Has partner lost it (again) ?

Your partner makes a slightly unusual opening lead.

What are your first thoughts:

1. Oh no! Not again!

2. Why can't my partner just play down the middle like a human being?

3. How long before I can get a drink?

4. What is partner trying to tell me?

Leading a card lower than the standard fourth best is a useful defensive device, not often discussed in the literature. In situations when you are known to have,  or partner can recognise, an original   holding of four higher cards, it can serve two purposes.

1. It can reveal extra length. A typical example is when you lead dummy's first bid suit. The lead of the deuce can be used to show four or six card length. Partner is more likely to be able to read this than declarer - in a way similar  to third & fifth leads.

2. It can act as a warning bell to partner that there is something unexpected about your hand.

3. It can draw attention to the lowest (remaining) suit.

Here was a nice example from the Wednesday duplicate (pairs scoring):

At favourable vulnerability, you hold as East: ♠75 ♥AJ5 ♦QJ52 ♣Q863 and the bidding proceeds

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	Pass	1♠
2♠(1)	Pass	2NT(2)	3♠
Pass	Pass	Pass (3)

 (1) Michael's cue-bid, showing hearts and a minor, usually 5-5 or better

 (2) Enquiring as to the minor. Maybe 3♥ would be a better choice....

 (3) ....allowing you now to bid 3NT, suggesting the option of competing in a minor suit

Against declarer's 3♠, partner leads the ♥2.  You can now see:

You know that partner would not lead low from a suit headed by the ten, so when the four is played from dummy you put in the knave, which holds the trick, declarer playing the three.

Partner has made a Michael's cuebid of 2♠ showing in principle 5 hearts and 5 cards in an unspecified minor, and so, looking at the dummy, you deduce that he holds diamonds as well as hearts. What do you lead at trick two?

Now what is going on here? Declarer must have six spades if not seven for his bid of 3♠, and one might reasonably assume that he has a singleton heart since partner's bidding invited you to bid 3♥ on a three card suit.  You could of course lead a spade, through declarer - but isn't that just doing his work for him? Perhaps a diamond to pin declarer's presumed king?

Wait - ask yourself again about that ♥2. Partner presumably holds ♥Q10962, so why did he not just lead the ♥10 or maybe ♥6?

Well, what if partner holds ♠Axx ♥Q10962 ♦K9xxx ♣void? You have one chance now to play a club and give partner his ruff, holding the contract to nine tricks.

And can a club possibly cost a trick on any reasonable layout consistent with the bidding?

However at the table, East led the ♦Q, declarer playing the ♦3 and West the ♦4. Again, it matters little what signalling method you are playing - attitude or count - partner has played his lowest diamond. Short of leaning across the table and pulling a card out of your hand, or kicking you under the table, there is little more that partner can do. For the sake of your partner's blood pressure, any lead now but a club is liable to require a subsequent call to the ambulance services.

The full layout:

A pair of imps

One of my favourite classic Japanese movies is called Rashomon , wherein a horrible story of cruelty is told through a plot device which involves various characters providing alternative versions of the same incident.

I was reminded of this while playing recently in the Cambs and Hunts County Teams final against the Jagger team.

First the story at my table, where we were sitting North-South.

I held: ♠KQx ♥Void ♦KJ10xx ♣AK10xx and heard my partner open two hearts, first in hand with neither side vulnerable. This was a weak two bid, showing 5-9 points and a six card suit.

While I was thinking what I could/should bid, Paul Barden, my left hand opponent, overcalled with 2♠, and it was my turn to bid.

Although I am fond of my own voice, even with bidding boxes, I thought that this overcall had relieved me of a tricky problem, and so I decided it best to await further developments and passed smoothly. Jon Cooke in the next seat, also passed (after some thought), so 2♠ became the final contract.

I led the CA, and Jon put down a rather threadbare ♠Jxxxx  ♥Kx ♦xxx ♣xxx - certainly full values for his slow pass.

I successfully cashed my two top clubs (declarer following with ♣QJ) and followed with the ♣10, declarer, somewhat to my surprise, discarding a diamond.

Can you see what is coming? Well, of course, declarer has all the remaining spades, so partner is void in that suit. and therefore declarer had a 5512 shape!

Although I came to my two spade tricks in the end, there was no way to defeat two spades, and we duly recorded -110.

In the other room, Catherine Jagger too opened 2♥ with the North hand, but this time there was no intervention from the opposition, and although 2♥ could have made Catherine played trumps once too often and drifted one off.

The Jagger team, thus duly gained two IMP's on the board.

Next hand.........

Wait a second.......I hear you cry.

Well, those of you paying attention, will have spotted that North-South could have made 7D on this deal. The full layout being:

	♠Void
	♥Q109xxx
	♦AQ8x
	♣9xx
♠Jxxxx		♠A10xxx
♥Kx		♥AJ8xx
♦xxx		♦9
♣xxx		♣QJ
	♠KQx
	♥Void
	♦KJ10xx
	♣AK10xx

 

I remember many years ago, kibitzing the late great John Collings (partnering Paul Hackett)  and seeing him being passed out in 1♣ with a grand slam available (also in diamonds, as I recall), never imagining that this might happen to me one day.

