X-Clubs Play_02
Let’s take another look at our problem from earlier.
You are declarer as WEST in a matchpoints session
Dealer E EW Vul
|
|
JT9
KJ65| South | West | North | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | 1 |
| Pass | 1 | Pass | 2 |
| Pass | 3NT | Pass | Pass |
| Pass |
Fairly normal, if very basic, Acol bidding.
I asked a number of open grade players how they would play the hand when North leads the diamond three, ‘fourth highest’ according to the NS ‘leading methods’, and every one would have started on the club suit, believing that the lead of the diamond three was, indeed, fourth highest. But let me show you the full deal as it was at the time, and how West played it and how it was defended, and the rationale behind the declarer play and the defence.
Dealer E EW Vul
| ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
North led the THREE of diamonds against West’s 3NT. Declarer played low from dummy and South produced the eight. Declarer won the nine and played on the suit that could produce most tricks. King of hearts, then the six to the jack, which held. South followed with the TEN. Now declarer started thinking: Surely South had no more hearts and if dummy’s ace was taken, it would set up the queen for North, another trick for the defence, still down one even if declarer made four spade tricks. North had resisted an overcall of 2D so was possibly put off by East’s 1H opening bid, therefore four hearts with North was quite likely when South followed with the heart ten. It all made sense to this declarer. North would surely have overcalled with AKxxx of diamonds and two queens, so declarer was certain that South must have the spade queen. Confidently he laid down the nine of spades and ran it. North won the queen and cashed up four diamonds for down one, then switched to a club for down two.
What can we learn from all this?
From North: coming into the auction just for the sake of doing it is not always that productive. As for leading your lowest instead of, as per partnership agreement, fourth highest, how in this instance can it possibly mislead partner, as against misleading declarer?
From West: believe the play to the first trick but not to the extent that you don’t think further. West’s play on hearts (rightly or wrongly, you decide) immediately would have yielded five heart tricks, and not only that, would have put immense pressure on the defence in terms of discards, and may have given a clue as to how to play the spade suit. But simply believing that North’s lead is fourth highest would still yield only eight certain tricks anyway. Were undertricks of consideration in a match point game? Was the heart suit worth trying? You decide. Why did declarer not continue with the hearts?
From South we can learn another important lesson: We know the well known dictum “play the card you are known to hold”. This as a variation of that theme. South is known NOT to have the queen, so playing the ten could suggest that it is the only one left, and because North is known to have the queen, declarer might assume that North also has the nine. Had South followed with the nine, declarer would probably have guessed that South also had the ten.
There are always a number of considerations in any one deal. How would you have bid and played if you were West, North, or South? Only East could be blamed, along with the EW system. Why? Because, according to one panelist (who I disagree with), a 1NT opening with a balanced hand including a five card major is the way to go. East would open 1NT, West look for and find a heart suit and then raise to 3NT. Of course, the particular South who featured in this article, would unerringly have led the eight of diamonds and the play, and result, might or might not, still have been the same.
I am merely reporting what happened at the table, and not suggesting that it was right or wrong to play on clubs given the three of diamonds opening lead subsequent to the auction. I just hope it gives the reader some food for thought.
