All News
Play and Defend Better: for improving players
RIGHT SWITCH: WRONG RESULT?
Good defence and good declarer play on the same board? The end result could well not be good for both sides.The defence did all they could to defeat declarer’s 4 level contract. Would it be enough? Let’s see:
| East Deals E-W Vul |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| Dummy | you | ||
| Pass | 1 ♦ | ||
| 1 ♠ | 2 ♦ | 3 ♠ | 4 ♦ |
| All pass |
East’s 3
bid was a pre-emptive “Law” raise. East could anticipate that if they called just 2 that their opponents would compete in diamonds. So, “The Law” says with 9 trumps they should be safe at the 3 level…hence the pre-emptive jump.
North might have doubled 3 given the chance (it was Pairs and their opponents were vulnerable) though South elected to bid on in diamonds not giving their partner the chance. West led the 
A. Which card should East play to trick 1?
North would have been correct to have doubled 3 as that contract was heading for one down. However, what would be the fate of 4
?
| East Deals E-W Vul |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| Dummy | you | ||
| Pass | 1 ♦ | ||
| 1 ♠ | 2 ♦ | 3 ♠ | 4 ♦ |
| All pass |
When a singleton appears on table in a trump contract, it is normal for the opening leader’s partner to indicate what might be a good switch by playing a low card for the lower of the other two non-trump suits and as high a card as the player can afford to indicate the higher suit. A middle card can indicate no preference or a desire for a trump switch or the suit led continued. (“You can work out which, partner!”)
partner
So, East should suggest (note “suggest” not “demand”) a club switch by playing 3. Had West held 
Kxx, it might be hard for West to find the switch staring at dummy’s club suit. That was not the case here though West exited 4 (middle of three small clubs). East won and despite South throwing K under the ace, continued the suit.
South’s J won the trick and was followed by Q from hand. South won and played a third round of clubs for the contract to be defeated with a club ruff…..
…but should it have been defeated? The answer is “no”. Seeing that 8 clubs had been played, South knew that one opponent could ruff the third round of clubs. Declarer had done reasonably well in throwing the K under the ace (though from the bidding, this was almost certainly a false-card as South was marked with no more than one spade. One club too? Very unlikely!) They also played Q leaving a slight doubt in West’s mind that East could have singleton K.
However, there was a play that South could have made to guarantee the success of their contract. When in with the J, they should take the spade finesse and dispose of the winning 10 on the A. The high 9 was still in dummy. The bidding told South that the finesse was likely to work as it would be rather against the odds for East to make a pre-emptive raise with both A and K. Since a club ruff was going to defeat 4, the difference between one down and two down would not be that great as others will be defeating 3 (unless the K was with East) or making 110 North-South from 3.
In 3, South would be risking their contract for an overtrick by taking the spade finesse.
So, the defence should have done all they could to get a good score by pushing their opponents to the 4 level and be rewarded with -130, a poor result as those in 3 may only score 110.
As it was, the defence achieved a plus score and a very good result from aggressive bidding and good defence.
Richard Solomon
Go Back View All News Items
