Bridge in Oz

Every once in a while I run across a published bridge deal analysis that seems to have an error. I'll start this topic with one from Ron Klinger's 25 April ABF Daily Bridge Column.

Starting on page 2 it presents this deal:

North
♠ K72
♥ 954
♦ 93
♣ K9876

South
♠ AQ106
♥ AKQ87
♦ A8
♣ A5

where you, South, are declaring 6H with no opposing bidding and the DJ led.

Take a moment to look at the article.

After winning the first trick and leading AK of trumps, you see West discard a diamond on the second round of trumps. The article says your only chance is to play East for 4 spades and pitch dummy's diamond on the 4th round of spades.

However it also seems reasonable to play on clubs hoping for a 3-3 split, ruffing the 3rd round and then back to dummy with the SK and pitching your last diamond on the 4th round.

Yes Rod, I agree with you that declarer could also play for clubs 3-3 rather than a favourable spade layout, and in fact that seems like better odds. I've emailed Ron to mention this to him! Of course Ron had already flagged playing for 3-3 clubs if trumps broke evenly, but then did not explain that this was also a possibility when trumps are not breaking. Strange!

Thanks Derrick! Perhaps Ron should sign up here to defend himself.