Poland - Final

The final of the World Championship in Katowice: Fleisher against Rosenthal, played over four sets of fourteen boards.

Fleisher won 116–90 (the sets went 46–8, 39–8, 5–38, 26–36). Rosenthal finished second.

Fleisher (winners): Thomas Bessis, Sjoert Brink, Bas Drijver, Martin Fleisher, Cedric Lorenzini, Chip Martel.
Rosenthal (second): Christian Bakke, Boye Brogeland, Andrew Rosenthal, Martin Schaltz, Aaron Silverstein, Chris Willenken.

The slams have been a big talking point because in this event they have decided most of the matches. Big swings have happened through slam judgment. I have been emphasising some of the characteristics of good and bad slams, hopefully in the finals we can see all the ideas in action again.

Slam ideas keep striking

Thomas Bessis showed why he really is at the top of the game, using simple ideas that BridgeChampions has been focusing on recently.

East had all the ingredients, he was ready to cook.

Board 28 is an excellent example. In the auction, East found out that his partner has 5 spades, 4 hearts. 3♠ was an artificial bid showing a poor hand (non-serious hand). Thomas decided grand slam was out of the question so he just bid slam.

He picked up 11 imps, a non vulnerable slam swing (the match was decided by about 20 imps, so if this hand went the other way, it might have been enough to change history).

Side note: there are two other ingredients for slam

1. Big trump fit (9+ card fit)

2. Shortage / distribution

We can't always wait for 5 of them to align, you often need a combination of 3-4.

Slow to slam

We've just shown how Thomas knows when to bid slam, he also knows how to NOT bid slam - an equally important skill.

Do you bid on here, you have a nice looking hand, a quality side suit, distribution, all the ingredients?

Thomas decided not to, slam bidding is a conversation, a partnership discussion. When the opponents preempt and we can NOT have that discussion, its typically a good idea to just be conservative and bid game, don't gamble and bring back a negative score. Partner, after all, could have no points - the 5 level is not safe!

More on this: Poland - Quarter finals - Slam ideas · Bidding Bible - Part 3 - Going positive

This is an amazing skill set on display - there isn't a constant drive to bid slam, to overbid, to underbid - rather there is a constant drive to do what is correct in the situation - like a good legal judge - "be dispassionate, look at the facts, and make the correct decision".

In general bidding, don't be an optimist, or a pessimist, just a realist. When it comes to slam bidding in competition, move to the side of pessimist - only bid the very obvious ones.

Nothing special

One table got to a poor slam and went -1 while the other table stayed in game. Why is this a poor slam?

1. Weak trump suit - we are hoping to not lose 2 tricks in the trump suit, we are starting off with about a 50% chance to lose 2 tricks - a bad start. We then have to tackle any other obstacles with the hand.

More on this: Do Less with a Weak Trump Suit

This is the type of trump suit we have a good chance of losing 2 tricks in.

2. No "slam maker" - no 5+ card source of tricks. In such situations we often fall back to point count, because both hands are reasonably balanced, we often want about 30+ points for slam. It is mainly when we have the "slam maker" that we can bid the lower point counts.

(There is the occasional exception but rare - think big trump fits and voids).

Fun and games

Strange question - what do you bid here?

The team was down by a lot, and was looking for a big comeback. They likely would not make that big comeback by sitting back and playing normally, as the opposition were too strong. So, they tried to play for big swings, by doing high risk actions, rolling the dice, and hoping it paid off.

This was a spectacular example, where South opened 1♥ as a Psych. It looks completely silly, and not something I recommend ever doing, but what can we learn from it?

Timing: Boye did this because he was first seat, favourable vulnerability. He also had 1 point total. That means that the opponents very likely have a vulnerable game on at least, but possibly slam or even grand slam. In other words, it was the right time to take a risk - misleading partner could go badly, but getting in the opponents way could go really well.

The result was the opponents ended up in 4♠, while at the other table they ended up in 7♣ making! A spectacular result, which was largely luck, but also very good timing - all the factors lined up.

What is a Psych? In bridge a Psych is where you make a bid that does not represent your hand at all, deliberately, to mislead the opposition. It is legal, provided partner is as clueless as the opponents.

I do not recommend psyching, it is a rare thing to see at the top level - as shown here, it was under the circumstances of being down in the match and trying to randomise.

Tricks matter more than points

This hand highlights two things

1. Tricks matter more than points, North knew he had 6-7 tricks in his hand, despite only having 13 points. In other words, he ignored point count and rather paid attention to his long running club suit.

2. Bidding game vulnerable - One of the biggest differences between teams scoring and duplicate/matchpoint scoring is that bidding vulnerable game comes with a big prize, +500 bonus. Players should be pushing a little bit, being optimistic occasionally, and bidding their vulnerable games.

As you can see here, it was optimism paired with realism - he had a big source of tricks, not some ordinary boring hand - he was willing to take the risk as say 5/10 times game will make - those odds are more than enough when it comes to vulnerable games in a teams match.

Read next: Poland - Quarter finals - Slam ideas · Bidding Bible - Part 3 - Going positive · Poland - Semi finals

Browse all bidding conventions →