Humans versus Jack (3)
Computer Bridge 3; World Champion Jack in Action
(published in Dutch Bridge Magazine IMP September 2005)
To gauge the playing strength of Jack, we matched him against seven
strong Dutch pairs. This instalment covers matches 4-6.
Last time I reported Jack's good started against three pairs of Dutch
experts. Frankly, we were quite relieved. We knew that Jack could do some
very good things, but he always seemed to have lapses. In retrospect,
Jack's lapses are almost always explainable, but that doesn't ease our
disappointment.
Jack's opponents were strong and very experienced. However, though
they had played a lot of bridge, they had almost no experience playing
against a computer. Unused to the situation, former Dutch champion Paul
Felten made a mistake he would never make against fellow human beings.
From the match against Eric van Valen and Paul Felten:
West deals
N/S vul
|
9 5 4 3
10 5 3
K Q 10 3
A 2
|
K 8 7
K 4
J 4
J 10 8 6 4 3
|
|
Q J 10
9 8 7
9 8 6 2
K 9 7
|
|
A 6 2
A Q J 6 2
A 7 5
Q 5
|
|
West JackW | North EvV | East JackE | South PF |
pass | pass | pass | 1 |
pass | 2 | pass | 4 |
pass | pass | pass | |
|
West led the J and Paul, still trying to light
his cigar, called for dummy's 2. Only then did he
ask to know how Jack led from KJ10. Too late! East won the
K and switched to a spade. As West had the
K, the defenders took four tricks to beat the
contract before Paul could discard a loser on dummy's diamonds, as he could
if he had called for dummy's A at Trick 1 and
started trumps at Trick 2.
This play is all the more obvious if you know that Jack plays 'Jack Denies'
opening leads, marking East with the K. Technically,
the deal is not interesting at all. Any other time and against any other
opponent Paul would never have made a mistake like this. But playing against
a computer is apparently not the same. Underestimation of the opponents?
Lack of concentration? Who knows? However, at this time 'the human factor'
is still an important variable. By the way, after this board Paul was wide
awake and Felten - van Valen won deservedly with 60 -43.
On the board just mentioned we won 9 IMPs (NS average +320), but it gave
us little satisfaction. This partscore deal (directions rotated for
convenience) pleased us, however:
South deals
Both vul
|
10 7 2
Q J
7 6 4 2
K 9 6 5
|
Q J 8 5 3
4 3
K 8 5 3
J 2
|
|
A 6
10 5
A J
A Q 10 8 7 4 3
|
|
K 9 4
A K 9 8 7 6 2
Q 10 9
-
|
|
West EvV | North JackN | East PF | South JackS |
- | - | - | 1 |
pass | 1NT | 2 | 3 |
pass | pass | pass | |
|
Van Valen led the J, and after that
3 was unbeatable. The contract did require some
technique, however, as there appear to be too many losers in spades and
diamonds. Drawing only one round of trumps fails, as East can get a diamond
ruff. Jack ruffed the J, drew trumps with dummy's
Q and J and led a spade.
East ducked and the K won. Then Jack played two
more trumps to reach this ending:
South deals
Both vul
|
10 7
-
7 6
K 9 6
|
Q J 5
-
K 8 5
J
|
|
A
-
A J
A Q 10 8
|
|
9 4
A K
Q 10 9
-
|
|
|
In his samples, Jack had a clear view of the lay-out. He played the
9 (a spade works as well) and East won the
J. After taking the A and
the A, East played the A.
If declarer ruffs he loses two more tricks and goes down one. But of
course Jack didn't ruff. Instead he discarded his last spade, and East had
give dummy the fulfilling trick with the K. These
things are really 'a piece of cake' for our champ! It doesn't help East to
win the first spade (or discard the A later). East
will always be thrown in and forced to give dummy a trick with the
K. The NS average was +50, so 3
just making won 3 IMPs.
After this defeat we felt a little more anxious. The next two pairs were
Bakkeren-Bertens and Ramondt-Westra. You can hardly find stronger pairs in the
Netherlands. But Bakkeren-Bertens (who shortly after this match won the
European open teams!) had an off-day. Some misunderstandings cost them
dearly and Jack gave nothing back.
This deal shows some accurate bidding by Jack to recover from a start with
which many would not agree (they would open 1
instead of 1NT).
From the match against Ton Bakkeren and Huub Bertens.
South deals
N/S vul
|
Q 7 6
K Q 9 6 2
7 2
A 7 3
|
J 10 5
A 8 4 3
K 5 4
9 8 6
|
|
9 3
10 7
J 10 9 8 6 3
10 5 2
|
|
A K 8 4 2
J 5
A Q
K Q J 4
|
|
West HB | North JackN | East TB | South JackS |
- | - | - | 2NT |
pass | 3 | pass | 3NT1 |
pass | 4 2 | pass | 4 |
pass | 4NT | pass | 5 |
pass | 6 | pass | pass |
pass | | | |
|
1 5 +2
2 transfer
In Jack's system, opening 2NT with a 5-4-2-2 pattern is permissible
unless the long suits are both majors. South's 3NT rejection of North's
3 transfer bid was a special conventional bid that
showed five spades and only two hearts. Then came a key bid, North's
4 ---in Jack's system a second transfer ... to
spades, making South the spade declarer and protecting South's diamonds
against the opening lead. North asked for keys and bid the right-sided
spade slam after receiving a '1430' 5 reply
showing 0 or 3. 6 by North would be doomed after
a diamond lead by east. South made an easy twelve tricks and won 6 IMPs
(NS average +1190).
The match against Vincent Ramondt and Berry Westra was much tougher.
Neither side gave the other much opportunity to score. Somewhere along the
way Westra had to make the right decision in 6 .
The right choice would win 12 IMPs. At such moments, I found it very
difficult to remain a calm and objective kibitzer. Luckily for Jack (or
should I say 'us'?), Westra chose wrongly and Jack won 10 IMPs. The next
board earned only about 1 IMP, but a double squeeze against the crème de
la crème of Dutch bridge is always nice.
From the match against Vincent Ramondt and Berry Westra:
South deals
N/S vul
|
8 5 4 2
A Q 6
J 10 9 3 2
J
|
9 6 3
K 10 7
7 4
K 10 6 4 2
|
|
Q J 10
J 9 5 2
K Q 5
9 8 3
|
|
A K 7
8 4 3
A 8 6
A Q 7 5
|
|
West VR | North JackN | East BW | South JackS |
- | - | - | 1NT |
pass | 2 | pass | 2NT |
pass | 3NT | pass | pass |
pass | | | |
|
West led a club and the J won. The
J won the second trick and declarer followed with the
A and another diamond. Westra played back a club and
declarer ducked, reaching:
South deals
N/S vul
|
8 5 4
A Q 6
10 9
-
|
9 6
K 10 7
-
K 10 6
|
|
Q J 10
J 9 5 2
-
9
|
|
A K 7
8 4 3
-
A Q
|
|
|
Double-dummy, East must shift to hearts, but understandably he continued
clubs. Jack took his ace, cashed the A and led a
heart towards the Q. On the
10 East could afford to throw a heart but on the
next diamond he was squeezed in the majors. He let go a heart and declarer
threw the 7. Next came a spade to the
K. This squeezed West, who had to discard from a
remaining K10 and K. After
28 boards Jack had lost by 8 IMPs, a very good result in view of the calibre
of the opposition.
After six matches the scoreboard looked like this:
Jack | - | Hanneke Kreijns & Just vd Kam | | 74 - 53 |
Jack | - | Erik Janssen & Jeroen Top | | 43 - 51 |
Jack | - | Jan van Cleeff & Vincent Kroes | | 61 - 46 |
|
Jack | - | Paul Felten & Eric van Valen | | 43 - 60 |
Jack | - | Ton Bakkeren & Huub Bertens | | 67 - 32 |
Jack | - | Vincent Ramondt & Berry Westra | | 45 - 53 |
|
The seventh and last match would be against internationals Gert-Jan
Paulissen and Bart Nab. Could anything still go wrong? Because of another
appointment I could not attend the match, but I had a lot of faith in Jack.
This began to melt a little when Hans Kuijf phoned me about an hour before
his departure. His laptop collapsed and he had to copy some CD's from
another computer. A bad omen? At two o'clock at night I came home and the
first thing I did was read my email. What had happened?
To be continued...
Wim Heemskerk
|