Jan 27-28 -- Clogged Arteries

Points Summary
♠     ♥     ♦     ♣	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	Total
Earned This Time			1.22		1.22
Earned Since Last Update				.84	.84
Earned Earlier This Year	3.78	9.75		.23	13.76
Total Earned This Year	3.78	9.75	1.22	1.07	15.82
Earned Prior to This Year	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	15.19	54.76	23.20	18.46	111.61
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	9.81	0.00	26.80	151.78	188.39

Advance Planning

I had arranged to play at the Sectional Tournament an hour away, at a Friday night pairs game wih "W," and for Saturday morning and afternoon pairs games with "E." "W" was not available to play in Sunday's Swiss Teams, and I needed some pairs competition with hand records with both "E" and "W," so I arranged my calendar to fit with each of them and this was the result.

"W" was able to play Friday afternoon, and drove to the tournament in midday traffic to play in that session. I had to drive there Friday after work. I left the office shortly after 5 p.m. for the 7:30 p.m. game. I arrived at about 7:00, having spent almost two hours in lots of bumper-to-bumper traffic, far too much of it at stop-and-go speeds on Interstate highways.

Overall Results

"W" and I played in the Non-Life Master Pairs, in Strat A as each of us has over 100 Masterpoints. This was W's choice, not mine. I would have competed in Open Pairs, but W felt we had a better chance of winning points against competition with fewer Masterpoints. We finished with an above-average game, but did not win points as the field was so small.

The drive home, and the Saturday commutes, were each less than an hour.

"E" and I played 1n the only Saturday morning session, Open Pairs, in Strat C (less than 500 Masterpoints). We finished third overall in Strat C, and won the 1.22 Silver Masterpoints.

For lunch, we went across the street to a fast food place where I purchased a "fish sandwich" -- probably fish pieces formed into a frozen patty-shaped blob, then boiled in oil; served with some "processed cheese food" melted atop, and some greasy imitation-mayo-based sauce, on a bun. Just thinking about it, I'm sure, hardens my arteries.

In the Saturday afternoon session, we played in the 0-500 Masterpoint game, rather than the 0-300 game; this time my choice. We had a terrible result, less than forty percent.

Despite playing only three sessions in this seven-session sectional tournament, I earned more masterpoints than 54.3 percent of the participants. E also beat 54.3 percent of the participants, while playing in only two of the seven sessions. Still, coming up pointless in two of three sessions was a disappointment to me.

Tournament Summary
♠   ♥   ♦   ♣		Overall				Section				♠♥♦♣
Session	Pctg	Size	Strat A	Strat B	Strat C	Size	Strat A	Strat B	Strat C	MP's
Fri eve	51.25	12	7	n/a	--	6	3	n/a	--
Sat am	53.60	28	11	7	3	14	6	5	2	1.22
Sat aft.	37.12	26	25	--	--	13	13	--	--

Missing Tools

My new partners and I have not had enough discussion and practice to complete a bidding system. One board's terrible result this weekend shows me that one of the areas in which we are deficient is slam bidding.

Slams are relatively unimportant in a Matchpoint Pairs game, as each hand counts the same as any other hand. In team games, though, slams are of vital importance. Bidding game and making slam vs. bidding and making slam costs one slam bonus, which is anywhere from 500 points (non-vulnerable small slam) to 1500 points (vulnerable grand slam). These translate into 11 to 17 IMPS, often more than the margin of victory in a Swiss or Knockout match.


Here's the hand:

         ♠ (void)  ♥ J 6  ♦ A K Q 10 6 4 3 2  ♣ A Q 3

With two aces and the ♣ K in my partner's hand, I can risk 7 NT; ♥ A K and ♣ K makes 7 ♦ a strong bet; just ♥ K Q and ♣ K makes 6 ♦ a strong bet. My partnerships don't have the tools to find specific key cards. A Schenken 2 ♦ bid and its responses would have done the trick, but that bid is not in our arsenal and probably won't be added. The 2 ♦ weak two bid (Howard Schenken also invented the weak two bid) occurs much more frequently. Here was our auction:

North	East	South	West
Double Pass Pass Pass	Pass 4 ♠ 5 ♠ 6 ♠ Pass	1 ♦ 5 ♦ 6 ♦ Double	2 ♠ Pass Pass Pass

I decided to open the hand 1 ♦ because North's response to a 2 ♣ bid won't tell me about specific key cards, and the hand is far too strong to open with a pre-emptive bid at any level.

By the time the auction got around to me again, I knew from the negative double that North had something in the rounded suits, but I had no way to pinpoint key cards in North's hand. My 5 ♦ bid was a poorly educated guess. The alternative, a 4 NT bid to ask for aces, would have yielded no useful information if North held exactly one ace. The ♠ A would be useless; the ♥ A would tell me that bidding 6 ♦ would probably yield success. North's one-key-card-showing 5 ♦ bid would not tell me which Ace North holds.

East's continuing in spades told me East had no defense, and I figured a weak jump overcall opposite a hand with no defense gave North's hand enough key cards that I could persevere to 6 ♦. After East bid slam as well, I did not dare chance a possible minus score by bidding a Grand Slam opposite North's unknown holdings, so I doubled to get the largest possible plus score. If we had discussed and understood the "forcing pass," I would have passed and left the choice to North -- a much better option.

North and I went terribly wrong; our +800 for setting East-West four tricks beat only one pair in our section. The ten pairs who beat us were all making slam; top score was 2220 for 7 NT bid and made. Second score was 2140, a minor suit grand slam bid and made. Four pairs bid 6 NT and made 7; four bid a minor suit small slam and made 7.

The hand was difficult even at higher levels; in the Flight A/X Pairs, only three of nine pairs bid and made a grand slam; four bid the small slam and took all thirteen tricks; one was in a minor suit game making 7; one was setting an E-W pre-empt. In the Flight B Pairs, two of nine were in a minor suit grand slam; four in a small slam; one in game; and two setting E-W pre-empts. In the 0-300 game, no one bid a grand slam.

North's hand:

         ♠ A J 8   ♥  A Q 7 3   ♦ 7   ♣ K J 7 4 2

What I missed
Thanks to our local Unit President for pointing out my now-obvious error on the auction. I should have bid 4 NT instead of 5 ♦ -- this would have shown North that I had a strong hand. If North replied showing zero key cards (5 ♣) or one key card (5 ♦), I could just place the contract at 5 ♦ and leave it there. When North instead would bid 5 ♥, showing two key cards, I could bid 5 NT and North should show the ♣ K. Then I can count 1 Spade, 1 Heart, 8 Diamonds, and 3 Clubs and bid 7 NT. Even if East interferes with a 6 ♠ bid over North's 5 ♥, we may still get to the Grand Slam. I bid 6 NT, and North may figure that between his ♣ K and his ♥ Q we have a thirteenth trick and come up with the 7 NT bid. I couldn't do this 4 NT bid if my suit was Clubs, but with Diamonds the 4 NT bid makes sense.

Knowing we went wrong is one thing; knowing why, where, and how we went wrong, and what to do to correct this, is a significant challenge at this point in my development as a bridge player. Our slam bidding tools are weak; competition from the opponents clogged the auction and made things worse for us.

Next Steps

• Learn more about state-of-the-art slam bidding, both from Hardy's Advanced Bridge Bidding for the Twenty-First Century and from the Bridge World Standard system.
  
• Find the time to discuss slam bidding with my regular partners, reach clear agreements and add them to our convention cards.
• Continue to play with my regular partners as often as possible, especially where hand records are available.

Last Word

Fewer Masterpoints are available in Sectionals than in Regoinals (fields are smaller). Still, I need to earn morre points per Sectional than the 1.22 I earned at this one, or I will not reach my Silver Point requirement for Life Master.

Local Sectionals provide much better commutes, better hospitality, larger fields (almost 200 more players at the Jan 5-8 local than at the Jan 26-28 an hour away), and more familiar players than the ones an hour's drive away. I can also generally play in more sessions locally. If I can earn enough Silver Points locally, I'll skip the Nov. 17-19 sectional.

The coastal resort Regional is next on my schedule, with the 2-hour drive to a sectional en route. I have no firm arangements yet for this Regional, but may go even with none and do what I can with pick-up partners and teammates. I'll certainly test my stamina with eight straight days of competition if I do go!

Many thanks to W and E for agreeing to take the time to play, and for their continued willingness to work with me to learn and improve and seek Masterpoints.

Jan 23 -- Another Goal Attained

I qualified for the Grand National Teams.

Points Summary
♠     ♥     ♦     ♣	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	Total
Earned This Time		.23		.23	.46
Earned Earlier This Year	3.78	9.52			13.30
Total Earned This Year	3.78	9.75		.23	13.76
Earned Prior to This Year	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	15.19	54.76	21.98	17.62	109.55
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	9.81	0.00	28.02	152.62	190.45

Advance Planning

Monday night a local club was holding a GNT qualifying Swiss Teams tournament. W and I looked for local teammates at the Regional over the weekend (starting, of course, with E and E), but found none. I sent e-mails and made phone calls during the day Monday, but still came up empty. W didn't want to take "pot luck" on teammates, so decided not to participate. I showed up at the club alone, and found yet another E, also with few points, ready to play but without a partner. I knew this E from the Unit game and sectionals, and I had played with this E once a few months ago in my capacity as Guaranteed Partner. We had had a good session then. The game's manager paired us up, and teamed us with a more experienced pair with more masterpoints.

Overall Results

Our team finished with 40 Victory Points in four six-board matches, an average result. We finished 10th of 20 teams. The two teams we beat finished 18th and 20th, the two that beat us finished first and second. Tenth of twenty was good enough to qualify for the GNT in any stratum. Our teammates can only play in Strata A and B, but E and I can play in Stratum C as well. Each of the team members qualified as individuals, so we can arrange to play in the GNT with anyone we choose. Although our results in terms of masterpoints earned wasn't much, I still include it at the top of this post.

Session Summary scoring = Victory Points 6 boards per match
Match	IMPs	VPs	Total VP's
1	27 -  2	19 -  1	19
2	11 - 24	5 - 15	24
3	0 - 20	2 - 18	26
4	20 - 11	14 -  6	40

Two Free Lessons

In our third match, E and I faced a well-known local teaching professional player and his student partner. This player often gives free lessons to novice players at our unit game and local sectional tournaments. We got free lessons from him on two hands. On the first, the auction went:

North	East	South	West
Pass Pass Double Pass Pass	1 ♠ 2 ♦ 3 ♥ Pass 5 ♦	Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass	1 NT 3 ♦ 3 NT 4 ♦ Pass

I don't remember all the cards in my West hand, but I do remember my club suit: ♣ K Q. I had figured correctly that the pro doubled our 3 NT on a long club suit and an outside entry. After the hand he explained his action in terms of gaming theory and "sharing the risk." If he was sure to set the hand, he would not have doubled but just played and taken his profit. His double was because he was unsure of setting the hand. After his double, the situation was risky for both sides. He risked our making the contract; we risked a large penalty for going down. Unwilling to face that risk, I pulled to four diamonds and E put us in game at five. We lost the board by 1 IMP; his teammates played at 3 NT and made an overtrick. It turns out that after North's club lead East-West can take ten tricks without giving up the lead: one club, five diamonds, and four hearts.

The second lesson was also on bidding. The West hand:
      ♠ 4 3 2   ♥ Q 7 6 5   ♦  A J 7 2   ♣ A 7
The auction:

North	East	South	West
Pass Pass	1 ♦ 2 ♦	Pass Pass	1 ♥ ??

