Just One to Go


A 7
K Q 6 4
J 7 4
A K Q 6
8 5 4 10 9 2
J 8 2 10 9 5
10 6 5 A Q 8 2
7 5 4 3 J 10 8
K Q J 6 3
A 7 3
K 9 3Contract: 6 no trump
9 2 Opening lead: low club


When dummy comes down, declarer counts out 11 winners (well, okay, presuming that spades won't split worse than 4-2). And he has two obvious chances for his 12th, to wit, an onsides ace of diamonds and a 3-3 split in hearts. If one chance was off and the other on, this hand wouldn't be worth looking at, for there wouldn't be much of a lesson there, except perhaps a reference to odds, for the onside ace figures to be more likely than a 3-3 heart split. But two declarers went down when either way would have worked! How did they manage that?
To be sure, the hand isn't quite so simple as testing the two chances in sequence, which is often the case. Here, if you choose the wrong one, you may find that queers your chances for the right one. If you cash three hearts and the suit doesn't split evenly, you've uncovered a top heart for the defense before knocking out the diamond ace. Not too bad if West has the long hearts. But if East does -- and holds the diamond ace -- then you've uncovered a heart winner, the setting trick when leading a diamond would have worked. And if you test diamonds, you may lose two quick tricks while hearts were splitting benignly. Oh, you could go down one more than necessary if both are off, but an extra 100 points in penalty when you're going for near 1500 is a small price to pay in the long run.
Anyway, here's why they went down. The opening lead, identical for both declarers, was taken with the ace, and then five spades were run, sluffing one heart and two diamonds in dummy. Both of them? Yes, the first six tricks were identical, such that I had to double-check to be sure I hadn't printed out the same declarer's play twice. Now, of course, they can't make their well-bid contract. Each absolutely rushed to wipe out any possibility, including taking that first heart trick with the ace. The long-heart potential was wiped out to preserve a low club that can't possibly win a trick without a defensive error, and establishing the K of diamonds will leave declarer without an entry to it, as one declarer found out (the other never did lead diamonds, or in other words, never did try either way of picking up a 12th winner in favor of hoping for a defensive error).
The reason why the 6 of clubs can't be a winner without a defensive error is that with 7 clubs outstanding, somebody must have at least 4 clubs. And if a defender has 4 clubs, he must have one higher than the 6, since there are only 4 cards in the deck lower than the six, and declarer has one of 'em. A tad ironically, perhaps, the four-card holder in clubs actually does have the four lowest clubs possible, given the defensive holding, and the 7 of clubs was the setting trick for each declarer. In one case, it was literally so at trick 13, and in the other, it won trick twelve, and that defender now led a diamond to the ace, which was then technically the setting trick.
First, I would say it's a poor practice to depend on a defensive error when you have a viable chance to bring the contract home on your own steam. It doesn't do anything for your game, doesn't sharpen your wit, your acumen even when it works. When it doesn't work (and perhaps sometimes when it does), it, uh, certainly doesn't do a whole lot for your partner's respect. Take advantage of their errors, yes, of course. But I would strongly advise against counting on them, and this hand is testament enough to the damage that can do. A 1440 score tossed down the drain.
And secondly, I have to point to that common, self-destructive proclivity, which I've referred to many times before, which is to run one's best suit before having established the necessary winners! -- and so often to do that immediately, as their first choice! I have argued that if anyone is hurt by this line of attack, which I presume is resorted to in the hope of a foolish discard by the defense, it will be declarer 19 times out of 20. If this suit is balanced, declarer commonly wipes out the communication he needs between the two hands, and if it is unbalanced, he often discards valuable cards from the short hand in the run of the suit, as was the case here. Develop, develop, develop must be your watchword. You've got to develop that 12th trick here, and when you have, then you can run spades and the right discards to be made from dummy will be crystal-clear. If you established the fourth heart, then you know you would sluff a club and two diamonds from dummy, conceding a trick to the diamond ace at the end. And if you established the K of diamonds, then the fourth heart would be a redundant winner, and you would discard it along with a diamond and a club.
Yes, you're going down if the hearts don't split 3-3 and the A of diamonds is offsides. But you'll have a lot of company, presumably, so it's no disaster. And you simply must take your chances. You might note, incidentally, that if you keep 3 diamonds in dummy before testing the suit, the J will inhibit the loss of more than two diamonds if you finesse into the A Q, though of course, it could prove disastrous if you finesse into A 5. So try the hearts first, if that possibility spooks you, and you'll have a pleasant surprise. But I can't tell you how many times declarers, like these two, kick away perfectly fine contracts by putting off a risky lead until late in the hand, too late, that is, and thus bring on the defeat they're trying to delay as long as possible.
One declarer here simply ran his top 11 winners, not the best way pick up 12 tricks, while the other didn't get around to leading toward the K of diamonds until trick 10, with dummy's last diamond. So he had no entry to it when the A was played on his right. So develop, develop, develop, until there's nothing more to develop, and then run your best suit.