You have often quoted someone (and I am drawing a blank on who at the moment!) as saying that even an average pair could be world champions if they always got off to the best lead on defense. Maybe this hand exemplifies that concept?
There is no reason for West to lead anything but a diamond and it would raise plenty of eyebrows if he did – but a club or even a heart seems to leave South with no way home. I cannot see a way to eliminate the diamonds from his own holdings and the clubs and hearts from East’s before throwing East in.
I don’t think I’d want to play that pair again though if someone actually “found” the killing lead at the table. Well, OK, I suppose if a team was behind and desperately needed a swing, maybe West would figure nothing to lose by making an opening lead that was sure to be different? Guess that might be kosher.
bobbywolffAugust 31st, 2023 at 1:09 pm
Hi Jeff,
First, you do not speak with “forked tongue” when you speak of (I think, John Brown) a well known and excellent English bridge writer whose hey-day was about the time of the start of the second world war (very early nineteen forties). Yes, normally and in the absence of anything special, an opening leader will usually choose his partner’s first named suit to lead, and (as you suggest) if not and his then choice, strikes a major successful chord, others may begin to think that something may be rotten in the country of England (instead of the real quote “in the state of Denmark”.
However, and on this specific hand, the opening leader would need to know the entire hand, not just an illegal signal from partner, since East has no reason to misdirect partner from leading his original suit bid. However, detecting bridge cheating is, at best, a most times, very
difficult task.
However, since cheating was not on our minds when this hand was selected for use, it should only be reminded for the declarer play necessary, to score it up.
Jeff SerandosAugust 31st, 2023 at 1:34 pm
Hi Bobby,
Oh, yes, the declarer play was brilliant and deserved to find East with just what was needed to score up the hand. I was just doing the bit about seeing if there was a point where the defense could have set it and ended up way back at the first trick with no reason whatsoever for West to lead anything but a diamond.
Although, maybe if his team is way behind and he is looking for a way to differentiate the board? Unless it is a situation where it matters how MUCH you lose by, I always like to swing for the fences and risk looking foolish rather than just accepting the “respectable” loss. If it turned out a diamond lead set the contract and a different lead let it through – oh, well, we were going to lose anyway so why not give it a shot?
bobbywolffAugust 31st, 2023 at 4:01 pm
Hi again Jeff,
I echoed Brown’s opening lead prediction, just to emphasize the mostly luck element which constantly occupies player’s thoughts about getting started on the defense, not to remedy
it, but then for both defenders to try and pinpoint what they can do to take the right number of tricks against it. And, of course, especially at matchpoint scoring, every trick taken, even if the declarer makes his contract, can produce higher rewards for defending it as well as can be done.
That fact alone makes matchpoint scoring or board-a-match play distinctive in difficulty, but
is just another hurdle in moving up the ladder in skill.
Methinks you are, although yes important, over emphasizing the defensive responsibility
of what a winning partnership needs to worry about in defining defensive thought processes.
No doubt, while the scoring of different types of tournament bridge do weigh heavily in playing this card or that (bidding also) all any one player, (no matter how efficient) can do
is not worry so much about it, but only just try and figure out, best he or she can, the most likely way it seems to be and head in that direction. The luck element is always there, but the key to defense while defending is putting yourself in declarer’s position and try and figure out what that specific player is telling you what he has (or what he doesn’t), by his simple line of play.
BTW, the last sentence above does rightly imply that the best declarers around try and obfuscate their play as best they can and sometime make the difference in confusing the defense to not defend (often discarding or not and in what order) in the most efficient way.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Bobby,
You have often quoted someone (and I am drawing a blank on who at the moment!) as saying that even an average pair could be world champions if they always got off to the best lead on defense. Maybe this hand exemplifies that concept?
There is no reason for West to lead anything but a diamond and it would raise plenty of eyebrows if he did – but a club or even a heart seems to leave South with no way home. I cannot see a way to eliminate the diamonds from his own holdings and the clubs and hearts from East’s before throwing East in.
I don’t think I’d want to play that pair again though if someone actually “found” the killing lead at the table. Well, OK, I suppose if a team was behind and desperately needed a swing, maybe West would figure nothing to lose by making an opening lead that was sure to be different? Guess that might be kosher.
Hi Jeff,
First, you do not speak with “forked tongue” when you speak of (I think, John Brown) a well known and excellent English bridge writer whose hey-day was about the time of the start of the second world war (very early nineteen forties). Yes, normally and in the absence of anything special, an opening leader will usually choose his partner’s first named suit to lead, and (as you suggest) if not and his then choice, strikes a major successful chord, others may begin to think that something may be rotten in the country of England (instead of the real quote “in the state of Denmark”.
However, and on this specific hand, the opening leader would need to know the entire hand, not just an illegal signal from partner, since East has no reason to misdirect partner from leading his original suit bid. However, detecting bridge cheating is, at best, a most times, very
difficult task.
However, since cheating was not on our minds when this hand was selected for use, it should only be reminded for the declarer play necessary, to score it up.
Hi Bobby,
Oh, yes, the declarer play was brilliant and deserved to find East with just what was needed to score up the hand. I was just doing the bit about seeing if there was a point where the defense could have set it and ended up way back at the first trick with no reason whatsoever for West to lead anything but a diamond.
Although, maybe if his team is way behind and he is looking for a way to differentiate the board? Unless it is a situation where it matters how MUCH you lose by, I always like to swing for the fences and risk looking foolish rather than just accepting the “respectable” loss. If it turned out a diamond lead set the contract and a different lead let it through – oh, well, we were going to lose anyway so why not give it a shot?
Hi again Jeff,
I echoed Brown’s opening lead prediction, just to emphasize the mostly luck element which constantly occupies player’s thoughts about getting started on the defense, not to remedy
it, but then for both defenders to try and pinpoint what they can do to take the right number of tricks against it. And, of course, especially at matchpoint scoring, every trick taken, even if the declarer makes his contract, can produce higher rewards for defending it as well as can be done.
That fact alone makes matchpoint scoring or board-a-match play distinctive in difficulty, but
is just another hurdle in moving up the ladder in skill.
Methinks you are, although yes important, over emphasizing the defensive responsibility
of what a winning partnership needs to worry about in defining defensive thought processes.
No doubt, while the scoring of different types of tournament bridge do weigh heavily in playing this card or that (bidding also) all any one player, (no matter how efficient) can do
is not worry so much about it, but only just try and figure out, best he or she can, the most likely way it seems to be and head in that direction. The luck element is always there, but the key to defense while defending is putting yourself in declarer’s position and try and figure out what that specific player is telling you what he has (or what he doesn’t), by his simple line of play.
BTW, the last sentence above does rightly imply that the best declarers around try and obfuscate their play as best they can and sometime make the difference in confusing the defense to not defend (often discarding or not and in what order) in the most efficient way.