In your 3d paragraph you mention Brede hoping West would win the first heart trick and West ducking the heart lead. In both cases you meant to say “South” or “declarer”, instead of “West”.

Another point: West can win the first club lead and continue spades, but now South wins in dummy and, temprarily abandoning the 3d spade, leads a club to his king. West must duck, and now South leads a low diamond to the jack & East’s queen. East returns a diamond, but South wins and runs all the diamonds and the ace of hearts then leads his last club which West must win and give dummy the last trick in spades, making 3NT. In short, since West must duck one of the first 2 club tricks, South makes his contract in pretty much the same form whether West wins the first or second club.

Hi Mr. Wolff,

It strikes me tthat declarer missed a possible trick in the club suit. If he leads the CK it is harder for west with CAQx to hold off as declarer might have CKx. Yet imagine that west has CAxx.

He will hold off the CK but, on the lead of the Jack, may be tempted to take that playing declarer for CKQJ especially if East’s small card with the Queen looks like an echo. The intention would be to block the club suit, and nobody could say west wasn’t thinking, but east will be less than pleased. I suspect there are often chances missed for such plays in NT, relying on the defenders ducking an Ace on the first honour led.

Regards,

Iain

Starting the clubs by advancing the jack instead of the king seems to give up on the chance that the QC is singleton.

Hi David,

Yes, you are again correct in your finding careless sloth in our writing. That occurs too often even though three people (six eyes) write and proofread each hand before it goes to the publisher. I appreciate your reminding us of the necessity for improving our results.

Also, your analysis, as usual adds to the understanding of options in the play and defense, again a positive, especially to serious students of our wonderful game.

From a sense of humor standpoint, bridge bidding, bridge declaring and (even harder), partnership defense most times require even more perfection than does bridge writing. The result too often resembles the same type of errors you point out on our part and even sometimes, temprarily (see above in your comment) in even yours.

However, and most important in fairness, you do not get paid for yours.

Hi Iain,

You have a gifted penchant for “feeling” and then chronicling ways to influence the defense to help the declarer. As Terence Reese once wrote (I believe as the caption to one of his many superlative books): “There appears to be a demand nowadays to make wrong appear right” (or at least close to that).

While he may have found a way to prove his point in a non-suggested way, your examples are all legal, clever, and to be admired. Keep them coming, record them and after a few years you will have enough to dedicate a worthwhile book to only them.

However, my advice, in the meantime, is not to give up your day job.

Hi Jim2,

Ah, YES! Although bringing up the rear in order of comments, certainly worth its weight to consider.

Your advice often is similar to Jiminy Cricket’s role in Pinocchio while perched on his shoulder, often what I considered a perfect setting for a bridge mentor.

Thank you.