[kenrexford]

Scoring: MP

---

Bids happen, and you get tired and bid 7♥. You get a spade lead, winning, pitching a small diamond. You sing along "Eight Ever, Nine Never" as you pull trumps, dropping the Queen-doubleton behind the AKJ (nice song).

How do you like your chances?

Spoiler

The hand actually develops quite nicely. You run off all but one heart, coming down to this end position, with East due to make a pitch:

Scoring: MP

---

East obviously cannot ditch a diamond. If East ditches a club, South can the play the club 10 to the Ace (an unblock, dropping East's Jack), ruff a spade back to hand, play the diamond Ace (ditching the last spade in dummy), and finesse through West's Qx in clubs, A9 left in dummy -- a guard squeeze in clubs. So, East seems forced to pitch a spade -- an immaterial squeeze on East.

Now, South plays the diamond Ace. West is now non-simultaneously squeezed. If West ditches a club, the clubs are good. If West ditches a spade, the spades can now be established by way of trumping out the two remaining spades, using the second club as a re-entry (a trump squeeze).

Neat ending, eh? Making seven, on a spade lead.

I have not analyzed this when another lead hits the table.

[Fluffy]

So you ain't making this one with a double ruffout squeeze, dummy is squeezed before RHO.

Your best chance after failing to catch ♦K singleton is try double club fiense.

Ruff a spade from dummy at trick 2 if you wanna have any chance of squeeze.

[foo]

Most of my spare time is presently being spent in trying to find information for another thread, but I saw this in passing and thought I'd note...

E presently has _6_ cards in a 5 card ending:

♠xx♥♦Kx♣Jx

Since the problem is uninteresting if the ♦K is stiff
(♦A drops ♦K, ♣T -> ♣A to make sure E wasn't Falscarding (if so the ♣J will drop), ♠x ruff, since W has had to pitch 2 ♠'s ♦x now squeezes W)

Or if instead E has only 1 ♠,
(now it's ♦A, W's pitch establishes Dummy's 2nd ♠ or 3rd ♣)

It must be that the ♣J is bare?
(♦A, W discards ♠, ♣T -> ♣A dropping ♣J, ♠x ruff, play for Split Honors and take the ♣ hook)

I give up. What's the actual position and problem again?

Or is that the point? To play in such a way as to protect against all 3 possible E holdings?


Anyway, back to my research to find a ~30 year old twisted 2way forcing C system and the board(s) that made it at least temporarily famous...

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 8 2007, 06:51 AM, said:

Most of my spare time is presently being spent in trying to find information for another thread, but I saw this in passing and thought I'd note...

E presently has _6_ cards in a 5 card ending:

* * *

I give up.  What's the actual position and problem again?

Or is that the point?  To play in such a way as to protect against all 3 possible E holdings?

East is the last to play at the 5-card ending. Thus, he still has six cards in his hand. The remaining sixth cards for the other three folks are in their hands, face up, on the table. East must pick one of his six remaining cards to play.

[Plus, part of your analysis is off, anyway...]

[foo]

Ah. I thought at first it was supposed to be a typical 5 card ending with S on lead.

Analysis of a 5 card ending is wrong?

♠xx♥♦♣Qxx +

a) ♠x♥♦Kx♣Jx
DA, W's discard establishes Dummy's 2nd ♠ or 3rd ♣

♠xx♥♦K♣Jx
DA, CT -> CA making sure DK was bare, S ruff, Dx leaves W helpless

c) ♠xx♥♦Kx♣J
DA, CT -> CA dropping CJ, S ruff, marked hook in C's

Hmmm. Looks right. I must need coffee.

To answer the question you meant to ask.
Since I don't see my mistake, my plan is
if E discards a ♠, you are in line "a".
if a ♦ discard line "b" (only you know that there's no chance of a ♦ Falsecard),
if ♣ discard line "c".

I probably shouldn't be posting so fast w/o coffee in my system.
I'm sure you'll point out the error.

EDIT: You did not mention ♠xx♥♦Kx♣QJ as one of E's possible hands.
If E discards a ♠, We're back to line "a".
If E discards a ♦, line "b".
If E discards a ♣, the last part of line "c" changes to C's can be played from the top.

[inquiry]

Scoring: MP

12 tricks if you lucky enough not to lose a ♥ (1♠, 8♥, 1♦, 2♣. Obvious extra trick chances...

• drop singleton ♦K
  
• Double finessee west for QJ of club

Less obvious chances, squeeze, but with so little in threat value, it will have to be a double squeeze of some sort. Only one player can hold the diamond king, so you might think "compound squeeze" and force the player with the diamond king to abandon spades or clubs, but if they abandon clubs, spades can never be the typical "both" suit as it lacks an entry. Also, if the diamond Queen is the threat card, all three threats will lie in the same hand (north), which is another the failing case for any typical "double squeeze".

So the diamond threat has to be the "x" in south hand. But this has the look of a double quard squeeze, since clubs is partially finessable. I might not have taken the spade ace at trick one, but analysis below.

---

If EAST, behind dummy, should keep 2♠ and 3♣ since his "covers" are behind the threats in dummy (in the UPPER hand in Clyde Love's "BLUE" sense). West just needs to keep two diamonds, one taller than the seven, and since all their diamonds are taller than the seven that should not be too hard. In such an ending, the squeeze will always fail -- (exceptions, east only has two clubs, or west only has one diamond).

If EAST is forced to keep diamonds (because WEST has only one), the hand becomes a compound squeeze (East has to give us a guard in one of the black suits, so is squeezed in three suits). If he gives up a spade, unblock the club TEN, ruff a spade to isolate the threat to WEST and cash the diamond ace to execute a simple squeeze against WEST. If he throws away a club, the squeeze has already worked, ruff the spade, cash the diamond ace for a spade discard and hook the club.

Usually a compound squeeze resolves to a double squeeze when a threat is abandoned. On this hand, the double squeeze (both in spades) is flawed in that the "both threat" (spades) lacks an entry in its own suit. A major remedy for a defective simple squeeze with an entry problem is a guard squeeze, and likewise the remedy for a defective double squeeze with no entry in the double threat suit is a double guard squeeze is a double quard squeeze. So this hand is a compound squeeze that resolves to a double guard squeeze (since no spade entry).

I suspect the defense screwed up and WEST should be clutching tightly to the 98 of diamonds and EAST should be throwing away his as soon as dummy lets his goes. Since we don't see the JT of diamonds in EAST hand, West probably had those and tossed them. Funny, WEST doesn't need to keep spades at all.. all EAST has to do is keep the same number of black cards as dummy (if possible) and this is always down.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 8 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

Analysis of a 5 card ending is wrong?

♠xx♥♦♣Qxx +

a) ♠x♥♦Kx♣Jx
DA, W's discard establishes Dummy's 2nd ♠ or 3rd ♣

♠xx♥♦K♣Jx
DA, CT -> CA making sure DK was bare, S ruff, Dx leaves W helpless

c) ♠xx♥♦Kx♣J
DA, CT -> CA dropping CJ, S ruff, marked hook in C's

Hmmm. Looks right. I must need coffee.

The analysis is weird, maybe.

(a.) is a spade pitch by East. Your analysis now seems to be articulated better.

(b.) is a diamond pitch by East. You describe this strangely. If East pitches a diamond, the King is the only diamond left. So, N-S has five simple tricks -- two clubs, two diamonds, and a trump. Club ten to the Ace to "mkae sure" that the diamond Kinf is "bare" is essentially catering to a 14-card diamond suit, and "Dx leaves W helpless" is true, but strange. It is sort of a compression blame squeeze -- I have all of the rest of the tricks, but I'll squeeze you mercilessly into thinking that somehow you are at fault.

(c.) The club guard pitch analysis is dead right.

The problem with East having Q-J in clubs is that West no longer has the same problem in clubs, at first blush. However, if West bares down to two clubs, he is giving away the hand pattern, to some degree. The contract makes if Declarer figures the hand out, so West is "squeezed" into letting Declarer know what is happening, to some degree.

What must happen, it seems, is that West must save down to xxx in clubs, xx in spades. This looks like a spade-club squeeze if East unblocks spades. So, East plays along and unblocks spades. Now, Declarer turns to the simple black-suit squeeze against West, he thinks, by playing the diamond Ace. West cannot counter this move. If he ditches the spade, the spades are established. If he ditches the club, Declarer brings in the clubs (that he could have brought in anyway had he known the situation).

So, you got that problem right, it seems. The only "error" is in the weird follow-up after East sets up five winners for N-S, and the strange way of initially stating (a.).

[kenrexford]

inquiry, on Jun 8 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

I suspect the defense screwed up and WEST should be clutching tightly to the 98 of diamonds and EAST should be throwing away his as soon as dummy lets his goes. Since we don't see the JT of diamonds in EAST hand, West probably had those and tossed them. Funny, WEST doesn't need to keep spades at all.. all EAST has to do is keep the same number of black cards as dummy (if possible) and this is always down.

Always suspecting the worst! LOL

In reality, the defense was amazingly brilliant (I sat East and watched Declarer actually fail on this problem), of course.

The diamonds were actually split 5-0, leaving West no chance to guard diamonds. East held 4252 pattern, West 5206.

The only defensive maneuver done, admittedly, was a pitch of the diamond Jack when the 10 was still held, which assured Declarer that the more obvious and simple diamond-club squeeze was working. Had partner held ♦K10/♣QJx, the last heart would squeeze her.

This much easier to spot line seems reasonable, but I believe that the odds probably favor the more elaborate line, especially after a large number of hearts have been played and the critical decision point is reached. Not sure, though.

[inquiry]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

East held 4252 pattern, West 5206.

With 6-5 in the undbid suits (assume north opened 1♦ and south bid 1♥) did WEST not bid? Maybe 2NT maybe sandwich 1NT, maybe double?

[foo]

inquiry, on Jun 8 2007, 08:33 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

East held 4252 pattern, West 5206.

With 6-5 in the undbid suits (assume north opened 1♦ and south bid 1♥) did WEST not bid? Maybe 2NT maybe sandwich 1NT, maybe double?

W's hand sounds like it was some "cheese burger" like
Hxxxx.Qx.=.Qxxxx or Hhxxx.Qx.=.Qxxxx

Are you making a Vul Overcall of any kind with that?

[foo]

Quote

(b.) is a diamond pitch by East. You describe this strangely. If East pitches a diamond, the King is the only diamond left. So, N-S has five simple tricks -- two clubs, two diamonds, and a trump. Club ten to the Ace to "make sure" that the diamond K is "bare" is essentially catering to a 14-card diamond suit, and "Dx leaves W helpless" is true, but strange. It is sort of a compression blame squeeze -- I have all of the rest of the tricks, but I'll squeeze you mercilessly into thinking that somehow you are at fault.

ROTFLMAO!

(I needed that laugh.)

Sorry about that. I did say I needed caffeine...

[kenrexford]

inquiry, on Jun 8 2007, 08:33 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

East held 4252 pattern, West 5206.

With 6-5 in the undbid suits (assume north opened 1♦ and south bid 1♥) did WEST not bid? Maybe 2NT maybe sandwich 1NT, maybe double?

West held specifically ♠1098xx ♥Qx ♦0 ♣Qxxxxx. Sure, 1NT would be sandwich and would be reasonable, but I understand the vulnerable pass here -- the suits are lousy.

I, as East, though about overcalling 1♠ with my ♠KQJx ♥xx ♦KJ10xx ♣Jx, also a reasonable call, but opted to stay out one round.

Strangely conservative for us, I know.

[foo]

Interesting thing about this board.
a= if W is void in ♦'s, 7H is cold DD
b= if W has a stiff ♦, that ♦ must be the opening lead or 7H is cold DD
c= if W has 2+♦, 7H is down DD.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 8 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

Interesting thing about this board.
a= if W is void in ♦'s, 7H is cold DD
b= if W has a stiff ♦, that ♦ must be the opening lead or 7H is cold DD
c= if W has 2+♦, 7H is down DD.

Yeah, they were actually playing that asking bid. 5♦ by South asked North how many diamonds West had. West was shocked that they played this. When North answered "two," West noted called the Director, claiming misinformation because he was looking at a void. South then bid 7♥.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 11:13 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 8 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

Interesting thing about this board.
a= if W is void in ♦'s, 7H is cold DD
b= if W has a stiff ♦, that ♦ must be the opening lead or 7H is cold DD
c= if W has 2+♦, 7H is down DD.

Yeah, they were actually playing that asking bid. 5♦ by South asked North how many diamonds West had. West was shocked that they played this. When North answered "two," West noted called the Director, claiming misinformation because he was looking at a void. South then bid 7♥.

ROTFL... (again) You really should write some of these up. Or perhaps do Stand Up at Bridge Events.