ACES ON BRIDGE

Declarer makes use of a loser-on-loser play in today’s deal.

South’s excellent controls render him too strong for an immediate two-heart overcall. He therefore doubles first, then pulls North’s wide-ranging one-no-trump response to two hearts. East, who would have reopened with a double if South’s two-heart overcall had been passed to him, decides to go quietly here, knowing his left-hand opponent has a strong hand and the player to his right likely has spade length.

The contract is not dramatic, but even a part-score contract is worth making. The problem is to protect South’s trumps against the loss of two tricks.

The opening spade 10 is ducked. Then comes a spade to the jack, followed by the spade king. If South ruffs the king low, West will overruff. If South ruffs with a high trump, West will discard a loser and eventually score two trump tricks.

South avoids this fate by discarding a club, then a diamond on the fourth spade. These were going to be sure losers in any case. A fifth round of spades can then be ruffed in dummy, protecting South’s trump honors. West can get only one trump, and South makes his contract. This line would only fail if West started with the twice-guarded heart king along with a doubleton in a minor that he could pitch to receive a ruff. That is far from likely, given that East spurned the chance to introduce a five-card minor relatively cheaply over North’s one-no-trump response.

ANSWER: You have too much for a bid of three hearts, but you have too much for that. A takeout double is the traditional alternative in such situations, but that would commit you to bidding four hearts or three no-trump over three spades, either one of which is a guess. The practical call is a direct three no-trump, cutting out the middleman. If doubled, will you sit for it? I’m glad I don’t have to answer!

“Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity — I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity, which is only a euphemism for folly.”

— Plato