[PhilKing]

I think that if you cash the ♣A there is a decent chance partner will be exposed to a squeeze. I haven't got a Scooby Doo how partner came up with the club lead after we forgot to double 5♣, but well done them.

I'm playing a diamond. Declarer could have Qx AKQJxxx AQ xx giving pard KTxx xx KJx KTxx. He's allowed to make terrible doubles if his leads are that good.

Anyway, there are other plausible layouts where partner does have his double where I beat the contract as long as I don't cash the club ace.

[kenberg]

I like this hypothetical W hand. Although I still think the bidding is aggressive, it appears that if we trade the Club Q for the Club A, we get a response of two keys from E and a bid of 6♥ from W, and I think it makes. For example, win the club lead, draw three trump, duck a club, win the Diamond, play the Queen of Spades forcing a cover, ruff a Club back to hand, run the squeeze.

I think it comes in with any lead, with the hand Phil shows and with E holding the Ace instead of the Queen of Clubs.


Bidding 4NT, hoping partner has two aces and then planning on bidding the slam, trusting that partner will produce the Jack of Spades so that I can run the squeeze is a bit deep for me, but it would work. Well, I think so.

This is actually a great hand. Fairly often, and this hand would be an example if the cards lie as Phil shows and if a second Club is cashed, a squeeze almost runs itself. Club Jack, Club Ace, small Diamond. Hop up, draw trump, run the Queen of Spades forcing the cover, ruff a Club back to hand, what else would anyone do other than run the trump and hope? Refusing to cash the second Club is another sort of play altogether.

Question: Did West deliberately show that he had two Clubs to induce South to cash a second one?

Is it time to bury this hand?

[jillybean]

Sorry, sorry I have been very busy.

---

After the winning the first trick with the ♣J, south switched to ♦, north won and tried to cash a second ♦.

South: why didn't you return a club, you know I have the ace!!!
North: why did you switch to ♦ before cashing the ace!!!

[han]

By the way, if you play 3/5 leads also in the middle of the hand then north would have known that south held 5 diamonds. That way north could get it right also when south had 10xxx AJxx in the minors.

Wait a minute, did north really play south to have bid 2D voluntarily on 10xxx of diamonds while holding AJxx of clubs? That makes no sense!

Bizarre lead by the way, I hope that you were south.

[kenberg]

Well, this makes it clear why North was not hoping to find diamond values in the South hand. It sort of makes our previous thoughts that clearly North cannot hold KQ of diamonds because then he would have led one in preference to a club seem sort of quaint.

Suppose North leads a diamond at trick 1. South has shown diamonds and there are three in dummy, declarer has cued diamonds. Perhaps his card should confirm count, not attitude?

It's not our job to instruct opponents, but it would be interesting to know what West was planning to do if his partner had shown two aces in response to 4NT. Bid 6♥ and hope the ace is in clubs rather than in diamonds?

At any rate, surely at trick 3 Han is right. If another minor suit trick is available it is in clubs, not diamonds.

This is a bit of a shaggy dog story, or shaggy dog hand, because they should never have been at the five level and never should have made it when they were. Surely after a cue of 3♦ and then 4♥ over 3♠ partner can be trusted to move if he has the sort of extras needed for a slam. E has shown enough to respond at the 1 level, W says fine, hearts are trump, I have at least second round control of diamonds, and we can take ten tricks.. After that, it's East's choice and clearly he would pass here.


But then there would be no story.

Thanks for posting it.