{"id":97687,"date":"2024-09-16T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-09-16T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=97687"},"modified":"2024-09-16T11:21:18","modified_gmt":"2024-09-16T10:21:18","slug":"dominique-fonteneaus-tournament-analysis-24th-august-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/dominique-fonteneaus-tournament-analysis-24th-august-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Dominique Fonteneau’s tournament analysis, 24th August 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Dominique<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

895 of you participated in the monthly Funbridge ambassador tournament on the 24th August 2024<\/strong>. Thanks to you, this tournament was a success. I hope to see even more of you next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Congratulations to those of you at the top:<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

I myself scored a low 53%.<\/strong> Many of you outdid me and won 25 Diamonds ♦️<\/strong>!<\/strong> Below is my analysis of a few deals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 1: Evaluating the strength of one’s hand<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Should you bid again over 2♠<\/span>? Is game in the picture? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes<\/strong>, as my partner could hold: <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Then, game is excellent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No<\/strong>, as my partner could hold:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Then, we are already in great danger at the 2-level! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like me, many of you opted for prudence by wisely passing over 2♠<\/span>. Argine then made the error of not cashing its winners. We can make 11 tricks by unblocking the ♥<\/span>KQ <\/strong>before crossing back to the dummy on the third round of trumps to cash the ♥<\/span>AJ for 11 tricks and 72%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 2: Failure to signal?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

I was on defence against 2NT, as was everyone; my partner led the ♣<\/span>J. Declarer won with the ♣<\/span>K, cashed three rounds of ♠<\/span> and played a small ♥<\/span>. My partner then rose with the ♥<\/span>A in order to not cash his ♣<\/span>: the only defence which gives away the contract. Although all I had done was follow suit, I was subjected to a very meagre 15%! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would show my discontent. With hindsight, I finally understood the problem. Why did Argine make this error opposite me and not opposite the majority of the other players? Perhaps I needed to help it by playing the ♣<\/span>Q on the lead? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, the other players played like me across the board. This could only be a signalling problem. I have, however, been playing the standard system for years. In going to the Settings tab, followed by Card Play Conventions, I realised that there had been an update recently. By default, some of the “No Signals” boxes were ticked. I had been complaining for months as I had not been understanding Argine’s defensive signalling and I realised today that I had been playing all that time without any signals! <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A really long time ago, in clubs, we played in a free game mode. We changed partners every few deals, sometimes without knowing each other, and it was all very friendly. Signalling was often non-existent; we used other techniques to construct the hidden hands (if he had had those, he would have played in this way). It was very formative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 4: Oh, I’d see my name emblazoned in neon<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Some of you chose to open 2NT; I could have made the choice to do so and that would have worked really well on this deal. Playing in 4♥<\/span> on the lead of the ♠<\/span>J is much more delicate. East having passed initially, he had not opened a weak 2 in ♠<\/span>, so should only have five cards to the A10 in ♠<\/span>. I covered the ♠<\/span>J with Dummy’s ♠<\/span>Q to force East to win. He could not return a ♠<\/span> away from his ♠<\/span>10 without giving up a trick to the ♠<\/span>9 in the dummy. He switched to the ♦<\/span>J; I won in the dummy to try the ♥<\/span> finesse, which lost to West’s ♥<\/span>K; he returned a trump. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To justify his 2-level overcall on five bad ♠<\/span>, I imagined East to hold the ♣<\/span>KQ. He would then be the victim of a strip squeeze as I would run my trumps and my ♦<\/span>. Four cards from the end, West would have to keep the ♣<\/span>KQ and ♠<\/span>10x; I would play the ♣<\/span>A and a ♣<\/span> and West would lead away from his ♠<\/span>10 to give me Dummy’s ♠<\/span>9. An expert play! Except that that did not work; it was West who held the ♣<\/span>Q and I went two down to score 5%! As usual, my first reflex was to grumble. Why did Argine overcall 2♠<\/span> with nothing? I felt misled. And as usual, after the instant grumble, with hindsight, I learned. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I should have been wary of the bidding as, with 10 HCP and five ♠<\/span>, Argine could have opened 1♠<\/span> in third seat. I could also have refined my card play by producing the ♣<\/span>J from the dummy after the third round of trumps. That is what my friend Pawel did (thanks for this lesson). If Argine held the ♣<\/span>KQ, it would be obliged to cover the ♣<\/span>J with the ♣<\/span>Q and I would then finish on the squeeze. As it happened, Argine plays a small ♣<\/span> on the ♣<\/span>J and I guess that the squeeze is not working. I go down by 1 and almost secure an average. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 5: I am max<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

What should one open with this hand?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was strong enough to open 2♣<\/span> but we avoid this type of opening with a 5431 two-suiter. I was a bit weak for a game-forcing bid. I was a maximum 1♥<\/span> opener. The only danger being the auction ending there with a game on. I considered that the lesser evil and chose 1♥<\/span>; my partner passed with:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Disaster; I played in 1♥<\/span>+4, as did half of you, and scored 41%. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Personally, I would have bid 2♥<\/span> with North’s hand; but in bridge, we do not play opposite ourselves. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 7: An unpunished mistake<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

I played in 3NT, as did everyone, on the lead of the ♦<\/span>3 to the ♦<\/span>8 and my ♦<\/span>Q.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were three options:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • Playing on the ♠<\/span> and making 11 tricks in the majority of cases. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Playing on the ♥<\/span> and making 12 tricks if the ♥<\/span> were 3-3 and potentially 10 if they were 4-2. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Trying the ♠<\/span> finesse once and falling back on the ♥<\/span> if it worked.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    It was this third option which was chosen the most often, probably best because the 3-3 ♥<\/span> break was 36%. I myself, upon exploring the various opponents’ breaks, would convince myself that the ♥<\/span>, unusually, had more than one chance in two of breaking nicely. I therefore played ♥<\/span> before ♠<\/span>, wrongly. Luckily, the defence did not continue in ♦<\/span> and I made 11 tricks, as many did, for 68%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Deal 8: Argine and I understand each other!<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
    \n
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

    On defence against 1NT, like everyone, my partner led the ♠<\/span>J. I quickly guessed that he held five cards to the KJ10. Because Declarer had denied 4 cards in ♠<\/span> and because my partner had to hold three big cards to have a top-of-sequence lead, I would therefore win with the ♠<\/span>A to return a ♠<\/span> through Declarer’s ♠<\/span>Q. My partner would run all his length and I would discard three times. Without signals, how could I make my partner understand that I wanted him to switch to a ♥<\/span> after his ♠<\/span>? I decided to discard all my ♣<\/span>. North would indeed see from the dummy that there would be no future in ♦<\/span>. By process of elimination, he would return a ♥<\/span>. And it worked. We took it two down for 80%. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/div>\n\n\n\n
    \n
    <\/stop><\/stop><\/linearGradient><\/defs><\/svg><\/path><\/svg><\/div><\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n