Feb. 23-26 -- Guaranteed Partner Is Not Guaranteed a Partner

Points Summary
♠     ♥     ♦     ♣	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	Total
Earned This Time			0.46		0.46
Earned since last update					0.00
Earned Earlier This Year	7.00	20.17	1.76	1.15	30.08
Total Earned This Year	7.00	20.17	2.22	1.15	30.54
Earned Prior to This Year	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	18.41	65.18	24.20	18.54	126.33
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	6.59	0.00	25.80	141.28	173.67

Advance Preparation

I had volunteered to be one of the Unit's Guaranteed Partners for this Sectional. This meant I was to show up for each session, and be paired with any "odd" Bridge player seeking a partner for that event. (The "even" Bridge players seeking partners were paired with each other).

Overall Results

As the title of this entry says, the Guaranteed partner is not guaranteed a partner. I took vacation time from work to be available for the Friday Afternoon session, and I was not used. I was also not used for the Swiss Teams on Sunday.

For the five sessions I did play, I only "scratched" (won points) for one, the Saturday afternoon Open Pairs where my partner and I had a 52 percent game. This partner is a new Life Master, and he is proud that he earned all his Masterpoints within 12 miles of home. I'll be traveling all up and down the East Coast to earn mine!

Last Word

If I plan to win points in local Sectionals, I should arrange partners and teammates in advance for at least some of the events.

Feb 18-19 -- Goodbye, Chicago (GNT District Competition)

Points Summary
♠     ♥     ♦     ♣	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	Total
Earned This Time		0.66			0.66
Earned since last update			0.54		0.54
Earned Earlier This Year	7.00	19.51	1.22	1.15	28.88
Total Earned This Year	7.00	20.17	1.76	1.15	30.08
Earned Prior to This Year	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	18.41	65.18	23.74	18.54	125.87
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	6.59	0.00	26.26	141.28	174.13

Advance Preparation

I lined up E as my partner, and began looking for teammates. Eventually one of the other E's from the Jan 20-22 Regional was able to find a partner, L, and join us for the event. This was an untested partnership. E and I tuned up with two club sessions during the week; as the District was holding a Sectional Tournament at Clubs (STaC), we earned the Silver Points for placing in one of them.

Event Summary

We did great! At least before Saturday's dinner break . . .

Saturday Swiss

Saturday was a Swiss tournament among 13 entered Flight C (0-500 non-Life Master) teams. The top eight would advance to Sunday.

We all arrived well before starting time; I shared the "General Approach" on my Convention Card with my teammates; all agreed it was appropriate for us. "HAVE FUN, LEARN SOMETHING, PLAY WELL, WIN"

We lost the first Swiss match big, but won the next three -- then it was off to dinner. We were tied for second place after four matches; the team which beat us in the first match was in first place. After dinner, we lost three matches -- but we qualified 6th out of 8 for Sunday's knockout matches.

District Local Site Grand National Teams Saturday Swiss Session Summary scoring = Victory Points 7 boards per match
Match	IMPs	VPs	Total VP's
1	6 - 31	1 - 19	1
2	24 - 16	14 -  6	15
3	15 -  2	15 -  5	30
4	39 -  5	20 -  0	50
Dinner Break
5	2 - 17	4 - 16	54
6	15 - 22	7 - 13	61
7	7 - 13	7 - 13	68

Sunday Knockout

In two rounds of Sunday knockouts, the eight were reduced to two, to be joined by one team from the other qualifying site for the semifinal (3-way knockout, one team eliminated) and final knockouts on March 11.

We got knocked out in Sunday's first round. At halftime we were down by 13 IMPs, on one hand they bid and made a vulnerable small slam at our table while our teammates stopped in game but made one more trick -- that was 12 IMPs. In the second half, we won only one board.

Knockout Summary scoring = IMPs 24 boards per match
Match	first half	second half	match total
1	20 - 33	12 - 42	32 - 75

Lessons Learned

We need better slam bidding tools, and more time to work on partnership understandings. On one hand, I had no agreed way to tell my partner that I had two keycards and a void when I was asked for key cards.

North's hand:

       ♠ J x x x   ♥  A x x x   ♦ A K 10 9 x   ♣ (void)

The auction (none vulnerable, E dealer, E-W pass throughout):

South	North
1 ♣ 1 ♠ 4 NT 5 ♠	1 ♦ 4 ♠ 1 5 ♥ 2 6 ♠

1: 3 ♥ would have been a better bid; go slow
2: two key cards, no Q ♠

Partner heard my "I have two key cards" response, and stopped in five of our suit. Having the "extra asset" of the void, I raised to six. Partner went down 1. My raise to six is also an example of undisciplined bidding.

Final Words

Net result: each player out $33, and each gets 0.66 Red Masterpoints. At $50.00 per Masterpoint, Life Master costs $15,000 -- too high for my current budget!

At least we all had fun . . . and I think most of us learned something. At times we played well, and we did win some.

On the way home, E and I agreed to continue playing together, and to take some time to work on further partnership agreements.

Thanks to my partner and teammates for coming out in the bitter cold and playing.

Feb 9-12 -- Resort Follies Part III -- more lessons

More Help

The pros were knocked out of their bracket Sunday morning, and while waiting for me they went to see a movie. On their return, one of them kibitzed me in our final Swiss match. We discussed some of the hands on the long auto ride home.

Keep bidding

No one vulnerable, West deals

West	North	East	South
Pass 1 ♦ 2 ♠	Pass 1 ♥ Pass	Pass 1 ♠ Pass	1 ♣ Pass Pass

North can afford to keep the auction going by doubling West's 2 ♠ bid. For South to open in fourth seat without a spade suit, South must have at least 13 HCP. Instead, I gave South no encouragement by passing. WHEN IN DOUBT, BID!

Don't make undisciplined bids

Another hand: East deals, no one vulnerable. North holds:

       ♠ Q   ♥  A Q J 9   ♦ Q x   ♣ A Q J 10 8 x

East	South	West	North
1 ♣ 2 ♠ 3 ♠	Pass Pass Pass	1 ♠ Pass Pass	Pass 3 ♣ 4 ♣

I was right to bid 3 ♣, but why did I bid 4 ♣? South heard the auction and chose not to take action over my 3 ♣ bid. My 4 ♣ bid was UNDISCIPLINED. I was doubled, and went down 1 on the play. We can set their 3 ♠ contract. South's hand:

       ♠ A x x x   ♥  10 x x x   ♦ K 10 x x x   ♣ (void)

Listen more carefully to the opponents' bidding

Finally, a losing bid on a doomed hand. Both vulnerable, North deals. North's hand:
       ♠ K J 10 x x x x   ♥  9   ♦ A J x x   ♣ K

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

I did not recognize that West's bid guaranteed a Diamond void. Through a haze of optimism, I thought West might be showing the K ♦ sitting over South's presumed A ♦. The kibitzing pro, however, was sure. He also saw that North-South could make neither 5 ♦ nor 5 ♠. Still, his suggestion was to Redouble . This puts East-West to the test; they may flee to 5 ♥, or may mis-defend the hand. To set 5 ♦, West must get the A ♠, give East a ♠ ruff, and get the A ♥ before South gets in to pitch North's singleton 9 ♥ on the A ♣.

South's hand:

       ♠ Q x x   ♥ K 10 x   ♦ K Q x x x   ♣ A x

The hand went down 1, of course, as I lost the ruff on the opening ♦ lead and the two major suit aces. On an interesting note, the other team took eleven tricks in their ♠ game. The difference? Our 4 NT responses were 3014, requiring South to bid 5 ♦ to show one Ace; they were using 1430 responses, allowing South to bid 5 ♣ to show the one Ace. Of course, our West didn't have the lead-directing double available over their South's 5 ♣ bid.

Am I really this bad?

I'd like to think not. In my blog, it seems I'm showing mostly the hands where I erred, and where I can learn from those errors. Perhaps I have some bridge players at my own level reading; they too may be able to learn. Retelling the mistakes and lessons learned is part of the learning process for me -- the repetition of the lessons should reinforce them. Perhaps in future entries I'll be able to record that I have cut down on the kinds of mistakes I'm now relating. This will show that I am indeed learning the lessons and improving as a Bridge player. That's the goal, anyway.

Final Words

Thanks very much to the two pros who listened to my tales of woe, showed me what I needed to do, and gave me tips and encouragement. If circumstances allow us to make similar arrangements at future tournaments, be sure I'll jump at the opportunity!

Feb 9-12 -- Resort Follies Part II -- win some, lose some, learn some more

Points Summary
♠       ♥       ♦       ♣	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	Total
Earned This Time		3.31			3.31
Earned Earlier This Year	7.00	16.20	1.22	1.15	25.57
Total Earned This Year	7.00	19.51	1.22	1.15	28.88
Earned Prior to This Year	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	18.41	64.52	23.20	18.54	124.67
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	6.59	0.00	26.80	141.94	175.33

Tournament Summary

For the remainder of the tournament, I played in two Bracketed Knockouts. two Swiss Team events, and two morning pairs side games. Results were spotty -- poor, even -- although there were some victories. On the whole, the tournament results keep me on track for my goal. I scored over 10 Masterpoints, and over three Gold Masterpoints. I won more Masterpoints than 66 percent of those competing at the tournament. Still, I have much room for improvement.

Thursday Swiss

I had my "partner and teammates wanted" card in at the partnership desk the night before, but arrived there less than twenty minutes before start time. "We called your name several times, but you weren't here," said the Partnership Desk people. I was left to take from what was available, and ended up on a team in the B flight of the B/C/D Swiss where I had the fewest Masterpoints. My partner had played with me in a pairs game at a Sectional in my area, and assured the others that I could play at their level. We started off winning our first three matches, then lost the fourth by only two IMPs. At the dinner break, I thought our prospects were good. The pros had split their four matches in the A/X Swiss. After dinner we lost the next two before pulling out the last match. The team broke up, but my partner wanted to continue with me and a pickup pair for teammates in the Bracketed Knockouts the next day. "Sorry, I don't think so," I said. "I should find partners closer to my own level." We had had some bidding misunderstandings where partner was non-standard, and I didn't want any more of those.

Thursday Swiss Teams Session Summary scoring = Victory Points 7 boards per match
Match	IMPs	VPs	Total VP's
1	8 - 6	11 - 9	11
2	24 - 12	15 - 5	26
3	13 - 4	14 - 6	40
4	9 - 11	9 - 11	49
5	8 - 16	6 - 14	55
6	2 - 21	3 - 17	58
7	13 - 3	14 - 6	72

I'll show two hands of some interest. No one is vulnerable. You hold
        ♠ 10   ♥ K J 9 8 7 6 5 3 2   ♦ Q 3 2   ♣ (void)
and the auction has gone 1 ♠ 2 NT (unusual) 4 ♠ to you. What to do? I bid 5 ♦ which was doubled and set three. At the other table our teammates played in 4 ♠ making and we lost 2 IMPs on the board. Would you have bid? Would you have suppressed the nine-card heart suit?

On the other hand, again no one was vulnerable. As dealer, I held
        ♠ A J x x x x   ♥ (void)   ♦ x x x   ♣ A x x x
I decided the hand was too strong to open with a weak 2 ♠ with its outside Ace and outside void. At our table the auction went 1 ♠ Double 1 NT 2 ♥ which was the final contract, making three. Was I right to open 1 ♠? Was I right to pass when 2 ♥ came to me? I feared my partner would think I was stronger if I bid 2 ♠ and we would get too high.

At the other table the hand was opened 2 ♠ and that was the final contract, making. We lost 7 IMPs on the board.

At least the pros were happy, their team had won their last three matches and took the X title in the A/X Swiss.

Lessons Learned

• When counting on pickup partners and teammates, get to the partnership desk EARLY for the best selection.
• It's not that hard to leave a difficult pickup arrangement after the session is over.

Pairs side games

Because I needed to be at the Partnership Desk early for the Friday Bracketed Knockouts, I got up and went to the morning session. I was unable to find a team for the Compact Knockouts Friday and Saturday morning, but did find a partner for the Friday morning side pairs game. This partner played a Standard American bidding system, rather than the Two-over-one-game-forcing system (2/1) I am learning and using. I played partner's system. We got along well and had a delightful time. We finished third in our section in Flight C, not good for any Masterpoints. Because Section tops are worth Gold Masterpoints in an event of at least two sessions, we came back to play again Saturday, but did worse. I didn't even bother to check the results for Saturday.

Friday Bracketed Knockouts

Being at the Partnership Desk early did help; I found a partner who seemed reasonable and easy to get along with, and who played a 2/1 system similar to what I have been using. We found a delightful pair as teammates, and the team Masterpoint total put us in the bottom bracket (10 of 10) where I expected we would have a good chance to win. We did win our first match, but lost the second by a huge amount. We were behind by 18 IMPs at halftime, and decided to switch tables for the second half in hope of better results.

Friday Knockout Summary scoring = IMPs 24 boards per match
Match	first half	second half	match total
1	38 - 21	31 - 9	69 - 30
2	22 - 40	13 - 53	35 - 93

I had good discussions with both my teaammates and the pros on one of the hands from the second half of the second match. Remember, we were behind by 18 IMPs at halftime. My partner had misplayed a game early in the third quarter, so I mentally added a wulnerable game swing (11 IMPs) to our deficit. Vulnerable, I held

          ♠ A 9 5 2   ♥ 6   ♦ Q 9 5 4 2   ♣ J 9 2
and passed as dealer. The opponents were silent throughout the auction. Partner opened 2 ♣ and I responded 2 ♦. When Partner next bid 2 NT, I figured 22 - 24 HCP in Partner's hand, and that with my singleton Heart if we could find a fit we might be able to bid and make a slam. The complete auction:

West	East
Pass 2 ♦ 3 ♣ (1) 4 ♦ (2) 5 ♠ (3) Pass	2 ♣ 2 NT 3 ♥ 4 ♠ 6 NT (4)

1: looking for a Spade fit with Stayman
2: okay, Partner has four hearts, not interested. How about finding a diamond fit?
3: aha! We DO have a Spade fit. Is Partner strong enough to bid slam?
4: He wants a slam, I'll bid it.

6 NT was hopeless, we went down by 3 tricks and lost 14 IMPs to the other team's vulnerable game. However, we could have made 6 ♠! The hands:

W E S T		E A S T
♠  A 9 5 2 ♥  6 ♦  Q 9 5 4 2 ♣  J 9 2		♠  K Q 7 6 ♥  A 8 5 4 ♦  A 3 ♣  A K Q

In playing for a 6 ♠ contract, we could get 3 Club tricks, 1 Diamond trick, 1 Heart trick, 4 Spade tricks, and 3 Heart ruffs in the West hand, losing only the ♦ K. My Partner and teammates were impressed with my analysis, and my willingness to bid to a risky slam because we were so far behind in the match.

Later, though, the pros hit the nail on the head. "If you know you want to be in slam, just bid it!" was their advice. Once Partner bids 4 ♠ I should bid 6 ♠ on my next bid. Who cares if it goes down? We're already losing the match big. The only way to catch up is to bid and make the slam. I know that, I should just bid it. Don't get cute and give Partner a chance to go wrong. JUST BID IT.

Our team decided to play together again. First, we decided NOT to go into the playoff for places 5-8, which would yield little. We would play in the Saturday-Sunday Bracketed KO's, and plan to win. If we got knocked out Saturday, we would play as a team in the Sunday Swiss.

