So: If spades are no worse than 4-2, I can guarantee the contract by winning the opening lead in hand and then laying down the
AKJ. But if diamonds are not 6-0, and
are not 6-0, then I can make this by leading a
to the Q and leading a
back to the A.
Probably I am going down if spades are 6-0 so let's forget that, at least for the moment. Spades being 5-1 is a more likely danger than diamonds being 6-0 so that argues for worrying about 5-1 spades rather than 6-0 diamonds. But even if spades are 5-1 there is then the back-up possibility that the
K is onside, in which case the contract still comes home after playing
AKJ and finding spades 5-1.
A 5-1 spade split should happen about 6 times as often as a 6-0 diamond split so although the possibility of a later
finesse helps, I don't see it as helping enough. So, I go with protecting against 5-1 spades instead of 6-0 diamonds.
Or so it seems to me. In my response I noted that I needed everyone to follow to the
lead at T2 and for the
at T3 to not be ruffed. I considered playing off
AKJ to guard against the
ruff but I figured the 5-1
split was a more likely danger than the 6-0
split. I sill think so.
The fact that our spades are 6-1 betwen us does not, for any reason I can see, make it more likely that the opposing hands have extreme splits in their suits. But the play of the
T at T1 strongly suggests that their clubs are 6-1 and, for that reason I would decline the
finesse. A losing finesse, a club ruff, a heart back, another club ruff seems to be far the biggest danger on this hand.
