AUCTION BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 37, 13 February 1931, Page 61

AUCTION BRIDGE.

PRETTY PLAY. (By A. E. MANNING FOSTER.) I noticed a piece of pretty play recently which deserves recording becausc it involves a point which I think most players would miss at the card table. At score game all, Y-Z 10 in rubber game, A-B love, Z dealt and bid four Diamonds; A, double; all passed. •

As to the bidding, I consider Z's call sound at the score. With eight Diamonds a pre-emptive bid was warranted, and as he required four by cards for game and rubber, lie was right to go all out for it. A's double was risky, but, also considering the score, justifiable. He might hope reasonably to make four tricks in his own hand, either two Spades, one Diamond and one Club, or alternatively, one Spade, one Diamond and two Clubs, and his partner might well provide one trick. All the same, at love score I think A should) not have doubled, as, from the bidding, a freak distribution was evident. At first sight, viewing all four hands, you may jump to the conclusion that Z could not miss his contract. It is apparent he must lose two Spades and one Diamond, but nothing else. It looks on the surface cast-iron. But a little further examination will reveal the fact that it is not by any means cast-iron, and that Z may easily miss the contract. A's initial lead must be oviously either the King of Spades or his singleton Heart. From A's point of view the King of Spades looks the best lead as, even if the Ace is against him, it establishes possibly two winners in his hand. In actual play A led the King of Spades, 011 which Y played the 4, and B the 9, and Z the 3. The play of the 9 by B practically marked him with the Ace of Spades because, if Z had held it, 110 good purpose would have been achieved by not playing it. The 9 of Spades was, in fact, a signal card. A's second lead was his singleton Heart. This was well thought out. He argued that as his partner held the Ace of Spades this lead would tell him that his Heart was a singleton. When he got in, as lie must with the King of Diamonds, lie would therefore put B in with a Spade and rely upon him returning a Heart for a ruff. This would at once defeat the contract without allowing for, the Ace of Clubs which A expected to make as, of course, he did not know that Z was bare in the suit. But Z was an experienced practitioner and when at trick two A led the 7 of Hearts, he sat up and took notice. "Why," he thought, "has A led that card instead of going on with Spades?" A suspicious card that 7 of Hearts. Surely there could be one reason only for leading it, and the reason must be that it is a singleton. Z smelt danger. It was practically certain on the double that A held the King of Diamonds guarded, and if ho held three trumps he might get a ruff before Z could stop it. Was there any chance of preventing it? Then a brilliant idea came to Z. If he could only throw the lead back to A at once and get rid of a losing Spade, lie would render A helpless. There was one possibility, or rather probability! A, having doubled, most likely held the Ace of Clubs. If he did the thing could be done.

It is a sound principle at Bridge that when one distribution only will yield the desired result, play as if you could see that distribution. Z therefore took the Heart with dummy's Ace, and at trick three led dummy's King of Clubs and discarded on it the 7 of Spades. > Now it did not matter what A led. If he led a Spade Z trumped in and yielded one Diamond to A. Any other lead would give the same result. Z was absolutely safe for .'lis contract, and could only lose three tricks in all. You will observe that the King of Clubs was the critical lead. A smaller Club would not answer the purpose, as B might cover it, which would defeat Z's object. Even knowing all four hands and at double dummy I believe many players would miss this ingenious point of play. To work it out on the spur of the moment in a few seconds showed considerable skill on the part of Z.