The Gargoyle Chronicles: Board 121

Friday, March 19, 2010

Board 121

Board 121
Opponents vulnerable

♠ Q 9 ♥ Q 9 7 5 3 ♦ Q 10 4 ♣ Q 6 5

Partner passes, and RHO opens one diamond. I pass, LHO passes, and partner balances with one notrump. Since he's a passed hand, this should show a balanced 10 or 11 high-card points. RHO bids two diamonds.

Partner probably has three diamonds, in which case, even if we have a heart fit, our diamond tricks will be ruffed away. These diamond tricks will be worth something on defense but not on offense. Partner might have bid one notrump with a doubleton diamond. But, if so, he is offshape for a take-out double. And if he's offshape, it's probably heart support that he's missing.

You see where I'm going with this. Bidding two hearts is simply a bad idea. It is unlikely that both two hearts and two diamonds are making, which is the only time it's essential to bid at IMPs. And it is quite possible that both are going down, which is when it's essential not to bid. We don't care too much what we do if one contract makes and the other doesn't. I pass, as does everyone else.

I give fleeting thought to leading the queen of spades. Usually one doesn't go after ruffs with queen third of trumps. But in this case, a ruff may prove useful. If partner has king third of diamonds, for example, a ruff with my queen third will produce a trick. Still, when dummy rates to be relatively entryless, it's usually wrong to adopt an aggressive defense. So I choose a more passive three of hearts.

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

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

It appears partner did bid one notrump with a doubleton diamond. My best guess is that partner is 4-2-2-5, giving declarer 3-2-6-2.

Dummy plays the deuce, partner plays the eight, and declarer wins with the ace, presumably from ace-king doubleton. Declarer plays the three of clubs. I'm not sure what the point of this play is, but I see no reason to be on lead. I play the five. Partner takes dummy's seven with his nine and returns the six of hearts. Declarer pitches the four of clubs and I'm in with the queen of hearts.

What's going on? Partner did have three hearts, and he must have at least three spades, so why did he bid one notrump instead of doubling? As for partner's high cards, he has the heart king and presumably the diamond king. For declarer's club plays to make any sense, declarer must have ace third of clubs, giving partner the king and jack. That's ten high-card points. He can have at most the spade jack or the diamond jack in addition.

The only suit I can afford to play is clubs. I lead the six of clubs, expecting declarer to win with the ace. To my surprise, partner plays the king, and declarer follows with the jack. This is just like playing with Lowenthal. After every trick, I have to reconstruct the hand all over again.

Apparently partner is 4-3-2-4 with the ace-king of clubs and the king of hearts. So he can't have the king of diamonds. He bid one notrump not only with a doubleton diamond but with no stopper? I don't think so. Let's try again. As strange as it seems, declarer must have rebid two diamonds with only five. That means declarer is 4-1-5-3 and partner is 3-3-3-4. I think I have it now.

Partner continues with the ace of clubs, and declarer ruffs with the seven of diamonds. He cashes the spade ace. I drop the queen. I guess I didn't need to do that, since I have a safe exit in hearts. But it can't hurt. (Why do I have the feeling someone's going to post a comment showing how it can hurt?)

Declarer plays the deuce of spades to the king and ruffs out partner's king of hearts. He plays three rounds of diamonds, putting me in with the queen. I have to concede a trick to dummy's jack of hearts. But all declarer has to pitch on it is his fourth spade. He still has a spade loser, so he takes eight tricks, making his contract.

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

I like partner's one notrump bid. With three diamonds, he wants to discourage me from bidding too much if I have diamond length as well. He doesn't necessarily need a diamond stopper to make one notrump. And if I passed over one diamond with a good enough hand to raise him to three, diamonds is probably my best suit.

How would we do in two hearts? The defense would presumably start with the ace and king of diamonds, then the jack of diamonds (suit-preference for spades) ruffed. West must then cash the spade king and play a spade to his partner's ace. A fourth diamond allows him to ruff with the ten, forcing dummy to overruff with the king. When East gets in with the ace of hearts, a fifth diamond promotes the trump jack. Down two.

At the other table, the auction begins the same way, but West makes the ill-advised two heart call over two diamonds. I have hopes of picking up three imps. The defense starts with three rounds of diamonds, but North shifts to a low spade instead of the king. The defense can no longer score a trump promotion, and declarer escapes for down one, pushing the board.

Me: -90
Jack: -100

Score on Board 121: 0 IMPs
Total: -17 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

Friday, March 19, 2010

Board 121

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog