The writer has placed himself on record as being in favour of the
strength discard, and since doing so has seen nothing that would tend
to change his views on this subject.
A theory of good play may be so unfortunately worded as to convey a
mistaken impression, and it is amusing to hear the various methods
of discarding discussed by players of little experience; not long
since, a hand was published to illustrate the loss of one trick by
discarding strength, when an ace is first lost by bad play, and the
discard so palpably wrong as to insult the partner’s intelligence.
To those who have not taken the time to analyse hands thoroughly,
the discard of a card that may possibly make, naturally seems the
waste of a trick; but consider how seldom a suit, not led originally,
is brought in against a “no-trump” make; remember that you do not
expect to win on the adversary’s make, but only hope to minimise your
loss, and that often in trying to save all the cards of your long
suit, honours in the weaker suits are unguarded which, if properly
protected, would have won tricks.
An objection that is raised to discarding from weakness at
“no-trumps” is that one discard does not positively show your
strong suit. In many hands, to be sure, your partner can obtain the
information from the cards in dummy, but at times, when one suit has
been led and another discarded, your partner is left in doubt as to
the suit to lead, and a wrong guess may result in serious loss.
Again, the discard from weakness may betray your partner’s hand,
by giving information that will enable the dealer to finesse
successfully. The dealer is more likely to have strength in your
weak, than in your strong suit.
The discard from weakness is of no material help to your partner in
discarding, as you may hold a high honour in your weak suit, while
with the strength discard, your partner, when he is forced to protect
his hand, does not fear to unguard honours in your suit.
If you were to play a hundred deals of “no-trump” hands, making the
first discard from the weak suit, and then replay the hands making
the first discard from strength, the result would be overwhelmingly
in favour of the strength discard. It is impossible to make the first
discard from weakness uniformly without unguarding honours in the
adversaries’ suits, and only the novice attempts to do so.
To say that one should always make the discard from weakness or from
strength is wrong both in theory and in practise. No hard-and-fast
rule can be followed without loss. With confidence that an
intelligent partner will read your discards, you can allow common
sense and reason to dictate the occasions to deviate from the rule.
You should aim first, to protect your hand; second, to give your
partner information; and, third, to keep your long suit. In the
majority of hands, it is immaterial whether you discard from strength
or from weakness, but in those which show a difference, the strength
discard does not in any hand lose more than one trick, while the
loss occasioned by the discard from weakness varies from one to four
tricks in a hand.
If you use the strength discard and find it advisable in any
particular hand to throw away your weak suit, you can always do so by
using the reverse discard. This is also true when the weak discard
is used, but, unfortunately, in the latter case, two cards from your
strong suit must be thrown away.
No matter what system of discarding you may use, occasionally a
trick will be lost, but after an analysis of over ten thousand deals
the writer is of the firm opinion that the discard from strength at
“no-trump” will lose less than the discard from weakness.