My Take

Author: Larry Cohen
Date of publish: 01/01/2021
Level: Intermediate

This deal was published last year in the Goren Bridge column:

Vul:N-S
Dlr: South
♠ K983
♥ J104
♦ A76
♣ AK2
 
♠ AQ54
♥ 853
♦ KQJ10
♣ 86
  ♠ 1076
♥ 7
♦ 95432
♣ J1043
  ♠ J2
♥ AKQ962
♦ 8
♣ Q975
 

South opened 1♠ and West made a takeout double. After some optimistic bidding, North-South reached 6♠ with the obvious ♠K lead. Clubs aren't 3-3 and declarer can't ruff a club in dummy on this layout. The analysis focused on the spade suit.

Declarer won the ♠A and crossed to the ♠A to lead a low spade. West could (should?) have played second-hand low. Instead, he took his ace and look what happened next. He exited with a diamond, ruffed by declarer. The ♠J was led and West had to cover. Later, the ♠10 fell and dummy had a good spade for declarer's 4th club. Had West ducked the ♠A, declarer could no longer set up a spade trick--down one. Or so the newspaper said.

Or is it? My take on the deal is that the spade suit didn't matter. Declarer should win the ♠A and trump a diamond at trick two. Now on the spade play, let's say West correctly plays low. Declarer can still make the contract! He wins the ♠K and gives up a spade. The best West can do is exit in clubs or trumps. No matter. The stage is set for a dummy reversal.

Declarer can win the return in dummy and trump the last diamond high. He crosses to dummy again and trumps a spade. One more cross to dummy and he trumps the last spade high. He then draw trump ending in dummy. In effect, declarer's fourth club is thrown on dummy's third trump. Try it!

Note: Only a club lead (not likely) would set the contract.