Bob Mackinnon

The Way They Were

The BBO coverage of 2014 world championships from Sanya provided bridge fans with lots of entertainment and food for thought. Kit Woolsey was on hand to give his spot-on expert analysis and Al Hollander was as ever an entertaining and helpful commentator. Both these guys favour Big Club systems.

First we should note that Kerri Sanborn came out a winner in the Mixed Pairs playing with Jie, or ‘Jack’, Zhao, an event she won in 1978. We have criticized her bidding methods with regard to some women’s team events, but here her natural style fitted the field well, and she won by the huge margin of 4 boards over 10 sessions. Graciously she acknowledged that Zhao was the nicest male partner she has ever played with, presumably surpassing in that regard Barry Crane and Bob Hamman, among others.  Zhao for his part disclosed his secret was that he always let Kerri assume the male role. We can see that ‘Jack’ has accommodated himself well to life in America, where the affluent male will do anything to please his significant other, anything short of voting for Hillary Clinton on a secret ballot, that is.

Of course, with the Mixed Pairs one always imagines there is romance in the air. Kerri and Jie we picture as being in the honeymoon phase where nothing rankles and two hearts beat as one. Auken–Welland appear to be involved in a tempestuous roller coaster relationship where exhilarating highs are followed by gut-retching lows. The highs were all the sweeter, as they came out winners in the Mixed Teams. Gromov-Gromova represents the happily married couple who play for the long term conserving energy and judiciously avoiding the usual pitfalls as best they can. For the numerically inclined, here as evidence are the percentage scores over the ten sessions.

Session

Sanborn – Zhao

Auken – Welland

Gromova – Gromov

I

54

67

58

II

58

52

60

III

49

40

58

IV

67

35

58

V

58

50

53

VI

59

54

52

VII

65

65

59

VIII

60

55

49

IX

60

50

54

X

68

52

53

Total

60.5

55.1

55.1

Commentators in their role as teachers advise students against a roller-coaster existence that goes against the notion of safe normality. They prefer the steady approach to bidding, aiming for a normal result while hoping to benefit from the mistakes of others. Auken-Welland aren’t satified with that; they aim for inducing errors through altered perceptions. Frustrated opponents often double a perfectly sound contract because they feel that somehow they are being robbed blind, which at other times they often are.

Zia is especially admired by the commentators willing to overlook the occasional psyche. To be known as a master card shark it is enough to be able to play the cards as if one can see the actual layout, simply put, when one’s perception matches reality. It is partly a matter of probability and partly one of psychology through the reading the intentions of the opponents. The true expert is not afraid to take the chance that what he perceives is what actually exists. This is when miracles appear to occur, but they are not miracles, just confident card placement. Here is an example where Zia was generously praised for performing a miracle in the Mixed Teams.

 
E-W
South
N
Zia
A93
A10962
Q5
K82
 
W
Lew Stansby
Q8
KQ3
J98432
AJ
 
E
Johanna Sta
10654
J875
7
Q764
 
S
Michielsen
KJ72
4
AK106
10953
 
Michielsen
Zia
1
1
1
2
3
3NT
All Pass
 

Marion Michielsen, twice a champion at Sanya, had the methods available to make Zia declarer in 3NT on a 7-7-6-6 division of sides. Kit Woolsey noted that the safest lead might be the 7, and so it came to pass. In fact, the contract makes on any lead, the key being not to take the finesse for the K. Well, that’s what Deep Finesse tells us, and it’s a fact. However, on winning the Q, Zia had nothing better to do than take the spade finesse at trick 2. 3NT could now be defeated, confirming my superstition that on a 7-7-6-6 deal finessing should be a last resort. Upon winning the Q, West can defeat the contract in several ways. Lew Stansby continued the K which was allowed to hold, Johanna giving encouragement. On the continuation Zia won the A and set up the suit. The lack-luster defence led to this 5-card ending once the hearts were played out.

 
E-W
South
N
Zia
9
5
K82
 
W
Lew Stansby
J98
AJ
 
E
Johanna Sta
106
Q64
 
S
Michielsen
K7
AK10
 

Needing 4 tricks Zia had to decide whether the remaining spades were evenly divided or whether he should run the 9. He got it right, and gained 10 IMPs against 3NT by South down 1 at the other table.

Two commentators were fulsome in their praise judging it to be a miraculous result. Kit deferred, putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the defenders. Clearly, in the interest of telling it like it was, Woolsey was not concerned about removing himself from anybody’s Nicest Commentator List. He made two criticisms: Lew should have got rid of the 8, the card he was known to hold, and Johanna should not have encouraged continuation on the non-fatal lead of the K. Thus, most apparent miracles have a root cause that can be found through correct reasoning. Let’s give Zia credit where it is due: he gathered information, drew the correct conclusion from what he had observed, and acted accordingly. Perhaps that is rare, but it is not miraculous – it is science at work.

