Dubious Logic

The First Rule of Bridge

Years ago during my first stint as a teacher I used to say bridge had but two rules. This predated those come-latelies, 'rule of twenty', 'rule of fourteen' and the like – but not the rule of eleven, which is older than all of us. When recent students demanded a rules-based approach – and how simple life would be were that true – I channelled the legendary Leroy Jethro Gibbs of hit TV show NCIS, in formulating a seemingly arbitrary code. Rule one retained its pre-eminence but I was careful – it is potent.

Rule One: everyone has 13 cards.

The obvious nature accentuates the pain when we forget this evident truth. I held the West cards at the most recent county match, both vul.

South's opening was a weak two in hearts or spades or some strong hands West's cards made so unlikely as to be impossible. North's response indicated that he would pass if South's suit were spades but if hearts, he was prepared for the three-level at least. Because West doubled then bid no-trumps, he had about 19-21 HCP, stronger than an immediate 2NT (15-18).

The spade ten was led to the queen. If North had the diamond queen nine tricks would usually be easy, also if South held queen-third. Accordingly I led a low diamond at trick two; eight, nine, ten. South continued a second spade, North following. Pursuing the plan I cashed the diamond ace next – North discarded a heart. In addition to his six spades South held five diamonds.

I was two tricks short and something had to be made of clubs. I could not afford to cross to dummy and lead the club knave; when it was covered leading up the remaining 10-9-6 twice was impossible without using the the heart ace; North would then cash hearts. (Nor could I afford to finesse the club eight with certainty). There appeared two chances; either South had a singleton club honour (and a heart) or honour-low doubleton in clubs (and no hearts). It was close, South was either 6=1=5=1 or 6=0=5=2. I would like to say I reasoned that North had not led from a heart sequence but in truth, I had forgotten the implications of the lead. The former distribution was more likely and that was what I played for:

As you can see, once the club ace did not drop and honour from South I had only the seven tricks I began with; down two.

I had forgotten the first rule of bridge. When a low heart is led to the ace in East I would have learned of one more card in South's hand. If he had a heart I could have led a low club from East, capturing his putative singleton queen or king. And if he showed out, then I would play him for honour-doubleton club by leading the knave.

It's easy to forget this simple rule – which is why I shielded my students – its axiomatic nature belies its application. Here 'crossing to dummy' wasn't a deliberate play to find out something new, it was to facilitate a directional play. But almost every card played reveals something more about the 13 in each opponent's hand.

Published Saturday 29.Dec.2018