Board 13
Both sides vulnerable
Both sides vulnerable
| ♠ A 7 3 2 ♥ K Q J 10 7 ♦ Q 2 ♣ 6 2 |
Pass by partner; one notrump (15-17) on my right. I don't expect to make a game opposite a passed hand, and I think I'm likelier to get a plus score defending one notrump than I am playing two of a major. So my inclination is to pass. As a general rule, I'm hesitant to bid over an opponent's one notrump opening without a singleton.
This is a pretty good hand, however, so I might bid even without a singleton if not for the fact that I have both majors. That probably sounds strange to you. And it should. As far as I know, I'm the only one in the world who thinks that holding both majors is a deterent to bidding over one notrump. Let me attempt to explain. Maybe I can actually win one or two converts.
Suppose my spades and clubs or my spades and diamonds were reversed. Now, if I pass, there is a serious danger that I will wind up defending two spades. Passing might not be so bad if the opponents weren't playing transfers, since I would have a chance to balance over two spades. But, if I pass and the auction continues two hearts--pass--two spades, I won't know whether the auction is about to end or not. It is surely less dangerous to bid on the first round than to bid now.
With the actual hand, however, I'm not too worried about defending two spades. LHO is less likely to have spades. And if he does transfer and pass, partner, if he has a singleton spade, may well balance. If I pass one notrump and wind up defending a partscore, that partscore will probably be either one notrump or three of a minor. I am delighted to defend one notrump with this hand, and I am moderately happy to defend three of a minor. Pushing the opponents up to the three level, after all, is much of what competitive bidding is all about. With this hand, I don't have to bid to push them. They'll get to the three level all by themselves.
Of course, if we defend three of a minor and it turns out we have a nine-card heart fit (and would have found it had I bid), then I will regret my pass. But that's a risk I'm willing to take to have a chance of defending one notrump.
I pass. LHO bids two spades, puppeting to three clubs. RHO duly bids three clubs, and LHO passes. I lead the king of hearts.
| NORTH
♠ K 8 4 ♥ 6 ♦ 7 6 5 ♣ J 10 9 7 5 3 |
||
| WEST
♠ A 7 3 2 ♥ K Q J 10 7 ♦ Q 2 ♣ 6 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | 1 NT | ||
| Pass | 2 ♠1 | Pass | 3 ♣2 |
| (All pass) | |||
| 1Weak with long minor | |||
| 2Forced | |||
Partner plays the deuce of hearts, and declarer wins with the ace. Declarer leads the queen of clubs to partner's ace. Partner has from seven to nine high-card points. I've just seen four of them, so he has three to five left.
Partner shifts to the three of diamonds. Declarer plays the ace, which suggests he has the king as well. If I'm right about that, then partner is marked with the spade queen plus one or both of the pointed jacks.
Declarer cashes the club king. Partner follows with the four. Declarer plays the five of hearts--seven--club seven--heart three. Obviously declarer began with three clubs. He has no reason not to ruff this trick high if partner has the club eight left.
Wrong. Declarer cashes the club nine. Partner follow with the eight, and declarer discards the eight of hearts. Pitching a spade might suggest I don't have the queen, so I pitch the ten of hearts.
If declarer ducks a diamond to my queen, should I underlead the spade ace or not? Since I know partner has the spade queen, it's safe to underlead unless declarer is 3-3-5-2. If he is, then underleading risks letting declarer take the rest of the tricks.
Let's assume declarer is 3-3-5-2 and look at this problem from his point of view. If declarer has three small spades or jack third, he risks going down by rising. Ducking my spade lead will guarantee his contract. Only if he has jack-ten third is it safe for him to play the king. Even then, he may guess incorrectly. So underleading must be the percentage play.
Delcarer plays the diamond six--nine--ten--queen. I shift to the deuce of spades. Declarer plays low from dummy. Partner wins with the queen and returns a spade to my ace. Making three.
| NORTH
♠ K 8 4 ♥ 6 ♦ 7 6 5 ♣ J 10 9 7 5 3 |
||
| WEST
♠ A 7 3 2 ♥ K Q J 10 7 ♦ Q 2 ♣ 6 2 |
EAST
♠ Q 10 9 ♥ 9 4 3 2 ♦ J 9 3 ♣ A 8 4 | |
| SOUTH
♠ J 6 5 ♥ A 8 5 ♦ A K 10 8 4 ♣ K Q |
We did have a nine-card heart fit. In theory it was right to sell out anyway, since they could double three hearts and collect 200. But, in practice, they won't double, so we should follow the Law and compete to three hearts.
Unfortunately, we were never going to do that. Had I bid, I would have bid two diamonds (Astro), showing spades and another suit. LHO would have bid three clubs or two notrump, depending on what they are playing, and we would have been out of the auction.
We will find our fit if I choose to treat my hand as a one-suiter and overcall with two hearts. And I'm sure there are some who would do that. But I don't like it. I would be more inclined to bid two hearts if I didn't expect to be on lead. But this hand has more potential opposite a spade fit than it does opposite a heart fit. So, if I'm bidding purely in an attempt to buy the contract, I don't think it makes sense to treat the hand as a heart one-suiter.
Three pairs played three hearts making. (Making? What am I missing? It should be easy for South to find a club switch when he's in with the diamond king.) The other three pairs played three clubs. One declarer managed two overtricks, so we get four matchpoints.
Result on Board 13: -110 (4 MP)
Total: 112 MP (71.8%)
Current rank: 1st
Is there a setting in Jack that determines the level of your opposition in these tournaments?
ReplyDelete-- Your declarer made a palooka-level play by ruffing with the 7C.
-- In defending against 3H, none of the other 3 tables' defenders ever found an obvious club shift.
-- In previous hands, there have been very strange, inconsistent results.
Any idea on what is happening? Are individual partnerships assigned a level of expertise by Jack?
Jack does have a variety of settings determining the level of play. I have it the level set to 'World Championship.'
ReplyDeleteRuffing with the club seven is an understandable error given the way Jack works. He doesn't analyze the way we do. He generates a universe of random deals and sees what works empirically. Undoubtedly, West never had seven hearts in any of the deals he generated. So he had no way of even knowing that ruffing with the seven might cost a trick.
Is this a serious mistake? It depends on how you rate mistakes. By some measures, it's egregious. In can't cost to ruff high, and might cost dearly to ruff low. But if you measure mistakes by their expected cost, this is about as minor a mistake as you can make. Given the auction, I would estimate the expected cost as less than .01 imps.
Computers do not play normal bridge. But then, I play a lot of chess, and they play even weirder chess than bridge.
ReplyDeleteOne problem with writing bridge software is that it is impossible to assign meanings to obscure situations. And, as Phil says, when a computer gets into a situation where it has no instructions, it generates a sample of deals that it thinks matches all the actions so far, then picks the continuation that works best from that point. This can be very random.
In general, they do pretty well given the infancy of the discipline.
I'm interested in your theory of when to come in over 1NT here I might treat my hand as hearts only for fear LHO will play in a minor and partner will lead the wrong suit. Plus if I show spades and a minor and the next hand bids 2NT to get to clubs/diamonds partner wont compete with eg 2/5/3/3 because he thinks we probably have no fit.
ReplyDeleteIf I could show hearts and another I might do so.