Who was at fault in today’s deal?

Plutarch, a Greek biographer and essayist who died in A.D. 120, said, “To find a fault is easy; to do better may be difficult.”

Some bridge players do not mind a bad board as long as it isn’t their fault. Do not partner someone like that.

On other deals, the immediate impression is that one defender erred, but a closer look will make it clear that his partner was at fault.

How about this deal? South was in four hearts. West led the spade ace: four, 10, queen. West continued with the spade king: seven, two, eight. Now West led the spade three, which East ruffed with the heart three. South happily overruffed with the heart four, drew trumps and claimed his contract, conceding a trick to the club ace. Who was wrong?

In the auction, some Souths would rebid two hearts immediately to show the sixth card in the suit. But after North was strong enough to respond at the two-level, why not show the diamond suit and keep all options open?

Now back to four hearts. It looks as though East was guilty because if he had ruffed with the heart queen at trick three, apparently it would have effected an uppercut, promoting a trump trick for West. Not true, because declarer would have discarded his singleton club: a classic loser-on-loser.

The guilty party was West. Knowing that the uppercut was the best chance to defeat the contract, West should have cashed the club ace at trick three before continuing with the third spade. Then it shouldn’t have been too difficult for East to ruff with the heart queen.