The Imp Chimp

Understanding natural bidding

2009-10-17T13:23:00.010+11:00

When this hand came up in a national championship, here are three natural auctions that ensued.

Auction 1:
1H 1S
2D 3C
3D 4NT
5D 6D

Auction 2 :
1H 1S
2D 4D
4H 4S
5D P

Auction 3 :
1H 1S
2D 3C
3D 4D (rkc)
4H 4S (q ask)
5H 6D

The second auction (at my table) went off the rails in the ambiguity between the attempt at showing extra values and lack of a club control in the right hand.
But both the other two auctions involved one hand bidding a slam on their own once partner showed 5-5 in the red suits. Fair enough, for when we start giving opener a hand with ten red cards, slam usually has reasonable play and is often cold.

Could South's assessment change if North bid a slow 3D ?

What would be North's choice with a hand like
xx
KQxxx
AQxx
xx

Or a hand like
x
KQxxx
AQxx
Jxx

I prefer a 3S bid on the first hand above and 3NT on the second but is that universal ?

Odds and Ends

2009-10-08T15:17:00.021+11:00

This post is an attempt to tie a few odds and ends from previous posts.

1. Summary of strong club experience in NZ nationals.

a) Opponents interfere over almost every 1C opening.
b) Bridge has so little to do with bidding system.
c) Playing against weak players helps reinforce our prejudices.
d) Strong club is a lot of fun. Standard sucks.

2. Suit combinations we should know by heart.

1. A3 ............ J10542
Cash the Ace and duck on the way back.

2. A4 ............ Q10985
Run the queen. Counter-intuitive. Compare #4

3 32 ............ AK10987
Cash the Ace. Play low to the ten.

4. Q10943 ........ A5
Cash the Ace and lead low to the queen. Can pick doubleton jack but not doubleton king.

5. J987 ........ K654
Run the nine. Then Run the seven. Superior to intuitive low to the king and low to the nine.

6. Q10542 ........ A94
Low to the ace. Low to the ten. Bet most would "double hook". Need the 8-spot for the double-hook to be right.

7. Q1053 ......... A942
Low to the ace. Low to the ten. Need the 8-spot for the double-hook.

8. J5 .............. AK9843
Cash the Ace. Run the jack. Superior to the routine "low to the jack". Low to the jack is correct when missing the 8-spot.

9. J5 ............ AK984
Cash the Ace. Run the Jack.

10. A5 ............ KJ984
Low to ace and low to the jack (or nine)

11. 32 ............ AKJ94
For four tricks, finesse the nine. If it loses, cash the Ace and King next.

12. Q1082 ........ A953
Finally....Double- hook :)

For combinations 7 and 12, leading a small one away from the ace is better if opponents are known to always hop king from Kx.

3. Officially-disliked system by the WBF.

Ware-Whibley, representing New Zealand, submitted a forcing pass system called Crunch for the Bermuda Bowl. The system would be permitted only in the knockout phases. They were pressured by WBF officialls to withdraw the system before it was posted for the other teams to see. As far as I know, there was no greater reason than that such a system would be a pain for the Americans and Italians to prepare against. It was suggested that submitting such a system may jeopardize the two spots that zone 7 holds for the Bermuda Bowl. They were also informed, even before the appropriate committee had a look, that such a system would probably be disallowed on grounds of incomplete information. With two weeks to go to the bowl, the system was disallowed on grounds on insufficient disclosure for one opening bid. They were not given a chance to improve their documentation.

Why does the WBF bother pretending that HUM systems are legal?

Big Bad Strong Club

2009-09-22T10:59:00.021+10:00

After years of playing natural methods, I'm trying out some strong club systems in the upcoming men's pairs, snot, nznats and gnot.

One thing that strikes me is how much simpler a big club system is, once you absorb the mechanics. We dont have the issues of two partners taking three bids each and neither knowing the high-card strength of their partner.

For example, this is a hand that tony and I bid (playing natural) in the Coffs Harbour.

.... 1C
1H 1S
1N P

No one did anything terrible but we were miles away from bidding a vulnerable game. Two bids each and we could have had 11 opposite 6 points.

Strong club systems do come with their own share of problems, especially when the opponents interfere over 1C. One concept that I love is playing the strong club with a strong no-trump and a strong two no-trump. This is the style favoured by Meckstroth-Rodwell. It helps sort out core issues of game-versus-partscore in 1C- interference auctions a lot better than other stuff around.

The systems I am trying out are

MiniMeck - based on Meckwell structure with an Ozzie flavour.
Strong Club - no relay but using Fischer ask and Lasker Asker
5 card majors
1NT 14 to 16
2C 6+C
2D 3 suited short diamond
2NT 19 to bad 21.

Orgasm - …Overbidding Really Great Awesome Sartaj & Michael (Ware)…aka..Overbidding Retarded Games And Slams Making ..
Strong Club
1D = 4+H, could be canape
1H = 4+S, could be canape
1S = weak NT(inc. 5M)
1N 14 to 16
2C both minors
2D diamond suit
2NT 19 to bad 21
3C club suit.

Will try to post hands featuring our adventures and misadventures in strong club land here !

Also, a couple of days ago I taped an interview with Bobby Richman. When it shows up on this blog soon, I bet you will enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed conducting it !

Twelve suit combinations we should know by heart

2009-09-18T12:05:00.006+10:00

We find ourselves in 3NT and need to take some tricks in this suit.
What is the best way of playing it ?

1. A3 ............ J10542
2. A4 ............ Q10985
3 32 ............ AK10987
4. Q10943 ........ A5
5. J987 ........ K654
6. Q10542 ........ A94
7. Q1053 ......... A942
8. J5 .............. AK9843
9. J5 ............ AK984
10. A5 ............ KJ984
11. 32 ............ AKJ94
12. Q1082 ........ A953

The real facts....(kind of)...

2009-09-15T21:57:00.025+10:00

The comments to my previous post referred to the datums in the Bowl final.

Instead of banking on datums derived on the results of a match between two teams that were 100 imps behind with a set to play to the two big monsters of bridge, I've spent an hour summarizing the cause of 6+IMP swings and some potential swings in the final at a high level.

I do not claim to be exhaustive and completely accurate. Perusing through this write-up might be illuminating. Am happy to accomodate any dissenting opinions and change (parts of) this review.

Set1
1.Fantoni-Nunes bid a light vulnerable game that goes three off.
2.Fantoni-Nunes miss a 25 HCP game on a misfit that Meckwell make.
3.Nickell misdefends a slam that Fantoni was probably going to go down in.
Meckwell bid the same not-so-hot slam and go down
4.Katz makes a tight 3NT on a favourable lead. Meckwell defeat game on a different lead. The choice of lead had an element of randomness due to system issues.

Set 2
1. Nickell Freeman miss a vulnerable game
2. Sementa revokes as declarer in vulnerable game after taking a winning view earlier. Unclear whether Katz should find the winning line at the other table.
3. Nickell Katz have a bidding accident resulting in defending a doubled making partscore
4. Sementa Duboin bid a light NV game that comes home.
5. Katz takes a rash action to bid a noplay slam.
6. SementaDuboin and NickellKatz miss a cold slam that is hard to reach in a competitive auction.
7. Meckwell steal at favourable with combined 17 HCP. No game makes other way despite a good fit and a shortage.
8. Meckwell overstretch to vul game

Set 3
1. Meckwell make a slam after Fantoni Nunes get active,not unreasonably so. Hamman Zia pass and declarer does not have the vital clue.
2. Meckwell make a winning competitive decision while Sementa Duboin flounder
3. Meckwell bid a light vulnerable game that goes two off
4. Complex 1NT hand that Versace makes versus Meckwell while Zia goes down

Set 4
1. Lauria mis-saw partner's bid and bids a noplay slam.
2. Katz makes a daring lead directional bid that pays off winning a vul game swing. Fantoni Nunes go down while Meck makes against Versace Lauria on a random lead decision.
3. Meckwell bid to superior game contract knowingly so while Fantoni Nunes dont.
4. Versace opts not to make a light takeout double leading to Meckwell stealing a hand where the opponents could have made a game.

Set 5
1. Zia makes a reckless bid leading to a vulnerable penalty.
2. Zia-Hamman miss a light nonvul game that Fantunes bid and make versus Meckwell.
3. Meckwell and ZiaHamman both go plus on a partscore deal when Duboin opts not to make a light takeout double.
4. Fantoni fails to double an invitational vulnerable auction with bad splits while Zia-Hamman do.
5. Duboin misdefends a vulnerable game versus Zia
6. Fantunes "heavy"weak NT style leads to missing vulnerable game.

Set 6
1. Sementa takes a losing view in a light vulnerable game that Meckwell stay out of.
2. Rodwell takes a losing line of play in game that Duboin gets right.
3. Zia makes a rash bid (that Versace avoids vs Meckwell) leading to a phantom sacrifice.
4. Hamman Zia defeat a touch and go vulnerable game that Meckwell stay out of.
5. Zia-Hamman drive to the 5-level, down one, all on their own after a bidding accident

Set 7
1. Zia makes an unfortunate lead caused by Hamman's misguided bid. Then makes a questionable play to let through a game. Good play by Nunes.
2. Nunes takes a losing line of play that Meck gets right.
3. Fantunes miss a game due to systemic issues that Meckwell bid.
4. Meckwell bid the better game while Fantunes go down in their choice.
5. Lauria Versace bid a cold light slam that Hamman Zia miss
6. Meckwell are overboard in a vulnerable game.
7. Versace Lauria play superior game. Hamman Zia bid the more natural game that hamman takes a losing view in.

Set 8
1. Lauria Versace catch Meckwell speeding for a penalty
2. Meckwell miss a light vulnerable game that Duboin Sementa bring in.
3. Hamman Zia bring in a marginal slam that Versace stays out of.

The winner takes it all...

2009-09-13T17:02:00.015+10:00

Winners of the 2009 Bermuda Bowl
Zia Mahmood, Bob Hamman, Eric Rodwell,Eric Kokish, Jeff Meckstroth, Donna Compton, Nick Nickell, Ralph Katz (photo courtesy daily bulletin)

USA2 took home the trophy with a convincing 36 IMP win over Italy. Having watched almost all of the final and the rest via the vugraph archives, I can say with certainty that Meckstroth and Rodwell, who played throughout during the knockouts, were the standout best pair in the tournament.

They demonstrated exemplary technique, tremendous mental toughness and a solid system to show their worth. On the other hand, the Italians played in a weak manner with (to my mind) obvious psychological weaknesses in their camp.

Lauria mis-saw his partner's bid, Sementa revoked as declarer, Versace made a zero percent play, Nunes failed to count his tricks, Duboin played a winner on a loser....

Bridge, as usual, was all about delivery.

The chief reason the match was not a blowout was because the other USA2 pairs were not exceptional either. Perhaps I am being unfair to the rest of the USA2 team but the truth of competitive bridge is that "Winning absolves you of all your sins."

The party is over

2009-09-09T16:58:00.015+10:00

Party is over for some of my picks for the Bermuda Bowl. We seem headed towards another USA vs Italy final, the two teams having battled it out recently in 2003 and 2005.

The usual suspects after their 2003 win

Italy with their first bermuda bowl win since mid-1970s.

Meanwhile, Australia struggled. Perhaps they will be well warmed up for the Spring Nationals.

If we were able to clone Delivera-Robinson , and have all three pairs return 0.15 imps/board, Australia would have moved up to 12th in the overall standings, about 30 VPs off qualifying for the quarters. Wouldn't that be kool ?

The ZZZ effect

2009-09-02T16:57:00.027+10:00

I am fortunate, I guess, that I get to play with, amongst and against some of the best players in Australia. I see firsthand some of their errors, some actions that a club player would be embarrassed to admit to. At one point, I considered writing a post listing some of our top players and a "memorable" hand featuring each one of them. There was no shortage of good data.

I decided against that write-up because other than the hands being obvious delivery issues, there was no unifying thread between them.

Now consider these three defensive exhibits.

Hand 1

North played 4S on the lead of a diamond to the ace and back won in dummy. Declarer finessed the spade, cashed SA,unblocked the DK and played a third spade. East won and returned a diamond, declarer pitching a club. Declarer played the heart ace and claimed as east ruffed.
A club return upon winning the third spade sets the contract.

Hand 2

South played 3NT after West opened 1H and led the SK. Declarer won the second spade and played a club to the jack. East ducked. And nine tricks rolled in.

Hand 3

North played 4H on a club lead won by the Ace. Declarer called for a heart and West played the ace of diamonds, which became a major penalty card. Soon declarer wrote down +620.

These three hands occurred in the last couple of weeks. The culprits on defence were players who have represented Australia on numerous occassions. For all these hands there was an underlying similarity which, to my mind, was the definitive cause for their error.

In each case, declarer took a disproportionate amount of time playing the hand. Over various periods, at least five minutes were taken by declarer just "thinking".

The cause of the delivery failure for the defence was a simple one :
Declarer put them to sleep !

Its the.........Bermuda Bowl

2009-08-28T15:43:00.011+10:00

The Norwegian team with the Bermuda Bowl Trophy - 2007

The Bermuda Bowl starts this weekend. I am looking forward to some vugraph matches at crazy hours. Around 12 tables will be telecast at once so there will be plenty of action. Any missed matches can be caught in the newly refurbished BBO archives section.

There is an extensive summary of the bidding system design of participants here. All convention cards can be perused here. There will be a post soon about an officially-WBF-disliked-system that did not make it to the list.

My predictions
Italy versus Netherlands in the final
USA2 lose in the semifinal
USA1 lose in the quarterfinal
Quarterfinalists : Italy, Netherlands, USA2, USA1, Brazil,China, Norway, Bulgaria
Australia struggles

Happy Clicking !

I heart Aces

2009-08-13T14:48:00.002+10:00

Some time ago, I was present at a discussion of a bidding problem

A
xxx
AQxxx
J10xx

(2S) X (3S) X;
(P) ?

We understood that 4D is the normal bid. We were contemplating the sanity of 5D. I contend that the Ace in the opponents' suit is a serious negative feature of this hand.

To see why, lets look at the power of an Ace

1) Controlling power :An Ace controls the suit. It is a quick trick and a sure trick. The Ace controls the transportation between all four hands. Aces exert maximum controlling power at no-trumps when either side has a long, strong suit.

At a trump contract, their controlling power is often diminished because our little trumps can usually do the same job.

2) Developing power : An Ace complements other holdings within the same suit. Aces help build tricks. Qxx in one hand is practically useless but combined with Axx it appreciates in value to half-a-trick. Similarly J109 starts deriving enormous power if the opposite hand contains an ace.

True appreciation of the Ace comes not from the one trick it takes but the additional half-tricks and full-tricks it adds to other holdings. An ace in the opponents' suit at a trump contract is unlikely to contribute any developing power.

I was highly influenced by a series of phenomenal articles Grant Baze wrote under the heading "Baze on bridge" on OKBridge about ten years ago. I could only find this link.

Partner's hand on the problem posted above was
xx
Axx
Kxxxx
Qxx

Notice the difference in the playing potential of the two combined hands if we transform the Ace of spades into the Ace of clubs.

Words of a Winner

2009-08-08T12:33:00.009+10:00

Ally Morris and Adam Edggton were an unfancied pair at the Australian youth selection tournament for 2009. Ally was competing for at the trials for the first time. Not only did they qualify but they followed up with winning the PABF Championships in China Macau in June, 2009. Here is an email interview with Ally about the whole experience and her general philosophy towards the game....

Q: What sort of a chance did you think you had of making the Australian youth team when you were going into the trials ?
I was positive of our chances. Previous years, the youth seemed to have fielded stronger pairs whilst this year there were a lot of new partnerships and less experienced players. So we put in some good initial work and we had some strong agreements which is always important in youth.

Q: You and Adam Edgtton qualified for the team comfortably in January. What went right ?
There was nothing comfortable about our qualifying, we looked good early on, but it was a tough, gruelling event which seemed to go on forever and the runners up were really biting at our heels (put mildly.) In many ways it was a war of attrition - and fortunately, by keeping positive, getting plently of rest and not discussing hands afterwards (so we could just focus on rejuvenation) really helped us stay consistent. I was lucky to be well instructed by Nye on the importance of just putting in your best performance.

Q: Moving on, Australia were an unfancied team at the PABF Youth Championships in Macau. Other than 2007, we had very rarely managed to win the tournament . How did you rate your chances going into that event?
I know you shouldn't enter pessimistic.. but in all honesty, I didn't think I was being pessimistic by thinking we weren't really competitive. I feel guilty now for underestimating myself and my team, but its a guilt I can happily live with.

Q: We all know now that Australia managed to win the tournament. What are your thoughts on why the team was succesful ?
I believe a thousand things have to go right in an event where all the competitors are so close. Some of which are sheer luck, like winning a good board, which trickles down to posting some good initial results that then boost team confidence for later on. (A bit of chaos theory; a butterfly flutters its wings in Macau and Australia wins the PABF.) Luck aside though, a pair like Howard/Hollands who post strong, consistent results really inspire a team. It was
also really important to put in some ground work. Adam and I could have practiced more, but the mentoring system the ABF set up insured that at least we did some practice and made us conscious of our commitment and kept us in the right mind frame for entering the event. A coach who wasn't afraid to tell us to get to it was ..invaluable. (Thank Sartaj!)

With the PABF Trophy

Q: I recall you played the last match when the two leading teams (Australia and Japan) were close to each other in the standings. Can you share with us your thoughts and attitude going into those 16 boards ?
I just knew if we played the same boring game we'd played up until now we'd win. We'd been reasonably consistent throughout, and that gave us confidence. But at the end of the day, it was just another match and we knew it was our regular game which had got us here so we were mindful just to stay on it. Team morale was really high and we'd played the team before and knew we were up against strong and probably equal opponents, so what we really needed was a better performance on the day, and we were keen to deliver it.

Q: The tension and the responsibility in that last set must have been nerve-racking. Do you recall vividly the experience of playing the last match or is it just a joyful haze ?
Vividly. I tried to be relaxed and non-chalent, but both teams wanted it _really_ bad.

Q: On to another topic. The Australian youth team has tasted some success over the last few years. Do you have any theories on why the Open and Womens teams have not delivered similar performances ?
This is one I'm probably not really qualified to answer. Australia has posted some great international results - and a few of the players who have played this event are people I look up to, so I'm honestly baffled as to why it keeps eluding us. Maybe in a few years when the Youth graduate to Open.. jokes!

Q: What are your bridge plans for the future ?
I just want to get better now. Practice, play and read. Youth events are a great way to gain some confidence and experience, and now I just want to justify the youth budget and perform to my best.

Q: What constitutes an ideal bridge partner ?
Good psychology is such an essential part of any good game. So a partner who can bring the best out of you - or really, just not bring out the worse. A player who you can trust; there is no deal breaker like a partner who leaves you guessing all the time in the bidding and play. And also someone who, no matter how serious it is, always is a reminder in themselves that bridge is meant to be enjoyable. Adam was as serious as nails, and very open with his feelings when things went *horribly* wrong. But thats OK. Bridge is a partnership, and with every partnership there is always a degree of conflict - some conflict can help you grow and thrive, and other times it can cause you to crumble.

Q: Hamman famously commented that bidding system is 3 percent of the game, if that. Would you agree or disagree ?
Wholeheartedly agree.
Honestly, I think the boards we won on the bidding were the ones where we had better bidding judgement then our opponents, completely independent of our system. I think people get too wound up in the system - when Hamman finally starts answering my emails for a game we'll just play straight 2/1 but to its full potential.

Seconds after score-up of the last match

Sitting on the dock of the bay....

2009-08-06T11:20:00.006+10:00

Ben Thompson posted a detailed comment here.
Telling ourselves that we are capable of being world class is just classic amateur mental gymnastics to help ourselves be satisfied with our (lower) performance level.

The original quote was
"...best of Australia’s top players are pretty close to the best in the world but their worst is a lot worse...."

which I interpretted as
"best (performances) of Australia’s top players are pretty close to the best in the world but their worst (performances)(are) a lot worse"

With our liberal definition of world class (quarter finalists at a World Championship), I find myself in easy agreement. Not on the basis of any delusions but simply looking at the results over the last 10 years. Made the cut in the olympiad once, the bowl twice, 19th in the world pairs, 2nd in the PABF, 7th in the Cavendish.

No one claimed "We have a bunch of players who are world class"

And instead of running away from the possibility of making the ranks of the elite, my intention is to try and understand the reasons we fail to make the mark consistently. There are plenty of excuses floating around: not enough time to devote to the game; other priorities in life; if only I had the ozone million ...

I see enough who are capable, and have proven so on some occassion, in the big league.

The secret, to me, is in understanding the difference between those best days and the others. And to do something about it.

I do not intend to build some convenient little excuse and then sit on it for the rest of my life.

More Beauty : Privilege of transfers

2009-08-02T20:16:00.011+10:00

East's takeout double may not be a thing of beauty but he does not really have the textbook hand for a 2D overcall either.

At first glance, Bocchi's 3S bid seems a bit too keen. Partner passed over 1S doubled, there doesn't seem to be much upside in competing.

However, such hands show the hidden costs of the fashion of transfers.
Playing transfers over the takeout double, South has to pass with hands that would normally constitute a 1NT bid. In fact, the Italians pass with upto 9-10 HCP in similar situations. Their style is for the opener, even when minimum, to compete aggressively with shape to compensate.

Having already shown invitational-plus hand by bidding 2S, West can complete the message of balanced-game-force by doubling 3S. It is not a penalty double, just a better statement of the nature of his hand than the 4H call chosen. East, with three unexpected trumps (opposite a balanced game-force) and a singleton has an easy pass.

That is how a sophisticated partnership could have made N/S pay for the privelege of transfers. Yet I suspect their post-mortem would focus solely on the beauty of the takeout double of 1S and not the action that really caused the swing.

Previous post : I lied about the auction in the other room. North played 3NT on the same lead. When North crossed to a club, West had to play his lowest club. My guess is that East took that to be a (non) Smith signal and decided partner did not have the spade queen. He switched to a heart, which seems like an error anyways and that is what really caused the swing.

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder

2009-07-31T23:16:00.006+10:00

To some, developing methods and devising special treatments gives pleasure. Put the overcaller on lead, declare from the positional holding, right-side contracts. It all sounds very nice in theory. Do the work, the gospel holds, and the rewards will come.

Say we hold Kx in a suit and are contemplating the best way of protecting it.
The case against it runs :
For it to be right
1) Partner needs to have a weak holding in the suit, say xx or Qxx
2) The ace of the suit has to be disadvantageously placed.
3) Even with the Ace offside, they have to lead the suit
4) Even if they lead it, the anti-positionality has to be relevant to the swing on the board.

Analyzing through Spingold '09 R/16 Set3 Jacobs vs Schermer, two hands strike my eye.

Hand 1

With an elegant auction, North-South right-side the contract. Spades was the danger suit and the ace was offside. The defence led a spade. Declarer crossed to a club to finesse the diamond. East won and continued a spade for down one.

I find this beautiful.

Bridge is so random, its beautiful.

It gets better.
In the other room, they bid 1D - 1NT; 3NT. West's natural lead was a heart. Declarer won, crossed to a club and finessed the diamond. The defence was dead.

Isnt bridge so pretty ?

Tomorrow : The second hand and an admission that I lied about something in this post.

The mother of delivery

2009-07-25T13:14:00.015+10:00

The psychological dynamic is a layer between our actions at the table and our consideration of them in our brain. It has the capacity of affecting either end.
Since it is neither an action nor a thought, its hard to be aware of it.

Delivery is the child of this dynamic.

The following factors impact it.

Before game
Ourselves
Personal station in life
Importance of bridge in life
Amount of rest
Motivation
Physiological state (food/alcohol/sugar)

Our partnership
Belief in partnership
Opinion of partner
Our perception of partner's opinion of us
Belief in teammates

Opponents
Impression about calibre of opponents
Psychological interplay with the opponents' personalities
Expectancy of result

During the game
Ourselves
Attachment to scoresheet
Analysis of completed hands
Tiredness
Motivation
Psychological composition
Preparing for the post-mortem
Analytic Residue
Physical distractions

Our Partnership
Opinion of partner and his actions
Vibes from partner

Opponents
Who is controlling the tempo
The Trend
Psychological interplay with the opponents' personalities
Likely Result

Every bridge player has his own special weighted dynamic. At any point in time, most of the factors will be relevant to our case, a few very importantly so. Some factors may be practically irrelevant.

The relative importance of these factors varies with time.

Next: Some real-life examples.

The psychological dynamic at bridge

2009-07-17T23:52:00.012+10:00

In a recent online discussion,Khokan remarked

I reckon that the best of Australia’s top players are pretty close to the best in the world, but their worst is a lot worse, and the bad episodes happen more often (to them) than to world-class players.

In the same thread, he also commented

... I don’t believe there are three clear-cut picks to make the Australian Team – there are at least a dozen (pairs) that could perform creditably in world competition on their day ie make the quarters of a world championship.

I totally agree with him on these points. What is of interest is determining the reasons behind the inconsistency of australia's best at the world stage.And similarly the cause behind why those top-dozen Australian pairs dont have many of those golden days when they play at the level of world championship quarter-finalists.

Going by fundamentals, the solution is easy : Our top bunch has a sufficiently strong concept, but our delivery is inconsistent.

While there is an awareness about this assertion,unfortunately, not many seem to know what to do about it.

We continue (relatively) pointless discussions around merits/demerits of preemption, around four versus five card majors, around count versus attitude, around natural bidding versus relay. We continue to put in(relatively) pointless effort in improving our system, documenting our understandings. We continue to misguidedly attach our competitive ego to our concept.

What we need to focus on, for significant improvement is delivery. And, in the next few posts, I will try to understand, for my own benefit, what delivery is all about. Your thoughts are welcome.

BBO : The dark side

2009-07-06T17:33:00.005+10:00

There are numerous ways to capitalize on BBO as a means of improving one's game : Watching international stars on vugraph, partnership bidding, playing against strong opposition.

However, the hope that we will improve by playing , say, 10-board team matches where one can see a live score is misguided. The psychological dynamic in bridge is at least as important as one's skill and the dynamic for such a match is a long way away from bridge. Add to it the fact that there is hardly ever an opportunity to build momentum in such a short match (even with hidden scores).

Eventually, bridge is all about optimizing your delivery and hampering their delivery. BBO play does neither. Hoping to win on concept alone is quixotic.

Hampering their delivery can be achieved by
a) Building momentum on your side by getting strong scores creating fear and uncertainty in their head.

b) Playing quickly and/or in tempo consistently to shake them out of their comfort zone. Strong declarers and defenders use the time when the opposition is thinking to work out their own strategies for various developments. So that when it is their turn to play, they appear to play "without thought". This builds pressure.

c) Physical and psychological intimidation. This is undoubtedly a big factor in the success of some top players, especially versus weaker opposition.

It all boils down to shaking them out of their comfort zone.

What Johnny Cash can teach us about bridge

2009-07-04T00:41:00.008+10:00

One of the new crazes in my life is repetitive watchings of this video recorded live at San Quentin prison by Johnny Cash. This is not some performer looking for a cheap publicity stunt in a prison, this is a performance by a true artist showing how powerful and moving an art form can be. The song.

I had the brainstorm then of working the song into a blog post. If Chris Depasquale, when challenged by a bet, could work in a sexual angle into a chess column , then working this song into a bridge context shouldn't be that hard.

I thought of how empathetic Cash seems to be with the prisoners; he appears to believe every word he is singing; he has transferred himself heart and soul into an inmate's being. I thought of extending that somehow to the empathy our partners and teammates at bridge sometimes deserve but which, in our own ego-games, we deny them.

Nah, a bit of a connection but too much of a stretch.

The other way of fitting the song was how Cash appears to be in Heat One. I doubt if he ever performed this song with the same intensity and belief in any other setting, for the rest of his life. At such a moment, when he pushed the boundaries of performance and of expression, he symbolizes the beauty of man.

The bridge connection hmmm...

Damn it, I think I'll go back to watching the video again.

Every move you make...

2009-07-03T23:42:00.007+10:00

Usually a hand as a defensive exercise will have only one or two key moments. What I like about the Ghalib Crown hand is that there was something to do at almost every early trick.

After N/S bid 1C - 1H; 2C - 3H; 4H this was our defence
1. SK - 3- 7 - 8
2. SJ - 4- 10 - A
3. HQ - K - A - 2
Good cover by West (Else declarer plays heart to the ace; cashes CA pitching a diamond; diamond to king and claim)
East should technically start the unblock by playing the heart six.

4. CQ - K - H7- C5

5. HJ - 3 - 4- 6
If East does unblock both his high hearts, superficially declarer has been locked in hand. But he can make by playing a diamond to the jack and the defence has to give him access to dummy's two club winners (6H, 1S, 1D and 2C tricks)

6. H9 - D9 - C3- H10
The diamond nine is an error. More on this later.

7. DA - D3- D4- D8
Better was to play a club. Then declarer has to avoid cashing his second winning club and lead a diamond. East has no choice but to rise with the diamond ace and give declarer delayed access to his club winner (and another diamond finesse).

8. D7 - D5- D6 - Claim.
If West preserves the diamond nine at trick 6, East can get off play with a club, rise with the diamond ace and play another club and defence comes to four tricks before declarer gets ten.

To finish off the story, the Thai pair nailed everything against us for the last set of the tournament and finished +41 on datum for the match.

The Ghalib Crown

2009-07-01T02:21:00.018+10:00

At the end of any bridge tournament, its easy to find almost every non-winner partaking in something along the lines of
"At least we beat the winners."
"We were leading going into the last day ..."
"If it wasnt for that match versus..."
"If that trump queen was in the other hand..."
"At least we managed to beat our seeding"
"Our bidding and defence was top notch. Just a few sloppies in the declarer play..."
am sure you can add a few others.

The reality however is that we are the losers and they are the champions.

Reminds of a Ghalib couplet
Humko Maloom hai Jannat ki haqeeqat lekin,
Dil kay bahlaney ko Ghalib yah khayal achcha hai

Which translates to
I know about the truth of heaven
Its illusion nonetheless gives the heart some comfort

At the 2009 PABF in Macau, our little claim to fame was that Tony and I were topping the datums for the second round robin going into the last match. Until this happened versus the eventual winners of the Ghalib Crown.

After N/S bid 1C - 1H; 2C - 3H; 4H this was our defence
1. SK - 3- 7 - 8
2. SJ - 4- 10 - A
3. HQ - K - A - 2
4. CQ - K - H7- C5
5. HJ - 3 - 4- 6
6. H9 - D9 - C3- H10
7. DA - D3- D4- D8
8. D7 - D5- D6 - Claim.

Other than that spade accident, what other points could the defence have prevailed at ?

Continuing the Count Crunching

2009-06-12T23:43:00.015+10:00

The solution to the "how to place dummy" is that a club to the king is best, for reasons well pointed out in the comments. At the table, I chose the inferior line of three rounds of diamonds, ruffed and overruffed. The choice of line was irrelevant as every thing was reasonably friendly.

The solution to the "how to wreck your life" problem posed here was also pointed out accurately in the comments. Partner would have led a diamond from an original holding of Qxxx. Also, we can extend our counting exercise to partner's hand. They led their fourth best club, are marked with a singleton heart, so their most likely shape is 4144.

Here is a more advanced example of the count-crunching-machine in play.

1S = no four card major

When East elected to lead his diamond and West gave him a ruff, can you deduce the East-West hands ?

Diamonds are known to be 1- 5; hearts are known to be 4-3; spades rate to be 4-1 and so the clubs have to be 4-4. A check of our calculations shows that 1354 (West) and 4414 (East) is consistent with the bidding and their system.

On the question of high cards, East has to have AKJ10 of spades (ruffs the diamond with the spade ten)and the Ace of clubs. West has already shown up with the diamond ace.

At the table, the defence (after the diamond ruff) continued with Ace and another club. Only the Club/heart jacks are unaccounted for; can declarer make this contract irrespective of their location or is it another case of the patient dying ?

How to play the dummy

2009-06-04T13:01:00.003+10:00

Here are some golden rules to follow

1. In 3NT, always try to put down first the suit they have led. Gives partner those extra couple of seconds to work out his play in this suit.

2. In doubled contracts and slams, show partner the good news first.

3. Stay at the table. Avoid the Versace walk.

I am also told that when some good bridge professionals are forced to be dummy, they place either shortage next to the trump suit (tip: ruffs) or their side-suit (tip: set it up).

932
K54
AJ984
K10
(dummy)

KQ
AQ732
K5
Q742
(declarer)

The contract is 4H on the lead of spade Jack to Ace and a low spade is returned.
Which suit would you place next to those trumps ?

First Among Equals

2009-05-28T13:05:00.006+10:00

Bridge conversations amongst experts are rarely ever balanced. Balanced in the sense of two people interacting, sharing ideas, constructively criticizing each other's opinions and being open to revising one's own ideas.

These conversations instead consist of the players stating their own point of view, reinforcing their own prejudices, paying attention to the other person's argument with the aim primarily of butting in at the right moment with something like "There is something to that but what if..."

Why is it ? Why can't we hold a civilized discussion instead ? Why can't we learn from others ?

The standard response to this would be that such players have too much ego or that they are insecure or that they are incapable of changing.

I believe that bridge is not a game of logic. The winning philosophy is not one that can be argued using pure logic. Logic is overrated.

The player receives information through the prism of his playing experience, his analysis of his experience, his perception of his experience, he literature he peruses, the opinions of others he respected in the past, the habits of his peers. He distills all these inputs into his own crystallized form of the game, his own little logical setup.

This setup consists of his so-called bidding philosophy, principles and habits.
Any succesful player needs this crystallization, else the self-doubt eats up on one's energy reserves in a competitive domain. There is so much ambiguity in the game and so much subtlety.. Unless one has something solid to fall back on for the big chunk of it, it is very easy to get lost in the maze. This feeling of certainty, of knowing the way to play the game, is a confidence enhancer. It is not the real truth, and on a subconscious plane we understand that it is not the truth but it is a crutch we need to get by. A precious crutch.

A so-called bridge conversation is never about one's philosophy. That is too precious to expose to the outside world. However, if we do respect the other person, then the conversation becomes one of the inputs into the prism of our identity and may indeed one day lead to a change in our thoughts.

Reminds me of a deleted scene from Pulp Fiction
Mia : Do you listen or do you wait to talk ?
Vince : I have to say I wait to talk but I am trying very hard to learn to listen

Warning: This Post MAY Wreck Your Life

2009-05-19T22:56:00.022+10:00

At one point in the Ozone program, I set myself the goal "Every hand I defend, I shall not play to trick 2 unless I have given declarer a hypothetical shape".

At the end of each session then on, I started mentally recreating my thought processes at the table. It was easy to assess whether or not I was really clued into the hand at trick 2. I discovered that my hit-rate varied between 60 and 90 percent or so. There were a vast number of reasons for failing to crunch the numbers : from wondering about the previous hand to thinking about getting lunch; from a sense of being in a daze to semi-consciously skipping counting.

Intrigued about similar mechanisms employed by others, I quizzed some of the top technicians around. Not only did they count every hand, but they counted all the time. They started during the bidding, made the lead with a shape in mind, quickly reassessed at trick one and stayed on the ball all the way.

I found this strategy a lot easier to emulate. Some of the reasons are

The mental burden is lesser as the effort is distributed over a period of time.
It is easier to incrementally adjust previous beliefs than to start an exercise from scratch.
The whole playing experience is smooth as one is continuously "thinking" .
The is a diminished need to identify the key moment in a hand (to stop, think and count).

I wish somebody had told me about this years ago.

Inculcating this approach takes a fair amount of mental discipline but improving efficiency using this method is probably easier.The demands on the energy are greater but somehow our attitude and resolve drive the outcome a lot more than our perception of our own energy reserves. Reminds me of Rodwell.

Here is an example of counting-in-action :

We pick up
AJx
xxxxx
Axxx
A

LHO opens a strong no-trump.
"3334"
I find giving 4333 shapes to no-trump bidders to be the most flexible. Since we are short in clubs, we expect length in declarer's hand there.

RHO bids stayman.LHO bids 2H.
"3433"

RHO bids 3NT.
10 points in dummy, 15 in declarer's hand plus 13 in mine. Partner has two

LHO passes.
No four spades
"3433"

...................... (East)
...................... 9xxx
..................... AKx
...................... Jx
...................... Jxxx

(South)
AJx
xxxxx
Axxx
A

Partner leads the club 2.
Dummy has 9 points. Good. Partner can have 3.Since partner has four clubs (C2 lead),so does declarer.
"2434" or "3424".

I can see more spades between me and dummy (seven) than diamonds (six). So its more likely that declarer has fewer spades.
"2434"

Club - 2- x- Ace - x.

Declarer seems to be in good luck in the club and heart suits. Looks like a time to be active.
2434 declarer. Q10xx in spades in partner's hand should be enough to do the job. If I switch to a spade, that gives declarer 4 hearts, 3 clubs and 1 spade for eight tricks. I can rise diamond ace to get our 5 winners ( 3 spades and two aces) before he gets his ninth.

Here, it is important to control the impulse as chesss adage goes "If you find a good move, look for a better one".

What about the diamond switch ?
Partner needs to have only the diamond queen. If declarer's shape is 3424, we do not even need the diamond ten to beat this contract ! Our diamond switch would give declarer 4 hearts, 3 clubs and 1 diamond. We can hop in with the spade ace and get our 5 winners (3 diamonds and two aces) before he gets his ninth.

Are we really at the crossroads ?

There is a (relatively) simple answer to this problem which is......?

The dirty C word

2009-04-29T12:46:00.011+10:00

A bridge player aiming to improve needs to grow on three planes : understanding, application and psychology.

Improving understanding relates to concept while improving application and psychology relate to delivery (terms originally defined here).

Today, lets look at one aspect of improving application : Count.

Once our bridge growth takes us to the stage of being advanced, we realise that counting shapes and counting points is not that hard. However, we tend to use this process only when we feel it is worthwhile. Some days, we diligently count away every hand while on others we get into the auto-pilot mode. Most days, our approach is a mix of the two ; stopping to fully count only when we feel either unsure or lost or sense that the critical point in the hand has been reached.

Let me quote Bobby Wolff from his book The Lone Wolff
"Much is gleaned about the other hands once dummy is tabled. I am not always exactly correct but I can approximate the distribution of the other hands at that stage and have a better idea than most players about where the high cards lie.Then, after the next few tricks, the distribution becomes a virtual certainty and the high card information falls into place.Is this unusual? No ! Not only is it not unusual, but there would be no way you could be among the top one hundred players in the country if you didn't do this on every deal. You must count each deal, which requires concentration, work and more work, and then you must possess the discipline to work some more after that. Envisioning the unseen hands is second nature to an expert."

And quote Bob Hamman from his Bols Bridge Tip
"If you are ever to amount to anything at this game, you must build up a picture of the unseen hands. The idea is to know what the problem is before you try to solve it."

True value from counting comes only we apply ourselves fully on each hand. Whether defending a slam or those overtricks in 1NT. We need to accept that a justification like saving energy is an excuse. If counting each hand tires us, we need to improve on our energy reserves.

Next post, I intend to share some thoughts and techniques on conditioning us to consistently count.
Meanwhile, am very interested in the thoughts of what works or worked for you guys.

The truth is out there.....

2009-04-26T23:02:00.022+10:00

In my last post I posed this problem

Partner's bid appears to be irrational.
Since normal thought is not going to help, lets try the alternate style of crossing out alternatives.

Option 1: Partner has a weak hand with long clubs. Say QJ to eight clubs and out. That would be a comfortable natural, non-forcing 2C bid. Passing an eight card suit and giving up on an opportunity to bid cheaply does not seem to fit in with our bid-early-bid-quick style.

Points, Schmoints. In competitive auctions, shape rules.

So let us strike out a weak hand with long clubs

Option 2 : Partner has bit of a spade fit and some club values and is exploring for game. Again, making ambiguous wishy-washy bids is not our style. Although we have never explicitly discussed it, we go out of our way to avoid bids that partner may not understand. Partner is our friend, do not torture him.
Martin Reid mentioned the prototypical Qx,xxx,xxx,AKxxx hand for this theory but for us, this would be a 4S bid (bidding 1S and 2S shows a good hand) or 3S on a conservative day.

While there are still some lingering doubts in my mind about long-weak-clubs theory, we can certainly strike out this delicate game-try theory.

Option 3 : Is there an option three ?
Nothing else seems to be possibly going on. Or could it ?

If you have a genuine interest in getting to the heart of this problem, I would recommend stopping here and try thinking about a third option.

I recall reading something in a book or a magazine about what were believed to be bidding principles over 50 years ago. These were common sense beliefs in the expert community, some of which continue to be relevant today and some do not.
For example, partner passes as dealer, RHO opens 1H, we pass, LHO bids 4H, partner comes back in with 4S. Today, in our developed(?) style of bidding, we do not have a clue what partner has. Back then, this sequence clearly showed a weak two-suiter. Say 6 spades and a 5 card minor.

Another such principle was "Passing over 1NT and then coming back into the auction shows a solid suit". There isn't much point to bidding seven solid diamonds over a strong NT. Why not try a pass for now, hoping to go plus against 1NT or 3NT, but if the opponents seem to be heading into a suit contract, then we can always re-enter with 3D. Or so the thought of the time went.....

If we seriously consider this option, the rest of the hand falls perfectly into place. The opponents were in a vulnerable 1NT, a penalty double was not available, the points add up, there rates to be a spade misfit.
So the only thing which makes sense is approximately seven solid clubs and out.

Ergo, a confident 3NT and a prompt redouble.

Or perhaps a classic case of hindsight bias ?

Why I hate Peter Gill

2009-04-23T22:18:00.026+10:00

In my previous post I posed this defensive problem.

Trick one goes spade queen ducked all round. Trick two is a spade to the king ducked again leaving us on play. Is there a clue or will we eventually succumb to the hindsight bias ?

At the table, in the PABF 2006, I realized the futility of continuing a spade. Between clubs and hearts, it appears to be a tossup at first glance, but the heart switch requires fewer specific cards in partner's hand. So I chose the H10.

Why I hate Peter Gill is because he spoilt my plans for this post by his insightful reply that can be found here.

"I must trust my partner - otherwise it is my error. "

Tony had played his lowest spade spot and his clubs were K109 (declarer had opened a 3334 11 count) so the club shift could have won us a game swing.

Now try this one

Over 1NT, partner's 2C would have been natural and double would have been takeout for the minors.

At the cross roads

2009-04-21T23:00:00.039+10:00

The play sometimes progresses to a point where two options remain equally enticing. The evidence to date does not decide the case conclusively. Yet the professional player must take responsibility for his choice. Terence Reese has famously argued "There is always a clue."

For example, an opponent has overcalled 2 Clubs and we need to figure out whether they hold

or

The decision is not entirely logical yet it is not completely random either.

What usually happens after the post-mortem, however, is that the person in the hot seat, their partner and anyone else who knows the full hand concludes that "he should have got that one right."

For now, we are no longer grappling with the issue of assigning appropriate weights to all the subtle inferences. Subconsciously, either in an apologetic attempt at treating bridge as a purely logical pursuit or in an indulgent ego stroke for the capacity of our powers of deduction, we tend to favour the succesful choice. The weights that we struggled to appropriately apply to various factors at the table now appear to be clearer.

There is a term for this phenomenon, hindsight bias, that I came across in this brilliant book. Some links for the author and detail of his work can be found here, here and here.

Meanwhile, back on the subject, try solving a defensive problem

Trick one goes spade queen ducked all round. Trick two is a spade to the king ducked again leaving us on play. Is there a clue or will we eventually succumb to the hindsight bias ?

Struggling for Objectivity : Emotion Part 2

2009-04-14T14:03:00.008+10:00

A comment by Eric Rodwell in an interview struck a chord
"The key" says Rodwell, "is to use energy constructively.”

When I next saw him at the Yeh cup, I asked him to elaborate. He did not seem very enthusiastic about detailing his thoughts, possibly worried that they might be viewed as frivolous. After I prodded him a bit, he shared with me a great insight and I am quoting him (not exact words, but hope to have captured the intent) :

"For example, one drain on energy is emotion. I find that I play my best game when there is no emotion involved. Emotions based on the state of the match, being pissed off at partner, hatred for the opponents or a hand where we got a poor result are distractions. They hamper my game and I try to stay clear of them.

However, different things work for different people. I know some people who can not play their best game unless they have enough emotional energy coming out of the same factors that do nothing for me.”

And then the line that I liked the most
“I find that emotion distracts one from the process of being objective.”

Struggling for Objectivity : Emotion Part 1

2009-04-08T22:52:00.021+10:00

In my last post, we started looking at a hand that I misdefended.
The full hand was

and it really ended up being

On a heart lead, declarer won the Ace to play a club. I won the CA to continue a heart as declarer pitched two diamonds. Now declarer unblocked the club queen from dummy and played a low spade.

Even though the apparent Suicide Point had been passed, Tony was on the ball and rose with the Spade Ace just in time for us to be in control. He continued a heart as declarer ruffed with the SJ (ruffing high does not work either). I overruffed and played a club for down 1. In a pure technical sense Tony's play is not that hard to find. But, at the table, it’s a play that will slip past many.

The reason being that our struggle for objectivity is hampered by emotion. Here, the emotion might be of dejection (at my end) or derision (at Tony’s end) or resignation(at both ends). The Suicide Point is nothing but an excuse for a bridge player letting emotion cloud the need for objective analysis.

There will be more on emotion in another post, including the views of Eric Rodwell.

Meanwhile, another example of this phenomenon occurred in the match between Team Lavazza and Australia-PABF. Sementa as West returned a club at trick three. The play progressed to the same juncture as at our table and Duboin stayed on the ball to hop with the spade Ace. But when he returned a heart, Sementa overruffed and tried to cash the Ace of diamonds.

Makes me look like a legend !

Struggling for Objectivity : Attachment

2009-04-04T15:57:00.033+11:00

A very valuable skill in bridge is the capacity to be objective at the key moment.

Identifying the moment is the first step. This is not easy and many contracts are misplayed or misdefended by a lack of appreciation of the importance of the very next card. The stronger the player, the more adept they seem to be in identifying the time to stop and think.

Say we appreciate the moment and the depth of the situation is well within our concept. Ideally, a thoughtful, strong player would assess the evidence, examine the likely outcomes and then choose an approach that optimises his result. At the table, however, this is not how it always plays out.

Lets look at one of the causes for failure in this domain. Attachment.
Here’s a hand that I found myself defending in the Yeh Cup (Round 2 of the Swiss)

and it really ended up being

As West, I led the 3 of hearts (3rd/5th) to the nine – ten – Ace. Declarer played C6 at trick 2. I rose CA (partner played the 3, reverse count) and stopped to think.

It appears that declarer has either the singleton heart Ace or Ace third. At some early point in the thought process, don’t know exactly when, I decided that declarer’s hearts were Axx.

The rest of the thought went something along the lines of..
“That gives partner J10 doubleton heart, which fits in with his trick 1 play. If declarer had the singleton Ace of hearts, partner would have played the 2 of hearts, reverse count, as he knows for sure that the ace is stiff. So, yes, while on surface, I have a guess between the two heart layouts, I should trust partner and go for giving him the heart ruff.”

Developing this piece of analysis, I decided to try and create a layout which fit in with my conclusion. After some more thought, I came up with …

Yes, that fits in with the requirements, declarer can’t play trumps from hand. That would explain the need to cross to a club.

At this point, I was feeling very objective, very rational, very clear. All the good feelings one has on one’s good hands. So I continued a heart as declarer pitched two diamonds.

Right as I played the heart, the tension of the moment was broken and I saw the flaw in my assumption. From partner's point of view, I may have led a singleton so he was possibly making the natural play from JTxx.

And later thought reveals that the layout I created doesn't fit with the facts. If the diagrammed layout above existed, then declarer would win the HK in dummy at trick 1 and play a spade.

Post-Mortem

Superficially, I conducted a survey of the evidence, evaluated my options, came up with a solution and checked its validity. In truth, a weighted agenda was in operation. The J10 doubleton layout was non-traditional, the element of trusting partner’s play gave the idea a romantic twist and the validity check was hasty and erroneous.

It was more a case of wanting to believe in something, and then doctoring the evidence to go along with it than an honest search for objective truth. That is what I’ve termed attachment.

Attachment, however, is a practical reality for a bridge player. It is impossible for us to be number-crunching machines with no biases from our general attitude to life, our partnership history, our temperament and a host of other things.

What we can work on, however, is self-awareness. Our awareness of our biases can aid the pursuit of objectivity.

GM Jonathan Rowson again comments on the difference in attitude between weaker and stronger players in chess. Weaker players come up with a hypothesis and then seek to justify it by calculating variations that prove it right; the stronger players try to falsify the hypothesis by attempting to prove it wrong.

If you've grappled with similar issues or have some thoughts on the matter, please feel free to comment.

Still to come...What was the full hand and what happened ?

When you hear hoofbeats, think of Zebras

2009-04-02T17:49:00.005+11:00

I've been working on a piece on improvement at bridge for this blog but while that comes together, here are some links you might enjoy.

Chess is a subject where the psychological issues have been explored in some detail. There is a lot of juicy material in the book Chess for Zebras by GM Jonathan Rowson.

While you wait to borrow/buy this book, you might like going through two interviews with the author that are more readily available here.

Around bridge improvement, Justin Lall wrote a thoughtful post here.

And back to the chess world, Phaedrus the great came up with a brilliant chart that translates almost bit by bit to bridge. One day I will try and make sense of this chart in a bridge context.

Back Door Entry

2009-03-31T23:19:00.005+11:00

Despite our failing efforts at the recent Australian playoff, Tony and I might end up playing for Australia again this year.

The Ebery team intends to suggest us as their choice for augmentation. Hopefully, that should go through and playing the PABF should be fun !

The Fifteen Thousand Dollar Question

2009-03-31T13:23:00.026+11:00

A lively discussion about the merits of selecting the Australian team has been underway here and here. One item that has not been mentioned yet is the only time in recent history where Australia had a selected team. “Australia-Selected” (Nunn- Hans, Fruewirth-Delmonte) featured at the Yeh Cup 2009.

We had a good run in the Swiss to earn our place in the double-knockout. We lost our first life to the eventual winners, Netherlands. In our second avatar, we found ourselves in a three-way match with Meckwell Inc. and the Indian national team. 16 boards against each with only one team out of three to go through.

We won the match versus India convincingly but lost to USA-Hampson by 5 imps. There were three key moments ; if any of these three sway our way, the team qualifies for the semi-final and rates to make atleast 15,000 AUD(teams tending to split prize-money in the last stages of this tournament).

Hand 1 features who else but the imp chimp …..

KQx
KQ
xx
QJ10xxx

All vulnerable, East Deals

Rod --- Nunn --Meck--Chimp
West --North --East -- South
--------------------P ------1C
1H ----- 1S ------ 4H ------ P
P ------- X ------- P ------ ?

The ancillary context can be set by stating that we play 1NT as weak in this position. 1S shows 5+ spades and partner would have bid 2S (fit-jump) if he had 4 clubs in his bag.

Let’s start with some snippets from the smoking area.
“4S. Isnt it automatic ?”
“4S. In all these close decisions, I find it best to just bid.”
“4S. Surely you can’t pass. The chimp passed ? What a tosser” J

Moving on to the chimp, at the table. My thoughts (actual bids in bold)

(Picking up the hand) “ What to open ? Nah, 1NT (12-14) is too weird. We don’t do this shit. Its not even close. Easy 1C”

(1C – 1H – 1S – Meck hesitates for 4-5 seconds) “Meck hesitating. That doesn’t happen often. If he bids 2H, I bid 2S. If he bids 3H, hmm, am I going to get bullied into 3S. Probably. Don’t like it with KQ doubleton heart. Don’t know.”

(1C – 1H – 1S – 4H) “ 4 Hearts? Pass. Ha. You are not getting away with this one. 4S is a suckers’ call. I am not falling for it.”

(…. P – P – X) “Hmm.. The situation is practically the same as over 4H. T cant have 4 clubs so can rule out the double fit. The bit about 4S over 4H might apply with Kx of hearts but with KQ, no way. We are certainly not making 4S. (*) Pass”

(*) = flashback to a comment by Tony. “I like to bid when we have some chance of making our contract. Don’t like pure sacrifice bidding”

(Having pushed the tray through) “ This is a key moment. I can feel it. But I’ve already made my bid. Still standing with pass. Hope this goes down. No way are we making 4S”

The first key moment for our survival ends here. The whole auction took 30 seconds.
4H doubled made. 4S would be down 1 in practice.

Appraisal

An hour or two after the hand was over, I had filed this one under “My concept around these 4S-over-4H situations potentially needs to be reassessed. It was a conscious decision to pass 4H and that’s my concept. So this certainly wasn’t a delivery issue”

A more truthful assessment at a later date highlights the issues within the delivery
-- The realization that it was a key moment sunk in only after the bid had been made and the tray had been pushed back.
-- The emotional ego-agenda around “Wont let them bully me”.
-- The flashback to a comment by Tony which was in a different context.
-- Lack of awareness, at the table, of a historical personal issue with 4S-over-4H themes. Has bitten me before, ANOT 2008 hand versus Ed among others.
-- Considered the angle of partner denying 4 Clubs but did not consider the angle of extra offense in partner’s hand (6 spades or heart void)

If I had managed to break tempo for this decision (realize key moment, realize complex assesment required), wonder what decision would I have taken ?

However, in my attempted reassesment of concept, I polled some of the top players around who did not know about the hand. I have learnt that asking the opinion of someone who’s seen a hand-record is a meaningless exercise. We have an innate retrospective bias and when there exists a fine line between two actions, the influence of the succesful result is strong enough to hamper objectivity.

Helgemo : “4S”. It made an impression on me how quickly he bid 4S. “No doubts”, I enquired. “None”.

Brogeland : “4S”. A bit slower, if I recall correctly. But maybe it was someone else who answered that.

Versace : “ This is a difficult hand, you know…….(walks along with me)….In general, my style is to bid. But here it feels wrong….(walks some more)…It depends on partner’s clubs. We could have a double fit ..( I interject the inference about partner denying 4 or more clubs)….Oh well, I guess I pass, but I am not happy about this”

Me, I am the happiest chimp in the planet. Who cares about fifteen thousand dollars if Versace thought it was right to pass ? Who cares about the smoking area wankers ? Oh well, that’s a relief.

Anyways, a few hours pass. We are now playing the IMP pairs. There is a lot of prize money, but my heart somehow is not into it (delivery issue), we finish a round and I feel a tap on my shoulder.

Its Versace, fiddling with his hair as he speaks.
“You know, I have been thinking about that hand. I think its right to bid. Sometimes partner’s diamonds are Q third or something like that. (walks along to the smoking area). At pairs, I would pass. But at teams bridge, I think I should bid. If we go one off, they go one off, it will not be a disaster. Yes, at teams, I keep my teammates’ score into the equation. I think 4S is right. But passing is not an error. You passed? Yes, what happened ? What were partner’s diamonds? Oh, they made….Well….”

I am caught between the amazement of the way his mind works, that he thought it was worthwhile coming back to me to share this opinion, and the disappointment of not being to able to console myself that I had some august company.
By now, however, Lauria has walked over and I request Versace to ask him. He fires off in Italian. Lauria take half a second “I Pass” and walks off in a huff.

I decide to disappear from Surfers before Lauria changes his mind.

The Elements of a Bridge Match

2009-03-30T16:27:00.001+11:00

Before the match starts
When two teams sit down to play each other in a match, there are three key battles :

a) Our Concept versus Their Concept
b) Our Delivery versus Their Delivery
c) Our Luck versus Their Luck

Concept : Bidding system. Bidding style. Bidding philosophy. Play technique. Play understanding. Play psychology. Concept is a theoretical entity.

Delivery : Being able to demonstrate the concept at the table. Mental toughness. Honesty. Integrity. Delivery is a practical entity.

Luck : Finesses. Percentages. The type of hands that come up. Luck is a random entity.

In a vacuum, the team with the better concept should win.
In practice, the team with the better delivery wins.
The closer the two teams are in the concept/delivery spectrum, the higher the role of luck.

After the match is over
Combination of factors above creates a result. The result is a function of the fundamental truth (concept), the peculiarities of the day (delivery) and the randomness of luck.

How valid is the result
The less the element of luck, the more valid the result.

A team that plays badly (low delivery) has no genuine cause for grievance even if their concept is far superior than the other team.