Read the Lead
By Ralph Welton
This is one of a series of Declarer Play articles. These articles build upon each other, so I recommend that you study them in order.
So far we've covered...
- the importance of counting cashable tricks
- the Bridge Bears' assumption about counting defensive skaters (a shortcut so we don't need suit-length probability charts)
- how the bidding helps us count defensive skaters
If you haven't seen those pages yet, you should read them before coming back here.
On this page, we'll see how the opening lead can be an additional clue about the number of defensive skaters.
Fourth Best Leads
Most defenders make the agreement that their long suit leads will be fourth-best. Their goal is to establish and cash skaters to defeat your contract. They want their partner to be able to judge wisely whether to continue attacking the same suit or to switch suits. So they make leads that convey information about the length and strength of the suit led.
Declarer too can watch the defenders' carding and use the information to make better plans for declaring the hand.
So let's look at some fourth best leads and see what they tell us.
example 1
|
Dummy ♠ T 8 2 You ♠ K 6 |
Left Hand Opponent (LHO) leads ♠3 (fourth best).
They have 8 spades, so we start with the assumption of a 5-3 split. On the previous page, we looked for clues in the bidding to help us decide if 5-3 was right or wrong.
Now we're going to look at the opening lead.
When LHO makes a 4th best lead, he has the card he led (duh!) and 3 higher ones. That's exactly a four card suit, unless he also has lower cards that we can't see.
So we look for spot cards lower than the one led to see if opening leader might have any of them.
On this hand Dummy has the ♠2, so there are no "missing" cards lower than ♠3 that opening leader might hold. That means LHO has exactly a four card suit. The split is 4-4.
A fourth-best lead with no missing lower cards means that opening leader's suit is exactly four cards long.
example 2
|
Dummy ♠ T 8 2 You ♠ K 6 |
This is the same hand, so we still start with the 5-3 split assumption. But this time the opening lead is the ♠4.
Now there is ONE "missing" spot card lower than the ♠4.
We don't know which opponent has the ♠3.
If LHO doesn't have it, he has a 4 card suit. If he does have it, he has a five card suit. He cannot have a 6+ suit because there aren't enough missing lower spot cards for him to have that long a suit.
Stick with the 5-3 assumption for now, look for other clues (especially in the bidding), and watch to see who plays the ♠3.
example 3
|
Dummy ♠ T 8 2 You ♠ K 6 |
Same hand, again.
Opening lead: ♠5. Now there are TWO "missing" spot cards – the ♠4 and ♠3.
Let's use that information to test our 5-3 assumption.
Could opening leader have a 4-card suit?
There is one way opening leader can have just a 4-card suit – if his partner was dealt both of the missing spot cards.
But there are three ways opening leader can have more than a 4-card suit– he could have been dealt the ♠4, or the ♠3, or both of them.
That's one way for him to have a 4-card suit, and three ways for him to have more than that. So he probably doesn't have just a 4- card suit.
This makes the 5-3 assumption more reliable than if we hadn't looked for missing spot cards.
Little Bear says, "I don't like all this "probably," "unlikely," "we can't be sure," and "stick with the 5-3 assumption". It's confusing and I still don't know for sure how many cards the opening leader started with."
That's true, Little Bear. We often don't know for sure exactly how a suit will split. But we can still make a decision about the best plan to follow and the best plays to make.
It's like taking a finesse. We often know it's the right play to make, even though we don't know if the finesse will win or lose.
Similarly, 5-3 may be the best split assumption to make, even though the actual split might turn out to be different.
Practice
example 4
|
Dummy ♦ A 8 |
||
|
West ♦ 4 |
East ♦ J |
|
|
You ♦ K 2 |
||
Opening lead: ♦4. You play the ♦8 from Dummy, third hand plays the ♦J, and you win the trick with your king.
Now let's see what the opening lead tells us about the accuracy of the assumption.
How many spot cards, lower than the ♦4, are "missing"?
So West has either a 4-card suit or, if he has the ♦3, a 5-card suit. But remember, not all of West's diamonds will be winners. You have two diamond winners – the ace and the king.
If West has a 5-card suit (a 5-4 split), how many skaters can they develop?
If West has a 4-card suit (a 4-5 split), how many skaters can they develop?
Remember to always think in terms of how the suit splits, not just how many cards the opening leader holds.
example 5
|
Dummy ♣ Q 8 |
||
|
West ♣ 5 |
East ♣ J |
|
|
You ♣ K 7 6 2 |
||
Opening lead: ♣5
How many lower spot cards are missing?
The 4-3 split assumption will only be correct if East has both of the missing spot cards. If the opening leader (West) has either of them, or both, he has more than 4 clubs. Hmmm... save that thought...
Little Bear: "Save that thought?? Not much chance of that..."
I know you can do it, Little Bear! You play Dummy's ♣Q and third hand plays the ♣J. Would he play the ♣J if he had a small spot card to play?
So we conclude that the opening leader holds both missing spot cards. Reject the 4-3 assumption. What is the split?
example 6
|
Dummy ♥ 7 |
||
|
West ♥ 8 |
East ♥ J |
|
|
You ♥ A Q 6 |
||
Opening lead is the ♥8. Third hand plays the ♥J.
How many lower spot cards are missing?
If LHO has only one of the 4 missing spot cards, the 5-4 split assumption is correct. But if he has two of them, the split is 6-3. And if he has three of them, it's 7-2.
The more lower spot cards are missing, the more important it becomes to consider other factors along with the lead, especially the bidding, to improve the accuracy of your split assumption.
Ask yourself if LHO made a bid that showed a 6 or 7 card suit – a preemptive bid or a rebid of a suit. If he did, believe his bid and adjust your split assumption to match. (see my article Listen to the Bidding)
If he didn't make such a bid, then ask yourself if he had the opportunity to make it, but didn't. In that case the 5-4 assumption is supported (but not proven).
example 7
|
Dummy ♠ Q 2 |
||
|
West ♠ 7 |
East ♠ 3 |
|
|
You ♠ A 9 8 6 |
||
West leads the ♠7 and Dummy's ♠Q wins the trick.
How many lower spot cards are missing?
Now let's consider the bidding.
| West | Partner | East | You |
| – | – | P | 1♦ |
| 1♠ | DBL | P | 1N |
| P | 3N |
When West overcalls 1♠, we place him with 5+ spades. That means we discard our original 4-3 split assumption.
In addition, we consider that he could have made a jump overcall (preempting with a 2♠ or 3♠ bid) if he had a 6-card or 7-card suit. But he didn't jump, so we have no reason to place him with more than 5 spades.
What is our revised split assumption?
Considering the bidding makes us more confident about our new split assumption.
Little Bear says, "Why should I care so much about how their suits split? I always go after the suits that give me the most tricks, and I know how many cards I have in my own suits. If I just develop and cash enough tricks to make my contract, that's all I worry about."
Making your contract should indeed be your first goal, Little Bear. But that does not always mean going after the most tricks.
Do you remember talking about guaranteed tricks that lose the lead, Little Bear, compared to uncertain tricks that might not lose the lead? "Slow" tricks compared to "Fast" tricks?
Losing the lead, or not, is sometimes more important than "going after the most tricks." Like this next example....
example 8
|
Dummy ♠ A Q T ♥ T 4 3 You ♠ J 7 ♥ K Q J 2 |
You have one cashable trick, the ♠A.
You can establish three "slow" heart tricks by driving out the ♥A. Or you can hope for two "fast" spade tricks by leading the ♠J and finessing. (If it wins, you can repeat the finesse to get two more winners.)
Before you can decide which play is better, you need to figure out if they have enough cashable tricks to set your contract.
Little Bear still looks puzzled, "Why is that?"
Because if they have enough cashable tricks to set your contract, it's important not to lose the lead. In this example, you might choose to play for only two additional tricks where you hope to keep the lead (spades), and not three additional tricks where you will definitely lose the lead (hearts).
As usual, you have to count their cashable tricks before you can make a wise choice.
Little Bear: "OK.... Can you show me again how I can count their skaters?"
Let's look at all four suits for the example hand I just gave you.
example 9
|
Dummy ♠ A Q T ♥ T 4 3 ♦ A J T 4 2 ♣ 8 3 You ♠ J 7 ♥ K Q J 2 ♦ K Q 6 3 ♣ K 9 2 |
Your contract is 3N. You need 9 tricks.
The opening lead is ♣4, and your ♣K wins the first trick.
How many cashable tricks do you have?
What is the split assumption for clubs?
How many lower spot cards are missing?
Do you stick with the 5-3 assumption?
How many cashable tricks do they have?
Four cashable defensive tricks is not enough to set your contract, so it would be OK for you to lose the lead.
What is your plan to make 9 tricks?
Why is it a bad idea to finesse in spades?
Little Bear says, "I thought playing hearts would make an overtrick, but now I see that they can cash four tricks. They can't set the contract, but there will be only 9 tricks left for me, so no overtrick."
True, but now let's make one small change...
example 10
|
Dummy ♠ A Q T ♥ T 4 3 ♦ A J T 4 2 ♣ 8 3 You ♠ J 7 ♥ K Q J 2 ♦ K Q 6 3 ♣ K 9 2 |
This is the exact same hand, with the same 3N contract, but with a different spot card lead.
The opening lead is the ♣6, and your ♣K wins the first trick.
You still have 7 cashable tricks, and you still need 2 more.
The beginning split assumption is still 5-3.
But now there are missing spot cards. How many?
Do you stick with the 5-3 assumption, or change it?
How many cashable tricks do they have?
Five cashable defensive tricks is enough to set your contract, so if you lose the lead your contract will fail.
Can you make a plan that allows you to cash 9 tricks without losing the lead?
Why would it be a bad idea to lead hearts?
example 11
|
Dummy ♣ 5 2 |
||
|
West ♣ 7 |
East ♣ Q |
|
|
You ♣ K 9 6 |
||
The opening lead is the ♣7. You win with your ♣K.
What do we do next?
Little Bear: "Did West bid anything?"
That's right, Little Bear. We review the bidding. No, he didn't bid anything. And he made no revealing passes either. What's next?
Little Bear: "We look at the opening lead."
Very good, my furry friend! How many "missing" spot cards are lower than the ♣7 opening lead?
There's nothing unusual about thinking your opponents could each have one of the missing spot cards, so there's no reason to discard our 5-3 split assumption.
Summary
Figuring out how many skaters the defenders have is an important part of good declarer planning. We do this with split assumptions, reviewing the bidding, and reading the lead.
After doing all of these, we adjust our plans based on whether or not the defense has enough cashable tricks to set our contract. If they do, we try to take enough tricks quickly. If they don't, we can choose a slower but more certain plan.
What am I going to say next, Little Bear?
Little Bear doesn't think for more than a brief moment, "You're going to tell me to count."
That's right, my honey-loving friend. Counting leads to better declarer play.
Go to the next topic:
Bridge Bears is run by a retired teacher and ACBL life master who has 35 years teaching experience and who's been playing bridge for over 50 years. I don't claim to be one of the top players, but I do understand how slowly beginners need to go when they are trying to learn how to play bridge.