In article <tvevlj$1detl$
1...@news.xmission.com>,
I figure enough time has gone by on this one - I can now give the answer to
the puzzle.
The point is this: From the tabletalk, you can be pretty sure that declarer
does not have the ace of diamonds - and, therefore, that partner has it. (*)
But, declarer may be void in diamonds. So, to cater to both possibilities,
you need to switch specifically to the QUEEN of diamonds, because if he is
void, you want to trap dummy's king. If declarer's diamond holding is
anything other than void, he is down at trick 2, so you don't really care
if your QUEEN play sets anything up for him.
(*) But, note, and this is the truly interesting part of this thread, what
if declarer *does* turn up with the ace of diamonds? Then, you need to
call the director and make the case that the tabletalk was unethical. And
you better hope you prevail. I wonder how often this will work out in your
favor in practice. It's not a sure thing. For one thing, opps could just
deny that they said anything at all.
Some final notes:
1) In the actual hand, declarer *was* void in diamonds, but it was critical
to the defense to expose that fact early in the play. It was also critical
to neutralize dummy's king.
2) One of the characteristics of the Monastery bridge books is that they are a
little fast-and-loose about the legal/ethical/rulings aspect of the game.
This hand seems to be a good example of this characteristic.
3) All things considered, it was probably unwise of declarer to duck the first
trick.
--
After Using Gender Slur Against AOC, GOP Rep. Yoyo Won't Apologize 'For Loving God'.
That's so sweet...