Well, this is awkward...
So, a number of years ago, when I was still a (kind-of) young whippersnapper on the Scottish Bridge scene, I wrote this blog. For a while. Like all my social media forays, it tended to be intermittent in the updates, as blog posts took an inordinately long time to write, and it didn't seem worth it anyway. What, I asked myself, was the point of blogging about bridge, when my blog would have a rather small following and I am not a sufficiently competent enough player to give an in-depth analysis of interesting boards? Over three years have passed since my last post, but my blog is still here, lying dormant, as if waiting for the chance to rise again. And come up in conversation it does. From bridge players all over the country, expert and beginner alike. Just the other night, at the Graham Ewen Individual in Aberdeen a new(ish) player, who didn't even know me three years ago, mentioned that he'd been reading my blog. So perhaps I have something to offer after all.
How does this go again? Oh yeah, I'm supposed to have offered some hand to look at by now. OK, try this one:
K1098643
4
AQ86
J
Opps Vul.
LHO is Dealer and passes. Partner opens 1 Club. RHO competes with 1 Heart, and you bid 1 Spade, which is forcing for 1 round. 2 Hearts is bid on your left. Partner jumps to 3 Spades, which is passed to you.
Partner's bid is interesting. It certainly agrees spades and shows a good hand, but he had 3H available as an Unassuming Cue Bid showing a good raise to 3 Spades.
Your call? I'll give you some time to think about it.
In the mean time, I'd like to go further into the rationale behind my sudden return. Would it suffice to say "I felt like it"? Probably. But to address the point made above: maybe it's not all about sharing bidding and card play decisions I've had. That's going to be far less interesting than, say, The Beer Card, by Paul Gipson, which if you're into reading Bridge Blogs you should definitely check out. But perhaps I can offer something different; not just the technicalities of bridge but my experience as a whole - a window into the perspective of another player on the circuit. Whilst I will certainly not be ditching the previous style and format, I will hereto speak more broadly about my opinions on anything about the game in general.
Hence the reason for part of the title of this post: Putting My Cards on the Table. Where I talk about, not just some of the hands that came up in the National league, but the overall experience of competing as a whole. The fact that I am about to take a stance and publicly state an opinion may ruffle a few feathers - either with fellow players or with the SBU - but my aim is to offer somewhat constructive criticism, not to offend. I would offer a token apology in advance of what is about to follow, but I don't really mean it; for I am only going to be honest (perhaps bluntly so, but honest nonetheless), and it is not my job to appease anyone who takes offence where none is intended. With any luck, expressing my opinion in a publicly visible format may trigger some constructive dialogue; you never know.
The Scottish National League has been created with a view to becoming, if it is not already, Scotland's Premier Competition. Played over the course of two weekends, it offers long matches against quality opposition. The field is tough regardless of the Division, but if you rise as far as Division 1 you will come up against some of the best players Scotland has to offer. My partner and I both enjoy playing in fields where we will be punished (severely) for making mistakes, so earlier this year we began soul searching (here meaning "searching for souls brave enough to be our team-mates") so that we could enter a team. The League was only introduced a few years ago so it still has teething troubles, but it has reached a stage now where it is beginning to settle down. On principle, it is a great event. I thoroughly enjoy playing in it.
If only it were so simple, and just about the bridge. Take this hand from the first match:
QJ96532
A64
4
AQ
I held this hand as South, Game All, Dealer North.
Partner opens 1 Heart, and with the opposition passing throughout, I bid 1 Spade and get a 3D response from partner. What is your call in this position?
There are two schools of thought here, and a dilemma is created because most bridge players would agree with both schools. The first school of thought proclaims a 7 card suit is called Trump. I should rebid spades therefore. The second school says don't fight your partner in the auction.
Whichever one wins out, you are going to end up in Slam here. As it turns out, it is a big decision, because a lot of teams got +/- 17 IMPs on this board.
I supported hearts, reasoning I was better off supporting partner given that as 7 card suits go, my suit quality wasn't brilliant. +1430 later it transpires that I got it right (or got lucky).
The full hand:
A8
KJ1095
AKQ63
10
QJ96532
A64
4
AQ
My counterpart was in 6 Spades, and unfortunately for him, West holds K1074. There is no way for him to avoid two Trump losers, and we win 17 IMPs. On another day, he might be collecting them - a 34 IMP swing.
Like I said, if only it was just about the bridge. If only. Unfortunately, politics had to get involved with the running of the event, and that changed things for the worse.
There are some political problems which I am not going to elaborate on here; I will either go through "the proper channels" or blog about it separately. For example, the fact that 3 of our 4 players had to make a 300 mile round trip to play. If you're expecting a typical Aberdonian to whinge about the fact that all the major competitions are held at least 60 miles away, then you'll be disappointed. Whilst there is a legitimate grievance there, it is a more complex argument than might be assumed and it deserves a "PMCOT" post to itself.
The real problem with travelling over 150 miles just to get to the event is where we ended up at the end of that trip: The St. Andrew Bridge Club in Glasgow. I've got nothing against the club or its wonderful and hard-working staff; I do have an issue with having an event such as the National League there. Let's be honest: It's not big enough. Last year, when there were less entries than this year, they held it there, there was barely enough space and they definitely couldn't fit the catering, for which they had to open another Bridge Club 10 minutes' walk along the road to host. This year, with three divisions instead of two, the organisers in their infinite wisdom decided to hold the First Weekend there again, and scrap the catering, which in fairness was in response to the quality of the catering getting lambasted in the feedback last year.
I know the defence: Of course it's big enough; there were enough tables, weren't there? I don't give it any credence. The club cannot comfortably fit over a hundred players playing a major competition. I can easily fit 10 people into my house, but it would be uncomfortable and impractical for 10 people to try and live there. You'd never have 10 people all living in my house because the house is not fit for that purpose and the quality of life of the occupants would suffer as a result. Similarly, yes there were enough tables, but the club was not fit for purpose. Division 2 had to play in the bar area/entrance foyer. Players from all divisions had to walk through their playing area in order to come and go from the club, or for some players to access the lounge area between rounds.
Now I'm sure some people disagree with my assessment of the club. But that's neither here nor there in terms of relevance to why it was chosen as a venue. It wasn't because the organisers thought it was the best place to play bridge. It was because they were under political pressure to host one of the weekends in the West District. The SBU is divided into 7 Districts and of these, there has been for many years a ding-dong of a power struggle between the East and West Districts. That means that when an event like the National League is held, those two Districts get one weekend each, despite what clubs they have available.
I have had occasion to set foot in a number of Bridge clubs across Scotland, and two stand out: the New Melville and the New Carlton. Emphasis on the word new. Both clubs have been around for a long time, but both have moved in the last few years to new premises. Both clubs are all on one floor, have very large card rooms and playing capacity, have separate lounge areas, and kitchens large enough for caterers to work out of. They are by a long distance the best bridge venues in Scotland. So it would make sense that each would host one weekend of the National League. The problem? Both of these venues are in Edinburgh. You can't hold both weekends of the National League in Edinburgh without the Westerners throwing their toys out of the pram.
One could lay the blame at the door of the organisers for this, but I am disinclined to do so. They are a hard working bunch doing the best they can, and it is not their fault when they face external pressure. You try keeping over a hundred bridge players with a variety of ideas, motives, backgrounds and temperaments happy - I'm telling you, it can't be done. On the whole, they do a great job.
I'm more tempted to blame the West District. I'm sure the Committee is just trying to look after the interests of its members; I don't fault them for that. But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. I don't think the West District should be hosting the National League for the same reason I don't think Qatar should be hosting the World Cup: If you want to host an event, make sure you have a suitable venue and the proper facilities to do so. If St. Andrew Bridge Club was as good a club as the New Melville, then I would have no problem playing the National League there, and neither would anyone else. If we really have to have one of the weekends in the West District, then do all 3 Divisions really need to be played at the same venue? Couldn't you have two Divisions in one club, one Division in another, and make everyone more comfortable?
But enough about the organisation; I'm sure you want to know about the bridge side of things. Well... they collided - quite spectacularly. At the end of the weekend I personally thanked our Director for the work he put in. I don't know what the SBU pay him for his services for the weekend, but he - like all the staff - earned every penny. The pressure was on him from the get-go, not least because yours truly had a couple of bones to pick.
You remember that hand I gave you earlier? This one:
K1098643
4
AQ86
J
Have you had enough time to make your decision? If not, please feel free to take it now.
I did not have that luxury, as I was told - at the exact moment of having to make the decision - that we only had a few minutes left, and we had another board to play.
Under that time pressure, I cracked and took a guess. I'm not happy about that, as I should be experienced enough to know that I should take the penalty and go into the tank for as long as I need. But, with this and other factors coming to a head, I didn't want more stress and just bid. I went with 4 Spades.
What I should have done was bid 4 Clubs, showing a 1st or 2nd round control. Partner would have cue bid 4 Diamonds, and now I'm interested in his controls. After I say 4NT and he gives me 2 Key Cards, I know 6 Spades is the contract.
12 tricks and +480 later, the Director suddenly announces he's looked at the Conditions of Contest and they specify more time than what he'd announced, so we actually had plenty time left. Are you kidding me?? Just to be clear: they didn't have enough laptops to provide us with a clock, so Division 3 was totally reliant on the Director's word for how much time we had left. And yes, of course I should've had the mental discipline to take the time to find a 4 Clubs bid which is not that hard to find. But that wouldn't have been an issue had I been properly informed. How many Directors have been asked to give a ruling on Misinformation, when they themselves are the ones that misinformed in the first place? A unique situation, and not one the Directors were in a mood to entertain. And that was bone of contention number 2. Bone number 1 was the fact that Divisions 2 and 3 had to do their team line-ups blind, when the Conditions of Contest had stated that Seating Rights applied to all divisions. To be fair, the Director admitted his mistake on that one, but the damage was done.
How did we do? There are 7 teams in Division 3 and after weekend 1 we are lying 6th. I'll be honest: my aspirations were somewhat higher. Despite the fact that I have played in the National League since its inception and have finished 2nd bottom of the lowest Division every single year, the target this year was to win promotion to Division 2. We're still in with a shout of doing that, but it will require a storming comeback on the 2nd weekend.
I'll end with a Declarer problem from the last hand of the last match.
A653
1072
10954
K3
KJ107
AKQ
KJ8
AJ6
Contract: 4 Spades
Opening Lead: 3 Diamonds
No opposition bidding
I play a small diamond from dummy to East's Ace. East returns a small diamond.
My counterpart guessed well on this hand and made 11 tricks at the risk of coming off.
I took (I think) a safer line that only made 10.
What's your line?
My answer to this will be in my next post - that'll give me an incentive to write one.
