The Gargoyle Chronicles: Free Weekly Instant Tournament - October 25

Sunday, December 1, 2024

Free Weekly Instant Tournament - October 25 - Board 5

Board 5
Our side vulnerable

♠ K 10 4 ♥ 10 7 3 ♦ A 6 5 ♣ A K 5 4

Two passes to me. I have only 14 HCP, but I have three and a half honor tricks and two tens, so I open with one notrump. (No. I'm not "upgrading." I'm evaluating. I'm judging that this hand rightly belongs in the strong notrump category. I find the term "upgrading" annoying, because it implies there is something canonical about the Work point count. There isn't. It's just one method of evaluation.)

LHO bids two clubs, showing a one-suiter but declining to identify the suit. Partner bids two hearts, a transfer to spades. I bid two spades and everyone passes. LHO leads the king of hearts.

	NORTH Robot ♠ J 8 7 6 2 ♥ J 8 6 ♦ Q 9 ♣ Q 7 6

	SOUTH Phillip ♠ K 10 4 ♥ 10 7 3 ♦ A 6 5 ♣ A K 5 4

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

It appears West's suit is hearts. I have three hearts losers, a diamond loser, and probably two losers in spades. Unless I can avoid one of those losers, I'm going down.

East plays the deuce of hearts, and I follow with the three. At trick two, West shifts to the three of clubs. That's a strange play. I'm guessing that's a singleton club. But he knows at least one more heart is cashing. What does it cost to cash it? Is he hoping his partner can ruff hearts twice and give him two ruffs? That's awfully greedy. Is he really going to lead a low heart next, risking his partner has a doubleton? Robots don't signal at trick one, so there is no reason his partner couldn't have a doubleton heart.

I might as well win this trick in dummy and try a spade to the ten. I play the club queen, and East follows with the deuce. When I play a spade from dummy, East hops up with the ace. I play the four; West, the three.

East shifts to the jack of clubs. I play the ace, and West ruffs with the nine of spades.

West will presumably cash a heart. When his partner shows out, he will lead a low heart for his partner to ruff, then get a second club ruff, reaching this position:

	NORTH Robot ♠ J 8 7 6 ♥ -- ♦ Q 9 ♣ --

	SOUTH Phillip ♠ K 10 ♥ -- ♦ A 6 5 ♣ 5

At least West will be endplayed at that point if he has the diamond king. So I'll get out for down one.

West cashes the ace of hearts. To my surprise, East follows with the nine. Oh? Here I was assuming West's suit was hearts. Apparently it was diamonds. West presumably has three hearts. With a doubleton ace-king, he would have led the ace, and with four, he might have overcalled two hearts, showing hearts and a minor. So he's either 3-3-6-1 or 2-3-7-1.

I follow with the heart seven. West continues with the five of hearts to East's queen, and East plays another club, which West ruffs with the spade queen, reaching the above position in a different way than I anticipated.

At least I'm right that West is endplayed after taking his ruffs. He has only diamonds left. He leads the king of diamonds, and I claim down one.

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

This result is worth 93%! The opponents can make three diamonds and most of the field played it there. A typical auction was

West	North	East	South

	Pass	Pass	1 ♣
1 ♦	1 ♠	Pass	1 NT
2 ♦	Pass	Pass	2 ♠
3 ♦	(All pass)

I'm not sure I would have found that three-diamond bid. One diamond, then two diamonds seems like enough bidding to me, especially when the opponents are probably in a four-three fit. (North will usually bid two spades himself with five.) But West was right to bid on, so who am I to complain?

Our auction gave the West at our table a different problem. The way it timed out, West didn't know my two-spade bid was getting passed out, and he didn't want to bid at the three-level in a live auction. My one-notrump opening gained, as it sometimes does, by making the auction harder for the opponents. Although, interestingly, it wasn't my opening per se that gave West the problem. It was partner's transfer, which kept West in the dark about partner's intentions.

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, December 1, 2024

Free Weekly Instant Tournament - October 25 - Board 5

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog