There are plays that are relatively simple and yet are frequently overlooked because they are somewhat out of the ordinary. Usually, the reason for missing the play is that it is so far removed from normal procedure that it does not enter the player’s mind. Yet when the play is later called to his attention, he wonders how he could have missed it.

For a typical case, consider this deal furnished by Bruce Bell, New Zealand expert. He was West and led a diamond against four spades. Declarer won with the ten, cashed the A-K-Q of trump and A-K-Q of diamonds, then led a heart from dummy.

East followed low, and South played the jack, hoping East held the queen — which would have assured the contract. But West took the jack with the queen and continued with the ace of hearts. Declarer ruffed in dummy but then had to lose three club tricks and so went down one.

All of South’s plays were correct except the last one. Had he resisted the temptation to trump West’s ace of hearts at trick nine and discarded a club from dummy instead, he would have made the contract. West, still on lead, would have had no choice but to play a club or a heart next, and either return would have handed declarer his 10th trick.

It is true that South, by refusing to ruff the ace of hearts at trick nine, loses a trick he does not have to lose and to that extent it is an unnatural play to make.

But it is equally true that losing two hearts to West, instead of only one, ensures the contract — and making the contract is always the first consideration.

Tomorrow: Bidding quiz.