Contract Bridge

“Dear Mr. Becker: This hand occurred in a rubber-bridge game. I held the East cards. My partner led a heart against three notrump, and I won with the ace. I returned the six, my original fourth-best heart, in accordance with standard practice.

“Declarer played the ten, and my partner took the jack. Partner then shifted to a spade, and South won the rest of the tricks, taking six clubs, two spades and three diamonds.

“Obviously, something went wrong with the defense, since we could have taken five heart tricks off the top. My partner contends his play of switching to a spade was proper because it was possible that declarer had started with the Q-10-7-5 of hearts, in which case cashing the king at trick three could prove fatal.

“I see no flaw in his argument because I would also have returned the six had I originally held A-6-2. Is there any way for West to have known to play the king of hearts? Very truly yours, W.H.M.”

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to go back to East’s play of the six at trick two. It is true that in returning the suit partner leads, it is customary to return the original fourth-best card from four or more cards, and the second-highest card from three. This usually enables the other defender to diagnose declarer’s length and strength in the suit.

But, as can be seen in the present case, the lead of the six does not clarify the true position for West, since East’s return may be based on either of two opposite holdings. West might have cashed the king of hearts and hoped for the best, but he could not be sure that play was right.

The answer to the problem

is that East should have returned the two of hearts rather than the six. This would cause West to believe that East held four hearts originally and South only three. West would then have been safe in cashing the king, and the actual situation would have been revealed.

Tomorrow: The world of the

card-pusher.