Things I learned watching Schwartz win the Spingold on BBO:

[biggerclub]

1) When your partner opens a weak 2 at fav vulnerability, raise to 4 immediately with 4 card trump support. -100 (4Sx) vs. +650 (5H). (Suits may have been switched. This is from the round of 16.)

 

2) When you put your OPPs to a guess by raising a 2S bid to 4S, let them play in 6C (key swing on board 62 (I think)) and don't guess again with 6S.

 

3) Sometimes, less science is better, making the defense more difficult. In one room auction is P P 1S P 2C (Rev Drury) P 2H P 2S P 4S. In other room, opener knows he is going to 4S and goes there without delay P P 1S P 2C (Rev Drury) P 4S. On the second auction, defense does not realize how critical it is to make a dangerous diamond switch to set up a trick. This is likely the board that sealed the match.

 

4) 5-4-4-0 is not as strong as it seems (KQT9x, AKxx, AKxx, -). Especially when partner responds with 2/1 GF in your void. Some kind of gadget to ask for Qs right away would be nice.

 

5) Even world-class players make really silly mistakes sometimes. Like playing to drop the QJ7 doubleton. (which obviously can never happen)

 

I wish I could find a super serious partner on the West Coast who wants to play in national class events. Forcing club, 4 card MAJ, canape.

[Fluffy]

5440 is way stronger when your fit is in a 4 card suit.

 

I had a lot of less science is better on my last tournament in Germany.

[1eyedjack]

Sometimes, less science is better,

......

 

I wish I could ... play ... Forcing club, 4 card MAJ, canape.

 

Hmmm

[jdeegan]

I have to agree with you on all counts. Bravo! Bridge is not chess. Precision, much less perfection, is difficult if not possible. The psychological aspect of the game is why it has endured.

[PrecisionL]

Good post.

 

What did you learn about slam bidding?

[Siegmund]

1) When your partner opens a weak 2 at fav vulnerability, raise to 4 immediately with 4 card trump support. -100 (4Sx) vs. +650 (5H).

 

When partner opens 2S, raise to 4S immediately.

 

When partner opens 2H, can consider raising to FIVE hearts, if you are confident your opponents are about to bid and make 4S if you don't. (Against weaker opponents who might miss game, you can consider bidding just three to leave them the option of stopping short.)

[biggerclub]

Good post.

 

What did you learn about slam bidding?

 

Sometimes a good to great slam goes down? Board 57.

 

Everyone seemed a bit in too much of a hurry to get to 7 on Board 61, but without some agreed upon Q ask that is going to come up about once every 10 years or so, hard to avoid.

[barmar]

I wonder if that grand slam board would have been a making push, instead of a down push, if it had come up at the beginning of the match, rather than at the end when the players were more exhausted.

[aguahombre]

1) When your partner opens a weak 2 at fav vulnerability, raise to 4 immediately with 4 card trump support. -100 (4Sx) vs. +650 (5H). (Suits may have been switched. This is from the round of 16.)

I have found this to be successful at any vulnerability. For those who like "rule of" stuff, we call it the rule of 2/3/4..the numbers are the level to bid= the number of trumps held opposite the weak two.

 

However, it seems to fail when Opener doesn't believe in the Rule of 2 & 3: "Preempts should make life difficult for two people at the table, not three." When the weak two has the wrong number of trumps or has scattered face cards, partner is left to roll dice.

[ArtK78]

I wonder if that grand slam board would have been a making push, instead of a down push, if it had come up at the beginning of the match, rather than at the end when the players were more exhausted.

While one of the declarers did take a nullo line, the commentators correctly noted that it was right to go after diamonds rather than hearts due to the presence of the 8 of diamonds. For it to be correct to go after hearts, the QJ of hearts would have to be onside (as they were), and the hearts would also have to break 3-3 (which they did). However, for diamonds to be the right suit to go after, the QJ of diamonds would have to be onside (which they were not), and the suit would have to break 3-3 OR the other defender could have a doubleton 7 of diamonds and only 2 trump. This would allow declarer to pick up the diamond suit without suffering an adverse ruff.

 

Unless I am mistaken, the commentators didn't mention the fact that the defender with the (presumed) 7x of diamonds would have to have only 2 trump for this extra chance to come in. But an extra chance is an extra chance. It makes one line better than the other.

 

So, it is likely that declarer would take only 12 tricks even if the hand had occurred earlier in the match.

[biggerclub]

While one of the declarers did take a nullo line, the commentators correctly noted that it was right to go after diamonds rather than hearts due to the presence of the 8 of diamonds. For it to be correct to go after hearts, the QJ of hearts would have to be onside (as they were), and the hearts would also have to break 3-3 (which they did). However, for diamonds to be the right suit to go after, the QJ of diamonds would have to be onside (which they were not), and the suit would have to break 3-3 OR the other defender could have a doubleton 7 of diamonds and only 2 trump. This would allow declarer to pick up the diamond suit without suffering an adverse ruff.

 

Unless I am mistaken, the commentators didn't mention the fact that the defender with the (presumed) 7x of diamonds would have to have only 2 trump for this extra chance to come in. But an extra chance is an extra chance. It makes one line better than the other.

 

So, it is likely that declarer would take only 12 tricks even if the hand had occurred earlier in the match.

 

I took the question to be about the bidding than the play. I can see Monaco stretching for a swing at that point. And Schwartz knowing that for bidding on with a very close hand (at worst).

 

If you knew that partner had zero Q's, it would be an easy stop.