The Gargoyle Chronicles: Match 2

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Match 2 - Board 28

Board 28
Our side vulnerable

♠ K 3 ♥ A J 9 8 6 4 2 ♦ 9 5 2 ♣ K

One diamond--two clubs--pass to me. I bid two hearts. This bid isn't forcing, but so what? If partner has heart support, he'll raise. If he has a solid opening bid, he'll try to bid something. If he has neither, two hearts is probably high enough.

At least I hope it's high enough, because two hearts ends the auction. West leads the king of diamonds.

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

	SOUTH ♠ K 3 ♥ A J 9 8 6 4 2 ♦ 9 5 2 ♣ K

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

East plays the four of diamonds. I'm not sure what the opponents' lead conventions are, so I'm not sure whether West can have the diamond ace or not. Perhaps West has ace-king-queen and East is discouraging, or perhaps East is encouraging with honor-four-three. I "discourage" with the deuce, hoping to induce a spade shift. West shifts--but to the four of clubs. This shift doesn't make much sense unless it's a singleton. I play the club jack, East plays the queen, and I win with the king. I guess it's not a singleton. Why would East cover with queen fifth?

I'm tempted to play a diamond. Perhaps I can ruff the third round of diamonds in dummy and pitch a spade on the club ace. If so, then I'll make three if I have to lose a heart and four if I don't. Might I go down on that line? Suppose East wins the diamond and plays a spade. West takes the queen and ace and plays a third diamond. If I ruff with the king, I could lose two trump tricks. So I ruff low. East overruffs and leads a club. That would be awkward.

I've stayed nice and low. I'd hate to give up my edge by going minus, so I decide to play it safe. I play the heart ace--five--ten, then the four of hearts (As always, hanging on to those deuces on principle)--seven--king--five of spades. I can now pitch a diamond on the club ace and try a finesse against the queen of spades.

Actually, I can't. West ruffs the club ace. His club shift was a singleton after all. He can now play two rounds of diamonds, tossing me in my hand and holding me to eight tricks. But, for some reason, he cashes the spade ace. Making three.

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

It turns out the overtrick is immaterial. We are the only North-South pair to go plus on this board. One pair went down two in four hearts; two went down one in three hearts; the rest defended three spades making four.

The opponents have a double fit, yet they didn't locate either one. What went wrong? For one thing, I believe West should double two hearts. This double should show shortness in clubs, not shortness in hearts. In fact, it should promise three or four hearts so that responder can pass with an appropriate hand. Using double to show something like a 4-1-5-3 pattern makes little sense. Opener should avoid re-entering the auction with club length when responder couldn't act over two clubs.

Also, although I don't expect a lot of people to agree with me, I think East must take some blame for his pass over two clubs. He knows the opponents have at least eight hearts, he knows from his club length that his partner rates to have long diamonds, and he knows this may well be his last chance to support the suit. I think he should bid two diamonds. The three-card competitive raise of a minor is routine in the style I'm used to playing: weak notrumps with four-card majors. It is almost unheard of in Eastern Science Fiction, but don't think it's a bad idea in that system either. Of course, if you bid two diamonds on awkward hands with three- or four-card support, you must avoid it when you have good support. I don't see that as a hardship. With five trumps, you can usually muster up a raise to three or a cue-bid.

If East does bid two diamonds, West will compete with three diamonds over two hearts. It's not clear what will happen after that, but East-West should at least wind up with a plus score.

Score on Board 28: +140 (12 MP)
Total: 226 MP (67.3%)

Current rank: 1st

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

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Match 2 - Board 28

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog