[kenrexford]

One I have not thought of came up this evening.

Dummy has a running suit with one possible entry back, a side Qxx(x). Declarer has the Kxx(x).

After Declarer plays the King, it holds (of course). On the second club, it seems mandatory for Declarer's LHO to duck again, regardless of their holding, so long as Declarer's count is known to not be two small. Again, fairly simple.

The question, then, is whether the opponents, who are "forced" to play "low" to the first three tricks, have a strategy to mess up Declarer's thinking.

For example, tossing the 10 or J from RHO creates a hint of restricted choice, bolstering the idea to duck, but that seems somewhat obvious. What about, however, if Declarer might have the 9 and then LHO, on the second play, plays the missing J or 10? That carrot-dangle, which establishes the 9 as a sure trick, might F with Declarer's head. If LHO had AJx initially, a strange losing option has been created. But, then perhaps Declarer would have gotten it wrong left to his own devices, for yet another trick lost.

What about an immediate toss of the 10 or J from LHO on trick #1? When a small card hits the table, a pip play now is quite confusing. But, the play might enable a lead of the 9 from 98 and give a losing option as well, but protecting which holding/layout???