This interesting deal cropped up in the Vivendi Rosenblum Round Robin in the match between Innocentini and Schwartz. It is set as a problem for the player in the South seat - should he adopt a forcing defence or not?

Board 15. Dealer South. NS Game ª 8 6 5 4 © Q 9 ¨ Q 10 8 § 9 7 6 5 ª A Q 3 ª K J 9 7 © J 10 5 3 2 © K 8 4 ¨ J 5 3 ¨ K § Q 10 § A J 8 4 3 ª 10 2 © A 7 6 ¨ A 9 7 6 4 2 § K 2 West North East South Rubin Soroldini Becker Croci 1¨ 1© Pass 2¨ Pass 2© Pass 4© All Pass

After the lead of the ¨8, South won the first trick with the ace. He then played the only card to defeat the contract, the ª10. This had the effect of irreparably cutting declarer's communications.

If West wins in hand, ruffs a diamond, returns to hand with another spade and ruffs another diamond he sets up three more tricks for the defence. After a lot of thought West took the trick with the ªA and played the ©J to the queen and king, and South decided not to win with the ace, following with the 6. This move, although quite good, was not decisive. West can't allow the trumps in dummy to be eliminated because when South wins the §K he can play a diamond. Coming to hand with a spade to ruff a diamond clearly has no future.

After long thought West played the ªK and a small spade from the dummy. South was not sure of the spade position so he declined to ruff, but this also was not important.

The play continued with a diamond ruff and the ªJ ruffed and overruffed with declarer's ©10. Now the dummy was down to only clubs and North's ©9 was the setting trick.