User:P64/Bridge/Sandbox

2011 World Teams

Bermuda Bowl; Venice Cup; Senior Bowl (bridge)

.
—1st to 7th in the European championship[3] Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.

—1st to 7th in the European championship[3] Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.

Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.

Bermuda Bowl
prelim
 * seven-day 22-team 16-board full round-robin

QF
 * two-day 6-session 96-board matches

SF
 * two-day 6-session 96-board matches

Final (and playoff same as SF)
 * three-day 8-session 128-board match

-- very close for ranks 6 to 11 before the final round; 5 to 14 in retrospect -- Italy leading preliminary score 409 = 19.5 average

1. 409 Italy (Europe #1; 2009 silver) 2. 390 Netherlands (host; Europe #6; 2009 5th/8th) 3. 372 USA 2 4. 355 Israel (Europe #3) 5. 340 USA 1 6. 335 Sweden (Europe #5) 7. 334 China 8. 333 Iceland (Europe #4) 9. 328 Japan 10 324 New Zealand 11 320 Australia 12 318 Bulgaria (Europe #7; 2009 bronze)

-- 12 of 22 teams scored above average -- Egypt Poland 15.0 14.9, South Africa Brazil 14.3 14.2


 * Carryover -2 and +3
 * Halftime scores 79-78 and 105-61
 * Five-segment scores 154-157 and 188-126

NED rolled in the final segment, specifically in the final deals

NED disaster defending #83, -7 instead of +5 IMPs. NED beautiful play #84, making 3N. --with 6S decent, both played dicey 3N. --making when defender declines to duck cA.

Venice Cup
-- USA2 leading preliminary score 18.6 -- Germany leading also-ran score exceptionally high 16.4

1 391 USA2 2 389 USA1 3 384 England (Europe # 4 368 China (2009 gold) 5 365 Sweden (Europe # 6 357 Indonesia (!) 7 355 Netherlands (host; Europe # ) 8 352 France (Europe # ; 2009 bronze) 9 345 Germany (Europe # ;   —poor rankings by NED, FRA, GER women's bridge powers 1990/2000s 10 338 Canada 11 330 Poland 12 323 Italy

-- 12 of 22 teams scored better than average -- plus Brazil, Japan, New Zealand just below average 14.9 14.8 14.7

Final segments of quarterfinals England 56-11, Netherlands 60-7 !


 * Carryover -10 and +0
 * Halftime scores 84-91 and 51-85
 * Five-segment scores 157-155 and 126-150
 * Indonesia 41-7 segment five.
 * Indonesia-England to the final deal; poor Ind result #28/92

The home-team Netherlands won a close playoff for the bronze medal. --very good for bridge.

France jumped ahead 46 13 in the first segment (16 deals), extended to 126 56 by the end of the first day (48).

Seniors
-- France leading preliminary score 383 exceptionally low 18.2 avg -- India leading also-ran score 341 exceptionally high 16.2 avg

1. 383 France (Europe # 2. 382 Poland (Europe # 3. 370 USA 2: including players from USA 1 Bermuda Bowl 2009 4. 368 Denmark (Europe # 5. 360 USA 1 6. 351 Indonesia (2009 bronze); tie 6th/7th, Indonesia defeated Australia 7. 351 Australia 8. 342 Germany (Europe # 9. 341 India 10 334 Hong Kong 11 321 Canada 12 317 Italy (Europe #

-- 12 of 22 teams scored better than average England (2009 gold)


 * Carryover -2 and +8
 * Halftime scores 103-103.7 and 106-54
 * Five-segment scores 169-181 and 176-95/wd
 * USA2 50-0 and 49-14 segments two and five

France wins on the final deal 2Dx ? comeback beginning with Poland disaster #25 —yes spectacular disaster for Poland; 2.66 carryover not quite enough

Poland routed the American champions 118 36 in a one-day playoff (48 deals) while USA2 played for the Senior Bowl. France led 89 45 after the first day but USA2 rolled 79 13 in the fourth of six segments and retained a small lead with one segment to go 141 132.

Linescores

 * Last hour I tried different Linescore displays for the #Latest rendition final matches of the World Zonal Teams. Newwhist quickly expanded the Bermuda example to incorporate Big Bold Headings. Here are those four (with narrative context for Senior Bowl and Venice Cup), plus a version of my own with subtle headings, composed here.


 * Senior Bowl (bridge) 2011-12-12 19 12
 * This differs in using three different greytones.

France won the 2011 d'Orsi Bowl by 165 to 160 in a two-day final match against USA 2, the second of two qualifiers from the United States. The Americans started with 6.33 IMP carryover from the 16-deal round-robin match, meaning France must score at least 7 IMP better on the 96 s of the final. France yielded almost nothing during the first three segments, to lead overnight by 89 to 45+ including carryover. The Americans posted a huge fourth set, 79 IMP on 16 deals to regain the lead, but France again yielded almost nothing in the last two segments, and only 75 IMP on 80 deals in the five good segments.

France won the 2011 Venice Cup by 196 to 103 in a two-day final match against Indonesia France started with one-third IMP carryover from the 16-deal round-robin match, meaning Indonesia must score at least one IMP better on the 96 s of the final. France scored consistently well during the first three segments, to lead overnight by 126+ to 56, and Indonesia conceded after two of three segments scheduled for the next day.
 * Venice Cup 2011-12-12 18 54


 * Bermuda Bowl 2011-12-12 18 30

Netherlands won the 2011 Bermuda Bowl by 300 to 255 in a two-day final match against USA 2, the second of two entries from the United States. The home team started with one IMP from their 16-deal round-robin match, meaning the Americans must score at least two IMP better on the 128 s of the final in order to win outright, or score one IMP better to force a playoff. With a strong third segment, Netherlands surged to lead 133–108 after one day, and extended the difference to 60 during the fourth of eight segments next morning. After seven segments the margin was 76 IMP, nearly decisive with 16 deals to play. The Americans yielded almost nothing more but only once scored more than seven themselves, "too small" gains with time running out.

— as revised by User:Newwhist minutes later

— — Newwhist, round two, or Labels Amok

— a la Newwhist (round one), corrected and adapted by P64

— further adaptation

— compromise

— one radical alternative

— simple (Bridge at the 1st World Mind Sports Games)

= 2012 =
 * 2015-04-27 import from User:P64/sandbox

Taking the "Suck" out of Suction

extended Piltch (another modified suction)


 * show non-touching suits by overcalling below one and bidding the other; "transfer" to one and natural rebid

C >D; S at any level confirms D, shows DS

D >H; C at any level is HC H >S; D at any level is SD

S >C; H at any level is CH
 * S overcall, dbl of artificial S, or perhaps dbl of NT


 * show two touching suits by overcalling above them and bidding the cheaper at any level (standard suction)

C >D; H at any level is HS


 * repeat the overcall or rebid NT also confirms the usual two touching suits and also reveals a third suit --for constructive bidding, wherever that may be desired

C >D; C at any level is HSC (bid and rebid the top of three touching suits, unfortunately)

C >D; D at any level is DHS (transfer to and rebid the bottom of three touching suits)

C >D; NT at any level confirms D only


 * that is, C shows D or Majors; nontouching and notrump rebids (S and NT) confirm D --but use the natural D jump overcall with a one-suiter to preempt at this level; the S rebid shows the nontouching two-suiter and the NT rebid shows interest in game

Some of these bids should be off in competition.

The overcall is forcing and tends to deny the suit bid; the only exception is top of three touching suits, necessarily rare.

Improvement is possible, although not improvement everywhere. For example improvement in constructive bidding, rebid the short suit:
 * C >D; rebid C or D with the other three suits, forcing.

These then are the cheapest ways to show three-suiters over 1N (without use of dbl):
 * short C at 3C/3S level, the latter being 2S >C; 3S (which is ridiculous)
 * short D at 3D/3C level, the latter being 2C >D; 3C
 * short H at 3H/3D level, the latter being 2D >H; 3D
 * short S at 3S/3H level, the latter being 2H >S; 3H

This is so inefficient that it must be preferable to rebid NT.

inverted psycho suction
C (nonforcing) shows CD or M

Wendt: C shows five touching (xx54+ or 4xx5) or transfer only (xx6x) or the usual two (44xx)

WUCTION

1. NON-TOUCHING SUITS: xfer to one and rebid the other (or perhaps NT); that is, intervene between them.

2. SPADES: spade bids are natural; NT is xfer to C


 * Jointly 1,2 imply CH intervention with pointed suits; DN with round (always D if cheaper)

3a. (simple) nanchor suit is one step up; always 4+ except the two next cheapest suits, shown by the next strain at any level. The three costly rebids (steps 2,3,4 where 5 is the natural re-raise) show at least two suits including nanchor. With touching suits rebid the other, which is either spades (NT...S) or the intervention suit (X...X). With non-touching suits rebid the longer (where nanchor is shorter) or notrump (where nanchor is longer and notrump saves a level, ie longer major after red intervention because NT/C unavailable). Don't use NT rebids otherwise (ie where red intervention enables xfer to 4-card Major nanchor).

3b. To distinguish 64/55/46, meaning no preference or preference either way, three versions of each touching two-suiter. Use NT rebid (or perhaps raise) with non-touching suits. There is no "nanchor": Intervention X shows either next suit alone or in non-touching (C with D, perhaps DS); or the two suits above that (C shows Majors); or X with shorter touching suit (C with D or S, xx46 or 4xx6).
 * a.i. with the next suit (suit above X, or X+1), Pass or perhaps raise
 * a.ii. with the next suit one of two non-touching (X+1, X-1), rebid NT
 * b. with the two below suits (X-1, X-2) rebid the cheaper
 * c.i. with X and suit above, rebid X (eg C...C with xx46)
 * c.ii. with X and the suit below, rebid below (X-1; eg C...S with 4xx6)

3c. To indicate three-suiters, most often 5431, occasionally 4441 5440 5530 6430. Now intervention X shows either the suit above (X+1) or the two suits below (X-1, X-2) where the latter may be two of a three-suiter.
 * --here H shows minors (maybe three) or both S and D because S shows S alone
 * a.i. with X+1, Pass
 * a.i. with X+1 and X-1, rebid X-1 (partner passes with equal length, so begin with xfer to the shorter of non-touching suits)
 * b.i. with X-1 and X-2 only, rebid X-2 at any level (eg, C...H with Majors)
 * b.i. with three suits, rebid X

X will be the top of three touching suits. Over 1C*, this method uses rebids C...2C=4414, D...2D=4144, H...2H=1444, NT...2S=4441; showing only 7 of 12 suits available for 2-level preference.
 * (1) One use of NT rebids is to save space.
 * C...2C/1N with 4414; D...2D/1N with 4144; H...2H/1N with 1444

Forgotten agreements? or never?

 * 1C - 1H (x)
 * 2D = which suit? is 1S or 2S natural or neither? (Over both minors there are two bids in their suits at each level)


 * P - 1H
 * 2C
 * Is 2S natural by both partners on the second and third rounds? Probably, in which case we do not have a cheap singleton bid in spades after drury for hearts.
 * 2012-09-11 holding x ATx xxxxx AJ9x, i raised and rebid hearts P-1H-2C*-2D*-2H because 2S may be natural.


 * 1D - 1N
 * 3H - 3S/4C cue ace or king toward 5D or 6D?


 * 1D - 1H
 * 3N - 4C/4D/4H/4S all for D slam? Again both ace and king are presumed useful in side suits but only the ace in hearts (if 4H is simply cheapest cue for D slam

KS
Swillner?


 * 1D - 2C may be weak with clubs only?


 * 5cd majors or some exceptions with 4441


 * 1C - 1H (2D)
 * 1D - 1H (1S)
 * double shows strong notrump? what trump length and strength?
 * 1N if available?
 * - - X now what should opener hold to pass for penalty?


 * 1C - - (x) ?
 * 1C - - (1H) ? 1N=18?
 * 1C (1H) - - ? 1N=18? 1S maybe strong notrump?


 * 1D - 1H (1S,2C)
 * - - X -
 * should we now sometimes achieve fairly reliable quantitative notrump bidding such as 1N-2N; 1N-3N; jump 2N-3N

weak notrump
Responder:

Suppose responder forces to game with a "rule of 20" opening bid, for the best chance to describe a hand that is almost worth that.
 * Rule of 20

In other words, force with a flat 13 (thus minimum 25 HCP), 12 and a doubleton or three-suiter, 11 if 5431/22 or six card suit, 10 if 55 or 64.

If the invitational auctions need a six-card suit or HCP to invite 3N on power (minimum 11) then there will be no unbalanced 5-card or 64 invitations. 1N-2C* invitational Stayman opposite weak notrump will deliver
 * flat 12
 * 11 HCP with 44(4) or 53 --thus 23-25 HCP
 * 6331/22 and 10 HCP --analogous to 7 HCP opposite 15-17
 * 64 and 9 HCP

There may be scope for slack with a six-card suit, such as 8-9 HCP with two top honors --analogous to 5-6 HCP with KQxxxx or better opposite 15-17.

If this is normal in all four suits, hearts being crucial, then 1N 2C 2S 3H = 8-10 HCP, six hearts. And responder must rebid 2N with 11 and five, concealing the fifth heart. Opener may check back with a maximum 1N 2C 2S 2N 3H = three H and 14 flat or 13 and doubleton?

If rule of 22 opposite the mini 10-13, then the strongest hands which do not force will be mandatory Goren opening bids, ultra sound: 1N signoff, pass, or invitational 2C
 * flat 14
 * 13 HCP with 44(4) or 53 --thus 23-26 HCP
 * 12 HCP with 5431 or six --analogous to 7 HCP opposite 15-18
 * 64 and 11 HCP