One of the things I learned about journalists in the past years, is that they are always trying to hear the quote they want to hear, and then their interest stops, no matter how interesting the story is. What does this have to do with bridge? Read on.
Two opening lead problems for starters.
1NT showed 15-17, 2NT was a transfer to clubs, 4♠ showed 6+♠ and 5+♣ and some slam interest. 6 key-card blackwood (4 aces, the ♠K and the ♣K) followed, responder showing 0 or 3. Your lead?
And then: 1♠ showed 11-16, 4+♠ and canape style. 2♥ followed by 3♣ showed 4♥ and 5+♣. Some cuebids followed and it is again your lead.
With all this work on the world championship books, one occasionally stops and reads a few pages. In case you wondered, I found 4 more online, they are in the mail, so soon I’ll be down to the last missing ones.
There are great sets in all these books and there are not so great sets. These hands are from one not so great set, the 1988 finals of the Olympiad between the US and Austria. The first set is probably the highest scoring (84-49, or 133 imp’s over 16 boards) in history and certainly one with the worst play. One of the contributing factors was that the schedule was overloaded due to the high number of competitors and the organization trying to squeeze in as many boards as possible. By the team the finals started, the last thing the competitors wanted to do was play more bridge and this showed.
And, of course, the US fielded a sponsor… Seymon Deutsch had just retired after a successful business career and started to play competitive bridge again. He hired a strong team (Hamman, Wolff, Meckstroth, Rodwell and Jim Jacoby, one of the strongest teams the US could field at the time), qualified for the event and the finals and got to play his first Olympiad final.
Theory says that leading an ace against a slam is not a good thing as this might easily set up a trick or two for the defenders. The journalist watching the final had a field day when the sponsor decide to lead his ♣A and another club. Not a big success, as the full deal was:
Is this a stupid lead?
Not at all, remember the auction with west showing 5♣ and 6♠. With the 1NT opening bid in west, that leaves zero or one club with north, so ♣A and another ensures a quick down 1. What had happened was that west had misexplained the sequence as showing 65 instead of the promised 4♣ and 6♠.
Declarer now has an easy way home: ♥A, ♥ ruff with the ♠8, ♠QJ and a ruffing finesse of the ♥Q will set up the 12th trick. And then the TD would presumably be called? The latter wasn’t necessary as declarer misplayed the hand: ♠ to the ♠J, ♥A and a heart, small, ♠3 and… ♠4. Down 1. No TD call, no problem.
The hand made it into most newspapers back then, of course without the discussion about the potential misinformation and possible TD call, as it was a great example of the skills (or lack thereof) the “stupid” sponsor, even though he made the obvious lead.
The second hand. Here 4♥ by north denies a heart control, so south must have the ♥K as you don’t expect the opponents to bid a slam of the ♥AK. Aces are there to catch kings, so this is the one suit you are not going to lead. Right?
In practice, the US west did lead the ♥A and that proved to be the only card that allows the contract to make, as it set up the 12th trick for declarer straight away. In the other room, a trump was led against the same contract. Declarer won and sooner or later had to lead a heart to the king, for down 1. 16 IMP’s to Austria.
And who made this lead? The sponsor? No, Jeff Meckstroth himself. Of course, this hand never made it to the paper, as most journalists had retired to the bar by then.