The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 74

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Board 74

Board 74
Both sides vulnerable

♠ J 10 ♥ A 4 ♦ 9 8 5 ♣ K Q 8 4 3 2

RHO passes. I have another chance to open hand I don't expect Jack to open. Unlike the flat 11-count I opened a few boards ago, I consider this opening perfectly normal, although I doubt Jack does. I open one club. Partner bids one diamond, and I bid two clubs. Partner bids three notrump, and RHO leads the five of hearts.

	NORTH ♠ J 10 ♥ A 4 ♦ 9 8 5 ♣ K Q 8 4 3 2

	SOUTH ♠ A 4 2 ♥ 10 8 2 ♦ A 7 6 4 ♣ A 9 7

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

Not bad at all. Nine easy tricks, and they may well not get there at the other table. I duck in dummy. East wins with the jack, and I drop the eight. He continues with the three--ten--six--ace. If the carding is honest, hearts are four-four. I lead a club to the ace in case West has all four clubs. Both opponents follow low. On the second club, West pitches the three of diamonds. Since he probably would have led a five-card suit, this means he's 4-4-4-1. As a general rule, it's dangerous to lead fourth best with a "4441" pattern. As soon as declarer discovers your singleton, he knows your full shape. If you think you can afford to mislead partner, you're better off leading third best.

It's going to be hard for the opponents to drop a trick in this end position. Each opponent will have to pitch down to a doubleton in one of my ace thirds, allowing me to establish a trick by ducking. In addition, each opponent will have to have pitched a heart, so that they have only one heart to trick to cash when they get it in.

The normal way for me to pitch on the clubs would be to pitch a heart and a diamond, waiting until the last minute to decide which ace-third to hold onto. Since the opponents can't possibly make a mistake unless they misread my pattern, I can't afford to pitch that way. I need to represent a 2-3-5-3 pattern, the only other pattern consistent with my auction that I could possibly portray. With that pattern, I could afford to pitch two diamonds early, so that's what I'll do. Again, it's hard to imagine this making any difference. But my job is just to obfuscate. The opponents will have to think up their own mistakes.

On the third club, West pitches the three of spades. On the next two clubs he pitches two more spades, the six and the seven. He's pitched down to a singleton spade, so he should be left with 1-2-3-0. East pitches the five of spades and the deuce of diamonds, leaving him with 3-2-1-0, and I pitch two diamonds as planned. West must have queen-jack third of diamonds to think he needs to save three of them. That means East has a singleton king left.

On the last club, East pitches the ten of diamonds. So much for his having a singleton king left. I guess I've misread the position. I pitch the deuce of hearts, and West pitches the eight of spades. I'm not sure what I've got wrong, but whatever they have left, I can't possibly do better to take my two aces. Making three.

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

That was the problem. West did have a five-card suit he chose not to lead. I suppose I might have worked that out if it had been important.

At the other table, the auction proceeds

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

If you take North's pass as a stylistic given, it's hard to criticize the auction. It almost makes you feel bad for the opponents, doesn't it?

East leads the king of spades, which declarer ducks. He shifts to the queen of hearts. West plays the seven, and declarer takes his ace. He now leads a low club, and, when East plays the five, he inserts the seven from dummy. I can't imagine what this play is all about. Is Jack so convinced I'm getting to three notrump that he figures the board is lost anyway unless West shows out on this trick? I don't think Jack even reasons that way. If you're reading this, Kuijf & Kuijf Software, let me repeat an earlier observation. It would be nice to have a way of querying Jack about its decisions.

In any event, the seven holds, so Jack makes three clubs. Ten IMPs for our side.

Me: +600
Jack: +110

Score on Board 74: +10 IMPs
Total: -135 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, January 7, 2010

Board 74

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog