[fred]

In another thread someone asked how this was possible. Here is the story.

In the round of 16 in the recent Spingold in Chicago, my team (Ekeblad) faced team Hollman. Probably most people considered us moderate favorites to win this match, but it is hard for me to be objective about this.

Half way through the 64-board match we were certainly big favorites as the score at that point was 87-9(!) in favor of our team. I have played in a lot of Spingolds and Vanderbilts over the years and I have never had a lead like that against a strong team before.

Needless to say, I have never blown a lead like that either

My partner (Brad Moss) and I sat out the 3rd 16-board quarter where our team lost 31 IMPs. I find it a waste of energy to get involved in my teammates results so I really have no idea what happened in that segment. From what I could tell neither of our other pairs (Ekeblad-Rubin and Martel-Stansby) were especially thrilled with their results, but neither pair was awful.

In the 4th quarter Brad and I sat down to play against Joe Grue and Curtis Cheek with a 45-IMP lead. Most of the cards were in the opponents' direction and Joe and Curtis played (and guessed) pretty much flawlessly on a difficult set of boards. There were 4 big swings against us and our opponents also got slightly the better of the small boards. When the smoke cleared we had lost by 6 IMPs.

Here are 3 of the 4 deals that resulted in big swings (I don't keep score and I don't remember what the 4th big swing deal was and, being somewhat shellshocked, I was not really in the mood to investigate when the match was over). As you will see from these deals, nobody on our team did anything stupid - our opponents just guessed better than we did.

AKxx
Qxx
Qxx
A10x

x
xx
AKJxx
QJxxx

Where would you want to play these cards?

Cheek-Grue bid to 5D by South while Martel-Stansby bid to 3NT by North. If you assume best defense and do the math you will find that our teammates were in the better contract. On this day, however, the opening leader against 3NT had AJ10xx of hearts so that contract failed. Meanwhile the Kxx of clubs was onside and nothing else bad happened so 5D made.

To make matters worse, the declaring side was vulnerable. 12 IMPs to Hollman.

AQxx
Kxx
Ax
AJxx

Kxxx
A10xxx
KQx
x

Where would you want to play these cards?

Martel-Stansby bid to 6S while Cheek-Grue tried 7S. Both majors broke 3-2 so 13 tricks were easy, but this is not what I would call the sort of grand slam that you would normally want to be bidding. However, this was not a "normal" time - the Hollman team needed good things to happen and that may have influenced their bidding on this deal.

To make matters worse the declaring side was vulnerable. 13 IMPs to Hollman.

What would you lead from this hand after the opponents bid 1NT-3NT?

Ax
xxx
KJxx
QJxx

Brad reasonably lead a club. The player for Hollman at the other table (either Billy Cohen or Ron Smith) reasonably lead a heart.

Turns out that Brad's club lead made life easy for the declarer, but after a heart lead Chip Martel (who declares as well as anyone) would have had to have been looking at all the cards to come to 9 tricks. Having the benefit of only 2 hands in view, he failed by a trick.

Mercifully the declaring side was not vulnerable this time, but that was still 10 IMPs away.

The Hollman team certainly got the best of the luck, but they should be applauded for playing more or less down the middle throughout the 4th quarter. The swings they generated were through taking mildly anti-percentage actions that happened to work. Meanwhile, they didn't make any careless mistakes (nor did anyone on my team as far as I can remember).

So that's the story. Losing a lead as big as we had is very rare, but after rereading what I just wrote, I am not sure why. It doesn't seem like these boards were really so strange (and I am pretty sure the 4th big swing against us, whatever it was, fell into the same category).

Hope you enjoyed reading about this more than I enjoyed living through it

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Winstonm]

This requires a long, uphill trudge - an active volcano - and human sacrifice.

[twcho]

Wish you better luck next time.

[Erkson]

fred, on Jul 25 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

Hope you enjoyed reading about this more than I enjoyed living through it

Many thanks, Fred, for taking the time to report it.

It confirms that a 64-board match remains aleatory, and a wounded brave adversary keeps very dangerous.

Erkson

[Walddk]

Erkson, on Jul 25 2006, 07:47 AM, said:

fred, on Jul 25 2006, 01:43 AM, said:

Hope you enjoyed reading about this more than I enjoyed living through it

Many thanks, Fred, for taking the time to report it.

It confirms that a 64-board match remains aleatory, and a wounded brave adversary keeps very dangerous.

Erkson

Indeed, being lucky is not to be sneezed at, especially not at this level where the pairs are (roghly) equally good.

In a 64-board match between a very good team and a lesser team luck won't be decisive, but from the round of 64 and onwards there were no weakish teams. An impressive field it was.

Not that this will make fred feel any better, but to squander a 76 IMP lead with 32 to go is by no means a record. I remember how Barnet Shenkin told me that he years ago was involved in a Scottish Cup final where his team trailed by 68 IMPs with 8 to go.

His team won by 4 although they lost two slam swings in the final segment! That, on the other hand, could well be a record.

Roland

[JanM]

I asked Chip what the fourth big swing was and know more or less what it was. I should probably do this as a bidding poll, but I want to get out to the barn before it gets horrendously hot this morning, so I'll just report.

In second seat, favorable, you have (I think I have this about right, no absolute guarantees though):
KQxxx
xxx
x
Jxxx

You play reasonably normal, but undisciplined weak 2's. You know that the person holding your hands at the other table plays very light multi's. Do you open 2♠?

If you do open 2♠, the bidding proceeds P-2NT(asking)-P. You now have the option of showing a weak hand with a bad suit or a weak hand with a good suit. A good suit is defined as 2 of the top 3 honors, but you haven't, despite an almost 30 year partnership, discussed whether it also promises a 6 card suit. You choose to show a bad suit, by bidding 3♠. Partner who has a very strong 1-5-2-5 hand bids 3NT and you go down. The opponents reach 4♥, which makes.

Obviously, you could have bid the hand differently, but you were also a little unlucky - if your LHO had held partner's hand, the opponents would have had a vul slam, which would be difficult for them to reach after a 2♠ opening.

[barmar]

This is the type of stuff that makes bridge endlessly fascinating and frustrating. Sometimes perfectly reasonable decisions turn out to be wrong at the table.

There was a swing hand near the end of the finals where East opened 1♣ and South interfered (I think it was a preempt). At one table EW ended up in 4♣=, at the other it was 5♣-1. The ♠ were something like W QJxx opposite E Kx, with North holding the Ace. The bidding would almost certainly have been exactly the same with the Ace and King interchanged, but then the finesse would be on and 5♣ would be the winning spot (it would be a 50% contract just looking at EW hands, rather than a 0% contract).

[fred]

JanM, on Jul 25 2006, 04:36 PM, said:

I asked Chip what the fourth big swing was and know more or less what it was. I should probably do this as a bidding poll, but I want to get out to the barn before it gets horrendously hot this morning, so I'll just report.

In second seat, favorable, you have (I think I have this about right, no absolute guarantees though):
KQxxx
xxx
x
Jxxx

You play reasonably normal, but undisciplined weak 2's. You know that the person holding your hands at the other table plays very light multi's. Do you open 2♠?

If you do open 2♠, the bidding proceeds P-2NT(asking)-P. You now have the option of showing a weak hand with a bad suit or a weak hand with a good suit. A good suit is defined as 2 of the top 3 honors, but you haven't, despite an almost 30 year partnership, discussed whether it also promises a 6 card suit. You choose to show a bad suit, by bidding 3♠. Partner who has a very strong 1-5-2-5 hand bids 3NT and you go down. The opponents reach 4♥, which makes.

Obviously, you could have bid the hand differently, but you were also a little unlucky - if your LHO had held partner's hand, the opponents would have had a vul slam, which would be difficult for them to reach after a 2♠ opening.

Thanks for the report, Jan.

I remember this hand now. 4H was a superior contract to 3NT, but 3NT did have reasonable play. So the Hollman team deserved the swing they won on this board, but on a slightly different layout of the other 2 hands, 3NT would have made as well and the swing would have been only 1 or 2 IMPs (instead of the 11 IMPs we actually lost).

Something else worth mentioning about this hand is that the player who was in first seat held:

AJ10xx
xxx
Kxx
Kx

When my partner held this hand he opened 1S (which I believe would be a popular choice among today's experts). Presumably his counterpart at the other table passed with these cards. Had he opened 1S, Chip and Lew would have certainly bid to 4H like Cheek-Grue did at our table.

Perhaps the decision to not open 1S was another example of an intentionally mildly strange action in an attempt to generate a swing. But I am not sure about this as the pair in question (Cohen-Smith) are not exactly known as aggressive bidders. Maybe it is normal for them to Pass such hands...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com