Wernher Qualification Adventures

Yesterday, Sean and I managed to qualify for the Wernher Open Pairs finals. The evening session was overall one of the worst sessions of bridge I have played in awhile but we were dealt about a 66% game so were okay to survive. However I did play one hand well, good for 21.5 out of 25. RHO opened 1C, I overcalled 1NT, and we staymaned to 4S. Really, though, getting to 4S and avoiding the singleton spade lead was the good part. I had already gone down on a cold contract by trying to beer and this time I wasn't going to be deluded into taking an inferior line of play to possibly beer.

Dealer: N Vul: Both	North ♠ 5 ♥ JT84 ♦ Q954 ♣ JT97
West ♠ 9642 ♥ AK5 ♦ 63 ♣ AK64		East ♠ QT73 ♥ 73 ♦ AKJ87 ♣ 52
	South ♠ AKJ8 ♥ Q962 ♦ T2 ♣ Q83

North dutifully led the J of clubs and the play proceeded, club AK, club ruff, diamond AK, heart AK, heart ruff, diamond. South has no counter to this. if he doesn't ruff, I ruff low, then ruff a club with the 10 and my 9 will score a trump trick at the end. If he ruffs with the 8, I overruff and do the same thing. If he ruffs with the J, I discard my club and he can only take his two top trumps. It's kind of an interesting position. A trump lead allows the defense to play 4 rounds of trumps and make it a notrump contract, which has virtually no chance to make besides the pseudo-squeeze possibilities.

Party in Nola

Nola party is now going into day 5 and an entry in the Wernher Open Pairs with sean. The best result so far is 2nd in a side game Sunday night. yay. Side games are so incredibly much easier to win than the 0-5000 games. 65% with my dad was easy while we had scores of 53.00%, 45.65%, 51.21%, and 52.63% in the <5000 LM Pairs.

Perhaps the best part of the trip so far was the one primetime session (Sunday night) that I did not play bridge, but instead went to the pool and made the acquaintance of one Lindsay Pearlman. How I have managed to not meet her until now or completely fail to recognize her as a top US junior bridge player astonishes me. I felt kind of stupid talking as if she's someone clueless about bridge but in the end it was all cool. It was amusing and that's all there is to the story now. Perhaps there will be more to the story in the future. Of course, also amusing have been the aimless walks down Bourbon Street, late night drinks, commiserating with Raph, speaking in bridge code with Sean, and alerting our 2C opening that people keep trying to insist we said with dyslexia - yes, it is indeed 6C or 4C with a 5 card major, not 6C or 5C w/ 4 card major.

New Orleans NABC: First weekend

My dad is a pretty good bridge player, within the confines of simple
bidding that is all familiar and opponents who are not experts. We
managed to be the next to last qualifier after the first day of the 5K
LM pairs and then were the first non-qualifier after the second day.

Had he and I sat in opposite sears last night, we likely would have
been close to 60% and qualified easily.

I misguessed diamonds early in the session in a close 4S contract.
Typical situation where you have KJx opposite xx and need to keep it
to one loser. I'm sure my dad abd most people in this game would have
led to the jack but I played to the K at trick 11. :(

The next round, I got rather upset that I had Q98x in my hand opposite
AJ6x with a combined 25 hcp and needed to hold this suit to one loser
to make my game. But lho had made an unpased takeout double and shown
up with a singleton spade. So, this was matchpoints so I decided it
was right to try to double hook clubs by starting with the Q. LHO had
a small singleton. :( damned takeout double with a 1-5-6-1 8 count.

But the reference to the opening line is from the 4 boards we played
against this pair playing canapé, which I wholly approve of. Anyway,
canapé didn't come up but suction came up twice in a row in our last
round of day 2 and my dad didn't figure out how to handle it. Well
actually, we still got to the right contract on one of them but I
guess the pressure of stress of not totally knowing the opponents'
bids was distracting in the play. 7.5 out of 76 matchpoints that round
dropped us from a sure Q to 1/70 of a board behind the last qualifier.

Anyway, fun weekend, and no bridge today, at least not any serious
bridge.

Sent from my iPhone

Is Bridge a Good Hobby?

For years, my non-bridge friends (an endangered species as on January 2009) have responded with astonishment, curiosity, and even disapproval at how much time I spend playing bridge and how much money I spend traveling to bridge tournaments. They just don’t understand, and most of them never will, but I try once in awhile to enlighten them, only to end up feeling even more distant. What they don’t understand is that it’s not so much about bridge that keeps me interested – it’s just that bridge is a way, my best way, to connect with other people. It’s a good conversation topic for those of us that share this interest, probably in much the same way that model airplanes or chess, or comic books, or basket weaving is for other people. And for people like me who sometimes have difficulty with conversation, that’s a very good thing. But it is also about problem solving and engaging the mind in a problem that cannot be solved or mastered – that’s where a lot of the thrill is, as well. Since most of us don’t get the intellectual stimulation we desire at work, we need a hobby that caters to that desire.


Lately, I’ve been thinking and asking fellow bridge players what life would be like without bridge? What would take the place of the large quantities of time spent on bridge? What do normal people do all weekend? I hardly remember. I mean, it wasn’t even 2 years ago that I was playing bridge only sparingly because spending time with H was so much fun. But, really, what did we do? What hobbies did we share? Nothing really. Why was it fun? I don’t know any more. Everyone needs a hobby or two and who are we to judge whether someone else's hobby is good or bad, as long as it doesn't cause harm to us? And in order to be true friends, you probably should have a few hobbies in common.

Rather than spend my money making fake airplanes or buying comic books or video games, I choose to spend it on air fares, hotel rooms, entry fees for bridge tournaments. In the last 2 years, starting with the summer nationals in 2008, I have been to 33 tournaments and played 174 sessions, including 8 tournaments I flew to, and only one (the FISU tournament in Poland) was without expenses, and only one of those trips do I regret going on (Reno). Maybe someday that will change, but probably not any time soon.

When I was in college, I used to complain a lot about my friends and roommates who wanted to sit in the dorm room and play computer games with their online friends rather than do things with actual people. During my third year, it got to the point that my roommate was playing world of warcraft over 60 hours per week while the rest of his life suffered. I played bridge at the club about once a week, at a tournament maybe once a month, and online rarely, while having a healthy balance between school, bridge, social life, and physical activity throughout my 4 years at Tech. When I count the time I spend on bridge now, it probably is close to 40 hours per week - twice at a local club, a tournament every 3 weeks or so, and 3 or more hours on BBO each day (mostly not playing, though), plus the time I spend writing on here. But I very rarely if ever have turned down a social event with friends to play bridge online. Maybe that is just because I don't really have many friends here. I don't want to be like that roommate.

Earlier tonight, I opened 1H, LHO doubled and p raised to 2H. Having no agreements about advances, I guess it should be assumed to be a normalish 6 to bad 10 points even though many if not most advanced players play transfer advances or Bromad or use something else to show a true constructive raise and like to keep the direct raise as a really weak raise. Anyway, I had an 18-count and didn't even invite. I don't think I've ever seen an 18 hcp hand that wasn't worth an invite after a simple raise from partner but this was one: KTxx, AQxxx, K, AQx. Partner came down with J, xxx, Txxxxxx, Kx and I managed to make 3 via something like 3 hearts, 1 spade, 2 spade ruffs, 3 clubs but probably could have been held to 2.

Is it Exclusion, a Splinter, or Something Else?

One of the main issues a lot of people have with Exclusion Blackwood that they are afraid they will not recognize it when partner bids it. I suppose this is a legitimate concern unless you take some time to think about it. As a general rule, Exclusion Key Card Blackwood applies when you jump to one above a splinter. If 4D would be a splinter, then 5D is exclusion. If 3S would be a splinter, then 4S is exclusion. Since I started using it a few years ago, it has come up a lot more frequently that I expected. Twice this week, in fact, my partners had a chance to use it but didn't, and once last night, I could have used it but opted for just a jump to slam.

Holding AKx, void, KT9, AKQJxxx, you open 2C, partner says 2D, artificial and game forcing, you bid 3C and partner bids 3D natural. 4H would be a splinter, right? So 5H would be exclusion. Chances are slim that partner has AQxxxx of diamonds but if so, you want to be in 7 and should feel good about 6D anyway. Suppose partner responds 5NT showing 1 key card, then you can bid 6C to ask about the Q of trumps. Partner signs off in 6D without the Q, making 6 when he finesses the wrong way for the missing Q. It's not 100% clear that that is what those bids would/should mean, but that's how I see it.

On this other one, you hold something like: AKx, void, Qxxx, AKQxxx. This was with Sean, playing canape: he opened a Polish 1C, I bid 1H (8+ unbalanced, 4+ H), he bid 1S (17+ hcp, 3+S, not 4H), I bid 2D (longer diamonds than hearts). 3D here is surely natural and forcing, 4D is Key Card for diamonds, 2H is 3 card support, 5D ought to be a signoff, so 3H should be a splinter, and therefore 4H exclusion. Sounds reasonable to me. This would have been a nice grand on 28 hcp but it was just at a partnership bidding table anyway.

A standard auction surely would have started 1C-1D. Now what? How does one make a forcing diamond raise? You could fake a jump shift by bidding 2S and then support diamonds later. Since 2H is a strong jump shift, 3H must be a splinter, and 4H exclusion. Even if partner has a 6 count with no key cards, 5D should be a good contract, and if he has a key card, 6 stands a good chance, and with 2 key cards, 7 is nearly cold. But in standard, responder could have only 4 diamonds, so being cautious is a little more reasonable.

This last one is actually rather amusing to me. I was playing with Shaz last night and she opened a slightly different kind of canape 1H, promising 10-15 hcp and exactly 4H. RHO bids 1S and I have: void, AQ, Axxxx, Jxxxxx. Clearly I make a negative double and LHO raises to 2S. Shaz bids 3C! Would 4S now be exclusion? Or a splinter? Probably a splinter as 3S is basically a western cue. 5S as exclusion is a bit ambitious. Or is it? AK of clubs and heart K and a stiff diamond is all partner needs to the grand to be cold. I just bid 6C for win 11.47 as no one else bid a slam.

As Long as He Needs Me

Things are right with the bridge world, at least in the sense that there's no drama surrounding me and my bridge partners or other potential partners in the other sense of the word. I mean, I still want a do-over for February 26 - March 26. I may have been as insane for that month than I was for the month right after it was officially over with Hillery, which is pretty hard to top. Actually, I want a do-over all the way back to the last weekend of January but I actually doubt I'd do anything differently until about day 2 in Reno. I knew all along that even going to the spring nationals in Reno was a bad idea, but I am stubborn and was insanely optimistic about how well mila and i would do and that I would get along well with her and dana and the other kids. It's too hard to turn down such a seemingly fun trip, though. I guess there was one good part of the trip - hanging out with Alli a lot at the bar, so I at least gained one new friend there. Eh. Why am I even thinking about that today? That's all water under the bridge. Why am I even awake at 3:30am?

So, I'm looking forward to 9 days in New Orleans sans drama, stalkers, sex issues, other similar things. I'm playing 3 days with my dad and 6 days with Sean. It'll be more like a real vacation than another bridge trip. I hope. Looking forward to briefly seeing dana and mila and bryan, and sleeping in every day and drinking a lot, and playing some fun bridge.

Bridge Players' Egos and the Ranking System

Bridge players have big egos and they need their egos petted regularly or they’ll go insane. Well, most bridge players already are a bit insane but that’s beside the point. As a whole, the people that make up the bridge community are a very bright and scholarly people who love mind games and for the most part do not have great social skills. Such people tend to get more joy from solving problems than from social pleasantries.

 

When you go out to dinner or drinks with bridge players, each player wants to talk about the hands that he or she did well on or complain about getting bad scores by opponents who didn’t know what they were doing but got a good score against you anyway. It’s an endless cycle of trying to convince others that you are better than other think you are. It’s really just human nature, though.

 

Since masterpoints are largely a longevity thing and cannot be lost, it’s difficult to use that as a basis for who is better. Discussion has been around for awhile about changing or adding a second system for bridge ratings/stratification not unlike what they do in chess or scrabble where you have a rating that fluctuates based on recent performance. It has never gained much popularity in bridge. Is that because people would no longer be able to make claims that he is better than someone else who has a higher ranking for there would be a clear ranking system based upon actual table results from several games to show otherwise? I think bridge players like the uncertainty of a vague ranking system and like the idea that once you’ve become a life master or a gold life master, that title cannot be taken away from you. In chess, your rating may go over 1200 but you have to maintain your play at that level to stay there. Does the thought of potentially losing ranking points scare bridge players?

 

In the last 5 or 6 months or so I have been compiling data from play on bridge base and have written a program to rate bridge players.  I’ve been tracking about 50 junior bridge players on bbo and the ratings take into account the rating of partner and the level of competition and who declared each hand. Partners and opponents not among the 50 players I actively track are assigned an arbitrary rating (which is slightly subjective) and random players and GIBs were initially assigned a rating of 500 but that rating has since dropped below 400 (on a scale of 0 to 1000) because the known players have consistently beat them. The top 3 or 4 are just who I expected would be at the top but there were a good bit of surprises in the middle. Clearly, this isn’t a great system since people don’t always play seriously on bbo but I really think my formulas are good.

 

Why? Because it’s interesting, because I have time, because I wanted to see whether my perception of other players was reasonable. I have also done this with games from the local club before and with college football. Come fall, look for my Asbury Computer college football rankings, in its 3^rd season of existence, probably on my other blog. I’ll make those public while the bridge ratings probably will not get posted on here.

