I strongly doubt I would have made Moller’s brilliant deduction.

Once that deduction had been made, however, I think it would have been slightly better to lead the 8C on the second round and not the trey. (Perhaps Moller did that, but the column said only “a low club.”)

Leading the 8C guards against West having led from one of the four possible Qx doubletons.

Hi Jim2,

While I appreciate your intended play (once you had decided on basically following the declarer’s proposed line) of the eight of clubs rather than the three, stating the possible holding of Qx by the opening leader and, if so, trying to prevent East from brilliantly ducking the club to his partner’s possible singleton six on up, instead of forcing West to having been dealt with the now singleton nine (if he had the ten, little could be done once East decided not to rise with the king). All well intended and perhaps necessary, but the play of the eight might create suspicion by East that West not East might have the odd club left.

During the heat of the battle, usually joined between declarer and the two defenders, sometimes psychology, not always just strict card combinations, enters the battle in helping determine the victor.

The message intended is sometimes just playing with cool demeanor works better than scientific reasoning.

To each his own.

Another factor could be the spot card played by East on Trick One. For example, perhaps East signaled with the 10 (or 9).

Hi Jim2,

Yes, of course that would play at least some part in the psychology.

From just general experience and over a long period of time, it is indeed a very rare occasion when the defense can be ready to contribute a well reasoned difficult defensive play when all they have heard is the bidding and seen only 1/2 of declarer’s assets plus their partner’s choice of leads which is often mandated by the specific circumstances.

Differently described, at trick one declarer is at his absolute largest advantage in the overall battle, and in almost all cases the best positioned to gain at least a small edge in having his way in the early going, at least in his ability to begin to guess more correctly the location of the opponent’s high cards.

That is why Eric Rodwell has pioneered the slow play by the 3rd seat player even though the play at trick one by him is 100%, nevertheless he prefers (demands) to take as long as he can to play and is supported by the bridge laws.

The possible rub is that 3rd chair is not technically bound to have to account for “why did it take you so long to make the obvious play you did make?”, although the debate rages on whether 3rd chair should make some remark describing taking automatic time at trick one instead of just assuming declarer knows his right to do it.

Although the above is probably already known by you, it is possibly not known by other bright players, who have not yet had the experience of facing it.

On taking one’s time, I have been at the table when the declarer stated – before playing from dummy – that s/he had no problem but was thinking about the rest of the hand. I have not been there when East said the same during Trick One. It makes sense, though.

I always put in on my convention card under “other”–“Third hand always hesitates at trick one”.Even if he doesn’t, no harm is done.

Hi David,

Your to the point comment and, of course, convention card action, suggests to me that I need to bring up the well-known coined phrase, “Little by little we do great things”, but in doing so and at the same time, question (your last line), “Even if he doesn’t, no harm is done”, (and only then add) except by not doing, isn’t his partner, the opening leader, likely in better position to judge what third hand might rather be holding, when he doesn’t?

Now the duck from the ceiling comes down with the magic words, (ala Groucho Marx’s unforgetable MCing “You Bet Your Life”) with “Unless the third hand ALWAYS uses ACTIVE ETHICS on EVERY HAND he ever defends.

I have yet to see anyone from A to IZZARD adequately fill that role!!!!