Dubious Logic

National Swiss Teams

Peter Sutcliffe, Peter Gemmell, Jim Gobert and I played the National Swiss Teams two years ago in Leeds – where it had been held for as long as anyone remembered. We had a pretty good time, winning a session prize, but not unduly worrying the overall ranking. When someone suggested we do the same again, everyone was keen. It was a surprise to me at least, to find that the venue moved to the sports centre in Kettering where the EBU have held quite a few events recently. That was good news in a way, for although Kettering hasn't the range of restaurants and hotels that you can find in Leeds, it certainly doesn't require travelling on the Friday before to ensure calm arrival and a refreshed driver.

So an uneventful trip up the A14 to Kettering for the three session event. Thirteen seven-board rounds, still on the afternoon-evening-morning schedule, split five-three-five. A random draw to start and a gentle introduction. Deciding early to establish yourself at the table, you sense an opportunity:

• ---
• 8652
• A9876
• A875

(1) Could be two

I tried double though I wouldn't suggest it as a percentage action. Today however, East raised spades, West bid game and partner holding ♠KQJ5 expressed doubt. I led ace and another club and that ensured he could score the trump five; +500. Peter and Peter were unmolested in the same contract so that was 7 IMPs, 20 all told without reply, a useful start. Was this how the weekend would be? Well, just maybe:

A shame that bridge has never adopted the chess nomenclature of appending exclamation marks for good moves and question marks for bad ones. East's second call certainly merits the double helping (blunder). It may well be that nothing augers well but in a teams game, yes, you may beat it in top tricks but -870 is too much of a risk to take when even –200 in a poor partscore may be only three IMPs away. So, a tip, take-out your take-out doubles and ensure your partner doesn't expect extra values for three diamonds above – it isn't a reverse in the conventional sense.

Just to stop us getting carried away, we shot ourselves in the foot on the very next deal when after a conventional sequence when we missed this one:

1-13

Resting in, ahem, one spade could have been just an ultra cautious partial, had not the spade queen been doubleton on side. Teams play is about bidding your games. For touch and go decisions, where you're not likely to be doubled, and you reckon not to go more than one off the arithmetic is simple. Non vulnerable you are –50 and –140 when you are wrong and they are right for -5 IMPs – and +420 and –170 for +6 IMPs when your luck is in. If the contract makes 5/11 of the time and you bid game on every one, you gain 5 x 6 = 30 IMPs and lose the same amount. Here endeth the maths - I'll spare you the same calculation for when you are vulnerable.

Non vulnerable, you need odds of just under 50-50 and vulnerable games need only make three times out of eight to break even.

Here the odds were well in our favour. Of course, it's hard to know these things at the table and almost unknowable details, like the presence of the trump nine-eight can make a big difference, but if you don't give partner a chance to incrementally value his or her hand, you aren't really playing the game. Both tables made eleven tricks for us to hand back ten of the thirteen IMPs we won on the previous board.

Still a ten IMP win and we hit the top line. Things got a little more difficult for us. Normally, if you intend to play no-trumps, keeping your hand secret is a good idea. Here we had two balanced hands, but our mission was to find diamonds:

1-16

1) Clubs or balanced 13-19
2) Weak or balanced or diamonds
3) 17-19

The responding hand knew we had a combined 30-32. These hands are successful at slam when (a) they have enough controls – you must be missing at most one ace or two kings and (b) when you have a four-four fit or a source of tricks from a five card suit. East was control-rich and possessed a five card suit but, at the time, had no good way to proceed. Since then we've bolted on a mechanism to deal with this sort of hand, a three spade bid over both 1NT and 2NT that checks on controls before we go in search of a fit, a device invented by the Mexican George Rosencranz and known as CONFI. Not great for 5-3-3-2 hands but after carrying it around in the bag, I can't see East passing up the chance to give it a swing.

At the other table, our opponents opened a diamond and protected by discovering the fit early, bid to the laydown slam. We lose ten and the match by seven. We descend.

We line up against one of the many young teams in Kettering. This was the first event where I was genuinely surprised by the youth of the competitors. I wouldn't have thought late January a particularly good time for the students but they were certainly in evidence. On the next deal, the young woman as West here drew all the right inferences:

1) "Bid 3NT with a spade stop, I have the tricks"

There was no way of defeating four spades (though five clubs would have been cheap) - we had simply told them too much and each other not enough. Mind you, swap the ten of hearts for the seven and four spades goes down. Another ten out, another match lost, this time by six. We descend further.

Determined to establish myself at the table:

• Q
• 853
• Q1052
• QJ765

They are vulnerable and we are not; partner opens 3♠ and next hand doubles, are you tempted?

If you're going to bid you have to do it with the air of a man taking the most natural action in the world, so unless you've lived through enough of these situations, it's best not to. I'm still in the learning phase but I raised to four spades anyway. It was the first board; that's the established time to make a mark. The upsides are that you've still got time to adjust if it goes wrong and more optimistically, the opponents have no time to gauge you and, of course, even if no money changes hands on this deal, they'll be wary of your actions on subsequent boards. The downside is that you can't gauge them; you don't know their style and probably won't be well enough acquainted with their methods.

At the table my LHO snapped out a double with ♠A9xx ♥K10xx ♦xxx ♣Kx. It's not immediately clear to me that double here should be out-and-out penalties but from the table speed of their actions, that's what it seemed to be. Is it worth keeping double until you have four trumps and third hand raises on a singleton? But the fates were good to me. Jim had a 7=2=3=1 shape, fitting king-knaves in spades and diamonds (with the trump ten as well) and we were –300 to go with four hearts, +620, from the other room. Four spades doubled was par; I had been angling for a pressure coup and had accidentally made the right bid.

There doesn't seem to be any effect on the opponents at our table and the remaining results are ordinary but at Peter and Peter's much more madness descends and our team-mates reap the rewards. They have a great card and we have a cheering maximum win to take us to our pizza and calzone.

Three more matches in the evening and we're back on the top line. You wouldn't think so when opponents have a clear "no agreement" here:

1) 10-12
2) Requests a re-double; either to play there or an escape with spades and another

Two diamonds, running scared or diamonds and useful card or two? East had 20 HCP and, on his own admission, didn't know. He jumped to 3NT hoping that those points would protect him but the high cards were split exactly even. South doubled and there was nowhere to go, that venture cost him –800. 12 IMPs to go with a partscore gain gave us a reasonable win. We move up and play more youngsters.

• AQ5
• K6
• A952
• AK109

1) Weak two in hearts or spades
2) Pass or correct

I'm not sure if I can use my favourite gadget, a bid of 4♣ asking partner to transfer to his suit over 3♦ so I bid 4♥. That won't create a forcing pass but I seem prepared to deal with any developments. And development there is; East gives it a little look and I get to lead. I'm not certain but I choose the heart king and dummy tables:

• K9
• J1084
• ---
• QJ86542

Everyone follows. It looks absolutely natural to play ace and another spade now, keeping alive the ace of diamonds but it's not correct. I didn't think declarer was 6-6 (he's 5=1=7=0) and it would be better to continue the force with either another heart or a top club. So he ruffs the diamond ace – how's he going to get back to hand? Only by ruffing and he'll soon be out of trumps. Nevertheless, scared of losing control if I have four trumps, the trick comes back and we eventually score +800 from beating it four.

No surprise that at this vulnerability, team-mates get themselves into the action. At the other table, in a more-or-less identical sequence, our partners too are doubled in four spades. Sensibly however, Peter Gemmell puts his faith in his seven card diamonds suit to the king-queen-knave-ten. He gets all his tricks and is three down for –500 and a gain of 7 IMPs.

