Has partner lost it (again) ?

Your partner makes a slightly unusual opening lead.

What are your first thoughts:

1. Oh no! Not again!

2. Why can't my partner just play down the middle like a human being?

3. How long before I can get a drink?

4. What is partner trying to tell me?

Leading a card lower than the standard fourth best is a useful defensive device, not often discussed in the literature. In situations when you are known to have,  or partner can recognise, an original   holding of four higher cards, it can serve two purposes.

1. It can reveal extra length. A typical example is when you lead dummy's first bid suit. The lead of the deuce can be used to show four or six card length. Partner is more likely to be able to read this than declarer - in a way similar  to third & fifth leads.

2. It can act as a warning bell to partner that there is something unexpected about your hand.

3. It can draw attention to the lowest (remaining) suit.

Here was a nice example from the Wednesday duplicate (pairs scoring):

At favourable vulnerability, you hold as East: ♠75 ♥AJ5 ♦QJ52 ♣Q863 and the bidding proceeds

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	Pass	1♠
2♠(1)	Pass	2NT(2)	3♠
Pass	Pass	Pass (3)

 (1) Michael's cue-bid, showing hearts and a minor, usually 5-5 or better

 (2) Enquiring as to the minor. Maybe 3♥ would be a better choice....

 (3) ....allowing you now to bid 3NT, suggesting the option of competing in a minor suit

Against declarer's 3♠, partner leads the ♥2.  You can now see:

You know that partner would not lead low from a suit headed by the ten, so when the four is played from dummy you put in the knave, which holds the trick, declarer playing the three.

Partner has made a Michael's cuebid of 2♠ showing in principle 5 hearts and 5 cards in an unspecified minor, and so, looking at the dummy, you deduce that he holds diamonds as well as hearts. What do you lead at trick two?

Now what is going on here? Declarer must have six spades if not seven for his bid of 3♠, and one might reasonably assume that he has a singleton heart since partner's bidding invited you to bid 3♥ on a three card suit.  You could of course lead a spade, through declarer - but isn't that just doing his work for him? Perhaps a diamond to pin declarer's presumed king?

Wait - ask yourself again about that ♥2. Partner presumably holds ♥Q10962, so why did he not just lead the ♥10 or maybe ♥6?

Well, what if partner holds ♠Axx ♥Q10962 ♦K9xxx ♣void? You have one chance now to play a club and give partner his ruff, holding the contract to nine tricks.

And can a club possibly cost a trick on any reasonable layout consistent with the bidding?

However at the table, East led the ♦Q, declarer playing the ♦3 and West the ♦4. Again, it matters little what signalling method you are playing - attitude or count - partner has played his lowest diamond. Short of leaning across the table and pulling a card out of your hand, or kicking you under the table, there is little more that partner can do. For the sake of your partner's blood pressure, any lead now but a club is liable to require a subsequent call to the ambulance services.

The full layout:

Leg Pull

Cambridge is "blessed" with enough bridge clubs that it is possible to play duplicate every night of the week,  I was therefore delighted to be invited by Tanawan Watts to play at the Cottenham club on Friday. In a slightly whimsical way, of which I thoroughly approve, the Cottenham club is actually not in Cottenham but in Girton, some five miles away.

This was Board 20 (details transposed for convenience).

Sitting South with both sides vulnerable,  I picked up, second in hand, ♠Q10875 ♥J102 ♦A752 ♣7 and heard the hand on my right open with a weak 2♥. After a slightly uneasy pass by West, my partner doubled for take out and the hand came back to me. Since Tanawan had been in pass out position for her take-out double, I contented myself with bidding 2♠ and heard 3♥ on my left. Tanawan competed with 3♠ and, although I did consider adding "one for the road", having earlier spoken to partner about the poor tactics of stretching to bid thin games at pairs, I decided that discretion was the better part of valour  - and so 3♠ became the final contract.

My left hand opponent led ♥Q and this is what I saw:

			♠A643
			♥A7
			♦K964
			♣A85
			♠Q10875
			♥J102
			♦A752
			♣7

 

My first thought was that if spades were 2-2, we had missed an easy game - how could I justify my earlier "cautionary" words?  There seemed to be a lot of clubs missing, and presumably the weak two bidder had a few of those, so he figured to be shorter in spades - my mind then pondered how to cope with a 3-1 break. I could perhaps cross to hand with ♦A and lead the spade queen, hoping to pin a singleton nine or knave on my right. However this would not look very clever if instead the hand on my right had started with a singleton or doubleton king. In the former case, I would have magicked a second spade loser, where only one existed previously, and in the latter case, my opponent would almost certainly continue with two further rounds of hearts and my second heart winner would be ruffed away, leaving me reliant on a 3-2 diamond break for my tenth trick. A further risk would be that my right hand opponent had started with ♠KJx in a 3613 shape. Too many losing options, I thought - and after winning the ♥A, called for the ♠A from dummy.

It was not a pleasant feeling when right hand opponent duly showed out! From a position of working out how to make an overtrick, I was now faced with the threat of one undertrick, maybe two.

Remembering the helpful words inscribed on the cover of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, I recalled that the way to handle situations like this is to try and make as many of my side tricks and small trumps as possible - then in the end game, maybe the opponents winners and trumps would crash together.

Having won the first two tricks with aces, I continued by cashing the ♣A (at this point partner gave me a slightly quizzical look). I then followed with a club ruff, a diamond to the king and a second club ruff. Time to establish a heart trick, while I still have an entry to play it, I mused, and led the ♥J, won on my right by the ♥K, who continued with  the ♦J. Going to plan nicely, I thought, and played the ♦A - but diamonds were 4-1 and this was ruffed on my left! Oh no, so now two diamond losers to go with the heart loser and three spade losers..........but not so, for the position was (with West on lead):

			♠643
			None
			♦96
			None
		♠KJ		None
		None		♥986
		None		♦Q10
		♣KQJ		None
			♠Q10
			♥J
			♦75
			None

 

West was now faced with a choice of poisons but she could not stop me making three of the remaining tricks: her only winners were destined to be the ♠KJ - or she could play two rounds of trumps and instead I would lose only one spade and one diamond. Somehow two of my six losers had disappeared into thin air.

"Should I have bid four?," asked Tanawan rather sweetly.