The Gargoyle Chronicles: Event 3 - Match 4

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Event 3 - Match 4 - Board 5

Board 5
Our side vulnerable

♠ Q 10 9 7 4 ♥ A ♦ 8 7 4 2 ♣ 9 6 3

Partner passes in first seat and RHO opens three clubs. I pass, LHO bids three hearts, and RHO raises to four. Partner leads the spade ace.

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

West	North	East	South
Jack	William	Phillip	Harry
Pass	3 ♣	Pass	3 ♥
Pass	4 ♥	(All pass)

Wow! Some three club opening! I don't care for our chances of beating this. If partner has the spade king, he has at most one other prime card. Declarer ruffs with the deuce of hearts. I'd like to encourage with the ten, but I'm not sure I can afford that card, so I settle for playing the seven.

I expect declarer to come to his hand and ruff another spade. Instead, he leads the nine of hearts--ace--three--five. As usual, when declarer does something unexpected, it's time to stop and figure out what is going on.

It's hard to see how playing a heart immediately is superior to ruffing a spade first. So declarer must have no way to reach his hand safely. He must be missing the diamond king and doesn't want to play a club to his hand for fear of establishing a defensive ruff.

Let's construct some hands where declarer is missing the diamond king and see if we have any chance to beat this:

♠ J x x ♥ K Q 8 x x ♦ Q x ♣ A Q x

If I tap dummy with a spade, I promote partner's ten of hearts. But so what? We have only three tricks. Perhaps it's better to lead a club, killing declarer's hand entry. Now declarer can't afford to ruff a spade, nor can he afford to play a low heart to dummy's jack. In either case, if he tries to return to his hand with a club, partner can ruff and put me in with the spade queen for a second ruff. But that's not how declarer would play. He would win the club in his hand and take a diamond finesse. Even if the finesse loses, the defense can manage only one more trick.

In order to beat this, I need to give declarer more spade losers. How about this hand?

♠ J x x x ♥ K Q 8 x x ♦ Q ♣ A Q x

Say I tap dummy, promoting partner's heart ten. Declarer comes to his hand in clubs, cashes his high trumps and discovers the bad trump break. He can take a diamond finesse, but he can't get to dummy to cash the ace. So, on this layout, a spade shift beats him. And it's necessary. After any other return, declarer makes six. Of course, playing trumps at trick two was a pretty poor way to attack this hand. A low diamond to the queen would have been a better idea. But at least I've found some layout where we have a shot to beat this, even if I need declarer to have misplayed it. When I first saw dummy, I didn't think that was possible.

I play the spade ten--six--deuce--heart jack. Declarer plays a club to his hand, draws trump, and claims.

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

West	North	East	South
Jack	William	Phillip	Harry
Pass	3 ♣	Pass	3 ♥
Pass	4 ♥	(All pass)

It's nice to see I was right about the diamond king. Note how drawing that inference cut down on the work I had to do. If I had to worry about the possibility of partner's having the heart king or the club ace, I would still be constructing deals. Asking "What is going on?" must always take precedence over asking "What should I do?" Not that inferences like this are always correct. Sometimes you overlook something; sometimes declarer just misplays the hand. But if you draw a reasonable inference that turns out to be wrong and let a contract make as a result, at least you have an interesting story to tell.

Do the opponents belong in a slam? Six clubs looks slightly better than six hearts. It essentially needs the heart ace to be singleton or doubleton with some extra chances if you happen to get a diamond lead. But it's hard to see how to get there even after a more sensible one club opening. Not that you mind missing a slam this marginal.

The board is yet another push. Now I'm worried. We are still down ten imps and now have only three boards to go.

Table 1: -480
Table 2: +480

Result on Board 5: 0 imps
Total: -10 imps

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, February 19, 2012

Event 3 - Match 4 - Board 5

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog