À qui la faute ? Par Alain Lévy - N°14
Cet article a été écrit par Alain Lévy et a été initialement publié ...
This conundrum was written by Julian Pottage and was originally published in the book Defend or Declare - you can find out all about it further down the page.
Opening Lead: ♥K
At the table declarer called for the ace. East ruffed and switched to the ♦J, covered all around. Declarer drew trumps and, needing the double finesse against the ♠QJ to work, ran the ♠9. The slam was thus three down: the losers were a ruff, a spade and two diamonds.
‘Why did you cover the first heart?’ North asked. ‘Surely you know from the bidding that the suit is 7-0.’ ‘I did think of that,’ South replied. ‘I was expecting the ♦K to be the other side — vacant spaces and all that — and so did not want to leave West on lead.’
Would ducking the first heart have landed the slam?
Suppose the ♥K wins Trick 1. If West switches to a trump, declarer draws trumps and plays on spades, cashing the ace-king. When the jack comes down on the second round, the ten and eight will be equals for taking a ruffing finesse against the queen. The ♦A is in dummy for getting back to the spades. The slam succeeds.
West might switch to a diamond at Trick 2, attacking the entry to the long spades. Declarer then faces a simple choice — let the diamond run in the hope the switch is from the king — or put up the ace and hope to bring in the spade suit. Barring a highly deceptive discard from East at Trick 1, it seems more sensible to play West for one card (the ♦K) than for two (the ♠QJ). Again, the slam succeeds.
To defeat the slam East needs to ruff at Trick 1 even when dummy does not play the ace. A switch to the ♦J is then deadly.
An unusual problem format, it gave the reader all four hands and challenged them to analyze the deal and decide whether they wanted to play or defend. This sequel comprises 72 problems, presented in the same unique fashion, and will appeal to the same readership.
Would you mind editing the opening lead so that it says ♥K?
Thanks.
of course, thank you for pointing it out! 🙂