This is part of a comprehensive series of Declarer Play articles, designed to enhance your understanding and skills step by step. Each article builds on the concepts introduced in the previous ones, so for maximum benefit, it is strongly recommended to follow them in sequence.
So far we’ve covered…
- Understanding the critical role of counting cashable tricks to optimize declarer and defensive play strategies.
- A practical assumption for estimating defensive trick potential, offering a shortcut that eliminates the need for complex suit-length probability charts.
- Leveraging insights from the bidding process to effectively calculate defensive trick potential and improve decision-making during play.
If you haven’t reviewed the previous pages yet, it’s highly recommended to read them first for a better understanding before continuing here.
In this section, we’ll explore how the opening lead can serve as an additional clue in estimating the number of defensive tricks available. We’ll also discuss how analyzing the bidding process can provide valuable insights to help calculate defensive trick potential with greater accuracy.
Fourth Best Leads
Most defenders follow the convention of leading the fourth-best card from their longest suit. The purpose of this strategy is to establish and cash tricks that can ultimately defeat the declarer’s contract. By providing their partner with valuable information about the length and strength of the suit led, defenders enable better decision-making. This helps the defending side determine whether to continue attacking the same suit or to shift their focus to a different suit. The choice of lead is a critical tool for effective communication and collaboration between partners.
The declarer can also observe the defenders’ carding patterns and use this information to develop more effective strategies for playing the hand. By carefully analyzing the cards played by the defenders, the declarer gains valuable insights into suit distribution, potential strengths or weaknesses in the defenders’ hands, and how best to proceed to maximize their chances of success. This attention to detail can significantly enhance the declarer’s ability to adapt and execute their plan.
So let’s look at some fourth best leads and see what they tell us.
Example 1
| Dummy ♠ T 8 2 |
| You ♠ K 6 |
The Left Hand Opponent (LHO) leads the ♠3, following the fourth-best lead convention.
This suggests they hold 8 spades in total, leading us to initially assume a 5-3 distribution. Previously, we examined how clues from the bidding could confirm or challenge this assumption.
In this section, we will focus on analyzing the opening lead itself to gather additional insights and refine our understanding of the suit distribution.
When the Left Hand Opponent (LHO) leads the fourth-best card from a suit, it indicates they hold the card led (naturally) along with three higher-ranking cards. This suggests a four-card suit, unless they also have lower-ranking cards that are not visible at the moment.
To verify, we examine the spot cards lower than the one led to determine if the opening leader might hold any of them.
In this situation, Dummy holds the ♠2, meaning there are no unseen cards lower than the ♠3 that the opening leader could possess. As a result, we can conclude that LHO has exactly four cards in the suit, indicating a 4-4 split between the defenders.
A fourth-best lead, with no lower cards unaccounted for, confirms that the opening leader’s suit consists of exactly four cards.
Example 2
| Dummy ♠ T 8 2 |
| You ♠ K 6 |
This is the same hand, so we again begin with the assumption of a 5-3 split. However, this time the opening lead is the ♠4.
Now, there is one missing spot card lower than the ♠4—the ♠3.
At this point, we cannot determine which opponent holds the ♠3, adding some uncertainty to the suit distribution.
If the Left Hand Opponent (LHO) does not hold the ♠3, their suit length is exactly four cards. If they do hold the ♠3, their suit consists of five cards. They cannot have a suit longer than five cards because there are not enough missing lower spot cards to support a six-card or longer suit.
Maintain the initial assumption of a 5-3 split for now. Pay close attention to other clues, particularly those provided by the bidding, and observe carefully to see which player plays the ♠3.
Example 3
| Dummy ♠ T 8 2 |
| You ♠ K 6 |
It’s the same hand again.
This time, the opening lead is the ♠5. Now there are two missing spot cards—the ♠4 and ♠3.
Let’s use this information to evaluate and test the initial assumption of a 5-3 split.
Could the opening leader have a 4-card suit?
There is only one scenario in which the opening leader could have exactly a 4-card suit: if their partner holds both of the missing spot cards.
However, there are three possible scenarios where the opening leader could have more than a 4-card suit: they might hold the ♠4, the ♠3, or both of these missing cards.
With one possibility for a 4-card suit and three possibilities for a longer suit, it is more likely that the opening leader does not have just a 4-card suit.
This analysis strengthens the reliability of the 5-3 assumption compared to if we had not considered the missing spot cards.
It’s understandable to feel frustrated by all the uncertainty and phrases like “probably,” “unlikely,” “we can’t be sure,” and “stick with the 5-3 assumption.” It can indeed be confusing, and you might still wonder exactly how many cards the opening leader started with.
The truth is, we often can’t be absolutely certain how a suit will divide. However, this doesn’t prevent us from making informed decisions about the best plan to follow and the most effective plays to make.
Think of it like taking a finesse—sometimes we know it’s the best choice to try, even though we don’t know in advance whether it will succeed or fail.
Similarly, assuming a 5-3 split might be the most logical approach, even though the actual distribution could turn out to be different. It’s about working with the information we have to maximize our chances of success.
Practice
Example 4
| Dummy ♦ A 8 | |
| West ♦ 4 | East ♦ J |
| You ♦ K 2 | |
Opening lead: ♦4. You play the ♦8 from Dummy, the third hand plays the ♦J, and you win the trick with your ♦K.
What is the assumed split of the suit?
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”?
West has either a 4-card diamond suit or, if they hold the ♦3, a 5-card suit. However, keep in mind that not all of West’s diamonds will result in winning tricks. You already hold 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?
Always consider how the suit is likely distributed between all players, not just the number of cards held by the opening leader.
Example 5
| Dummy ♣ Q 8 | |
| West ♣ 5 | East ♣ J |
| You ♣ K 7 6 2 | |
What is the split assumption?
Opening lead: ♣5
How many lower spot cards are missing?
The 4-3 split assumption is only correct if East holds both of the missing spot cards. If the opening leader (West) has either one or both of the missing cards, then West has more than four clubs. Let’s keep that in mind for now.
Now consider this: you play Dummy’s ♣Q, and the third hand plays the ♣J. Would they have played the ♣J if they had a lower spot card available?
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.
What is the split assumption?
How many lower spot cards are missing?
If the Left Hand Opponent (LHO) holds only one of the four missing spot cards, the assumption of a 5-4 split is correct. If they hold two of the missing cards, the split becomes 6-3. If they hold three of the missing cards, the split changes to 7-2.
The greater the number of missing lower spot cards, the more crucial it becomes to factor in additional information, such as the bidding, alongside the opening lead to refine the accuracy of your split assumption.
Consider whether the Left Hand Opponent (LHO) made a bid indicating a 6- or 7-card suit, such as a preemptive bid or a suit rebid. If they did, trust their bid and adjust your split assumption accordingly (see the article Listen to the Bidding).
If LHO did not make such a bid, reflect on whether they had the opportunity to do so but chose not to. In that scenario, the 5-4 split assumption is reinforced, although it cannot be confirmed with certainty.
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.
What is the split assumption?
How many lower spot cards are missing?
Now let’s consider the bidding.
| West – 1♠ P | North – DBL 3N | East P P | You 1♦ 1N |
When West overcalls 1♠, we assign them a holding of 5 or more spades. This means we discard the initial 4-3 split assumption.
Additionally, we note that West could have made a jump overcall (such as 2♠ or 3♠) if they held a 6-card or 7-card suit. Since they did not make a jump bid, there is no reason to assume they have more than 5 spades.
What is our revised split assumption?
Analyzing the bidding increases our confidence in the revised split assumption.
You might wonder, “Why does it matter so much how their suits are split? I always focus on the suits that yield the most tricks, and I already know how many cards I have in my suits. As long as I develop and cash enough tricks to make my contract, that’s all I care about.”
Making your contract should absolutely be your top priority. However, this doesn’t always mean pursuing the most tricks.
Do you recall the distinction between guaranteed tricks that give up the lead versus uncertain tricks that might not? Or the difference between “slow” tricks and “fast” tricks?
Sometimes, whether you lose the lead or not is more critical than simply trying to maximize the number of tricks. Consider the next example to see why.
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 create three “slow” heart tricks by driving out the ♥A, or you can aim for two “quick” spade tricks by leading the ♠J and attempting a finesse. (If the finesse succeeds, you can repeat it to gain two additional winners.)
Before deciding which strategy is better, you first need to determine whether the opponents have enough immediate winners to defeat your contract.
You might still be wondering, “Why does that matter?”
Because if the opponents have enough immediate winners to defeat your contract, it becomes crucial not to lose the lead. In this situation, you might prioritize playing for two additional tricks where you can retain the lead (spades) rather than attempting three additional tricks that would inevitably surrender the lead (hearts).
As always, you need to evaluate the opponents’ potential immediate winners before making an informed decision.
You might ask, “Alright… Can you remind me how to count their guaranteed winners?”
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?
You might say, “I thought playing hearts would lead to an overtrick, but now I see they can cash four tricks. While they can’t defeat the contract, there will only be 9 tricks left for me, so no overtrick after all.”
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 is the split assumption?
What do we do next?
You might ask, “Did West make any bids?”
That’s correct. We review the bidding. No, West didn’t make any bids, nor did they make any particularly revealing passes. What’s the next step?
You might respond, “Now we examine the opening lead.”
Very good, my furry friend! How many “missing” spot cards are lower than the ♣7 opening lead?
It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that each opponent might hold one of the missing spot cards, so there’s no need to abandon the 5-3 split assumption.
Summary
Determining how many immediate winners the defenders have is a critical part of effective declarer planning. We achieve this by using split assumptions, reviewing the bidding, and analyzing the opening lead.
After considering these factors, we adjust our strategy based on whether the defense has enough cashable tricks to defeat our contract. If they do, we focus on taking enough tricks quickly. If they don’t, we can opt for a slower but more reliable plan.
And what’s the next step?
You might quickly answer, “You’re going to tell me to count.”
Exactly! Counting is the foundation of strong declarer play.