Although this one does not seem likely to succeed, I executed a similar play in real life on my favorite declarer play problems.
I had 9xx on dummy in a NT contract and Qxxx in hand. I needed one trick from this suit to make 3NT, but without giving up three tricks to get it.
So, the obvious first try was small toward the Queen. RHO might have the A-K.
I saw 10-Q-K.
Now, restricted choice principles suggested to me that RHO was a priori 67% likely to have A10 or K10 than J10. Stiff 10 was theoretically possible, but gave LHO too good a holding to make his actual lead. Plus, LHO could cash out down one with AKJ.
So, I used the suit that established LHO's suit as an entry to take a fake AKQ finesse of the Queen in a side suit. This suggested, per my 1NT opening, that I had 3-4 points elsewhere, and the only elsewhere logical was the diamond Ace.
I then also had established what appeared to be an eighth trick, looking for the ninth.
So, now came a small fake Grue Coup (before the Grue Coup was named) of small "from my Ace" toward the third-highest 9 in dummy, to sneak a trick. From LHO's perspective, this was too much, and he hopped the Jack, crashed under RHO's Ace, to establish my 9 in dummy, with no card held by RHO to get to his partner's established suit.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
Help
1S - 2S - 4S