I've been told that reading about failed slam bidding is not exciting to read about, but today I have many examples of that to write about, mostly from the club GNT qualifier I played in today. Pushed the opponents into a slam they weren't going to bid, bid 4 slams that went down, and stopped in game on 2 more cold slams. But I won't write about that, at least not now.
Here's a bidding theory question that came up a couple of days ago while I was kibitzing, that sort of goes along with a quiz I posted a week or two ago. the auction is uncontested: 1H-1S-3D-3H. first, the 3H could be a temporizing bid or it could be a limit raise, right? Opener bids 3S next. If responder then bids 4NT, is that RKC for spades or hearts? If he cue bids 4C and then 4D, is 4NT then RKC for hearts or spades? I think it is for hearts. Unless you're playing 6 key card blackwood in this instance, counting both major kings as key cards. Making a forward going bid over 3S confirms that the 3H bid was not just a preference or temporizing bid but real support because he could bid 3S or 4m to show a slammish hand without 3 card heart support.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Preempting Life
In bridge, preempting is an attempt to prevent the opponents from bidding effectively – essentially, it is taking a chance that partner doesn’t have a good hand either and that by bidding higher right away, you’ll put yourself in a better position to score well. Life, however, isn’t a competition so you’re not trying to prevent anyone else from having anything but just trying to be prepared for the future changes that might or might not occur. Occasionally in bridge, it backfires and you go for -800 or so, occasionally you keep them out of game or slam or they get to the wrong strain, and sometimes it really doesn’t have much effect. In life, it can work the same way. Preempting life can sabotage the current state, make the future changes not so glorious, or it can help you move on to bigger and better things, or it can have no effect at all.
According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, preempt has these definitions:
1) to acquire (as land) by preemption
2) to seize upon the exclusion of others
3) to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority
4) to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
5) to prevent from happening or taking place
6) to make a preemptive bid in bridge
So, what does it mean to preempt life? I define it as planning ahead to have activities to fill certain voids in life in the near future that inevitably will be there when some current activity ends. This can include preparing for a new job before you quit the old one, making new friends in anticipation of a falling out with a current friend or a current friend’s move, planning a weekend visit somewhere to preclude being home and alone and bored, trying to get involved in another social activity after it gets to be too cold to play tennis, or trying to develop a new partnership with the anticipation that a current partnership is going to end. Since this is the bridge blog, I suppose I should write more about bridge – if you want to read about more life preempts, see my other blog.
My philosophy on preempts in bridge has changed a good bit over the years. I used to preempt with almost any 6 card suit regardless of suit quality, but as I have improved and learned more about the game, I now insist upon having a good suit to preempt. It’s not that preempting on bad suits really goes for a big number too often but rather, the benefits of taking up a little bidding space does not outweigh the number of times it gets partner off to the wrong opening lead, or subsequent defensive plays, thinking you actually had an honor two in the suit. Now days, I am much more likely to open 2S on AKJxx and out than Jxxxxx with a side A. Defense really is the most important part of the game and your defensive bidding really should help guide the defense. Getting partner to lead a suit you hold 6 to the J in instead of a likely more attractive lead is generally not worth sticking in a bid just to be a nuisance. I could say the same thing about my overcall style now. I’d much prefer overcalling with a 9 point hand with an AQJxx suit than a 14 point hand with a Qxxxx suit. With the ladder hands, it seems to be better to pass for now and maybe compete later if they try to stop in 2D.
In bridge, they say you shouldn’t preempt with a good hand because it inhibits your side from bidding effectively, something that is more important when you have the good cards. Much the same with life – you shouldn’t preempt when it is going well. Or should you? Should you always have a “backup plan ready to be put into action” or does that jeopardize the current state of goodness?
According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, preempt has these definitions:
1) to acquire (as land) by preemption
2) to seize upon the exclusion of others
3) to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority
4) to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
5) to prevent from happening or taking place
6) to make a preemptive bid in bridge
So, what does it mean to preempt life? I define it as planning ahead to have activities to fill certain voids in life in the near future that inevitably will be there when some current activity ends. This can include preparing for a new job before you quit the old one, making new friends in anticipation of a falling out with a current friend or a current friend’s move, planning a weekend visit somewhere to preclude being home and alone and bored, trying to get involved in another social activity after it gets to be too cold to play tennis, or trying to develop a new partnership with the anticipation that a current partnership is going to end. Since this is the bridge blog, I suppose I should write more about bridge – if you want to read about more life preempts, see my other blog.
My philosophy on preempts in bridge has changed a good bit over the years. I used to preempt with almost any 6 card suit regardless of suit quality, but as I have improved and learned more about the game, I now insist upon having a good suit to preempt. It’s not that preempting on bad suits really goes for a big number too often but rather, the benefits of taking up a little bidding space does not outweigh the number of times it gets partner off to the wrong opening lead, or subsequent defensive plays, thinking you actually had an honor two in the suit. Now days, I am much more likely to open 2S on AKJxx and out than Jxxxxx with a side A. Defense really is the most important part of the game and your defensive bidding really should help guide the defense. Getting partner to lead a suit you hold 6 to the J in instead of a likely more attractive lead is generally not worth sticking in a bid just to be a nuisance. I could say the same thing about my overcall style now. I’d much prefer overcalling with a 9 point hand with an AQJxx suit than a 14 point hand with a Qxxxx suit. With the ladder hands, it seems to be better to pass for now and maybe compete later if they try to stop in 2D.
In bridge, they say you shouldn’t preempt with a good hand because it inhibits your side from bidding effectively, something that is more important when you have the good cards. Much the same with life – you shouldn’t preempt when it is going well. Or should you? Should you always have a “backup plan ready to be put into action” or does that jeopardize the current state of goodness?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Support Double Auctions
So, I know there are way more readers than the 7 that responded to the last poll. In fact, traffic data indicates around 25-30 regular readers so let's hear your opinion this time (you can answer the poll anonymously).
What is standard for what a new suit by responder means after opener makes a support double? I've searched the internet for what is standard for responder bidding a new suit below 2 of the support suit and have not found anything. some other support double questions you might want to agree on with partner.
Are support doubles on after 1m-(1H)-1S-(2H), when responder has shown 5 spades?
Are support doubles on after 1m-(P)-1M-(1NT)?
Are support doubles on after 1m-(1H)-X-(2H)?
What is standard for what a new suit by responder means after opener makes a support double? I've searched the internet for what is standard for responder bidding a new suit below 2 of the support suit and have not found anything. some other support double questions you might want to agree on with partner.
Are support doubles on after 1m-(1H)-1S-(2H), when responder has shown 5 spades?
Are support doubles on after 1m-(P)-1M-(1NT)?
Are support doubles on after 1m-(1H)-X-(2H)?
Monday, April 5, 2010
BBO Weekend
39 with Adam (mtvesuvius)
34 with Sean (dude2010)
28 with Bob
21 with Ramesh (godot79)
19 with random
14 with Owen (olien)
11 with Emory (emoryw)
11 with Carol (h2omom)
7 with Gideon (serapuff)
53.8% in 97 matchpoint deals
+43.74imps in 87 imp deals
Probably my favorite hand of them all was doubling Val and Sean in 2 in the hand shown. We needed a win on this board to push the 8 board BAM. I was east and I found the A opening lead, followed by , ruff. Eventually we collected our 3 tricks and 2 tricks, and a for down 4 and +800.
That is all. I don’t feel like writing much today, which means I must be reasonably happy today.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Who to Blame?
I guess I don't so much like to write about the good bids or plays that I make. They all seem so routine. So, here's a hand from a couple of days ago that my partner and I really screwed up. I held: Txx, Qxxx, xx, KJxx and partner held: Jxx, xxx, AKQTxx, A. Partner was dealer and the auction went: 1D-P-1H-1S; X-P-1NT-P; 2NT-P-P-P. Down 4 when they took the first 9 tricks in hearts and spades.
Who is to blame more for this disaster? 2D or 3D obviously shouldn't make either but down only 1 would be a decent score. All is normal until my rebid after the support double. What would you rebid with this? 1NT seemed at the time to be the least of evils. So, which bid is worse? 1NT or 2NT?
Who is to blame more for this disaster? 2D or 3D obviously shouldn't make either but down only 1 would be a decent score. All is normal until my rebid after the support double. What would you rebid with this? 1NT seemed at the time to be the least of evils. So, which bid is worse? 1NT or 2NT?
Friday, April 2, 2010
Déjà Vu
Do you ever feel like you're doing something you've already done, or that you're doing something you've done before with slightly different parameters, or that you're doing something you've already done with a different audience, or that you're doing something that you've already done?
As an engineer doing mostly testing of radar systems, I have found myself doing that a lot lately. Maybe it's rerunning a test after a slight code change or rerunning a test with one parameter different, or rerunning a test just to see if the system will do the same over and over, or rerunning a test on a different computer. After awhile you start to forget what you've tried and haven't tried or what techniques worked and what didn't work.
But it's not just in engineering where this kind of thing occurs. It's apparently in all facets of life.
In the world of bridge, you open that ragged 10 point hand and go down in 3NT time and time again. Eventually, maybe you'll realize that you shouldn't open hands like that. Or maybe, you open that 10 point hand against an expert pair who knows how to defend so you get a bad board. A few days or weeks later, you get a similar hand against a very weak pair and get to your 22 point 3NT and it rolls because they slip a trick or two. Or maybe next time you open that 10 point hand, it helps keep the opponents out of game.
In the world of the pick-up artist, the pick-up artist may try to same techniques or moves or line or whatever you want to call them on numerous women and get a vastly different result each time. Just because it doesn't work one time with one girl at one place doesn't mean it won't work with a different girl at the same place or even the same girl in a different time and/or place. I have relatively no experience in this area - I'm just going by what my friends tell me and what I may have read in The Game by Neil Strauss.
In the world of social life, One day a friend may not want to go out. Maybe next time, a different day, a different mood, he may just want to read a book alone. Next time, maybe a different place, he still may say he just wants to wallow in front of the tv. Next time, maybe a different group of people and a different place, he may have other plans. How many times should one put up with this "i'd like to but i have something else to do today" before deciding that the other person just will never not have something else to do?
In engineering, it may take hundreds or thousands of little tweaks to get something to do what you want but never quite get to the point of saying for sure that a desired outcome will not be achieved. For people and brdige hands, does that principle apply as well? For people, I am inclined to think that at some point the probability approaches 1 that a desired outcome will not be achieved. I have no idea how many trials it takes to reach that. Is it 3 or 5 or 10 or 50? And I am inclined to think that in bridge, except in the most obvious situations, the probability of the desired outcome will never approach 0 or 1.
As an engineer doing mostly testing of radar systems, I have found myself doing that a lot lately. Maybe it's rerunning a test after a slight code change or rerunning a test with one parameter different, or rerunning a test just to see if the system will do the same over and over, or rerunning a test on a different computer. After awhile you start to forget what you've tried and haven't tried or what techniques worked and what didn't work.
But it's not just in engineering where this kind of thing occurs. It's apparently in all facets of life.
In the world of bridge, you open that ragged 10 point hand and go down in 3NT time and time again. Eventually, maybe you'll realize that you shouldn't open hands like that. Or maybe, you open that 10 point hand against an expert pair who knows how to defend so you get a bad board. A few days or weeks later, you get a similar hand against a very weak pair and get to your 22 point 3NT and it rolls because they slip a trick or two. Or maybe next time you open that 10 point hand, it helps keep the opponents out of game.
In the world of the pick-up artist, the pick-up artist may try to same techniques or moves or line or whatever you want to call them on numerous women and get a vastly different result each time. Just because it doesn't work one time with one girl at one place doesn't mean it won't work with a different girl at the same place or even the same girl in a different time and/or place. I have relatively no experience in this area - I'm just going by what my friends tell me and what I may have read in The Game by Neil Strauss.
