The Gargoyle Chronicles: Jaz Hands -- Board 12

Sunday, February 8, 2026

Jaz Hands -- Board 12

Board 12
Both sides vulnerable

Today we discuss Board 12 of Jazlene's match. You can read about it here. But it would make Hope happy if you watched her discuss it on our YouTube channel:

♠ 6 5 ♥ K Q 9 4 ♦ 6 5 3 ♣ J 10 9 5

LHO opens one diamond, Precision. RHO bids one spade, and LHO bids two clubs, showing length in both minors but with no indication of which suit is longer. RHO bids two hearts, artificial and forcing, and LHO bids two notrump. RHO bids three spades, showing six, and LHO bids three notrump.

Everyone passes and partner leads the seven of hearts.

	NORTH Desy ♠ A K 10 7 4 3 ♥ A J 3 ♦ K J 4 ♣ 2
	♥ 7	EAST Jazlene ♠ 6 5 ♥ K Q 9 4 ♦ 6 5 3 ♣ J 10 9 5

West	North	East	South
Gideon	Desy	Jazlene	Paulus
			1 ♦
Pass	1 ♠	Pass	2 ♣
Pass	2 ♥	Pass	2 NT
Pass	3 ♠	Pass	3 NT
(All pass)

Our agreements are second-highest from a bad suit, so it looks as if partner has either 107x or 87x. Declarer plays low from dummy.

What do we know about the layout? With a doubleton spade, Paulus probably would have bid four spades, so his most likely shapes are 1-3-5-4 or 1-3-4-5. He has at least 11 HCP, which leaves partner with at most 7. Declarer has two spade tricks and a heart trick. He needs six more tricks to make this.

Let's give partner queen-jack of spades so declarer won't have a third spade trick. Partner can have one more card. The diamond ace won't be helpful. That means declarer must have ace-king-queen of clubs, which gives him six tricks in the minors. So let's give partner the ace or king clubs. Now declarer has solid diamonds and one club trick. Five diamonds would give him eight tricks, so I must assume he has only four.

Good. Now I have my construction. I'm playing declarer for 1-3-4-5 and I'm playing partner for the ace or king of clubs. I have no particular reason to believe that's the layout. But it's what I must assume if we're going to beat this. If I'm right, declarer must set up his ninth trick in the club suit. So I'm aiming for three hearts and two club tricks.

If partner has the heart ten, I can insert the nine, then return the king of hearts. On my construction, declarer is now down. But if declarer has the heart ten, that's his ninth trick. Can we beat this if I play the heart queen? Let's imagine this layout:

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

Say I play the queen and shift to the jack of clubs. Declarer covers. Partner wins the ace and shifts back to hearts. That's good enough. I can set up my long heart, and I have an entry in clubs.

But there is a serious flaw in that analysis. Why would declarer ever cover? He's perfectly happy to lose club tricks to me. So he'll just duck. If I continue with the ten, he will duck again. Now he's cold as long as clubs break.

But why should he assume the club ace is offside? Isn't that double-dummy? No, it's not. He doesn't care who has the club ace. This line requires only that clubs break four-three. Then he loses three clubs and one heart.

So if I'm going to lead clubs, I must lead a low one. Defenders are often afraid to make such plays out of an unconscious, irrational fear that declarer can see their hand. But as a practical matter, leading low can't hurt. If partner has the eight, leading low works by force. And if declarer has the eight, he's not going to play it. He wants to keep partner off play, not let him in cheaply. So if he has ace-queen, he'll finesse. If he has king-queen, he'll play the king, hoping I have the ace. Then he can either duck a spade, hoping they're three-three, or cash his winners and play ace and heart, hoping I must give him a club trick in the end.

But maybe I shouldn't lead clubs at all. If declarer has the hand I'm hoping for, there is no reason to lead them. Declarer must play clubs himself. My Third Rule of Defense is: Don't break a suit declarer must play himself.

Look what happens after a diamond shift. If declarer has king-queen of clubs, he can't make his contract even if he can see my hand. He wins in dummy and leads a club. I split. Declarer ducks, and I play another diamond. Declarer wins in hand leads the eight of clubs, keeping partner off play. I win and play a third diamond. Declarer is down. He can set up his clubs but has no way to reach them.

Which is better, a low club or a diamond shift? I'm sure Lowenthal would lead a low club. He relished that kind of play. Personally, I like the elegance of a diamond shift. But one thing you can't do is lead the club jack. That can never beat the contract unless declarer is fast asleep.

Jazlene leads the club jack. Declarer takes the ace and leads the eight of spades. Partner plays the queen. Declarer cashes the ace and king of spades and plays a third spade. Partner wins and plays a heart. Declarer finesses, you win the king, and declarer claims ten tricks.

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

That was a strange line of play. Declarer has ten top tricks. His best play for an eleventh is surely to duck the club jack. If clubs are four-three, he has the rest. If not, he has lots of squeeze chances. Playing for three-three spades instead is a weird choice.

Jazlene's teammates played three notrump from the other side and made five, so she picks up an imp.

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, February 8, 2026

Jaz Hands -- Board 12

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog