MURDER AT THE BRIDGE TABLE
by Matthew Granovetter

Chapter 2. Stop leading aces

In which I learn about the murder and the evidence -- the handrecords -- left on the corpse.

Aces were meant to seize kings
"Bridge Player Found Dead" (after leading an ace). On Friday, January 23rd, 1942, at 8:35 a.m. a body was found in Room 623 of the old Embassy Hotel. It was a man, in his evening clothes, approximately five-feet eight with no great or distinguishing features. His name was Marcel Moskowitz, purported profession: salesman (in truth, a handicapper at New York racetracks, a tout, a bookie, and a swindler in other less acceptable occupations, most notably a con-man of older women's affections and wealth). He had a reputation as a ladies' man, and was thought to be equally adept at handling a deck of cards.

The corpse was clean-shaven, fully dressed, and presumed to be dead five to six hours, official cause: natural (unofficial rumor: suffocation by pillow). No autopsy was ordered (at least there is no record of one). And though the case most assuredly lies in obscurity at the bottom of municipal records of hotel deaths, certain facts that led to an inquiry at the time (a brief inquiry, leading nowhere) are well worth reviewing forty years later for two reasons. First, there was evidence that the man was smothered: five pillows were found surrounding his head (the chambermaid insisted she had only made up two of them). Nothing had been stolen, and there seemed to be no obvious motive for any crime...except perhaps one clue which the investigator at the time did not fathom. That is, on the northwest corner of the bedspread was a number-two lead pencil, the point broken off. To go with this, in the corpse's hand, clutched to his heart, was a pad of paper with twenty-one funny looking diagrams in longhand, the first of which was this one (reconstructed in type, as best as possible from my photocopy):

Exhibit #1 - Board 12
West dealer
North-South vulnerable

        North
        S  K 9 8 7
        H  10 8 6 4
        D  Q 10
        C  J 7 6

Marcel                  Marie
S  5 4 3                S  J 10
H  A 5                  H  Q J 9 7 2
D  K 9 8 6 2            D  J 7 3
C  K Q 8                C  5 4 2

        South
        S  A Q 6 2
        H  K 3
        D  A 5 4
        C  A 10 9 3

West      North   East    South
1 D       pass    1 H!!   1 S
pass      2 S     pass    4 S

Opening lead: H A
Result: Making 4

The result of the hand reveals a disaster for Marcel, West, and his partner, a mysterious woman named Marie, East. The reader will note that the contract of four spades is rather precarious. But apparently Marcel led the ace of hearts. He must have felt some satisfaction when dummy came down with so little in hearts and the dreaded club jack; and perhaps Marcel congratulated himself for not leading the club king into declarer's ace. However, after the ace lead, declarer must have made the contract by giving up the diamond king and one club honor, discarding a second club from dummy on the diamond ace, and ruffing out the club suit (losing three tricks: the heart ace, diamond king, and club queen).

Upon further analysis (the sort that was not made by the Inspector at the time), we see that a neutral trump lead or the simplistic lead of the club king would have beaten the contract. After a trump lead declarer must lose two heart tricks and two minor suit tricks. Against the club king, declarer can win, draw trumps, and knock out the queen of clubs, to discard one of dummy's diamonds on his fourth club; but only one diamond can be ruffed in dummy and declarer must lose two heart tricks and two minor suit tricks.

Careful reconstruction of the photocopies also shows a postmortem argument of a highly emotional nature. The response of one heart to one diamond has two exclamation points next to it. I showed the "original" photocopies to a handwriting analyst who quickly spotted the beginning of a pattern in which two distinct handwriting tones were established. One person drew circles, the other exclamation points!! (Forgive me). Unless human nature was very different forty years ago and bridge players went about pointing out their own mistakes, we can deduce that it was Marie who had circled Marcel's lead of the heart ace, and Marcel who had added exclamation points to Marie's response of one heart.

Nor does it take much imagination to cipher the postmortem argument. Marcel was accused by his partner of making a dreadful lead. Marcel defended himself by pointing out Marie's one over one response on only five points. Had she not responded one heart, Marcel would never have led the ace; and if she held the heart king instead of the queen (to get up to 6 points), his ace of hearts lead would have been successful.

Had Marcel really put up such a futile argument? (Futile because if Marie held the heart king it wouldn't have mattered what he led.) I don't know the answer. I do know that upon professional analysis of the deal, both in handwriting and in bridge, something had occurred to cause an argument, and an argument had indeed taken place, just minutes after the scene of the crime (the crime of leading the heart ace).

As long as we're on the subject of leads, let's continue. I'll get back to the case of Marcel's death (murder?) in a few pages, while I leave you with one other piece of evidence that the Inspector-his name was Gardner, and he did not play bridge-did in fact discover in his incomplete investigation. (I say incomplete because this pad of bridge evidence must have been gathered up with the other articles in the room and taken to the precinct along with the corpse's personal belongings; yet it was never mentioned in any newspaper account.) The other piece of evidence was that the Embassy Hotel, during the war years, rented out the east wing of it's penthouse floor to a bridge and chess club nicknamed "The Bucket O' Blood."

Make normal and safe leads
As social and genteel as contract bridge is portrayed to the public eye, the truth is that the game resembles war. This is why people love it so much. It allows us to fulfill our darker competitive desires without really hurting our fellow human being. Even in the afternoon duplicate, blood is spilled on every trick; on every hand a battle is won or lost.

