A five trick difference

I always take a closer look when I see a contract that has made two or three or four more tricks at one table than at another. There was a five-trick difference on this 4 ♥ from an ARBC Gentle Duplicate.

At Table One, East made the attacking lead of a spade away from his broken honours. I would recommend a heart lead, unwilling to lead from those kings.

Declarer ran the spade lead to his ten and, thinking East may have led a high-for-hate diamond without the king (instead of the dangerous spade), elected to play East for that card and take a ruffing finesse. He cashed the ace and led the queen, covered by king, and ruffed. He cashed the ace of hearts and followed with the queen. The 2-2 split revealed, he cashed the ace of spades, ruffed a spade (with the king) and enjoyed the jack-ten eight of diamonds, discarding all his clubs. All 13 tricks made. 

Table Two

We move to Table Two, where South declared 4 ♥ . West led a high-for-hate spade to the ten, jack and ace. Declarer (reasonably) decided that, with two choices of high-for-hate suits (spades and diamonds), he might have led a diamond instead. He played West for the king of diamonds.

At trick two, declarer led a diamond to the queen. East, Stephen Good, won the king, cashed the promoted
king of spades, then found the excellent switch to the jack of clubs, a Surround Play (just beating dummy’s ten). Declarer had to cover with the queen, or the jack would have won. But after jack, queen, ace, small, West returned the eight of clubs. East beat dummy’s ten with the king and cashed the nine. That was five defensive tricks and declarer was down two. Thirteen tricks at one table, eight at the other. And no one made a horrible play. That’s bridge.