Contract Bridge

There are many deals where declarer can make an error in the play and still survive because of a favorable lie of the cards. This does not mean that declarer’s error should be excused; all it means is that he was lucky.

Take this case where South is in six spades and West leads a diamond, ruffed by declarer. Many players would next lead a trump to the king and, in the great majority of deals, would survive what a technical purist would view as an egregious error. Indeed, the purist, in his own mind, would consider that South should have gone down in a cold contract.

The purist would argue, quite rightly, that leading a spade to the king at trick two makes no provision for the possibility that West has all four missing trumps. While it is true that this play would not cost South the slam whenever East had the Q-10-x-x or the spades were divided 2-2 or 3-1 — all told, a 95% chance — the play would lose the slam the remaining 5% of the time.

Since there is a way to guard against West holding the Q-10-x-x, as in the actual deal, there is no reason to take even such a small risk — particularly when a vulnerable slam is at stake.

Before making a play at trick two, declarer should ask himself what could defeat him. It should not take him long to conclude that the only threat is a 4- 0 trump split. He should then ask himself what can be done if either opponent has all four trumps.

Once on this track, declarer should see the advantage of playing the ace of spades at trick two. If both opponents follow suit, no more than one trump trick can be lost. If East shows out, South next leads a trump toward dummy’s K-9, covering whatever West plays to limit his trump losers to one. Finally, if West shows out on the ace, a spade to the king followed by a spade toward the jack holds East to one trump trick.

With proper play, all roads thus lead safely home.