Bermuda Bowl And The VuGraph

[luke warm]

what hrothgar says is correct, i just think that the preponderence of artificial methods has had the effect of keeping some from taking up bridge, especially duplicate... even at the average club game, the newcomer can be bewildered by the different systems...

[hrothgar]

what hrothgar says is correct, i just think that the preponderence of artificial methods has had the effect of keeping some from taking up bridge, especially duplicate... even at the average club game, the newcomer can be bewildered by the different systems...

 

I don't think that the "artificiality" of methods means all that much to a novice. These people are starting from a completely blank slate and would just as happily learn a system based on two under transfers, canape, or whatever. The "problem" cases are those individuals who have been raises on the one true path to bidding and don't want to be bother by anything that deviates from what they have been taught.

 

For what its worth, I have always thought that the different Zones need to implement a scheme similar to the following:

 

Step 1: Select a "standard" bidding system. The bidding system that is selected needs to be a happy compromise between ease of use and effeciency.

 

Step 2: Rigourously document said bidding. Make sure that there is a well defined description regarding what constitutes standard.

 

Step 3: Base your education system arround this standard system. Anyone learning bridge from certified teacher will learn the exact same system.

 

Step 4: Base your alert chart arround the standard system. Bids that correspond to the standard meaning are no alertable. Bids that deviate from the standard meaning are alertable.

 

Step 5. Stratify your events based on the standard system. Events have two sections. In section A, the only thing that people get to play is standard. In section B, anything goes. Section A should be further sub-divided to include a section for novices.

 

This is a deliberately "extreme" solution, however, I think that it is the most workable. Players who want a protected playing environment have a protected playing environment. Players who want the freedom to deviate from standard have lots freedom.

 

What this eliminates is the ridiculous politics surrounding whose methods should be approved and whose should be banned.

[inquiry]

Step 1: Select a "standard" bidding system. [sNIP] ...

 

Step 5. Stratify your events based on the standard system.

 

GACK. Deja Vu all over again....

 

Been there, done that. It was called Standard American Yellow Card, and they ran SAYC tournments. Got its name because the convention card that you had to use was YELLOW (background) as opposed to white.

The idea was that an "ACBL Standard Yellow Card" game is one where all partnerships agreed to play the system exactly as described by the ACBL. In theory, everyone knew both theirs and their opponents bidding conventions and alerts and director calls during the auction would be a thing of the pass.

 

I played in a few of these, awful events. Not only was the goal of not having director calls, the number went up as people started complaining about agreements not "legal", about different views of what is on the sayc card, and of course the standard of play was less because good players either refused to play in the events, or they played without their favorite tools with an unfamilar lowest common denominator system. I would rather quit playing bridge than be forced to play serious bridge with SAYC as my "system". I do play it on line and individual events, however. Something to be said for being able to sit down and play with anyone.

 

The SAYC only events didn't last too long.

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben

 

I am well versed in the ACBL's history with SAYC, Classic Bridge, and any one of a wide number of other failed attempts to implement these types of systems.

 

From my perspective, these attempts were badly concieved and poorly implemented. First and foremost, the SAYC events were an attempt at patch a problem that needs to be addressed through comprehensive structural change. As you note, SAYC events and Classic bridge failed. Top players were unwilling to compromise the integrity of their systems. Intermediate players were unwilling to give up their pet gadgets. From my perspective, however, the primary purpose of iplementing this type of system is to provide a safe playing environment for novices.

 

Furthermore, from what I recall, the SAYC card actually provides a number of different bidding options to player [to be more precise, the SAYC documentation failed to describe a wide number of fairly basic aucitons]. Couple this with the fact that SAYC is a remarkably poorly designed system and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the critical success factor is linking this type of regulatory structure to a well designed educational system.

[luis]

 

Hi Ben

 

I am well versed in the ACBL's history with SAYC, Classic Bridge, and any one of a wide number of other failed attempts to implement these types of systems.

 

From my perspective, these attempts were badly concieved and poorly implemented. First and foremost, the SAYC events were an attempt at patch a problem that needs to be addressed through comprehensive structural change. As you note, SAYC events and Classic bridge failed. Top players were unwilling to compromise the integrity of their systems. Intermediate players were unwilling to give up their pet gadgets. From my perspective, however, the primary purpose of iplementing this type of system is to provide a safe playing environment for novices.

 

Furthermore, from what I recall, the SAYC card actually provides a number of different bidding options to player [to be more precise, the SAYC documentation failed to describe a wide number of fairly basic aucitons]. Couple this with the fact that SAYC is a remarkably poorly designed system and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the critical success factor is linking this type of regulatory structure to a well designed educational system.

