By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Bridge 6/4
Who was at fault for the slam miss?
Placeholder Image
    German philosopher Georg Hegel claimed, "The learner always begins by finding fault, but the scholar sees the positive merit in everything."
    Surely the learner always has his faults pointed out to him by the scholar.
    After this deal, North and South found fault with each other's decisions when they reached only four spades and took all 13 tricks after West understandably did not lead the heart ace. How would you arbitrate? How should six spades have been reached?
    North thought South should have opened two clubs. But although South's hand would probably have won nine tricks all on its own (a primary acid test), with only 16 high-card points, it was too weak. One spade was correct.
    South said that North underbid with two spades — and how! Since North knew of at least a nine-card fit, he should have added three points for his singleton, giving 11 total points. This is ideal for a three-spade game-invitational limit raise. (If you employ the Losing Trick Count, the North hand has only seven losers, which is the number for forcing to game, but with only eight high-card points, pulling in one notch would be a wise move.)
    Over three spades, South might immediately bid four no-trump, Blackwood, but might also control-bid (cue-bid) four clubs to suggest a slam. Then North should be happy to control-bid four diamonds. True, he does not have the ace, but he has a good hand for a limit raise. And South can always double-check on aces with Blackwood. South would do that here, then bid six spades.
Sign up for the Herald's free e-newsletter