Contract Bridge

In planning the play of a hand, it is usually wise to rely on well-established principles, which tend to be a good guide for most hands. But — and here’s the rub — “most” implies “not always,” and the conscientious player must constantly be on the lookout for an exception to the general rule.

Consider this deal where South failed in a relatively common situation. He took the spade lead with the ace, led a low trump to dummy’s eight and returned a club. After East followed low, South played the jack.

West took the queen and returned a trump. Declarer played dummy’s king and led another club to the king, losing to the ace, whereupon West returned a third trump.

Eventually, South lost a diamond and another club to go down one.

South failed because he allowed himself to be led astray by his holding of the K-J-x of clubs facing two small. In the great majority of deals, it would be normal to lead toward the K-J-x to try to develop a trick in the suit. But in this particular case, South did not need to score a trick with the king or jack of clubs. All he needed to do to assure the contract was to ruff a club in dummy.

To that end, South should have led a club — any club — from his hand at trick two, treating his K-J-x of clubs as if they were x-x-x. After that, he could not have been stopped from making 10 tricks.

It was declarer’s initial trump lead to dummy at trick two — in order to lead toward the K-J-x — that opened the door to defeat. South might have felt that leading low toward dummy’s 6-5 of clubs was sacrilegious, but the fact remains that countermanding standard procedure in this case ensures the contract, while following it jeopardizes the contract.