One aspect of bidding that makes me look forward to games with Agent 99 is slam bidding. With too many of my other partners, to describe their bidding as “unsophisticated” or “rustic” is incredibly generous.
This one came out zero.
N-S vul, dlr S, matchpoint pairs
♠ Q 10 8 4
♥ K Q 10 8 3
♦ J
♠ 9 3 2 ♣ 6 5 2 ♠ J 7
♥ 7 2 ♥ 9 6 5 4
♦ K 10 7 5 [ ] ♦ 9 4 3
♣ K Q 10 4 ♣ J 9 7 3
♠ A K 6 5
♥ A J
♦ A Q 8 6 2
♣ A 8
2♣ 2♦
2NT 6NT
Pass
Playing with agent 99, I could rebid 3♠ to show both spades and diamonds. Failing that, I thought the 2NT rebid would at least give him the chance to use Stayman or transfers. No such luck – he wasn’t sure that “I would pick up on that”. I could have slapped him.
Of course, 6♠ is cold while 6NT has no play. I nearly made it anyway. After ducking the club lead and winning the second round, I cashed the major suit winners before leading the ♦J for a finesse. I pondered before playing the ♦Q, because I was suspicious of West. I should have followed my instincts and risen with the ♦A – she had blanked the ♦K to get me down two, a foolish risk since by then she knew I was in the wrong contract.
A better line may be to win the first trick and play it as a strip-squeeze. West should unblock the ♣Q, and East should rise with the ♣J at trick 11. But maybe one of them would get it wrong.
Later in the evening, there was another one.
Game all, dlr N, matchpoint pairs
♠ A K Q 9
♥ K Q
♦ J 5 3
♣ A J 10 7
[ ]
♠ 8
♥ A J 10 6 3
♦ K Q 2
♣ Q 6 5 2
1♣ Pass 1♥ Pass
1♠(!) Pass 3NT Pass
6NT All Pass
4♦ led.
I was slightly baffled how a non-forcing 1♠ rebid could come up with a raise to slam, but this particular partner has never been especially consistent. Of course, it never occurred to him that I might pass 1♠, in which case we would quite possibly miss a game. It also didn’t occur to him to open 2NT, bearing in mind that we were supposedly playing the bid as 20-21. And in fact, as he laid the dummy down, he was puzzled why the others at the table were shaking their heads. But at least the final contract was reasonable this time.
The opening diamond lead went to the ace on my right, and was followed by a heart switch, won on the table. On dummy’s other heart winner, West discarded a diamond. OK, I have 11 winners, and it looks like the contract depends on the club finesse, but there’s some distribution about. It has to be right to cash the top spades now. After all, it may be a small chance that the ♠J10 will fall in three rounds, but there is no point in ignoring it. And if there are any squeeze possibilities, I need to get the high spades out of the way. But no luck – both opps follow small three times. Now across to a diamond – both follow – and finish the hearts. West ditches two clubs and a diamond, and so does dummy. Finally, the ♦Q, and West discards the ♣8 as East follows suit with the ♦9 and dummy finally ditches the ♠9. I’m down to ♣AJ on the table and ♣Q6 in hand. I lead the ♣6, and the ♣9 appears. Do I finesse?
I’m still not sure what’s the right reasoning here. If the clubs were 5-0, East would have had five spades headed by the J10. Wouldn’t a switch to the ♠J have looked more productive than a switch to a small heart? Or was he thinking that his only chance was that West had the ♥A? Surely, if he was looking for two quick tricks, a diamond return would have made more sense, on the grounds that we were more likely to be missing the ♦AK rather than two aces. Or, if the clubs were 4-1, the spades would have been 4-4-4-1 also, which is pleasantly symmetrical. In that case, the singleton ♣K is sitting offside, and I need to rise with the ♣A. Isn’t 4-1 more likely than 5-0?
I’m inclined to think that it just comes down to “table presence”. I felt that West was looking at a spade, so this time I went up with the ace. Nobody else did.
♠ A K Q 9
♥ K Q
♦ J 5 3
♠ J 5 4 2 ♣ A J 10 7 ♠ 10 7 6 3
♥ 2 ♥ 9 8 7 5 4
♦ 10 8 7 4 [ ] ♦ A 9 6
♣ 9 8 4 3 ♣ K
♠ 8
♥ A J 10 6 3
♦ K Q 2
♣ Q 6 5 2
This particular partner and I broke up after this evening’s play. I made a cruel joke at his expense, he took offence, we ended up not speaking to each other, and broke up over the phone the next day. It was mostly my fault, I expect. But on the other hand, it was reasonable for us to stop playing together, regardless of the particular incident that evening. The partnership had worked, to some extent, in the past. But lately I found that I just couldn’t get along with him. His bidding is primitive and just too inconsistent for me – I never know what he has. And his play doesn’t make up for it. It is a decent average, compared to the other people in the club, but not more than that, although I suspect he thinks he is much better than average. But when we reached a low-percentage contract, I noticed I might sometimes be able to salvage a score on the play of the cards. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that he has managed that.
No comments:
Post a Comment