THE BRIDGE TABLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20426, 30 November 1929, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE BRIDGE TABLE.

"THERE'S MANY A SLIP—"

BT MAJOR TENACE,

How difficult is the task of the defenders at auction; how the best-laid schemes may go wrong; and, in doing &o, fail to win with the credit that is their due! I held A's cards in the deal given below, and my partner was one of Lhoso sound players, with whom it is always a pleasure to sit down. The score was love all in the second game, Y and Z having won the first. Z dealt the cards, thus;

Z secured tho contract with his initial bid of one no-trump, and I led the three of spades. ]\ly partner put up the queen, as in duty bound, and forced out Z's king. Z then led a diamond to establish his long suit. My partner put up the aco and returned the ten of spades, on which I dropped the two, followed by the eight of spades.

Lead Through Declarer.

We were in no danger of losing game, for I could count four tricks in spades and one in hearts, besides the diamond trick my partner had just won; but, as we had lost the first game, I was on the lookout for penalties as insurance against the eventual loss of rubber, and when iny partner led the eight of spades on the third round of the suit, I 'saw a way of defeating the contract. .The conventional play for me, of course, was to overtake the eight of spades, and run off the remainder of the suit; but I argued that if I did not overtake the eight of -spades inv partner, now void of spades, but still with the lead, would be bound to switch to hearts up to dummy's weakness, and a heart lead would enable me to make the queen as well as the ace. I therefore dropped my seven of spades under my partner's eight, and my partner did exactly what I expected. The result \vas that we won four tricks in spades, two in hearts, and one in diamonds, and put 50 to our credit above the line, in addition to 30 aces.

I do not claim any particular credit for this little ruse. Every keen auction player is on the look-out for just such opportunities as this, and I dare say they would all have seen it, and taken it, had they been sure of their partner, as I was. 13, however, was very much struck bij it—he confessed that he thought I had inadvertently played the wrong card—and he took a note of the play for future reference and use. He left the country shortly afterwards, but a letter from him a week or so ago provides an amusing sequel. Applying the Lesson. He tells me that, playing in good company, he picked up A's cards in t.he following deal:

At score love all, Z dealt and secured the contract at one no-trump, and A led the six of spades. Dummy played low, B put up the ten, and Z won with the king. Z then led the nine of spades. " The normal play for me," writes my friend, who held A's cards, " was to duck the second spade lead, so that if my partner held three spades and could get in with either a club or a diamond, he would have a spade to return to me to run the suit. But I had a certain card of entry in the ace of hearts, and what I wanted from my partner after the spades were established was not a spade lead, but a heart. I would then be able to mak<) the queen of hearts, as well as the ace. With your example in mind, therefore, I deliberately exhausted my partner of spades by winning the second round with the ace, and leading a third round to draw dummy's queen. " Now, if my partner had been able to get in with a club or a diamond," my friend proceeds, "my little ruse would have worked, even as yours did, and I would have been hailed as the hero of the evening. But my partner could not get in. What happened was that Z threw his two of hearts on dummy's queen of spades, got rid of the king of hearts on dummy's fourth diamond, and won a small slam. I did not get a single word of commendation for my cleverness. All I got was somo spurious sympathy for taking the ace of hearts, which would have saved the slam had I played it out early, home to bed with me." Avoiding Hostile Suit.

It certainly was tough luck. My friend was right to assume that his partner was good for at least one trick, since it is very difficult to defeat a no-trumper single handed; and in the circumstances he was also right to play out the spades as he did. lie was defeated by Z's cleverness in leading the second round of spades to make good the queen before disclosing the full strength of his hand. Had Z cleared the diamonds and the clubs before touching the spades, A would have seen that it was impossible to save game and, to save slam, would have cashed in his two aces as soon as he got the chance.

My friend seems to suggest that it was his departure from the letter of strict orthodoxy which cost him the slam. But oven if he had ducked the second trick in spades, according to convention, the opponents would still have mado small slam, winning two tricks in spades, four in diamonds, and six in clubs. The only way in "which A could have saved the slam was to win with the second spade round with his ace, and lay down the ace of hearts at once. This is a booby play, and the deal affords an example of the way in which the booby can score over the expert. Unfortunately for the booby, however, such examples are of rare occurrence. ,