The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 103

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Board 103

Board 103
Both sides vulnerable

♠ 8 3 ♥ K 10 7 4 3 ♦ A 10 6 ♣ 6 5 3

I pass in first seat. LHO opens one spade, partner bids two diamonds, and RHO passes. I can bid either two hearts or three diamonds. Three diamonds has the advantage of being more pre-emptive than two hearts, so it may create more of a problem for LHO. But we might have a game in hearts, so I hate to suppress the suit. I would probably bid three diamonds over a negative double. Over a double, not only is there less chance of our having a heart fit, but there is also more reason to pre-empt. On this auction, however, I'm bidding two hearts.

LHO doubles and partner bids three notrump. Everyone passes, and RHO leads the six of spades.

	NORTH ♠ 8 3 ♥ K 10 7 4 3 ♦ A 10 6 ♣ 6 5 3

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

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

I play low from dummy, and East plays the jack. If he has the queen also, we have nine tricks. If he doesn't, I don't see much hope for a ninth trick. Even if I knew for a fact that West has the spade queen, I don't see what I could do about it. I win with the king and play a diamond to dummy's ten. East pitches the seven of clubs, suggesting he's 5-3-0-5.

I suppose I could play a diamond to my hand and a diamond back to the ace before taking the spade finesse. But how will that help? In fact, postponing the finesse may hurt by giving East a chance to make informative discards. If the spade finesse loses, I'd just as soon West didn't know enough about the hand to shift to a heart, allowing his partner to cash two heart tricks, squeezing my hand.

I play a spade--deuce--ten--queen. The good news is West doesn't find the heart shift. He plays another spade, and I cash out for down one.

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

At the other table, the auction begins the same way, but my hand chooses three diamonds instead of two hearts. Somehow the raise gives East the idea that he should bid three spades on his jack fifth. South bids three notrump. West and North pass, but East isn't through yet. He balances with five clubs. South doubles, West corrects to five spades, probably wishing he had bid four spades on the previous round, and South doubles that as well.

South leads his singleton heart. That strikes me as a poor choice. With so many entries in declarer's suits, it seems right to go for a tap in diamonds. In fact, a diamond lead (or even a trump lead) would beat this two tricks. After the heart lead, declarer plays low from dummy, and North plays the king. (Yes, the ten looks more natural. But it actually makes no difference on this particular deal.)

Declarer wins with the heart ace, cashes the club king, then plays a trump. South plays king, ace, and another trump. Declarer must still lose a trick to the club queen for down one. And things had been going so well!

Me: -100
Jack: +200

Score on Board 103: - 7 IMPs
Total: -43 IMPs

3 comments:

BofflesFebruary 23, 2010 at 8:33 AM
There's a minor error regarding the spot of the opening spade lead.
ReplyDelete
Replies
CraigBFebruary 23, 2010 at 7:31 PM
If you win the first trick and cash 6 diamonds, E must come down to 6 cards. 5 of them must be H AQ and C AKJ, so the other S winner strips him down to those 5 cards. Now you can endplay him in either suit to lead the other.

This is of course double-dummy, and I think your play was best since the S6 could have been high from two or 3.

There's no turning back - if he doesn't have at least HAJ and CAK the winning line on this layout is hopeless, and in almost all of those cases, the S play wins.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Phillip MartinFebruary 23, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Why does he have to hold three clubs? Why not two spades, ace-queen of hearts, and ace-king of clubs?
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

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Board 103

3 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog