Methinks east should play the king of spades on the opening lead. If he did so, west could scarcely not lead the king of diamonds at trick two. Yes, I suppose it is possible that south has queen doubleton of spades, but I still think east should play the king.

Hi Messrs Wolff and Warheit,

I’m bemused by this hand as most pairs playing ordinary length signals would play the S8 at trick 1 to confirm the even number and then, when West switches, east should surely realise that there is no 2nd spade to cash. It all seems odd to me.

As EW can make 5S perhaps they could (until they see the net score) console themselves slightly. The IMP scale means that having 2 disasters on one board (not bidding 5S and then letting 5H make) is iess of a mess (if 5S is bid and made at the other table) than 2 separate adverse game swings.

Regards,

Iain

Hi David,

An interesting comment, yours, provoking me to offer further ramblings:

1. Special meanings to specific intended signals are sometimes (too often) misinterpreted by partner, even in very high-level (but sometimes) lesser experienced partnerships.

2. Sometimes, in the interest of respect to the particular partnership, bridge columnists write
in a too positive manner a presumed meaning to what sometimes turns out to be “confusion on the way to happening”.

3. From an opening lead standpoint, the opening leader, could possibly be hoping that declarer had the A10 of diamonds (with, of course partner having the jack and the singleton queen of hearts forcing declarer to have to guess the diamonds, especially if he did not hold the queen of clubs). Add that to the possibility that East had only 5 spades (to the king but, of course without the diamond ace) and at least to Joe Grue (sitting West in the partnership which went off the rails) his playing a low diamond (the deuce) should indicate (he was hoping) a major honor in the suit to his partner while at the same time (playing 4th best) exactly 4 of them.

4. Strictly to David (but, of course, available to all who are interested), in the early days of the Aces it was unanimously agreed that a player should never (in this case throw the possible taking King of Spades away at trick one) in the interest of making it easier for partner. If the partnership failed to read the exact holding, so be it, but it is just too hard on the psyche of the partnership to possibly throw the setting trick away in the interest of greater clarity.

4. In other words, but obviously quite significantly, Joe was hoping to have his cake and eat it too, by switching to a diamond, but allowing for his partnership to still have a chance if partner had only the jack, and of course to him, if partner had the ace instead, he would automatically lead back a diamond.

5. Bridge columnists sometimes do not do justice to the difficulties of the game, by just assuming that legal signals by defenders are always interpreted in the correct way by their partners.

6. As a constant reminder, bridge itself is the master and all the players merely pawns while playing this great game, sometimes keeping in mind the absolute necessity for all those players, both great and not so, to always be actively ethical, letting the card played speak for itself without undue emphasis or break in tempo to aid partner.

Also, possibly better left unsaid, to go even further, to actually stealthily cheat (especially in very high-level competition) should unequivocally and without fanfare, after a thorough and complete investigation, immediately get the death penalty.

Hi Iain,

Although “Methinks there is much reason in what you say”, there is no assurance, only sheer speculation that in a team game (especially high-level) the EW at the other table will bid to the 5 spade make, especially since that contract would depend on the location of the queen of diamonds.

Also, as mentioned in my comment to David, sometimes legal signals to partner have to do with count and other times merely attitude and to further complicate, still other times to indicate suit preference.

This “three for the see-saw” enigma makes theoretical partnership discussion critical for aspiring players to engage in, if they have any hope of achieving significant necessary partnership communication in order to play this game at the level to which they both, no doubt, wish to achieve.

Not everyone likes only chocolate, so one’s partnership wavelength must be carefully adjusted to fit both.

A properly prescient East would bid 5D over 5C.

That was George Rosenkranz’s Bols Bridge Tip some years back – direct the lead in these circumstances. It does assume that East is prepared to go to 5S though and west may not be amused if he wanted to defend 5H.

There is also a rhythm in bidding, and North just did it, so (as East) I might be unable to resist.

(Also, if one reads North’s bid as implying hearts on top of South’s full-throated vul jump to 4H, there is no trump stack left for West to hold.)

Good point – and, as it actually works, my result merchant persona would shower you with lavish praise from the west seat!

Hi Jim2 & Iain,

Both of you deserve kudos for your latest comments.

Jim2 for his prescient (sorry for stealing your very descriptive word) comment about looking ahead and acting by using what he described as the rhythm of the bidding by lead directing which also indirectly implies no misfit (in this case only 2 little, but still feeling partner’s full blown jump) in the eventual trump suit (hearts).

Iain’s recall of GR’s Bols Bridge Tip many years ago is the type of memory indigenous to very top bridge players who have photographic type talent for everything related to our beloved game, not just limited to remembering the 52 cards and to who held what.

Dear Mr. Wolff

I have a question not regarding today’s column.
Last night my partner and I found our way to 6d with the following cards:
W holds:
AQxxxx
–
K743
xxx

E holds
–
AK987
QJT92
Axx

South leads club Q.
I think there are 2 lines to play on:
Establish Hearts. requires H are 4-4(33%),
Crossruff:
H are 4-4 (33%)
OR 3-5 (23.5%)
OR 5-3 with N not holding the Ax or 8x D (3%) –> 0.03*23.5 = 1%
OR 5-3 with N diamond holding being exactly A or 6 or 5 or void (24%)–> .24*.23.5 = 5.5%

I think that going for the crossruff covers both issues and gives an additional 6% chance.

We would appreciate your comments on the math, and perhaps the preferable play

Thanks in advance for your thoughts

P.s. Obviously, we would appreciate all of the blog’s readers input

What sequence of plays are you proposing for the crossruff?

Hi Avi,

First, I am not a natural mathematician, but rather more of an intuitive player, consequently will sometimes (probably more often than I suspect) take an inferior line than I should, but, at the least, I hope that my line is never markedly worse.

I would win the Ace, throw 2 clubs from dummy on my AK of hearts, ruff a club low cash the Ace of spades (throwing a club), ruff a spade low, ruff a heart low, ruff a spade, and ruff a heart with the 7, and then intend to ruff a spade (and hope not to get overruffed and a trump back) with hearts not breaking 4-4.

I think that while my play is somewhat mundane, I must discard a club, not a heart on the ace of spades, otherwise I run a risk of an in front of me player (West) to be able to discard a heart on my 2nd club ruff in dummy.

I may be missing something important, and, if so, I apologize, but these types of problems are tedious for me and require more time than I care to give to quantify the various seemingly infinite percentages.

Good luck and I’d be interested in what you, Jim2 or whoever else could suggest as the overall best percentage line.

I’m very flattered by the compliment on my memory, but I’ve got a copy of the complete book of Bols Bridge tips at home. Sorry, I’m not that good.