Did South play the S10 at T1? If not, then unless partner has led the 9 from 1098 (the wrong time for MUD and Rusinow leads) and declarer has cannily ducked then the SA can be cashed. Couldn’t partner have 98x None Q9xxx 10xxxx or similar though when a diamond switch at T3 is essential.
Regards,
Iain
bobbywolffOctober 7th, 2021 at 6:51 pm
Hi Iain,
I wondered the same thing as you, but, as it always happens, I do not know. since our source of hands usually, like today, is not that transparent.
In some ways that lack of imagination will sometimes provide a decent and respectable decision for the problematic defender to do as he does (if declarer did play the 10 and East feared that to be a singleton).
Add that fact to sometimes (in the heat of the moment) a defender (in this case West) might give the wrong count signal by misreading his specific responsibility all leading up to the moment of truth (KOing the sole entry to dummy).
Finally, and directly applying to our responsibility, the number of words to not exceed, we can and do edit some of our columns to what we rationalize as more good than bad, adding up to a rather brief handling
of what you are entitled to know.
Thank you (I maintain) for asking a question, which, in fact, could be instrumental in determining whether East was as guilty as charged.
In any event, we took pain to not mention her!
Iain ClimieOctober 7th, 2021 at 7:36 pm
Hi Bobby,
Silence (or here anonymity) is golden!
Iain
bobbywolffOctober 8th, 2021 at 4:37 am
Hi Iain,
Grasping the truth from our discussion might leave up for grabs, someone mentioning to his bridge playing friend, that she was one of the featured attractions in today’s column.
After hustling to find, you definitely nailed it, with your right-on and candid statement and what is more, I saved having to endure just another rest-of-my-life long enemies.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
HI Bobby,
Did South play the S10 at T1? If not, then unless partner has led the 9 from 1098 (the wrong time for MUD and Rusinow leads) and declarer has cannily ducked then the SA can be cashed. Couldn’t partner have 98x None Q9xxx 10xxxx or similar though when a diamond switch at T3 is essential.
Regards,
Iain
Hi Iain,
I wondered the same thing as you, but, as it always happens, I do not know. since our source of hands usually, like today, is not that transparent.
In some ways that lack of imagination will sometimes provide a decent and respectable decision for the problematic defender to do as he does (if declarer did play the 10 and East feared that to be a singleton).
Add that fact to sometimes (in the heat of the moment) a defender (in this case West) might give the wrong count signal by misreading his specific responsibility all leading up to the moment of truth (KOing the sole entry to dummy).
Finally, and directly applying to our responsibility, the number of words to not exceed, we can and do edit some of our columns to what we rationalize as more good than bad, adding up to a rather brief handling
of what you are entitled to know.
Thank you (I maintain) for asking a question, which, in fact, could be instrumental in determining whether East was as guilty as charged.
In any event, we took pain to not mention her!
Hi Bobby,
Silence (or here anonymity) is golden!
Iain
Hi Iain,
Grasping the truth from our discussion might leave up for grabs, someone mentioning to his bridge playing friend, that she was one of the featured attractions in today’s column.
After hustling to find, you definitely nailed it, with your right-on and candid statement and what is more, I saved having to endure just another rest-of-my-life long enemies.