Hi Dear Mr Wolff
Quite an interesting hand with the battle seesawing between West and south and finally south prevailed due to a defensive error by west but a less competent declarer could have gone down as unless south plays the last trump before starting on clubs the squeeze on West does not become effective . Easy to analyse seeing all hands but needed table presence. However, perhaps a few paths were left unexplored . Had North bid game in NT , most probably he would have made it unless east finds the unlikely lead of a heart as there is very little chance of him leading it. And south could have prevailed easily had he ducked the lead in dummy. South is at risk precisely when East held K of hearts but perhaps South was right in putting up A of hearts
Regards
bobbywolffMay 16th, 2020 at 11:55 am
Hi AVRR,
Always thanks for your contributory analysis which allows other readers to experience answers to other possible lines of both declarer play and alternative defenses, when, as often in the mix, are not only possible, but also quite reasonable.
IOW, you serve as a team player with us, which, in turn, not only answers necessary questions, but is very helpful to all readers in deciding which are the best choices, both declaring and defending.
Finally, at least seemingly, final decisions by both sides, according to you, are often effected by both percentage play and “table presence”, a description to which I deem superior and totally conclusive to very high standards.
Especially so when discussing the pros and cons of results changing plays, then properly described as crucial.
Much thanks for your accurate and hard working enthusiasm to which you always deliver in NT, an effort even higher than spades.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Dear Mr Wolff
Quite an interesting hand with the battle seesawing between West and south and finally south prevailed due to a defensive error by west but a less competent declarer could have gone down as unless south plays the last trump before starting on clubs the squeeze on West does not become effective . Easy to analyse seeing all hands but needed table presence. However, perhaps a few paths were left unexplored . Had North bid game in NT , most probably he would have made it unless east finds the unlikely lead of a heart as there is very little chance of him leading it. And south could have prevailed easily had he ducked the lead in dummy. South is at risk precisely when East held K of hearts but perhaps South was right in putting up A of hearts
Regards
Hi AVRR,
Always thanks for your contributory analysis which allows other readers to experience answers to other possible lines of both declarer play and alternative defenses, when, as often in the mix, are not only possible, but also quite reasonable.
IOW, you serve as a team player with us, which, in turn, not only answers necessary questions, but is very helpful to all readers in deciding which are the best choices, both declaring and defending.
Finally, at least seemingly, final decisions by both sides, according to you, are often effected by both percentage play and “table presence”, a description to which I deem superior and totally conclusive to very high standards.
Especially so when discussing the pros and cons of results changing plays, then properly described as crucial.
Much thanks for your accurate and hard working enthusiasm to which you always deliver in NT, an effort even higher than spades.