|
More
than 1 million dollars was in the prize pool for the 2007
Cavendish Invitational Pairs in Las Vegas. The winners (for the
3rd time) were Bobby Levin & Steve Weinstein. To read more,
see the Cavendish
website.
This deal from the final session contained
some chances for expert play and defense:
|
|
|
North
|
|
|
♠
|
KQJ5
|
|
♥
|
A2
|
|
♦
|
J9732
|
|
♣
|
Q3
|
|
|
|
|
West
|
|
|
East
|
|
♠
|
10976
|
♠
|
42
|
|
♥
|
K1097
|
♥
|
QJ85
|
|
♦
|
Q106
|
♦
|
K85
|
|
♣
|
J6
|
♣
|
A754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
|
|
♠
|
A83
|
|
♥
|
643
|
|
♦
|
A4
|
|
♣
|
K10982
|
Almost all tables played 3NT by South with a heart lead.
What's your analysis?
Declarer has to assume hearts are 4-4 (otherwise he loses too
many tricks). He will work on clubs and the deal seems to depend
on finding the ♣J.
So, declarer won the ♥A
(either at trick one, or after ducking a round--it made no
difference). Then he played the ♣Q
from dummy taken by East's Ace (more on that later). East-West
then cashed their heart tricks, leaving West on lead in this
position:
|
|
|
North
|
|
|
♠
|
KQJ5
|
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
J97
|
|
♣
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
West
|
|
|
East
|
|
♠
|
10976
|
♠
|
42
|
|
♥
|
--
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
Q106
|
♦
|
K85
|
|
♣
|
J
|
♣
|
754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
|
|
♠
|
A8
|
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
A4
|
|
♣
|
K1098
|
Declarer had lost the ♣A
and the 3 heart tricks, so he needed the rest. It seems that
without X-ray vision, he will take a club finesse and go down.
But, look what happened next. West exited with a low diamond to
East's king and declarer's ace. Now came four rounds of spades.
East discarded his little diamonds on the 3rd and 4th spade to
leave:
|
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
|
|
North
|
|
|
♠
|
--
|
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
J9
|
|
♣
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
West
|
|
|
East
|
|
♠
|
--
|
♠
|
--
|
|
♥
|
--
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
Q10
|
♦
|
--
|
|
♣
|
J
|
♣
|
754
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
|
|
♠
|
--
|
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
--
|
|
♣
|
K109
|
Dummy led a club and East played low. Should declarer finesse?
No! From the play, it seems as if East started with exactly 4
clubs. He showed up with 2♠
, 4♥
, and apparently 3♦.
(West shifted to a low diamond--only the Q10 of diamonds remain
and it looks as if West has them. True, there could have been some
fancy falsecarding, but it looks as if the diamonds are as you see
them, leaving East with all the remaining clubs). So, what good
would it do to finesse? If East indeed has all clubs remaining,
and started with the jack, it won't fall. Finessing and then
cashing the king would still mean down 1, losing trick 13 to
East's jack.
So, given that clubs were probably 4-2, some declarers reached
this ending and took their only chance of a club to the king. If
East started with ♣AJxx,
it would be the same down 1. But, if East started with his actual ♣Axxx,
they would make their contract--as here.
Perhaps the defense should have disguised the distribution
better, but also, it would have been best for East to duck
smoothly on the ♣Q.
No doubt, declarer would continue with a club to the 10 for an
easy down one.
Epilogue (what a coincidence):
The same night that I typed up this deal, I was reading an old
bridge book ("The Most Puzzling Situations in Bridge
Play" Reese/1978) and stumbled across this deal:
|
|
|
North
|
|
|
♠
|
KQ5
|
|
♥
|
Q1072
|
|
♦
|
K9642
|
|
♣
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
West
|
|
|
East
|
|
♠
|
J74
|
♠
|
108632
|
|
♥
|
A84
|
♥
|
953
|
|
♦
|
QJ1085
|
♦
|
3
|
|
♣
|
Q5
|
♣
|
9642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
|
|
♠
|
A9
|
|
♥
|
KJ6
|
|
♦
|
A7
|
|
♣
|
AKJ1087
|
Declarer, in 6NT, received the ♦Q
lead. He knocked out the ♥A
and won the next diamond in dummy. He cashed all his winners
outside of clubs (8 in all) leaving the lead in dummy:
|
|
|
North
|
|
|
♠
|
--
|
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
964
|
|
♣
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
West
|
|
|
East
|
|
♠
|
--
|
♠
|
--
|
|
♥
|
--
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
108
|
♦
|
-
|
|
♣
|
Q5
|
♣
|
9642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
|
|
♠
|
--
|
|
♥
|
--
|
|
♦
|
--
|
|
♣
|
AKJ10
|
From the play, East was known to have 4 clubs remaining (West
had shown up with 3-3 in the majors and 5 diamonds). South needed
all 4 club tricks, so ♣Qxxx
with East would be no good. Declarer must play clubs from the top
to have any chance.
So, this was really the exact same theme as the Cavendish deal.
Epilogue 2 (another coincidence!):
One week later, my ACBL Bulletin (June 2007) arrived with this
deal on Page 53 by Frank Stewart:
|
|
|
North
|
|
|
♠
|
853
|
|
♥
|
AKQ10963
|
|
♦
|
K2
|
|
♣
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
West
|
|
|
East
|
|
♠
|
J1097
|
♠
|
42
|
|
♥
|
J874
|
♥
|
2 |
|
♦
|
108 |
♦
|
J97543 |
|
♣
|
Q4 |
♣
|
8765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South
|
|
♠
|
AKQ |
|
♥
|
5 |
|
♦
|
AQ6 |
|
♣
|
AKJ1093 |
What's going on here? The same theme again! South reached 7NT
with a spade lead. He tested 3 rounds of spades and diamonds,
learning that East held 2 spade and 6 diamonds. Then came 3 rounds
of hearts to reveal that East was exactly 2=1=6-4. In dummy,
declarer needed the last 4 tricks with a singleton club opposite
AKJ10. Knowing that finessing was useless, he dropped the
doubleton queen offside to make his grand slam.
Return to Larry's
website
|
