Oct
01

I’d rather be lucky ….

When it comes to partnerships I’ve always been pretty lucky and while I worried that this move would represent the time that my luck ran out, it has not. I’ve played a few times now with a very sharp woman who is an excellent player and she has yet to run screaming from the club; in fact, she seemed pleased to get to trot out some of the conventions that other people in this area aren’t keen on playing.

Yesterday she presented me with a laminated, computer printed convention card (a huge step in any bridge partnership). She arrived just before the game started so I didn’t actually get a chance to look at the new convention card and as we played she kept thinking of things that she’d added that we had never actually discussed (for example: Namyats, Rosencrantz, Snap-dragon doubles). Before we play next I’m going to have to spend some serious time with the card and a high speed internet connection just so I know for sure what I’m in for. But as I’ve said in the past, when I play with a stronger player the thing I have to offer is a willingness to learn new conventions so I’m game to play their ideal card, almost regardless of what it includes. Of course, when I’m playing with a weaker partner I’d never ask them to try to play all the conventions I like so I volunteer to play whatever they like. One day I will find a partner with whom I can play the stuff I like — though to be honest I’m not longer exactly sure just what that system would look like.

Today I read in the news that a 697 lb. alligator had been captured and killed in MIssissippi. My initial reaction to the headline was “Thank g_d that’s nowhere near here,” only then to realize that it was here (a few hours south of here to be precise, but not nearly as far away as it should have been).

Aug
02

Slurp

My fondness for bidding conventions is no secret. It seems like most of the time when someone asks me what I would do with a particular hand at some point during my reply I find myself saying the words, “There’s this convention….” and then the listener’s eyes glaze over if they weren’t already. There is a particular class of convention that I particularly like but don’t spring on unsuspecting, inquiring minds and those are the conventions that introduce noise.

They aren’t allowed to be played except against artificial bids (e.g. 2♣ openers). Perhaps needless to say, due to limited application and opportunity I have little real world experience with them, but I love the idea in theory and I’m always on the look-out for hands on which one would have been applicable. Theoretically my favorite response to an opponent asking about a bid I’ve just alerted would be a shrug: “What does that bid mean?” “It’s forcing.” “And-???” *shrug*

One such convention that I play with the Mad Scientist (who else?) is called ‘Suction‘ and today it sucked, hard. My RHO opened an artificial, strong 1♣. I bid 1♦ showing either hearts or both black suits. My LHO doubled and now TMS bid 2♣. Because I was definitely going to be given the opportunity to take another bid I assumed that his bid was natural, probably a six card club suit and no interest in whatever my holding was, and for the record this was it:

♠ AJxx
♥ JT9xx
♦ Kxx
♣ x

Yeah, it really sucks, but I have five hearts and we’re not vul. against vul. and …. and …. and the name of the convention is “Suction” so ….

In retrospect, if I was going to bid at all, I probably should have bid 2♣ showing diamonds or the majors, but I didn’t. And now when TMS bid 2♣ I took it that that was his suit (naturally, since I have a singleton and I always have a singleton in his suit). Long story short, he was bidding 2♣ as pass or correct showing clubs and hearts and we played in our 4-1 club fit instead of our 5-4 heart fit and we were doubled, down six. But I still love this convention, in theory.

May
31

Simply Complex

On Tuesday night I listened as the Mad Scientist offered a detailed, impassioned explanation of McCabe redoubles to his partner, Washington. Washington knows and, more to the point, understands more conventions than most players even if he spurns the vast majority of them. And while I’d wager that he plays more conventions with TMS than with any of his other partners, when the disquisition drew to a close with the phrase: “It costs nothing,” Washington’s reply was still, “We’re not playing that.”

Yesterday I set TMS off on more or less the same explanation when I arrived at his table and asked a specific question about the redouble. His partner today was another good player, again someone who knows more conventions than the average player, and again his description ended with “It costs nothing,” this time with a hand gesture indicating a zero and the reply was exactly the same, “We’re not playing that.”

While I wasn’t able to find an exact match for what he was describing (TMS has a well-established transfer fetish, so it seems plausible that he added that feature on his own — but it is actually useful to be able to give partner information on the quality of responder’s holding in his/her suit), Methods 2 & 3 here come pretty close. Both of those methods are indisputably simple.

This is the somewhat more complicated version that TMS was describing with transfers (translated from Madly Scientific Bridge-ese to just Bridge-ese, you can thank me later):

After ones RHO makes a take-out double of partner’s pre-emptive opening bid (I could make it more complicated than he was by noting that this could apply after a pre-emptive over-call and a negative double too, but I wouldn’t dream of it), a redouble shows the next ranking suit (either a single-suited hand or that suit plus partner’s or simply lead directing).

Any bid of NT is natural or systemic (i.e. typically 3NT is to play while 2NT is Ogust or feature asking).

Suit bids are transfers to the next suit in line and are also lead directing (again showing a single-suited hand or both that suit and partner’s or simply lead directing).

A “transfer” to partner’s suit shows the ace or king in partner’s suit telling them it is safe to lead (or even under-lead) their holding.

Lastly and leastly, a direct raise of partner’s suit shows length but denies having either the ace or king.

Okay, so that does sound kind of complicated, it’s simpler when one looks at an example:

2♥-(X)-?

XX = Spades or Spades + Hearts or Hearts wanting a Spade lead
2♠ = Clubs or Clubs + Hearts or Hearts wanting a Club lead
2NT/3NT = unchanged
3♣= Diamonds or Diamonds + Hearts or Hearts wanting a Club lead
3♦ = Hearts with the ace or king
3♥ = Hearts without the ace or king

3♦-(X)-?

XX = Hearts or Hearts + Diamonds or Diamonds wanting a Heart lead
3♥ = Spades or Spades + Diamonds or Diamonds wanting a Spade lead
3♠ = Clubs or Clubs + Diamonds or Diamonds wanting a Club lead
3NT = Unchanged
4♣ = Diamonds with the ace or king
4♦ = Diamonds without the ace or king

So does the McCabe redouble really cost nothing (aside from the requisite minimum of three disasters one has whenever adding a new convention)? Well, one gives up the ability to redouble for penalty after partner’s opening pre-empt but the value of that is so marginal as to be almost non-existent. (If one really had a penalty redouble, most opponents would be with it enough to bid something.) As conventions go, this is as close to cost free as one is likely to find.

So why is it that not all bridge players want to play every good convention that comes their way?

Those of us who engage in promiscuity bridge-wise do so at our own peril when it comes to remembering which conventions we play with which partner. So even adding a helpful, relatively easy to remember convention is tough if you’re only adding it with one of several partners.

Then there’s the issue that one person’s “simple” is another person’s OMGWTFBBQ?!?! But this isn’t a static characteristic. I remember when my bridge teacher first introduced us to Stayman. I was right there with him until he mentioned the existence of the garbage-variety. At that moment I remember quite clearly thinking that I was never going to be able to get a hang of it. My brain kicked the information it wasn’t processing into a deep, dark recess somewhere and a few months later something brought it back to mind and I went to my notes and there was Garbage Stayman and it seemed so simple and logical that I was surprised that a few months earlier I hadn’t understood it.

I attended some classes held by one of the experts at our club. I have a huge amount of respect for him as a player, but he isn’t big on teaching conventions even though he is hugely knowledgeable about them. At some point he was talking about doing away with all the unnecessary conventions that partnerships have. His argument was these would really only help on something like 5% of the hands that one would face … or about one per session. I guess I had my poker face on because he called on me to see if I had something to say about it. What I said was that I wasn’t in it for just twenty-four boards or even a thousand, but that I was in it for the hundred-thousand hands I’d play in my life time and then whether or not I played those conventions would really make a difference. (A conservative estimate of how much I play puts me reaching that 100,000,000 mark in just over 15 years whether or not I’ll actually play that long mostly depends on when one of my partners finally snaps and kills me, but I digress ….) I want to play all the good conventions because I don’t want 5,000 bad results that would otherwise have been avoided. Other people, do not feel as I do.

Mostly it boils down to the same old problem of convention tolerance. My tolerance for filing away new conventions is high because my brain is relatively good at that. I would much rather learn new conventions than, say, work on my declarer play (and it shows). In fact, outside of my adventures with TMS, it is relatively rare for me to forget a convention. But it still happens once in awhile, my partner looks across the table and instead of the usual cool, calm collected girl throwing her bids on the table in an instant sees this:

"What do you mean we play
snap-bunny pancake doubles?"

But it is safe to say that typically (again the big exception is when I’m playing with TMS) my partners are far more likely to forget conventions than I am which makes me very reluctant to thrust the conventions I want to play on them. Even playing mostly (or only) the conventions they want to play, it’s happened repeatedly that they’ve forgotten. One of my favorite examples was with a partner who has a real thing for Puppet Stayman and wanted to play that 3♣ was Puppet over both 2NT and 1NT. I agreed while internally noting that I was going to have to watch for the 1NT-3♣ sequence, lest I forget it. A few rounds in, he opened 2NT. I bid 3♣. He failed to alert my bid (which made me a bit nervous) and bid 3 of a major, long story short, we ended up in a 4-3 fit that didn’t play as well as 3NT would have. I mocked him mercilessly for forgetting his pet convention because I’m mean and he’s particularly fun to mock. But my point is, people forget conventions, even easy conventions and I won’t be introducing McCabe to any of my regular partners anytime soon, but maybe one day because, after all, it doesn’t cost anything.

May
15

Risk

Considering the fact that it rates it’s own line on an ACBL convention card, I continue to be surprised by how few people actually play a gambling 3NT. Perhaps it’s the name, which is actually a misnomer. Gambling is typically frowned upon by bridge players, but the fact is the risk with this convention is minimal and the rewards are substantial. It doesn’t come up that often, but when it has it has almost always been a good result (the exception was once when it came up and my partner passed without stoppers turning the bid into a real gamble — which lost).

To review, a so-called “gambling 3NT” bid is an opening bid of 3NT with a hand that has seven (or more) running cards in a minor suit (for example, AKQJxxx or AKQxxxxx) with no other outside entry1. The idea is that if the suit splits as expected one will take all seven (or more) tricks in that suit; as I’ve said to a lot of students, there are two things that take tricks: high cards and long suits — don’t underestimate long suits. The 3NT bid specifically asks partner to pass if they have stoppers in the other three suits AND at least one card in the suit itself.

How does one know which suit partner has? Well, it will probably be obvious. If responder has one of the top honors in a minor, it isn’t that one. If you are void in a minor, it probably is that one. If you aren’t able to tell, you shouldn’t pass. If as responder one does not have a stopper in one of the other three suits, then one should bid 4♣ asking the opener to pass or correct. If one is void in a minor, one should bid 4♣ asking the opener to pass or correct. If one of the opponents (especially the one on lead) chooses to double 3NT, one should usually bid 4♣ once again asking the opener to pass or correct.

There are uses for bids like 4♥ or 4♠, but this is the gambling 3NT in it’s simplest form — which is to say, it’s not really gambling at all because one can always escape to four of the minor, which if not playing a gambling 3NT, is how most people would have opened their hand to begin with. And now, when one does choose to open their hand 3 or 4♣ or ♦, their partner knows the suit is not solid, but is probably missing one of the top three honors (e.g., KQJxxxx or AQJxxxx). Playing this convention gives one an awful lot of information directly as well as by negative inference.

Perhaps all of this seems overly obvious, but it doesn’t seem to be well understood because I’ve won a lot of IMPS and matchpoints on this bid. On second thought, don’t listen to me. It’s a terrible convention. It’s WAY TOO RISKY and no one should play it (unless, of course, you’re playing with me).

Yesterday one of the exceptions came up. The Mad Scientist opened 3NT and my RHO doubled. In this case I had all three suits well and truly stopped. I was just the tiniest bit nervous about my Qxx in hearts, but now I had a sneaking suspicion where the AK were so I chose to pass. My RHO led the ace of hearts followed by the king and TMS collected his nine tricks for +750.

The opponent who had doubled seemed momentarily confused about how I could always know which minor it was and I explained that holding the AQx of diamonds made it obvious, but that if I had been unable to tell I would have run to 4♣. I also noted that if I really thought he might beat 3NT, I would have been able to run from the double as well. As I said to call it a “gambling 3NT” is quite inaccurate, I make far riskier bids on a regular basis.

1 The first cousin to the “gambling 3NT” is the opening bid of one of a minor followed by jump to 3NT which shows the same quality minor suit, but now with an outside entry. Presumably the opener has 8 tricks in their hand even if partner is void in the minor.

May
11

Arrested Development

For the first part of the afternoon session, the Mad Scientist and I were waiting for the boards each round; for the latter part of the session, we were waiting for opponents. Even with hands that had me stopping to think (cue the cold beads of sweat appearing on partner’s forehead), we were consistently getting done before the rest of the room. As I like to say: “I may not be good, but I’m fast.”

Part way through the afternoon yet another mad scientist turned up to kibitz TMS. Listening to the two of them talk during the gaps between rounds was quite an experience. I could follow only most of what was being said, there were a number of esoteric conventions being name-checked that I’d never even heard of, and to a non-bridge player it wouldn’t have even sounded like English. At some point I remarked that they must have been separated at birth, TMS stood up and declared, “There are dozens of us! DOZENS!” assured me that there are others like him.

At one point YAMS went on what he described as “a diatribe against Stayman” which was interesting and felt vaguely sacrilegious. My favorite convention is “Garbage Stayman”. What’s not to love? It lets you bid with zero high-card points, serves to block the opponents out and gets you to a better contract. Plus there are dozens of hand types that one goes through Stayman to show. He made some good points, especially about ending up stranded in the world’s worst contracts (to wit, 2NT or 3 of a major) with invitational values across from a minimum, but I just can’t imagine giving Stayman up altogether.

As appealing as the idea of sparing the rest of us by having the dozens of mad scientists play with one another is, it occurred to me that a partnership between two mad scientists would likely be short lived. While it seems like solid advice indeed to seek parity between partners when it comes to tolerance for number and types of conventions played, if one got two of these (evil?) geniuses together they would almost certainly have different ideas about how to tackle particular problems and I’ve no idea how one would rectify that short of a fight to the death.

I was also impressed by just how many potentially very good system ideas never see the light of the day because no one is playing them in real life. It seems like such a waste to have them exist in theory only.

May
10

Bidding Hassles

In the afternoon there were a lot of interesting hands. I was playing with Yin and our system got quite a work out. One hand defeated it entirely (link: here). I’m still not sure how to bid that hand properly, but I felt better about my 3♥ bid after talking it over with one of the resident experts. He agreed that the real question on the hand is whether or not to force to game, if I do, it’s almost impossible not to get to the correct game but it is still tricky to find the slam. If, however, I’m not ready to commit on my second bid to game then I have some thorny issues and could miss game on a hand that is cold for seven. We had a miscommunication, not surprisingly, but despite it we managed to make it to 5♥ just not six (and while seven is cold, it isn’t a grand slam I’d want to be in). I have to admit I was surprised that I was the only person who went looking for that board after the fact to record the hands (I wanted the exact spots), perhaps other people’s memories are just that much better than mine, speaking of which …

There were an unusual number of tables today and this particular game is held at a location other than the bridge club, so they ran out of bidding boxes. Most people learn bridge at home without the aid of bidding boxes and many bridge players remember a time before the ACBL was requiring their use. But I learned just a few years ago in a bridge club so my experience with playing bridge without a bidding box is extremely limited to almost none at all and I must say I do not like it. Not because I think unauthorized information is being passed by the way in which the bids are spoken, though I can certainly see how that could be the case (just the way in which one pulls a card from the box and places it on the table can say something about how one feels about a bid), and not because I’m afraid of the next table overhearing the sequence, but I don’t like having to remember the bids. (Yes, I really am that lazy.) Apparently, I rely on the visual reminder of the cards stacked in front of each player pretty heavily.

It would figure that one of the hands that we had to bid at that particular table (thank goodness there was only one) would give me a chance to trot out a convention we’ve had on the card for awhile, but that has never come up before. The convention worked the way it was supposed to and I managed to remember the bidding, but I found the whole thing very distracting.

Also I had my requisite board on which I’m vulnerable, in a normal contract and happy as a Corgi on stilts that I am able to hold it to down one, only to find that everyone else is making an overtrick (or two). It seems like I have one of these boards every session and it really takes the wind out of my sails. Maybe I just always get excellent defense (yeah, that’s it, I’m sure).

Apr
15

Slim Slam

My attitude upon arriving at the bridge club yesterday would best be described as one of grim determination. The bridge gods, fearful after my recent meltdown that they might lose their favorite punching bag entirely, decided to lay-off.

One sees certain patterns over and over again. For example, most of the field is in four, making six, with one or two pairs in six making six. Or most of the room is in six of a major making six or seven, with a few pairs in 6NT making six or seven. What one doesn’t see very often, but which happened today, was most of the room in 4♠ making seven, no one in 6♠ and one pair in 7♠ making seven.

While it was true that the Mad Scientist’s mad system meant I got to start cue-bidding on the 3-level (always a good thing as far as I’m concerned), we sketched out how we would have bid it playing something closer to standard (specifically using a Jacoby 2NT response) and thought we’d get there anyway.

It turns out the only card in my hand that is of questionable value (namely the Kx of diamonds) becomes huge once the opener shows their second suit (which just happens to be, you guessed it, diamonds).

Anyway the opener has a big 5/5 hand in the pointy suits and I have both rounded aces, four spades to the king and the aforementioned king of diamonds. Yes, it’s a 29 HCP grand slam but six is ice cold and seven just needs either (not even both) of the pointy suits to break reasonably well. Of course, had it been left up to the more cowardly half of the partnership (that would be me), we would have only been in six, and strangely that still would have been worth all of the matchpoints. (Link to the hand here.)

Mar
12

The Six Million Dollar Convention

On Saturday, the Mad Scientist and I had an auction involving a Michaels cue-bid that went a little sideways on us. We stumbled into the right spot after the typical misunderstanding: I thought my bid was invitational, he thought it was pre-emptive. Luckily he also thought his hand was pretty spiffy so he bid game anyway. We’re just lucky we didn’t miss a slam. Anyway, after the hand, I mentioned Mike Lawrence’s treatment of responses after a Michaels cue-bid, using 2NT as an asking bid. TMS said he had read about it in the ACBL Bulletin awhile back, but asked if I could dig it up and send it to him. I looked it up in my dog-eared copy of Lawrence’s The Complete Book on Overcalls and found that when RHO passes [for example: (1♣)-2♣-(P)-?] a jump to 3 of a major did indeed show an invitational hand with four card support (which is what I had done on the hand in question). I knew what was coming even as I pressed the “Send” button early Sunday morning: the Mad Scientist is going to rebuild it, he has the technology.

Better ... faster ... stronger.

On Sunday afternoon, there was still no response. I pictured TMS toiling away in his laboratory; playing cards suspended in flasks of brightly colored liquid, a smarmy looking guinea pig lounging in his cage with a water bottle full of scotch and a copy of Watson’s Play of the Hand. Evening came, night fell and still silence, could it be that I was wrong? Might this pass without remark? But just moments before midnight I got an eMail.

I have a problem with the unobstructed auction….I threw together something. Let me know what you think. – TMS

Honestly, I would have been a little disappointed if he hadn’t.

Mar
10

Memory

Today found me back at the bridge club, sitting across from the Mad Scientist. He created a new alert, “I.S.R.: If She Remembered”. I was hurt, because naturally he tacked this on to an alert for one of the few bids in his system that I’ve never forgotten, or, at least, I don’t remember ever having forgotten it.

As a matter of fact, during the whole session, I made very few mistakes, but that was probably because I got very few good cards. Of twenty-five hands, I played a grand total of three. TMS only played seven. Which is to say, we played lots and lots of defense so I mostly just had to give count and signal that I didn’t like any suit. If we had a defensive signal for, “You’re on your own, partner!” I would have been using it a lot today. On one hand that TMS actually opened I had 9 HCP AND three card support for his major, but still < 1 cover card. It was hands down the worst 9 HCP I've ever seen with a trump fit.

I did make one bad opening lead, but the correct lead was either my singleton trump or leading away from KJxxx -- neither of which were a very attractive option. Of course, if I do happen to find the correct lead on that hand it would be just enough to push us into first instead of second. Sadly, for us, anyone who thoughtlessly leads fourth from their longest and strongest no matter the auction or the contract will have stumbled upon one of the two leads that beats the damn thing. Figures, doesn't it?

Yesterday I got an e-mail from TMS outlining some new responses he wanted to use over 2♣ openers -- steps: control showing, but rather more specific than the usual nonsense. As I've noted here in the past, I've never been a fan of steps and only play them under protest. My teacher is a big proponent of staying the h_ll out of the way of the 2♣ bidder and that means bidding 2♦ most of the time unless one has a very good suit of ones own. TMS had described this system to me maybe a week ago and noted that he found it superior to using the 2♦ waiting bid and, needless to say, other "step" responses. Anyway I printed it out, glanced it over and stuck it in my system notes binder. Before the session today I teased him about all the words used to describe what boiled down to one very specific holding, "3 of a suit = 6+ card one loser suit (opposite a singleton) off the ace". Me: "Couldn't you just say it has to be KQJxxx?" TMS: "Well, it could also be KQxxxxxx."

What I have just described is the full extent of my study of this new series of responses so when in the third round TMS opened 2♣ I had a terrible realization and that was: He thinks we’re playing the new responses.

