Contract Bridge

Declarer should not become so enamored with a particular line of play that he fails to recognize a safer approach that has developed after the play to the first few tricks. For example, consider what happened to South on this deal after he had reached an excellent six- spade contract on the bidding shown. All he needed to have a reasonable play for 12 tricks was to find North with the king of hearts, queen of clubs or shortness in clubs, so he was justified in bidding the slam.

Declarer won the opening diamond lead with the ace and, since a heart loser seemed unavoidable, focused all his attention on avoiding any club losers. So he cashed the A- K of clubs and led a third club. When West followed with the nine, declarer ruffed with dummy’s ten.

Had the clubs divided 3- 3, 12 tricks would have become certain. But when East discarded a heart on the third club, the problem in the club suit remained unresolved.

South therefore led a heart to the ace and played fourth club. After West followed with the queen, declarer ruffed with dummy’s seven, hoping East did not have the eight. But East overruffed and cashed the heart king to put the contract down one.

In adopting this method of play, South was guilty of a fatal singlemindedness. So intent was he on ruffing his club losers in dummy that he failed to notice, once the clubs had divided 4-2, that there was a virtually foolproof alternative available.

The critical play came when he led the fourth round of clubs. Instead of ruffing with the seven, he should simply have discarded dummy’s remaining heart, allowing West’s queen of clubs to hold the trick. South would then have been able to ruff his losing heart in dummy and been home free.