The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 12

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Board 12

Board 12
Our side vulnerable

♠ A 10 9 2 ♥ J 7 ♦ K Q 7 ♣ K 9 5 4

The auction begins one diamond--pass--one heart to me. I like to have more shape than this for a two-suited double, so I pass. In retrospect, this was probably wrong. I tend to be conservative in competitive auctions when I have a balanced hand, but this was overdoing it. Partner could easily have a hand where he couldn't act over one diamond but where we are cold for a spade game. This time, however, it works out well. LHO bids one trump; his partner bids three hearts, invitational; and LHO goes on to four. I doubt we missed a spade game now, and my silence will make it harder for declarer to read the hand.

With king-queen third in front of dummy's diamonds, it seems right to make an aggressive lead. I lead the five of clubs:

	NORTH ♠ K J 5 ♥ K 10 9 ♦ A 8 4 3 2 ♣ J 3
WEST ♠ A 10 9 2 ♥ J 7 ♦ K Q 7 ♣ K 9 5 4

West	North	East	South
	1 ♦	Pass	1 ♥
Pass	1 NT	Pass	3 ♥
Pass	4 ♥	(All Pass)

Declarer plays the jack from dummy, partner wins with the ace, and declarer plays the six. Partner shifts to the six of spades, and declarer plays the four. My first thought is to win with the ace, cash the club king, and wait for whatever diamond tricks I'm entitled to. But before I do, I need to ask myself why partner shifted to a spade instead of simply returning a club. Why did he?

----

There is no hurry to cash my spade ace. If three black tricks are all we can take, we're not beating the contract. And if we have a red-suit entry, the spade ace can wait. He must have the spade queen, and he is trying to establish it before declarer can take a discard in spades. Indeed, this might be necessary. Suppose declarer has

♠ x x x ♥ A Q x x x x ♦ x ♣ Q 10 x

A spade shift and continuation is necessary. Partner made a nice play, and if I cash the club king as I intended to, all his hard work will be for nothing. Could it be wrong to play another spade?

----

Yes. Suppose declarer has

♠ Q x ♥ A Q x x x x ♦ J 10 9 ♣ x x

If I don't cash the club, I won't get it. But partner's shift makes no sense in this layout. If I trust partner, I should return a spade. I play the deuce of spades--jack--queen--three Partner returns the deuce of clubs to my king. Eventually, I score a diamond trick for down two:

	NORTH ♠ K J 5 ♥ K 10 9 ♦ A 8 4 3 2 ♣ J 3
WEST ♠ A 10 9 2 ♥ J 7 ♦ K Q 7 ♣ K 9 5 4		EAST ♠ Q 8 7 6 ♥ 8 3 ♦ 9 6 ♣ A 10 8 7 2
	SOUTH ♠ 4 3 ♥ A Q 6 5 4 2 ♦ J 10 5 ♣ Q 6

Cashing the club would have beat declarer also, but possibly by only one trick. If I cash the club before playing a spade, it's not clear whether declarer will finesse or will rise and play for a favorable position in diamonds. When I play the spade right away, declarer's only chance to make the contract is to play for both.

I don't agree with South's three heart bid. Culbertson suggested that the way to decide whether to invite game or not is to imagine partner with the perfect minimum for his auction. If this hand makes game virtually laydown, then you should invite. A perfect minimum for partner would be something like king-queen of diamonds, king of hearts, and a black ace. That's hardly a laydown game, so I would have signed off in two hearts.

At the other table, my counterpart doubled one heart. North redoubled to show three-card heart support, and East bid one spade. South bid two hearts. Strange how he invites over a one notrump rebid but bids only two hearts when his partner shows support. My hand now bid two spades, North bid three hearts, and East and South passed. I don't understand any one of those four calls.

After a take-out double, a competitive raise of partner's advance to two needn't show extra values, but it should show an extra trump. If West had doubled a one-heart opening and had heard the auction continue pass-one spade-two hearts, I believe he should raise on the strength of his fourth trump. But partner already expects four cards in each of your suits for a two-suited double. I believe two spades here should show a minimum double with a fifth spade.

North's three hearts, on the other hand, does show extra values. His hand is unlimited and his trump length is known, so it makes no sense to play three hearts as competitive. It should be invitational to game. Both East and South, however, seem to have understood their partners' actions, since neither bid on. (Although East should have. Three spades makes).

Against three hearts, the defense started by cashing two clubs. West then shifted to the king of diamonds. Declarer took his ace, drew trumps, and led a diamond toward his hand, dropping East's nine. When the defense forgot to cash the spade ace, declarer wound up with an overtrick.

Me +100
Jack -170

Score on board 11: +7 IMPs
Total: +38 IMPs

No comments:

Post a Comment

About This Blog

First, a word or two about who am I so you have some idea how seriously to take the advice you find here. I retired from tournament bridge in 1992 (coincidentally, the year my daughter was born). At the time, I had accumulated a little over 5000 masterpoints. I had won numerous regional events and had finished second or third in several national events. Annoyingly, I have never won a national event of any significance. (The qualification is necessary. I did win one national event of little significance.) My best result was second place in the Grand National Teams (with John Lowenthal, Michael Becker, Ron Rubin, Michael Rosenberg, and Brian Glubok). I have theories about why this is, but I won't bore you with them now.

I am still in contact with many of my friends from tournament days. So I still discuss bridge and, occasionally, still write articles for Bridge World magazine, some of which you can find reprinted here: Phillip Martin's Bridge Articles

I have always enjoyed writing about bridge and have, from time to time, considered starting a blog. I think there is a void in the bridge literature that I can make some attempt to fill. Bob Hamman has stated that most people play bridge by asking themselves what they should do. Instead, they should be asking themselves what is going on. Once you figure that out, what to do will often suggest itself. I think he is right about that, and I think bridge literature is partly responsible. Bridge books and articles focus on the unusual and the spectacular. They can get you in the habit of looking for opportunities to shine, which isn’t what you should be thinking about.

The late John Lowenthal, my partner for years, was perhaps the king of doing the unusual, especially on defense. But he always found these plays by being alert to what was going on, not by simply looking for opportunities to do something unexpected. If declarer spurned a finesse John expected him to take or failed to attack a suit that John expected him to attack, John would ask himself why. Frequently, the answer to this question would reveal the entire deal. Then John could be creative and think about finding some way to deflect declarer from the winning line. And, often, he succeeded.

What I am going to attempt to do in this blog is to show by example how one should think about the game. The focus will be on process, not on results. How do you figure out what is going on? How do you try to conceal what’s going on to the opponents? How do you try to clarify the position to partner? These are the skills that separate the expert from the intermediate player more than the ability to execute a backwash squeeze. And, for this purpose, almost any deal can provide material for discussion.

What I propose to do is to play in BBO robot individuals and report on each deal in detail, focusing on the questions I ask myself and how I reach each decision. I will report on each deal, not just the ones I find interesting or instructive. This blog will probably not be of much help to a beginner, but I think it will be instructive for an intermediate player. And my expert friends will finally see what is going on inside my head when I’m in one of my interminable huddles.

I will be South, but, following convention, I will always make South declarer in the diagrams. Thus my reported compass direction may change from deal to deal.

I should point out that not all of my ideas are mainstream. I considered including a catalog of quirks, but I decided that was unnecessary. They will become apparent in due time.

The Gargoyle Chronicles

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Board 12

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog