Source: Reading Eagle – Nov 23, 2004
In playing a hand, it is usually correct to use well established principles. Their efficacy has been confirmed and promulgated by the highest authorities, and they tend to be a good guide in most hands. But — and here’s the rub – most implies not always and the sound player must constantly watch for the exception that proves the rule.
Dealer South N/S Vul
|
 9 7 6 4 3
 J 8 2
 9 5 4
 6 5 |
|
| Q J 10 8
7 4 3
J 2
A Q 10 8 |
|
K 5 2
5
Q 10 8 6 3
9 7 3 2 |
|
A
A K Q 10 9 6
A K 7
K J 4 |
| West |
North |
East |
South |
|
|
|
2 |
| Pass |
2NT |
Pass |
3 |
| Pass |
4 |
End |
|
Consider this deal where South failed in a frequently-encountered situation.
Opening lead: Queen of spades
He won the spade lead with the ace, played a low trump to the eight and returned a club. When East followed low, South played the jack.
West took the queen and returned a trump. Declarer played dummy’s jack and led another club. The king lost to the ace and West returned a third trump. Eventually,South lost a diamond and another club to go down one.
In effect, South was led astray by his holding of the K-J x facing two small. Had he held the 4-3-2 of clubs, he surely would have made the contract. He would have led a club from his hand at trick two and later ruffed a club in dummy to nail down the contract.
It was the initial trump lead to dummy — to gain the advantage of leading towards the K-J x — that opened the door to defeat. It is true that in most hands, with such a combination, a declarer would not dream of playing the king, jack or four towards dummy’s 6-5.
But that is precisely what South should have done here. Granted that such a play seems sacrilegious — it grossly violates the rule of leading towards strength instead of from it — the fact remains that violating the rule insures the contract, while following it jeopardizes the contract.
