The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 41

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Board 41

Board 41 (Click to download pbn file)
Opponents vulnerable

♠ K J ♥ A K Q 10 6 5 4 ♦ -- ♣ A 10 5 2

Two passes to me. I open one heart. With nine playing tricks, I suppose I could open two clubs, but I try not to do that unless I have to. Two-club auctions tend to be awkward. LHO bids four clubs, and partner bids four hearts. I have no idea if I can make slam or not and no intelligent way to invite. I like my chances if partner has the ace of spades. If he doesn't, I'll need good enough trump spots that East will be unable to overruff as I ruff clubs in the dummy. This is the kind of decision where Jack actually has an advantage. He can deal out random hands and see what works out most often. My internal random-hand generator isn't up to that task when I hold a freak. In the end, my reasoning is no more sophisticated than this: "Partner was willing to play game opposite a mere opening bid, and I have a game force. Therefore, I'm bidding a slam."

I bid six hearts, and LHO leads the king of clubs. It's over quickly. East ruffs the opening lead, and I take the rest. Making six:

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

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

At the other table, my hand opens with two clubs, and West bids three clubs. Jack frequently surprises me in competitive auctions. Why take it easy on the opponents when they don't have their suit in the auction yet? If you can bid four clubs over a one-heart opening, I should think you would bid five clubs over a two-club opening. North bids three diamonds, a questionable choice. With an ace-queen opposite a two-club opening, he knows he's in the slam zone, so he should be hesitant to introduce a suit containing no high cards. Instead, he should pass and give his partner a chance to indicate what his two-club opening was based on. Pass does not deny a good hand; it simply denies an opinion about strain.

Over three diamonds, South bids three notrump, another questionable choice. It's certainly possible that three notrump is making and four hearts isn't, but North could have further ambitions, and three notrump grossly misdescribes South's hand.

As it happens, North does have further ambitions. He bids four hearts, his second suit, so to speak. This is the fourth bid in a row I disapprove of, yet they've managed to reach hearts from the North hand. If they get to a grand, they're going to make it. I guess I should stop criticizing.

South bids four notrump, which is apparently key-card Blackwood, although I should think, given the three notrump bid on the previous round, that it should be natural. North bids five hearts to show his ace, and South bids five spades, asking about the queen of trumps. I know from earlier deals that Jack shows the queen whenever he has an extra trump. I don't think that's a sensible agreement. I think you need to know your side has ten trumps before you show a queen you don't have. But, given Jack's agreement, he is presumably trying to discover if has partner has a fifth trump. I'm not sure what good that knowledge would do him, since he doesn't even know which ace his partner has. Maybe Jack is just practicing. North bids five notrump, denying the queen, and South settles for six hearts.

West	North	East	South
	Pass	Pass	2 ♣¹
3 ♣	3 ♦	Pass	3 NT
Pass	4 ♥	Pass	4 NT²
Pass	5 ♦³	Pass	5 ♠⁴
Pass	5 NT⁵	Pass	6 ♥
(All pass)
¹Strong
²Ace asking for hearts
³1 or 4 aces
⁴Asking for queen of trumps
⁵No trump queen

They make seven, winning an IMP for their care in reaching hearts from the right side of the table.

I was curious what would happen if West bids five clubs over the two-club opening, so I replayed the board to see. North makes a penalty double, South passes, and North finds the diamond lead to go plus 1100. Good thing the opponents aren't always this tough. I wouldn't stand a chance in this match.

Me: +980
Jack: +1010

Score on Board 41: -1 IMP
Total: +95 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

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Board 41

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog