Ken Allan Greenspade Bridge Table

Right-Siding Downsized

There is an occasional contract which makes from one side but not from the other. The side from which it makes is, of course, the right side to play the contract. Typically, there will be a danger suit in which the right-side hand has Kx(x) or AQ(x). And the contract will make on the lead of any other suit; but not after a lead in the danger suit unless the above holding is held by declarer.

Since high honours are more likely to be found in a strong hand than in a weak hand, bidding theorists operate on the general principle that all contracts are better played by the strong hand. In the extreme case, this leads to all sorts of transfers and avoidance bids which have the net effect of increasing the chances that the strong hand will become the declarer. Also, right-siding is one of the main arguments for a strong (versus weak) notrump opening bid.

Ten years ago, Don and I adopted a defense against one-level interference over our forcing club where 1NT by responder is our only negative — we bid 1NT with all 0-5 HCP hands and some 6-7 HCP hands. The 1C opener often passes this bid leaving the hand being played from the wrong side. Wrong, at least, from the point of view of the Right-Side principle, especially with the lead pin-pointed and coming through the strong hand. We should have shown a significant deficit from this flaw in our system.

But we didn't. We got bad results, of course, but for the most part these bad results would not have been better for having been played from the other side. In fact, though we didn't keep records, it seemed we got extra tricks more often than fewer tricks by playing from the "wrong" side.

This made me take a second look at the theoretical basis for right-siding. Granted that, even when the contract is not in danger, there are lots of holdings where having the lead come up to the strong hand gives declarer an extra trick. Nevertheless, there are also card combinations where you would prefer to have the lead coming up to the weak hand. Consider the following North-South holdings.

1
2
3
4
5
6

North
AQx

 North
AKxx		 North
Axx		 North
Kxx		 North
AQxx		 North
A432
           
South
Jx(x)		 South
Jx		 South
Qx(x)		 South
Jxx		 South
10xx		 South
J65

If winning the first trick is important, then you might still prefer to have East on lead. But, in general, you would sooner have West on lead (percentages in round figures, not taking into account that leads are not random and leader will more often have key honours than the given odds for random holdings).

  1. With North declarer, this holding yields just 2 tricks (competent defence, no stiff or doubleton honours). South, as declarer, is guaranteed 2 tricks and 50% of the time gets 3 tricks.
  2. North is sure of 2 tricks and gets 3 tricks 50% of the time. South always gets 3 tricks.
  3. North is sure of 1 trick and gets 2 tricks 50% of the time. South always gets 2 tricks.
  4. North gets just 1 trick. South is sure of 1 trick and gets 2 tricks 25% of the time.
  5. North gets 2 tricks, seldom more. South is guaranteed 2 tricks and gets 3 tricks 25% of the time.
  6. West made an overcall in this suit (and has a 5-card suit). Declarer needs two stoppers in order to have time to develop the tricks to make the NT contract. If East's singleton is a face card, then side doesn't matter. Otherwise, the contract makes from the South side but not the North side.

So what does it all mean? Which occurs more often — the hand where you want the lead coming up to the strong holding or the weak holding? I don't know. And there are so many factors to be considered, I am not sure I could figure it out.

Just one of the complications is that it is quite possible for a weak hand to have Kxx or AQx, so if this is the danger suit, you wouldn't want the strong hand to be the declarer. Perhaps right-side considerations should only apply when the opponents are in the bidding — then you would try to steer the contract to the hand with control in their suit (which won't necessarily be the strongest hand overall). Further, given split honour considerations, a player with Axx in the danger suit would usually prefer to have partner play the hand.

The general rule is that when split honours are in opposite hands, you would prefer to have the lead coming up to the weaker holding. But few rules have 100% reliability. Consider the following (courtesy of Don):
1
  

 

 North
Kxx		  
West
x		   East
AQJ9x
  South
108xx		  
 
2
  North
Kxx		  
West
AQJ9x		   East
x
  South
108xx		  

 


If the defender with the singleton is on lead, then NS have just one stopper (there may be a lesson here for defenders who, with just a singleton in partners suit, look around for a more promising lead). If the defender with AQJ9x is on lead, then NS have two stoppers. The key, in this case, is not whether you want the weak or strong holding to be declarer, but whether you can arrange for the danger hand to be on lead. There are probably many cases where this is best.

Returning to the assumption that there is an advantage in having the strong hand become declarer, I find little in theory or practice to support it. The right-side argument for making the strong hand the declarer is based on doubtful logic. Strength is either an irrelevant consideration, or one where the odds in favour of strong versus weak (or vice versa) are very narrow and probably not worth distorting the auction. While there is a time for right-siding, that time may be mainly in contested auctions.

Note on danger suits

Return to Ken Allan's Homepage