Bridge is a partnership game. In my experience there are generally two wells from which competitive players draw satisfaction in response to this inherent characteristic: Player A loves to argue with their partner after a disaster and prove why they are right and partner is wrong; Player B loves it when they actively help partner to make a winning play and, when that doesn’t happen, they reflect on how they might have helped partner do the right thing.
I’ve certainly been in both relationships at one time or another. One of the things I’ve enjoyed the most about my junior partnership with Jason Chiu is that we usually fall into the latter category. When we don’t reach the optimal spot in an auction or fail to defeat a contract I often hear “I could have” rather than “you should have.” With that in mind, here’s a hand from a match we played last night.
We’ve reached the critical juncture of the hand. The careless defender would reflexively play “3rd hand high” in this position without considering the defense from partner’s point of view. Taking partner’s heart 9 at face value, we know that declarer holds AKQ10 of hearts. Also, declarer’s play in the club suit has marked him with AJ86. Partner is therefore 4243 and—since he must hold the spade A due to declarer having counted out to 16HCP already—it is our job to ensure that he places us with the high diamonds and shifts accordingly when in with the king of clubs. Playing the jack now will allow declarer to win with the ace and leave partner blind after the next trick.
In his book, Killing Defense at Bridge, Hugh Kelsey says, “You must cherish your partner, wrap him up in cotton wool and protect him from the wiles of the declarer and from his own blunders in so far as you can.” So hold off that heart jack! Rather, you should discourage violently with the seven, allow declarer to win with the 10 and sit back and wait for the three words that should be music to any bridge player’s ears – “Nice play, partner!”
I'm sorry to say that I got this play wrong at the table. But, rather than being vindictive I tried a little introspection and saw that I was in the wrong. I hope I’m a better player as a result.
Keeping partner in mind, is there a demonstrably correct way to defend at trick one on this problem, given to me by David Gurvich?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Listening to the Auction
I've been at the horns of a lot of lead problems recently. As everyone knows, leads are a difficult part of the game because it is the one card played during the entire hand when only 13 cards are in view, therefore the least information is available. As such, it's usually quite important for whoever is on lead to think critically about the auction to incorporate any spare scraps on information they can into their decision. Together with common lead principles (top of a sequence, A or K from AK) an effective lead can more often be made than if one considers conventional leads alone.
I particularly enjoy giving lead problems to my friend, Han Peters. His thoughts are often quite in depth, and he is quite often able to guess the opponents' hand shapes within a card or two. Shape is important on lead because it often will direct the defense. Common lead questions when considering the auction are: would a forcing defense be effective? and which suit is most likely to hit partner?
A hand:
Before clicking next, think about the auction and consider the following questions.
1) Where are all the high-card points? If lefty has 15-17, righty has 9 or more (a texas transfer to spades was available) and we have 7, then partner has AT MOST 9 high card points.
2) What is partner's second suit?Looking at our diamond suit, partner's minor suit is overwhelmingly likely to be clubs.
3) Which of partner's suits would he like led? Typically at equal vulnerability you would want to have a good reason to think you aren't going to get your brains beaten out after you intervene over the opponents' 1NT. Therefore, it seems quite likely that partner has a very shapely hand that contains more than just 4 clubs, and possibly more than 5 hearts. So I guess this is a trick question. Considering these inferences together, I think that the diamond ace is the standout lead on this hand.
Consider the possible benefits: If LHO holds the diamond king (which is likely) then, if partner is short in diamonds, we can take a ruffing finesse to deny declarer this trick. Another possibility is that partner is VOID in diamonds, and you'll need to lead them on the go otherwise lose partner's ruff forever, since you have no entry to your hand. Click 'Next' on the movie.
As you can see, the diamond ace is the only lead that beats the hand. I was happy to get this problem right at the table. However, I was surprised to hear several of my friends say they would lead a heart when I gave them this problem. "I tend to lead partner's suit," was a typical response. Well, I contend that often the auction as a whole, not just partner's actions, can tell us what partner ACTUALLY wants led.
I particularly enjoy giving lead problems to my friend, Han Peters. His thoughts are often quite in depth, and he is quite often able to guess the opponents' hand shapes within a card or two. Shape is important on lead because it often will direct the defense. Common lead questions when considering the auction are: would a forcing defense be effective? and which suit is most likely to hit partner?
A hand:
Before clicking next, think about the auction and consider the following questions.
1) Where are all the high-card points? If lefty has 15-17, righty has 9 or more (a texas transfer to spades was available) and we have 7, then partner has AT MOST 9 high card points.
2) What is partner's second suit?Looking at our diamond suit, partner's minor suit is overwhelmingly likely to be clubs.
3) Which of partner's suits would he like led? Typically at equal vulnerability you would want to have a good reason to think you aren't going to get your brains beaten out after you intervene over the opponents' 1NT. Therefore, it seems quite likely that partner has a very shapely hand that contains more than just 4 clubs, and possibly more than 5 hearts. So I guess this is a trick question. Considering these inferences together, I think that the diamond ace is the standout lead on this hand.
Consider the possible benefits: If LHO holds the diamond king (which is likely) then, if partner is short in diamonds, we can take a ruffing finesse to deny declarer this trick. Another possibility is that partner is VOID in diamonds, and you'll need to lead them on the go otherwise lose partner's ruff forever, since you have no entry to your hand. Click 'Next' on the movie.
As you can see, the diamond ace is the only lead that beats the hand. I was happy to get this problem right at the table. However, I was surprised to hear several of my friends say they would lead a heart when I gave them this problem. "I tend to lead partner's suit," was a typical response. Well, I contend that often the auction as a whole, not just partner's actions, can tell us what partner ACTUALLY wants led.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Defense
I may have mentioned this before, but one my my favorite bridge quotes comes from Kelsey:
Knowledge of common positions is an essential tool to any aspiring defender. When one can fall back on the crux of common motifs rather than think strenuously about the situation they have that much more energy available to exert when necessary.
A hand:
This problem was posed to me by my friend Phil Clayton, who, it seems, has recently undertaken the task of improving my defense. The position is obviously a squeeze. Specifically, a triple squeeze. Love defines this position as: The Repeating Squeeze: Case I, wherein the hand laying opposite the initial squeeze card holds one threat. The situation is dismissed as trivial by Love, who points out that, if sitting under the single threat, one merely unguards that suit to destroy any further squeeze due to the position of the threat suits over declarer's menaces. In the problem hand a heart pitch costs you one trick but saves you another as declarer's hand is squeezed before yours on the run of the hearts.
It's worthwhile to note that the Case I can repeat if the squeezee lies over the single threat.
This is definitely a situation where it pays to be familiar with the layout. The problem could be solved without prior knowledge of repeating squeezes, but why waste the effort?
The average defender operates in a fog of uncertainty... His blunders are mainly due to faulty logic, failure to count and failure to draw simple inferences. Experts also slip up quite frequently in defense, but in their case the cause is usually a lapse in concentration. A high level of sustained vigilance is needed in order to defend without error. - Killing Defense at Bridge, 1966When I'm playing well, defense is an area of my game that I'd like to think I can take pride in. Of course, as Kelsey says, it's much easier to err as a defender than declarer, so I don't shine as often as I'd like. Obviously this is a symptom of the defender's relative lack of information, which necessitates a keener perception of logical inferences. This problem is compounded by the ability of declarer to more readily take advantage of defensive missteps rather than vice versa.
Knowledge of common positions is an essential tool to any aspiring defender. When one can fall back on the crux of common motifs rather than think strenuously about the situation they have that much more energy available to exert when necessary.
A hand:
This problem was posed to me by my friend Phil Clayton, who, it seems, has recently undertaken the task of improving my defense. The position is obviously a squeeze. Specifically, a triple squeeze. Love defines this position as: The Repeating Squeeze: Case I, wherein the hand laying opposite the initial squeeze card holds one threat. The situation is dismissed as trivial by Love, who points out that, if sitting under the single threat, one merely unguards that suit to destroy any further squeeze due to the position of the threat suits over declarer's menaces. In the problem hand a heart pitch costs you one trick but saves you another as declarer's hand is squeezed before yours on the run of the hearts.
It's worthwhile to note that the Case I can repeat if the squeezee lies over the single threat.
This is definitely a situation where it pays to be familiar with the layout. The problem could be solved without prior knowledge of repeating squeezes, but why waste the effort?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Round 1 Preview
As I believe I've said before, our first match will be 10/10/10 at 10:00 AM EDT. This match will be against USA Red, the second of two teams from the United States, the only country with multiple entrants.
In a round robin format it is almost essential that two teams from the same nation face off the the first round. Dedicated readers may remember this post. The problem here is essentially the same. If two teams from the US were to play each other in a late-round match, one may be in a much better position to qualify for the knockouts than the other and the organizers would face potential dumping issues where the lower-ranked team may purposefully blow the match.
Last night we had a small preview of this match as Fay-Chiu; Lee-Fournier went up against Katz-Goldfein; Lien-Brescoll. Over 14 boards, we won 44-34 over 14 boards. The result would have been much better for us if I hadn't chucked 22 IMPs for no good reason. Here was one of those hands:
Looking at the hand there were a few things that struck me.
1) 4HCP, usually enough to bid a vulnerable game opposite a 2NT opener
2) 3 10s, all in support of the honors I held
3) A poor 5-card suit, with all other honors in my short suits
So some pluses and some minuses. Overall I felt that our chances of making game were somewhat slim. I decided to bid puppet stayman and: A) If Jason bid 3H, bid game, B) If he bid 3D, pass, C) If he bid 3S, bid 3NT. In hindsight this strikes me as a very poor plan, as I'm always bidding game except under one condition. This is inconsistent! Furthermore, there is an aspect that favors bidding in a lot of these situations. When you hold only a 6-card minor-suit headed by the Q opposite a 2N opener it's often a good idea to bid 3NT because it's unlikely you'll take exactly 8 tricks. Either your suit will come in when partner has a fit and you'll take a lot of tricks, or it won't and you won't take many at all.
Here I decided that my chances of taking tricks would be much better in a diamond contract. However, I'm looking at the wrong aspect of the hand. I was considering that we'd be more likely to make 3D than 2N, when I should have been considering how probable we were to make 3N in comparison to 3D. If we make 3N 32.5% of the time when we make 3D (I won't do the math to include multiple undertricks or when 3D doesn't make) then I should kick down the door and bid 3N. While there is a somewhat lucky layout for the full deal, 3N rolls and we lost 11-IMPs when my counterpart wasn't afraid to bid 3N.
In a round robin format it is almost essential that two teams from the same nation face off the the first round. Dedicated readers may remember this post. The problem here is essentially the same. If two teams from the US were to play each other in a late-round match, one may be in a much better position to qualify for the knockouts than the other and the organizers would face potential dumping issues where the lower-ranked team may purposefully blow the match.
Last night we had a small preview of this match as Fay-Chiu; Lee-Fournier went up against Katz-Goldfein; Lien-Brescoll. Over 14 boards, we won 44-34 over 14 boards. The result would have been much better for us if I hadn't chucked 22 IMPs for no good reason. Here was one of those hands:
Looking at the hand there were a few things that struck me.
1) 4HCP, usually enough to bid a vulnerable game opposite a 2NT opener
2) 3 10s, all in support of the honors I held
3) A poor 5-card suit, with all other honors in my short suits
So some pluses and some minuses. Overall I felt that our chances of making game were somewhat slim. I decided to bid puppet stayman and: A) If Jason bid 3H, bid game, B) If he bid 3D, pass, C) If he bid 3S, bid 3NT. In hindsight this strikes me as a very poor plan, as I'm always bidding game except under one condition. This is inconsistent! Furthermore, there is an aspect that favors bidding in a lot of these situations. When you hold only a 6-card minor-suit headed by the Q opposite a 2N opener it's often a good idea to bid 3NT because it's unlikely you'll take exactly 8 tricks. Either your suit will come in when partner has a fit and you'll take a lot of tricks, or it won't and you won't take many at all.
Here I decided that my chances of taking tricks would be much better in a diamond contract. However, I'm looking at the wrong aspect of the hand. I was considering that we'd be more likely to make 3D than 2N, when I should have been considering how probable we were to make 3N in comparison to 3D. If we make 3N 32.5% of the time when we make 3D (I won't do the math to include multiple undertricks or when 3D doesn't make) then I should kick down the door and bid 3N. While there is a somewhat lucky layout for the full deal, 3N rolls and we lost 11-IMPs when my counterpart wasn't afraid to bid 3N.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The Field
With game time fast approaching (10:00 AM, 10/10/10) it seemed opportune to scout some of the opposing rosters. Being the premier junior event of 2010, very few of the teams can be taken lightly. Certainly, though, some are far more dangerous than others. Roster personnel can be found here.
So, who should you look out for?
Certainly two teams that jump off the page are France and Israel.
France - Headlined by Thomas Bessis -- perhaps inarguably the most successful junior in the world over the past year having won this year's Vanderbilt and finished 4th in the prestigious Cavendish Invitational Pairs -- this team appears to be deadly. Nicolas Lhuissier finished 3rd in the World Junior Paris in 2009 and Cristophe Grosset is a former European Junior Champion and fresh off a 2nd place finish at the recent FISU championships. He'll partner rising French youngster and FISU teammate, Cedric Lorenzini.
Israel - By far the most experienced team in the field, Israel sports 43 years combined junior-team membership between 6 players. Mostly comprised of the 2006 FISU championship team, Israel finished 2nd in the last European Junior Team Championships. Top to bottom, hardly a weak link.
Wild Cards - The rest of the field contains some very good players, but also some all stars, Junior status aside. Andy Hung's Aussie squad can be counted on to win a match at any time, as can former-European-Open-Champion Espen Lindqvist's Norwegians.
The next month will probably draw out quite stressfully as Jason and I prepare and try to get to a level where we could possibly defeat all these teams. Hopefully I'll feel much more calm once the action starts like in prior years. I received word from Captain Kevin Wilson yesterday that Jason and I will likely be in for our first match vs. USA2, a team that may boast the best partnership in the tournament of Owen Lien-Zach Brescoll. It helps to know when our campaign will start... but only slightly.
So, who should you look out for?
Certainly two teams that jump off the page are France and Israel.
France - Headlined by Thomas Bessis -- perhaps inarguably the most successful junior in the world over the past year having won this year's Vanderbilt and finished 4th in the prestigious Cavendish Invitational Pairs -- this team appears to be deadly. Nicolas Lhuissier finished 3rd in the World Junior Paris in 2009 and Cristophe Grosset is a former European Junior Champion and fresh off a 2nd place finish at the recent FISU championships. He'll partner rising French youngster and FISU teammate, Cedric Lorenzini.
Israel - By far the most experienced team in the field, Israel sports 43 years combined junior-team membership between 6 players. Mostly comprised of the 2006 FISU championship team, Israel finished 2nd in the last European Junior Team Championships. Top to bottom, hardly a weak link.
Wild Cards - The rest of the field contains some very good players, but also some all stars, Junior status aside. Andy Hung's Aussie squad can be counted on to win a match at any time, as can former-European-Open-Champion Espen Lindqvist's Norwegians.
The next month will probably draw out quite stressfully as Jason and I prepare and try to get to a level where we could possibly defeat all these teams. Hopefully I'll feel much more calm once the action starts like in prior years. I received word from Captain Kevin Wilson yesterday that Jason and I will likely be in for our first match vs. USA2, a team that may boast the best partnership in the tournament of Owen Lien-Zach Brescoll. It helps to know when our campaign will start... but only slightly.
Starting Six
Time to meet your starting six for Philadelphia. Pictures included are as ferocious as could be found.
 |
| Dan Wolkowitz - Polymath, Harvard graduate and current teacher, Dan and Marius have shot onto the scene this year some good results in recent NABC+ events, including a 30th place finish in the Werner Open Pairs in New Orleans. |
 |
| Marius Agica - Dan's partner. Marius just turned 21, which hopefully won't negatively affect his Philadelphia performance too much. Marius is studying computer science at Pace University. |
 |
| Roger Lee - Roger was my partner the last time I played this event (World Junior Championships, Ortiz-Patiño Trophy). Roger recently graduated from Cal Tech and has enjoyed many high-place finishes in recent NABC+ events. These include, 8th in the 2010 Werner Open Pairs, 16th in the 2010 Fast Open Pairs, |
 |
| Jeremy Fournier - A junior-team staple since 2004, Jeremy is a Tennessee alum. Currently employed by Bob Hamman, he had no problem finding time off to compete in a bridge event. A big clubber at heart, he and Roger will be playing 2/1 in Philly and hopefully lead our team into the KOs. A true Renaissance Man! |
 |
| Jason Chiu - Avid wine enthusiast and current partner of yours truly, Jason is a superb card player from Wyoming. Currently employed by Deloitte Consulting, Jason graduated from MIT at the ripe old age of 19 with degrees in engineering and mathematics. "ch00bacca" has enjoyed many successes playing on teams with Kenny Gee and employs an old-fashioned -- to say the least -- 2/1 style that lends itself to very few misunderstandings. |
 |
| Kevin Fay - Your humble blogger. If you're reading this, you probably already know me. Possibly not the best bridge player around, but driven by an unquenchable desire to excel at all endeavors and win. With such prestigious almae maters as this team boasts, KFay is proud to have attended the most famous and successful, the University of Michigan. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