 

Maybe the root of all problems is the education of bridge players. 99% of the players learn that there is a "natural" system called (insert your zone flavour here) and then the other systems are "unnatural", "satanic", "evil", "to win", "etc".... If players were told that bidding theory is indeed a part of the game the situation would be completely different.

[fred]

what hrothgar says is correct, i just think that the preponderence of artificial methods has had the effect of keeping some from taking up bridge, especially duplicate... even at the average club game, the newcomer can be bewildered by the different systems...

 

I don't think that the "artificiality" of methods means all that much to a novice. These people are starting from a completely blank slate and would just as happily learn a system based on two under transfers, canape, or whatever.

 

 

Have you ever tried teaching someone how to play bridge?

 

I mean someone other than a fellow-genius at MIT?

 

Their minds are quickly filled with a lot of confusing and seemingly

arbitrary rules "you need 10 points for that bid", "you need 5

hearts for that bid"... Even teaching new players a "simple"

artificial bid (like Stayman) can be a daunting task.

 

In my opinion bridge already loses a lot of new players because

the learning curve (at least the way the game is traditionally taught)

is too steep.

 

Teaching new players an artificial bidding system to start

with would GREATLY worsen these problems in my opinion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JRG]

[...snip...]

Maybe the root of all problems is the education of bridge players. 99% of the players learn that there is a "natural" system called (insert your zone flavour here) and then the other systems are "unnatural", "satanic", "evil", "to win", "etc".... If players were told that bidding theory is indeed a part of the game the situation would be completely different.

 

Maybe. I'm not sure I agree with your "then the other systems are..." bit though.

 

I do think education is probably the best answer.

 

For what it is worth, many years ago, before I had even learnt "Standard American" properly (hmmm - maybe I never did), I learnt a very simple strong club system called "Schenken" (after the famous American player who devised it). It seemed to me and a couple of friends that played it, that it was easier and simpler than "Standard American". Of course, dealing with interference was hard.

 

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that I played at one of the largest bridge clubs in North America and the atmosphere at the time was very tolerant of other systems (we eventually moved on to Roman Club and Neapolitan Club somewhat later).

 

It's strange to think back to that time. A few years ago, my Toronto partner and I started to play a minor variation in our 2/1 system (switching the meanings of 1S & 1NT over a 1H opening) -- turns out we were not allowed to play that at the club level (only in tournament events of some level or other). So we dropped it as it wasn't worth our while to play two different systems (I have enough trouble remembering the one we do play!).

[DrTodd13]

I tried to teach a couple people how to play by starting with

principles and then letting them derive HCP requirements

from that. IMHO, that approach didn't work any better than

the classic "you need 13 points to open" mantra. The situation

may not have a good answer. I don't know how or why anybody

takes the time to get over the learning curve other than hearing

that the game is very cool once you learn it. Maybe the ACBL

can pay some superstars to mention that they play bridge in

interviews. As a culture, we need to deemphasize physical

sports and emphasize mental sports. Would be cool to see a rule

like you had to have at least as many mental sports participants

in each school as you had physical sport participants.

[hrothgar]

I have a fair amount of teaching experience actually. I started out life intending to become an economics professor and spent three years teaching college level Economics and Statistics to unsuspecting undergraduates at Indiana University. While my experience teaching bridge is far more limited, I have introduced a few people to the game. I never taught bridge using an artifical bidding system, however, I will stand by my original statement. I have always felt that real learning requires understanding. Memorizing an enormous number of random/unconnected facts requires real effort. However, if individuals have a logical framework that they can use to structure the information its actually possible to successfully introduce relatively complex topics.

 

In any case, regarding actually teaching bridge, you might find this surprising but I actually don't bother introducing bidding initially. We always started with a version of "party" bridge that pretty much ignored bidding.

 

We would deal 13 cards to each player.

 

Each player would announce how many HCP's he held.

The player with the greatest number of points would declare the hand.

His partner table his hand as dummy.

 

Declarer would inspect dummy and decide set the contract, chosing between:

 

A part score contract (1NT, 2M, 3m)

A game contract (3N, 4M, 5m)

A slam

 

If people enjoyed this verison of the game, we'd then worry about introducing more formal version after a couple months. I "normally" used 5 Weeks to Winning Bridge by Sheinwold as the basis for instruction, though I also experimented with Acol. For whatever reason, I always found it easier to explain the logic behind these systems rather than SAYC. In either case, we'd simply describe the bidding system as a tool to try the same type of evaluations that folks were used to making when partner tabled the dummy.

[irdoz]

Here's my observations on the VUgraph, systems and the never ending argument about complex systems.

