Some years ago Mark Horton wrote
Misplay These Hands With Me and he sometimes writes a column for the ACBL Bulletin with the same title. I thought it could be fun to follow his example.
http://tinyurl.com/yd6k59phGib sees all four hands and correctly observes that my 3D can be beaten. After the cashing of the AK of spades, the hand can be made.
The play was AK of spades, A of clubs, another club. I probably should have thrown the club K under the ace, but as the cards lie it didn't matter.
Playing a suit and playing the hand are different. I was lazy.
Playing the diamond suit:
Given the take-out double, Joe is unlikely to hold three diamonds and anyway I cannot do anything about it if he does. But he might well hold just one diamond or even none. The way to cope is to finesse twice. It's true that this will go very wrong if he holds precisely KQ tight, but if he holds either a stiff spot in diamonds or no diamonds at all, I can hold my diamond losers to one by playing in this way. When they diamonds are 2-2, I also hold my losers to 1 as long as it is not KQ tight on my left.
Ok, so what's wrong with that plan?
The hand:
I am in 3D. I have lost two spades and a club, I am going to lose at least one diamond o matter how they lie, so I have to get rid of that heart loser. Can I? Sure. But I need to plan. Let's go back to where I win the club at T4. Suppose I play the A and another D. The opponents are in and they attack hearts. I win, I then lead and ruff a spade, establishing a spade trick on the board, go back to the board and pitch a heart on the good spade.
I rate this as pretty obvious, I was simply careless. Of course the cards need not have been as they are, so I will look at a variant that shows why I should have dumped the club K under the Ace. Suppose Joe has a stiff spot in diamonds. Now going to the board, as i did, would hold me to one diamond loser while playing Ace and another diamond will create two losers. True enough, but the trick comes back so I am still only down 1. Diamond Ace, small diamond. assume Joe shows out. I still have the entries to get to the board, ruff the spade, an return to the board and pitch the heart on the spade. The reason I should drop the club K under the Ace is that, with this hypothetical 3-1 diamond split. Joe might switch to a heart after cashing the club A, and if he does this cuts down on my entries. I might like having that club Q as an entry on such a defense, while if Joe continues with a club at T4 then I still have both heart entries.
Bottom line: As I played it, I pretty much guarantee that I am down 1. Played correctly, I will sometimes be won 1 and sometimes make it. That's better. Especially since this is one of the times when I make it!
Another thought: Since Donna followed with the 9 and T to the first two tricks there is a fine chance that her third spade is the Q. But suppose, on a different lie of the cards, that Joe had the AKQx of spades, Donna follows to the first two spades with spot cards, and suppose Joe still plays A and another club. I can still make 3D by playing the Ace and another diamond, as long as diamonds are 2-2 and Joe holds four (or more) hearts. The opponents win the second diamond, they attack hearts, I win on the board, I ruff a spade and note that the Q does not fall, I run all my diamonds. Hectically this is a positional squeeze in hearts and spades, but more simply it's just a matter of running the winners and hoping for the best. The best would happen.
Summary: A little thought can be very useful. This was not a hard hand, I was just careless. Also, go easy with what Gib says. Sure Gib says this hand can be beaten. But after the AK of spades are cashed, it can be made.