Declarer’s play I 4S at Table 2 makes no sense at all, failing to ay 3-2 break where honours are split. If count or table feel suggests (say) LHO has length, the running the 10 then playing the Ace and running the 9 might make sense, although the Mrs. Guggenheims of this world would bash down two top trumps early. Running the 10, then the 9 would be saner than the line you describe despite the risk of losing to QJ(x) on the right.
S J Simon’s “Why You Lose at Bridge” described a classic case where a pessimistic expert played a hand to cope with trumps being 4-0. It would have worked in that case but they were 2-2 and he went off. Yet South was doubtless a very good player – a sobering lesson for us all.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Barry,
Declarer’s play I 4S at Table 2 makes no sense at all, failing to ay 3-2 break where honours are split. If count or table feel suggests (say) LHO has length, the running the 10 then playing the Ace and running the 9 might make sense, although the Mrs. Guggenheims of this world would bash down two top trumps early. Running the 10, then the 9 would be saner than the line you describe despite the risk of losing to QJ(x) on the right.
S J Simon’s “Why You Lose at Bridge” described a classic case where a pessimistic expert played a hand to cope with trumps being 4-0. It would have worked in that case but they were 2-2 and he went off. Yet South was doubtless a very good player – a sobering lesson for us all.
Regards,
Iain