I got an e-mail from poorbridge connoisseur Adam Lea. The e-mail had the following title: A very poor hand (possibly poorbridge.com worthy?)
Well, not every hand that Adam sends me is poorbridge.com poor — many are rather like what having flu is to having the Bubonic plague: jolly nasty and all, but only the old and infirm would publish them on the web. And no-one at poorbridge.com is old. Or infirm, I imagine. Anyway, I'm happy to say that this hand is PBOTW poor.
Well, not every hand that Adam sends me is poorbridge.com poor — many are rather like what having flu is to having the Bubonic plague: jolly nasty and all, but only the old and infirm would publish them on the web. And no-one at poorbridge.com is old. Or infirm, I imagine. Anyway, I'm happy to say that this hand is PBOTW poor.
What contract would you like to play in on the N/S cards:
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ![]() |
| ||||||||||||||||
|
6
looks ok with twelve tricks off the top — our teammates made 5
+1 and were disappointed to not find the slam. However, things turned out fine as at our table South managed to go two off in 5
!



How? Well...
Partner led a heart, covered by the
Q and
A. I played the
K, ruffed. South played
A, then cashed
K Q.
A, followed by
Q J T, partner ruffing the fourth round. Partner plays another heart, ruffed, trapping South in hand and South now has to lose two spade tricks for two off!
Partner led a heart, covered by the







Comment at the end by South: "The spades were 3-3, I should have played to set them up."
Yup, that's why she didn't make 5
.
