A Self-Destructive Proclivity


A 4
6 4 3 2
J 8 7 3
K Q 6
Q 10 J 9
J 10 9 7 K Q 5
K 10 9 5 4 2 Q 6
J 9 8 7 4 3 2
K 8 7 6 5 3 2
A 8
A Contract: 4 spades
A 10 5
Opening lead: J of clubs

You'll wanna move directly on your target and quit this fiddle-faddling around. To be sure, we won't always agree on what's moving directly on one's target, and that's to be expected given the complexity of bridge hands. But at the same time, there are lines taken which are simply beyond the pale and which I've often inveighed against, particularly the cashing of top winners without good reason and which you've always got access to. The dangers of cashing top winners before necessary -- aside from betraying that you don't have a sound grasp of the hand -- are threefold, as I see it, to wit: you wipe out an entry you'll need later, you wipe out a stopper, and you get ruffed. There are, of course, many reasons for cashing top winners before you're ready to cash out, and no one's denying that. Still, I would say your priorities should be:
1. Get out the opponents' trump, unless you have a reason for not doing so, a reason you can articulate to your partner later.
2. Develop winners through finesses and knocking out the opponents' top cards until there are no more to be developed.
3. Occasionally development will paradoxically take the form of losing a trick, say to rectify the count for a squeeze, or to develop a long card, or to throw an opponent in, not to mention losing finesses on taking the chances you must.
4. When that is all done, you may have all the rest of the tricks, or if there is just one to lose, you may have a squeeze, or there may be a trick or two the opponents couldn't possibly miss, and you're ready to claim as you concede that trick.
Is it that simple? Well, yes, in a way, though there may be some tricky configurations not easy to work out. But yes, I'd say a high percentage of hands amount to that sequence.

The declarer on this hand wasn't in the makable slam, but with an overtrick when two were available, given that lucky break in spades, he wound up with 18.75%, while those who were plus 6 in a game big picked up 54%. (Those making slam got 96%.) So that's no small penalty his fiddling around cost his partnership.
Opening lead a club, riding to the A. Declarer now took one round of trump, came to the A of diamonds, led another club, ruffed by West! who then led a diamond, declarer ruffing. Declarer now got around to drawing the last trump out, and of course has to lose a heart eventually.
Well, gosh. Couldn't declarer have had some hope of bringing down the K Q of diamonds in three rounds, using the J to sluff a heart? Well, first of all, it's a long shot, I mean looking for two honors out of eight cards to drop in three leads. Further he could have tested for that luck without risking anything but the first round of diamonds. Thus: At trick two, cash the ace of diamonds, and now without any finessing potential, cash the K, then A of spades -- in that order.
What a lucky break. Now ruff a diamond. If an honor doesn't come tumbling down, you're not getting what you're looking for and can claim 12 tricks, conceding a heart. And if an honor does come down? Why, you return to dummy with a club and lead the third round of diamonds, and you'll know if you've got a winner with that J. But in going for three overtricks -- or was declarer just befuddled? -- this declarer wound up with one and a very poor score.
I didn't realize till a day after typing the above that another declarer tied this one in an entirely different way. In fact, he took two rounds of trump right away. So how could he lose more than that heart? Well, here it is: After an opening heart lead, he took two rounds of trump, then cashed the A of diamonds followed by a low club. The record shows West's J of clubs -- and stops there! Evidently declarer claimed conceding one heart trick, but in failing to top that J of clubs, the computer read two losers. I can think of no other explanation.