ACES ON BRIDGE
The fi rst blow is half the battle. — Oliver Goldsmith
Twenty years after losing the semifi - nals of the 1997 U. S. trials, some deals still haunt me. This is one of them, where in the last set of the semifi nals, one of the early boards saw my partner, Bob Hamman, having to fi gure out how to beat a slam on opening lead.
Normally, it is a good idea to preempt to the limit, but on this occasion that strategy did not pay dividends. In the other room, my teammate, as South, heard West jump to three hearts, over which North’s bid of four hearts was not an unequivocal slam try, but rather simply a suggestion of at least the values to expect to make four spades. South had some extras, but decided to settle for four spades. This did not seem like such a bad idea when the defense started with three rounds of clubs, holding declarer to 10 tricks.
However, at the table, where my partner was West, he logically enough imagined that declarer had hearts under control. He also expected dummy to produce a side source of tricks, which meant it might be critical to set up his own side’s source of tricks. Since I could have held a longer minor with a four- card major, Hamman chose to lead a diamond.
As you can see, that cleared up the guess declarer would otherwise have had on a major- suit lead as to how to play diamonds for his contract. This cost us 11 IMPs where we might have gained 11, and was the fi rst in a series of results that cost us the match.
ANSWER: In response to your partner’s game- forcing fourth- suit inquiry, you have no particularly accurate call, but rebidding a chunky five- carder is not too far off the mark. It is consistent with a six- carder, but does not guarantee it, and by virtue of being the most economical call, it leaves room for your partner to describe his hand accurately.