Another Tough Choice

Pages: Page 4 of 6

Dealer: West
Vuln: N-S
Scoring: Pairs
  1. spadeA 10 9 5 3
  2. heart9
  3. diamondA K 7 5
  4. club10 8 4
  1. spade7
  2. heartA 4 3 2
  3. diamond6 4
  4. clubA K J 9 5 2
club diamond heart spade NT
N - - - - -
S - - - - -
E 3 1 4 1 2
W 3 1 4 1 2
Green square in centre
  1. spadeK Q 8 6 2
  2. heartK Q J 5
  3. diamondQ 10 8 3
  4. club—

Contract: 3NT
Declarer: East
Lead: spadeJ
  1. spadeJ 4
  2. heart10 8 7 6
  3. diamondJ 9 2
  4. clubQ 7 6 3
Double dummy analyser: makeable contracts
West North East South
1club 1spade 2spade* Pass
3club Pass 3NT Pass
Pass Pass

* described as a general force

At teams scoring it would be no contest, you would either have to play low and hope that declarer would not be able to run nine tricks, or win spadeA and hope to run four diamonds. At pairs it's not that straightforward, for you have no idea whether declarer needs eight or ten tricks for a good score. Suffice it say muggins decided on a very limp defence and cashed out. This would have been correct if declarer had one club more and one diamond fewer, but as it was North handed East-West an 80% score. Perhaps after West's refusal to bid hearts he could have envisaged a popular contract of 4heart at other tables. So minus 430 would not be good enough.
Previous page Next page
This section is a placeholder for the forum. For the time being it will be a noshow class.