[FelicityR]

I had high hopes of England's Bermuda Bowl team doing well this year. There were some new partnerships in the team, and with the lynchpin experienced partnership of Andrew Robson and Tony Forrester it boded well. However...

...it all fell apart in Session 5 of the quarter final against the very experienced USA 1 team, and it would be wrong not to congratulate USA 1 on their victory, but from where I was sitting watching sessions 5 and 6 online it was more a case of England pressing the self-destruct button than USA 1 making a comeback (as one USA commentator said.)

The disastrous session 5 saw them lose a lead of over 60 IMPs in 16 boards. There were some misunderstandings on the boards, and after the dust had settled England were only a couple of IMPs up going into the final session.

Edit: https://www.bridgeba...ch.php?id=65842

Hope against hope I thought the rot had stopped and we could claw our way back into a lead but it was not meant to be. The USA 1 team were now on a roll, and whilst the final session was tighter, the USA 1 team deserved to win as they were more consistent especially in the latter half of the match. Well done!

And all I can add to that is that there's always the next Bermuda Bowl for England to make amends. I'll just have to settle watching England's progress in the Rugby World Cup in the next couple of weeks. I think I am now 'bridged out' watching the events in China in the early hours.

I'll be especially interested in how other bridge players saw it. Was it fatigue? Too much system? Trying too hard, etc. And, as always, thank you for your replies.

[mikeh]

I only saw snippets, but that included much of the disastrous penultimate set.

I think it proves, yet again, what we have known about Meckwell for decades now: when they get going, they create tremendous momentum, and are very tough to play against. I mean no disrespect to Robson-Forrester, who have been world class for almost as long as Meckwell, and I do think that they were a little unlucky, but Meckwell are simply tough to play against because they are so aggressive...you have to really work hard on every hand to avoid a swing, and (unlike reading on forums) there is no clue to tell you whether 'this hand' is the one you can need to have extra focus.

Did this engender the 1100 in 5Cx'd? I came late and so the hand was over and I don't know whether the commentators were able to explain the auction but it seemed to me that either Robson or Forrester forgot an agreement. It started 1D (x) 1S....and then opener, with 6=4 minors, jumped to 5C after RHO bid hearts: Rodwell was looking at AKJx in clubs and was no doubt equally surprised and delighted to be able to double.

I suspect that one played transfers over the double, and the other either didn't or forgot. I was wondering whether this was something new for them, since one would not expect such an accident at this level. However, in the round-robin I watched one pair (different event) have the auction 1S (P) 4H all pass, where the 4H bidder intended a splinter; 4H on the 1-1 fit was -7 into their cold 5S. Apparently that was not the only unfortunate 4H contract on those cards.

That sort of mental error can sometimes lose very little: this time it lost a lot.

Later, one of the R-F pair (I forgot who sat where) had a decent 5-5, with AQJxx in spades and Q10xxx in diamonds, at unfavourable.

RHO opened a strong 1N at both tables. Given this hand, and assuming, as I think pretty clear, that one bids, I think we'd all prefer to be able to bid 2D, showing diamonds and a major rather the 2S showing spades and a minor. Now, there are reasons why one would not have one's methods that way, but on this hand, I think we'd prefer it, especially if we knew that LHO had a good hand, and we were in danger.

If partner has short diamonds, we can get to spades after 2D but if partner has short spades, he may not be able to safely get to a minor....picture 3=5=1=4 for 2D and 1=5=3=4 for 2S...3D will be no fun on the second one, while 2S may be ok, even great, on the first.

But not last night. Both Souths doubled, one 2D and the other 2S. North held, and I may have the clubs wrong, K9xx Ax AJ9x Axx

After advancer passed 2D x'd, opener had an easy pass of the negative double, knowing that they were not going to be able to run and inferring no secondary fit for declarer.

After 2S x...the issues are very different. Overcaller could easily be 5=5 blacks, and advancer could be 3=3 blacks as well, such that the hand plays like a dream, and 2S making is game, unlike 2D (although the chances of 2D making are between slim and zero, and far closer to zero than to slim).

As it happened, South had 10x KQxx Kx and, I think, KJxxx and Meckstroh led the diamond K, destroying any chance of ruffing a spade in dummy, while the English North pulled the double to 2N, leading to an easy 3N for lose 9.

It's probably scientifically wrong, but my experience tells me that when one is playing badly, with forgets and misunderstandings, one is more often than not also unlucky, and during this set R-F were both. I didn't pay enough attention to the other table to comment on their results.

No Canadian team made the playoffs, so I am left rooting for England in the Mixed, since Frances Hinden is on that team.

[FelicityR]

mikeh, on 2019-September-24, 14:39, said:

Did this engender the 1100 in 5Cx'd? I came late and so the hand was over and I don't know whether the commentators were able to explain the auction but it seemed to me that either Robson or Forrester forgot an agreement. It started 1D (x) 1S....and then opener, with 6=4 minors, jumped to 5C after RHO bid hearts: Rodwell was looking at AKJx in clubs and was no doubt equally surprised and delighted to be able to double.

Board 4 was just non-sensical. Whether they forgot their agreements or not, I was just utterly surprised when Andrew Robson opened 1♦ - Weinstein opened 3♦ which is my bid also. Then to 'sacrifice' in 5♣ vulnerable even if Forrester had meant the 1♠ bid as showing ♣s was non-comprehensible.

Whether it was a 'gut' response to board 1 where they should have made game is anyone's guess. The session panned out like a gambler chasing his stake money in the hope of a big win - my son's words, and he's pretty shrewd when it comes to poker or bridge.

But who am I to comment? How would I have reacted facing the same pressures that USA 1 put the England team under. It's history now, but I sat there thinking 'this can't be happening' but it did.

[msjennifer]

Sirs,I also was watching our match against USA and was surprised that we lost even after a handsome lead.My personal observations of the match are we lost because of brain fatigue .inabiklity to last over a long match requiring the hardest physical stamina , and shortfall of consistency in tactical bidding against powerful opponents.My hearty congratulations to Meckwells ,

[dsLawsd]

Playing under pressure is the hardest thing in the world. And we see
that in World Heart Day. Our own expectations can be the enemy.
Meckwell have learned to enjoy and keep an even keel win or lose.

But let us salute the England Team for a fine effort and next championship- look for them to do better!

[rmnka447]

I think mikeh's comment about the Meckwell momentum is spot on. In my own little corner of the bridge world, I've seen it happen several times both favorably and unfavorably, but mostly favorably. You create momentum with a board or two, then the opposition starts feeling pressure and starts to make mistakes. Then, it snowballs. It really doesn't reflect on the skill of the players so much as the psychological situation that makes it difficult to perform. It sounds like the England team got caught up in one.

Let me give you an example. We've played several times against teams that have oodles more total masterpoints (30,000) versus ours (8000 at the time). After about 6 or 7 boards of a 12 board half where we played flawless bridge, I could physically notice our opponents start to squirm in their seats and you could see the pressure building on them. Often as not, we'd win those matches.

OTOH, we've felt lots of pressure several times playing a team with Shon Huang, Kevin Bathurst, and Kevin Dwyer on it and got blitzed. Yeah, they're probably going to outplay you. But if you can eliminate letting the pressure of playing them get to you and play well, who knows maybe the worm will turn on occasion.

[ncohen]

rmnka447, on 2019-September-25, 18:01, said:

I think mikeh's comment about the Meckwell momentum is spot on. In my own little corner of the bridge world, I've seen it happen several times both favorably and unfavorably, but mostly favorably. You create momentum with a board or two, then the opposition starts feeling pressure and starts to make mistakes. Then, it snowballs. It really doesn't reflect on the skill of the players so much as the psychological situation that makes it difficult to perform. It sounds like the England team got caught up in one.

A good comment from the ENgland US match in the Culbertson days (40's?). I believe England was up, but had just lost a slam swing. One of the commentators said -- we've lost 3,000 pts on the hand (total points) -- if we can only hold the loss to 6,000. But, England got discouraged and started playing poorly.