More often than not in bridge a player is caught in a dilemma of making the best judgement of the distribution in his partner's hand so that he can take the best advantage of acquiring the necessary tricks required to beat the contract bid by the opponents.
While it is not too difficult to infer certain distributions that we gather from the bidding that comes across, yet when it comes to application we sometimes fall prey to illusory thinking when the bidding gives a clearer clue to what should be done, and why. At the bridge table, of course, the mental pressure on the players is high which does sometimes cloud a more accurate judgment. In bridge, haste always makes waste and, therefore, it pays to be a little thoughtful before playing the crucial card on taking a certain view of the situation at hand. Bridge teaches us to be disciplined, logical and patient. Those who visualise and take their time in doing so are the ones whose names flash in the top echelons of bridge.
Let us take up today's deal, when in a tight contest between two European experts in a Zonal Championship, the following bidding surfaced and west found himself on lead before the dummy spread before him as under:
Opening lead KC.
West held both minors 5-6 and, with a void in hearts, and holding 2 trumps, was desperate to find the right entry into partner's hand to induce him to lead the hearts where west could muster up defensive tricks by ruffing. With this visualisation in mind, west chose to view the dummy first by leading the KC as his opening lead.
When the dummy came down, and partner followed with JC to declarer's 3C, the French expert pondered at the cards that were displayed. He was still a little unsure of the JC that partner had given. It could be either a singleton or doubleton, and the whole defence hinged on this judgement. For if it was singleton, declarer must have a doubleton. If east could get two entries, one with club ruff and the other with either DK or diamond ruff, west would be able to manage 2 heart ruffs which along with AC, club ruff and one diamond would be enough to sink the enemy contract.
Not sure of the situation, he decided to play the AD to find what signal his partner gives. When his partner gave the 2D on it, west was encouraged not to think even of leading another diamond. He accordingly played a top of the low club cards to indicate that he needed a heart return from partner.
But whoops! it was curtains for the defence. For east held another club, while declarer held a singleton club. The next club was ruffed by the declarer, who knocked the trumps out and conceded a diamond to make 10 tricks in spades.
At the other Table, in the Closed Room, the Italian expert deduced the logical inferences with great judgement and, after cashing the two minor aces, promptly returned the diamond 8 which east ruffed with the 4S and, as expected, led back a heart for west to ruff who next led another diamond for east to ruff and give west another heart to ruff. Thus 2 ruffs by each defender along with 2 minor aces put the contract 2 down.
Was the better judgement of the Italian purely a matter of luck or was it based on sound reasoning in the context of the bidding? If you think it out, the answer would be pretty obvious and clear. The inferential clue to the whole problem, which the French expert missed was that east, hearing both bids that the partner had given preference to clubs rather than diamonds which showed he could not hold singleton club. Besides, that would not have helped beat the contract for west could then only manage one heart ruff - not enough to beat 3S.

===============
North      West
Q62          J7
AJ3           -
Q109      AJ843
10987    AKQ654
===============

=====================================
The Bidding:
=====================================
South      West      North       East
=====================================
1S          2D         2S           P
P           3C          P           P
3S      All pass
=====================================