I might be missing something, but I’ll state my mind in any case.
Since declarer relied on East not to hold the heart ace for the end play, wouldn’t it have simply been easier to simply cross back to hand, and lead up to the heart king.
This way make 3 spades, 2 hearts, 3 diamonds, and 4 clubs.

Hi Bobby, Avi,

In similar vein, declarer could lead the HJ earlier, especially as if West holds HQ but not Ace, he is unlikely to cover as declarer could just be fishing for the Q or a hesitation.

Well played by DG in the endgame though, although East should pe
rhaps do better by letting a spade go first or even throwing the middle heart. The bidding means that a discouraging heart discard from Qxxx or even Qxx is also fairly safe so DG’s table presence was on top form.

Regards,

Iain

I must confess that I would have played this hand a little differently.

With a spade lead like the seven (or the even number four), I would have concluded that East held the guarded JS. Thus, I would have begun with the thought of five clubs + three spades + three diamonds + chances. Starting on clubs would be next and the pitch by East on the second club would have come as a shock.

After some period of heart palpatations and trick recounts, I would have come to the conclusion that I absolutely needed the AH onside and that I had to lead towards the KH before touching the diamonds so as to retain transportation). Assuming West ducked (as in the column), when I eventually opened my eyes I would have won the KH.

Now my hope would be for four diamonds, so I would return to hand with one diamond, cash the last two club winners (discarding hearts from dummy) and think some more.

Six cards left. Should I cash the other two spades? It would eliminate that tenace, but it would certainly help otherwise. West is guarding clubs and has the AH. East is guarding spades. If anyone is guarding diamonds, it has to be East.

Sure wish West had won the AH. I think there would have been a squeeze there.

I would lead my last spade, win on board, and return to hand with my last high diamond. Four cards left.

Lead small diamond from hand. If West follows, they must be 3-3. If West shows out, then East’s last cards must be two jack doubletons (unless the JS would have fallen all along in which case I have found a way to go down in a cold contract). When West shows out, I go up AD and lead the 10D, endplaying East as did the column declarer.

Hi Avi,

I, like many others, would not have assumed that East’s first discard denied the heart queen. On the contrary, I probably would have expected, at that point for East, not West to hold that card since he had more room in his hand holding only a singleton club.

How the play would have gone from there, I do not know, but, at least to me, the psychology present in these cat and mouse play hands, especially slams (with top players involved), is a major reason to love the challenge.

Of course, when the heart ten holds, and with the aforementioned more room in hand for any specific card (outside of clubs) East is still more likely to hold the ace of hearts, a card he would not likely play early to keep the count not rectified for executing a 12th card squeeze.

Hi Iain,

Yes, DG’s antenna was flying high with his heart to the ten early, and I do not necessarily agree that the bold play of the heart jack would not elicit a cover since he had already denied 4 hearts and could well be creating a ruse (not having the heart 10 and still leading the jack, since it is, of course, not the suggested play).

With slam hands and in high-level competition at IMPs, the importance of getting it right adds considerable pressure and therefore the play almost always slows down to a crawl, but never forget that the declarer holds a significant advantage by viewing all 26 of his assets, while the defense is only privileged to seeing 1/2. However, as the play develops that advantage slowly ceases and by the middle of the hand it tends to equalize, allowing excellent defense as well as the expected flawless percentage contribution by declarer.

Let the winner explain and this time it is David Gold.

Hi again Iain,

My post should have said the heart nine not the heart ten. Sorry for that, and if I keep feeling sorry and not executing my responses intelligently, I will not be very effective.

Hi Jim2,

I just now read your comment and must confess, that I hope I would have played this hand along similar lines as you.

To repeat, the small heart discard would not have prompted my to finesse the heart ten, so that I would have been left with leading a heart to the king and rummaging around to hopefully either see the jack of diamonds falling or getting a break with the same end play as you.

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for the thoughts and a stray query here. Imagine you were East and your assets included HAxx(x).

Declarer cashes two clubs and you shed a spade (or heart) then declarer plays a heart to the King in smooth tempo (having had a think at T1 but playing at a steady pace later, as per a BOLS tip you wrote). Would you Ace the heart or duck to avoid declarer with QJx rectifying the count? Could there be a negative inference here as partner has led from SXX when Hxxx(x) would have been safer?

Regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

Yes, you are consciously invading the province of very high-level mind battles between top class players. Yes and no are not adequate answers, but, usually while declarer is plotting his overall plan of attempting sometimes determinative results in matches, the defenders should try to find a way to enter the thoughts of that worthy opponent so as to be ready to not only make the right play, but to do so without giving the location away of a key card.

All in all the above is always a very difficult challenge, but worthy of our great game, and perhaps in another life, a talented producer of mental acuity and its wide variations could piece together an action movie which instead of physical violence would instead concentrate on just how powerful effective brainwork can elevate.

At least to me, the playing of bridge, even more so than chess, would be the vehicle to use since the variations and constant poisoned flower gaffes are ever present in which to fall victim.

DUCKING THE ISOLATED KING OF HEARTS?

Wow, yes it could happen, but please spare me from doing it.

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for this. Bthe trick of playing up to an isolated K in the closed hand (relying on west to hold off in NT with Axx(x) is well know, Here though it may be near impossible for a defender to believe declarer is being so committal at an early stage – he must have QJx, surely.

Such plays are less poker than Russian roulette, albeit with blanks. The victim still winds up stunned, disoriented and wondering what in bridge (or even life) can be trusted. The famous Brunner duck (letting declarer win HQx.on table in 7C instead of covering with HK so she could take a trump finesse into a singleton King) shows such coups are possible – just very rarely.

Regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

Perhaps the Brunner duck, sometimes called a Grosvenor, is cooked to poison the opponents for not only the next hand, but for many which will follow. These kind of plays made hand bangers out of heretofore fairly normal players.

I had not heard of the Brunner duck, but it will always now share a place in my heart. Something tells me that the perpetrator of this marvelous coup was lucky partner didn’t possess the singleton jack of trumps.

Hi Bobby,

Just in case you’re teasing me (or missed the hand) declarer had AKQ98x Ax None AJxxx and played in 7C opposite 10x Qx Qxxx Q10xxx. The HJ was an automatic lead, covered, so declarer had to cash the CA and dropped the singleton K offside.

Michelle Brunner smoothly ducked the HQ instead of covering and a relieved declarer took the trump finesse! IBPA defence of the year 2007 I think.

Regards,

Iain

Hi Iain,

When the Brunner hand was presented, I must have ducked, since, as you presumed, I missed the hand. And yes, for such a play, a defense of the year award is due, if only for its spectacular result.

In one of the early bridge books and as a tribute to Lee Hazen, the man who was responsible for bankrolling the ACBL when it was first organized in 1936. was given credit for allowing dummy to otherwise unnecessarily win a trick so that declarer can take a losing finesse into his singleton king (later he got that trick back). Almost as spectacular, but still remembered by me after reading about it 60+ years ago, probably because I got to know Lee as he became the ACBL’s only attorney during the first 50 years of its existence and before that, played right field in baseball for the NY baseball Giants, one of the NYC teams of that era.

Thanks for bringing me up to date.