jaguelin

Dear Sir, I’ve been training often with your bridge software Bridge base 2000, especially for its educational quality. I happened to play a very interesting deal, from my point of view, which could be of interest for you. Pair tournament Dealer : South Vul NS S O N E 1♠ 3♥ 4♠ P P P ♠ K J 9 7 ♥ K 9 7 ♦ K Q 4 ♣ J 3 2 N ♠ -------------- ♠ Q 6 3 2 ♥ Q J 10 6 5 4 3 O E ♥ 8 ♦ 7 3 ♦ A J 10 9 8 2 ♣ 10 8 7 6 s ♣ K 9 ♠ A 10 8 7 5 4 ♥ A 2 ♦ 6 5 ♣ A Q 5 4 O leads ♥ Q, S takes with the Ace, plays the ♠ 10 taken by the K followed by the J; E covers with the Q taken by the ♠ Ace. S plays ♦6 for the K taken by the Ace by E who returns ♦ J taken by the dummy’s Q and followed by the ♣2 for the Q. S plays a small ♠ for the dummy’s 9 and the ♣3 for the K taken by the ace. S eliminates the last E trump, plays the ♣5 for the ♣J and the ♦ 4, cut with his last trump. O is then squeezed ♥-♣ for 12 tricks. To my opinion, covering the J trump at the 3nd trick is not a good decision, provided that S needs 2 communications apart from the ♥ K to succeed in making 12 tricks. But it seems that there is a solution anyway : if E doesn’t cover, S must finesse immediately the ♣K , expecting it second and play 2 rounds of ♣, thus capturing the K. S follows with ♦ the end being the same. I played this deal in S and fortunately I had the first case; in the second one, I think that a “necessity” hypothesis can find the good solution, but only if you play the slam. I would be grateful to receive your advice. Best regards, JCIBridge Base FG