

                                      94

                                      J54

                                      A952

                                      J874 

Colin, sitting North, was the Dealer and opened a routine 1S. East opted to overcall 2C (not recommended). Gayle passed, as did West. Most of us re-open with a Double in the North seat when short in the overcalled suit, but Colin, entirely reasonably given his weak hand and sixth spade, chose to rebid his spades. East doubled this for take-out (presumably she thought she had extra values), and West wasn’t pushed to leave the double in. Colin went three down, for minus 800. He asks: ‘Was I wrong or unlucky?’ The answer, of course, is that he was desperately unlucky. East made one very bad bid, followed by another that should not even be mentioned in polite company - only to find her partner with the perfect hand. This board helped propel East/West to first place in the Bristol heat. Bridge is a very unfair game sometimes.

This was Colin’s second hand.

                                      A

                                      J764

                                      A

                                      AKQJ752

                              J85               KQ973

                              KQ5              A82

                              KQ10632       J95

                              10                 86

                                     10642

                                     1093

                                      874

                                      943

I had my own  unhappy experience on this board. Following two passes, and sitting West, I opened 1D; North overcalled 3NT, following which my partner, Sue Ingham, doubled. It was a slow double, so I knew my fate before the hand was played - 550 away. It’s possibly a bit naive to double a competent opponent with the East hand on that auction (assuming you know that he is competent).

Colin again sat North, but this time East opened the bidding with 1S; Pass from partner (well bid, Gayle); 2D by West. Colin opted to double, whereupon East supported diamonds. Colin bid 3NT at his second go, but now the opponents bid to 4D, leaving Colin with an awkward decision. He eventually bid 5C, which had to go one down, doubled.

I’m afraid the jury finds Colin guilty in this instance - an immediate 3NT would have been a better shot, as he himself acknowledges. Of course, given that East had chosen to open her grotty little hand, the opponents might still have done the right thing (bidding on to 4D), in which case Colin would have been no better placed, but an immediate 3NT would have given them more of a problem.

Finally, there is Kathy. There can be no bridge player on the planet more self-effacing than Kathy, so I knew I wasn’t going to be able to persuade her to divulge any triumphs. This was Kathy’s story - Session 2, Hand 4.

                                      10854

                                       K10

                                       J982

                                       A54

                                KQ76          A93

                                64              AJ72

                                A3              K1076

                                KQ632        97

                                      J2

                                      Q9853

                                      Q54

                                      J108

I didn’t get rich on this hand. Sitting East/West, my partner and I bid to 3NT, but North/South defended competently and Sue was held to nine tricks. Against Kathy, the opponents were a little more generous……

South led the H5 to the King, and Kathy took her Ace. She played a club to the Queen, taken immediately by the Ace. The H10 was returned, ducked all round. Then North essayed a small spade, and Kathy took South’s Jack with the Queen. Then, obviously feeling inspired, she finessed the S9, followed by the Ace of spades……on which South threw a club!!!! Kathy now played a club to dummy’s King, both opponents following. At this point Kathy knew there was still one club outstanding, but she could not quite recall which it was. So now, with 6,3,2 of clubs in the dummy (and yes, we’ve all been there), she played the 2 of clubs, losing to North’s 5!

Kathy had the rest - ten tricks in total - which was still a very good score, but of course, thanks to the opponents’ generosity, it should have been eleven. Kathy’s partner, Roy France, was quick to see the moral of this story. As he put it to Kathy at the time: “If you’re going to duck, duck high!” Yes indeed, if I’m ever invited to contribute my Bols tip, that will do as well as any.

Thanks to Colin and Kathy for their help with this post.

April 2nd, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | one comment

Bridgemate - a step into the future

Some years ago now my Bridge Club in Warminster took the courageous decision, against much internal opposition, to introduce Bidding Boxes to the Bridge Table. It is hard to remember now just why this decision caused so much discussion and faced so much opposition at the time but, my, how things have changed! Bidding Boxes are now regarded as an essential element of the fixtures and fittings on the Bridge table and one often hears the comment, “How on earth did we ever manage without them?”

