Contract Bridge

One principle that just about every player becomes aware of sooner or later is that while it is all right for a defender to lead away from an ace on opening lead against a notrump contract, it is bad policy to do so against a suit contract.

This knowledge can be just as useful to a declarer as it is to the defenders. Consider this case where West led a club and declarer, thinking that West might have the ace, played the king. East took the ace and returned a club to West’s ten. South later lost a spade and a diamond and so went down one.

on Declarer the very first lost play the contract when he should have played a low club from dummy rather than the king. It is true that West might have had the ace, since there is no law to prevent a player from underleading an ace when the mood so moves him, but the club should have been ducked for an entirely different reason.

By playing low from dummy,

South virtually assures the contract. After East wins the trick with the jack, what can he do next?

If he cashes the ace of clubs at trick two, he establishes dummy’s king. Declarer’s diamond loser can later be discarded on the king, and South loses only two clubs and a spade.

And if East instead shifts to a heart at trick two, South takes the ace, draws two rounds of trumps and cashes the K-Q of hearts, discarding dummy’s two remaining clubs.

He then loses a diamond finesse to East’s king, but it is only the second trick for the defense. West eventually scores a trump trick, and again the contract is made.

The important point of the deal is that South should plan the play of the hand as a whole from the very outset. He should not allow himself to be sidetracked at trick one by the question of who has the ace of clubs. Which opponent has the ace is a secondary consideration. Making the contract is the first consideration.

Tomorrow: What’s in a name?