JLW's bridge blog

NYC Board-a-Match

2011-01-04T23:37:00.002-06:00

I had a good time last week at the NYC regional and came in a close 4th in the board-a-match...close to 2nd, that is. The winners were about 6 boards clear of the field! I wrote up a cute hand where I could have reduced the margin a small amount -- check out http://www.bridgewinners.com/blogs/nyc-bam-validating-an-insult.html

Check out Bridge Winners

2010-11-11T00:10:00.002-06:00

Hi Everyone,

I'm not playing much lately and have less time to blog. In the unlikely event that any readers here haven't seen it, I highly recommend the new site Bridge Winners created by Gavin Wolpert, Jason Feldman and others. It's attracting columns by a lot of great people. I've been commenting regularly...you might check out Kit Woolsey's latest exciting hand and my comments. As a theory nerd I can occasionally point out something interesting even to players who are much better than I am.

Bottom line: I will leave this site up, and still love bridge, but don't expect too much activity! If I do come up with something I might write an entry over at Bridge Winners, which has become bridge central. Many thanks to everyone who has regularly read and commented here!

Jonathan

Robot madness

2010-09-28T15:17:00.002-05:00

Regular readers know that I'm fairly unbiased on this blog, in terms of including lots of hands I messed up, etc., right? I hope this gives me license to publicize the following. Last night I substantially broke my previous record in a (12-board) robot duplicate, scoring 77.1%. I resolved not to play for a while, since my next effort would surely disappoint, right? Well, but I couldn't resist a game today, and as predicted I couldn't live up to last night, scoring 74.8%, my second-best score ever. :-) Yay, 2.4 masterpoints. Now I really shouldn't play for a while.

Good luck to everyone in Philly...I'm not going, have to get back to work.

Bidding Problem

2010-08-11T18:00:00.001-05:00

Here’s an interesting hand to bid from the Spingold. I had a promising collection in 1^st seat white/red, AKQxxx Kxxxx x x, which got better when partner responded with Jacoby 2nt. What is your plan? Assume standard Jacoby where 4x=5-card suit and at least a sound opener. I don’t think any of the popular modifications exactly solve this hand either.

Update on the mysterious origins of the fatal hand

2010-08-07T16:48:00.002-05:00

I was curious enough to get in touch with the author, Gary Pomerantz, who was kind enough to send a prompt reply:

---------

Hi Jonathan, Thanks for your very nice email. On the night Jack Bennett was killed, the Hofmans were interviewed by Kansas City police. Both Mayme and Charles Hofman indicated that they could not remember the distribution of cards in the so-called "Fatal Hand." Myrtle was delirious on that night, and into the wee hours, and was given a sedative. To my knowlege, she was never asked about the distribution of cards. My Best, GP

---------

I agree with Mr. Pomerantz that this makes it almost certain that the deal was a fabrication. What I gather, though, is that he doesn't have any first or second-hand accounts of the actual concoction, but as far as he knows it first appeared in The Bridge World so he assumes they were the ones who made it up. He is very likely to be right. If there were any bridge-playing cops on the scene (not so far-fetched in 1929) they *might* have been able to reconstruct the deal, but one would expect there to be a record of such a thing happening, and The Bridge World might have mentioned that, so I really doubt such a reconstruction happened.

The fatal hand

2010-08-07T13:38:00.002-05:00

I just read "The Devil's Tickets" by Gary Pomerantz, a very entertaining book published a couple of years ago (targeted to non-bridge-players) which details both the famous Bennett bridge murder and the rise of Ely Culbertson as the nation's bridge guru. I've seen the "fatal hand" which led to the murder many times in bridge publications. Interestingly, this book states that aside from the bidding, the fatal hand itself is a fabrication! The participants were social players who wouldn't have been able to reconstruct the exact cards, especially since the declarer was dead.

Unfortunately, though the book is mostly footnoted, the author gives no source for the claim of fabrication, which I nonetheless tend to believe. He says that the hand was constructed by Sidney Lenz and first appeared in The Bridge World as part of Culbertson's never-ending search for publicity. It has since been reproduced many times. If someone has the latest Bridge Encyclopedia, I am curious whether there is any mention of the supposed hand being a construction.

Too bad Hercule Poirot wasn't on the scene with the police; he would surely have reconstructed the hands accurately, even though the tricks were gathered rubber-bridge style. Yes, I also recommend "Cards on the Table" to those who have missed it.

Not so fast (updated)

2010-07-31T14:34:00.003-05:00

Here is a hand I enjoyed playing from our first-round loss in the Spingold. I was in 3C with

963 6542 QJ K873

KT54 7 K5 AQJ962

on the uncontested auction 1C-1D!(hearts)-1S-2C-3C. I considered the 3C bid very close; apparently at the other table they thought a long time and passed. Anyway, it’s nice to see the opponents can make 4D and probably 4H. Could I make 3C? They led a heart to the A and the DA. I dropped the DK in case I needed the entry; since I did this in tempo, I guess they were afraid I was 4-2-1-6 and they fatally played a second heart. I ruffed with the 9, played a diamond to dummy for a heart ruff, and played the CQ to the K, very pleased when lefty had stiff T. I could claim now; I eliminated the last heart with a high ruff, crossed to the C8 pulling the last trump, and led a spade planning to cover RHO’s card for the endplay. The opposing spades were AJx/Qxx so this was a very nice result requiring a little help from the defense. Fun. But on later sober reflection, I realized I played this hand wrong! Do you see why? Answer tomorrow.

The result was a 1-imp pickup when our teammates didn’t get in the auction either and were -90.

---------------------------------

The actual right way to play: I should use my trump entry before the diamond entry. This works just as well when the T drops, but leaves me better placed when it doesn't to make against both A onside and Qx or Jx onside, because I find out the trump position earlier. Work it out.

A 5-or-7 hand, at the one-level

2010-07-30T15:54:00.003-05:00

I was kibitzing a hand from the Spingold QFs where Fantoni, in a 3-card ending, wound up having to guess whether the opposing trumps were initially 97/KJ54 or 95/KJ74. This was necessary in order to get out for 800 instead of 1100 in 1S doubled! In particular, declarer’s trumps were initially T863/AQ2. LHO had earlier overruffed declarer’s 8 with the 9, righty had ruffed a plain suit with the 4, dummy had ruffed with the A to avoid an overruff, and RHO had just ruffed ahead of declarer with the J, leaving a remaining trump position of

x Ky

T63

where {x,y}={5,7}. Now RHO led a suit where declarer and LHO but not dummy were void. To take 2 tricks, declarer must ruff with the 6 if x=5, but with the T if x=7. Yikes! The commentators were all saying this was a pure guess. A waste of time to even think about it, right? What possible inference could there be about the 5 and 7? There is one clue, though…do you see it? Answer below.

The key is to ask yourself whether either defender had a choice of how to defend with either holding. For lefty, there is no inference whatsoever as he had no choice from either 97 or 95. RHO, though, could have ruffed with the 5 or 4 from KJ54, but his choice would be restricted to the 4 from KJ74. That’s right, restricted choice operates on the 5 and 4 spots! Declarer should therefore play righty for KJ74 and ruff with the 6. By the way, it’s a very good habit to play randomly from equivalent spots when you are not signaling…this doesn’t require that you foresee esoteric positions like this, it’s just good general technique that minimizes declarer’s information.

In real life, Fantoni ruffed with the T and was punished with -1100. At the other table, oddly, they got to 2H-X in a slightly stronger 4-3 fit and did two tricks better for -800. You can see the hand record here.

Thanks to vugraph operator Dan Wolkowitz for the joke in the title. He’s the best I’ve seen at operating accurately and making good comments at the same time.

The patient lived, but...

2010-07-12T11:36:00.006-05:00

Some of you saw the NYT column where I was in 6C with

x Axxxxx Kxx K92

Ax Kx AQJx AT543

after LHO overcalled 1S and righty bid 4S, and Franco did very well to pull my double to 5C. Unfortunately, I didn't play this hand well. My problems started when lefty led a diamond which I wrongly assumed was shortness, so that he (if anyone) was likely to have trump length. I then debated whether I was willing to safety the trumps (CA, club to 9) and decided it wasn't worth the extra risks and I should just stick to basics and play for clubs 3-2 after which it's a claim. BUT having decided that, I should make sure to also make against stiff Q or J of trumps. (For instance, CK, SA, spade ruff*.) However, with the idea of lefty having the trumps being an idee fixe, and thinking I was just banging down AK trumps anyway, I started trumps with CA and another, lefty having stiff J as it happened. Now, since I couldn't ruff a spade, I was forced to rely on hearts 3-2, and fortunately they were, but unfortunately I'm the kind of person who is haunted by this kind of thing anyway. For the record, my play blows the slam about 4% of the time, but more than that it's just ugly. Naturally I'm hoping this confession will be good for the soul.

*Best start is actually CK, C2...rho might split from QJxx. If no honor appears, you have a close decision whether to go up A or hook the T. Probably the T, but depends how you read the opening lead.

To cleanse the mental palate, here's a bread-and-butter, but non-routine, hand from the R16 that I played right:

Q9853 QJxx x Kxx

AJT74 --- AKxx Axxx

I was in 6S at white/red, after P-P-1S-(2S)-4S-(5H)-6S-AP. They led HK. Try it if you like. More next time. Update: see lengthy analysis on this hand in the comments.

Deep Six

2010-07-04T12:42:00.001-05:00

After a slight bidding mishap in the round-robin, we wound up in a 6nt that (after a somewhat marked double-hook against an overcaller in his suit) required 5 tricks from AKJ62/T87 with plentiful transportation. Thanks to those juicy middle spots, you can pick up all 4-1 breaks with the Q onside after cashing the A in case of stiff Q, then running the T. In fact lefty did have Q9xx and we made it. I record this hand only because I can’t recall another instance of making a slam because of a crucial 6-spot.

Of course you can pick up Q9xx double-dummy without the 6, but only at the risk of blowing to 9x offside. This is hand 50 at http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2010/2ndRR46-54.PDF. Given the luck involved, I’m happy to report that both teams involved were going to qualify by at least 10 VPs regardless of the outcome on this hand.

Unusual sacrifice

2010-06-28T12:41:00.004-05:00

After an unexpectedly long week, I must get back to work, so for the moment I’ll just finish the story of that highly successful “save” against 3nt from two posts ago. Note: We actually played more than any other team, since all the other semifinalists had QF byes.

Anyway this hand was from the penultimate match in the first round-robin. (Board 65 at http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2010/RR64-72.PDF.) At this point we were above water but certainly not a lock to qualify. Looking back at the hand records, I see I was 2^nd seat not 3^rd. I held AJ7 J3 KQJ98 J93 white/white and heard the auction I mentioned:

P-1D-2C-2H;

2NT-P-3NT-P;

P-??

Now here are the opponents in 3nt, and I know they have less than half the hcp. It has to be a bit tempting to double, but let’s give them some credit. They almost certainly have at least the two red aces and six club tricks for down 1…this was my first estimate. As I thought longer, I decided lefty almost had to have 7 clubs for both of them to have reasonable bids. Clubs were likely to be 7-3-2-1 around the table, and partner to have a light distributional 2H bid. So I wasn’t doubling…should I save? It’s certainly odd to save over 3nt with a balanced shape and no established fit, but partner must be distributional, so we shouldn’t be down very many with my having no wastage opposite his hope-for stiff club, and we might just make something. I decided to take a shot. I didn’t know if we should be in hearts or diamonds so I bid 4C, the famous pick-a-save cuebid. Partner chose hearts with K9x KQT98x xxx x and was able to wrap up 590 despite a 5-0 trump break when they could only tap him once – as Franco noted, both 3nt and 4H require clubs 7-2 to make. (Also, his S9 was good enough to freeze that suit from attack.) That was a 21-imp improvement on -400 since our teammates sold to 3D, -110. We seemed to gain momentum after this hand and blitzed this match to virtually clinch survival of the first cut.

USBC seeding is fairly accurate

2010-06-24T07:32:00.002-05:00

The teams remaining were originally ranked 1,2,3... and 20 of 23 entrants. 1,2,3 had byes to the QF and all won by at least 73, though #1 Nickell's match was close most of the way. This is a completely neutral report :-).

Cute problem from Round Robin

2010-06-22T08:50:00.003-05:00

Not going to take much time on posts since we're still alive in the QF today, but here's an interesting hand to declare. You are in 4S:

Tx QJxxx QJxxx x

AKQJxx Kxx A Kxx

You are in 4S and your diabolical LHO, Justin Lall, leads a trump. At the other table, no trump lead and it makes. How do you play to try to avoid losing 12 imps?

USBC RR in progress

2010-06-19T21:59:00.003-05:00

I’m resting between days of the USBC and won’t describe any hands in detail. Just let me tell you the auction on one of my favorite hands of all time. I was 3rd seat both white and it went:

P-P-1D-2C;

2H-2NT-P-3NT;

P-P-4C(!)-P:

4H-X-AP

Cold for +590…on a hand where the opponents had done very well to bid a cold 3nt on 19 hcp! They fell from grace and didn't save in 4nt, but the doubler did have 5 trumps(!). Try to reconstruct the hand :-). More after the event is over.

K98xxx opposite J7x -- lose at most 2

2010-05-15T21:39:00.002-05:00

I hadn't seen this one before today. The answer, I believe, is to run the 9 (or low to 7.) This loses only to stiff T offside. Other plays lose to 2 cases, one 3-1 break and one 4-0 break (lots of choice as to which), while this one picks up both 4-0s.

On a lighter note

2010-05-11T22:04:00.002-05:00

A few years ago, someone clipped an article from the Bridge Bulletin about the Cavendish pairs to show my grandmother. They knew she had a bridge-playing grandson named Weinstein. My grandmother was pretty with it, but past 90 and could be a little confused about things sometimes. Anyway, she showed me the article and said, "It's wonderful you won this tournament, but it's a terrible picture of you! And they got your name wrong, you're not Steve!"

Congratulations to *Steve* Weinstein and Bobby Levin for winning the Cavendish an ever-more-absurd number of times. And Steve shouldn't take offense about the "terrible picture"; in my grandmother's world, all her descendants should be models.

USBC RR Format: Avoiding Sitouts

2010-05-04T02:01:00.002-05:00

Hi all,

I'm planning to send this message to the USBF powers-that-be tomorrow. Any comments welcome.

I noticed that the current tentative schedule calls for RR1 to be 72 boards (81 appear on the schedule, but each team has a sitout for one of the nine 9-board matches.) Given that the conditions of contest call for “approximately 60 boards per day, erring on the low side,” 72 boards for a 1.5-day round-robin seems low. 10-board matches, 80 total, would be closer to ideal. One constraint which must be entering into this is that the sitout round takes time out of the day. With mostly 6-baggers, I doubt teams are clamoring for a sitout in the first stage. I want to suggest an 8-round movement without sitouts, which I have tried to design to function as smoothly as possible. (I did combinatorics research at one time and enjoy thinking about bridge movements. I hear there is a treatment for this.) The idea is that at any time you have 3 teams in a 3-way and the rest in 2-ways. Here is the movement:

Round 1: 1-2-3 4-8 5-7 6-9

Round 2: 1-2-3 4-9 5-8 6-7

Round 3: 4-5-6 1-8 2-7 3-9

Round 4: 4-5-6 1-9 2-8 3-7

Round 5: 7-8-9 1-5 2-4 3-6

Round 6: 7-8-9 1-6 2-5 3-4

Round 7: 1-4-7 2-6 3-8 5-9

Round 8: 1-4-7 2-9 3-5 6-8

Comments:
1. Three-ways create a slight security issue, because boards are played out of order. But with only one in each division at a time, the 3-ways can all be put in closed rooms, with the NSs expected not to leave their room for the 2 rounds and the EWs monitored as they switch rooms. Substitutions between halves of a 3-way are problematic and should probably be prohibited.

2. I recommend no comparisons be allowed between rounds 7 and 8. Comparisons can be allowed after other odd rounds if the 3-way teams are sequestered. The only teams with 2 3-ways have their second one at the end, and they could complain if everyone but them knows where they stand after 7. It’s probably best regardless of the movement, anyway, to disallow comparisons just before the final round.

3. This movement makes it impossible for all teams to play identical boards, to a slightly greater extent than do sitouts. I have tried to mitigate this issue, but a 3-way inevitably requires 3 sets of boards, so one of these must differ from the 2 sets played during the 3-way by the rest of the field. This mean 4 of the 36 matches will involve “odd boards,” which seems minor. The movement uses 12 sets of boards, with 8 being used in 4 matches each and 4 in 1 match each. Any pair of teams will play 6/8 or 7/8 sets of boards in common, while in the sit-out movement it would be always 7/8.

I believe that under this movement, 10-board rounds can be played in a reasonable time-frame. Only the first day might be long, with 6 10-board sets, but eliminating breaks after odd rounds would deal with this and doesn’t seem too onerous; many tables finish early anyway. Teams could be told “You can compare after odd rounds, but there is no extra time allotted for this.” The second morning would be very quick, 20 boards with no break, allowing plenty of time to transition into RR2. RR2, with an even number of teams, and the KOs are boring for the movementologist, but who knows, the bridge might be interesting.

Random seeding gripe

2010-04-30T14:47:00.002-05:00

In the ACBL seeding system, points for winning or placing in a major event decay arithmetically. So, you get 11-n points for winning the Spingold n years ago. Suppose "Bob" won in 2000 and 2001, and "Zia" won in 2003. As of 2004, Bob gets more points than Zia, 15 to 10, which seems fair. But when we get to 2010, suddenly Zia's win is worth more than Bob's two, 4 to 3. To put it differently, it looks crazy that a win 9 years ago is twice as good as a win 10 years ago, while wins initially decay only mildly, 10% a year.

I suggest an exponential decay factor, maybe .9. This would avoid these odd reversals. Given my (lack of) record in major events, my gripe has no self-interest component.

Foul trouble

2010-04-27T08:47:00.002-05:00

Most game-players are sports fans, so I'm throwing in a little essay I wrote on foul trouble. It was targeted for an econ blog, and uses one or two technical terms, but they aren't central.

----------

In a professional basketball game, a player is disqualified (“fouls out”) if he is charged with 6 personal fouls. Observers of the NBA know that the direct effect of fouling out actually has less impact than the indirect effect of “foul trouble.” That is, if a player has a dangerous number of fouls, the coach will voluntarily bench him for part of the game, to lessen the chance of fouling out. Coaches seem to roughly use the rule of thumb that a player with n fouls should sit until n/6 of the game has passed. Allowing a player to play with 3 fouls in the first half is a particular taboo. On rare occasions when this taboo is broken, the announcers will invariably say something like, “They’re taking a big risk here; you really don’t want him to get his 4^th.”

Is the rule of thumb reasonable? No! First let’s consider a simple baseline model: Suppose I simply want to maximize the number of minutes my star player is in the game. When should I risk putting him back in the game after his nth foul? The phrasing is deceptive, because I shouldn’t bench him at all! Those of you who haven’t been brainwashed by the conventional wisdom on “foul trouble” probably find this obvious. The proof is simple: if he sits, the only thing that has changed when he gets back in is that there is less time left in the game, so his expected minutes have clearly gone down (in fact the new distribution on minutes is first-order stochastically dominated, being just a truncation.)

OK, while I believe the above argument is very relevant, it oversimplified the objective function, which in practice is not simply to maximize minutes. I’ll discuss caveats now, but please note, there is tremendous value in understanding the baseline case. It teaches that we should pay attention to foul trouble only insofar as our objective is not to maximize minutes. I am very comfortable asserting that coaches don’t understand this!

First caveat: players are more effective when rested. In fact, top stars normally play about 40 of 48 minutes. If it becomes likely that a player will be limited to 30-35 minutes by fouling out, we may be better off loading those minutes further towards the end of the game to maximize his efficiency. Notice, though, that this doesn’t lead to anything resembling the n/6 rule of thumb. It says we should put him back in, at the very latest, when he is fully rested, and this isn’t close to what is done in practice. In fact players often sit so long the rest may have a negative impact, putting them “out of the flow of the game.”

Second caveat: maybe not all minutes are created equal. It may be particularly important to have star players available at the end of the game. On a practical level, the final minute certainly has more possessions than a typical minute, but it also has more fouls, so maybe those effects cancel out. I think the primary issue is more psychological: there is a strong perception that you need to lean more on your superstars at the end of the game. I think this issue is drastically overrated, partly because it’s easy to remember losing in the last minute when a key player has fouled out, but a more silent poison when you lose because you were down going into that minute having rested him too long. By the way, my subjective sense is that the last possession is more similar to any other than conventional wisdom suggests: a wide-open John Paxson or Steve Kerr is a better bet than a double-teamed Michael Jordan any time in the game. On a couple of major occasions, Jordan agreed. This isn’t to underestimate the star’s importance in scoring and getting other players good shots, just to say that this is not necessarily more important in the final minutes. You do often hear that a team will rise to the occasion when a star is injured or suspended, so even conventional wisdom wavers here. Finally, note that the foul-trouble rule of thumb is applied also to players who aren’t the primary scorer, so that this argument wouldn’t seem to apply. I will give coaches a little credit: they do sometimes seem to realize that they shouldn’t worry about foul trouble for bench players who often don’t play at the end anyway.

One more psychological caveat: a player who just picked up a foul he thinks is unfair may be distracted and not have his head in the game immediately afterward. This may warrant a brief rest.

Final note: Conventional wisdom seems to regard foul management as a risk vs. safety decision. You will constantly hear something like, “a big decision here, whether to risk putting Duncan back in with 4 fouls.” This is completely the wrong lens for the problem, since the “risky”* strategy is, with the caveats mentioned, all upside! Coaches dramatically underrate the “risk” of falling behind, or losing a lead, by sitting a star for too long. To make it as stark as possible, observe that the coach is voluntarily imposing the penalty that he is trying to avoid, namely his player being taken out of the game! The most egregious cases are when a player sits even though his team is significantly behind. I almost feel as though the coach prefers the certainty of losing to the “risk” of the player fouling out. There may be a “control fallacy” here: it just feels worse for the coach to have a player disqualified than to voluntarily bench him, even if the result is the same. Also, there is a bit of an agency/perception problem: the coach is trying to maximize keeping his job as well as winning, which makes him lean towards orthodoxy.

There are well-documented cases in the last decade of sports moving towards a more quantitative approach, so maybe there is hope for basketball strategy to change. The foul-trouble orthodoxy is deeply ingrained, and it would be a satisfying blow for rationality to see it overturned.

*Final outcomes are binary, so the classical sense of risk aversion, involving a concave utility function in money, doesn’t apply at all. But there is also a sense of what I call “tactical risk”: a decision may affect the variance of some variable on which your probability of final success depends in a convex (or concave) way. I might write an essay sometime on the different meanings of “risk.” Anyway, here you would presumably should be risk-averse in your star’s minutes if ahead, risk-loving if behind. But this is rendered utterly moot by first-order stochastic dominance!

The dog that didn't ask

2010-04-26T10:11:00.001-05:00

A friend of mine got “accidentally jobbed” by “accidental UI” in a very simple auction last week. How do you think a director or committee would treat this?

1S-P-3C(nat, inv, alerted)-X-All pass

Now, clearly X here is takeout, right? Well…except the doubler never asked what 3C was. He had a 5-card club stack and assumed 3C, alerted, was Bergen (and doubled rather quickly, I gather). His partner knew the X was penalty and passed with a club void, because *doubler never asked*. Doubler’s partner never asked either, and probably also thought 3C was Bergen and passed in complete innocence.

It’s clearly wrong for this to stand, because, however far this was from the players’ intentions, it gives them the ability to make takeout or penalty doubles in the same auction. If you agree, would you trust a director or committee to get this right? (I wouldn’t.)

BTW, it is impossible to avoid conveying UI on this hand, unless you follow the “always ask regardless of your hand” principle, which very few do. If the club stack asks, is told 3C is natural, and passes, the message is clear unless he is an always-asker. That particular UI would have been fairly innocuous on this deal, but the problem remains.

I guess if I were arguing this hand with a committee, one of the strongest points is that doubler ignored the skip bid.

Entryless Squeeze with Nothing Resembling the Count

2010-04-08T01:15:00.003-05:00

You know that an ordinary simple squeeze requires that you have all the tricks but one. You probably also know that if you have three threats against one player, or a suit-establishment threat, the squeeze can function with all but two tricks. But did you know that if both conditions hold, n-3 can be enough? Or that you don’t need any entries?

In a rubber bridge game, this 6-card ending happened, with spades as trumps:

North: xx xx Jx ----

West: T ---- xxxx x East: ---- QJ KQ Jx

South: Q x x KT8

As you can see, South has 3 of the last 6. When he plays a trump to his Q, a red-suit pitch by East lets him establish and score a 4^th trick, and a club pitch gives two tricks. All this with no entry in any threat suit! Yes, the last trump is a sort of entry-surrogate, but this doesn’t at all resemble a typical ruffing squeeze.

Since this took place at a bar, I hope declarer, Dan Wilderman, doesn’t mind my saying he may have stumbled on this position a bit by accident. Nevertheless, this should definitely be the Wilderman (or, the Wild Man?) squeeze.

Six-card ending; conclusion

2010-03-22T22:29:00.003-05:00

See two posts ago for the problem.

The club pitch strongly implies that lefty was 2-4-2-5, so the ending looks something like:

N: --- AJ7 --- Q9x

W: --- ??? --- JTx E: Tx ?? 75 ----

S: ---- Tx 82 Kx

If West has both heart honors, you can make it by straightforward play. If East has the K, you can’t make it – the position is frustratingly close to a double squeeze, but there just isn’t a way to rectify the count without East cashing the setting trick. What if West has the K and East the Q? That is how it was at the table. If you cash the D8 now, at trick 8, West has three losing options. A club pitch is obviously no good. A low heart pitch lets you set up hearts while keeping East off lead, by a standard avoidance play. So should he pitch the HK? Then you cash the Q and K of clubs to execute a standard strip-squeeze against East (who must pitch his spade winners and get endplayed or bare the HQ.)

The catch? Suppose West pitches the HK, then when you cash your clubs East pitches a spade and a heart. So East just bared the HQ, right? Maybe. But maybe West has made a genius *fake* unblock holding both heart honors, and East has alertly cooperated (if he threw his spade winners from his entryless hand you would give him a diamond and claim.) I say if they do this to you, gracefully go one down, write the hand down carefully and you get to be the journalist for the Defense of the Year.

By the way, it is tempting to cash the CK first in the 6-card ending, to check the break. But then West can pitch the HK from K-empty and beat you, because you no longer have an endplay threat against East.

A small extra chance

2010-03-19T13:07:00.000-05:00

Most people are either busy at Reno or recovering from Reno, so I’ll wait a few days before the follow-up to the previous hand. In the meantime, here’s a cute and non-taxing story of the play in a grand slam:

North: 843 J3 AKQT84 K4
South: AKQT2 AT954 52 A

We arrived in 7S by South and I got a club lead. With no side entry to dummy, you basically need both spades and diamonds to come in – thanks to your tens this is about a 62% chance. Do you see a small extra chance, about 2-3%?

I didn’t see the small extra chance initially, but when I cashed two top spades I was alert enough to notice that the J9 fell on my right, and appreciate that the 8 had appreciated. I went to a diamond, pitched my diamond on the CK, ruffed a diamond high, and could go to the S8 claiming even if diamonds were 4-1. They were 3-2, but I still like the story. The opponents stopped in 6, for one of our few pickups from the GNT final.

A nice 6-card ending

2010-03-17T12:17:00.002-05:00

Reno was a disappointment for me, but congrats to Franco and Andy as the inaugural Platinum pairs champs. (Most of you have seen Franco's blog, linked from this page.)

A nice catalog of pretty double-dummy 5-card endings with some practical value is George Coffin’s “Great 88,” reproduced at Richard Pavlicek’s web site here.

A 6-card ending worthy of Coffin came up last week at the GNT. I’ll give it as a single-dummy problem.

North: AKx AJ7xx 3 Q9xx
South: xxx Tx KJT82 AKx

N-S arrived at 3nt via an uncontested auction where South opened 1D and rebid 1NT, then North relayed to reveal his exact shape and South chose 3nt.
The play began SQ ducked; spade to dummy; diamond to J and Q; D9 to T; DK to East’s A (West pitched club);spade to dummy (West pitched heart); club to A (both following). This left:
N: --- AJ7 --- Q9x
S: ---- Tx 82 Kx

with declarer having taken 4 tricks, and looking at 4 more. How should declarer continue?

No crying in bridge

2010-03-07T23:08:00.002-06:00

But it's tempting after another second-place finish. Qualifying for the final had plenty of excitement; we were on the border with just a few boards to go and won a couple of big swings. But then in the first 16 boards of the final Sorkin-Mandell and Mouser-Defotis added 38 to their carryover of 16, and not much happened in the next 16. Congrats to them. I'll post some hands eventually, but am tired now and will have to catch up on work before Reno starts on Friday! I'll check in during Reno; excited about playing in the first running of the platinum pairs, with Josh Sher.

GNT in progress

2010-03-07T10:29:00.002-06:00

The field was cut from 6 to 4 via the first round robin; today we'll have a 1-session RR among these 4 teams, followed by a 32-board final, with full carryover at each stage. We made the cut, with our total carryover against the remaining teams being basically even (+4 imps I think.) After playing all 60 boards yesterday due to teammates' conflicts, Jerry and I will have the first segment off today, so I'm still at home although play begins in 20 minutes. As usual, I had trouble winding down after a day of bridge, but managed to sleep a bit. Back to work around 1 today! I'll definitely have some hands to write about when I get time.

District GNT this weekend

2010-03-05T12:52:00.000-06:00

The district GNT (for the Chicago/Milwaukee area) is this weekend. It’s always one of my favorite events on the calendar. I was on district runner-up teams 2 years ago here and last year in NJ – hope we can do one better this year. As always, it will be a tough field, including some friends and readers. See you there! Update on Monday.

Textbook Problem

2010-02-24T13:24:00.002-06:00

Yesterday I was fortunate to get dealt a cute textbook defensive problem. To see the hand record, click here.

After trick 1, you can tell partner has 5 clubs, so there are no pitches coming there. Time to go passive? Well, you know declarer has the 7 missing spades. He will discover the break, then, if possible, cross to dummy to finesse. But you can make that impossible by shifting to diamonds and taking out the entry now, which I did. Because we had 2 heart tricks coming this was only a 2-imp undertrick, but it was fun anyway. Even more fun if you swap the HJ and HQ though…

My play now doesn’t seem perfectly precise to me; if declarer had AKJxxxx Jx Q Jxx I would need to cash the CA and then play a low diamond so there is no endplay later. Always room for improvement! The DK felt sexy and worked on this layout, but with the J in dummy a low diamond is better. I also must point out my play would be a disaster if declarer had AKJxxxx J Qx Jxx. (We can infer from partner's non-heart lead he doesn't have QJxx(x) there, making the danger layouts less likely.) Perhaps I should cash the CA and hope partner gives a suit-preference signal. In any case, I enjoyed this hand. Usually declarer knows the most about the key issues of the hand; it's nice when you know the most as a defender and can take advantage.

Follow-up to post-preempt decision

2010-02-15T10:30:00.003-06:00

Well, at the virtual table I passed here without much thought. As Alex mentions in the comments, I am in general a devoted non-sacrificer. But let’s revisit this. What is partner doing? Based on his failure to bid anything the first time, or to bid 4S the second or third time, we can be confident he does not have a diamond-suit-plus-spade-fit kind of hand. No, he has a bucketload of diamonds. In context, I think we have a nice fit; when I preempt, he must expect about 1 card in his very long suit on average. Two and a ruffing value (if they don’t pull my trumps) is a nice bonus. It was a bold action to save over 3nt, and he must have a very long semi-solid suit. Can we raise the sacrifice a level? In retrospect, I think we can. Of course, I have come under the influence of seeing the hand record, here.

As you can see, 5D gets out for 300 (4S goes for 500.) As a curiosity, check out the par on this hand. NS score highest in notrump, making 5 for 660. So is 5NT par? No, because we get out for 500 in six diamonds! A par sacrifice against 5NT must be a rare bird, and one I only recommend hunting with handy access to the hand records.

Funny post-preempt decision

2010-02-11T22:56:00.001-06:00

In a friendly imp match on bridgebase, I had an interesting decision: White/red, I had AKT9xxx Txx xx x. I was second seat, and it went:

1C-3S-X-P:

3NT-P-P-4D;

P-P-4H-P;

P-?

Any thoughts?

Just another 2-imp swing

2010-02-07T12:48:00.004-06:00

This hand is from a home team game. Play 5D on the SK lead:

Dummy: Axx QJ8xxx AJx x

Declarer: x Ax KQ9xxx Kxxx

Declarer opened 1D in second seat, white/red; the full auction was P-1D-1S-2H; P-3D-4C-5D; AP. Dummy had a tough call over 4C -- as it happens, even with partner having Ax in hearts, diamonds might be the best game. Discussion of the play below…

Vulnerable, LHO must have almost everything to bid at the 4-level; if he is 6-5, I suppose he could be missing the HK. Running the HQ next seems to cover almost every case. If it holds, you play a club to the K (to keep righty off lead in case hearts 4-1) then have enough tricks, with at least two club ruffs in dummy followed by pulling trumps; maybe 3 club ruffs if lefty has no trump to lead. If, more likely, the heart loses, your plan is to use the long hearts, which works unless the HK was stiff (lefty can’t have 4). You even survive diamonds 4-0 when hearts break. After unblocking HA, you play DK, DJ and start hearts; righty is helpless since you can overruff and pull his trump, and still have just enough pitches. I can also see an argument for starting hearts with the ace, in case lefty has stiff K. This may lead to more complicated play when righty has KTxx and they tap dummy, but I think you always survive.

At the table, LHO held KQTxx Kxx –- AQJTx. I don’t know declarer’s actual play, unfortunately, but he went down 1. Maybe he cashed a high trump from dummy before working on hearts, which looks natural but is fatal on the 4-0 trump break. The lesson is not to pull a round of trumps “just to check” unless you are really sure it doesn’t cost a vital entry; this is easy to miss here because you only need that entry on 4-0 trumps.

I was at the other table, and didn‘t make that 4C bid on the black two-suiter. Any opinions on that? We got lucky because my lefty bid 3NT over her partner’s 3D, down 2 on a spade lead when the heart hook lost. Win 2.

Wait, did I imply that 3nt is routinely down? After 3 rounds of spades, I’m finished if declarer just runs diamonds – no pitches avoid the squeeze/endplay, even if I unblock my spade spots so partner’s is highest. Work it out. Of course, I had only bid once, so this line wasn’t clearly marked. There is a mild inference from partner’s failure to raise, but hardly certain. To defeat 3NT legitimately, I need to somehow convince partner to switch to clubs at trick 3, which is presumably impossible, and he must produce the 9; I don’t know if he or declarer had it. As I said, just another 2-imp swing.

Not quite

2010-02-01T08:51:00.002-06:00

(Some spots corrected from original post--thanks, Kenny.) I played in a Chicago-area sectional Swiss yesterday with Drew Becker and Kenny Zuckerberg/Bill Drewett. It was a good turnout numerically, with about 50 teams. As for quality: There were two teams in the (stratified) field with national-caliber players, but as for the rest …it felt as if every time we came back with a moderate card, our teammates had a 1400 and an 800 for a blitz, and vice-versa! I know there were some decent teams out there, but we didn’t seem to be playing them. After 6/7 matches we were undefeated, had beaten both good teams (in close matches) and had 101 VPS. In the Swiss I wrote about in July, 100 clinched for my team after 6, but that was a flighted regional; yesterday 101 was good for only a 1 VP lead over Katz/Demirev, Miller/Carmichael, and Lehman/Melson. They would be playing the other star team, so our chances were fairly good. Alas, we suffered our first loss by 1, they won by 2, and that made the final score 111-110. I was left to contemplate the overtricks I had blown against 2NT on the final board of the day. But if there was any justice, the imp my partner earned on defense against the eventual winners back in our second match would have proved decisive:

North: JT9x Qx QJTxx Ax

West: KQxx Kxx Axx KQx East: xxx xxx K9xx JTx

South: Ax AJT9x 8 xxxxx

Partner (West) opened 1NT, passed around to South, who balanced with 2C showing hearts and a minor; North bid 2D (denying 3 hearts) and South corrected to 2H and played there. Drew led a small trump; declarer won the Q and played ace and a club…and I won the trick, because Drew had dropped an honor under the CA. I managed to get a second trump on the table, and this defense held declarer to his contract. This was a 1-imp gain for our side (see comments for the sequence at the other table.). Sadly, this particular imp was not worth the VP we would need at the end of the day.

Of course, a diamond underlead could accomplish the same thing…maybe my club plays should convey suit-preference if partner doesn’t unblock, so he can underlead, but that is hardly routine. Finally, notice that if declarer decides that not letting me win a club trick is the vital issue, he needs to lead a club from hand so he can duck if partner splits. This might be the wrong play, of course; it could look bad on poor breaks.

NFL Playoffs

2010-01-09T09:44:00.003-06:00

All you NFL fans, the NY Times has a free just-for-fun pool I decided to enter. You can see my picks at http://projects.nytimes.com/nfl-playoff-bracket/bracket/53964045

I'm with a lot of people in considering the Chargers the team to beat, although I'll be pulling for the Patriots. The Pats have a tough opponent in the Ravens even before they get to SD. The Colts aren't dominant but should handle the Bengals or Jets next week; but if the Ravens get through the Patriots, they could bounce the Colts. The NFC seems quite evenly matched and I won't be real surprised however things go. Well, if Minnesota wins I'll be surprised; they haven't looked good at all lately. I'm picking the Saints only because of the bye and home field; any of the other teams will give them a tough time though.

All the matchpoints

2009-12-30T17:20:00.003-06:00

It’s rare for 100% of the matchpoints to be at stake on any decision. Look what happened on this hand. In a robot duplicate I held AJ98 7 A73 KJ532 and opened 1C. It continued 1H by lho, X by partner, up to me. I think this is an obvious 2S bid. 1S is a nothing bid that could be on 3 trumps with no H stopper, so to me 2S shows only something like 14-16 support points, which I have easily. The field disagreed unanimously: 24 of 24 bid 1S! So, when North bid 4S, I was unknowingly in a top or bottom situation, looking at:

North: KQ54 QJT Q6 T764

South: AJ98 7 A73 KJ532

West cashed a heart and led the ST. I played SJ, S8 and he pitched a heart. I opted to overtake and lead a club (I must note I erred by leading the 4 rather than a higher spot, although this turned out not to matter. Never waste your smallest spot from the short hand!) RHO hopped CA to lead a heart; I correctly pitched a diamond and lefty won and played a 3^rd heart, RHO ruffing. Now a simple matter to overruff, pull trumps and guess clubs, playing LHO for Qx (which he held) since he would lead a stiff, for making 4 and all the matchpoints. Almost...

See, I use the keyboard input on bbo, which works fine; no typos for some time now. When following, you just hit the rank; when not, suit then rank. *But* if you just hit a rank, it assumes the last suit you played if possible. You see where this is going? By just hitting A, I “overruffed” with the DA instead of the SA! That was down 2, and exactly 0% of the matchpoints. You can see all the results at http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=2701-1262208601-558614&username=jlw77

Robot Statistics

2009-12-26T15:48:00.002-06:00

Most of you are BBO users, and probably know of the robot duplicate tournaments that were introduced earlier this year. You play against three robots (the program GiB, on one of its faster, less skillful settings) and your scores are matchpointed against other humans playing the same hands. You always get the most hcp at the table. The attraction of this format is that you have many more key decisions per hour than you do in a normal human game; you wind up declaring about 55% of the hands, and the hands go by pretty fast. As a result some people I know are total addicts…I’m a very mild but steady addict, playing 3-4 12-board sessions each week. Of course, the context of some decisions is very different from real bridge, where you wouldn’t (I hope) follow the rule of “never count on partner’s judgment.” You can read a long series of articles on Glen Ashton’s blog and some on Memphis Mojo’s. As far as tactics, I basically open a 14-18 notrump (a bit liberal on distribution) and 19-21 2NT. This is not only to hog the hand, but also because partner’s bidding is not quite as bad as in other auctions.

Partly because it is rare to have useful statistics on individuals in bridge, I got curious about breaking down my results and those of others. Bridgebase will give you a file with a month’s worth of results, and I wrote a parser to break these down by who declared. I might compile more statistics at some point. Here’s what my program outputs now, from being fed the last 3 months of my results (SD=standard deviation):

North declared 105 hands(24.36%): NS averaged 55.22%, SD = 23.15

East declared 41 hands(9.51%): NS averaged 53.77%, SD = 28.04

South declared 243 hands(56.38%): NS averaged 60.55%, SD = 26.31

West declared 37 hands(8.58%): NS averaged 61.80%, SD = 27.91

Pass declared 5 hands(1.16%): NS averaged 50.81%, SD = 10.13

Total of 431 deals, Average: 58.60% SD: 25.93

(Statistics exclude 1 average minuses.)

Comments: It’s not surprising I average better as declarer than as dummy. This doesn’t necessarily mean I should hog it even more – on a hand where I artificially made myself declarer by putting it in an inferior contract, my average would certainly be less than the 60.55% above. In fact, I’m quite satisfied with averaging 55% as dummy – this is a rare instance where we can say for sure that any advantage over the field represents solely bidding judgment! Good players who I’ve looked at tend to average 53-55% as dummy – this partly represents bidding to the right level, and partly that the field sometimes takes hand-hogging to excess. Finally, note that the swingiest hands are when I defend. The field doesn’t like to pass, so defending leads to some tops and bottoms. I defend a few percent more hands than most people I’ve looked at. (One reason is I avoid marginal takeout doubles, fearing partner’s insanity.) The results are acceptable, with a mp average on defense only about 1% less than my overall.

The highest MP average I’ve come across is Mark Lair’s. This could surprise you only if you didn’t know he plays the GiBs quite regularly. Here are his stats for a 2-month period:

North declared 558 hands(30.56%): NS averaged 55.07%, SD = 23.15

East declared 132 hands(7.23%): NS averaged 57.14%, SD = 25.97

South declared 1009 hands(55.26%): NS averaged 62.42%, SD = 24.68

West declared 120 hands(6.57%): NS averaged 55.20%, SD = 27.18

Pass declared 7 hands(0.38%): NS averaged 62.69%, SD = 16.47

Total of 1826 deals, Average: 59.32% SD: 24.72

(Statistics exclude 72 average minuses.)

I can certainly live with being just 0.7% worse than Mark Lair, at this odd but entertaining form of the game.

A better line for today's NYT hand

2009-11-16T15:35:00.002-06:00

Many of you are probably regular readers of Phillip Alder's fine column in the New York Times. It's hard to say that someone misplayed when they executed a successful compound squeeze, but I think that is true in today's hand. First look at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/crosswords/bridge/16card.html?_r=1&ref=arts and see what you think. Then, here is the message I sent to Alder:

Hi Phillip,

It appears that once West pitched a club on the 3^rd trump and then turned up with 4 spades, a simple 100% line was available. If declarer, after 3 trumps and 2 spades, just played CA, CK, club ruff, then if West guards clubs there is a simple squeeze (cash last trump then hearts) and if East guards clubs a standard double squeeze with hearts the common suit. In practice, of course, clubs would simply split. The club pitch is vital to this being 100%; it means declarer will always know who guards the last club. Note that Bertheau’s compound squeeze line is not 100%, as declarer can guess wrong as to which suit West has unguarded.

Therefore, the club pitch by West is an error, although understandable since declarer’s hand was completely unknown. To avoid giving declarer a sure-thing line, West must first pitch a heart. A club pitch on the 4th trump would be OK, since any pitch by declarer weakens his hand in a way that kills some variant of my 100% line.

Jonathan

Establish your tricks -- lead trumps!

2009-11-15T16:46:00.005-06:00

When balancing or competing against the opponents' 2S, one thing you fear is that your side has 3 7-card fits to choose from at the 3-level -- usually not a fun choice. But sometimes the opponents let you off the hook.

North: KTxx QJxx xx AKx

West: xxx AKx xxx Q9xx East: Ax xxxx AKxx Jxx

South: QJxx Tx QJxx Txx

At neither vul in a close sectional KO final, North opened 1C and raised partner's 1S to 2S, and East (Marty Harris) entered with a double. I guess (?) that most good players would favor this action at these colors, even though it is far from safe. I (West) bid a scrambling 2NT, preferring this to 3C in case partner is 2=4=5=2 or the like -- I also see a case for 3C, putting the ruffs in the short hand if (as here) we have a choice of 4-3 fits. Seemingly we were headed for -100 in 3D, but North came to the rescue with a 3S bid -- he had told his story sufficiently already, don't you think?

So, my lead against 3S. It seemed unlikely hearts were going anywhere, so I avoided the AK lead and tried a trump. This was a success when Marty won and found the club shift. Now it was routine to take 6 tricks for +100, and win 5 when our teammates played 2S for +110 on the HA lead. It's cute that we must avoid touching either of our AK holdings to get all our tricks, and that my trump lead allows a succesful active defense while the HA blows a tempo! My satisfaction with this is far out of proportion to the 1 extra imp it gained.

Alas, this hand was not enough, and we lost the match by 6.

Follow-up to lead problems

2009-11-04T07:29:00.002-06:00

1. I didn't find it at the table, but on later consideration I think DA as Pretender suggests is clearly the best shot, trying for a simple path to 4 tricks. It does clear up a guess when partner has Jxx, but so be it. This was the winning lead at the table. Even though declarer had only 3 diamonds (6=3=3=1) and can pitch the third, your trumps are promotable when partner turns up with Jx and the HA.

2. I led the CQ, and clubs were the only losing lead. I still think maybe it was normal, but perhaps there is a good reason to make a different guess. Mojo, why is a heart so obvious?

Decisive opening leads from Sunday

2009-10-26T22:10:00.000-05:00

I hope some loyal readers have their alerts set to find out there is an actual post! I'm busier with work this year, so the blog has slowed way down. I did make it to a regional in Lake Geneva, WI this weekend. Here are two critical opening lead problems from yesterday's Swiss:

1. You hold AT Jxxx Ax QTxxx, and the opponents bid uncontested, P-1S-2C!-2D-3D-4S, where 2C was defined as 3-or-4-card Drury, and 2D as natural. What do you lead against 4S?

2. You hold xxx QTx 9x QJxxx, and they bid uncontested 4S-4NT-5H-6S. Your lead against 6S?

Defensive problem from BB final

2009-09-12T07:48:00.000-05:00

You're up about 80 with 42 boards to go in the Bermuda Bowl final, and your opponents aren't shy to begin with, so you'll be given some defensive opportunities. Here's a chance to pad your lead...or make things a little more interesting:

You: T7 K32 QT73 AK84 Dummy: A984 T876 A J653

You deal at both vul., and it goes 1D-P-1H-1S-X-3D-X-P-P-4S-AP. I'm pretty sure 3D was a 4-card limit raise and passing 3D-X showed interest.

You lead the CA (agree?) and get the CT from partner, right-side-up. Your move?

Play problem from Monday's Swiss

2009-09-08T16:51:00.003-05:00

The obvious 1nt-3nt auction gets you to a contract that is tenuous, to say the least:

Dummy: 94 Q94 AK764 T92

Declarer: Q763 AJ83 J53 AK

West leads the C4. Plan the play (at imps).

A bit of a break

2009-08-29T02:53:00.002-05:00

I've been taking about a month off from playing bridge for the first time in more than a year. It's interesting, it actually takes a couple of weeks for decompression before "bridge thoughts" stop going through my mind at random moments. Anyway, after I move back to Evanston on September 1, I'm playing several days at the sectional in Skokie September 4-6, so I should have plenty of new material then! I must admit, I like writing about bridge about as much as playing it.

6-6 hand follow-up

2009-08-11T14:50:00.000-05:00

Maybe this isn’t a good problem, since everyone is bidding like me. To make it a discussion, I’ll make the case for passing: partner is still there and has heard you imply a good deal of shape (though not necessarily 6-6.) He is marked with length in hearts, and if he has strength there also it could be right to defend; with weak hearts maybe he’ll find another bid. Well, ok, this doesn’t convince me pass is right…partner had some reason to come alive with 5S, and you know it wasn’t his diamond holding! So here’s the story:

At the table I bid 6S without much thought, beyond that partner could have Axx or Axxx in trumps and have not thought his hand was worth 3S the first time, and that 1430 is a lot more than 100 or 300, not to mention -200 being better than -920 or -1090! Tempo probably wasn’t that crucial, but it felt like the kind of situation where I shouldn’t betray doubt, because there is an excellent chance the opponents will save; of course, maybe I want that and maybe not, who knows? Well, unfortunately partner had Jxx AKxxx xxx xx and I’m sure was hoping to double 6C. Even so, the whole operation could have worked if the opponents had saved, as they might on many layouts. They can't know that I'm void in hearts and not clubs. But alas, lefty had AQx QJxxx --- AJxxx and that was an easy double. The “good news” was that he led the CA for down 2 rather than underleading for a ruff and 800 J. The other “good news” was that our teammates had scored -620, selling to 4S after not finding clubs, meaning that -500 was only 4 imps worse than +100. The non-ironic good news was that we had good cards at both tables otherwise, and after expertly “crashing” these bad results for -15 we won the match by 11.

An appealing hand (no pun this time)

2009-08-09T21:28:00.000-05:00

Here’s a bidding problem that came up in the Open Swiss. I thought my tempo was a potential issue – for the information it might give the opponents as well as the UI it might give partner -- so you might want to take the following approach: first decide in 5-10 seconds what you would do if you think it’s important to bid in tempo, then consider if you might revise your action given unlimited time. That’s how we ultimately progress towards making the right bid at the table, in tempo, right? I’ll post my thoughts and the story later.

You pick up KT9xxx ---- AKQJxx x (not bad) and are dealer, red/white, so you open 1S. Lefty (Dan Morse) bids 2S, partner passes, and righty (Nagy Kamel) bids 4C (pass or correct). Let’s assume you bid 4D – then lefty bids 5C, partner chimes in with 5S, and righty bids 6C. Your move?

An "appeal"ing hand

2009-08-03T12:46:00.000-05:00

(Updated 8/04: When my teammates told us this story after the game I misunderstood who was sitting where. The version below is correct.)

Both red, playing in the final round of the national swiss against Fantoni/Nunes, with a range of final placings from about 10th to 40th still possible, you hold Qx A AT9xx AQJxx, and RHO deals and opens 1H. Probably you are thinking you would bid 2NT...do you have a second choice? My teammate Hailong Ao had a different first choice -- he bid 1NT! I won't debate the merits of that, but it did get his high-card points off his chest :-). Now lefty bids 3H, explained as "weak but not crazy," partner passes and righty bids 4H. If you had to sit in at this point, would you act again? Consider for a moment before reading on...

Having shown his hcp but not his shape (to say the least) Hailong continued with 4NT! Although it looks very odd on the face of things to commit to the 5-level on your own, I actually think this is definitely the right action here. RHO must have a distributional hand to justify 4H, and his most likely shortness is in clubs, because if he had club length it would be weak length with the K badly positioned. Hailong's partner, JJ Wang, must have been very surprised to hear 4NT, but quite pleasantly so, for he held xxx Jxx x Kxxxxx, and as you can see 5C rolls. Furthermore, the opponents couldn't resist doubling, so that was +750.

But wait! Over 3H, which the opponents alerted (not alertable for a few years now, but most people seem not to know that,) JJ had inquired and been told the meaning. He then passed in tempo, but nonetheless the Italians felt that UI had been conveyed and this had influenced Hailong's 4NT bid. What do you think about their case?

I don't think they had a case. Some people will always inquire about an alert in a competitive auction -- it is certainly more common to ask only sometimes, but this is clearly an inferior practice and conveys more UI. JJ's hand, which couldn't possibly act over 3H, suggests that he was just asking reflexively and it meant nothing. Maybe he was surprised to hear an alert because he knows 3H is not alertable! He also might have been surprised to hold 3 hearts on the auction and thereby been more curious about the 3H bid, but if his question only conveyed that, it would hardly be an impetus for Hailong to bid. Well anyway, the director ruled that the result was rolled back to 4H making (it is down on optimal defense, but in these cases you don't assume that.) But late at night, the hardworking commitee restored the table result, +750 for our teammates. I look forward to the write-up in the appeals casebook.

At my table, I held opener's hand, KJx KQTxx KQJxx ----, and the auction was a pedestrian 1H-2NT-3H-5C-AP, so we scored -600. We missed a decent save in 5H (down 2, probably), but I really don't feel I should be bidding it on my hand -- partner hasn't even promised 4 trumps. So the appeal swung 19 imps, from -15 to +4...it also swung the match from -10 to +9, and our final ranking from 29th to 14th. The final match, which was the only one we played with computer-generated hands, was plenty interesting -- the final score was 30-21. Half of our imps came when we got pushed to 6C doubled, red/white, with about half the deck and a 12-card fit...it turned out to be on a hook, which won, for 1540. They got to 6C at the other table also, but our teammates took the save in their 11-card heart fit for -300.

Card combinations you're surprised not to know

2009-07-27T11:15:00.000-05:00

Or at least, I was surprised not to know.

Consider the following combinations:

A: AQ983 in hand opposite 542
B: AJ82 in hand opposite K543

and assume you are maximizing average tricks, with no entry restrictions.

Alan Applebaum was asking a bunch of people on Friday, just before the LM pairs started, about A. Almost everyone (including some top players) played low to the 8, then if that lost planned to hook the Q the second time. This is actually wrong, because it only gains when lho has JT doubleton and loses when he has stiff “jen,” compared to hooking the 9 the second round – it’s a restricted choice position, but one that seems to have gone unnoticed by almost everyone.

Then later that day at the table, position B came up, which happens to be a very close cousin. Our opponent cashed the K, and when the T appeared on the left hooked the J, commenting that she wasn’t sure that was right. Actually it’s right to hook the 8 (or cover righty’s 9 cheaply) on the second round, for similar reasons. You win against stiff T ( or 9), lose to doubleton T9; by restricted choice the stiff “tine” is more likely. At the table, only the third-best approach of going up ace worked; lefty had QT tight. I bet many good players would briefly consider going up ace, then hook the J because they know going up is too susceptible to falsecarding…but wouldn’t even consider the best option of hooking the 8! All I can tell from the recap sheet is that about 25% of the field dropped the Q; no idea how many hooked the J versus the 8.

By the way, there was another consideration on this hand: About 25%** of the field got to the optimal 6nt while the rest, as did my opponents, bid to 6h with this as the trump suit and no other losers anywhere. I’m ignoring the very few who went minus in a grand. Those in the inferior 6H would be justified in taking an anti-field approach in the play, which rates to gain about 70% of the mps when right but lose only about 30% when wrong. I can’t say for sure if the J or 8 is anti-field, but I do know the A is! Disappointingly, a glance at the recap seems to show no correlation between the contract and the number of tricks taken -- those who went +1020 should be a bit ashamed, as 990 was already a good score!

** Update, 7/30: I actually counted frequencies of the scores, see comments.

Spillover from the Daily Trout

2009-07-18T23:59:00.000-05:00

My friend FMB has started a blog called "The Daily Trout" with some very nice hands in the first week, linked on the right. If he keeps up the Daily I'll be extremely impressed. His recent posts beginning with "Names withheld to protect the innocent" had a hand that, first off, is a cool bridge story (featured in a book on Helgemo), and also brought up some really nice game theory. I had so much to say I'm continuing the discussion here. Check out the hand at his site first, then continue here if interested. This is intended to be accessible to anyone with a passing knowledge of equilibrium in game theory, on the level occasionally found in The Bridge World; I hope it doesn't get too dense.

It was with a bit of guilt that I wrote my first comment, which I knew only gave the solution assuming average-trick maximization when BAM play might be different. I knew the BAM analysis would be more complex and wasn’t sure anyone would care, but I am very glad FMB did care, because now that he got me to think about it more, this is a great hand from a theory point of view! As he points out, this is really a 4-player game: let’s call the players S1,E1 (team 1) and S2,E2 (team 2). Each South can plan to go up (U) or duck (D) when East keeps a club, and each East can bare (B) or not bare (N) the K when he has it. There are 3 distinct ways to look at equilibrium in this game:

I) Correlated team equilibrium

Each team picks an overall strategy which can be any mixture of the 4 pairs of South and East strategies, UB, UN, DB and DN. It’s an equilibrium if the other team has no better-than-even response.

This becomes in effect a two-“player” symmetric zero-sum game, thinking of each team as a player. I had to turn to Matlab to invert the 4x4 payoff matrix, and eventually found that the unique equilibrium was .5 UN, .25 DB, .25 DN. Notice that:

a) The percentage of B by the Easts (.25) and U by the Souths (.5) is the same as in the average-trick maximization analysis that looked at just one table.
b) S1 and E1, also S2 and E2, must correlate their strategies to never play UB. This may or may not be possible, but leave that aside for the moment.
c) No one ever wins the board by two tricks, because this would require both teams to play B with one D and one U, not possible if no team ever plays UB. This is why the average-trick equilibrium translates into a BAM equilibrium here – when the trick difference is always -1, 0 or 1 it gets converted linearly to the BAM scale.
d) Comment c provides some intuition for why UB is avoided; a team that plays UB would be in “danger” of winning the board by two tricks, which wastes some of their average trick total. Even more intuitively, if your teammate South is playing Up, there is some chance as East that you have already won the board by not baring, so baring could be pointlessly risking a valuable trick for a valueless one.

II) Independent team equilibrium. Each team announces their randomization which must consist of *independent* randomizations by S and E. It's an equilibrium if the other team has no better-than-even response.

Fascinating to me is that there is no type II equilibrium! If you believe me that the equilibrium in I is unique for its type, this is actually pretty immediate. A team has a better-than-even response to any randomization that isn’t the correlated one in I, which implies that one of the four pure strategies must be a winning response, and pure strategies of course satisfy independence.

How is this possible? Doesn’t it violate Nash’s Existence Theorem? No. Why? When Nash’s Theorem is applied to games of more than two players, you have to be careful about the definition of equilibrium. A 4-tuple of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if no *single* player can improve his outcome by deviating. Nash doesn’t recognize teams, so his theorem doesn’t apply to the equilibrium concept defined above (II), which says equilibrium can be broken by two players deviating together. Nevertheless concept II is fairly natural, and there is something disturbing about the fact that there is no such equilibrium. Think about it: If S1 and E1 huddle and decide on a randomization for each, then *whatever* they decided, team 2 has a winning response if they just know the frequencies. This is totally opposed to the usual intuition for mixed-strategy equilibrium.

III) 4-player independent Nash equilibrium. Each player announces a randomization – again, teams cannot correlate. It's an equilibrium if no player can improve his lot by changing his plan, with both his opponents *and* his teammate held fixed.

Nash tells us that such a thing definitely exists. FMB must have been referring to this type when he said East should bare 1-sqrt(.5) of the time. I haven’t been able to verify his calculations yet; I get some equations that are a bit hairy when I try to solve for the type III equilibrium.

All of this brings up the issues: Can teams correlate? Is it legal for them to correlate? I’ll comment on that sometime later, but for now will note that being able to correlate seems to provide some edge, although it is difficult to define how much: the two-team game where one team can correlate and the other must be independent has no equilibrium! Frankly, I find the conditions in II more natural bridgewise than I or III, but that's the one that leads to non-existence!

Ruffing squeeze without the count

2009-07-11T11:15:00.000-05:00

Update: I decided to try out the BBO handviewer program -- thanks to Memphis Mojo for recommendation and advice, and to Fred Gitelman for the program. So, anyway, you can see the whole deal in much prettier format at the bottom of the post -- but may want to read the story first.

On Thursday, the A/X Swiss played 7 8-board matches, while the lower brackets played 7 X 7. The thing was, the directors put us all on the same clock (I think 40 minutes to start the last board.) Yikes, this wasn’t billed as the Speedball Swiss! Anyway, the constant time pressure figures a bit into this story, also from the 5^th match:

Dummy:...KT4....J874...A85 QJ5

Declarer:AQJ953.KQT6...T94 ---

I was dealer, neither vul, and the competitive auction went

1S-2NT-3D!-5C

5H--P--5S--AP

3D showed a limit raise+ in spades.

Lefty led the HA (I played the T) and shifted to a club – J, A, ruff. By isolating the club menace against himself, he had given me a chance. I considered the possibilities:

A simple squeeze? This would require ducking a diamond to rectify the count, and the defense wouldn’t have to be especially brilliant to continue diamonds, leaving no entries – the end.

Ok, it would have to be a squeeze without the count. The conditions weren’t right for an ordinary one (control of both suits) – what about a ruffing squeeze without the count? Cash all the trumps but one, then hearts ending in dummy. That leaves Ax Qx in dummy and three diamonds and a trump in hand, and if lefty keeps Kx clubs he has only 2 diamonds, and you can establish the last one in hand…that works! Nice – the kind of hand that makes your day.

Dear Reader, I did work all this out before trick 3, and I did make the contract…I wish I could leave it at that, but journalistic ethics forbid. Recall that we were under time pressure; having taken several minutes to plan the play, I started to play fast once I knew the solution. I pulled 3 trumps (lefty had one), and then, somehow…a small heart came out of my hand. As it hit the table, I realized with horror I had wrecked my perfect ruffing-squeeze-without-the-count, because I could no longer cash hearts ending in dummy as was required. Bob may have seen me shake my head at this point and wondered why. Was there still hope? Yes! Go back to Plan A: If, as wasn’t extremely unlikely, righty had any stiff diamond honor, I could rectify the count for a simple squeeze, and it couldn’t be broken up. I finished the hearts (optional). These cards remained:

--- --- A8x Qx

xx --- T9x ---

I played a diamond to the 8 and K. Righty perforce played a club, ruffed, and I knew a simple squeeze was inevitable. Actually lefty had bared his CK earlier so it appeared now, but that didn’t matter. A less-than-completely-triumphant making 5. At least shifting to the simple squeeze had meant no count guess in the ending! Lefty started with x A QJxxxx Kxxxx.

The whole deal in bridgeviewer, some low spots approximate:

At the other table, Bobby Levin for once fell from grace and duplicated the defense at the first two tricks (HA, club) – hard to envision this layout, I guess. RJ did say he signaled for diamonds. But the opposing declarer fell at the first small hurdle and didn’t play a club honor from dummy! RJ could play the T and there was no chance of a squeeze – 11 to the good guys.

Nice defense from regional Swiss

2009-07-10T11:05:00.000-05:00

Between the trials in June and nationals in July, and the fact that I’m only living in Princeton for two more months until I have to go back to Evanston and leave my wife here for the year, I’m not playing many sectionals or regionals this summer. I did make it to the Philadelphia-area regional for one day yesterday, to play the Thursday Swiss with Bob Heitzman and RJ Becker-Bobby Levin. The great thing about bridge is that there are as many interesting hands in a Thursday Swiss as in a world championship. After 4 of 7 8-board matches, we had 60 and played the leaders who had 61. We won two game swings and a partscore swing that featured interesting play and defense, for a blitz, then blitzed again in round 6 and actually clinched with one to go. Here’s the first game swing:

Dummy: .Axx...xx.....AQTxxx..xx

Declarer: Qxx...KQTxx...K.....KJxx

I arrived in 3NT with lefty overcalling in spades: 1H-(1S)-2D-2NT-3NT

ST (rusinow) was led to my Q. I could make if diamonds came in, with maybe some additional chances. I cashed the DK and led the HK. Lefty won and continued spades; I won (ducking would have been fatal) and righty pitched a club. I tested diamonds, keeping all my hearts, but righty turned up with Jxxx. Time to try hearts; I hooked the T which held and played two more rounds, righty turning up with Jxxx in that suit also. Righty tried a low club and I had no guess; I had to try the CK and it held, so my last heart made nine tricks. Lefty’s hand was KJTxxx Ax xx Qxx. It always feels good to make a thin game with less-than-perfect breaks, but it didn’t feel as if I had done anything special or the opponents anything silly. It’s a hand where you hope for a swing but aren’t sure. There was a swing, because the defense *had* slipped, as Levin demonstrated at the other table. Do you see where?

After the first two tricks were the same (spade to Q, DK), Levin ducked the HK! This completely wrecks the entries, and declarer cannot make it even with mirrors. In fact, he went down 3. I think that for many players the duck would not be instinctive, but on a bit of thought, it almost can’t be wrong. The DK really looks like a singleton. If declarer has Qxx KQJxx Kx Jxx (so you need to win and cash clubs), he has made an implausibly subtle double-cross play by cashing the DK. With diamonds running, almost any declarer would either try to slip a heart by without cashing the DK, or run the whole diamond suit hoping for discard trouble. I am sure that Bobby’s instincts told him that diamonds weren’t running, (or at least that he should play for that), and he found the duck without much effort.

I’ll try to post the other hand, a cute squeeze hand, tomorrow.

Sequel: Play it better than GIB

2009-07-02T10:44:00.000-05:00

After the auction begins as in the previous post, you arrive in 4S with:

Dummy: A75 J93 K843 KT8

Declarer: KJ643 A62 AJ2 93

This is not one of the ideal combinations you were hoping for, but you still have play. The early play goes:

CQ, K, A, 3

Club, 9, J, 8

Heart, 9, Q, A

S3, 2, A, 9

CT, small, H2, small

S5, T, J, Q (sigh)

S8, 7, club, K (new life?)

Yes, there were some layouts where a diamond hook at trick 6 is better, but if trumps come in you’re probably making it without the D hook, so playing trumps looks right. Your bidding convinced lefty you were 5-2-4-2, so he didn’t cash the setting trick with HK (wrong of him, since on that layout the pitch he set up would be useless.) Now, here you are needing the rest with:

Dummy: --- J3 K843 ---

Declarer: 64 6 AJ2 ---

Any chance?

Most of you know that GIB’s algorithm for single-dummy play is to generate lots of random hands, then see how to make it double-dummy. It thus tends to miss plays that “steal” tricks in single-dummy play. Here, like a good GIB, I calculated that the only legitimate chance was for rho to have T9 tight in diamonds. Then I have 9 tricks with the backward finesse, and LHO with his presumed HK is squeezed out of his Q76x in diamonds for 10. So, I cashed my trumps pitching hearts; unfortunately no diamonds were pitched, so it was clear there had been no squeeze. Knowing it was unmakeable, I just played DK, diamond hook to try for down 1.

Did you see the play that, GIBlike, I missed? Just lead the DJ from hand. If lho has Qxx (no T), you’ll make it for sure – no way will he cover when he thinks you have AJTx and are trying to tempt him. This also retains the tiny legitimate squeeze chance I mentioned.

In practice lho had Q and T of diamonds, so nothing works, except stopping in 2 or 3 spades!

Simple Drury decision

2009-07-02T00:29:00.000-05:00

In 4th seat, white at imps, you open 1S with KJxxx Axx AJx xx. Opponents pass while partner bids 2H, artificial, your version of 3-card Drury. Your move?

Maybe a 13-count opposite a passed hand doesn't sound too inspiring...but this hand meshes very well with some 3-card limit raises. AQx xxx KQxx xxx, for instance, produces a near-cold game, as does AQx KQxx xx xxxx, or similar hands with the SA in a different suit. Some combinations, obviously, aren't nearly as good (some club holdings will be wastepaper), but when multiple combinations can make it near-cold I felt compelled to make a try. 3D is a naturalish try and I bid that. What does everyone else think?

Richard Freeman

2009-07-01T14:11:00.000-05:00

passed away two days ago. I played a 16-board set against Freeman(+Nickell) a few years ago and thought he was as sharp an analyst as I've ever played. He played on championship teams in just about every era of bridge. In my opinion, Freeman was an underrated part of the Nickell machine who will be hard to replace.

A straightforward (?) 6nt

2009-06-30T22:13:00.000-05:00

I was kibitzing on bbo vugraph when declarer had to play this hand in 6nt:

Dummy: xx KQT9 AKxx AKJ

Declarer: KTx AJx Qxx Q9xx

A heart was led.

Apologies for the length of this analysis; as in my favorite Twain quote, “I didn’t have time to write a shorter one."

The obvious question is, do you (a) play a spade to K without testing diamonds, or (b) test diamonds first? As a straight percentage problem, the easiest thing to calculate, I think, is swing cases. (a) wins a swing when rho has 4 diamonds and SA, about 11%. (b) wins a swing when diamonds 3-3 and sa off, about 18%. Note that when diamonds are 5-1 you can switch to spades, so no swing in that case.

We didn’t take into account that an expert lho may duck the SA (!) when you lead low to the K (if you do it early), hoping you have KQT and misguess later. The likelihood of this is very hard to evaluate.

Of course, it looks attractive to (c) cash your hearts+clubs before committing yourself. The percentages may change. You would come down to:

Dummy: x --- AKxx ---

Declarer: KT --- Qxx ----

and can still choose either option. The drawback to this is that when LHO shows out on the second round of diamonds, you can no longer switch gears (you’re cut off from spades,) so this line looks bad when diamonds are 5-1. You might therefore leave the 4^th club uncashed. But cashing all your winners has an advantage: if RHO started with QJxx spades and 4 diamonds, he’ll be squeezed down to a stiff spade honor and you make it if you read the position, which I think you will: who is diabolical enough to pitch a spade honor and keep 2 small, holding such as Jxxxx xx Jxx xxx?

I love how this extremely simple-looking hand has so many wrinkles. Another diabolical falsecard opportunity that might occur is when RHO has the aforementioned QJxx xx JTxx xxx. When you cash hearts and clubs, what if he nonchalantly pitched a diamond and two spades (preferably diamond first,) unguarding diamonds? Wouldn’t you think he must have started with 5 diamonds, and play for the SA onside? Could any defender do that in real life, though? He doesn’t even know you have the ST.

My verdict is that I would cash all the winners (this is assuming hearts+clubs aren’t 5-1), then try to get the ending right – if RHO has even two fewer round cards than LHO, my calculations say the percentages shift enough to favor (a).

The real-life story? RHO had AJxx xx JTxx xxx. Both declarers tested hearts and clubs without cashing the 4^th club, then despite the breaks took line (b), going down for a push. If they had cashed the last club they would have seen the SJ pitch and probably gone right whether or not they did the math. No falsecard opportunities with this hand; any other pitch leaves declarer only winning options.

No inference from the auction?

2009-06-26T12:40:00.000-05:00

White on red, you deal and reach 4H on an uncontested auction: 1H – 4C - 4H

Dummy: 984 K952 A87643 ---

Declarer: A2 Q8764 QT92 A6

There is no perfect bid with dummy’s hand, so I think the splinter with a void is fine. The SJ is led. How do you play?

With this trump combination, you need to decide which opponent is more likely to have a stiff trump and lead a low one through him, succeeding when he has stiff A, J or T, as well as on 2-2 breaks other than JT tight (assuming you take the second-round restricted-choice finesse.) No opposing bidding here, so it’s just a guess, right? Not at all! It was much easier for lefty to enter this auction than righty, which means that righty is much more likely to have a stiff heart (and 10 or 11 black cards.) So, ruff a club and lead a small heart. I’ve thought about this kind of auction before, so the inference should have been routine, but somehow when it came up (round of 32 at the USBC) I was “off my game” and played a heart to the K at trick 2. RHO had stiff T, and there was no stiff K in diamonds, so that was down 1. I cannot report the auction at the other table, but the board was a push.

Note that because the auction makes 2-2 trump breaks more likely, one might be tempted to go against restricted choice even when the HT appears, but I do think you should finesse…there are lots of hands where rho can’t bid red/white with a stiff heart.

The hand record is at http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2009/hands/USBC2009_R32_13_20_1-30.PDF (board 12)

A digression on tennis

2009-06-26T11:12:00.000-05:00

I'm generally interested in the rules of all games -- in particular, in the "best" set of rules, that will make the game the most fun to watch or play, or most likely to pick a worthy champion, according to the goals of the contest. Those of you who have watched Wimbledon over the years won't be surprised by what I have to say: the game (on the men's side) would be much more fun to watch if the serving weren't so dominant. I (and others) have thought this for years; I was reminded by having just viewed what is probably the most extreme set ever played in this regard. In the 4th set between Ivo Karlovic and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, they reached 6-all with the servers losing only one point combined! That's 24/24 for Karlovic, 24/25 for the comparatively pathetic serve of Tsonga. They must have choked up under the pressure of the tiebreak, because the 6'10" Karlovic actually lost a point on serve (by missing an easy volley) and Tsonga lost two, Karlovic taking the tiebreak and the match 7-5. Too bad, it would have been fascinating to see how long the 5th set (with no tiebreak) would have lasted! (Note: Just before I tuned in, Karlovic had in fact won the 3rd set with the only break of the match.)

Well, it's clear the game would have more suspenseful moments for the fans, as well as putting more of a premium on a variety of skilled shotmaking by the players, if the serve weren't so dominant. Of course if someone wanted to fix this, it's not hard to think of proposals such as shrinking the service box or, even more extreme, allowing only one serve. There are reasons, of course, that this is very unlikely to happen. For one thing, the current top players have mastered their craft under the current rules, and I suspect they would hate the idea of any significant change. For another, the current rules work fine for casual players, and it would be inconvenient to have different rules at all levels other than professional (I admit that even as a *very* casual player, I liked the idea that I was on the same-shaped court with the same rules as the pros.)

Something that can be done without a revolt is to tinker with the surface, and in fact Wimbledon did this a few years ago, so a backcourt game is more viable there than it used to be, and returners have more of a chance. I find the improvement in watchability to be generally quite noticeable. Also possible is some restriction on rackets -- I've heard this is politically very difficult because of the sponsors, but golf restricts the clubs, so maybe it's not impossible.

By the way: a very modest rule change that players might not find too jarring would be to make all serves that hit the netcord faults (as in volleyball.) No one aims for the netcord, and it's basically luck when it drops in for a let anyway, so this leaves the game relatively unchanged while decreasing the server's advantage by a smidgen.

Squeeze or be squeezed

2009-06-12T10:02:00.000-05:00

A simple-looking 3nt on board 32 from our 3^rd quarter against the Diamond team led to very interesting play. The hand record is at: http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBCUSA2/hands/USBCUSA2_2009_R32_5_T1_31-60.PDF

The play started the same way at both tables: North (Brad Moss and I) led a spade, declarer played 2 more rounds, and we played a 4^th round. Now declarer led the DQ and we both erred by ducking. Brian Platnick capitalized by cashing his clubs, and I was squeeze/endplayed – whatever I pitched, he could exit appropriately for 9 tricks. Note the difference if I win the diamond and cash my spade -- *declarer* is squeezed from 9 winners down to 8, I exit safely, and he is down. Notice also, declarer had to “steal” that diamond trick before the squeeze would function against me. Well played, right? Maybe not.

At the other table, after the DQ was ducked, declarer (Mark Lair) led a heart to the K, for an immediate down 1. The commentators found this odd, but unsurprisingly Lair’s play is well-reasoned. Suppose we move the HA to the South hand. Now after Platnick cashed his clubs and exited a diamond, the last spade would squeeze him for down 1. (The defense has cleverly lost 8 tricks to rectify the count J.) So effectively Platnick played North for the HA and Lair played South for it -- Lair’s play looks like the better percentage because of the spade distribution, so declarer “should” go down even after the misdefense. Maybe Platnick thought he had a sure thing by forcing me to lead hearts, and overlooked the possible impending squeeze against him. Or maybe I do him a disservice and he “read” me for the HA, but I don’t see how.

Now, Moss and I should have been able to avoid that fatal diamond duck – once you think about it, it can’t be wrong to win, cash your spade and exit. We were led astray by the rule of thumb “no point in winning the trick if you don’t have 5 to cash.” This is often a good rule, but the rule that truly applied here was “grab your tricks early if endplays are possible.” Note that this would have been really obvious if clubs had been cashed first, and we had pitched a diamond – no one would then duck the diamond and leave themselves with bare ace. Holding Axx in diamonds gave a false sense that it was ok to duck the trick – the third diamond is an illusion because you can be squeezed out of it.

By the way, it looks like an improvement for declarer to play one round of diamonds before the 3^rd round of spades. This is necessary to make it double-dummy (following Platnick’s line thereafter. If you plan to play South for HA I suppose it doesn’t matter.)

In Round of 16

2009-06-07T14:25:00.000-05:00

Teammates had great 3rd quarter to lead by 51, we played solid 4th to win by 73.

Now we play against Jacobs.

Playing the round of 32

2009-06-06T17:22:00.000-05:00

Down 12 after 1 quarter. I messed up a couple of hands that are bothering me. Sitting out the 2nd quarter now -- 3rd and 4th quarter tomorrow.

Update: Teammates picked some up, we're up 11 after 30/60 boards. 3rd and 4th quarters tomorrow.

First day complete

2009-06-05T20:57:00.000-05:00

Having played 7/10 of our matches, we are 18 VPs above average, 2nd in our group. The first day's results are at http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2009/RRsheet.php?stage=RR1&group=Mets

Cohler, the top-seeded team in this stage (higher-ranked teams have byes), is currently below the surface and has only two matches to come up for air. Schwartz, #2 in our group, has their head just above water. Unlikely they both make it; someone would need to fall hard. In the other group the top teams are much more comfortable. (I prefer the drowning metaphor to an NCAAish "on the bubble" -- maybe it seems more appropriate because we know where the "surface" is.)

Live blog from Team Trials

2009-06-05T16:03:00.000-05:00

You hold xxx xx Axx QJT8x. You deal, red/white, it goes P-3D-X-P-?

Let’s say you bid 3NT. It goes P, P, double and you…?

I got this one wrong and we lost that match, but so far about 8 VPS above average through 4 matches.

Update: We’ve now played 6 of our 10 matches and are 20 VPs above average. 7 out of 11 qualify, so we would have to really stink to blow it. We might win our group, which would give us a small bonus in seeding points.

A tricky defensive problem: You hold xxx AKJ9 xxx xxx, on lead against 1c-1h-2nt-3nt. Say you lead the A, which asks for attitude. Dummy has JTx 8xxx Jt9x Ax. Partner plays the lowest outstanding spot, upside-down attitude. Your play?

Cute defensive hand

2009-05-26T12:48:00.000-05:00

This hand is adapted from a Swiss event last week at the NYC regional.

Dummy: QT8x xx AKJx Jxx

You: 9xx AKT xx K9xxx

The opponents reach 4S via a Stayman auction: 1NT-2C-2H-3NT-4S. You choose to lead a diamond. Dummy wins, partner encourages. A heart is ducked to your T and you play another diamond – after some thought declarer, an expert, wins and ducks another heart. You get out with a third heart, ruffed in dummy. Declarer runs the CJ to your K and you exit a club which he wins with the A. Now he leads the HQ. You are down to 9xx --- --- xxx and dummy now has QTx --- Jx x. What is going on, and what do you do?

Answer: Declarer must have started with AKxx Qxxx xx AQx. So, he could pull trumps and claim, but he is afraid you have 4 trumps (especially since he infers you have only 3 hearts and 2 diamonds) and hoping to get some information when he leads the HQ. Discard, and he may assume you didn’t want to ruff from Jxxx and hook the ST, going down in a “cold” contract.

At the table, I actually had J9x of trumps (that’s the “adapted” part of the story), so there was no way for declarer (Gavin Wolpert) to go down at this point. He did say he was indeed planning to hook the trumps if I discarded.

GNT district final -- slam hand

2009-05-19T17:24:00.000-05:00

On Saturday our team (me/Jiang Gu, Josh Sher/Mike Prahin) lost the 56-board District 3 GNT final by about 20 imps. Good luck to Bob Heitzman/Jeff Aker and Bruce Rogoff/Josh Parker at nationals. We picked up some imps on the following hand:

I held Txx AK AQx Kxxxx, partner opened 1H, and the auction was uncontested:

1H-2C-2D-2H-3H-4C-4D-??

Fortunately we had agreed that 2H here only shows 2. I think this is a useful bid to have for hands where other bids are misdirected, and I think jumping to 3H over 2D when you want to show 3 and set trumps is fine – still plenty of room to cuebid. Anyway in our cuebidding style 4C should deny any (1^st or 2^nd-round) spade control, so I was sure partner had one to make another try with 4D. I had terrific red-suit cards I hadn’t really promised, so I was sure we belonged in slam. I decided to bid 6D; it seemed clear this would show 2-3 in the reds and let partner make an intelligent choice. After some thought, he passed with: A J9xxxx KJTx Ax. There is not much to choose between 6D and 6H, both good contracts; 6D might survive 4-1 hearts if they don’t lead trumps, so it looks a little better, but it could be in trouble if diamonds are 5-1 with hearts 3-2. Of course at the 7-level, diamonds would be much better – 7D is about 60%, but on this kind of combination can you really be sure your counterparts will reach 6? They didn’t in this case. Also 60% is just barely high enough even if we are sure they bid 6; and it’s quite hard for either of us to know enough to give us that 60% -- the DT is crucial, for instance. So in practice it's a bit academic that 7D is a "good" contract.

At the table, the hearts were Qx and diamonds broke normally, so you’re making 7 of anything – we picked up 12 imps.

Overruffs looming (Updated)

2009-05-10T19:06:00.000-05:00

Here’s a hand from a Thursday match on BBO I worried for a few days I should have played a bit differently:

Dummy: 932 986 AJ9732 4

Declarer: AQT75 AQ5 Q AT53

At both vul, I dealt and the auction was 1S-2C-2S-P-4S-P-P-P

The play began unobjectionably, I think: CK to the ace, DQ to the K and A, heart to the Q and K, HT to the A, club ruff low (rho played the J), DJ pitching a heart (they follow small). Now the position is:

Dummy: 93 9 9732 --

Declarer: AQT75 ---- ----- T5

And you’ve lost one trick. Your move?

(I suppose I should cash the DJ earlier in case clubs were 7-1 and I never get back to dummy. But we would get to this same crossroads.)

Update: After a little more thought, I really don’t think my play was wrong. Anyway, here is what happened: I realized that the contract was unmakeable if lefty had Kx in trumps (must lose overruff, trump king and club or the equivalent.) Since I need rho to have the SK, and I can score at most one club ruff anyway, it looked right to play a spade to the Q at this point rather than guess if a red-suit ruff was safe, and that is what I did. Indeed this line makes easily if lefty has xx in trump, or stiff J. I didn’t notice until later that you won’t make if lefty has Jx trumps, because there is always a promotion – but no other play will make either, so my original logic and intuition still seem sound. You also can’t make on any line if lho has small stiff.

So what happened at the table? Why, the one case I didn’t mention, of course: lho had stiff K. So I was down 1. Of course you can cater to stiff K if you choose; but I don’t see any line which caters to both stiff K and xx on the left – xx is 3 cases, so must be more likely than stiff K even though the individual cases are less likely because of the club break. Except that stiff K happened – that makes it more likely J.

At the other table, there was an interesting variation. Declarer in the same ending ruffed a heart small which lived, then ruffed a club with S9, overruffed by J. A trump came back and he had to guess; he finessed, playing lefty for 8x, so that was a push. I think he actually should have played for the drop at this point. Suppose lho indeed started with 8x Kxx Kx KQxxxx. RHO has just given you an unlikely gift by playing a trump – if he played the DT, partner’s 8 is eventually promoted (or declarer can pull trump and lose 3 tricks anyway.) So, going back to the 7-card ending, my play must be right – it caters to all cases of xx (meaning 86, 84 and 64) on the left rather than basically committing you to play for stiff K (or 64) as well as risking 5-2 hearts.

Phew! After a few days of worrying about this hand, I think my conscience is clean. Now someone can tell me I’m wrong.

Double, double (Updated)

2009-04-20T12:57:00.000-05:00

Some years ago, I wrote a series of haiku about Lightner doubles:

Double is Lightner

Asking for a heart? A spade?

A diamond or club?

Double is Lightner

Asking for whatever suit

That partner wants led

Double is Lightner

But, when they rewind, I think:

Was it stripe-tailed ape?

Try a passive trump

The only lead to beat it?

They run thirteen tricks

While Mr. Lightner had a very nice concept, the pitfalls are many. The following situation came up in a Swiss event yesterday:

At red v. white, you hold AKTxxxxx – xx Kxx in second seat. The auction proceeds:

1H-4S-5D-5S

6H-P - P-P/X

At one table the partner of this hand passed, at the other he doubled (and all passed). What would you lead in each case? Assume you have a good partner but haven’t specifically discussed this kind of situation. If you would bid differently, feel free to chime in as well.

Update: In fact partner of the given hand held Qxxx Txx Axx xxx. The double was based on a suspicion that the opponents were saving (probably not a good double even if it meant that, with only one trick.) A diamond was led at the table with the double and the contract was unbeatable, with declarer having J AQJxxxxxx x Ax and dummy -- K KQJTxxx QJxxx. At my table I declared 6H undoubled -- I'm with Drew and Kenny who led a club here, but the opponents led a spade tapping dummy and I had to take the club hook and go down.

Should the double be Lightner? I think so. A better hand could have maybe bid 5H as a slam try rather than 5S, after which a double would clearly just mean it's our hand. But it's not totally clear, so the hand on lead could have guessed that partner didn't have a diamond void and led something else, especially since it's not clear where you get a second trick other than SA if partner is ruffing a diamond. It's best to have as many partnership agreements as possible, but if on uncertain ground it's ok to look at your hand and make a practical guess. Best to know what partner means and not be in that position!

BTW you can make 5S on an endplay, so anyone who saves at red/white beats a club leader this time (although I don't think I would.)

Bidding problems from District GNT

2009-04-09T14:02:00.000-05:00

Many bidding problems are clearly a bit of a guess -- if you can reason well about the percentage guess, the long-run rewards are significant. Here are two problems from a close District GNT semifinal which we won last weekend (final at a later date.)

1. You hold Ax AKQT9x xxx Jx. At neither vul., partner opens 3c in second seat, passed to you. Your style is "modern standard." Your call?

2. You hold xxx x Jxx AJ9xxx. White v. red, partner deals and opens 3S -- the auction continues 3S-4H-4S-5S-P-6H-?? Are you bidding?
(stories follow)

----------------------

#1: I decided opposite most hands we needed at least a club hook, more often needed a hook and heart break, and sometimes had no play for game. The few times game was good didn't seem to compensate and I passed. Partner held xxx x xx AQxxxxx (how traditional) and just made 3C. At the other table my hand bid 3h and preemptor bid 3nt, which even on a non-diamond lead is under 40%. They won the spade lead and lost a club hook -- down 5, we won 8 imps. Needed some luck, but I think I made the percentage guess.

#2: A difficult guess -- you know the save will be super-cheap, but mightn't partner have a stiff club, so you can beat 6H even when the opponents have their bids? An agonizing decision where you can lose 12-14 imps either by a phantom save or by failing to save. I can't tell you for sure what I would have done, because partner did it for me -- holding KQJxxxx xxx x Tx he bid 6S over 5S, so the problem I posed never arose. Against imperfect defense he got out for 500 and we won 14. (His lefty holding Kx clubs needed to pop king to cut communication at a crucial moment -- he led a low club from hand to discourage this, good technique.)

Upgrades

2009-04-02T10:18:00.000-05:00

Have you noticed that your partners and opponents (not you, of course – you are a very sound bidder) seem to be more likely to have 14 hcp than 17 for a 15-17 notrump? This might not be an illusion, and they might not be wild bidders, either.

Let’s assume that 5-3-3-2, 4-4-3-2 and 4-3-3-3, including 5-card majors, are considered balanced. The 5-3-3-2s represent about 1/3 of the balanced hands. I feel safe in saying a typical expert upgrades the majority of these. Of course, you wouldn’t upgrade QJ Jxx Jxxxx AKQ :-) – but you would upgrade AJT9 KTx Kx KT9x or the like. Let’s assume 1/3 of all balanced hands are upgraded, for now. I don’t think this represents wild overbidding. Subjectively, I’m fairly certain there are people who upgrade more than 1/3 of hands, maybe close to ½.

The important objective statistic is that balanced 14s are about 2.3 times more common than balanced 17s. (Thanks to Richard Pavlicek’s excellent webpage for some of these stats; as he notes, the hcp distribution is different for balanced vs. unbalanced hands.) If your opponent (or partner) upgrades 1/3 of the 14s to 1NT, and 1/3 of the 17s to the 18-19 range, then when he opens a 15-17 1NT you should assume he is about 1.15 times more likely to have 14 than 17! If all the 15s and 16s are treated as 15-17, the overall percentages are that a 15-17 NT will contain

14 hcp: 17% 15: 39% 16:30% 17: 14%

Just hypothetically, if someone upgrades half of all balanced hands, the percentages become:

14 hcp: 24% 15: 37% 16:28% 17: 10%

So 14 would be almost as likely as 16, and much more likely than 17.

Decisions, decisions

2009-03-31T10:41:00.000-05:00

This hand from a bbo match presented a number of interesting decisions. Spoilers are embedded so you may want to cover things up as you go…or just enjoy the story.

Neither vul, partner dealt and bid 3h. Second hand doubled. I held:

♠ K972
♥ Q
♦ AJ832
♣ AJ9

What is your plan?

(a) bid 4h
(b) pass planning to double anything
(c) pass planning to double some things, bid over others
(d) xx inviting partner’s input

I chose (b), with much less than 100% confidence, on the basis that game wasn’t certain and +300 seemed like a reasonable expectation, with a sufficiently small chance of -530. I would expect substantial expert support for (a). I don’t like (d) because partner is unlikely to be able to help you, and you might help the opponents.

Lefty bid 3S which I doubled. RHO ran to 4D, doubled more happily. I led HQ and visible was

J865
A95
95
T765

K972
Q
AJ832
AJ9

Dummy won HA, 2 from partner (udca, standard suit-pref), and ran D9, partner following with the 7. Your plan?

I think ducking this to get a signal from partner on the next trick is best, but I won and tried a spade – small, ten, queen. At tricks 4 and 5 I ducked the DT and DQ, partner pitching hearts up the line. Now declarer played A and a spade, and I was in with 6 tricks to go, now holding 9 – A8 AJ9 with J 9 – T765 in dummy. Your move?

Partner seems to be 2-7-1-3. I think he should certainly not pitch this way with 3 small clubs, so he has Kxx or Qxx. Perhaps Qxx is more likely, because he might have pitched a small one from Kxx. Do you see how to guarantee 5 of the last 6, for down 4, when partner has Qxx?

The (actual) ending:
Dummy: J 9 – T765
Me: 9 – A8 AJ9 Partner: -- KJT -- Q32
Declarer: -- 7 K6 K84

The CJ to create an entry to partner is a nice try, but declarer can counter by ducking. You must play A and a diamond, giving up your trump trick – partner must be careful to pitch one club, keeping Qx with two heart winners, to avoid a throw-in, and declarer is dead. (After CJ ducked, do you get a second chance to play diamonds? Interestingly, no – you have stripped an idle card from partner and he is strip-squeezed.)

At the table I fell from grace and led the C9. I could say I was playing partner for CK, but that doesn't hold up -- you can't get 1100 anyway so your play is irrelevant. Getting 800 when he has CQ is clearly the issue – the fact is if I had thought of the right play, I would have done it. It went 9,T,Q,K and I was endplayed again with a club for down 3.

Declarer had AQ4 73 KQT64 K84. Final result: +500, win 2 against -420 (3h-x-4h at the other table.) Win 9 would have been so much nicer.

Footnote: More double-dummy madness: suppose declarer gives you back the trump trick, playing DK under the A. Partner must adjust his discards, keeping 3 clubs and one heart when you cash D8, then you must exit CJ. Going back, the order of partner’s discards in the main variation must be club last.

Opening leads

2009-03-28T12:18:00.000-05:00

As a counterweight to all this deep analysis, here are a couple of opening lead problems. In a 20-board match the other day on BBO, interestingly we made all 12 of our contracts, and the opponents made 6 of 8 -- no misdefense, just a lot of winning finesses! The two outliers hinged on these opening leads:

1. Both vul, opps bid uncontested 1nt-2d-2h-3h-4h
You hold: KJ862 K KT4 J742

2. Neither vul, opps bid uncontested 1s-2d-2nt-3d-3s-3nt-4nt-6nt
You hold: J83 K92 5 QT9762

Fun with KT doubleton

2009-03-24T16:07:00.000-05:00

A few years ago in a New England knockout, I failed to falsecard from KT in a suit where dummy had Q9x and declarer AJ8xx. It looked like a potential game swing away, but an accomplished player at the other table missed the opportunity also, for a push. Alan Applebaum (who was declaring for our team at the other table) told me afterwards that ever since someone pulled that one against him many years ago, his alertness goes up the minute he picks up a hand with KT doubleton. Seems like a good tip. Like most little points of bridge technique, it didn’t come up for a few years, until…

Playing a compact ko match against some French internationals in Houston, I held QJxx KT Axx Q8xx. White v. red, lho dealer, the auction went P-1D-P-1S-X-XX-2C-X-AP, where the XX was support. Hoping that partner had stuff in hearts, I led a trump, and dummy had xx AJ87x xx KTxx. Dummy played low, partner won the A and led a low spade, declarer winning the K. Declarer led a low heart and I played the K – note that aside from the falsecard possibility, this would be the normal communication-cutting play if declarer held 9x or xx. In fact declarer held Kxxx Q9x xx J9xx. After long thought, he played a low heart to the 9 and T. We cashed our pointed winners and tapped the dummy, and with no hand entry he had to give me two more trump tricks, for down 2, a juicy 500. Notice that double-dummy, my brilliant K lets declarer make an overtrick instead of going down 1 (it gives him a hand re-entry and unblocks the hearts. He had just blown the contract dbl-dummy, less than a second earlier, by blocking the hearts. After H9!, T, J, he can exit with CT and the defense has no answer.) If you make declarer’s H9 a low spot my play would look bad for sure, so I can’t put this on the personal highlight reel without reservations, although it was certainly good fun.

Justice in bridge is very long-term. We won that earlier New England ko match despite the missed opportunity, but the 11 imps won on this hand (vs. 3nt -1) were not enough to win the 12-board match.

A hand from the Spring NABC

2009-03-20T10:15:00.000-05:00

I hate to say it, but for most bridge players I know, disappointments stick in the mind at least as long as triumphs. It's particularly disappointing to miss a pretty play that would have paid off. The pangs almost always hit me immediately after a hand -- the one area I consider myself truly world-class is the post-mortem :-). But in this case, what with the hurry of that inexorable 15-minute pairs clock, the tension of being close in a national final, and the need to keep moving on to the next hand, there wasn't much time for analysis, and the painful feelings didn't strike until five days later. I was back home coming out of the shower when I remembered this hand from the second final session of the NAPs, and realized that not only was it makable, but I should have made it:

Dummy: K975 842 84 QJ94

Declarer: AQ2 AJ973 K5 AT5

With RHO dealer, neither vul., the auction went P-1H-P-2H-X-4H-AP, and the S3 was led, which could systemically be three small or honor-third. Plan the play. Extensive analysis in the comments.