Contract Bridge – There’s No Such Animal

—
South dealer.
Both sides vulnerable.
NORTH
[S] J 7 6 5
[H] Q 9 3
[D] K 8 2
[C] A 7 4
WEST
[S] 4
[H] A 8 2
[D] 6 5 3
[C] K Q J 9 6 3
EAST
[S] A Q 10 9 8 2
[H] 6
[D] 9 7
[C] 10 8 5 2
SOUTH
[S] K 3
[H] K J 10 7 5 4
[D] A Q J 10 4
[C] —
The bidding:
South West North East
1 [H] 2 [C] 2 [H] 2 [S]
4 [H] Pass Pass 4 [S]
5 [H]
Opening lead — four of spades.

Bridge is mostly a game of reasoning and logic. Of course, there are other factors, such as psychology, temperament, imagination, deception and so on, but basically the player who reasons well is the one who will wind up a winner.

For this reason, very few plays in bridge can legitimately be termed “brilliant.” If a play is the correct play, how can it be brilliant? A hand might be bid or played well, but from the standpoint of par, that’s to be expected. A player who meets that expectation is therefore only doing what he is supposed to do.

Consider today’s deal where West led the four of spades against South’s five-heart contract. East won with the ace, on which declarer played the king! East naturally thought the king was a singleton and so shifted to a club. South gratefully discarded his three of spades, gave up a trump trick and so made the contract.

Had declarer followed with the spade three at trick one, East would surely have returned a spade for West to ruff, and South would have gone down one.

South’s play of the king is certainly to be commended, but all it proves is that he was alert. He realized from the bidding that East had to have six spades and that a ruff was imminent. He also realized that by dropping the king, he might talk East out of returning a spade, which is exactly what happened.

But brilliant? Absolutely not. South simply made the right play, that’s all.

(c)2022 King Features Syndicate Inc.

Sponsored by Newt’s Games and Playing Cards