Zeb Stocken

We are delighted to give advance notice that Zeb Stocken will be returning to Suffolk for a one day teaching event at Hintlesham Hall on June 13.

More details and the opportunity to book your place will be posted nearer the time, but tickets are expected to sell out quickly, so keep an eye on the website.

RAISING THE BAR
RAISING THE BAR

 

Paul Whetton has been appointed Suffolk captain elect and is using his new role to offer a series of articles aimed at players who represent the county, or aspire to do so - but should help us all improve our game.

Paul's aim is to raise the level of performance by Suffolk players and he explains the thinking behind his approach in his first article. Click on BAR to read it.

All Paul's columns are available by clicking on Raising the Bar in the menu above. The latest one is entitled Planning.

RICK STANDING DOWN

Rick Hanley is standing down as Suffolk captain at the end of the current Eastern Counties League season. As announced previously, he will be succeeded by Paul Whetton.

Despite have a small pool of players to call on compared to other counties, and with some top Suffolk players choosing not to represent the county, his tenure has been marked by an overall improvement in results, notably by the B and C teams.

Richard Evans, chairman of Suffolk bridge, said: "Rick has been an excellent captain whose enthusiasm, leadership and ideas have inspired the county squad and underpinned its improved performance. He has also shown great courage at a time when he has not enjoyed good health."

 

Rick (L) & Paul (R)

SUFFOLK CHAMPIONSHIP PAIRS

 The format for this year's competition is as follows:

1. Heats to be held in Clubs during October/November. The heats will be F2F. There will be an online open heat in January 2024 for anyone who has missed their club heat.

2. All players who achieve 50% or more in a heat will be eligible to take part in the Final at Elmswell (IP30 9UH) on Sunday April 21, 2024.

3. Players may attempt qualification once - please ask players before play starts if they wish to attempt qualification.

4. Any out-of-county players who achieve more than 50% in a heat will not be eligible to play in the Final since the top three pairs in the Final will be invited to represent Suffolk in the Corwen Trophy to be held F2F on June 1/2, 2024.

LEARNING BRIDGE

Suffolk bridge is offering an unprecedented number of venues and sessions where players new to bridge can learn the game or improve their skills this autumn. Click on LEARN to see the range of courses and sessions on offer across the county.

If you - or a friend - is interested in attending any of the courses and requires more information click on ENQUIRIES and let us have your details.

MARMITE

No trump contracts are like Marmite. You either love or hate them.

Players who fall into the latter (not to mention former) category might just wish to have a look at a fascinating article packed with loads of different hands produced by Marc Chawner, one of Essex’s very best players, on their county website. It kicks off with some relatively straight forward examples before featuring some crackers which will test the best.

Click on NO TRUMPS to read.

MORE MARMITE!

In a sequel to Marc Chawner's popular compilation of no-trump hands and how to play them, click on SUIT PLAY BY DECLARER, and  BBO, to see how BBO robots played these hands (clever!) To complete the trilogy, Marc has produced a comprehensive article on defence. Click on DEFENCE to read.

There is plenty for players of all abilities in the above. Thanks once again to Marc.

LEARNING BRIDGE
LEARNING BRIDGE

If you have friends who would like to learn bridge but are not sure how to go about it or where to go, ask them to email learnbridge@suffolkbridge.co.uk

To find a teacher in your area click on BRIDGE TEACHERS

LOCAL BRIDGE

With more clubs opening their doors, and some also offering teaching and learn & play classes, click on BRIDGE IN SUFFOLK to find out what is available.

While every attempt has been made to ensure the information is accurate, please let us know of any omissions or corrections by clicking EmailSuffolk

FACEBOOK

HERE - AT LAST!

It's been long overdue, but Suffolk Bridge now has its own Facebook  page.

The social networking site offers another way to advertise events and, in particullar, to reach non-bridge players who might be interested in learning the game.

To find the page, go to Facebook and search for Suffolk Bridge.

BRIDGE ARCHIVE

Suffolk Bridge now has a dedicated website for archive mateiral collected over more than 40 years, including winners of the county's main competitions.

Many thanks to Jill Tattersfield for compiling all the material and to Peter Bushby for makiing it publicly available by setting up the website. Click on ARCHIVE to see everything.

WEBMASTERS
 

Paul Rickard and Tony Pearson are the webmasters running Suffolk's dedicated bridge website.

If you would like to publicise a forthcoming event or submit a news item for this website click Paul or Tony

Release 2.19q
0 0 0 0 0 0
Pages viewed in 2024
Rick Hanley - Captain's Log
OPENING MATCH OF 2023 SEASON

Bridge in the on-line age by Rick Hanley 

Captain’s report on the ECL match between Suffolk and Cambs & Hunts on 21/05/2023 


I’m always struck by how similar the results against each county turn out to be to the previous year’s fixture.  On Sunday, the A team lost 6 – 14 (last year = 4 – 16), the B team lost 7 – 13 (last year = 10 – 10) and the C team won 18 – 2 (last year = 17 - 3).  So, the aggregate number of VPs won by each county was exactly the same as in 22/23. 

The C team victory featured very good cards from Jo & Dennis, Jenny & Norbert and Richard & John.  Many thanks to our reserve pair (Tim and Chris) who stepped in at short notice. Tim said they found the transition from club duplicate to the county team to be quite tough, but being part of a winning team on debut is something to be very pleased about. They were called in because Andy Higginson became stranded on the Isle of Skye following the rescheduling of his ferry back to his hotel on the mainland.  This kind of thing never happened in the good old days. 

Another, on-line-only event occurred during the A team match.  However, there was a happy ending. On board 8, Michael and Paul had done well to bid to 5D, which was doubled, and Paul was quite happy when the dummy appeared. It looked like 8 diamond tricks and 2 club tricks and then there should have been a way to make a heart trick to discard the club loser. The lead was the ace of spades, followed by the King which Paul thought he had ruffed. Unfortunately, the 4 of hearts was next to the 6 of diamonds and Paul’s son entered his office just as he was going to play the 6 of diamonds. When the dust settled he discovered that he had miss-clicked and discarded the 6 of hearts on the 2nd round of spades. 

A glance at his left-hand opponent showed that he was rather pleased with himself as his queen of clubs was now likely to provide the setting trick. It was not to be. After ruffing the heart lead and running 6 more diamonds, dummy held the king of hearts and AK8 of clubs. Paul held the 7 of diamonds and the J96 of clubs, His left-hand opponent held ace of hearts and Q107 of clubs. On the lead of the 7 of diamonds, his left-hand opponent had no winning option. He discarded a club and Paul was correct in his prediction that the queen would now fall under the AK thus promoting his jack.  

A miss-click leading to a successful squeeze!!  What show-boating, Paul!  Incidentally, I am delighted to say that Paul will be taking over from me as county captain when I step down at some point during the current season.  

The full results and line-ups are now available of the SCBA website. 

The next fixture is against Essex on 23rd July.

Captain’s Report on ECL match v Bedfordshire by Rick Hanley

It is striking how many times the previous year’s results in the ECL is replicated in the following year.  As was the case in 2021 the B team recorded their first defeat of the season and the C team achieved another victory.  Sadly, though, the same cannot be said for the A team.  They blew a decent lead in the last few boards and failed to repeat last year’s victory, losing 8-12.

Jo Harpur & Dennis Valtisiaris

Hauntingly, weak bidding on my part was to some extent responsible for the defeat.  On board 31, I sat North and held:

S.   AQ75

H.   A954

D.   K

C.   QJ96

Red (us) v Green

Partner dealt and passed, my RHO opened 1d, I doubled, LHO bid 3d, and my partner bid 3h.  Would you now bid 4h?  Convention states that 4/4/4/1 hands rarely play very well, and because my singleton Kd was likely to be waste paper and because my partner passed in first seat, I convinced myself that I should pass.  Sadly 4h was bid at every other table, the cards lay quite favourably and at least 10 tricks duly rolled in.  In my defence, we were the only NS pair to encounter such strong pre-emptive bidding from our East/West opponents. But this was a costly decision.

Despite a 7-13 defeat, the Suffolk B team remain top of the table.  Two good results in the last two matches should secure top spot at the end of the season. Click on ECL

 Pride of place however must go to the C team who achieved their 3rd successive victory with a 17-3 win.  Click on ECL

 This victory was largely due to the efforts of Jo Harpur & Dennis Valtisiaris who produced a stunningly good card.  They finished top of the cross-imp table by a very wide margin.  When I asked her to explain their success, Jo replied “ I finally found out where my pass card was!”

SUFFOLK V CAMBS & HUNTS

Can you find the killer lead?

Captain’s report by Rick Hanley.on the ECL match between Suffolk and Cambs/Hunts played on 24/07/2022

The Suffolk County team gave a creditable performance in their recent match versus C&H (traditionally one of the strongest counties in the ECL), winning one and drawing one of the three contests.

The Suffolk A team lined up against a C&H team containing 5 players who have represented England at international level. Bearing this in mind, their 16/4 defeat was understandable and was virtually identical to last year’s score between the two counties.

The B team recovered in the final stanza to achieve a 10/10 draw, thus maintaining their unbeaten record in 2022/23.

However, pride of place must go to the C team who turned last year’s 14/6 defeat into a 17/3 victory. There were excellent cards from Mark & Caroline and from Andy & Chris who finished in first and second place in the overall cross-imp table. Many congratulations to them and to the other members of the C-team for the second successive victory.

The first eight boards contained three interesting lead problems against major-suit game contracts. On all three occasions at my table, East was called upon to make the critical lead that could defeat the contract. See how you would fare in his/her shoes.

On board 5, North opens the bidding with 1S, you (East) overcall 2C. South bids 3S (weak with four spades), partner passes and North bids 4S. Holding the hand below, what would you lead?

♠ 96

 K3

  K105

♣  AJ9764

Make a note of your answer before reading any further.

On board six, you (East) open the bidding by passing. South bids 1D. Your partner (West) pre-empts with 3H, North passes, you pass and South doubles. North now bids 3S and South bids 4S. Holding the hand below, what would you lead?

♠  862

  A8

  KQ753

♣ 1094

Make a note of your answer before reading any further.

On board seven, South deals and passes.  North bids 1S, South bids 2D, North bids 3S and South bids 4S. You (East) and your partner are silent throughout. Holding the hand below, what would you lead?

♠  J4

  KJ7432

  765

♣  98

Make a note of your answer before reading any further.

ANSWERS

On board 5, partner has a singleton club so East must lead AC.  You can then take the first 5 tricks.  If you chose to lead AC, then award yourself 10.18 imps. If you made any other lead then the contract makes, and you are minus 3.09 imps.  Only 3 out of 12 Easts found the AC lead.

On board 6, you must lead a spade. Partner can win and return another trump. Otherwise the contract can be made by cross-ruffing.  If you chose a spade then award yourself plus 5.36 imps. If you made any other lead, then you are minus 6.55 imps.

None of the four Easts who were defending a spade contract found the trump lead.

On board 7, you must lead a club.  Partner holds ace and king of clubs and can give you a ruff.  You subsequently take a further trick for one down. If you made the club lead then you are awarded plus 6.82 imps.  If you lead anything else then you are minus 6.82 imps.  Eight out twelve easts found the club lead.

If overall you have a plus score across the three boards then you probably should be playing for the county team.  If you are not a member of the county squad then please get in touch with me asap!!

The full results from the match can be found on the Suffolk website in the results section.  

https://www.bridgewebs.com/suffolkbridge/

A-TEAM Lost 4-16.

RICK HANLEY & JEFF ORTON  

RALPH PARISH & PAUL WHETTON 

DAVID WILLSON & ANDRE GRAY

ANDREW MOORE & TONY PHILPOTT

 

B-TEAM  Drew 10-10

CON & PAULINE HANSON 

BILL TWEDDELL & JOHN WILMOTT 

HELEN MASON & DAVID MATHEWS  

MAY LI & JOHN GAN

C-TEAM Won 17-3

RICHARD EVANS & JOHN BLOOMFIELD 

CAROLINE GEMMELL & MARK HONESS

JO HARPUR & DENNIS VALTISIARIS 

CHRIS KENNEDY & ANDY HIGGINSON

SUFFOLK V BEDFORDSHIRE 9/1/22.

CAPTAINS REPORT by Rick Hanley

Dennis Valtisiaris & Jo Harpur (top) and Mark Honess & Caroline Gemmell helped steer the 'C' tram to victory

The new year brought some good news and some bad news for Suffolk in the ECL match versus Bedfordshire played on Realbridge on Sunday January 9th. The good news was that the A-Team achieved their first victory of the season with a 16-4 win. Paul Whetton and Ralph Parish followed up their excellent performance in the Tollemache Cup with another fine card, and all 4 pairs returned a positive cross-imp score. More good news was that the C-Team also achieved a win (by 14-6) with strong performances from Caroline Gemmell & Mark Honess and from Jo Harpur & Dennis Valtisiaris.

The bad news concerned the previously undefeated B-Team.  After 4 consecutive victories, they went down 18-2 and lost their position at the top of the B-Team league table. Nevertheless, a resounding victory in the sixth and final match against Herts would still give them a strong chance of winning the B-Team championship. So all is still to play for!

At my table, the most interesting board as far as bidding was concerned was number 31. At favourable vulnerability, I held:

S -

H AKQTxx

D Jxxx

C JTx

At two tables, including mine, RHO opened the bidding with 4 spades.

What would you bid now?

I ventured 5H and LHO bid 5S.  

My partner held:

S Q

H XX

D AKQxx

C KQxxx

What would you bid over 5S with this hand?

Partner decided to double, and 5S* was two down for plus 500 and a small gain on the board. 6H and 6D were both cold and would have provided a more substantial swing to Suffolk. At the other table where the opening bid was 4S, Jeff Orton was third to bid and wisely passed 5H in order to deter a 6H bid.  Only 1/12 pairs were in a slam. Speaking of slams, Suffolk bid and made 8 in the match.  Beds bid and made 11 but also went down in 2.

The next match V Herts is on 13th Feb.

A-TEAM Won 16-4

RICK HANLEY & NORBERT VOELKER

ANDREW MOORE & TONY PHILPOTT

JEFF ORTON & MICHAEL SHERER

RALPH PARISH & PAULWHETTON 

B-TEAM Lost 2-18.

DIN GUDKA & CATHY ROWLAND

CON & PAULINE HANSON

HELEN MASON & DAVID MATHEWS

BILL TWEDDELL & JOHN WILMOTT

C-TEAM Won 14-6.

RICHARD EVANS & JOHN BLOOMFIELD

CAROLINE GEMMELL & MARK HONESS

jO HARPUR & DENNIS VALTISIARIS

CHRIS KENNEDY & ANDY HIGGINSON

Full details of the match can be found in the Results section on the front page of the Suffolk website.

County players rise to the challenge at Ipswich & Kesgrave

How well do your Declarer skills match up?

By Rick Hanley

Contrasting standards of online card play were on display when Board 4 was played at the Ipswich & Kesgrave club on Thursday (11/9/20). Encouragingly for the captain, most members of the Suffolk team who were present avoided the pitfalls.

Sitting North, you are declarer in 4S (at game all):

Paul Whetton
Andre Gray

North

♠   AKT642

  42

  2

♣  AK75

South

♠   QJ5

  AT7

  J975

♣  T92

East, who had overcalled in diamonds, started the defence with K. West’s A was ruffed at trick 2. What now? Decide before reading on.

Perhaps your strategy is to first draw trumps. Would you continue to draw trumps at trick 4 if trumps were 4-0? If so, there are 9 tricks off the top, and a 10th can be readily obtained once trumps have been drawn if clubs break 3-3 (36% probability). If clubs do not behave but trumps are 2-2 (41% probability), the contract can still be made by ruffing the 4th club on table.  This line has an overall probability of success of around 62% against good defence. I leave it you to work out if there are any additional chances when clubs are 4-2 and trumps split unevenly. However, because East (see below) held 4 clubs including the JT, and trumps were not 2-2, you go down against best defence if you played two or more rounds of trumps before playing clubs.

East

♠  -

  J98

  KQ10643

♣  QJ64

A different strategy is to ruff a club high in dummy before drawing trumps. You start with AK and a low club, West discarding on the third club. You win the heart return, come back to hand with a trump, East showing out. A club is ruffed high on table, and you return to hand with a diamond ruff securing 10 tricks after drawing West’s remaining trumps. This line will only fail if clubs break 4-0 or 5-1 (17% probability). This line therefore has a probability of success of over 80% against any defence. If you play 3 rounds of clubs as soon as the bad trump split is apparent, the contract can still be made. I was a little surprised that plus 620 generated 87% of the match points. Checking the records on BBO opened up Pandora’s box ………..

Most declarers first drew at least two trumps (ouch) and ended up playing out the clubs. An exception was county B-team stalwart Paul Whetton who played Ace of clubs at trick 3 and made 10 tricks without fuss. However, many of the declarers who started with trumps still made 10 tricks because they took 3 club tricks after East had needlessly discarded a club from QJxx on a trump (ouch). As Chris “Codger” Chambers put it in a recent article for the East Anglian Daily Times when quoting a chess international: "The winner is the player who makes the second-last mistake." The downside of making the second last mistake, particularly if you are an improver, is that you may feel that you played the contract well.

Of course, not all of the Easts discarded a club on a trump. For example, neither Codger,  Andre Gray, nor Anne Agius (emeritus county team member), made this error and duly held declarer to 9 tricks. Andre’s partner (another county player who shall for once remain nameless) doubled 4S somewhat fancifully. He was fortunate that declarer misplayed the hand and that he had a partner who was alert enough to hang on to his clubs. Did he really deserve his 100% on the board? Once again, I leave it to you to decide.

Chris Chambers East Anglian Daily Times piece can be found by clicking on EADT

With a little help from our friends….Suffolk and Essex achieve a unique victory in the President’s Cup

By Rick Hanley

Suffolk and Essex county bridge associations may have divorced just over 40 years ago but the Suffolk county team was involved in an historic victory on September 1st when a combined Suffolk/Essex team won the President’s Cup.

The President’s Cup is a prestigious teams-of-8 tournament run annually by the Northern Counties. It was opened up to other counties such as ourselves this year because of the lockdown. It comprised a series of 8-board online matches (one every Tuesday) against 11 other counties.

Due to the unavailability of several Suffolk A-team players, we invited some leading Essex players to join us. The team comprised Rick Hanley & Chris “codger” Chambers, Karen & Malcolm Pryor, Marc ”llama” Chawner & Paul Spencer, Ray “jaray18” Clarke & Bernie “barleylands” Hunt.

Having started with defeats against strong Sussex and Yorkshire teams, mid-table anonymity appeared the best we could hope for. However, the team then embarked on a series of seven straight victories that included an 11-9 defeat of a Manchester team containing Michael Byrne, John Holland, and Alan Mould. By this stage we had taken over at the top of the table and the momentum was with us - and decisive victories in the final two matches ensured that we finished 19 vps ahead of Sussex and Yorkshire who were tied for second.

Final Table

                                                            W        D         L          VPS

  1. Suffolk/Essex                      9          0          2          153
  2. Sussex                                  7          0          4          134

Yorkshire                             8          0          3          134

  1. Derbyshire A                       7          0          4          132
  2. Derbyshire B                       6          1          4          127
  3. Manchester A                      5          1          5          114
  4. North East                           5          0          6          110
  5. Herefordshire                     5          0          6          105
  6. Manchester B                      6          0          5           94
  7. Warwickshire                      4          0          7            92
  8. Merseyside & Cheshire      3          0          8            80
  9. North Wales                        0          0         11           45

Click on PRESIDENT to see further details.

Recent Exploits of the Suffolk County bridge team by Rick Hanley

I for one can see clear advantages in playing an away ECL match v Herts in my front room rather than in the middle of a 150 mile round trip from Colchester to Welwyn Garden City and back.

Con & Pauline Hanson (top) and Eric Newman & Diane Whitley - won 20-0

In the last few months, despite the lockdown and the fact that the return to face to face bridge is still months away, the Suffolk county bridge team has been more active than ever. Following an invitation from the Midland Counties working group, Suffolk competed against 15 other counties in two Teams of 4 events. The first event in May was for players ranked “B” and Suffolk were represented by the Kennedy team (Chris Kennedy, Andy Higginson, Bernard Hart, Duncan Smith) who were selected because they had recently won the third division in the inaugural Suffolk online league teams of 4. The second event in June was for players ranked “A” and Suffolk were represented by the Pryor team (Karen & Malcolm Pryor, Rick Hanley, Michael Sherer) who were selected because they had just won the first division of the online league teams of 4. Both teams performed respectably but without threatening to achieve a podium finish.