Although thirteen tricks are only available because of the fortunate layout if the club suit, it certainly would not be unreasonable to be in 6♦ on this hand, so who - if anyone is to blame?

Although I do feel myself to be something of a dinosaur (not only when my children point out this fact), the weak two bid seems to me to have undergone a metamorphosis in the twenty years that I was away from the bridge table between 1990-2010. And unlike many metamorphoses, this has not been one for the better: not only do many strong players in the country now consider a "good" five card suit quite sufficient for this bid at any vulnerability and any position, but there is really no holding them back even.when the hand is manifestly playable in at least one other suit, if not two.

I am a strong believer in mixing one's pre-empts, and "weak" openings in third and fourth position can, and should, be varied; however in first in second position, it really pays (in my view) to be more circumspect and disciplined. Voids are one warning sign whereas length in spades may be a powerful incentive for striking the first blow.

On the hand above, a pass by North would have certainly resulted in North-South reaching at least game level - or possibly taking a worthwhile penalty from a spade sacrifice. Once the bidding starts with a weak two, it is going to be an uphill task to challenge Bradley Wiggins!

.

Listen to Julian

“Maybe you should play on diamonds earlier?” said Julian, looking non-plussed as he wrote -50 in his score card.

“I think it works better if I just draw trumps” replied Victor, putting the cards, back into the board.

What would you have done?

South	West	North	East
Pass	1♣ (1)	1♦	1♠
Pass	2♠	Pass	4♠
Pass	Pass	Pass

 (1)    Playing a 15-17 opening 1NT

South led the ♦5, which went to the ♦Q and was won by declarer in hand with the ♦A. East continued with ♠K and ♠Q, revealing South to have started with four spades, and then crossed to table with a third spade, North shedding a heart and a diamond.  Next came a heart to the queen and ace. South now led a club - won on the table with ♣A.

Declarer now followed with the ♦10 and North (perhaps, not optimally) won with the ♦K.

This was now the position, the defence needing to take two more tricks to beat the contract.

                ♠None

                ♥98

                ♦96

    ♣KQ

♠None                     ♠J7

♥K7                        ♥10

♦None                     ♦J87

♣J752                      ♣None

                ♠10

                ♥J62

                ♦None

                ♣98

The winning defence is now to play another heart, but North didn’t foresee the possible ending and played a top club to force declarer. After ruffing, declarer drew the last trump, discarding a club from table, while North threw a heart.

At this point, the contract was still makeable via an endplay. North was known to hold two diamonds. If he also held two hearts, there was no hope, but if he had come down to one heart and a club honour (as indeed he had), declarer could extract the last heart by leading the ten of hearts to the ♥K and putting North on lead with a club to lead away from his ♦96 into the ♦J8 sitting over him.

At the table declarer was concerned at the risk of going two off by following this line, so cashed his ♦J prematurely, allowing North to escape the endplay. 

A sequence of errors by both North and East.

How should declarer have played the hand? 

On the opening lead declarer has five spades tricks, and one trick in each of the side suits. He can draw trumps and play on diamonds but, given the known bad diamond split, he is going to have to give up the lead twice in that suit and one further time in hearts. With the only guaranteed entries to his hand being in trumps, there is a real risk of communication difficulties – which could be fatal if the spades fail to split evenly. 

Since South is marked with the diamond shortage and therefore is likely to hold the spade length, declarer can give the defence an impossible choice by not touching trumps and simply returning a diamond at trick two.

Let us say that South discards a heart, if North now beats the ten with his king, he has no good return.  On a further diamond play, declarer can take the marked finesse and to prevent the ♦7 winning the trick, South has to ruff with one of his high spades and be over ruffed by the ♠A – declarer can then simply draw trumps, losing one further diamond and a heart. On any other return, declarer can again draw trumps upon regaining the lead in hearts or clubs, and then give up one more diamond trick.

Nor does it help North to duck the diamond ten. Declarer comes to hand with a trump and leads a third diamond, South having no option but to allow dummy to ruff small, or to shorten his trumps and be over-ruffed with the ♠A. Either way declarer has his ten tricks.

So let us assume that South ruffs the second round of diamonds, and then plays a spade. Declarer can win this in hand and play a third round of diamonds.  South has to ruff to stop dummy eloping with a low trump and is duly over ruffed with the ♠A. 

Declarer now gets back to hand by cashing the ♣A and ruffing a club, and again puts it to South with another diamond. South can ruff this trick, but the ♠6 remains on table to take care of declarer’s thirteenth diamond. 

As the cards lay, a round of trumps at trick two was not fatal, due to the club position giving endplay options. However if you replace one of South’s low clubs with the ♣Q, even one early round of trumps is enough to despatch the contract to the graveyard.

Curiously, on an opening trump lead, the contract is still makeable, but declarer should follow a completely different line. Now he must draw trumps immediately, which forces North to release three vital exit cards in hearts (best, since he cannot afford to let go any diamonds). The ♥10 from hand then catches South in a kind of Morton’s fork – going up with the ♥A gives declarer two tricks, but ducking removes North’s exit card in the suit, and South will never make his ♥A. By now ensuring that South remains off lead and switching attention to diamonds, declarer can always engineer a third trick in that suit for his tenth trick. On the actual lie of the cards, there are a number of other ways for declarer to get home too.

The full deal: