The 3NT bid was very well judged.

However, playing on diamonds at trick 2 is never right. If diamonds are worth 3 or 4 tricks now, they will be worth 3 or 4 tricks later. Playing diamonds gains nothing if you are right (you always had 4 tricks in the suit) but blows a trick if you are wrong. Meanwhile the opponents are fairly likely to just continue hearts when you play clubs, which will give you a lock.

I’d have played a club to the king at trick 2. North may win and return partner’s suit, and then I have a claim. If North finds the club return, I would win and run off 5 spade tricks and hope to read the end position.

If the club to the king wins, then I can just knock out the heart ace.

Interesting thought, Jim.

Help me out with the end position when the CK loses to North’s ace and if a club is then returned. My first construction brought a five card end position (after 4 spades, 1 heart, DK, and two clubs) (rotated so that dummy West is shown in North position):

…………..(T)
…………..T
…………..9
…………..xx

–…………………–
Ax……………….x
?x………………..?xx
J………………….T

………….—
………….KJ
………….AQT
………….—

Dummy West leads the ST and North follows with a non-diamond. In the shown position, declarer East has to discard from a red suit and South can discard from that same red suit.

Needless to say, the opponents (even GLM opponents) do not always do the right things such as returning a club when winning with the ace and keeping the cards I have shown in the end position, but is it possible that declarer, following the suggested line, could hold himself to ten tricks when eleven were there by more straightforward play?

I did say that I would hope to read the end position, so of course it is possible that declarer only makes 10 tricks when 11 are available. However, it is far from clear to me that 11 would be there on an obviously superior line. Which alternative lines were you considering?

This discussion is purely academic IMO, as North is almost surely playing back a heart after winning the club ace. Being a grandmaster does not mean they can see all 4 hands. What would you estimate are the odds that after the club loses you get a club back?

If North has the CA and either North can see the CJT in the North hand or can “see” the CJT in South hand (as by South having ‘split’ an honor when declarer led a club toward dummy), the odds of a club return could be pretty fair. Here, with divided intermediate club honors, the chances of a club return have been reduced.

The attraction of a heart return? If South holds HAJ, declarer might have tried the HT at Trick 1. If South holds HAK, declarer might have played clubs toward the CQ rather than the CK.

I am not pretending to know the best line of play. Against poorer players, I definitely think your suggestion is best, and it might be here, too. I would, of course, hate to have telescoped four diamond tricks off the top into three … which is why I would challenge your certainty about playing diamonds right away being “never right” and “if the diamonds are worth … 4 tricks now they will be worth … 4 tricks later” (the latter not being true if you discard one on a spade … and the discard difficulties are easy to foresee).

Thanks for presenting an interesting play option. By the way, the one player with whom I spoke about the hand after the game — a very fine player (interestingly, his name is Jim) — did, in fact, play 3NT, receive a heart lead, and play a club at Trick 2, and received a heart return allowing for a quick claim of eleven tricks. He was not playing against a top pair, and, when we discussed the hand, my sense was that he had not considered the impact of a club return when/if North were to win the CA. Perhaps he would have led a club even if he had considered a club return, because of the opponents’ skill level … and, maybe, I should have done so even against tougher competition. I just don’t find one line of play vastly superior to another, but I do find the hand quite interesting.

I think you may be giving the opponents credit for seeing all 4 hands when they can only see 2. You “might” have gone up heart 10 if South has AJxx. Or maybe you have KQ8 and misguessed at trick 1. Or maybe declarer is making a mistake. Remember, South led the 2 of hearts (attitude) at trick one. I am not an expert, but I would submit that failing to return a heart is actually bad defense that happens to do some good on this particular layout.

Why do you challenge that playing diamonds is never right? I would offer the counter-challenge to present a deal when playing diamonds first earns you more tricks than playing a club early.

The alternative line of “club to the king, win the club return, run winners then cash diamonds from the top” wins literally every time diamonds first does, plus the additional chances of South having the club ace and the chance that North returns a heart. It’s true that in the end position you have other options and might go wrong, but that is not an argument against this line. Flexibility is good.

I am also not claiming to know the best line of play. But I do claim to know that you should not touch diamonds early.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for presenting this type of bridge problem, a frequent occurrence worth analyzing.

