When
you open the bidding at the three-level you
hope to make life more difficult for your
opponents than your partner, who is often
referred to as the third opponent.
Ungraciously, perhaps. Players who believe
in the power of the preemptive opening are
willing to live with their disasters, which
can sometimes be dramatic. They feel that
they will be far ahead in the long run.
Both sides vulnerable East deals
West |
North |
East |
South |
|
|
3 |
3NT |
End |
|
|
|
Opening Lead:
5
On
today's deal, East's 3
opening was quite normal. It forced a
decision on South, whose best guess was 3NT,
which kept his side out of hearts. 4
would have had no chance, the defenders
getting two diamonds, a diamond ruff, and
two slow black-suit winners. 3NT was hardly
a desirable contract, but it had the
advantage of not being down off the top.
Unless a different lead is overwhelmingly attractive, it's sound to lead
the vulnerable pre-emptor's suit. Think of
safety and partnership harmony. Our West led
a low diamond, ten, jack, queen. The diamond
lead might have been a winner but it
required a nice layout for success. Here it
gave South eight tricks and a diamond toward
the ten-nine threatened to develop a ninth.
West won the king and East, with those
lovely spades over dummy's jack, flagged
spades by signalling with the ten. When West
switched to spades declarer should haven
taken the ace immediately (both West's non-spade
lead and East's 3
opening pointed to the suit being seven-one;
another diamond from South would then have
established a ninth trick. Declarer ducked
East's nine, however.
East really should have switched to a club in any case, but a "safe" spade
continuation let declarer off the hook.
Could West logically have switched to a club
himself (rather than a spade)? If West
reasonably credits declarer with five heart
tricks (else why not attack hearts?) two
diamonds, at least one spade and one club,
he should find the club switch as the only
legitimate chance. But East could have
helped earlier too. West would know that he
could play a spade safely if he had one. By
discarding a relatively low spade, East
could suggest a switch, with clubs being the
only logical possibility.
By pushing the opponents into a contract that made, should the preempt be
deemed a failure? Or should we focus instead
on the performance of the protagonists?