Cui Culpa

Pages: Page 5 of 5

Dealer: West
Vuln: E-W
Scoring: IMPs
  1. spadeA K Q 7 6
  2. heart10 9 6 5
  3. diamond8 4
  4. club10 4
  1. spade10 8
  2. heartQ 7 4
  3. diamondA K Q 10 7 6
  4. clubQ 5
club diamond heart spade NT
N - - 2 - -
S - - 2 - -
E 1 3 - - 2
W 1 3 - - 2
Green square in centre
  1. spadeJ 9 4 3
  2. heartA J
  3. diamondJ 5 3
  4. clubK J 9 3

Contract: 3NT
Declarer: East
Lead: spade5
  1. spade5 2
  2. heartK 8 3 2
  3. diamond9 2
  4. clubA 8 7 6 2
Double dummy analyser: makeable contracts
West North East South
1diamond 1spade 2NT Pass
3NT Pass Pass Pass
Despite the fact that both these defensive alternatives, the ducking and the switching, should have led to defeat for declarer, 3NT was made at both tables. In one room South cashed spadeAKQ and noted his partner's club2. Thinking, correctly, that this showed five, he switched, incorrectly, to a club. Declarer could force out clubA and claim. Should South have pitched heart8 instead?

At the other table North won the first spade and switched to a low heart. South won with th king, cashed clubA and reverted to .. hearts. Ten tricks. Cui culpa?
Previous page

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