What do you lead?

I was given this hand recently, I believe it is IMP scoring.

xx
Q9
AJ98x
A10xx

RHO deals and opens 2NT 20-22 and now a puppet Stayman sequences puts you on lead to 4S – a 4-4 fit. Along the way dummy cues 1st or 2nd in clubs, declarer in hearts.

NB: just for today I have changed comments so that they are not automatically published. The idea is to let everybody make their choice of leads in a neutral atmosphere. Comments will then be put up tomorrow. Comments made other than on this post – if any – will be approved during the course of the day….

It’s my blog and I get the last word, don’t I?

I really want to put some bridge in my bridge blog, but this morning I woke up with thoughts on selection that I felt were worth mentioning….

(1) I have played a sport in which national teams are selected. I was lucky that selection for those two Olympiad teams I played on in chess were pretty clear cut. But selection in general in that sport has had some very sad outcomes including, in Australia, a High Court of Australia challenge and an impact on a murder-suicide. And this is in a sport of relative integrity. Players who apply have all the chess they have played available for scrutiny. They have meaningful ratings. Bridge has nothing approaching that on which selection can be based. There would be few players in Australia who couldn’t submit a hand or two which made it look like they are world beaters. We seem to have established that WINNING bridge doesn’t count for much.

(2) Is it interesting that nobody has mentioned Oz 1? We had a million dollars a year, hand-selected players and what came of it? NOT MUCH. Except that it created a clear rift between those that were selected and those that were not. Of those who applied and were rejected, they immediately set about doing notable things. David Appleton went to NZ and won their premier event and is now on the Australian team. Peake and Green (surely they weren’t rejected, surely they didn’t apply?) immediately qualified for the Australian team beating the Oz 1 selected team in the process. Chua-Hinge easily won what was touted to be the strongest Butler ever. I’ve never had so many people barracking for me. Eveybody wanted to see the Oz 1 bunch fail. It was nothing personal. Selection does that. I dare say others spoke with their feet after being rejected by the selectors for Oz 1 but I mention just a few I know about.

There seems to be this impression in the talk about selecting, not that we are going to get a slightly better team that way – a team which will come 13th instead of 14th – but that this is how Australia is going to win. Surely those in favour of selection don’t think that.

The path forward to doing as best as possible at world championship level (let’s say winning a world championship, for the sake of the argument) is by IMPROVING OUR BRIDGE. It is pretty obvious that our bridge isn’t good enough and that this is the way forward.

(3) A few weeks ago on this blog I spent a while trying to convince one and all that the administration of bridge in Australia has to do more for the players at the top. Providing them with as much bridge as possible which is of integrity would be one step in this direction. Providing them with expert guidance is another. Why is it that the bridge administrations organises teaching tours etc for weak players and not for expert players? Why not provide expert assistance and make it open to all good players who wish to avail themselves of it, not some selected group picked to be THE ONES? We don’t have to improve the selection process, we need to improve our bridge.

(4) Those who count the successes of teams at w/c level who are selected don’t seem at all bothered by the failures. Do they not count for anything? Do we not think, for example, that Italy and the US would have won quite a lot of world championships whatever the route to selection? Please don’t respond to this by saying that at least they have won something….I don’t think anybody reading this has the gall to suggest that selecting an Australian team at the moment would result in a world championship win.

England has had selection since the beginning of time for exactly one open world championship win: 1955. (Well, I assume this team was selected?) Meanwhile, there are a large number of players in England who quite rightly feel that they should have been given an opportunity to play for England and haven’t. What is the point of that? Why create misery for 80 years for one measly result?

(5) The Icelandic team that won the world championship didn’t win because it was selected. It won because it spent 6 months preparing single-mindedly for it. However the team was gotten together, with this preparation it had to be a chance. Maybe even an Australian team would be a chance if it worked on its bridge for 6 months before the world championship. But this isn’t going to happen, is it?

Yawn….is it over yet?

Sounds of snoring in background.

Oh, pardon me, I was napping. But I gather that the Grand Prix is over for another year.

This year the winner was declared to be the person who was winning at a particular point in the race when two cars had a prang. It almost makes bridge look like it has integrity….you wouldn’t have wanted to be carefully timing your challenge for the lead, would you?

I’m liking this whole poll thing, so please take a vote in this one…

I had a dream…

In reference to comment 12 here by Peter Gill….

I had a dream that this blog was MY blog. I thought because it was MY blog I would get lots of nice people writing in and agreeing with me. After all, what’s the point of having your own blog otherwise?

But it appears in reality that this blog is Peter’s and I am merely the facilitator….sigh. At least he hasn’t taken over my other blog yet.

You all can keep on talking about selection. I’m going shopping. But come back on Monday for something I think you might like.

Bits and Pieces

Some bits and pieces before they get lost.

(1) Andrew Webb has posted a comment here which is worth looking at, going back to earlier ideas.

(2) This is a rewriting based on further information supplied by Peter Gill as given in comments below. One of the players on the losing finalist team in the Women’s played although she was unavailable for one of the events under consideration. I understand this was permitted on the basis that she might win the final and then the issue, which was the suddenly changed dates of the PABF championship would not have been relevant. Immediately the tournament was over, this player was then replaced by a player who had not played in the playoffs at all, as I understand it, nor had any partnership experience with the player who had been left without a partner.

Now, I find this fascinating in view of Gill and Markey’s stance in favour of selection by selectors. Are you two going to actually respond in print that this piece of selection was appropriate, compared with filling the gap with an experienced pair, presumably from one of the losing teams, but even perhaps from the winning team – there may well have been a pair available for both events.

Frankly, just this very act on its own is enough to damn the process of selection if you ask me. It is hard to see how the interests of the team and Australia have been served, but Peter and Phil, naturally your input will be keenly looked forward to.

(3) It does seem obvious, looking so far at the discussion of selection by selectors rather than by bridge, that by bridge is the obvious answer – we are merely quibbling, as Ben has pointed out, how to organise the bridge. I think it is a great shame that finals in Australia have been watered down to a point where they are becoming a bit of a joke. Most recently the final for the ANOT has been decreased to 64 boards, which is an absurd number of boards for a final, is it not?

I guess we have so many national events now that none of them really mean much. Maybe in some respects we were better off with fewer events where if a team got to a final it was excited to do so. As far as I can understand the logic of the decision for the ANOT, the players consulted didn’t want the Final to cut into dinner and drinks time.

Well, I for one, dissented, but by the sound of it, as usual, most of those consulted disagreed with me.

So, the players can’t have it both ways….they can’t vote for shorter finals and then complain that the finals aren’t long enough.

Whatever form of playoff there is for the Australian Team should be two weeks long with no match shorter than, say, 100 boards – so that there isn’t any question of luck coming into it. If the playoff is kept pretty much open as it was this year, (as long as you were prepared to pay the ridiculous entry fee), then anybody can afford those two weeks – because, after all, they don’t have to play all those interminable national championship events during the year.

(4) What do you think about the resignation in the Final? Remind me not to call in Gold-Ebery-Simpson-Antoff to play bridge for my life in the next James Bond film. Again, is that just because we play so much national level bridge that even the playoff for the Australian team is not worth playing for the sake of it?

Final of the Australian Playoff

NB: This is the second post I have put up today.

Australian Playoff
Board 10
All Vul
Dlr East

	NORTH Antoff Ian Robinson Q A743 J73 A10943
WEST Brightling Gold 43 QJ1052 Q842 86		EAST Ian Thompson Ebery K1098765 8 A103 K5
	SOUTH Simpson Delivera AJ2 K96 K95 QJ72

When I saw the auction in the closed room, it made me recall my NOT finals match this year against Simpson-Antoff….they walked on water, and here it was, happening again. Am I the only one who wouldn’t have dreamt of passing 3S doubled on the South hand, after RHO opens 3S and this is passed around to your partner who balances with double?

Well, I guess that’s why I’m writing and Simpson is playing. The pass was doubledummy correct as East, having two entries, just manages to beat 3NT…as long, that is, as partner starts with his suit.

I say that because in the other room, East opened 1S and rebid them, South ended up in 3NT and West – well, pulled out a heart and there rested the defence. +630 in one room and -200 in the other when 3S lost the obvious 5 tricks was 10 IMPs to Thompson, who have a handy lead as I write.

Australian Playoff concludes today

What a shame that we weren’t able to watch the last 16 of the semi between the Gill and Thompson on BBO. Could somebody please explain to me why we had a women’s match on which virtually nobody watched – and I include blood relatives of the players in ‘nobody’ – while there would have been a large audience for the 16 which saw if Gill could pull of a major coup.

The final of the Open is fascinating for its composition. There isn’t one Sydney player in the two teams!! On the one hand we have 5 ACT players and a Queenslander. On the other we have – well, you might say 3 NSW players and a Victorian, but the sentiment of the situation is different. Ebery, Simpson and Antoff are more or less outsiders in their own town.

For my money Delivera-Robinson have been about the best pair in Australia for a long time…why they haven’t been sort as teammates by all the best players in Australia is beyond me.

Thank heavens, however, that the teams in Australia are decided by bridge play and not somebody’s opinion. I don’t think for one moment that if we had selectors instead of bridge deciding our teams that Delivera-Robinson would be picked for a team. Wrong address, if nothing else.

What we are going to hear, however, for the nth time lately is that we need methods which will select the ‘right’ team. Sorry, but if the ‘right’ team can’t do it at the bridge table, I don’t understand why another method of selection will be preferable.

It does make me wonder, though. If it were preferable to pick the team to play for Australia instead of having it decided by bridge competition – if we really don’t think that actual bridge competition results in an appropriate winner – surely we should logically skip the world championships too. Why doesn’t a panel of selectors pick who is the best team in the world this year…and let’s leave it at that!

By the way, David Thompson must be thrilled at this result. He thinks that the reason Sydney players, aka Australia’s best players, don’t perform at their best is lack of partnership. Well, here today we have 5 very hard working partnerships, all of whom have been together for a long time, fighting it out. Food for thought…

The sex bidding scandal continues

Pardon me for not having written for a few days. Bit of a shock and I’ve had to have a lie-down. You see, it seems possible that I agree with Phil Markey. I happen to recall the day we last agreed on anything…and it isn’t about the lolly jar. It was the 2000 NOT, day 3, lunchtime. Being the girl on the team naturally I was making the sandwiches while the boys discussed the bridge. Phil said he liked the way I buttered the bread for the sandwiches – with little chunky bits of butter, not all smooth and flat. That’s how I like my butter too.

To think within the same decade – just – we have agreement on something else. I never thought I’d see the day.

Sartaj made the following comment to the last post re bidding approaches:

Hamman said in an interview that he has learnt with the years that there are three types of auctions
1) Declarative – You show your hand and leave it to partner
2) Interrogative – You take charge and ask partner questions
3) Cooperative – Both you and partner exchange information.

I believe most players and partnerships have either a positive or a negative bias attached to at least two out these three categories. Which leads us to believe in our distinct “style”.
In my partnership, I’m aware that Tony has a positive bias for cooperative auctions while Cathy, it appears you have one for declarative.

The ideal bidding system would have the capacity for all three modes. And its users would have the judgment and the ability switch to the right mode based on the specifics of the situation.

Hmmm. I’m not sure that it takes a many times world champion to make the point that there are these types of auctions and that all have some place in system. Elementary my dear Hans.

One assumes, further, that there will be bias attached –

(1) because it is unlikely that each of these types of auction should equally be used,

(2) because it is unlikely that a system will permit equal use. As Sartaj points out, there is only so much room.

On top of that, maybe, as Sartaj suggests, some aspect of personal taste will come into it.

Perhaps, if it comes to that, not so much personal taste as WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PARTNERSHIP. My partnership has introduced some high level highfalutin methods but I’m not at all sure that they are best for the partnership. My partner would like not to have to guess so often, but he is good at guessing. To take away from our system something which was performing well, is a doubtful strategy in my opinion.

Then again, there are other sorts of auctions which Hamman apparently doesn’t include in his view of the world, though I can think of at least one which is near and dear to the American heart: the guerilla auction, a one-bid auction which supposes that there is more to be gained than lost by fixing all three other players at the table.

This might take the form of a psychic call – for which US players still have a predilection, I would have thought – or it might be a high-level preemptive action. Does Sartaj disagree that the psyche is still common-place amongst experts in the US? I dare say he will give his views on this.

Frankly I don’t believe that Hamman, or any other player of his calibre thinks that all bridge bidding is about partnership. But I will stand corrected if one of them writes in here and states as much.

The comments to the last post really do invite a lot of discussion, so there is certainly more to come. Stay tuned.

Should bidding be like sex?

Totally distracted from the theme of suicide and its relationship to bridge – frankly, I prefer shopping.

Not that this has been the only source of distraction. I’ve been wondering about something somebody asked me a little while ago – what changes to our system and why? The whats are tedious, the whys might be interesting.

Suddenly last night in the middle of contemplating my opening lead to 3NT, I realised exactly the right way to describe the ideal bidding system….

Bidding should be exactly like most men want their sex: in and out quickly, minimum of fuss. Don’t give anything away, only tell her what she really needs to know….In general deep and meaningful will only confuse the situation for debatable benefit. Am I right so far?

But, as you will also all know, sometimes you find yourself in a tight corner, back’s against the wall, SHE IS DEMANDING DEEP AND MEANINGFUL. Nothing less will do.

So, what you want in a bridge system is exactly the same armoury you need for the sex. Assume in and out quick is the right approach, use it whenever you can, but be prepared for the worst. If she wants a long, tedious, drawn out cue-bidding sequence with somebody at the end probably still having to guess what to put where – well, be ready for that too.

That’s pretty much how my partnership’s bidding system is developing. For years we’ve kept it at ‘in and out quick’ but for some time we’ve had a bit of a hankering to get deep and meaningful. Recognising that this is a dangerous development in the relationship, we’ve tried to keep it to obscure, high-level auctions that won’t happen often. It’s like having the technical appendix to the modified-Rumanian- gymnast-Kama-Sutra next to the bed…you kinda like having it there, but you kinda hope nobody asks you to use it.

Making the most of your opponents’ transfer bids.

Okay, so it’s right to do something to exploit the opponents’ transfer bids….but what exactly should that something be, asked Jill yesterday. What’s the best way to make use of the extra room?

I’m with the Netherlands. Anytime a takeout double is otherwise not available, that’s what the double should be – the meaning you would have assigned to the bid if RHO had bid the suit itself.

If you don’t believe me, look at it this way. Your opponent opens 1S showing spades. What do you play double as? Almost certainly you play it as take-out. You DON”T play it as a heart showing bid, which is the other method commonly awarded to transfer bids – ie you DON”T use double to show the suit bid, rather than the suit shown. It’s the most useful and important thing you can do with this bid.

As you can see from the actual hand we were last looking at (see last post), play it as heart-showing, which presumably Sweden was, and it doesn’t necessarily mean you can use it! It has to show just the right hearts. Not good enough to bid at the 3 level….not bad enough to want to avoid mentioning. A take-out double will cover some of that scenario.

Using it as a take-out double means:

(1) Your bid is approximately 100% safe
(2) Your partner has a cue of their suit available to mean something sensible

The other bid left to discuss is the cuebid. DON”T use that as the takeout bid – it is far more dangerous and takes away a useful bid from partner who sometimes would have been able to use the cue himself. Rather, the cue should be Michaels. How nice not to have to bid at the 3 level to show a Michaels shape!

(1NT) Pass (2H*) Double is t/o of spades, 2S is Michaels.

Once you have this agreement you can generalise it to all like scenarios. You don’t have to discuss them all. Simply have a general principle that over transfer calls double is takeout of the SHOWN suit.

Hence, for example, in my partnership, in the auction in the other room:

(1NT) Pass (4D*) we would know without bothering to discuss it that double is takeout of spades.

This is not the only way that transfer bids cost, giving the opponents that extra – and SAFE – room to bid their hands.

If I pick up game values and a six card major, over 1NT opening by partner I always bid game at my first shot – it makes the auction hardest for the opponents. But, in a moment of weakness a while ago I made a transfer, raised partner to game and LHO doubled FOR PENALTIES. Everybody had their bid. If I had simply bid game straight away LHO could do nothing but collect 200. Instead he got 500 for nothing – because I let him bid his hand. Lesson learned.

A few days ago in Surfers my partnership had this auction:

(1NT) Pass (2D) Pass
(2H) Pass (Pass) Double

Again, this double is penalties – my partner would have doubled 2D with takeout of hearts. Two hearts was going down a couple.

Moral of the story: any time the opponents are playing any sort of transfer bids they are giving you extra room to bid your hands, often more safely than you would otherwise be able to. Make them regret it! BRIDGE IS A FOUR-HANDED GAME.