Awaiting the verdict!

When Declarer sabotages his contract, or simply plays it badly, the person at fault is found quickly. This is not the case for plays made in defence, especially if what caused the accident was a signal that was made incorrectly or misunderstood.

On this occasion, the defenders’ discussion could easily exacerbate the situation. But do we actually always know who is responsible? And who should be paying for dinner?

Deal 1: A catastrophic 7!

The facts

West leads the Ace of Hearts to the 3, 7 and 6. He continues with the 10 of Hearts and Declarer, delighted with his good fortune, pockets eleven tricks.

Where is the mistake?

  • West: “Why did you ask for a heart? You could have played the 4 and I would have switched to a club.”
  • East: “I don’t think the 4 of Hearts is suit preference in that situation. What made you lead Ace-doubleton in Hearts?”

You need a Funbridge Premium+ subscription to keep reading.

How do we resolve this conflict? Who is more in the wrong? To read the verdict of the deal #1 and to discover the deal #2, please log in with a Premium+ account.

Leave a Reply