The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 37

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Board 37

If you click on the link "Board 37" below, you will be able to download a file called "Board 37.pbn". If you own a copy of Jack or any other bridge-playing software that can read a pbn file, you can then play the deal yourself before reading this post.

Board 37
Our side vulnerable

♠ K 4 ♥ 3 ♦ A K Q 5 4 ♣ J 5 4 3 2

Two passes to me. I open one diamond, LHO bids one spade, and partner doubles. RHO raises to two spades. I'm glad Jack doesn't play good/bad two notrump. I'd hate to have to bid two notrump with this hand, telling partner I want to compete but not telling him why. We need to determine how good our club fit is, and the only way to do that is for me to bid them. Why should partner care whether I have a good hand or a bad hand?

I bid three clubs, and LHO bids three hearts. Partner passes, and RHO bids three spades, which ends the auction. Partner leads the jack of diamonds.

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

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	1 ♦	1 ♠
Double	2 ♠	3 ♣	3 ♥
Pass	3 ♠	(All pass)

South has length in both majors, but he didn't bid Michaels over one diamond. I don't know if that means he doesn't have equal length or if it's possible he could have equal length but a hand of intermediate strength. Too bad I can't ask. In any event, it looks right to play for heart ruffs. I overtake with the queen of diamonds, and declarer plays the ten. I shift to the three of hearts--six--ace--seven. Partner returns the four of hearts--eight--ruff--deuce. Opposite a human partner, I would simply play a club back, but, as I've said before, I've seen no evidence that Jack knows what a suit-preference signal is. Is it really possible for partner to have the club ace? If he does, he surely has at most four clubs, since he sold out after I bid three clubs. What hand can I construct for declarer where he would bid this way that includes a small doubleton club?

♠ A Q J x x ♥ Q J x x x ♦ x ♣ x x

No. That's a Michaels cue-bid by anyone's standard.

♠ A Q J x x x ♥ Q J x x ♦ x ♣ x x

If he chose one spade rather than two on the first round, he surely would have bid three spades, not three hearts, on the second. I'm inclined to think partner can't have the club ace and that my best shot is to play him for a singleton diamond despite his carding. I play a low diamond. If I play the ace, that should mean I don't want partner to ruff, perhaps because I don't have another trump. The king should leave it to partner's discretion.

Declarer ruffs with the ten of spades, crosses to the club queen, and plays a spade. Making four:

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

The auction is the same at the other table, but East ducks his partner's jack of diamonds (encouraging with the five no less, apparently unconvinced that partner will work out he has ace-king-queen when the jack holds). West cashes the heart ace, but, when partner's singleton turns out not to be the jack, he sees no reason to give partner his ruff. He continues diamonds. Declarer ruffs and leads a club to dummy to take the spade finesse. When spades split, he makes four.

If I were West, I would assume partner had a heart void when he left me on play at trick one, and I would consider playing a low heart at trick two to retain my heart entry for some nefarious purpose later on. Is it possible to construct a layout where a low heart at trick two is necessary? I can't think of one, although I can come close. [11/21/09 - As a reader points on in the comments below, there may be no reason to lead a low heart, but West should certainly lead the queen if he thinks his partner is void.]

Me: -170
Jack: -170

Score on Board 37: 0 IMPs
Total: +91 IMPs

3 comments:

UnknownNovember 5, 2009 at 11:07 AM
If west is willing to believe that that the hand is distributed as it is...very likely from the auction, then his holding the 9 of spades suggests a way to save the overtrick- He can insert the 9 of hearts instead of winning the Ace. Now declarer is apt to worry that if west has Kx of spades and east has 9x that taking a losing trump finesse will lead to an overruff on the 4th round of hearts. Thus he may bang trump from the top. However, if he is careful enough to play 2 rounds of clubs first, east is endplayed. If he plays a high diamond, declarer pitches a heart on this trick. Note that the 7 of diamonds is doubleton. A low diamond fares no better. Declarer pitches, wins with the 9 and leads the 8 or 6. When east covers, he pitches another heart and east must set up another d trick or concede a ruff-sluff. So nothing matters, but at least we had to do a lot of work to figure that out.
ReplyDelete
Replies
GalNovember 19, 2009 at 8:14 AM
"If I were West, I would assume partner had a heart void when he left me on play at trick one, and I would consider playing a low heart at trick two to retain my heart entry for some nefarious purpose later on."
Maybe I miss something, but the queen seems to be the normal card.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Phillip MartinNovember 20, 2009 at 6:28 AM
No, I was the one who missed something. You are quite right. If West believes his partner is void in hearts--as I would--he should shift to the heart queen, thus preventing declarer from taking any heart tricks.
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, November 5, 2009

Board 37

3 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog