It is easier to sink a 2-foot putt in golf than it is to hole a 10-footer, and in bridge it is easier to make some contracts than it is to make some others. For a hand difficult to make at the table, when the lie of the opponents’ cards at the outset is unknown, we cite this one.

West led the K-A and another spade. East took the queen and returned the ten of clubs. Declarer won with the ace, led a heart to the ace and another heart back to the king. When West showed out, declarer’s goose was cooked. No matter how he continued, he had to lose a trump trick, and he finished down one.

After examining the East-West hands, it is, of course, easy to see that South could have made the contract by finessing the ten of hearts on the second trump lead. However, this is hindsight and can hardly be justified without peeking at the adverse cards.

Nevertheless, South could — and should — have made the contract. After East’s club return at trick four, declarer’s only real concern is the possible loss of a trump trick. This can occur only if the opposing hearts are divided 4-1 (or 5-0). He should therefore take whatever steps are necessary to overcome a potential bad break.

If West has the J-x-x-x of hearts, nothing can be done; but if East has them, a trump coup could be arranged. So, after taking the club return with the ace, South leads a diamond to the ace and ruffs a diamond. He then cashes the king of hearts and continues with a heart to the ace, revealing the trump situation.

This is where the precautions taken earlier pay dividends. Another diamond is ruffed, reducing declarer to the Q-10 of hearts and Q-J of clubs. The Q-K of clubs are then cashed. When a diamond is next led from dummy, East’s J-9 of hearts succumb to South’s Q-10, and declarer scores the last two tricks.

Tomorrow: Double-dummy problem.