Partner is 2=2=4=5 so indeed the hears are AK tight. We lpay A from AK at T1 bt often lead K from AK in the middle of a hand, particularly if we are not planning t play both. For example on this hand he could play the K and when it holds the trick it will be obvious to me that he golds the A, while if he leads the A it will not be obvious he holds the K. So we could say that A then K is an attention getter and so is from AK tight. And anyway, why on earth would he play AK unless he is hoping for a ruff?
So:
Kx
AK
KJxx
AKxxx
Actually he did well to restrain himself and accept the relay to
, it must have been tempting to overrule me and bid 3NT, a disaster. Even 3!C can be set:
to the A,
through cashing AQ, then a ruff, the later they get a trump.
Now as to the play, I think he erred, but fortunately so did declarer. For one thing, if he gets his ruff then the K will drop if declarer plays for it. Also, after the!D Q holds and dummy takes the
finesse, now we have to take our firth trick. Instead, he led another
. Dummy took it and led a
drawing trump. He can now get back to the board via a small spot that is still in dummy and cash his hearts. [In more detail: As the cards were, declarer was dealt a 6=3=2=2 shape so, after drawing trump, he could have just led a
to get to the board and then pitched his
on the last
. But even if he had been 6=2=3=2 he could have reached the board in trump. Of course maybe then he would have gambled on playing a third
while on the board, and pard could ruff, but surely the cashing of the AK would make him suspicious of that line. If by any chance declarer started as 6=2=4=1 we just are not beating this. ]
Instead declarer played a
!. Whew.
Often we have to work out shape from logic rather than carding. When in with the
K, partner can see what is likely to happen if he plays a
. So he reasons: "Maybe the
will cash, maybe it won't, but if it doesn't then we are not setting this no matter what I play. " To once again borrow from Yogi Berra, bridge is 90% logic and the other half is signals.
I am not particularly after partner's scalp in this, I have often made errors, often obvious errors at least in retrospect. I found the hand interesting because despite my lack of values I had to make a number of choices that I did not see as obvious. At T1, it was easy because I have three cards, thus I signal an odd number. But I easily might have had four cards. At this point I did not know partner had long
. Clearly if I have 2 I signal even if I have 3 I signal odd, but if I have 4? I really would not welcome a
continuation since (a) it would set up the Q and (b) perhaps even be ruffed as the Q was established. Often we assume that if we just signal even partner will know enough about the hand to know if it is 4 or 2 but on this auction that's not the case.
My guess is that only the most expert pairs have discussed which spot to play from a four card holding here. I really think it has to be small both with 3 and 4. Note that std carding versus udca does not help at all in resolving this.
Going back yo logic instead of signals, I think that after T1, the
A holding, partner can see 5 tricks providing both AKs cash. If they don't, we need a
trick. There might be something to be said for a
, maybe the J, at T2. Partner will still have a choice after declarer takes it and takes the
finesse, but it seems lie a good shot. Largely it comes to hoping his two AKs cash.
