[pescetom]

Would you be happy if partner led 6 and then covered 7 with K?

You already guessed who partner was, what it knew by now is:
MP

---

Lead ♣4 5 Q A.
Declarer ♠5 2 T 6.
Then ♥6 7 K 2

[manudude03]

I'm guessing it wasn't Q(x) offside. Yes, the king is anti-percentage, but could be right.

[pescetom]

manudude03, on 2025-October-22, 15:00, said:

I'm guessing it wasn't Q(x) offside. Yes, the king is anti-percentage, but could be right.

The King could be right, but could the 6 rather than 8 ever be right? At very best it is indifferent if you have seen the cards, or imagine that you have. I would be curious to know just how many simulations I paid for here.

[Huibertus]

This is NOT a hand to discuss suit combinations in isolation.

The game could be in danger if ♦ King is off, losing ♠ Ace, ♦ Kings and 1/2♥. For this reason you have to assume ♦ King is off and limit the number of holding you are going to lose 2♥ with, either by force depending on your choice of play OR by means of trump promotion after the 4 card ♠ cleverly ducked the Ace.

West does not have a doubleton spade and AQX of ♥, he would have played the Ace and continued ♠ to score ♥Q with promotion. So you are not finessing the Q, as when West has QX, QXX East will take the Ace and arrange trump promotion again. Declarer seems to guard against the only holding he can prevent losing 2 !h tricks West AX, East QX. I might overlook something but it seems to be the RIGHT play to me.

[manudude03]

pescetom, on 2025-October-23, 02:04, said:

The King could be right, but could the 6 rather than 8 ever be right? At very best it is indifferent if you have seen the cards, or imagine that you have. I would be curious to know just how many simulations I paid for here.

It's probably never going to matter, but I suppose there is some remote chance the 8 leads to a trump promotion when the suit breaks 4-0.

[dsLawsd]

pescetom, on 2025-October-22, 14:44, said:

Would you be happy if partner led 6 and then covered 7 with K?
Restricted choice from A7 or Q7 or AQ7. Eliminated A2 Q2 but not 72 or A72 or Q72. How is his/her table feel? On-line it seems close but seems to favor ducking.
You already guessed who partner was, what it knew by now is:
MP

---

Lead ♣4 5 Q A.
Declarer ♠5 2 T 6.
Then ♥6 7 K 2

[dsLawsd]

Restricted choice from A7 or Q7 or AQ7. Eliminated A2 Q2 but not 72 or A72 or Q72. How is his/her table feel? On-line it seems close but seems to favor ducking.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-October-23, 02:04, said:

The King could be right, but could the 6 rather than 8 ever be right? At very best it is indifferent if you have seen the cards, or imagine that you have. I would be curious to know just how many simulations I paid for here.

If your question is why GIB played the 6 rather than 8, the answer to that depends on which simulated deals it would show that 6 and 8 differ on a pure double dummy basis.

From what I can tell, the *only* time this will be the case is if West holds precisely xxx-AQx-Kx-Qxxx plus one more minor spot, when playing the 6 is worse. In every other case, they'll be equals. And if my calculations are correct that will occur less than once out of every 200 simulated deals. Even if GIB simulated 100 deals - and we know it's way less than that - more often than not this case will never occur, so it won't see a difference between 6 and 8.

[johnu]

dsLawsd, on 2025-October-24, 20:17, said:

Restricted choice from A7 or Q7 or AQ7. Eliminated A2 Q2 but not 72 or A72 or Q72. How is his/her table feel? On-line it seems close but seems to favor ducking.

GIB was declarer, and GIB has zero table feel.