Blindly following Garozzo's rule

Are you familiar with Garozzo's rule?  When partner, who has preempted during the auction, leads a side suit, it's a singleton.  There's another claimant to Garozzo's rule which applies to the opening leader himself: When a singleton is a reasonable lead against a suit contract, lead it.

Perhaps one is a corollary of the other.  But the first form of the rule was told to me by my friend Mike who had it straight from the great man himself.

So, holding this hand the other day (both sides vulnerable): ♠74 ♥AK8 ♦642 ♣KJ852, I listened to the following auction in second seat: pass, pass, 1♥, 2♠, 3♥, pass, 4♥, all pass.  My partner led the ♣7 and dummy was ♠Q98 ♥Q643 ♦KQ85 ♣43.  My first impression, following Garozzo's rule, was that the 7 was a singleton (according to the late Barry Crane, the 7 on opening lead is always a singleton).  However, we play 3/5 leads so that makes it slightly less likely that the 7 is a singleton, at least on the basis of Crane's rule.  Could declarer have five clubs?  Let's see.  I have 11 hcp, dummy has 9, declarer opened and my partner made a vulnerable jump overcall.  That doesn't give declarer much in the way of extras.  A decent second suit of clubs may be just what was needed to raise to the game.  I therefore followed with the 2.  Declarer, with A9, played the 9 with a bemused expression and quickly wrapped up 10 tricks, the only declarer in the room to do so.

Rewind!  I wasn't quite truthful there.  My LHO (declarer) didn't raise to 4♥ – the final contract was 3♥ like it was at pretty much every table.  So, there was less justification for me to assume declarer had five clubs – indeed, the failure to raise to game probably denied a good second suit.  In reality, I didn't give that aspect of the problem much thought.  I just assumed that partner's 7 was a singleton!

The moral(s) of the story?

• there is no substitute for thinking at trick one;
• all bridge rules are subject to exceptions;
• there is no substitute for thinking at trick one;
• when partner has made a pressure bid (opposite one's own passed hand), his hand will not be as one-dimensional as it might otherwise be: indeed it's possible for partner to have a second four- or five-card suit which he prefers to lead;
• there is no substitute for thinking at trick one;
• Garozzo's rule does not apply universally because it is essentially predicated on the notion that if a suit is good enough to preempt in, it's good enough to lead – but this suit was AJT532 which would generally not be a good lead unless one is trying for a second round ruff in partner's hand.

This board was just one of a disastrous session in which my partner and I, who seldom score below 50%, managed a whopping 38%! But, we were able to have a good laugh about it later :)

The Rabbit puts in an Appearance

Here's a little comedy from last evening's club game.  It demonstrates the absurdity of the term "dummy".  In this case, all of the other three people at the table acted like, well... dummies.  The tale is told from dummy's point of view (not this blogger).  Declarer's identity may or may not be revealed at the end.

You pick up this fine hand as dealer with none vulnerable: ♠– ♥T753 ♦K5 ♣AKQ8765.  You open 1♣ and there is a predictable 1♠ overcall on your left.  Partner joins in with 1NT and RHO bids 2♣.  You decide to try 2NT and there the matter rests.

RHO leads ♠4 on which partner dumps your small diamond while LHO wins the trick with the A and partner follows with the 2.  So far, things are proceeding more or less as expected.  LHO persists with the ♠6 which partner wins with the K, LHO following with the 5.  You get ready to pitch a small heart when you think you hear "small club, please?".  "Small club, did you say?" you ask somewhat incredulously.  "Small club, please."  So, from your solid seven-bagger you are now down to six tricks.  Oh well, maybe he isn't quite over his recent malaise, you think.

Partner now plays the ♣4 from his hand, followed by the 3 and you confidently reach for the A.  "Small club," says partner again.  Is the record stuck, perhaps?  "Small club, did you say?" you ask somewhat incredulously for the second time.  "Small club, please."  OMG, you think.  Partner has really lost it.  From a solid seven card suit he's now down to five winners only.  LHO, with a somewhat bemused air wins the trick with the 9.

Another spade (3) is played which partner wins with the Q, RHO following with the 9.  This time partner calls for a heart.  Have you heard that right?  "Small heart, did you say?" "Small heart".  Somewhat relieved, you put the small heart on the table.  Things become a slight blur now as partner rattles off the five remaining clubs.  A flurry of red cards is being pitched all over the place.  Partner pitches two diamonds and two hearts.  LHO lets go a bunch of red cards and, somewhat reluctantly, the SJ.  RHO is pitching red all the way.

Finally, partner calls for the DK which is won by RHO's A.  A diamond is returned and partner claims ten tricks for 180.  LHO somewhat unnecessarily observes that his ♣9 was a singleton.  All have a good laugh.

Yet, it seems declarer has had the last laugh, as no other declarer in our direction made even as much as 150.

So, what was going on?  Partner, like our famous friend the Rabbit, was guarding against an unlikely 4-0 split in clubs?  Absurd at matchpoints, you say?  Well, yes, but partner was under the impression that RHO had bid clubs, having forgotten apparently, despite the presence of a solid seven card suit, that I had opened one club!

BTW, just as in a famous hand which I think is reported in Points, Schmoints, there is something funny about this deal.  Nobody bid a heart.  Nobody played a heart, other than to discard one.  

The identity of our rabbit?  Ah, modesty forbids.