The Gargoyle Chronicles: Free Weekly Instant Tournament - August 30

Sunday, September 8, 2024

Free Weekly Instant Tournament - August 30 - Board 1

Board 1
Neither side vulnerable

♠ 8 6 ♥ 7 3 ♦ K Q J 10 8 2 ♣ A K 4

Partner opens with one heart. RHO passes. I bid two diamonds, game-forcing, and partner bids two hearts. This bid does not promise a sixth heart in the robots' methods.

I would like to bid three clubs to enable partner to bid three notrump with a spade stopper and no club stopper. But the robots take these bids seriously. If partner raises clubs, there may be no way to avoid playing this hand in clubs. I'm sure he will interpret a four-diamond bid by me as a cue-bid. I'm not sure what he will make of four hearts, but I don't want to find out. To avoid partner's tunnel vision, I'm stuck with bidding three diamonds.

I bid three diamonds, and partner bids three notrump. I pass, and RHO leads the spade deuce.

	NORTH Phillip ♠ 8 6 ♥ 7 3 ♦ K Q J 10 8 2 ♣ A K 4

	SOUTH Robot ♠ K 5 ♥ A J 10 9 5 2 ♦ 7 3 ♣ Q J 8

West	North	East	South
Robot	Phillip	Robot	Robot
			1 ♥
Pass	2 ♦	Pass	2 ♥
Pass	3 ♦	Pass	3 NT
(All pass)

Partner had a tough decision over three diamonds. He could either show his sixth heart, possibly giving me a headache if I have a singleton and only one black suit stopper, or he could show both his stoppers with three notrump. This would have been an easier auction if two hearts had promised six.

At one time, I didn't care for that treatment. One thing I dislike about Eastern Science Fiction is that it can be difficult to show extra values. So I liked using two hearts as a catch-all, allowing two spades or three clubs to show extras. But I'm beginning to think I was wrong about that. I keep seeing deals where I wished opener's rebid of his suit showed six.

Since West led the spade deuce, he should have three or four spades. So I'm down one or two after I drive the diamond ace. Fortunately, others will have the same problem, so this should be a normal result.

East plays the spade jack, and I take the king. I lead the seven of diamonds--four--king--nine. It's weird they would duck this trick, since I have two side dummy entries. Whoever ducked must know hearts aren't running. But table presence is useless against robots, so I have no idea who ducked.

Incidentally, Ron Andersen once told me the best way to read which hand ducked. It's not tempo, which can be unreliable. The player who ducked is the player who, after seeing his partner's card, glanced at dummy's spots.

I continue with the queen of diamonds--six--three--ace. West had the diamond ace, so, as we decided earlier, he must hold a heart honor. Although I can't imagine it's going to help to know that. I'm just practicing.

West shifts to the nine of spades, and East takes the ace. I don't think East would have falsecarded at trick one, so he can't have the ten. West must have made one of the robots' weird leads of the nine from ten-nine. I don't know why they do that. I know who has the ten. So why not tell partner?

East continues with the queen of spades, and West unblocks his ten. East continues with the spade three. The three? Not the seven? So West has 10972 and they've blocked the suit? Yes. West takes his spade seven and shifts to a club. Making three.

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

The winning defense should not have been difficult to find. If West shifts to the spade ten. East can duck and the rest is easy. In fact, with ten-nine-seven West should lead the ten at trick one.

Four hearts makes. So in a real field, this would be a poor result despite the bad defense. In this field, plus 400 is worth 57%.

Eight players did reach four hearts, but only because they were unaware that opener's two-heart bid did not promise six and forgot to read the tooltip. They raised two hearts to four. Fortunately, five of them went down on creative lines of play. Otherwise this would have been a below-average result.

Four hearts is the wrong bid, by the way, even if partner's rebid promises six hearts. A jump to four hearts should show good heart support. This isn't some "fast arrival" situation; we are still looking for the right strain.

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, September 8, 2024

Free Weekly Instant Tournament - August 30 - Board 1

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About This Blog