There was some not so good declarer play and defence on this deal, a deal that should not have presented either declarer or defenders with a problem. As it happened, nothing made any difference to the end results. But there is a lesson to be learnt nevertheless.
Board 2 from Monday 14/03/22
Dealer E NS Vul
All Easts opened 1D and some Souths overcalled 1H and others made the value bid of 2H, a much better bid considering the vulnerability. Most pairs would play either variable jump overcalls or ‘intermediate’, but in any case West was not prevented from bidding spades, which East raised to game.
Against West’s 4S, North led the queen of clubs, and this is where the ‘not so good’ declarer play and defence came into play. The bad declarer play was to cover with the king in dummy, ensuring that South got the lead. The bad defence then followed when South won the ace and unthinkingly returned partner’s lead! Surely South should have asked why North had not led his suit and cashed a top heart to get a better picture, and when North shows out, cashing the second heart is automatic, and all that remains then is to see what North discards on the hearts. In the unlikely possibility that North can discard his doubleton diamond, a diamond ruff now defeats 4S. But the diamond ruff does not eventuate when North shows South three diamonds with whatever signalling methods NS use. Only now, another club is led, but no luck and declarer still makes the 4S contract. A non-event as it turned out, 4S made every time but imagine a different scenario when really good play all round (duck CQ, overtaken by South, two top hearts discarding two diamonds from North
followed by a diamond ruff, that would have been some story!
862
643
QJT7652