| 20.1 |
As for exercise (3): you will make
it clear that playing the 10 to call denies the Jack, make them think
of the similarity with the lead… |
| 20.2 |
The right answer must be something
like: "when you have similar cards (or which follow each other) you
play the lowest", or " when you can finesse a card in dummy, you play
the smallest card in his fork". |
| 20.3 |
Happily it is thus: remember that
in Bridge they will play twice as often in defence than as declarer. |
| 20.4 |
This contract is equal to the number
of tricks that the declarer can lose, plus one: the trick down! |
| 20.5 |
All this is already very abstract
and complicated… Wait a little to explain to them that, in addition,
these hypotheses must be compatible with the bidding… Better for the
moment that your pupils form wild hypotheses than no hypothesis at
all! |
| 20.6 |
It is essential to ask why they must
play the Ace and only accept the answer that: "because we know that
declarer has the King because of the card led, and because we don't
know how many other cards accompany it". |
| 20.7 |
A slightly simplistic analysis but
quite convincing for the moment … |
| 20.8 |
Whilst making it clear that there
may not be a good return lead and that declarer's contract is unbeatable. |
| 20.9 |
Some idiots will tell you that partner
may have the Ace, King and Queen of Clubs… but there will always be
a charitable friend to say that the lead would have been in that suit.
You must get them to deduce that the only favourable and counter-attacking
card is the Jack because it guarantees the 10. |
