Thoughtful Defence Pays

I wonder how many readers are aware of the fact that you need to defend quite differently against 1NT than against 3NT. Or a part score in a suit, as against game. This very simple illustration from a recent match point session will, I hope, help the reader understand that there are thirteen tricks in every deal, and that in all circumstances there are lots of options to take as many of these as required, or possible.

Board 2 Dealer E NS Vul

AK8
K7
T63
A9852
T765
QJ82
J7
643
93
AT63
KQ54
QJ7
QJ42
952
A982
KT

At nearly all tables, East opened a weak 1NT and that was passed out. Two Norths were able to bid a natural 2C, but most Easts did play in 1NT. The results varied significantly: one East was down FOUR, one down three, three were down two, three were down one, and three actually made 1NT. Can you see where, and how, all that might have happened?

Let me tell you how and why.

Nearly all Souths started with a low spade lead. In the cases of 'down one' the Norths followed the simple teaching of playing as high as necessary on partner's lead and then returning partner's suit, so the Norths won the king then the ace, and dutifully returned the third spade for South to take the jack and queen. On the queen of spades, North signalled for a club and NS then took two clubs and cleared the clubs, winning the diamond ace later.

What had happened?

North had not only thrown away a potential club trick with the signal, but despite having set up a club trick, North had no entry to be able to take it.

What about the down three and four? Those defenders clearly appreciated the fundamentals of defending: North won the first trick with the KING of spades. Not the ace. Always play your LOWER of touching honours so that partner knows you MIGHT have the higher one as well. The ace would have denied the king.

Next, the Norths realised two things: there was NO hurry to cash up tricks, and also that there were bigger potential fish to fry. Those Norths immediately switched to a low club. There was no certainty that the clubs could be established, but what could it cost to try? After West's pass and paltry dummy, South was marked with at least nine points and almost certainly had to have something in clubs. What happened as a result was that declarer put in the jack and South won the king. South next followed with the ten of clubs and this was allowed to go to declarer, thus setting up the rest of the club suit for North. When declarer tried a subtle low diamond towards the jack, South was up to it and rose with the ace. Then South led to North's ace of spades and North was able to take three club tricks and only then returned the third spade to South. You see, instead of wasting the ENTRY in spades by cashing it up at trick two, those Norths had preserved the entry for a better purpose, and that was for the club suit.

Against a 3NT contract, that might have been a risky play and circumstances might have been different. As it was, sensible defence yielded NS a total of nine tricks for down three but I can understand that after that shock to declarer, another trick might have been lost in the wash, so the down four result was not surprising. As for when 1NT was made, that must have been really poor defence, I suspect that after South won the fourth spade trick, with no signals in use or a misread of signals, South was reluctant to lead away from the king of clubs and switched to ace and another diamond, allowing dummy the entry with the jack of diamonds, and then allowing declarer to pick up four heart tricks via the finesse against the king.

Amazing the difference that VERY GOOD, GOOD, INDIFFERENT, and POOR defence can make. Those readers who went wrong, or would have gone wrong on this deal should read a bit more and brush up on their defence if they want to get the most out of their play, though at match points the 'average' defence might suffice but only very good defence will do when playing teams bridge.