Another match, another partner

Second league match against Linlithgow and I'm playing with Bif for the first time. Bif has partnered Les in the Scotland team for the last few years and plays with (Brighton team mate) Martin in the Gold Cup: I'm not sure what he's done wrong in a past life to deserve this but he bears it with fortitude.

We played the system that Les and Bif play. More precisely we play what is on their WBF system card and make up the rest, but this seemed to work and we had no systemic or defensive carding problems.

However we were not card perfect and the team scraped through with a narrow win. It was a wild set of hands in the first set and we had a comfortable 1,800 point lead, but a series of setbacks on the quieter second half meant that we nearly lost it.

This was the best hand I held in the match:

Board 12; Aggregate

♠ KQJx ♥ x ♦ AJx ♣ AKQTx

West	North	East	South
	Bif		Paul
1♦	p	1♥	X
2♥	p	4♥	X
p	p	p

Bif held the ace of spades and four trumps. This held the contract to a single overtrick! This auction was repeated at one other table, but unfortunately support doubles were costly for Iain and John, as this permitted the North hand to bid 2♣ and they only got +500 from 5♣ doubled.

The second half started with another bidding problem for me:

Board 13; Aggregate

♠ QT9 ♥ 8xxxx ♦ AKxx ♣ x

♠ K ♥ Q ♦ Txxx ♣ AKQxxxx

West	North	East	South
	Bif		Paul
	p	1♠	2♣
2♠	X	p	3♣
p	p	p

I really wanted to do more on the second round but game seemed unlikely opposite a passed hand holding only two major cards. As it happens this was the right decision, as the defence has 5 hearts and the ace of spades to cash against 3NT, and it was only a silly defensive error that allowed me to make the eleventh trick in clubs.

Finally, what do you open with

Board 21; Aggregate

♠ Ax ♥ x ♦ AKJTxxxx ♣ xx

Simultaneously ...

Back at the club for the SBU Simultaneous Pairs. I haven't played in one of these for decades but Reg fancied a game. I did discover that I missed a couple of Berwick pairs, including Betty and Marguerite, at Peebles but apparently there did not frequent the bar as regularly as me. Plus I was always talking to someone, apparently.

It was against these two that I had a tough decision.

Board 19; Matchpoints

	♠ K8 ♥ QJ9x ♦ QJTxx ♣ KJ
♠ J ♥ Axxx ♦ Axxx ♣ xxxx		♠ Txxx ♥ KTxx ♦ Kxx ♣ xx
	♠ AQ9xxx ♥ x ♦ x ♣ AQTxx

West	North	East	South
Marguerite	Paul	Betty	Reg
			1♠
p	2♦	p	3♣
p	3NT	p	p
p

Reg should really have continued with 4♣ but I had the opportunity for a good score when they switched to clubs after taking two heart tricks.

I cashed the king of spades and Marguerite dropped the ♠J. After considerable thought I decided to play for the 4-1 break and romped home with eleven tricks after finessing the ♠9.

My decision to finesse is technically wrong, as West should play a high spade when holding ♠J10x. This holding is far more likely than a singleton honour, or the restricted choice ♠J10 combination. Luckily it was right on the night.

Generally we had a sound game and finished with 65%. This was only good enough for second place as George and Brian had a huge game, but even they might be disappointed with 69%. This will be scored across Scotland and I think George's score will probably stand up better than ours, but we'll get a decent placing.

Autumn Peebles

I played with Ian in the Autumn Congress, reaching the finals of both the pairs and the teams. Normally we'd swap partners for these events, but Harry and Finlay needed further practice prior to the Camrose Trials so we'd had a number of sessions to try and hone our system.

Friday afternoon was the Mens Teams. The following hand was not particularly exciting at our table, but caused havoc elsewhere.

Board 16; IMPs

	♠ x ♥ AJxx ♦ Kxxx ♣ QJxx
♠ KQxx ♥ Txx ♦ ATxxxx ♣		♠ Axxxx ♥ xxx ♦ QJx ♣ Ax
	♠ JTx ♥ KQx ♦ ♣ KT9xxxx

West	North	East	South
	Ian		Paul
p	p	p	p

We lost 3 IMPs on this board when Harry and Finlay bid the EW hands to 4♠. I didn't hear their auction but I expect there some competitive bidding in clubs.

At another table North/South bid the hand to 6♣, helped by confusion over whether a bid was a cue bid or Kickback Blackwood.

We finished on 128/240 VPs, 6th out of 13.

The Friday evening is the first round of the pairs, with four (in each direction) to qualify from the nine tables for the semi-final. Ian and I played soundly but without much luck, so I was happy just to qualify, finishing 3rd with 54%.

Saturday started poorly with the news that Harry had departed (for personal reasons) and Finlay would be playing with a substitute in the teams qualifying in the afternoon. Ian had actually driven Harry home in the morning and there was some concern that he may not make it back in time but, in the end, he made it with 30 minutes to spare.

With Robert as our substitute we both had a tremendous session and scored 129/140 VPs. I had been concerned about the qualification as it was only the top two teams from a field of eight, but as second place was 84 VPs clearly I was wrong. Our total IMP score was 152-7 IMPs over 28 boards.

We put South under pressure on this board:

Board 7; IMPs

	♠ xx ♥ T ♦ JT9xx ♣ Jxxxx
♠ KQxxx ♥ x ♦ KQxxx ♣ xx		♠ JT ♥ AJ9xx ♦ x ♣ KQT98
	♠ A98x ♥ KQ8xxx ♦ A6 ♣ A

West	North	East	South
Paul		Ian
			1♥
3♣1	p	3♠	4♥
p	p	X	p
p	p

¹5 spades and 5 diamonds

South clearly does best to pass 3♠, or even double, but overexurberance was costly to the tune of -800 and 14 IMPs.

Saturday evening was the semi-final of the pairs. Only the top six to qualify but we comfortably finished second and, even then, were mildly surprised to be behind Iain. A little luck and a little skill helped us to a good score here:

Board 25; Matchpoints

	♠ Tx ♥ QJx ♦ AKJTxx ♣ Jx
♠ Jxx ♥ xxx ♦ xxx ♣ K8xx		♠ Kxxxx ♥ Txxxx ♦ Qx ♣ Q
	♠ AQx ♥ AK ♦ xx ♣ AT9xxx

West	North	East	South
	Paul		Ian
	1♦	p	2♣
p	2♦	p	3NT
p	p	p

A no-nonsense approach saw Ian playing a hand with slam potential in game. On a spade lead he crossed to the ace of diamonds and led a low club. This wins against singleton club honour and only loses to singleton ♣8, so clearly the best play. He established the clubs and then played a diamond to the king and made 12 tricks.

A number of people played in 6♣, but went down when they led the ♣J from dummy.

Sunday was finals day. In the teams final we let a couple of games make which proved expensive when the boards were very flat. We finished in sixth place with an average score.

In the pairs final we finished in the middle of the field with another everage score. The field was somewhat skewed, with (imho) a very strong North-South line. This proved to be the case with 6 of the top 7 places going to East-West pairs, so even if we had played perfectly a good score would have difficult to achieve.

Farewell to Diana

Scottish congresses are different. They are welcoming, friendly, old fashioned, filled with players of all abilities whose main aim is to finish the bridge and get into the bar or a party.

This year's Autumn Congress at Peebles was much the same for most, but for a group of us it was also time to say au revoir (or is it à bientôt?) to Diana. She left at 2am on Monday morning in a taxi to the airport, off to Kenya for 3 weeks to see her fiancé and then on to Kazakhstan for her new job. It was a tearful farewell but I'm sure she'll be back for some events next year.

If you are bothered then the congress results can be found on the SBU site.

A case of us against .... us

First match of the league season. As I was in sole charge of our dogs I was not intending to play, but a last minute call meant I would line up for the 49ers against the Berwick A team.

Of course the Berwick team would prefer that I played for them and Reg has already offered financial inducements for me to switch next season ... assuming he wins the Lottery.

The Berwick team had an excellent season last year, winning the second division comfortably. I'm sure they were nervous about playing a team with 5 Scotland internationals, a Lithuanian import and, arguably, the best Berwick player but they performed very creditably, Berwick were +100 at the half (aggregate scoring) and only lost by 1,600 at the end. If they keep up that level of performance then they'll be well positioned to keep their place in the top league.

I played with Patrick against Penny and Diana (definitely Reg's Better Half) on table 3. No changes of opponent in this competition, just 24 boards using aggregate scoring.

In the first half Patrick and I missed a simple slam - as Patrick does not have a computer I can probably safely say that this was more his fault than mine, although our team mates (Les and Dave) did not have a great auction and just punted it. However Penny and Diana missed an easy game being over cautious in the light of our bidding and we had the better of the rest - we were -370 at the half, about 300 points better than Les and Dave. Sam and Diana were about +1,000 but Iain and Bronius were negative and probably the reason for the small deficit.

The second half started well for us when my light takeout double caused Patrick to double their 3NT contract. This would have made with careful play, but Penny and Diana ran to 4♥ which was doomed to lose -500.

The hand that caused the biggest swing, albeit not at our table, revolved around bidding this hand:

♠ 9xxx ♥ ATxx ♦ Jxx ♣ QJ

Rightly or wrongly (Les says wrongly), Dave and I both decided to look for game opposite a strong 1NT. We invited game when partner showed 4 spades and this was accepted with a control-rich 17 points. One Berwick pair also bid this poor game and the swing occurred when Sam doubled holding ♠KQJx. This contract has no play and is always down two. Unfortunately Diana decided the double was takeout and her 'escape' cost -1400 - a swing of almost 2,000 points!

The most interesting hand was the following slam. Neither Berwick pair bid it, but we both did and so Dave (Scotland international, current Gold Cup holder) and I were in the hot seat:

Board 14; Aggregate ♠ KQJxx ♥ Axx ♦ KTxx ♣ J

♠ Axxx ♥ KQ ♦ xx ♣ AQ98x

West	North	East	South
Paul	Diana	Patrick	Penny
		1♣	p
1♠	p	3♠	p
4NT	p	5♥	p
6♠	p	p	p

Diana, and Reg at the other table, led a trump. Entries are awkward but I will be able to pitch a diamond on the heart and ruff at least one diamond. If trumps are 2-2 then I could ruff two diamonds and play for either the ace of diamonds or king of clubs to be onside.

So I cashed two hearts and returned to hand with a trump, but Diana showed out discarding a high diamond. I would now only be able to ruff a single diamond, so needed the club finesse. I cashed the heart ace, pitching a diamond from dummy, and ran the ♣J. The finesse worked while Penny contributed the ♣10.

At this point the hand was as follows, with me to lead as West.

	♠ ♥ ♦ AQJ ♣ Kxx
♠ QJx ♥ ♦ KTx ♣		♠ Ax ♥ ♦ x ♣ AQ9
	♠ x ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣

I now crossed to dummy's ace of spades drawing the last trump. Diana is forced to discard a high diamond, giving further clues to the hand. I now led a diamond off dummy and just covered Penny's card, endplaying Diana.

It's always nice to play a hand more effectively than Dave (I daren't say better!). Patrick and I had some other nice boards, including a weak 2♦ ("that is weak", said Penny, as I tabled ♠x♥xx♦KTxxxx♣xxxx) that enabled us to find an effective sacrifice in 3NT.

Overall Patrick and I finished with +1,410 and were largely responsible for the win ... in our opinion :)

Edwin Berry

I played with David in the SBU National Swiss Teams yesterday. We are also playing with our team mates, Roy and Alex, in the Scottish Cup where we are the number six seeds (not least due to David and Roy having won that event numerous times).

It was a mildly frustrating day. We lost our first match 1-19 VPs doing nothing wrong and then drew with another good team at the bottom of the field - is it the Directors or the computer that always pairs the best two teams on 0-2 VPs?

Anyhow we won our remaining matches to climb up to 5th but never scored more than 17 VPs. A number of missed opportunities, especially in the final match, but we were never going to finish significantly higher.

In the 4th round we played Archie and Tony. At the time I thought I had misdefended the contract but this morning's analysis showed Tony played it card perfect:

Board 15; IMPs

	♠ T ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ KJT8xxx
♠ QJ87x ♥ ATxx ♦ JTxx ♣		♠ Kxx ♥ xxx ♦ AQxx ♣ AQx
	♠ A9xx ♥ QJx ♦ K9x ♣ 9xx

West	North	East	South
Archie	David	Tony	Paul
			p
p	3♣	p	p
X	p	3NT	p
p	p

The first decision on the hand fell to West in the balancing seat. Archie selected double whereas Alex chose 4♣, the former being more successful as long as partner does not pass (which I think he should!).

I led the ♣2 and Tony started well by (a) discarding a diamond from dummy and (b) winning the trick: both are essential to make the contract. Tony led the &spade;K which I won with the ace to continue clubs. Of course Tony ducked this and won the continuation and crossed to dummy in spades (exposing the 4-1 break) and ran the ♦J. Ducking is best as it prevents the overtrick, but I won and Tony then made 10 tricks. It is probably better if I duck the king of spades too. We lost 11 IMPs on the hand, but won the match 17-3 VPs when they misplayed a game in the other room and we defeated a slam that needed a little more than a successful finesse.

David and I did not shine on the following hand that exposed a different understanding of 'standard' methods:

Board 20; IMPs

♠ Axxx ♥ Kxx ♦ Axxx ♣ xx

♠ Qxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ Jx ♣ AKxx

West	North	East	South
	David		Paul
1♦	p	p	X
p	2♦	p	2♥
p	2♠	p	3♦
p	4♥	p	p
p

I think David's response to the balancing double is tough, but I was expecting about an ace more for a 2♦ bid. That said, 1♠ seems very wimpy and 2♠ a little presumptive.

I play David's cue bid as forcing to suit agreement and my return cue bid as showing a extra values (for the balancing position). 4♥ just shows we were on different wavelengths and we lost 7 IMPS when they (just) made 1♠ in the other room.

Overall it was a useful practice session and we'll feel more confident in the Scottish Cup. We have a bye in the first round and will play HUNTER or BLODWELL in the second round.

Board 3 from last night

A simple competitive auction provided food for thought last night and provided a revelation about 'standard' methods at the club.

Board 3; Matchpoints

	♠ Q872 ♥ J3 ♦ Q65 ♣ Q963
♠ T94 ♥ T2 ♦ AKJT87 ♣ JT		♠ KJ3 ♥ K7654 ♦ 932 ♣ K5
	♠ A65 ♥ AQ98 ♦ 4 ♣ A8742

West	North	East	South
			1♣
1♦	1♠	2♦	2♠
p	p	3♦	3♠
p	p	4♦	p
p	p

I think the first three bids are pretty standard.

East hand is now strong enough to double, rather than support diamonds immediately, to get the heart suit into the auction. This might have solved the problem that the 2♦ underbid caused later.

Over the 2♦ bid, South has a difficult choice: either double for takeout, or an immediate 2♠ bid. Personally I prefer double as this may be a good hand, although a quiet 3♣ would be all that happens this time.

Having failed to show a good raise earlier (perhaps 2♣ is better than 2♦ although behind double) East now took the push to 3♦.

I was very surprised that South now bid 3♠ with just 3-card support but East rescued us with an injudicious final bid. Getting +200 from this contract was only worth 6/10 matchpoints, so clearly everyone found this difficult.

Later discussion revealed that South thought that 1♠ had promised a 5-card suit. According to 'Berwick Standard', hands with 4-card majors are all put through a negative double. This strikes me as a poor method as you will miss a major fit whenever the opposition can pre-empt, or at least make it very difficult and dangerous to try and find the fit.

Better to play double to show difficult hands, generally 4-4 majors or good hand without a diamond stop, and just bid naturally otherwise. I wonder if I can convince them?!

RBS Round 2

Only six and a half tables for the second round of the club pairs, and with the three strongest pairs all sitting North-South it was a tough slog for the moving East-West players.

Reg and I emerged with a winning 67% score to establish an early lead in the competition. We failed to get to terms with board 10, although a pragmatic approach actually scored well:

Board 10; Matchpoints

♠ A5 ♥ K ♦ A742 ♣ AKJ953

♠ QJT7 ♥ AJ96 ♦ 3 ♣ T742

West	North	East	Reg
	Paul		South
		p	p
p	1♣	p	1♥
p	2♦	p	2♠
p	3NT	p	p
p

Bidding after a reverse is a complex subject and something that regular partnerships should discuss. Of course most club players tend to muddle by and that's an accurate description of my methods with Reg!

In unpractised partnerships I think it is normal for responder's rebid, and preference to opener's first suit, to be non-forcing with everything else game forcing. Reg really wants to bid a forcing 3♣ but had to settle for fourth suit and then it seems sensible to pass 3NT, especially at matchpoints. Of course we've missed an excellent grand slam but making nine tricks in 3NT got 9/10 matchpoints. Not an easy hand especially as it is the weaker hand that has the key diamond singleton. On this hand the clubs were 3-0 offside so 12 tricks were the limit.

There was an interesting question on board 13. Holding

♠ K9xx
♥ 9
♦ 7xx
♣ J87xx

do you respond to partner's opening bid of 1♥? I think that a 4-card major and 4 points is sufficient to try and improve the contract. Although there is a danger of a jump to 2NT, or jump rebid in hearts, there is also a fair chance partner will not do that. Anyhow, I bid 1♠ and passed Reg's 15-16 1NT bid, where he made 8 tricks. The rest of the field passed and declarer normally made 5 tricks for the matchpoint 'kiss of death', -200. One hand proves little, but I think most experts would bid.

There is only one more RBS session this year, but I'll be away so rbs reports will resume in January.