Details for Bridge;11-11-2017


Who was
at fault in
today’s deal?
By Phillip Alder

Plutarch, a Greek
biographer and essayist who
died in A.D. 120, said, “To find
a fault is easy; to do better
may be difficult.”
Some bridge players do
not mind a bad board as long
as it isn’t their fault. Do not
partner someone like that.
On other deals, the
immediate impression is that
one defender erred, but a
closer look will make it clear that his partner was at fault.
How about this deal? South was in four hearts. West
led the spade ace: four, 10, queen. West continued with
the spade king: seven, two, eight. Now West led the spade
three, which East ruffed with the heart three. South happily
overruffed with the heart four, drew trumps and claimed his
contract, conceding a trick to the club ace. Who was wrong?
In the auction, some Souths would rebid two hearts
immediately to show the sixth card in the suit. But after
North was strong enough to respond at the two-level, why not
show the diamond suit and keep all options open?
Now back to four hearts. It looks as though East was guilty
because if he had ruffed with the heart queen at trick three,
apparently it would have effected an uppercut, promoting a
trump trick for West. Not true, because declarer would have
discarded his singleton club: a classic loser-on-loser.
The guilty party was West. Knowing that the uppercut was
the best chance to defeat the contract, West should have
cashed the club ace at trick three before continuing with the
third spade. Then it shouldn’t have been too difficult for East
to ruff with the heart queen.
© 2017 UFS, Dist. by Andrews McMeel for UFS


You may be interested in