Selfadmonishment unnecessary

South looks to have an easy 10 tricks in four hearts on today’s hand from a recent Otago Bridge Club session. But it was a pairs’ event, so overtricks were allimportant.

Our East/West were a sound and honest pair: fine virtues perhaps respected more away from the bridge table than at it. So when the nine of spades was led, South was confident it was the top of nothing and East held both of the missing honours. Maybe North’s spade values weren’t to be wasted after all.

South followed with the 10 of spades, East won with the queen and then switched to the four of diamonds in perfect tempo.

South took stock. If East held the king of diamonds, he could let the lead run around to the queen on table. Then South put himself in East’s shoes. Would he switch to a diamond from the king with the club suit wide open? Probably not. So he hopped up with the ace.

Next South cashed two hearts, ending on the table. He then called for the king of spades. This was a classic ruffing finesse; if East covered, South would ruff; if East ducked, South would pitch his losing club from hand (all the time expecting the king to win).

East resignedly produced the ace of spades, which South ruffed. Now dummy’s jack was set up for a club pitch and South had only the king of diamonds to lose. Eleven tricks.

East berated herself for returning the diamond, but was wrong to call it a mistake.

Trying to cash the ace of spades at trick two would have been a mistake given partner’s raise. The diamond was a perfectly legitimate defensive play because West could easily have held the ace of diamonds and returned the suit for a ruff.

Then East would have been very happy with her choice.