Kalamazoo

Yesterday Julie and I drove to Kalamazoo to play in their afternoon NLM game. It's a good thing we started out early, because even though I had gotten directions from their website we had a heck of a time finding the club. First we missed the street and had to back track; then we went down the street but it was a dead end, so we went down the street the other way and that was a dead end as well. Then Julie remembered the way to where we played in the tournament, so we went there, but that wasn't the bridge club. Finally we went back to the dead end street and drove around the back of some buildings. Success! We found the club. (Later that day, Julie's husband asked why we hadn't taken along one of Julie's two GPS systems. No comment.)

We were warmly greeted and welcomed. Our presence was announced to the group, and we smiled and waved. They had started using electronic scoring devices just the day before; I like technology and thought this was very cool. However, as we started to play, we could immediately see how we did compared to others who had played the same boards. We were not doing well. Everyone else had either made an extra trick, or gone down by one less, or were in a better contract, etc. Julie and I were baffled.

"We played well yesterday and we never do well two days in a row," I commented between rounds. This was true.

"These players are bidding really aggressively," Julie opined. "I would never have gone to game with the 7 points I had in my hand."

"I agree they're aggressive bidders, but they're too aggressive. It's working for them this time, but it can't work all the time."

We continued to play, a bit discouraged and not really seeing what we were doing wrong. For example, one time I opened a weak 2 diamonds and Julie bid 2NT, asking for a feature in another suit. My RHO bid 3 hearts, I passed (since the only good cards I had were diamonds), and my LHO went to 3NT. Unknown to the rest of us, Julie had diamond support and was going to bid again. At the 3NT bid, though, she decided to pass. We ran the diamonds and set them. Although I don't remember what North reported the others as doing on this board, I'm sure it was something much better than what we did.

At the end of the afternoon, I reluctantly went up to the wall where the director had posted the next-to-the-last round results. I had to look twice, report the results to Julie, and then go back to make sure I had seen correctly. We had a 62% game and were first in A, B, and C--our best score to date! The last round was uneventful and the score held.

As for the game where we set our opponents' 3NT contract--that ended up being an excellent board for us. I think that although we didn't have a lot of top boards, we had consistently high boards. Either that, or people weren't used to the new electronic devices and were misreading them. (I do think that happened a couple of times.) In any case, we had an enjoyable afternoon playing bridge at a different club with very nice members.