Whenever we play a team’s tournament, fielded by sponsors, the sponsor (given choice) makes a beeline for me and I understand why. They probably think they will be shark fodder against a very aggressive pair of Internationals and will be swallowed whole. One Sponsor told her teammate to try and arrange for me to play against her or she would sit out the match. But it doesn’t always work to their advantage!
It’s difficult to explain why playing against strong opposition is, in many ways, easier than playing poor opponents. Strong players always have a logical reason for their actions, while weaker ones are more random.
Take this hand from a recent tournament (see diagram).
The lead was the ♣K followed by the ♣Q. East overtook and played a Diamond, which is the wrong defence for several reasons, not least because the Jack of Diamonds is a potential trick in its own right.
The correct defence is to tear away a trump from either dummy or declarer by giving a ruff-and-sluff, seriously unforgiveable for most of us.
If a strong player does this, it’s a good indication that trumps are 4-1, and you might just find the way home; ruff in dummy, play Ace of Hearts and a Heart, and – when East follows – close your eyes and insert the ten. You can then go after your trick in Diamonds, and if West persists with a Club, it can be ruffed with dummy’s last trump and you have ten tricks.
The stronger the player in the East seat, the more reliable is the indication that trumps are breaking badly. If a weak player gives the same ruff-and-sluff, it would take a braver sponsor than me to finesse the second round of Hearts.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in