The Gargoyle Chronicles: Free Weekly Instant Tournament - September 19

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Free Weekly Instant Tournament - September 19 - Board 3

Board 3
Opponents vulnerable

♠ J 3 ♥ A Q 8 6 4 ♦ A Q 8 5 3 ♣ 6

If you prefer, you can watch Alex take you through Board 3 on Gargoyle's YouTube channel:

I open with one heart in first seat. LHO overcalls with two clubs. Partner raises to two hearts. And RHO bids three clubs. Partner's perfect minimum is king third in both red suits, which makes four hearts cold on normal breaks. So my hand is worth an invitation.

I suspect the field won't be inviting. I would count this as 15 total points after the raise, which isn't worth an invitation. But point count undervalues concentrated strength.

The loser-counters, however, might go to the other extreme and blast game. Five losers, in theory, is worth a four-heart bid. They're wrong, too, in my opinion. Loser count overvalues hands where fit is important. In general, when some people will be content with a part score and others will be blasting game, the baby-bear approach is usually right.

I bid three diamonds, and partner accepts with four hearts. Everyone passes and LHO leads the jack of clubs.

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

West	North	East	South
Robot	Robot	Robot	Phillip
			1 ♥
2 ♣	2 ♥	3 ♣	3 ♦
Pass	4 ♥	(All pass)

Since I think a fair percentage of the field will not reach game, my primary concern is making this. So what's my best chance? Should I take the club finesse to pitch a spade?

A vulnerable two-level overcall on a jack-high suit is unlikely, but it's not unheard of. And I might not need the club finesse. If I can take four diamond tricks, I can afford to lose two spades.

I can take four diamond tricks any time diamonds are two-two, which is 40% of the time. 50% of the time they will split three-one one way or the other. Of the eight ways they can split three-one, I can pick up stiff king or jack in either hand. So that's an additional 25%, bringing my total chances up to 65%.

Actually, I'm wrong. It's better than that. West probably would have led a stiff small or stiff jack of diamonds. So that reduces the denominator. Let's try this again.

If we eliminate the likely diamond leads, we come up with the following table. For each of West's possible holdings, the tables shows whether we can achieve our goal. If we go up with the club ace, our goal is four tricks. If we finesse and it loses, we need five tricks.

Diamond Layout

West	East	Cases	4 tricks	5 tricks
♦ --	♦ K J x x	1
♦ K	♦ J x x	1	Y
♦ K J	♦ x x	1	Y
♦ K x	♦ J x	2	Y
♦ J x	♦ K x	2	Y	Y
♦ x x	♦ K J	1	Y	Y
♦ K x x	♦ J	1	Y
♦ K J x	♦ x	2
♦ J x x	♦ K	1	Y
♦ K J x x	♦ --	1

Now we can calculate out chance of success. The percentages aren't exact, because the cases are not equally likely. But it's a good approximation.

Goal	Cases	Percentage
4 tricks	9 / 13	0.69
5 tricks	3 / 13	0.23

If I go up with the ace, I'll make 69% of the time. What if I finesse? I'll make if the finesse works. I'll make even if the finesse loses if I can take five diamond tricks. If I judge the finesse to be 60%, then finessing works 60% of the time plus 23% of the remaining 40%, or about 69% of the time total. So that's the over-under. If I think the finesse is better than 60%, I should finesse. If not, I should go up.

60% sounds conservative to me. So I'll take over. I play the queen. East plays the three. I pitch a spade on the ace of clubs. East plays the seven; West, the deuce. I play the ten of hearts to my ace to guard against a four-one break. Deuce from East; three from West.

I want to make sure I end up in dummy after the third round of hearts, so I cash the queen next. West discards the seven of spades. I unblock the nine to stay flexible. Now a heart to dummy's king. West discards the king of clubs. I've reached this position with the lead in dummy.

	NORTH Robot ♠ 5 4 2 ♥ 7 ♦ 10 7 4 2 ♣ --

	SOUTH Phillip ♠ J ♥ 8 6 ♦ A Q 8 5 3 ♣ --

As long as I don't lose three diamond tricks, I've made this. I play the deuce of diamonds from dummy. East plays the six.

My instincts say to cover with the eight. Now I can't go down. If I play the queen... Oh, I still can't go down. If West shows out, I lose a spade and two diamonds. This is why I don't listen to my instincts.

I play the queen. West wins with the king and returns the nine. I claim eleven tricks.

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

Plus 650 is worth 100%. I was right the field didn't try for game. Only two other pairs reached game, and they both made only four.

In retrospect, I missed a key inference in my analysis. I said that if the club finesse lost, I had a 23% chance of taking five diamonds tricks. But that's not true. Given West's failure to lead a spade, the best he can have in spades is ace-queen. If he's missing the club king, that doesn't leave him with much for his overcall. If the club finesse loses, the diamond king is almost surely offside.

That means the over-under for taking the finesse is 69%, not 60. I think I'd still take over. But it's a lot closer.

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