The Quickie Analysis

The Quickie Analysis

I have a bit of a thing about the quickie analysis. You know, the one that goes, we could have made 3 hearts, or 4 clubs as soon as the hand has ended. It also appears in the form of dummy lecturing his partner on how he could have made another trick as soon as the last card falls and before any rational person has had time for reflection. Frank Stewart has had two such hands in recent months, so I don't suppose I'm the only one with such a "thing", though others may use a different term.
To be sure, such analyses are not always wrong, perhaps not even usually wrong, though I'm not so sure of that. In any event, yes, sometimes one can state what could have been made in another denomination and sometimes an astute dummy can see where a partner is going wrong, and I mean wrong, not just a wrong guess that is a lot easier to see in hindsight. Sometimes.
Nevertheless, if there is any need to jockey back and forth between hands while trump are out, if entries to one hand are exiguous and might be wiped out by an astute defense, if covering or not covering is an issue, if several suits, and sometimes only one, have tenaces, it's awfully difficult to tell what can be made in a denomination not even tested, that is, during the play of the hand in another suit and before one has taken a few moments to look at 52 cards. Sure, they'll be right on occasion. But the times when they're right don't come with bells ringing. They sound a lot like the times when they're wrong, and we don't really know until we've examined a hand.
I recall the time, to take a modest example, when I supported my partner's club overcall with A low-low. When the opponents got the bid in diamonds, I led the ace, picking up a stiff king in dummy. Later, my partner said, Let's see, we don't lose any clubs, we don't lose any spades. We hafta lose two hearts and a diamond. We can make 4 clubs! We can make 4 clubs? I questioned. That means picking up a stiff king with 5 trump out. Oh! That brought a moment of reflection. Then his face brightened and out came the remark that I'd be astute enough to pick it up.
That's the ol' spirit. If caught in a ridiculous claim, just butter up your partner, and that'll take care of that! He didn't even know who'd be declarer in 4 clubs and he's telling me what it'll make? There are also the times when one says, "We can make four hearts." "Oh, not with a club lead." "Well, who's going to find a club lead!" Oh! That's the ol' spirit. Change the point at issue when your quickie is exposed as faulty, eh?
I recall one other rather spurious argument. When I told a woman I figured at least half of these quickie analyses were faulty, she replied, "Well, I don't know. My husband always seems to know when I've gone wrong as declarer." Now her husband, in fact, was a pretty good player, and if he wants to sit there as dummy totting up his wife's misdeeds, good for him. But aside from being unable to check on whether he is so near infallible as dummy vs. the possibility that she's unduly submissive, that is a rather small sampling to disprove a notion, no?
Further, I have long contended that these quickie analyses are not merely an annoyance to those who know they have to take a little time if the hand is of any complexity, but that they hurt one's game. The winners that seem so obvious in a quickie often vanish in careless play. Here is one of my favorite hands, not merely because an inept declarer kicked a game hand my way as defender, but because it illustrates how these quickie analyses can undermine a good game.

A Q 7 5
J 8 6 4
8 5
A Q 5
6
K J 4
A K Q J 9 3
K 7 3

Declarer got the opening lead of a low spade. He took it with the ace, studied his cards for a few brief moments, then spread his hand with a flourish and announced, "Drawing trump and conceding 2 diamonds." Oh? Well, of course if trump were 2-2, there would be nothing to argue about and if they were 3-1, he would have been granted his game, though his claim was spurious. But by chance, trump were 4-0, and when he gets done drawing trump, he has to lose four diamonds, not two.
I will spare the reader the whining of declarer and an appeal to a director, which I have described elsewhere. The point I want to make here is that this is very common, if not often so flagrant. People tend to see a shortage in clubs in one hand as the limit of their club losers and a shortage of spades in the other as the limit of their spade losers without determining if they have enough trump and entries and perhaps sleepy opponents to pick up the winners necessary for an absence of losers. I recall the time a woman had just brought home a 3 no contract where dummy displayed a singleton in each red suit. "Let's see," she speculated. "I can make 4 hearts." "No," I pointed out. "In hearts, you can lose a heart and three diamonds." "I have a singleton diamond in dummy," she protested. "Yes, but you also have a singleton heart, " I protested in turn. "And I have the ace."

When you're loaded for bear in trump, say a 6-5 holding, the shortages in each suit will almost surely hold up as the limit of losers in a suit. But healthy 9-card fits and even occasional 5-5 fits have been know to prove inadequate to stave off a loser beyond the number in a shortage.
Here is the Frank Stewart hand that prompted me to write up this entry:

A 10 2
K 6 4
8 7 4
6 5 3 2
9 6 4 7 5
Q 10 9 8 5 2 A J 7 3
A J 10 9 6 3 2
A Q 9 8
K Q J 8 3
------
K Q 5
K J 10 7 4

The contract was 4 spades and declarer ruffed the opening heart lead. He then went to the 10 of spades, led a club, finessing the 10 into West's ace. Back came another heart, also ruffed. Declarer overtook the king of trumps with the ace and led another club to his jack, ruffed by West, and now ruffed a third heart with the closed hand's last trump. Now he led the king of diamonds, won a diamond return and ran clubs, discarding a low diamond, winning the last trick with dummy's last trump, making his contract.

"What about an overtrick," dummy is alleged to have said. "That man got a trump he didn't deserve." Well, now! There are complications here apparently beyond the scope of dummy's mentality. How do you handle three forces in hearts on a modest 5-3 trump suit? How do you do so when the hand with 5 trump depleted to 2 is the one where you need entries? I'll tell you how you do it: very carefully. Anyone who thinks the key to the hand, much less an overtrick, is to draw all West's trump is going to wind up with the short end of the stick here.
How about if he guesses the stiff ace of clubs, so that he need take the finesse only once? Oh, come on. Actually, it looks to me as though he'd still have trouble, for though he could run 5 spades and 4 club winners, he'd never get a diamond winner for his tenth. Given the defensive capability of three heart forces (if declarer is to knock out the ace of diamonds), declarer can only concede a trump trick in addition to two aces in order to pick up his 10 winners, which are three clubs (one is ruffed), a diamond and six spades (three ruffs in the long hand, 3 spades in the short).
In any event, given a rough equality of knowledge about bridge, the declarer will almost certainly know more about a hand than dummy. He's the one who has to figure out his winners, which doesn't mean he's always right vis-à-vis partner, but probably so.