Mentoring, and an everyday hand.

[kenberg]

I typed this too fast last night, Some corrections have now been made.

Pam and Sonya have mentioned that maybe I could mentor. I thought i would post a hand here and you can tell me whether such things are helpful


AJ
Q9
KQ92
T9763


K32
KT83
AT4
KQ5

North deals, nobody vul, matchpoints (as you will see, mathcpoints is highly relevant here).

North opens 1C, E makes a weak jump overcall of 2S. A double woould show four hearts, South has four hearts, so he doubles. W stays quiet, N rebids 2NT, a pleasant surprise, and S raises to 3NT.




N        E      S     W
1    2    X      P
2NT      P    3NT   P
P          P


The opening lead is the T, standard leads, riding to the J
 N hopes to set up the clubs and so leads the 2. E hops up with the A and leads the Q on which W throws the 7. That !h 7 probably should not be taken too seriously but we now know E started with 7 spades.    Another club to the K, everyone follows,  another club and E follows with the J, W discards a .  So E started with 7 spades and 3 clubs. Presumably not 2 aces, given his weak jump overcall.

Now what? Old joke: Count your winners, count your losers, if they don't add up to 13 count your cards.
Winners: 3 spades, no hearts yet, probable 4 diamonds (E had 10 black cards, that fourth diamond is likely to be a winner), 4 clubs. That's 11. Can you get 12? Maybe. Lead a small heart from dummy. The position might not be clear to W, it wasn't, so he played low. Yes the diamonds come in, E holding the Jx, and you score 12 tricks for 83%.


The main point is how completely unremarkable this hand is. After the clubs fall well the lead of the heart cannot cost a trick. Even if E is messing with your head and produces the heart A you still have 11 tricks without even worrying about how the diamonds break. Otoh, if you cash your 11 winners first, nobody is throwing the heart A and so you will get 11 tricks.

Leading the heart is heads I win, tails we break even.

Should W hop up with the A? I think so. He has a pretty clear picture of what's going on but that's another story.

I am not sure this lends itself well to at the table mentoring, it seems better, to me, to just think about it quietly. But maybe I am wrong. I am open to other opinions. It is my strong view, I think very much backed by experience, that most good results and most bad results come about in this way. I had a truly wild hand the other day that i will post maybe later, but there is nothing wild here. Usually there isn't. Every session I think back to mistakes. Sometimes it will be a reasonable choice that went wrong. But often it is a mistake. We can all find errors in out own play. Really.

  http://tinyurl.com/yafbk3xc

Added: Here is the wild hand that I mentioned. Sitting South I held


AQ862
K
A86
KQ98

Mps.white against red,  I deal and open 1 .  W passes, partner bids 4 , E doubles. For take out surely, and I decided to get clever, usually an error. I bid 5 thinking that when W bids 5 this should give partner a voice in whether we should bid 5 or double 5 . Well, it didn't go that way. W passed and N bid 6 . This is unlikely to be good.
North
KT543
QT7
QT75
7

South
AQ862
K
A86
KQ98


The opening lead is the heart 4 and it goes  47JK. Remarkable. In fact E has the A but I suppose he thought that 4 was from the K so the J would hold.  These are bots I am playing aganist and they sometimes get too clever for their own good.
T2: A93, and 2

Ok, E has no spades so he has, at least, 5 of something. Let's assume that he has 0=4=4=5 shape and suppose he has the high cards, namely the A, the K, and the A. That's all you need, if it is true, and it is, you can claim 12 tricks. E made it easy for me, but he can't stop me.

  8 (the 6 would be ok, the 2 would be an error) to the T, E tossing a small .
T3. Small from the board, E hops up, probably not his best play, and lays down the A, also probably not his best play.  I ruff with the Q.

Count tricks. My heart K, a heart ruff, and a good heart in dummy.  5 spades in dummy. A, KQ. That's 11 tricks. I need another. A squeeze is available.

So I take the top clubs leaving me with one club in my had. I lead the 6 to the K, cash the !Q,  and cash the remaining spades. E is squeezed in diamonds and clubs. He has to keep the high club so he unguards the K, I throw the club, a from the board brings down the K, and I lead a to the Q.  12 tricks.


If E refuses to rise with the A when the stiff is led from the board then 12 tricks gets tougher but it can be done.

But the contract, we can probably all agree, is totally nuts.


http://tinyurl.com/yajkf3me

[onoway]

well done to make it;  the bots  like to wax enthusiastic on very little encouragement ( or points!) from time to time. They also have patterns of play,  when you can almost count on them to make certain plays. Not rising with their highest card in third seat is a fairly frequent one although you can't rely on it by any means.

  And I can certainly relate to  your comment about it generally being a mistake to try to be clever..  certainly is something I have to try to remember at times. That elusive 1 time that it works is like the gambling addict in the casino winning $10 , all that's needed to plunge onward from time to time in spite of the 99 times that it bites.

[kenberg]

In a slam off two aces, no voids, making does not happen often.  But this second hand is an amusement. The first one is bread and butter.

For the second, it is a solid exercise to see how to make 6 if, on the lead of the small club, E plays low. It's less easy than when he hops up. But as I say, this is a whimsical hand.

[kenberg]

I will go into mentoring mode for a bit longer here . The second had was,as already said, wild and crazy. But it also illustrates what I believe to be a very important and often overlooked feature, the purpose of ruffing.

KT543
QT7
QT75
7

South
AQ862
K
A86
KQ98

Recall:
T1:   47JK
T2:   A93 and !H2
T3: 87T and !c 2
T4: 7A84
!5: A Q 9  !HT

Now the purpose of this ruff is clear, we want to win the trick. We also have a small club in hand that could be ruffed on the board. Should we do that? In a word, No. In a few more words, What's the point?

We have already played two rounds of trump and we just ruffed a heart so we have three trump on the board and two in our hand. If we ruff the club and then, now or later, play the rest of the trump we get one ruff and then two more trump. If we instead simply play off out three trumps, we get three trump tricks.  Either way. it comes to three more tricks from the black suits. So it is easy to see that there is no gain in trick total by ruffing a club. You might say "Oh but we eliminated our club loser". Yes, but you could just as well toss it on the third spade played from dummy, it would still be gone.

So that's the first point. There is no gain by ruffing the club on the board.

The second point is that something is lost by ruffing the club. Once you ruff the club you have no more clubs. This makes it easy for E to discard, he just tosses his clubs. If, instead, you hold onto the club then one of your opponents has to hold onto a club as well. There are large books devoted to the exotica of squeezes, some are truly exotic, but here is a simple point. If you ruff the club the opponents can later discard clubs, if you keep the club then some opponent has to hold onto a club. Sometimes this will help, sometimes it won't, but even if you do not foresee the squeeze, what can it hurt? You can think "Ruffing the club does no good , keeping it might do some good, so I will keep it instead of ruffing it".

As it happens, keeping it does a lot of good here. You run the spades and the established Q, E has to hold on to the club so he unguards the K, you then toss the club and take your diamonds.
Here it is if you want to see it again:
http://tinyurl.com/yajkf3me

Clyde Love has a whole taxonomy of squeezes but I tend to forge what is called what. I was also not much good at phyla and such in biology. Here it is simple (and yes, this is technically a simple squeeze), keeping the club forces an opponent to keep a club, and this done him in. as Liza Doolittle would have said.

So: Before ruffing, you might ask yourself if it actually increases the trick total. If it doesn't, then why are you doing it? There might well be a good reason to do so, but sometimes it does more harm than good.

I am now exiting mentor mode, see you at the table.

[Curls77]

I am now exiting mentor mode, see you at the table.

OK; but we HOPE see you in true mentor role at IAC table soon - sometime in early 2018. I am sure you'll "force" many of lazy IAC heads to think be4 they act (I lead the list!)

[kenberg]

I am now exiting mentor mode, see you at the table.

OK; but we HOPE see you in true mentor role at IAC table soon - sometime in early 2018. I am sure you'll "force" many of lazy IAC heads to think be4 they act (I lead the list!)

I am trying to see just how I could work into my way of thinking and what others like. Let me explain with a personal story. My youngest daughter turned 50 a month ago, but when she was 13 or so she was having trouble with algebra. I decided to butt in. She assured me that it wouldn't do any good, I assured her we were going to do it anyway. I believe my approach was different from what I usually hear of.

We would sit in a quit space and I would have her tell me what her teacher had said, as near as she could remember it. I would look at her papers and her book. Then I would go over what her teacher had said and try to help her understand the teacher's approach. At no time did I suggest her teacher was doing it wrong, that I knew the right way and here it is,  or that my daughter was lazy, or whatever. At first my daughter was right, it didn't help. After maybe three sessions, the transformation was rapid and very substantial. She then could handle it on her own.

The point is that I have always been uncomfortable saying "I know the right way to do this here it is".

Most hands have several aspects to them. In that hand above where I am in 3NT making 6 it was played 39 times and i believe 15 of us got 490. Some others got 460 of course. But other scores were all over the place. At the point in the play when I led the heart from the board the hand was clear enough that I can say that it was absolutely the right play.  And I believe I could at least make a strong case for saying that W should have seen what was happening and hopped up with the ace, conceding 460 but preventing 490. The bots haven't asked me for my advice. In  many other cases however the best line is often far from clear, at least to me.


Many years back I was talking with a guy  in a bar and the subject of bridge came up. He said "I occasionally make an error in bidding but my play of the hand is impeccable".  I made a quick decision that I would never be playing with him.  I prefer something like "Hmm, this is interesting, maybe we can think about it".  And yes, I used to go to some strange bars.

Anyway, I will think about format.

[Curls77]

Very nice of you to give to the subject so much attention. IAC has big variety of members, some just exiting the BIL, others know and can play hundreds of conventions most of us never heard of, some can see squeeze or decide on dummy reversal within miliseconds when dummy shows..

But the majority of IAC can certainly learn from what you can share with them. Even reaching conclusion that the line chosen was wrong, it is learning. Just repeatitivly saying, stop on 1st trick, count ur winners, think of your options, etc, will definitely be of huge benefit to many, i am sure, as i would lead the list lol.

So, I am looking forwards for your sessions

[bAbsG]

Great news Ken!  Looking forward to your sessions!  I need help to think like a bridge player - visualize and count - not just take my top tricks (which I am so prone to do).

[kenberg]

I might need some guidance.

Bridge is a game with many features. Counting tricks is important. Planning transportation is important. And then there is:

I offer another hand, perhaps not quite an everyday hand but one that illustrates a common problem.
Matchpoints, everyone vul, you are the dealer. You hold:

AQ4
AJ42
A65
K74

The hand is too strong for 1NT(15-17) so you open 1 . The opponents remain silent so we look only at our bids:
1    2 inverted
?

I think many IAC players use inverted minors, but what does this mean and What Happens Next? (Caps because I see this as a What Happens Next lesson.) Some play 1 C -  2 as not only forcing but game forcing. But we were playing it as a limit raise or better. BWS (Bridge World Standard) also plays it as a limit raise or better, so whatever you think of this agreement, it's not an outlier.

Now the problem: Partner and I have not discussed the meaning of 1 - 2 -3NT.  I think that it is reasonable to play this as a balanced hand that is too strong for a 1NT opening, exactly what I hold.    But will partner understand that call? It seems possible that we belong in 6 . I decided to opt for 2 . If partner bids a passable 3   showing the limit raise hand, I will sign off in 3NT. If he does something else then I will be thinking about slam.

Lesson: When you agree to play a convention, discuss with partner What Happens Next.


Moving on: This was played at the club, and the afterward the hands go up on The Common Game site (reference below, sit tight).  Some hands, including this one, have a suggested auction and an analysis to go with it. The Common Game auction begins:

1    2 (inverted. lim raise or better)
2NT   3 NT

2NT?? Yes, 2NT on the 18 count. The 2 was not a game force but it does force the auction to at least 3 . If responder wanted to offer a passable 3 he could have, the 2NT is forcing but not game forcing. So BWS says, and apparently The Common Game agrees. Without such discussion, I would be seriously worried that 2NT might be passed. So again, What Happens Next after the inv minor raise is something worth discussing. 

But now what? This seems a bit of a challenge. At our table it was different:

1C     2
2    3 (passable)
3NT 


After the passable 3 I had no problem settling for 3NT.

Responder has a close call I think. Here is his hand:

85
Q98
Q2
AQJT62

Whether we start with the BWS/Common Game 1 !c -2 -2NT or the 1 - 2 - 2 at our table, the call of 3 is passable. It's "only" an 11 count but there is a sixth club.  And for those playing that 1 - 2 is game forcing, they have a problem at T1. Is this worth a game force? And, if we decide that it is worth a game force, can we stay out of 6 or 6 NT  and do we want to?


Time to look at the Common Game site. Click on board 4.

http://thecommongame.com/PHPPOSTCGS.php?options=LookupClioPlayer&date=2017-12-20&acblno=4955382&clubno=231282&gamemode=

The site offers double dummy results, both 6 and 6NT make, as long as they are played from the correct side (the 18 point hand is the declarer). Yes, but that's if it is played double dummy. Against a slam, especially against 6NT with declarer advertising the bulk of the high card points, the underlead from a K is unlikely.  Against a NT contract the lead of a heart allows, I think, a double dummy result of 13 tricks. At any rate 12 would be easy. But suppose a passive club lead against a slam. 6 seems easier than 6NT but both are tough unless the hand is played with all cards face up.

So, for me, the real lesson here is the importance of discussing What Happens Next after a convention is used. Even with that discussion, it can be a bit tricky as to whether you do or do not wish to be in slam here. But at least you and pard will be on the same wavelength. There will always be uncertain choices.

Discussing What Happens Next can be technical and perhaps boring. But useful. Is this at all the sort of thing IAC members would like?

[bAbsG]

Wow, I think bidding practice anything BUT boring.  I find it hard to understand how a partnership can be effective without hours and hours of practice, yet so many seem to just want to jump in and play.

As for inverted minors, I play it GF, opener's rebid on this hand being 2NT showing stops in both majors.

I hope your class is a go Ken!

[kenberg]

I am getting more positive about the idea. There are so many facets to the game. For example, on the inverted minor hand I gather that you would treat the long club hand as worth a gf 2 bid. Just barely, it seems to me. And now opener, with an 18 count, hears that partner is willing to commit to game opposite a possible 12 count. Surely opener is thinking of slam? Can they stay out of 6? In 3NT I got a diamond lead, I played the Q which held, the hearts came in for three tricks, oh joy.  But all and all, if you look only at the EW cards it seems 6 of anything is a stretch. It's reasonable but not certain that you can develop 3 tricks in hearts, so that gives six club tricks, three heart tricks and two aces. You need another. And, on a diamond lead but a different lie, that Q might be covered by the K.

Imagine that you are playing 6 and you get a club lead. I can imagine the following line of play: Win on the board, play the Q. This has to be covered by the K, else you get 4 heart tricks for your contract. So it goes QKA small. You draw the rest of the trump. Now it seems a person might well run the 9. It loses to the T and N gets out with his third heart.  The winning play is to decline the finesse and play a heart to the J and a third heart. N is in with is T and has only minor suit cards left. He leads a club into your AQ, or he leads a and you put up the Q, breathing a sigh of relief when the Q holds. You claim. Actually you are not dead if, on a different lie of the cards,  the Q is covered by the K. You take the A, pitch a diamond on the thirteenth heart, ruff a diamond to the board, and then try the club finesse.  So maybe going up with the heart J on the second round and playing another heart is the percentage line but that's far from clear to me. There will be times that S wins that third round with the T and produces a spade lead. Or, on the other other hand, the T might drop doubleton, break out the champagne.

Bringing in 12 tricks in NT on a club lead is even more problematic. It can be done, but it I think it is pretty double dummy.

My plan, if partner had shown game forcing values over my 2 call, was to investigate a slam. He treated it as not gf, making it easy. But I think we want to stay out of 6 on this. Certainly we should stay out of 6NT and probably we should stay out of 6 . Yes it makes, more precisely it can be made, but still...

Anyway, I regard this as a frequent occurrence in bridge: Looking at all 4 hands and thinking about it for a while I can explain how to make a contract. Whether a person who does not see all four hands should actually play it that way is another matter entirely.


Fwiw, here is one way to make 6NT on a club lead. Win on the board. At trick 2 play the Q as above, so QKA small, then play the J and another. N wins the T.  This time N still has a club,  if you had taken three rounds you would have no way to get back to the board, so he exits with a club. You win in hand and cash your good heart, throwing a club from the board. You are now ready to execute a club-diamond squeeze. You cash the A, the so-called Vienna Coup, and you lead a club to the board and run all the clubs. After 11 tricks you are on the board holding the Q and a small , with the AQ of in your hand. N has come down to two cards. He will hold on to the K since the you are on the board and the Q is on the board (the purpose of the Vienna Coup was to unblock the diamonds in this way)  and so he has only the bare K in the suit. You drop it with a club to the A.  Sure you will!!  Maybe there are other ways to bring in 12 tricks but this is the one I came to, looking at all the cards. Imo, the double dummy trick count is often highly unrealistic. I was very happy to be in 3NT.

Added: If we change the Q to a K then 6 is a strong favorite to make. This in turn means that if the club hand makes a gf bid over the 1 opening it could be very difficult to later convince the 18 point hand not to go on to slam.

[ian84]

Well this topic seems to have gone quiet, so I'm here with my short sharp stick to poke you into action, Ken. You are imo a gifted teacher and a very knowledgeable bridge player. I'd very much like to see you doing an open mentoring session focusing on counting and visualisation. I'd be happy to help in any way that you wish.