Sunday, March 17, 2002		Bridge

Successful underlead of an ace against a grand slam

DO YOU, like me, find hands (not always with the bidding or the final contract) written down on the backs of old score-cards and then waste considerable time trying to puzzle out what the problem could have been?

At least the following deal had "Seven Diamonds" scrawled beneath it.

It looks cut and dried. In Seven Diamonds declarer can draw trumps in three rounds, test the Hearts — just in case either defender has started with Q10 doubleton — and, when this fails, fall back on the winning ruffing finesse in Spades.

What could have been the problem? At last the penny dropped. At some stage, after diamonds had been agreed as trumps, North must have made a bid that guaranteed first-round control in Spades, his partner’s first suit.

West, knowing this must be a void — for he held the Ace himself — imaginatively led a low Spade against the grand slam!

A likely sequel would have been that, as East was "marked" with the Ace of Spades, declarer ruffed on the table and started on trumps.

The 3-1 break would have meant that there was no chance of establishing Hearts with a ruff that would have led to 12 tricks at most.

Apparently needing six tricks from the Heart suit, declarer finessed the Jack on the first round...

Did it actually happen? A successful underlead of an Ace against a grand slam? I am sure that in that case it would have been widely reported. Alas, it was probably just a might-have-been.