Join Bridge Winners
Dramatic last board from Cayne-Schwartz match.

West
J106
Q10983
972
J9
North
98432
A7542
Q4
6
East
A75
J103
AKQ7543
South
KQ
KJ6
AK865
1082
D
1

Team Cayne was leading by 3 IMP before this last board of the match came.

East (Lauria) opened 1 and South (Brogeland) overcalled 1, W passed and N bid 1. Now East bid 2, South passed and W bid 3 which became the final contract. This board at the other table played 4 by N, which could go down up to GIB but declarer went down 2. I was watching the other table and thought that at the first glance it is pretty normal for declarer to play South for Hx , when South decided to lead 2. 

Declarer took the 1st in hand and played a small towards JTx. South won with Q and played another . And Lauria took the losing finesse for down 1. Lost by 1 if appeal holds the decision on an earlier board. Could he possibly read the lay out?  Perhaps he could but should he? With the logic that a good defender would almost always duck first holding Hx.  But this alone is not a strong argument for it.

I have another material to discuss for fun. Can we treat this position like a restricted choice? You may ask "what does this have anything to do with it?"

-When declarer played 2nd to dummy, he saw clubs are 3-1 South holding 3 of them. Thus if S started with stiff declarer is down anyway.

-Since only relevant holdings S can hold are HH and Hx, he could have ducked with Hx sometimes and not sometimes. But with HH he always will play an honor.

I am not strong in any of these, just looking to hear from others. What do you all think? On the other hand I know South did too many good things on this board. He did not start by his AK so declarer probably thought he did not have them both. He did not lead his pd's suit from KQ. 

Regardless, it was hell of a good match, congrats to both teams!

10 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top