BRIDGE

Discouraging

Andrew Robson

WHEN a defence has gone astray, it is more constructive to ask `What could I have done to make it easier for partner?' than 'Why am I playing with such an imbe- cile?'

Dealer West Both vulnerable 4 10 6 5 V 0 102 • J 5

3 2

4J 5 2

4 K Q J 9 8 4 3

♦ K J 3

W 8 7

6 4

• 6

W E • K 9 8

4 10 6

4 9 8 7 4 3

4 A 7 2 A 9 5 • A Q J 104 14 A K South 24 3NT West 34 pass North pass pass East pass pass South justifiably upgraded his 22 points to a 24 opener, holding a trick source in .s and top cards outside, Having bid his hand to the limit, West led the king of spades and East discarded a V. South won 4A (there was no point in ducking) and, lacking a dummy entry for the • finesse, laid down •A. He continued with • 0, on which West discarded V3 and East won • K. West's low V discard implied no inter- est in the suit so East switched to 47. South won 4K and cashed all his minor suit winners. With five cards remaining, West held three winning 4s and V KT. Needing two more tricks, can you see what declarer did?

He exited with a 4. West won, cashed his two remaining 4s, but at trick 12 he was forced to lead VJ. Dummy's rQ won the penultimate trick and declarer's VA won the last trick.

East could have broken up the endplay by switching to a V when he won 4K, but the blame actually lies with West. If he had discarded an encouraging VJ on the second round of • s, East would have been sure to switch to a and the contract would have failed.

Perhaps West was trying to bluff declarer into thinking he had no V honour. Perhaps he should take up poker or some other game not involving partnership.