The Aces on Bridge: Thursday, March 19th, 2015
There are occasions when it is undoubtedly better to incur loss than to make gain.
Plautus
| North | North |
|---|---|
| Neither | ♠ 9 5 ♥ A Q 8 5 2 ♦ A K 9 7 3 ♣ A |
| West | East |
|---|---|
| ♠ J 10 8 6 4 3 2 ♥ J 7 3 ♦ — ♣ J 8 3 |
♠ K Q ♥ 9 ♦ J 10 8 6 4 2 ♣ K 10 7 4 |
| South |
|---|
| ♠ A 7 ♥ K 10 6 4 ♦ Q 5 ♣ Q 9 6 5 2 |
| South | West | North | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♣* | Pass | ||
| 1♥** | 2♠ | 3♥ | 3♠ |
| 4 NT | Pass | 5♦ | Pass |
| 6♥ | All pass |
*Strong
**8-11 high-card points
♠8
On this deal from a regional knockout at the spring nationals at Dallas last year it might seem a little unfair to write up the only board on which Ishmael Del’Monte’s team lost IMPs. But it did feature outstanding play by the Australian star, who was South on the following deal.
Against six hearts West led the spade eight, suit preference for diamonds. Del’Monte won the spade ace and played a club to dummy’s ace, followed by a heart to the king. Then came a club ruff, the heart ace and heart queen. On the second and third round of trumps, East had to pitch first a diamond then his remaining spade to keep the club king and five diamonds. Now a diamond to the queen brought the bad news for declarer.
A further club ruff brought about a five-card ending where dummy had a losing spade and four diamonds, while declarer had a trump, diamond two losing clubs and a small spade. Since West was down to all spades, Del’Monte could safely exit in that suit. West won and had no choice but to return a spade now, squeezing his partner in the minors! Declarer could ruff and depending on West’s discard, either cash his clubs or take the winning diamonds in dummy.
Beautifully played, but why did Del’Monte’s team lose IMPs? At the other table, North played six hearts doubled on a diamond lead. West got his ruff but declarer claimed 12 tricks in a canter.
I am all for preempting when I have a reasonable excuse, and especially in first seat, which is the ideal moment to put the cat amongst the pigeons. But here you have no excuse to bid, with tricks galore outside your weak long suit. It might work to preempt, but the odds are against it, and you destroy partnership trust that way.
BID WITH THE ACES
| ♠ K Q ♥ 9 ♦ J 10 8 6 4 2 ♣ K 10 7 4 |
| South | West | North | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| ? |
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
To all who may be interested,
Presumably, since, by luck, Del’Monte’s opponents likely secured the advantage by North rather than South being declarer, enabling the defense to open the defense with a surprise ruff, not afforded at the other table, but, because of the beautiful nature of our game, that ruff helped the declarer in having the defense use one of its precious trumps to ruff a loser and therefore made it easier, not more difficult, for his opponents.
Could this have been foreseen? I think not, but also, aspiring bridge players have to learn to deal with such random acts of fortune and force the eventual winners to not be dismayed
and show character to not let it adversely effect their game.
The above is often the difference in the battle between two relatively equally talented teams.
Hi Bobby,
Presumably the DJ was led; what happens if west doesn’t ruff it? Equally, North mustn’t be on autopilot and put the DQ on the Jack, I suspect? Was the lead directing double partly right but the defence wrong, or should the SK have been led anyway in case pard was ruffing fresh air?
Regards,
Iain
My question is about the hand that was in the paper yesterday, April 1, in which you mentioned the death of Ernesto d’Orsi. Actually two questions:
1. If East had taken the Diamond Jack with the Ace at trick two, he could have led a club and the defense would have had five tricks off the bat. Why didn’t he and why didn’t you mention that?
2. “After cashing his third heart winner, d’Orsi exited with a club and West ran the suit. Dummy discarded a diamond and a heart…” He had only three hearts originally so how could he discard a heart if declarer had already taken three heart tricks?
BTW, I liked it better when I had your email address and knew I would receive a personal answer to any question.
Hi Iain,
I would like to be brilliant and answer yes to all your queries. However, if I did, I’d be lying since no one can possibly foresee such leads and plays before they begin.
I think it just the nature of our game, but because of the law of averages, a condition I wholeheartedly agree with, the best players have won, now win, and will continue forever to do so, since gambling proves to me and to all (I think) mathematicians as an immutable condition, never to change and is as much a part of life as breathing.
As to the hand, North being declarer, West doubled the slam for the lead, got it, ruffed it (with declarer NOT rising with the queen) to his disadvantage.
Every i was dotted, t crossed, but alas, the patient, defense, died and ignominiously at that.
PS. I have not checked out the various defenses to see how some out of this world bridge player could have prevented it after the diamond lead.
Hi Ana,
First, nice to meet you on the AOB site. Try it on a regular basis and who knows, you may enjoy it.
Now for the bad news. The hands on our site are two weeks delayed so that a hand of ours which was in yesterday’s newspaper column will not appear for 13 days (2 weeks delayed) and I do not keep files on all my hands.
Consequently I will have to wait until a week from Wednesday (April 15th) to answer your questions. However I wish you would do what you just did on that date to remind me, but for doing so I will then be available to answer other questions you may have by then.
Win some, lose some, but isn’t that the way of the bridge world?
Thanks for writing.