The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 3

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Board 3

Board 3
Opponents vulnerable

♠ K Q J 9 8 7 2 ♥ K ♦ Q 9 ♣ A Q 5

I open one spade, partner responds one notrump, and RHO overcalls with two diamonds. I bid three spades, and partner raises to four:

	NORTH ♠ A 5 ♥ 10 9 4 ♦ J 6 3 ♣ K 9 7 6 3

	SOUTH ♠ K Q J 9 8 7 2 ♥ K ♦ Q 9 ♣ A Q 5

West	North	East	South
			1 ♠
Pass	1 NT	2 ♦	3 ♠
Pass	4 ♠	(All pass)

West leads the four of diamonds (playing third best from even, low from odd). East play the king. What card do you play?

If the opponents were leading fourth best or if your spot were lower than West's, then the queen might induce East to abandon the suit. As it is, East knows that his partner doesn't have four diamonds, so the queen isn't going to fool him. He doesn't know who has the queen, however. And if you play the nine, he still won't know. Not that anything you do is going to matter on this deal. But, as I said earlier, this blog is about process, not results. It's good to get into the habit of thinking about your opponents' problems. If you do that all the time, even when it doesn't matter, it will be easier to do when it does matter. On a different layout, East may have some motivation to underlead his ace at trick two. Or, more subtly, the uncertainly of who has the diamond queen may make it harder for him to place the high cards in some other suit. The nine retains ambiguity and the queen doesn't, so the nine is the right card and queen is a clear error, even if you can't imagine how it could make a difference.

East now plays the ace of hearts, dropping your king, while West follows with the deuce. What can you conclude from this trick?

Conclude is an overbid, but there is a slight inference that East has the queen or jack of hearts. If he didn't he might have underled the ace, hoping to put you to a guess with king-jack. It's not a strong inference, since he might have good reasons for not underleading the ace (the hope that his partner has a trump trick for example). But the fact is he might underlead the ace from ace-empty, and he would never underlead the ace from ace-queen or ace-jack. So, whatever the odds of his having the queen or jack of hearts were a moment ago, they just went up. Again, this information is of no use to you on this particular deal. We're just practicing.

East cashes the ace of diamonds; West plays the five. East plays the queen of hearts. You ruff and claim:

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

I can't imagine why East played the queen of hearts. Obviously Jack has never played opposite Lowenthal. Is there any reason not to play a third round of diamonds just in case partner has led low from a doubleton? I'm not sure why partner would do such a thing, and I certainly wouldn't cater to that possibility if there were anything else to play for. But there isn't.

As you might suspect, the auction and play were identical in the other room.

A couple of days ago, I remarked that one can find something interesting to say about almost any deal. I suppose "interesting" is a matter of debate. But you must admit, it's impressive that one can take as innocuous a deal as this and find something, interesting or not, to say about three of the first four tricks. And I suspect someone could find something to say about the one trick I glossed over. Actually, I'm sure of it. I know a former partner of mine who could write a paragraph or two about the suit-preference implications of the spot West plays under the ace of diamonds, especially if I were West and had played the wrong one.

Me +420
Jack +420

Score on board 3: 0 IMPs
Total: +10 IMPs

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Board 3

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog