Holding up an Ace.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 257, 29 October 1931, Page 8

Holding up an Ace.

Auction Bridge

By A. E. Manning Foster. A HAND which is attributed to Mr E. V. Shepard has several points of interest. The cards were: S—J 9 3 ll—6 2 D—Q 10 7 C—K QlO 8 7 S—B 7 2 I y 1 S—4 H—A KQJ9 . H—lo 7 3 D—IC 9 6 A B 1 D—J 854 3 2 C—4 2 I Z | C—A 5 3 S—A K Q 10 6 5 H—B 5 4 D—A C—J 9 6 The bidding went: Z, “Two Spades”; A, “ Three Hearts ” ; “ Y, “ Three Spades ” ; B, “Four Hearts”; Z, “Four Spades”; A, “ Double.” All pass. Mr Shepard was, on this occasion, A, and, with all due respect to him, I cannot regard his double as good. However, it is stated that he made the double, knowing that B would not let it stand unless he had one of the minor suit aces. The bidding is not, however, in question. The actual fact was that Z was defeated, losing his contract by one trick, although apparently he must make four Spades. This was how the play went: A opened with the King of Hearts, and, finding only two in Dummy, did not continue the suit. If A had led a second Heart nothing could have prevented Z from making game. The puzzle was A’s lead at trick two. B might have the Ace of Diamonds, but if Z held the Ace of Diamonds the lead of a Diamond would be bad. The numerous possibilities defied accurate analysis. A had to rely upon his ability to pick blindly the best minor suit to open. He chose to lead his 4 of Clubs, trusting B to realise he was leading from a doubleton because he refused to lead first two rounds of Hearts.

B read the holding correctly. He did not put up his Ace, but played his 5, and Z won the trick with his 9. Z was now in a fix. If he tried three rounds of trumps he could not ruff off his third Heart, and B would hold up the Ace of Clubs until the third round of Clubs, and A B would then make three tricks in Hearts and one in Clubs. Alternatively, if he led Clubs before drawing trumps, A would get a ruff, as B - would win with the Ace and then return a Club. Z decided to try for the drop of the trumps, hoping to find them divided two and two. This failing, he led a Heart. A won and led his remaining Club. B won with the Ace and returned a Club, and A got his ruff, thereby defeating the contract. This undoubtedly was pretty play on the part of A and B, although truly it must be admitted that it was more or less guesswork. First of all, A could not know for certain that B held the Ace of Clubs when on the first round of the suit he • played the 5 Secondly, B could not be sure that A’s lead of the 4 of Clubs was a doubleton. It might be a singleton, in which case B’s hold-up of the Ace would have been fatal. But the point is that A and B took the chance —a remote one—of defeating the contract, and, as the cards lay, only this line of play W'Ould have been successful.

If A, at trick two, had led a second Heart, it was all over. Secondly, if A, at trick two, had led a Diamond, Z must win. Thirdly, if, on the lead of the 4 of Clubs at trick two, B had put up his Ace of Clubs, the game was gone. A second Heart trick could have been made if B returned the suit at once. But if he returned a Club on the supposition that A’s 4 of Clubs was a singleton, Z would have made actually five by cards, as he would, after drawing trumps, have discarded his two losing Hearts on Dummy’s Clubs. The subtlety of the defence needs study. A could only make a guess at what his partner held, and B had the more difficult task of correctly reading A’s holdings. A point to realise is that if in the actual play of the hand Z had taken three rounds of trumps, B could effectively kill Y’s long Clubs by holding up the Ace until the third round and so prevent discards by Z. The example is interesting as showing what can be done under apparently hopeless conditions.