NS reached 3NT, rather than 5♦ which cannot be beaten. East opted for the reasonable lead of the ♥J won by North’s Ace with South and West encouraging by playing low. When East won the diamond continuation with the Ace, South’s Q-9 of hearts now provided NS with a second heart guard and declarer could wrap up 9 tricks. East had to start with a low heart to find the winning lead for the defence, but one could hardly fault East for failing to lead fourth-best, since many experts I polled opted for the J♥ on this hand.
If you are on the losing side of the results in these ‘lucky’ contracts, you might find yourself questioning your decisions. For example, reviewing your leading style against slams, or from particular holdings against notrump contracts is always worthwhile. But for sure there are some contracts you can do nothing about, and if your approach has worked in the past, there is little advantage to changing because of one or two boards that went against you on an ‘unlucky’ day. If you are making a reasonable lead, the percentage play, or bidding to a reasonable contract, sometimes it just doesn’t work out for you. Changing your approach and tactics because of one or two ‘unlucky’ results or second-guessing your decisions might lead to worse outcomes in the future. Sometimes we can just overanalyse things. So if, after review and consultation, you determine there is nothing you would have changed, then putting the hand(s) behind you after the post-mortem during the après bridge activity is probably for the best. After all, the next time the ‘lucky’ hands or leads might go your way!
© First Published in Australian Bridge: April 2021