Looks like 6NT should make on a squeeze

[kgr]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sqhkq765daq53cat5&w=s964ht4dj8642cq93&e=saj752h983dt9cj84&s=skt83haj2dk7ck762]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1H-1S

2D-3NT

4NT-5D

5NT-6C

6NT

You are in 6NT and the lead is a small Diamond.

My partner played H's and went -1 in 6NT.

Looking at this (keeping inquiry's squeeze posts in mind) it seems:

- Upper is right because N's Diamonds are after W's and S's Spades after E's.

- You have the entry to S in Club

- You can correct the count by playing S to the Queen.

=> I would expect a double squeeze to develop here.

But GIB says that the contract can not be made after a Diamond lead taken with the King in South.

This has to be because East can hold-up the ♠A to prevent the correct of the count. Correct?

If that is correct...Do you expect an expert to hold up the Ace?

[inquiry]

You are correct. If EAST wins the spade ACE, the double squeeze will work (EAST has to keep spade JACK, West has to keep Diamond Jack, no one can keep enough clubs).

 

The reason the squeeze fails is that you can not "correct the count" if EAST ducks the spade Queen. An expert defender will clearly find this play when you play on spade at trick two. He will know you have the heart ACE and hearts are breaking even if you have only two. He will know about your kings from 6C bid. So he can count 5H, 1S, 3D, and 2C as easily on defense as you can on offense.

 

He will see that only his partner can quard diamonds, and if declarer has the spade TEN, only he can guard spades. If declarer has the club Q there are 12 tricks, if not, then clubs is a double threat and the double squeeze will work.

 

Once you understand the working of squeezes, the next step, of course, is to try to break them up on defense. Failing to help declarer correct the count is one common way to do this. Another is to attack a necessary entry. The club suit here is immune to attack, so not helping correct the count is the only way.

[kgr]

thanks Ben! (for your answer here and your older articles about squeezes)

[EricK]

The squeeze and defense are interesting, but why were ♥ never supported?!

 

6♥ seems a much better contract than 6NT and there isn't even the excuse that it is MP.

[kgr]

The squeeze and defense are interesting, but why were ♥ never supported?!

 

6♥ seems a much better contract than 6NT and there isn't even the excuse that it is MP.

Don't know. I was North. I guess my partner preferred to play the hand himself.

BTW: What do you think 4NT should be here. Quantitative or ace ask?

[mikeh]

4N would be quantitative in standard methods, and with every partner with whom I have ever played. There is a school, of thought, to which I do not belong, that says that, if one is accepting the invitation, one should respond as if to keycard.

 

I don't like the 'respond as to keycard' because it carries a small cost with almost zero gain: since we are in a quantitative notrump sequence, we are usually looking at combined values in the 30-34 hcp range, and we are not going to slam on 31, and sometimes not on ugly 32's... any hands where 2 aces are missing are likely to be undervalued and so won't get to slam. OTOH, the keycard response may attract a double and even when it doesn't, the lack of a double may assist opening leader. The fact that slam is good here on a combined 31 is an indication that this is a suit-oriented deal, not a notrump hand...if S held the KJxx in ♠, then we have a good 32 and (no surprise) the notrump slam is fine. In other words, while 4N is quantitative, we are only using it because South has misbid his hand.

 

On the given hand, I really fail to see why S never supported ♥s, and even after the piggish 3N, I would have expected a 6♥ call.... it is worth accepting the slam invite because of the relative purity of the high cards and the ♦ ruffing value... but 6N is pure greed.

[dake50]

Lucky East sees 3 hearts to know H run. What if E-W switch Hx for Cx? Can he see 'don't rectify'?

[the hog]

South is a butcher who needs to learn how to bid. The 3NT bid is awful; 6H is cold. I agree that 4NT is quantitative.