As you can see from the full hand,  the club allows declarer to set up the clubs for 12 tricks and a complete top.  The Heart return ensures 11 tricks for declarer, and even the ruff and discard only yields 11 tricks, as now declarer doesn't have enough entries to ruff out the clubs and enjoy them.  So, while conceding a ruff and discard is normally considered bad form, in this case it proves to be relatively harmless - on best play declarer already has 11 tricks in the bag.  Even if you don't find the fatal(for you) club switch, you still score only 3/12 on the board, so all you can do is congratulate declarer on his play and hope you don't get stuck on lead quite so often next week!

North's first instinct was to bid 6C, but, after some thought he decided that, if partner could set up his hearts, the grand might be on, and he bid it, perhaps rather recklessly in view of the information available, but goaded no doubt by the excellent top scored against them by the opposition on the previous board, they having bid a slam which nobody else was in.  The lead was 10 clubs (leading a trump against a Grand Slam)  and, as you can see from the full deal, it is possible to bring the contract home by establishing the Hearts, but declarer opted to play for an even split in diamonds, which was not forthcoming - one down for a joint bottom.  At another table 7C was doubled after a more scientific auction, but declarer brought it home for a clear top, exclipsing the more sensible 6C bid by another pair.  Six Hearts was one off at another table, but one of the three pairs in the heart game did managed to make 12 tricks.

East was not sure of the provenance of West's bid, so decided to hedge his bets with a bid of 5♦ , which West could pass if he actually had a diamond suit, or convert to 5♥  if he was splintering, which was actually the case.  West bid 5♥  and that was where he played.  As you can see if you look at all the hands, it was difficult for West to avoid making all 13 tricks given the lie of the cards, and it was doubly frustrating as the two pairs who did manage to bid the slam went down.  What went wrong?  East needs to recognise 4♦ as a splinter - with a genuine diamond suit West could have bid 3♦, which would be forcing.  Once 4♦  is accepted as a splinter, East's hand becomes enormous and he should now co-operate in exploring the slam.  With no more than one loser in diamonds after partner's splinter, which also confirms a 6-4 heart fit, and having singletons in the two other suits, all he needs to know about are key cards, so he should bid RKCB.  This would have caused West a slight problem as he would have been pushed to know how to show three key cards and a void (shouldn't they get this sorted?), but a simple 5♦  would have done the trick, showing three key cards, suggesting no more than one loser and making 6♥  a pretty good bet.  Even if West was able to show the void as well, suggesting no losers, it would be a brave East who would go on to the Grand Slam - after all, if most of the field are not even bidding the small slam, and might have trouble making it if they do, why risk the slam bonus by contracting for 13 tricks unless you are absolutely sure it is on?  As one of the club's luminaries has said on more than one occasion - it's not worth bidding Grand Slams on club nights!  It would be nice to be able to bid the small ones though!  The next article shows the same pair being more successful on another of the night's interesting hands.

After North opens 1♥  , South can use the Jacoby 2NT as a game force, with slam interest if partner is suitable.  Strictly speaking this shows 4 card support for partner's major, but, playing 5 card majors, NS feel they can use Jacoby with 3 card support and a suitable hand.  There are various responses to Jacoby 2NT, NS playing that a bid of another suit at the three level indicates shortage (Singleton or Void).  With this information, South now knows that his two club losers are catered for (they can be ruffed in dummy if necessary) and decided to try 4NT to check on Key cards.  When partner showed two key cards and the queen of trumps, South could be pretty sure slam was "nailed on", and decided to check whether North held K♦ making 7♥  a good prospect.  After 5NT from South, North, being bereft of K♦,  settled for 6♥ . Should NS have made the pairs bid of 6NT?  No, as the scoring was cross imps, so the extra 10 points makes no difference.  At Pairs scoring they should consider it, but there is more risk attached to the NT slam.  West tried her best shot with a trump lead, but there was little to the play with trumps 3-2 and K♦ onside.

Here we have a classic case of the need to avoid a hasty play at trick one, of which I must plead guilty.  I took A♠ in dummy, which meant I had to make a premature decision on which suit to discard from hand.  Furthermore, by failing to duck the lead in dummy, I was spurning a Bath Coup position preventing the opposition from leading spades when they get in, which could well be to my advantage. In fact, once I play A♠ at trick one, I can't make the contract against best defence, and, against John and Liam, that is what you are going to get, so, no matter how I wriggled, they were not going to let me off the hook.  Though one off was not a disaster (50%), even had I made the contract it would not have put much of a dent in the winning margin achieved on the night by Liam and John, as they scored 68%, 14% better than those in joint second position.  The old ones are certainly best - not just the players, but the adages, such as THINK and PLAN as declarer before calling for the first card from dummy - if you don't, you might have cause to regret it!

Whether North or South declares the contract, and whatever the lead, you can actually make all the tricks if you play in spades, but only 10 against best defence, if you choose hearts.  Whatever the lead, take out trumps in two rounds, heart to the queen, A♥,  heart ruff, ruff a diamond and run the remaining hearts, discarding two clubs and a diamond, then cross ruff the rest.  While you certainly shouldn't be bidding the Grand on a combined 21 points, there must be a case for bidding the small slam, especially if North likes his hand enough to open and NS discover the double fit.  Our winners chose the path less trodden, however, and who is to begrudge them their success when they are brave and imaginative enough to do things differently?

At our table South jumped to 3♠, which partner, with his bare 12 count, opted to pass.  This is a good example of what Tony Disley has been saying to the improvers in his analysis of Thursday afternoon hands.  If you need to create a forcing situation, why not make use of the opponent's intervention by bidding their suit?  If you don't use the opponent's suit, it is difficult to see how South can get his hand across, as a jump to 3♠  is not forcing.  If, however, he first bids 2♥  and then, when partner bids 2NT, he now bids 3♠ , this creates a forcing situation.  North now knows that South wants to play in game and has to make a choice.  On the night, all declarers were playing in spades at various levels, so clearly the NT option did not appeal.  However, the 3NT game is the only one which can make against best defence because South's J♦ provides a second stopper in the suit, making it impossible for the defence to cash East's long diamonds, allowing them to make only their three aces and K♣ .  Just to show there is no justice in Bridge, the pairs in 4♠ were allowed to make it, so those of us who wisely avoided the spade game scored badly.  Having said that, well done to Dave and Debbie Lea who, as East-West, managed to hold their opponents to 8 tricks in spades, for a well deserved top on the board.

As can be seen, 6S can be made from the South hand and very often from North (East is unlikely to lead a heart), and on the first sequence there is a fair chance of reaching the making slam, as you have had time to get spades into the picture.  Even being in game in spades, making plus 2 will score 72%. However, after the Benji sequence, you cannot bid 5S as this would show at least 6 cards, so do you punt 6C, which is one off, Double, eyeing the vulnerability for 200, or weakly Pass?

