Back at the Buchanan

After a six month break last night I was back at the Buchanan club, playing with Phil Moon. His hiatus was longer than mine, at ten years or so. In the build up to playing together I had printed out the comprehensive Acol System that Anna and I play, and Phil had gamely agreed to accept it wholesale. However, in the bar beforehand we made a few drastic cuts, and I vowed to bid pragmatically at all times.

On the very first hand Phil invited me to 6NT and I declined then made 12 tricks, which set the tone for the evening. At aggregate scoring this proved expensive. However, overall our bidding system held up well and our declarer play and defence was good too. Here's one where the worst hand at the table ended up being declarer:

Phil Danny W N E S - - 1NT x xx - 2♣ x - 2♥ - 3♥ - - - -

After two passes North opened 1NT. I'm pretty sure they were playing "Weak NT and Reverse [Benji]" like nearly everyone else at the Club but North opened 1NT anyway. I had a big hand so doubled. South redoubled, I think as part of Helvic showing a five card suit. I'm not sure which five card suit she planned to show. When North duly bid 2♣ in response and I doubled again Phil described this as "I think he wants me to bid" so bid 2♥. I was braced for him to bid 2♠ (I would have passed) but when he hit my good Heart suit I risked a raise to 3♥, which was swiftly passed.

3♥ is tricky with no immediate entries to hand, but only has three top losers, two in Diamonds, one in Hearts. After a Club lead from North declarer won the ♣AK then shrewdly lead the ♣J, and when South failed to cover he discarded a Diamond. North trumped it, took one Diamond and then tried for a second Diamond which Phil was able to ruff. Ruffing Diamonds is a much better way to get to hand than ruffing Clubs. He then played a Heart up to dummy, losing to the ♥A, and was later able to draw trumps and lose no more tricks for 3♥+1. This was a fine score, as other declarers in Hearts made between 7 and 9 tricks.and North-South make 3♠. It was not quite a top though, as one North-South pair overbid to 5♦, doubled and off three.

This hand was the peak of our defence:

Phil Danny W N E S 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - - -

Phil lead the ♣J which declarer won, then curiously lead a small Club from table. I won this with the ♣8, and considered immediately leading another Club for partner to overruff declarer. However, we needed six tricks in defence so I went for a more ambitious Diamond, which hit the jackpot when partner won the ♦Q, ♦A then gave me a ruff. I now played a top Club ruffed by declarer and overruffed by West. That was five tricks for the defence already. Phil now made the winning play of another Diamond, giving declarer a ruff and discard. I ruffed this high which promoted another trump trick for him, and along with his ♠K that was 2♥-2. Declarer ended up losing three trump tricks overall (a Diamond ruff, Club ruff and the ♥T), but if she draws trumps immediately she loses only one.

Our score of +100 beat those who passed out the hand, but lost to the East-West pair who managed to make 3♣x.

Now here's three hands where we were too meek and missed out on 3NT. Would you have got to game?

Phil Danny W N E S 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♣ - - -

I took the low road and passed 2♣. If I bid 2♦ we maybe get to 4♥ or 3NT. Three of Eleven pairs got to game (4♥).

Phil Danny W N E S 1♦ 1♠ 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - - -

Not sure who could bid more here. 2♦ made ten tricks. The one East-West pair in 3NT went down four (but it makes if you guess Diamonds).

Phil Danny W N E S 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2NT - - -

With a good 9 points opposite 15+ I would have bid 3NT as West on the second round, but when I showed the hand to Anna she agreed with West's 2NT bid. Seven out of Eleven pairs made 3NT (and one made 2♣xx).

We finished a respectable 5th out of 11, a great comeback for Phil and I look forward to playing again. Next time we'll be more aggressive.

No Fear Bridge at St Andrew

Today I went with four school pupils to Raymond's No Fear tournament at St Andrew Bridge Club. This is a tournament for beginners, with a mix of experienced players to help out. It's the first time that pupils in the school bridge club have played against adults.

There was some initial consternation when they were presented with scorecards, which to the uninitiated have a baffling array of options. We got over that and paired up, with me joining the S4 (age 15) pupil. On the very first board we had a mix-up, resulting in a highly unusual six overtricks:

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

W N E S 1♦ - 1♥ - - -

With 17 points my partner opened 1♦, and with 17 points I replied 1♥. To my surprise, this was passed out. At this point I could have said something, but held my tongue and played the hand. There are 12 top tricks (2+5+2+3) the only question is how to make the 13th. You could play for Clubs 3-3 or the Spade finesse, but instead I drew just two rounds of trumps then ruffed a Spade high, which works as long as Spades are 5-2 or better. It was a small victory though, as 1♥+6 was unlikely to be a good score.

After the hand Raymond suggested that we should have stopped the bidding and corrected North's Pass. However, I think we were correct to play the hand. Of course it gives a silly result and North-South get a very poor score, but that doesn't really matter. This was a vivid and memorable lesson in the perils of underbidding, and straight after the hand my partner was keen to know which bids were forcing. I said that "new suits are forcing, but bidding NT, supporting partner or rebidding your own suit are not. Also if the opponents interfere or partner is a Passed hand you don't need to bid again." Although that extremely condensed list would overwhelm most people she was used to my teaching style and I think took most of it in. We even managed to introduce Weak Twos, then later on when I made a dicey 2♠ overcall she asked why I hadn't just opened 2♠.

The other adults were delighted that the kids were there, and I was delighted that someone collectively referred to me and the pupils as being in the same generation.

Here's one we defended nicely:

All Vul W deal ♠ 7 2 ♥ J 6 4 2 ♦ A J 4 2 ♣ A Q T ♠ A J ♥ K Q 7 ♦ Q 9 6 3 ♣ K 6 4 2 12 15 5 8 ♠ Q 6 4 ♥ T 8 ♦ K T 8 5 ♣ 9 8 7 3 ♠ K T 9 8 5 3 ♥ A 9 5 3 ♦ 7 ♣ J 5

W N E S 1♣ 1♦ - 1♠ 1NT - - -

West opened 1♣ and my partner made a rather bold 1♦ overcall. I responded 1♠ and West redbid 1NT, showing 15-17. Of course this 1NT rebid should have shown 18-19 as partner was unable to respond; the 15-17 1NT rebid is only if your partner has 6+. I nearly came back in with 2♠ but I'm glad I passed.

The spotlight was now on North. She led a Spade, and I was thankful. Declarer won and lead a Heart, putting the spotlight back on partner, who once again found the best play of a second Spade. Although declarer was also able to win this when I got back in with ♥A I was able to rattle off four Spade tricks, which was a very visual demonstration of the benefit of playing a long suit in NT to establish it, even if it means losing a couple of tricks first. With the Clubs well placed we actually took ten tricks in defence, leaving declarer to suffer in 1NT-4.

My partner and I were not the top North-South pair, but one of our pupils was part of the top East-West pair. I defended one hand with her at the end, and she seemed to be paying no attention at all then suddenly claimed the last three tricks in defence, showing an excellent appreciation of which cards to keep and which ones had gone.

I enjoyed being declarer a few times myself as I've not played for six months (since the baby, pictured at the end of this post). I think the pupils enjoyed playing in a proper event, albeit a very relaxed one. And by the end of course they'd all mastered the score sheets, and were filling in the Opening Leads long after I'd stopped bothering.

I hope to go back in a few weeks with some other pupils, as they do seem to bring a lot of joy to the club. And from my experience they love the thrill of a competition (just like me). It's always tense wondering what's going to happen, and hoping for a good result. And the younger they get into it the better they'll be.

