The Gargoyle Chronicles: Match 2

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Match 2 - Board 46

Board 46
Neither vulnerable

♠ 9 7 6 5 4 ♥ A K 9 5 4 ♦ -- ♣ Q 7 2

I open one spade. It's a little light, but I like to get into the auction early with both majors. It is a six-loser hand after all. Don't tell anyone, but there was I time when I would have opened the same hand without the ace of hearts.

Partner bids two notrump, showing a forcing raise. I could bid either three diamonds to show my shortness or four hearts to show my second suit. The problem with four hearts is that it gives partner no opportunity to make a slam try below game. With five small spades, I'd just as soon partner didn't bid to the five level with a marginal hand. So I bid three diamonds, leaving partner room to get the slam try off his chest. But he doesn't. He bids four spades.

In standard practice, four spades is responder's weakest rebid, and, for once, I agree. In general, I don't believe in fast arrival. But I make an exception when the strain has already been agreed. I pass, and LHO leads the five of diamonds (fourth best).

	NORTH ♠ A K J 10 3 ♥ J ♦ 10 7 2 ♣ K 8 6 3

	SOUTH ♠ 9 7 6 5 4 ♥ A K 9 5 4 ♦ -- ♣ Q 7 2

West	North	East	South
		Pass	1 ♠
Pass	2 NT¹	Pass	3 ♦²
Pass	4 ♠	(All pass)
¹At least fourcard support, gameforcing
²Singleton or void

Four spades was rather pessimistic. With five good trumps and no diamond wastage, partner should not have given up so easily. Just add the jack of clubs to my hand and slam is excellent. It's not terrible even opposite this hand. Although I suppose it would be hard to reach slam whatever partner did--even if I did have the jack of clubs.

East plays the diamond ace, and I ruff with the five of spades. If both majors break, I'm making six. Ace-king of spades. Heart to the ace. Ruff a heart. Diamond ruff. Heart ruff. Diamond ruff. I can now pitch two clubs from dummy on my hearts.

What if hearts are five-two? In that case, I will need to find a doubleton ace of clubs to make six. Or I can hope someone makes a mistake and hops with the club ace for fear he will lose it. My best chance to make that happen is to lead a club from my hand at trick two. Playing a club at trick two is suspicious-looking. West may well think I have something like ace-king-queen-ten of hearts and dummy's clubs are about to disappear.

What if I play a club to the king and ace and East taps me with another diamond? Will I have lost the communication to set up hearts if they break? No. The diamond tap does deprive me of a hand entry, but I have a brand new hand entry with the queen of clubs to make up for it.

The downside to trying for this swindle is that I may miss out on the legitimate chance of finding East with ace doubleton of clubs. If I ruff hearts early and find East with five hearts, I will know to play him for club shortness. A priori, the chance of finding East with ace doubleton of clubs is about 8%. This reduces to about 3% if you assume he can't have ace-nine, ace-five, or ace-four (giving West a club sequence he might have led from). Against that,West is more than 50% to have the club ace (since he didn't lead a club). So West doesn't have to hop all that often to make the swindle the percentage play.

I suppose there is a chance West will hop with the ace and give his partner a club ruff. But that's unlikely. And, if clubs are five-one, there's a fair chance hearts weren't coming home anyway.

I play the club seven. West plays the ace--three--five, then shifts to the diamond king--seven--four--spade six. Everyone follows to the first trump, so I claim. Making six. It turns out hearts were five-two, so I needed the swindle.

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

I sympathize with West. All you have to do is add the ten of hearts to my hand and he did the right thing. Making six gives us a complete top. I suspect most pairs carelessly played this contract from the North side, in which case it would be harder for the defense to make a mistake.

Score on Board 46: +480 (12 MP)
Total: 362 MP (65.6 %)

Current rank: 1st

3 comments:

CraigBMarch 20, 2011 at 6:22 PM
I am not a fan of using the J2NT with a singleton, although this hand may well be an exception. North's hand grew with your response, and Jack discouraged with it. Frightening.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownMarch 21, 2011 at 9:38 AM
Isn't this a 7 loser hand?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Phillip MartinMarch 21, 2011 at 10:13 AM
3 losers in spades, 1 in hearts, 2 in clubs. I know some people make adjustments like adding a half a loser for shaky holdings like Qxx. But we Animal Acolites were eternal optimists.
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

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Match 2 - Board 46

3 comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog