Cautious Bidder

Look back in astonishment, by Emma Jackson

January 7th, 2009 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

Christmas Quiz - the results!!!!

Happy New Year everyone. Now, the moment you’ve been waiting for - the unveiling of the answers to the quiz, plus of course the results achieved by the intrepid entrants.

There were eight entries this year - a record. I should like to record my heartfelt thanks to those who entered. It’s a lot easier to set a quiz than it is to attempt to answer it, at least in public, so thanks to Bob, Colin, James, Katharine, Pat, Phil, Roy and Simon for being such good sports. There’s not much point in a quiz that nobody enters, so you’ve added to everyone’s enjoyment. The entries are to be found as ‘comments’ to the previous post - the one in which I set the questions.

Without more ado…………………..

THE ANSWERS

Q1 Maximum number of bids in an auction concluding at the one level - 49.

Q2 Minimum points between the two hands required to make a Grand Slam - 5.

Q3 Most points with which it is still not possible to make 3NT - 39 (yes, 39).

Q4 English international who has not represented GB - Valerie Austwick.

Q5 Our old friend the Stop card………..The answer: none of a) to e)!!! The Stop card is employed when making a Jump or Skip bid and imposes a mandatory delay upon the left hand opponent prior to his making a call (whether this be a bid or pass), the purpose of this enforced delay being to eliminate as far as possible the scope for variation in the tempo of that call such as might convey unauthorised information to his partner. IT HAS NO OTHER PURPOSE.

Q6 squeezes/members of the all-conquering Italian team of the 1960s/founding fathers of Acol

Q7 Peter Austwick has won the Hubert Phillips Bowl (with Valerie, Pat, and Jan Mendela); and the Pachabo (with Valerie, Pat, and Duncan Cairns); he has not won the Corsham Pairs.

Q8 Authors: David Bird/Victor Mollo/Enid Blyton!/David Bird and Terence Reese (together)/Bobby Wolff/Michael Rosenberg

Q9 a) 2S

b) Pass

c) Redouble (why not?)

d) 2D(!)/2S/2NT/3S/4S - in the spirit of Christmas, all shall have prizes

e) call the Director - you only have 12 cards.

So how did the entrants get on? For the most part the marking was straightforward, although there were a few instances when I had to exercise discretion. (Simon, in particular, had the habit of edging sideways towards some of his answers in a conversational manner, but since it was usually plain that he was on the right track I tended to be merciful.) Colin had earlier told me he was on a mission to prove his suitability for the role of County Chairman, the traditional qualification for which is that you know nothing about the game, so I was expecting the worst. In fact he didn’t enter until the last possible moment, at 4pm on Friday, under pressure from me, when in the midst of fiddling someone’s expenses, so I suppose he has an excuse for the odd slip (of which there were several). But in general, and in all seriousness, the standard was remarkably high.

There was near universal success on Q1, which involved laboriously calculating that one can have 49 bids in an auction ending at the one level. This was more or less a matter of simple arithmetic, so Colin, as an accountant, couldn’t possibly get it right.

The same applied to Q2. Yes, it’s possible to make a Grand Slam with a combined 5 count, the K/Q of trumps falling together and declarer cross-ruffing to establish a long side suit.

Only Pat got the right answer to Q3, and she’d been told it by John Holland, who also told me. I think I’ll leave the solution to this for another day, but it is indeed the case that, given a spectacularly unfortunate layout, it will not be possible to make 3NT despite possessing 39 high card points between declarer’s hand and dummy. By the way, I scored this as 5 points for 39, and then one point fewer for each point away from the right answer.

Valerie Austwick has played for the English Ladies in the Lady Milne (the women’s home international series), playing her part in the English victory on that occasion. She hasn’t played for Britain. I hope Chris Dixon doesn’t have Roy’s phone number, although in fact Roy’s answer isn’t so unreasonable given that Chris has of late represented England. But he also represented Great Britain, winning a European silver medal. This was before most of us were born (although not Roy, come to think of it). Kathy suggested Richard Chamberlain, who I hadn’t thought of. Apologies to Kathy (and indeed to Richard) if he has played for England, but this quiz is scored by reference to the quizmaster’s knowledge rather than to ‘the truth’, which is a notoriously difficult concept.

The Stop card. Hmm. There were one or two embarrassing failures here which I’d better not elaborate upon. Suffice it to say that none of my five suggested offerings was anywhere near the correct answer. Four of the entrants (or perhaps five, if I’m generous to Simon) clearly knew what the Stop card is for, although not everyone expressed it as fully as I might have wished so I have rather meanly docked a few points. Only James, Pat and Roy met with my full approval, although Bob is also pretty well there. I was tempted to toss Colin a few points for his suggestion that the Stop card is employed as a floor stop for unbalanced tables (a lot better than his attempted serious answer), but in the end I decided that there could be no marks for frivolity.

