bridge

bridge

Neither vulnerable. East deals.

NORTH

xA 7 2

u4 3

vJ 9 7 4 2

w5 4 2

WEST EAST

xK 5 x4

uK Q 9 7 5 2 uJ 10 8

v5 vA K 10 8 3

w10 9 7 3 wK Q 8 6

SOUTH

xQ J 10 9 8 6 3

uA 6

vQ 6

wA J

The bidding:

EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH

1v 1x 2u 2x

4u 4x Dbl Pass

Pass Pass

Opening lead: Five of v

Study the bidding and play of this deal. Was the result normal? If not, assign the blame.

It is difficult to fault the auction. East-West certainly were right to compete to the four-level, where an inspired guess in clubs would have landed the game, and West cannot be faulted for electing to double rather than bid on.

West led the five of diamonds. East won with the king and shifted to the king of clubs. Declarer won with the ace and ran the queen of spades, which held. A spade to the ace picked up the king, and a diamond from dummy toward the queen was taken with the ace. The defender cashed the queen of club, and declarer claimed the rest of the tricks since a heart could be discarded on the jack of diamonds and there was still a trump entry to the table.

Do not criticize East for not continuing with ace and another diamond after winning the opening lead. Declarer simply discards a losing club or heart as West ruffs, then draws trumps on regaining the lead and sluffs the remaining loser on the jack of diamonds. Yet East could have defeated the contract.

West’s opening lead was obviously a singleton, marking declarer with the queen. East can keep control of diamonds by continuing with the three of diamonds at trick two. West ruffs and try as South might, there is no way to avoid losing a heart and a club trick unless one of the defenders commits an egregious error.

2012 Tribune Media Services