Contract Bridge

You can’t do well in bridge if you maintain a defeatist attitude. If you’re declarer, you must proceed on the basis that there is some way to make the contract, and if you’re a defender, that there is some way to defeat the contract.

Consider this deal where East missed his opportunity to defeat four hearts because he was not thinking correctly at the critical moment. West led a spade, and East had no trouble diagnosing the lead as a singleton. So he won with the ace and returned a spade, ruffed by West. West thereupon cashed the ace of diamonds -- he would have lost it if he hadn’t -- and South took the rest of the tricks to make his contract.

It’s easy to see that East could have stopped the contract by shifting to the queen of diamonds at trick two. Whether or not South covered, West would get his spade ruff, and the defense would collect the first four tricks.

The question is whether

East should have known to lead the queen of diamonds rather than give West a spade ruff at trick two. The answer is yes. East should proceed on the assumption that the contract can be defeated, and this presupposes that West has the ace of diamonds. If East is not prepared to make that assumption, he might just as well fold up his cards and concede the contract.

It is true that if South has the ace of diamonds, East might cost his side a trick by failing to return a spade. But this would simply be an overtrick, an inconsequential loss compared with what can be lost by allowing the opponents to make a vulnerable game that could have been defeated.

Tomorrow: What can defeat me?