[Jstroke]

If the the Ten of Hearts had been led there would not have been a problem.

Should it be obvious to East to lead the Heart? I think I would have known that West could trump either a Heart or Spade, but I don't think I would have know which. West's Hearts bids would lead me to think Spades were the suit to lead.

Also, what are the mechanics of playing with a screen? How to the players see the dummy? How are the cards arranged and placed? Does the use of physical cards introduce mechanical errors?

[mpefritz]

Play of spade instead of HT:

At this point Soloway knows Lauria started 1+=3+=7+=1. I am assuming 7+D else 5D is insane.

He knows pard must have a sure trump trick. If Lauria has 2 spades and good trump, he could have ruffed a club back to his hand and drawn trump before leading a spade to the board.

The question now is: Do I lead a spade looking for a ruff and down 2 if pard has Ax of diamonds (and was 1=4=2=6)? Do I lead the heart T and let my partner win his natural trump trick (e.g. Kx) -- leading to down 1 if pard started 1=4=2=6 amd down 2 if 2=3=2=6) ?

What is my info?

Did pard give me count in hearts on heart ruff? (He did play low on MY lead of a heart, and then played low again on the first ruff.)

Do I think he has 4 on the auction? He did bid 2H and then 3H.

What do I make of pards SJ? (must be stiff if playing upside down count, else no info))

Maybe someone better at this can tell me. It seems like it all depends on how they agree to play cards on declarer's ruffs. Also Lauria may have played it differently with 2 spades anyway. I suspect Lauria would have tried to draw trump after ruffing hearts if he was concerned about a possible spade ruff.

Plenty of room for error : Do I believe partner (count) or do I believe the way Lauria is playing the hand? Just my thoughts.

fritz

[inquiry]

I certainly do not want to second guess Paul Soloway. Clearly he had something in mnd when he switched to a spade. But what info did he have available? Was he mislead by Bob Hamman's carding? I think so.

Trick one, Bob played the CLUB TWO, according to their CC, low on partners lead is discouraging and calling for the "obvious switch". With SPADE KQ in dummy and west bidding hearts twice, the obvious switch is to a heart, promptly completed.

On the heart QUEEN, pressumably a clever false card designed to get Bob to grab the heart ace and return a club (there is no mention of Q from KQ or KQT on their convention card), again Bob played low. Once again presumably discouraging (and in fact, really discouraging - thus denying the heart jack). Although, Bob may have meant this as "count" instead of attitude, given the earlier signal, and given from his point of view Lauria has heart ACE and KING perhaps. One would have to know their customs in this situation. Let's assume it was attitude (or else Soloway clearly played wrong as his own fault at trick 7)

The next trick seems to be the key on the entire hand. A couple of things happened. Lauria returned a brilliant heart JACK, a card he was known to hold from Bob's discouraging play on the first round of hearts. IF he had kept the heart JACK until the fourth round, Paul could never go wrong.

But here is the rub. On this heart, Bob Hamman played the heart 4 from the 54. In theory, Soloway-Hamman play "remaing count" in this situation. Bob has already denied intrest in clubs, and denied interest in hearts. And the dummy has the spade KQ (and soloway is looking at the spade ace). So Paul must realize that his partner has a sure trump trick for his double here.

What about the heart signal? Is there any logical reason for Bob Hamman to try to confuse Lauria about the heart distribution? Bob knows that his partner has at least 5 hearts, as does declearer. Bob also knows the club suit is dead (both his partner and declearer are out of clubs), and that his partner has to have the spade ace for his Michaels bid (he can see KQJT between dummy and him). To false card or refuse to give heart count here seems unwise, unnecessary, and unbecoming. What Bob should have played the heart FIVE (standard remaining count according to their cc). Soloway would then have the hand counted out. North with 4H, 1C, and most likely 7D thus the 1S, or 6D and 2S, but either way, the heart Ten was cashing, and would have promptly taken it at trick 7.

Everyone was tired on this board I guess. It looks like soloway was trying to give his partner a spade ruff, giving declearer S-Tx H-AJ3 D-KQTxxxx C-x, the only hand he could hold if partner indeed had 4 hearts as he unthoughtfully signalled.

I suspect what really happened is that Bob Hamman thought his heart at trick two gave count, Soloway thought attitude. And the heart at trick 3 Soloway thought was for count, and maybe Bob was trying to indicate S/P now back to the club suit he denied earlier. Signalling is sooooo hard....

Ben

[csdenmark]

Quote

Play of spade instead of HT:

At this point Soloway knows Lauria started 1+=3+=7+=1. I am assuming 7+D else 5D is insane.

He knows pard must have a sure trump trick. If Lauria has 2 spades and good trump, he could have ruffed a club back to his hand and drawn trump before leading a spade to the board.

The question now is: Do I lead a spade looking for a ruff and down 2 if pard has Ax of diamonds (and was 1=4=2=6)? Do I lead the heart T and let my partner win his natural trump trick (e.g. Kx) -- leading to down 1 if pard started 1=4=2=6 amd down 2 if 2=3=2=6) ?

What is my info?

Did pard give me count in hearts on heart ruff? (He did play low on MY lead of a heart, and then played low again on the first ruff.)

Do I think he has 4 on the auction? He did bid 2H and then 3H.

What do I make of pards SJ? (must be stiff if playing upside down count, else no info))

Hamman-Soloway
Leads(suit):
A=AK,Axx
K=AKx,KQx
Q=QJ,QJx
J=J10(x),KJ10x
10=109(x),H109x
9=9x,98x
Hi-x=High from sequence
of small cards
Lo-x=Low from Honour +
small cards(Hxxxx)
Leads(NT):
A=STRONG:ASKS CT or UB
K=ASKS ATT: KQx
Q=QJx
J=J10(x9
10=109(x),H109(x)
9=9x,98x,9xx
Hi-x=High from sequence
of small cards
Lo-x=Low from Honour +
small cards(Hxxxx)
Signals to partners lead:
vs suits:
1.Low=Disc(obvious shift)
3.Hi/Lo=Even
vs NT:
1.Low=Disc(obvious shift)
2.S/P
3.Low=Even

Signals to declarers lead:
vs suits:
1.Hi/Lo=even
2.S/P
vs NT:
1.Low=Even
2.S/P
3.Hi/Lo=Even

Discards:
1.High=Encourage
2.S/P
3.Hi/Lo=even


2H after cue accepted Hearts and I assume 3H confirmed hearts(3 or 4 cards). As signals showed odd for hearts, it ought not to be 4.

To me it looks like SJ can as well be encouraging(discard) or signal(hi/low=even). It looks like Soloway go for a ruff in spades.

Would have been nice with some analysis - but not much help from our Vugraph log here:


[tt]CSIJAK: this is exciting to come down to last board to determine the event
reisig: Thx to our viewgraph people...wonderful job throughout
compton: So here we go, if Paul stops low, he wins the BB
compton: maybe
algraves: he has to go plus at least 100
lc: With 400 to USA1 in closed, +100 or +140 or so would be 11 imps and a tie
Walddk2: :-)
compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess
algraves: 595 imps so far
compton: Fred wants the disclaimer that the scores are not official until the players compare
algraves: and still in doubt
compton: 127 boards and a RR match, magnifco
algraves: SCORE IS UNOFFICIAL
Vugraph99: and Lorenzo bid 5!D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
compton: not true
mcphee: wow
compton: wow!!!
CSIJAK: Here it is!!!
compton: usa just won the BB
Vugraph99: and Paul Double !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mcphee: incredible
compton: Unbeleivable
bbramley: could be a tie!
patapon: Wow!
lupin1: incredibleeeeee
Walddk2: If down 1 yes
Walddk2: down 2 and USA wins
bbramley: down 1 to tie, down 2 to win
compton: Have to get out for down one, is it possible?
CSIJAK: now a trump shift
compton: trump switch is crucial
lc: D1 is possible
Vugraph99: its absolute incredible here !!!!!!!!!!!!
Walddk2: I can sense the tension Herve, I think we all can
lesniak: fantastic , fantastic!!!!
Vugraph99: and he play !H !!
Walddk2: we have a tie!!
compton: Solowa played a heart, now
CSIJAK: Do we go into overtime?
Walddk2: yes
Walddk2: 8 boards
compton: We will have to confirm the scores, if this is down one,
reisig: he's 2 down
lc: Declarer is taking the down 2 line (would have been better to play singleton spade)
Vugraph99: THE MOST EXCITING BRIDGE MATCH EVER !!!!
Cascade: always -2 on heart switch
compton: six diamonds, two ruffs, one ace
Vugraph99: wooooooooooooooooooooooooow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mcphee: hamman can ruff !H
lupin1: -1
mcphee: now the !H flys
Walddk2: hehehe
compton: soloway returned a spade, down one [/tt]

[inquiry]

Quote

Would have been nice with some analysis - but not much help from our Vugraph log here:

Hi claus,

I think the problem you had with the vugraph commentators might stem from too many cooks spoiling the broth. With so many, they each added a word here or there, and often commented back and forth to each other. Forgetting there were thousands of us watching, often totally lost. What they were, however, were commentators not necessarily analyst. However, there was often insightful comment about a bid or play, and discussions about different lines declarer or defender may choose. There was also some clever comments or inside jokes that people might have miss, for instance in the discussion of a non-material squeeze executed one day where the comments about riding on a yacht, the hand was a true adventure, etc were comment meant for people who have read Ottilk and Kelsey’s book adventures in card play.

In addition, the last hand was filled with confusion and a palatable excitement rarely seen in such a situation. The drama was so great. Would the USA stop in 3H and if they did, could that make 9 tricks for a tie? If Lauria pushed to 4D could that be down two or would someone double it, as down one undoubled would not help the USA1 team. Once Lauria bid 5D, would USA1 get it two, perhaps after a diamond lead for a tie, and then when Paul doubled, would it be down one for a tie or two for a win? It sure looks like on a trump lead, declarer could lose 1D, 1C, 1S and maybe 2 hearts for down three. A discussion of rather a trump lead was indicated on the bidding (what made Lauria decide to jump to 5D after trying to sign off in 3D??? Must be new expectation of a short heart in partners hand given Hamman’s heart rebid). The club lead seemed natural. I would also have liked someone to address Soloway-Hamman carding. The list you posted is what I saw posted on the web page as well, but it seems to me they play a combination of upside down attitude to trick one as well as obvious shift principle. This is based upon an albeit short review of their trick one carding where a high card was played when a discouraging card was clearly called for and a low card played where an encouraging one was called for (this is trick one stuff, at other tricks they seem to play normal attitude).

Their count signals seem to be standard, remaining count. Thus, it would be interesting to have someone comment on the sequence of plays that Bob Hamman took. Given Hamman knew that the club ACE was either singleton or Lauria would show out, what was Bob trying to convey with the club 2? Is this an obvious shift signal given the dummy’s club suit? So club 2 called for a heart. Was this an attitude signal so that Paul could place the club king in Bob’s hand? No one mentioned the heart shift to the queen (and why Paul chose the queen) and the play of the heart 2 and the implications of that sequence of play is interesting to me. Clearly the expert commentators knew that the heart QUEEN was not the standard card, they should have been able to work out the implication of that falsecard. With a singleton in dummy, I would have thought that the heart 2 was to deny the heart king, but with a singleton in dummy, could Bob have meant this as count? His second heart play (if first was count) would be SP to deny interest in spades. If his first heart was attitude, then his second heart should have been remaining count, in which case he played the wrong card. I would like to have seen an expert panel consensus on what Hamman’s signals were meant to show.

Finally, I would have liked some comment on if Paul Soloway could have worked out to shift to a trump at trick two? And if so, why and if not, why not.

A final comment since people are singing the praises of Deep Finesse, which is a truly wonderful program. Too many times the expert panel relied on deep finesse to tell us that “deep finesse says it will make” or “that it will go down.” First, we all have deep finesse on our computer, so we could click it ourselves. Second, just because a hand CAN be made with some exotic or often counter-precentage play (or go down on same), that doesn’t mean that it practice it will go down because no one would ever select the one line that works due to a particular lay of spot cards. During commenting, maybe best not to rely on DF, but rather look at the hand an analyze what the players should do if they can only see their cards and those in dummy.

[csdenmark]

Now we know Soloway was right!

Quote

I think the problem you had with the vugraph commentators might stem from too many cooks spoiling the broth. With so many, they each added a word here or there, and often commented back and forth to each other. Forgetting there were thousands of us watching, often totally lost. What they were, however, were commentators not necessarily analyst.

Might be so Ben - I think it is too much to expect that the commentators would be able to work out your excellent analysis during the game. I wanted to raise this last question whether Soloway was right or wrong in his spade lead due to their own system. - And we now know Soloway was right. Maybe Hamman signalled wrong as you point out or maybe their signal system here was wrong and he therefore ought to put S10 instead of SJ for trick 6. Maybe you remember the commentars later - nearly all as I remember - was to blame Soloway for wrong play of spades instead of hearts. - Now we know Soloway was right!

I think each of the commentators have the intension to provide best possible prediction based on their great knowledge. As I earlier have pointed out - knowledge about the system in concern is needed for that. Chris Compton had that knowledge when he commented deals with Meckwell - and that was important there. General knowledge of good play mainly based on 2o1 etc. provides not the specific knowledge to predict and analyse artificial systems. Even the play - the test - is carried out according to the information provided via the auction.

Right this last hand was special - for the commentators too. This was surely not the most interesting but only the most used comment for this crucial deal:

• mcphee: wow
  
• compton: wow!!!
  
• patapon: Wow!
  
• lupin1: incredibleeeeee

The most insightful comment for this specific deal I think was this:
[tt]compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess[/tt]

The difference between an insightful comment and an analysis I am not sure. The depth of course but taking conditions into consideration then I think a comment based on system knowledge will do. I am sure that will from time to time also lead to comments on options the player has considered and therefore rejected.

I certainly agree with you Ben about Deep Finesse. - Maybe because I dont understand the information that application offers me!

[luis]

Quote

Now we know Soloway was right!

Quote

I think the problem you had with the vugraph commentators might stem from too many cooks spoiling the broth. With so many, they each added a word here or there, and often commented back and forth to each other. Forgetting there were thousands of us watching, often totally lost. What they were, however, were commentators not necessarily analyst.

Might be so Ben - I think it is too much to expect that the commentators would be able to work out your excellent analysis during the game. I wanted to raise this last question whether Soloway was right or wrong in his spade lead due to their own system. - And we now know Soloway was right. Maybe Hamman signalled wrong as you point out or maybe their signal system here was wrong and he therefore ought to put S10 instead of SJ for trick 6. Maybe you remember the commentars later - nearly all as I remember - was to blame Soloway for wrong play of spades instead of hearts. - Now we know Soloway was right!

I think each of the commentators have the intension to provide best possible prediction based on their great knowledge. As I earlier have pointed out - knowledge about the system in concern is needed for that. Chris Compton had that knowledge when he commented deals with Meckwell - and that was important there. General knowledge of good play mainly based on 2o1 etc. provides not the specific knowledge to predict and analyse artificial systems. Even the play - the test - is carried out according to the information provided via the auction.

Right this last hand was special - for the commentators too. This was surely not the most interesting but only the most used comment for this crucial deal:

• mcphee: wow
  
• compton: wow!!!
  
• patapon: Wow!
  
• lupin1: incredibleeeeee

The most insightful comment for this specific deal I think was this:
[tt]compton: have to defeat NS, i fear, ew is a mess[/tt]

The difference between an insightful comment and an analysis I am not sure. The depth of course but taking conditions into consideration then I think a comment based on system knowledge will do. I am sure that will from time to time also lead to comments on options the player has considered and therefore rejected.

I certainly agree with you Ben about Deep Finesse. - Maybe because I dont understand the information that application offers me!

At the level of play we are analizing it would be very very rare to put the blame in the player that is signaling.
First of all top-level players signal when his pd needs a signal, if you don't think your pd needs a signal then don't signal because you will only help declarer. It is a pleasure to play against players that always signal with military precision since most of the time you will be playing the hand double dummy with the count and/or location of missing spots being known.
This can lead to some strange situation where one player thinks his pd has signalled when actually the player has only pulled one of his cards without any meaning.
I think that for Hamman the situation was obvious, he decided a spade cannot be a logical continuation then he wasn't signaling at all. Soloway may have just made a mistake or may have thought this was a situation where Hamman was signaling.
So I think that the most probable conclusion is that Soloway just made a mistake and whatever their signals were I don't think Hamman can be blamed.