To me this shows the weakness of Benji:  the opposition can too easily disrupt your auction, especially at more favourable vulnerability than in this hand. You are too high before you can see if you have a fit. This is even more difficult when you have two playable suits as above, you simply cannot show both.  So my advice is to not play Benji, but if you must then open at the one level when you have 2 suits. 

Another advantage of 2C being game forcing is "Kokish"  but that is for another day.

As you have two inescapable diamond losers, why not lead back a diamond immediately, which West will win with Q♦ , East discarding a club?  This is one of those hands where you need to let the opposition take their winners and hope they manage to create an extra winner for you in the process - i.e. make their sixth winner disappear.  Here West may opt to get off lead with her singleton trump, covered by your Jack in dummy which wins the trick.  You might try leading 10♥ in the hope East will cover with an honour, but he is an expert and plays 6♥ and West discards a small club.  As you suspected East is sitting with two heart winners.  Do not despair - simply lead another diamond to West's King and you have established the diamond suit.  Now the defence is in trouble.  They had better cash their club winner or it could go away on a long diamond.  Now you have plenty of winners on which to lose your potential spade losers in the dummy, so you only lose a club, two diamonds and two hearts.  Obviously there are many strategies the defence might try, but all will lead to the same result.  Two examples:  Suppose West ducks the second diamond and allows his partner to ruff it low, thus retaining her high diamonds to stop declarer establishing the long diamonds?  The defence is simply rruffing winners it is going to take anyway, and, if East ruffs twice, one of his heart winners is disappearing on your AH - this approach just doesn't work.  Suppose West grasps the spade nettle and leads one, hoping to ensure one spade winner eventually.  Declarer now has two spade stops and time to set up the diamonds.  Looking at all the hands, it is difficult to see what the defence can do if you adopt this passive approach. Did you find this way of making your losers miraculously disappear?

East decided to pass, and, after some hesitation, so did South.  At another table, West elected to open 2NT and things were much more exciting. East thought it best to bid 3♣  in the hope of hearing about a 4 card major opposite, but South swept this aside with 3♠ . Opener now ventured 4♦ , which a surprised partner passed, but South was not finished and went 4♠ , doubled by West.  What would you do now with your collection of tram tickets?  Once again, holding nul points, discretion proved the better part of valour for East and she passed.  When the dust had settled 4♠X was one off for 200 to EW, scoring better than 3♦ +2.  Nevertheless, despite a second top (only one EW pair found 5♦) West was beside himself, thinking it was obvious he had a good hand and partner should have bid 5D.  I ventured to suggest that, after a 2NT opening, 4♦ over 3♠ is not easy to read, and, as the pass of his double proved profitable, and, in my view, understandable, I wasn't convinced West had much to complain about.  Indeed, doesn't he get his message across better with the Benji bid, advertising 9 tricks in diamonds?  Now East might be able to envisage a couple of spade ruffs to bring the total to 11 tricks, but, seriously, did you bid game on that rubbish?  In the heat of battle some Wests, even calm and objective, journalistically-inclined ones, may have suggested mildly that partner might have considered the possibility of game, but it is always easy to be wise after the event, so those Wests who berated their partners were being a tad unfair, especially when you consider that, if South starts with a trump and North leads another when in with 10♠, the maximimum for EW is 10 tricks.  The fact that nobody found the killing trump attack on the night is hardly East's fault. Very well bid partner!  (Whoever said Bridge was an easy game?)

Firstly, a comment on the bidding.  Looking at all four hands, it seems surprising that EW stayed silent, but, as it happens, this resulted in NS getting into an unmakeable contract.  Had East opened 1♥, or, if playing weak twos, 2♥ , South would double and West would jump in hearts, possibly to the  4 level, so NS never find their spade fit.  However, there is no justice in Bridge, as two EW pairs bid and made 4♥ , and two others played hearts in a part score, making 9 tricks, which the computer says is the most EW can make in hearts.  This means that, to get a decent result against the other EW pairs who bid their hearts, our opponents needed a) to double my 4♠  and b) take it three off to beat those making the game, or, more realistically, at least one off to beat those making 9 tricks in hearts.  

On the play, this is an example where declarer has to be pragmatic and accept that he is going down, playing for the lowest penalty he can escape for.  I have to admit that, being a slow learner, it has taken me years to realise this obvious point; there are times when you just have to take your medicine and make it as palatable as possible.  In the Bridge context this means that, if you struggle to make an impossible contract, you may well go more down than you need, but if you play for one down, you may get an acceptable result. So, having noted the spade situation, I accepted that I would lose to all of West's remaining spades and East's K♣, and just cashed my winners. Obviously, if West makes the mistake of playing a spade when in with a ruff, then I can make an extra trick and the contract, but Martin was too wily for that.  Clearly I cannot afford to play any more spades as West can then draw trumps and bury me in an avalanche of hearts.  One down for minus 100 was an outright top as we had, unsurprisingly, not been doubled.  I think, as well as an example of going down gracefully, this also shows how unfair duplicate Bridge can be, as East West got a bottom, not through any great fault of their own, but because of what happened at the other tables.

Anybody applying the law of total tricks to this hand is likely to be disappointed.  With EW's 12 card fit and NS's 8 card fit, it suggets that at least one of the pairs should be able to make game in their suit, but, on perfect defence, that is impossible.  How about bidding to the level of the fit?  EW have 12 hearts, but they are nowhere near making 12 tricks in hearts!  So, once again, it all comes down to that elusive quality, judgement, which is very difficult on wild hands like this one - when do you stick and when do you twist?  And, playing, how well are you able to take any chances your opponents give you.  In that context, well done to the evening's winners, Glenda Roberts and Liam Sheridan, as well as those 80%ers, Eileen Mahoney and Jeff Barnett, for bidding, and also making, 4H on this difficult hand.

Even looking at all the hands, it seems as though you must now lose another trick. However, as West is guarding ♥ and ♦ there is a squeeze on which will get you home (as long as you haven't carelessly played a ♠ honour to the second trick as your tiring correspondent did.)  Remove trumps, take the spade finesse and cash the last spade, then run the trumps.  West must find seven discards, so comes down to ♥ A and ♦ Q8, while you can come down to ♥ K and ♦ KJ.  You can then play 3♦  to K♦, J♦ back to the A♦ and dummy's 7♦ is your last trick.  It won't win you the match, but will add a small fig leaf of respectability to a dangerously over-exposed Bridge partnership.

East decided to show his strength and his other major, so bid 3♥ , and now South was off the hook and passed.  West had been hoping that partner would reopen with a double, which he would swiftly pass for a penalty, likely to capture all the matchpoints. He was now faced with a difficult decision and opted to punt 3NT, which forced East into the tank.  He correctly decided that 3NT might be problematic, so emerged with 4♠, which concluded the auction. Having absolved myself from blame, I now wonder whether a braver player might have doubled the final contract, but I didn't do so as I didn't want to give declarer too much advance information on how to play it. In the event, after partner cashed his two top diamonds and led his singleton trump, there was no way home for declarer.  I think it is a difficult hand for EW to get right, although partner's 2♣ bid gave them a chance to get a spectacular result.  West does not know how good partner's spades are, so it is difficult for him to give false preference to that suit, so perhaps 3NT was the best available option once partner has not re-opened with that crushing double, or, indeed, shown a longer spade suit.

West has an easy lead, Q♠, top of a sequence. As it happens, a club lead would make it impossible for declarer to come to 12 tricks, while a diamond lead would give it on a plate.  A major suit lead gives nothing away and leaves declarer with plenty of work to do. Trumps lie nicely for declarer, so that he still has three in each hand when defenders' trumps are drawn.  Now it is a simple matter of cashing the boss spades and A♦ , and ruffing two diamonds and two spades, ending in hand, and leading a low club.  At this point spades and diamonds have been eliminated from dummy and declarer's hands, and the club pips enable declarer to end-play East. Whatever West plays on the club, Dummy will cover, forcing East to win.  Now, whatever East returns, South has his 12th. Trick. A diamond gives a ruff and discard to dispose of the second club loser, while a club provides South with the free finesse he needs.  As you can see, if you go for the finesses, you will go down, so you need to set up the elimination and end play to make your slam and gain a match winning swing.  Well played Simon Brindle.

Like East, I did not think for long and ventured 6♦, believing there was a strong chance 5♠ was making. Just as quickly, West bid 6♥ causing partner, whom I shall call Chairman John in order to preserve his anonymity, to pause for thought. He eventually emerged with a double, which was where the bidding ended.  On lead, I was now faced with a dilemma.  Was partner's double." Lightner?  If it was, I probably need to lead a spade to defeat the contract, but that risks giving it away if declarer can discard a minor suit loser. On balance, and certfainly according to the experts, I should have led a club, but I decided to go with the spade, which, fortunately, did not prevent partner coming to both his minor suit aces to defeat the slam.  It subsequently emerged that partner, when he made his bid, thought he was on lead, so Lightner only struck by accident.  The computer suggests the par score was 5♣ /5♦ X, plus 300 to East-West, so only Chairman John covered himself with glory in the bidding.

This hand was played six times in the course of the evening, five times in Hearts and once in Spades, and made 11 tricls on five occasions and only 10 once - human defenders cannot see all the cards, unlike the computer, which is why declarers made more than they were entitled to in nearly every case.  So, what can we learn?

Bidding:  Generally the five level does belong to the opponents, but how can you work this out at the table - following "rules" like this does not help you when the exception should be applied?  Another "rule" is the Law of Total Tricks.  In this case with NS enjoying a 10 card fit and EW a 9 card fit, the total tricks available are 19.  If NS can score 9, likely on the bidding, then EW may only make 10, which suggests doubling rather than bidding on.  It certainly should deter South and East from pushing on to the six level.  Once again though, this is only a "rule" and you need to use judgement to be able to understand when to do something different. Above all, don't let the momentum of the auction carry you away!

Play - the Lead:  Once again, slavish adherence to the rule that a double of a slam is Lightner (for an unusual lead) leads you astray here.  Admittedly there is a case for arguing that North should not consciously double in this situation in case partner takes it as Lightner, but, if you follow this to its logical conclusion, you would never double a hopeless slam, so, once again, you have to be able to trust partner to use judgement.  For those of us who have not yet located the aisle where you can buy judgement, Gwynn Davis came up with a useful definition of when a double is Lightner - i.e. when it "comes out of the Blue".  So, as in many instances in Bridge, the context is all important, and applying "rules' automatically can only get you so far. Thinking, logic and, above all, judgement are the tools of the trade we need to acquire if we are going to get more rewarding moments and fewer sleepless nights attempting to play this challenging game.

After this no nonsense auction (can you devise a more scientific sequence which will give you enough information to be certain the Grand is making?) and the lead of 4♥, you have 11 tricks on top - two others can come from spade ruffs in the dummy.  Win A♥, cross to A♠, and ruff a spade, return to hand with a club and ruff the second spade with A♦. It is now a simple matter to cash K♦, return to hand with Q♦, and extract the final trump with J♦. You now cash your remaining club winners, discarding the last losing spade from your hand - 13 tricks made: 5 diamonds, two ruffs in dummy, four clubs, and the two major suit aces - well played Mr. President.  Did you match him?

I took the lead in hand with 8♠ and immediately unbocked A♣.   It seemed to me I needed to play two diamonds to enable me to get to dummy with a ruff to dispose of my spade loser, given that it looked as though it would be difficult to avoid a trump loser.  I didn't want to cash any trumps as, when in with their diamonds, the defence would be able to lead trumps twice, so I wanted to ensure I would still have a third trump to reach the dummy.  This is an example of not thinking things through far enough as, if the defence leads trumps twice when in with diamonds, it may have the effect of disposing of my trump loser, so cashing just one round of trumps may have been a better idea, and, in the event, it would have paid dividends when the Q♥ falls on your left.

Anyway, I didn't do this, I led a low diamond and South hopped up with her K♦ and led another spade, ruffed by North.  This has disposed of my spade loser, but leaves the contract in peril as I now definitely have to avoid a trump loser to get home.  

At this point the spotlight falls on North.  What he has to do now is play his A♦ to avoid being endplayed when I get in and lead a second diamond.  He decided to lead a trump however, giving me my last chance to make this unmakeable contract.  I played A♥ and Q♥ came down on my left.

 I now have a choice.  Do I play South for QJ♥ doubleton, in which case the winning play is to cash K♥ removing the last trumps from the opposition and then set up the diamond winner?  I no longer have to reach the dummy as I no longer have a spade loser to throw on the club winners.  Alternatively, if I assume South started with a singleton Q♥, then North started with J873♥, and, if he also has A♦, I can endply him with that card and make the contract.  Of course, if South has A♦ she will win and give North another ruff to defeat the contract.  So the decision hinges on who holds A♦ and J♥. 

Despite the fact that North didn't play A♦ when in, the fact that the dog didn't bark in the night should lead me to place A♦ with North.  If South had QJxxx♥ Q♥ K♦ and also A♦, she would surely have overcalled my 1♥ opener with 1♠. Logically, she can't have A♦, so it should be safe to lead my second diamond to the North hand.  If I do that, there is still a decision to make when North returns 7♥. If South started with a singleton ♥, then I must let the lead run around to my 10♥ on the table, but if she has both the honours, the play is to go up with K♥. I decided to play South for the doubleton, and, if I was going to do that, I might as well cash K♥ now and avoid the admitedly not very likely pitfall that South also has A♦. If I am going to play hearts from the top anyway, I might as well do so now.

As you can see, this does not work and now I couldn't avoid going one down. This hand was played in Hearts all six times, but nobody made ten tricks, despite the fact that only one declarer received the killing 2♦ lead (well played Graham Norris).  I think this proves my point that Bridge is a very difficult game laced through with opportunities to get it wrong.  The difference between the expert and we mere mortals, however, is that they will get these tough decisions right most of the time - i.e. make fewer mistakes. Unfortunately for our side, the only expert at the table was dummy, so had he been playing the contract, we might have done the impossible.

Anyway, at the end, Tony invoked the Principle of Restricted Choice, as well as that of the dog which didn't bark in the night, to explain why I should have got this one right.  While I don't profess to understand the logic/laws of probability behind this theory, if applied to this case the reasoning is that, if South held J♥ as well as Q♥ she might have played it, so that North is likely to have J♥ .  There is no 100% guarantee, of course, and, whenever I apply it, it doesn't seems to work, but It certainly would have in this case.  You could also argue that South's length in spades makes it likely she will be short in Hearts.  This, together with the near certainty that North holds A♦, should have led me to the correct line of play.  As this hand shows, the experts are simply much better at extracting every possible inference from the bidding and play to find the line which gives them the best chance of success, which is why they are making fewer mistakes than the rest of us.  Very well done if you got this one right.

I consulted a panel of experts on whether I should have bid on.  One, Colin Juneman from Somerset, decided to pass with some reluctance, another, Gwynn Davis from Cardiff said he would have tried 5S, which, as you can see if you look at all the hands, would surely encourage partner to bid the cold slam.  Tony Disley offers another approach, bid 3C, Stayman, to determine whether partner has a 4 card major.  If he does, then look for a slam in that major, if he doesn't, settle for 3NT.  This has the virtue of putting the responding hand in control, which is useful in this case as opener cannot have a full picture of responder's hand.  My method tells him I have 10 cards in the majors, but he doesn't know how well my minor suit holding is working, so does not consider venturing beyond 4S. Having chosen to bid the way I did, I think Gwynn's solution must be the way to say I have a bit extra, which I have not really done so far.  But there is another aspect of this hand, only apparent when you can see the West hand, which I did not initially give to the experts.  The issue is, "Do you play transfer breaks after 2NT?"  This hand illustrates why you should.  If partner can bid 4S to show he has 4 spades, then my hand is surely worth a shot at the slam.  My reluctance to venture beyong 4S was influenced by my lack of knowledge about what partner has in the majors - once that uncertainty is removed, then things become easier.  In fact, partner considered breaking the transfer by bidding 4H, which would have been a brilliant move.  This clearly expresses a doubt about the minors, which I have no worries over, so I would be more than happy to dive into Roman Key Card Blackwood after 4H and we'd get there.  Finally, do you have a less cumbersome method of showing 5-5 in the majors after 2NT?  Gwynn does - bid 4C.  However, demonstrating that it is difficult to cover every eventality, this bid says to partner, "I am 5-5 in the majors, but have no interest in slam!"  With this hand, partner will happily bid 4S, but then Gwynn suggests you should "give partner a surprise" by continuing with 5S.  I'd like to surprise partner by bidding more of these slams which our machine keeps presenting us with.  Did you?

The key is to remove dummy's trumps so that declarer cannot ruff a losing ♦ in dummy for her eigth trick, so you must start with a trump and continue trumps once back in, while at the same time refraining from leading a ♥ to provide declarer with a free finesse (once agian, the computer knows declarer has no entry to the dummy - to the human eye there is clearly an entry in the shape of A♣ - only the computer knows declarer is void in clubs).  Anyway, partner, not unreasonably, led his singleton in my suit, hoping I could hop up with the A♥ and give him a ruff - once again I was to disappoint him! Irene played faultlessly - low from dummy and took my Jack with her A♥ and then started on trumps.  Partner now did his best by hopping up with the A♠  and returning another trump, but we were doomed.  Irene simply extracted the last trump and played a heart to Q♥ setting up two further heart winners to go with her 5 spades. Ironically, East can make 5♣ or 5♦ but nobody got there, and certainly nobody played in 2♠x - well done Irene - a complete top, and a big fat zero for us.  The tide had turned and two further zeros, inflicted, rather than self-inflicted, by John and Colin, and Glyn and Vida, brought us back down to earth with a bump.  Did you find this fiendish defence?

After this lead you are staring at three potential losers (a diamond, a club and a trump).  It seems your only hope is that East has K♥, as well as just two spades.  Given the lack of entries to the North hand, I also made the assumption that East held just Kx♥. Accordingly, I put my plan into action.  Cash A♥, which also caters for the unlikely singleton K♥, cash Q♠, cross to A♠ and play K♠. Whether or not East ruffs with K♥, you discard your ♦ loser and now only have to lose to K♥ and A♣.  But, whoops, the K♥ is in the right place and East does indeed have only two spades, but he has a third heart, so is able to ruff in with 9♥ and you must now go one down.  Can you see a way of dealing with this distribution?  Well, you now need one more assumption, namely that West's three spades include the Jack, allowing you an extra entry to dummy via a spade finesse.  So, take the first diamond with your Ace and overtake Q♠ with A♠ to lead 5♥ playing Q♥ when East plays low.  NOW you can cash A♥ and return to dummy via 10♠ to play K♠ , leaving East with the same dilemma as before, allowing you to dispose of your ♦ loser whatever he does.You still have J♥  as an entry to your long spades when East has ruffed in with K♥, and, of course, if East declines to ruff in, you just keep playing your boss spades.

My big problem when facing decisions like this one, is lack of knowledge of the odds.  Is it better to play as I did, a line which also works when K♥ is singleton, or to take the second line, which caters for ♥ Kxx with East, but requires an even more precise location of the cards?  I really must read those books on playing suit combinations and get a better understanding of the odds - there is really no time to work it all out at the table each time you are faced with a difficult hand.  Of course, you could always make sure you are in the right contract in the first place!

At the table, partner first bid her second suit, 3♦ and then went to 4NT (RKCB) over partner's 3♥.  When she heard that partner held two "aces" plus Q♥, she had little hesitation in bidding the club slam.  Well bid partner.  Doubtless partner would have preferred to see A♥ rather than the king, and the inevitable spade lead put her under some pressure.  Her plan was to cross to A♦ and lead K♥, discarding the losing spade if the K♥ was not covered - it was, so partner ruffed and intended to return to dummy to discard her spade on Q♥ once she had drawn trumps.  Unlucky, trumps were 3-0, so her only hope was to return to dummy via a diamond ruff - doubly unlucky, as North, who held the long club, also held a doublton diamond, so was able to over-ruff and cash his spade winner for one down.  Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see that East should have cashed her A♣ first, getting the bad news, and then use her A♦ entry to take the club finesse.  It is then a simple matter to establish the diamond suit for 12 tricks and a joint top, as only one pair had bid and made 6♣.  The other pair who bid the slam also went one off, with 8 pairs resting in the club game, half of whom managed to find 12 tricks.  Two pairs were in 3NT and one, rather feebly, in 4♣.  But, another twist, the hand record says you should be making 13 tricks.  Do you see how?  Play as suggested above, finessing against North's Q♣.  If he doesn't cover at the first attempt (best) play K♥ and ruff North's A♥ (if he doesn't cover this it's all over anyway).  Then draw Q♣ and cross to dummy by ruffing a diamond to enjoy your heart winners, discarding a spade and two diamond losers - simpulls, though nobody found this at the table, but then they didn't have to.  And how did our winners fare on this board?  Theirs was the fifteenth time it was played, and the one contract I didn't mention, 3♠ by North-South!  This was the only time this board was declared by NS, and, though it went two off for minus 200, was only bettered by two pairs who were lucky enough to face those of us in 6♣ one off, and one who mesmerised their opponents into stopping in 4♣ +1 for the princely minus 150!  Is that what they call table presence?  Anyway, well done once again to Tony and Roger.

PS  To be fair to partner, she bid an excellent 6♥ during the morning session and played it expertly to make an overtrick for an outright top - the years rolled back!

I didn't think we had sophisticated enough methods to determine exactly where we should end up, so I just bid 6♣. A heart was led, so the Ace was played on the King, which I brilliantly ruffed.  It was now a simple matter of drawing trumps while establishing long hearts for two diamond discards and 13 tricks.  Of course, this was not as good as the two pairs who played in 6NT making exactly, but was still worth 83%, as only one other pair had made 6♣+1.  Somebody contrived to go off in 6♣, and the others in it made exactly, with 6 pairs not even managing to find the slam. I don't think you can bid the grand, which depends on the even split of the heart suit as well as the favourable position of the A♥, but I suppose there is a strong case for punting the NT slam in a pairs competition, as, with 15 points, it is highly likely that partner will be able to provide the three tricks you need.  I just felt 6♣ was a safer bet, though I guess I was lucky to find partner with such good trump support.  Do you have a more sophisticated way of bidding these hands? 

It appears you have a heart loser, at least one spade loser and a diamond loser.  At the table declarer spurned the club finesse as he didn't want to lose one of those as well.  But do you see that the club finesse is a "shot to nothing".  If it wins you can discard your losing heart on Q♣ , and if it loses, you can discard the heart on A♣, and you are no worse off than before.  You have simply swopped a loser in hearts for one in clubs.  BUT - you need to take this finesse early, while you still have entires to dummy, or you cannot aford to risk it, as you might end up making no club tricks by leaving the A♣ stranded!  Declarer spotted all this too late and got a poor score for 4♠ =, when many others were making the "shot to nothing" overtrick - a mistake which cost this declarer top spot on the night!

After a long pause for thought, Bill came up with 3♣ , asking whether partner has a 5 card major.  Given the bidding, it would be miraculous were partner to respond 3♠ , and West can cope with a 3♥ reply (in that event, should he pass or bid the game?).  If, as he hopes, partner replies 3♦, promising a 4 card major, he can pass, which, as you can see, was what happened and which turned out very well for East-West, making 10 tricks with only 7 or 8 being made in NT contracts.  A couple of other interesting points emerge.  While it is often useful to put a spoke in the opposition's wheel by sticking in a bid, even if only to direct the lead, which, in itself, could be vital, it can, as in this case, provided extra options for the opposition.  Suppose South does not bid.  West has to reply 2♦(relay) and then what does he do over 2NT?  He now has no hint that there are long spades on his right, so there is a danger partner will respond 3S to his enquiry.  Where can he go now?  A hopeless 3NT seems the only option, as 4♦ over 3S would be taken as a cue bid.  Of course, a similar problem would arise if partner has neither a 5 or a 4 card major, when he has to reply 3NT.  But now a 4♦ bid must be a take-out, so West can steer the partnership onto solid ground.  The risk involved in Bill's 3♣ bid was clearly lessened by South's overcall, as the danger of the 3S response was almost completely neutralised, and, as we have seen, West can cope with any other response from his partner. A well thought out piece of escapology!

At the table, West bid 4S, which, if you look at all the hands, makes comfortably.  In fact, it is impossible to stop declarer making 13 tricks.  While you wouldn't expect a grand slam to be bid on this collection, should East West have found the 22 point slam?  Does East's 2NT enquiry suggest a decent hand, or does he not really fancy spades, but fancies hearts even less, in which case 3S is probably enough. So, East's 3S risked being passed out, unless the partnership has an agreement that 2NT is a positive bid, as opposed to an escape mechanism.  Why didn't East just support the spades at once?  Well, if West's second suit happens to be diamonds, then they are really in business with a massive double fit.  But what are the odds of West bidding diamonds at his second turn?  Doesn't East's 2NT bid complicate the auction unnecessarily?  Is there a case for an immediate splinter of 4C with the East hand. Now, with his void diamonds and excellent heart suit, West might give the slam serious consideration, though I suspect that, other than punting it, you would need some highly scientific methods to get there.  If E-W are playing Exclusion  Blackwood, a bid of 5D from West asks about key cards except the Ace of diamonds.  But how should East reply with his void?  6C shows a void club and one key card (KS - and remember AD is not included).  This response has committed the partnership to the slam anyway, but what a good slam it is.  Do you and partner have the methods to get there?

I decided to pass the buck to partner as I don't know the vaue of his opening hand.  Unsurprisingly, given his spade holding, Bill doubled and we took the contract three off for 500 points, but this was not tidy enough, as 4♥  is a shoo-in (making 11), and 5♣  made 12 tricks(well bid Dilys and Linda).  Non-vul against vul, Adrian had calculated accurately before making his bid, but should we have known to go on to the five level? Given that few other NS pairs were likely to be bidding 4♠ , I suppose you could argue that we were on a bad result anyway unless we could hold declarer to six tricks (unlikely) so we might as well have pushed on.  Difficult to work all this out, of course, in the heat of battle.  What is interesting about the expert bidding is the initial 1♠  overcall on 6 points, which encouraged partner to admit to some values, thus allowing the eventual sacrifice to be made.  I suppose this is all about envisaging how the auction is likely to develop, as well as having the confidence in one's ability to get the best out of a poor collection of cards, green against red.  

Partner now cue bid 4♣  , so it looked as though my fears were about to be realised.  Ever the obedient one, I joined in the exercise with 4♦ , which prompted partner to enquire further with 4NT.  Four spades was clearly, like my milkman, now a thing of the past, so I described my holding most skilfully with a call of 5♥ . Partner now gave the situation due consideration and eventually emerged with a bid of.............7NT!  Right hand opponent commented that I went a lighter shade of pale at this point, but, as you can see from looking at the full deal, 13 tricks were a walk in the park, even for partner. This board was played 12 times and slam was only reached 50% of the time, and the grand slam only twice, and the top scoring NT Grand, only once.  Very well bid, partner.

My Wednesday partner and I don't have a system for bidding minor suit slams after 2NT, so we need to get one.  I decided on the "practical" bid of 3NT, which makes 12 tricks and scores you 50%, but it must be worth loooking for the slam, and two pairs did.  An excellent approach is described in the last article (see below - "2NT and the Minors Again").  Using this system, North should bid 3♠ , transfer to 3NT, followed by 4♣  (I'm interested in a slam in either minor, partner).  As you can see from the South hand, this is music to partner's ears,  and she will accept the invitation in clubs by bidding 4♥  (first step, as 4♦  is reserved for indicating a preference for a ♦  slam) showing 4 Key cards.  After this North can take a shot at 6♣, which makes 13 tricks, as does 6♦.  Shouldn't you be bidding 6NT at pairs? Well, you have a maximum of 30 points, so the minor suit slam is safer, although the NT slam happens to make as well on this occasion, so those chancing their arm would have been, some would say, unjustly rewarded.

Marjorie did well to bid out her hand, so her next bid was 3S.  Bill now knew that she could only have one diamond, and, with a double fit and nine trumps, he had no hesitation in bidding the 21 point game.  There is nothing to the play, so all declarers made 10 tricks, but only Bill and Marjorie, and Rob and Alan, managed to find the game.  Very well done to them, and unlucky 13 to their opponents, as this was the number of the first board we played!

Like most mysteries, it's easy when you see it.  Partner must be giving you a choice of minor suit slams.  Not having discussed any more scientific methods, partner hit upon a simple way of doing this, expecting somebody with a logical brain to work it out.  I hope your brain proved more logical than mine, and that you bid 6♦.  As you can see from looking at all the hands, passing 6♣ was not a success.  Is there a way to invite minor suit slams over 2NT?  Yes, by agreement, of course.  Merely interested in a club slam or a diamond slam, bid 4♣ or 4♦ over the 2NT, which should be taken as RKCB in the suit bid..  But, with a two suited minor hand go via the 3♠ relay to 3NT, then bid 4♣, to which partner will give RKCB responses if he is interested in clubs (FIRST STEP 1♥) or bid 4♦ if that is his suit, and then responder can use 4♥ as RKCB .  If opener wishes to reject the slam try, she simply bids 4NT, which must be passed.  And what of that 2NT opener with a singleton?  Most people seem to disapprove, but what if you use a Benji style?  Then after 2♣ - 2♦ (relay) - 2NT you are showing an unbalanced 20-22 points.  A direct 2NT shows a more balanced hand with the same number of points.

The lack of K♦ might suggest to the wise man that settling in the pairs contract of 6NT would be sensible.  However, we had not had a good evening, so I was looking for a spectacular result, and thought partner might be able to discard some diamond losers on A♣ and the spades, which might even be establishable if trumps were hearts, so I bid the Grand.  As you can see from the full hand, partner did not have K♣ (he was trying to say he had no kings outside KH, which should have been a bid of 5H).  Had I known this, I would certainly not have bid a grand, being a punt as it was, even if partner held K♣.  Amazingly, because QS is onside, you can actually make the Grand, so we could have scored a totally undeserved top, had partner taken the risk in spades.  Whether it is ever wise to bid a Grand Slam unless you can actually count the thirteen tricks, I leave it to you to decide.

At the table, East decided to leave three spades in, hoping partner could scramble home for +140, beating the possible +130 for 4C, assuming it makes anyway.  As you can see, West actually has 5 clubs, so 4C turns out to be a comfortable make, with 3S, though makeable according to the computer, much more difficult and, in real life, it drifted off. So, is this a minus point for the short club?  Certainly playing better minor it would have been easier for East to find what turned out to be the winning bid of 4C right away, though you could argue that, after West's 3S, he still had the option of going to 4C, but was seduced by the higher scoring major suit.  Perhaps the strongest argument for 4C is that North said he would have bid 4D over it, which EW should be able to double for +200, a good score in a part score battle.  On balance, I think a return to better minor is an attractive thought, but I have partners to convince, and, to quote from my favourite poet, miles to go before I sleep!

After the play to the first two tricks you have a fairly certain count on the hand.  Declarer has almost certainly 8 spades for his opening bid, Ax of Hearts (partner would NEVER lead away from an Ace in a suit contract) and, therefore, three small clubs.  Clearly partner has a singleton heart and would very much like a ruff, but see what happens if you give her one straight away.  What can she lead back?  She cannot play a spade to deny declarer his club ruff, as she now loses her certain spade winner.  If she leads a diamond, declarer simply ruffs in hand and then ruffs his last club in dummy, losing a club, a heart ruff and KS.  So... you must disappoint partner and play your singleton spade at trick three, denying declarer his ruff.  Now declarer is on the spot.  Have you brilliantly led away from KS?  Unlikely, so declarer's best bet now is to go up with AS and play another, hoping spdes are 2-2.  Unlucky, as partner is now in with KS and needs to find the underlead of AC to get you in to lead a heart for her to trump for the setting trick.  Great defence, which partner and I almost got right at the table, but almost is not good enough.  Well done to those who found it.  Did you?

Did you find the lead that gives declarer most trouble? At the table Mike Best certainly did, leading from his doubleton diamond.  Not something you'd find in a textbook, but you don't become a Grand Master without being able to think on your feet.  This lead gives nothing away and declarer was not able to find a way to 9 tricks after this lead, the only declarer to fail to make 9 tricks - indeed, most of the declarers made an overtrick in NT, so this was certainly the best start to the defence.  Now put yourself in the shoes of declarer - can he do better?  Clearly you need to read West for most of the points after his very defensive lead, but, if East has AH you can make both of your Heart honours - worth a try.  BUT, before testing the Hearts, why not lead another diamond?  This removes West's other safe exit card, so that, when he takes his AH, he is forced to return a club, meaning that he now has to guard all three side suits when you run the diamonds.  This suggets that West does better to duck the first Heart, which makes life more difficult for declarer.  He can now run the diamonds, and it is now a question of how he and  West read each other's discards, with West having the advantage of discarding second.  South's best bet is probably to come down to KxS, QxH and AJ clubs, exiting with a Heart (hoping East does not have AH to shoot a spade through)  This will work as, though East can now cash 4 tricks, he has to concede declarer's last trick (assuming declarer has worked out what West's last card is!) This is all a bit double-dummy, of course, very difficult to get right at the table,  and will only gain declarer one MP, as most other declarers have made an overtrick.  Well done Mike!

The most EW could make in 3H* was 4 tricks, so our experts had to endure a bottom , conceding 1400 points, 300 worse than the more cautious pair who played in 2H*.  So, even had a non-vulnerable minor suit slam been made, it would have scored less for NS than doubling the preemptive bid. Unfortunately, at our table no premptive bid was heard, leaving partner and I to flounder off in a slam with East no doubt reflecting that, on this occasion at least, silence was indeed golden.

West starts with AK♣, and you ruff the second trick in hand. Not wishing to end up on The Embankment, I played as we urge our Thursday class and started to draw trumps....whoops! The bad break means that I lose control as I can be forced when the defenders lead clubs whenever they are in.  Did you spot that you need to leave trumps in dummy to take care of the clubs while you set up K♦ and the heart suit. So.....at trick three lead to dummy's Q♠ and then play toward K♦. If East takes this and returns a club, you can ruff in dummy and return to hand to lead towards K♥. West takes and tries another club, but you ruff again in dummy, cross to hand with a diamond ruff, draw trumps and enjoy your hearts.  Perhaps partner was right to criticise me, but it should have been for my play, rather than for my bidding.  Would you have satisfied her?

If you passed, you are getting a zero, as all other E/W players are in game.  This West thought partner was weak, though you might argue he was worth another try with such a shapely hand.  Look at the East hand, though. If partner is likely to think your jump rise is weak, you must have a way of showing a good rise, or at least values.  Depending on partnership agreement, this could be 2NT or double.  While double implies the other two suits, East can support spades with her next bid (after West's 3C) and game will surely be reached.  Similarly after 2NT, whether it is played as a good rise in partner's suit or a balanced 10-12 count. (1♠-2♦-2nt-3♣-3♠-4♠).  So, if you are going to raise with tram tickets over doubles or overcalls, you must have a way of showing partner if you have more than that.  Finally, suppose North overcalls 3♦?  Now life is more difficult, as East's 3S could be simply competing on very little, as the 2NT option has been bypassed.  Double could again be used to show values in this sequence, or it could be agreed that a 3 level response after a 3 level jump overcall does indeed show an invitational hand, and, with less than that, you must pass and hope partner is strong enough to reopen with a double, and you then bid 3S, competitive. How many partnerships have all these eventualities covered?

As you can see, the only way for the defence to get that vital sixth trick is via a Heart ruff.  After a Heart lead from West, ducked by declarer to East's King, East must lead a heart back into the teeth of North's AJ. Then, when in with KS, West can give East his Heart ruff - end of story. In practice, West led a low club, taken by South's A♣. South now led a small spade, taken by East's K♠, taking out West's easy entry to give the Heart ruff.  Naturally West leads a Heart at last, taken by East's K♥,  but it now looks hopeless for EW.  However, had West led J♣ rather than a small one, it might have occurred to East to underlead his K♣ when in with A♠ (expecting West to hold 10♣), thus securing his ♥ ruff. So he should play back a ♥ after taking his K♥, and then, when in with his A♠ he can complete the execution of his plan.  In my defence, I did consider a club underlead, but was discouraged by partner's initial low club and did not want to present an overtrick in clubs.  On reflection, knowing we were on a bad result anyway, I should have gone for broke and  gambled that partner did hold J♣. This hand shows how important and interesting part-score battles can be, and they should certainly be given as much effort and concentration as the spectacular slams we so love to bid and make.

On the first board of the evening, East decided his hand was worth a jump to game.  After some thought, West now decided his hand was worth a look, so bid 4NT.  On hearing of partner's 3 key cards he decided he was going on to slam, regardless of whether partner held the queen of trumps, so bid 6H.  As you can see, there was little to the play, but, with everybody scoring twelve tricks and this pair being the only ones in a slam, it was a very good start to the evening.  How did you do?  Some might be a little more sophisticated and bid a 3S splinter with the East hand at their second turn, which would give West even more justification to look for a slam, either through a direct 4NT or a 4C cue bid, hearing 4D from East - now you must surely get there.

If you found the trump lead you hold declarer to his seven trump tricks, as you can take out his other trump once you are back in and you will make three hearts, a diamond and two clubs - simples. Defenders at this table, however, managed to find a way to enable declarer to make his contract. Try  this. 1. Lead AH  2.  Switch to AC and note partner's encouraging 7.  3. Play a small club to partner's KC.  4.  Partner, thinking you are after a club ruff, returns a small club, away goes QD as declarer wins in dummy. 5.  It is now a simple matter for declarer to ruff a diamond, ruff a heart, ruff a diamond, ruff a heart, ruff a diamond and cash the top trumps for his contract.  The identities of the pair who snatched a bottom from the jaws of victory will not be revealed here, but we know who we are.  Lesson:  Always consider a trump lead to cut down declarer's ruffs.  It is surprising how often it can be a killer blow.

Four of the seven pairs who played this hand did go on to slam, demonstrating that the majority of players at Bridgend are optimists.  I decided to pass 4H and got a spade lead, which I ruffed in dummy. I then cashed AD and ruffed a diamond so that I could lead towards dummy's two remaining trumps, covering East's 8 with the 9, but finding West void.  Two trump losers were now inevitable, so I was glad to have avoided the slam, but I was able to ruff or dispose of my spades on dummy's minor suit winners, so came to 11 tricks. This was not a top, however, as one of the pairs in the slam did manage to make it, as they did not get a spade lead, so were leading up to three, rather than two trumps in dummy, and can hold the trump losers to one.  However, if West goes up with AH and returns a spade, then another loser appears.  A difficult hand to bid and to defend, but I don't think it proves the case for the anti-duplimator faction.  What do you think, and how did you fare on the deal?

I have discovered two expert approaches to this problem.   The first, employing Lebensohl, worked well with this particular hand.  After East's 2 bid, South bid 3, showing a stop in Hearts and 4 spades, after which North had no trouble bidding 4.  Had he not possessed four spades, he could have bid 3NT, though this might have been problematic, which suggests there is a danger of getting too high with this method.  Furthermore, as our resident expert Tony Disley points out, you have now lost all chance of penalising the opposition if they really are in deep trouble.  Tony's style is to regard any second double after 1NT has been doubled as TO, with a third double, given the opportunity, as penalties.   Again this would have worked well with this hand, as a TO double from South after 2would get 2from partner, raised to 3 by South and 4 by North.  Change North's hand slightly to 972, K1095, KQJ8, AK, and he would likely leave the double in.  And where the opposition, however unlikely it seems, decide to compete over North's 2, a third double would be for penalties, in this case netting +500, beating the +420 gained by the 4bidders, but not the +800 of the luck pair whose opponents decided to stand the double of 1NT.  So, if you want a moral to this Gothic tale, it is that "rules" are there to be broken and that, if you are going to cope with the complex situations which arise at the Bridge table, you need to be flexible and adaptable in your systems and thought processes.  Sticking to the simple "rules" you used as an essential crutch when a learner and improver can only get you so far.  Thanks again to Tony for his valuable insights.

