Thoughts on the World Championship book

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for ages.

A couple of years ago at the Shanghai Bermuda Bowl, Brian Senior invited me to write as much of the Round Robin section for the Open and Women’s as I desired. What a nice invitation!

It set me on a path of thinking, before I went, about the nature and function of the World Championship books. Once upon a time they were the most exciting repository of information available to the bridge world. Every card and bid of the WC final, dispassionate, merely telling the tale, not embellishing it in any way. One was able to come to one’s one conclusion about what had happened.

Is there still a role for the WC book to be like this? Now, when we have on the Internet every bid and play recorded. Now, too, when we have lavish Daily Bulletins, again fixed on the Internet for posterity.

It seemed to me, that the part of the book I was writing was best off avoiding what was already going to be available online. Therefore the first thing I did was watch no matches that were going to be Vu-graphed. I also wanted to avoid writing up hands which were already reported in the Daily Bulletins. In other words to make this value for money by giving the reader new material, or, if you like, to record for posterity things that otherwise would be left unknown.

In line with this idea, I decided to follow some teams which I thought would have the potential to do really well, but wouldn’t be considered especially exciting vu-graph material.

Ireland because they’d had that great result of 2nd in the European recently. Could they keep it up?
Argentina because any team with Lambardi on it has to be a chance. Honestly, if Pablo was playing with three tinned fish I’d still be expecting him to get up.
Indonesia because they are so frustratingly close to pulling off the big one, but does anybody really expect them to? And they are my friends and neighbours.
Australia because I’m completely parochial.

Okay. Now you sit, you watch, you collect data which will tell a story. Its story.

One of the things that happened in this tournament was that Ireland and Australia both had dreadful starts. So after a few rounds I sat down to watch these two teams play each other and I guess I was already expecting what the story would be. Ireland finally gets its act together by trouncing Australia and then steadily moves up the ranks to take its rightful place, whilst Australia languishes sadly at the bottom of the field.

But the data, of course, is what’s telling the story. What happened in fact was that Australia emerged easy victors and it was Ireland that was never in the hunt. Australia had a splendid qualifying, staying in the top few throughout. Meanwhile, Indonesia was never convincing and Pablo struggled.

The data was telling a story and the story that was developing seems to be looking at the hardest question in sport to answer: why do teams lose? A harder question, even, it seems to me to answer than why do they win?

Argentina, Indonesia, Ireland are all teams that might easily do well and yet why was this the two weeks when things were tough for them, when their luck was never in?

I didn’t do a good job, in the end, of presenting this story. Partly this was because the copy that went into the WC book was, due to some sort of communication failure, not the copy that should have been there. It was incomplete and badly proofread.

Still, the fact is that it is a hard topic to write about. Yet I hope it was also a fascinating one which is rarely if ever preserved, since it is so much easier to write about the winner.

If anybody reading this has ideas on what the WC book should look like these days, opinions more than welcome!

What’s it to be? Concluded

The question was, with this hand, what bid to make with the following information:

AK10xxx
xx
xxx
Qx

Partner opens 1NT 13-15.

After a system discussion of 5 minutes with your inexperienced partner, it seems to you that your options are:

(1) 2S natural and weakness takeout
(2) 3S 5+ forcing
(3) 4S
(4) 3NT

So what’s it to be?

	NORTH AK10632 98 1043 Q8
WEST Q854 A1054 852 92		EAST J Q62 KJ97 K7643
	SOUTH 97 KJ73 AQ6 AJ105

For playing 2S making 11 tricks I got 41%. Half the field was in game, most in 4S, a couple in 3NT.

I was playing at the Adelaide Bridge Centre, Phil Gue’s club. It is a most pleasant place to play and has excellent MP scoring in place. Your scores are available the instant you finish and during the night you can see all the scores so far on each board after you enter your own score. Great fun. For a link to the sort of thing I’m talking about, go here.

Tomorrow, something COMPLETELY different. Do drop by.

What about this pairs decision?

Speaking of pairs, I played last night, and in a very weak field, you pick up:

AK10xxx
xxx
xx
Qx

Partner opens 1NT 13-15.

After a system discussion of 5 minutes with your inexperienced partner, it seems to you that your options are:

(1) 2S natural and weakness takeout
(2) 3S 5+ forcing
(3) 4S
(4) 3NT

So what’s it to be? Or maybe you have another option under the circumstances.

Matchpoint Pairs

One of the utterly miserable things that has happened in bridge in Australia over the last – I’m guessing – twenty years or so is the near total destruction of matchpoint pairs.

When I first moved to Melbourne there were two fabulous events at State level: both the Open pairs and Mixed Pairs were 3 week qualifying, 3 week final, the latter being barometered. Good stuff! There were also lots of Congress pairs events.

As the ANC has downgraded the pairs aspect of its schedule, there has been a natural tendency for the same thing to happen at State level – though it is true here in Melbourne there has been a reaction against that and the events are now as they were. Still, there are virtually no matchpoint congress events. Swiss Pairs rules. What a terrible idea. Matchpoint pairs is such a skilful game, whilst Swiss Pairs is a tedious lottery at least at that local club level.

As far as I can tell, though, that is just the reason why matchpoint pairs is being avoided. It is a relentless test of skill and who wants that? At the bums on seats level, not many, by the look of things.

I’m going to put in a plea for anybody reading this to reconsider the virtues of Matchpoint pairs. I used to hate it because I didn’t know what I was doing until I discovered I was going to be playing the World Mixed Pairs with Tim Seres. That made me figure I’d better get my game in order. A little group of us studied the form of the game via literature on it, I tried SO hard to understand how it worked. And it paid off. Tim and I qualified 14th (I think!) out of 400+ pairs for the final, though once there we did not have a happy time of it. Meanwhile my pairs scores, instead of lurching between the mid-forties and the mid-sixties, became consistent.

Soon after I did move to Melbourne, I had a game with one of the juniors here one Monday night. ‘What did you think of my game?’ he asked eagerly afterwards. Oh dear. It was the first time time I’d scored less than 50% in Australia for more than a year. ‘You played like a junior’ I said, hedging. Honestly, I was a bit shocked. I didn’t know what to say.

The fact is now, however, that any matchpoint skills I learnt in that period have well and truly gone out the window for lack of practice. And unfortunately that makes me disinclined to play in the only good matchpoint pairs we have left: Surfers. I know that sounds pathetic, sorry!

Man or mouse? Concluded

Spring Nationals
Open Teams semi-final
Set one
Board 3
Dealer South
EW Vul

	NORTH KJ62 AK986 A A82
WEST A1093 7 7532 KQ65		EAST Q875 5 KQ94 10973
	SOUTH 4 QJ10432 J1086 J4

The question was you sit West and hear this auction:

West….North….East….South
……………………………Pass
Pass…..1H…….Pass…..4H
Pass…..6H…….All Pass

Question: Partner leads the DK, taken by declarer’s ace. Then ace and another trump to dummy and partner discards the S5, playing reverse count. I’m not sure why declarer did this as it must be wrong on principle to let the defenders make a possibly useful discard here. Still, there you are. You now have all weekend to make the decision about what you are going to do SMOOTHLY and in tempo on the spade off dummy at trick four. I’d prefer to give you one nanosecond to do that, but unfortunately it is out of my control.

Answer: Hinge ducked smoothly and Gumby tried the jack. One down. I expect it is hard to say declarer should have done anything else, is there? Even holding the ace of spades, the opening leader clearly had a natural diamond lead. And surely on pure odds the jack is right: half the time RHO will hold the queen and some of the rest of the time they won’t find a smooth duck.

Something completely different tomorrow. See you then.

Man or mouse? Continues.

	NORTH 86 A872 — AK109762
WEST AKQ5 4 AKQ109832 —		EAST J107 10953 J54 J84
	SOUTH 9432 KQJ6 76 Q53

The hand is from the Spring Nationals semifinal. In one room the West hand asked for specific aces with 4NT, North passed, East showed none and West signed off in 6D. Should this ambition to bid seven by West encourage North to bid on principle? Pauline Gumby thought not. +1370.

In the other room Simon Hinge thought nothing of trying his luck at the seven level, doubled and -500 for a swing to the eventual losers. All that rubber bridge, no doubt. Steels the nerves.

Thanks to Rainer for doing a simulation, see his comments under yesterday’s post.

I think we could call this a man nor mouse situation as well:

WEST A1093 7 7532 KQ65
	SOUTH 4 QJ10432 J1086 J4

You sit West:

West….North….East….South
……………………………Pass
Pass…..1H…….Pass…..4H
Pass…..6H…….All Pass

Partner leads the DK, taken by declarer’s ace. Then ace and another trump to dummy and partner discards the S5, playing reverse count. I’m not sure why declarer did this as it must be wrong on principle to let the defenders make a possibly useful discard here. Still, there you are. You now have all weekend to make the decision about what you are going to do SMOOTHLY and in tempo on the spade off dummy at trick four. I’d prefer to give you one nanosecond to do that, but unfortunately it is out of my control.

See you Monday.

Man or mouse?

All vul you pick up:

86
A872
—
AK109762

Third in hand RHO opens 6D. What are you doing over that?

Comments suppressed for now.

Two bidding problems. Concluded.

Regarding the first of these hands, it’s clear there are a lot of issues. What is the forcing status of 2D and of 2H, if bid over 2D? I’m with the majority who begin with 2C on this hand. If you start with 1H the only way you get lucky is partner raising them. In my opinion the forcing status of 2D doesn’t really matter. Even if it is limited and non-forcing, which is my preference – ie it is a bid which is descriptive – it still does’t mean that hearts isn’t cold for game.

The hand was given to me by Khokan who suffered playing 3C on his six heart hand when this was the layout and the auction:

xxx
AKJx
A10xxx
x

x
109xxx
-
AKJ10xxx

N S
1D 2C
2D 3C
P

Meanwhile in the other room, South hit the jackpot with a 1H initial response which got his side to 4H.

As Khokan notes, it would be useful to generate a bunch of hands and actually see statistically what is best to do. One of those things bridge players always think about doing but rarely find the time for!

Firstly:

x
109xxx
—
AKJ10xxx

(1) What do you respond to 1D? More questions to come on this one, but we’ll start there.

There is consensus to respond 2C.

(2) So, what now after 2D from partner?

See you all tomorrow for a defence problem.

Two bidding problems continued.

Firstly:

x
109xxx
—
AKJ10xxx

(1) What do you respond to 1D? More questions to come on this one, but we’ll start there.

There is consensus to respond 2C.

(2) So, what now after 2D from partner?

Secondly:

K3
AQ9
AK10964
Q2

West….North…..East….South
……………………………1C (3+)
Dble…..1S………2D…….Dble (3 card raise)
?

Your partnership arrangement is that once they have bid 2 suits cues show, not ask for, stoppers in that suit.

I must say, 3NT looks like a completely normal punt to me. Sorry, I’ve added the information that opener showed support, which probably increases the chances of a spade lead. Clubs might break…and 5D is going to be way off, with 2 club losers and some if partner can’t help bolster your holding there.

Still, we played it on BBO and one of my esteemed opponents said to me, after my partner bid 3NT and made it opposite QJxxx diamonds and the ace of clubs, that ‘no bridge player in the world would bid 3NT with that hand’. Now, I’m sorry, I’m not trying to insult you guys all of whom quite like the bid. I’m with you! But I am pleased to see support for the idea…

Having said that, however, after the game I talked to David about it. It transpired he thought the opening bid was 1H, his double stopper. And there I was – and you all – supporting his thoughtful solution to the problem!

Comments suppressed for now.

Two bidding problems.

Firstly:

x
109xxx
—
AKJ10xxx

(1) What do you respond to 1D? More questions to come on this one, but we’ll start there.

Secondly:

K3
AQ9
AK10964
Q2

West….North…..East….South
……………………………1C (3+)
Dble…..1S………2D…….Pass
?

Your partnership arrangement is that once they have bid 2 suits cues show, not ask for, stoppers in that suit.

Comments suppressed for now.