The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 23

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Board 23

Board 23
Both sides vulnerable

♠ A K 8 4 3 ♥ A Q J ♦ 5 4 ♣ A J 6

I open one spade in first seat, LHO bids three clubs, partner bids four spades, and RHO passes. Obviously I need to think about slam. The first decision is whether to invite or simply bid it. Partner's four spade bid should be based more on shape than on high cards, since he could have cue-bid four clubs. Thus there is a good chance he has a singleton club. If he does, I don't need much: queen of spades, king of hearts, and ace or king-queen of diamonds. I might not even need the singleton club.

♠ Q x x x ♥ K x ♦ A x x x x ♣ x x

would be good enough. In fact, I might not even need the king of hearts. Opposite the same hand without the heart king, I'm on a finesse through the pre-empter's partner. If slam is better than 50% opposite the right six-count, it seems I should be doing more than simply inviting. If I did choose to invite, I'm not even sure what to bid. Probably five spades to suggest I'm looking for a club control. I'm more worried about having a club loser than I am about being off the ace-king of diamonds. But I think that's too conservative. I bid six spades, which ends the auction. West leads the king of clubs:

	NORTH ♠ Q 9 7 6 5 2 ♥ 7 5 ♦ K Q J 6 2 ♣ --

	SOUTH ♠ A K 8 4 3 ♥ A Q J ♦ 5 4 ♣ A J 6

West	North	East	South
			1 ♠
3 ♣	4 ♠	Pass	6 ♠
(All pass)

I don't really think East is void in clubs. But why take chances? I ruff with the queen of spades, draw trumps, and claim six:

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

West obviously could have beat me with a diamond lead. But I think he made the percentage choice. Since he's looking at eight high-card points, he is unlikely to find his partner with an ace. It makes more sense to try to set up a club trick and hope the king of hearts is an entry. If North has, for example,

♠ Q x x x ♥ x x ♦ A K x x x ♣ x x

West's lead would be right. Without the king of hearts, I'm sure West would have led a diamond. His choice is wrong only because North has a freak. North has more in shape and less in high cards than he normally would for this auction.

At the other table, South decided not to play a slam unless his partner had the diamond ace. He bid Blackwood and signed off in five spades when his partner showed no aces. On this auction, West knew his partner had at least one keycard. In fact, he should have two. So West had good reason to lead a diamond, and he did. After losing the first two tricks, South was undoubtedly quite pleased with himself for his conservative decision. Ha!

Me: +1430
Jack: +650

Score on Board 23: +13 IMPs
Total: +63 IMPs

1 comment:

dave_at_efiOctober 15, 2009 at 2:28 PM
You should get a much larger following (including me) as a result of Philip Alder's reference-link in the NY Times Bridge column.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add 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, October 15, 2009

Board 23

1 comment:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog