Or: win the first trick with the ace of diamonds & cross to dummy with a trump. If trumps are not 4-0, continue drawing trump, ending in your hand and play spades as indicated, ultimately losing a diamond and ruffing a diamond. If trumps are 4-0 with east having all 4, lose a diamond at trick 3. West wins and presumably leads a club. Win the ace, then lead a small heart, covering whatever east plays. Ruff a heart, draw trump & play spades as indicated. Your line of play loses if diamonds are 7-1, probably not likely since west never bid, but still possible; my line loses if west has all four hearts, unless he has the king of clubs. Both lines require west to have the king of spades, of course. I think that my line is better mathematically, but probably my comment about west not having overcalled renders your line better in the real world. What do you think?

Where I said “ruff a heart”, of course I meant “ruff a diamond.

Hi David,

My guess is that 4-0 hearts only 1 sided in this case the 4 being with West is practically more likely than 7-1 diamonds. Having said that the vulnerability present (EW only) might keep West from bidding the first time, making your suggested line more appealing.

My real thoughts are perhaps antithetical to the dilemma caused, since whether one ducks or not, at least to me, not particularly worth discussing since both lines are very close percentage wise and the choice is not worth worrying about.

The real mistake was mine in not making only NS vulnerable, thereby virtually precluding West having a decent seven card suit and not quacking.

Having eagle eye readers like yourself causes better scrutiny by the writer, since, in order to be considered responsible, I need to constantly measure up, especially with details.

My message (please forgive the pun) is that when the great scorer marks against your name, it is not whether you made the contract or not, but how you played that game.

Either line is satisfactory.