I bid 3 ♦ which was passed out. My 3 ♦ bid was not forcing, and did not give East enough useful information to enable further bidding. What should I have bid? The pro says 3 NT, and here's why. If I bid 3 ♣, invitational and showing a club stopper, then North will either double or not, thus telling South which black suit to lead after East bids 3 NT. I can draw the inference after North's second bid that neither North nor South has a spade suit with any honors and as long as five cards, as neither North nor South has overcalled with a 1 ♠ bid. Worst case, the spade suit is wide open and splits 4-4. Indeed I should have drawn that inference; with the lesson and more playing experience I'll improve in this area.

Last Word

My partner E is willing to play with me on a fairly frequent basis; now I have someone else on whom to call besides W. As with W, E and I will need much practice and discussion to improve our partnership. Thanks, E!

Jan 20-22 -- Reached Regional Master Title

Points Summary
♠   ♥   ♦   ♣	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	Total
Earned This Time	2.48	8.28			10.76
Earned Earlier This Year	1.30	1.24			2.54
Total Earned This Year	3.78	9.52			13.30
Earned Prior to This Year	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	15.19	54.53	21.98	17.39	109.09
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	9.81	0.00	28.02	153.08	190.91

Advance Planning

Thanks to a local director and teacher with whom I'm sharing my quest, I found a new local partner willing to work with me to build a partnership and progress in our goals -- my new partner wants to earn enough Gold Points for Life Master this year. We are both eligible to play in 199er games, but usually prefer to seek better competition. Our skill sets appear to vary and are complementary in many ways. We should be able to learn from each other and both improve through a partnership. I may find time to write more on this later. This new partner, called "W" here, will be known to local players. During the week, we made arrangements to travel to the Regional on Friday. The tournament started on Monday, so on our arrival we knew we would find many players already there. We drove down and upon arrival began seeking teammates for the bracketed knockout teams. W wanted teammates at about our level. Fortunately we found another pair from our area, E and E, at about our level, also seeking teammates. They were delighted to join up with us, and the four of us played team events for the remainder of the tournament.

Overall Results

We did well enough in our three events to win points in each, including some gold in the first. Counting each three-way match as two matches, we played thirteen matches, winning eight and tieing another, losing only four. All were delighted! Despite playing only three days in this seven-day regional tournament, W and I earned more masterpoints than 64.2 percent of the participants. Our teammates E and E, who arrived and played earlier, earned more masterpoints than 75.46 percent of the participants. I won almost ten percent of my masterpoint total at this one tournament!

• Friday-Saturday Bracketed Knockout teams
  
  Our team played in the bracketed knockout teams that started Friday afternoon. Because of our relatively small number of total masterpoints (we estimated less than 400), we were in the sixth bracket of six. Instead of the maximum of 16 teams, this bracket had twelve. The Friday afternoon session was four three-way matches, each of which would advance two teams to Friday night's quarterfinals. We split the three-way match, as did the other two teams. Fortunately, we did not lose the tie-breaker, and thus moved on to the quarterfinals, where we won. All were delighted at being guaranteed Gold Points, as the top four teams in bracket all win at least some gold. Saturday afternoon we returned to the fray, and won our semi-final match. There's a lot to be said for being improving players and playing against others at our current masterpoint level; we can expect that few if any of our competitors will totally outclass us. Saturday night's final was hard-fought, and we lost by about 25 IMP's. Change two bad boards to pushes (equal results at both tables) and we would have had a narrow win. Still, all were delighted at the 7.45 masterpoints for finishing second, especially the 2.48 gold included. For W, it was the first award of at least one gold point. One of the E's and I both went over 100 masterpoints total with these masterpoints, each becoming Regional Masters.
  
  

  Knockout Summary -- scoring = IMPs 24 boards per match 12 boards per match in a three-way match
  Match	Boards	IMPs
  1 a (RR)	12	35 - 14
  1 b (RR)	12	24 - 28
  2	24	92 - 49
  3	24	84 - 50
  4	24	48 - 70

  
  
  
• Red Ribbon Pairs Qualification
  
  In an unexpected surprise, I found that our second-place finish gives each of us a Red Ribbon Pairs qualification. This is my first Red Ribbon Pairs qualification. The Red Ribbon Pairs is held each year at the Spring National Tournament. It's a two-day, four-session Nationally rated event, open to qualifying players with under 2000 Masterpoints. The applicable "fine print" from the ACBL web site is the last of eleven ways to gain eligibility to compete in the Red Ribbon Pairs; here it is:

  11. First and second in any bracket of a bracketed KO which does not award 100% gold points for overall placing when no member of the team has more than 1500 masterpoints.

  As the Red Ribbon Pairs is held the two days immediately before the North American Pairs (NAP) flights B and non-Life Master, I now have two events at the Spring Nationals in which to compete in 2007 if I make my goal of winning my District's competition for the NAP.
  
  
• 0-300 Sunday Morning Swiss Teams
  
  After a long discussion in which the other three seemed to reach a consensus, I went along and we all agreed to play in the 0-300 Swiss Teams on Sunday. Although going against my "compete against the best" decision, this gave us the best chance to win more points. Only red points are available in 0-300 games, so we would win no more gold at this regional. Playing in the open Swiss Teams could have resulted in more gold points, but the competition would have been much better and we would have had much more difficulty in winning enough matches by a large enough margin to place overall in even the lowest stratum awarding gold.
  
  In the Swiss, we won our first match by a large amount, and did almost as well in the second. For the third match, we were up against a highly regarded team from our area. We lost a close match, but retained the overall lead. We won the final match and the overall title, adding 2.83 red points to our take.
  
  

  Session Summary scoring = Victory Points 6 boards per match
  Match	IMPs	VPs	Total VP's
  1	21 - 1	18 - 2	18
  2	22 - 3	17 - 3	35
  3	2 - 4	9 - 11	44
  4	43 - 6	20 -0	64

  
  
  
• Sunday Afternoon 0-300 Swiss Teams
  
  We started the afternoon with a three-way match (in Swiss Teams the three-way matches take up two rounds), and lost one and tied the other. In the third round, we were again placed in a three-way match. We won both matches, but finished just one Victory Point short of an overall award. Still, we earned 0.48 more Red Points for our two match victories and one tie.
  
  

  Session Summary scoring = Victory Points 6 boards per match
  Match	IMPs	VPs	Total VP's
  1 (RR1)	13 - 27	4 - 16	4
  2 (RR1)	13 - 13	10 - 10	14
  3 (RR2)	16 - 12	12 - 8	26
  4 (RR2)	14 - 6	14 - 6	40

Lessons being Learned

• I was more aggressive and decisive, taking the extra bid several times. Once it came back to bite us, many of the other times the results were very good.

More Lessons to be Learned

• W says I am poor at opening leads. I'll study what Kantar writes about opening leads in "Defensive Tips for Bad Card Holders" and see how that helps me improve.
  
  
• I have a long way to go to match W in geniality, hospitality and table manners. W provides a good example for me to emulate; all appreciate bridge players who are unfailingly polite and cheerful.
  
  
• There's much work to be done to build a successful partnership; W and I will try to play in pairs events which provide hand records; this will be invaluable in analyzing results. We expect that such analysis will help us to work out firm partnership agreements in bidding and play, and to recognize and correct errors.
  
  
• I will probably need more partnerships with more players, as W is not available at the local Unit Game, plays fairly regularly with other local players, and may not be able to play as my partner in some of the tournaments on my tentative schedule.

Last Word

If my goal is ten Master Points per tournament, I reached that goal at this one. Finding W was a tremendous help this weekend; playing with W or other frequent partners of similar or better ability in future tournaments should give an excellent chance of similar results.

I am very grateful to W, E, and E for the entire tournament experience. I could not have found such excellent companions had I ventured to the tournament on my own. Winning points was of course the goal of each, and all are pleased to have won so many -- but the fact that we are all from the same area, all have close to the same number of masterpoints, and all enjoyed ourselves both at and away from the bridge table added much to the experience. I hope that we'll be frequent partners and teammates in the future. Thanks, W, E, and E!

Why Set a Goal and Make It Public?

I found this James Shackleton article, "Never be afraid to fail," on James Cozens' pages. Since I haven't asked for permission to copy, I'm posting the link (click on my blog entry title above).

Boston -- I coulda been a contendah!

Points Summary
	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	total
Earned	1.30	1.24			2.54
Before	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	12.71	46.25	21.98	17.39	98.33
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	12.29	0.00	28.02	161.36	201.67

Session-by-session

• Friday Afternoon
  I arrived short of sleep and fighting a cold. I intended to play in the Friday afternoon side game, but got paired with a gentleman in the novice game. We had a good time putting together a convention card; he has also been reading the Max Hardy books on two-over-one. We had an up-and-down session, he was consistent and I wasn't. End result was fifth overall in the session, winning points. He mentioned calling me to partner for the Sunday pairs games, but we both ended up playing in the Ethel Keohane Individual instead.
• Friday Evening
  Friday night I found another pickup partner at the partnership desk, and we hooked up with another pair for the B/C Bracketed Knockout Teams. We had a good first half, and were ahead by eight IMPS at the half. We lost the second half by a bundle, though, losing the match by 17 IMPs.
• Friday Night
  I appreciated the loss from a personal health standpoint; I was able to get a good night's sleep Friday night and have a leisurely Saturday morning. A 9 a.m. match would have meant much less sleep and a much more rushed morning.
• Individual Competition
  I remember many years ago when this regional tournament was four sessions of Individual, with well over a dozen sections. Saturday was the open, Sunday was Finals and Consolation. Times have changed, and so has the tournament. Now most come to play in the knockout games, and there are side pairs games every session and a full set of novice (299er) games as well. Now the Individual is two tournaments, Saturday and Sunday, with the trophy going to the player with the best overall percentage in both tournaments. This year's individuals were only THREE sections, with enough dropping out to provide only two sections for the final session. Apparently the pursuit of Master Points and titles is now paramount; playing Tournament Bridge for fun is no longer popular.
• Saturday Afternoon
  Saturday morning's session was good; I finished second overall in my section and was at that point third overall in Strat C (0-200 points). I made one terrible bidding error that cost me 8.5 matchpoints, otherwise I would have had a section top.
• Saturday Evening
  After the Saturday dinner break with friends, I had a good but not great second session. I think the last board was fouled somehow, costing me a bottom. Even so, I had fourth overall in the section, and in Strat C for the tournament. If my result on the probably fouled board had only been average, and I had bid correctly on that one board in the afternoon session, I would have at least tied for fifth overall. "If only" -- sad words.
• Saturday Night
  I got little sleep, and did not sleep well. I had to rise early on Sunday for Mass and breakfast before the 11 a.m. start of competition.
• Sunday
  I haven't looked at the details of Sunday's two sessions, but I was below average in each. In between sessions, I went to a relative's for a quick visit and sandwich.

Tournament Summary
Scoring	Pctg/ IMPs	Overall				Section				MP's
		Size	Strat A	Strat B	Strat C	Size	Strat A	Strat B	Strat C
Friday Afternoon 299er Pairs
MPs	52.08	24				12	5	?	?	0.31
Friday Evening B/C Bracketed KO Teams (4)
IMPs	49 - 66	16	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Saturday William Keohane Individual
MPs	59.09	43	11	5/7	3	15	2	1	1	1.30 0.23
MPs	53.79	41	?	?	4	13	4	3		0.70
Sunday Ethel Keohane Individual
MPs	47.32	35				11
MPs	44.32	32				15

A note about the Masterpoint awards, as it confused me. How was it that I got both gold and red points on Saturday afternoon? The answer is that second place in Strat A is worth more points than first in Strat B, but only section firsts get the gold points. ACBL regulations say "Gold points are awarded for overall positions and for section firsts in all two-session regional-rated events with an upper limit of at least 750 masterpoints at NABCs and regional tournaments." Strat B's upper limit is 750 points. So my total points of 1.53 were awarded as 1.30 gold (for winning Strat B) and the rest (0.23) red to make up the total for second in Strat A.

Lessons to be Learned

• I play better when I am both healthy and well-rested
• Be consistent. Practice will build consistency.
• Be aggressive and decisive. If it's a close decision, it's usually better to bid than to pass
• Always check the results and report errors, ASAP after the results are posted
• Continue to study both bidding and play. There are always ways to improve bidding; many are found in books or on the Internet
• Study results of each board, to spot and learn from errors in bidding and play

Last Word:
I must perform better to reach my goal; less than three points per tournament -- less than .5 points per session -- just won't be enough. If I play in only 20 of the remaining 27 tournaments on my tentative schedule, I'll need to average over ten points per tournament to reach my goal. It's time to lean and apply the lessons, so I can begin to see the improved results I need.

Scoring

Scoring

In competitive Bridge, competition is based on who does better holding the same cards. Thus, for each hand, the same cards are played multiple times. In team games, they are played twice; in pairs and individual games, they are played as many times as there are rounds of competition for the session. In most ACBL multi-section games, the same hands are played in every section. The cards for each trick are played face up in front of each player rather than thrown into the center of the table. After the trick is over, each player turns the card played from his or her hand face down in front of him or her, pointed in the direction of the side that won the trick. Thus at the end of the hand it is easy to count the tricks won and lost by each side. When play of the hand is complete, each player stacks the cards from his/her hand and replaces them in a "Duplicate Board," a metal or plastic container with four compartments, in which the cards are passed to the next table. Thus a bridge hand, called a board, can be played over and over again.

In Individual or Pairs games, a single session is usually between 22 and 26 boards.

In Knockout Teams competitions, a single match is usually 24 boards; for major games at national and international competitions a match can run over more than one session and be much longer.

For Swiss Teams, matches are usually between 6 and 11 boards. I've only played in 6-board or 7-board matches; these run four matches to a session. A Swiss Teams event on the final day of a tournament is often a play-through event of seven matches, with a half-hour or shorter break for a quick meal on-site after three or four matches.

Types of Scoring

• Matchpoints
  
  Individual and Pairs competitions are scored by Matchpoints. Each board is played some number "n" of times, at "n" tables. All North-South pairs playing the board have some "raw" score on the hand, and each one's Matchpoint score is simply the number of (North-South) competitors this pair's raw score beats. The East-West pairs are scored the same way; each pair's Matchpoint score is the number of East-West pairs the pair's raw score beats. For example, if a board is played eight times, the top possible Matchpoint score on the board is seven. What if pairs tie with the same raw score? Each is awarded 1/2 Matchpoint for each pair they tie. Thus if all eight pairs playing the board had the exact same scores, say Three No-Trump making nine tricks, then the Matchpoint score for each would be 3.5, that is, .5 for each pair they tied times the 7 pairs they tied. This would be an "average" board for each competitor. If one pair bid Three No-Trump and made ten tricks while the other seven pairs made only nine tricks at the same contract, that pair would score 7 Matchpoints for the board, a "top" board, while the other seven pairs would each score 3 (tied 6 pairs at .5 for each). A "bottom" board is one where a pair's score beats zero other pairs.
  
  Matchpoint scores are converted to percentages to determine overall winners in multi-section games where the number of tables differs from one section to another. Scores in a section generally run between forty percent and sixty percent; it's a very good session to score over sixty percent and a very bad one to score less than forty percent.
  


• International Match Points (IMPs)
  
  Knockout Team competition is by IMPs. Each board is played only twice, the difference between one team's raw score on the board and the other team's raw score on the board is converted to International Match Points on a set scale. The score on a single hand ("board") can range from zero IMPs to twenty-four IMPs.
  


• Victory Points
  
  Swiss Teams and round-robin team competition is usually by Victory Points. Each board is scored by IMPs, and the IMP result of the match is converted to Victory Points on one of two scales -- each match is either twenty VPs or thirty VPs. Thus a 20-VP match score can range from 10-10 (a tie match) to 20-0 (match won by 28 or more IMPs). Of course if one team wins the match 20-0, the other team loses by 0-20. Overall standings after all matches are completed are based on a team's total Victory Points, not on the number of matches won or lost.