30 May 2011

The Toy Bridge Layout Magic

Thank you to those who have commented about my hand layouts! It's nice to know they don't stink! Here's how I do it:

I go here (open it in a new window or tab so you can keep reading) and I fill in the hands and I hit create! The HTML is automagically generated and I paste it straight into my blog. Now you can do the same =)
There's also a permanent link on the right hand side of all Toybridge pages to get there.

The tool used to be a wee app that sat on my desktop. But in a fit of exuberance last week I decided that I was time I learnt something and converted it to Javascript. If anyone out there is actually good at JS and wants to feed me some pointers that'd be fantastic.

27 May 2011

Delicate Slams

Bidding slams is difficult. Holding 36 combined points a ten card major fit and one hand opens 2NT we all drag ourselves over the line. But when there's not enough points and the slam works on distribution it's tricky. Harder still is when you don't have the points or the distribution yet somehow slam can be claimed on the lead.

Give yourself these cards:

A x x
K x
A K T x x
Q J x
Good hand, no doubt.

But what if partner only has a 13 count? Chances of the 6 level slide a bit. There are still great chances if partner has a good fit right?

You've got an 8 card diamond fit and none other. As I've come to appreciate recently 9 card fits make slams more often that 8 card fits so this is discouraging. If partner had a partial fit for clubs or hearts and a spade shortage we still might try for 12 tricks wouldn't we?

Partner is 3433. Not even a 7 card fit on the side. Just give up here, 3NT is plenty.




Yet when the dummy comes down:

A x x
K x
A K T x x
Q J x
x x x
A Q J x
Q J x
K x x


6 is lay down. It'll survive 5-0 trumps on a non spade lead or 4-1 otherwise. All the tricks I use for evaluation fail to predict even the suggestion of slam.
  • 30 points. Balanced hands usually work on HCP.
  • 14 combined losers  (15 say some definitions) suggests 4.
  • 59 Zar points (normally 62 required for slam).
Is this a curiosity of the game or is there a secret I don't know?

25 May 2011

A mere -50

Yawn:
9
K T 6 3
Q 7 2
8 6 5 3 2

Two pair: sixes and threes. Not even my deal. LHO, East opened a spade. That improves things; in the gloom I'd expected partner to be the spade (re) bidder.

No doubt put off by a new found inability to bid my singleton partner overcalled 1NT. West next to speak doubled which starts to get all the mental gears a whirring. Lets award 10 hcp for an opening, 15 for the overcall and 10 for the double. That's every single point accounted for, all the others have a minimum (they do look a little edgy).

With the deck split I'm more than happy to try for 7 tricks in NT. Pass! Alas this is where things get weird. Opener bids 2. I guess with that 10 count eating a hole in his conscience he just couldn't stand to think about 280 rolling out. Partner sprung back in with 3♣ and RHO pushed a 3♠ card out.

EastSouthWestNorth
1 1NT X Pass
2 3 3

Trying to put partner on a hand here is an amusing game. It crossed my mind briefly that he had the other 9 hearts and the club bid was just another fox along the way. Shrug, I'm going to bid (more than) my hand and if he's up to something so be it; 5♣. I think it's key with this sort of reckless gamble decision to always bid as confidently and as quickly as possible. Provoke the thought in the opposition mind that actually they're the ones doing the sacrificing. Startlingly 5♣ was met with silence:
9
K T 6 3
Q 7 2
8 6 5 3 2
A K 6 2
Q 8 7 2
J 9 8 3
9
J T 7 5 3
A J 4
A K T 5 4
-
Q 8 4
9 5
6
A K Q J T 7 4

East wasn't patient enough with the A (and who could blame them?) to get the full value out of the hand so at -50 we rested. It turns out 1NTx might not have been so hot, on careful defense we'd be left just 1 trick!

21 May 2011

ACBL Convention Chart: 2

Here's my second attempt at finding reason in the GCC. There's quite a few good things in there but this clause really caught my eye:
CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two nonconsecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.
This is something I'm not familiar with because in New Zealand we aren't allowed sentences that long. As far as I can tell this can be condensed to the following:
If you play certain weird openings and they play a weird defense you're not allowed a weird comeback.
Basically, pray your opening did the damage. I hope that's it because it took me some time and for a while I thought it was beyond me. It's a bit of an obscure rule though because it means you get an advantage from playing a conventional defense. By the simple act of bidding what you don't have you can prevent the other side from doing the same thing!

Seems like an attempt to impose some "maximum complexity" on the auction. Oh no, now I have visions of a little meter that sits on the table and emits a wee siren every time the auction gets too messy.

19 May 2011

Some boards just swing

Say you pick up:

K Q 8 7
K J T 9 8 2
-
9 8 3
at all-vul, IMPs. Your partner who dealt opens 2NT which shows both minors and values of ghastly or better. The opponents dither about eventually bidding up to 4 without much confidence. You double and they scamper out to 4NT. Ha! That's probably going to play worse, double again! -810. Unlucky.



