Disheartened defence

Today’s hand was found by Ken Smith, of Invercargill, in one of those uppercrust English lifestyle magazines. Apparently, it was dealt at a rubber bridge week held in a Tangier castle. During the breaks, the players were able to stroll through a sloping garden paradise filled with both arum and canna lilies, papyrus, bougainvillea, roses and wisteria. ‘‘A bit like Hamilton’’, says Ken.

For those readers not in the know, this wry observation alludes to the annual New Zealand bridge congress held in somewhat less than-castle like surroundings located a stone’s throw from the Te Rapa straight.

The bidding was not unreasonable. South’s hand is possibly too good for an initial preempt but he tried to make up for lost ground. Perhaps North didn’t think he had much defence to four hearts and he was right. If, say, South had led and then forced with clubs, East will easily make his game contract on a dummy reversal.

West started off with a trump against the final contract and East flamboyantly discarded the ace of hearts, either to help partner or express disapproval over the choice of lead. East should have been thankful partner didn’t lead the king of spades although, as it turned out, it wouldn’t have mattered even if he had.

Declarer could see the only hope of making his contract was to find West with either a singleton or doubleton king of spades. He won the opening lead in hand and cashed the ace of spades at trick two. He then played a club to West’s six and dummy’s eight and ruffed a small spade. Down came West’s king.

Now South drew the last trump with a club to the queen and discarded his losing heart on the top spade. Once the diamonds split three/three with the ace onside, South had his eleven tricks.

What does this hand tell us? Always lead partner’s suit (but which one)? Or is it that a good declarer will seize any chance to make a contract, no matter how unlikely it may seem.