ACES ON BRIDGE/ OPINION

A defender is usually interested in leading declarer astray, not partner. This deal showcases an oft-used third-hand play that is both technical and deceptive in its nature.

North bid Stayman and then continued with a game-forcing three clubs. If South had diamond weakness, he could have bid three hearts or three spades to denote a stopper there and doubt about no-trump. With his actual hand, South had no qualms about heading straight to no-trump.

West led the diamond jack. Rather than winning with the ace, East covered with the queen. Declarer won his king, unblocked in clubs and led a heart to the jack. East won, took the diamond ace and then led another diamond for West to cash out for down one.

Had East made the natural play of winning the diamond ace at trick one, declarer would have ducked the queen at trick two, thereby severing the defensive communications. Even as it went, declarer might have worked out to duck the diamond queen anyway, on the basis that East would not overtake from queen-third; but that was much harder. It was just about possible that East held something like queen-nine-low, where withholding the diamond king would see the defense cash four quick tricks in the suit, to go with the heart ace. In that case, however, the contract would be going down anyway on best defense.

East’s diamond-queen play was an unblocking maneuver, a deceptive play and an entry-creating gambit mixed into one. ANSWER: A takeout double is a slightly unsettling proposition here. Partner is unlikely to pass, and you are not overloaded with defense against diamonds. Still, that action must be worth the risk. The alternative of a four-diamond cue-bid to show both majors is unattractive, and passing is unpalatable with so much potential for game.

BOBBY WOLFF