Scottish Schools Minibridge Tournament - Glasgow Division

After last years's Scottish Schools Championship (see here) I was now keen to see the Minibridge version. I was originally just going to go as an adult helper, but found that the four youngest members of the school bridge club (who are primary age and therefore qualify) were keen for a day out. I spent a couple of lunchtimes with them getting the basics, then on the train journey across to St Andrew Bridge Club made sure they knew about the difference between choosing a part score or game contract.

The event was well attended, with 12 teams of four. There are similar events in Dundee and Inverness, and once they are complete we'll have an overall winner for Scotland.

Each of the six rounds consisted of two board matches against another team. This was an appropriate amount of boards to play in the day, and I also approve of taking lunch 2/3 of the way through the day, and I know my team approved of the large amount of squash and biscuits.

After only playing for a few months I was delighted the team stepped up well, and were not out of place. I think that playing in a competitive match in a proper bridge club gave them a lot more focus. I've never really been a fan of minibridge but seeing the kids agonise over the pros and cons of going for a game it suddenly made sense, as they are getting lots of good practice in planning their dummy play.

The High School of Glasgow in action against a pair from the winning Hutcheson's team.

The hands were carefully chosen so that game was nearly always possible, but often required careful play. I often saw the classic mistakes of novice players: focusing too much on taking winners now rather than building tricks. Sometimes in a 3NT contract declarer would cash his seven winners, then pause as he didn't know what to do, before reluctantly playing something and the defence get the final six tricks. But then of course you have to remember these are young children learning the game, and they are learning it fast.

I noticed improvement from my team during the day, and there was a eureka moment of sorts on the final hand where needing one more trick declarer recognised he had the ♦QJT, so deliberately lost two tricks, establishing his ♦Q as the key trick.

Going into the final round, we were joint third, but lost heavily after some high-quality play from the Hutcheson's A declarer:

♠ 9 8 7 5 ♥ Q 7 5 ♦ 8 6 5 ♣ J 9 5 ♠ ♥ K J T 4 ♦ A K 9 7 ♣ K Q T 7 6 3 16 6 15 ♠ A T 6 4 ♥ 9 8 6 3 ♦ Q T 3 ♣ 8 4 ♠ K Q J 3 2 ♥ A 2 ♦ J 4 2 ♣ A 3 2

By the rules of minibridge West is declarer, as he has the most points in the partnership with more points. With only 22 combined many would settle for partscore (e.g. 1♥) but this West immediately chose 4♥. Was he adding points for the void, or maybe counting losers? Was he using the fact that he knew the ♣A was onside (as everyone announces their points)? It was an inspired decision, as when I came back from getting a cup of tea he had ten tricks, which produced a healthy swing when our declarer made the unwise choice of attempting 5♣. So overall we had to settle for fifth.

Overall I think all the children had a really good day, and this has further increased their enthusiasm for bridge. Here are final standings, as best I remember:

1	Hutcheson's Alpha
2	Troon
3	Hutcheson's A
4	?Belhaven
5	HSOG

School Pairs Tournament

A couple of weeks ago we had our first Pairs Tournament to determine the top pair in the school (of those that were present). Because we only meet during lunchtime I stretched it over two days and was flexible with who played which boards. I used deals which had already been played at the Buchanan Club and compared each result with the average for pairs sitting in that direction, which meant it didn't matter if only one pair in my tournament played a board.

Of course it was better when several pairs played the same board, and I was pleased to see the kids informally comparing outcomes on the same board. For example:

On both tables North-South went overboard. First Amelie played 2NT-3, then Jack played 3NT-3. Jack felt he had done better than the other declarer, by making more tricks, but I had to explain that he got the same score. When Anna and I played this hand at the Buchanan we sat East-West and got a good score for defeating 3♦x by two tricks.

On the first table Sophia sitting East bid and made an excellent 4♠. When Anna and I played it we sat East-West and also made 4♠. It's actually unbeatable as long as the defence don't find an unlikely Club ruff. How Sophia and Amelie got to 4♠ I don't know, but I imagine there was some competitive bidding. It was certainly competitive at the other table, as South got to 5♥, doubled and redoubled. This went four off, for a massive score of 2200 to Amy and Ewan in defence.

However, I'm pleased to say that enough hands were played that this giant penalty didn't determine the overall score, and it was the pair that made four game contracts (two of them doubled) that came out on top:

After half-term I'll have another go at organising a more formal pairs tournament when everyone is able to play. I think the pupils enjoy the extra pressure, and it forces them to speed up too.

Best hand ever

At my school bridge club last week somebody dealt themselves this hand. My first thought was that she'd rigged the deck, but I don't think that's possible because I shuffled and gave her the pack of cards to deal, which she did while I stood beside her writing something on the board.

What I was writing on the board was point ranges for opening bids. I didn't cover opening 36 point hands. In the end she settled for a 6NT opening bid and played there. This was the full deal and auction:

♠ A K Q ♥ A K Q ♦ A K Q ♣ A K Q 2

♠ 6 4 ♥ J 5 4 ♦ 7 5 3 2 ♣ T 5 4

W N E S 6NT - - -

I was the dummy and did not have the vital ♣J (and my ♥J is useless) and Clubs only produced three tricks, so declarer claimed her twelve top tricks for 6NT=. I like it when they claim early, as it shows they are aware of what is required for the contract and know how many winners they have.

I hope that the pupils will not be expecting another hand like this, as it could take many lifetimes. It's very rare to have above 20 points, as the table below shows (adapted from RP Bridge).

Points	Probability
19	1.0%
20	0.7%
21	0.4%
22	0.2%
23	0.1% (1 in 1000)
...
29	0.00066% (1 in 150,000)
...
35	0.00000009827% (1 in 1 billion)
36	0.00000000945% (1 in 10 billion)
37	0.00000000063% (1 in 1600 million)

Since the probabilities fall off so quickly you're in fact more likely to get a hand of 21 points than any hand with more than 21 points. Or to put it another way, more than half of 21+ point hands have exactly 21 points.

And what about that massive 36 point hand? The probability of getting one of those is a staggering 1 in 10 billion. That's more than the number of people on Earth. So the probability of getting a 36 point hand is less than the likelihood of lining up everybody in the World randomly and you happening to be at the front. Or, alternatively, if you deal yourself one hand a second night and day it would take on average about 300 years before you saw one this good. If you deal yourself a more modest thirty hands a day it will take about a million years.

My best ever hand was a balanced 29 count. The bidding went like this:

2♣1	2♦2
5NT3	7NT4

1: 23+
2: Weak or waiting
3: Showing 29-30 (on the logic that 2NT rebid is 23-24, 3NT rebid 25-26, 4NT rebid 27-28, 5NT rebid 29-30)
4: Actually had about 10 points and six good clubs

7NT made with about 18 top tricks. What's your best ever hand?

2015 Cheating Scandals

2015 will be remembered as the year of bridge scandals, as several World Class pairs have been accused of systematically cheating.

The background

Last year it emerged that Dr. Michael Elinescu and Dr. Entscho Wladow had been illegally communicating during the 2013 World Senior Championships. They are now known as the German Coughing Doctors. Their basic code was that one, two, three or four coughs meant Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts or Spades respectively. This was used both in the auction, to tell partner about a shortage in the indicated suit, and just before the opening lead, to suggests a suit to partner. They were an eccentric pair with other mannerisms and hand movements (a theme we will see repeating) and there may have been more to their code. They have been found guilty by both the World Bridge Federation and German Bridge Federation, but maintain their innocence (another recurring theme).

This year things began relatively quietly, when at the end of the 2015 World Championships in Chennai a cryptic note in the Daily Bulletin stated that the well-respected American Senior Mike Passell “was found guilty of violating CDR 3.1 (Laws of Duplicate Bridge), 3.7 (Actions unbecoming a Member participating in an ACBL event), 3.20 (Ethical Violations) and E13 (Prearrange a deal or part thereof).” It eventually emerged that Mike had been accused of deliberately creating a ‘fouled board’, by messing up the cards on a deal he’d already played so it couldn’t be played at the other table, and was therefore unscored. This occurred on a hand where Mike had already received a bad result, so it didn't look good. In his defence Mike explained that he had noticed a card face up on the floor and merely added it to the wrong pocket. He admitted an error of judgement in not calling the director, but denied deliberate wrongdoing.

Fisher-Schwartz

This was soon overshadowed by much bigger news, when after his narrow quarterfinal loss in the prestigious Spingold tournament Norwegian Boye Brogeland publicly accused Israeli pair Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz of cheating (without saying how), and promised there were more revelations to come. Analysis of video evidence from Per Ola Cullin of Sweden found a link between where a defender placed the tray containing after the auction and the suit he wanted partner to lead.

In this video still Fisher (leftmost) is on opening lead and Schwartz (opposite) is about to place the yellow board down. His board placement matched the suit that he wanted partner to lead, as indicated by the suit symbols. Tellingly, Schwartz’s irregular placement of the board only occurred when his partner was on lead; the rest of the time he placed the board in the middle of the table like everyone else.

The code is nicely explained in a YouTube video by Michael Clark, and there is an analysis by Kit Woolsey on the BridgeWinners website.

Boye set up a website called BridgeCheaters.com outlining the accusations and occasions where F-S achieved good results by suspected foul play, and suggesting there may have also been a coughing code. Naturally F-S denied the allegations, and have hired a lawyer and set up their own Facebook page in defence.

Fantoni-Nunes

Then came the next bombshell, as BridgeWinners.com announced that they had “received overwhelming evidence alleging improper communication between the world’s #1 and #2 ranked bridge players, Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes, during the 2014 European Championships.”

It took some time before the actual cheating mechanism was unearthed by Maaijke Mevius from the Netherlands. The opening lead is placed vertically when the suit contains an Ace, King or Queen (or is a singleton) else is placed horizontally. This extra nugget of information allowed the partner of the opening leader to defend with much greater accuracy, particularly as ‘Fantunes’ as they are known, play an unusual system of Slawinski leads where the opening lead is often ambiguous.

A team of volunteers (including some Bridge Internationals) reviewed hours of footage and found the orientation of the opening lead followed this system on 82 out of 85 deals. Notably, both F-S and Fantunes were under suspicion before it was known how they were cheating. This was because of their uncanny good fortune and unjustifiable winning decisions had stood out to other experts.

Their is another Michael Clark YouTube video and analysis by Kit Woolsey.

In this video Fantoni (leftmost) makes the opening lead horizontally. His partner now knows he has no high honour in that suit, and no singleton. There may also have been more to their code. The pair were investigated in 2014 for the infamous Blackout Defence, where Nunes made a very illogical but successful action then claimed it was because he had a blackout.

Smirnov-Piekarek

After the Fantunes revelation there were rumours of a ‘third pair’, confirmed German Internationals Alex Smirnov and partner Josef Piekarek announced on the BridgeWinners website that they were “aware of the ‘whispers’ circulating about our ethical conduct, and we are sorry to say there is some truth to them. We regret that in the past as a partnership we committed some ethical violations” (read more here).

Some applauded their honesty, some said they only came forward as they were about to be rumbled (“sounds like an advance sacrifice” said Tom Hanlon of Ireland). With the World Championships about to take place in Chennai in India there were now pairs from Israel, Monaco and Germany under suspicion. All three teams withdrew from the tournament, a blow for their supporters and honest team members.

Balicki-Zmudzinski

The Polish team did not withdraw, despite rumours about Cezary Balicki and Adam Zmudzinski (known as B-Z). It was found that they were communicating illegally by how they spaced out their bidding cards. A card placed close to the previous bid indicates a minimum hand for the previous bidding, a well spaced out bid means a maximum for the previous bidding.