The Law of Total tricks suggests passing.  (If the opposition have 9 trumps, and you and partner have 8 between you, the toal number of trumps (Total Tricks available) is 17, so, if they can make 9 tricks in spades, you can only make 8 in hearts.  If you can make 9, they can only make 8).  As it happens, the total tricks available is 18, as both sides have a nine card fit, so, if they can make 9 tricks, 4 hearts is a good save as long as they don't double (it should be one down).  At the table, without benefit of this "science" I decided they were making 3 spades so I bid 4H.  Looking at the four hands, it appears 3S should make and 4H go one off, but we are dealing with human beings, and the other pairs in hearts actually made10 tricks and the one pair in 3S made 8, so we got a bad result. Clealry the law of total tricks is not infallible (or perhaps I should say the people using it aren't) but it seems to me, certainly on the basis of this hand, that it is worth adding it to your armoury, though clearly you will need to have some idea of the trump holdings in the four hands to be able to use it reasonably accurately.

The auction suggested a club lead to South, which he duly offered, and it is difficult to see a legitimate way to make this contract as you must now lose 3 clubs and two others, whichever way you tackle it.  The one time 3NT was played from the West hand, 10 tricks were made, which suggests a spade may have been led, but the Easts playing in NT had to settle for 8 tricks, and one only collected 7.  Do we blame Crowhurst for pinpointing the best lead?  In this case South may well have led a club anyway, so eschewing the advantages of Crowhurst does not necessarily follow.  Having said that, there will be times when leader might have had a better choice of leads and your sequence has helped him to decide which to produce.  It is therefore worth considering jumping to the NT game, particularly with a balanced hand, rather than risk providing free hints to your opponents, and the same applies to the use of Stayman over a NT opener.  As ever, this comes down to judgement,  and an acceptance of the fact that no system will work perfectly for you all the time - it would be a pretty boring game if that were the case.

My plan was to secure one spade trick (no chance these opponents will provide another) at least one heart, three diamonds and three clubs.  The problem with this plan is that it requires favourable distribution in both clubs and diamonds, and making the right guess in hearts.  Furthermore, lack of entries to dummy are likey to complicate matters - as I write this I can see I was already thinking in a muddled and pessimistic mode, and hoping things would turn up (I'm sure an expert would have thought things out more clearly).  

I play low on the first trick, which RHO has to win.  He is far too mean to return a spade and present me with an extra trick, so, after some thought, a low diamond comes back.  This is OK - you win in hand and play the other honour, captured by RHO - phew!  He now returns a low club to the J, K and A. You can now cash your long diamonds, throwing a couple of hearts, and it is decision time.  If you now take the heart finesse, playing LHO for AH, which she must have for you to succeed (and oviously not hold QH as well) the opposition will knock out your spade stop (and last entry to dummy) so you will no longer be able to set up your long club and enjoy it.  I therefore decided to gamble on the club split.  UNFORTUNATELY, when in with 10C, LHO cashed 9C, so I am now one down (No split - boo).  Clearly this was not the best thought out plan.  Partner helpfully suggested I should have ducked a club to RHO!!!!

Knowing the odds on various things working, another expert trait, would have helped, but a logical rethink halfway through (the ability to see the whole picture and be flexible) might have got me home.  RHO has turned up with 4 diamonds as well as at least 4 spades, so the chances of his having 3 clubs must have lessened the odds on the even split still further. What about the hearts?  You need two tricks if you are not getting three in clubs, and you cannot do this if RHO has AS and LHO QS.  In fact, you need RHO to hold QH and 10H.... SO...the only chance, if you give up on the clubs, is to play a Heart from table and insert 9H.  As the cards lie, this ensures 8 tricks and your contract however the opposition defends, assuming you continue to play impeccably yourself.

There are variations depending on whether LHO has discarded a spade or a heart on the last diamond, but, as far as I can see, you should make, having got to the position I was in at trick 7, having cashed the last diamond in dummy.  Of course, all this has taken a great deal of analysis and the knowledge of all four hands, and I still haven't covered all the angles (what if RHO ducks the second diamond, for example?).  How can you possibly work all this out at the table in the time allowed by our ever vigilant director - four of us couldn't anyway, but I guess that's the difference between the experts and we mere mortals.  FINALLY....look what happens if you go for broke and throw a club and a spade on the long diamonds.  If you now play a heart to the nine and LHO takes her AH, you win the spade return in dummy and finesse RHO's QH, cash KH, clearing the hearts, and enjoy two further heart tricks as well as the second club.  One spade, four hearts, three diamonds and two clubs.  TEN TRICKS when, in  real life, we all struggled to make SEVEN.  Fantasy land, of course.

In last week's hand we saw the importance of ducking as a defender to destroy declarer's communications.  This week it was declarer who needed to duck, which he did at trick one.  He played 8H from dummy, covered by 10H and ducked in hand.  North cannot return a Heart (unless he believes partner's lead is a singleton).  Suppose he returns a diamond.  Declarer lets South win this trick with QD, and South naturally plays her second Heart to the 8,J and Ace. Declarer now leads a low spade towards dummy, South splits her honours and the trick is won in dummy by AS.  Declarer now finesses the JD and is then able to discard the losing Heart from dummy.  He now only loses one trick in each suit, whereas the commentator thought he would lose two hearts, which he would have done had  he taken the first heart trick.  At our table, declarer, Simon Richards, worked all this out in a split second and smoothly racked up his nine tricks.  Mind you, three other declarers also made 3S, so, either we are not very good at defending in Bridgend, or our declarers can outdo EBU commentators any day!

It is essential to duck the first diamond to sever communications between declarer and dummy. If you take the first diamond, declarer still has a diamond to lead over to dummy and can knock out your JD while still having KH in dummy as an entry to enjoy the long diamonds.  So.... it is difficult to see declarer making his contract on best defence.  Take a look at the whole hand and see the problems faced by declarer on this deal.  Can you see a legitimate way for N/S to make a NT contract?  WELL.......it may be possible to make 1NT by end-playing East at some point, but how do you stop in 1NT with 24 points between you?  I consulted our newest GM, Tony Disley, on this hand and, on the bidding, he feels South should respond 1NT, resisting the temptation to upgrade the hand because of his singleton opposite partner's spades.  He agrees that, at teams, it is now tempting for North, with his 16 points, to invite game, but favours the disciplined approach of passing, allowing declarer to play in the optimum contract of 1NT.  On the play, Tony agrees with the JS lead (phew!) and considers it "automatic" for West to duck the first diamond.  Once West has ducked, declarer has a maximum of 6 tricks on top, but Tony believes another should materialise from the opponents being endplayed at some point.  Even if this doesn't happen, going one off in 1NT should obtain a better result than playing in a higher contract, though the results suggest that the Ace was not withheld from the first diamond trick by many of those playing the West cards. So, a nightmare for declarer, yes, but this hand also shows how difficult finding the best defence is, which can often lessen the pain for declarer, and even, on some occasions, banish all his bad dreams completely!>