I discussed a second hand with the pros; I sat West, no one vulnerable. South deals:

		NORTH ♠ A 10 ♥ J 9 7 4 2 ♦ Q 5 ♣ 10 9 8 5
W E S T	♠ 9 7 5 3 ♥ K 10 3 ♦ J 9 7 6 ♣ K J		E A S T			♠ K Q J 8 2 ♥ Q 6 ♦ 3 2 ♣ 7 4 3 2
		SOUTH ♠ 6 3 ♥ A 8 5 ♦ A K 10 8 4 ♣ A Q 6

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

On my opening 3 ♠ lead, Declarer played the Ace from Dummy, and East played the Deuce. As Declarer was drawing Trumps, East discarded the K ♠. When I got in with my J ♦ I switched to the 5 ♠ to East's Q ♠. East returned the J ♠ and South ruffed with the last Trump. I followed suit with the 7 ♠. When I got in with my K ♥ I could not get to East to cash the thirteenth ♠ and lead a ♣ through declarer to make my K ♣ a winner. "How come I can see this now but couldn't find the play of the 9 ♠ on the third round at the table?" I asked. "Focus and concentration," was the answer. Experience helps too, as for the pros the discard of the 9 ♠ is obvious and automatic once all the cards in the suit can be placed. "So how do I get this focus?" I asked. "One help," one of them said, "is to pick the card you plan to play and then hesitate -- ask yourself what effect this card played now will have on the rest of the hand." A valuable tip indeed!

Saturday Bracketed Knockouts

This was the smallest Bracketed KO event of the tournament, with only four brackets. We played in Bracket 4, of course. Our first match was a Round Robin with two other teams, we split it but had enough net IMPS to be one of the two teams surviving to the quarterfinals. My highlight was in the match we won, where I held a huge hand and barged into a slam which was not bid at the other table. We lost in the quarterfinals, my bidding error on one hand us cost us the chance to take the lead at halftime. In the second half we lost a game swing on one board and our teammates went down in a slam which made against us on another board, and that was the match.

Saturday Knockout Summary scoring = IMPs 24 boards per match 12 boards per match in a round-robin match
Match	first half	second half	match total
1a	2 - 24	14 - 7	16 - 31
1b	39 - 5	14 - 16	53 - 21
2	29 - 33	22 - 32	51 - 65

We almost broke up the team after the match, but our teammates decided to play with us on Sunday in the Swiss Teams, and my partner and I agreed to continue as well.

Sunday Swiss Teams

Sunday Swiss Teams Session Summary scoring = Victory Points 7 boards per match
Match	IMPs	VPs	Total VP's
1	12 - 10	11 - 9	11
2	13 - 30	3 - 17	14
3	18 - 12	13 - 7	27
4	30 - 15	16 - 4	43
5	5 - 22	3 - 17	46
6	19 - 29	6 - 14	52
7	4 - 36	0 - 20	52

Feb 5-8 -- Resort Follies Part I

Points Summary
♠       ♥       ♦       ♣	Gold	Red	Silver	Other	Total
Earned This Time	3.22	6.45			9.67
Earned Since Last Update				0.08	0.08
Earned Earlier This Year	3.78	9.75	1.22	1.07	15.82
Total Earned This Year	7.00	16.20	1.22	1.15	25.57
Earned Prior to This Year	11.41	45.01	21.98	17.39	95.79
Total	18.41	61.21	23.20	18.54	121.36
Required	25.00	25.00	50.00	200.00	300.00
Still Needed	6.59	0.00	26.80	145.25	176.84

Advance Planning

Although I had arranged for the time off from work, I hesitated to make the eleven-hour drive alone with no partner or teammates. I learned of an opportunity to travel with two professionals, and stay the week with them, if I could provide the accomodations. This abandoned the opportunity to play in the Sectional en route, but the benefit of the companionship of better players and shared travel, versus driving alone, made this the best choice.

I'm missing the annual birthday party for the Intermediate/Novice game at our Unit Game Thursday; I may never qualify to participate in this party again.

So I arrived at the resort with no partner and no teammates. I looked up the tournament web site and found the e-mail address of the partnership chair, and a link to a page where people posted looking for partners and teammates. On this page I found a player with two others looking to form a team; it looked like they were at about my level judging by Masterpoints. I e-mailed both the Partnership Chair and the possible partner, and went to sleep. Monday morning I was awakened by a call from the possible partner, and we agreed to the partnership and the team. We were to meet before the game began, to complete our convention card. The three players would be leaving the tournament Thursday morning, so I would be in the same partnerless and teammateless situation later in the week

Overall Results

We signed up for the Bracketed Knockouts, and found ourselves in Bracket 10 of 10, where I expected we would be with our total masterpoints. We took a quick 20-IMP lead in the opening match Monday night, but collapsed in the second half and lost the match by 15 IMPs. It seemed to me as if I was a much stronger player than my partner, but isn't it that way for most bridge players? Although I was very frustrated with some of my partner's bidding and playing decisions, I agreed to play on the same team in the next Bracketed Knockout, starting Tuesday afternoon. On the way from the tournament to where we were staying, I shared my feelings about my abilities relative to my new partner. One of the pros had begun his serious tournament career by traveling alone to tournament after tournament, relying on the Partnership Desk at each tournament for partners and teammates. On the basis of his experience, he told me that I should have politely refused to continue the arrangement, and sought a new partner and teammates closer to my level. Too late to do that now.

Monday Knockout Summary scoring = IMPs 24 boards per match
Match	first half	second half	match total
1	35 - 15	4 - 39	39 - 54

For the knockouts beginning Tuesday, we were in Bracket 9 of 9. We won the opening match against a local team, taking an 18-IMP lead at the half and losing the second half by only one IMP. At our level, results are often quite erratic; of the 24 boards in the match only two were even. I made errors on three or four of the boards myself, as did my partner.

After the dinner break (I ate with the pros back where we were staying; again they counseled me to drop the partner as soon as we lost a match), we returned to play the evening match. The opponents were another local team, very inexperienced. This was their first Regional tournament and their afternoon win was their first win in a knockout match. They, like us, had been knocked out in the first round of the Monday KO's. We took a 41-IMP lead in the first half, the highlight being a slam we bid and I made, while at the other table the locals stopped in game. In the second half of the match, my partner and I missed bidding a Grand Slam, stopping in game. We also missed bidding two games. The locals also missed the slam, and a few other swings went our way, so we ended up even in the second half of the match. The locals were encouraged, and planned to continue playing at the tournament. We were in the semifinals, with the first Gold Masterpoints for the other pair on our team.

Next afternoon, we showed up for the semifinals. Our opponents were a team made at the Partnership desk, one pair from the South and the other from the Midwest. We took a 9-IMP lead at the half, and lost the second half by 6 IMPs, thus squeaking through to a 3-IMP victory. "How many Masterpoints do we have now?' a teammate asked. "Doesn't matter. We can't count that and settle for second. We have to go into the final match planning to win," I replied. All agreed, and it was off to the dinner break. I again ate with the pros back where we were staying.

In the final match, we took a 5-IMP lead at the half. The second half was a grind for us. The opponents were also exhausted, but I thought they played well. Six of the twelve boards were even. Of the three big swings in the second half, two went our way, and we ended up winning the half by 18 IMPs and the match by 23.

Tuesday - Wednesday Knockout Summary scoring = IMPs 24 boards per match
Match	first half	second half	match total
1	56 - 38	18 - 19	74 - 57
2	43 - 2	15 - 15	58 - 17
3	29 - 20	25 - 31	54 - 51
4	27 - 22	28 - 10	55 - 32

My first Knockut Victory!!

Lessons Learned

• I don't need to stick with partners and teammates who aren't at least at my level. Once the session is over or we lose the knockout match, I can just say "Thanks, but no more," and move on.
• The opportunity to spend time with the pros is valuable, their insight into both my experience and my mistakes is helping to improve my game.
• Practice and analysis of results is essential for recognizing and eliminating mistakes, and becoming more consistent in good bidding and play.

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!