The analysis of this was thoroughly done, with one set of analysts looking at the spacing of the bids, and a separate set independently looking at whether the bids were maximum or minimum. A very strong correlation was found. Although the video resolution is poor the spacing of the bids can be seen nicely in the videos in Kit Woolsey’s analysis on BridgeWinners.com.

B-Z are known as an eccentric pair, not least as sometimes Zmudzinski touches the dummy while in defence. Above is a still from Australian Ishmael Del Monte’s article on Bridge Winners entitled ‘A Helping Hand’. Balicki fans out dummy’s Spades with all five fingers. He had five Spades himself (shown above). A correlation was found between the number of fingers he touches a suit with and his own length in that suit (see here).

Just before the World Championship the WBF withdrew the credentials of that pair, but allowed Poland to compete with other players. Controversially they won, and were crowned World Champions.

The future

With the notable exception of Smirnov-Piekarek all the pairs claim their innocence, so in that sense the cases are not settled. National and International bodies are deciding how to act, as are tournament organisers whose previous winners are now tainted. There are also of course rumours of a ‘fifth pair’, and investigations continue.

Collectively the accused pairs have exploited many methods to communicate, which work even with screens, using audible coughs and visible finger, board, bid and card placement. There is even speculation about other possible ways of exchanging information, such as the angle of the scoring pen.

In response to these weaknesses Fred Gitelman of Bridge Base has designed a hybrid computerised version of the game where players meet around a table but input their bids and plays on tablet computers. This would cut out some methods of communication, and make recording suspicious activity much easier. However for some experts, notably Sabine Auken, this lacks the visceral excitement of playing with cards; picking them up and seeing what you’ve been dealt.

Although for most club players the cheating scandal just leaves a bad taste, one positive thing is that the elite game is now cleaner than ever, which is good news for the other top players who have been so active in the investigations.

Finally, here is probably the best summary in the popular press from Newsweek.

If there are any errors or inaccuracies in my article please let me know and I can correct them - Thanks, Danny.

Resulting

The school bridge club that I look after has come on leaps and bounds, as we've been meeting twice a week this term. The focus has been on play and defence and I've left the bidding to be natural, only emphasising the value of the game bonus.

We've had a couple of three-board Team's Matches, which is the first time I've been able to get anyone interested in scoring. More importantly, I was able to introduce the notion of resulting, which is when you decide what people should have done based on unknowable factors. For example, saying "I should have bid 4♥" just because 4♥ happens to make on a lucky layout.

In our match I was impressed that on all three boards reasonable contracts were reached on both tables, despite the lack of bidding sophistication. This was the one that decided the match:

Board 3 Dealer: S	North ♠ 7 ♥ J974 ♦ T ♣ AK96432
West ♠ 4 ♥ Q32 ♦ K9862 ♣ QJT5	8 8 11 13	East ♠ KQT965 ♥ T85 ♦ AQ74 ♣
	South ♠ AJ832 ♥ AK6 ♦ J53 ♣ 87

On one table South opened 1♠, West made a 2♦ overcall, North bid Clubs and after a good competitive auction ended up in 5♣. When this came round to West she doubled. The kids love doubling, and tend to do it far too often, but I think this time she had her bid.

In 5♣x declarer ended up losing two trump tricks, along with a Diamond and a Heart. It is possible to avoid losing two Clubs with an early finesse, and you might avoid a Heart loser with some fancy footwork, but that's beyond us at the moment and the result was 5♣x-2. On the other table North played a sedate 3♣= for a big gain on the hand.

Afterwards North was roundly blamed for overbidding in getting to 5♣. However, if the trumps had split 2-2 he would have made it. So that was my lesson for the day - just because a contract fails it doesn't mean it's a bad contract.