At a meeting last September the WCBA Committee took another similarly courageous decision – to purchase Bridgemate for use in County events.

What is Bridgemate

Some of you may be asking the question, “What on earth is a Bridgemate?” In simple terms, the use of the Bridgemate system facilitates the instant retrieval of the result of each hand of Bridge as it is played at each table in the room. Each result is recorded on a machine sitting on each table, which looks almost identical to a rather large pocket calculator. It is this machine, called a “Bridgemate”, which gives the system its name. The Bridgemate machine sends the result of every hand, as it is completed, by means of a wireless signal to a central Server and then the result is fed from the Server directly into a computer scoring program. In this way, the event is being scored continuously and, within seconds of completion of the final hand of the evening, the result is displayed on the screen.

From a player’s perspective, the Bridgemate makes the recording of the results easier, it reduces errors to a minimum, it provides instant feedback on a result immediately after the entry of that result and finally, it vastly increases the speed of publishing the final result of the evening’s play.

From a Director’s perspective, the Bridgemate enables the Director to focus completely on supervising the event without worrying about picking up scoresheets and recording players’ names etc, as the system does all that for you.

If you would like to find out more about the Bridgemate system have a look at the website, which can be found at www.bridgemate.co.uk.

Installation of Bridgemate

The developer and main distributor of the Bridgemate system is Maurice Cahm and he can be contacted through the website mentioned above. Maurice is extremely helpful and the service that he provides includes a training video, which is accessible on the above website, a very helpful, succinct and easy to read manual, a ‘round-the-clock’ email support service – to which Maurice always responds very promptly, a telephone support line and, if you are really pushed, Maurice may even make arrangements to visit you at your location. I describe myself as a computer “user”, rather than expert and I had no difficulty in setting up each individual Bridemate machine and then loading the software that was provided on to our Club’s computer. I managed this simply by referring to the Manual that is provided and with a very occasional telephone call to Maurice, who kept me on the right track.

Using Bridgemate

Since I had volunteered to get Bridgemate up and running in the County I obviously needed some guinea pigs to practice on! Fortunately, members at the Warminster Club were willing to participate in the scheme and we have had remarkably few problems. At first people were a little wary and unsure in using the machines but, in the main, doubts were quickly dispelled and, after only four or five sessions of bridge, the machines were being handled with confidence by all. In fact, the experiment has gone down so successfully in Warminster that the Club very quickly took the decision to purchase our own Bridgemate system, which we have now done, and the County’s system has been passed on for use in other Wiltshire Clubs.

County calamities!

The first time the Bridgemate system was used at a County event was at the Corsham Pairs last October. We had taken delivery of the system only a couple of weeks earlier and we had run with it on two or three evenings at the Warminster Club without incident. Nevertheless, there was some concern and trepidation about the use of the system for the first time “in the public domain” and these concerns turned out to be well-founded! The problems, when they came, were nothing to do with the Bridgemate system itself, apart from the fact that the system is driven by a computer program! Half way through the Corsham event there was a power surge in the kitchen at Corsham, caused it is thought, when the boiler was turned on to heat the water for our tea! Not having a surge protector on our plug, our computer simply shut itself down to protect itself from further damage and the scoring system that we were using (ScoreBridge) and the Bridgemate software stopped working. It was a little while before we realised what had happened but then the Bridgemate system came into its own. The Bridgemate machines sitting on each table are run off a battery, rather than mains, supply and they had continued to faithfully collect and store the results, whilst everything else had closed down. With a bit of a team effort we found a way to kick-start the various programs and suddenly the results came pouring in. That came as quite a relief, although we had taken the belt-and-braces precaution of maintaining travellers, just in case of such an emergency, but they were not eventually needed.

The next time we used the system was at the qualifying round of the Championship Pairs early in December. Once again a power problem caused our computer to stop working half way through the event but it was Bridgemate that saved the day. Despite the fact that the computer had closed down, the individual Bridgemate machines on each table had continued to collect the scoring data and had fed this information back to the central Server. It was then a simple process to retrieve these results from the Server, although it was decided not to make them public immediately at the conclusion of the event, so that they could be proof read and checked first. There was no need to worry because Bridgemate had recorded everything with extreme accuracy!

I am happy to report that the Bridgemate system has been used without incident at subsequent County events and continues to run successfully at the twice-weekly Warminster Club meetings. Visitors are welcome to come and try it.

The Cost

The basic Bridgemate package, consisting of 6 Bridgemate machines and a Server, together with all accompanying software and support, is £900 and each individual extra Bridgemate machine costs £100. For example, Wiltshire Contract Bridge Association purchased the Server and 15 Bridgemate machines at a cost of £1800. Service, spare parts and support continue to be available through Maurice Cahm, as the Developer, and he is very receptive to comments and constructive criticism. Regular updates are provided, which are then immediately downloadable from the website. You will, of course, require a computerised scoring program, which works in tandem with Bridgemate, and this will involve an extra cost if you have not already purchased compatible scoring software. ScoreBridge works very well with Bridgemate but there are others, which are listed on the website.

The Future

The Bridgemate system has proved to be very popular at the Warminster Club. The machines are easy to use, with the one criticism that the liquid crystal display can be difficult to see if lighting is poor. The fact that the results are available before the last table has been cleared away is very much appreciated. We have found that there are fewer errors being reported in the scoring and, of course, there are no scruffy travellers for some diligent scorer to try and decipher. It is safe to say that the Bridgemate machine is now just as readily accepted as part of the fixtures and fittings on the Bridge table as a Bidding Box – and regarded as just as useful.

March 16th, 2008 Posted by David Thackaberry | Uncategorized | no comments

The Green Green Points of Wiltshire

Last weekend saw the  Wiltshire/Avon Green Point Swiss Pairs (on the Saturday) and Swiss Teams (on the Sunday), held at the University of Bath. My impression, as a participant on both days, was that the whole event was a great success and a tremendous feather in the cap of the organiser, Gayle Webb. The venue was ideal, the event was run with efficiency and good humour, and the turn-out (46 tables in the Pairs; 52 in the Teams) must have generated a good financial return for both counties. The whole thing reminded me how lucky we are in Wiltshire to have a core of members who are prepared to work for the common good. It appears to me to be an unassuming but effective leadership. Bridge, as an amateur sport, relies on the public-spirited few, and when those key figures appear to be missing, or are ground down by the burdens placed upon them and the propensity of bridge players to moan about almost anything, you certainly notice the difference.

I also thought the hands on both days gave enormous scope for aggression and inventiveness, which - whether meeting with success or failure - is how I like it. This was one from the Pairs that my partner Sue Ingham and I got right.

                                      AQ753

                                      9

                                      AK1073

                                      72

                             86                   J

                            10853              AQJ742

                             Q84                 952

                             Q943               KJ5

                                      K10942

                                      K6

                                      J6

                                      A1086

Many players instinctively abandon thoughts of a slam when the opponents open the bidding, but in this instance it would have been wrong to do so. East was the dealer and opened One Heart. When Sue overcalled One Spade with the South hand I had to decide how to do justice to what had suddenly become a very promising hand. I do think that an immediate raise to Four Spades lacks ambition. It costs nothing to at least invite partner to consider the possibility of slam. A new suit at the four level is control-showing with us (I think it’s too inflexible to insist it’s a splinter), and so I was able to bid 4D. Our cue-bidding style is to bid the FIRST control, whether it be first or second round, so Sue bid 4H. Encouraged by the fact that partner hadn’t signed off (although I knew that 4H did not promise the Ace), I thought I was worth a further move and so bid 5D - showing either both Ace and King or (very unlikely on the auction) a void. This ’flexible’ cue-bidding style would not find favour with everyone since it can of course be important to know whether partner is showing length or shortage, but I think in an auction such as this, with a likely ten card fit, it is losers that one is concerned about so I believe this approach is practical enough. The 5D call told Sue we had no diamond losers, at the same time pinpointing my two immediate club losers, so Sue, looking at the Ace of clubs, felt entitled to bid the slam. I think she wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) have done this had both her outside controls been Kings.

Six Spades was an easy make on the heart lead she actually received, but you can see that the slam makes even on the more threatening club lead. Notice: no Blackwood with those two immediate club losers. Notice also, only 24 points between the two hands - the game is about tricks. We weren’t the only ones to bid the slam, but our matchpoints total on the board indicated that only a few pairs had done so.

This next hand, taken from the final match of the Teams, in which I partnered Katharine Hodgson, proved too difficult for me at the time. I blame the fact that I was tired - it had been a long weekend.

                                      QJ1064

                                      K107

                                      Q98

                                      A3

                             2                     8753

                             QJ9                 A854

                             KJ2                 75

                             QJ10754          986

                                      AK9

                                      632

                                      A10643

                                      K2

The bidding is not of great interest since all routes lead to Four Spades. I declared this from the North hand on the lead of the seven of diamonds (there had been no opposition bidding). The lead of the seven suggested that the King of diamonds was likely to be with West, or so I reasoned. What to do in that case? Rise with the Ace in order to lead a diamond to your Queen later in the play? Would that be your choice? Harbouring vague thoughts that the lead might be a singleton, that is indeed what I did. I had just played the contract off!!! Far better to duck the diamond (if the diamonds really are 4-1 you’re probably not making this contract anyway). Taking the diamond Ace prematurely removed a vital entry to dummy. Now, when trumps broke 4-1, I lacked the entries to draw all four trumps and lead twice towards my own hand in hearts, whilst also untangling the diamonds. I was in a total mess. My ’solution’ to this problem was to leave one trump outstanding. Fortunately for me, West could not believe I had done this and so failed to give his partner a diamond ruff, instead exiting with a second heart. Some of my most successful boards arise through the opponents failing to grasp the full extent of my idiocy.

So I lost only two hearts and a diamond. But it was a lucky one to finish, the mis-play occuring, as so often, at trick one. 

March 12th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

BATTLE FOR THE PREMIER LEAGUE

The Davies team has struggled in the Premier league this year compared with recent seasons - a direct result, no doubt, of Peter Austwick’s poor health which has meant the loss of Peter and Valerie, our bedrock pair. Instead we have had to put together a variety of scratch pairings in support of Chris Dixon and Pat Davies, with Keith Williamson, whom we recruited this season and who has played every match, never sure who he was going to partner from one week to the next. This has however contributed to the most exciting finish to the league for several seasons. Going into the penultimate round (on Wednesday, 27th February) the Davies and Samter teams were tied on VPs and, since they were scheduled to play each other, this promised to be a decisive encounter. In the event, Pat and Chris Dixon were unavailable so we fielded yet another relatively untested combination - Valerie and Keith, playing together for the third time, whilst Keith Sharp, making a most welcome return to Wiltshire bridge, was going to have to cope with me. Our opponents were Richard Samter and Norman Botton, playing with Trevor Purches and Susie Gall.

The fiirst twelve boards did not go particularly well for Keith Sharp and myself, there being several instances where aggressive decisions in first seat led to IMPs being lost. For example, do you open this in first seat at favourable vulnerability?

4

J

KJ10542

QJ753

No? I thought not.  Well I did - it conforms the the Rule of Nineteen, you  know (thanks to the singleton Jack), which only goes to demonstrate what an extremely silly ‘rule’ it is. That was 5 IMPs away when Keith, not unreasonably, doubled the opponents in their final resting place of Four Hearts.

What about this - both sides vulnerable this time:

AK872

Q8742

74

J

No? I thought not. But Keith did and we played in a doomed Four Hearts.

Nor was our defence going very much better. On Board 8 a simple cross-ruff defeats Two Spades, but when Keith signalled for a diamond return I confidently underled my Ace, when the winning defence was to play Ace and another - to Keith’s small singleton. At the other table diamonds had been bid naturally by declarer, so Ace and another was the stand-out play. It should also be said, in fairness to our opponents, that they played very solidly, with Richard and Norman, in particular, generally getting the better of Keith and myself.

Half-time arrived and we were 19 IMPs in arrears. The talk at our table was all about which of us was going to ring Pat when she returned from Portugal the following day. Valerie, we thought, was the best person for the task.

The second set began with another very poor board at our table (Board 23) when Trevor and Susie contrived to stay out of what I would have regarded as a fairly routine Four Hearts. But, with spades unkind, the game was doomed - another 6 IMPs away. The tide began to turn with this next hand - Board 24 at our table - all non-vul.

                                      J1086

                                      875

                                      AQ976

                                      J

                       954                         AQ732

                       void                         J10632

                       KJ103                      8

                      1098753                   42

                                       K

                                       AKQ94

                                       542

                                       AKQ6

Susie, sitting East, opened a Lucas 2S, whereupon I essayed a tentative 4H. Trevor now bid a brave 4S with the West hand. Keith might have doubled this but he chose instead to display touching faith in my declarer play by bidding 5H. Susie doubled this. The 5-0 trump break is of course a problem on the hand, but that aside the cards lie kindly for declarer and the defence could take no more than their Ace of spades and a ruff. Whew! I suspect Five Hearts should be defeated, in fact, but it is certainly easy to let it through.

Then we had this -  Board 13 (both vul).

                                     J5

                                     AK

                                     J983

                                     QJ1082

                     10                               876432

                     QJ95                           1084

                     AQ652                         K74

                     AK6                             5

                                      AKQ9

                                      7632

                                      10

                                      9743

Keith (North) opened 1NT and I fancied playing in a major, and so bid 2C. Trevor, holding a fair 16 count, opted to double, and Susie, East, very reasonably converted this to 2S. I doubled, whereupon Trevor, perhaps somewhat questionably, elected to try 2NT. Susie, also questionably, removed this to 3S, which I wasn’t pushed to double again. An unlucky board for East/West, certainly, although a couple of their bids were dubious. 3SX went for 500, for another 9 IMPs to the Davies team.

It wasn’t all one way, however. What do you bid with this hand, partner having opened 4H at favourable vulnerability.

AK83

AK

Q65

KQ64

Blackwood anyone? After all, you have very a nice-looking 21 count. That’s what Keith thought as well….. Ah, you poor fools. You’ve forgotten who you’re playing with. This, for your edification and entertainment, was the hand on which I’d opened 4H.

10

QJ10732

1032

1098

Please don’t write in. It’s not just any old three-count - notice I had four 10s. 6H was an optimistic final resting place on the hand - we had a RKCB accident along the way - albeit undoubled, I’m pleased to say. That was only two down thanks to a fortunate lie of the cards in both minors. Blast! Four Hearts would have made. That proved to be a flat board (I said the match was exciting, not that the bridge was always of the highest standard) when Richard and Norman at the other table played in an equally hopeless 3NT.

The final swing came on Board 18 when Keith heard me open 2S (weak) and held this hand:

KQ

K765

A

KJ5432

Pass, anyone? Maybe, if you can put the appalling memories of recent boards to one side, a 2NT enquiry? No, both those are for wimps. Keith, undaunted by previous displays of tram tickets, bid an immediate 4S. This time I was vulnerable so he doubtless reckoned (or hoped) that I would not be too disgusting. No indeed, I had a very respectable 9 count and game could not be defeated. Thank-you partner - and not just for that hand, but for a measured, thoughtful game throughout.

We’d recovered to win by 13 IMPs - Valerie’s phone call to Pat would not be so painful after all. I think we had some luck in the second half when our mistakes proved less costly than those of our opponents. But Valerie and Keith W were solid throughout. Only one game to go, and we have to hope that our 8 VP cushion will prove sufficient. But it should be another exciting occasion. Unfortunately I won’t be there to experience it at first hand. I’m being ‘rested’.

February 29th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | one comment

MURDEROUS INCIDENT IN EAST WALES

Unfortunately I missed the Wiltshire Championship Pairs this year since there was a clash with one of my favourite events in the land of my fathers. The East Wales Congress, held over a full weekend in Cwmbran in mid February, is one of the WBU’s most popular events. Sixty-four teams faced the starter this year, including the usual strong cross-border contingent, plus some intrepid Irish raiders. Probable favourites were the Jourdain team (Rees, Ratcliff, Kurbalija) and the Bedfordshire/Manchester contingent of Williams, Harris, Reveley and Niccoll, each of whom had triumphed on several previous occasions. However, bridge is not quite as predictable as that and both these teams fell by the wayside in what developed into one of the tightest and most exciting finishes to the event for many years. The Penton team, of which I was a member, encountered Jourdain and co on the Sunday and this hand gave Patrick malicious pleasure since the murder referred to in my title was perpetrated by him, the victim being none other than his partner, Tony Ratcliff. This was the hand in question. I thought it was interesting for several reasons. 

                                      void

                                     97532

                                     K10

                                     AQ10732

                          108532                 KJ64

                          A86                      QJ4

                          8                          J6542

                          KJ94                     6

                                       AQ97

                                       K10

                                       AQ973

                                       85

My partner Sue Ingham and I bid to Three No Trumps with the North/South cards, with East/West having bid and supported spades. Patrick, sitting West, led a spade to Tony’s King and my Ace. There seemed reasonable prospects for nine tricks, especially if the minor suits behaved. First it was convenient to test the clubs, and small to the 10 brought gratifying results (although Tony, the crafty so-and-so, might easily have held up when holding the King, or possibly even the Jack). Still, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth - I decided I had to get back to hand to repeat the club finesse and so, burning my boats, I played the diamond King followed by the 10 to my Ace. This brought disappointment as Patrick showed out - the prospects in diamonds had taken a nasty knock. On reflection, denying myself a second entry to dummy in this fashion was none too bright. I think I should simply have played a diamond to hand (blocking that suit for the moment) which would have enabled me in due course to come to FIVE club tricks, and probably ten tricks in total. I’m afraid that didn’t occur to me at the time. Having instead cashed two top diamonds, the repeated club finesse brought good and bad news as the Queen held the trick, but Tony showed out. So the clubs weren’t running. Still, better cash the Ace whilst in dummy for what would doubtless be the last time, even at the cost of promoting a club trick for Patrick. I followed this with a heart back to hand - Jack from Tony, King from me, losing to Patrick’s Ace. This was the position, seven tricks having been played, of which I had won six.

                                       void

                                      9753

                                      void

                                      73

                       10853                   J6

                        6                         Q4

                        void                     J6

                        K                          void

                                       Q9

                                       10

                                       Q97

                                       void 

Patrick now cashed his King of clubs, on which Tony discarded a heart and I let go a diamond. Then Patrick played a spade to his partner’s Jack, which I ducked. I wish I could claim at this point that I was aware of the distribution of every suit and so knew exactly what I was doing. In fact, in common with most players other than those of the highest class, I tend to be somewhat selective about the information that I retain over the course of a hand, with many of my plays reflecting the approach of that unacknowledged bridge genius, Mr Micawber - hoping that something will turn up. The one suit I had kept good track of was the diamonds - I knew that Tony had two remaining and that I had a tenace over him. In fact Tony defeats me now if he plays the heart Queen before exiting with a spade, but perhaps fearing that that would give me an entry to dummy (although that would have required me to have fourteen cards - a third heart in addition to the spade Queen), he simply played a spade back to my Queen, following which, more in hope than expectation, I played my 10 of hearts. As you can see, Tony had the Queen and I displayed my diamond tenace with the air of a man who had known perfectly well what he was doing from the outset.

Patrick always enjoys interesting plays and he appeared not displeased at this turn of events. ‘That’, he said proudly, ‘was a fratricidal strip squeeze and endplay - and my play of the King of clubs was the fratricide’. Tony, on the other hand, tends - rather like myself - to be more concerned with the actual result of the hand. As those of you who know him can imagine, he was looking as sick as the proverbial parrot, although for a deceased parrot his commentary on his partner’s play was delivered with impressive vigour and emphasis. 

February 22nd, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

DIRECTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The title of this post is meant to be a joke. This (with exclamation marks) is not the right way to call the Director to your table. In fact, given that this post argues strongly in favour of calling the Director in ‘reservation of rights’ situations, I might start by stressing the other side of the coin. Which is?? I refer to the manner in which rights are reserved by the (potentially) damaged pair. It is absolutely essential that less experienced players do not feel browbeaten or intimidated by ‘expert’ opponents (often not very expert at all, if truth be told). The Director should be called in an even tone, the situation explained calmly and politely, and the Director left to get on with it without further ‘assistance’ from whoever has called him to the table. Otherwise the ‘cure’ of involving the authorities is likely not to be worth the candle.

That having been said, should players call the Director when they believe that unauthorised information has been transmitted and (possibly) acted upon? In County events the answer, in my opinion, is ‘Absolutely, and every time’. They should call the Director without the slightest hesitation. In the club game, certainly against inexperienced opponents, it is my practice to let an awful lot go. I believe all experienced players do this. Life’s too short, and the infractions one encounters are too many and varied to permit any other course of action. Anyway, you know that most people simply want to enjoy themselves, while calling the Director is so poorly understood by some club players that it is not worth ruining their evening by adopting a course that some will view as tantamount to calling them a cheat and a liar.

But competitors in County events should know better than that. They should accept reservation of rights (and the occasional adjusted score) as a routine part of the game. If we don’t have this attitude when playing in Wiltshire County events we are effectively saying that we want Wiltshire to act as if it were a bridge backwater, with its County competitions on a par with a few rubbers round at Aunt Agatha’s.

But there can be areas of misunderstanding, even amongst County competitors, and the aim of this post is to clear a couple of them up.

What is unauthorised information (UI)? UI is the transmission of information about your hand to partner other than through bids or plays. Hesitations, for example, almost inevitably do this, no matter what action follows.

Does one have to pass once partner has hesitated? No, but the onus will be on you to demonstrate that your course of action was CLEAR-CUT. If you have bid on, but pass was a logical alternative, and bidding on has proved advantageous to your side, the bid will be disallowed by a competent Director.

What if I was going to bid anyway, regardless of my partner’s hestitation? Tough. Now you mustn’t. Your partner has fixed you. The bridge authorities are not mind-readers and the rules are not framed as if they were. If you had intended to bid, but partner has hesitated, and a pass by you is a logical alternative (ie not riduculous) now YOU MUST PASS.

Is partner’s hand relevant? - what if he really did have something to think about? Of course he had something to think about! But no, his hand is of no relevance whatever. His pathetic, tortured reasoning processes are best left to the pub. It’s only your hand that matters - the hand of the person in receipt of the unauthorised information.

Why do people get worked up about this? Well, for two reasons. They get worked up because they don’t understand the rules, or the reasons for them. And the second, related reason they get worked up is because they think they’re being accused of cheating. Now, to call a spade a spade, they MAY be cheating. It’s easy enough to cheat at bridge, after all, and some people play the game in a veritable blizzard of unauthorised information. But it is much better to assume that people are honest, and indeed virtually all experienced tournament players are scrupulously ethical. The better the player, the better the ethics - it’s a rule. I have no problem with the assumption that all Wiltshire county players are completely ethical. But the point about unauthorised information, and bidding on in a situation where you might be taking advantage of unauthorised information conveyed by partner, is that IF YOU DID WANT TO CHEAT, THIS IS ONE WAY OF DOING IT. So yes, the possibility of cheating exists, but calling the Director should not be seen as tantamount to any such unpleasant accusation, or else bridge tournaments would be conducted amidst a sea of corpses, or at the very least with half the players in floods of tears.

I’ll give you an illustration, taken from the Wiltshire Butler Pairs, won most impressively by Keith Williamson and Sam Sloan. Pat Davies and Chris Dixon called the Director on two occasions, being awarded an adjusted score both times. This was one of them.

                                     Q93

                                     842

                                     J10532

                                     86

                     AK1086542              J7

                    10                            AK3

                    8                              AK

                    A103                        KQ9754

                                   void

                                   QJ9765

                                   Q9764

                                   J2

East/West were vulnerable. West was the dealer, and the bidding went:

1S 3C

3S 4NT

5C 5S

6S

The bid of 5S by East was made after a pronounced hesitation. Why did East bid 5S? I haven’t a clue. It doesn’t matter. North/South called the Director and reserved their rights. West made 12 tricks (the Grand Slam only fails on a fearfully unlucky lie of the cards). In due course the result was amended to 5S making plus one.

