I Hate It When I Do This
Of course these columns feature my better deals, but mistakes can be instructive too, and it's therapeutic to write about them—perhaps it will help me remember to avoid them in the future. One of my bad habits is failing to change plans after the play has shown that my original idea can't possibly work. The first plan may have been best when conceived, but that doesn't mean it keeps being best no matter what! But all too often, I just plod along with the first plan even after it's become hopeless. That cost me 21 IMPs on this deal.
AJ6 / AKJ85 / 763 / K8
We are playing in the Grand National Teams district final (Flight B), and the vulnerability is favorable. I open 1, and West jumps to 2NT, showing length (5 cards) in both minors. My partner bids 3. We haven't actually discussed this, but based on our general bidding agreements, I would take it as showing good heart support, a diamond control, and enough strength for a slam try. But I'm not totally sure. Fortunately, East doubles, so I can pass to let partner clarify things. West passes also, and partner bids 4, so it looks like my understanding was correct. I have some strength that I haven't yet shown, so I go to 6, which ends the auction. West leads the 5 and I see that dummy is not quite as strong as I'd hoped:
K 9 5 3 Q 10 7 4 3 A 6 3 2 |
||
5 led | ||
A J 6 A K J 8 5 7 6 3 K 8 |
W |
N |
E |
S |
1 |
|||
2NT |
3 |
X |
P |
P |
4 |
P |
6 |
P |
P |
P |
Hmm, I can ruff my losing diamonds, but, given West's bid, I have two likely club losers, and I could lose a spade. With West long in both minors, the spade finesse is probably on, but what about the clubs? The only hope I can see is that not only does East have the Q, but spades are 3-3, so that I can discard a club on a long spade from dummy.
But first let's draw trump. At trick two I lead a low heart to the Ace, with both defenders following. On the K West discards the 2.
It's time to try the spade plan. I lead my low spade toward dummy, West plays the 10, and I win with the King as East follows low. According to the original plan, I should now come back with a finesse of the J, making my contract if spades are 3-3 with East holding the Queen.
Now, here's the thing. As soon as West followed to the first trump, I realized—really, I did—that my original plan couldn't possibly work. West can't have 14 cards! His bidding showed ten cards in the minor suits, and he has one trump. So he can't have three spades as well!
At this point, any halfway decent player would have thought, "with West apparently having at most two spades and East having at least four, the odds in favor of the spade finesse are even better than before, but it won't help—you'll still have two club losers. But if West started with exactly Q10, you could drop his Q by going up with the A now and then you could discard a club on the 9! Of course this isn't all that likely to work, but at this point it's the only chance. And West's play of the 10 on the first spade trick does make this a not unreasonable shot. Why persist with a no-chance play instead of one that at least might work?"
Something vaguely like this (but not sufficiently like it) flashed through my mind as I finessed the J into West's doubleton Queen. The whole thing flashed into my mind about 1 microsecond later, as West cashed his A for down one.
At the other table, our opponents stopped in 4, so we lost 11 IMPs; if I go up with the A on the second spade trick, we gain 10 IMPs instead. Well, I suppose it wasn't absolutely impossible that West had bid 2NT with 5-4 in the minors even at unfavorable vulnerability, but it sure looks like I went with a no-chance play.
Moral: a low-percentage play is better than a no-percentage play. When the play so far has revealed your original plan to be hopeless, it's time to switch to something else, even if the something else requires a lot of luck to work.
[Grand National Teams, ACBL District 6, 2-12-2005]