Another win and we've earned the right to play the leaders, the nucleus of the English junior team. They have won every match (seven) so far, at an average of just under 18-2. For all their ingénue charm, they are a formidable team, playing frequently together and often featuring in the later stages of national compeitions and way, way ahead of the field here.

Jim's three diamonds caused something of a bidding problem for East-West. With no raise from North, East could be reasonably sure West had diamond length and his double seemed to cater for this. However, West had a hand that appeared to offer better prospects declaring. Four spades was not a success and was down three; chalk that up to South's speculative action. +300 went nicely with Peter Sutcliffe's bringing home 2♠ in the other room, despite mis-guessing spades (low to the ten, as happened with us). That was 9 IMPs and there was more to come:

• KJ7
• 107
• KQ106
• 10874

Pass on your left, a heart on your right, good heart raise on your left, game on your right. Jim chose a trump, his counterpart a top diamond. The play was simple at both tables. The diamond knave showed up in dummy, Peter Sutcliffe had ten tricks, our declarer had nowhere to go. Jim admits it was close and could have been wrong – costing a tempo when I held the important ♦J – you have to be objective; these things are almost random, don't be depressed when they go wrong, don't get carried away when they go right. Those two deals meant 18-2 to us and the juniors were just merely way ahead. Three wins in the evening; a good feeling as we go back to our hotel.

First out next morning we're against a sponsored team. The backers are each playing with a professional. I find these situations a little uncomfortable. I understand the reasons but the table chat which is designed to bolster the sponsor's morale, warm approval of them cashing their winners for example, can be grating to say the least. And there is the suspicion that you're being sent signals by the professional – legitimate of course – in the full expectation that you're watching and the paying partner isn't. So it's wise not to take everything at face-value. The professional here is a top player and a top partner but even this early in the day he's struggling to keep control of himself. He's made a number of very nice plays and calls, all designed to stop things going awry. But his partner is oblivious. I'm starting to almost feel sorry for him. Then we go wrong:

1) 14-16
2) Both majors
3) Diamonds, 'systems on' but interpreted as transfer to clubs
4) Attempting to get a spade guard, interpreted as asking in hearts
5) My hand looks good, I'll show him my spade control

I'm not sure I want to relive this… Anyway, I got to play five diamonds on a low spade lead. The diamonds behave and three rounds of hearts see my spade losers disappear. All that remains is to find a club honour onside. On the third trump West has parted with an encouraging club nine. I play low to the knave and king. Surely she wouldn't have bared a king to encourage but before I can duck the next round to her bare ace, she cashes that card. The hardened professional starts to cry.

Over to the other table: there they play a sensible three no trumps on a heart lead. Declarer takes this and sets about the diamonds, pleased to see the queen appear then…

Oops…

He has eight tricks and two more winners in hearts but can't get to them. Our guys discard accurately and take their due. In these circumstances, the match depends on who has the work to do, sponsor or hired gun. I wouldn't spare the blushes of an expert here so you can guess it was the guy with the chequebook.

That win means we face a serious team. We have (another) mix-up over their Multi and manage, outrageously, to play three no-trump with a solid nine card heart fit. Moreover, four hearts can be defeated by ruffs when played from the long side. That, together with a complicated four hearts where I make the last mistake bar one, and we have cobbled together a useful win. The juniors haven't entirely returned to their winning ways and we're tied in the lead, more than a match ahead of third. We have a break now (why?), we're just itching to keep the momentum but we just have to mill around. Finally we start again.

Our opponents have been promoted quite a long way to table one and they look vaguely out of the Eastern Counties circuit. We bid a poor grand slam that demands (inter alia) bringing in this suit:

With the length in the closed hand. I lead the nine from dummy and next hand covers from knave-eight-four. You'll spot that I can now make by rising ace and dropping LHO's singleton king. I finesse of course. It's not the Grosvenor gambit that riles, it's that my suit could have been headed by the ace-king…

We play five clubs and despite the bad trump split I'm still in the game, picking the cards quite nicely if I may say so. Then West, who didn't start with his singleton, finally gets around to it and the resulting ruff means I'm down one. At the other table, Peter Sutcliffe overcalls the one spade opener with three diamonds – as who would not? South makes a penalty double and the result is carnage. Next time your partner makes a penalty double, see how your hand compares to North's with its three trumps honour-ten and a side suit void. This is a 13 IMP loss to go with 14 from the previous board.