The opening lead is the initial assault on a contract, but it is never a surprise. Declarer knows it's coming and partner is wary of it. Attacking declarer can be very much like attacking a fortified position on the battlefield without knowing whether your ally (your partner) is there to back you up or not; you may have the advantage of making the first move, but your success depends on making a perfect hit. More often than not you will miss the target, and you will lose much more than you hoped to gain. This is because in bridge, like in war, the person who goes last gets to see both the direction and strength of his enemy's attack. On the battlefield, the soldier inside the fortress has the advantage. At the bridge table, declarer has the edge.

Look at this ordinary combination of cards:

        North
        S  10 3 2


West                            East
S  Q 8 6 5  attacking           S  K 9 7


        South (the fortress)
        S  A J 4  waiting

Try to give nothing away
Stinginess is hardly an admirable trait. But when you're careful with your grocery budget at the local supermarket you come home with more money. And when you're careful about giving away your assets on opening lead during a local duplicate, you take more tricks, and come home with more masterpoint slips. Stinginess at the bridge table is a good trait when you are being stingy to "the enemy."

Some players think that the opening lead is a reflection of their masculinity: the lead of an ace being the bravest blow for the defense. (The lead of an ace is a blow all right.) Bob Hamman once compared bridge to a boxing match. This is an interesting analogy because if you know anything about boxing you know that the best (and most masculine?) boxers do not come flying out at the sound of the bell, their arms flailing wildly in an attempt of a first round knockout. On the contrary. Muhammed Ali used to come out dancing, avoiding his opponent until an opportunity was presented to him. When a boxer swings and misses, his opponent usually swings back and connects. When a bridge player tries to attack on opening lead he often blows not only a trick, but the whole contract. When a bridge player comes out dancing like Ali, looks around to study the opponents' cards, and seizes the offensive at an opportune moment, he usually ends up winning.

Let's sum up with a simple, irrefutable analysis. During the course of a hand, fifty-two cards are placed face up on the bridge table, thirteen by each player. Fifty-one out of those fifty-two cards will be played by players who can see half the deck (their hand and dummy). One of those fifty-two cards is placed on the table by a player who sees only his own hand. That card is the opening lead. And that is why the opening leader must be careful: he is at a disadvantage.

List of good choices
This book is not meant to teach you to be a great opening leader. To do that you would have to analyze the bidding, and know your opponents' methods and styles. But I can help you to stop making suicidal leads. Stop giving away tricks before you're even into the hand. Here is a list of good choices for opening leads vs. suit contracts. (Fourth best vs. notrump contracts is so powerful that we won't go into choices there.) I list the very best holding you can lead from down to the very worst.

A-K
a singleton (non-trump)
K-Q
Q-J
J-10
10-9
x-x
x-x-x or longer
weak trumps
10-x or longer
J-x or longer
Q-x or longer
K-x or longer
A singleton trump
the disastrous A-x or longer

This may sound like elementary stuff, but you would be surprised how many "good" players give away points in this area. As a teacher, I give this list to my students. It doesn't always help. Jack, a stubborn fellow, examined my list, burned it, and led out his aces for one month straight.

On his fourteenth try he defeated a contract by leading an ace, looked up at me and said "There!" Audrey, an emotional student who takes every word I say as gospel, pasted it to the front of her pocketbook which she rests on her lap during the game. One night we played together at the duplicate. On the second board, Audrey's right-hand opponent opened four spades and Audrey doubled. This became the final contract and two minutes went by without an opening lead. The opponents were getting annoyed and started to stare at her. At one point she looked up, her cheeks a bit red, then went back to her cards. Another few minutes went by. Finally I pleaded, "Audrey, lead."

She burst out crying, "I can't!" Poor Audrey had four unsupported aces in her hand.

"It's all right," I said, "lead anything." She did. (That ace got ruffed and they made four.)

Exceptions vs. slams and five of a minor
When the opponents are playing at the five level or higher, the lead of an ace rises quickly in merit. It's worth noting these exceptional cases because of the amount of points that can be lost when leading against a high-level contract.

Let's begin with slams. Here I also adhere to the rule "give nothing away." Sometimes a slam is bid when only eleven tricks are available. The twelfth trick is often presented to the declarer by the clever means of underleading a queen or king. (Yes, the attacking lead might work one out of ten times. But do you want nine bottoms for one top?) However, contrary to my advice for leads against other contracts, the lead of an ace against a slam (except six notrump) is the most attractive lead you can make! This is because here you need only two tricks and slams often succeed if the defenders don't take them immediately. There is a possibility that partner will have the king in the suit where you have the ace, or, just as good, a singleton. Also, by cashing one trick, and waiting for another, you may defeat the slam. If you fail to lead your ace, declarer might discard that suit, and you won't see your ace take a trick.

Against five of a minor, the lead of an ace is so-so. It's not as bad as an ace lead against a lower contract, but not as good as against a slam. A happy medium that works nicely against five-level contracts is an attacking lead from a king or queen. In fact, leading from an honor at the five level should be on top of your opening lead list. The fact that the opponents have avoided three notrump to play five of a minor is unusual. It means that either they lack a stopper in one suit (so you should attack it) or that they misbid.

Let's list these two exceptions again:1) The best lead against a slam in a trump suit is: an ace.2) The best lead against five of a minor is: from strength.

When to attack
As I said, five of a minor calls for aggression on lead even if it means taking a chance and leading from an honor. When the contract is at the four level or lower, passivity wins most of time. However, there are some exceptions where attacking against a low-level suit contract is right. These cases must be judged by listening carefully to the bidding.

Case 1. It sounds like the opponents were looking for notrump and avoided it. You should figure out which suit they are weak in and attack it.

Case 2. Leading your partner's overcalled suit. Usually, but not always, a safe bet.

Case 3. Attacking the unbid suit in any auction is not a bad idea.

Back to Bookshop