Please accept Jim’s explanation, which was, at least IMO, right on point. Bridge reasoning usually includes much psychology, yours possibly expecting too much from mere mortal bridge players, however sharp they may be.

How is North to figure out that a club return will be more productive than a heart when you may well have AQJ rather than KQJ? Will you be so unlucky to have North hold exactly AJ10 of clubs and in addition guess that you have exactly KQJ of hearts?

After all, bridge, especially matchpoints with its frequency of gain principle rather than amount is all tied up with tremendous amounts of luck regarding overtricks which seem to be present in a large percentage, perhaps 75%+, of all hands. From my perspective, any session where the North hand is able to win the club and return one (to his advantage) is already looking that it is not your day. And to not take that chance, make only 10 tricks (particularly with the spade fit) just does not feel nor even begin to pass the litmus test.

None of the above is given as criticism, only a discussion, and should not detract in any way of your immense value to bridge education which is always so well intended, not to mention clean and upright and with the best interests of all who are involved.

I think there might be two other issues (related to one another) that are underrepresented in this discussion.

One issue is, with which of my three heart honors should I have won the first heart trick?

The other issue is, how likely is a club return should a club be led toward dummy and the CA top dummy’s honor?

Issue #1: which heart should I play from my hand at Trick 1? Winning the first heart trick with the queen (and not having played the HT from dummy) is consistent with my holding KQJ (South holding the ace) or AQJ (South holding the king). Possibly also with KQ8, but that is pretty specific, and with KQ non-eight (South holding the A or AJ) or AQx (South holding K or KJ) or AKx (South holding the Q or QJ), I would likely have played the T from dummy. Dismissing the KQ8 option, North, if on lead with CA, would develop a non-top trick from returning a heart only from one of those two most likely holdings, the AQJ.

Winning the first heart trick with the jack is consistent with my holding KQJ (South holding the ace) or AQJ (South holding the king) or KJx (South holding the AQ). It might also be consistent with holding AJx although, on this auction, South might well have led the HK from a holding headed by KQ. North, if on lead with the CA, would develop a non-top trick from returning a heart from two of my most likely holdings.

Conclusion: my leading a club toward the high honor in dummy, risking losing such honor to North’s CA, seems to make a heart return more likely if I had won the first trick with the HJ and not the HQ. Winning with the HQ seems like a blunder. (Kit Woolsey identified the benefit of winning with the HJ and not the HQ.)

Issue #2: should dummy’s honor be topped by North’s CA, what are the chances that a club, rather than a heart, will be returned by North?

North might foresee the benefit of leading back a club when North holds not only the CA but also the CJT; North might also foresee the benefit of leading back a club from a holding such as AJx or Axx if South splits from CT9 or CJT, respectively. In short, I think that North’s leading back a club is more likely than has been represented by the comments.

Overall, I now agree that leading a club toward dummy’s king at Trick 2 is the best play. If the CK wins, I have eleven easy tricks. And if the CK loses to the CA, perhaps North will be unable to discern that defenders hold the CJT also and will return a heart to my benefit. North could, however, had been even more likely to have returned a heart had I won the first heart with the HJ and not the HQ.

If the worst happens at Tricks 2 and 3 – I lose dummy’s club honor to North’s ace and North returns a club – , I still, of course, can make eleven tricks if I win four diamonds (5+1+4+1). I don’t think it is right to run the spade suit to do so, because I don’t want to find discards from my hand, particularly a diamond discard that might be my eleventh trick. I think I pretty much have to guess whether to play diamonds from the top or to take a first round finesse of dummy’s D9 or a second round finesse of my DT.

I appreciate receiving the comments on this blog. Yes, Jim, even from you. You have made some helpful comments not only on this blog entry but on others and are, I am sure, a fine player. (Should you choose, perhaps, to adopt a little less sure tone than that you present in writing, I think that would be a good thing, but tone does not alter the value of the technical considerations of your comments.) And, from Bobby Wolff, in what other recreational endeavor can one who is just “another better-than-most player” be favored to receive comments from a Hall of Famer?

Jeff: I’ll go you one better. Can you imagine playing with him twice a week? Great for the learning process .. but bad for the ego. You cannot fathom how much is out there that never has never occurred to the unguided player.

I must add something .. no soul in the entire world has given more of himself pro bono for over six decades than The Lone Wolff.

Cheers,

Judy