Hurrah! It's another PMCOTT post, and a chance for me to divide my almost non-existent readership still further. More uninformed opinions from one of Scotland's bog-standard competitive players, because goodness knows we don't have enough of that.
I'm a Scottish Bridge News Subscriber. (Honest!) It's good value for what it is, and in today's society is probably the only institution I know of that both has the word "News" in it and hasn't been labelled "fake" by somebody. In the latest issue, they introduced a new feature: The Opinions Page. (Popcorn at the ready...) Personally, I hope that this is a mini misnomer and we will see a full-blown Opinions Section from here on out. The more constructive dialogue, the better. I don't think you can fit everything that needs talked about onto just one page.
The inaugural Opinions Page was devoted to a response from one Dougie Munroe to an invitation to enter the Scottish Cup, which is still officially Scotland's Premier Event. I'm naming him because:
(a) He deserves credit for his piece, and
(b) I can hardly hide his identity; anyone who reads SBN will know who I'm talking about, and
(c) I have a MUCH lower readership than Scottish Bridge News!
He opens:
"Why would I want to enter a competition where the Conditions of Contest are set to reduce my chances of Progressing in it?"
He follows with an article outlining a strong opinion that the Scottish Cup should be a completely open draw; that there should be no Seeded teams at all. It is a compelling, and not unjustified point of view, and it led me to question my own view on the subject. As a result of that miniature soul-search, here is my tuppence' worth.
I am not offering this piece as a rebuttal, per se. Munroe's argument was reasonable, and food for thought. But on balance I find myself inclined to disagree, albeit in pretty loose terms. As my starting point I shall consider the following statement:
Why should whether a competition is Seeded or not affect whether or not I enter it?
I am trying to establish myself as a regular attendee at the bigger events on the Scottish Bridge Calendar. It is not possible for me to attend everything, but if I have my way I will consistently be playing in the Scottish Cup, National League, Winter Fours etc from here on out. Each of these events I cited are currently (by some definition) Seeded, and I would still play in them if they weren't. I've seen minor tweaks, and not-so-minor tweaks to each, a number of which I disagree with, and I still play in them. Any one of them would have to undergo massive rule/format changes for the worse before I would consider discontinuing my participation. Maybe this is just me, but I personally feel that whether the Scottish Cup is Seeded or not is not in itself a big enough issue to affect whether I play or not.
Then again, I am an ambitious player. I want to learn. The prospect of a long match against quality opposition does not deter me. I like playing in events where I will be punished for my mistakes, because that is how I learn. You have to beat the best if you want to be the best.
I would perhaps support the removal of Seeding from the Scottish Cup - if it could be satisfactorily proven to me that this would induce a big upsurge in entries. But honestly, I don't think this is the issue. Poll everyone that doesn't play in the Scottish Cup and ask them why not, and you will get a variety of different answers, many of which will translate as: "Can't be bothered" or "I'm not a competitive player".
Okay, so let's look at what the Seeding system actually is.
The Conditions of Contest state that the amount of seeds will be limited to 4. A more recent (and possibly unwritten) stipulation is that those four seeds should be the four Semi-Finalist teams from the previous season (which presumably carries some sort of team continuity requirement). This is as good a way of doing it as you can possibly get. I would be sceptical of Scottish Cup Seeding if there were more than four. The more I think about this system, the more I think it is the fairest.
Why do we want the stronger teams to have an easier route?
A just question. As Dougie Munroe points out in his article:
"They might all meet in the early rounds while a weaker team, or the only strong team, progresses from the other half of the draw. True, but eventually the best team wins the Cup. If there's an upset, especially in the longer matches in the later stages or final, hurray for the underdog! That's what cup competitions are all about."
He also argues:
"Seeding has a place in big-money, multi-national spectator sports like tennis or football where maximising viewing figures for the later stages maximises revenue; none of these adjectives apply to the Scottish Cup. Some notable knock-out competitions do not seed and this adds to their romance, interest and participation: e.g. the Scottish and English FA Cups."
There is a difference, however, between the Scottish Cups in football and Bridge. In football, whether the match is the first round or Final, the match is 90 minutes long. Not so with Bridge. As a team draws nearer to the Final, the matches get longer. It is preferable that when the Seeds meet, the match is longer. Of course you want the romance of the cup where big teams can be knocked out early. Everyone loves an underdog. But for the integrity of the competition, clashes between Seeds should be in matches where the element of luck is reduced. Believe it or not, you are increasing the chances of everyone progressing - not just the Seeds. I shall explore this theme a bit more later.
There are some superficial, but worthy, answers to the question.
Firstly, as previously stated, everyone loves an Underdog. But there is a flip side. The underdog may be completely swept aside. It is intended that the Scottish Cup Final is broadcast on BBO VuGraph. Does anyone really want to make it to the final of a competition untested, and then have their mistakes exposed for the world to see? It is probably to the benefit of the so-called "weaker" teams that they earn their place in the final by knocking out a couple of Seeds, or at least by knocking out the teams that knocked the Seeds out.
Secondly, Knock-on effect. The National League is "seeded". By which I mean, the teams that earned a right to play in Division 1 last season have first refusal on taking up their place this season. But if not all teams take up their place, the SBU have to figure out how to rate team players, and one of the things they look at is the Scottish Cup. It's a remote chance, but surely we do not want the composition of the National League to be affected by "luck of the draw" in the Scottish Cup, which in turn may affect which players we send to represent Scotland?
Equality of Opportunity
It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that an open draw gives everyone an equal chance. In a sense it does - in terms of equal chance of getting a favourable draw. But let's have a look at the issue in more detail.
Taking this year's Cup as a case study, there were 30 entries (not including the Highland District, as the earlier rounds are regionalised to save on travel). For those that have to play a First Round match, they would not have to play a Seed in their first match, For those unseeded teams progressing to, or entering in, the Second Round, there was only a 25% chance of them meeting a Seed at this stage. Progressing to the Last 16 incurs a 50% chance, which means you have a 50% chance of having the opportunity to progress to the Quarter Final before you meet a Seed. That seems reasonable to me.
Assume, for sake of argument, that you are a strong Unseeded team, and you would be strong favourites against any other Unseeded team. Only the Seeds stand in your way. Either:
(a) You meet a Seed in the Quarter Final, and you are effectively playing for that Seeding. Should you win, you will progress to the Semi Final, and become a Seed for the next season.
Or
(b) You play a Seed in a 32 board match, which you technically have more chance of winning. If you win, you will not meet another Seed until the Semi Finals.
You see? The shorter the match, the greater the chance of the underdog winning. For example, my team had a disappointing run in the District Teams of 4 last year, where some underdogs beat us in a 14 board match. That can happen - but if those were only the first 14 boards of a match, and we had 34 boards still to play, I'd be reasonably confident of turning that around. I've played in more than one Scottish Cup match where we were trailing at half time only to turn it round in the second half - on one occasion overturning a deficit of about 30 IMPs to win the second half by about 68 IMPs (memory does not give me the exact figures now). So, if you are an Underdog, it is to your tactical advantage to meet a Seed before the Quarter Final, because there's an arithmetical case that your chances of winning are increased by 33% compared to playing the Seed in the Quarter Final. Meanwhile, the Seeds meet in longer matches, where the element of luck is reduced, and may the best Seed win.
Beat a Seed to become a Seed
Not to harp on about the points I made above, but this is the implication. Munroe argues:
"There are various inconsequential arguments in defence of seeding... The main arguments of substance appear to have two, contradictory themes: Firstly, seeding is fairer to the weaker teams. If a weaker team beats a seed, the weaker team won't meet a seed in the next round. This rather depends on the number of seeds. However, at some point, if seeding serves its purpose, the weaker team (or its next opponent) will inevitably meet another Seed. So, at best, meeting another seed is only delayed by a round or two."
Or three.
"Without seeding, it is argued that a weaker team, on beating a strong team, might well meet another strong team in the next round. They might or might not but surely if one enters a cup competition and beats a good team, one savours the victory and prepares to meet stiff(er) opposition in the next round?"
Yes, one always savours the victory. But one might also argue that knocking out a seed should bring some kind of reward, other than getting knocked out one round later than expected. The opportunity to progress at least as far as the Semi Final brings that. Which brings me to...
The Standard of Competition in the Scottish Cup
Pretty much every match in the Scottish Cup is guaranteed to be a tough test. There are no weak players (unless you count me). So Seeding is kind-of a moot point anyway. You might prefer to play against a Seed compared to some of the Unseeded opposition. Yes, some teams are weaker than others, but there are no outright weak teams. Gone are the days of all and sundry entering, and big teams racking up wins in excess of a couple of hundred IMPs. In fact, I would reckon it's a good bet that when my team of youngsters entered in 2010, and were soundly beaten in our opening match by Brian Short's team, that was the last time a Scottish Cup match was lost by over a hundred IMPs - anyone care to correct me on this? (Cue the messages of: "We also beat you by over a hundred IMPs"). But just to reiterate the point about shorter matches - had Board 1 of that match been the only one to count, we'd have won. Seeded or not, anyone can get an unfavourable draw. Which brings me to...
The Scottish Cup Plate
This is a free-entry competition for teams that are knocked out of the Scottish Cup in the first round that they play. So, if you get a really unfavourable first round draw, you parachute here (sort of like getting Knocked Out of the Champion's League into the Europa League). This competition specifically exists to cater for those who are unlucky in their opening match. It's a selling point of the Scottish Cup that you are not limited to one match - every team is guaranteed a minimum of two matches. No Seeded teams here (assuming all Seeds won their opening match), so the competition is open.
A Note on the Highland District Regionalisation
I am not against regionalising the Highland District's part of the Scottish Cup. It's a big area, often difficult to travel through, and it prevents teams from having to travel obscene distances in the early rounds. However, there have been some suggestions in the past that some non-Highland teams have entered the Highland Draw in order to gain an easier route to the Last 16. While my evidence for this remains anecdotal only, it is a logical point that theoretically at least, with no Seeds from the Highland District, that is an advantage of entering that route. It is interesting that Dougie Munroe is registered in the Highland District. I can't really buy his claim that the Conditions of Contest are set to scupper HIS chances of progressing, since the Conditions of Contest if anything favour his chances of making it to the Last 16. I'm not saying that he didn't make valid points; I found his piece very interesting and I do not wish to demean his viewpoint. But taking this into consideration, it comes across as excuse-mongering.
Besides which, is it all about the winning? Can't people just enter for the love of the game any more?
Sunday 23 July 2017
Thursday 6 July 2017
Alisdair v The Rule of Seven
Ah, the rule of Seven. Such a useful little tool. Like any tool, it is only as useful as the one who wields it. For the uninitiated, the Rule of Seven is a rule-of-thumb for Declarer to use for handling a side suit with limited stoppers. Consider the following combinations:
(a) Axx opposite xxx
(b) Axxx opposite xxx
(c) Axx opposite xx
In each of the above scenarios, these are side suits, and as Declarer, they are immediately led at you.
The rule is thus:
Subtract the number of cards in your fit from 7. This gives you the number of times you need to duck.
Simple, right? For (a), the fit is 6, so 7-6 = 1. Duck ONCE and then win the Ace on the second round.
Using the same logic, you don't duck at all with (b), and you duck twice with (c).
Great. A rule that is as easy to remember as it is to use. So far, so good. But why does it work?
The mathematical logic is sound. Employing this rule helps you block the suit when the distribution is uneven. This means that when you win the trick, the only reason that both opponents can still hold a card in that suit is because the suit split as evenly as possible. This means that you can treat one hand as the "danger hand" and play to ensure that hand does not get in to cash tricks. (This is especially relevant Declaring NT contracts). It also means that you don't duck more than you need to.
Take, for example, option (a). The opponents's cards could be distributed 4-3, 5-2, 6-1 or 7-0. Obviously, when both opponents follow suit, they are at worst 6-1, and when you win the Ace on the second round and everyone follows, it is no worse than 5-2. You have now successfully cut the defence' communications in that suit. Unless the hand that started with 5 has another entry, they will never be able to cash their winners. If the split is 4-3, you have not cut communication, but they can only gather 2 further tricks from that suit.
Is this an Open and Shut case? This is Bridge; of course its not.
For example, consider the possibilities in (b). Not ducking still protects against a 5-1 split, but not against 4-2. This is the "exception" where you do not guarantee the suits splits as evenly as it possibly can. The reason the rule still applies is that 3-3 breaks are so unlikely anyway. It baffles me when I speak to players that still feel that a suit "SHOULD" split 3-3. No it shouldn't! You are entitled to that happening 35% of the time; no more. Alternatively, if you have 4 cards, you might promote a pip as as second trick so that's why the rule says not to duck.
HOWEVER, IF you took the view that: "I can afford to lose one trick that I don't need to lose, just to ensure that I don't lose three", you would reason that you need to duck once to protect against the 4-2 split.
The take away from this is two-fold:
1: Context matters
2: Sometimes the even split is the one you are worried about.
Consider this hand I played last night:
K84
1095
K1064
A32
AQJ
A72
Q82
KQ65
3NT by the bottom hand
Lead: 4 of hearts
Match Points
No opposition Bidding
Note the heart suit. The rule of Seven says I should duck once. I play the 5, the King appears, and I duck. The 6 is returned - I duck again. Why?
Well, I do not want to lose 3 heart tricks. I can see 3 spades, 1 heart, 3 clubs and 1 diamond trick. If the minors split 3-3 (which I have just pointed out I am NOT entitled to!), I can make 9, but I may need to lose the lead twice to set that up and that brings me down if they also get 3 hearts. I can afford TWO heart losers. I am giving the contract the best chance of making by ensuring that when I win the Ace of Hearts, the suit is blocked. Sure enough, when LHO returns a third heart, RHO pitches a spade. I have lost one more heart trick than necessary.
Some may be thinking that I am wrongly adopting a teams strategy here. The goal in Match Points is to make as many tricks as possible, so it is worth the risk just to ensure that I don't lose a trick un-necessarily. I disagree. Let's see why.
Now that I know I cannot afford LHO to gain the lead for any reason what so ever, I have to assume RHO has the Ace of diamonds. Otherwise, this contract has no play and it is irrelevant how many times I ducked. So, I cash King and Ace of Clubs, with both opponents following both times. I now play a small diamond from table, RHO follows, and I play the Queen. It wins! I'm now at 8 tricks; time to combine chances. I play a small diamond from hand - and the Jack appears from LHO. I cover with the King. RHO wins with the Ace, but this sets up my 10. I now know I am making this contract. In fact, as long as RHO does not have 5 spades, I am making an overtrick. Looks like I'm making the Match Points. RHO returns a spade - his best shot at defeating the contract. There's nothing he can do to stop me making 10 tricks, given his actual hand.
Why am I making ten instead of 9? The extra duck in hearts of course! Not only was it a prudent guard against the 4-3 break, it effectively rectified the Count for a minor suit squeeze. I win the spade with the Jack and cash my Queen of clubs. LHO discards, and now I know RHO started with 3=2=4=4 (4-4 in the minors). I play my Queen of Spades and overtake with the King, to ensure that on the last spade, I am winning in hand. Crucially, on the last spade, RHO has to discard. He squirms and pitches a diamond, and I now play my last diamond to the ten, and my 6 is now a winner. His alternative was to pitch his club, which would make my 6 a winner, on which I would pitch my 6 of diamonds before cashing the ten of diamonds.
Conclusion: The Rule of Seven is an OK rule, but using a tool properly involves knowing when to use it.
(a) Axx opposite xxx
(b) Axxx opposite xxx
(c) Axx opposite xx
In each of the above scenarios, these are side suits, and as Declarer, they are immediately led at you.
The rule is thus:
Subtract the number of cards in your fit from 7. This gives you the number of times you need to duck.
Simple, right? For (a), the fit is 6, so 7-6 = 1. Duck ONCE and then win the Ace on the second round.
Using the same logic, you don't duck at all with (b), and you duck twice with (c).
Great. A rule that is as easy to remember as it is to use. So far, so good. But why does it work?
The mathematical logic is sound. Employing this rule helps you block the suit when the distribution is uneven. This means that when you win the trick, the only reason that both opponents can still hold a card in that suit is because the suit split as evenly as possible. This means that you can treat one hand as the "danger hand" and play to ensure that hand does not get in to cash tricks. (This is especially relevant Declaring NT contracts). It also means that you don't duck more than you need to.
Take, for example, option (a). The opponents's cards could be distributed 4-3, 5-2, 6-1 or 7-0. Obviously, when both opponents follow suit, they are at worst 6-1, and when you win the Ace on the second round and everyone follows, it is no worse than 5-2. You have now successfully cut the defence' communications in that suit. Unless the hand that started with 5 has another entry, they will never be able to cash their winners. If the split is 4-3, you have not cut communication, but they can only gather 2 further tricks from that suit.
Is this an Open and Shut case? This is Bridge; of course its not.
For example, consider the possibilities in (b). Not ducking still protects against a 5-1 split, but not against 4-2. This is the "exception" where you do not guarantee the suits splits as evenly as it possibly can. The reason the rule still applies is that 3-3 breaks are so unlikely anyway. It baffles me when I speak to players that still feel that a suit "SHOULD" split 3-3. No it shouldn't! You are entitled to that happening 35% of the time; no more. Alternatively, if you have 4 cards, you might promote a pip as as second trick so that's why the rule says not to duck.
HOWEVER, IF you took the view that: "I can afford to lose one trick that I don't need to lose, just to ensure that I don't lose three", you would reason that you need to duck once to protect against the 4-2 split.
The take away from this is two-fold:
1: Context matters
2: Sometimes the even split is the one you are worried about.
Consider this hand I played last night:
K84
1095
K1064
A32
AQJ
A72
Q82
KQ65
3NT by the bottom hand
Lead: 4 of hearts
Match Points
No opposition Bidding
Note the heart suit. The rule of Seven says I should duck once. I play the 5, the King appears, and I duck. The 6 is returned - I duck again. Why?
Well, I do not want to lose 3 heart tricks. I can see 3 spades, 1 heart, 3 clubs and 1 diamond trick. If the minors split 3-3 (which I have just pointed out I am NOT entitled to!), I can make 9, but I may need to lose the lead twice to set that up and that brings me down if they also get 3 hearts. I can afford TWO heart losers. I am giving the contract the best chance of making by ensuring that when I win the Ace of Hearts, the suit is blocked. Sure enough, when LHO returns a third heart, RHO pitches a spade. I have lost one more heart trick than necessary.
Some may be thinking that I am wrongly adopting a teams strategy here. The goal in Match Points is to make as many tricks as possible, so it is worth the risk just to ensure that I don't lose a trick un-necessarily. I disagree. Let's see why.
Now that I know I cannot afford LHO to gain the lead for any reason what so ever, I have to assume RHO has the Ace of diamonds. Otherwise, this contract has no play and it is irrelevant how many times I ducked. So, I cash King and Ace of Clubs, with both opponents following both times. I now play a small diamond from table, RHO follows, and I play the Queen. It wins! I'm now at 8 tricks; time to combine chances. I play a small diamond from hand - and the Jack appears from LHO. I cover with the King. RHO wins with the Ace, but this sets up my 10. I now know I am making this contract. In fact, as long as RHO does not have 5 spades, I am making an overtrick. Looks like I'm making the Match Points. RHO returns a spade - his best shot at defeating the contract. There's nothing he can do to stop me making 10 tricks, given his actual hand.
Why am I making ten instead of 9? The extra duck in hearts of course! Not only was it a prudent guard against the 4-3 break, it effectively rectified the Count for a minor suit squeeze. I win the spade with the Jack and cash my Queen of clubs. LHO discards, and now I know RHO started with 3=2=4=4 (4-4 in the minors). I play my Queen of Spades and overtake with the King, to ensure that on the last spade, I am winning in hand. Crucially, on the last spade, RHO has to discard. He squirms and pitches a diamond, and I now play my last diamond to the ten, and my 6 is now a winner. His alternative was to pitch his club, which would make my 6 a winner, on which I would pitch my 6 of diamonds before cashing the ten of diamonds.
Conclusion: The Rule of Seven is an OK rule, but using a tool properly involves knowing when to use it.
Friday 10 March 2017
Just one hand
So this is a bit of a "bonus"...
Paul Gipson has recently brought my attention to the Free Daylong tournaments on BBO. So far I've played two IMP events and finished with a positive score in the one where I was actually paying attention to what I was doing. I've also played one MP event and scored respectably in that.
I have just finished the Tuesday event for the 7th March (at time of writing - although obviously I can't publish this post until after it is completed), and had this interesting South hand:
A7642
AQ4
4
KQ82
Board 4, All Vul.
East opens a pre-emptive 3 Diamonds. A 3 Spades bid is tempting. It would get across my 5 card suit and although it promises 12-14, fifteen isn't too much of a lie here. However, with the singleton diamond and tolerance for all other suits, I double for takeout. Partner bids 4 Clubs, and really I should pass. That being said, if partner has shortage in the majors I feel 5 Clubs should at least have some play, so that is my call. As is the nature of the tournament, the computer swapped my seat so that I could declare.
K83
J53
Q62
A1054
A7642
AQ4
4
KQ82
East led the Jack of Diamonds to my singleton 4, West's Ace and 2 from my Declaring hand. A diamond was returned, I ducked and East's 8 was ruffed by dummy's 2 of clubs. I test clubs with the King, which draws East's Jack - looks like a 4-1 split.
Now I have a choice of lines. I could look to ruff the Queen of Diaomnds and hope it is not over-ruffed, or I could look to make sure that East never gets in. The key is the robot's bidding system. The robots play 3 Weak 2s, which significantly increases the likelihood of the 3 Diamonds bid genuinely holding 7 cards. Therefore, I cash the Queen of Clubs and note the 9 of Spades discard from East. I draw trumps, pitching the 4 of hearts and East discarding two diamonds. Now I cash King of Spades and am relieved to see East follow with the 5, but not so sure about the Queen from West. I now have to hope that the computer has been programmed not to pre-empt with a 4 card major, because if East has 4 spades, I'm coming down by quite a number. However, he shows out on the next round, which I win with the Ace, and I proceed by exiting a spade to West. That's two tricks for the defence, but West has only hearts left and must play into my AQ tenace, which together with my established spade suit makes 4 more tricks and+600.
I love it when a plan comes together!
Paul Gipson has recently brought my attention to the Free Daylong tournaments on BBO. So far I've played two IMP events and finished with a positive score in the one where I was actually paying attention to what I was doing. I've also played one MP event and scored respectably in that.
I have just finished the Tuesday event for the 7th March (at time of writing - although obviously I can't publish this post until after it is completed), and had this interesting South hand:
A7642
AQ4
4
KQ82
Board 4, All Vul.
East opens a pre-emptive 3 Diamonds. A 3 Spades bid is tempting. It would get across my 5 card suit and although it promises 12-14, fifteen isn't too much of a lie here. However, with the singleton diamond and tolerance for all other suits, I double for takeout. Partner bids 4 Clubs, and really I should pass. That being said, if partner has shortage in the majors I feel 5 Clubs should at least have some play, so that is my call. As is the nature of the tournament, the computer swapped my seat so that I could declare.
K83
J53
Q62
A1054
A7642
AQ4
4
KQ82
East led the Jack of Diamonds to my singleton 4, West's Ace and 2 from my Declaring hand. A diamond was returned, I ducked and East's 8 was ruffed by dummy's 2 of clubs. I test clubs with the King, which draws East's Jack - looks like a 4-1 split.
Now I have a choice of lines. I could look to ruff the Queen of Diaomnds and hope it is not over-ruffed, or I could look to make sure that East never gets in. The key is the robot's bidding system. The robots play 3 Weak 2s, which significantly increases the likelihood of the 3 Diamonds bid genuinely holding 7 cards. Therefore, I cash the Queen of Clubs and note the 9 of Spades discard from East. I draw trumps, pitching the 4 of hearts and East discarding two diamonds. Now I cash King of Spades and am relieved to see East follow with the 5, but not so sure about the Queen from West. I now have to hope that the computer has been programmed not to pre-empt with a 4 card major, because if East has 4 spades, I'm coming down by quite a number. However, he shows out on the next round, which I win with the Ace, and I proceed by exiting a spade to West. That's two tricks for the defence, but West has only hearts left and must play into my AQ tenace, which together with my established spade suit makes 4 more tricks and
I love it when a plan comes together!
Saturday 14 January 2017
District Teams of Four 2016-17 Round 3
Previously on this blog...
A653
1072
10954
K3
KJ107
AKQ
KJ8
AJ6
Contract: 4 Spades
Opening Lead: 3 Diamonds
No opposition bidding
After RHO wins the Ace of diamonds and returns a small one, I am faced with the decision between playing the Jack, to guard against the singleton lead, or play the King with the hope of winning the trick.
Despite the fact that this looks very like a singleton lead, I reason I should play the King. If LHO led from Qxxx (quite possible), then playing the Jack risks coming down after it loses to the Queen, followed by a diamond ruff and a failed guess in the trump suit. Unfortunately, the King is ruffed, but I now take advantage of the extra chance. I win the club return with the Jack (a heart return would have been no more successful), and then unblock clubs. I now cash my 4 winners in the rounded suits, pitching a diamond in dummy. A small spade to the Ace is next. When both defenders follow, I can now confidently play a small spade off table with intent to finesse if RHO follows small. Losing the finesse is of no consequence since that will have exhausted all the opposing trumps. LHO will be forced to give me a ruff and discard. As it happens, the Queen appears, so although I have to give up the diamond I still have ten tricks.
That was "previously", when I was entertaining thoughts on updating this blog regularly. Since then, there have been a number of things I could've blogged about and didn't, but in my defence, November and December is a busy time.
So Happy New Year, and on to my first major event of 2017: The District Teams of Four, Round 3. Things have changed since the last time I blogged about this competition. For one thing, I'm not the Convener any more. Those rains have been handed over to Abigail Wilson, and she has put her own stamp on it, while I get to take a back seat and concentrate on playing. Well, that was the plan. On Round 1 I had to pull a movement out of my sleeve at short notice, and I'm not sure the use of the continuous VP scale has been popular (I'll get over it).
For another thing, none of my original team remain. Abi has moved on becausethere was no way she wanted another season partnering me she needs to play in a team of Juniors to realise her International ambitions - good for the event as for the first time since I was a Junior, the event has an all-Junior team again. Even better, it is an all-Junior team that are title challengers. Lessurl moved to Englandshire and the others became unavailable. Before that, however, my team did win the title a couple of years in succession.
We are not defending Champions however, and my team consist of 3 players that have not been on my team (in this event) before. We're not the strongest incarnation of a team Captained by me and we don't pretend to be, but we hoped to be "dark horses" for the title.
The premise was interesting enough. Nine teams, one Round Robin, 14 board matches. I like long matches (have I mentioned that enough?). and against the best players in the District it is a stern test. It is competitive - of the nine teams, at the start of the season I'd have said 6 have a genuine chance of being Champions, if I count my own team. After two rounds (four matches), the results seem to bear that out, although it's not the original 6. The standings were:
Bill Ross: 56.04
Maureen Mowat: 48.38
Alisdair McLeod: 48.25
Norman McLeod: 48.00
Sandy Duncan: 47.18
Abigail Wilson: 36.45
Maggie Payne: 27.45
Donald Campbell: 26.10
Loraine Findlay: 22.15
Of course, that does not tell the full story so a little context. Donald Campbell is one of the 6 teams I expected to be "Contenders". However, his first match was against my team and it was one of those where my team could do no wrong; we collected 19.47VPs from that match. They won their other match that night, but not by much, and that was against my Dad, who, with all due respect, is not going to be District Teams of Four Champion (although his whole team are definitely good enough to have a major say in who is). After a shock defeat by Findlay, and another thrashing at the hands of Duncan, it seems his team's chances are all but over. I do predict, however, that his team will rise up the table and one or more of the "Contenders" will have their title hopes scuppered as a result.
Conversely, my Dad's team are doing well and are still within half a match of the summit at the half way stage. Unfortunately, it could be argued that his team are in a false position with pre-season favourites Duncan, Champions Mowat, Challengers Wilson and Champions Elect Ross to play. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for them to pull of a "Leicester City".
Bill Ross has consistently put together a very strong team year upon year and yet has somehow never won it as far as I can remember. This, however, I am pretty sure, will be his year. Not only does he have an 8VP lead at the half way stage, but he has played all 4 of the other Contenders that are still in the hunt. The title is theirs to throw away. That's my Half Time prediction and I don't care who knows it.
As for my team? I'm just glad if we can still call ourselves "Contenders". 3 wins and 1 heavy defeat in the first half leaves us with no margin of error, and we have to hope for at least 1 shock result in other matches.
So, for Round 3.
First up for partner and I was a "must-win" match against bottom-of-the-table Findlay. Loraine and I know each other very well as we work together on a lot of District issues. She was fielding a couple of substitutes for this match and it was hard to predict what the net result would be. One was Sandra Schwitz, who most would argue strengthens the line-up somewhat. The other was a 15 year old, who I will here refer to as "my young padouin", as he shows great promise and I have taken him under my wing in club games where the chance has arisen. For that reason I know that when he sets his mind to it, he is a formidable opponent and very unpredictable. I was expecting a tough match - and that's exactly what I got.
The very first board, I held:
K109
AKJ8743
---
A106
(All Vul)
LHO is Dealer and it goes Pass-Pass-1S to me. I double, with the intention of rebidding hearts. LHO bids 2 Spades, and sure enough this is passed round to me, so I say 3 Hearts. LHO competes to 3 Spades which prompts RHO to bid 4, and I double. Partner pulls this to 5 Hearts. This was an excellent call as he held:
52
Q1062
106543
32
A spade is led, and for good measure I wait until trick 3 to claim 11 tricks. What makes my partner's 5 Hearts bid even better is that 4 Spades Doubled will make (unless I find a small heart lead from AKJ8743, which I won't). At the other table, Loraine and my young padouin allowed our team-mates to play in 4 Spades, for +16IMPs.
When I say "tough match", I suspect our opponents found it somewhat tougher. Partner and I had few decisions to make, but when we did, we got them right (with one exception), allowing Sandra and her partner for the evening no leeway. Our team-mates, it transpired, had a string of good results, finding any Game going and a Slam as well. In the end we earned 20VPs with plenty IMPs to spare. The only "miss" was this:
AQ1084
8
K103
10985
3
KJ9652
AQ84
AJ
All Vul
Contract: 3NT
West was Dealer and passed. With the North hand, I opened 2 Spades, showing 5-10 points, at least 5 spades, and at least 4 in any other suit. Partner enquired about my second suit with 2NT, followed by 3 Hearts, which is an interesting call. When asked about it, my jovial reply was: "I hope it's hearts!". I then further explained that logically, it looked to me like he was giving me a long suit to see if 3NT was viable. These explanations were after I had bid 3NT, which ended the auction. It makes sense for partner to bid 3 Hearts here, as I could be 5=3=4=1, but since I was 5=1=4=3, with promising filling in the minors, I bid 3NT.
The two of clubs is led to the 5, King and Ace. Partner's next play is Jack of Clubs, which West ducks. Partner then finesses the Queen of Spades, which holds, and plays a heart off table to the King, which also holds. That's an excellent guess which in the fullness of time earned 9 tricks. Dealmaster says 6 Diamonds is on, but I reckon if we bid Slam on hands like that, we'll be coming down an awful lot. As it was, +600 converted to +10IMPs.
The other match was against Abigail Wilson's team. This is something that both teams would have seen as a "Knockout" match, in as much as the losing side could virtually give up on the title. Unfortunately for our opponents, they had to field a weakened side. My RHO has only been learning the game for 4 weeks, so was really up against it. Put yourself in his shoes.
You hold:
KQ8
984
AJ864
A6
Starting with RHO, the uncontested auction is: 1H-1NT-2S-3NT
Partner leads the 4 of clubs, and dummy is:
A542
AKQJ32
10
105
Declarer plays the 5 from Dummy and you rise with your Ace, drawing the 3 from Declarer. How do you defend and what card do you play next?
It's tempting to return a club and that probably will work, but will likely result in Declarer only coming 1 off instead of 2. Instead, he switches to the King of Spades, which sets up two spade tricks in addition to partner's KQ of clubs and the Ace of diamonds. How many experienced players would find this defence?
I was feeling pretty cheesed off with myself at that point in the match, having missed a chance to defeat a cold Game on the previous board, but as the net result from the two was -1 IMP, I'll chalk it up to "could have been worse".
My LHO had a job to do here:
872
KJ7
9876
K63
He's on lead against 3NT after his RHO opens 1NT (12-14), and the bidding proceeds, without interference: 2C (NP Stayman) - 2 Hearts - 3NT.
What should he lead?
My sympathies are entirely with my opponent here. We bid a thin Game and got away with it. I agree with his choice of lead and would most likely have done the same, but on this occasion it allowed the contract to make.
Our team-mates came back with what they were sure was a losing card, and we had to settle for a 19-IMP win.
If we were in contention beforehand, we're still in contention now. 35.06VPs from 40 is not a bad evening's work. I write this before the scores at the doors are published, but my hope is that we have at least closed the gap on Bill Ross. The Norman McLeod, Maureen Mowat and Sandy Duncan teams all played each other, all winning one and losing one, so a quick glance at the Half-Way scores tells me we can be doing no worse than 2nd place at the moment. If the leaders had a bad night (which I doubt), we might even be leading. Hopefully I willremember find the time to blog about the final night, just in case any readers are interested in how we do.
A653
1072
10954
K3
KJ107
AKQ
KJ8
AJ6
Contract: 4 Spades
Opening Lead: 3 Diamonds
No opposition bidding
After RHO wins the Ace of diamonds and returns a small one, I am faced with the decision between playing the Jack, to guard against the singleton lead, or play the King with the hope of winning the trick.
Despite the fact that this looks very like a singleton lead, I reason I should play the King. If LHO led from Qxxx (quite possible), then playing the Jack risks coming down after it loses to the Queen, followed by a diamond ruff and a failed guess in the trump suit. Unfortunately, the King is ruffed, but I now take advantage of the extra chance. I win the club return with the Jack (a heart return would have been no more successful), and then unblock clubs. I now cash my 4 winners in the rounded suits, pitching a diamond in dummy. A small spade to the Ace is next. When both defenders follow, I can now confidently play a small spade off table with intent to finesse if RHO follows small. Losing the finesse is of no consequence since that will have exhausted all the opposing trumps. LHO will be forced to give me a ruff and discard. As it happens, the Queen appears, so although I have to give up the diamond I still have ten tricks.
That was "previously", when I was entertaining thoughts on updating this blog regularly. Since then, there have been a number of things I could've blogged about and didn't, but in my defence, November and December is a busy time.
So Happy New Year, and on to my first major event of 2017: The District Teams of Four, Round 3. Things have changed since the last time I blogged about this competition. For one thing, I'm not the Convener any more. Those rains have been handed over to Abigail Wilson, and she has put her own stamp on it, while I get to take a back seat and concentrate on playing. Well, that was the plan. On Round 1 I had to pull a movement out of my sleeve at short notice, and I'm not sure the use of the continuous VP scale has been popular (I'll get over it).
For another thing, none of my original team remain. Abi has moved on because
We are not defending Champions however, and my team consist of 3 players that have not been on my team (in this event) before. We're not the strongest incarnation of a team Captained by me and we don't pretend to be, but we hoped to be "dark horses" for the title.
The premise was interesting enough. Nine teams, one Round Robin, 14 board matches. I like long matches (have I mentioned that enough?). and against the best players in the District it is a stern test. It is competitive - of the nine teams, at the start of the season I'd have said 6 have a genuine chance of being Champions, if I count my own team. After two rounds (four matches), the results seem to bear that out, although it's not the original 6. The standings were:
Bill Ross: 56.04
Maureen Mowat: 48.38
Alisdair McLeod: 48.25
Norman McLeod: 48.00
Sandy Duncan: 47.18
Abigail Wilson: 36.45
Maggie Payne: 27.45
Donald Campbell: 26.10
Loraine Findlay: 22.15
Of course, that does not tell the full story so a little context. Donald Campbell is one of the 6 teams I expected to be "Contenders". However, his first match was against my team and it was one of those where my team could do no wrong; we collected 19.47VPs from that match. They won their other match that night, but not by much, and that was against my Dad, who, with all due respect, is not going to be District Teams of Four Champion (although his whole team are definitely good enough to have a major say in who is). After a shock defeat by Findlay, and another thrashing at the hands of Duncan, it seems his team's chances are all but over. I do predict, however, that his team will rise up the table and one or more of the "Contenders" will have their title hopes scuppered as a result.
Conversely, my Dad's team are doing well and are still within half a match of the summit at the half way stage. Unfortunately, it could be argued that his team are in a false position with pre-season favourites Duncan, Champions Mowat, Challengers Wilson and Champions Elect Ross to play. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for them to pull of a "Leicester City".
Bill Ross has consistently put together a very strong team year upon year and yet has somehow never won it as far as I can remember. This, however, I am pretty sure, will be his year. Not only does he have an 8VP lead at the half way stage, but he has played all 4 of the other Contenders that are still in the hunt. The title is theirs to throw away. That's my Half Time prediction and I don't care who knows it.
As for my team? I'm just glad if we can still call ourselves "Contenders". 3 wins and 1 heavy defeat in the first half leaves us with no margin of error, and we have to hope for at least 1 shock result in other matches.
So, for Round 3.
First up for partner and I was a "must-win" match against bottom-of-the-table Findlay. Loraine and I know each other very well as we work together on a lot of District issues. She was fielding a couple of substitutes for this match and it was hard to predict what the net result would be. One was Sandra Schwitz, who most would argue strengthens the line-up somewhat. The other was a 15 year old, who I will here refer to as "my young padouin", as he shows great promise and I have taken him under my wing in club games where the chance has arisen. For that reason I know that when he sets his mind to it, he is a formidable opponent and very unpredictable. I was expecting a tough match - and that's exactly what I got.
The very first board, I held:
K109
AKJ8743
---
A106
(All Vul)
LHO is Dealer and it goes Pass-Pass-1S to me. I double, with the intention of rebidding hearts. LHO bids 2 Spades, and sure enough this is passed round to me, so I say 3 Hearts. LHO competes to 3 Spades which prompts RHO to bid 4, and I double. Partner pulls this to 5 Hearts. This was an excellent call as he held:
52
Q1062
106543
32
A spade is led, and for good measure I wait until trick 3 to claim 11 tricks. What makes my partner's 5 Hearts bid even better is that 4 Spades Doubled will make (unless I find a small heart lead from AKJ8743, which I won't). At the other table, Loraine and my young padouin allowed our team-mates to play in 4 Spades, for +16IMPs.
When I say "tough match", I suspect our opponents found it somewhat tougher. Partner and I had few decisions to make, but when we did, we got them right (with one exception), allowing Sandra and her partner for the evening no leeway. Our team-mates, it transpired, had a string of good results, finding any Game going and a Slam as well. In the end we earned 20VPs with plenty IMPs to spare. The only "miss" was this:
AQ1084
8
K103
10985
3
KJ9652
AQ84
AJ
All Vul
Contract: 3NT
West was Dealer and passed. With the North hand, I opened 2 Spades, showing 5-10 points, at least 5 spades, and at least 4 in any other suit. Partner enquired about my second suit with 2NT, followed by 3 Hearts, which is an interesting call. When asked about it, my jovial reply was: "I hope it's hearts!". I then further explained that logically, it looked to me like he was giving me a long suit to see if 3NT was viable. These explanations were after I had bid 3NT, which ended the auction. It makes sense for partner to bid 3 Hearts here, as I could be 5=3=4=1, but since I was 5=1=4=3, with promising filling in the minors, I bid 3NT.
The two of clubs is led to the 5, King and Ace. Partner's next play is Jack of Clubs, which West ducks. Partner then finesses the Queen of Spades, which holds, and plays a heart off table to the King, which also holds. That's an excellent guess which in the fullness of time earned 9 tricks. Dealmaster says 6 Diamonds is on, but I reckon if we bid Slam on hands like that, we'll be coming down an awful lot. As it was, +600 converted to +10IMPs.
The other match was against Abigail Wilson's team. This is something that both teams would have seen as a "Knockout" match, in as much as the losing side could virtually give up on the title. Unfortunately for our opponents, they had to field a weakened side. My RHO has only been learning the game for 4 weeks, so was really up against it. Put yourself in his shoes.
You hold:
KQ8
984
AJ864
A6
Starting with RHO, the uncontested auction is: 1H-1NT-2S-3NT
Partner leads the 4 of clubs, and dummy is:
A542
AKQJ32
10
105
Declarer plays the 5 from Dummy and you rise with your Ace, drawing the 3 from Declarer. How do you defend and what card do you play next?
It's tempting to return a club and that probably will work, but will likely result in Declarer only coming 1 off instead of 2. Instead, he switches to the King of Spades, which sets up two spade tricks in addition to partner's KQ of clubs and the Ace of diamonds. How many experienced players would find this defence?
I was feeling pretty cheesed off with myself at that point in the match, having missed a chance to defeat a cold Game on the previous board, but as the net result from the two was -1 IMP, I'll chalk it up to "could have been worse".
My LHO had a job to do here:
872
KJ7
9876
K63
He's on lead against 3NT after his RHO opens 1NT (12-14), and the bidding proceeds, without interference: 2C (NP Stayman) - 2 Hearts - 3NT.
What should he lead?
My sympathies are entirely with my opponent here. We bid a thin Game and got away with it. I agree with his choice of lead and would most likely have done the same, but on this occasion it allowed the contract to make.
Our team-mates came back with what they were sure was a losing card, and we had to settle for a 19-IMP win.
If we were in contention beforehand, we're still in contention now. 35.06VPs from 40 is not a bad evening's work. I write this before the scores at the doors are published, but my hope is that we have at least closed the gap on Bill Ross. The Norman McLeod, Maureen Mowat and Sandy Duncan teams all played each other, all winning one and losing one, so a quick glance at the Half-Way scores tells me we can be doing no worse than 2nd place at the moment. If the leaders had a bad night (which I doubt), we might even be leading. Hopefully I will
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)