IAC where are you?

[Curls77]

This forum has been up 10 days already and we have right now 18 (eighteen!!) members.

2 or so weeks ago some unknown BBO bug deleted 90% of 3200+ members IAC had at that moment. Since then Onoway lost her fingers typing names to re-admit them to the club as players one by one cried they lost access to IAC. In no time we are over 800.

*** But where are these 800 people?  ***
* Lessons currently running at IAC hardly have 30+ members assisting to them.
* We just had to cancel trnys in weekdays as attendance fell as low as 1 (one) pardship registered.
* (Almost) none ever plays in IAC unless Yleexotee uses his biceps and fills a table or 2.

When BBO announced death of old windows client, some of us yelled, begged, threatend, insulted, whined, scratched walls with nails, so BBO will find a way to keep clubs alive, which was not at all what they really wanted. But they eventually let us be and are currently devising new version which will allow clubs function within some web client. I now wonder why we did it, as it seems none but few participate in anything, and all the rest want only yet another  club membership card in vallet?

So, please, us 18 that are here, talk to friends, ask them to join this forum and express what they'd wish IAC to be, what would you would like to happen, offer to help if you can. Many people invest good load of their time for the benefit of us all, as making beautiful new IAC site, this forum, lessons we get for free, organizing it all, etc.. - so please let's not take any of those as granted.

Participate, and invite friends to do same.

[OliverC]

Good post, Sanya.


More Teachers
I can't help but feel that part of the problem is the very small number of teaching sessions compared to how things were a number of years ago. A considerable number of Teachers who used to offer IAC sessions have simply stopped teaching altogether or now only teach privately. When I started teaching in IAC, the teaching sessions were jostling each other for space in the [crowded] Diary and there was a good number of Teachers offering a wide variety of teaching sessions covering different systems, aspects of play etc. Back then there was no Teams Series, no Ladders and the regular Tourneys in the IAC Program were mostly ones held by Teachers as part of their program, but the Club was thriving.


How to attract more teachers, then? At the moment there are effectively only 5 of us (Joe, Dave G, Oliver Hoffman, Grant and myself). We need more, preferably from different parts of the world because they will tend to hold their sessions at times convenient for them, which brings us to the next issue:


Session Times
Looking at when the existing teaching sessions sessions are held, some of them are at times of the day that may be awkward for people in the North and South American continent (if they're working, for example). I have always, for example, held my sessions away from the working week at a time that's relatively late in the evening for me, but accessible to people in Europe and the USA.


The same potential problem applies to several of the Tourneys, which are in the 4pm-6pm UTC bracket, which in turn makes them not so bad for people in Europe, but early afternoon or morning for people in the USA, Canada or South America, which is not so good if people are working at that time.


Obviously the TD or teacher's own availability is critical, but getting a spread of Teachers/TDs from different regions will tend to spread the session times.

[kenberg]

I have hopes for this Forum.

I like discussion. I have to run so I will make this initial response short. But here is the sort of thing I hope for:

I was playing f2f today and I think I missed a good opportunity for an extra defensive trick. I need to go back and take a look. I mentioned it to partner.   This is my primary mode of learning. I look over hands later to see not only if a different play would have been better, but whether it is reasonable to think I could have found that play. I like chatting with people about these plays.

I'll probably post the hand I am thinking about later. And there are other recent examples from play. Sometimes I did something good, sometimes I was lucky, sometimes I see later that I should have gotten something right, sometimes I think that while something would have worked no reasonable person would have played the hand the way in the way  that works. I like back and forth discussion on such hands.

I do go, sometimes, to the teaching areas. But I often see things differently. Discussion is more my style. 

More later. There is a free wine tasting down the block and we have to keep our priorities straight.

[Curls77]

Oliver, great points.
We do need more people volunteer to be TDs in different times, but we need players that want to play those trnys. Recent attempt to run 2 weekly trnys at 9am GMT, 5am eastern, aimed for Australia, New Zealand and Asia members, failed for lack of attendance. I am almost sure we'd find TD for say 7pm in USA , suitable for working members, if only they'd want to play.
As for teachers, oh I wish there were more.. By any chance, is any of members good salesman that could convince some big shot come and give us bits and pieces of their wisdom free of charge? If so, please come forward

Ken:
Would it be too much to ask you to set 1 hour weekly a mentoring table in IAC, play and discuss style? Many like to chew on hands just played and certainly most members will learn lots, playing or watching.

