A hand with various possibilities. A few thoughts, not all that much linked to each other.
Had you been inspired to pass South's double of 1
I think you would be +800!
The values are not there for a slam no reason to be in it.
Against 3NT the lead of the
Q seems clear enough. Against 6NT I am nor so sure. E, with his 7 count, expects his partner to have very little when NS reach 6NT. If dummy has
Jxx that J might well be the 12th trick. So I might look for a passive lead, often a good idea against NT slams. A
looks good. On the auction N has four
and at least four
, it looks like
are there for the taking, a
lead seems about as passive as we can be.
Back to the 3NT at Jim's table. Suppose that the opening lead is the
Q ducked, the
K is next, with W first pitching the J and then following with a spot. 3NT is surely safe. If E had not bid
then perhaps E has only four
( he surely has at least four for the line of play)) and maybe W has the
Q but still no problem, the defense gets the
Q and three
tricks.
Anyway, after winning the second
it costs nothing to lay down the
A. When the Q falls we are now sure of 1+4+4+2=11 tricks. But I don't think we are taking any
finesse for 12. We are not going to place a bet on W holding the
Q by leading a
to the T, the consequences of being wrong are too severe, and if E hold the
Q there is no need to finesse. We cash the reds, throwing a
on the long
and a
on the long
, and end, after ten tricks, in our hand. We watch the
discards from E. After the last red card everyone is down to three cards. If E still holds a
then he is down to two
. If E started with the
Q it will now fall. Well, W has the
Q so we take 11 tricks not 12, but nobody would be taking that
finesse.
3NT is a perfectly sensible contract. Virtue is not always rewarded.