Many writers have noted that bridge players seem to have trouble concentrating at the first table in a session and the last one. I have found that in Simsbury that the transition from giving the lesson to playing the first few hands is a difficult one for me. That showed up on the second hand this week.
Board #2
East dealer
North-South vulnerable
| | North
♠ A K 9 5
♥ 6
♦ K 10 8 7 5
♣ K J 6
| | West
♠ ——
♥ A K Q J 3 2
♦ J 6 4 3
♣ Q 7 2
| | East
♠ Q 10 7 6
♥ 10 5
♦ Q 9 2
♣ 10 9 8 4
| | | South
♠ J 8 4 3 2
♥ 9 8 7 4
♦ A
♣ A 5 3
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| | | P |
| P | 1♥ | Dbl | P |
| 2♠ | 3♥ | 4♠ | P |
| P | 5♥ | P | P |
| Dbl | P | P | P |
I was sitting North again. South's jump to 2♠ showed spades and at least nine points. I drove to game. West, however, could see no defensive values in her hand. Her 5♥ bid was probably based on the hope that her (silent) partner might have something to provide her with a trick or two in the minors. South decided (correctly) to double rather than bid 5♠. He knew that we only had nine spades, and East-West might not have as many hearts as they thought.
I led the ♠A. When the board came down it was obvious to South that West would ruff the first trick. He put in the jack to suggest a switch to diamonds, the higher of the two side suits. Unfortunately, I was oblivious to this message.
At this point I needed to take stock of what I had seen. Declarer had six or seven hearts and no spades. She had never bid either of the other two suits, so her remaining six or seven cards must be divided rather evenly between the other two suits.
I realized that much. However, I did not take the next step, which is to reassess partner's distribution. To begin with, West's void in spades meant South had five. He must have known that West had a void. Therefore, his play of the jack could not have been a request to continue spades. Besides, why waste an honor when it would soon be obvious that the suit was dead? I had no need for count in that suit either. It had to be suit preference.
I had a reasonable picture of West's hand. I needed to visualize South's. If, as I expected, West was 0=7=3=3, then South must be 5=3=2=3. If West had all the heart honors, then South must have both minor suit aces.
At trick 2 West set the ♦3 on the table. I should have recognized this as a desperate attempt to get a trick in a frozen diamond suit, but I foolishly played the king, which was felled by partner's lonely ace.
Here is how I made such a gaffe. I knew that partner had the ♦A. I needed to save my king for declarer's jack. However, I erroneously had reasoned that declarer would never underlead a jack in a frozen suit.
I should have just counted out partner's hand. He had at most two diamonds. If declarer only had six trumps, then only one diamond would remain for South. Furthermore, the suspicious play of the ♠J should have alerted me that something was up.
In fact our honors crashed, and the sound could be heard throughout the building. We set the contract two, but that was only worth 300. If I had played a low diamond, South would win the trick and play the ace and another club. I would then give him a ruff in diamonds. He would return his last club, and I would give him a second ruff. I would still have my ♦K, but declarer could ruff with dummy's ten, which would give her seven tricks. We would have scored 800, a better score than if we had bid and made 5♠.
As soon as I saw that ♦A I realized that I had made a colossal blunder. A few years ago panic would have set in and ruined my concentration for five or six hands. I have committed so many grievous errors over the years that at this point a new one now actually seems to improve my concentration on subsequent hands.