Jeff Lehman

Control Freak

Sometimes in bridge it is OK to become a control freak.  Points can be won and lost by controlling the defense.

A recent club duplicate presented two hands for taking control of the defense by limiting partner’s options and a third hand for not ceding control of a key suit to declarer.

We extracted the maximum from some overzealous opponents on this hand.

Dealer: N

Vul: N-S

North

KJ64

AK

A2

KQT43

East

9872

64

KQ76

A65

West North East South
1 (a) P 1
3 (b) 4 (c) 5 (d) P
P Dbl All pass

(a) I wanted to be able to show both my suits and so risked being passed in 1.  I had planned on making a game forcing jump shift rebid of 2 had partner responded 1of a red suit.

(b) weak jump overcall

(c) after hearing my partner’s 1response, I was concerned that my anticipated rebid of 4 would actually understate my values, but the overcall bought me another round by enabling me to cue bid.

(d) perhaps confusing “favorably not vulnerable” with “invulnerable”?

On lead against 5X, I cashed two high trumps and then switched to K.  The ace was won in dummy, partner and declarer following with the 7 and 8, respectively.  A small diamond was played to J of declarer and my A.  (Ducking one round might have been better defense.)  Wanting partner to win the next trick and return a club, I tried to control the defense by leading my ♠J.  Partner would probably have found the right defense anyway, but this play made it easier for him to win the A and return a club.  Two club tricks gave us six tricks overall for a four trick set and a top board of +800, beating spade games our direction.

The whole hand was:

Dealer: N

Vul: N-S

North

KJ64

AK

A2

KQT43

West

Q

QT98753

J5

J98

East

9872

64

KQ76

A65

South

AT53

J2

T9843

72

A similar situation arose on another board, but with a much less satisfying matchpoint result.

Dealer: S

Vul: Both

North

Q62

KQJ852

T74

K

West

KJT984

T

KQ953

T

East

3

76

AJ2

QJ97643

South

A75

A943

86

A852

West North East South
1NT (12-14)
2 (spades + minor) 4 P P
4 Dbl 4NT (tell me your minor) P
5 Dbl All pass

After the spirited auction I led the K, holding the lead.  Not being sure how many rounded cards declarer holds, I decided to pass the buck to partner by leading the J at Trick 2.  He would win the A, I thought, and might be in a better position to control the defense by deciding whether to force declarer or give me a club ruff.  Well, partner knew the rounded suit distribution exactly:  he had heard me show at least six hearts and so “knew” declarer had only the one heart just played.  And he had a view of all thirteen clubs.  Between that information and the auction, he could pretty well guess the total distribution.  Partner decided that our best chance was to negotiate a club ruff while he retained control of that suit with the ace.  Accordingly, he chose to lead back a small club.  Declarer considered this trick for several moments and then decided to ruff with the 9.  I overruffed for our third trick.  (That might be a mistake, since allowing declarer to “draw trumps ending in dummy”, when dummy has a good suit, is not often a good strategy for defense.)  With trumps now splitting 2-2, declarer could draw trumps, set up dummy’s clubs, lose a spade and then reach dummy with a spade ruff to run the club suit.  A two trick set for +500 result (perhaps other defenses would lead to the same result) was a poor matchpoint result when compared to pairs going +620 with our hand.

The third hand, companion board to the one above, represented a different form of defensive control, the failing to relinquish control of declarer’s long side suit.

Dealer: W

Vul: None

North

A8752

K94

KJ52

J

West

KQJT6

AQT83

Q

K7

East

9

76

AT973

A8654

South

43

J52

864

QT932

West North East South
1 P 1NT P
3 P 3NT P
4 All pass

I tried a forcing defense – too many diamond ruffs in declarer’s hand might cause her to lose control of trumps, I had hoped – by leading a small diamond.  Fortunately for my partnership, declarer decided to win the lead in dummy rather than let the lead run around to her stiff Q.  She next led the 9 from dummy, overtaking with a higher honor in hand.  With declarer marked with at least five spades on the auction, I knew the A was going to win a trick eventually.  Thinking that retaining control of the side suit would complicate play for declarer, I ducked.  The duck must have been smooth because declarer played as if she were trying to ruff out partner’s A.  Declarer next led 6 from hand.  I covered with the ♠7, allowing her to ruff in dummy as partner followed with his last spade.  Now declarer ruffed a diamond to hand.  She played a spade and I ducked again.  Declarer ruffed in dummy with dummy’s last trump but partner overruffed with the J.  Partner might have continued the force with a diamond here but he chose to return a club which declarer won in hand.  Declarer now led the Q from hand and I won the K (our second trick).  I continued the force with the K, ruffed by declarer in hand, reaching this position:

Dealer: W

Vul: None

North

A8

94

J

West

QJ

AT

7

East

♠ —

♥ —

T9

A86

South

5

QT93

Declarer forced out my A for our third trick and I returned J which declarer ruffed with the T.  Declarer could cash the other high spade, but my long heart was going to take one of the last two tricks for a one-trick set.  The analysis is pretty complex (at least too complex for me!) but I think that declarer’s success revolves not around the spade suit — the defense has an answer to her spade plays — but around the diamond suit.  If declarer can avoid being tapped twice in diamonds, she can, I think, make her contract.  Basically, that would require declarer to have bravely/dangerously ducked the diamond opening lead to her stiff Q; even if I had led the K to pin the Q, we could only tap her once because the T in dummy would be master of the third round of the suit.  At any rate, keeping control of the spade suit by not playing the A prematurely made declarer’s play difficult.  Pleasantly, the one trick set was also a top board for my partnership.

So … being a control freak in bridge can pay off!


1 Comment

Dave memphis mojo SmithApril 6th, 2011 at 2:52 pm

Nice post.

“being a control freak in bridge can pay off! ”

Defense is an intricate dance. Sometimes you should lead and sometimes you should follow and this can shift back and forth. This is what makes bridge such a beautiful game.

Leave a comment

Your comment