Swatting the MOSCITOs: Major swings

[hrothgar]

The MOSCITO team won Friday evening's match 66-19. There seems to be general consensus that partnership experience won out.

 

Here is a brief summary of the major swings. (Relatively few of them can be directly attributed to system)

 

Board 3 featured a 12 point swing for MOSCITO when 3NT was declared in different directions at the two tables.

 

Board 4 features an 11 point swing for MOSCITO based on some very pretty declarer play. The naturalist team blasted to 3NT via an uniformative 1NT - 3NT auction. However, the normal "4th best" opening lead allowed the MOSCITO to cash 5 hearts off the top. At the other table, a misunderstanding about BBO's alert feature lead Paul Marston of the MOSCITO team declaring 5D on a 4-3 Diamond fit, facing an ugly 5-1 split. Marston played the hand very nicely and brought a hard contract home. [NOTE: 5C is cold, however, I'd not sure how the auction would have gone if Marston and Hans understood the original 1D overcall]

 

Board 5 featured an 11 point swing natural bidding for the MOSCITOs when a stong club relay auction found a good 6H slam that was missed at the other table.

 

Board 12 was a 5 IMP swing for the Naturalists when natural bidding allowed Skystone to apply better judgement after a low level penalty double.

 

Board 19 featured a 12 IMP swing in favor of the MOSCITO team when Luis and Ana found a grand slam that was played at the 6 level at the other table. There was noting especially fancy in the bidding [Ana used Blackwood to ask for Aces and followed with 5NT to ask for specific kings]. At the other table, Skystone chose a to immediately bid to the 6 level. I suspect that if the naturalist pair had more practice together that Skystone would have chosen a slower route and found the Grand.

 

Board 22 featured a 7 Imp swing for the Naturalists.

 

After an 11+ -14 HCP 1NT opening, Inquiry made an aggressive 2H overcall showing Hearts and a minor on

 

98

K653

AQ2

J963

 

Gitelman jumped to 4H holding

 

632

AQ9

K8

AT872

 

And Inquiry rolled up the Moysian.

 

At the other table, NS played in 3C after a competitive auction.

[eyhung]

The MOSCITO team won Friday evening's match 66-19. There seems to be general consensus that partnership experience won out.

 

... *snip*

 

Board 19 featured a 12 IMP swing in favor of the MOSCITO team when Luis and Ana found a grand slam that was played at the 6 level at the other table. There was noting especially fancy in the bidding [Ana used Blackwood to ask for Aces and followed with 5NT to ask for specific kings].

 

I'm surprised you didn't attribute these IMPs to a system victory; I would! The natural pair had to deal with an "undisciplined" 2S opening with only 5 spades, the MOSCITO pair did not. Granted, a case can be made for the natural team also to open 2S with a tremendously offensively-oriented spade suit and favorable vul, but put it this way: there is no way a MOSCITO player would pass the hand, while there are many 2/1 players who would pass it. After 2 levels of bidding had been knocked out, I don't fault the natural pair at all for finding it difficult to bid the minor-suit grand slam.

 

Another hand that seemed system-related was the one you mentioned where the naturalists were able to better judge the auction.

 

Aside from these hands, I agree that system did not play much of a role in the match. I do disagree with your assertion that partnership unfamiliarity was the biggest factor. I can see at least 2 major and several minor cardplay/judgement errors made by the naturalists that led to a lot of the negative swings. The team that played the better bridge overall won, and congratulations to all of them!

 

Eugene Hung

[Erkson]

Hi, Eugene.

I can see at least 2 major and several minor cardplay/judgement errors made by the naturalists that led to a lot of the negative swings

 

I want to learn, and I will appreciate if you can be more specific.

 

TIA

Erkson

[hrothgar]

Hi Eugene

 

Here are my thoughts regarding the Grand Slam:

 

At one table the auction progressed

 

2S - (3C) - 3S - (3N)

P - (6N)

 

At the MOSCITO table, the auction was

 

P - (1D) - P - (1H)

2S - (3C) - P - (4N)

5H - ( P) - P - (5N)

P - (6D) - P - 7C

 

1D showed opening strength and denied a 4 card major

1H was a relay

 

Once South intervened with the 2S weak jump overcall, the auction is essentially in the same place. In each case, the 3C bid has showed a hand with long clubs. The major difference on this hand was judgement regarding how (and whether) to explore for the Grand.

[lifemonster]

I'd agree with hrothgar. The 2S preempt only made it EASIER to reach grand for the naturalists, because now the strong hand(holding AKQ in clubs), knows that partner overcalls 3C with length and can visualize source of tricks holding controls and honors everywhere . Leaping to 6NT is simply a too quick decision.

[PoorMe]

I may add to what lifemonster wrote...Those weak pre empts, which cannot win the auction only serve to give the ultimate declaring side a clear roadmap as to suit distributions and bad breaks and such.So in fact the pre empting side gains nothing but stands to lose more.I continue to be amazed at seeing that unsolicited information provided by the weak side in terms of winning the auction is not exploited to the max.If you are going to pre empt plan to win the auction !!!!

[the hog]

I think you have misunderstood what Hrothgar said.

Opening undisciplined waek 2s is hardly providing the ops with a blueprint of the distribution, when you consider that these weak 2s can range from 5332 to 5530 shapes. Whether you enjoy playing this style or not is another question. It is an interesting thought thought that legislation had to be introduced specifically to stop Marty Bergen from opening his "2 under" bids. Why? They were too successful

 

Far from "gaining nothing" the opening side forces the opponents to start their game investigations 2 levels higher. It is inevitable that they will get this wrong some of the time. To say that If you are going to pre empt plan to win the auction !!!! is an amazing statement if I interpret it correctly. Are you saying that pre empts should be constructive strongish openings? If this is the case you should be playing strong 2 bids.

If on the other hand you are suggesting that pre empts should always be classical in style, you are in fact making life too easy for the opponents. Read the Robson and Segal book for thoughts on that.

[eyhung]

Hrothgar, you are right (as usual). I naturally assumed that the scientists would have put the one extra round that they got to good use. So much for my attempt to give credit to the MOSCITO 2S preempt, even though I have argued against them in the past. :o Although, I think it is harder to bid the grand after a first-chair 2S opening, as not everyone will feel comfortable overcalling 3C unfav. with 7 small clubs, no singleton, and barely an opening in high cards. But once malucy found the 3C bid, you are right in that the auctions were essentially equivalent and the problem reduced to one of judgement.

 

Eugene Hung

[eyhung]

Hi, Eugene.

I can see at least 2 major and several minor cardplay/judgement errors made by the naturalists that led to a lot of the negative swings

 

I want to learn, and I will appreciate if you can be more specific.

 

Well, I don't want to get into a nitpicky criticism of every possibly incorrect bid or play. I myself have made more than my fair share of mistakes and blunders (including in analysis, as Hrothgar has just shown). The players also deserve a lot of credit for being willing to participate under the microscope of public scrutiny, often double-dummy. But I also don't want people to think that it was just partnership unfamiliarity and good play by the scientists that led to the lopsided result. In these following paragraphs I have tried to be fair and highlight a few "black mark" errors -- errors that (for good players) are hard to justify even at the table.

 

 

board 4 -- Hrothgar attributes this big swing to "pretty" declarer play. Perhaps I am missing something, but his line seems like the obvious line once a heart is not led. A "prettier" hand to me is North's play of 2NT on board 20, where he took advantage of a subtle defensive error to make an unmakeable contract and win 6 IMPs.

 

Instead, I feel the result of board 4 is more attributable to opening lead judgement and clearcut defensive error (and to N/S for reaching a contract where the defense is more likely to err). After E/W warned N/S about the heart suit by bidding hearts (which did not happen at the other table -- what happened to light initial action? :o ), it appears that the MOSCITO pair spent some effort in diagnosing whether they held a heart stopper for 3NT. (I would appreciate it if Hrothgar or someone who knows more about MOSCITO would confirm this.) They failed to find a heart stopper, so they chose to play in 5D. After such an auction, I believe the heart ace lead is strongly indicated. After all, if N/S held the king of hearts, wouldn't they have bid 3NT?

 

Furthermore, how is a passive club doubleton lead into dummy's first-bid suit likely to set the contract? It is more likely to blow the contract when declarer gets the tempo to pitch away heart loser(s) on surplus black-suit winners (diagnosed by the bidding). While there are no guarantees with opening leads, my judgement tells me the heart ace lead is a strong favorite to be the lead with the best chance of setting the contract/stopping the overtricks.

 

Also, even if you accept the actual club lead and play to the first 5 tricks, once West is in with a spade ruff at trick 5, the winning defense of a heart tap in dummy at trick 6 is findable. [The actual return of a low diamond allowed declarer to draw trump without loss and run clubs, a likely outcome given East's lead of the club ten at trick 1 and play of the diamond ten on the first round of diamonds.] Tapping the dummy gives up a ruff immediately, but ensures that the clubs will never run. West knows this because he is looking at the club queen, so he knows that declarer cannot come off the board in clubs without his being able to ruff in and clear the last trump. And if declarer leads his last diamond off dummy, he forfeits the second heart ruff and West will be able to get in with his natural trump trick (before clubs run) to cash a heart winner.

 

By the way, a pretty ending occurs if West returns the diamond KING at trick 6. Sacrificing the king appears to allow declarer to draw trump and run clubs, but the king lead blocks the suit and declarer cannot draw trump without letting West score a trump (and set up a 3rd winner in the process). However, I do not fault West for not finding this return -- I don't think I would at the table, and anyone who can is an excellent defender!

 

 

board 5 -- This slam should not be missed. At the very least, there should be a slam try somewhere. I recognize that bidding analysis is rarely as cut-and-dried as cardplay analysis, but any time you don't even try for slam with a double-fit, 31 mostly working HCP, primarily natural methods, and no interference, it's not system/partnership unfamiliarity, it's bad bidding judgement. I can't critique too many specific bids (as style and system sometimes dictate unusual choices), but East should have found another bid over 3H besides 4H. That bid is a real slam-killer, especially given that you're already in a game-forcing auction. 4C would be the most natural slam-going advance and gets across the source of tricks and prime values. Perhaps East did not know his partner held 3 hearts, but then 4C stands out even more as the best bid to find an 8-card trump fit.

 

Those were the 2 clear, major errors that led to big swings, here is an error that led to a small swing:

 

board 10 -- Even though it only cost an overtrick, West took a no-win line of play compared to other lines of play. The simplest superior line which succeeds as the cards lie is ruffing the third round of hearts "high" with the 6 instead of the 4 (which gets overruffed by the 5). Such a play can't cost as the remaining trump is about to be used to cross to hand to draw trump, and it wins against this particular layout. High praise to South for a devilish falsecard that lulled West into complacency, but this error should have been avoided. (Even though there are better lines, I would be more sympathetic to West's line if he had ruffed with the 6 -- it's not every day you get an opponent imaginative enough to throw the queen from a potential Q9!)

 

That's enough criticism for me. I hope this helps bolster the argument that cardplay and judgement play a much bigger role than system. Also I want to remind everyone that it is much easier to criticize in hindsight, and in no way do I think poorly of the players who have courageously given us material for discussion. (We all have bad days!)

 

Eugene Hung

[eyhung]

It is an interesting thought thought that legislation had to be introduced specifically to stop Marty Bergen from opening his "2 under" bids. Why? They were too successful.

 

Actually, my understanding is that their success was not due to theoretical merit, but to unfamiliarity. Once opponents realized they had two, or even three extra bids to use (and the ability to cue-bid at the same-level as the preempt!) they found the two-under preempts much easier to defend against than standard two-bids. For example, I know I would love it if my opponents used 2D or 3D to show spades. Now I can bid hearts a level lower, and cue-bid spades followed by hearts to show a really good heart hand without committing to a contract beyond game.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe the tournament bridge world is reasonably (not perfectly; reasonably) efficient in terms of success. If something truly provides a frequent and significant edge, I believe that it will eventually gain a significant following beyond the super-scientists. ("Hey, those guys keep winning a lot of IMPS from convention X! We should play convention X!") Look at how many people have adopted transfers, splinter bids, negative doubles, LOTT-based scrambling methods, etc. I don't see the same level of acceptance for Frelling or Tartan Twos. Part of the problem is the ACBL's restrictive GCC which stifles an experimental environment, but I also believe that part of the problem is that the new methods don't give enough of an edge to justify changing from the traditional methods (and by success, I mean success after opponents have had time to adjust to it.)

 

To conclude, if change doesn't provide a frequent, significant, and long-lasting edge, then the odds are against it. Machiavelli said about politics:

 

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.”

 

And I believe bridge is no different.

 

Eugene Hung

[Codo]

Hi Eugene,

 

you made some sharp analyses for some boards.

 

Board 4:

If your hand belongs in the NT range, you will always be in 3 NT with the N/S hands. If you can find out, that a heart stopper is missing with oponents silent, 5 Club is the place to be. But even there you need nice shapes to make it.

 

5 Diamond is a big error and worse then 3 NT.

So the mosquito reached a "worse" contract then the naturalist in my view.

 

But it is not so easy to defend as it seems to be looking at all four hands. But surely, a Heart lead is obvious after this auction and then the hand will be over in a second.

 

While Board 5 was played, I heard the following expert comments: Oh, he did bid 4 Heart? How could he, her surely is to blame for missing the slam.

 

AND: No, Malic. must bid more, because his pd showed....

 

Unluckily, both partners bid reasonable but their bids did not match together.

Your comments:

" I believe East did not know his partner held 3 hearts" and "I can't critique too many specific bids (as style and system sometimes dictate unusual choices)."

 

So you (or me or anyone else..) are not sure about

what 3 Heart or 4 Heart bid showed.

How could we... But we would be pretty sure, what it would be, if our standard pd. mhad made this bid.

 

So, there are some factors to miss the slam.

But I guess the biggest was to be unfamiliar with system and attitudes from pd.

 

Kind Regards

 

ROland

[eyhung]

 

Board 4:

If your hand belongs in the NT range, you will always be in 3 NT with the N/S hands.

 

Maybe not without some super-scientific gadgets (see the Lemmings articles in The Bridge World a few years back) but I agree with this for the most part; my impression is that these gadgets do great on a small subset of hands (where the offense is wide open in an unbid suit) and poorly on a larger subset of hands (by letting the opponents get off lead-directing doubles). The reason I brought it up was not to blame the Natural team for bidding 3NT, but because the hand argues for less action on the part of the opponents, which was a point of contention for this match. (One hand proves nothing, of course.)

 

If you can find out, that a heart stopper is missing with oponents silent, 5 Club is the place to be. But even there you need nice shapes to make it.

 

5 Diamond is a big error and worse then 3 NT.

 

 

Agreed, sorry I did not make this clear. All I said was that the board was lost partially because the MOSCITO N/S bid a contract that was more conducive to error in defense than 3NT. I did not attempt to justify 5D as a great contract, a good contract, or even an acceptable contract. My point was that 5D made not because of scientific bidding/pretty declarer play, but primarily because of mistakes by E/W.

 

 

But it is not so easy to defend as it seems to be looking at all four hands. But surely, a Heart lead is obvious after this auction and then the hand will be over in a second.

 

That's what I said. It is easy to defend on the "percentage" heart lead (I try to avoid using the word obvious, but I'm happy you think it is). And the trick 6 low diamond return is a cardplay error. It's not easy or "obvious" -- it requires thought, and reconstruction of the two unseen hands. But I believe good players will not return a low Diamond at trick 6 because 12 tricks are clearly in the bag for declarer after that return.

 

board 5...

 

So you (or me or anyone else..) are not sure about

what 3 Heart or 4 Heart bid showed.

....

But I guess the biggest was to be unfamiliar with system and attitudes from pd.

 

 

No, I agree the unfamiliarity was a factor, but given what I know of standard 2/1 agreements, the failure to make a slam try after 3H is just wrong. I seriously doubt 4H was a slam try just from looking at East's hand (surely a better slam try involves showing the good club suit, or diamond control, or the lack of spade control)

 

I'll concede one thing. If 4H is their slam-invite and West forgot, I will agree that the swing came from partnership misunderstanding instead of bidding judgement. And also from a poor slam-bidding style (system). :o

 

Eugene Hung

[hrothgar]

 

Actually, my understanding is that their success was not due to theoretical merit, but to unfamiliarity. Once opponents realized they had two, or even three extra bids to use (and the ability to cue-bid at the same-level as the preempt!) they found the two-under preempts much easier to defend against than standard two-bids. For example, I know I would love it if my opponents used 2D or 3D to show spades. Now I can bid hearts a level lower, and cue-bid spades followed by hearts to show a really good heart hand without committing to a contract beyond game.

 

Bergen was well aware that the the 2 under preempt style provided the opponents with many more ways to compete over a preempt. None-the-less, he conciously accepted this limitation because he felt that it was essential to have extra bidding room for an asking bid about the preempt. In effect, Bergen traded off preemptive effect for a dramatic increase in frequency.

[hrothgar]

 

I could be wrong, but I believe the tournament bridge world is reasonably (not perfectly; reasonably) efficient in terms of success. If something truly provides a frequent and significant edge, I believe that it will eventually gain a significant following beyond the super-scientists. ("Hey, those guys keep winning a lot of IMPS from convention X! We should play convention X!") Look at how many people have adopted transfers, splinter bids, negative doubles, LOTT-based scrambling methods, etc. I don't see the same level of acceptance for Frelling or Tartan Twos.

 

Eugene, I think that there is major flaw with the Darwinian model of bidding system proliferation that you propose: Specifically, you are assuming that new methods are actually given the chance to be introduced.

 

I have an extremely uncharitable view of the way that the ACBL Conventions Committee works based on multiple unpleasant run ins with certain members of this group. [Note: Fred who is a member of this committee has always been very helpful and very professional despite our radically different ideas about bidding system design] I think that the committee is dominated by a group of players whose basic goal is promoting stasis. They are at the top of the heap of US bridge and are not interested in allowing anything to upset the apple cart. The basic philosophy seems to be that players can use whatever “unusual” methods they want, so long as they are flawed.

 

Case in point: I spent a lot of time and effort designing the Frelling 2 opening structure. However, I never had the opportunity to test them in play here in the US since the Convention Committee refused to ever sanction a defense to them. Since then, the convention committee has pushed through an amendment to the ACBL Midchart that explicitly bans [“guts” may be a better word] assumed fit preempts. [The ACBL defensive database is a joke. The Convention Committee turned what was supposed to be a tool to develop improved defensive methods against unusual methods into a backdoor mechanism to do an end run around the Midchart and ban otherwise legal methods that Meckstroth/Martel don’t happen to approve of]

 

In a similar fashion, Jeff Meckstroth is now arguing that transfer opening bids of the type that are used in MOSCITO are too complex to be allowed in Midchart level ACBL events and need to be banned.

 

Survival of the fittest, indeed

[eyhung]

 

Eugene, I think that there is major flaw with the Darwinian model of bidding system proliferation that you propose: Specifically, you are assuming that new methods are actually given the chance to be introduced.

 

 

Well, Richard, I think I did say that part of the problem was the restrictive convention chart system (although I guess I should have mentioned the MidChart rather than GCC). And guess what? In 30 years you won't have to deal with many of your opponents anymore. Or, in 10-20 years, the people who have more to gain by change will outnumber the people who have more to gain by the status quo, especially given that the way that the Internet (and BBO) allows the free exchange of (bridge) information. Put it this way, if you start winning high-quality Internet tournaments (and they will come!) with your Frelling Twos for the reasons I described earlier, I don't care what the ACBL says, I'm adopting them. I need every edge that I can get!

 

Ultimately, I think this will be a problem that solves itself. As time goes by, I imagine that when our generation picks up bridge in their old age, they will come to it via the Internet, not via face-to-face. (Poker is experiencing similar growth via computers -- this year's world champion never played in a live tournament until the world championship!) Maybe BBO will one day supplant screens in tournaments, once more of the computer-phobic members die off, and convention defense will not be so problematic because then all the literature can be provided to the defender at the click of a mouse. I am willing to wait for a computerized bridge revolution. Time is on our side. :o

 

Eugene Hung

[eyhung]

[bergen was well aware that the the 2 under preempt style provided the opponents with many more ways to compete over a preempt. None-the-less, he conciously accepted this limitation because he felt that it was essential to have extra bidding room for an asking bid about the preempt. In effect, Bergen traded off preemptive effect for a dramatic increase in frequency.

 

I don't deny that the tradeoff is more frequent but less effective preempts. But where is Bergen now? He has retired from playing, he has never won a world championship, and I am pretty sure Larry Cohen, who played them with Bergen, no longer plays them because he thinks the theoretical downside does not make up for the increased preemption. Can you name one pair that regularly uses two-under preempts nowadays and wins American national events on a regular basis? I can't think of any.

 

Eugene Hung

[hrothgar]

Quick question for the peanut gallery: To what extent do top US pairs tend to vary their methods for World Events? My belief is that most US players use virtually identical systems in both North American events and non-North American events. [As we noted during the MOSCITO match, partnership experience with methods has an enormous impact on a pairs success] Given that the Midchart is allowed in so very few events here in North America, this, in turn, leads to North American pairs playing standard regardless of the technical merits of the different approaches.

 

As to 2-Under Preempts: I'm not sure whether they are technically sound. I agree that they never really caught on else where in the world. My own "best guess" is that they are superior to North American "standard" weak 2s, but no where near as efficient as some of the truely devastating methods that have been developed elsewhere in the world. For example, it can be demonstrated via Monte Carlo simulation that Ekrens type assume fit methods are both more frequent and "safer" [measured by the percentage chance of scrambling to either a 7+ or 8+ card fit at the 2 level than undisciplined preempts based on 5+ card suits].

 

Bergen 2 Under preempts represent an interesting idea that grew up in one of the backwaters of bidding theory. I'm not surprised that this failed to catch on, either within the US or outside.

[Antoine Fourrière]

It seems to me that a two-under pre-empt makes some sense at the two-level (say 2C for hearts, 2D for spades and 2H as a game force).

 

True, LHO can double to show 13-15+ balanced and pass then double for penalties, but responder may want to explore alternative denominations, the preempt is really effective only when partner can boost it at least to the three level, and there are also more tricks to win by playing from partner's hand.

 

But at the three-level, the opponents do suffer already, and you must not give LHO a second opportunity to enter the bidding. So I do not understand the persistence of Namyats.

 

As for the Darwinian thing, it will not apply within the ACBL, but to the ACBL (thanks to the Internet rather than to the new generation). And I would bet that thirty years from now, the Polish Club will have overthrown both Precision and American/French Standard and will be the system favored by conservative players.

[lifemonster]

As for Bergen 2-under, I think this is the way it works. Opener usually holds extremely weak hand so that responder passes frequently with hand would be routinely GF in standard weak two auction, and wait for opponents to balance then whip them.

 

For example, holding

A53

A

AK542

A965

after partner announces a "weak two" in spades, on a good day you can easily make slam vs disciplined 2S bidder. However, this is a pass to Cohen after 2D-2H-2S showing a minimum(90% of the time the 2H relay will get a reply of 2S minimum), then wait for Martel/Stansby to balance and hammer them for 1100.

[eyhung]

I am not sure how you drew the conclusion that "partnership experience with methods has an enormous impact on success" from the MOSCITO match. For the most part, what you call unfamiliarity, I call judgement (at least, on the 6NT vs 7C hand, and the 4H vs 6H hand.) In fact, when the partnership wasn't on the same wavelength (such as when inquiry overcalled a weak 1NT with a balanced, 4-4 <13 HCP hand and Fred put him in a hopeless game that made on the lead) the naturalists actually did a little better than their scientific counterparts.

 

 

As to 2-Under Preempts: I'm not sure whether they are technically sound. I agree that they never really caught on else where in the world. My own "best guess" is that they are superior to North American "standard" weak 2s, but no where near as efficient as some of the truely devastating methods that have been developed elsewhere in the world. .

 

By the way, I just asked Larry Cohen himself. As one of the most experienced practitioners of the convention, I think his views are extremely relevant. He replied :

 

With Marty, who liked to preempt on 'everything," 2-unders were maybe a 50-50 proposition. They let him make all kinds of preempts (good side). But, they made it much easier on the opponents (bad side). Not only does 2-under allow them more space, but it allows them "2 bites at the apple" -- they can act in direct or balancing seat.

 

Playing somewhat normal preempts swings the pendulum, in my opinion, against using 2-unders. It gives the opponents too much help and doesn't give us enough gain.

 

(That last paragraph is a little confusing, but what he is saying is that if your preempting style is undisciplined, they're a break-even proposition at best, but if your preempting style is disciplined, they're clearly inferior.)

 

Eugene Hung

[inquiry]

Actually Eugene, the game is not hopeless. It can not be beaten with the distribution that exist. I know luis was saying to the kibitizers that his CLUB King was the only lead that let me make it, but really, no lead can beat it.

 

Not that 2H's was the best bid ever made by mankind. I prefer DONT, where I could bid 2C, but we were playing BBO Advanced...so DONT wasn't an option.

 

Ben

[eyhung]

Sorry, for some reason I remembered trumps were 4-2 instead of 3-3.

 

Eugene Hung