4 was down 3 at best. Heading back to score up you're hoping that you can gloss over this one quietly. After all you bid the edgy slam that made and won a good part score battle. You might still be in front and team mates are never so angry when you win. Turns out this board was your biggest pickup. Have a look at all four hands:

Vul: All
Dealer: North
J 6 2
-
9 8 6 5 4
K J 8 4 2
4
A 7 5 4 3
A K Q J 7 3
T
A T 9 5 3
Q 6
T 2
A Q 7 5
K Q 8 7
K J T 9 8 2
-
9 8 3
Ghastly is the nicest word for the North hand I could find. Anyway at the other table North passed and East got to start: 2, 12 - 14 unbalanced (mind and distribution). Now South shouldn't overcall here, but sometimes we all do things we shouldn't. West had no doubt about the suitability of a 3 contract and doubled to finish the auction.

A diamond lead started the force, declarer exited in spades which was followed by a spade ruff. A club to the Q allowed a second spade ruff before a return to diamonds shortened declarer to four trumps. Getting fidgety declarer dreamed of the Q being unsupported; the Ace felled the King but not the Queen and another Diamond came back. Resigned to a disaster declarer gave up to the Q conceding a third spade ruff then ruffing the diamond return. East was left with the A and a small spade taking the final 2 tricks +1400.

16 May 2011

ACBL Convention Chart: 1

I'm not a subject of the ACBL but I read bridge blogs and so I end up hearing quite a lot about it. One thing the ACBL seems to be famous for is system regulations; so I thought I'd look them up. Wow. I've got several posts worth of material there. I'll qualify all of this by saying I'm not familiar with the treatments of these rules I'm just going off the link here. To start with lets have this sentence from the "Disallowed category":
Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to de-
stroy the opponents’ methods.
Destroy opponents methods is an interesting phrase. Assuming the opponents are playing a sane system their methods are probably designed to get them to the right or par contract. I know the systems I play have that as an unshakeable goal. From that it would seem that we're not allowed to use anything that's is designed to inhibit our opponents ability to use their agreements and therefore get to the right contract.

Superficially that would include light openings in 3rd seat. After all if we're not getting to game the reason to bid is to try to buy a cheap contract by taking space and time away. Facetiousness aside (not really) I assume that I'm allowed to bid my own hands but using only methods are designed to get to the par spot. That would surely ban pre-empting. The name says it all, we are trying our very best to eat up all the space so that our opponents can't describe their hands.

There's more depth to this though. If my opponents have a discussed defence to a convention, say the multi 2, comic NT or wonder bids, then their methods are being enabled, rather than destroyed. Thus if my opponents have a defence to my outrageous convention, either in general or specifically, I'm being a good guy by allowing them to use it. In fact when I see that I'm allowed to present my opponents with a prepared defence, well now, all things are possible.


In all seriousness this stinks of being written by whiny strong club players who can't be bothered spending the time required to cope with interference. If methods can't handle a bit of targeted aggression they deserve all they get.

14 May 2011

Scoring teams

There was a bit of a disaster at the club this week. There was a bit of a disaster with Blogger too which is why this post is late. We're playing a teams event and the format allowed us to have a closed room and an open room. Problem was the boards that were meant to be duplicated weren't. That led to some heated arguments and disbelief followed by blank expressions and hurried apologies at score up.

On one hand our opponents had missed game; feeling confident with our -170 we called it out only for out team mates to call back -680! In practice it meant that quality auctions like the following were forgotten:
A Q x x
x x
K
A K J T x x
T x
A Q J x
x x x
Q x x x
x x
K x x x
Q J x x x x
x
K J x x x
x x x
A x x x
x
NorthEastSouthWest
- - - 11
2 22 Pass 3
Pass Pass 33 Pass
4 Pass Pass Pass


  1. Playing super light 8-11
  2. Natural and forcing; nice wee psyche.
  3. Very long hesitation - nearly talked them out of it.


Here's a 3NT play problem from that first abandoned set, you get the 9 lead and the T holds:
A K J 2
J T 8 5 3
9
J 9 4
T 8 3
A
K 8 6 4 2
A K 8 3
Just goes to show, there is always a upside to staying in bed!

Here's a thought though. Say you worked out the datum in the open room and scored each pair against it. That would give you an objective measure of how each pair performed. If you then scored likewise in the closed room could you simply award the team the combination of the pairs result?

For example our NS score +28 and our EW -9 for a team score of +19. Playing against a team who only manged +15, similarly evaluated, could we claim a 16-14 victory?

