Contract Bridge

The Ethics Committee at Alcatraz was in solemn session. The complainant was East, who testified that his cellmate, South, was guilty of perpetrating a foul and unconscionable act of trickery on the deal shown. The complainant alleged that this deception had allowed South to make four hearts, which might otherwise have gone down one.

East stated that he had won the spade lead with the jack and continued with the ace, on which South and West both followed suit. But when he next led the king of spades, declarer deliberately revoked, ruffing with the ten as West discarded a club.

At this point, according to East, South corrected the revoke -- which was not yet established and therefore entailed no penalty -- by putting the heart ten back in his hand and following suit with his remaining spade.

East then led another spade,

but he was now fighting a losing battle. South ruffed with the ten, crossed to the ace of diamonds, returned a trump and finessed the nine -- a play that was predicated on West’s inability to overruff the ten at trick three.

East pointed out that if West had been able to overruff at trick three, South could then correct the revoke, trump the next spade with the queen and make the contract if West held either the singleton or doubleton jack of trumps.

South, a famed criminal lawyer who was serving three years for sharp practice, testified that his six of spades had somehow gotten stuck behind the seven of clubs and that he did not see it until after West had discarded a club.

The Ethics Committee, after due deliberation, decided that South’s “inadvertent” revoke at trick three was simply another variation of the notorious Alcatraz Coup. Accordingly, the committee suspended him from further bridge activities for the balance of his prison term.

Tomorrow: Test your play.