The Gargoyle Chronicles: Free Weekly Instant Tournament - November 14

Sunday, December 21, 2025

Free Weekly Instant Tournament - November 14 - Board 5

Board 5
Our side vulnerable

Hope fills in for Alex this week in Gargoyle's YouTube channel.

♠ A K 10 2 ♥ A 5 ♦ K 9 4 3 ♣ 8 7 3

Two passes to me. I have only 14 HCP, but I have three and a half honor tricks and good spots. It looks more like a strong notrump than a weak notrump to me, so I bid one notrump. Some would say I "upgraded" to a strong notrump. I don't care for that term. As far as I'm concerned, this is a strong notrump. It doesn't need an upgrade.

Partner bids two clubs, Stayman. I show my four-card spade suit, and partner bids three notrump. Everyone passes, and West leads the five of diamonds.

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

West	North	East	South
Robot	Robot	Robot	Phillip
	Pass	Pass	1 NT
Pass	2 ♣	Pass	2 ♠
Pass	3 NT	(All pass)

This lead has very likely given me four diamond tricks. My ace-king-ace brings me up the seven. If the club ace is onside, I can take two club tricks for nine. If I play a club to the king and it loses, I can still try a double finesse in spades for my ninth trick.

I play a low diamond from dummy. East plays the ten, I win with the king. I need the diamond queen onside to take four diamond tricks. But the diamond finesse can wait. I lead the seven of clubs.

It would be an error to lead the three. If I do and if the hand opposite the deuce plays his lowest card, then his partner knows it's his lowest. If I conceal the three, he can't tell.

West plays the deuce of clubs. I play the queen from dummy, and East plays the six.

East could be ducking the queen, so I can't be sure the ace is onside. But I can't afford to try the double spade finesse. If it loses, the defense can shift to hearts and I'm down.

I play a spade from dummy--nine--king--five. Should I try another club right away or take the diamond finesse? If I take the diamond finesse, I'll have to return to my hand to lead a club to the king, which will leave me wide open in whichever major I play. That could prove embarrassing.

Imagine, for example, that I lead the diamond nine. West covers, and I win in dummy, reaching this position:

	NORTH Robot ♠ 7 ♥ 9 8 6 4 ♦ J 8 ♣ K 5

	SOUTH Phillip ♠ A 10 2 ♥ A 5 ♦ 4 3 ♣ 8 3

I return to my hand with the spade ace to play another club. If East ducked with ace-jack fifth, the defense can rattle off four club tricks and two spades for down two. If I lead a club toward the king first, I'm still down one, since I don't have a ninth trick. But at least I don't go down more than necessary.

I play the eight of clubs. West hops with the ace, and East follows with the four. Now all I need is the diamond finesse. Unless West led from a singleton or from specifically seven-six-five, the finesse should work.

West shifts to the seven of hearts, and I capture East's king with my ace. I lead the nine of diamonds and pass it. It holds. Making three.

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

Plus 600 is worth 96%.

I was the only one who opened one notrump. At the other tables the auction went

North	South
Pass	1 ♦
1 ♥	1 ♠
3 ♦	?

Now what? Most of the field passed and went plus 110 or 130. Four players bid three notrump despite their lack of a club stopper. Each one of them then found a different way to go down. Perhaps they were feeling guilty.

Personally I don't care for North's three-diamond bid. This hand looks more like notrump than diamonds, so I would rebid one notrump, which would end the auction. The defense will probably start with a club to three ace. Now making three is easy. You get 93% for plus 150, so reaching game was an unnecessary risk.

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 21, 2025

Free Weekly Instant Tournament - November 14 - Board 5

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog