Bridge

You’ve been sum­moned to serve on a grand jury, in­ves­ti­gat­ing the re­sult of to­day’s deal. Kib­itz the ev­i­dence and de­cide whether to is­sue any true bills.

The Denver Post - - FEATURES - by Frank Stew­art

South’s jump to four clubs was forc­ing. North felt his hand was too strong to set­tle for a raise to five clubs, hence he cue-bid to show a con­trol in di­a­monds. (He would usu­ally hold the ace.) South liked his hand enough to bid slam.

Six clubs was a bold con­tract. West led the ten of di­a­monds, and East played the three. South took the ace and forced out the ace of trumps. West then led a heart, and de­clarer’s fi­nesse with the queen lost. Down one.

What say you?

You should hand down some in­dict­ments.

South’s play was ques­tion­able. South can lead the queen of spades to dummy’s ace at Trick Two, ruff a spade, lead a di­a­mond to dummy and ruff a spade. When East-west fol­low, South forces out the ace of trumps. If West shifts to a heart, South takes the ace and ruffs a fourth spade. He can draw trumps, lead a di­a­mond to dummy and pitch his last heart on the good fifth spade.

West’s open­ing lead was poor. The slam fails with a heart lead. East had not dou­bled North’s four­dia­mond cue bid, hence a heart was at­trac­tive.

Truth be told, I don’t like the bid­ding ei­ther, though I can’t say it was clearly wrong, es­pe­cially since South might have made his slam. Per­haps South could have bid three di­a­monds, the “fourth suit,” over two hearts. If North bid 3NT next, South could pass in a sounder con­tract.

North dealer

N-S vul­ner­a­ble

Tri­bune Me­dia Ser­vices

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.