ACES ON BRIDGE/ OPINION

Australian Sartaj Hans produced a candidate for a best-play award here. After a Stayman sequence, West led the club jack, covered all around. Declarer ruffed a club, finessed the spade queen and then ruffed his last club. The heart king came next, which held. At the other table, declarer continued hearts at this point, West winning and forcing declarer in clubs to set the game.

Hans instead led a diamond to the 10 and king. West ruffed in, cashed the heart ace and then forced declarer with a club.

When declarer drew the final trump, pitching another spade from dummy, East came under the gun. If he reduced to two diamonds, declarer would establish his 10th trick there. But if he bared the spade king, South would cash the spade ace and run the diamond nine to endplay his right-hand opponent. This elegant ending has been termed an imaginary or immaterial squeeze.

Hans’ decision not to play a second trump after the heart king held was based on the fact that West had thought over the oneno-trump opener, which he would hardly have done without some shape, given that he had so few high cards.

East might have done better to play low on the first diamond, retaining the queenjack-10 to break up the endplay, but declarer might have finessed anyway.

However, as the play went, West could have set the contract by returning a spade, not a club, upon cashing the heart ace. This would knock out South’s spade control, so East could afford to pitch a diamond in the endgame.

ANSWER: You could bid two diamonds for the lead, but such a tactic is dangerous when it is likely to be the opponents’ hand. For all you know, East-West were about to play in four-of-a-major on a 4-1 break and might now either decide to play three no-trump instead, or perhaps pass out and penalize you. Also, you can tolerate most other leads (and surely either dummy or declarer is about to show heart length).

If you would like to contact Bobby Wolff, email him at bobbywolff@mindspring.com