The Gargoyle Chronicles: Match 2

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Match 2 - Board 52

Board 52
Both sides vulnerable

♠ J 6 ♥ 9 4 2 ♦ K J 10 5 ♣ Q J 7 2

LHO opens one diamond, partner overcalls with one spade, and RHO makes a negative double. I bid one notrump. LHO bids two hearts, and RHO raises to four. Partner leads the ten of clubs.

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

West	North	East	South
			1 ♦
1 ♠	Double	1 NT	2 ♥
Pass	4 ♥	(All pass)

Wow! It seems the opponents let me off the hook. I was lucky that South couldn't pass my one notrump advance to give his partner a chance to double. Was I not supposed to bid? My call seems fairly routine.

Declarer's likeliest shapes are 1-4-4-4 and 1-4-5-3. If he has 11 high-card points, that leaves partner with at most six--perhaps both black kings. Two kings? What kind of vulnerable overcall is that? Maybe he's five-five in the black suits, giving declarer a 1-4-6-2 pattern. That seems to be the likeliest construction. It also means we weren't in as much trouble as I thought. Two clubs wouldn't fare too badly.

Dummy plays the club ace. Normally, I would discourage to let partner know I have good diamonds. But partner doesn't rate to have much to do in this hand. Any signal I give will help declarer more than partner. So I encourage with the club seven. Declarer plays the six.

Declarer plays the heart three from dummy--four--jack--queen. Partner's side card is the heart queen instead of the club king? Even five-five in the black suits doesn't make this overcall look attractive any more. Partner continues with the eight of hearts--five--deuce--ten.

Declarer plays the seven of hearts to dummy's king. Partner discards the diamond deuce. That's weird. Why offer declarer any insight into the lie of the diamond suit? Why not just pitch from his five-card club suit? It's also somewhat surprising that declarer prefers to win this trick in dummy rather than in his hand.

Declarer plays the queen of diamonds. I cover with the king--ace--seven. So Partner wasn't five-five. He seems to have made a flaky overcall with 5-2-2-4. Since declarer has only one trump in dummy, I'm destined to take two diamond tricks. Declarer plays the three of spades--deuce--queen--six, then a diamond from dummy--ten--four--spade five. I play a club. Declarer wins and concedes a trick to my jack of diamonds. Making four.

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

Declarer has an extra trick in the end position. He's pitching a winner on the spade ace. Was a spade to the queen a practice finesse? I guess so--but only because diamonds were four-two. It would have been necessary to take the spade finesse if diamonds were three-three.

Declarer didn't time the play very well. He would have done better to start diamonds earlier. It would be nice to lead toward the queen of diamonds. But he doesn't have the entries to do that conveniently, and it's probably not necessary. Even if West has the king, leading toward the queen doesn't really gain anything as long as East can't overruff dummy. West would need to have king fourth of diamonds, a virtual impossibility on the auction, before declarer would regret starting diamonds from the table.

So declarer should play the queen of diamonds from dummy at trick two. East covers with the king. Declarer takes his ace, plays a spade to the queen, then plays another diamond to East's ten.

If East foolishly switches to a trump, declarer will make six. It is frequently a bad idea to lead trumps when declarer is about to embark on a crossruff, despite the propensity of many players to do exactly that. Playing trumps simply pickles the defense's middle-ranking cards and removes the threat of overruffs or uppercuts. East does better to play another club. (A low one, of course, so declarer will not know who has the club queen.) Declarer wins and plays a diamond. West ruffs in with the eight, forcing dummy's king. Declarer can still make six by playing a heart to the ace, but I see no particular reason for him to do so. He will probably take a losing heart finesse. But then he has the rest. Making five. Only two other declarers managed to make five, so plus 650 would be a respectable score.

Too bad I wasn't declarer. It's easy to see after the fact that starting diamonds from the table is the right move. It would be nice to confirm that I would have seen that before the fact. We get eight matchpoints for holding this to four.

Score on Board 52: -620 (8 MP)
Total: 415 MP (66.5%)

Current rank: 1st

1 comment:

Phillip MartinMay 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM
A friend has suggested that North should have passed over one spade, after which we would surely land in serious trouble. I agree, although passing does entail some risk. If partner has a 2-1-5-5 minimum, for example, I could not blame him for selling out to one spade in the belief that the hand belongs to the opponents and they are in the wrong suit. Still, the upside is so great that I'm willing to take that risk.
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

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Match 2 - Board 52

1 comment:

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog