Revisiting a deal

Today’s deal appeared in this column several years ago.

South arrived at four hearts after West had bid spades and then diamonds. West led high spades. South ruffed the third spade and took the ace of trumps: four, three, deuce. He next led the king and a second club. If West could have ruffed, he would only be ruffing South’s club loser. But West followed suit, and the ace won.

South recalled the bidding and judged that since West lacked much high- card strength, he had a true twosuited hand. So South led a second trump to his ten. When West discarded, South drew trumps and had 10 tricks.

My column suggested that West’s bid of two diamonds was ill- advised. When East couldn’t respond to one spade, West was going nowhere, and his bid might ( and did) guide declarer’s play. ( In fact, South could succeed even if he took the A- K of trumps. He could continue with the A- K of diamonds, a diamond ruff, the K- A of clubs, a diamond ruff and the queen of trumps: 10 tricks.)

About a year after my column appeared, the West hand turned up in a magazine’s bidding forum, submitted by someone who had read my column. An expert panel was asked whether West should bid two diamonds.

I happened to be on the panel. It would have been embarrassing if I had written approvingly of the two- diamond bid after I had criticized it a year earlier. Luckily, though, I recognized the hand. I was able to poke some gentle fun at the magazine’s editor for trying to trap me into an indiscretion.