One for you now: opponents bid 2NT, transfer to spades, acceptance, then pass responder's 3NT, you lead a club to the queen and ace:

3-18 (rotated)

At trick two declarer goes after spades, ace and small, what do you play?

Well, if you've still got the spade king in your hand at trick three you cannot beat this contract. Declarer has the ace-king of diamonds, the ace-knave of clubs and the ace of hearts. Four tricks in spades and five outside. You have to get partner in to lead a club and the knave of spades is pretty much your only hope. Surely declarer hasn't ace-knave-low of spades as he'd preferred 4♠ with that holding. OK, you might regret this when declarer has ace-knave alone but there are three missing small cards and just one knave.

Our defender didn't find that and opponents at the other table had a strong club auction that lacked ambition. We manage to claw our way back to register a 4 IMP loss but the juniors are back to winning.

Next up we play the Orams from Hertfordshire. They have an unfortunate knack of playing well against Jim and me. The match starts OK when I open four spades and receive a blind lead that allows me to make it. In fact, LHO is almost endplayed at trick one and, understandably, it gets through at the other table as well. Still it feels good, then I have to defend:

3-26 (rotated)

They bid 1NT (14-16), transfer to spades, acceptance, 3NT, four spades, partner leads the knave of diamonds. Declarer wins in hand with the king and plays to the trump king and back to the ace. He then leads another diamond to the queen – what's your plan?

It seems as if the hand is about the club and heart guesses. Declarer rates to have a hand like ♠Axx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxx ♣Qx you have to persuade him to play you for the heart queen. I've no sure idea how to do this but getting active by ruffing in and shooting a a heart though looks to me more suggestive of the ace than the queen. So I'll bide my time; wait until he ruffs away partner's diamond guard and only then lead a heart, sort of reluctantly.

But there is no ruffing suit establishment; declarer's diamonds are already good. He has six of them and a losing heart goes away on the fourth round. Moreover he has just 13 HCP and we used to have four cashers. I hate this – I've been duped and, perhaps, I should have known better. We worsen our score further by sacrificing in five diamonds, vulnerable against not. Opponents have game but it is four hearts – they were in five clubs which has four losers. The same happens in the other room but with no double.

We've stumbled to our worst defeat. The juniors are curious as they've lost a match but have 26 from the last two, we have just ten. Our gap has evaporated and we've been passed by two teams, pushing us into fourth. That's fortunate in a way because they'll play each other and we'll reach farther back for an opponent. That comes to pass and in the last round we draw a pair who are playing a system of transfer opening bids. That might sound intimidating but I'm not sure they 100% know what they're doing.

One hand is one for my hobbyhorse collection:

I start with one diamond and get a constructive diamond raise, we bid our suits and contract for a small slam. I get a heart lead and note that as the club finesse must work, I may as well be in seven. The finesse does work, trumps are 2-2 and I take all the tricks. Why notable? At the other table they open 2NT. Why people think it sensible to describe these suit-oriented collections as a balanced just because the strength fits I don't know. Anyway, they have no way of progressing beyond 3NT.

The slam helps us to a 16-4 win and that proves just enough to regain the runner-up spot. We needed a major falter by the juniors to win but they were much too good to oblige. It's been a good campaign; the luck has been slightly with us but not entirely, we were able to keep morale and build winning sequences but I note now that our four losses occurred in two pairs. From what I read it won't be at the sports centre next year but it will be in Kettering, it's a good fun congress – you should give it a try.