[nige1]

West leads a ♣ against South's 7NT contract.
17 imps on a misclick .

---

[smerriman]

Wow, a real-life criss-cross squeeze. Nice hand. Still recoverable after the first two tricks, if you assume GIB won't lead low from 43 (which it doesn't do 98% of the time).

[Cyberyeti]

Declarer didn't unblock a middle spade under the ace ? and then didn't finesse ? having played low and the ace on the first club ?

[pilowsky]

Not being an expert, can you explain why you would not prefer the safer 7 spade contract?

[LBengtsson]

 pilowsky, on 2020-May-28, 01:55, said:

Not being an expert, can you explain why you would not prefer the safer 7 spade contract?

"West leads a ♣ against South's 7NT contract. 17 imps on a MISCLICK." The OP put reason why next to board diagram.

[Cyberyeti]

 pilowsky, on 2020-May-28, 01:55, said:

Not being an expert, can you explain why you would not prefer the safer 7 spade contract?

Obviously at IMPs you would prefer to be in 7♠ seeing both hands, but if the spades run, you know that all you need is partner's A to some number of hearts to allow your KQJxx to run to make 13 tricks in NT. It's entirely possible partner's hand is Qxx, A10, xxxx, KQxx where 7♠ requires the spades to break, 7N is laydown.

[Cyberyeti]

 LBengtsson, on 2020-May-28, 02:31, said:

"West leads a ♣ against South's 7NT contract. 17 imps on a MISCLICK." The OP put reason why next to board diagram.

Err it's not clear that's the misclick, as I pointed out in my previous post, there are 3 mistakes in the play that could be that misclick

[LBengtsson]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-28, 02:34, said:

Err it's not clear that's the misclick, as I pointed out in my previous post, there are 3 mistakes in the play that could be that misclick

Or South hope 4-3 in ♥ for 13 tricks...62% For squeeze to work, East need 5♥ + ♦K. Yes? Lower percent. Pilowsky is right as at imps N/S should be playing 7♠,not 7NT.

[Cyberyeti]

 LBengtsson, on 2020-May-28, 07:30, said:

Or South hope 4-3 in ♥ for 13 tricks...62% For squeeze to work, East need 5♥ + ♦K. Yes? Lower percent. Pilowsky is right as at imps N/S should be playing 7♠,not 7NT.

It's only that bad because partner only has one heart, he could easily have had 3 or 4. As I said earlier, if you could see both hands you want to be in 7♠, partner could easily have bid the same with a hand where 7N is laydown and 7♠ isn't, it's a judgment call.

[LBengtsson]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-28, 07:56, said:

It's only that bad because partner only has one heart, he could easily have had 3 or 4. As I said earlier, if you could see both hands you want to be in 7♠, partner could easily have bid the same with a hand where 7N is laydown and 7♠ isn't, it's a judgment call.

Yes. I see what you are saying. North could be 3352 instead of 4162. that 4th ♠ make all difference. Bigger fit. Not easy to show good 4 card support here. 4♥ splinter instead of 3♠? Human bid not robot?

[Cyberyeti]

 LBengtsson, on 2020-May-28, 14:35, said:

Yes. I see what you are saying. North could be 3352 instead of 4162. that 4th ♠ make all difference. Bigger fit. Not easy to show good 4 card support here. 4♥ splinter instead of 3♠? Human bid not robot?

More of a worry is the hand I posted above, Qxx, A10(x), xxx(x), KQxx where you have 13 off the top in NT, but need a 3-2 spade break in 7♠, all you know about the hand is the 3 high cards, 3+ spades and no strong 5+ card suit.

[johnu]

 LBengtsson, on 2020-May-28, 07:30, said:

Or South hope 4-3 in ♥ for 13 tricks...62% For squeeze to work, East need 5♥ + ♦K. Yes? Lower percent. Pilowsky is right as at imps N/S should be playing 7♠,not 7NT.

Either East or West could be squeezed. The ♦J also has to be in the same hand as ♦K unless one of them is singleton or jack is doubleton. So squeeze is a much lower percentage.

[nige1]

West leads a ♣ against South's 7NT contract.

South bid 7NT without disclosing ♥ length. Hence, at the table, on a ♣ lead, with normal defence, South has excellent chances. At trick 2, declarer can unblock ♠9 from dummy. Then cash 7 black winners, ending in dummy. Suppose declarer has 2 or more ♦s rather than 5 ♥s. Now, it could be fatal for either defender to reduce to a singleton ♦. Thus, IMO, it's hard for a defender to keep 5 ♥.

---