Contract Bridge

Jack of clubs

There are hands where declarer might appear to be subjecting himself to an unnecessary risk during the play. Yet when these hands are later analyzed, it often can be demonstrated that the so-called risk was not really a risk at all, since it improved declarer’s chances without exposing him to any greater jeopardy than he already faced.

Consider this deal where South was in four spades and the defense started by taking the first three club tricks. East then shifted to the heart queen, taken by South with the ace. Declarer cashed the A-K of trumps and then abandoned further trump leads, leaving the jack outstanding.

Next he played the A-K of diamonds and a third diamond to the queen. After West discarded a heart, South led his last diamond, ruffed it with dummy’s last trump, ruffed a heart in his hand and scored the last two tricks with the Q-6 of spades.

It might seem that declarer was living dangerously when he began playing diamonds while a trump was still out, since one of the diamonds might have been ruffed. Nevertheless, South’s line of play was absolutely correct. If declarer had drawn a third round of trumps, he would have made the contract only if the opposing diamonds were divided 3-3, and he would have failed against the actual distribution.

By playing as he did, though, declarer would not only make the contract if the diamonds were 3-3 — in which case he would have drawn the last trump before cashing his fourth diamond — but also if the player with the greater diamond length held the missing jack of trumps, as in the actual case.

Of course, if the diamonds were divided unevenly and the player with the diamond shortness held the jack of trumps, South would have gone down one. But in that case, the contract could not be made regardless of what he did.