Although leading an unbid suit is often right, there are also many occasions where leading through one of dummy’s suits is effective. Where dummy has bid 2 suits the 2nd is the most appealing for the defence to attack since it’s likely to be shorter or weaker than the first. Today’s hand (taken from an event I recently played in South Africa) was an example.
The bidding was uncontested East West 1♣-1♦-1♥-1NT. 1♥ showed an unbalanced hand with at least 44 in clubs and hearts – this is quite a common method these days, the idea being that any balanced hand (even with a 4 card major) rebids 1NT. See advanced section for more on why that method is preferred even though it can occasionally mean a 4-4 major suit fit is missed.
After an auction like this where dummy has bid 2 suits and the contract has ended up in no-trumps it is quite likely that declarer will have length in the 4th suit (spades here) – after all he hasn’t returned to opener’s 1st suit or raised the 2nd suit or repeated his own suit. With a good spade suit it’s probably still worth the defence leading it but with only ♠A8xx here I decided to try a lead through dummy’s 2nd suit and swung ♥J at trick 1. Note that leading the honour from Hx holdings is usually a bad lead and frequently costs a trick – so this was quite a speculative lead on my part. There was another reason for trying this though – see advanced section for more.
Trick one went ♥JQK6. When partner didn’t return a heart it looked promising. Since the J lead usually shows the 10 it would surely have been natural for her to return a heart – unless she was looking at ♥10 herself!
Instead she exited ♦5 (a low card indicating interest in the suit) to dummy’s ♦A. Declarer played a spade to his ♠J and my ♠A. I cashed ♦K – mainly to get it out of the way as I didn’t want to get thrown in with it later to have to lead a black suit. Then I put another heart through to partner’s ♥10. She cashed ♦Q on which I pitched an encouraging club. She now found the deadly switch to ♣3 which went ♣QK. Although declarer ducked, I continued the suit. That knocked ♣A out of dummy while the spades and hearts were both still blocked.
At that point declarer had the winning ♠KQ in his own hand and ♠10xx in dummy. He also had a winning ♥8 in his hand and ♥A3 in dummy. Had the ♣A still been in dummy he could have cashed the 3 major suit winners in his hand then crossed to ♣A to cash ♠10 and ♥A. But without it, the only entry to dummy was now ♥A. So the best he could do was unblock the spades and overtake his ♥8 to cash the 4th spade – but that left dummy with ♥3 which partner could beat with ♥7 at the end for 1 off. Quite a satisfying defence!
Deep Finesse can make 1NT though. It’s not a realistic line of play in the real world but can you see how? See advanced section for the solution.
Key points to note
A method where opener rebidding a 2nd suit guarantees an unbalanced hand carries useful inferences for the auction (you rebid NT with any balanced hand even with a biddable 4 card major).
When dummy has bid 2 suits and the contract is no-trumps, declarer usually has length in the 4th suit. Therefore, instead of the 4th suit, a lead through dummy’s 2nd suit can often be attractive for the defence.
Despite this hand(!) leading an honour from Hx (even in partner’s suit) is frequently wrong and will cost a trick more often than not. If a safer lead is available that should usually be preferred.
Momentum in bridge is an intangible thing but sometimes when things are running your way, anything you try seems to work. It’s worth trying to recognise when that’s going on (but equally don’t get too despondent when everything you do seems to be wrong!)
More advanced
The reason why many players choose to always rebid NT with a balanced hand (even if they hold a biddable 4 card major after a start like 1♣ – 1♦) is because it allows a useful inference that a 2nd suit bid by opener then guarantees an unbalanced hand. There are also many checkback methods available to still explore a major suit fit. The only disadvantage comes when responder is weak and can’t bid again over the 1NT rebid because it’s possible the pair could still have a 4-4 major suit fit that they haven’t bid. One way of allowing for this is for responder to prioritise bidding a 4 card major (ahead of a 5 card diamond suit) when he does hold a weak hand – i.e. one he knows is not going to be able to bid again after a 1NT rebid. This doesn’t completely solve the problem though – for example responder might be 44xx and opener 4324 (or similar). Their auction would start 1♣-1♥-1NT and a 4-4 spade fit would still be missed. But that downside is a small price to pay for the greater inference and bidding accuracy available by knowing that a sequence where opener rebids a 2nd suit shows an unbalanced hand.
The other reason I chose to swing ♥J at trick 1 was simply “gut feel”! It had been one of those all too rare sets where everything had been going our way (opponents had bid 2 failing slams and had misguessed to go 2 off in 3NT which they had played instead of their 5-3 heart fit where 4♥ was cold). “Momentum” in bridge is one of those intangible things that cannot be logically explained but I am sure we’ve all experienced times where we can’t seem to do anything wrong. This was one of those times and, sure enough, today the ♥J struck gold. On another day it would probably have cost a trick and the contract! Of course this goes both ways and there are also plenty of times when we can’t seem to do anything right!
I think to make 1NT on this particular hand declarer needs to win ♥A and immediately play a low club to the ♣8 and ♣10. Then later he runs ♣Q which pins the doubleton ♣J. This is known as an “Intra-finesse”. Assuming he can untangle things that should lead to 3 spades, 1 heart, 1 diamond and 2 clubs. Understand though that this is of purely academic interest – specifically playing for South to holding ♣Jx is massively against the odds. In the real world you’d surely just try to lead towards ♣Q hoping ♣K is onside! This is one reason why the Deep Finesse analysis, while interesting, should never be regarded as gospel. Just because a contract CAN be made with an obscure line of play doesn’t mean that you SHOULD take that line of play!
Julian Foster (many times NSW representative) ♣♦♥♠
