Looks Deceptively Difficult

	K J 4 3 2
	A K
	7
	A K Q 5 2
10 8 6		Q 9
10 7 3		Q 8 5 4 2
2		Q 10 9 6 5
J 10 9 7 4 3		6
	A 7 5
	J 9 6		Vul: N-S
	A K J 8 4 3		Opening lead: J of clubs
	8		Contract: 6 spades, 6 no

I might start by mentioning that a listing of declarers in little or grand slam in spades or no trump was bracketed by a pair at each end in clubs for an absolute bottom for the declarers, once for N-S, once for E-W. First, a West player here jumped over one diamond to 4 clubs! On one high-card point! Oh, the vulnerability was favorable. Oh, of course. But one high-card point? A six-card suit? That hand figures out to about 3 winners on an even break. Down 7? Even at that it's too expensive opposite a vulnerable slam, which though everyone was bidding, not all were even making. But of course there wasn't an even split and this declarer was down 8! Minus 2000.

That point hardly needs clarification. In a sort of tail wagging the dog the rest of the discussion has nothing to do with Overbidding in Competition, but I think the hand and some declarers' butchering of it offer some lessons to be pondered.

Then there was the N-S pair getting the worst score their way in a club contract. Opposite a diamond opening bid, North bid a spade, and over a 2 diamond rebid, shot to 4NT and then on to 6 clubs. Which was passed. Down four. Was that not a Request for Preference? It would seem so. North correctly sniffed out slam and only needed a little cooperation from his partner. (It's gotta be the easiest bid in bridge to get right, that preference bid. Or so it would seem. There may be occasional ambiguities when the choice is beteen a major and a minor -- but not when the responder has two more cards in the major, his partner's first bid suit, than in the minor!)

Anyway, I'm going to take up what went wrong with the play of the hand in six no. Maybe tomorrow I'll take up those going down in 6 spades, but here there were enough malefactors going down in 6 no, that I'll take up only their malfeasance. It doesn't look like an easy hand. No good communication back and forth in any suit but spades. Still, there are entries to each hand and on a second look, the hand boils down to taking the two finesses against a queen that declarer has. We can see that we could drop the Q of spades, but we can't see that during play and we'll come out okay if we take both hooks including the losing one.

A very common mistake was to forego the diamond hook. I don't know why anyone would bypass that finesse. You can't make the contract without a third diamond trick unless you pick up 5 spade tricks. (Okay, an improbable doubleton Q of hearts would render that false.) If you've already picked up 5 spade tricks, you can afford to eschew the diamond hook for two diamond winners. But if you've taken a losing finesse in spades or get a diamond lead before touching spades (as some did playing from the other side of the table), it certainly behooves you to take that finesse for a 12th winner thereby making your contract if either finesse is on rather than banking on the spade hook alone.

But still worse, or in any event, far more difficult to understand, were the declarers who did take the diamond hook and then went down. At the point where the J of diamonds holds, it's a cakewalk. You're home free on any 4-2 diamond split (5 diamonds, 3 clubs, two hearts and two spades), have an overtrick on 3-3, and if diamonds split unevenly, you abandon the suit temporarily to take a first-round finesse in spades, where you're home free on any 3-2 spade split (four spades, 3 diamonds, 3 clubs, 2 hearts). So you cash the ace of diamonds, note that you don't have a 4-2 split coming, and go after spades (a first-round finesse so as to retain communication back to the closed hand, of course). Here's what went wrong:

Heart opening lead to the ace, diamond to the J, A of diamonds getting news of the bad split, A of spades and a finesse into the Q. Ace of spades! So now how do you pick up the K of diamonds? It wasn't a time to cash the ace to avoid a first-round finesse. You've got to take the spade hook while retaining the ace of spades. When it loses, you now have an entry to cash the K of diamonds for a total of 12 tricks.

Another, playing from the North hand, got the 10 of diamonds opening lead and went up with the A. Why, why, why? You've got every suit guarded, you can survive a losing finesse, still picking up your contract on either 3-3 diamonds or a successful finesse in spades for 5 tricks. You just can't afford to put all your eggs in one basket and commit yourself (essentially) to picking up 5 spade winners. You try as many possibilities as you can! -- favoring those that leave you free to try another tack if possible. Another declarer took the opening heart lead, cashed the A of clubs for some unknown reason. (There's just no reason to cash that club trick. Yes, declarer still has pretty good transportation to that hand, but that's hardly reason to cash out one when it isn't a suit he intends to exploit.) A diamond to the A, ace of spades, spade hook into the Q and a diamond back! Declarer at that point had no communication to his diamonds without that generosity of his opponent, and here was his chance! Now, if he'd have counted and had seen that he can't possibily get more than 4 spade winners, can't get more than three club winners and that it's highly improbable he can get more than 2 heart winners, simple addition tells him he has 9 winners outside of diamonds and the finesse must be taken.

Oh, he might go down two on a losing finesse? Well, do tell. Yes, a losing finesse would have meant down two. That's two hundred instead of one hundred. So he played to go down one! Had he taken the hook, he would have been plus 1440! So you stand to pick up 14 times as much if you're right as what you lose if you're wrong. On a 50% chance!

Another: Spade opening lead from West to the 9 by East, A by declarer. Diamond A. Diamond ace! Why the diamond ace? If declarer had simply hit spades, he would have learned how many diamond winners he needed! Had he by chance dropped the queen of spades, he would then need only two diamond winners and it would be ridiculous (with no more entries) to take the hook. But not picking up the Q of spades would mean he needs three diamond winners, and there's only one way to do it at that point (with the A of spades spent). So it behooves declarer to determine whether he's getting 4 spade winners or five before touching diamonds. Simple arithmetic would then tell him whether he needs 3 diamond winners or two.

Here's another who took the diamond hook and then kicked away the contract. Heart to the A, diamond to the J, A of diamonds, noting the bad break, spade to the J and Q, diamond to the K. Declarer now only has to cash out his winners, no? Three diamonds, 4 spades, 3 clubs and 2 hearts. Comes to twelve, doesn't it? But after cashing his top clubs, he led the 5 of clubs to the nine! It wasn't only that he counted clubs wrong (the club holder sluffed 2 and followed 3 times), which after all is a tougher count (who showed out when?), but that he simply counted his . . . oh! oh! oh! I see the problem. He sluffed the 2 of spades on the second round of diamonds! Oh, how could he not see the spade suit, 5 opposite 3, as more likely to run than the club suit, 5 opposite a singleton? That sluff was indeed before the club holder sluffed a club.

Well, I guess that's enough malfeasance for a single day. I hope I have demonstrated that a seemingly tricky hand without a running suit, is really quite amenable to taking your natural finesses (even one into a doubleton queen), watching your entries, guarding your stoppers. Oh, here are two more I'd forgotten about, each going down two, and catch this: each of these declarers took the diamond hook! Each one was in the catbird's seat as outlined above: any 4-2 diamond split, or (not and) any 3-2 spade split would give them the contract. Cashing the diamond ace shows the former out of the question, but there are still the spades -- provided you keep the ace and take a first-round finesse. Here's what they did:

Club opening lead to the A, diamond to the jack, diamond A, okay, spade ace! ! ! ! Good-bye K of diamonds. Or if he cashes it, he uncovers diamond winners for the opposition (i.e., unless he drops the Q). [See footnote below.] The other: Heart to the K, diamond to the J, ace of diamonds. Okay. King of diamonds! Well, this one didn't lose his king of diamonds, but now on a losing spade hook, his opponent can cash the Q 10 of diamonds! Down two. Oh, my. Bridge hands can be very complex, amenable to only the most ticklish of brilliant plays. They can be. But you'll note how often it's very elementary carelessness that does declarers in. Indeed, I would say that from 90 to 95% of hands are not particularly complex and are butchered far more often by carelessness, by declining to take natural finesses, by not getting trump out when it's advisable and by drawing it too soon when needed for ruffs in the short hand than by missing some criss-cross squeeze, or the like.

Footnote: This was originally written to apply to the first of the last two declarers, but it appears it would apply to both. This was a time for going against the grain of the "eight ever, nine never" maxim. Declarer can't make the contract at that point if East has a twice-guarded Q of spades. If he cashes his K of diamonds beforehand, he establishes diamond winners for East. If he holds onto the K of diamonds, East shoots a heart back and declarer will have to lose a club at the end. He can live with not taking a spade finesse that would have worked, for he can afford losing that trick to West after cashing the K of diamonds, for West couldn't lead a diamond. And of course he could live very well with dropping the doubleton Q. So he should cash his K of diamonds and go to the K of spades -- whereupon he would get a pleasant surprise, and indeed a near top board for misplaying the hand and then coming to his senses. But, you could point out that the declarer who'd thrown away his prime chance in the first place wouldn't be the declarer who'd see the need to play the K second round.

Is that "prohibition" against a first-round finesse for a Q so ingrained that it overrides common sense, or more specifically a preservation of entries? Sure, avoid a first round finesse if there's no strain on entries or uncovering stoppers. Who says you shouldn't? But the odds of dropping a stiff queen are so slim that any inconvenience to your hand should inhibit that inconvenience in favor of that first round.

I'm not an odds maven, but this one is easy to work out: The odds for a 4-1 split are 28%. But we're talking about a singleton not in either hand but in that hand, so we'll have to make that 14% that East has a singleton. Then we'll have to divide that by 5 since the Q is only one of five cards, bringing us to a shade under 3%. Worth jeopardizing for?