[MrAce]

Wackojack, it is probably my fault that i failed to mention that opponents were silent during bidding. W holding KQJxxx ♥ E holding Ax is unlikely. Besides with Ax ♥ E would have played A on pd's K and return the suit.

Other than that you made a great analysis imo.

[Zelandakh]

The lesson on this hand is a simple but powerful one that is usually not taught to beginners. If trumps misbehave, or you fear that this might be the case, it is often a matter of good technique to shorten the trumps in the long hand. Where this technique becomes advanced and difficult to see is when the shortening process is begun before you find out about the bad trump break. In this respect I feel that Wackojack's point #3 is not a good one. This point should really read "We have good chances if diamonds split 3-2; how does it look if they are 4-1". Then you can analyse that there are enough entries to complete the shortening process and this is the reason why it is safe to draw trumps immediately.

In any case, trump shortening plays form a rather large and important set of chapters in a typical I/A book on declarer play. I do not generally consider them to be N/B but there is certainly no harm in exposing players to these "wonders" because it shows how magical the card play side of the game can be and will certainly insire some to look further. For an N/B version, how about this (bad) translation from a German bridge book: "Bad splits? Shorten trumps quick!" Cheesey perhaps but probably considerably more useful than N/B stalwarts such as "Cover an honour with an honour", "Don't finesse partner" and "Third hand high".

[nige1]

Thank you, Mr Ace. Great problem. At the table, I'm afraid I'd get it wrong