Incomprehensible


10 5
K Q 10 7 6
A 8 7 6
9 2
K 6 3 9 8 7 4
9 3 8 5 2
Q J 10 4 3 9
J 7 5 K Q 8 6 4
A Q J 2
A J 4 Contract: 3 no trump
K 5 2
A 10 3 Opening lead: Q of diamonds, 9 of hts

The two declarers in slam went down, while 3 declarers in game were plus 6, a situation I come across every so often. Why is that? Do the defenders against a game bid, pay less attention, get discouraged easily when they soon see there's no chance of beating the contract? Who can say?
But here the three defenders who allowed a 12th trick all made incomprehensible plays in the diamond suit, beyond sheer inattention or discouragement. Case one: Opening lead the Q of diamonds, taken in dummy, the 10 of spades finessed and holding, a spade to the J, taken by West, who returned the 3 of diamonds won with the 8. The three of diamonds. It seems incomprehsible to me that anyone who starts with Q J 10 would abandon the sequence for a weak-kneed, wimpy card like the 3. And then an explanation struck me while I was downstairs eating lunch. I indeed, had to come back upstairs right away to check this out. Yes, the opening lead was taken with the A in dummy, East playing the 9! West almost surely read that as a signal promising the K. I don't think there is any other explanation this side of sanity -- that reasoning itself qualifies for being on this side.
The other two declarers erred in relation to this category, not keeping the same number of diamonds as dummy showed, but the situation was so obvious, their actions are no more comprehensible: Case 2: Q of diamonds, taken with the A, spade 10 finessed into the K, J of diamonds drawing the K. Declarer now cashed two spade winners, sluffing a club and then all his hearts, sluffing two clubs from the closed hand. West sluffed the diamond 3 at trick 6, the diamond 4 at trick 9 -- and the diamond 10 at trick 10! Dummy was then showing the 8 of diamonds and 9 of clubs! along with one more heart. And West couldn't spare a low club, like maybe the J of clubs will win a trick? With the A, K, Q of clubs all still out?
It makes no sense. And this wasn't even a tricky case. The 8 of diamonds was showing in dummy and the lead was in dummy! You go figure.
Case 3: The other defender didn't have quite such an open-and-shut case that a diamond winner, on the discard of the 10, would have been staring him in the face, but it was close. Opening lead the 9 of hearts, declarer running all five heart winners, discarding two clubs and then finessed the 10 of spades into the K and took a club back with his ace, whereupon declarer now ran three spade winners. During this run, West was a good boy all the way through trick 9. He'd led the J of clubs (after winning with the K of spades) and had sluffed a club. So at the end of trick 9, he held the Q J 10 of diamonds and a small club. And now on trick 10 (the J of spades), West sluffed the 10 of diamonds! ! ! to save the 5 of clubs! He has three solid diamonds and a totally useless club. The 3rd, 4th and 5th highest diamonds that no declarer can get past in this no trump contract, and he wants to save the 5 of clubs?
This, to be sure, is too elementary a case of what West should hold on to. It doesn't have the quality of needing just a bit of thought, of wondering if that other card might serve better. I admit. Too obvious to be a lesson. Who needs a lesson about what to do with Q J 10 in a no trump contract? Well, it would seem that there are some who do!