In July, Suffolk were challenged to a “friendly” online match by Norfolk. The match took the form of 7 head-to-head teams of 4 matches between 3 sets of A team players, 2 sets of B team players and 2 sets of C Team players. Suffolk were represented by the six teams who played in Division 1 during the second season of the online teams event and by the winners of Division 2. Suffolk were simply too hot to handle, winning six out of seven of the matches with an average VP score of 14.2/20. 20-0 victories were achieved by the Newman team (Eric Newman, Diane Whitley, Pauline & Con Hanson) and by the Orton team (Bill Tweddell, John Wilmott, Paul Whetton, Ralph Parish). Normally “derby” matches against Norfolk are extremely close. Perhaps this victory is a sign that the tightly-contested Suffolk online teams of 4 leagues are improving significantly the quality of Suffolk bridge. It was also most gratifying that we were able to field 28 players (more than the 24 required for standard ECL matches) with 4 other players waiting in reserve. Click on SUFvNORF for full details of the seven matches.

Finally, some Suffolk players (Karen & Malcolm Pryor, Chris Chambers, Rick Hanley, David Willson) have joined forces with an Essex 4 (Paul Spencer, Marc Chawner, Ray Clarke, Bernie Hunt) to play in the President’s cup as a joint Suffolk/Essex team. The President’s cup is an annual teams of 8 event run by the Northern Counties that has been opened up to other counties this year because of the lockdown. It comprises a series of 8 board matches (one every Tuesday) against 11 other counties. So far we lie in a highly creditable 4th place with 4 victories from 6 matches. Click on PRESIDENT to see the full details are available at:

Given the success of these events, I would suggest that online County bridge matches have a very bright future even when face to face bridge returns. I for one can see clear advantages in playing an away ECL match v Herts in my front room rather than in the middle of a 150 mile round trip from Colchester to Welwyn Garden City and back.

How To Find The Best Opening Lead

Rick Hanley reviews Marty Bergen’s new online audio-visual lesson

Problem 1

You hold the following poor hand:

♠ Q75  9653  843 ♣ Q75

The bidding proceeds:

You            North        East           South       

Pass           1                Pass           1                   

Pass           3                Pass           3NT        

All Pass

What would you lead? Think carefully because your decision will determine whether or not the contract is defeated.

Answer:

Your only hope is if you can find partner with a long strong suit of their own. The question is, should you lead the unbid major (spades) or the unbid minor (clubs)?

Other things being equal, you would probably lead the unbid major rather than the unbid minor in NT. So perhaps, like me, you chose the 5 of spades.

Wrong….Other things are not equal in this hand. The key to this decision is what partner didn't do. Partner wouldn’t need much to overcall 1♠ . Since they passed, they are unlikely to hold a hand with nice long spade suit such as ♠ KJ643   J10  A97 ♣ J64.

However, the requirements for a 2-level overcall are a good deal higher than for a 1-level overcall. Partner might have a nice club suit but couldn't bid clubs because their hand did not justify a 2-level overcall. Therefore, they could have a club holding such as ♣ KJ643 alongside ♠ J64  J10  A97.

Therefore, the correct lead is the ♣ 5. As it turned out, once A♣  had been knocked out, partner could cash the remaining clubs after getting in with  A to defeat 3NT by one trick.

Problem 2

The bidding proceeds:

You            North        East           South       

                                                       2NT (20-22)                   

Pass            3NT             Pass       All pass

What would you lead holding the following?

♠ KJ  KJ10983  A3 ♣ Q102

Answer:

There is a strong chance that declarer holds both the  A and  Q. But it is still clear to lead a heart and try and set up your long suit. The standard lead from king-jack-ten-nine is the top of the interior sequence, the  J. But is this lead best here?

Since the opponents almost certainly hold both missing heart honours, it probably doesn't matter which heart you lead… However, on this hand you should lead  K.  This is because it is possible that dummy has singleton  Q. If dummy has a singleton honour, it is far more likely to be the Q than the Ace. If that is the case, your problems are over when you lead K.

You might be thinking “Yes, but what happens if dummy has singleton  A?” It turns out that there can be no great cost to the lead of the king even if dummy holds singleton  A. Then, no lead would have defeated the contract. Even if you had led the jack, your partner cannot be expected to hold enough points to win a trick and so could never lead a heart through declarers  Qxx or  Qx.

Review

These two deals are taken from a new on-line lesson on opening leads prepared and presented by US national champion Marty Bergen that has just been released. The lesson presents 34 deals with auditory commentary spoken by Marty that involve important decisions about what card to lead at trick 1.

I found the 34 hands to be consistently helpful and insightful, as in the above examples. I am pleased to say that the lesson does not describe a series of unusual leads in one-off hands that are chosen to show how clever Marty or one of his expert pals was to find them. Instead, the deals have general application and I think that they can help players of improver, immediate, and advanced standards. The deals are challenging but not fiendishly difficult; I have got 3/10 of the leads correct from those that I have so far attempted, and I felt I should have done better on a couple of the others. The remaining five involved leads that I did not consider, but the logic behind making them is (to use one of Marty’s favourite percentages) 110% solid.

Most of us use received wisdom to determine what to lead (e.g. lead 4th highest; lead partner’s bid suit; lead the top of a sequence; lead an unbid major) and sometimes this works out just fine. But there are also situations where the use of such principles does not produce the best outcome. This online lesson will alert you to the clues from the bidding (including what was not bid) that indicate when you should be making a different lead. There is also an interactive facility that allows you to replay the hands to convince yourself that the suggested lead really does defeat the contract.

There is also a valuable bonus section at the end presenting the opening lead principles that Marty employed in his successful partnership with Larry Cohen.

I thoroughly recommend this lesson. The cost is 25 US dollars (exactly £20 at today’s conversion rate) and is available from Marty’s website. For further information click on this link:http://www.bridgesights.com/hondobridge/audiolessons/mbaudiolessons.php

SPENDING THE BIRTHDAY $$$s WITH MARTY...AGAIN

A failed squeeze and a birthday bottom! 

by Rick Hanley

This intriguing hand was played at the Ipswich and Kesgrave club on 20 February, which also happens to be my birthday. It raised so many issues that, for the second year running I spent the birthday cash that I had accumulated earlier in the day asking US expert Marty Bergen (www.martybergen.com) to comment on the events that occurred at my table. 

The bidding:

Vulnerable against Non-Vulnerable, I picked up:

♠ Q8643     -    AK8532   ♣ A10

RHO started things off by passing. I bid a diamond and my partner bid 3NT. RHO now bid 4! Enquiries revealed that he did not play weak 2s so presumably this was a belated expression of a hand with six hearts and less than opening values. I passed and partner bid 5. Feeling that 5  would generate a poor score if 3NT was making, I bid 6♦ and all passed. Dummy contained:

♠ K92    AJ     Q1076   ♣ KQ86

Marty Bergen on the bidding:

“The immediate 3NT is not clear with responder’s hand, but its definitely OK, especially at pairs, to protect the   tenace.
I agree with your forcing pass of 4
.
If partner then doubled, I would not pass.
The actual 5
 bid was questionable, especially at pairs. Responder definitely expected to make 3NT with his max +  fit, and since he was sensibly not going to double, he could not afford to end in 5. At pairs, after 4  P   P, I definitely would have bid 4NT (to play).
I agree 100% with 6
.”

The Play

Dummy looked promising and, yes, 3NT would produce a better score than 5♦.

The Q was led, won in dummy and trumps were drawn in 3 rounds (RHO was void). There are 11 tricks available (6 diamonds, 3 clubs, 1 heart and 1 spade). Where is the 12th coming from? How would you plan the play? Decide before reading on.

  1. A club finesse would fail because LHO holds J♣. 

  1. RHO is marked with seven cards in the black suits. Presumably he holds A♠ for his bid. If he holds just two spades in total, then one can lead a spade from dummy to the Queen and then duck a low spade to his Ace. But how likely is it that RHO holds five clubs and only two spades? It must be less than 50%.

  1. So, I tried a different line (an automatic squeeze in the black suits) that required RHO to hold four clubs and three spades. At this point, you might find it useful to use the Play it again facility that is available on many club websites.  It allows you to replay any board by playing the cards from all four handsGo to the Ipswich & Kesgrave website and locate board 25 from the 20 February session (I sat east). Click on Play it again and then click on 6 by East as the contract. You can now follow the line I describe below.

I played a spade to the K♠ and RHO’s A♠. He returned a spade to my Q♠ (LHO played a low spade, then J♠). I then cashed the A♣ and ran the diamonds discarding the remaining spade and heart from dummy. My expectation was that RHO would be forced to discard either the winning spade or his fourth club on the final diamond. But alas, it was LHO who held the winning spade so the squeeze never materialised. Against the odds, RHO did indeed hold two spades and five clubs. So, playing RHO for Ax in spades would have worked. 

RHO’s hand was:

♠ Ax    K97652    -   ♣ 97543

LHO held

♠ J10x    Qxxxx    Jxx   ♣ Jx

RHO’s 4 bid had earnt him an outright top and given me a bottom.  Was I unlucky or did a take the wrong line?

Marty Bergen on the play:

“You were unlucky, but you missed a better alternative. When you find out what it is I predict you will kick youself.
After the not stupid but, on this hand, potentially fatal
 
Q lead, you had a successful squeeze regardless of whether RHO held Axx or Ax of spades. I'm not sure of the technical name for it.  I would call it a 3-suit squeeze without the count”.

Once again, the Play it again facility allows you to follow Marty’s account trick -by-trick to see in detail how an elegant endplay unfolds when RHO holds two spades. 

Following Q lead:

 “Trick 1:    Win A  pitching a spade.

Tricks 2-4: Draw three rounds of trumps ending in dummy.

Trick 5:  Play a spade to your queen

Tricks 6:  Cash a diamond from your hand.

Tricks 7:  Cash a diamond from your hand. Discard 9 from dummy.

Here will be the 6-card end position:


                  Your hand
                  
♠  8XX
                  
   __
                  
   X
                  
♣ A 10

                   Dummy:
                   
♠  K
                    
   J
                    
    __
                    
♣  K Q 8 x

RHO must keep: four clubs, heart king + spade ace and was triple-squeezed at trick 7. If RHO began with two spades, as was the case in the actual layout, he would have discarded a club at trick 7.

 Trick 8 and 9:  You play A and 10 winning the second club on table. 

Trick 10 You now ruff a heart to get back to hand.

Trick 11: Lead a spade. 

RHO must win the A♠  but is endplayed and must lead towards dummy’s Q-8 from his 9-7.”

Play it again means you can see for yourself that the 3-way squeeze would, crucially, also have been successful even if RHO had held three spades:

“If RHO had begun with 3 spades, he must discard a spade at trick 7. At trick 8, you play a spade to the K and ace, meaning that your 8S has become your 12th trick.”

Concluding thoughts

Am I 'kicking myself ' for not spotting this line? Marty obviously thinks I am a better player than I really am. I have the feeling that if this 3-way squeeze was executed at the world championship, the vugraph commentators on BBO would be in raptures.

Finally, you might like to consider Marty’s suggestions for how to bid RHO’s hand:

“I would open with 4 . Next best is 3, then 2. After the initial pass, 4 is clear-cut over 3NT.”

WHY '1430' IS SUPERIOR TO '0314'

Roman Key Card Blackwood: Why it’s time to switch to 1430

 

Roman Key Card Blackwood (RKCB), in which the King of trumps represents a fifth key card, is the slam-bidding convention of choice for most Suffolk players. 

Over 4NT, the typical pattern of responses is:

5♣ = 0 or 3 key cards

5 = 1 or 4 key cards

5 = 2 or 5 key cards without Q trumps

5♠ = 2 or 5 key cards with Q trumps

I will refer to this version of RKCB as 0314, in line with the 5♣ and 5 responses. 

However, an alternative version (“1430”) is now favoured by many of the country’s leading players. In 1430, the 5♣ and 5 responses are reversed such that:

5♣ = 1 or 4 key cards

5 = 0 or 3 key cards 

Apparently, Andrew Robson felt that he once lost a crucial match with the England team because they played 3014 rather than 1430. But, how exactly could something like that have happened? What is the point of making things more complicated by adding this tweak? 

Take a look at the hand below for an example of the benefits of 1430 relative to 0314. My team-mates (Michael Sherer, Bill Tweddell, Jeff Orton) and I had fought our way through to the quarter-final of the EBU online-knockout competition, beating a team of England juniors in the round of the last 16. The quarter-final was fairly even with eight boards remaining. Then this deal appeared with both of our pairs playing 3014 while the opposition played 1430. 

North (Dealer)

KJ753  Q9764  K ♣ A

South

A  AK102  A98643 ♣ K3

With E/W passing throughout, the opposition bidding went: 1♠-2 (game forcing), 2-3, 4♣-4NT…. Playing 1430, North responded 5♣. South could now bid 5 to ask for the Queen of trumps. 5 would have denied Q , but North was able to bid 5♠, showing both the Q and the K♠. A grand-slam was now declared, and it duly rolled in after a spade ruff had brought down Q♠. When our team sat N/S, however, North’s (3014) response to 4NT was 5. Unable to bid 5D to locate Q, South signed off in 6 for an 11imp loss. 

Given that the player who responds to his or her partner’s 4NT is more likely to hold one key card than zero key cards, 1430 is likely to provide a much more useful response (5♣) than 0314 (5) when hearts are trumps. This is because, as in the above example, 5 can subsequently be used to discover whether partner holds Q. This is valuable not only when a grand-slam is in the offing; the presence or absence of Q of trumps in partner’s hand can also be crucial in determining whether to bid 6 or to stop in 5 on other hands. 

In fact, we ended up losing the match by more than 11 imps, so our choice of 0314 responses was less destructive for us than it was for Andrew Robson. However, it could easily have been critical. It’s time to change.

SUFFOLK CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS FINAL

“Be ready for Board 1”

 

The 2018/9 Suffolk county bridge season finally came to an end on June 6 with the completion of the 40-board final of the Championship teams contested by Hanley (Rick Hanley & Peter Sutcliffe; Karen & Malcolm Pryor) and Price (David Price & Jane Moore; Jenny Price & Cleopatra Hensby). These two teams were contesting the final for the third year running, although this time Karen & Malcolm replaced Peter Gemmell and Chris Chambers in the Hanley team.

One of the biggest swings came on the first board that I played and was particularly painful. I played in 4 as South following the 9♠ lead to the Q and King. There are now nine top tricks plus a club ruff for an apparently easy game. At trick two, I played A to which all followed. I then played a second top heart, but East showed out. What would you do next?

I carelessly crossed to ♠A (West playing the eight) and led a club to the King and West’s Ace. West led back a heart which I won on table and led a club. East won the ♣Q and gave West a spade ruff. There was now an unavoidable 4th loser in one of the minor suits. What I should have done was to cash the two top diamonds, play a heart to the nine and ruff a diamond. A spade to dummy allows the last trump to be drawn to cash the final spade. Well done to Cleopatra and Jenny and who found this line at the other table for 10 imps to Price. The West and East hands were:

Not a great start, but fortunately there were still 39 boards left! As with the previous encounters between these teams, it turned out to be a very tight match with the Hanley team edging it by 56-42 imps. Congratulations must go in particular to Karen and Malcolm who also won the Winter League with the Sherer team, the Abbeygate Shield with the I&K team and the Mid Anglia Pairs. Thanks to Chris Green and Michael Sherer who played for the Hanley team in the December qualifier.

THE PSYCHE

Heartless Norfolk

 

Imagine you are playing in a teams match against strong opposition and pick up the following hand:

♠ 9754  83  102 ♣ KQJ107

Your partner (South) opens 2♣ (strong and game forcing). Your right hand opponent bids 2  and you pass awaiting developments. Left hand opponent now bids 2 which comes back to you, your partner passing. You now double and left hand opponent  converts to 3. Partner now bids 3 . You bid 3♠ but partner bids 4. What is going on here? You confirm with West that East’s 2 bid was not alerted as artificial. What do you do? Pass/Bid 4♠/Bid 5♣? Make your decision before looking below. 

This was the dilemma facing Andrew Moore who was my partner in the recent ECL A-team match against Norfolk.  Andrew chose 5♣, but what do you do when partner now bids 5?

Wisely Andrew chose to pass this time. Here are the other three hands:

You can see that East’s (Stuart Langridge) bid of 2 was a psych. It completely misrepresented his hand in an attempt to keep us out of hearts and it nearly succeeded. When we ended up in 5 , West can make the heroic defence of leading a low diamond. A spade return now defeats the contract. What a coup that would have been, but fortunately West (Paul Darby) understandably led A.  Psychs were once a feature of the game even at international levels but are much less common these days as bidding systems have become more sophisticated. Unsuccesful psychs sometimes marked the end of previously cordial partnerships, but note that East’s psych is pretty safe because he has little chance of playing in hearts given his diamond holding. Psychs are sometimes considered a little underhand but Andrew and I both enjoyed this one. 

BIRTHDAY $$s WELL SPENT...

Better slam bidding with Marty Bergen: Consulting the Oracle

 

Rick Hanley Jeff Orton

Here is a hand from a recent EBU online knockout teams match, played on BBO, in which my partner and I (Jeff Orton) were playing with team-mates Bill Twedell and Michael Sherer. Fortunately we won the match, but we lost imps on this particular board.

 

Playing 15-17 NT and a short club, you hold: 

♠ AQJ2  A63  AJ64 ♣ Q10

 

Partner opens 1♣, you reply 1♠ and partner rebids 1NT (12-14). Do you bid 3NT (to play) or 4NT (quantitative invite to slam)? As I had a flat hand, and our partnership had at most a combined 32 HCPs, I bid 3NT. 

 

Jeff held: 

♠ 54  KJ2  Q53 ♣ AKJ85

 

Both K♠  and K were onside and 12 tricks rolled in. Sadly the opposition bid 6NT and we lost 11 imps. Oh dear, perhaps I was to blame for not bidding the slam?

 

I had recently bought two excellent books on slam bidding (“Better slam bidding with Bergen” and “Slam bidding made easier”) from the website of the great bridge writer and 10-time North American national champion Marty Bergen (www.martybergen.com).

I noticed that he said on his website that he was prepared to discuss hands played on BBO for 1$ a minute. What better way to spend my recently acquired birthday cash than to email Marty and ask for his opinion? How did he rate my bidding? Within a couple of hours, I discovered the answer. He didn’t rate it at all!! Nor did he rate my partner’s bidding as being much better.

 

Marty Bergen

Here are the full details of Marty’s response (reproduced with his permission):


This was very bad hand evaluation by both players.

Relevant for both players.
I define any suit with 3+ honours and 4+ cards as a quality suit.
They are rare.
Any time you have a quality suit, add 1 HCP to the value of your hand

Your partner

Add 1 HCP for his quality suit

He is also blessed with a five-card suit. Add 1 point for that.

It is OK for him to consider his Q not worth 2 HCP.
If he wanted to subtract 1 point for that, it is sensible.

So, with 15-16 points, he should open 1NT.

YOU
Before the auction beganyou have 18 traditional HCP.  

BUT
add 1 HCP for quality spade suit
add 1 HCP for 3 aces.  Aces are underrated honours. Their real value is 4.5
Subtract 1 HCP for your dubious
 doubleton
So, your hand is worth 19 HCP before the auction began

Then, when partner opened 1, you immediately restore the 2 HCP for the Q

(Note that here, your Q was worth a lot, and even the 10 was potentially useful
if
s were 5-1)

So, you had 20 HCP.  When partner showed 12-14, you definitely are worth a quantitative raise to 4NT.  He obviously would accept.

Of course, after a 1NT opening, you would force to slam.

6NT is not cold, but it is a good contract, and would be helped by a lead of either unbid suit.

 

So there you have it. If you want to bid good slams (and games), don’t bid like I did and mechanically count up your traditional HCPs. Upgrade your hand on the basis of its quality features and take it from there.

LEARNING FROM 'THE MASTER'

Has Andrew Robson improved your card play?

 

Did you attend the excellent Masterclass teaching session by Andrew Robson that Clare Bridge club organised in November? If so, a hand from a recent Ipswich and Kesgrave club session would have provided a good test of how much you had absorbed on that occasion. 

On the hand in question (see below), South dealt and passed, as did West and North. East (myself) opened 1NT (15-17). South overcalled 2 and East/West ended up in 4 spades played by West. North led a heart to the A, K and a low heart. West ruffed high while North discarded. West now crossed to the ♠A and ♠K of spades in dummy and led a diamond to get back to hand to draw the last trump. The question is which diamond should he play from hand? Should he play the King, the Jack, or do you think it is a 50/50 guess? Make your decision before reading on.

 

 

My partner, who had not attended the masterclass, decided to play the King. Was this right? Andrew Robson urged us to count the high card points that an opponent has played and use that knowledge in conjunction with the bidding to determine the course of action. The key issue in this hand is that South had not opened the bidding and had already shown AKJ = 8 points. If he/she had also held the A, then he/she would surely have opened 1. In all probability, the A must therefore be with North. So declarer should have played the J and would have made the contract because North held the Ace but not the Queen. 

According to the traveller, only 2/5 declarers made 10 tricks in spades on a heart lead. So this hand did not fool my partner alone. If you decided on the same play as he did, you might like to know that Clare Bridge club are holding another Andrew Robson Masterclass in Lavenham on Feb 1st (see the SCBA website for details). Can you guess what my partner received for Christmas?