[Halo]

I know it seems churlish to apear to detract from a nicely played hand, where the line had the useful property of working...but then otherwise,of course, no news.

It still seems to me that playing for Ax as against AQ is so much better it much outweighs the fact that East is more likely to hold three than four diamonds.

AQJ seems a 'red herring' in this instance because declarer didn't play for it.

Now I'll stop arguing with success.

[ceeb]

Halo, on Jul 5 2007, 07:54 AM, said:

AQJ seems a 'red herring' in this instance because declarer didn't play for it.

I was wondering if Helgemo judged against AQJ based on table action. With QJ, it might take the defender a moment to realize that only the Q is correct. If there was no delay that might indicate nothing to think about.

-- Charles