Join Bridge Winners
Now *that*'s a major penalty card

I found myself on lead vs 3NT holding 72 AJT87 AKxx x.

I lead a 4th best . Dummy has  9x, but good 5 good spades missing the King.

Partner puts in the Q, Declarer wins the King. 

Declarer sends a spade up to the dummy's AQ, playing the Q. Partner wins his King and sends me back a .

I'm going to win this and the next 5 tricks (4 and 2). With partner's K that makes it down 3.

I lead the A and that's when the wheels come off. Partner was expecting me to win my hearts and not switch to a first, he was out of hearts but not diamonds. He dumps a spade and says, "Oops, I have a diamond!" Now he has a spade penalty card on the table.

You can see what happens next. Declarer is within is rights to make me lead a spade and I have one left so I can't get out of it. We set it one trick instead of three but it came out of partner's hand so I suppose it is possible but unlikely we had it set four. 

So can someone please explain this to me in a way that makes more sense than, "Sorry but rules are rules"? If someone makes a bad claim, he can be forced to play carelessly but not irrationally. In this case, I was made to do just that because partner has a major penalty card in front of him.

Established revoke penalties aren't meant to punish but to establish equity. Here, it wasn't even an established revoke. It was a major penalty card that provided the declarer a really advantageous option. We actually would have been better off if partner had been hit with a 2 trick penalty for an established revoke.

I can't imagine this being what the Laws intended. To borrow a phrase, "I didn't need any steenkin UI" about partner's spades. I can see what the spade situation is and I have the contract deader than a doornail based on what I can see in dummy and my own hand.

51 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top