I think that sometimes Claus you analize hands in a too scientific way, there's a lot of judgement in top-level bridge, players are not robots that bid as their system demands them to bid and they are not robots who play cards as their signals demand them to play. Signals are there to "help" pd not to make him do something against his will.
At top level a signal can never prevent a player from doing the right play.

[inquiry]

Quote

Now we know Soloway was right!

I certainly agree with you Ben about Deep Finesse. - Maybe because I dont understand the information that application offers me!

I am willing to bet that Soloway was probably right on bridge logic to play a spade, regardless of the signalling.

Next issue, when the bidding is over and you are kibitzing or reviewing hands played earlier, you can click the DF button at any time it is there. The person's whose turn it is to play has his cards highlighted in RED or GREEN. The Green ones mean he can play that card to defeat the contract (if he is a defender) or make if he is the declarer with "optimal" play by both sides. Once the contract is either made of set, the DF button goes away. Useful in seeing where you might have missed an obvious play when reviewing hands.

ben

His partner doubled 5D on something other than the club King. Either he was planning on a spade ruff or he has the diamond ACE. If he has the diamond ACE, then any return by Soloway leads to sure down as two tricks have already been collected. If he held

[mpefritz]

From ACBL Bulletin:

Of course the big question is, why did Soloway lead a spade instead of the good heart?

There were clues suggesting the spade lead. First of all, his partner had bid hearts twice, which made it likely that Hamman had four hearts, in which case Lauria would have no more. Second, Hamman followed to the opening club lead with the 7. Soloway was sure that Hamman knew that they couldn’t cash the second club, so the 7 could have been a suit preference signal asking for spades. Also, in playing hearts Hamman played the 2, then the 4 and then the 5. He might have played 2-5-4 with three.

Soloway had a very tough choice to make. Did his partner have four hearts and therefore a singleton spade, or did he have just three hearts along with two spades?

“I saw the 7 and it looked like a signal for spades,” said Paul. “In the heart suit, our first play is attitude, and the second shows present count. Bob played the 4 second, and in our methods that showed an even number originally, So it seemed that Bob had started with four hearts and a singleton spade. “But then there was the auction. Bob bid only 2 the first time. If he had four hearts, very likely he would have jumped to 3.”

Soloway eventually made the wrong choice — he relied on the play rather than the auction and played partner for a singleton spade. But because Lauria didn’t realize that Soloway had made the wrong choice, the Americans still got their two trick set – and the gold medal in the closest Bermuda Bowl in history.

“At the table I thought I had it right,” said Paul. “In retrospect, I feel I should have given stronger consideration to the bidding. Bob didn’t bid 3, so he probably didn’t have four hearts. So in retrospect I feel I should have led the heart, not the spade.”



fritz

[inquiry]

Quote

From ACBL Bulletin:

Of course the big question is, why did Soloway lead a spade instead of the good heart?

There were clues suggesting the spade lead. First of all, his partner had bid hearts twice, which made it likely that Hamman had four hearts, in which case Lauria would have no more. Second, Hamman followed to the opening club lead with the 7.

Hi Fritz,

I read this in Saturday's Daily Bulletin from New Orleans as well... When watching live on BBO Vugraph, the card shown at trick one was the club 2, not the club 7. This was "confirmed" by review of the hand record stored on my computer and checking with a site with all the hands from the play as shown on BBO:
http://fsbridge.nexe...3/wtc/index.php

Since Paul Soloway is quoted as saying the club SEVEN was played at trick one, then I believe in fact the seven was played. This clearly changes a whole lot of the analysis of why soloway lead a spade. In addition, if the Vugraph operators were playing any small card when in fact, players selected from among puppies, we lose a lot in trying to tell what is going on. I stated earlier that the Soloway=Hamman carding didn't seem to agree with what is posted on their CC, particulary at trick one. But now, at least on this hand, the spot cards were not shown to us in the order played. If this happened on other hands, it might explain what appeared to me to be inconsistant carding based upon their posted CC.

Note, however, that in the interview, Soloway did take the play of the second and third heart as showing remaining count and 4 hearts intitially as I suggested, and that and the club 7 helped him reach the wrong conclusion (the club 2 would NOT suggest a spade lead).

ben