Hi Bobby,

Is there any way in which East can (ethically) induce West to lead a club, which kills the contract stone dead? Double springs to mind, suggesting that a heart lead may not be optimal, but then west might lead a spade – which could be right if West’s majors were reversed. If East were just a little stronger (DKQ10, ssy), then I’d be inclined to double regardless given that I would be confident the diamonds couldn’t be picked up – surely dummy doesn’t have 2 entries.

Regards,

Iain

The LWTA hand is not from the day’s column. I wish I knew which it was: real life or a complete construct.

West did not open and East could not find a one-level spade overcall, yet the provided answer expresses concern that E-W might be so shapely as to execute a cross-ruff, or have a combined heart holding that they might get discards from it.

My interpretation would be that East held diamonds and secondary spades with no heart strength (no double and no spade overcall), and that West held clubs and secondary spades but no heart strength (no opening bid). Nor could North find a heart raise, so perhaps the other hearts were simply left in the deck this hand. Instead of rebidding diamonds, North passed after West’s claim of spades and clubs. Yet North could also have bid 1N or 2C quite safely and economically.

Since neither opponent bid made a spade overcall when it could be done at the one-level, i seems spades are likely 4-4.

Could North hold some balanced 12 count (say, 3-2-4-4)? If I led JS, TOCM ™ would make North’s spades Qxx and good-bye trump trick. If I lead 9D, the board would hold a singleton and declarer would get a free finesse and then get discards/ruffs.

Anyway, I would sure like to know more about the LWTA hand.

Hi Iain,

As you often accomplish, your active thinking constantly seeks ways to constructively get better results. However, when played by honest players like yourself, to do so, undeniably runs risks.

Here a double by you, of a voluntarily bid contract (3NT), should be used, not to attempt to increase a set (down instead of making is enough reward), but to increase the chances of defensive success.

Since bridge in general, as often stated right here in River City, is NOT an exact science, but rather a detective story, where both sides need to use their useful bridge brains to examine the evidence and proceed accordingly.

Therefore, since West’s Michaels cue bid was woefully weak (not that it was unthinkable), partner’s double could (considering the above caveat, should) warn him off the likely normal lead of leading his partner’s longest major (or at least as long) and then possibly his choice would turn to the jack of clubs. After all, he did have jack ten and partner was only following his suggestion of bidding his longest major when their worthy opponents intervened and suggested that they could make 3NT against a lead of that expected suit, in this case, hearts.

Right they were, making it reasonable for the defense to counter with a surprise lead (because of the enlightening double).

These cat and mouse games and between excellent players, are what helps make high-level bridge the greatest game ever. It is time more people step up to the plate and show their logical minds, risking shame in order to secure fame.

As always, thanks Iain, for adding your progressive thoughts to lock in with all interested readers vivid imaginations, in order for them to consider and then decide when to make event changing (certainly, at the very least, hand changing) decisions.

Be emotionally prepared for some failures, but the victories, when based on solid evidence, are well worth the risk.

Hi Jim2,

You speak the truth.

My take is similar except to add that instead of necessarily good diamonds, it appears that East, the declarer has heart length, (West usually being relatively short to accommodate black suit length, although he could hold 4-4-1-4), plus partner North, not giving a courtesy raise nor competing further in diamonds, which usually confirms a minimum in high cards, plus no long strong diamond holding.

I do not remember why this lead hand crept into our LWTA, many months ago since this hand was written, but nevertheless I appreciate your views, especially the one about the possibility of chopping up a natural defensive trump trick, although sometimes if a cross ruff develops by declarer that trump trick comes back into being.

In conclusion I certainly agree that I think it very close between the actual choice of lead and the relatively simple 9 of diamonds, the suit partner opened the bidding with.

Not a real life hand, then — and thus no “Paul Harvey.”

Okay, thanks!

Hi Jim2,

Yes, no “Rest of the Story”. However, as you well know, these types of hands frequent all kinds of bridge, from rank novice up through World Championships and no real and lasting knowledge is likely to shine forth.

Possibly too many intangibles, plus choices both in declarer’s play and defensive switches. It often comes down to key nines and random tens leaving bridge to quote the bard, “signifying nothing”.

At least for you, it upgrades bridge from your TOCM tm suffering to others also being brutalized with uncertainty and guessing. Usually and my guess is that declarer, because he can concentrate on seeing all 26 of his assets, will average 1/2 trick more than par would allow him, because of the disadvantage to the defense of only seeing 13 of their own and 13 of the opponents, making defensive errors more prevalent than declarer miscues.

The above numbers are only my random guesses and not to be taken seriously.