The nationals -- a sure-fire place they will put your skills to the test. One of the many important concepts John taught me as a neophyte bridge player was: hey, Isolde, your opponents can't see through the back of the cards. I keep that little slogan with me when I play, and sometimes, when I guide you to better bridge I add the following:
1) Make the opponents prove their carding
2) Make the opponents prove their defense.
This issue came up no less than three times in one session of the finals of the BAM. Yes, field these hands with me with the finest of the finest. And before we get started let me just say I'm going to totally isolate the declarer issues --and let you all decide within your partnerships how to overcome these ruse plays. Suffice it to say, I pulled off two myself, but got caught in two as well.
Polish player lefty landed in 3S with this hand AKQ864,Q2,AQ2,T7 opposite T93,JT86,654,J32. Pretty soon after getting the lead, he put the pressure on by playing the HQ. You can see the problem. Without any other entry to dummy one does need to isolate the fourth heart. Since the AK of hearts were split in both hands, neither defender knew the true situation of the honor cards and declarer scored an undeserved heart trick. voila (how do you say that in Polish) Not good in BAM -land.
Norwegian player righty pulled off an even greater ruse. He, too, was in some number of spades (non game) with AKQ982,A,KT3,742 opposite J63,J876,J742,J5. Once again, very few entries to dummy and those looming Jxxx in the offsuits. He played the DK and partner, not knowing exactly where the Q was ducked. Then declarer Norwegian started running the spades. Convinced that Norwegian player had the DQ the later play produced low diamond to my now stiff Q and partner's A. Oops, two significant honors on one trick and an overtrick for declarer (not good in BAM-land)
Ok, so enough of this foolishness it is now Isolde's turn (snicker snicker snicker). Weichsel (American) was on my right and overcalled 1S over 1C. I very confidently bid 3N with these tickets KQ64,A65,752,AJ3 and bought the contract there. Low spade to this dummy: v,K72,QJT9,KQ8542. Ok, I pitched a heart and after some tank Weichsel flew A. Good, two tricks for Isolde in the spade suit. Spade back and I stiffed the HK in the dummy and they could just spend a lot of brain power wondering what that was all about. I played a heart to the K and "finessed" the DQ (or so they thought).
Lefty (also American -boring lol) thought a long time and finally ducked. He didn't know I was trying to sneak the overtrick and that his partner had the other honor. So there you are--I'm only entitled to ten tricks but made 11 (good in BAM land for the declaring side)--side note, don't pay attention to the yelling that ensues.
There are many analytical skills and communication skills necessary to play good defense. But, it always pays to put the opponents to the test. Sometimes these two areas are just not good enough, or there has been inadequate information in the play of the hand so far to get enough deductive reasoning going.
Enjoy it all, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Beyond TOX, the Power Double
I alluded in a previous post that most of us "grew up" learning that power doubles over opening bids (beyond the 4441 TO types) start with 17 points. Some of us discarded that notion pretty fast once we started playing in expert partnerships.
Here's the discusion. Seventeen counts are easily handled with one level overcalls. If partner doesn't respond (bid 1N with 8 or so, or raise with 6 or so) then you don't belong in game. Staying at the one level is good enough. Should partner show a limit raise or better with a Q bid, we know what to do. Bid game. If partner shows a simple raise, we might have our game tries down within our partnership and evoke those sequences. Easy. The hands we absolutely need to start with a TOX are those hands with which advancer would not bid a notrump nor make a simple raise and the hand might still belong in game.
You know how 2C openings are basically nine tricks? Well these power X are basically eight tricks. My partner had such a hand in the pro am the other day. He needed to field this hand over a 1D opening at the two level. ATxx,Kx,A,KQJTxx. Now, if he bids two clubs, what am I going to do with Kxx,Txxxx,xxx,Ax? Ugh, probably pass. Cold for 3N. Partner needs to start those hands with a double.
Warning, whenever you start a TOX with such hand and you are meager in the opener's suit, you might expect it to go all pass. There you are, defending the opening bid at the one level. That's why it's a lot safer to power double with appreciable "stuff" in the opener's suit or no-trump type hands too strong to overcall 1N directly. Then partner is not likely to have a stack in opener's suit.
A couple of prologues I need to share with such actions. Keep this one handy. If it goes 1m (X) all pass then your obligation is to lead a trump. As one of my mentors once told me, if you don't have a trump, leave the room and look for one. When you find one, return and lead it. Yes, it is that important. Partner will have QJxxx(x) in the trump suit and the last thing you want to do is finesse yourself into declarer setting up a high card in his/her hand......or allow a ruff in dummy. Lead trump, period.
Another prologue is everytime you double and subsequently bid your suit, you have such an eight trick hand (unless you talk about specific exceptions with your partners). So, even if the opponents put the auction to the test with raises, if you've taken a free bid as advancer you are forced to keep the auction open. For example, the auction (1C) X (2C) 2D, (P) 2S cannot be passed. If you've taken a free bid over responder's bid, you've promised six points at least and with a partner who promised eight tricks by doubling and bidding his/her suit, you are absolutely commited to game. See how this all works together?
As per usual, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Isolde
Here's the discusion. Seventeen counts are easily handled with one level overcalls. If partner doesn't respond (bid 1N with 8 or so, or raise with 6 or so) then you don't belong in game. Staying at the one level is good enough. Should partner show a limit raise or better with a Q bid, we know what to do. Bid game. If partner shows a simple raise, we might have our game tries down within our partnership and evoke those sequences. Easy. The hands we absolutely need to start with a TOX are those hands with which advancer would not bid a notrump nor make a simple raise and the hand might still belong in game.
You know how 2C openings are basically nine tricks? Well these power X are basically eight tricks. My partner had such a hand in the pro am the other day. He needed to field this hand over a 1D opening at the two level. ATxx,Kx,A,KQJTxx. Now, if he bids two clubs, what am I going to do with Kxx,Txxxx,xxx,Ax? Ugh, probably pass. Cold for 3N. Partner needs to start those hands with a double.
Warning, whenever you start a TOX with such hand and you are meager in the opener's suit, you might expect it to go all pass. There you are, defending the opening bid at the one level. That's why it's a lot safer to power double with appreciable "stuff" in the opener's suit or no-trump type hands too strong to overcall 1N directly. Then partner is not likely to have a stack in opener's suit.
A couple of prologues I need to share with such actions. Keep this one handy. If it goes 1m (X) all pass then your obligation is to lead a trump. As one of my mentors once told me, if you don't have a trump, leave the room and look for one. When you find one, return and lead it. Yes, it is that important. Partner will have QJxxx(x) in the trump suit and the last thing you want to do is finesse yourself into declarer setting up a high card in his/her hand......or allow a ruff in dummy. Lead trump, period.
Another prologue is everytime you double and subsequently bid your suit, you have such an eight trick hand (unless you talk about specific exceptions with your partners). So, even if the opponents put the auction to the test with raises, if you've taken a free bid as advancer you are forced to keep the auction open. For example, the auction (1C) X (2C) 2D, (P) 2S cannot be passed. If you've taken a free bid over responder's bid, you've promised six points at least and with a partner who promised eight tricks by doubling and bidding his/her suit, you are absolutely commited to game. See how this all works together?
As per usual, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Isolde
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Law of Restricted Choice (LRC) - An application of statistics!
Your best friend (nerdy statistician type) asks you what you believe the odds are that any one Oregonian picked at random will give birth within the next year. Your surmise it's close to zero. Your friend now gives you new information: The person is female and pregnant.You drastically revise your estimate based on the new information.
Monty Hall tells you the prize is behind one of three doors. As requested, you pick one door at random. He now shows you one of the remaining two doors which does not contain the big prize and asks if you would like to change your mind and choose the one door which is left. You now have new information. Of the remaining two doors, Monty would not show you the door which held the big prize. Your odds at getting the right door (and the big prize)improve from 33%to 66% if you switch.
Your favorite pro is playing bridge at the Portland regional. As kibitzer you watch him/her play a contract which contains the following card combination AT3 opposite
K98534. After playing the A, your pro sees a Q or J fall from RHO. Your pro has new information. Both opponents could not play low.
The three scenes above are classic examples of the branch of mathematics called "Bayesian statistics". Simply defined, it is a mathematical science for revising the probability of events based on new information.
Let's concentrate solely on the bridge application. What thoughts are going through your pro's mind when he/she looks at this card combination, plays the ace, and an honor flops from an opponent. No doubt the pro is wondering whether he/she should finesse LHO for the missing honor or drop Q/J doubleton.
This is a direct application of the law of restricted choice, a bridge play based on a concept of Bayes theorem .
However, before the pro decides on which play to make he/she mentally goes through the qualifying checklist.
1) Does RHO randomly play the Q or the J from Q/J holdings. If so, the law applies and he/she should finesse. If not, the law does not help him/her locate the missing honor.
2) Are the missing cards of equal value? In this case "Yes". The law of restricted choice has no merit when the missing spots are Q873.
Having one spot card fall versus another, does not indicate the nature of the splits nor helps locate the Q in the suit. If both of the above conditions apply, the pro will finesse LHO for the missing honor. If both conditions do not apply, the pro will not be able to apply the law of restricted choice to help him/her determine the splits, nor locate the missing honor.
The question begs, is the above card combination the only card combination on which you can apply this Bayesian-based theory called Law of Restricted choice (i.e. nine card fits missing the Q/J) to help you locate missing cards? The answer is, "No". This theory applies in many other situations aswell. It applies with eight and seven card fits provided the cards you are trying to locate are of equal value and opponents are known to pitch randomly from those equal holdings.
Example 1: You have an eight card fit missing QJ. You see one of these equal-value cards fall on trick one. Since there is the possibility your opponent is offering a false card from QJx, you have to eliminate that possibility first -- i.e. based on the bidding or other factors which indicate the distribution of the hand is this particular opponent likely to hold a doubleton in the suit.
If he/she is, apply the other criteria as well and you are likely to make a better decision when playing the suit.
Example 2: You have a seven card fit holding KQx opposite A8xx. When playing the K/Q you watch the JT fall from RHO. Odds on that the finesse of the 9 spot through lho is the proper play. Once again those lovely spots are of equal value and you've got to give opponent RHO credit for randomly playing cards from JT9 to hide the true nature of the situation.
Hope this is of some use to you as you face these complicated card combinations as declarer player! Plenty of websites which addressthe issue should you like to explore the concepts above more thoroughly.
Monty Hall tells you the prize is behind one of three doors. As requested, you pick one door at random. He now shows you one of the remaining two doors which does not contain the big prize and asks if you would like to change your mind and choose the one door which is left. You now have new information. Of the remaining two doors, Monty would not show you the door which held the big prize. Your odds at getting the right door (and the big prize)improve from 33%to 66% if you switch.
Your favorite pro is playing bridge at the Portland regional. As kibitzer you watch him/her play a contract which contains the following card combination AT3 opposite
K98534. After playing the A, your pro sees a Q or J fall from RHO. Your pro has new information. Both opponents could not play low.
The three scenes above are classic examples of the branch of mathematics called "Bayesian statistics". Simply defined, it is a mathematical science for revising the probability of events based on new information.
Let's concentrate solely on the bridge application. What thoughts are going through your pro's mind when he/she looks at this card combination, plays the ace, and an honor flops from an opponent. No doubt the pro is wondering whether he/she should finesse LHO for the missing honor or drop Q/J doubleton.
This is a direct application of the law of restricted choice, a bridge play based on a concept of Bayes theorem .
However, before the pro decides on which play to make he/she mentally goes through the qualifying checklist.
1) Does RHO randomly play the Q or the J from Q/J holdings. If so, the law applies and he/she should finesse. If not, the law does not help him/her locate the missing honor.
2) Are the missing cards of equal value? In this case "Yes". The law of restricted choice has no merit when the missing spots are Q873.
Having one spot card fall versus another, does not indicate the nature of the splits nor helps locate the Q in the suit. If both of the above conditions apply, the pro will finesse LHO for the missing honor. If both conditions do not apply, the pro will not be able to apply the law of restricted choice to help him/her determine the splits, nor locate the missing honor.
The question begs, is the above card combination the only card combination on which you can apply this Bayesian-based theory called Law of Restricted choice (i.e. nine card fits missing the Q/J) to help you locate missing cards? The answer is, "No". This theory applies in many other situations aswell. It applies with eight and seven card fits provided the cards you are trying to locate are of equal value and opponents are known to pitch randomly from those equal holdings.
Example 1: You have an eight card fit missing QJ. You see one of these equal-value cards fall on trick one. Since there is the possibility your opponent is offering a false card from QJx, you have to eliminate that possibility first -- i.e. based on the bidding or other factors which indicate the distribution of the hand is this particular opponent likely to hold a doubleton in the suit.
If he/she is, apply the other criteria as well and you are likely to make a better decision when playing the suit.
Example 2: You have a seven card fit holding KQx opposite A8xx. When playing the K/Q you watch the JT fall from RHO. Odds on that the finesse of the 9 spot through lho is the proper play. Once again those lovely spots are of equal value and you've got to give opponent RHO credit for randomly playing cards from JT9 to hide the true nature of the situation.
Hope this is of some use to you as you face these complicated card combinations as declarer player! Plenty of websites which addressthe issue should you like to explore the concepts above more thoroughly.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Light third seat openings --Handle them with confidence!
Hi all,
It was very early in my bridge experience that I learned that third seat openings were suspect. As a college student, we left Boulder U. of Colorado to attend the Denver bridge club to see if we could beat "the women in polyester pants suits". ;-) --yes we were all young once --now we may be one of those women. The acronym: WPP's!
After a third seat opening I negotiated a part score contract that the WPP let us have. When I tried to place some values in her hand I found out in the end game that she had but five points. When I queried that action, she but flashed a coy smile.
Third seat openings are suspect, especially nv at mp. Get in there with your lead direct or get in there just to muddy up the water. Last weekend I opened this gem 9875,543,AJT93,T 1D and opps not being able to negotiate their strength could not manage to find their cold game for 35/36 mp.
Some time ago my frisky-ness got the better of me and nv at mp in third seat I opened this gem A2,T865,A982,QT7 1H. Hey the bridge Gods gave me two bullets!! The upshot of that was that we were on for four --. Ten count openings in third seat protect against a lot of hands which have legitimate contracts opposite a passed partner.
Have my frisky openings backfired! Indeed they have! But not enough for me to discontinue them all together.
The point of this missive is not to expound on third seat openings, just to make you aware that they are done routinely and that every partnership needs to be prepared to show strength after such nonsense! So here, this is what needs to be assimilated and practiced in every partnership.
Strong suit hands:
The tradition is to start the double with 17 counts --throw that notion away, that is way too light. Overcall your suit and make a game try later after a raise. If you're afraid your partner may pass a non fitting six count if you overcall, start your hand out with a double and show your suits later. These hands look almost like 2C openings but are approximately a K lighter.
Strong balanced hand: 15-18 --overcall 1N
19-21 -- X and then bid one no-trump if you have opps suit stopped.
X and Q bid if you don't have four card support for the major your pard offers and don't have their suit stopped.
If you have support for pard's major jump in the major and bid one less level than you would if you had opening the hand (remember, pard may have a zero count, don't go too crazy)
22+ X and bid 2N.
If the opponents get totally frisky and raise their suits, remember repeat doubles show the same take-out shape but add a K of value every time you pull the red card.
If you're solid on all these competitive calls, the third seat light openings will hardly bother you at all in the bidding. You'll also know how to double them off when it seems to be to your advantage.
However, sometimes light third seat openings create havoc in your decisions as to the play of the hand and will get opponents off to an optimum lead. Once, an opponent vul vs vul at imps bid this hand 1S in third seat. A7432,xx,xxx,xx. Yep, with a straight face. Once we negotiated 3N with the methods above, the leader started unblocking at trick one with his third best spade. Down one. Our teammates weren't so frisky and a normal fourth best spade produced a spade block. Lose 13.
That's how it is in big-boy land (and even with those women in polyester pants suits)--get prepared or lose the board.
As per usual, I'd be willing to answer any questions. Isolde
It was very early in my bridge experience that I learned that third seat openings were suspect. As a college student, we left Boulder U. of Colorado to attend the Denver bridge club to see if we could beat "the women in polyester pants suits". ;-) --yes we were all young once --now we may be one of those women. The acronym: WPP's!
After a third seat opening I negotiated a part score contract that the WPP let us have. When I tried to place some values in her hand I found out in the end game that she had but five points. When I queried that action, she but flashed a coy smile.
Third seat openings are suspect, especially nv at mp. Get in there with your lead direct or get in there just to muddy up the water. Last weekend I opened this gem 9875,543,AJT93,T 1D and opps not being able to negotiate their strength could not manage to find their cold game for 35/36 mp.
Some time ago my frisky-ness got the better of me and nv at mp in third seat I opened this gem A2,T865,A982,QT7 1H. Hey the bridge Gods gave me two bullets!! The upshot of that was that we were on for four --. Ten count openings in third seat protect against a lot of hands which have legitimate contracts opposite a passed partner.
Have my frisky openings backfired! Indeed they have! But not enough for me to discontinue them all together.
The point of this missive is not to expound on third seat openings, just to make you aware that they are done routinely and that every partnership needs to be prepared to show strength after such nonsense! So here, this is what needs to be assimilated and practiced in every partnership.
Strong suit hands:
The tradition is to start the double with 17 counts --throw that notion away, that is way too light. Overcall your suit and make a game try later after a raise. If you're afraid your partner may pass a non fitting six count if you overcall, start your hand out with a double and show your suits later. These hands look almost like 2C openings but are approximately a K lighter.
Strong balanced hand: 15-18 --overcall 1N
19-21 -- X and then bid one no-trump if you have opps suit stopped.
X and Q bid if you don't have four card support for the major your pard offers and don't have their suit stopped.
If you have support for pard's major jump in the major and bid one less level than you would if you had opening the hand (remember, pard may have a zero count, don't go too crazy)
22+ X and bid 2N.
If the opponents get totally frisky and raise their suits, remember repeat doubles show the same take-out shape but add a K of value every time you pull the red card.
If you're solid on all these competitive calls, the third seat light openings will hardly bother you at all in the bidding. You'll also know how to double them off when it seems to be to your advantage.
However, sometimes light third seat openings create havoc in your decisions as to the play of the hand and will get opponents off to an optimum lead. Once, an opponent vul vs vul at imps bid this hand 1S in third seat. A7432,xx,xxx,xx. Yep, with a straight face. Once we negotiated 3N with the methods above, the leader started unblocking at trick one with his third best spade. Down one. Our teammates weren't so frisky and a normal fourth best spade produced a spade block. Lose 13.
That's how it is in big-boy land (and even with those women in polyester pants suits)--get prepared or lose the board.
As per usual, I'd be willing to answer any questions. Isolde
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