Full Disclosure of Agreements When You Know Partner Has Forgotten?

This past weekend, I came across two bridge laws that may need some change. This first one I guess is more of an ethical question than a bridge law question. I mean, the law that ace asking bids should be announced at the end of the auction, especially if 4NT was not the asking bid, makes sense, but the way it is used sometimes seems unethical. Our opponents had the uncontested auction: 1S-2C-2H-4C-4H-6C-P. Before I lead, the declarer announces that 4C asks for specific aces and 4H shows the ace of hearts but not the ace of diamonds. The play and defense to the hand was irrelevant. He had 12 tricks no matter what, but dummy had QJxxx of hearts and declarer had the ace!

Was it unethical for him to volunteer that information, knowing his partner had not bid correctly or not follwed the agreement, or perhaps the declarer thought they had that agreement but they did not. It's hard to tell whether this is the actual partnership agreement because it's not something that's normally on the cc somewhere and most people don't carry around detailed system notes. You're only supposed to announce or alert or announce failures to alert when you are sure you and your partner have an agreement about what it means, otherwise you say nothing. Anyway, assuming that is their actual agreement, should he say anything at all or should he state their agreement with a little caveat that his partner may have forgotten, or a caveat that maybe he forgot? I'm not sure, and the directors and other top players had very mixed views on this. I know he is well within the ACBL laws to announce the ace-asking bid. In fact, I kind of applaud him for trying to fully disclose their agreements, but in this situation I tend to think nothing should have been said at any point as any explanation given in this situation is likely more misleading than saying nothing or it's giving away too much information about declarer's hand. Fortunately, nothing we did on defense made any difference.

My other little gripe is about the revoke laws. We were defending 5DX and had taken two tricks already and partner still had the boss trump but he ruffed in too early he still had 1 club in hand when he trumped a club. I think any honest player would concede down 1 regardless of what the law is. He doesn't deserve to make 5 with 3 top losers after we our two not big trump winners right away. And isn't the main point of the revoke laws to restore equity, giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt and not so much to punish the revoker? Regardless, I think the rule should be changed to disallow someone to lose the top trump. You should not be able to make 7 off the A of trumps just because of a revoke. In this hand, making 4 would be the most that could ever be made, even with revoke trick penaltied. It is kind of similar to the rule that you can't revoke at trick 12. Yes, a player pulled the wrong card or had a card hidden or was thinking ahead, but when there is no line of normal play that could allow declarer to take all the tricks, a revoke should not allow that to happen.

Second Hand High

The old adage of second hand low except when covering an honor with an honor is something we engrain in the minds of bridge beginners. In the majority of cases, this is the right thing to do but as with every rule, there are exceptions. One is when you need to take an ace right away before it goes away on other good cards or to give partner a ruff. Those situations are reasonably easy to spot, even for an intermediate player. The other common situation that I’m writing about today is something even the best of players sometimes get wrong.

Today I was playing in the flight A Swiss teams at the Atlanta Super Sectional and on two separate occasions, players with well over 5000 masterpoints did not play second hand high when they needed to. I am referring to the situation where dummy in 3NT has something like AJTxx and no sign of an entry outside the suit and declarer leads low toward dummy. With Qx, Kx, Qxx, or Kxx, it is almost always right to play high to disrupt communications. However, with KQx, it is usually right to play low, also to disrupt communications. The declarer is trying to take a double finesse in the suit. Look at what happens if you play low and let the T force an honor from partner. Declarer gets in the lead again and can finesse against you and wind up with 4 tricks.

If you play an honor on the first round of the suit, he can duck and try to finesse you again, possibly winding up with no tricks in the suit if he started with a doubleton. Or he can take the ace and now partner has the boss in the suit and can hold up to keep from establishing dummy’s suit. If declarer started with 3, his chances are better and playing an honor from Hxx is unlikely to gain because partner won’t be able to hold up, having only Hx. The only way this can lose a trick unnecessarily is if declarer has a two-way guess for the Q, but it should be pretty clear if he is playing to establish the suit or to just score the first 3 tricks in the suit.

On the contrary, it is right not to play an honor from KQx when declarer is trying to establish the suit for several tricks because, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, declarer can duck and then finesse later. But if you play and let the T hold and split the honors next time, he may not have a third card in the suit to get back to the good tricks. As before, you must be able to distinguish between whether declarer needs to set up long tricks or just needs tricks quickly. If he needs the tricks quickly, you should split the honors to be sure you get one of the first 2 in the suit. Likewise, it is almost never right to play second hand high from Hxxx in this situation.