You may be right, I may be crazy

[pilowsky]

You led away from an Ace in a suit contract: So said the friendly playing Director. That's an absolute no-no, you must never do that.

, So here's a hand from today where my robot friends (check GIB double-dummy) seem to 'think' they would defeat me if my Opps had led away from a supported Ace. It also seems to include a nice squeeze.

[PeterAlan]

A ♣ lead works just as well to defeat the contract. Have you analysed the position?

 

First, let's look at the play sequence in your link, which is both mis-played and mis-defended. After ♠A, ♠K, ♥J there is no squeeze when declarer doesn't cover. S should keep ♦ length with dummy and not discard any, trusting N to guards ♥s: he can see that if declarer has as little as ♦Qx the suit will come in if he discards, and then declarer has 11 top tricks (6♣s, 4♦s and ♥A).

 

For a genuine squeeze, declarer must cover with ♥Q, and then fortuitously declarer's ♥6 beats N's ♥4 at the end.

 

With that clear, consider the opening lead.

 

Red suit leads are out because they give away the corresponding suits.

 

The reason the underlead of the ♠A works and ♠A, ♠K doesn't is that S must play ♥J/10 through declarer before the defence takes a second ♠ trick, as that second ♠ tightens the position (rectifies the count) for the squeeze. When declarer has a ♥ loser and still has a ♠ one the squeeze won't operate, and the passive trump lead leaves him in that position: if he plays ♠s himself after a ♣ lead, S can win and push the ♥ through.

 

(Edited to clarify remarks about the link's play sequence (not originally covered) and to re-order accordingly.)