ACES ON BRIDGE
DEAR MR. WOLFF: What sort of holdings are good in a suit that partner has bid, and which are bad news? — Hand Evaluation, Portland, Ore.
DEAR READER: It depends on whether you have yet found a fit.
If so, shortness in partner’s other long suit lets you take ruffs and potentially establish that suit. Without a fit, shortness in partner’s suit is a bad sign. In general, fillers in partner’s long suits are worth their weight in gold. Conversely, three-small or four-small in his second suit might burden him with too many losers.
— Active or Passive,
Durango, Colo.
DEAR READER: When in doubt, with no five-carder, it pays to lead safely or from a sequence against notrump part-scores. With the strength evenly divided, the play is rarely a race. If you avoid giving away a trick on opening lead, you will remain in the game and likely be able to shift later, if necessary. As such, I would lead a spade, definitely the seven, the card that partner is most likely to read. NOT the six, please.
DEAR MR. WOLFF: I have seen a lot of sponsored teams playing in the top online events. Do you think sponsors should be allowed to play, despite being weaker than the rest of the field? — Big Money,
Muncie, Ind.
DEAR READER: All events except invitationals are open, so anyone can play. In either case, the top players might not enter unless being paid. The presence of sponsors supports bridge professionals but also brings those players into the public eye so people can watch and learn from them. The skills of the average sponsor may not compare to those of the experts, but the same could be said for most of us.
— Shot in the Dark,
Bay City, Mich.
DEAR READER: As a general rule, overbid on partscore vs. game decisions if you can show your hand precisely. Meanwhile, go low on game vs. slam decisions. Here, transfer to diamonds and show a singleton spade if your methods permit. That way, you may reach a good red-suit game, while who is to say three no-trump will go down if partner has a suitable diamond holding?
DEAR MR. WOLFF: I have seen the term Morton’s Fork mentioned a lot in bridge literature, referring to when declarer leads through a defender’s high card so that he can either play it on air and lose a trick or play low and never score his honor. Why is it called that?
— Tax Collector, Wichita Falls, Texas
DEAR READER: During Henry VII’s reign, Cardinal John Morton reasoned that anyone who lived in luxury had to be able to afford to pay taxes. Meanwhile, a person who lived thriftily had to have hoarded enough money to fund the exchequer — a no-win for the taxpayer. In bridge, a defender also has no way to win when impaled on a Morton’s Fork.