Penultimate Spingold hand
Sid
Open Room makes 2S on the nose on penultimate board 63. N/S Vul.
Sontag was in 3Sx. This went -3 for Diamond to take the lead.
After 5 tricks this was the position -
North
S 4
H 7
D J86
C Q76
West East
S K106 S Q
H 62 H 95
D K10 D 32
C 3 C K108
South
S AJ
H AJ108
D A7
C -
Declarer has lost 2 tricks already. Regard this as a double-dummy
puzzle.
QUIZ: Spades are trumps. South to play and make 6 tricks.
Make it and you can represent USA!
Sid
Dave Flower
HA, H ruff, club ruff, SA, hearts . . .
LHO has to ruff (sooner or later) and lead away from the DK
Dave Flower
sbt
<el...@nospam.com> wrote:
HA, ruff H, ruff C, SA, Heart...when W ruffs in, they're endplayed in
D, so you score the 4 tricks cited and two diamonds
--
Spenser
Sid
Well done!
:)
Sid
Sid
<dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
>> QUIZ: Spades are trumps. South to play and make 6 tricks.
>>
>>
>
>HA, ruff H, ruff C, SA, Heart...when W ruffs in, they're endplayed in
>D, so you score the 4 tricks cited and two diamonds
Nice! :)
Sid
Larry
not to do with a poor trump suit) relying on 3-3 Spade break hoping
to go down only 1. LHO drew Sontag's last spade and they ran the
clubs without leading Diamonds again.
I re-played that hand in my sleep:
AH, JH pitching a diamond and hoping RHO ruffs. Diamond return, win
Ace and TH pitching a diamond, whoops a D return by RHO puts it down 2
(as LHO pitches on the HS [to sleepy to see that - lol] to tie the
match and lose on the last board by 1 IMP.
Richard Pavlicek
misdefended (giving Sontag the chance to make) for the
Diamond team to win the Spingold. That is, if Gitelman
returned a _diamond_ to assure defeat, the same-named
team would be assured defeat as well.
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
Sid
wrote:
The full hand:
Bd: 63
Dlr: South
Vul: NS
North
S 43
H 74
D QJ86
C Q7652
West East
S K1065 S Q9
H K62 H 953
D K105 D 432
C J93 C AK1084
South
S AJ872
H AQJ108
D A97
C
2S 3Sx-3
8 Tricks Claimed +110. 6 Tricks Claimed -800.
14 IMPs to team Diamond.
judyorcarl
If LHO had started with 1 more heart and 1 less club, Sontag's play of
cashing the spade ace would have been necessary. He was not playing
for 3-3 spades. He was in effect playing for 2-6 clubs.
Carl
Tim DeLaney
Nice observation.
It's too bad that Sontag, after cashing the SA,
didn't cash the DA at some point to hold the
damage to -500 and a tied match after 63 boards.
What a finish _that_ would have been!
After Bd 62, there was a short bathroom break and
commentator Larry Cohen made the following weirdly
prophetic remark:
"[Boards] 63 and 64 look rather tame -- but I know
the MELTZER team will wince, thinking I am
cursing them."
At this point I minimized the BBO screen, figuring
that Meltzer would coast home, but wanting to know
the eventual final score. When I next checked in
on the match, the commentators were aghast. Sontag
had gone for -800 and Diamond had taken the lead!
A fateful deal indeed.
Tim
Larry
Whoops, if LHO throws a Diamond then AD drops K. Tough hand to
analyze. But, it looks like ruffing the 3rd Heart in order to ruff
another club may be superior.
Ed
> not to do with a poor trump suit) relying on 3-3 Spade break hoping
> to go down only 1. LHO drew Sontag's last spade and they ran the
> clubs without leading Diamonds again.
Since you feel it right to judge Sontag by the platitude you lay on
your students (less than advanced, I'd assume), let me suggest some
other considerations that you didn't mention. At the table, as was
evident to anyone watching BBO, Moss took an extremely long time to
double 3S. Sontag inferred from it that Moss likely had only three
spades and based his play on that assumption. At least that was the
conclusion of the commentators, who I thought did a fine job.
You can judge for yourself whether this was reasonable or not
regardless of the result. When you get your students to a higher
level, this might not be a bad hand to use this hand in a lesson on
table presence, inferences you draw from the opponents actions at your
own risk, and their potential consequences.
Just my 2 cents.
Ed
Larry
OK, I wasn't judging Sontag, in fact I have played against him and
found him to be a pleasant and very good opponent. Just giving
another view point.
Here is another viewpoint from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/crosswords/bridge/02card.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Larry
Tim DeLaney
> And even a blog with more details:
>
> http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/
Thanks for posting this. I am still fascinated by this deal,
for all the reasons mentioned in this blog and more.
