Contract Bridge

It is said that in the long

run, good bidding is more important than good card play. This is probably true enough, but even good contracts sometimes run into bad luck, and when the play is over, it might be wise to re-examine the bidding to see whether a still-better contract could have been reached.

Consider this deal from a team-of-four match. At the first table, the bidding went as shown, and West led a heart against six diamonds. East took the ace, and West later scored a trump trick, so the slam went down one.

This was an unfortunate outcome, since South would have made the slam without a heart lead, and even with it he was a favorite not to lose a trump trick. Oddly enough, the bidding went exactly the same way at the second table, except that over five hearts South bid six notrump instead of six diamonds.

South thought he could probably make either contract. But he also felt there were more hands where he could make six notrump and not six diamonds than there were where he could make six diamonds and not six notrump.

South’s reasoning was greatly influenced by East’s lead-directing double of five hearts. South expected to make 12 tricks in notrump with a heart lead, even if it turned out that he could not make six diamond tricks.

In this he was dead right. West led a heart, and South took five spades, one heart, two diamonds and four clubs for a total of 12 tricks and a score of 1,440 points.

Tomorrow: A slender reed to lean on.