A Diamond in the Rough


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

It was, um-m-m, a rather unsatisfactory outing, for reasons which I won't go into. But as often happens, there was one hand I could look back on with some satisfaction. To be sure, I didn't do anything particularly brilliant, and the favorable result came largely from an overly generous West. Still, I took every advantage I could of his generosity and had the satisfaction of picking up the most tricks of any declarer in no trump (a few in clubs were plus 6).
You can see at a glance that had West found a spade opening lead, I can only hold up twice and then, losing a diamond and heart to develop a trick in each suit, make 3. But I got a diamond opening lead, and the Q in dummy held. I cashed one round of clubs in dummy just to ascertain that I didn't have a 4-0 split, and then led a heart to the Q and A. Even now, a spade switch would have given me trouble vis-à-vis overtricks, though West might have had trouble discarding on a run of the clubs. But he led a club now himself, at which I led a heart, West splitting his honors with the 10, and I ducked. After all, there might be a 3-3 heart break.
Well, there wasn't, but there might as well have been, for that was the defense's last trick, as West failed to follow the principle of keeping the same number as dummy. At last he led a spade, taken with the A, a club to the K, playing the K of hearts and finding the break not as hoped, and now back to the my last two clubs. The hand looked like this:

------
9 6
J 8
5
K J 10 8 6 5 2
J ------
K 5 ------
------ ------
7
------
A 7
9 8

On the 8 of clubs, West sluffed the J of hearts. That one didn't hurt him. After all, I have no access to the "now good" 9 of hearts, and if West keeps his diamonds, he can win the second round of diamonds and cash a spade. Making 3. But West now compounded his indifference to keeping the same number as dummy holds by sluffing a diamond on the 9 of clubs! Now when I cashed the A of diamonds, I was little surprised to see the K come tumbling out. West's malfeasance is all the more ridiculous in that he had two spades, and surely must have known there would be danger in blanking his K of diamonds and that he can afford one spade to protect the diamond K. But with the fall of that card, I did have access to the 9 of hearts now, so that incautious discard was worth two tricks. Plus 5.
You might look on this as a pseudo-squeeze, also. Clearly I don't have a legitimate squeeze, and West could have inhibited the pseudo by simply keeping the same number of diamonds as dummy held. Still, I have pointed out that the mechanics of a pseudo are the same as for a legitimate in that the more tricks you lose (that you can afford), the more trouble you're going to give the opposition in discarding. I lost the second round of hearts both because of the possibility of a 3-3 split, as mentioned, but also because I wanted to lose as many tricks as possible while keeping control.
I dare say that had I not lost that trick, West wouldn't have had any need to blank his K of diamonds, and I would have wound up with a rather mundane 9 tricks.