East has only 4 clubs. If he discards two as mentioned in the column there are no clubs left. On two spades (Q and 9) he must have discarded two hearts instead of a club and a heart. Then only the end play works else dummy’s club Queen scores.

Hi Shantanu,

Yes, you are quite correct about East’s discards, and your eagle eye, while reading the text (and keeping up with the description) has caused some confusion about what cards East had left, after the 4th round of spades, ending in dummy, had been played.

Since, as you pointed out, East had to keep the king of clubs (to top the dummy’s queen) so earlier he had discarded a heart, instead of a club.

My apology to you for the confusion, and thanks for the correction. Unfortunately, my proof reading did not alert me at the time of this error.

In a somewhat unusual manner, perhaps my gaffe only proves how difficult some hands are, from declarer’s viewpoint, to be able to count the defender’s hands and arrive at the winning ending, in order to effect the game going end play. Congratulations to Barnett for not falling victim to miscounting the hand.

Hi Bobby,

A very difficult hand! It took me a long time to work out how to make it if West had trumped in and returned a fourth diamond (since you have to trump on the board, not in hand).

East did suffer a lapse not noticing that his partner was almost surely void in hearts, but my question is how many players would work out that the first trick should be ducked? I can see not being particularly happy at the prospect of East leading a club through, but I think it requires more imagination that I possess to realize the danger of East leading twice.

Without criticizing declarer who played beautifully after East left the door open, do you think most experts would have worked out to duck that first trick? If so, would the logic have been seeing the danger or that it should be ducked on the general principle that if it makes any difference at all, it is more likely to help than hurt our cause?

Thank you as always for your always stimulating and entertaining column.

Hi Mr. Wolff,

The BWTA raises some interesting points. In theory the initial 1S response could be based on practically no high cards but 4 or 5 spades, so South might think he has quite a good hand despite the CQ. When East passes and West doesn’t rebid, can North reasonably infer south has a few values and not a blizzard, then bid on this basis? Also, can South asssume that North has drawn this inference, or is there a danger of reading too much into partner’s possible thought processes? Is there a Jim2 head hurts moment imminent?

Regards,

Iain Climie

Bobby,

I got to play online with Barnet once. Good thing this is a play hand asBarnet usually bids slowly. I was luicky, he had a golf game that day and I acutally played slower than Barnet did. He played at what most of us call normal speed that day.

Tough game as we never did agree on methods other than “standard<" with Mathe/their big clib, reverse Drury, forcing NT, and Jordan 2NT/takeout double. And we won! He plays very well

Hi Jeff S.

Rather than probe deeply to your request, let me just say that more often than one thinks, especially against good defenders, it is right to duck the first trick, if for no other reason than to make the defensive communication less available.

Rarely will one lose (relying on the bidding or lack of it to be aware of at least the possibility of unusual distributions) and situations similar to this one are often camouflaged early in the play until suit breaks are better known.

Your next to last paragraph hinted at the main theme. The course in bridge school would smack of limiting the defender’s communication with some attention to creating the proper tempo for a positive trick gaining end situation.

Feel confident that you are not alone in not being able to know exactly why it is better most times to duck, but soon afterward it may jump at you.

Thanks for your kind words about the column.

Hi Iain,

Not really head hurts here. However, for the TO doubler to raise a minimum level response in a suit requires about an ace more than a normal TO double and, of course 4+ trump. With better hands there are many options, 1. cue bid and pass another minimum response, 2. an immediate jump in responder’s suit, 3. a cue bid and then either a further raise or then bidding a new suit, which in itself is another 1 round force.

Remember many, many years ago an original cue bid of the opponent’s suit was GF and the equivalent of an opening strong 2 bid. Today we have better uses for that cue bid, leaving the handling of the really good hand to modern style.

Your comment about tendencies when the opponents withdraw from competing after opening the bidding should not be taken too seriously since different opponents have different views on further competition.

Better to just bid what you can see and hear and leave the imagination to the card gods.

Hi Bill,

Yes, Barnett can sometimes be somewhat slow, but always very thoughtful and an excellent all around player as well as an extremely ethical one.

You are exhibiting good judgment by playing in games where he is at the table. System? who needs one for online bridge? Only kidding, but discussing some subjects does, like Jim2, makes my head hurt just at the thought.

🙂