Deep Mind by Foxymoron

 Google acquired the company Deep Mind in 2014. A chess-player who once attended coaching sessions I ran, Demis Hassapis, founded it. The programs Alpha Zero and Alpha Go have become the best "players" of  chess and go respectively, by teaching themselves. They have avoided the number-crunching approach of previous AI software and just learn by playing millions of games on their own. Already humans have no chance at either of those games. Curiously, bridge (and to a lesser extent poker) are still defended by the human race. I recall composing a chess study in 1981 and it is coming up to its 40th anniversary in a month or so. I plugged it into the best chess program today, Stockfish, and it still cannot solve it. Something to do with the horizon effect. It is worth referring to briefly. The full solution is in Wikipedia if you are interested. Just search for Grotesque (chess).

The interesting aspect of this position is that it does not require any great chess ability to solve it, although such luminaries as Kasparov, Speelman and Nunn only cracked it in about half an hour. But it does require a lot of logic. 

In bridge, they also lack something called "intelligence". However, today, Robot West and Robot East surprised me by having a remarkable auction. If I did not know better, I would think they had seen each other's hands.

I regretted not trying something esoteric as North, such as overcalling 1NT, when the robots galloped into the good Six Diamonds here. And on a club lead, the Robot played it well too. It won with the ace, cashed the ace of diamonds, and crossed to the ace of hearts. Now it cashed the ace, king of spades pitching losers from dummy, crossed to the king of hearts and ruffed a heart with the nine of diamonds. All the defence could score was the king of diamonds. This line works about 74% of the time, whenever there is a singleton diamond honour or the diamonds are 2-2. Could the robots have really conducted such an amazing auction knowing what they are doing? Well, I think that Robot West was stuck after the negative double. Now 2NT shows a weak NT and 3NT "shows" 18-19 so it felt that it had to "make up" a 2D bid. It explained it as 5+ spades, 4+ diamonds, and one could almost see Robot East having an orgasm when it looked at its seven-card support. And when it bid 5D, West now cued 5H, presumably looking for a grand, but Robot East decided it did not have enough for that. 100% for EW, unsurprisingly.

Some rough edges, but the robots are getting there.

Help by Foxymoron

 It was good to see Rachel and Matthew Bingham recording their first win at the Woodberry Pairs today, only a couple of months after returning to active play. They used to win regularly at the club, but have had other interests in recent years, as well as raising a family.

Today they needed some help from the opponents to win, and the last board epitomised some of the gifts they had: I am reminded of the famous words:

When I was younger, so much younger than today

I never needed anybody's help in any way

But now these days are gone, I'm not so self assured (but now these days are gone)

(And now I find) now I find I've changed my mind and opened up the doors

There was no real chance from the start, but Rachel persuaded her opponents to misdefend. She was grateful for the top, which helped her and Matthew to 64%, well clear of second.

I don't think West should raise with only a singleton ace of clubs, and this caused East to misread the hand. West started with two top hearts and then cashed the ace of clubs and played a third heart. Declarer ruffed and played off all the trumps. Declarer had cunningly cashed the king of diamonds en route, so that there was no entry to dummy and this persuaded East to discard the king of clubs playing South to have AQxx of diamonds. If that were the case then declarer could always make it on a minor-suit squeeze, so East should assume that South has only three diamonds and two clubs, even though that seems unlikely. As the famous detective said: 

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth - Arthur Conan Doyle

Jolly by Foxymoron

 The expression "jolly" meaning "favourite" seems to come from horse-racing, from the 19th century and from the phrase "jolly old favourite" meaning  the most likely horse to win. Perhaps using jolly for emphasis as in "jolly good show". In two-selection events, the jolly will be "odds-on". In bridge the contract is a jolly when it is a favourite to succeed; in other words, odds-on. 

Richard Creamer and John Pemberton were jolly after they bid the only slam to make on the following hand tonight, which was the highlight in their otherwise very average evening:

The auction was short and sweet. Once East learned of the four hearts opposite, shown by the negative double, he didn't need much for slam and just punted it on his second round. The expression "short and sweet" was already proverbial in 1539, when it appeared in Richard Taverner's translation of Erasmus's Adagia. Over the years it was occasionally amplified, as in James Kelly's Scottish Proverbs (1721): "Better short and sweet than long and lax."

Slam is around even money, and illustrates the principle of restricted choice quite well. If the defence leads a spade, you will win and now have to broach the trumps. There is little to go on but South, who overcalled, rates to have more spades than his partner so fewer hearts and you should start with a heart to the king. Now, if nothing interesting pops up, you just have to hope they are 2-2 which will occur about 40% of the time. But you also have the extra chance that South has a singleton queen or jack of hearts. Then you will run the ten of hearts on the second round. Unfortunately you will lose to QJ doubleton, but you will pick up singleton queen or singleton jack with South. Overall your chances of success, a priori, are around 46%, Does that mean you don't want to be there? Not at all! Consider the auction. North-South have 11 spades between them and yet only competed to 3S. They are unlikely to have singletons or voids, which means that the chance of 2-2 hearts has gone up dramatically. Not to 100% as South could have a small singleton heart for example, but to somewhere around 75%.

This makes the slam a big jolly! If all your contracts are odds-on you will not go far wrong.

GT & Owain by Foxymoron

 The score of 1700 in bridge, I am reliably informed by Welsh International Paddy Murphy, is known as a GT or Gran Turismo. This comes from the classic car, the Glas 1700 GT, which came out in 1965.

Anne Catchpole and Phil Mattacks had the biggest score since online bridge started with the Woodberry, and one of their "gifts" was a a GT, which helped them to a score of 78%. Even over 18 boards this represents some going!

EW can make 4S+1 which would indeed have been an average, but Phil Mattacks scented blood when North overstepped the mark with 4D. He had five (!) trump tricks against this, and when declarer wrongly covered the queen of hearts that was six off for 1700.

Not content with that top, they scored up an Owain on the next deal. The Glyndŵr Rising, Welsh Revolt or Last War of Independence was an uprising of the Welsh in 1400, led by Owain Glyndŵr, against the Kingdom of England. Bridge was not invented yet, but the 1400 has become known as an Owain in deference to their last freedom fighter.

It is rare to collect 1400 from an uncontested auction but South had an awkward decision over 3D. He elected to rebid his hearts, showing six, and North raised to game. The defence cashed three black winners and now East forced with a second club, ruffed by South., Now South hopefully cashed two high trumps, and when he discovered the bad break, he did well to stop drawing trumps and played on diamonds, going 5 off for -1400. If he had cashed the third high heart, that would have been his last trick, and that would have been a second GT in the same session!. Instead Anne and Phil had to settle for an Owain.

Lasker's Lesson by Foxymoron

 The great chess World Champion Emanuel Lasker held the title from 1894 to 1921, the longest reign in history. A friend of Albert Einstein, his contribution to chess (and mathematics) was great, but he is known as much for his sage saying: "When you see a good move, look for a better one". Such was the case today at the bridge table and I might have made an extra trick, although not without some risk:

Both, North, arseblog, and East, lamford, were celebrating Arsenal's win on Sunday in the North London derby, so the table was quite chatty. It seems surprising that yet another ogdoad, or eight-card suit, appeared but I am assured the dealing program is random. 4H looks about right as dealer, vulnerable, and I would not be tempted to bid South African Texas on it, if available. That is a bid of 4C (or sometimes 3NT) to show a good 4H bid. And I would not be tempted to bid 4S on the North hand as that is 1100 if the defence find both ruffs.

South was not blessed with second sight, so had no reason to lead a spade, and led a top diamond, dummy winning. Trumps were drawn in two rounds and I advanced the jack of clubs as East, covered and won with the ace. I noted the fall of the seven, but was aware that the opponents had the 6,5,4 and 3 so did not think much of this. I thought it did not cost to cash the ace of clubs now, and if the ten fell, I could discard a spade on the eight and would not need the spade onside. 12 tricks proved to be above average. However ,,,

Having thought of that line, I should have wondered if there was a better one, following Lasker's advice. I could certainly ruff a diamond and run six more rounds of hearts. If South does have five clubs and the KQJ of diamonds he will be squeezed on the last heart and I will make all thirteen tricks. If North has the ten of clubs guarded, however, this line will not work and I need to play for the ace of spades onside. The line for 12 tricks when North does have a third club (say swapping a club for a spade) is remarkable. Now you draw trumps, runs the jack of clubs covered and won, ruff a diamond, and now run the trumps, catching North in a throw-in squeeze. Of course, all of these esoteric lines need one to view the ending. And if North ducks with the king of clubs, that might throw a spanner in the works.

The first record of this phrase that I can find in print is in The Parliamentary Debates of the New Zealand Parliament, 1932

"Of course, every honourable member has a right to express his opinions, even of a critical nature, but I do think we should expect them to help and not throw a spanner in the gears."

Oh, and I nearly forgot, but Harvey reminded me. The five distinct contracts that result in a score of 960 are:

1H/Sx+4 Vul

1Nxx+2  NV

2C/Dxx+2 NV

3H/Sxx= Vul

3H/Sxx+1 NV

Going for a Song by Foxymoron

 The antiques program of the above name ran from 1965 to 1977 and the expression is now used for a trifling sum. It certainly appeared in Shakespeare if not earlier: 

All's Well That Ends Well: I know a man that had this tricke of melancholy hold a goodly Mannor for a song.

The score of 960 in bridge is not a trifling sum and is not that rare. The keen student will work out the four other ways it can be achieved other than the one below. Web Ewell and Michael Klein scored 960 today on a way to a good win in the event.

960 is known to bridge aficionados as a "Song", because it was the year that the Song dynasty started. The Song dynasty ([sʊ̂ŋ]; Chinese: 宋朝; pinyin: Sòng cháo; 960–1279) was an imperial dynasty of China that began in 960 and lasted until 1279. The dynasty was founded by Emperor Taizu of Song following his usurpation of the throne of the Later Zhou, ending the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period.

The auction was interesting, East opened a weak Two Diamonds, as they did at our table, and South decided he was a bit light for a double. Now West raised to 3D which came round to South who had a problem. The leopard cannot change its spots and double of 3D, when you couldn't double 3D, is played by most, including Michael and Web, as penalties. So he tried 3S, hoping this would find a bit of a fit opposite. Now West doubled for penalties and when it came round to South he redoubled to show 4-4 in the two unbid suits. It could be right to play four clubs opposite x KQx Qxxx QJxxx for example. North was "content" as they say in rubber bridge. Declarer made an overtrick, discarding a heart on the fourth round of clubs, scoring 960 for 3Sxx+1..

And I shall give you the other four ways of scoring 960 on Tuesday.
 

 

 

Baker's Dozen by Foxymoron

 At matchpoints, when you have a good line for 12 tricks, it is tempting to try for a "baker's dozen", or 13. That expression comes from medieval times. What the bakers were doing whenever they sold bread in any quantity, was adding something extra to make sure the total weight wasn't short. The addition was called the 'in-bread' or 'vantage loaf'. When selling in quantity to middlemen or wholesalers they would add an extra loaf or two. When selling single loaves to individuals they would offer a small extra piece of bread. The Worshipful Company of Bakers still exists and reports that this carried on within living memory and that a small 'in-bread' was often given with each loaf.

So, that's the practice, what about the phrase? That goes back to at least 1599, as in this odd quotation from John Cooke's Tu Quoque:

"Mine's a baker's dozen: Master Bubble, tell your money."

Dealer South; Love All

We had two raiders from over the border last night, Julian Pottage and Tony Ratcliff. Not content with Wales leading the Six Nations, they wanted to conquer the bridge clubs of England too and it was a SIMs night as you can tell from the different diagram. But this time Tony Ratcliff could have done better, but he had to decide whether to go for 12 or 13 tricks. He opened 1H on the South hand, playing four-card majors and North splintered with 4C, but South devalued the king of clubs and signed off in 4H.

