Author: Larry Cohen
Date of publish: 04/01/2017
Level: Intermediate
This deal comes from a frequent source of material for me, the Wednesday South Florida IMP team game. South was in 4th seat holding:
A
KQJ1086
K3
10986
After three passes, he opened 1. LHO overcalled 1 and after a negative double, RHO raised to 2. South bid 3, raised to 4. The J was led:
8752
73
976
AKJ4
|
| |
A
KQJ1086
K3
10986
|
Declarer won the A and played the K. RHO took the ace and played a low diamond to the K and West's ace. West cashed the Q and tried a third diamond to East's ten, declarer ruffing.
Declarer drew trump (West started with two) and crossed to the A. He ruffed a spade (all playing low) and led the 10, low, ...?
Both declarers went with the odds (8-ever, 9-never and finessed). This was the Real Deal:
Vul:Both
Dlr: West |
8752
73
976
AKJ4
|
|
KJ1096
94
AQ4
753
|
|
Q43
A52
J10852
Q2
|
| |
A
KQJ1086
K3
10986
|
|
As you can see, playing for the drop was the winning action. Should declarer have done so? With the facts as stated, yes. Beware when a bridge column (or any deal, for that matter) starts with three passes. West has shown up with 10 points (he is known to have the KJ from the bidding and play, and has shown the AQ). That leaves no room for Qxx. He would have opened the bidding with KJ10xx xx AQx Qxx. Note that East should have followed with the Q on the second round of the suit (to at least leave open the possibility that the lead was from J10xxx).
