Contract Bridge

Ace of diamonds

There are times when the winning play runs so contrary to normal practice that very few declarers would even think of it, much less make the play. Yet when the play is subsequently examined in the cold light of day, its validity cannot be denied. Consider this deal where West led the ace of diamonds against four spades. South ruffed, played the A-K of trumps, then led a club to the jack, losing to the queen. Back came the queen of hearts, whereupon the defenders collected three heart tricks for down one. It’s not easy to see what declarer could have done to prevent this unlucky outcome, even if you look at all four hands. But the fact is that South could have guaranteed the contract at trick one. Instead of trumping West’s opening lead, he should have discarded a club on it! Let’s say West leads another diamond. South ruffs, cashes the A-K of trumps and plays the A-K-J of clubs. If East produces the queen, South ruffs, returns to dummy with a trump and discards a heart on the club ten to make the contract. If East does not produce the queen of clubs, South discards a heart and achieves the same result even if West has the queen. Either way, declarer can’t lose more than three tricks. There is no question that discarding a club at trick one is a play few declarers would think of. It simply runs too much against the grain. Nevertheless, there can be no denying that the club discard virtually assures a favorable outcome, while trumping the ace of diamonds clearly jeopardizes the contract. By discarding at trick one, South makes sure that East, the dangerous opponent, can never gain the lead for a potential killing heart shift. From that point on, all roads lead directly to Rome.