For starters, what do people here think of Sontag's
decision to open 1S rather than a strong club? Wow,
so much to think about. Vul v not, should he fear
adverse competition?
For another, I'd love to know what Gitelman's thoughts
were when he balanced 1NT. Reportedly, this should
have shown a distinctly better hand. Did he think team
Diamond was behind and needed a swing?
I'd also like to know what the consensus of the expert
community is regarding Sontag's 3H bid. My opinion
-- inexpert though it may be -- is that game is very
unlikely if North cannot raise a 2H competetive bid.
3H obviously comes with some risk, especially as
Gitelman's 1NT bid ostensibly shows a near-opener.
But Alan Sontag is an extremely talented player. For
me to try to second guess him is a bit ridiculous. He
and Peter Weichsel were the "Meckwells" of their era
not too many years back.
Should Berkowitz (North) interpret 3H as 5-5? I dunno,
but if he was convinced that this was the case, a pass
has much to recommend it. No double, no trouble. Is
there a reason to be frightened here?
What about Brad Moss' decision to double? Did he have
enough reason to think his team needed a big swing to
win the Spingold? Pavlicek seems to think that Brad won
the Spingold single-handedly. Is this view a good one?
(I'm not suggesting otherwise.)
And what can be said about Fred Gitelman's play at trick
five? (i.e.returning the CA) Was it just a fortuitous error?
Certainly, double dummy it was an error -- or was it?
I am still blown away by this deal.
Tim
Charles Brenner
> For another, I'd love to know what Gitelman's thoughts
> were when he balanced 1NT. Reportedly, this should
> have shown a distinctly better hand. Did he think team
> Diamond was behind and needed a swing?
According to him that's right. He posted to a thread about this hand
on the BBO forum. Sorry that I can't point you to the particular
thread; his post included a lot of comments.
> I'd also like to know what the consensus of the expert
> community is regarding Sontag's 3H bid. My opinion
> -- inexpert though it may be -- is that game is very
> unlikely if North cannot raise a 2H competetive bid.
> 3H obviously comes with some risk, especially as
> Gitelman's 1NT bid ostensibly shows a near-opener.
> Should Berkowitz (North) interpret 3H as 5-5? I dunno,
> but if he was convinced that this was the case, a pass
> has much to recommend it. No double, no trouble. Is
> there a reason to be frightened here?
We're told that a lot of commentators thought he should pass. That
combined with your observation about the questionable nature of the 3H
bid suggests that this sequence may represent teething pains on the
part of the new, Sontag-Berkowitz, partnership.
Charles
Tim DeLaney
I looked at BBO forum, but didn't find anything about this deal.
If anybody can point me to the thread, I'd be grateful.
Tim
Travis Crump
Larry
> On Aug 4, 7:31 pm, Larry <lnlow...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
> For starters, what do people here think of Sontag's
> decision to open 1S rather than a strong club? Wow,
> so much to think about. Vul v not, should he fear
> adverse competition?
I don't agree with Sontag's decision to open 1S (I have played
Precision-like systems since 1966)). No reason to fear the opponents
with both majors. Besides, their version of Precision allows opener
to find out if responder even has 4-7 hcp after 1C - 1D - 1M plus 4-
card support and a shortage. Furthermore, opener would not need to
jump to show the strength (opponents might not double knowing that
declarer is 16+ hcp). Also, some versions of Precision might rebid 1H
after 1C - 1D because of the discrepancy in strength of the two
suits: AJ872 vs. AQJT8. Thosec systems allow responder to rebid 1S
with 4+ Spades and 0-7 hcp (like Berkowitz - Cohen) use to play. I
don't know what Sontag was thinking, but the partnership is only about
one year old.
> For another, I'd love to know what Gitelman's thoughts
> were when he balanced 1NT. Reportedly, this should
> have shown a distinctly better hand. Did he think team
> Diamond was behind and needed a swing?
>
> I'd also like to know what the consensus of the expert
> community is regarding Sontag's 3H bid. My opinion
> -- inexpert though it may be -- is that game is very
> unlikely if North cannot raise a 2H competitive bid.
> 3H obviously comes with some risk, especially as
> Gitelman's 1NT bid ostensibly shows a near-opener.
It should show 6-5 in a Precision context.
> But Alan Sontag is an extremely talented player. For
> me to try to second guess him is a bit ridiculous. He
> and Peter Weichsel were the "Meckwells" of their era
> not too many years back.
>
> Should Berkowitz (North) interpret 3H as 5-5? I dunno,
> but if he was convinced that this was the case, a pass
> has much to recommend it. No double, no trouble. Is
> there a reason to be frightened here?
Yes, Berkowitz should interpret the bid as 5+ spades and 5 hearts.
[snip]
Richard Pavlicek
Charles Brenner
Very nice. A lot of persuasive arguments about the bidding.
I've been wondering about Sontag's point of view in the play. I can
remember (on rare and distant occasions of course) playing or
defending a hand and having an idea about the lie of the cards not
even close to reality. Could Sontag have had in mind that Fred might
hold KQx of spades, and clubs 4-4 with split honors? True, the
contract is makeable by clearing trumps if so, but maybe he had in
mind several possible layouts, didn't want to commit too much, and
figured down one would probably still win the match. Just an
undeveloped line of thought.
Charles
Tim DeLaney
Very nice article indeed.
While you support the 3H call for very good reasons,
it seems to me that Sontag's bidding plan had the
worst of both worlds. (Note to grammarians: Yes,
"worse" is correct.)
First, opening 1S risks playing a partial when game
in hearts is odds on. Sontag essentially is relying on
a very good pair to make a mistake. He's hoping they
will balance when a thin game in hearts is odds on.
But once they balance, he is gambling on their having
committed a cardinal IMP sin: balancing the
opponents into game. Would the (second?) best team
in the field give vulnerable opponents another shot at a
makeable game?
Of course, opening 1C (The hand surely qualifies.) allows
the opponents to disrupt the auction with minimal risk.
However, with both majors there will probably be a way to
describe the hand adequately. And even non vulnerable,
the opponents cannot act with impunity. Their bids could
well steer us right in the auction and play.
True, this analysis is a tad easier to make with a mere
eight days to mull it over with 52 cards in view!
You said it first: a fateful deal.
Tim
rhm
Nice article, but I have some quibbles with your bidding analysis :-)
I can not find anything wrong with Sontag's opening bid decision.
Best is to have agreements on such matters in advance, in which case I
would not consider this a system deviation, more a system
improvement.
I am still looking for a system, which is perfect for any hand and
vulnerability. :-)
If the decision was right to bid 3 hearts opposite a partner, who did
not keep the bidding open over a (Precision) one spade, how can
Greco's decision to bid 2 Hearts be correct opposite a partner who had
already shown some values by bidding 1NT over one spade?
True, Greco had shown more in HCP, but only 4 cards in hearts, while
a 2H bid by Sontag, when very much exposed, would show less HCP but
almost certainly a 5 card heart suit. Anything else would be too risky
opposite a very weak hand at unfavorable vulnerability.
If you can make game opposite the right yarborough, the hand is more
about distribution than HCP.
Greco might get a false (and unwelcome) preference over 2H while
Sonntag should not.
If Sontag might have missed game by rebidding 2 hearts only, so
might Greco.
My guess is, that Greco could not bid 3 hearts, because that would
have been game forcing in this sequence.
Nevertheless, I am not so sure that 3H was so "well-judged".
Just because you can construct hands where game is very good is in
itself not a great argument. (Never play partner for the perfect hand,
he never has it)
One problem with bidding 3 hearts is that it might bury diamonds when
that is right.
The trouble with Sontag's hand is, that it is very dependent on
finding heart support in dummy.
In this case, opponents would need very good judgment to let you play
2H. (They have the balance of strength and they know it)
If you bid a gentle 2H, which, being vulnerable, in this sequence
must show five cards, let opponents at favorable vulnerability
compete further. (where are the clubs if we have a heart fit?).
If partner can muster any sort of raise, even a competitive one, then
it is time to bid the heart game.
I agree that Berkowitz made a mistake.
Rainer Herrmann
HoneyMonster
> Sontag's bidding plan had the worst of both worlds. (Note to
> grammarians: Yes, "worse" is correct.)
>
I beg to differ. Each world had a number of potential outcomes. In your
view Sontag was risking the worst possible outcome among the union of
both sets of possible outcomes.
Thus IMO, "best" and "worst" are correct in the context of worlds.
Sorry for the pedantry, btw.
rhm
> On Aug 6, 9:14 pm, "Richard Pavlicek" <rich...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
>
> > Tim, and anyone else interested, another take on it:http://www.rpbridge.net/7a41.htm
>
> > --
> > Richard Pavlicek
> > Web site:http://www.rpbridge.net
>
> Very nice article indeed.
>
> While you support the 3H call for very good reasons,
> it seems to me that Sontag's bidding plan had the
> worst of both worlds. (Note to grammarians: Yes,
> "worse" is correct.)
Quote
First, opening 1S risks playing a partial when game
in hearts is odds on. Sontag essentially is relying on
a very good pair to make a mistake. He's hoping they
will balance when a thin game in hearts is odds on.
end-quote
Sounds to me like you should immediately switch to playing Precision
In natural system you do not have choice, do you?
But even if you start 1C -- 1D , do you play 1S as forcing?
(Some do, but it is certainly not mainstream. Admittedly it is more
likely that partner will keep the bidding open here).
However, the question you really have to answer is, do you want to
make it easy for opponents to enter the bidding or not.
What is the bigger risk:
That opponents have a nice cheap sacrifice they will find if you open
1C
or that you will play 1S when game in hearts is good?
For me the answer is not even close.
> But once they balance, he is gambling on their having
> committed a cardinal IMP sin: balancing the
> opponents into game. Would the (second?) best team
> in the field give vulnerable opponents another shot at a
> makable game?
I think you are reading too much in top level play and judgment.
Yes they have excellent judgment, but they are not clairvoyants.
I do not think this is a cardinal IMP sin.
If this never happens to you, you are balancing not frequently
enough.
You loose much more IMPs by being a nice conservative opponent.
Fred Gitelman:
First, I basically psych a 1NT balance because I think we need a swing
(and playing "state of the match" is something I strongly tend not to
do when Hampson and Greco are at the other table).
Second, the tray comes back instantly and I see that Sontag has jumped
to 3H. For all I know the opponents might be about to bid a laydown
vulnerable grand slam. Nice balance Fred!
end-quote
> Of course, opening 1C (The hand surely qualifies.) allows
> the opponents to disrupt the auction with minimal risk.
> However, with both majors there will probably be a way to
> describe the hand adequately. And even non vulnerable,
> the opponents cannot act with impunity. Their bids could
> well steer us right in the auction and play.
Does not help, if they have a cheap sacrifice.
> True, this analysis is a tad easier to make with a mere
> eight days to mull it over with 52 cards in view!
I do not care whether your analysis is easier as long as it is
correct.
I think your analysis is based on hindsight, not on logic.
Rainer Herrmann
Tim DeLaney
Grammatically speaking, "both worlds" implies two worlds. If
we were talking about "outcomes" it would be different.
OTOH, "best of both worlds" could easily be construed as
idiomatic, since it is deeply embedded in the language. Thus,
"worst of both worlds", by extension, would be correct. In any
event, it rolls off the tongue more readily.
English is so much fun, isn't it? David Stevenson , what say you?
Tim
Will in New Haven
Do they speak _English_ in David's homeland?
--
Will in New Haven
Charles Brenner
Of course it does, as would "better (or lesser) of two worlds",
because that would mean you have two worlds and are comparing them.
When I hear "best of both worlds" I understand the "of" in a different
sense, as referring to the combined contents of the two worlds
(agreeing with H.Monster). A common usage would be a bicultural person
claiming to enjoy "the best of both worlds" -- surely referring to
multiple benefits of each culture.
In the specific case at hand I admit I have not succeeded in parsing
the exact application of the phrase that you intended, but as far as
the grammar that usually does not matter.
Charles
HoneyMonster
Seldom. Scouse is much more commonly spoke thur.
boblipton
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > English is so much fun, isn't it? David Stevenson , what say you?
>
> Do they speak _English_ in David's homeland?
Of a sort.
Bob
Andrew
Discussions like this one represent valuable scholarly research in
that respected field, pedantic studies. And while I am glad this
discussion has omitted the colorful anglo-saxon phrases that sometimes
populate our disagreements, I would submit this topic is better
addressed on some more specialized electronic forum. Due to the
abysmal failures of the modern educational system, the younger members
of this news group are sorely deficient in the skills pedantry,
sophistry and supercilia required to understand the magnificent and
subtle distinctions debated so ably by TD, HM and CB.
Andrew <with tongue firmly in cheek>
HoneyMonster
Bollocks
derek
Except where they speak Welsh :-)
derek
Isn't he in Cheshire? That's half a world away from Scouse.
Charles Brenner
Of course I did consider cross-posting to alt.usage.english, which I
trust would have partly satisfied and blunted the valid criticism of
my learned friend. However, I was too chicken to do so. The pedantic
standards of that group are so exacting that I feared for my life.
Misstate your target by a hairs' breadth or reiterate a point that was
discussed to death a decade ago and one is brushed aside with
devastating and subtle condescension, much like me cutting into Hamman
and Zia's table of dollar-a-point Chicago.
There, is that on-topic enough for you?
Charles
Will in New Haven
Cheshire? That's about another mile out Whitney Ave from the office
here in Hamden.
HoneyMonster
You may well be right. I thought he hailed from Liverpool, but it is
quite possible that I was mistaken.
Andrew
Yes it requires a brave man to face the slings and arrows of
outrageous pedants.
Andrew
HoneyMonster
Come on, Charles. Take up arms, and oppose! 'Tis nobler, after all.
Charles Brenner
Are you kidding? I misplaced the apostrophe in " hair's " above. Can
you imagine the merciless drubbing I would have taken for that in
alt.usage.english? I'm not ready.
Charles