I mentioned that I had a blind spot when I played, and went down, on this deal. The blind spot was that I also got overly enamored with squeeze possibilities. After it turns out that N is the one with four
I just needed to think a bit about the implications of that. This is often the situation in bridge. Focus on the right thing and the solution is clear enough, focus on the wrong thing and oops. As I recall, after I discovered the 4-1 split in
I cashed another
, after which I can no longer make the hand. It's essential that I lead twice toward my hand in
and then, after N correctly refuses to ruff, that I be able to ruff the fourth round of
on the board.
I agree that often on these Dare hands there is more to be said than just how to make the hand with the cards as they are. I think this is not a complaint about the hands but rather an opportunity. We need to look back at hands with the attitude that just because we made it doesn't mean that we played it right, and just because we went down doesn't mean that we played it wrong. board 1 from the same Dare set is an example. I made it,but still...
http://tinyurl.com/y4vu4sooAs the cards lie, the hand makes if you take the first
and lead back another
; If they take their
you toss a blocking
and take the rest. But of course the cards do not have to lie the way that they do. If the
are 6-2 you go set playing this way. And, since we have 10
between hand and dummy, possibly the
Q is stiff in which case we can just run the
. So I took the A at T1 and then led a
to see if the Q was stiff. It wasn't, but now I can go down. I led a
from the board, N is in, and he cashed his
. Now I make it. But he was not required to cash his
. If he gets out with a !Hat T4 I am going down. It's true that this is a very tough play, but it would have worked. There is an old saying that in defending 3NT you should not cash four tricks until you have an idea about where the fifth is coming from. And he might have been suspicious about just why I was handing him this gift in the !c suit. Still, it's a very tough defensive play. Now how about me? Should I just forget about first trying to drop the stiff !d Q and just lead a
at T2? Works here, and this being a quiz hand no doubt the
Q is not stiff (not the right way to think for a learning process). Or can I have my cake and eat it to? How about ducking the first
, winning the second
, and then going to the board in!D? If the stiff Q drops then I run the
, if it doesn't drop then I lead the
for the unblocking play. Fine, except when I duck the
they are not obligated to continue
. Suppose I duck a
and they switch to a
? I cannot play low on the
since if I lose a
and then they switch back to
I am cooked. Are my
strong enough that I can afford to hop up with the A? Yes, they are. I hop up and then lead a
ducking all around. I lose a
, a
, and at most two
. So I need not fear a
switch. This means that the right play is to duck the first
.
I am by no means claiming that I would think all of this through at the table. I didn't think all this through at the table. But the more we think back on hands, the more we see of the almost infinite variety that bridge presents.
Bottom line: The goal is not just to choose the right line, the goal is to choose the right line after thinking it all through. The hands that Arik presents have interesting features and we should make the most of them.
As the play went at my table, I think it would qualify as one of those "Defensive hand of the year" awards if N, after I put him in with a
, refused to cash them So it is hardly a criticism to observe that it would have been right to get out with a
. But it is worthwhile to think about. In bridge and in life, we can sometimes look back and say "Hmm, I might have thought of that."
