Column 7B67 by Richard Pavlicek
Todays deal caused quite a discussion during a local team game. At one table the bidding proceeded as shown. East opened one diamond, the recommended bid with four-four in the minors (if partner responds one spade, it allows a convenient rebid of two clubs). South jumped to three spades to show a long suit in a weak hand, and North carried on to game, correctly reasoning that, vulnerable, South would have more than king-queen seventh in spades.
West led his singleton diamond and declarer captured Easts jack with the king. Trumps were drawn in three rounds, throwing a heart from dummy (East discarding a club and a heart); and the diamond 10 was ducked around to Easts queen.
The defenders now played perfectly a heart to West and a club through dummy to defeat the contract before relinquishing the lead. Declarers fate was sealed by this fine defense
or was it?
At the other table the play was identical through the first four tricks, but declarer gave more thought to his next play. Instead of leading the diamond 10, declarer led the heart queen in an attempt to break up the opponents communication. West did the best he could by winning the ace and shifting to a club, ducked to Easts jack. But now East was unable to cash the setting trick (dummy still had the diamond ace) so he exited safely with a heart, ruffed by South.
On the surface it still seemed that declarer would fail, but the position was almost an open book. All of the trumps were led, reducing dummy to ace-nine of diamonds and the club king. East had to keep two diamonds (else his queen would drop) and, hence, only one club. Finally, declarer exited with a club to force East to lead diamonds making four spades.
© 1985 Richard Pavlicek