It would seem that declarer did not maximize his/her chances.

The QH winning was indeed revealing, but so was the KS. That is, cannot declarer be confident that the spade suit must be laid out as in the diagram? East played the 10S under the JS and would surely have allowed the 9S to also win if possible or, if the 8S was the second lead, would have overtaken with it with the 9S rather than squandering his majesty.

Let’s say declarer leads a third spade when in with the QH. East wins and plays what? I would guess a small red card. Let’s say it is a diamond (a heart is similar). The KD wins and a second diamond is now won in hand.

At this point, declarer cashes a second heart (if East had returned the diamond) and has won two hearts and two diamonds. There is a spade winner, a third heart, and the AC for seven tricks.

The diamonds would yield another two tricks, but this sequence has revealed them to be paste. A successful club finesse would produce only an eighth trick. Declarer’s only apparent chances are a fourth heart trick and the club finesse or an endplay of East after four heart tricks.

Thus, declarer would be forced into playing off the hearts, sucessfully.

In the four card ending, declarer would hold three diamonds and a club, while the board would have the 13th spade and AQx of clubs. Declarer could take the finesse and (if it won) cash the last spade and the AC for nine tricks. Or declarer could play a diamond and hope for the endplay.

The known hearts in the West would seem to make the endplay a slightly better line.

Hi Jim2,

Methinks your analysis is on target and likely the best judged, but, perhaps from experience, there was another vaguely possible combination not discussed.

The opening leader may have started life with the AJ98 of spades and since other leads were unattractive, (poor hearts with sparse entries) he chose the jack of spades (at least to me, a possible alternative since the length in spades figured to be in dummy. By declarer leading a 3rd spade would enable a club shift by West which would then lead to the setting trick if the king of clubs is where it is on this diagram.

Obviously this hand was chosen to feature the ending where East needed to lead the king of clubs rather than a low one to secure the set which in turn did demand the defense (East) “counting” declarer’s hand and doing so my making certain assumptions (declarer being 3-4-5-1 (the singleton jack).

While at the table, and especially playing against astute opponents, many hands unravel themselves like detective stories, with mostly facts as evidence (sure things) but usually at least one or more assumptions, based on the bidding and the play up to then.

All of this leads to what I would call the essence of the game, sometimes wrong, but more often right and often, even long after that hand has vanished into only memories, it can cause a talented and enthusiastic player emotional ups and downs which sometimes cruelly continues to haunt him and, believe it or not, lasting for many years.

This is particularly so when playing against a fellow competitive player, partnership or team who we take great delight in beating, but who in that case, came out the winner.

Well, if West led the JS from that holding, then the line I suggested would instantly lose because the defense would have four spade tricks and the AD. I would note that a doubleton spade makes declarer’s fourth heart less likely to be a winner, but that is a small matter.

My larger point was that I believe declarer needed to begin the diamonds with the king. Thus, when the defense allows the second diamond to hold (as they must) declarer knows the diamond ace is NOT doubleton and must seek another line because there is no entry to the closed hand (w/o a defense miscue).

Hi Jim2,

West might be entryless (as the column verified) in order for the defense to take more than 2 spades, not either saying or implying that your line is inferior because of it.

However, no line that I can see, is superior to the one you suggest. Declarer’s play, right along with partnership defense, is based on evidence gleaned (not always conclusive) and certain assumptions which are usually necessary. Those players, whose judgment as to where the cards are and what the most likely distributions present based on the bidding, choice of opening lead, overall tempo and body actions (in practice, usually underestimated) and, at least, some knowledge of the various percentage tables printed, are all useful tools in making critical hand changing result decisions.

As I have said before, I believe the above is the most important single commodity in separating the very top players from each other in effectiveness.

One last comment.

One recurring theme in bridge columns – including yours! – is the need to give some thought to the order of play within a suit. It seems “more natural” to lead towards an honor rather than lead off with one, but here that seems sub-optimum.

One classic example is looking for a 3-3 split with HHx facing Hxxx, where the natural play is to play the honor in the long holding on the third round, so as to be in the right hand to cash the long card. However, some column hands demonstrate that it might be vital to be in the other hand (the HHx one) after the third round, perhaps to take a finesse in another suit if the first suit fails to split.

I think this hand is another, though more subtle case. That is, declarer wants the KD unblocked and to be in the closed hand after the second round of diamonds so as to know the diamond suit situation at the crucial decision point. Thus, declarer should begin with the KD, instead of leading low towards the closed hand’s holding.

Hi Jim2,

To honor the great Greek, Plato’s famous quote, speaking and writing the truth is essential to credibility and you, Jim2 always do (at the very least, try).

Including this time when you discuss the playing of specific suit combinations and why. allowing me to agree as to the superiority of your line, and the likelihood of the spade suit being 3-3 originally, instead of my hypothetical and unlikely, 4-2.

And to acknowledge “Yacon syrup benefits” comment, he is so right in enabling bridge players to use their God given ability to think while playing our spectacular game, I again will say that your line appears to be the best one available, but leave it up to someone with superior analytical talent than me, to verify it.

Thanks to all who both play our game but also love it enough to think it through and contribute to others becoming better players.

Our commentators here on Bridgeblogging all appear to possess that quality, and at several different levels, and for that, I give a mighty and well deserved thank you.