Saturday 16 November 2013

Bridge Over the River Clyde

The title for this post is my new favourite bridge-relate-pun-that-should-have-been-the-title-of-this-blog. I could have saved it for a match where we actually played on the other side of the River Clyde, but  I couldn't wait. 

This week we had a home match against a team from St Andrew bridge club in Glasgow. It was not St Andrew first team, (we have them next week), and I can't actually remember the name of the team, but they have several good players, and we played at table 1 against Bill and Suresh.

♠♥♦♣
♠ K 6
♥ Q 9 7 6
♦ Q J 9 2
♣ Q T 3
♠ A 8 7 2
♥ A J 5 4 2
♦ 7 6
♣ 8 3
*
**
*
♠ Q J T 9 5 4 3
♥ K T
♦  A 5 3
♣ K
♠ -
♥ 8 3
♦ K T 8 4
♣ A J 9 7 6 5 4
SureshNormanBillMe
WNES



4♣
  - 
-
4♠
-
      -
5♣
  -
   5
--
With just 2 cards in the majors at favourable vulnerability, I nearly opened 5♣, since I figured I'd probably regret letting the opponents play in 4 of either major, but Norman likes to keep the pre-empts relatively sound, so I eventually settled for 4♣. East had no trouble bidding over this, but my pre-empt allowed Norman to push the opponents to the 5 level, where they had no chance of making after the ♣A and a ♦ switch. As it turns out, the ♦ switch isn't particularly necessary, as the hearts can only be set up for one diamond discard in any case.

The auction makes for a pretty pattern, but that isn't the reason I chose to mention this hand. We knew we'd done pretty well to make a plus score, but at the other three tables, the scores were -620, -550 and -620 for our team. At one table, there was this auction:

WNES



-
  - 
-
1♠
3♣
   3
-4♠ 5
    -
-

Our other South decided to pass the South cards (too strong for a pre-empt, too weak to open, apparently), but apparently it was time to bid after the opponents opened 1♠, and then came back in again after the opponents bid game (if you're going to do this, why not just open 5♣?). Unfortunately, North hesitated over 4♠, so there was no question of letting the result stand, and the score was corrected to 4♠ making. At the time, there was some debate about this, but I don't really see why - I don't think you can make any other decision, which is why North's hesitation is terrible.

At another table, the opponents ended up in 5♣X, and this was an easy make when our West decided to lead the ♠A. I think taking a look at dummy is a good idea, but leading the ♥A seems like it's probably less likely to give anything away. The opponents made 4♠ with less controversy at the other table, for a total of about 1500 points out on this one board... 

♠♥♦♣

We were about 3000 points down at half time, so probably both gambling a bit when we bid this one:
♠ Q 9 6
♥ T 8 5 4
♦ A Q J 
♣ A J 4
♠ J
♥ J 7 6 3
♦ K 8 6 
♣ K 9 5 3 2
*
**
*
♠ A T 4 
♥ 9 2
♦  T 9 7 5 4 3 
♣ 8 7
♠ K 8 7 5 3 2
♥ A K Q
♦ 2
♣ Q T 6
SureshNormanBillMe
WNES



1♠
     - 
2♣
 -
3♠
-6♠
  -
     -


On the ♥3 lead, and with the club finesse right, it only remains to pick up the spade suit. When a spade to the Queen lost to the Ace, and East played back another ♥, I had two reasons to get it right - even if this wasn't a restricted choice position, the K♣ has to be with West if I'm to have any chance in this contract, so I should place spade length with East. I played a club to the Jack, and ran the ♠9 on the way back, for 1430 points in. No-one else bid the slam, so they weren't put to the test in the spade suit, although at the other tables, everyone only made 11 tricks.

♠♥♦♣

Finally, here's a less exciting hand, but one that I think I definitely misplayed: 
♠ K Q 8
♥ 8 5
♦ K 9 5 3 2
♣ J 5 4 3
♠ J T 6 4
♥ A K 6
♦ A J T 8 7 
♣ 9
*
**
*
♠  5 
♥ 9 7 4 3 2
♦  Q 6 4
♣ K 8 7 6
♠ A 9 7 3 2
♥ Q J T
♦ 5 
♣ A Q T 2
SureshNormanBillMe
WNES

1♠
     -
2♠
-
-
3♦-
 3♠
     -
-
The lead was the 9♣. This is pretty obviously a singleton, I think. I drew two rounds of trumps, ending in hand, and now I was in trouble - I couldn't manage to draw trumps and then make two more club tricks, as I didn't have the entries to dummy. I crossed to dummy anyway, and played a club to the Q, but it was ruffed, and I had no way to take another club finesse.  I'm still not entirely sure how I should have managed this hand, but I think I can do it even after E shows out in trumps, Things probably go better if I decide to duck a trump trick right now, or I can play a ♦ to the K at pretty much any point while I still have an entry to dummy. This is one of those hands where lots of things seem to work, but I managed to pick a route that didn't.

I think the reason I went wrong is that I was thinking about the play in 4♠, where I have no chance unless the trumps are 3-2, which is pretty much a textbook psychological error. When things look (relatively) straightforward, you should think about the way they can go wrong. I very rarely take the trouble to envisage what will happen if trumps break 4-1 before I start playing a hand (probably at least in part because of how many hand-shuffled boards I've been playing lately....). It's a habit I should get into.

We lost the match 11-5 in the end, although I think we acquitted ourselves quite well. 11-5 next week against St Andrew would be an excellent result. Hopefully will play a bit more bridge this week, as I'm trying to get some practice in with Martin before next week's East District Pairs, and Jess is away in Amsterdam, so I have nothing else to do in the evenings...

2 comments:

  1. I liked the first auction, very pleasing. Do you get a lot of results ruled back in these league matches, who's the director? I've played three games in division two and not had any director action yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The captains have to agree on a ruling. Presumably if they disagree there's some sort of arbitration procedure, but there really wasn't much to disagree about on this one.

      Delete