2008-03-12 09:03
Hand Evaluation – Patterns ( Attitude )
PITBULLS:
Being
a weak defender is normally due to attitude.
Average players treat defense as a boring
necessity that you must endure before
you get to play a hand again. The
Tormentees have a bad
attitude towards defense. They have now realized the value of patterns but for play of the hand only ! This is absurd ! Just
because defense is 90 degrees from playing the hand does not mean the 5-4-3-1
hand pattern ceases to exist or
any other pattern for that matter. You defend in Bridge matches 50 % of the time so
it is 2nd in importance only to bidding. I think this attitude stems
from an inferiority complex that
applying patterns on defense is somehow too tough.
Here
is a hand from Kelsey
that shows the beauty of thinking
in patterns on defense.
1♥-P-2♣-P
2♥-P-2♠-P
3NT
partner leads the ♦2
|
♠ |
♥ |
♦ |
♣ |
|
K |
x |
x |
K |
|
Q |
x |
x |
Q |
|
J |
|
J |
|
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
♠ |
♥ |
♦ |
♣ |
|
A |
x |
A |
A |
|
10 |
K
|
x |
|
|
x |
x |
x |
|
|
x |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
x |
You win your ♦K & work from the
first principles . From the ♦2 , the diamonds are
4-4-3-2 with declarer holding four diamonds. Give declarer a 6 card heart suit
from the bidding so declarer has most likely a
6-4-2-1 pattern. Going with the odds that declarer has a singleton club , give declarer two spades. After winning the first
trick you switch to a spade. Declarer wins with the 9 & tries to steal a club . You win the ♣A , cash
the ♠A & exit a heart. The dummy is dead as declarer held ♠xx ♥AKQJxx ♦Q109x ♦x . Declarer goes one down as you take 3♦ , 1♠ & 1♣
.
Is this not a good example
of applying patterns so you defend double dummy ?
Looking at the hand record after , you would have found this defense. Working from
first principles allows you defend like this at the table .
This example shows exactly what Kelsey says in his book .
After you have applied the pattern , the defensive
problem resolves itself
thru logic. Not thinking in patterns would you have switched to a spade at
trick two ? Not
in your lifetime , be honest. This is also what I say
after playing 40 years since reading Kelseys books.
Defenders do not “think in patterns”.
Here is another hand from Kelsey.
1♥-X-1NT-P
4♥-P-P-P
|
♠ |
♥ |
♦ |
♣ |
|
Q |
K |
A |
A |
|
10 |
Q |
K |
x |
|
8 |
x |
x |
|
|
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
♠ |
♥ |
♦ |
♣ |
|
J |
9 |
J |
K |
|
x |
x |
10 |
Q |
|
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like you are on your
own with this defense. You lead the AK & 3rd diamond &
declarer wins with the ♦Q. Declarer plays ♥A & small ( everybody follows ) so you are in . Now what
? Defending from first principles , you of course
apply a pattern. Declarer has a 6 card ♥ suit & 3♦. The 6-3-2-2 , 6-3-3-1 & 6-4-3-0 patterns are applicable. You
cannot give a sluff & a ruff with a diamond
return since if declarer had ♠AKxx you give him
the contract as spades are 3-3. You cannot return a spade as the jack will win
on the dummy. How about cashing the ♣A. This
will not work with the 6-4-3-0 pattern. This hand is always going down unless
you lead the ♣A . If declarer is 6-3-3-1 , he is going down even if you underlead
your ♣A as he still must lose a spade to you. If declarer is 6-4-3-0 , a small club lead allows him to pitch his 4th
spade & you still get your spade trick. It is obvious by applying patterns , you under lead your ♣A. Is this a hot dog play ? No , by applying
patterns, it is the logically correct
play. Of course , you guessers found that play ? Correct ?