Pretty well everyone knew about squeezes, the Italian Blue team of the 1960s, and the Acol founding fathers. I might have docked James a few points here because there was a hint he’d been swotting (or Googling), which is against the spirit of a Christmas quiz, but I decided in the end that I was being unfair and that James was just being James.

Everyone knew (or guessed) that Peter has won both the Pachabo and the Hubert Phillips, but not the Corsham Pairs.

The authors were well known to most (sorry about Enid Blyton - not a bridge player as far as I’m aware), although only Phil scored a perfect 12 for this question since he was the only one who knew that David Bird collaborated with Terence Reese on some of his early stories, including those set in the African jungle. (Reese explained in a Foreword that he had added ‘a little vinegar to the dialogue’). Thanks to Colin for his entertaining suggestion that someone called ‘Tom Robbins’ wrote the jungle stories. I am not familiar with the Robbins oeuvre, but it is an ommision I mean to rectify. I’ll probably find he’s an anthropologist.

Finally, question 9. The first two were easy, but not everyone proposed ‘Redouble’ for the third. Why not? - better than 3N, surely. The weak two-suiter was thrown in for my own entertainment and in the end I gave everyone 2 points. (I don’t think Bob’s suggestion of 2D would secure many points in a proper Bidding Challenge, but it entertained the quizmaster and it is Christmas.) Only Simon got 9e right, spotting that I’d given the hand just twelve cards. I’m sure you’d have all got it right with the cards in your hands.

And so to the scores. Pat knew some of the questions (and the answers) in advance and so, much as I regret beginning the new year on a note of controversy, she has to be disqualified. This was the the final ranking.

James……………………………………….44

Simon……………………………………….43

Roy…………………………………………..41

Bob…………………………………………..39

Phil……………………………………………37

Katharine……………………………………35

Colin (from the office!)………………..29

Pat…………………………………………….45 (disq)

Thanks again to the eight entrants for their festive contribution - and many congratulations to James, winner for the second year in succession.

January 3rd, 2009 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | 2 comments

2008 Christmas Quiz

Yes indeed, almost unbelievably Christmas has come round again. I know that for wcba members the season of good cheer would lose much of its lustre if I did not contribute my own yuletide greetings in the form of an absurdly simple Christmas quiz. Last year I believe there were rumblings in some quarters that the questions were too difficult, but this year’s quiz really is a piece of cake. Even if you only took up the game this morning you should get at least half the questions right.

To enter, simply left click on ’no comments’ at the foot of this post. Type your answers into the comment box that then appears, and when you’ve completed your entry click on ‘Submit comment’.

The closing date for entries is 2nd January. You may file an entry at any time until then, but unless you specifically request anonymity all entries will appear on the Cautious Bidder site, in the form of comments to this post, on or around the 3rd of January. Because of the truly remarkable generosity of the prizes on offer (thanks again Colin) I’m afraid that entry is confined to wcba members.

The result will appear in due course as a further post on this site, and will also be announced at the Wiltshire Butler Pairs on 4th January. If entries are sufficient there may also be a novice prize. If you want to be considered for that, type VPP (short for ’very poor player’) after your name.

Right, here goes. Good luck everyone.

Q1. What is the maximum number of bids (including Passes) that may be contained within an auction that concludes at the one level? 3 points.

Q2. What is the fewest number of points, in declarer’s hand and dummy combined, with which it is possible to make a Grand Slam without defensive error? 3 points.

Q3. What is the greatest number of points, again counting both declarer’s hand and dummy, with which on a given hand it will NOT be possible to make Three No Trumps? 5 points.

Q4. One Wiltshire member has played bridge for England but NOT for Great Britain. Can you name him or her? 3 points.

Q5. The ‘Stop’ card is employed:

a) as a courtesy to the player who is next to bid, advising him that you have made a jump bid;

b) as an indication to partner that your jump bid was deliberate and not, as was unfortunately the case last week, inadvertent;

c) as a warning to partner that the bid you have just made is conventional - for example, Ghestem or Blackwood - and that it should be treated as such;

d) as an indication to partner that it might be prudent at this point were he to fumble uncertainly for the Alert card, thereby signifying a theoretical adherence to the principle of full disclosure whilst muttering ”I’m not sure, but I don’t think it’s natural”;

e) as an indication to partner that whilst you have not in fact made a jump bid on this occasion, you certainly gave consideration to doing so as you do have extra values;

f) for some other purpose, namely……….?

5 points.

Q6. What links the following:

a) guard; winkle; suicide;

b) Avarelli; Belladonna; Chiaradia; D’Alelio; Pabis-Ticci;

c) Marx; Simon; Macleod; Harrison-Gray.

2 points for each.

Q7. Which of the following has Peter Austwick NOT won?

The Hubert Phillips Bowl;

The Pachabo Cup;

The Corsham Pairs.

3 points.

Q8. Who has written about:

a) the Abbot and Brother Lucius;

b) the Rueful Rabbit and the Hideous Hog;

c) the Secret Seven;

d) the Parrot and the Witchdoctor;

e) the Lone Wolff;

f) Zia and me.

2 points for each.

Q9. You are partnering a good player but unfortunately your system discussion was limited to ‘Weak No Trump, Stayman and Blackwood’. What action do you take with the following hands, on each occasion your partner having opened One No Trump and your right hand opponent having doubled?

a) 876543 b) A43 c) A87 d) K87643 e) A109

52 K54 K76 void AK10

86 876 QJ4 1097654 KQ

532 9732 QJ76 10 AK108

2 points for each.

Total number of points at stake: 50.

That’s it!

Merry Christmas.

December 17th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | 8 comments

A double endplay in three suits

This column is not noted for displays of technical virtuosity, the reason for which is fairly obvious, but what do you make of the following hand? The contract is 3NT by South, and West leads the 8 of spades, her partner contributing the King.

Viewing the problem double dummy, can you see your way to nine tricks? See what you make of it before I tell you the sequence of plays at my table.

J10

10764

K10872

9876 K532

104 AQ95

K9 Q852

J9643 5

AQ4

KJ762

AJ3

This hand was Board 7 in the Wiltshire County Pairs Qualifier, played last weekend. Twenty-five pairs were in attendance - another excellent turn-out. I can remember when Wiltshire could barely justify a qualifying round for the County Pairs. It is a tribute to all those involved in running bridge in the county that that is no longer the case.

So what of the hand? I had not been feeling very ‘with it’ over the course of the day so there was no likelihood of any plays of technical interest emanating from this quarter. No, my sole contribution to proceedings was to raise my partner’s opening 2NT to game. Susie Gall and Trevor Purchase were defending. Susie led her second highest spade and Trevor understandably (but probably wrongly) played the King on dummy’s 10.

Have you decided how you would play the hand? This was the sequence of plays at our table…………………

1. S8 to the 10, King, Ace.

2/3. Ace and Queen of clubs, East discarding a spade on the second club.

4. H2 from hand, West winning with the 10.

5. S9, declarer winning with the Jack in dummy.

6. King of clubs, East discarding another spade and declarer letting go a diamond.

7. Heart to hand, East electing simply to cover dummy’s H8 with the 9, declarer’s Jack winning.

8. Ace of spades, declarer discarding a diamond from dummy and East likewise discarding a diamond.

We have reached…………………….

1076

108

7 -

- AQ

K9 Q85

J9 -

K76

Declarer, who has already made seven tricks, now played her Ace of diamonds. If West, Susie Gall, played low on this, she could see she would be thrown in with a further diamond to her King. She could then cash a spade and a club, bringing the total defensive tricks to four, but would then have to play a club to dummy, giving declarer her ninth trick. In fact Susie saw the endplay coming and jettisoned her King of diamonds under declarer’s Ace. Very enterprising.

But now the spotlight fell on Trevor, sitting East. If he were to win the second diamond with his Queen, he would have the unpalatable choice, after cashing his Ace of hearts, of either playing a diamond to dummy’s 10 OR a heart to the King in declarer’s hand. East, in other words, faced being endplayed in TWO suits - diamonds and hearts. In the event, Trevor, in common with his partner, refused to be endplayed - he ducked the Jack of diamonds! But of course that was declarer’s ninth trick.

The defence on this hand was not optimal - East does better to duck the opening spade lead, and it may be that rising with the Ace when declarer plays a heart off dummy also thwarts the endplay. But there is no denying the fascination, and one might even say the beauty, of the position that declarer managed to reach.

December 10th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | 2 comments

Wiltshire in the Tollemache

As many will know, the Tollemache is the EBU’s Inter-Counties Teams of Eight competition and by some distance the most prestigious of the inter-counties events. The qualifying round was held this last weekend and Wiltshire was represented by Bob Bannister/Andrew Law; Norman Botton/Richard Samter; Pat Davies/Gwynn Davis; Phil Green/Roger Karn; and Keith Sharp/Keith Williamson. Phil Green accepted the responsibility of captaincy - much to the relief of the rest of us since the Tolle involves a considerable administrative burden and most counties have an NPC.

Counties (and two Welsh regions) are divided into four groups and this year it was Wiltshire’s misfortune to be drawn in the toughest group that I personally have experienced in the Tollemache. There were at least five counties in our group that entertained genuine hopes of qualifying for the final, which is a lot. Wiltshire cannot aspire to that at the moment - we do not have the resources of experience and technique within the county to make that a realistic prospect - but we are of course keen to do as well as possible, and to benefit from the experience.

As it happens the team played well by our standards for the first half of the event and at that stage, with 48 of the 96 boards completed, we lay 5th in our group. Admittedly we had not played two of the strongest teams (Surrey and Yorkshire), but we had reason to be hopeful. In the event we performed disappointingly against Surrey and then, on the Sunday, we were handicapped by the fact that one of our players was unwell, which in turn meant that one of our stronger pairs played less than we would have liked.

No-one should be in any doubt that the Tollemache is tough. In order to do well you need all your pairs to be experienced at national tournament level, and indeed to be successful at that level. You have to build up that experience over a number of years, improving your game as you do so. Inevitably we fell short of that standard, but everyone tried their hardest and team spirit was excellent. Incidentally, with respect to the ‘Butler’ (individual pairs) ranking, it is important to understand that this is far from being a reliable indicator of each pair’s performance. It is affected by whether you ’sit out’ against stronger or weaker teams, by who your direct opponents are within those teams, and by whether your direct opponents play well or badly, luckily or unluckily, against you.

We defeated two teams in our head to head matches (Dorset and London), losing by greater or lesser margins to the others. The final ranking in our group was as follows.

1. Yorkshire 114 VPs

2. Warwickshire 106 VPs

3. Lancashire 101 VPs

4. Surrey 100 VPs

5. London 92 VPs

6. Devon 78 VPs

7. Herefordshire 54 VPs

8. Wiltshire 53 VPs

9. Dorset 22 VPs

This hand contributed to a gratifying win over London.

942

KJ95

QJ1095

J95 863

J85 K10763

873 Q10642

A864 void

KQ10742

K732

Pat and I bid the North/South cards to Six Spades, doubled by East. You may recognise this as a ‘Lightner’ double, signifying a void, and you can see that the lead of the Ace of clubs defeats the contract. Pat however has been around long enough to take opponents of this calibre seriously, and when they told her that Six Spades was booked for defeat, she believed them. She removed to Six No Trumps which, as you can also see, is ‘cold’. West doubled that, probably out of frustration with his partner, but I could not fail to make it as the cards lay, for +1230.

We were entertained for the next several minutes by Beijing silver medallist Tom Townsend telling his partner exactly what he thought of his double of Six Spades. The phrase that sticks in my mind is ‘Beyond hopeless’. I plan to wheel it out myself some day. Whether East’s double was as terrible as all that is a matter of opinion, even if it worked out badly on this occasion. He was unlucky perhaps, but credit to Pat for drawing the correct inference and taking appropriate remedial action.

This was another judgement hand, against Surrey this time. This time Pat and I sat East/West, at favourable vulnerability.

A87

KQ63

AQ86

QJ10963 K542

7 104

J95 104

973 Q10864

void

AJ9852

K732

K52

This was the bidding.

W N E S

3S 3N 4S 6H

P 7H 7S X

This hand demonstrates that one does not require complex systems in order to bid well. Judgement is far more important. Here all the bids were completely natural. Pat’s decision to save in Seven Spades was assisted by the fact that we were playing quality opposition whose bidding could be relied upon. She also demonstrated confidence in partner - that he had his usual rubbish. 7SX went for 1400 - an excellent save against the vulnerable 7H for North/South.

I’ll give one more hand, also against Surrey, which caused us considerable frustration. The budding directors amongst you might like to consider how you would rule. East was the dealer, and both sides were vulnerable.

9832

AQJ984

AKQ743 J1086

7 A5

102 K653

A1054 876

KQJ1064

KQJ32

The bidding was as follows.

E S W N

P 1H 1S 4D

P 4H 4S 5H

5S X all pass

North’s 4D bid was explained as showing diamonds, plus a fit for hearts. Pat, sitting East, thought for some time over this (longer than the Stop card), before passing. She had actually concluded that - given South was required to bid again - she might as well defer the decision whether to bid spades in support of partner. I acknowledged the hesitation, but bid 4S anyway.

5SX went one down for +200 to North/South. North/South can make ten tricks in hearts. At the conclusion of the hand the Surrey pair called the director because they were concerned about my 4S bid following partner’s hesitation. The 4S bid was disallowed and the score altered to +620 for North/South.

The Tollemache is a demanding event and this was the conclusion of a very long day. I would have liked to appeal, but Pat advised against, so we left it. I still feel hard done by. It is unfortunate that Pat’s hesitation removed all element of risk from my 4S bid. But one is still allowed to play bridge even after partner has hesitated. I consider 4S to be completely automatic - I could not imagine passing in the proverbial month of Sundays. But the director, following consultation with colleagues, ruled otherwise. Very frustrating.

My feelings at the conclusion of this hand were perhaps similar to those of the entire Wiltshire team as we saw our respectable half-way ranking drift in a southerly direction. But the fact is we weren’t good enough. There were plenty of high spots, but also too many poor decisions to enable us to compete effectively against strong opponents.

I am satisfied that the team selected was the best available, but given that others in the county are of similar standard it is important that we encourage as many pairs as possible to aim to represent the county in the Tolle. It’s a fabulous event, and a privilege to be invited to play in it. The more vibrant the competition within the county, the better off we shall be.

I personally see no alternative to a discretionary system for picking the team - that is to say, to selection. And it is essential, in the interests both of the appearance and reality of fairness, that the task of selection be given to players whose own place in the team is not in doubt.

The principal criterion should be success in national events - that is the standard by which we must measure ourselves. The league is the best measure in Wiltshire, but the problem with it is that some of the stronger pairs do not play together, whilst others play with weaker team-mates. So selectors have to take on board performance outside the county against strong opponents.

I have the following suggestions for modest change to the present procedure:

a)wait until the end of August before picking the team - this will allow performance in national events over the summer to be taken into account;

b)invite those pairs who would like to be considered to identify themselves to the selectors - apart from anything else, this would make it plain who wished to play with whom;

c)ask applicant pairs to submit a brief CV, setting out performances of note in the recent past within that partnership.

And keep trying.

December 5th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | one comment

Non playing Directors and sumptuous teas by Colin Webb

Wait for two years to write a blog, and a week later along comes another one. This time I am using Gwynn’s critique of the Garden Cities event to explain current WCBA commiittee policies.

Non playing directors - your committee (following some unfortunate happenings last season - and with absolutely no reflection upon the playing directors of the past) decided that non playing directors should be appointed for all our events (except the Chairman’s Cup follwing the AGM). This has resulted in some cross county assistance with Colin Simcox (Somerset) directing Wilts events and Phil Green directing at some Somerset events. Home grown Directors are not easy to find and we are very grateful to Norman Lambert that he is on occasion prepared to forego playing in order to direct.

Sumptuous teas - your committee has also been delighted to accept the continuing offer from Chris Starr to garnish our events with her excellent teas.

The downside to both of these issues is that the cost of staging our events has risen. This season it was decided to increase our entry fees only marginally, with a review of resultant surpluses / deficits to be made before next season. It would thus be helpful if attendees to our events could pass on their opinions to committee members.

And, whilst I am in full flow, Gwynn raised the issue of number of boards played. The agreed committee directive to our Competition Secretary, event organisers and directors is that competitions shall be a minimum of 36 boards increased where necessary up to 42 boards. The view is that such a number of boards provides for an after lunch start (2.00pm) combined with a reasonably sensible evening finishing time. Once again the views of our players would be welcomed.

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

An almost perfect day

Last weekend saw the Wiltshire heat of the Garden Cities competition (EBU Teams of Eight), held at the Nursteed Centre. I thought it was a brilliant event, and not only (or even primarily) because the Bath team finished top on the day.

First, we had seven teams - in other words, 56 players, or 14 tables. That is a superb turn-out for this particular event and a substantial increase on last year. I think the Bath club deserves particular congratulation for fielding two teams. It would be good if other clubs managed that next year. Of course ’second’ teams will not expect to win the event, but why not encourage players who do not normally play in county events to dip their toe(s) in the water of competitive teams play? The Garden Cities is one opportunity to do that.

Secondly, we had a non-playing director in Colin Simcox of Somerset, and in my opinion this added considerably to the enjoyment of the event. Playing directors are a necessity at club level, but I am a firm believer in having professional, non-playing directors for county events. Phil Green does an excellent job when he has to, but you can’t beat having a director whose entire focus is on ensuring the smooth running of the event. The Garden Cities is quite a complicated format, but everything ran like clockwork.

Thirdly, there was the competition itself. The event was hard fought, with Swindon having a 1 IMP lead at tea time. I had been worried about them beforehand and was relieved when they did the decent thing - and thanks, also, to Bath ’B' for taking points off Swindon whilst graciously waving us through in the manner of an Aiden O’Brien pacemaker moving off the fence to let Johnny Murtagh slip through on the inside. That’s another reason for entering a B team, folks. Thanks Christine - the cheque’s in the post.

Thirdly, there was the tea, prepared as ever by Chris Starr. At every home event we pay virtually nothing for this sumptuous feast. Chris, I don’t know how you do it, but long may you be prepared to continue. On this occasion you may even have affected the result since rumour has it that Swindon’s second half demise was primarily due to calorific over-indulgence.

I have two minor critical observations. First, the back room of the Nursteed, required to accommodate four tables because of the number of teams competing in the event, could double as a training ground for one of Chris Dixon’s polar expeditions. I don’t know what the problem is, but I was personally relieved to play the entire event in the main room. Is there a heating engineer in the house? Failing that, should the county invest in stocks of thermal underwear to be handed out to those requred to play in the back room? It would be embarrassing if one of our number had to be carted off to hospital suffering from hypothermia.

Secondly, we played 36 boards, which I suspect is fine for many players, especially the blue-faced survivors in the back room, but I personally would prefer more. This is presumably a matter determined by the Wiltshire committee rather than the director on the day. Could we not play 40 boards (plus) in a two session event? - 42 as it would have been in this instance?

Finally, I guess you want to know how I won the event for my team. As usual, it’s difficult to know which hand to choose, but I’ve selected this one (rotated for convenience) as conforming to the ‘almost perfect’ theme.

AK76

A1073

1086

QJ964 K75

J1053 Q2

98 QJ6

74 QJ952

A102

984

K542

AK3

I declared 3NT with the South cards on the lead of a mildly eccentric jack of spades. I didn’t think much of my prospects. I had 25 points, it’s true, but the hands were all Aces and Kings, lacking impletion. (’Impletion’ is a word I first heard used by the late Jeremy Flint. I now wheel it out whenever possible, sometimes several times a day.)

It seemed routine to hold up the Ace of spades for two rounds, and the play in that suit strongly suggested that West had started with five cards. It seemed to me that I would then need three tricks from both red suits, playing for diamonds to be 3/2 and hearts 3/3. In order for this to work I would need in each instance to lose a trick to the safe hand, which I assumed to be East. That at least was the plan.

I set about diamonds and West’s 9 was a helpful beginning, enabling me simply to cover and East to win with his Jack. A small club was returned and, not being gifted with second sight, I plonked my King on that. The diamonds were kind and I cashed my three tricks in the suit, finishing in hand.

Then I advanced the 9 of hearts and was somewhat taken aback to see West cover this with the 10. I wasn’t aware of it, but the hand had just become makeable. I was simply conscious that I couldn’t allow West to win the trick. Nothing for it but to play dummy’s King and then to call for a small heart at the next trick. I was relieved to see East contribute his Queen at this point - so relieved that I promptly gifted the board straight back to its rightful owners by playing a dozy four of hearts from hand.

The thing is, you see, I hadn’t fully taken on board the significance of West’s 10 of hearts, or for that matter East’s play of the Queen to the second heart trick. I was still thinking I needed hearts to be 3/3. By retaining the 8 of hearts in hand I had effectively blocked the suit, scuppering the finesse of West’s Jack which would have secured the contract.

East now played the Queen of clubs which I perforce took with my Ace. Then, more in hope than expectation, I advanced the 8 of hearts - which West covered with the Jack. So I made my contract.

Bridge is like that, I find. Whilst I might wish to cross the finishing line with trumpets blaring, trailing clouds of glory in my wake, even my few triumphs have the character of an inebriated stumble. There were, as you can see, just the three errors, one by me and two by the defence. That’s what I mean by ’almost perfect’.

November 28th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | 3 comments

Aim to enjoy your bridge career - by Colin Webb

I have promised Cautious Bidder, the WCBA committee, and others for some long time that I would make a contribution to the fine series of blogs so far posted. I have dallied on the obvious pretexts that I cannot expect to maintain the excellence level, and I do not have the technical ability to discuss finer aspects of hands played.

My dubious cover was blown last Sunday when Gayle and I, together with Warminster club teammates, Roger Andrews and Lesley Angus, won the Torquay Congress Swiss Teams. A report was demanded!

The main thrust of this blog though will be to follow up on Emma Jackson’s reports that plainly show that she has had some fun with the start of her playing career. Gayle and I are still having fun after playing for a number of years now, and we hope that this will continue.

But back to Torquay - and we have arrived at table one for the last round. We are tying for second place but only five points behind the leaders whom we shall play. Are we nervous? You bet we are. Lesley is shaking slightly - Gayle and I dare not tell her that a year ago we were in a similar situation in the Dorset teams, and we blew it!

My highs from other sporting events help to keep me fairly calm - Gayle told me afterwards that she had never concentrated so hard (presumably, for once, not noticing what the fashions were four tables away!) We reach the final board in reasonable shape - no cock ups from us and all our games safely bid and made. Our opponents have missed a game but nothing else.

Board 49 - we bid to 3NT on

Gayle

S J T x

H Q x x

D A K Q X x

C x x

Me - declarer

S A Q 9 x x

H A K x

D x x

C Q x x

The lead is a low heart………………..

And suddenly I have to make this for a good series - I am sure that the other players think that I have gone into a trance. The spade game looks safer! But on the face of it three hearts, five diamonds and the spade Ace make a simple 9 tricks - but by now our mentor Marc Smith is on my shoulder with his favourite phrase: “I have a dog at home that could make this contract if it were that simple.” My shoulder pal is convincing me that the diamonds are not breaking - so I have probably got to lose a diamond and the spade King. How are the clubs situated - is the Queen a stopper? Whatever, I cannot afford to discard clubs on the diamonds…. Why the heart lead? Shall I try the spades or the diamonds first? I have a an unhealthy aversion to finesses. Gotta do something, boy.

As it turns out the play is briefer than my trance. Low heart from dummy, Jack from my right, I play the Ace in the fond hope that both opponents will think that partner has the King. Duck a round of diamonds - a heart comes back - over to the Ace of diamonds and the 10 drops on my left (now I know the force is with me). I play the spade Jack, up pops the King and I claim 12 tricks.

Am I ecstatic? You bet I am. (Please don’t spoil it by telling me the correct line of play.)

And there is more to come. At the other table our opponents had advanced to 4NT and Roger and Lesley had found the club lead that took the contract down. A match and championship winning swing! Just a 100 mile drive back to the Red Lion for a celebratory drink or two.

As I said at the start, I want to encourage players who are in the early stages of their bridge careers that there is much fun and enjoyment to be had in the bridge world.

Over the last decade or so Gayle and I have played duplicate bridge in most of the southern counties of England, scattered parts of Wales, Jersey, Guernsey, a number of countries bordering the Mediterranean, Hong Kong, Australia’s Gold Coast and Capital Territory, and most recently in South Carolina.

I mention this not to try to claim any petrol discount vouchers or air miles, but simply to explain that many of the friends that we have made whilst playing bridge do not live in Warminster.

Sure, we started slowly - we considered little but club bridge for several years. However, we were only middle of the road club players when first we tested life outside. First the WCBA league (div2 as it was - possibly to be rejuvented - watch this website) - then a few of the weekend “bridge breaks” that are continually advertised. Eventually we tried a proper Congress (Weston Super Mare).

I think that if we had known how much we would enjoy the Congress we would have got there a couple of years earlier. The point is that you do not have to be a star to enjoy the competitions. If you are confident of your etiquette, then you can play. If you give opposition players a “top” they will not complain. After one Congress where we had to settle for being last in most events, on the occasion of our finishing last but one we tried to find the bottom pair to join our celebration.

To play anywhere outside your club all you need is your convention card and a pen.

Bridge at congresses is rarely played in anything but a good spirit - the bridge world is relatively small and one soon gets to recognise past opponents. And opponents can be friends! Last weekend at Torquay, Gayle and I were late (as usual) for the first evening meal, our teammates’ table was already full, but we were cordially gestured to join the Welsh team of Liam Sheridan, Gwyneth Dew, Irene Thomas and Jenny Vaughan. As acquaintances they were good company; on their final day, as opponents at table one for that last hand, they were cordial as ever; and they were the first to congratulate us on our victory.

This is what the bridge world has to offer - get out there and enjoy it.

November 23rd, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | one comment

Well Fielded! by Phil Green

‘Well fielded!’ came the cry from the pavilion at Trowbridge Cricket Club. Was this a cry of congratulation, referring to a good stop by a cricketer, or was something more sinister going on downstairs, where the recently formed trowBRIDGEclub holds its weekly meetings? In cricket, fielding is an important part of the game. In bridge, ’fielding’ is not allowed.

Communication between bridge partners is limited to the use of calls and plays, as per Law 73A1. Any other communication or gathering of information is potentially illegal. Players in England may agree to use conventions, so long as these comply with the regulations laid down in the Orange Book and are fully disclosed to the opponents - see Law 20F1. So long as both members of a partnership play the same system, which they must do, and provided nobody makes a mistake in announcing, alerting or explaining a conventional bid, then all is well.

If an error occurs, then the Tournament Director should be called as soon as it is safe to do so. This is normally at the end of the auction if the error was made by the declaring side, or at the end of the hand if the error was made by the defending side. The Director has to determine whether the error is caused by a misexplanation, a misbid, or a psyche. The latter is a deliberate departure from the agreed system with the intention of misleading the opposition.

‘Fielding’ is the term used to describe a player drawing a conclusion about the meaning of partner’s bid using information not available to the opponents. Consider the following sequence: 1NT - P - P - 2C - P - 2H - P - 3C - All Pass.

2C was alerted as showing hearts and a minor. 3C was passed out.

^{The Tournament Director is called and he asks North to explain his pass of 3C. North says: “Partner often forgets that we play Astro, so he has probably got a club suit and not hearts.”}

^{^{How should the Director rule?}}

^{^{This is a classic case of fielding. North has used his knowledge of his partner’s regular failure to remember they play the Astro convention to determine his final bid. The ruling therefore is that South has misbid and that North has fielded the misbid. The penalty for this is that any result achieved on the board is scrapped. In its place the standard Artificial Adjusted Score of Average+/Average- is awarded. This equates to 60% at matchpointed pairs, or 3 imps at teams.}}

^{^{There are two additional points worthy of note. The first is that it is incumbent upon players to know their system, so the Tournament Director may choose to remind North/South of this. He may penalise them further if this error is repeated.}}

^{^{The second point of interest arises where South has deliberately called 2C, knowing the true meaning of the bid and that his hand does not conform to it. This is a psyche or psychic bid. It is allowed within the Laws, but there are very heavy penalties for fielding such a bid. If the example above were found to be a psyche rather than a misbid then the penalty would indeed be severe.}}

November 10th, 2008 Posted by Gwynn | Uncategorized | no comments

Counting for aggressive beginners

One of my minor idiosyncrasies is that I hate the emphasis on point counting in teaching bridge. This is because counting points is quite useless as a means of hand evaluation on anything other than balanced hands, and in fact on most hands the shape of the hand, any fit with partner, clues as to the location of opposition values, and the precise location of honour cards within your suits should all play a part in determining how much, and what, to bid. The game is about TRICKS.

The other reason to look sceptically upon point counting is that this is often the ONLY counting that less experienced players trouble to do. The following is, I hope, an instructive hand on this theme. It’s taken from the recent EBU Autumn Congress, held in Bournemouth.

J6542

104

KJ5

1032

Q8 A1073

763 K98

108743 Q2

764 KJ95

AQJ52

A96

AQ8

The vulnerability and the bidding both matter. North/South were vulnerable. East was the dealer and she opened One No Trump. Sitting South, I doubled. West ran to Two Diamonds. My partner doubled this (penalties) and I might have passed. However, I was concerned that we might only secure 500 against a making vulnerable game our way. So I bid Four Hearts. West led the Queen of spades, correctly ducked by his partner.

Well? The first thing that should strike you is that, having helpfully put his Queen of spades on display, West’s remaining honour cards comprise, at most, the Jack of clubs. This hand therefore is virtually double dummy. Accordingly, win the spade lead with your King; play Ace of diamonds and a diamond to your King, felling East’s Queen. Play the ten of hearts, finessing as necessary; complete drawing trumps; then, in hopes of a second overtrick, cut adrift with the nine of spades. As you can see, East has to win this. Having no red cards in her hand, the choice lay between a spade and a club. Obviously the King of spades or a small spade would each in their own way be fatal for the defence (I still have the Jack of diamonds as an entry to dummy). So East exited with a club - in practice, a small club. There was no harm in running this round to my ten, followed by the marked finesse of East’s King.

Twelve tricks was a good score, but my own part in proceedings was limited to a little very basic counting. Both East and West might have done better, but defending as they did they presented declarer with an open goal - it would have been a shame not to stroke the ball home.

West should not have led the Queen of spades. A poor lead at any time, it was a complete giveaway when this was the only honour card in his hand and his partner’s points total was so tightly defined. East’s exit with a small club was not too bright either, although many players would fall from grace here. East should exit with one of her club honours (it doesn’t matter which). I believe this is called a ’surrounding play’ (it’s dummy’s ten of clubs that is surrounded). Anyway, whatever it’s called, the effect is to deny declarer a third club trick.

But that is not the point of the story. Surrounding plays are relatively advanced (too advanced for me on many occasions, I have no doubt). But counting the opponents’ points, when one or both has given such a precise count of their high cards, is not advanced for anyone prepared to put in the modest amount of effort that is required.

This next hand, also taken from Bournemouth, is more of a curiosity. I did my best to utilise all the information at my disposal, but even now I’m not sure if I made the technically correct play. It’s sufficient to give the North/South hands.

AKJ876

86543

Q10

AQ1072

KJ7

AQ3

My partner, sitting North, was the dealer and she essayed One Spade. I bid Two Hearts, and West overcalled Three Diamonds. Sue now bid Four Diamonds and I bid Six No Trumps. Yes, I know, it’s an absolutely awful bid. My only excuse, and it’s a poor one indeed, is that we were playing matchpointed pairs, but one look at my partner’s face as the dummy went down was enough to tell me that I had perpetrated a major boob. Any sensible South would play the hand in Four, Five or Six Hearts. Six is ‘cold’ if you escape the Ace of diamonds lead - the diamond singleton in dummy can be discarded on a club and trumps played happily enough for one loser.

As it happens West at my table also elected to lead a club, but since I was playing in No Trumps that didn’t help me. As soon as a I lost a heart trick the Ace of diamonds would be cashed, and the thunderous expression on my partner’s face left little room for doubt as to what would follow.

So the heart suit had to be played for no loser. Nothing for it: call for a small heart from dummy; nine of hearts appears on my right………………?????????????? What are the options? You started out missing the K, J, 9. You’ve seen the 9. Where are the King, Jack? If both lie over you, you’re doomed. The relevant possibilities, therefore, are that West has a void in hearts (play the ten); or that he has the singleton Jack (play the Queen); or the singleton King (play the Ace). If he has any one of these three, the suit will play for no loser, provided you guess correctly.

I suppose you want to know what I played? OK, I played the 10. And how did that fare? Well, I’m telling the tale, am I not? But which was the RIGHT card to play in these circumstances - that is to say, the card conforming to the odds? When I got home I looked it up. Apparently, with no other indications, the best shot to play this suit for no loser, winning 39% of the time, is to insert the Queen (effectively playing for singleton Jack offside). Don’t ask me why.

So my play of the ten was not with the odds - unless, that is, you allow West’s diamond overcall to enter calculations, with it’s likely corollary that there are more ‘vacant spaces’ in the East hand. Goodness knows how you’re supposed to calculate that. So there is a limit, in my view, to how far counting will get you on this particular hand. I suppose the answer is that if you’re going to bid like a madman, you’d better be lucky. But it still pays to count - as far as you are able.

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

what's this all about?

The idea is to cover topics of interest to WCBA players, and also provide a forum for discussion. If you wish to respond, or if you have ideas of your own, please feel free to comment to the posts.

Look back in astonishment, by Emma Jackson

Christmas Quiz - the results!!!!

2008 Christmas Quiz

A double endplay in three suits

Wiltshire in the Tollemache

Non playing Directors and sumptuous teas by Colin Webb

An almost perfect day

Aim to enjoy your bridge career - by Colin Webb

Well Fielded! by Phil Green

Counting for aggressive beginners

what's this all about?

Recent

Links

Site Admin

Archives

Categories