Jeff Lehman

Look for the better move …

I understand that chess players have an expression, “when you see a good move, look for a better one”.

I would have been well-positioned to have followed that advice in declaring a heart game at today’s club IMP pairs game.

 

West
   97
   A9
   972
  JT9854
East
   AKQ5
   KQ872
   AK
  63

 

West North East South
P 2 P
2* 3 
4 All Pass     

West’s 2 call was artificial, showing “controls”; in this case, two kings or one ace.  I think with East’s hand a 2 call over a 2 response is fine, but that 2NT is a better choice over the actual 2 response.  Whatever, the play is what counts.

North led the A and continued with a club to South’s queen.  South continued with the K and North pitched a spade, allowing dummy to ruff small.

Declarer West has lost two tricks, has a losing spade to address and, if trumps are 4-2, a losing trump, too.  What can be done to eliminate one of these two losers?

Well, perhaps trumps are 3-3; then just drawing trumps will make contract.  That’s Plan 1.

However, normal odds favor trumps being 4-2 and spades no worse than 4-3.  And so you consider ruffing a small spade in hand:  you think of playing the A, then A, K, and then ruffing a third round of spades.  That’s Plan 2.

But what happens if the second round of spades is ruffed?  You recall that North discarded a spade on the third round of clubs.  Surely, looking at AKQx of spades in dummy, North would never discard a spade from a four card holding: North must have been dealt either five or more spades or three or fewer spades.  If North was dealt only two spades, then the K will be ruffed for your third lost trick and you still have a small spade to be dealt with.

You notice that you might be able to draw even four rounds of trumps, by using your good club suit as a surrogate for trumps.  You can play one high heart from dummy and then a heart to your ace.  Should South have been dealt Jx or Tx (or even JT), the second round of trumps will exhaust South of trumps.  Then you can play clubs through North until North decides to ruff in.  At that point you can overruff North ([a]with the 8 if North ruffs in small, or [b] with the Q if North ruffs in with the missing intermediate honor) and draw North’s two remaining trumps ([a] with the KQ if North ruffed in small, or [b] with the K8 if North ruffed in with an intermediate honor).  That’s Plan 3.

But what happens if trumps were 3-3 to begin with and spades were 2-5?  Then, if you adopt Plan 3, South will ruff the fourth round of clubs and North will ruff a spade return by South, each with their sole remaining trump.  Now you go down when Plan 1 would have succeeded.

Then you notice a way to improve on Plan 2.  You still plan to ruff a small spade in hand, but you invert the order of your second spade and first heart plays.  You play the A at Trick 4, to the A at Trick 5, and then lead a spade toward dummy at Trick 6.  If North ruffs in at Trick 6, North is “ruffing air” and you will play East’s losing small spade on this trick.  So, let’s assume that North pitches on Trick 6.  You win a high spade in dummy and play the small spade from dummy, ruffing with your 9.  North can overruff with her heart intermediate honor, but you will be able to draw trumps without risking any further club plays.  Ah, yes, Plan 4 is best.

 

Dealer: North, #13
Vul: Both 
North
   84
   T653
   QJ654
   A2
 
West
   97
   A9
   972
  JT9854
East
   AKQ5
   KQ872
   AK
  63
  South
   JT632
   J4
   T83
   KQ7
 

 

As the cards lie, either Plan 3 or 4 wins, but Plan 4 is superior, the “better move”, and was identified right away by Len Aberbach, my partner.

Alas, I was declarer and not Len.  I carelessly failed to follow the principle to lead toward high cards and undertook Plan 2.  Down 1, when I lost to North both a ruff of the second (high) round of spades and an overruff of the third (low) round of spades that I ruffed with the 9.

 

 


1 Comment

RobinMarch 13th, 2012 at 1:00 am

I empathize! Many’s the time that Len has (very nicely) explained how I could (should) have made a contract.

Leave a comment

Your comment