West led the ten of spades and Tony won and drew trumps in two rounds ending in North and paused to take stock. Should he try for 12 tricks, or should he be greedy and go for 13? In slam, the right line is to play a club to the king and then if that works a diamond can be discarded on the king of clubs; if it doesn't the diamond finesse can be taken.

However, that ship has sailed, and the people in slam are not playing in your field. They are not playing at Grantham or Caterham (the other clubs holding the SIM) either, but in a sub-field of those that reached slam, and you cannot do anything about them. You are only competing with those in game, and I think Tony was right to take the diamond finesse, even though he ended with a bad score.

a) if it works then he has 13 tricks. If it fails he has 11, always assuming they cash the ace of clubs now.

b) if he plays a club to the king he can only make 12 tricks, and this only gains when the king of diamonds is offside and the ace of clubs is onside, about a quarter of the time.

Sometimes virtue has to be its own reward.

In Spades by Foxymoron

 There were interesting hands in spades today in the Woodberry Pairs.  The expression does come from bridge, with the analogy being to the garden implement with spadefuls of soil being dug out. All of the decisions revolved around the spade suit. On an early board, one needed to play 6NT with a spade suit of KJT9 opposite Axxx with a two-way guess to boot and 12 tricks available in no-trumps. Another decision was whether to respond 4S or 1S with AQJxxxx in spades and little else. The former worked bettter and led to a cold slam.

One board in which we did not get the level right was the following:

The first decision was whether to overcall 1S or 4S on Vampyr's hand. She chose the former which was perfectly reasonable, although the latter might have worked better. South had a normal negative double, showing the minors, and I had a choice as West. 3S, chosen by Andy Conway, is wrong as that should be pre-emptive and I think the choice is between 2NT, an invitational raise, and 3H, a mixed raise. 

I think I should have chosen the former to create a forcing pass if the opponents go to the five-level, but I thought the lack of aces made it a mixed raise. North bid 4H and partner had an automatic 4S. Now South's double was penalties, but North judged well to pull it to 5C with extra shape. Our US friends, Ewell and Klein, conceded 790 when they defended 4Sx. At our table South corrected to 5H and I was a bit stuck. I chose double expecting to beat it 1, but there was no defence, and -850 did not trouble the scorers as they say in cricket. If I had passed, I think East would have saved in 5S which would only have been an average as two pairs made 4S. Five-level decisions are always very difficult. At IMPs one just saves here, but at matchpoints one has to try to get it right. And I didn't on this hand.

I think it is worth agreeing a structure when responding to overcalls as many good players differ on what each bid shows. I know that I am unclear on the differences. So I suggest in the auction above after (1H)-1S-(Dble):

a) Redouble is Hx in spades, and the honour should be the ace or king.

b) 2H is a good raise to 2S, but with only 3 spades. 8 losers or fewer.

c) 2S is a bad raise to 2S, again with only 3 spades, 9 losers typically

d) 2NT is an invitational raise, showing 7 losers. The West hand is really 7.5 losers above, but I don't mind 2NT.

e) 3C and 3D are usually played as fit jumps showing 5 of the bid suit and 4 spades. The suit should be reasonable. Make either minor suit honour the same honour in the other minor for example.

f) 3H is a mixed raise, showing 8 losers. Change one of the black kings to a a queen and the West hand would qualify. And this hand is maximum for a mixed raise.

g) 3S is a pre-emptive raise, usually 9 losers. Remove both black kings and make them small cards in the same suit and it is fine.

h) 4C and 4D can be played as fit jumps as well. Or splinters. You need to agree which!

i) 4S is pre-emptive. 7 losers with no defence. But five-card support.

Only d) of the above creates a forcing pass if they bid game or bid on over your game bid.

Grand Gamble by Foxymoron

 I decided to gamble tonight, rather than bid a hand scientifically. 

We play that 2C is either a game force or balanced g20-22 and I don't think I would have opened 2C on the North hand. I decided to bid 2D, waiting, as it seemed more important to learn more about partner's hand, 2H showed either hearts or 20-22 balanced, and I decided that we had at least 35 points and a six -card suit and even if they had a cashing ace they might not cash it! At least that was the alibi I had prepared when I jumped to 7NT. I could go more slowly first with 2S, a relay, and then over 2NT bid 3S, a transfer to 3NT, and then 4H, a slam try in clubs. All this seemed too prone to a forget of the methods however, as I am always bidding at least a small slam, and I decided that bidding diamonds, spades and then hearts when I actually had clubs was not a good idea!

I think I would have opened 1D on the North hand, and rebid 2NT, forcing over partner's 2C. Now I can bid 4C on the South hand, minorwood, and should have no problem in reaching  7NT with asking bids. Sometimes it is easier to keep the bidding low at the start. Especially if you have no methods to show a strong 4-4-4-1. I wonder how our precision friends, Michael Klein and Web Ewell would bid it. Maybe they can post a reply.

One point worth making on the play is that there are 13 top tricks if clubs are 4-2 or better and if the same defender guards clubs and either red suit they are squeezed when the other winners are cashed. I mistakenly thought that there would be a double squeeze if West guarded clubs and East guarded diamonds, but that was my initial opinion in a Zoom call, perhaps influenced by a glass of wine. Dummy gets squeezed first on the fourth round of clubs. Still the contract is well over 95%. One incredibly beautiful line which a self-kibitzer would find when East guards clubs and has Qx of diamonds is, on a heart lead, to win the ace of hearts, and now you cannot cash the queen of clubs. Instead you cash four rounds of spades with a most unusual squeeze on East who has to led go his heart guard. Now you cash four rounds of clubs and West gets squeezed in the reds. A sort of double squeeze but without the normal entry requirements.

East-West Divide by Foxymoron

 The Prime Meridian runs through East London and divides the East and West. Greenwich was chosen for no clear reason. Just as there was no real logic as to whether 6NT should be played by West or East on the hand below. It is a good contract, but only two pairs reached it, and they shared the top. And they did much bettter than the two pairs who played in the hopeless 6S, which had no chance with the 5-1 trump split:

Science or nature, that is the question. The other pair reaching 6NT played Precision, and their auction was 1C (17+) -1S (5+ hearts or 4 hearts and a 5+minor) -1NT (relay) - 2D (5 or 7 hearts and another 4 card suit).- 2H (relay) - 2S (5 hearts, 5 clubs) - 3NT - (no fit, 17-19) - 4NT (invitational to slam) - 6NT.  Luckily, West did not bid clubs at any point, so North could not get a double in for a club lead, so the only chance to beat it "went West" and 12 tricks rolled in.

The earliest occurrence that I have found of "to go West" in the sense "to die" is from the Western Mail of Cardiff, appropriately as I am writing this on St David's Day, of Tuesday 22nd September 1914, in an account of a bombardment of the British lines near Soissons, on the Aisne River, in northern France: One man was splashed with the blood of his comrade, who had been blown in half by a piece of shrapnel a few hours ago. The butt end of his own rifle was chipped off by a broken bit of spent shell. He was glad of his escape—“a very near call”—but was sorry for the friend “who had gone West,” as he called it.

The auction in the room above was entirely natural. 1S was natural , 2H was forcing for one round, and 3D was game-forcing. 3S was preference and I think East should now bid 4D, but chose 4S. West bid RKCB for spades, and 5S showed 2 and the queen, Now 5NT asked "how many kings?" which is an old-fashioned but perfectly sound method. 6D showed one, and West bid 6NT which might from his point of view have been on a finesse. Mary, North, led a club, and the queen held, and it was now easy enough to take the diamond finesse for the overtrick. South just won the king of diamonds. If North had not led a club, the contract would still have made as the diamonds were 3-3.