BRIDGE

Losers first

Andrew Robson

SOME problems at the bridge table require meticulous deductive reasoning a chess player's forte. Others, perhaps more appealingly, require a sudden lateral leap. This week's slam requires both.

Dealer South 4 10 7 5 3 11, Q 10 ♦ Q 9 5 4 3 +J 6 Neither 4 A K 6

• A 9 • A K 10 • 10 8 7

side vulnerable 4

4

4 J 2

♦ K 8 7 • J 8 7 6 • 9 5 3 N W E

S

49

8

J 6 5 4 3 2

• 2

• A K Q 2

South West North East 1V pass 14 pass 24 pass pass 64 pass pass West led ♦4 and declarer won dummy's ♦ K and realised that both Vs and +s would need to split 3-2 to give him a chance in his slam. He also correctly recog- nised that if he drew three rounds of trumps immediately, he would be an entry short to establish his •s. Satisfied with his logic, he cashed VA at trick two and fol- lowed by leading V9. East won ♦K and, seeing West's •Q fall, continued with V8. West trumped with +J — too high for dummy — and the contract was defeated.

It is true that drawing precisely two rounds of trumps before playing ♦A and ♦ 9 would succeed on the actual layout, but if you move East's 43 to West, then West would be able to trump the third ♦ with 4J.

Actually you can guarantee your contract assuming both Vs and 4's split 3-2 — can you spot how? Try leading V 9 at trick two — before cashing VA. Assuming the best (but unlikely) defence of East ducking and West winning V Q and continuing ♦s, declarer wins ♦A, cashes VA, draws trumps in three rounds, trumps a third V, returns to hand by trumping ♦ 10, and runs his established Vs.

I am reminded of the most useful maxim: 'If you have to lose a trick in a suit, lose it as soon as possible.'