[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2012-August-17, 08:03, said:

I think all the example hands suggested so far are impossible. It's inconceivable that he's 5224, but also inconceivable that he has a diamond void, a 2♣ bid, and a 3♠ bid.

I'm pretty much with you, but we still have to do something.

[rhm]

I play declarer for something like ♠AKT9xx,♥A6,♦-,♣KJTxx

There are 2 plays: Win the♥ and return the ♠Q or duck the heart and let partner play a spade.
Letting partner win the heart is better in case declarer has ♠AJTxxx,♥A6,♦-,♣KQJxx. (partner will switch to a club)
But once you win the heart, the ♠Q is your best chance and is the only return if declarer has the first hand.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

rogerclee, on 2012-August-17, 03:29, said:

Anyway, 6205 is just so much more likely that I am switching to a low club (obv the 7, to make it clear to partner to duck Qxx).

A standard deal has only 13 clubs. The ♠Q is indicated! If declarer is void in diamonds and the indications are he is, the ♠Q is dead meat since declarer has no entry to dummy.

Rainer Herrmann

[lalldonn]

Isn't it sort of a guess whether partner has queen of clubs + jack of spades, or ace or king of spades? In the first case you want to play spade queen, in the second you want to play a club. I play for the second since I think it's more likely, as there are two options for a card instead of one option requiring two cards (or better). It also gives the chance declarer has AKJxxx Ax - QJxxx and we needed the club ruff to beat it. Probably declarer wouldn't have played this way with that, but you never know.

Obviously I would let partner win the heart if I could be sure at the time declarer didn't have A86. Maybe I'm supposed to duck the heart to partner anyway, figuring declarer would duck trick one with Axx. I don't know how confident I am in that inference though.

[Fluffy]

as long as you don't play a red card you should be fine

declarer had

♠KJ10xxxx
♥A6
♦-
♣KQ10x