09 May 2011

Responsive Ramblings

Responding is sometimes the hardest part of the game. So often responders first bid is critical to the later auction. Here's a hand where there are many paths to choose from. You're playing a 5 card spade and the rest of the system is probably irrelevant but happens to be Acol. Partner opens 1♠ and you get to think about:

T 8 7
-
A Q J 7 5 2
T 8 6 5

If you've only been playing a short while it might seem like bidding anything other than 2♠ is inexplicable. What other bids are there though? Well there's 1NT I guess or maybe 2. What about upgrading to 3♠? Some daring souls might even stretch to 4♠.

4♠?!? But we were just talking about bidding two! Well those who've swallowed the losing trick count kool-aid might count to seven. Then by adding something, multiplying by something else and taking away the number they first thought of come to the realization that game simply must make. Let's not start on exactly how many Xar points might be required.

So if it's right to bid game surely we could be more descriptive on the way. Can I sell a 4 splinter? What if your system allowed you to void splinter? Now we're really getting somewhere. On the other hand partner could have a minimum opening with no fit for our diamonds. Then when the opponents lead the trump ace and continue 8 tricks might be all we can do.

Heck, if partner's the type to open 'quality' 10 or 11 counts 8 tricks might not even be there. It's always a little embarrassing to fall in love with a hand only to concede -400 undoubled in some silly spot like 5♠. What would you bid? I'm with the 2 crowd.

07 May 2011

Deliberate Practise

I came across this a couple of days ago and thought it quite relevant to bridge.


We get better through disciplined play against quality opponents. Owning the mistakes, studying them and getting feedback on them from the top players. Only through effort and practice do we improve, practice alone is not enough.

05 May 2011

The whole nine spades

It's been almost exactly a year since I last picked up a nine card suit. In the PABF 2010 I picked up two in the space of three boards. There's nothing quite like that excitement when you first fan your hand and see so many the same. Then you count them, lose count half way through, count them again finally dividing them into three groups of three just to be sure.

Here's the hand I picked up this week:
Which one of these is longer and blacker?
Be honest.

A K Q T 9 6 5 4 2
7
-
K 9 7


Partner opened 1, 8 - 11. Fortunately we've discussed strong jump shifts so I can respond 2. It's a shame really, if only my red suits had been swapped it would have been a glorious Bacon Torpedo. Sadly not to be.

Anyway, in an attempt to play somewhere that wasn't spades partner bid 2NT. I thought I give him some hope with 3. When he raised clubs I faffed about for a while before tendering for twelve tricks. Partner deposited this welcome collection on the table and no IMPs were traded.
7
K Q 9 5
T 5 4 2
A 5 4 2

02 May 2011

Ants

I've had the joy recently of talking another sorry soul into playing the Electric Ant with me. If you're unfamiliar with the system or get turned on by vileness you can read about it here.

Most of the time you have abnormal auctions to normal contracts, for example:
8 6 2
K 7
Q T 7 5
K 8 5 4
K T
9 6 5 3 2
8 4 2
7 3 2
Q J 7 5 4
-
J 9 6 3
A J 9 6
A 9 3
A Q J T 8 4
A K
Q T

NorthEastSouthWest
11 1 22 Pass
33 Pass 4 Pass
Pass Pass
  1. 8 - 11 4+ diamonds
  2. Just some way to force
  3. Second suit! I can't bid 2NT and 3 seems wrong.
All pretty abnormal. The contract was the same at the other table. Partner was annoyed because he'd finally picked up a strong club only to be torpedoed by who else but me.
Our opponents did get bitten from time to time however, this hand gave us a nice part score swing:
J 9 8 3 2
A 2
9 7 6 5
J 2
7 3
J 8 4 3
J 4 3
A K Q 3
Q 4
Q T 9 5
A K T 8 2
7 6
A K T 6
K 7 6
Q
T 9 8 5 4
I opened 1 in the West chair (obviously) and my partner raised to 2. Abandoning preconceived notions about what a single major raise 'should' be we play it as nought to a bad 13 with 4 card support. When misplayed expertly by me for 8 tricks we gained 6 imps as our team mates made 9 tricks in spades. Which opponent do you think should take action?

01 May 2011

Passing it on

Tomorrow night I'm taking part in an initiative started by my club to get new people into the game. At the start of the year a couple of club members went down to the local university on clubs day and set up a table. By the end of the day they had a list of nearly 30 students who were interested in free bridge lessons.

One major earthquake, 3 months and a venue change later we're ready to deliver. The original 30 has narrowed down to 4 - 6 tables but that number of fresh new faces to the game would be a success. I'll be teaching them Acol because that's how we do things in Christchurch. The goal for the first night will be to have them playing some cards, opening some 1NTs and getting to know all the others in the class.

This will be the first class I've run, though I've sat in on another. Any tips (or awful bridge jokes) from other teachers (or humorous folk) would be most welcome. I'll update here a every so often on the classes progress in addition to my normal ramblings.