René's Bridge Diary

Last ranked period I played Acol to the Ace rank with almost no problems. Today, I had five losses against the expert. That did not happen before. Usually, I am well above 20 points, often winning. All Acol problems could be completely my errors. But I have to give up this system to protect my temper. In the hand above, the error is easy to spot if you look at the description. But Lia does not play Texas transfers after 1NT, so I thought 4 ♥  would still be natural. However, it is interpreted as "shortness in spades", and 3-5 cards in all other suits. When I saw Lia bidding a "fit in clubs" with 4♠ and a slam trial, I gave up.   The second hand brought us to a 4-3 major fit where you make just as many tricks as in NT. Indeed, 3♠ is explained as 3+ spades. The idea is to show a preferred spot to play and missing a stopper somewhere. Lia would have bid 3NT. I went down twice after a small spade lead. The expert played one down in 5 ♦ .  Lia would reach the impossible...

This is an interesting one, because it simply shows short thinking. The expert did better than I did, but also failed. The lead at all tables was the ♠6. Now, start thinking!  The bidding of the robots is always a bit hard to understand, and an easy source of wrong interpretation. But to me it seems that West must have an unbalanced hand with some shortness in minor suits. He can also not be strong, because he selected the uninspiring 3NT non-serious attempt to slam instead of showing an own control in the minors which he surely has. Moreover, he probably liked hearing about the spade control. In conclusion, he might have the spades and hearts established after that lead. The problem is that he might discard minor losers, and most likely that would be on the diamond suit. So, you should play a club to cash the one trick. In pairs, this would have been a top. Nobody did that. The expert returned a diamond too.

The idea of this gamble is simple. After the reply to my ace asking, North should have 8 sure tricks in spades, and I have 4 top tricks, adding to 12. Another trick seemed very likely to me. In fact, there is one in hearts. After the diamond lead I draw all trumps and saw East throwing in his hearts. This hand was inspired by a video with Maryellen and Curt Soloff . He opened the hand with 7♣, and made it after the trump lead, because West foolishly threw away a heart from his 5-card suit. You can also make it if West has the ♣J and leads trump under it, or with any other lead, because you can ruff a heart. But if I had be at North, I'd even go for 7NT, at least in pairs tournament, just because I add an extra trick in diamonds. That makes with a diamond lead, and with hearts braking 4-3, or a foolish discard.

I am now playing the Master Series System by Gavin Wolpert. However, I do not understand it, it seems. In the bidding above, 3♣ is alerted as 5 cards and forcing. 3 ♦  shows a stopper. 3♠ is explained as a stopper and a missing stopper in hearts. Then, I do not understand the jump to 5♣. I made that contract, but 3NT makes with an overtrick, actually with two if played the best way.  Maybe that's a bug. But I rather fear that I have a misunderstanding here.

My intervention reached the very nice result of 3♣. Opponents can in fact make game with a good probability. But I failed the declarer play and went down -3 instead of -2, losing this board. You can argue that we should leave then in 2♠, but that is not the topic of this posting. What did I do? West led to ♠K, and East continued with a small heart. What can go wrong when you try the finesse? Well, the finesse fails, and West cashes the diamonds and gets two ruffs with the ♠10 and the ♠8. It is superior to take the  ♥ A. Later you can still make the finesse to the  ♥ K. There is no need to make that trick immediately, Plus, you get the additional chance that opponents let you discard hearts on the diamonds. Moreover, but unlikely, the  ♥ K could be singleton at West.

I continue my series about decisions in Bridge, and how some of them are simply guesswork where you can be lucky or unfortunate. It is the job of an expert to distinguish those on the long run. In the hand above, I decided to bid 3♣ like most players. You don't want to let the other side play their preemptive 2♠ contract. But, look what happens! The way the robots think seem to prevent them from bidding to 4♠ after your intervention as in the bidding below. I have no idea why this is so, and maybe nobody knows exactly why. Double dummy analysis says that you can make it, but the robot did not finesse for the ♠10, and consequently goes down once, just like your 4♣ contract. In matchpoints, this is simply a loss for those who interfere with 3♣. In team, there is no question that you should do it, and even go to 5♣. Chances are too high, that opponents make their game. Now, should you interfere on the long run or shouldn't you? Clearly, it helps the declarer, and might even lead ...

I wished I'd understand the Acol bidding of Lia a bid more. Above, you see a bidding where you reach the good contract 3NT. I found 2 ♥  by chance. It is explained as "third suit game forcing". The 2♠ bid is explained as "stopper missing in  ♥  or ♠". I would simply assume it shows a spade stopper. However, the spades are repeated which definitely shows a missing heart stopper. Thus, we reach The 3NT. That is not good enough. The result I played against was 4 ♥X -3. It was reached on three tables by the following bidding. In Bridge, scientific bidding does not always yield the best results. However, 4 ♥X -2 would have been worse again. I am currently back to the low Ace ranks. Why, I do not know. A sequence of bad results just happened. Age is a factor, always, but bad luck too.