In the world of social life, One day a friend may not want to go out. Maybe next time, a different day, a different mood, he may just want to read a book alone. Next time, maybe a different place, he still may say he just wants to wallow in front of the tv. Next time, maybe a different group of people and a different place, he may have other plans. How many times should one put up with this "i'd like to but i have something else to do today" before deciding that the other person just will never not have something else to do?
In engineering, it may take hundreds or thousands of little tweaks to get something to do what you want but never quite get to the point of saying for sure that a desired outcome will not be achieved. For people and brdige hands, does that principle apply as well? For people, I am inclined to think that at some point the probability approaches 1 that a desired outcome will not be achieved. I have no idea how many trials it takes to reach that. Is it 3 or 5 or 10 or 50? And I am inclined to think that in bridge, except in the most obvious situations, the probability of the desired outcome will never approach 0 or 1.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Do You Know When Gerber is Alertable?
Last time out at the bridge club, my partner and I were defending and one of the top 3 pairs in the room had the uncontested auction: 1C*-1S; 2D-3S; 4C-4D; 4D-5S; P. My partner was on lead with something like: xx, xxxx, xxx, Axxx. What would you lead? 1C was alerted as and 16+hcp and there were no other alerts. I guess most of you would ask some questions about the bidding but we didn’t. I think that without any alerts, it’s safe to assume that 3S indicated a self-sufficient suit, 4C, 4D, and 5D are cue bids, in which case, this bidding clearly calls for a heart lead, to get partner’s trick in the suit before it goes away on diamonds. Another possibility is that 4C is natural, 4D a preference, and/or a bidding misunderstanding. Regardless, that auction also indicates that a heart lead is best because you don’t want to set up dummy’s second suit. In both cases, the club trick(s) may go away if you don’t take them now because they are quite likely to have two running 6 or 7 card suits.
Anyway, dummy came down with 20 hcp including Qxx of clubs and on the heart lead there were 13 top tricks. Had we been properly informed that 4C was Gerber, and 5D to play, I’m fairly certain my partner would have lead the ace of clubs and another club to hold it to 5. It turned out -450 and -510 would both have been worth 5 out of 6 matchpoints because most were letting 3NT make 7.
So, 4C as Gerber in that situation, as long as they do in fact have an agreement that it is Gerber, definitely should be alerted. Actually, it should be a delayed alert, which you announce at the end of the auction. According to the ACBL alert procedures: Any variety of 4NT Blackwood over a suit bid and 4C over a NT bid are not alertable. All other ace-asking bids (which would include Gerber over something other than NT) are alertable. Beginning with opener’s second call, an alertable bid above 3NT is a delayed alert, and all ace-asking bids at 3NT or below require an immediate alert. With that said, I think the score should have been adjusted to making 5 instead of making 7 because the failure to alert clearly steered my partner away from the winning club lead.
Anyway, dummy came down with 20 hcp including Qxx of clubs and on the heart lead there were 13 top tricks. Had we been properly informed that 4C was Gerber, and 5D to play, I’m fairly certain my partner would have lead the ace of clubs and another club to hold it to 5. It turned out -450 and -510 would both have been worth 5 out of 6 matchpoints because most were letting 3NT make 7.
So, 4C as Gerber in that situation, as long as they do in fact have an agreement that it is Gerber, definitely should be alerted. Actually, it should be a delayed alert, which you announce at the end of the auction. According to the ACBL alert procedures: Any variety of 4NT Blackwood over a suit bid and 4C over a NT bid are not alertable. All other ace-asking bids (which would include Gerber over something other than NT) are alertable. Beginning with opener’s second call, an alertable bid above 3NT is a delayed alert, and all ace-asking bids at 3NT or below require an immediate alert. With that said, I think the score should have been adjusted to making 5 instead of making 7 because the failure to alert clearly steered my partner away from the winning club lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)