I looked at my hand which included exactly and only the AKxxx in diamonds: So a king=1 and an ace=2 so I have three … but wait, they’re in the same suit so that’s something special. 2NT? 2NT… 2NT, no wait that’s the Magi bid or maybe just three but in separate suits … and 2♦ is 0-1 or 4 and 2♥ is 2 or 5 and 3 of anything is that hand I’ll never have so it has to be 2♠. Must be. Uh-oh I’ve been thinking, I almost never stop to think so what if the fact that I’m thinking now makes him think I don’t remember? What if he thinks I have spades? Oh well, here goes. I pulled out the 2♠ card and put it on the table. I was greatly relieved when TMS promptly alerted my bid. After that bidding the slam was relatively easy (well, for me anyway, I didn’t have to do anything except tell him which suit I had the AK in and he did the rest) and just like that I was a convert to the new scheme. I.S.R. indeed.

Feb
13

Common Sense

My mood is about what one would expect considering that I’m awake on the wrong-side of 8 AM and the temperature outside is a full ten degrees on the wrong-side of freezing. I’ve got to find my way to some under-heated hall on the outskirts of nowhere I’m familiar with, and I have to do so long before my brain is awake. I stop to buy a coffee because the last time I went to one of these things there was none ready when I arrived and I simply can not play without caffeine in my system. My partner arrives right around the time I’ve concluded that he’s finally come to his senses about playing with me.

Mostly we do what we’re supposed to do, and even when I take temporary leave of my senses and decide that a 3♠ bid is a splinter bid instead of a spade suit (which has the effect of pushing us to the five-level) my partner manages to pull us out of the fire by making five. It’s so rare that my screw-ups don’t end in catastrophe that I’m feeling positively quixotic. Still our teammates are steadfastly refusing to bid their games and a series of +170 and 200s at their table is killing us six and ten IMPS at a time.

Lunch was provided … sort of. I’m pretty sure it was the same salad they served at the last sectional tournament over a month ago. I don’t mean the same kind of salad, I mean, the same salad. I must admit I’m a little baffled by my Unit’s inability to put together a decent lunch at these things. Last time it was the salad and lukewarm kugel. This time it was the zombie salad plus tuna and/or egg salad. It’s not a hard and fast rule, but in general food that is not ice cream being served with an ice cream scoop is best to be avoided. Certainly undead salad should be avoided at all cost.

After lunch, I’m the one giving up a fistful of IMPS for no good reason (oh you knew there had to be catastrophic screw-up in here somewhere, didn’t you?) when I lost track of the nine of trump, resulting in down four vulnerable instead of down one. (Ironically, many hours later I’ll be perfectly capable of sequentially reconstructing the trump spots played on the hand, but at the table, in the moment, when it actually mattered, I would have sworn I’d seen the damned nine on the first trump trick.) That was on the second hand of the match and it was the second time the trump split particularly badly for me.

On the first hand of the round, in second seat my partner opened a weak 1NT and my RHO made a two-suited overcall showing hearts and an unspecified minor. We’re playing Lebensohl and a jump to 3♠ (the bid I radically misinterpreted earlier in the day) would show a game-forcing hand with spades, to show the invitational hand I have to go through 2NT (forcing partner to bid 3♣ at which point I can define my hand). My LHO had an awful lot of questions about my bid of 2NT, but managed to pass quickly after confirming that my 3♠ bid showed spades. Partner deliberated for a moment before passing and that’s where the hand was played. With a two suited over-call to my right, it was no great feat of deduction to realize the spades were to my left. I barely make it out for down one when the spades split 5-1, I have K9xxx in my hand and QT on the board, my LHO has the AJxxx. At the other table, our teammate opened my LHO’s hand 2♠ and with a big misfit our other teammate pulled to 3♥ which doesn’t make either. So on the first two boards we’re down 12 IMPS and the next six are all ties. We could have saved some time if we’d just quit after those two boards. My partner was probably ready to quit altogether after I went -400 on that hand.

Due to some computer related scoring delays they decided to only play six matches instead of seven. We ended the day beating up on a team of novices and, given another round, we might have gotten above par, as it was we ended the day just below. But even when the results are disappointing and frustrating, I really do enjoy playing in tournaments much more than playing at the club. I’m not the only one who feels that way. Once when playing at a regional in Pittsburgh the fire alarm went off in the middle of a session, and in a huge ballroom full of people, no one got up to leave. Someone commented that the alarm was probably pulled by someone having a bad round. The general consensus seemed to be that we’d leave if we could smell smoke AND see flames.

Lucky me, the next few weeks hold two more tournaments (a sectional and a regional). I’m especially excited about this coming weekend. I’ve been looking forward to the Swiss Pairs event for months and now it’s less than a week away.