The Gargoyle Chronicles: Match 2

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Match 2 - Board 30

Board 30
Neither vulnerable

♠ A J 6 4 3 ♥ A K J 6 ♦ J 9 8 2 ♣ --

RHO opens one club. I bid one spade, hoping I will be able to double some number of clubs at my next turn. I get my wish. LHO bids two clubs, partner passes, and RHO bids three clubs. I double, partner bids three hearts, and RHO bids four clubs. I don't have anything further to say. This is about what partner should expect for this auction. I pass, and partner bids four hearts.

This makes no sense. If he couldn't bid four hearts the first time, how can he bid it now? If this makes, I owe RHO a thank-you for his four club bid, giving partner a chance to reconsider his decision. Everyone passes, and RHO leads the queen of clubs.

	NORTH ♠ A J 6 4 3 ♥ A K J 6 ♦ J 9 8 2 ♣ --

	SOUTH ♠ 5 ♥ 10 8 5 3 2 ♦ 10 7 6 5 3 ♣ A 10

West	North	East	South
1 ♣	1 ♠	2 ♣	Pass
3 ♣	Double	Pass	3 ♥
4 ♣	Pass	Pass	4 ♥
(All pass)

Partner certainly should have bid four hearts a round earlier. An eight-loser hand with a known double fit? Of course, the fact that he should have bid it doesn't mean I'm going to make it. West rates to have six clubs and a singleton heart for his four club bid. His likeliest pattern, then, is 3-1-3-6, in which case I'm going down unless his singleton heart is the queen.

Is there any way I can endplay East if my construction is correct? What if I pitch a diamond on the club ace, play a spade to the ace and ruff a spade, then a heart to the ace and ruff another spade. Now a club ruff to dummy and ruff a fourth spade. I'm down to this position:

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

I play a diamond. East wins with his singleton honor and is endplayed. He leads a club, and I can ruff in my hand, discarding a diamond loser from dummy. All very nice. But to acheive this endplay, I've tapped dummy out. I need two more tricks, and there is no way to take them.

I'm not entirely sure I would adopt such a committal line even if it were going to work. But I'm certainly not going to adopt it if it isn't going to work.

It seems my only chance to make this if everything is breaking badly is to trick West into crashing diamond honors. Too bad he doesn't know I have five diamonds. If he did, and if I played a diamond from my hand, he might hop with ace-king or ace-queen third to give his partner a ruff.

Maybe I should ruff a spade to my hand to clue him in to my spade shortness. What if I ruff the club in dummy, (I can't afford to let him know I have the club ace. That would tip him off that I don't have any red-suit honors.) then play ace and ruff a spade? Now I play a diamond. Since he now knows I have long diamonds, he might hop. Is there any risk in this line? Possibly. What if West is 2-1-3-7 with a singleton queen of hearts. Now I'm cold on a staightforward line. But I go down on my tricky line, since East can lead a third round of spades for his partner to ruff with the queen.

I suppose I can guard against that by drawing one round of trumps before ruffing a spade. I find it hard to believe that trumps are two-two, so I'm willing to take the risk of not drawing a second round. That's the plan I settle on. I ruff the club in dummy and cash the heart ace. If everyone follows low, I intend to ruff a spade to my hand and lead a diamond.

My ruse proves unnecessary. West drops the heart queen under the ace. I draw the remaining trumps and play a diamond. Diamonds are two-two, so I wind up making five. There was never anything to worry about.

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

This result is worth seven matchpoints. The only result other than plus 450 came from the pair who defended five clubs doubled and collected 300. I must apologize to partner. Had he bid four hearts over my double, West would surely have bid five clubs. We could compete to five hearts, but, in practice, we would probably double and score one matchpoint. Sorry I criticized your bid, partner. (But it's a hollow apology. I still think three hearts is insane.)

Score on Board 30: +450 (7 MP)
Total: 245 MP (68.1%)

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

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Match 2 - Board 30

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog