The Gargoyle Chronicles: Event 3 - Match 7

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Event 3 - Match 7 - Board 7

Board 7
Both sides vulnerable

♠ 10 6 4 2 ♥ 6 4 ♦ 10 8 ♣ A 10 8 7 4

I pass, LHO passes, and partner opens one notrump (12-14). RHO bids two hearts, showing five hearts and four or more cards in a minor. I pass, and LHO raises to four hearts, which ends the auction.

RHO probably has diamonds; his likeliest pattern is 3-5-4-1. I could lead a diamond, hoping for a ruff. But breaking declarer's side suit may be doing his work for him. I have no assurance that I can get a ruff or even that I need one (since partner may have slow diamond tricks anyway). I decide to go after spade tricks before they can be discarded on dummy's clubs. I lead the four of spades.

	NORTH Dimitri ♠ Q 8 5 ♥ A 8 7 ♦ A J 9 7 2 ♣ 6 2
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 6 4 2 ♥ 6 4 ♦ 10 8 ♣ A 10 8 7 4

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Dimitri	Jack	Brodie
Pass	Pass	1 NT	2 ♥¹
Pass	4 ♥	(All pass)
¹5 hearts plus a minor

Declarer's likeliest pattern isn't 3-5-4-1 any more. I don't care for North's four heart bid. The five-card diamond suit is of doubtful value opposite a heart-club two-suiter. Even the doubleton club is of doubtful value with only three trumps. I doubt there even exists a passed hand with only three hearts that is worth a raise to game. I would bid two notrump, intending to follow with three hearts to show an invitational raise (or four hearts if partner surprises me by bidding diamonds).

Declarer plays the eight from dummy. Partner plays the jack, and declarer wins with the ace. Partner presumably has the nine, else declarer would have played low from dummy. Though it can't hurt for declarer to play the eight for deceptive purposes if he has ace-nine-seven.

Declarer leads the three of diamonds. Declarer has no reason to attack diamonds with a singleton, so he is either 2-5-2-4 or 1-5-3-4. Either way, we probably have two tricks in the pointed suits plus my club ace. We need one more trick somewhere, and I suspect we have it. Declarer wouldn't be going after diamond tricks unless he needed to dispose of a club loser. Whatever his plan is to dispose of that loser, I don't think it's going to work.

I play the eight; dummy's nine forces partner's queen. Partner shifts to the club queen--king--ace--deuce. Presumably partner would have led low with queen doubleton, so he should have the club jack. That's the setting trick, and declarer still has two more clubs to try to dispose of. Too bad I couldn't double.

I might as well lead a spade through dummy's queen, so partner will have a safe exit when he wins the club jack. Obviously I must lead the ten to avoid giving partner a problem. Declarer plays the queen from dummy--king--three. I expect partner to cash the club jack, but he returns the nine of spades. Declarer ruffs with the heart deuce. Partner already knows the spade count, so I play the spade six to conceal the count from declarer.

I must be wrong about partner's having the club jack. Surely he would have cashed it if he did. Does that mean declarer is making this? Partner must have a heart higher than dummy's eight, so declarer can't ruff both clubs in dummy. Can he develop a diamond trick?

Declarer plays the five of diamonds--ten--ace--four. He has to be going down now. He can't ruff out partner's diamond king without drawing two rounds of trumps first. And, if he does that, he has no way to get back to dummy to cash the diamond.

Declarer plays the seven of hearts from dummy--five--jack--four. He cashes the jack of clubs and ruffs a club in dummy with the heart eight. Partner overruffs with the nine and returns the heart queen. I still have a club trick coming for down two.

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

Ruffing the club low was quite optimistic. Even if partner unexpectedly follows, declarer isn't home yet. As practical matter, it seems better to ruff with the ace and repeat the trump finesse to get out for down one. If they are in four hearts at the other table, you are throwing away three imps on a pipe dream.

The board is a push, which is disappointing. I didn't expect our teammates to reach the cold three notrump by North. But I was hoping that the one diamond opening at the other table would make it easier for them to avoid four hearts. If not, they might at least have held it to down one.

Table 1: +200
Table 2: -200

Score on Board 7: 0 imps
Total: +3 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, August 19, 2012

Event 3 - Match 7 - Board 7

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog