The Gargoyle Chronicles: Zenith Daylong - Oct 14, 2021

Sunday, November 14, 2021

Zenith Daylong - Oct 14, 2021 - Board 4

Board 4
Both vulnerable

♠ Q 10 5 ♥ 10 6 ♦ 9 7 ♣ J 10 9 7 3 2

LHO passes. Partner opens one heart in second seat, and RHO overcalls with one spade. I pass. LHO bids two hearts, showing an limit raise or better in spades, and partner passes. The robots play double here as showing good hearts. Since two hearts is a spade raise, I think it makes more sense to play double as take-out of spades, but I have no say in our partnership methods.

RHO goes on to four spades, and everyone passes. Even though partner didn't double two hearts, I see no reason not to lead his suit. I lead the heart ten.

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

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Robot	Robot	Robot
	Pass	1 ♥	1 ♠
Pass	2 ♥	Pass	4 ♠
(All pass)

If declarer has a minimum acceptance, we should have a decent chance of beating this. Dummy has a minimum limit raise, including three small trumps and a wasted queen in partner's suit. And the spade queen is offside. Our prospects look good.

Note I'm thinking about the deal in very general terms. When you have the worst hand at the table, that's the best you can do. You need some clue where the high cards are before you can construct specific layouts. Still, simply asking yourself whether the hand is going to be easy or difficult to beat can be useful.

I expect declarer to cover with the queen, but he doesn't. He plays the eight, partner plays the three, and declarer wins with the ace. If declarer had just the ace of hearts, he would have covered my ten with the queen to force a second heart trick. So declarer must have both the ace and king. Since the heart queen has turned out to be a working card, our prospects aren't so good any more. Dummy is providing three cover cards plus a possible source of tricks. It's now a sound limit raise.

What does partner's heart three mean? It should be discouraging, showing tolerance for a club shift. With neither the king nor queen of clubs, partner should encourage regardless of his heart holding. But robots don't understand this, so I can make no assumption about the club suit.

Declarer cashes the spade ace, and partner drops the jack. Declarer continues with the spade six, I follow with the ten, and partner wins with the king. Falsecarding with the queen would be an error. Not only might it fool partner, but it could only help declarer. My high cards are limited, so the more high cards he can place me with, the more he knows about the deal.

Declarer risked our drawing dummy's last trump, so he can't have a club loser he needs to ruff. Perhaps he has a singleton or doubleton, or perhaps he has king-queen third--or even queen third if he is counting on the king to be onside.

Partner shifts to the king of clubs. He apparently has the king-queen of clubs, so that's nine or ten HCP outside of diamonds. He must have the diamond queen to have his opening bid. Also, since declarer has no club honors, I now know he has at most two clubs.

Declarer plays the club six under partner's king. I play the jack, and declarer wins with dummy's ace. Declarer plays the deuce of diamonds to his ace. Partner plays the ten, and I play the nine. The important thing in a situation like this is to card the same way with 97 doubleton as you do with Q97. It doesn't matter whether you play up the line or echo, so long as you do the same thing with either holding. I prefer to echo, since sometimes partner needs count when you have a doubleton.

Declarer plays the deuce of hearts to the queen, partner following with the seven, then cashes the diamond king--eight-- three--seven. Why isn't declarer taking a diamond finesse? Couldn't partner have his opening bid without the diamond queen? He could have my spade queen, after all. Actually, he couldn't. If he did, he would have drawn dummy's last trump before shifting to the club king. But robots don't draw inferences like that. So, from declarer's perspective, it's possible the diamond queen is onside.

Could declarer have a doubleton diamond? That would give him 5-3-2-3. But I already decided he couldn't have three clubs, so that's impossible. For whatever reason, he's convinced the diamond queen is on his right.

Declarer plays dummy's club. Partner wins with the queen as declarer follows with the five. Partner plays the four of hearts to declarer's king. I can't afford to ruff this, since I would then have to give declarer a ruff-sluff. I pitch the three of clubs. Declarer continues with a spade. I win and tap him with a club. Partner has to score his diamond queen for down one.

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

On a bad day, I might have let declarer make this. If I hadn't drawn the inference early on that declarer couldn't have three clubs, I might have been persuaded by his failure to take the diamond finesse that he was 5-3-2-3. Then, in the end position, I would think it didn't matter whether I ruffed the heart or not and might randomly choose to ruff. Of course, I shouldn't. Anytime it doesn't matter what you do when your construction is correct, you should assume it's incorrect and find some scenario where it does matter. Ruffing can never gain, and not ruffing might. So if I followed that rule, I would pitch. But it's a surprisingly easy rule to forget. Maintaining concentration at all times is difficult. When you think you know the layout, it's tempting to relax.

Nine out of 32 defenders did relax and ruffed in that position, letting the game make. So plus 100 is worth 66%.

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

Sunday, November 14, 2021

Zenith Daylong - Oct 14, 2021 - Board 4

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog