West - deterred from leading a ♣ in the light of North’s 3 ♣ bid - led ♥ K. East encouraged by signalling with ♥ J so West continued with ♥ Q. East overtook with ♥ A, cashed ♥ 109, then switched to ♦ 2. South won ♦ J, led ♣ 6 to ♣ A, cashed ♠ A, crossed back to ♦ Q and cashed ♦ AK. Dummy’s last three cards were ♣ KQ5 but West had correctly kept ♣ J98 and discarded all his ♠s (though if he had held ♠ K he would have been “squeezed” - forced to let go of ♠ K or discard down to two ♣s). South led ♣ 10, covered by ♣ J and won with dummy’s ♣ Q. ♣ K was cashed but, at trick 13, West beat dummy’s ♣ 5 with ♣ 9. The contract had failed.
The villain of the piece was North. If he had not bid 3 ♣, West would surely have led ♣ 3 rather than ♥ K. In that case declarer, expecting ♣ J to be with the opening leader, would have played ♣ 4 from dummy, won the first trick with ♣ 10, and made 3 NT easily. When asked why he bid 3 ♣, North replied “I was hoping South would bid 3 NT”. In that case why didn’t North simply bid 3 NT himself - surely it would be an easier contract than 5 ♣?

ANDREW’S TIP: When you know the correct contract, bid it!