The_Badger, on 2017-July-24, 05:37, said:
My way of playing it would have been different. Second trick taken by ♦K, small ♠ to the ♠A followed by a ♣ to the 9 in dummy (East gives it a brief look and seemingly ducks again.) Then bash out ♣AQ followed by a ♠ to the K and ♠J. Nine tricks (3♣, 2♦ and 4♠) when ♠4-2 and it avoids the ♠ finesse, and also caters for East attempting some sort of pseudo-Grosvenor.
I thought of that line, but it fails when East has Qxxxx A Axx Jxxx. You do, as you say, need to test the clubs as they may be 3-2 with the queen of spades wrong. I cashed my two club winners and now finessed the spade, and was fine as long as the queen of spades was on my right which it is 4-3 on to be. I could cash a top spade and discover if they were 5-1 or 4-2. They were the latter, so I played three more rounds discarding the king of diamonds on the last of these and I was home. If they had been 1-5, I would have been able to endplay East in spades, by exiting with a small diamond and then later a small spade. I would have lost out to Qx of spades with West, of course.
I also think it gives the game away to win with the king of diamonds, cross to a top spade and finesse the club. It makes it much easier to duck the club, even with Jxx, and as far as I can see there is no gain.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
You can use this to confirm your analysis, at double dummy