Bridge Andrew Robson

(1) Very conservative. (2) North should clearly pass. (3) I confess I don’t understand this bid. South is right he has a great hand – with three ‘cover cards’ ( ♥ AK and ♦ A) facing partner’s three red cards. However, why not bid 6 ♣ ? (4) Extremely unwise. West intelligently led ♠ 9 and declarer won dummy’s ♠ A. With 11 top tricks, declarer needed to score a trick with ♥ J. He unblocked ♦ K, crossed to ♣ J and led ♥ 4 towards ♥ J, hoping West held ♥ Q and no more spades. West played low, so ♥ J scored. Declarer could now cash out for 12 tricks – slam made.

West was puce with rage (in a wellmannered sort of way), wanting to know why his partner had not left North-south to stew in 6 ♠ . East was – unusually for him – speechless. However, East had missed the best retort, because actually his partner had allowed 6NT to make. Can you see how?

West should have risen with ♥ Q on declarer’s ♥ 4 lead, then led a second round of clubs. Declarer would have been unable to untangle his winners – try it. ANDREW ROBSON I was recently kibitzing (spectating) a rubber in which East was holding consistently mediocre cards – although from his whining you would have thought they were far worse than that. He then picked ♠ K Q 10 4 2 and eight low cards and heard his partner pass as dealer. Expecting his opponents to bid and make the inevitable game/slam, he was surprised and no doubt delighted that – after four rounds of bidding and much soul-searching – they reached 6 ♠ .

However, rather than pass and collect three or four hundred in vulnerable undertricks, East greedily doubled. South immediately scampered to 6NT, and all he had to do was to make it and East’s misery would be complete. Here is the deal:

Dealer West North-south Vulnerable