Join Bridge Winners
You be the Judge

This hand came up in an A/X Swiss, at a sectional. Please apportion the blame between East and West for the following defense.

 

West
8
Q10953
KJ96
KQ5
North
K763
A74
A85
862
East
AQJ
KJ82
Q742
A4
South
109542
6
103
J10973
W
N
E
S
1
X
2NT
4
P
P
X
P
P
P
D
4X South
NS: 0 EW: 0

 

The defense, playing upside down count and attitude and Rusinow leads:

H9, A, 2, 6

C2, 4, J, Q

H3, 4, K, S2

S4, 8, K, A

SJ, 5, D6, S3

SQ, 9, D9, S6

HJ, ST, H5, 7

CT, K, 6, A

...

Result: Down 2, 300 E/W, vs. 650 at the other table.

Clearly, if the club honors are not crashed, E/W can score 1100 against 4SX on declarer's line of play.

East blamed West, saying s/he should have played low on the CT, to avoid possibly crashing honors. East said s/he was holding onto the CA as an entry, to get back in after knocking out the N/S trumps. West thought that East should have unblocked the CA if s/he had it, since declarer could have held the CA, and East would still have enough for their bidding. West pointed out that s/he had to have all the remaining high cards in order to have an opening bid, so East should have known the danger. If declarer held the CA, s/he could be trying to maintain an entry to the long clubs, and would not dislodge the DA to take a second club finesse, since West was known to have only 2HCP in the majors, and presumably would have led a diamond holding KQJ, and thus was marked with the CK.

 

So who bears more blame?

 

West 100%, East 0%
West 90%, East 10%
West 80%, East 20%
West 70%, East 30%
West 60%, East 40%
West 50%, East 50%
West 40%, East 60%
West 30%, East 70%
West 20%, East 80%
West 10%, East 90%
West 0%, East 100%

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
76 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top