xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> Mountnessing Bridge Club Featured Hand

Mountnessing Bridge Club

 

Lazy play # 1

 

 

Hand played on 

September 3rd 2009 

Board number

Not recorded

Dealer

South

Vulnerability

Game All

Submitted by

Ian Moss

 

 

North

♠ Qx

♥ AKxx

♦ Jxx

♣ QTxx

 

 

 

West

♠ JTxx

♥ xxx

♦ Qxx

♣ AJx

 

East

♠ Axxxx

♥ Txx

♦ xxxx

♣ x

 

 

 

 

 

North

 

 

Bidding: 

 

East

 

 

 

 

South

 

 

 

 

West

 

South

♠ Kx

♥ QJx

♦ AKT

♣ K9xxx

 

 

 

2♣

3NT

 

 

 

 

No

End

1NT

2♦

No

No

 

 

 

At one table South opened a 15-17 NT and 3NT was reached after a Stayman enquiry from N.  West, on lead, asked if the Stayman bid was “promissory” i.e. did it guarantee a Major suit. South explained that initially it was “non-promissory” but in this particular sequence N would have one or both majors.  

 

On the face of it this is a routine 3NT which will (well…should) be defeated on a Spade lead. If the defence leads a different suit - probably Hearts - the contract hinges on the play of the Club suit.

 

West led a low Heart.  In isolation the best chance of one loser in Clubs is to first lead towards either honour catering for singleton Ace or Jack.  Winning the first trick in hand South led a low Club to the Q and subsequently was defeated when West switched to Spades after winning the J of Clubs.

 

This was poor play by South.  Some simple counting should see him home.  The lead is from a weak suit and all South has to do is determine the length of the suit.  If South cashes three round of Hearts both defenders follow and South should consider why West has led from a short suit and not a long one.

 

The obvious reason is that he is balanced and his other suit holdings are unattractive to lead from.  South should then lead a Club to the King (or lead the King from hand) and finesse the Ten when he regains the lead.