For the benefit of followers of the Open Teams, Woolsey followed the fortunes of the Nickell team until they were eliminated in a close match against the Poles. Coincidentally a Polish Team last won the world’s championship in 1978, the same year Sanborn-Crane won the Mixed Pairs in New Orleans. True to form Kit was not slow to point out places where improvement was possible, while others defended the performance of the American pairs deemed by some to be the greatest in the world. Our main interest lay in the performance of Meckwell. It is the current trend in high-level bridge to present a false impression by entering the auction with poor holdings. In this way experts have adopted a style that comes naturally to bad players. Auken-Welland carry it to extremes, but the trend is general. The idea behind it is that there is something to be gained from uncertainty, especially when the hand belongs to the opponents. Here is a case in point from the final session in which a Big Club opening bid was involved.

 
N-S
North
N
Rodwell
AKJ9532
1065
AK2
 
W
Klukowski
108
AQ7
QJ104
QJ103
 
E
Gawrys
74
J9
K752
97654
 
S
Meckstroth
Q6
K8432
A9863
8
 
W
Klukowski
N
Rodwell
E
Gawrys
S
Meckstroth
1♣*
1??
1(GF)
Dbl
1
Pass
2
Pass
2
Pass
3
Pass
3NT (slam try)
Pass
4
Pass
4NT
Pass
5(1 ace) 
Pass
6
All Pass
 

The only entirely innocent bidder appears to be Michal Klukowski, the soon to become 18 year-old champion, sitting West. Piotr Gawrys followed the age-old adage, ‘when in doubt lead trumps.’ Obviously he didn’t trust his partner’s double. Surprising there aren’t more trump leads. Anyway, after this lead the contract depended on finding the A onside, which the naïve observer might think has a less than 50% chance.

The quick conclusion is that the reason for this poor effort lay in Gawrys’ overcalling on a garbage hand, even though no space was lost as a consequence,  however, Meckwell were able to engage in a largely natural auction. They had trouble stopping in 4, whereas 2/1 bidders might feel they stretched to game. In the other room the Polish pair bid without interference to 6, an even worse contract. At each table South cuebid 4 to show a control. I am against this style, feeling more comfortable with the Olde English style that insists the first control cue bid be in a suit in which first round control is held.

Without interference it is convenient to have 3NT act as a serious slam try in the agreed major, however, as Woolsey noted, when the suits bid by the opponents suffer from PDD,  the pronounced deficiency disorder, it makes sense to be able to bid NT naturally to show where the true values lie. Stumbling into 3NT would have won the match for Nickell. This is often the situation after a PDD attack, and it only a matter of time before experts learn to make the fine adjustments. Meanwhile, we lesser players should continue to bid 3NT to play and expect bad defence, profiting from the low information content made available. Unfortunately for Meckwell 3NT in their auction retained the characteristic of a slam try in spades., and the quality of Meckstroth’s heart suit remained a mystery.


9 Comments

JoannNovember 5th, 2014 at 5:46 pm

You are so witty!

JoannNovember 5th, 2014 at 5:46 pm

You are very witty!

Dave Memphis MOJONovember 5th, 2014 at 6:07 pm

When the commentators analyze, they are looking at all four hands. I find that they are sometimes biased/double dummy because of this. It’s easy to see all four hands and criticize Johanna Stansby’s encouraging signal. I would be more receptive if he explained WHY that is wrong.

Jim PriebeNovember 6th, 2014 at 4:23 am

Terrific article

bob mNovember 6th, 2014 at 4:53 am

Dave: Yes, we are all much smarter after the play of the hand when we can see the four hands. However, I think Woolsey can see ahead much better than most, and his honest predictions are usually correct. It is often said we learn from mistakes, most from our own, but it is helpful to us perpetual learners if someone can point us in the the right direction. It is up to us to take it or leave it.

Bob HerremanNovember 8th, 2014 at 11:54 am

Commenting the commentators… a second degre view !
I like your article a lot !

Keith GeorgeNovember 13th, 2014 at 12:36 pm

After the 1H bid almost the only thing that matters to N is how good S’s hearts are (I’m assuming 1H shows 5+), so I wonder why a TAB was not available (surely not because of the 1D interference)? I suspect Meckwell had a simple route to not bidding slam (e.g. a TAB), but haven’t mentioned it.

Bobby WolffNovember 14th, 2014 at 4:11 pm

Hi Bob,

The one word which best describes your writing style is endearing. With it, you include the science of bridge, the emotion of romance, the reality of talent and the humanity of life.

Quite an unusual combination, but very delicately expressed and together forming a sensitive portrait of bridge at a very high level, together with the trials and tribulations which accompany.

Mojo’s question concerning the Stansby’s defense, has everything to do with Joanna’s immediate spot underneath the vital jack she held, of course, in relation to Zia’s free 1 heart bid during the auction. Should she also have the nine to encourage or is just the jack enough?

The answer on this hand was, that she needed better spots, but is this always the case? Perhaps the neighborhood leopard knows the answer.

Anyway, thanks for your turns and twists. I, for one, appreciate your efforts and above all, your style.

bob mNovember 15th, 2014 at 2:13 am

Bobby: Thanks for your comments. I am only guessing half the time, whereas you have the experience and expertise to answer the technical questions that I tend to avoid. It is always easy to raise questions, much harder to answer them. Your comments on Stansby’s defence should settle the matter. Thanks, again: you are a treasure.

Leave a comment

Your comment