Simple Game? Simple Hand?


K Q J 8 6
A 9 8 5
------
A K Q 10
10 7 4 2 A 9 3
------ 7 6 4
A 10 9 6 5 Q 4 3
J 9 5 3 8 7 4 2
5
K Q J 10 3 2
K J 8 7 2 Opening lead: A of diamonds
6 Contract: 6 hearts

Declarer ruffed the opening lead, took four rounds of trump, went to the club honors, sluffing two diamonds and then a spade on the 10 of clubs, won by West! A spade lead now went to the K, then A, ruffed in the closed hand. But of course, declarer had no entries to dummy, and had sluffed only two diamonds, so she was destined to lose a diamond to the Q sooner or later. Down one.
The above heading refers to an allegation by a onetime partner that "Bridge is such a simple game". Is this a simple hand? Well, I don't suppose it would be for a novice. So I would give a pass to anyone with, say, less than a year's playing time. But yes, with people with a lot of playing time, I would have to say this is really a very simple hand. It counts out easily from either hand. You see your top clubs and your spade honors and that you have every trump down to the 8. And that after that favorable opening lead, you only have three low diamonds to concern yourself with -- opposite some lovely trump, some high clubs, some spade honors that can be established. Or do you? If we want to establish the closed hand, why, let's knock out the A of spades, win a diamond lead, sluffing the 10 of clubs, ruff a diamond, cash two clubs, sluffing a diamond, cash a spade, sluffing a diamond, now draw trump and claim. That's for six.
Or you could look to establishing a good dummy. Indeed, we might even shoot for 7. Cash two clubs, sluffing a spade, take a ruffing finesse against the A of spades (no great loss if it's off, but it's on). Do not ruff a diamond return, but win it, take a round of trump in dummy, ruff a spade high, cash the K of diamonds (if you didn't get a diamond return), sluffing the 10 of clubs, now take two more rounds of trump, ending in dummy. Run spades and claim.
Further, all those trump down to the 8, the favorable opening lead and the lovely distribution allow making seven without a sweat: Ruff the Ace of diamonds lead, cash two rounds of clubs, sluffing a spade, ruff a spade low, cash the K of diamonds, sluffing the 10 of clubs, ruff a diamond, ruff a spade low and . . . . do you see what I see? You're on a high crossruff. All we had to do was test the second round of diamonds, of clubs and spades. Don't even have to go to the third round. Don't even have to develop spades.
There is such a wealth of material here for anyone who looks at all the winning potential. But missing the crossruff, the spades should certainly be exploited, leading to them before wiping out trump entries.

Sluffing a loser on a loser seems to have a strange fascination for a lot of players. It may sound as though you're getting rid of two losers on one trick, but t'aint so. The play isn't necessarily productive and you don't want to give up that loser if there is a reasonable chance of avoiding it. Or in short, sluffing a loser on a winner is far more productive than sluffing a loser on a loser. There are, to be sure, times when sluffing a loser on a loser is profitable and I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for instances. But they aren't all that common, not near as common as the times OKBridge players don't gain anything, and even lose by the play -- as here, where declarer made the strange play of sluffing the single spade on the 10 of clubs! That 3 of spades could have been much more productively used knocking out the A of spades to establish the Q and J, two good cards, while the 10 of clubs could have been ruffed. That's what you like to do with losers in a 10-card trump holding, no? Trump 'em.