Bridge Analysis Gone Wrong

Pages: Page 5 of 5

Dealer: East
Vuln: N-S
Scoring: Pairs
  1. spadeA K Q 7 5
  2. heartJ 4
  3. diamond10 4
  4. clubJ 8 7 3
  1. spade10 9
  2. heart3 2
  3. diamondA Q 7 2
  4. clubK Q 9 4 2
club diamond heart spade NT
N - - 4 4 2
S - - 4 4 2
E 1 1 - - -
W 1 1 - - -
Green square in centre
  1. spadeJ 8 6
  2. heart10 8 6
  3. diamondJ 8 6 3
  4. clubA 6 5

Contract: 5diamondx
Declarer: East
Lead: heartA
  1. spade4 3 2
  2. heartA K Q 9 7 5
  3. diamondK 9 5
  4. club10
Double dummy analyser: makeable contracts
West North East South
Pass 1heart
Pass 1spade Pass 2heart
Pass 3heart Pass 4heart
4NT Dble 5diamond Dble
Pass Pass Pass
What about 5diamond doubled? Is it only three light? Imagine East is declarer and South cashes heartA and switches to a spade. The defence cashes two spades and switches back to hearts as before, but this time West (dummy) has to ruff the third heart with a small diamond. North over-ruffs again and continues with spadeQ. Dummy must ruff again but how is declarer (East) supposed to win the rest of the tricks? No, 5diamond is also four off against this quite plausible defence.

Of course, this could be faulty analysis of a faulty analysis.

It's time for you archair critics to become proof readers. What is your verdict? Maybe this one is a good candidate for Deep Finesse.
Previous page

This section is a placeholder for the forum. For the time being it will be a noshow class.