Short Suit Leads

I blame television for the current epidemic of lying and deceit that has swept through our bridge club like a run of the latest ‘flu. The bids and plays have largely become emotionally motivated and erratic rather than coolly reasoned and structured, as they should be. What can one expect when most seniors have spent decades in front of the screen exposed to ads that appeal to our baser instincts? TV has got to the stage where the importance of the manipulative ads far outweighs the importance of the events on display. Game conditions have become irrelevant – a World Series played in a blizzard, a Stanley Cup final played in sweltering heat? You know it’s more that just a possibility. Stadiums are named after companies, and in future we may hear home-team fans cry ‘let’s go Weyerhaeuser Paper Products!’, or even, ‘Come on China Ploughshares.’

The ACBL should get on board and name the Nationals after sponsors’ products. How about the Amazon Dot Com Series or the Wells Fargo Games? Furthermore, we have to emphasize the Battle of the Sexes angle and arrange to have teams with names like the Purina Sexy Chicks and the Gillette Big Boys face each other in the finals. No more of this Cayne versus Nickell stuff! Games would be pre-recorded and shortened for TV viewing without the boring pauses for thought. I suggest hiring Nora Ephron as a witty and lively commentator, and Gore Vidal as special guest star to recall at half time the foibles of the famous during the golden age of Eisenhower, an avid bridge player, praised by Nixon as being ‘far more complex and devious than most people realized.’ After each big play participants would be called aside to describe their emotions: ‘I just said a itty-bitty prayer that the jack was onside, and the good lord took a likin’ to me’ or some other rot equally appealing to the masses. Before long we might see a handsome, clean shaven Justin Lall demanding a fee of $5 million per appearance, and getting it.

A Ju-jitsu Move
Bridge is a game of uncertainty. Before the action begins we have expectations based on the probable distribution of the cards as dealt. As the action proceeds, we obtain information that reduces the uncertainty. The information transmitted by the choice of the opening lead is of primary importance as it will be used by declarer in his planning, so if the lead is in some way deceptive he may start off in the wrong direction. Ideally a deceptive opening lead should mislead declarer to a greater degree than partner, who is also forming a plan. We begin a case where a short suit lead didn’t have this quality.

The principle of ju-jitsu combat is that one attempts to turn an opponent’s force against him. Similarly, if one is playing against a partnership known for their dubious actions, one plays on the resulting uncertainty felt within the partnership. Here is the situation.

Bob	Jack	Bob	North	Jack	South
♠ KJ74	♠ 93	1NT*	Pass	2♣	Pass
♥  K76	♥ J942	2♦	Pass	2NT	Pass
♦ K32	♦QJ	Pass	Pass
♣ A94	♣ KQT87	* 15-17	HCP

As the reader may have noted, I ‘up-graded’ my 14 HCP to 15+ HCP. I am not a great believer in the 4-3-2-1 point count. The hand contains 5 control points, an equivalent far in excess of 15 ‘normal’ points. In fact, I was reluctant to pass the invitational 2NT, and when the dummy appeared with a 5-card minor, I feared we may have underbid this one.

On the bidding a major suit lead would be routine, but it was a surprising ♦T. A straightforward line was available: win the ♦J in dummy, play off the clubs and lead towards the spade tenace. This is flawed as one may end up in one’s hand eventually forced to break hearts, so the lead could prove a bit awkward. As the LHO had a history of making deceptive leads, an alternative plan came to mind: accept the inevitable and immediately lead a second diamond myself to see what happens. The ♦Q held!  Now I ran the clubs to apply the pressure and South discarded a diamond winner from an original holding of ♦98764. She had been taken in by her partner’s lead from ♦AT9. On a normal lead of a spade from ♠8652 I would have had to do some pretty good guessing to make 9 tricks. As it transpired the opponents had to do the guessing, and my +150 was worth 70%. This time deception for its own sake backfired. It works best when it is not merely habitual but has a plan behind it.

The Importance of Timing
In his article in February issue of the Bridge World, August Boehm, whom I greatly admire, advocated that a defender should adopt an attitude of ‘doing no harm’. Some interpret such advice as ‘do nothing’, which is wrong. Many sacrifice good timing in the name of safety. Boehm also notes, late in his essay, ‘to win tournaments one must take advantage of errors.’ I would carry this idea further and say that to win often a defender must create situations in which a declarer is most likely to make an error. Here is recent personal success story to illustrate the point.

 

Dealer: South Vul: None	North ♠   AJ98742 ♥   73 ♦   AQT2 ♣   —
West ♠   QT5 ♥   KJ854 ♦   K5 ♣   Q97		East ♠   8 ♥   6 ♦   J9643 ♣   AT8432
	South ♠   K3 ♥   AQT92 ♦   87 ♣   KJ65

Rob	North	Bob	South
Pass!	1♠	Pass	2♥
Pass	3♠	Pass	3NT
All Pass

The bidding was, shall we say ‘inelegant’, but it got the job done with South capable of taking 11 tricks in her optimum contract. The bidding forced Rob into choosing a short suit lead, the ♣7. I won the ♣A and switched to the ♦4 towards the double tenace in dummy in the hope of upsetting the timing. Rob put up the ♦K won by the ♦A in dummy. Perhaps thinking that 2 chances are better than 1, declarer played off the ♠K and ♠A, hoping for a 2-2 split. If the spades had split 2-2 she would have had 11 easy tricks, and maybe one more on a triple squeeze. Failing that intriguing possibility, she fell back on the tried and true method of finessing for tricks. The ♥T, lost to the ♥J. Rob returned the ♦5, declarer putting in the ♦T, losing to the ♦J. A club came back, the ♣J losing to the ♣Q. The ♠Q was cashed and a club returned to declarer’s ♣K. We still had a heart winner waiting in the wings, so in all we took 4 tricks more than our due: 2 clubs, 2 hearts, a spade, and a diamond for down 2. Declarer’s play was inelegant, but this was matchpoints where one error sometimes snowballs when declarer tries to recover from an early, costly misjudgement.

‘I decided to stay out of the auction this time,’ said Rob, normally an aggressive bidder.
‘Judging from the result,’ I replied, ‘you should try that more often.’

This amusing result shows that declarers do possess daemons and that it is our job as defenders to give those daemons full reign to create havoc. The potential of my diamond return was easy enough to recognize with the dummy in full view. It is more difficult to achieve when one is faced with making an opening lead, nonetheless, one may form a picture of the full deal based on the information provided by the bidding, and act accordingly, sometimes achieving a double dummy defence. This is rare. A more modest and realistic aim is simply to create a problem for declarer, as in the next example.

Creating a Problem
In a recent ACBL Bridge Bulletin Mike Lawrence was at pains to show that a lead from KJxx against a suit contract can be the logical choice. I agree with Lawrence: in the absence of a clear choice, one first chooses the suit, then chooses which card to lead.

Bob	Bob	North	East	South
♠ T86	—	—	—	1♠
♥  K73	Pass	1NT	Pass	2♦
♦ T542	Pass	3♠	Pass	4♠
♣ K86	All	Pass

 

 

 

The passive approach is to lead a trump and leave it up to declarer to make his way unaided by any impetuous action on our part. The diamonds will be held in check, and in the fullness of time one may hope to score the kings separately, the chance of being endplayed appearing remote. The alternative approach is to lead away from a king and hope for the best – just the sort of action that August Boehm has warned us against. First we count our points and calculate what can be expected from partner. He should have about 8 HCP, enough for an ace and some stuffing in a side suit. Inspired by Lawrence’s article I went even further. Deciding that hearts were most likely to be partner’s best suit, I chose the ♥7, not wanting to be too encouraging in that direction. Normally I would be leading through strength in the dummy. Here is the full deal.

 

Dealer: South Vul: None	North ♠   A95 ♥   AQT6 ♦   8 ♣   T5432
West ♠   T87 ♥   K73 ♦   T542 ♣   K86		East ♠   42 ♥   J942 ♦   A763 ♣   Q97
	South ♠   KQJ63 ♥   85 ♦   KQJ9 ♣   AJ

As far as the bidding goes, the situation was as expected: declarer had bid spades and diamonds and in those 2 suits sat the most of his points. Dummy held hearts in depth. I am not sure what declarer made of the heart lead; maybe he thought I was more likely to underlead a jack than a king as he played the ten losing to partner’s jack. A club came back and we were able to take 3 tricks on defence for a 75% score. One may say this was unduly lucky, but declarer was under pressure on the opening lead and got it wrong. If one doesn’t create a problem one is depending on declarer’s getting it wrong all by himself, but it is natural for him if left to his own devices to finesse with the ♥Q. One further note: with the ♥KJ7 to lead a heart under these circumstances would be ineffective as declarer could hardly go wrong and it is likely to cost a trick. Less can be more when partner is there to make up for a deficiency.

Solving a Problem
Given my penchant for short-suit leads, I was surprised at my irritation when my partner tried the same thing by leading the ♠J on the following deal, and failed.

Partner	Bob	Partner	North	Bob	South
♠ JT8	♠ Q92	—	—	—	1♣
♥  J9854	♥  32	Pass	1♥	Pass	1NT
♦ QT9	♦ A75	Pass	3NT	All	Pass
♣ J4	♣ AT853

Deep Finesse tells us no lead beats 3NT. This does not mean that the choice of lead is immaterial. Very often when the lead doesn’t matter in theory, it does in practice. I have never had any luck with speculative spade leads – the opponents might have explored more extensively with worries in that direction, and with 10 HCP or so partner made no move over 1♥ when he might have with a good spade suit. The ♠J lead gives up 3 tricks in spades on a routine holdup play (♠A743 opposite ♠K65) and, worse yet, gives declarer a tempo. When spades were continued futilely, declarer, who had started with just 6 tricks, had no problem in setting up 2 tricks in the minors and safely finessing in hearts. Giving up 9 tricks was worth a lowly 20% so some declarers didn’t have the contract handed them on a plate. I imagine they received a normal heart lead, and I see no reason for rejecting it.

On lead myself I wouldn’t expect to develop tricks in hearts, so with deception as my aim I would choose the ♥8 trying to look like someone trying not to give away a trick by leading through strength. (Dummy held ♥KQT6.) This may not fool declarer but is unlikely to give away something that declarer can’t get for himself. With partner holding some high cards declarer has work to do as my queens and jacks and tens are going to make it awkward enough for him.

In conclusion, we can agree with August Boehm while at the same time disagreeing. Be flexible, I say. When conditions call for it, go active. I have made many bad leads, but not every one of them has cost tricks, and many have gained in unexpected ways. The point is that we go with a plan based on the probable distribution of the cards as revealed by the bidding. Partner is aware of the implications of the bidding and should adjust his expectations accordingly. A lead that does not conform to those expectations must be given special attention. We try to please partner and create problems for declarer.