South wins the opening lead with the HJ and then cashes DAK, making his contract if W has all 5 D, any 4 D, 3 small D, DQx or singleton DQ. If E turns out to have Q fourth of D or all 5, S runs clubs and then leads a small S, hoping that W has SK. That only leaves the situation where each opponent follows small on the 2 D leads. Now S has 2 choices: he can lead a third D and hope that W has the Q as you suggested or he can cross to his hand in C and lead a small S, hoping that W has the K. These chances are exactly equal, although he will make 10 tricks if the D play works but only 9 if the S play works. One final thought, though. Suppose H are 4-4. Not too likely, but quite possible. Now the D play will succeed but the S play won’t. So, lead a D at trick 4.

Hi David,

I’ve been following the Carlsen – Karjakin match on chessbomb recently which has computerised analysis. I still prefer bridge but also your analysis and style knock the silicon based approach into a cocked hat.

regards,

Iain

Hi Bobby,

Another point on BWTA is that if partner has only 4S, he/she won’t have 4H so that suit is potentially weak if you aim for NT.

regards,

Iain

Beautiful analysis, David. I would add that I would add that playing four rounds of clubs gives you some inferences on how the diamonds split. If west has 4 clubs, that would make it more likely that the principle of empty spaces makes it more likely that east has the third diamond; likewise, if east has 4 clubs, it makes it more likely that the third diamond is with east. In addition, some players will show a 1-suiter even over a strong NT with five hearts to the AQ and a guarded side king. So, if west has four clubs, I would lead a spade to the Ace and then a second spade towards the queen. This would give me the tiny but extra chance that west has the singleton King.

Bob

Hi David, Iain, & Bob,

With you three around, it makes my assumed task much easier and furthermore, at least as correct.

And to especially David, since proper analysis seems to be what you love and most admire, you should, if you have time, apply to BBO to, with other high class players, analyze and at least, their important annual events, Vanderbilt, Spingold, Reisinger (upcoming soon), Team Trials (including Open, Women’s & Senior), culminating with the World Championships held every year toward the last few months.

To do so requires giving up precious time as well as not be able to always choose exactly when, and to do so pro bono, but much satisfaction might be the reward as well as interaction with a covey of the world over, like keen bridge minds.

If necessary, I’ll certainly add my endorsement, but if their powers who be, turn to your analysis on the AOB bridge site, they will see for themselves. Also, since the pace does usually slow down when a difficult hand, possibly bidding, but likely play or defense appears, both predicting what should be done, and then reacting to what is done, sometimes provides much excitement and thus poignant discussion as each analyst might suggest what that player might have been thinking.

One word of caution is that a good sense of humor, especially not becoming too critical of mistakes, both tiny and immense, may be required, if only for humanity sake.

Hi Iain,

Your probing analysis of why opener should always raise a major suit response with three and a balanced hand, but not (4-3-3-3, any) has many advantages, and surprisingly ones which most of the world’s high-level bridge analyzers have failed to recognize (whether on purpose or not).

1. Every partnership who do so never have to play a 4-3 fit above the 2 level.

2. Makes if more difficult for their opponents to use length in their suit to know that partner will be short, enabling them to judge to balance more often.

3. Often makes the opening lead more difficult when major suit responses are raised with 3 or 4.

4. Less likely to tempt a fairly weak responder (fewer than 10 points, e.g s. Axxxx, h. Jxx, d. Kxx, c. xx to rebid when the opener rebids 1NT over the responder’s 1 spade response, especially when the opener has opened one diamond.

5. More enabling, in a competitive auction, particualrly at matchpoints when opponents balance over your 1NT contract to double them when holding AKxx in your major expecting partner to have only 2 in that suit.

6. Also the experience gleaned in playing 4-3 fits will be positive in realizing that more often than most think that combination produces an extra trick especially when the short trump hand can secure a ruff at sometime during the play.

7. Like the disadvantage of “support doubles” enabling good opponents to better judge their offensive capabilities when holding three of their opponents suit and having those opponents then shy away from playing that suit, the raising of partner’s major with either 3 or 4 basically willy-nilly is simply just more difficult to play against.

OK, I’ll stop now, but to deny the above is not to be practical in what is more important than realized by most, even very experienced players.

How about South try for some additional chances. After Heart Jack, then diamond to the Ace and then lead Spade queen. If east covers, take ace and resume diamond/club line. If West has king, return a heart will make even if East has 3 to queen in diamonds. Even on another lead, get chance to drop the Jack of Spades or Drop Queen of diamonds.
Only new losing line is West with 3 to queen of diamonds and can use spade to reach west hand. Even on this, if west has King of spades and does not return spades, then this line did not cost. Also, will have more information when have to make choice between drop or finesse depending on what is played and how well trust ops signaling.

Correction
Only new losing line is West with 3 to queen of diamonds and can use spade to reach west hand.
should have been
Only new losing line is West with 3 to queen of diamonds and can use spade to reach EAST hand.

Hi Bryan,

Briefly, you are full of ideas, all with good intentions, and sometimes, but not always, in a position to benefit from your creations.

The problem is twofold: 1. You may have to take unnecessary chances to win, while being more straightforward (the column’s suggestions) goes straight to the point. 2. Your experiences in higher-level bridge are considerably less than many who post on this site enabling them to basically know what to expect to happen (90+%) making the chance of often going down more tricks, or even perhaps running into unexpected developments not immediately considered.

You get an “A” for enterprise and adventure, but somewhat less for the danger which accompanies some of your suggestions.

However, overall I will give you a good grade for being innovative. If you never try something different you will never be sure of its dangers. And that is part of the process in eventually showing great improvement.