That'll Do It

	A 2
	K J 8 7 5 4
	J 10 5
	9 7
Q 5		K 4 3
A Q		10 9 6 3 2
A 9 4 3 2		K Q 8 6
Q 5 4 2		10
	J 10 9 8 7 6
	------
	7	Contract 4 spades, 5 spades
	A K J 8 6 3	Opening lead: various

I first picked up this hand because of declarers who shied away from a simple double hook in spades. Obviously with a doubleton Ace in dummy, declarer doesn't have the flexibility he would with two guards to the ace, but then, if spades split a likely 3-2, then somebody's got a doubleton, and could easily be West, as it was. Or to put it another way, what's the alternative. Yes, dropping a stiff honor in East's hand would allow declarer to pick up the spade suit with the loss of only one trick, but that not only requires a less likely 4-1 split, but even with that split, a spot card is likelier than an honor to be singleton. So the double hook isn't likely to hurt, and though perhaps not likely to help, is certainly worth a try.

Then I began to notice that some declarers got their spades right and still went down out of carelessness with club leads after only two rounds of trump, allowing East to get a ruff with his last low trump, meaning the loss of two spades a diamond and a club. And lastly, I noted a declarer going down two, even getting his spades right, one undertrick because of foolish bidding, and a second because of the forcing defense.

The bidding had gone, starting with South, one spade, two diamonds by West, two hearts, three diamonds, 4 clubs, pass, four spades, pass, 5 clubs, pass 5 spades. I can't fathom what South was thinking with that 5 club bid. Slam? On a J-high spade suit when his partner has given mere preference? Ridiculous.

It was an easy hand (for those in 4, getting a spade lead). Duck the lead to the K, now pick up the Q on the next round of spades, come to the closed hand on heart lead ruffed, draw the last trump and bank on a 3-2 club suit. You can afford one club loser. Bang down the A, K of clubs. Well, you don't get a 3-2 split, but you get something just as good with the fall of the 10. You now knock out the Q of clubs and claim. Losing one diamond, one club and one spade.

But here the opening lead was the A of diamonds. Okay. West continued the suit, declarer ruffing. He now got his spades right, finessing the J into the K, ruffing the diamond continuation. He cashed the A of clubs, perhaps to guard against a stiff Q with West. Then low to the A of spades, picking up the Q and the hand looked something like this:

------

K J 8 7 5 4

------

9

------ 4

A Q 10 9 6 3 2

9 4 K

Q 5 4 ------

J 10

------

------

K J 8 6 3

And do you see declarer's dilemma. If he leads a club, East ruffs and he's getting (substantially) a winner. For though declarer would sluff a low club on that ruff, he still has to lose a trick to the Q of clubs, which is to say a fourth trick to the defense. Well, he can come to the closed hand by way of a heart ruff, yes, but now when he draws East's last trump, he has no more trump! Which is to say that he has no stopper when he knocks out the Q of clubs.

I thought this was the most naked illustration of a killing defense by way of the forcing game. While other defenders were leading spades, leaving declarer with plenty of trump by which he can enter the closed hand to draw East's last trump, then bang down the A K of clubs and knock out the Q, allow for 3 more club winners, these defenders were cutting declarer down mercilessly. And so this entry.

That thought wasn't totally wrongheaded. It did turn out to be an effective defense for picking up 4 tricks. But I hadn't realized that declarer had invited his demise by cashing that A of clubs. I just hadn't noticed it until I went over the hand to type this up. Without that incautious play, declarer could have withstood one force at trick two and a second force at trick 4 (after East wins with the K of trump). Declarer now has three trump left. He draws West's Q with the ace (declarer now has two trump left), enters the closed hand with a club to the A (foregoing the finesse, looking for a 3-2 split), draws East's last trump, and now with one trump left, he cashes the K of clubs and continues the suit, knocking out the Q and claims with a trump and good clubs.

So like many a forcing game, it turns out a tad ambiguous, but still a defense that invited an incautious declarer to make a fatal mistake.

I have often inveighed against against cashing out top winners before there is any need to. You are advised, instead, to think of developing cashable tricks until you can claim. Knock out their dangerous cards, concede a trick to develop a couple of your own. Here, I can't quite say the lead was totally senseless. I did offer one rationale for the play above. But it was awfully close (to senseless) on several counts, one being the obvious, that if there's a singleton club on the hand, it's 4 times as likely not to be the Q as to be that card. Secondly, declarer can afford to lose a club -- okay, could have afforded it had their bidding been a little more sensible.

Yes, if you play enough bridge, there'll be times when dropping a stiff Q before chancing a finesse saves a trick, yes, yes, yes. But still I'm no great fan of guarding against the possibility unless there is no inconvenience to declarer or downside whatsoever. And I rather feel I could give you three instances where guarding against a stiff queen (5 cards out) costs declarer for every time you can give that it saves a trick. Such as here? Dunno. I admit that I have no knowledge of declarer's mind. But either that was his purpose or the cashing of the A of clubs was a totally off-the-wall, gratuitous gift to the defense.