Thanks to all the replies. The full hand was:
At the table I went for a low
♠ shift, hoping that declarer will either misguess
♦ or believe my count in
♠ and allow me to overruff dummy. It turned out to be a weak defense and did not trouble declarer at all. Cashing the
♣A would have forced declarer to guess
♦ to make the contract.
Mr. Ace made a good point about by not cashing the
♣A, East is giving away the position of
♦K. On the other hand, West has underled the
♣A and declarer did not know that. Assuming that declarer placed the
♣A with East, is there an argument for the
♦K to be more likely with West based on restricted choice (if West is going to lead from an honorless suit, he is more likely to have led from the one suit with which he has no honor, rather than holding two suits without honor), or is that invalid?
Thanks.