Contract Bridge

When declarer goes down in a contract he could have made, it is good practice for him to think about whether he should have found the winning line of play. He does not do this by utilizing what he now knows about the opposing hands, but rather on the basis of what he saw in his own hand and dummy when play began.

Consider this deal where South failed in a contract he should have made. He won the trump lead and returned a trump, West taking the ace and continuing with a third trump.

Declarer won, played a diamond to the ace and a club back to the king, then led the jack of diamonds and finessed. East won with the queen and returned a heart, and West scored the A-Q of hearts to put the contract down one.

North, a player known for his analytical abilities — particularly after the play of a hand — maintained that South should have cashed the A-K of diamonds and not finessed. He argued that the finesse was unnecessary, because if West had the queen, the contract was unbeatable, while if East had the queen, South was deliberately putting himself at risk.

North further contended that early heart leads aimed at establishing dummy’s jack for a diamond discard would have sealed the contract beyond the shadow of a doubt. The heart plays, however, had to precede any diamond plays and any further trump leads.

North was right on both counts. South would lose a spade and two hearts by playing hearts first, but no more. And if, as the play actually went, South had cashed the A-K of diamonds after West returned a trump at trick three, he would have ended up with 12 tricks when East turned up with the doubleton queen. This line of play, though, was not as certain to succeed as attacking the hearts initially.