[OliverC]

More later. There is a free wine tasting down the block and we have to keep our priorities straight.

Oh, absolutely!!!!! ROFLMAO

[OliverC]

Hi All,


Sanya, the thing that struck me was that, hoki's session, mine, and dulci's tourney are all at times that ought to be reasonably good for people in the States, but most of the other tourneys, for example, aren't because they'll be during the working day on the American continent. That may explain falling numbers.


Obviously we're never going to be able to attract the whole world to a specific session or tourney. It'll always be 4am for some people, whatever time we choose. Also it has to be at a reasonable time for the TD or Teacher in question.


I can't help but feel that attracting more teachers to IAC is the fundamental solution. We can't really "complete" where Tourneys are concerned, because there's one starting every minute on BBO. The thing people cannot get elsewhere on BBO is good quality teaching.

[kenberg]

 

Ken:
Would it be too much to ask you to set 1 hour weekly a mentoring table in IAC, play and discuss style? Many like to chew on hands just played and certainly most members will learn lots, playing or watching.

This forum could serve much of that purpose. I will select out a hand that will perhaps illustrate this.
http://tinyurl.com/k6v8ysh


Added: I have added a rebuttal to my claim that playing the A at T1 is doomed. Not exactly.

Down one, losing to the K and J of hearts.After eleven tricks the hand was conceded as down 1.  David sent me a message asking if it could be made. I was then seeing only the remnants of the hand after the claim and i said that probably not, after the heart lead at T1. I included a quick word on how, if I remembered the hand correctly, it could be made without a heart lead.  Later I sent a correction, saying that I thought it could be but I would have to look it over. Of course one could check GIB, GIB says yes, but I think that is the wrong idea. One should think how it could be made, and whether that is a reasonable line of play. So let's look.

The opening lead is the heart 8. On the auction, that seems like it might be a stiff. If it is, then you are doomed, or probably so. Why? Because if is is a stiff then if you lay the ace N just sits and waits for his KJ. He won't pitch them and only one heart can be dossed from hand on the long diamonds. [Huh! I have left this statement here, but see rebuttal reply] If you don't go up with the Ace, then N can win and give his partner a ruff.

There are two possible counters to this.
One: Play the Q. It will lose to the K but perhaps N will think the lead was from three cards. not likely, but you could hope.
Two: Assume the 8 is not stiff. It probably is, but you are going down if it is. So assume it is not. Maybe it is from a doubleton, as indeed it was.
What follows from that?
Let's play the Ten, just in case the lead was from, say, J86. I have noticed people often treat Jxx as a MUD lead. I don't, but some do, so I play low from dummy and the J wins.  Maybe N will think the 8 is stiff and lead back a heart. If so, I am down if it is ruffed, I claim if it is not.
But no, North will not think the 8t was stiff, or at least he shouldn't. If the 8 were stiff, that would give E five hearts. But E opened 1C.  And never mentioned hearts. No. N will return a spade.

Declarer plays two rounds of clubs, South following to both rounds.


We assumed that S had two hearts, let's stick with that. We have seen two clubs in the S hand. We assume six spades for the weak jump  overcall. Hah! That means on;y three diamonds. North has four diamonds. And, we assume, the heart King. If we have this right, we are home. Heart to the A, run all the clubs tossing the spade and the heart Q on the board.

Dummy now has four diamonds, the
KQ84

Declarer has
Hearts: T9
Diamonds: A5.

North has what?
Well, he has four cards.
If North still holds the heart K then he has tossed a diamond and the diamonds run.
If North tossed the heart K, great, the Ten is good.
Either way, all four tricks are good. And you know which it is.

Ok, not everyone foresees the ending. But here is what you can see: If the heart 8 at trick 1 is a stiff, going up with the Ace will not work. It can't work It's impossible for it to work. So don't do it. After that, maybe a miracle will occur. And maybe it won't occur. Maybe you can help the miracle along. maybe the opponents will make a mistake. But if the heart 8 is stiff and you rise with the Ace, you are going down. So don't rise. If the 8 is stiff, well, too bad. But when it isn't, you increase your options by playing low.

But this sort of thing is much more suitable for Forum discussion than for quick comment between hands.

Here is how I think it works: A person who wants to learn looks over some hands afterwards. Sometimes it will be easy to find a better line.  Not just double dummy better, but really a line that reasonably would be better.

For example, take the same hand and assume a spade lead. The same line as above would work but it is far too complicated. Instead you win the Ace, draw trump in two rounds, ruff the spade, play four rounds of diamonds, pitching one heart on the third diamond  ruffing the last diamond.. Only hearts and clubs are left. You lead the ten of clubs. Assume the finesse loses to the J. N has a choice of how to concede, give you a sluff/ruff or lead into the AQ. Basically, you can claim making 6 at trick 1 on a spade lead.

Contrast this with a mentoring comment: Imo, the 2NT bid over 2S shows about an 11 count and is non-forcing. But that's me. If a pair plays it as forcing, that's them. And that's about all there is to be said. But the hand will make 6C, it just isn't obvious. So that gets interesting.

Also, if I were North then, after partner made the WJO of 2S I think I would bid 4S. But it's a judgment call.

[kenberg]

And now that I think of it. Here is the promised rebuttal.

Suppose the A is played at T1.As near as i can see, you could do this:

Take the spade Ace, and all the clubs. So: After 8 tricks, namely the heart A, the Spade A, and all six clubs, you have the four diamonds plus the heart Q on the board. In your hand you have T9x of hearts and Ax of diamonds.Given that M must hold four diamonds, he has to come down to the heart K, discarding the J. So you lead a heart, establishing the T in your hand, you sin the D return and cash the ten.

Harder to read the situation I think, but it does seem to work.

Which shows why the Forum discussions are useful! Or fun. Or something.


And it shows the dangers of on the spot  mentoring. Often a later thought is a better thought.


Added in the morning: So what do you do at T1? I can't say I am sure. That 8 sure looks like a stiff. So maybe go up with the Ace and hope the revised plan works? But if it is stiff, that ups the chances that it is South rather than North that holds four diamonds. Even if declarer goes up and then runs all six clubs, S keeps four diamonds and two spades. So  I still think it is probably better to duck the first trick and hope for the best. But I don't claim it is certain.

[kenberg]

Would the following attract any interest?


Suppose some hands were taken from viewgraph records and people played them. Afterward, there could be discussion, maybe on this Forum. People could look and see how these hands were played by some pretty good players.


The JEC (Jimmy Cayne) files should be good for this if they are available.  JEC mostly plays pretty standard stuff so the focus would be on judgment rather than exotic conventions. [I think Jimmy does play Muppet rather than Puppet over an opening 2NT, but such exotica is rare for him.]


I don't know how to load  hands from viewgraph files, but I imagine I could learn. And perhaps I could make some comments on the hands, but I really think that a discussion is far preferable to a lecture. I describe myself as Advanced and I believe that to be accurate, mostly because I have been playing approximately forever. I leaned rubber bridge by reading Goren in 1961, and I have played off and on since then, sometimes a lot, sometimes not at all, currently about once a week f2f and then pick up on BBO.  You can't help but learn something after all that time, and I could make suggestions. Nobody should treat my opinions as indisputable fact.

[OliverC]

Sounds like a great idea, Ken. Maybe try to invite a few other advanced or expert players along so that a real DISCUSSION will result. In my experience if there's nobody there with the knowledge or confidence to contradict you, it's hard to get a real discussion going. I'll certainly turn up if I'm available but difficult for me to guarantee it.

[kenberg]

Ill play around a bit with loading hands from viewgraph.  I will see if I ca load a set of hands so that they can first be played at more than one table, and then shown afterward.


Thoughts on learning bridge, for anyone thinking of how to up their game.


When I first started playing duplicate we would afterward get hand records and then go out to a local bar and chat about the hands. Well, not always. But you get the idea..And I would go over the hand records myself.

I read books. Kantar has various books with problem hands and he gives good explanations. There are definitely more advanced books. Reese, Kelsey, etc.  Stewart has a nice book on defense. At some point I got more interested in the human side and I am now re-reading Michael Rosenberg's Bridge, Zia and Me. Bridge Bum is a kick. These last two have hands, but they also have a lot of the human side.

Anyway, I recommend going over records of hands you have played. Search for your own errors. Those you might be able to do something about. Your partner's errors are his/her responsibility.

[kenberg]

Let me think out loud a bit here, meaning input is sought. Two parts:


A:  First a hand from the archives.

I browsed a bit in the the vugraph archives. The link below takes you to a semifinal match in the Vanderbilt. Let's look at board 7.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=49633

The contracts are 5C making 6 and, at the other table, 6C making 6.  If you browse thorugh the comments on the 6C the commentators speculate that perhaps the S hand was opened 1C but there was a mistake in the vugraph recording. .  This seems likely to me, but it depends a little on just what means what during the auction.

At any rate, opening the S hand 1C certainly increases the likelihood of reaching 6C.

At the 5C table the opening lead is a diamond taken, and then a heart switch. Well, no problem now. At the 6C table the opening lead is a heart, taken by the A. Now there are good chances but a little care is needed.

I have no plans to tell either Cayne or Brogeland (the two Souths) why they should or should not open 1C. And of course 6S "could" be made but I doubt anyone would play a spade to the Q and then finesse the ten.


 B:   Now a though about what might be possible.

 I had some complicated scheme here that I now think is way too complicated.  But I still like using vugraph hands so that people can compare with what actually happened at a major event.



Coda: It is easy to find interesting hands in the files. For example, for hand 16 in
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=49592
both 4H and 3NT can be beaten, but N, defending 3NT, has a choice at T3. One choice sets the contract, the other doesn't.

The fact that it often is not obvious what to bid, how to play a hand, how to defend a hand, all these things make bridge interesting. I really don't know if S should open 1C on the slam hand. I can imagine him getting pretty anxious when, after he does so, his partner puts him in 6C.  And I am not sure how they might reach 6C after he chooses not to do so. Note to Oliver: A Precision 2C opening might get them there, yes?

[OliverC]

Clearly whether you open Cayne's hand depends on your bidding style and aggression level. Lots of experts like fairly "solid" opening bids. South's hand here is aceless, has no shape, scattered values and is a bare minimum opening for most systems, so I can understand his deciding not to open it even if my own style would be to whizz the 2 (Precision) bidding card onto the table. The problem for Cayne on this hand was that having decided not to open, he seems to be stuck for a forward-going bid over 4 because he has no controls to cue-bid.


If 6 was off and 5 making on the nose here, no doubt some would be applauding Cayne's caution. Second-guessing people's bidding style is easy enough to do after the event, but presumably Cayne and Graves have worked out a style of bidding that works for them in the long run. If one partner is fairly aggressive and the other more cautious that can work fairly well to balance each other out as long as they are consistent in their approach. Clearly on this hand, they could do better.


I wonder if 3 over 3 might have been more encouraging to North. After all, Qxx is not going to set the world on fire as a Diamond stop, but Qx in partner's Spade suit is perhaps worth a mention, given the 3 force.

[kenberg]

I might also pass that S hand. I don't so much mind it being an aceless 11 count but I would like the club suit to be a little better. Make one of the majors Jx instead of Qx, and use  that extra point to make the clubs KQJxxx and I would feel better. If I end up playing, say, 3C opposite a stiff spot then that J could be very useful. Or, if partner plays 3NT he might also like seeing  that J.

[OliverC]

I'm a reasonably "sensible" Opener when it comes to intermediate openings, but pretty aggressive when it comes to pre-empts. Added to that, of course, OCP is a pretty aggressive system, so I'd have no qualms opening that lot with 2 . KQxxxx is perfectly sufficient for that. I'd have absolutely no problem opening the hand with 1 if I was playing any "natural" system