Never Over Til It's Over
Story by Jim (BBO: asop) At a recent Palm Springs Regional, now the 2nd most att...
A weekly barometer tournament at the world’s biggest bridge club St.Erik in Stockholm. People had come this Sunday afternoon to meet friends and to play bridge in a relaxed environment. On a board where I sat East the bidding went at lightning speed: 4 hearts - pass - 6 hearts pass - pass - pass. The lead from South came also lightning fast – the 6 of clubs.
I examined dummy. At first glance, everything seemed perfect. At a second glance – much worse. Sure enough, I had read in Terence Reese's book Reese on Play and in Hugh Kelsey's and Eddie Kantar's books that there were two types of hypotheses in bridge - the hypothesis of fear and the hypothesis of necessity. You place a vital card in a certain way which makes the contract go home and you play accordingly, or you choose the hypothesis of fear that leads to certain fiasco. So, what were my options in this case? The worst thing would be if the lead was from several small cards and North had Ace and Queen (or even the Jack) of clubs. The best would be if the opening hand had Jack or Queen fourth or fifth. If I played small from the table, North could think I had the Queen and take his Ace. Was there another alternative? I ignored other hypotheses and played low covered by the Queen and followed by a new club to South’s Ace! One off! No one had bid the slam but everyone had taken 12 tricks.
The whole deal:
A little later, when I had recovered from the shock, I asked my 94-year-old opponent how she had found the brilliant lead.
- I always play according to the rules and choose the fourth card from the top – she said. It's called the rule of eleven. It was by no means extraordinary.
📣 Share Your Best Bridge Memories 📣
Share your bridge stories here and we'll publish one every week in the Bridge Lovers Weekly News. If your story is selected to be published we'll give you BB$ as a token of our appreciation.
If the opening lead was fourth best from a suit headed by the jack, then 3rd seat would be holding the ace and queen over the king. That player would have nothing to guess. Only if the opening lead was from the queen would there be a chance using the authoresses reasoning.
Also (not mentioned), North should not have the singleton ace, because South would have to have led fifth best from QJ8762.
But who underleads an ace in a suit contract against a slam? It would have to be a beginner/novice or someone very low rated. If that was the opponent’s reputation, then that would be the best try. If the opponent was unlikely to do that, as in being an average bridge player, then Elena try was still best. Just that it was only half as good a try as she thought. Opening leader needed the queen, not queen or jack.
As for the bidding … no comment, lol.
I read the comments, thank you all. It is obvious that I should have played the King. The point of my article however was to highlight the fact that so many elderly people play bridge nowadays. My opponent was 94 years old; she was not thrilled that she had got a top, she was just happy because she had “kept to the rules”. My idea was to give tribute to the wisdom of our seniors and their love for the game.
6NT makes if played by West. What were they thinking!😂
Bad bid. 4h is not normal bid eith 3 kings and 11 points with 5 losers
6h is very hazardous bid
Agree
Brilliant
On a weak 4h opening(max)10pts partner has 15pts usually not enough for slam 25pts total but ibid 4nt response 5c then5hpartner might go to 6 with an abscense
In souths position I would have led the Ace because playing by the rules I was taught you must not lead away from the Ace in a trump contract.
Me too!
I definitely would have played the K as a gamble!
west should have bid 6 NT to protect his K of clubs
I just wonder how the west opened the bid with 4H?
East opened 4H.
West misbid. The correct call was 6Nt. Once, I held a hand similar to (but with no side winners, not as nice as) East’s with only seven hearts. After my 3Nt opening showing a solid seven-card suit, had six winners one of which was a guarded side suit king. He corrected to 6H. All other pairs made at most 5H after the player in my seat preempted in hearts. After the 3H and 4H openings from my seat, no other pairs tried notrump from the other side. A few tried 6H down one on a lead through the side king on the table.
Another basic rule is never underlead an ace in a slam suit contract. Defense was lucky, not skilled.
Either way it was a 50-50 chance with no evidence to make definite decision for the bidder
In a suit slam the chances are high for a singleton - best not underlead the Ace
While West possibly should have bid 6NT, the story here is about the play of the cards. As I see it if South had QJ they would lead Q. If North has AJ or AQ then you are down anyway, so you may as well play the K.
I know South shouldn't underlead the A, but here they cannot get 6H down unless partner has the K, so a low lead might work - just put North with Kx and East with Qxx, forexample. At Teams maybe worth a try?
Interesting ... yet ... 6NT by west is rock solid ...as it happens
Hello
The rule of eleven is applied when the contract is no trump.
For a contract of 6 h I would lead my ace of clubs.
Non destromio ma Dextermio per gli altri commenti
Avrei preso con il re era una sola la possibilità negativa bisognava solo sperare
I agree. If AC is North then nothing saves the contract. South clearly doesnt have QJ or they would have led the Queen.
Of course West should have chosen 6NT....there is no lead that can hurt him then!
Absolutely!
If I have Q and Kn and not the Ess I start with the Queen. So at least one of those should be on the third hand. You have nothing to Loose playoff the King I think
The rule of 11 is when you subtract the opening card number from 11 and the other 3 hands in this case have 5 cards higher than 6. Opener and dummy have 3 higher K, 10, 9 so N has 2 . Maybe one has to hope it is Q, 8 not A , 8.
Non ho capito