Bridge Andrew Robson

Excellent bidding saw North-south reach a 6 ♣ contract that was well with the odds. But after a setback in trumps, declarer was faced with an agonising decision that decided the fate of his slam.

Dealer South North-south Vulnerable

(1) Good shot. North’s diamond holding and club fit justify the jump support.

West led ♥ 6 and declarer played low from dummy and won ♥ A. He cashed ♣ AK, East disappointingly discarding. He then cashed ♠ KQ before giving West his ♣ Q. West led ♥ K which declarer trumped and now came the moment of truth.

Should declarer cross to ♦ A and cash ♠ A, relying for ♠ J to fall? In that case dummy’s three spades would provide discards for his three losing diamonds? Or should he play to dummy’s ♦ 10, taking the finesse? Eventually he led ♦ 3 to ♦ 10. Wrong! East grabbed ♦ K – down one. Inevitably, spades split. Was there any evidence that should have pointed declarer to the winning option?

The expert inputs any clue into his decision-making process and it will not have escaped his notice that East-west have ten hearts. This means that West is likely to have heart length, headed by at least ♥ K, and he has also turned up with ♣ Q. He is unlikely to hold ♦ K in addition or he would probably have overcalled 1 ♥ over 1 ♣ . Furthermore, the lack of any opposition bidding points to their shapes being relatively balanced, making the probability of the spades splitting three-three more likely. ANDREW ROBSON