A Very Special Case


Here is a hand where there should have been a decison for a reason not covered by the above. I had never seen this situation before, which underlines my oft-reiterated contention that each case has to be conisdered on its own merits. I construct this from memory, so the spots may not all be right, but I remember the hand very well:

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

Opening lead is a heart. One declarer actually ducked the first round of hearts, for whatever reason. The hold-up when those guys have 10 cards in the suit? Well, I dunno. Anyway, declarer tried spades, found the suit didn't break 3-3, ran four diamonds and then led the queen of clubs. Quick! Do you cover?
Well, you don't have to be that quick. In OKbridge, no one can see any hesitations, and even at the table, you're allowed to bring your hand up to pluck a card very slowly, perhaps even brush away an imaginary mosquito, but No, you don't cover. Look at declarer's circumstance. If he takes a losing finesse, he gets slaughtered in a run of hearts. He may not be in the best contract, but he's in a makable one, and if he makes 3 no, he's going to beat the people in grand slam, and he's going to beat the people in a partial and he's going to beat the people who misplay the hand (though it's hard to see how this hand could be misplayed). And there's one other factor to consider: If declarer has the jack, you'll get just as much good out of your king covering that card as the queen. So the cover would work only if declarer, who has his contract by playing the ace of clubs, would lead the queen without holding the jack and push it through if uncovered, with the possibility that he'd be slaughtered by a run of hearts. Come on. I've seen some weird plays in my time, but that possibility just doesn't cut the mustard. So for a completely unexpected reason, West should have figured that the non-cover was called for.
I have two plays of the hand here. In each case West sluffed a club before the showdown! Good heavens, you have four or five totally useless hearts, and you sluff a club from K 10 5? With the ace on your left, that holding -- not K 10 -- can inhibit more than two consecutive tricks in the suit. You've got to save that. I call saving all those hearts falling in love with one's suit. Oh, it'd be loverly to run that suit if declarer has to lose the lead. But sometimes you've gotta be a little realistic and that third club is a lot more valuable than the hearts.
Now when the crunch came, one declarer didn't even bother to lead the queen. He knew he wouldn't dare push the queen through. But did West know? Well, the answer is, we'll never know about this West, but the other didn't know that. That declarer led the queen and that West did cover, allowing declarer three club tricks -- not more because the suit blocked -- for eleven in all. (You might note that even with the cover, declarer would have had only two club tricks without that early sluff of the 5.)
And the scores? Plus 5 got -0.97 (a negative score because the hand makes slam in either minor), while plus 3 got -2.51. (Six clubs got +9.89.)
Footnote: A wiley declarer might think of laying down the queen of clubs as soon as diamonds are known to break 3-2. Then it'd be difficult for West to know that declarer has 9 winners with the ace of clubs and surely wouldn't take the hook. Both declarers here ran all spades and all diamonds before touching clubs, and one declarer, as mentioned, didn't even try to draw West into an error by laying down the queen.