Does it matter why East bid 5S, or for that matter what he was thinking about? No.

Does it matter that West intended to bid 6S regardless of his partner’s hesitation (he had an eighth spade, as he explained)? No. (Pass is a logical alternative to bidding on.)

Should the score have been adjusted? Yes, it’s automatic.

Should North/South have called the Director against less experienced opponents? Provided they did so politely, and without being intimidating - yes, absolutely. This is County bridge.

January 17th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

Christmas quiz - the results!!!!

Yes, the moment you’ve all been waiting for - or four of you, anyway. Even that is pushing it, given that everyone has complained that the quiz is too hard (again!), and of the four brave entrants, Simon insists he’s not really entering at all (but thanks anyway, Simon), Kathy wishes to remain anonymous (sorry Kathy), and Peter thinks I’m reading the wrong books. I have to concede that there’s no reason why other bridge players in Wiltshire should read the same books as I do, but I suppose that is the nature of quizzes. As ever, the question-master finds himself alone in his own little world. Before I get on to distributing prizes, here are the answers.

1. Skid Simon (’Simon Skidelski’) in Why You Lose at Bridge

2. Ely Culbertson, the great bridge populariser

3. P.G. Wodehouse - the only non-specialist bridge writer in the list

4. Rixi Markus

5. Robert Sheehan

6. Irving Rose

7. Phillip and Robert King in ‘The King’s Tales’, the first of their brilliant pastiches

8. Terence Reese in his Foreword to ‘Miracles of Card Play’, one of several wonderful collaborations with David Bird

9. Jeremy Flint

10. Terence Reese and David Bird. Brother Anthony, a member of the silent Eustacian Order whose vow of silence requires him to pass throughout every auction, is one of the great comic bridge creations. His limited bridge vocabulary calls for compensatory manoeuvres on the part of his partner and the opponents that, I can’t help feeling, represent a considerable advance on the game as we know it.

11. Jeremy Flint

12. Terence Reese

I make no apology for the multiple references to Reese and Flint. There have been many fine bridge commentators, but most were simply analysts. Reese and Flint were writers - their writing gifts transcended their material.

So how did our intrepid entrants fare? Well, Simon got the two he knew. Kathy also knew two, and had no luck with her guesses. Peter likewise. Which leaves James. James obviously reads the same books as I do. His total of six correct answers means that he wins at a canter - a  repeat of last year’s triumph.

And what of the supposed ‘tie-break’? The hand in question was taken from this year’s Tollemache qualifying competion, although not from Wiltshire’s heat, so none of our declarers was tested. This was the full lay-out.

                                        K9

                                        42

                                        AK75432

                                        K4

                              8762                Q105

                              J6                    10983

                              QJ86                10

                              1096                QJ753

                                        AJ43

                                        AKQ76

                                        9

                                        A82

The ten of clubs is led against 6NT. It is very important to win this trick in the right hand - with the King in dummy. It seems right to test the diamonds since a 3/2 break gives the contract. No luck there, so you try the hearts. They don’t break either, but you can give up a heart to East, promoting your fifth heart. Now, if East returns a club (and I agree, it’s quite a big ‘if’), South takes his Ace and cashes his long heart. West has to keep his diamond guard and so is forced at this point to jettison a spade. Declarer then crosses to the King of spades, takes a succesful spade finesse (something has to work on the hand), and cashes the Ace of spades, followed by the four, which is now good. Had East returned a spade when in with the fourth heart this would have tangled declarer’s entries and so broken up the squeeze against his partner. Declarer might have avoided that by ducking a heart early, but that is a double dummy line since it is normal to begin by testing the diamonds. Also double dummy, the contract can always be defeated if West leads a spade rather than a club - that breaks up the squeeze at trick one.

James was the only one who had a serious crack at this problem and his answer was eerily brilliant. James, the letter from Andrew Robson, inviting you to partner him in next year’s English trials, is in the post.

Thanks to all four entrants for being good sports.

Happy New Year to you all.

January 1st, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments