I have had a break from bridge tournaments since the end of last year. A few hands which I have played in BBO have been mostly with random partners. But bridge
But I decided to avoid stretch the non-playing record any more. I started asking Vesa Fagerlund if he had any plans for Hämeenlinna Sunday teams. Vesa told me that he was going to be playing with his brother Juuso but I was welcome to the team.
The third victim was Juho who couldn't resists the temptation of bridge. Those we had formed a team that had already played together in Brasov 2009. I could only hope that our level of play would be better than in Brasov. Anyone going to look
The teams event was the last competition in Hämeenlinna tournament. In Friday and Saturday pairs competitions our team mates had had ups and downs but both results were good ones. Teams were the smallest competition attracting only 6 teams but featuring some strong teams. But of course skill differences were large in the field.
We played 8 boards per round totaling 40 boards. Order of play didn't match to the board number order because hands were predealt with a machine. But I will present deals in the number order.
We play a complex 5 card majors and short club based system. Most of conventions are from or based on Ambra. We decided to change our leads to Slawinski that means small from even without honor or odd with honor. Signals are standard upside down count and attitude, Smith echo and Odd/Even discard.
Board 1: Competitive biding for a part-score
First match was played against a local senior team which had players featuring recently in the Finnish team championships final. But today the prematch favorites are the younger generation.
The board one provided a challenging part-score hand.
| Bid | Meaning |
|---|---|
| X | At least mildly invitational balancedish. |
| 2♠ | To play |
| 2NT | Competitive or slamish unbalanced |
| 3♣ | Invitational |
| 3♦ | Asking stopper |
| 3♥ | Asking stopper |
| 3♠ | Invitational |
Mr. East forgot to alert 2 diamonds to be non-forcing but pass wasn't any shock when looking my hand. Juho's pass over 2 diamonds has a bit narrower range than usually in natural system. We play Good/Bad 2NT over 2 diamonds bid to allow opener to show 3 different strength ranges. Direct bid to 3 level is non-forcing invitational while 2NT can be either competitive or game forcing hand.
I was fearing that Juho had length in diamonds. With my Ace-ten doubleton Juho would be unlikely to pass the doubled contract with diamond side suit. In that case I would be likely to play 5-2 spade fit with jack high suit. That didn't feel good contract so I decided to pass and try to defeat undoubled 2 diamonds.
Too bad optimal defense meant only no over tricks when declarer had king seventh and dummy provided queen-jack doubleton support. If I would have doubled 2 diamonds we would have been likely to try to to play in 3 clubs that were a bit lucky to make when king-queen of hearts was onside. Of course opponents might compete to 3 diamonds but that would be a plus score too.
Team mates: 4♣ N +50
Result: -90 (-1; -2.2)
Possible results: +110/+50 (+5/+3)
Total: -5
Board 2: Freak without biding agreements
The next hand was a freak that managed to find a cap in our quickly updated agreements. After a minor opening we don't have any bid to show major-minor two suiters. That forced me to choose between bad options in the biding.
Holding a hand that is worth of 10 tricks opposite a moderate diamond support made me choose twice forcing bids that wasted precious biding base. In end I couldn't show my two suiter. Otherwise biding was reasonable up to a slam that is not hopeless one. But neither it is even close to the best slam in the hand.
But as it happens heart ace is offside and we only had 11 tricks in spades. Defense can do nothing to prevent Juho from scoring 12 tricks in diamonds. This hand only shows how important it is to have agreements for rare strong two suiters. Those agreements don't waste much of competitive bids but provide tools for hands. Those are often impossible to bid sanely without tools.
Team mates: 6♣X E -100
Result: -100 (-5; -6.6)
Possible result: +1320 (+15)
Total: -25
Board 6: Cards didn't penalize a playing error
In board 6 I was again put to the test in slam zone.
| Bid | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 2♥ | 3 card heart support |
| 2♠ | 6 clubs and 4 spades |
| 2NT | 4-2-3-4 or 4 spades and 5 clubs |
| 3♣ | 6 clubs and 5 spades |
2NT is a systematic bid for the hand. But singleton king to the partner's suit makes it hard to describe after 2NT bid. Partner is likely to expect better chance for heart to run if I cue bid it in a slam auction. That made me choose a psychic bid to show 6-4 shape with my 2 spade bid.
Auction continued with a few twists. 3NT means some slam interest but minimum hand which limits the opener hand. Later on 4NT would have been RKCB but hand wasn't for ace asking.
Play needs to be careful to gather for 4-2 heart break without losing control. The ducked trump lead prevented any chance for cross ruff but still maintained the master trump in defense.
The played line could have been improved by a small per cent if cashing heart ace before ruffing any of them. That avoid danger of heart ruff when hearts split 4-2 and spade ace doubleton is with queen forth hearts. That is about %5 chance lost in bad play. It doesn't sound huge but excepted value lose in the play was -12.5*0.05=-0.63. Errors of that magnitude are simple unacceptable.
Any practical line would have worked this time because cards were very friendly for the contract. Even though there was serious error in the play I will score the results as positive for good biding.
Team mates: 4♠ S -480
Result: +980 (+11; +6.6)
Total: -25 / +11
Match results
We managed to score 33 IMPs more than our opponents. That translates to exactly maximum victor points. Even tough score looks great there was first class errors. Those errors could have easily made us lose the match. Luckily for me opponents managed to make more mistakes in same boards.
No comments:
Post a Comment