Hooray for the Chinese Ladies Team

Bridge has limited appeal for spectators, but all agree that for colour, excitement, and general value for money, there is nothing to touch the women’s international trials.

– M. Harrison-Gray from When Ladies Meet, in Country Life, May 9, 1957

After many years of diligent effort the Chinese ladies have finally triumphed in the Venice Cup competition recently held in Brazil. A Precision enthusiast myself, I feel I have learned much from watching them perform on BBO. Recently my scores have improved temporarily. The question I want to address is, what can we learn from watching the ladies compete at the highest level?

Women’s events have always attracted interest from sympathetic males who, like Harrison-Gray, take a tolerant and largely humorous view of the human condition. Ever since becoming civilized, Man has encountered difficulty answering the question, ‘what do women really want?’ Males unable to fathom the female psyche (and I agree there is still much research to be done in that area) in self-defence make jokes about inadequacies that all humans share to a greater or lesser degree. Linda Lee has in a recent blog described the scene at the VuGraph auditorium when China faced USA1 in the Venice Cup finals. Glaring errors are made. The male commentator gasps. The predominantly male audience, seeing all 4 hands, bursts into laughter. Hot tears of female resentment well up in Linda’s eyes, she bites her lip, and then finds that she, too, is laughing along with the rest. That’s the spirit, Linda.

Charlie Chaplin was a great comedian, but when you come to think of it rationally, what is funny about being hit on the head, being chased by a policeman, or slipping on a banana peel? Our laughter signifies that ‘there but for the grace of God fly I’. Laughing at the disasters of others can be healthy, but only when you can see yourself erring in the same way. One must tolerate the errors of others and thereby come to tolerate one’s own mistakes. To attempt to play a faultless game is counter-productive, as it promotes anxiety, generates inner tensions, stifles initiative, and inevitably leads to disappointment.

‘Learn from your mistakes’ is good advice, but given a choice, naturally one would prefer to learn from the mistakes of others. Do mistakes have a gender? No. To prove that, I give you a quiz on some howlers I witnessed in the recent championships in Brazil. I challenge the reader to distinguish between which of the following laughable blunders were made by a man, and which by a woman.

Howler #1 On lead against 3NT West held: ♠ J93 ♥ 654 ♦ KJ3 ♣ 8653

The auction had gone as follows: 1NT(14-16) – 2♣; 2♥ – 2NT; 3NT All Pass.

Who made the ‘thoughtful’ lead of the ♦J into declarer’s ♦Q105 thus allowing the contract to make for a loss of 14 IMPs where a simple club lead in the other room set the contract 4 vulnerable tricks?

Was it: (a) Beth Palmer, (b) Glenn Groetheim, or (c) Gabriel Chagas?

Howler #2 The South player on lead held ♠ T632 ♥ A6432 ♦ Q4 ♣ 72.

The Precision auction went as follows: 1♣ (1♦) 1NT; 3NT – 4NT; 5NT – 6NT (That sure looks like women’s bidding, doesn’t it?)

Instead of leading partner’s advertised diamond suit and defeating 6NT, who chose to lead the ♥3 and let the contract through?

Was it: (a) Peggy Sutherlin, (b) Sjoert Brink, or (c) Kit Woolsey?

Howler #3 The contract was an adventuresome 4♠. Dummy held ♠A984.

With ♠J6532 South was in a hopeless situation as 2 trump losers are certain.

In desperation declarer made the psychological play of leading the ♠J.

Which West defender holding ♠K107 killed partner’s singleton trump queen by following the beginner’s rule of always covering an honor with an honor?

Was it: (a) Wang Hongli, (b) Jeff Meckstroth, or (c) Zia Mahmood?

Howler #4 South opened 1♥ showing at least 5 hearts and North had a decent but not spectacular hand in support: ♠A654 ♥ Q72 ♦ Q9 ♣ AQ73.

In the other room the natural bidding proceeded in a perfunctory manner: 1♥ – 1♠; 2♥ – 4♥, All Pass, making 6, so there was a chance of a much needed pickup. North–South had at their disposal the scientific methods that enabled an exploration of even the remotest chances of a slam. Their luck was in, until after 6 rounds of revealing bids, North lost concentration, forgot the trump suit was hearts, and bid 6♠!

Was it: (a) Irina Levitina, (b) Joey Silver, or (c) Lorenzo Lauria?

Howler #5 Non-vulnerable versus vulnerable this North player made a second seat preemptive 2♥ bid on: ♠ 864 ♥ QJ632 ♦A73 ♣ J8.

After a 2NT Ogust enquiry, North bid game on a 7-card fit, and the other circumstances were not favorable resulting -800 in 4♥* against a failing 4♠ in the other room – a 12 IMP loss on the last board of an otherwise fairly even session.

Was the North player: (a) Sabine Auken, (b) Karen McCallum, or (c) Pam Wittes?

Well, I suppose you got the last one right. Yes, indeed, it was a woman who bid outrageously in the manner indicated. As for the other hands, it was not a woman who made those laughable blunders. (The answers are given at the end of this article.) Again I emphasize the laughable part. We all blunder at times, so it is just a matter of reducing such errors to a tolerable level. Modern research into how humans make decisions has shown conclusively that we are not nearly as rational as one would hope. Reason tempered by emotion is the way to proceed, as without emotion we humans are not going to get it right. But we must limit the emotions to a secondary role. When emotions rule, mistakes are made. The trick is to get our emotions working for us, not against us. It is all a matter of paddling downstream, not upstream.

Playing for Increased Uncertainty

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

– Erasmus (1465-1536)

There are those who would say the last example does not qualify as a howler, or even as a mistake. They would argue that this preempt turned out to be costly, but that there is a price that one is willing to pay occasionally for the many triumphs that have gained in this manner. The strategy is to create uncertainty in the hope that the uncertainty costs the opponents more than it costs your side. The worse the hand, the better the chances the opponents can make something! Unlucky if partner holds a good hand, for then you may be in trouble. One improvement I have noticed in the Chinese Ladies’ performance is that they are now much less likely to be pushed around by light actions. They are willing at times to be talked out of a part score. Being disciplined, they are less likely to get rattled. Let’s look at the deal in full to illustrate the bad effects of increasing uncertainty.

Board: 16 Dealer: West Vul: E/W		Karen McCallum
		♠	8 6 4
		♥	Q J 6 3 2
		♦	A 7 3
		♣	J 8
Liu Yi Qua				Wang Wenfei
♠	K J 10 3			♠	Q
♥	9			♥	K 10 7 5 4
♦	K J 8 5 2			♦	10 6 4
♣	3 2			♣	A 10 5 4
		Cheng
		♠	A 9 7 5 2
		♥	A 8
		♦	Q
		♣	K Q 9 7 6

 

Liu	McCallum	Wang	Baker
Pass	2♥	Pass	2NT*
Pass	3♦*	Pass	3♥
Pass	4♥	Dbl.	All Pass

Result: down 4, -800

 

At the other table:

Sanborn	Sun	Levitina	Wang
Pass	Pass	Pass	1♠
Pass	2♠	Pass	3♠
Pass	4♠	All Pass

Result: down 2, -100

 

After Sun passed as North, the auction took a normal course according to today’s loose standards, namely, overbidding to a hopeless game that went down 2 undoubled. This is the normal action if one thinks the rival pair will do the same. McCallum’s opening preempt in hearts has little to recommend it apart from the favorable vulnerability. Baker had a 5-loser hand, unfortunately without the quality of heart support that McCallum required. when she raised herself to game,‘Kate’ obviously was hoping for better hearts from Baker. Wang may not have doubled 3♥, but 4♥ proved to be too much of a temptation even though there was no guarantee she could set the contract. At it turned out, the silent Liu could provide considerable help.

Planning for Uncertainty

It is one thing to take an occasional flyer in the hopes of a lucky result that may shake the opponent’s confidence, it is another to design your system around bids intended to confuse. When Howard Schenken first introduced the weak 2, it was as a constructive bid that allowed a partnership to reach major suit games on hands that were lacking in HCP but strong on distribution. There was a requirement that the long major contained 2 top honors, the normal complement for a 6-card suit. Later experts adopted the weak 2 as a preemptive bid and did away with the honor requirement that was normally fulfilled anyway. The resulting increase in uncertainty could be offset by the introduction of an asking bid, Ogust 2NT. It appears today that Ogust is insufficient for the task at hand. At one time the type of hand on which McCallum preempted was acceptable only in third seat, but now the contagion has spread. Does increased uncertainty constitute progress?

To consider this further let’s look at 4 hands in the quarterfinal match between the Netherlands and USA2 in which 2 youthful Dutch players employed a consistent strategy of unsound actions against Meckwell, who play a disciplined pressure game. On three consecutive boards (25 thru 27) Meckwell gained 39 IMPs, the gains being attributable directly or indirectly to the brash, uninformative style of their opponents. The reader should take particular note of the indirect effects.

Board: 25 Dealer: North Vul: E/W		Driver
		♠	10
		♥	Q  J 10 9 8
		♦	10 9 7 2
		♣	Q 5 2
Rodwell				Meckstroth
♠	K J 7 4			♠	A 8 5 3 2
♥	7 5 3			♥	K 6
♦	K J 6			♦	A Q 8 5
♣	A 8 6			♣	10 9
		Brink
		♠	Q 9 6
		♥	A 4 2
		♦	4 3
		♣	K J 7 4 3

 

Liu	McCallum	Wang	Baker
—	2♥	2♠	3♥
4♠	All Pass

 

Driver opened with a (self-) destructive preempt in hearts. Meckstroth had an easy overcall, Rodwell an easy raise. Brink couldn’t without loss lead the suit partner had bid and he had supported. He chose to lead from his worthless doubleton, very often a dangerous choice. Good lead, thought the viewers, at least on this hand. The play was simple enough. Meckstrorth took the second round finesse in trumps and made his vulnerable game. What could be easier? But in the other room there was no NS bidding. Declarer went down playing normally for the drop in trumps for a loss of 12 IMPs.

A rationalist would say that the opening bid was foolhardily bad, but wait! Aren’t we told that type of action often pays off? Defenders of this style can point to a board in the Round Robin where Meckwell missed a vulnerable 6NT after Bertens of the Netherlands opened a Multi 2♦ on ♠ 75 ♥ JT752 ♦ A4 ♣ T874. (Resembles the McCallum hand, doesn’t it?) As Buffy the Vampire Slayer commented on BBO, ‘chalk one up to that aggressive Multi opening.’So one might conclude on the basis these 2 boards taken in isolation that the Netherlands’ strategy had put them slightly ahead of the game.

Well, everything works some of the time. On Howler #2 described above, it was Brink who on Board 27 of the quarterfinals was reluctant to lead his partner’s suit, and consequently lost 14 IMPs. Good lead on Board 25, bad lead on Board 27, no matter; one might say the losses due to uncertainty were mounting up in the all-important quarterfinals. Board 26 was to provide evidence that consistently inconsistent behavior on previous hands can indirectly cause a loss in an otherwise normal situation.

Board: 26 Dealer: East Vul: All		Driver
		♠	3 2
		♥	A K 10 6 2
		♦	A 10
		♣	Q 10 6 4
Rodwell				Meckstroth
♠	A 9 5 4			♠	K Q J 8 7
♥	9			♥	—
♦	J 9 7 6 3			♦	K Q 8 5 4
♣	A J 7			♣	K 9 8
		Brink
		♠	10 6
		♥	Q J 8 7 5 4 3
		♦	2
		♣	5 3 2

 

Liu	McCallum	Wang	Baker
—	—	1♠	3♥
4♠	5♥	5♠	All Pass

 

This was a deal where one expects a highly competitive auction with a whole lot of guessin’ going on – intelligent guessin’ in the Bermuda Bowl. Although the South and East hand patterns are unusual, and an 11-card fit is rare, the situation is normal under the circumstances.

In the other room the Netherlands team had bid to 6♠ and had gone down 1. Meckwell had stopped in 5♠, but all was not lost for the Netherlands as declarer was booked to lose the ♦A, a diamond ruff, and an eventual ♣Q. Tie board? No! According to custom Brink did not lead a suit both he and his partner had bid, but this time he had a very good reason for it. Yes, he had found the killing lead of the ♦2, but under the ♦A Meckstroth discarded the ♦K. Could this pitiful attempt at deception really work? Not really. Driver wouldn’t be fooled that easily by an opponent, but every hand has a history. It would be just like Brink to preempt vulnerable to the 3-level on just 6 hearts. To the astonishment of all who witnessed it, Driver tried to cash a heart trick. Meckstroth ruffed and was able to make his contract for a gain of 13 IMPs.

The Importance of Reliable Information

A good system is designed around what is normal, hence most probable. Seeking an abnormal result is what one does when hopelessly behind in a match. It seldom works and the usual effect is to increase the losses. It’s a reasonable approach under those circumstances, but why should one adopt this strategy from the start? From the howlers noted above, one needn’t assume that world’s champions will not make mistakes.

On Board 30 the Driver and Brink got to a solid 7NT after 7 rounds of relays on this combination of cards:

Driver	Brink
♠ A 9 8 7	♠ J 10
♥ A Q 2	♥ K 5 4 3
♦ A Q 9 8 6 5	♦ K 2
♣ —	♣ A K Q J 6

 

One won’t reach the optimum contract without exchanging information with one’s partner in a clear, efficient manner. Try it. The Dutch gained 14 IMPs when in the other room the USA pair, now world champions, on natural bidding and without interference, stopped in 4♥ with 15 tricks on view. After the previous disasters the great Dutch auction turned out to be so much wasted effort. Now if a pair can spend the time necessary to perfect their relay bidding system, isn’t it somewhat ironic that they take the view unsound preempts are worthwhile? Hopefully in future they will decide to follow the example of the Chinese Ladies and adopt a reliable competitive bidding style along with good constructive methods. Youth isn’t everything, it’s only a beginning.

Information is the key to success. At the bridge table reality is represented by the composition of the deal. One needs reliable information in order to have one’s action conform to reality, information which comes from the other players at the table. If partner’s bids are nebulous and admittedly designed to cause confusion, then one is left with having to trust the opponents whose best strategy is to bid boldly to games and slams and see if you can defeat them with your side’s disadvantage of self-imposed uncertainty. Such conditions are highly dangerous for defenders. My last piece of futile advice is this: stop making these futile preempts in hearts.

Answers to the Howler quiz: #1 (b), #2 (b), #3 (c), #4 (c), #5 (b).