View Full Version : Ozone Opposes Nefarious Nickell
If interested in watching what happened in the last set of Ozone versus Nickell at Dallas, go for the attachment folks !
Great stuff, Sartaj. My comments (long, you're pre-warned):
It's better to present the bidding with West always on the left.
Wow your opponents were good. Yesterday I was chatting to Adam Sarten about how Hans - Nunn IMO (in my opinion) exert more pressure on their opponents than any other pair in Oz (just as Marston - Burgess used to do in the 1980s and 1990s). But Meckwell outshone Hans-Nunn at that.
IMO this is a team with years of Kokish training outshining a team with months of Kokish training. I should back that comment up by pointing out that in the 1990s Hamman won only one World Championship despite many tries. In the 2000s his record, with Kokish training, is much better, even though he is older and the Italian opposition is stronger than in the 1990s.
Bd 1
Would X of 4H by Witshire (East) in the passout seat have been for penalty?
If so, should Wiltshire X 4H for penalties due to the danger of an advance sacrifice ONLY AT THIS VUL, not at any other vul?
Should Nunn bid 4S over 4H? This will be doubled, but looks law-abiding if the LoTT is still valued highly, even after Mike Lawrence's recent LoTT book. It surprises me that Hans doesn't mention this possibility. What do you think?
Bd 3
Perhaps the best modern style playing Standard should be that Wiltshire opens 1S ONLY AT THIS VUL. Because fav vul is such a weapon, it pays to make bids at this vul that one would not make otherwise. Ref Bd 16 later.
Zia (in his book) and Michael Courtney (when he coached the Indonesians a decade ago before their first big successes on the world stage) both describe 5431 as their favourite shape, a great shape to bid a lot on, partly because good things seem to happen with either a fit coming in the five card suit, or a fit in the 4-4 or 3-5 fit with a nice 5 card side suit available, or the opponents having a fit. Both also like 6421 shapes. Something to think about.
At Hans' table, there's a case IMO for 2NT in competitive auctions to be natural more often when one is VUL vs NOT VUL. At all three other vuls 2NT remains whatever your partnership plays it as. This may prevent stealing of one's 3NT auctions by cheeky modern FAV VUL bidders. The natural 2NT increases safety because a vul 2NT is so much more dangerous to double than 3NT. I did not think to mention this idea in Dave Wiltshire's excellent survey of the meaning of 2NT in competitve auctions. Just a thought.
Am I wrong?
Bd 4
Was the Lightner X of 4S alerted?
Did Kieran ask the meaning of X before he tried to drop SK?
If it was not alerted in ACBL-land, then IMO Oz-One were robbed.
Bd 5
Simply a typo. Should say "Rodwell led a diamond".
The key issue for Dyke in the defence is whether partner's diamond at Trick 1 was count or attitude. Count obviously works best. I am perhaps the biggest attitude fan in Oz since Dick "Attitude Forever" Cummings, and IMO I would get the defence wrong because attitude at Trick One does not work here.
Bd 16
Should be Bd 15, judging by vulnerability. Has 14 hearts and 12 diamonds.
IMO Dyke's 3H is better than Rodwell's 2H only AT THIS VULNERABILITY.
And that comes from me, a 7222 hater.
I wonder if Rodwell's choice was Kokish-influenced?
Should Hans have ripped the Double to 5C? Depends what X meant.
If X = extras, then at this vul (!) there is a case IMO. Being robbed at fav vul and all that, once again. Not that that applies to East's actual hand, but on other layouts 5C might be cold, with East stealing. Is my thinking off-base?
Nunn's lead decision... If Hans has opened light, because he is vul vs not (less inferences from non-3C opening, cf Hans' comment re Bd 2) IMO Hans' suit will often be headed by CA or CK. Perhaps Hans and Nunn have no such inferences available to Nunn re CK, because they open lots of light hands to exert pressure a la Meckwell. Cf Bd 3, where a light 1S opening doesn't have to be a good suit when being opened at fav vul. After doubling 4S, the primary aim IMO is to get it down, not to maximise doubled undertricks, especially when Nunn has no reason to believe that his side has game on.
With Hans having opened light VUL, I think the lead decision betwen the textbook trump (we have more points than them, they are at the four level) and CA is very close. But I generally am not an adherent of textbooks.
What do others think regarding this lead? Does anyone think: auto trump lead when you have S10, as opponents are unlikely to have a suit to run?
Thank you Sartaj. Fascinating to see what Meckwell and Hamsol can do with the right hands. I look forward to the day you reverse the result. Which should happen, as they get older. After all, the average age of the Nickell team is the same as Lorenzo Lauria's age, and Lauria looks three times as old as Tony Nunn.
If Meckwell have any thoughts of moving to Oz, the best country in the world to live in, then Oz-One should sign them up. Just kidding. :)
That's my 2c worth. Or 7c worth, as I have gone through not just the ABC
(attempt at an Oz joke about an Oz TV station), but the D to Z as well.
Peter Gill.
hey sartaj
after reading through your article i wasnt convinced you were out-classed by these guys - i think you played crappy
i would back you and the player formally known as the dude to get most of the hands i read right most of the time
perhaps i could buy "out-classed" in as much as your opponents were able to play clean pressure bridge when it counted
i liked your article although predictably i wasnt persauded that the player formally known as the dude shouldnt open 3 spades rather than 1 - i think the pretty 7 spades reached by your teammates after a sub-minimum 1 level opening is a poor argument for not pre-empting the dudes hand
i think the pretty 7 spades reached by your teammates after a sub-minimum 1 level opening is a poor argument for not pre-empting the dudes hand
The 7S hand was after opeing JTxxx AKxxx xx J in first seat at favourable vulnerability. And was an argument for opening QJ9xx Qxx AJxx x in first seat at favourable - not so much to do with the dudes decision to preempt or open 1S.
(I was the one that opened the "subminimum" that resulted in 7S and sheepishly passed the above hand that Meckstroth opened in the other room which resulted in the dude and sartaj missing a vulnerable game bid against us).
It's just interesting that the 2 times in the match where first in hand there was a pass/bid decision at first seat favourable the player who bid gained imps as opposed to the player who didn't
It's possible to argue that Tony-Sartaj should have bid differently and got to game .... but would Hamman and Soloway if placed in the same predicament?
David
Reply to Peter's excellent long post (also long)
Bd 1
Would X of 4H by Witshire (East) in the passout seat have been for penalty?
If so, should Wiltshire X 4H for penalties due to the danger of an advance sacrifice ONLY AT THIS VUL, not at any other vul?
Should Nunn bid 4S over 4H? This will be doubled, but looks law-abiding if the LoTT is still valued highly, even after Mike Lawrence's recent LoTT book. It surprises me that Hans doesn't mention this possibility. What do you think?
I guess there are some upsides to the double 4S may well go down even when South was bidding to make. But tipping off declarer to the trump position could be very costly if the contract was bid to make - declarer may well have choices in the trump position (see later hand for doubles giving away trump positions)
Bd 3
Perhaps the best modern style playing Standard should be that Wiltshire opens 1S ONLY AT THIS VUL. Because fav vul is such a weapon, it pays to make bids at this vul that one would not make otherwise. Ref Bd 16 later.
This hand I certainly WANTED to open. QJ9xx Qxx AJxx x. I know a few players playing standard who would open this hand (Ish springs to mind). And as Peter points out this is definitely the right vulnerability to be opening this hand. This is certainly something for partnerships to be aware of - what are the different opening requirements at different positions and vulnerabilities; lots of people think about this issue with regard to opening preempts - but less emphasis is made on opening 1 bids. This hand illustrates that it's just as important to consider position and vulnerability when opening at the 1 level.
Bd 4
Was the Lightner X of 4S alerted?
Did Kieran ask the meaning of X before he tried to drop SK?
If it was not alerted in ACBL-land, then IMO Oz-One were robbed.
The double wasn't alerted. It was briefly asked about, but there wasn't much of an answer before play continued, so it wasn't really explained nor asked about properly. I don't feel robbed on this board. A strong club player isn't opening Kxx Kxxxxx - Kxx with a weak 2 (Especially when the location of the HJ isn't known - with that card it's a clear 1 level opener .... and South is a 6:4 favourite to hold the HJ).
Bd 5
The key issue for Dyke in the defence is whether partner's diamond at Trick 1 was count or attitude. Count obviously works best. I am perhaps the biggest attitude fan in Oz since Dick "Attitude Forever" Cummings, and IMO I would get the defence wrong because attitude at Trick One does not work here.
The diamond layout is also wrong in board 5 (I didn't notice in my proof reading). It should be QJxx opposite T9xxx. If Peter is the biggest attitude fan in Oz then I'm the second biggest (my influence in this regard isn't Dick Cummings but Peter himself). Hence, the signal on the first diamond is attitude. Now that the diamond count isn't clear it's possible that the defence will go wrong later in the hand. But winning the HK and returning a heart is fairly clearly the right play. LATER on Kieran will be put to the test when he wins the 4th round of clubs. At this point East has made 4 discards. It's possible that the diamond count has been signalled by this stage. And the defence CAN now get the hand right.
Bd 16
Nunn's lead decision... If Hans has opened light, because he is vul vs not (less inferences from non-3C opening, cf Hans' comment re Bd 2) IMO Hans' suit will often be headed by CA or CK. Perhaps Hans and Nunn have no such inferences available to Nunn re CK, because they open lots of light hands to exert pressure a la Meckwell. Cf Bd 3, where a light 1S opening doesn't have to be a good suit when being opened at fav vul. After doubling 4S, the primary aim IMO is to get it down, not to maximise doubled undertricks, especially when Nunn has no reason to believe that his side has game on.
With Hans having opened light VUL, I think the lead decision betwen the textbook trump (we have more points than them, they are at the four level) and CA is very close. But I generally am not an adherent of textbooks.
What do others think regarding this lead? Does anyone think: auto trump lead when you have S10, as opponents are unlikely to have a suit to run?
I'm not sure which hand(s) are wrong on board 16. But the layout is about right (people have the right number of losers in different suits .. despite having more hearts and less diamonds than a normal pack). I thought Nunn had a fairly automatic trump lead when given the hand as a problem. As you say it's certainly the textbook lead. Swapping the CK for a small club and the SA for a small spade in the West/South hands would lead to an identical auction and now Nunn's CA lead would be shot down for giving up a trick (and now it's more important as 5C IS cold on the new layout).
Interesting thoughts re Nunn's lead problem. But You start by wondering if Sartaj should pull the double where you might be being stolen from. And then turn around and say that Nunn should focus first on beating the hand and not extracting the biggest penalty. Well if you ARE being stolen from then it'll be important to get a big penalty (500 will feel like a flat board compared with 300 ... and 800 compared to 500 is imps in).
Your question is certainly food for thought. But in the end I think the "textbook" trump feels right. I'm reminded of Michael Courtney's analysis of Belladonna's leads vs 3NT - who always led 4th best from his longest and strongest, and saved his "fancy" plays for when he knew more about the hand. Well, along the same lines, make the boring trump lead and try and out play the opponents when you actually know more about the hands. So it doesn't work on this hand, just shrug and move on to the next board.
Thanks for your invaluable feedback and insight Peter.
David
Bd 1
Would X of 4H by Witshire (East) in the passout seat have been for penalty?
If so, should Wiltshire X 4H for penalties due to the danger of an advance sacrifice ONLY AT THIS VUL, not at any other vul?
Should Nunn bid 4S over 4H? This will be doubled, but looks law-abiding if the LoTT is still valued highly, even after Mike Lawrence's recent LoTT book. It surprises me that Hans doesn't mention this possibility. What do you think?
.
Tony and i are not big on the "Save" or "Sacrifice" school. Being an action pair, we may have already won the board by an early in-out. On the hand itself, say you bid 4S and go for 500 or 800 or 300. One, you have taken the last guess, two they will always double you, three they will almost never take the push to 5H, four, and worst,after writing some number like 500 in your score book you will start counting whether or not they make 4H.
On the hand, we had a realistic chance of beating 4H. Declarer will take the HAK line some of the time. To me a 33 percent chance of +100 is a great incentive to not save.
It was somewhat unfortunate that i didnt hold Axx of hearts in which case we would all be singing the glory of the Nunn dude.
Bd 3
Perhaps the best modern style playing Standard should be that Wiltshire opens 1S ONLY AT THIS VUL. Because fav vul is such a weapon, it pays to make bids at this vul that one would not make otherwise. Ref Bd 16 later.
Yes, I agree. Favorable vul is something we should seek to systematically exploit.
At Hans' table, there's a case IMO for 2NT in competitive auctions to be natural more often when one is VUL vs NOT VUL. .....Just a thought.
Am I wrong?
Dont like that. Its not an intuitive thought. Being a realist, i dont subscribe to "Lets play the perfect system and play it well".
I like "Lets play a good, strong robust system where we dont stuff up"
Its all good to sing praises of the best approach, but in my experience, system stuff-ups and forgets tend to occur in counter-intuitive situations.
cf. Transfer rubensohl Hamman-Sol effort.
Should Hans have ripped the Double to 5C? Depends what X meant.
If X = extras, then at this vul (!) there is a case IMO. Being robbed at fav vul and all that, once again. Not that that applies to East's actual hand, but on other layouts 5C might be cold, with East stealing. Is my thinking off-base?
Nunn's lead decision..
I thought at the table for ages. To be honest, i finally decided that i dont know what to do. Most of our high level doubles are takeout but the case of double and double opposite an opening hand tends to be a balanced hand.
Discussions with Tony after the match led towards him suggesting that with 64 and the like i should tend to bid. and with 5431 and the like should tend to pass.
With Q10xx of spades, i side with Nunn's trump lead.
Thank you Sartaj. Fascinating to see what Meckwell and Hamsol can do with the right hands. I look forward to the day you reverse the result. Which should happen, as they get older.
Peter, waiting for them to get older aint gonna work.
We got to get better
:p
that the player formally known as the dude shouldnt open 3 spades rather than 1 - i think the pretty 7 spades reached by your teammates after a sub-minimum 1 level opening is a poor argument for not pre-empting the dudes hand
It was not my intention to suggest that aggro 1lvl opening by teammies was an argument for the dude's 1S opening. I brought up that hand to say that good things seem happen when you take aggressive approaches at favorable vul. (In context of Meckstroth opening a 5431 10 count)
I like a 3S opening. Its flawed, but its my choice.
Thanks Sartaj, Peter and co for some very informative insights. Opening light at the 1 level at fav is something I haven't put much thought to (though I probably do intuitively on occasions) and am keen to explore further.
board 10
I agree with Sartaj that double on the west hand is generally not a good idea though I am not sure that this hand is a good example of why. In the ending it looks to me that playing a club is always right regardless of whether you know about the bad trump break or not. Is that right?
Good luck in the cavendish!
. In the ending it looks to me that playing a club is always right regardless of whether you know about the bad trump break or not. Is that right?
Yes. And it was my intention for the bulk of blame to be apportioned to Ozone declarer and not the Ozone doubler.
It's good to see this sort of analysis.
I'm surprised that no-one's raised the issue of west's failure to act after 2S-4S. I would predict that many (I, for one) would double with x AKJx Kx J10xxxx. After all, you could be robbed blind, here.
I see that the issue has been discussed already by Peter Gill and David Wiltshire.
Yes. And it was my intention for the bulk of blame to be apportioned to Ozone declarer and not the Ozone doubler.
I have reported this misplay in the australian this weekend but like several of the hands it was lost at both tables.
paul
I see that the issue has been discussed already by Peter Gill and David Wiltshire.
The issue of whether one should double on the auction (2S) P (4S) with x AKJx Kx JTxxx wasn't what Peter and I were discussing. We were discussing whether the EAST hand should double (for penalties).
This aspect of the problem has probably been overlooked. Should West double? Khokan thinks so - I think it's a bit much, if partner isn't passing the double for penalties then you are unlikely to make anything at the 5 level (remember partner didn't overcall over 2S).
David
I don't think so.
There are many hands, such as here, where it belongs to our side. If I really wanted to give a loaded example, what about Axx xxxxxx Axxx void with east? I don't think that this is anyone's idea of a 3H overcall over 2S, yet 7H is virtually laydown. There is a better case for doubling here than over a 4S opening, for instance (which I would do, also), as they have likely announced a fit.
On the other issue, I believe that doubling 4S for penalties by the east hand with KJx 109xx Axx KQx is wrong.
I don't think so.
There are many hands, such as here, where it belongs to our side. If I really wanted to give a loaded example, what about Axx xxxxxx Axxx void with east? I don't think that this is anyone's idea of a 3H overcall over 2S, yet 7H is virtually laydown. There is a better case for doubling here than over a 4S opening, for instance (which I would do, also), as they have likely announced a fit.
On the other issue, I believe that doubling 4S for penalties by the east hand with KJx 109xx Axx KQx is wrong.
I agree with Khokan's comments on the issue.
Its pretty SNAPpy to pass.
It's good to see this sort of analysis.
I'm surprised that no-one's raised the issue of west's failure to act after 2S-4S. I would predict that many (I, for one) would double with x AKJx Kx J10xxxx. After all, you could be robbed blind, here.
It's possible, but if their spade fit is ten cards (it often will be) my chances of buying well are reduced by partner's inaction over 2S with shortage. If their spade fit is smaller than ten cards, they may be bidding to make with a heap of high cards. I'd be interested to do a sim, but I suspect that on many hands where bidding is right, partner already did something. Still double might work out OK when it's not overwhelmingly important (-300 against -420, or +100 instead of +50) or might clip them for 300 when their contract is normal and breaks are bad. Or, on the flip side, it might beget -800 in 5D or help them guess the trumps for -590 instead of +50.
I guess I was uncertain about what was right, and still am
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.