 

I keenly watched the Vugraph for numerous hours and found it a very rewarding experience. I tabulated a lot of the swing boards (gains/losses of more than 6imps) because I was interested to try to make my own judgement about what caused the differences.

 

My observations would be:

 

1. Luck plays a big role. A large number of auctions are highly competitive - particularly where both sides have distributional hands. There were at least 15 slam hands I found in highly competitive auctions (bid but not makeable or not bid when cold) that produced large swings where the decision to bid slam can only be made on a guess - and these decisions are (almost) totally independent from any system method.

 

2. Aggressive preempting at the 3 and 4 level often paid...and again its judgement, evaluation and luck rather than system that seems to be more important in bidding over preempts than system. I didn't see positive swings produced by brown sticker preemptive type 2 level bids - there may have been some but of the 20 matches I reviewed I saw not a one. I did see five swings caused by the method getting the opening side into trouble.

 

3. In general bidding systems made little difference to the final contract in non-competitive auctions and natural systems did as well as highly artificial ones.

 

4. There were numbers of swings caused by arrival in different contracts - particularly in competitve auctions. I think two factors operate to produce this difference - one is mainly judgement and guessing and state of the match factors and mostly independent from bidding systems - and the other is indeed system dependent - artificial systems or different methods can induce large differences in competitive auctions that are totally system dependent - and it may be the case that an artificial bid lets the opponents "in" rather than being an aid in finding the right contract.

 

5. There were three slams I found in non-competitive auctions in the early rounds where only one or two pairs bid them and the system methods were very helpful in finding an otherwise hard to bid slam - but these boards are very rare. Most systems seem to do well at finding the same contracts in non-competitive auctions.

 

6. Many differences in score were due to difference in card play - the majority of the small swings are definitely due to this (and these do add up)... Again some luck on opening lead plays a large part - I saw numbers of game and slam swings caused by opening leads (although here one might argue that these are skill and judgement -Im not competent enough to judge).

 

 

Finally a comment on the interminable argument about complex versus simple systems.

 

I am one of the few 20-something players at my local bridge club. Of those I know around my age, many of whom are relatively new to the game, a consistent part of their keen interest in the game is an interest in systems and methods.

 

I love the 'cleverness' of complex relay systems. At the same time I don't like playing against methods I am totally unfamiliar with. I also have taught bridge online (for free!) to retired folk who are returning to the game and who have no interest in grappling with a range of complex system methods. It does not mean they don't love the game.

 

I mention these two groups because of how different they are and what motivates their interest. There are and always will be a range of newcomers, with a range of skills and a range of interests.

 

The argument about 'complex methods' versus 'restricted approved methods' often becomes a silly binary opposite with emotionally charged arguments that ends up - like all binary opposities do - obscuring real understanding - and producing solutions which ultimately please nobody.

 

Whatever solutions are proposed need to both cater for those people who want to play and play against the most complex systems, and those people who are new to the game for whom this would be inappropriate or those who have no desire to play against complex methods - and those who want to sometimes and not other times.

 

There isn't a one size fits all solution. There needs to be a number of creative 'solutions'. And no one side of this argument is 'right'.

[luke warm]

~~snip~~

There isn't a one size fits all solution. There needs to be a number of creative 'solutions'. And no one side of this argument is 'right'.

 

irdoz's entire post is worth reading, and i don't have a lot to add to the rest of it... as for this particular paragraph, i don't think the debate centers on right vs. wrong, but on how to get more people involved in duplicate bridge...

 

all i meant to say about this in my previous post was: it is and will continue to be very difficult gaining adherents to this great game as long as the systems played by those talented enough to play them are put forth as the norm

 

bridge has to be fun and easy to learn... if (as usually happens) a person finds he enjoys the game, THEN he will search for and find all the systemic devices he needs to further that enjoyment

[the hog]

all i meant to say about this in my previous post was: it is and will continue to be very difficult gaining adherents to this great game as long as the systems played by those talented enough to play them are put forth as the norm.

 

 

I wouldn't say they are put forward as the norm. Most here play Acol for example, how many of the world's top pairs play Acol? I am finding it hard to think of one.

 

Interestingly enough the US experiment was tried here too, where we have what are called "No Fear" events, based on Acol or Standard. Hardly any good players play. It does seem to me that the average player wants to play against good players, but does not want them to play complicated systems. This is a conundrum to which I do not have an answer.

[pbleighton]

Ron writes:

"Hardly any good players play. It does seem to me that the average player wants to play against good players, but does not want them to play complicated systems. This is a conundrum to which I do not have an answer."

 

I would restate this. In the U.S., the typical "average player" plays 2/1, with a whole slew of conventions, mostly the same ones as everyone else, because "everyone knows you need them to bid accurately". I play this with one pd. It is IMO a good system, but it is neither natural not simple. In fact, it is rather complicated and most people playing it (including myself) don't play it very well because of that. Big hands are hard to describe without Ben-like partnership agreements, and there are numerous convention fiascos ("I thought your bid was Michaels" "No, not in this situation" "Another bottom").

 

With another pd I play a somewhat simplified version of The Science (4 card majors and canape openings 10-13 hcp, 5 card majors 14+, 2/1 GF, 1M-1NT semi-forcing), with some conventions, though susbstantially fewer than with my 2/1 pd, as this pd still has an aversion to memorizing seldom used conventions. It is not "simple", but it is not as complicated as 2/1. Because it is different, however, it is perceived as "complicated".

 

People don't like to play against anything different than what they are used to, regardless of complexity. Even playing plain vanilla SA with weak NT, and very light and short weak 2s and 3s created some consternation.

 

I like Richard's suggested 2 tiered approach. It could work very well. However, the chances that the ACBL would do it are zero, IMO.

 

Peter

[csdenmark]

Why did Soloway choose S4 as lead for trick 7 instead of H10?

 

Discard for trick 6 was SJ and according to auction heart-suit was supported by Hamman. As signals during play odd was signalled for hearts.

 

Because of this?

Signals to declarers lead:

vs suits:

1.Hi/Lo=even

2.S/P

vs NT:

1.Low=Even

2.S/P

3.Hi/Lo=Even

 

Discards:

1.High=Encourage

2.S/P

3.Hi/Lo=even

[jrcn50]

Only a remark: I have seen that B.Wolff / D.Morse (USA2) was playing a simple SAYC (with very few conventions ! see their C.Card).

Then, it seems possible to play at a high level with a 'so poor system', isn'it ? :)

 

Jean

[Jstroke]

If the the Ten of Hearts had been led there would not have been a problem.

 

Should it be obvious to East to lead the Heart? I think I would have known that West could trump either a Heart or Spade, but I don't think I would have know which. West's Hearts bids would lead me to think Spades were the suit to lead.

 

Also, what are the mechanics of playing with a screen? How to the players see the dummy? How are the cards arranged and placed? Does the use of physical cards introduce mechanical errors?

[mpefritz]

Play of spade instead of HT:

 

At this point Soloway knows Lauria started 1+=3+=7+=1. I am assuming 7+D else 5D is insane.

 

He knows pard must have a sure trump trick. If Lauria has 2 spades and good trump, he could have ruffed a club back to his hand and drawn trump before leading a spade to the board.

 

The question now is: Do I lead a spade looking for a ruff and down 2 if pard has Ax of diamonds (and was 1=4=2=6)? Do I lead the heart T and let my partner win his natural trump trick (e.g. Kx) -- leading to down 1 if pard started 1=4=2=6 amd down 2 if 2=3=2=6) ?

 

What is my info?

 

Did pard give me count in hearts on heart ruff? (He did play low on MY lead of a heart, and then played low again on the first ruff.)

 

Do I think he has 4 on the auction? He did bid 2H and then 3H.

 

What do I make of pards SJ? (must be stiff if playing upside down count, else no info))

 

Maybe someone better at this can tell me. It seems like it all depends on how they agree to play cards on declarer's ruffs. Also Lauria may have played it differently with 2 spades anyway. I suspect Lauria would have tried to draw trump after ruffing hearts if he was concerned about a possible spade ruff.

 

Plenty of room for error : Do I believe partner (count) or do I believe the way Lauria is playing the hand? Just my thoughts.

 

fritz

[inquiry]

I certainly do not want to second guess Paul Soloway. Clearly he had something in mnd when he switched to a spade. But what info did he have available? Was he mislead by Bob Hamman's carding? I think so.

 

Trick one, Bob played the CLUB TWO, according to their CC, low on partners lead is discouraging and calling for the "obvious switch". With SPADE KQ in dummy and west bidding hearts twice, the obvious switch is to a heart, promptly completed.

 

On the heart QUEEN, pressumably a clever false card designed to get Bob to grab the heart ace and return a club (there is no mention of Q from KQ or KQT on their convention card), again Bob played low. Once again presumably discouraging (and in fact, really discouraging - thus denying the heart jack). Although, Bob may have meant this as "count" instead of attitude, given the earlier signal, and given from his point of view Lauria has heart ACE and KING perhaps. One would have to know their customs in this situation. Let's assume it was attitude (or else Soloway clearly played wrong as his own fault at trick 7)

 

The next trick seems to be the key on the entire hand. A couple of things happened. Lauria returned a brilliant heart JACK, a card he was known to hold from Bob's discouraging play on the first round of hearts. IF he had kept the heart JACK until the fourth round, Paul could never go wrong.

 

But here is the rub. On this heart, Bob Hamman played the heart 4 from the 54. In theory, Soloway-Hamman play "remaing count" in this situation. Bob has already denied intrest in clubs, and denied interest in hearts. And the dummy has the spade KQ (and soloway is looking at the spade ace). So Paul must realize that his partner has a sure trump trick for his double here.

 

What about the heart signal? Is there any logical reason for Bob Hamman to try to confuse Lauria about the heart distribution? Bob knows that his partner has at least 5 hearts, as does declearer. Bob also knows the club suit is dead (both his partner and declearer are out of clubs), and that his partner has to have the spade ace for his Michaels bid (he can see KQJT between dummy and him). To false card or refuse to give heart count here seems unwise, unnecessary, and unbecoming. What Bob should have played the heart FIVE (standard remaining count according to their cc). Soloway would then have the hand counted out. North with 4H, 1C, and most likely 7D thus the 1S, or 6D and 2S, but either way, the heart Ten was cashing, and would have promptly taken it at trick 7.

 

Everyone was tired on this board I guess. It looks like soloway was trying to give his partner a spade ruff, giving declearer S-Tx H-AJ3 D-KQTxxxx C-x, the only hand he could hold if partner indeed had 4 hearts as he unthoughtfully signalled.

 

I suspect what really happened is that Bob Hamman thought his heart at trick two gave count, Soloway thought attitude. And the heart at trick 3 Soloway thought was for count, and maybe Bob was trying to indicate S/P now back to the club suit he denied earlier. Signalling is sooooo hard....

 

Ben

[csdenmark]

Play of spade instead of HT:

 

At this point Soloway knows Lauria started 1+=3+=7+=1. I am assuming 7+D else 5D is insane.

 

He knows pard must have a sure trump trick. If Lauria has 2 spades and good trump, he could have ruffed a club back to his hand and drawn trump before leading a spade to the board.

 

The question now is: Do I lead a spade looking for a ruff and down 2 if pard has Ax of diamonds (and was 1=4=2=6)? Do I lead the heart T and let my partner win his natural trump trick (e.g. Kx) -- leading to down 1 if pard started 1=4=2=6 amd down 2 if 2=3=2=6) ?

 

What is my info?

 

Did pard give me count in hearts on heart ruff? (He did play low on MY lead of a heart, and then played low again on the first ruff.)

 

Do I think he has 4 on the auction? He did bid 2H and then 3H.

 

What do I make of pards SJ? (must be stiff if playing upside down count, else no info))

 

 

Hamman-Soloway

Leads(suit):

A=AK,Axx

K=AKx,KQx

Q=QJ,QJx

J=J10(x),KJ10x

10=109(x),H109x

9=9x,98x

Hi-x=High from sequence

of small cards

Lo-x=Low from Honour +

small cards(Hxxxx)

Leads(NT):

A=STRONG:ASKS CT or UB

K=ASKS ATT: KQx

Q=QJx

J=J10(x9

10=109(x),H109(x)

9=9x,98x,9xx

Hi-x=High from sequence

of small cards

Lo-x=Low from Honour +

small cards(Hxxxx)

Signals to partners lead:

vs suits:

1.Low=Disc(obvious shift)

3.Hi/Lo=Even

vs NT:

1.Low=Disc(obvious shift)

2.S/P

3.Low=Even

 

Signals to declarers lead:

vs suits:

1.Hi/Lo=even

2.S/P

vs NT:

1.Low=Even

2.S/P

3.Hi/Lo=Even

 

Discards:

1.High=Encourage

2.S/P

3.Hi/Lo=even

 

2H after cue accepted Hearts and I assume 3H confirmed hearts(3 or 4 cards). As signals showed odd for hearts, it ought not to be 4.

 

To me it looks like SJ can as well be encouraging(discard) or signal(hi/low=even). It looks like Soloway go for a ruff in spades.

 

Would have been nice with some analysis - but not much help from our Vugraph log here:

 

 

[tt]CSIJAK: this is exciting to come down to last board to determine the event

reisig: Thx to our viewgraph people...wonderful job throughout

compton: So here we go, if Paul stops low, he wins the BB

compton: maybe

algraves: he has to go plus at least 100

lc: With 400 to USA1 in closed, +100 or +140 or so would be 11 imps and a tie

Walddk2: :-)

compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess

algraves: 595 imps so far

compton: Fred wants the disclaimer that the scores are not official until the players compare

algraves: and still in doubt

compton: 127 boards and a RR match, magnifco

algraves: SCORE IS UNOFFICIAL

Vugraph99: and Lorenzo bid 5!D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

compton: not true

mcphee: wow

compton: wow!!!

CSIJAK: Here it is!!!

compton: usa just won the BB

Vugraph99: and Paul Double !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mcphee: incredible

compton: Unbeleivable

bbramley: could be a tie!

patapon: Wow!

lupin1: incredibleeeeee

Walddk2: If down 1 yes

Walddk2: down 2 and USA wins

bbramley: down 1 to tie, down 2 to win

compton: Have to get out for down one, is it possible?

CSIJAK: now a trump shift

compton: trump switch is crucial

lc: D1 is possible

Vugraph99: its absolute incredible here !!!!!!!!!!!!

Walddk2: I can sense the tension Herve, I think we all can

lesniak: fantastic , fantastic!!!!

Vugraph99: and he play !H !!

Walddk2: we have a tie!!

compton: Solowa played a heart, now

CSIJAK: Do we go into overtime?

Walddk2: yes

Walddk2: 8 boards

compton: We will have to confirm the scores, if this is down one,

reisig: he's 2 down

lc: Declarer is taking the down 2 line (would have been better to play singleton spade)

Vugraph99: THE MOST EXCITING BRIDGE MATCH EVER !!!!

Cascade: always -2 on heart switch

compton: six diamonds, two ruffs, one ace

Vugraph99: wooooooooooooooooooooooooow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mcphee: hamman can ruff !H

lupin1: -1

mcphee: now the !H flys

Walddk2: hehehe

compton: soloway returned a spade, down one [/tt]

[inquiry]

Would have been nice with some analysis - but not much help from our Vugraph log here:

 

 

Hi claus,

 

I think the problem you had with the vugraph commentators might stem from too many cooks spoiling the broth. With so many, they each added a word here or there, and often commented back and forth to each other. Forgetting there were thousands of us watching, often totally lost. What they were, however, were commentators not necessarily analyst. However, there was often insightful comment about a bid or play, and discussions about different lines declarer or defender may choose. There was also some clever comments or inside jokes that people might have miss, for instance in the discussion of a non-material squeeze executed one day where the comments about riding on a yacht, the hand was a true adventure, etc were comment meant for people who have read Ottilk and Kelsey’s book adventures in card play.

 

In addition, the last hand was filled with confusion and a palatable excitement rarely seen in such a situation. The drama was so great. Would the USA stop in 3H and if they did, could that make 9 tricks for a tie? If Lauria pushed to 4D could that be down two or would someone double it, as down one undoubled would not help the USA1 team. Once Lauria bid 5D, would USA1 get it two, perhaps after a diamond lead for a tie, and then when Paul doubled, would it be down one for a tie or two for a win? It sure looks like on a trump lead, declarer could lose 1D, 1C, 1S and maybe 2 hearts for down three. A discussion of rather a trump lead was indicated on the bidding (what made Lauria decide to jump to 5D after trying to sign off in 3D??? Must be new expectation of a short heart in partners hand given Hamman’s heart rebid). The club lead seemed natural. I would also have liked someone to address Soloway-Hamman carding. The list you posted is what I saw posted on the web page as well, but it seems to me they play a combination of upside down attitude to trick one as well as obvious shift principle. This is based upon an albeit short review of their trick one carding where a high card was played when a discouraging card was clearly called for and a low card played where an encouraging one was called for (this is trick one stuff, at other tricks they seem to play normal attitude).

 

Their count signals seem to be standard, remaining count. Thus, it would be interesting to have someone comment on the sequence of plays that Bob Hamman took. Given Hamman knew that the club ACE was either singleton or Lauria would show out, what was Bob trying to convey with the club 2? Is this an obvious shift signal given the dummy’s club suit? So club 2 called for a heart. Was this an attitude signal so that Paul could place the club king in Bob’s hand? No one mentioned the heart shift to the queen (and why Paul chose the queen) and the play of the heart 2 and the implications of that sequence of play is interesting to me. Clearly the expert commentators knew that the heart QUEEN was not the standard card, they should have been able to work out the implication of that falsecard. With a singleton in dummy, I would have thought that the heart 2 was to deny the heart king, but with a singleton in dummy, could Bob have meant this as count? His second heart play (if first was count) would be SP to deny interest in spades. If his first heart was attitude, then his second heart should have been remaining count, in which case he played the wrong card. I would like to have seen an expert panel consensus on what Hamman’s signals were meant to show.

 

Finally, I would have liked some comment on if Paul Soloway could have worked out to shift to a trump at trick two? And if so, why and if not, why not.

 

A final comment since people are singing the praises of Deep Finesse, which is a truly wonderful program. Too many times the expert panel relied on deep finesse to tell us that “deep finesse says it will make” or “that it will go down.” First, we all have deep finesse on our computer, so we could click it ourselves. Second, just because a hand CAN be made with some exotic or often counter-precentage play (or go down on same), that doesn’t mean that it practice it will go down because no one would ever select the one line that works due to a particular lay of spot cards. During commenting, maybe best not to rely on DF, but rather look at the hand an analyze what the players should do if they can only see their cards and those in dummy.

[csdenmark]

Now we know Soloway was right!

 

 

 

I think the problem you had with the vugraph commentators might stem from too many cooks spoiling the broth. With so many, they each added a word here or there, and often commented back and forth to each other. Forgetting there were thousands of us watching, often totally lost. What they were, however, were commentators not necessarily analyst.

 

Might be so Ben - I think it is too much to expect that the commentators would be able to work out your excellent analysis during the game. I wanted to raise this last question whether Soloway was right or wrong in his spade lead due to their own system. - And we now know Soloway was right. Maybe Hamman signalled wrong as you point out or maybe their signal system here was wrong and he therefore ought to put S10 instead of SJ for trick 6. Maybe you remember the commentars later - nearly all as I remember - was to blame Soloway for wrong play of spades instead of hearts. - Now we know Soloway was right!

 

I think each of the commentators have the intension to provide best possible prediction based on their great knowledge. As I earlier have pointed out - knowledge about the system in concern is needed for that. Chris Compton had that knowledge when he commented deals with Meckwell - and that was important there. General knowledge of good play mainly based on 2o1 etc. provides not the specific knowledge to predict and analyse artificial systems. Even the play - the test - is carried out according to the information provided via the auction.

 

Right this last hand was special - for the commentators too. This was surely not the most interesting but only the most used comment for this crucial deal:

 

• mcphee: wow
  
• compton: wow!!!
  
• patapon: Wow!
  
• lupin1: incredibleeeeee
  

 

The most insightful comment for this specific deal I think was this:

[tt]compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess[/tt]

 

The difference between an insightful comment and an analysis I am not sure. The depth of course but taking conditions into consideration then I think a comment based on system knowledge will do. I am sure that will from time to time also lead to comments on options the player has considered and therefore rejected.

 

I certainly agree with you Ben about Deep Finesse. - Maybe because I dont understand the information that application offers me!

[luis]

Now we know Soloway was right!

 

 

 

I think the problem you had with the vugraph commentators might stem from too many cooks spoiling the broth. With so many, they each added a word here or there, and often commented back and forth to each other. Forgetting there were thousands of us watching, often totally lost. What they were, however, were commentators not necessarily analyst.

 

Might be so Ben - I think it is too much to expect that the commentators would be able to work out your excellent analysis during the game. I wanted to raise this last question whether Soloway was right or wrong in his spade lead due to their own system. - And we now know Soloway was right. Maybe Hamman signalled wrong as you point out or maybe their signal system here was wrong and he therefore ought to put S10 instead of SJ for trick 6. Maybe you remember the commentars later - nearly all as I remember - was to blame Soloway for wrong play of spades instead of hearts. - Now we know Soloway was right!

 

I think each of the commentators have the intension to provide best possible prediction based on their great knowledge. As I earlier have pointed out - knowledge about the system in concern is needed for that. Chris Compton had that knowledge when he commented deals with Meckwell - and that was important there. General knowledge of good play mainly based on 2o1 etc. provides not the specific knowledge to predict and analyse artificial systems. Even the play - the test - is carried out according to the information provided via the auction.

 

Right this last hand was special - for the commentators too. This was surely not the most interesting but only the most used comment for this crucial deal:

 

• mcphee: wow
  
• compton: wow!!!
  
• patapon: Wow!
  
• lupin1: incredibleeeeee
  

 

The most insightful comment for this specific deal I think was this:

[tt]compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess[/tt]

 

The difference between an insightful comment and an analysis I am not sure. The depth of course but taking conditions into consideration then I think a comment based on system knowledge will do. I am sure that will from time to time also lead to comments on options the player has considered and therefore rejected.

 

I certainly agree with you Ben about Deep Finesse. - Maybe because I dont understand the information that application offers me!

 

At the level of play we are analizing it would be very very rare to put the blame in the player that is signaling.

First of all top-level players signal when his pd needs a signal, if you don't think your pd needs a signal then don't signal because you will only help declarer. It is a pleasure to play against players that always signal with military precision since most of the time you will be playing the hand double dummy with the count and/or location of missing spots being known.

This can lead to some strange situation where one player thinks his pd has signalled when actually the player has only pulled one of his cards without any meaning.

I think that for Hamman the situation was obvious, he decided a spade cannot be a logical continuation then he wasn't signaling at all. Soloway may have just made a mistake or may have thought this was a situation where Hamman was signaling.

So I think that the most probable conclusion is that Soloway just made a mistake and whatever their signals were I don't think Hamman can be blamed.

 

I think that sometimes Claus you analize hands in a too scientific way, there's a lot of judgement in top-level bridge, players are not robots that bid as their system demands them to bid and they are not robots who play cards as their signals demand them to play. Signals are there to "help" pd not to make him do something against his will.

At top level a signal can never prevent a player from doing the right play.

[inquiry]

Now we know Soloway was right!

 

I certainly agree with you Ben about Deep Finesse. - Maybe because I dont understand the information that application offers me!

 

I am willing to bet that Soloway was probably right on bridge logic to play a spade, regardless of the signalling.

 

Next issue, when the bidding is over and you are kibitzing or reviewing hands played earlier, you can click the DF button at any time it is there. The person's whose turn it is to play has his cards highlighted in RED or GREEN. The Green ones mean he can play that card to defeat the contract (if he is a defender) or make if he is the declarer with "optimal" play by both sides. Once the contract is either made of set, the DF button goes away. Useful in seeing where you might have missed an obvious play when reviewing hands.

 

ben

 

His partner doubled 5D on something other than the club King. Either he was planning on a spade ruff or he has the diamond ACE. If he has the diamond ACE, then any return by Soloway leads to sure down as two tricks have already been collected. If he held

[mpefritz]

From ACBL Bulletin:

 

Of course the big question is, why did Soloway lead a spade instead of the good heart?

 

There were clues suggesting the spade lead. First of all, his partner had bid hearts twice, which made it likely that Hamman had four hearts, in which case Lauria would have no more. Second, Hamman followed to the opening club lead with the 7. Soloway was sure that Hamman knew that they couldn’t cash the second club, so the 7 could have been a suit preference signal asking for spades. Also, in playing hearts Hamman played the 2, then the 4 and then the 5. He might have played 2-5-4 with three.

 

Soloway had a very tough choice to make. Did his partner have four hearts and therefore a singleton spade, or did he have just three hearts along with two spades?

 

“I saw the 7 and it looked like a signal for spades,” said Paul. “In the heart suit, our first play is attitude, and the second shows present count. Bob played the 4 second, and in our methods that showed an even number originally, So it seemed that Bob had started with four hearts and a singleton spade. “But then there was the auction. Bob bid only 2 the first time. If he had four hearts, very likely he would have jumped to 3.”

 

Soloway eventually made the wrong choice — he relied on the play rather than the auction and played partner for a singleton spade. But because Lauria didn’t realize that Soloway had made the wrong choice, the Americans still got their two trick set – and the gold medal in the closest Bermuda Bowl in history.

 

“At the table I thought I had it right,” said Paul. “In retrospect, I feel I should have given stronger consideration to the bidding. Bob didn’t bid 3, so he probably didn’t have four hearts. So in retrospect I feel I should have led the heart, not the spade.”

 

 

 

fritz

[inquiry]

From ACBL Bulletin:

 

Of course the big question is, why did Soloway lead a spade instead of the good heart?

 

There were clues suggesting the spade lead. First of all, his partner had bid hearts twice, which made it likely that Hamman had four hearts, in which case Lauria would have no more. Second, Hamman followed to the opening club lead with the 7.

 

Hi Fritz,

 

I read this in Saturday's Daily Bulletin from New Orleans as well... When watching live on BBO Vugraph, the card shown at trick one was the club 2, not the club 7. This was "confirmed" by review of the hand record stored on my computer and checking with a site with all the hands from the play as shown on BBO:

http://fsbridge.nexenservices.com/2003/wtc/index.php

 

Since Paul Soloway is quoted as saying the club SEVEN was played at trick one, then I believe in fact the seven was played. This clearly changes a whole lot of the analysis of why soloway lead a spade. In addition, if the Vugraph operators were playing any small card when in fact, players selected from among puppies, we lose a lot in trying to tell what is going on. I stated earlier that the Soloway=Hamman carding didn't seem to agree with what is posted on their CC, particulary at trick one. But now, at least on this hand, the spot cards were not shown to us in the order played. If this happened on other hands, it might explain what appeared to me to be inconsistant carding based upon their posted CC.

 

Note, however, that in the interview, Soloway did take the play of the second and third heart as showing remaining count and 4 hearts intitially as I suggested, and that and the club 7 helped him reach the wrong conclusion (the club 2 would NOT suggest a spade lead).

 

ben