Match 12 - Australia

After 2 losses against the Americans, we weren't in a very promising position. (Un)Fortunately, we don't have much time to think about it. Next up are familiar opponents, Australia. We have played the Aussies in PABF and defeated them quite convincingly. The main difference now is that they added Gabby Feiler into their team. Gabby was in their youth team last year but missed this year's PABF due to studies. A very good player with terrific card sense, we all know how potent he can be.

Like the American and some European teams, the Australians like to bid a lot. They are consistently pushing in the bidding and most of the time you wonder if there are 60 HCP in the pack. Is this a winning strategy? In my opinion, it is all a matter of style. For us, we are trained to be more conservative and sound in the bidding. But, it does not mean the aggressive style is not effective, just look at the Hacketts and Grue/Kranyak for great successes.

A while back, I came across a discussion on the merits of '2-handed' vs '4-handed' bridge. In esscence, '2-handed' bridge means bidding on the full value of your partnership's hands and try to get to par as often as possible. '4-handed' bridge are players who try to make things as difficult as possible for their opponents. Always jamming up the bidding, they sacrifice some accuracy in their own bidding at times.

I believe there is no clear winner between the 2 camps. It is obvious that there are times where the boards are such that a particular style fits best. As in most real-life models, the theoritical optimal approach is a hybrid between the 2. What I wish to point out is that the more important factor for your partnership is to be completely sure which style you are adopting and to accept the pros and cons that come with it. It is useless switching from an aggressive to conservative style after 1 or 2 sessions of bad results and so forth. It is much more beneficial if you know what suits your partnership most, stick to it and work on your system accordingly.

It takes a lot of discipline to stick to your system and style whatever it is. In actual play, there are times you wish you are not playing your particular style. However, it is a mistake to try to change your definitions of your systemic agreements there and then. Live with it and choose the best lie you can find. It is great for your partnership morale and confidence, not to mention results, that partner can find the dummy he was expecting.

Ok, my screenmate is Gabby as we settled to play. Off the table, he is a good friend to our team but we know neither of us is going to hold any punches back in the match. Well, it certainly got off to a crackling start:

Holding:
♠ 8 6 5
♥ A T 9 4
♦ K 9 3
♣ K 9 4

Partner opens 1H, Gabby on your right overcalls 1S, looking at your opps, I decide on a slightly pushy 2S (inv+). Well, LHO dbled, partner passes and Gabby leapt to 4S. I was happy to dbl and lead a trump:

♠ A K Q 7 3
♥ 7 6 2
♦ Q 8 6 2
♣ A


♠ J 9 2
♥ 3
♦ T 7 5
♣ J 8 7 5 3 2

well, we took our tricks for +300 when 4H is dubious. In fact, our teammates defeated 3H by a trick. 8 imps for us.

The next board wasn't too flat:

NV against Vul:

♠ A Q
♥ 9 8
♦ K J 7 6 2
♣ K 7 5 2

You opened 1D, partner responded 1H, RHO is there with 1S, what is your bid?

1NT, 2C or even Pass (playing support dbl) are possible choices. I decided to introduce my second suit with 2C. It proved to be a winner when partner sacrificed 5C over their 4S with:

♠ 8
♥ Q J 6 3
♦ Q 8 5
♣ 9 8 6 4 3

-300 and when our teammates were left to play 4S for +620, another 8 imps.

A few boards later, our teammates were the one to find a non-vul 5 minor sac against a vul game. They did even better to go only one off for 11 imps.

The fearless Australian bidding found its mark when they bidded to slam with:

♠ Q 5 3
♥ J 9 6
♦ Q 7 5 3 2
♣ J 9


♠ A 4
♥ A K T 7 4 3 2
♦ -
♣ A K 8 4

The S King was on the left, so there were no problems. Our teammates had difficulty finding the pricless dblton club (I'm not too sure they found it at our table either) so they stopped in game. 11 imps out.

For the Singapore supporters, there must have been great hope as we next hit a roll and scored 36 imps over the next 6 boards. First, we reached to thin vul game that came home. Next:

♠ Q 6 4
♥ A K J T 6 4
♦ Q T 3
♣ 3

All Vul, RHO opens 1C (2+), what is your bid?

Well, the Australian chose 4H! Not so lucky this time as it was promptly dbled for 500 when there is nothing on for us.

After another 2 part score swing, the score read: 63-14 imps in favour of us.

Well, our momentum didn't last:

None Vul:

♠ J T 8 6 5
♥ J 3
♦ T 7 3
♣ A 3 2

LHO opens 1C, RHO respond 1H, do you overcall?

As you would have expected, this hand is nowhere near in my overcalling syle. The Australian player at the other table found the obvious overcall and it proved to be the winner this time round as a S lead is the only one to defeat 3NT. 10 imps away.

Then, our teammates chose to depart from science and bidded a slam off AK of a suit. Not that lucky this time and Opps was quick to cash out for another 10 imps.

When the firepowder cleared ( a third of the final contracts at our table were dbled) we came on top 64- 37 imps (21-9 VPs). It was our only win for the day so I cannot say we were delighted but still we are hanging in there:

1 USA 1 218
2 POLAND 214
3 ISRAEL 212
4 FRANCE 211
5 SINGAPORE 208
6 EGYPT 202
7 ITALY 199
USA 2 199
9 NORWAY 198

We have Italy and Poland up the next day so it is pretty much do-or-die for us.