|
Hand played on |
October 25th 2007 - David Boston |
|
Board number |
3 |
|
Dealer |
South |
|
Vulnerability |
EW Vulnerable |
|
Submitted by |
Frank Tomlin |
|
|
North ♠ 987 ♥ K8732 ♦ KT93 ♣ 8 |
|
|
|
|||
|
West ♠ K63 ♥ JT6 ♦ QJ7 ♣KJ96 |
|
East ♠ T ♥ 954 ♦ A82 ♣ AQT432 |
|
North |
Bidding:
East |
South |
West |
|
|
♠ AQJ542 ♥ AQ ♦ 654 ♣ 75 |
|
|
1NT No 3♠ x |
2♣ 3♣ No End |
1♠ 2♠ No No |
No No No 3NT |
The bidding started off predictably enough, but when West bid 3NT North doubled, bearing in mind partner's bidding and on the basis that if the contract made it was going to be bad for North / South anyway, and given the vulnerability the potential for a score of +200 looked attractive. The defence started with a spade to the Ace, followed by the queen, which was taken by Declarer.
Declarer stopped and pondered for a while - but not for quite long enough! There were eight obvious top tricks, and the only hope for a ninth was courtesy of a successful diamond finesse. If he took the diamond finesse and it worked, Declarer would soon be recording a score of +750, but if he took it and it failed, then he could potentially lose most of the remaining tricks, perhaps going anything up to six off - possibly for a score of -1700...
It is a very interesting dilemma, and the judgement depends very much on the form of Bridge being played. Playing Teams of Four Bridge you cannot risk conceding 1700 against the probable +140 contributed by your team mates, and there is no question that you should take your eight top tricks, and gratefully accept a miracle should it happen, e.g., King of diamonds dropping singleton. In that form of Bridge giving away 200 is likely to translate as minus two match points - not too much to worry about. But it is a completely different kettle of fish at match-pointed pairs, as a score of -200 is likely to be very bad when compared with an expected string of -140s, and you might as well take the risk...
At the table, Frank took his eight top tricks...