The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 101

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Board 101

Board 101
Our side vulnerable

♠ A 8 7 4 ♥ A J 10 3 2 ♦ -- ♣ A J 9 7

Partner opens three notrump, showing a solid minor, and RHO passes. It doesn't seem like a good idea to let him play there, so I'm removing this to some number of diamonds.

How good a contract will six diamonds be? I have, probably, seven diamond tricks and three aces, so I will need to develop two tricks in hearts. If partner has a singleton heart, that's not likely. If he has a doubleton or tripleton heart and if dummy has a singleton in whichever black suit they lead, I have a shot. But I have no way to investigate that doesn't help the opponents with their opening lead. I can bid four diamonds to get partner to show a singleton. But if partner shows a singleton black suit as I hope, the opponents will know they have no slow tricks available in that suit. It would be nice if we were playing asking bids. I would consider asking for a heart control, intending to sign off if partner shows one and bidding a slam if he denies one. That would at least get a good laugh. But even that might be too aggressive.

I bid five diamonds, which ends the auction. West leads the king of hearts. Terrific! I certainly would have bid six if I'd know he was going to lead that.

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

West	North	East	South
	3 NT	Pass	5 ♦
(All pass)

To top it off, partner has an eighth diamond, so I need only two heart tricks to make a slam. I win, draw trumps, and concede a trick to the queen of hearts. Making six.

I wonder if they will be in six at the other table. Anything but a heart lead should beat it in practice, although declarer can always make it double dummy.

At the other table, South bids four diamonds over three notrump. North bids four spades, showing a singleton spade. South bids Blackwood--I'm not sure why--then goes on to six diamonds over North's five spade bid. To my relief, West leads the five of clubs. Declarer can still make this by winning and returning the club jack, then later leading the nine of clubs for a ruffing finesse, pinning the eight. Not unreasonably, however, declarer chooses a different line. He draws trumps and leads a club to the nine. Down one.

I'm impressed with West's lead. I think this is a solvable problem and that a low club is arguably the best choice, but I'm still impressed Jack found it. South surely has a source of tricks, and that source of tricks is probably hearts, your shortest suit. Once dummy has shown a singleton spade, you know your only chance to develop a trick is in clubs. The club lead will be wrong if your second trick is partner's spade ace and if you lose it by leading a club. But partner did spurn two chances to double spades, so, if there is a winning lead, a club rates to be it.

As for the auction, I can't reasonably argue with Jack's evaluation. This is exactly the kind of situation where he has an edge, since he can examine many more randomly generated dummies than I can. If he thinks he can make a slam more often than not, he's probably right. I certainly didn't consider the fact that I might get a heart lead, nor that clubs might offer a source of tricks, nor that a stray queen in partner's hand might prove useful. If taking all those factors into account tips the scale, then I guess I made a mistake. But I'm keeping the 12 IMPs.

Me: +620
Jack: -100

Score on Board 101: + 12 IMPs
Total: -47 IMPs

I'm taking the rest of the week off. See you Monday.

1 comment:

CraigBFebruary 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM
I sympathize. I was once a great believer in the Gambling 3NT, but I came to realize that there was much more gambling involved than simply hoping that partner has stoppers. This hand does little to change my evaluation.

So at this point you've picked up 111 IMPs in 37 boards, an average of 3 IMPs per board, in the second half. Good job!
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

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Board 101

1 comment:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog