[lamford]

We looked at this complicated hand in the analysis room and on Vugraph. In the latter, the contracts were 3NT and 4S, so the point-a-board was all that was at stake. The spade pips in the actual hand are Q98 with South, and East was the dealer, so has already passed. Other pip differences are immaterial. The hand was rotated 90^o here for convenience, and was an EW slam.

We thought that the right line was to set about ruffing two diamonds in hand, by playing the ace and another diamond at tricks two and three. Whether or not West plays the jack, I think it is right to duck in North, gaining when the spades are 4-1 and East has Kxx of diamonds. Also West may duck from Jxx(x) thinking you are on a guess, as the South hand is hidden. It would also be a tough defence to play the jack from KJxx and maybe only Dave Mossop would have found this. It would be harder still with a point-a-board element, as not playing the king might just let through an overtrick.

Assuming that the diamond loses to the jack in either hand and say a trump comes back, we win in North and ruff a diamond with the nine. Now we have to decide whether the trumps are 4-1. I think it is indeed, as gnasher says, right now to draw trumps, which works when clubs come in - including Jx, or there is a double squeeze. We also have what is just a simple squeeze when East has the king of hearts and four clubs. Lines which involve having to guess the layout by conceding a heart to the king seemed worse, assuming East will fire back a diamond often enough. Also the play will involve some guessing when the heart is ducked immediately after trumps are drawn.

The recorder did not get the full play, but I believe that Erik Salesminde (note the correct spelling) who I think was the only World Champion at the helm, followed the above line. I am waiting to see the record, which is being uploaded onto Cloud as I write, to check this.

[lamford]

MickyB, on 2013-October-29, 07:01, said:

What if East tanks, then wins the heart king and plays a diamond in tempo? [I was declarer vs PhilKing, declaring from the North hand - most, but not all, of his tank was before winning the heart].

Pity you had not both tanked a bit more about which direction you should be sitting at the start of the match.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 12:01, said:

The spade pips in the actual hand are Q98 with South, and East was the dealer, so has already passed. Other pip differences are immaterial.

The spade pips are actually Q93 with South, which I assume is what you meant to write (as I incorrectly put Q98 in the original post).
The club pips in hand are actually AQ104, which turned out to be material

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 12:01, said:

The recorder did not get the full play, but I believe that Erik Salesminde (note the correct spelling) who I think was the only World Champion at the helm, followed the above line. I am waiting to see the record, which is being uploaded onto Cloud as I write, to check this.

Or you can just ask Jallerton, who was West.
The Norwegian auction was
1C (natural or balanced) - 1H (spades)
1S (3 spades) - 4S
4NT - 5H (double)
5NT - 6C
6S - Pass

so Salesminde was also playing it by the short hand.
His line (which was very slow, he thought a long time about it) was:
heart lead to the queen and ace
ace of diamonds, 10 of diamonds, jack, low, low
8 of spades return won with the nine in hand
club to the king
diamond ruffed low
ace of clubs
<long think>
trumps

remember that the club suit was actually K82 opposite AQ104 and that declarer had not promised genuine clubs
On the king and ace of clubs LHO played the 7 and 9 of clubs. RHO played the 3 and 5 of clubs.

He clearly decided that the club pips indicated they were breaking 3-3

So maybe the kudos go to Jallerton for playing 7,9 from J976 in the suit. Sadly a bit too subtle for the 'best defended' award.

At our table, my partner also started by by playing on diamonds. He missed the chance to show off his brilliant card reading because West, the sponsor, didn't cover the 10 of diamonds with the Jack and it ran to East's king (!) He told me he hadn't decided what he was going to do if the queen of diamonds wasn't a winner after 3 rounds of the suit.

[Fluffy]

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 12:01, said:

We thought that the right line was to set about ruffing two diamonds in hand, by playing the ace and another diamond at tricks two and three. Whether or not West plays the jack, I think it is right to duck in North, gaining when the spades are 4-1 and East has Kxx of diamonds. Also West may duck from Jxx(x) thinking you are on a guess, as the South hand is hidden. It would also be a tough defence to play the jack from KJxx and maybe only Dave Mossop would have found this. It would be harder still with a point-a-board element, as not playing the king might just let through an overtrick.

If this happened in other parts of the world I'd be 100% sure that ruffing diamonds in hand is the line that makes, but you guys in England are a different species.

Now please, can someone tell me the lie out? its unfair everyone knows it but me

[FrancesHinden]

Fluffy, on 2013-October-29, 15:24, said:

[/size]

If this happened in other parts of the world I'd be 100% sure that ruffing diamonds in hand is the line that makes, but you guys in England are a different species.

Now please, can someone tell me the lie out? its unfair everyone knows it but me

I've just told you West's club holding.

West had

108
6xxx
J92
J976

so
- the double squeeze doesn't work
- if you knock out the heart and a diamond comes back you have to run it
- if you knock out the heart and a diamond doesn't come back, you squeeze East
- ruffing diamonds in hand works.

[Fluffy]

sorry, you posted while I was already typing.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 12:01, said:

The recorder did not get the full play, but I believe that Erik Salesminde (note the correct spelling) who I think was the only World Champion at the helm, followed the above line. I am waiting to see the record, which is being uploaded onto Cloud as I write, to check this.

The correct spelling of what? I was playing against world champion Erik Sælensminde.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2013-October-29, 16:51, said:

The correct spelling of what? I was playing against world champion Erik Sælensminde.

Frances had "Salsenminde" in the OP. The program has "Erik Saelensminde". I mistyped this (I should have copied and pasted), and I think that most non-Scandivanian sites avoid the ligature. If that is the right word!

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-October-29, 15:17, said:

The spade pips are actually Q93 with South, which I assume is what you meant to write (as I incorrectly put Q98 in the original post).

Yes, I noticed they were different, although I was not sure how significant, and transposed them when typing.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-October-29, 15:17, said:

The club pips in hand are actually AQ104, which turned out to be material

I did not think that AQ106 was materially different at the time, so did not comment on it.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-October-29, 15:17, said:

The Norwegian auction was
1C (natural or balanced) - 1H (spades)
1S (3 spades) - 4S
4NT - 5H (double)
5NT - 6C
6S - Pass

so Salesminde was also playing it by the short hand.
His line (which was very slow, he thought a long time about it) was:
heart lead to the queen and ace
ace of diamonds, 10 of diamonds, jack, low, low
8 of spades return won with the nine in hand
club to the king
diamond ruffed low
ace of clubs
<long think>
trumps

remember that the club suit was actually K82 opposite AQ104 and that declarer had not promised genuine clubs
On the king and ace of clubs LHO played the 7 and 9 of clubs. RHO played the 3 and 5 of clubs.

He clearly decided that the club pips indicated they were breaking 3-3

So maybe the kudos go to Jallerton for playing 7,9 from J976 in the suit. Sadly a bit too subtle for the 'best defended' award.

At our table, my partner also started by by playing on diamonds. He missed the chance to show off his brilliant card reading because West, the sponsor, didn't cover the 10 of diamonds with the Jack and it ran to East's king (!) He told me he hadn't decided what he was going to do if the queen of diamonds wasn't a winner after 3 rounds of the suit.

All very interesting, and many thanks for that extra information which is useful. I had one further thought that ducking the ten of diamonds even when it is covered by the jack is right, even when the coverer has KJxx, because he can still usually be squeezed in the minors.

It is indeed possible that Saelensminde formed the opinion the clubs were 3-3 from the carding. He might also have thought that jallerton was not on his side and had no duty to card honestly. I suspect he was just comparing the chances of the trumps being 3-2 with the combined chances of the clubs 3-3 and the squeezes and went for the latter. I don't think he should have played a second round of clubs, if he is intending to play trumps when both opponents follow, as he risks clubs 5-1 unnecessarily. And I don't think winning a bottle of champagne by choosing the potential squeeze figured. Also I think his play (of drawing trumps) is the right technical line as well, assuming the opponents are good players, as they were here. Gunnar came unstuck by playing for a misdefence by one or other of his opponents in a Six Diamond contract (against cjagger and jallerton I recall), and that is always a dangerous thing to do. It does not seem that either opponent should be giving true count in clubs and game theory is for them to play more or less randomly.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 19:06, said:

All very interesting, and many thanks for that extra information which is useful. I had one further thought that ducking the ten of diamonds even when it is covered by the jack is right, even when the coverer has KJxx, because he can still usually be squeezed in the minors.

I'm not sure this follows. The diamond menace is going to be isolated anyway after three rounds have been played.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 18:47, said:

Frances had "Salsenminde" in the OP. The program has "Erik Saelensminde". I mistyped this (I should have copied and pasted), and I think that most non-Scandivanian sites avoid the ligature. If that is the right word!

Yes, but maybe Frances mistyped it as well. If you are going to correct someone's spelling, at least make sure that the quoted "correction" is accurate.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 12:10, said:

Pity you had not both tanked a bit more about which direction you should be sitting at the start of the match.

22/50 might have been an OK score for Mike et al, since a member of the opposing team told me that they had had a good card at both tables...

FrancesHinden, on 2013-October-29, 15:17, said:

So maybe the kudos go to Jallerton for playing 7,9 from J976 in the suit. Sadly a bit too subtle for the 'best defended' award.

Perhaps this play was too late for the table monitor to pick up. The monitors are asked to record the play only to the first five tricks, and indeed the form they are given has room for only that number of tricks. For things that happen further on in the play, the analysts have to rely to some extent on the players themselves informing the analysts about their good plays (or even those of the opponents!) The form can be redesigned, though, if the players and analysts think it would be a good idea.

Years ago, the monitors were given hand records so that they could more easily follow what was going on. This practice was stopped during my tenure, for obvious reasons.

[PhilKing]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-30, 04:11, said:

22/50 might have been an OK score for Mike et al, since a member of the opposing team told me that they had had a good card at both tables...

22/50 was OK for us as well given the score ...

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-30, 04:11, said:

Perhaps this play was too late for the table monitor to pick up. The monitors are asked to record the play only to the first five tricks, and indeed the form they are given has room for only that number of tricks. For things that happen further on in the play, the analysts have to rely to some extent on the players themselves informing the analysts about their good plays (or even those of the opponents!) The form can be redesigned, though, if the players and analysts think it would be a good idea.

Years ago, the monitors were given hand records so that they could more easily follow what was going on. This practice was stopped during my tenure, for obvious reasons.

I think the monitors should be asked to record the entire play, even if only in words rather than the exact cards.

Also, the players should be encouraged to report good plays, either by themselves or by their opponents.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-30, 04:11, said:

22/50 might have been an OK score for Mike et al, since a member of the opposing team told me that they had had a good card at both tables...

It's surprising how often it happens that a team has a good card at both tables when both pairs have played in the same direction.

[MickyB]

gordontd, on 2013-October-30, 04:26, said:

It's surprising how often it happens that a team has a good card at both tables when both pairs have played in the same direction.

Indeed, it seems to have happened to both teams on this occasion!

[Actually my impression was that our teammates' card was pretty good, but I can't claim to have studied it very closely. Our card was negative.]

[MickyB]

lamford, on 2013-October-29, 12:10, said:

Pity you had not both tanked a bit more about which direction you should be sitting at the start of the match.

With all eight players sat down, we were NS and our teammates were EW. At this point, I stopped worrying about it!

[Vampyr]

PhilKing, on 2013-October-30, 04:15, said:

22/50 was OK for us as well given the score ...

You'd have been all right if they'd scored both teams 0.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2013-October-30, 04:26, said:

It's surprising how often it happens that a team has a good card at both tables when both pairs have played in the same direction.

I shall, if I have time, cross-IMP the pairs in the 22-22 match with the other pairs in the opposite direction. I think that the Lederer should have a cross-IMP table, but organisers have not bothered as far as I can recall.

In passing, I wondered whether that might be a fairer way of scoring a match played in the same direction as well, with a penalty deducted of up to 5 VPs for each team.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2013-October-30, 01:55, said:

I'm not sure this follows. The diamond menace is going to be isolated anyway after three rounds have been played.

Indeed; so even when the person finds the jack from KJxx, you will still make it by ducking unless he has the other heart honour and only two or fewer clubs. So that is more reason to duck the jack if it is played.