Contract Bridge

The line of defense adopted by the opponents sometimes provides declarer with the precise information he needs to land his contract. What the defenders do -- and just as importantly, what they don’t do -- is often highly significant.

Consider this case where South reached four hearts after East had bid diamonds twice. East won the diamond lead with the king and played the ace, West following with the deuce. East then cashed the ace of spades and, despite his partner’s discouraging four-spot, continued with a second spade, taken by South with the king.

A less-perceptive declarer might now have brought an unhappy conclusion to the proceedings -- at least from his viewpoint -- by attempting a heart finesse and losing to East’s king. But South had watched the play to the first four tricks very attentively, and drew the correct inference. So, at trick five, he led a heart to the ace and dropped East’s singleton king to bring in the contract.

The winning play in trumps

was predicated entirely on East’s defense. It was clear to everyone at the table that West had started with just two diamonds and was in an overruffing position.

When East played the ace

and another spade instead of playing a third diamond, there could be only one rational explanation. Obviously, East was afraid declarer would ruff the diamond with the jack, and West would be unable to overruff. This would reveal the location of the king, and South would therefore not attempt the finesse.

So declarer correctly interpreted the spade continuation at trick four as an attempt to lure him into taking the finesse in hearts. But if that was what East wanted, then it couldn’t be right for South to oblige him. He therefore declined the offer and was amply rewarded when the unguarded sovereign fell.

Tomorrow: Solution to a quandary.