The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 108

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Board 108

Board 108
Our side vulnerable

♠ 9 8 3 ♥ A K 3 2 ♦ K Q 6 ♣ A 10 4

Partner opens one spade. As I play Acol, two notrump by responder shows a "jump shift" in notrump: 16 or more high-card points and balanced. That would be be nice agreement to have right now, but that's not one of the options Jack offers. I have to temporize with two clubs and hope for the best.

I bid two clubs, and partner bids two notrump. That makes it easy. Two notrump shows a strong notrump, and I have enough to invite a slam. I raise to four notrump. Partner bids five diamonds. That should show an acceptance with four diamonds, presumably 4-3-4-2 from failure to support to clubs. But somehow I suspect Jack interpreted four notrump as Blackwood and is showing an ace. What do I care about aces on this auction? Can't I just invite? I bid six notrump. RHO leads the ten of diamonds.

	NORTH ♠ 9 8 3 ♥ A K 3 2 ♦ K Q 6 ♣ A 10 4

	SOUTH ♠ A K J 6 ♥ Q 7 4 ♦ J 8 7 ♣ K J 7

West	North	East	South
		Pass	1 ♠
Pass	2 ♣	Pass	2 NT
Pass	4 NT	Pass	5 ♦
Pass	6 NT	(All pass)

I have nine tricks. That's a start. If I can pick up both black queens, that brings me up to eleven. The fourth heart and fourth spade offer potential for a twelfth. I rise with the queen of diamonds, and East takes the ace. Good. The count is corrected for a squeeze provided I can pick up the black queens. East continues with the deuce of diamonds. I play the jack, and West pitches the three of clubs. West led a singleton against six notrump? West's club pitch suggests he has five clubs, so he is probably three-four or four-three in the majors. If that's true, then one of the majors is breaking, and I can execute a squeeze in clubs and the other major to avoid having to guess the club queen. All I need now is the spade finesse.

I play the four of hearts--nine--ace--ten. If the nine of hearts is intended as count, West is probably 3-4-1-5. I play the three of spades--four--jack--queen. Oh, well. West shifts to the six of hearts. I play low from dummy, East plays the jack, and I win with the queen.

I cash the spade ace. No one plays the ten, but everyone follows to the spade king. It looks as if I'm right about West's being 3-4-1-5. I cash spades and diamonds, squeezing West in the round suits. Down one.

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

At the other table, North opens with a strong notrump. South bids Stayman, then bids four notrump (quantitative) over two hearts. Why is it he can bid a quantitative four notrump, but I can't? North, with a bare minimum including three jacks and 4-3-3-3 distribution, decides to accept. Reminds me of playing with Howard Chandross. Howard used to think he was supposed to accept an invitation any time he hadn't overbid already--or perhaps if he had overbid only slightly.

West, strangely, leads the nine of clubs. Declarer wins in his hand, cashes the king and queen of hearts, then plays a diamond to the queen and ace. East shifts to a spade, and declarer hops with the ace. For some reason, he cashes out all his tricks before leading a spade to the jack. So, when West wins with the queen, he has a heart to cash. Down two.

I decide to take Blackwood off my card. I'd rather not play the convention at all than be deprived of a natural four notrump bid on an auction like this one. I'm actually quite comfortable playing that way. John and I played no Blackwood for years. We would have auctions like "one spade--three spades (limit)--four notrump--pass," much to our opponents' amusement. Eventually we took the time to nail down precise rules for when four notrump was Blackwood and when it wasn't. But, until we had those rules, we both preferred to play that four notrump was always natural than to risk an accident.

Me: -100
Jack: -200

Score on Board 108: +3 IMPs
Total: -33 IMPs

2 comments:

CraigBMarch 2, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Back in the day, I used to have an agreement with a number of partners that one would "answer aces" when accepting a quantitative 4NT call. That passed for high science at the time....

Doesn't Jack have a menu item where you can get it to explain its interpretation of the auction to you? Bridge Baron does. (BTW, I find BB's bidding much less objectionable when I play Precision with it than other systems I have tried. KS is particularly hopeless, since it still jump raises 1m-1M with 15-17 balanced.)
ReplyDelete
Replies
Phillip MartinMarch 2, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Sometimes you can click on a bid and it will explain it. Sometimes it won't. And the descriptions are often something cryptic, like "unassuming cue-bid." You can also click on the hand and get a description of what the entire auction has shown up to that point but only in terms of the possible lengths of each suit (not relative lengths) and HCP range. I won't do either of those things during the auction, however (except for the opponents' bids), since I'm going for verisimilitude and in real life you can't ask your partner what his bids mean. Sometimes I'll check afterwards and store the info away for future reference.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add 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

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Board 108

2 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog