The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 52

Friday, November 27, 2009

Board 52

Board 52 (Click to download pbn file)
Both sides vulnerable

♠ J 10 8 3 ♥ 9 7 ♦ Q 10 9 5 ♣ J 8 7

The auction begins one club--double--pass to me. I bid one spade, LHO doubles, and partner passes. This pass should deny four spades. Once opener has acted over one spade, partner should raise to two spades on any minimum with four-card support. RHO bids one notrump. I bid two diamonds. I would pass if I were sure one notrump would end the auction. I have no particular reason to disturb this with a balanced hand. But LHO might remove it, and we might miss a nine-card diamond fit if I don't bid them now.

LHO bids two hearts--pass--pass back to me. I've run out of suits to bid. Bummer. I pass, and partner leads the king of spades:

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

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

Declarer plays low from dummy. Somebody has a spade he's not supposed to. I doubt declarer bid this way with 3-4-3-3, so my guess is partner is the culprit. I suspect declarer is 2-4-3-4 and partner is 4-3-3-3. Perhaps his flat pattern convinced him to break the Law and sell out below two spades.

If I had an entry, it could be right for partner to switch to diamonds from any holding except ace-jack. Since I doubt I have an entry, I'd just as soon not break diamonds for declarer, so I encourage with the jack of spades. Declarer plays the six. Partner continues with the five of spades--ace--three--four. Declarer leads the deuce of clubs from dummy. Declarer isn't expecting partner to have three clubs and I'd like to keep him in the dark a little longer, so I play the eight. If declarer thinks partner has a doubleton club, he might worry that trumps are four-one.

Declarer plays the kings of clubs. Partner wins with the ace and leads the queen of spades. Declarer ruffs with the jack of hearts. Either he has a hundred honors in hearts or he's unblocking to reach dummy later with the heart ten. He cashes the queen of clubs--three--four--seven, then the queen and king of hearts, partner playing deuce--three. That makes four heart tricks, the spade ace, the club queen, and a ruff. Even if we can stop declarer from scoring any diamond tricks, we can't stop him from scoring his long club. So we aren't beating this.

Declarer doesn't draw the last trump. Presumably he wants to save his trump ace as an entry to his long club. He leads the nine of clubs--five--six--jack. I lead the ten of diamonds. Declarer plays the jack, and partner wins with the ace. The king of diamonds is declarer's ninth trick. Making three.

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

I guess I was wrong. I did have an entry. If partner had switched to a low diamond after winning the ace of clubs, we would have been able to take two diamond tricks when I gained the lead with the club jack. Come to think of it, I'm not sure why he didn't switch to a low diamond at that point. Assuming I'm four-four in my suits, the only time it's wrong is when I have specifically queen-jack-ten. It's right when I have queen-ten-nine or jack-ten-nine and doesn't hurt when I have anything else. I'm sure at dinner, partner will explain how he failed to find the diamond switch because he was tricked by my eight of clubs.

At the other table, the auction is the same except that my hand doesn't bid two diamonds over one notrump. South still bids two hearts. I'm not sure why he bid two hearts at either table. He's unlikely to have a game, and either declaring one notrump (at the other table) or defending (at mine) seems like the safest route to a plus score. He might have regretted bidding had his partner been 4-3-3-3, which was more likely than his actual pattern.

This declarer plays two hearts a little differently. He wins the first spade, draws three rounds of trumps, then exits with a spade. This messes up his timing so that the defense can get at their second diamond trick before his long club is established. Making two.

Me: -140
Jack: -110

Score on Board 52: -1 IMP
Total: +134 IMPs

2 comments:

CraigBNovember 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Out of curiosity, I downloaded the demo version of Jack. In about ten boards, it committed the following atrocities (playing SAYC).

1. All partnership 1S-2D, 2H-2S, 3C-3H, 3S-pass.

2. 1H-2D, 2H-5C on Jx.x.AK108x.AQ10xx. I held AKQx.KQ98xx.x.9x.

3. 1C-1NT, 2C with a weak notrump and 44 in the rounded suits.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Phillip MartinNovember 29, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Strange. I don't approve of all its actions, but I haven't observed anything quite so weird. In the Settings menu, there is a Playing Strength command. I have 'World Championship' checked, which causes it to use the same settings it used in the Computer World Championships. Perhaps that helps. I don't know if that's available on the demo version or not.
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

Friday, November 27, 2009

Board 52

2 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog