IAC where are you?

[kenberg]

[typos corrected]

This is one of those hands that can provide lots of discussion. The 2D bid by E probably encouraged N since he controls the suit and figures South's values are elsewhere. To my mind, when N bids 3D and then pulls 3NT to 4C, that's a slam try in clubs. He has now said enough, when bids 5C North can hardly bid again. He can reasonably expect the hands to produce six club tricks and three top cards in the majors are in sight, but to bring the total to 12 the spades presumably have to be developed. If, after the initial pass, they are to reach 6C then S has to show he can help with the spades. As you suggest, bidding 3S over 3D would do it. Another way is to bid 4S over 4C. I suppose this could be dangerous but M has  pulled 3NT to clubs, I think bidding 4S over 4C is simply cooperating with the slam try in clubs.

But, again, bridge is a subtle game. Easier when seeing all four hands.

Here is another fun slam:

http://tinyurl.com/mg725de


Jimmy thought for quite a while before producing the D lead. Down 1. At the other table the lead was a spade. The hand requires care, but it can be and was made.

I am still thinking of doing a show and tell with some hands, from JEC or elsewhere. Not today!

I may need to ask you or someone about just ow this is done. I'll read a bit first.

[OliverC]

Different styles, I guess. Since I have a game-going hand (as West), nothing would stop me from showing the Clubs first. Also, As East, there's no way I'd be leaping about the place with a fairly poor fit for either black suit over the game-forcing 2 , so now the sequence would presumably go:


               1
2 (GF) - 2
2 (4SF) - 3
3NT - ??


...and now East really has no particular incentive to budge from there.


Loading VuGraph HandsYou're probably better off asking someone who is well-versed in doing stuff with the Browser version, Ken. I still tend to use the windows client for everything except watching vugraph so my knowledge of loading preset hands from the Browser client is strictly limited. Maybe Sanya can help...

[kenberg]

Yes, now that I look more closely, I agree that starting with 2C over 1H is better. We can get to spades in good time if spades are right.

I have been trying to accept the conversion to the online version. I used the downloadable for a long time and still often fall back on it. Anyway, I want to try a bit of reading and experimenting, but I expect I will then have questions.

Currently my thinking goes something like this.
Take some hands from vugraph files.
Use the deals to set up a normal tourney.
After the tourney, show the hands in their original environment so that players can see what happened there.
Include some comments, by me or others, on points we found interesting.

An example comment would be along the lines you made here: "I would have responded 2C instead of 1S to the 1H opening". And then noting that after 1H-2C-2D-2S-3D it becomes clear that responder has a lot of values in opener's short suits, not a good sign, so maybe 3NT is enough. Not that 6D is hopeless and indeed it made at the other table.

Probably I will check with BBO to be sure this doesn't violate some policy but the vugraph hands are put up to see, and I would not be using them for any profit making purpose,  so I assume they will have no objection.

[bAbsG]

Regarding Sanya's original post.  Way back when (just after Ally vacated) Pam and I discussed most of what has been mentioned.  At that time the "hosted" sessions were waning (not that they ever caught on to my knowledge) and things were in a bit of a upheaval.  We discussed holding back-to-back all day team matches (much like the ones held by toniwacok), doing tourney's using vugraph deals (which actually can not be loaded directly from vugraph archives into a team match - I tried yesterday), doing sessions using vugraph deals with discussion (like Ken mentioned) and various other things to get members involved.  I have organized some special guests along the way (Pete Holland, Mike Dorn Wiss were two) and Dave Greenough at present.

When I joined the IAC we had Shep, Chick, Memti, Hoki, Hondo and maybe another (bad memory).  It takes a huge commitment to hold a class week after week (as you must know Oliver).

I like the idea of inviting an expert/star for a couple of hours each week to go over some vugraph or tourney hands.  Maybe approach some of our expert members (Phil, pawn9, braden, come to mind) and ask them to commentate/review? 

[kenberg]

bAbs,

This falls naturally into two parts.

First
Comments: I would hope to encourage an exchange of ideas, expert or not. This is for several reasons, but mostly that's my preference for most things  in bridge and in life.
But the hands cited so far in this thread show reasons as well. On the 6D hand it made at one table, went down at the other. And quite possibly it should not have been bid at either table. Although if the heart Ace is to declarer's right it might well be easier to bring in. Even with the heart Ace and the club King badly placed it makes except on a trump lead although it requires some thought on a spade lead.   I think discussing such matters is far preferable to having an assigned expert announce the proper bid and play. so while it is firstly a personal preference, I think open discussion really has merit for all.

Second
Setting up the tourney: I still need to read, but bAbs you might point me a bit in the right direction. Somewhere on BBO I found a link to aaBridge which can be used, I think, to do what i have in mind.

See http://rogerpf.com/bridge/aaBridge

 I expect I can figure out how to use this, I am making progress on it, but I often find computer program write-ups difficult to work through and this is another instance of such difficulties. Have you used it, or has someone out there who is reading this used it?. I expect that for what I have in mind I can just do it without learning aaBridge, but I see it as a challenge so I plan to try.

The hand editor on the downloadable version of bbo seems to do more things. For example, I seem to recall that it allowed me to edit a hand to delete  the names of the players. If I can do this on the online version I have not yet figured out how. Also, the hand editor allows me to rearrange the card in the hands, that's nice, but as near as I can see it does not allow me to simply delete some cards. Well, I can delete them, or I can click on the next button for a few plays, but then I can not save it at that point. So I cannot save  a hand after, say, the first five tricks have been played. I am assuming that aaBridge would allow me to do such things, but first I have to figure out what he is saying. I'm working on it.

And I still have some spring planting to do. Ah, the busy life of a retiree. So many bushes, so little time.

[bAbsG]

Hi Ken

Yes, I agree - discussion is definitely the way to go when reviewing hands.  Having seen the level of some self-rated intermediate IAC members (myself included) I feel we would need someone with some solid knowledge to lead or guide the discussion, not necessarily give a 'right' sequence.

I have never set a tourney so I don't know what is involved.  I have directed team matches which are quite different.

I had a brush with aaBridge a couple of years ago.  I heard that it could be used to auto-alert.  Worked great with a PC but not a Mac.  Other than that I know nothing.     Roger would be the guy to contact - he is a whiz at aaBridge.

I have only ever used the web version (other than broadcasting as BBO_IAC) so am not familiar with the hand editor.

Plant on!!! 

[Curls77]

Setting up the tourney: I still need to read, but bAbs you might point me a bit in the right direction. Somewhere on BBO I found a link to aaBridge which can be used, I think, to do what i have in mind.

See http://rogerpf.com/bridge/aaBridge

 I expect I can figure out how to use this, I am making progress on it, but I often find computer program write-ups difficult to work through and this is another instance of such difficulties. Have you used it, or has someone out there who is reading this used it?. I expect that for what I have in mind I can just do it without learning aaBridge, but I see it as a challenge so I plan to try.

The hand editor on the downloadable version of bbo seems to do more things. For example, I seem to recall that it allowed me to edit a hand to delete  the names of the players. If I can do this on the online version I have not yet figured out how. Also, the hand editor allows me to rearrange the card in the hands, that's nice, but as near as I can see it does not allow me to simply delete some cards. Well, I can delete them, or I can click on the next button for a few plays, but then I can not save it at that point. So I cannot save  a hand after, say, the first five tricks have been played. I am assuming that aaBridge would allow me to do such things, but first I have to figure out what he is saying. I'm working on it.

And I still have some spring planting to do. Ah, the busy life of a retiree. So many bushes, so little time.

As for aabridge, many members use it, but most of us likely know only few of its inumerous functions. RogerPfi, its creator, already gave few skype lessons on main features, and I am sure he'd be happy give full walk-through to you, so I suggest you send him bbo-mail.

Another good piece of software to alter and save hands in different formats, very easy to use is BridgeComposer, also free to download at http://bridgecomposer.com/.

Jec's hands played at BBO (or from anyone else that you know nickname) can be downloaded in bunch (all hands played by that person in last 30 days for example) by using yet another great and free software, DoubleDummy Solver (http://www.bridgecaptain.com/downloadDD.html).

There is also way to alter hands directly online at bbo, we made little how to that would help IAC TDs adjust to web version of BBO, you might want to check this sub page, where it explains (not in too many details) how to edit and save hands online.
http://iac-td-web-bbo.site123.me/upload-hands-teach

[kenberg]

I'll check some of this out.

[onoway]

I asked members to come here and tell us WHY they want the club, where are they?

About 4 years ago(? a while anyway) I got an expert  to come in once a week to be a resource for people who were playing in IAC at a designated time,  someone who would be available to discuss/clarify questions as they came up. Nobody ever asked!!!  even when it was clear there was confusion, they wouldn't call him over and say they were confused as to what to do or what the bid meant or what their lead should be, nothing! Even when gently  and privately the suggestion was made in case they had forgotten why he was there ( or even that he WAS there) people wouldn't ask him for help.

  When the guest got tired of wandering around the tables without anything to do he started to initiate  interaction and offered some input.  Unfortunately fairly soon after he started doing this,  he chose to use as a discussion point a bid which the bidder was not only totally content with, but willing to do battle with anyone  who might suggest there might have been a better one for whatever reason. It was an awful situation and although the expert, who is a top player in his country, was philosophical about it I was appalled. In any case, if nobody was willing to  engage around issues then there was really little point in asking him to give of his time. So that stopped after about a month.

This lack of engagement is what makes me reluctant to look for more teachers. We have a minimal number of people show up, given we are back up to around 900 members again. It's like drawing teeth, usually, to get anyone to sit at the table.  This has been true for a very long time,  it was even true for both Shep and Hondo, and more supportive, gentle teachers it is hard to imagine.  Members have been suspended from the club for interfering with or making public  derogatory remarks to or about the players at the  table in a teaching session and that hasn't been an issue in any of the teaching sessions I've been at for a very very long time.   So it's got nothing to do with fear of abuse if they get something wrong. So why won't people sit at a teaching table?

 Grant said a number of months ago he could get another expert and we could set up a table with people playing with him and his guest. with private commentary to the kibs about what they were doing and why.    I'd love to do that but  haven't pursued it because I've lost faith that anyone but me would sit ( and I feel I should be in the back of the line). It's unfair and insulting that these people offer their time and then have to twiddle their thumbs because people want to be coaxed into playing.

We have tried tourneys in the middle of the night.  We  tried running  evening tourneys 3 times a week  for several months, none of the people who asked for evening tourneys ever played in any of them, although not infrequently  they were playing robot tourneys or even in other BBO tourneys when the IAC tourneys were on.  Brenda tried running tourneys at 4 am Eastern  so the Australian etc contingent could play, we only got a scant handful of people, not enough to run a tourney, and who in any case often already  played in the other tourneys we were offering. The other day when Sanya cancelled her tourney for lack of registrations there were at least 50-60 members logged into BBO. 

Aside from that  people USED to show up for these!  Dulci was getting between 16 and 20 tables, I was getting 12+ on Monday and Saturday.  Now we are relieved to get half that number. Why? there are ALWAYS IAC members online elsewhere in BBO.  Many members are highly particular about  who they play with and will refuse invitations, which is offputting for players, I don't know what if anything can be done about that.  Perhaps they aren't playing  because they are bored with meeting the same players every time, the regulars whose support make trying to offer events and so forth worthwhile?

Some  don't like having to wait for the clocked tourneys, but unclocked are  difficult with small tourneys and end up with players  playing the same opps again...and then sometimes having to wait even longer tor a slower pair to catch up;  so until and unless the numbers pick up that just isn't practical.  So some have left because the tourneys are too slow and others because they felt pressured  to finish the hands on time. To solve the issue we need more players, so it's like a dog chasing its tail.

Opening the tourney to the general public is problematic for the director it offers any more players, to be sure, but many of those are rude or runners or both. It's not fun looking for 5 or ten subs every time the round changes, if you can even find that many subs willing to play. 

 I personally think 5 board tourneys, which someone has twice  suggested, are a bizarre idea and not worth my time so I'm not interested in asking anyone else to give up their time to do it either. People have asked for Speedballs, so we tried those,  one a week for a while: after the first couple apparently the novelty wore off and people stopped coming out for them either, including the people who had asked for them.

Some have told me they are super busy at the moment, fair enough. Some have said they can't negotiate the new BBO, I tell them how AND refer them to Sanya's excellent notes. Sometimes we see them occasionally after that. Mostly they want to make sure they are still members but we never see them in the club or in any club events.

WHY do they want to belong to the club? How did some of them come to even notice that BBO had dropped them out of the club and why did they care?  It's a total mystery.

[kenberg]

Why, and what can be done, are related questions. I am not sure I know the answer.

Possibly I had some role in encouraging Joe, (yleexotee) to write up his sheet of suggested defaults for play. I am sure it took time, i don't see that it is much used. Perhaps Oliver's creation of this Forum was partly motivated by a suggestion I made. Oliver described it as easy enough to do, but still it took some time. We can see how little it is being used. So what's up?

I play bridge because I find it interesting. This interest spills over into enjoying discussion of hands. Not everyone does. When I first started playing duplicate I took a series of lessons on conventions, lebensohl and such. There would be a lecture and then supervised play. There was this one woman who, when we first started and also as the several weeks of lessons came to an end, would begin the supervised play by asking "Partner, do you ay the short club?".  That was it. Leb? Not a chance. Why she took lessons escaped me.

So I had in mind some discussion. Not happening.

Here is the first board from the Sunday tourney:

http://tinyurl.com/k9z8gss


We agreed to use Joe's notes (with exceptions) so 3D was understood as Bergen despite the double. Myself, I would have bid a direct 3H (and I would do the same if we were not playing Bergen since after the X it is weak). But whichever ne chooses, we have a ten card fit and it is hard to imagine us not going to 3H one way or another.


Is this a good contract? That's where it gets interesting. I have five obvious tricks to lose. The opening lead was the spade T, I took my Ace. Surely I shouold have played the diamond J at T2. Maybe lho will duck, maybe he won't, but he might. Instead i led a heart after which they took their clubs. later their diamond and a spade. I long ago accepted that I make mistakes, and I actually take satisfaction in spotting them afterward. This was an error. It might not have made a difference, but it was still ab error.

There are other interesting points. This was mps and  optimal  spot for NS is 4D (or 4C for that matter). They can take five clubs, four diamonds and one heart, and there is nothing we ca do about it, at least I do not see any defense. And +130 outscore +50, and outscores +100 in 3HX. Now 4m, when it is right, is usually tough to get to and nobody did. Some were in 5C off 1.

How about LOTT? We have ten hearts, they have none diamonds, LOTT says there are 19 total tricks We can take 8 tricks in hearts, they can take ten tricks in diamonds, LOTT is off by 1. LOTT often is a bit off, and anyway they don't know we have ten hearts, we don't know they have nine diamonds. I regard the L part of LOTT (Law) as being a serious overstatement.

It score badly. Which is very different from saying one of us should have done something different. Except I should have led the diamond at T2.

I find such things interesting. Clearly, many others don't find this interesting.  If people are not interested, they are not interested. My wife has a friend who loves watching golf on television. I pass.

I don't like speedballs at all. Bridge is based on thought. It's not chess or go, but still some modest amount of time for thought is expected. By me.

Also I was hoping Joe's notes would reduce the frequency of misunderstandings.
 An auction:


1H-(2C)-2S-(P)
P-(P).

I was the spade bidder, with a 15 count and five spades. I am aware of the Negative Free Bid convention, but it is a convention. An alertable convention, at least in acbl land. Apparently more common in Europe, see http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/negative-freebids/

As it happened, the  result was not all that bad, although both 3NT and 4H can be made.  Good karma, I guess. Whatever one thinks of the merits of Negative Free Bids, clearly it is not good when one partner is playing them and the other isn't. The link above has other links, and discusses variations. It also mentions that NFBs work best within a big club system where the opening bid. not 1C,  is limited to 15 highs.

So discussion is good.  Or at least I like it. I think I will put up a few more hands from time to time, maybe it will catch on. Or not. We will see.

[OliverC]

Interesting hand, Ken. I wouldn't worry too much about your score on this particular hand. The fact is that stealing the hand in 3 undoubled when 4 is making their way should be  a decent result, but the Bridge Gods have a sense of humour (especially if you're playing Pairs). NS Pairs on that hand should be stopping short of game, because neither hand is "good" enough to justify pushing that far but hope springs eternal and in the face of barrage bidding by EW, lots will think that game must be on. Maybe they are fans of...


LOTT
ROFL. Some time, have a look at David Burn's famous article that humorously destroys LOTT ( http://blakjak.org/burn_law.htm ). Seriously trying to reduce hand evaluation and judgement to "laws" is something always destined to fail, in my view. There are just too many variables in play: Apart from the actual sequence in question and your own evaluation of your hand, factors such as who your partner is and your evaluation of their bidding style, Opps ditto, etc etc.


Accurate hand evaluation and assessment of things such as playing strength, fit with partner and the likely distribution of the outstanding cards are one of the key things that differentiate world class players from the rest of us mortals.


Back in the late 80s and early 90's I was playing regularly in a team with Jason & Justin Hackett and their father Paul. Back then Jason and Justin were England Juniors and although most of the time I was playing OCP with Jason, there were times when Jason and Justin needed to practice together for an upcoming England match and I'd be partnering Paul instead. I found that enormously hard at times, because Paul was incredibly good at evaluating his hand (and mine) and taking the correct inferences from all of the bidding. He knew what was going on in the hand halfway through a given auction, never mind during the play, and he was bidding on the basis of his knowledge and the (usually correct) inferences he had taken. I, however, was playing catch-up. Although no slouch, I was nowhere near Paul's class so I wasn't able to make quite the same mental leaps that Paul was, so his bidding sometimes confused me.

[kenberg]

I had heard Burns' Law if Total Trump, that the declaring side should have more trump than the defending side. It is often cited by vugraph commentators. I really  like his third law about placing the suits in the dummy so that declarer remembers he is playing in no trump.

About LOTT he says " the total number of tricks taken by anyone almost never equals the total number available to them" which reminded me of something from Bridge in the Menagerie. Someone, maybe Oscar the Owl, gives the Hideous Hog a hand and asks him how he would play to make the hand against best defense. HH snorts and says something like "Who cares how to make the hand against best dense? The hand should be played so as to make it difficult for the defenders to find the best defense.".

As often noted, bridge is a game of mistakes. I was on defense  at Dave's lesson yesterday. Declarer played a small diamond from the board intending to ruff with a small heart. I hopped up with the heart King from Kx, hoping to promote a trump in partner's hand. Indeed it did, since partner had four hearts headed by the nine (I knew he had four trump). But upon reflection I am pretty sure that the play was wrong. I usually save hands, but this one I didn't so I can't look back. While I recall much of the hand, for example I believe my shape was  4=2=2=5, I don't remember enough of the details to think it through.

I mention this because I strongly believe that this is the way to learn. Yes,  it can be useful for someone else to point out an error. But finding your own errors is far, far, more instructive. Usually errors are not all that difficult to find, once a person decides that finding his own errors is more important than finding his partner's errors. After all your own errors are the ones you can do something about in the future.  Ok, end of moralizing. 

[OliverC]

I mention this because I strongly believe that this is the way to learn. Yes,  it can be useful for someone else to point out an error. But finding your own errors is far, far, more instructive. Usually errors are not all that difficult to find, once a person decides that finding his own errors is more important than finding his partner's errors. After all your own errors are the ones you can do something about in the future.  Ok, end of moralizing.

Very true, Ken. Going back to those days with the Hacketts, playing occasionally with Paul was really hard work, but it taught me a huge amount. Paul was very good about showing me what inferences I should have been able to take at a critical stage in the bidding/play. That process forced me to become better at counting the hand and really thinking about what was going on.

[southuist]

The very short answer to your question Sanya is....I have been moving, and it has taken 3 weeks to do so!  I think the forum is a great idea, and I am already enjoying Ken's analysis of the hands.  Well some of the analysis, I am still terribly busy to really indulge in some of the in-depth stuff.  But back to tournies and active members...Personally I like the Swiss format, it is more fun and fairer, I know you have to wait for everyone to finish, but that gives you an opportunity to discuss the last two boards with your P.  The problem is, you need lots of people for the Swiss format.  So, why not allow the hordes in, and throughout the match, advertise where the top IAC MEMBERS are positioned...how frustrating for the non-members not to get mentioned when they are doing better than those who are?  They will all join and suddenly you will have more ACTIVE members?  (this is a light hearted suggestion, as I can see that being a TD, AND having to announce, or even identify IAC members from the rest of players, could make for a pretty busy time).

[southuist]

The very short answer to your question Sanya is....I have been moving, and it has taken 3 weeks to do so!  I think the forum is a great idea, and I am already enjoying Ken's analysis of the hands.  Well some of the analysis, I am still terribly busy to really indulge in some of the in-depth stuff.  But back to tournies and active members...Personally I like the Swiss format, it is more fun and fairer, I know you have to wait for everyone to finish, but that gives you an opportunity to discuss the last two boards with your P.  The problem is, you need lots of people for the Swiss format.  So, why not allow the hordes in, and throughout the match, advertise where the top IAC MEMBERS are positioned...how frustrating for the non-members not to get mentioned when they are doing better than those who are?  They will all join and suddenly you will have more ACTIVE members?  (this is a light hearted suggestion, as I can see that being a TD, AND having to announce, or even identify IAC members from the rest of players, could

make for a pretty busy time).
[ludo ergo sum]