Play for 3-3 or ruffing finesse?

[xx1943]

When I played this hand I thought that this was an example of restricted choice.

West could have played ♠Q instead of the ♠K as well and I decided to play on spades to be 3-3.

 

But after the match I felt unsure about that, because the restricted choice argument concerned East with 10 and Q just as West.

 

Hand presented on my blog

 

Here I tried to post the handviewer link in BBF. The source is pasted from my blog. But it doesn't work.

What did I wrong??

Hand presented by handviewer

 

Is this an argument for East holding the last spade?

From the lead we know, that EAst holds ♦A and at probably 2 of the high ♣ honors. We know he is singleton ♥ too. If he had doubleton ♠, he must held 10 cards in the minors. Why didn't he bid?

 

Are there other arguments for one line of play or another?

[655321]

I would have played spades the same way that you did.

 

You mentioned that if East is 2-1 in the majors he might have bid (true). But if he has the ♠Q then he is 31(45) or similar, and also might have bid. And, as you say, there is no restricted choice as far as the ♠Q goes because whoever has it had a choice.

 

So I would have played to ruff out the ♠Q because at the decision point, we know that West has 3 hearts and 3 non-queen spades (7 vacant spaces), and East has 1 heart and 2 non-queen spades (10 vacant spaces).