The big Nickell Spingold comeback

[cherdano]

As Frances noted correctly, all the threads I started in Advanced-and-Expert-Class Bridge last weekend were from the set in the Spingold 2004 semifinals where Nickell started trailing by 73 IMPs and ended up winning by 10.

If you want to have a look at it yourself, the vugraph project has a (reconstructed and incomplete)lin-file of the set.

 

In the open room it was Hamway against Jacobs-Katz, in the closed room Meckwell against Garner-Weinstein.

 

After a flat first board, on board 2 came the lead problem I posted, with AKx Txx Qx Q9xxx. Garner led a high spade, Hamman made the (maybe normal for him) lead of a low club - he is known to rarely lead trumps. The vote was close, but the BBF panel agreed with Hamman to avoid spades, especially if we give higher weight to some of the more experienced posters... This was certainly right on the actual deal, as declarer had QJx AKQxx xxx JT opposite 9876 Jxx Axxx AK. Jacobs never had a chance to make his contract single-dummy, he of course misguessed spades and went down 2. Rodwell made on the high spade lead by ducking the diamond switch, taking the second diamond, and setting up spades after pulling trumps. 11 IMPs on what was maybe the better lead decision.

 

Board 3 gave Meckstroth a chance, with AJT9x KJxxx x Ax opposite partners passed hand 2♥ bid. Only Justin said he would force to slam (via 4N), although Gerben might also get there with 4♣. But 60 IMPs down, I think it is clear this hand screams for bidding a slam that may depend on getting the right lead. Meckstroth just jumped to 6♥. Partner's hand was x AQxxx QJxx xxx, and on the lead of the ♦A (from Qx xx ATxxx KT9x) the slam was reasonably good. It made, as the ♦K ruffed out.

It's hard to say how good this slam is, but I think a diamond lead is more likely than a club lead; opponents might be worried about declarer having xx in one of the minors, and will just try to cash tricks.

The swing story doesn't end here. You may recognize the opening leader's hand. Hamman opened it 1♦ white vs read in 3rd seat. I would suspect that this is not his normal action, but when needing a swing, this may seem like a good occasion. And indeed the auction timed out differently: 2♦ Michaels by Katz, 4♥ by Jacobs, all reasonable, and they never had a chance to duplicate the slam punt.

 

Board 4 generated a double part-score swing when, all vulnerable, Meckstroth opened 1♣ 3rd seat on Jx Kx AKJT9x Kxx, and of course bid 3♦ over 3♣ after his LHO showed the black suits. I am actually not sure whether this is a swinging action by Meckstroth, it might be just a normal 3rd seat 1♣ bid for them. Katz, instead, opened the "obvious" 1N, and was content with doubling Hamman's artificial 2♦ advance (probably pass/correct after Soloway showed clubs+higher with 2♣) instead of bidding on to 3♦. I wonder whether Katz tried to match the Meckstroth opening with 1N, but I rather supsect he considered it the right bid.

 

Board 5 was was pushed in 6♦, board 6 almost flat in a partscore, then board 7 was the 98x Jx Jx AK8752 hand opposite partner's 1H-then-2D-then-2S precision auction. Meckstroth didn't try to push it too hard, and went with the BBF plurality vote of bidding 2N.

Who knows maybe hearts don't break and I win a medium swing this way.

Well said (4-2), except that it also needed clubs (5-1) and diamonds (5-2) not to break, so the ♣K got ruffed at trick 2, and Jacobs eventually went down. (The play was interesting, but unlike GIB I can't fault Jacobs line.)

 

Board 8 was pushed, but the lead already down to 37 IMPs.

Board 9 surprised me as Rodwell bid 3N only with KQx KJxx xx AKQx opposite partner's red vs white 3♦ overcall of LHO's 2♠ opening. Maybe 4N is RKCB for them, but I would find it hard to believe that they have no way of showing a balanced slam invite. Partner probably would have passed quantitative 4N anyway with AT9 Ax KQT98 Txx. Yes, LHO (Garner) opened 2♠ on J87653 Txx Ax Jx. It may be worth noting that Hamman passed this, staying (I assume) consistent with his usual style, instead of trying to mix things up based on the SOTM. 3N at both tables, an overtrick IMP to Nickell.

 

Board 10 and 11 were also (almost) pushed, then board 12 came with the AQ9 v AQ3 AKJ7543 opposite partner's favorable 2/3♠ opening 1st seat. Both tables started with 4N (X) P, where pass probably showed one keycard. Meckstroth bid 7♠, Katz tried 5♥ and pessimistically gave up (by bidding 6♠) when this got doubled and Jacobs (who had opened 2♠ only) passed. Partner had KJ8543 843 T9xx v, so the grand is very good (and made).

 

Then came board 13, of which I gave the problem of a rescue plan with xx J742 AT543 53 opposite partner's 1♠ opening after 1S 1N (X) and penalty pass. Soloway bid 2♦, which got doubled by RHO. Weinstein redoubled, pulled 2♣ to 2♦ and partner with AT984 AT6 97 A84 corrected to 2♥, of course. [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sat984hat6d97ca84&s=s65hj742dat543c53]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Do you prefer to play in 2♥X N or 2♦ X S?[/hv] The correct answer is of course "in the suit that breaks", which was diamonds (3-3 instead of 5-1). So Soloways (better?) bidding decision led Nickell somewhat luckily to a 7 IMP gain (-200 instead of -500). Except that a (hard to understand) misdefense by Katz let Soloway make his contract, so the gain ended up being 12 IMPs.

(Probably irrelevant for the result, but nevertheless an interesting decision by Meckstroth: holding KQJ7x x K82 K962 he of course passed partner's double of 1♠ and doubled Garner's 2♣ runout after 1S P 1N X P P XX P 2♣, but less obviously he also doubled Garner's 2♥ correction after the 2♦-2♥ continuation, thus not giving away the 5-1 trump split.)

 

Board 14 was quite curious.Let's start with Hamman's play problem:

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sat984hat6d97ca84&s=s65hj742dat543c53]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Do you prefer to play in 2♥X N or 2♦ X S?[/hv]

♣Q goes to RHO's A; he returns the 7 which you duck to the J. LHO clears clubs by leading the 3, RHO pitching the ♠2.

 

I have no idea why, but Hamman decided to play the weak-2-opener for the ♦Q (diamond to king, diamond to the ten). Did Jacobs/Katz' carding give away the position? That seems hard to believe with ♦KJ974 in dummy. Did he try to go anti-percentage on purpose in order to create a swing?

 

If yes, he shouldn't have bothered: All white 1st seat, Meckstroth had opened a precision 2♣ on v A8532 xx QJT953. This time I have no idea whether that is a normal or s deliberate swing action for him. Rodwell responded 2♠, and Garner overcalled a natural 2N in sandwich position. Weinstein passed this with KT6 J74 KJ974 xx. I might raise a natural 1N overcall in this position to 3N, so I find Weinstein's pass highly surprising.

 

So Garner had quite different inferences and of course played Meckstroth for an opening bid by finessing him for the queen. Down 2 in 2N when that was wrong, whereas Hamman's seemingly anti-percentage play was right, making 3. Match tied.

 

Last board. Soloway/Weinstein have Qx xx AQx AKJ632 opposite partner's 1♥ opening bid. 1H 2C 2D, now Soloway bids 2N and Weinstein 3♣ (there are no alerts recorded but it could be that Weinstein's 2♣ was possibly artifical, and Weinstein thus constrained to bid 3♣). This leads to 3N by Hamway and 4♥ by Garner-Weinstein opposite T8 AQJ72 KT73 9x. Clearly Hamway ended up in the worse contract, but they made when the spades blocked.

 

Conclusions? Well that's why I am posting this in a forum, so that's up to you...

(I believe there is a BridgeWorld writeup of this set, too, maybe someone who has it can clarify/correct where I may mixed up things, or where the article may explain some of the players' intentions.)

 

(Edit: fixed partner's hand in board 3)

Edited April 8, 2007 by cherdano

[Fluffy]

Nice report

[pclayton]

Arend, this is a neat report, but I'm sure Meckwell wouldn't take all of these actions in a tight match.

[cherdano]

Arend, this is a neat report, but I'm sure Meckwell wouldn't take all of these actions in a tight match.

Of course that was the question I was interested in. What kind of swinging actions would they take, and what would be too crazy for them eve 70 IMPs down.