rhm

Given your ♦ call, still do you really believe that there are many who would lead a ♦ from the South hand against a black suit contract from East, particularly when North did not raise ♥ ? Do you really believe any one would lead the ♦ ace against 3NT? The true answer is that, single dummy, game is cold in either black suit or 3NT, if played by East and I sympathize with poor South, who expected this to be a part-score battle after you joined in the bidding. East-West underbid and South reasonably expected more in North's hand. I am not saying 3H is automatic with the South hand. His ♣ holding is defensive and argues against bidding on. However you can also argue, that there are 18 total trumps and if they can make 3C why should North/South not make 3H then? South may not know about 3 card support with North, but he has a good suit and they have a good fit, so North-South should also have one, most likely in ♥. Unfortunately East will take 11 tricks in clubs. This is a major problem in the bidding: How do you distinguish lead-directing bids from genuine value bids? The true answer is: You often can not. Rainer Herrmann

If declarer is 2137 with the DQ, you can still beat it by playing a heart. If he has the QJ of diamonds you've messed up though. A heart back seems really clear here. declarer can just have 2 hearts and something like 2227 +SK, or 1237, or w/e. A heart back almost never gives up the contract. Leading anything but the HA is completely terrible. If declarer is 2137 with the ♦Q (without the ♦J), a ♥ continuation at trick 2 is fatal and an immediate ♠ switch is required to beat the contract. After a ♥ continuation, declarer will ruff and probably play a ♦ to the table and try the trump finesse. He will simply have to rise with the ace when you switch to ♠ after you came in with the king of trumps. When he finds out that ♦ do not break declarer will have a (lucky) ♠-♦ squeeze against your partner, since your spade pips are so low. I do not say that a ♠ switch is right, but the ♥ jack might be interpreted as a suggestion to switch to ♠, since it does not make much sense to show the ten of ♥ here. (Even with standard signalling you encourage with a high card but not with an honor.) Rainer Herrmann

Since 1♣ is Polish the DBL probably does not show a ♠-♦ two-suiter but a normal take-out double of ♥. Accordingly win the ♦ immediately (there is little to be gained by ducking the first trick), play only the King of ♥ and unless the queen of ♥ drops, play next on ♣, which always wins if West has 3 or 4 cards in ♣ or 2 cards in ♣ and either a singleton or Qx in ♥ The danger of drawing 2 rounds of trumps first is that you have no quick reentry to dummy, should East have 4 cards in ♥ and 2 cards in ♣. East would ruff the third ♣ low. This is much more likely than West having a small doubleton in ♣ and ♥ where two rounds of trumps first would win. Rainer Herrmann

A competent declarer would have played hearts before trumps. Rainer Herrmann

Hand 1: The opening lead seems to be from ♥ Kxxx, but the play works also if the lead was from ♥ Qxxx Win and trump a ♥ and trump back a ♦, draw trumps and play all your trumps except one, to reach the following 5 card ending: ♦ AQ ♣ AQT ♠ X ♥ JT9 ♦ - ♣ X Exit with a heart. West can either play low or high. If West plays low East is end played. If West plays high your ♥s are good Hand 2: If you discard a ♣, you have 12 tricks if ♦ break (68%) and 11 if they are 4-1 If ♦ are 5-0 you can still start by playing on clubs after 2 rounds of ♦ If you discard a ♦, you have 12 tricks if either minor breaks and the club finesse wins (45%) So discarding a ♣ wins whenever ♦ break and the ♣ finesse looses. (34%) Discarding a ♦ wins whenever ♦ do not break, but ♣ do, and the ♣ finesse wins (11%) Guess what you should do. Rainer Herrmann

Not absurd, because it may increase your chances of beating the contract slightly, but certainly against the odds. The double is silly, because the risks are far greater: Both opponents are essentially unlimited, since 2S was game forcing. If RHO is not minimum with bad diamonds he will redouble. RHO might have looked for slam, in which case redoubled overtricks are likely. A double digit number of imps thrown away. Rainer Herrmann

I think the major error was the 3♠ bid. Just because you can ask does not mean you should. If 3NT was a possible contract, East can see that it might be crucial to play 3NT from his side. He should have prefered 3NT to 3♠ After East rebid 2♥, West should not pass 3NT with a broken ♣ suit and nothing in ♠. So West will let 3NT stand only with something in ♠ Rainer Herrmann

Hoping that East has the ♣King is not good enough if he would know to cover the ♣ two with king of ♣ but not the ♣ Queen, which destroys an entry to your hand. Instead hope that West has the King of ♣ Cash all the ♦ discarding ♥ Play the ♣queen, just to induce a cover should East ahve the ♣ king, but overtake anyway with the ♣ ace. Now play the ♥ ace and West is squeezed should he hold the ♣ King. If he discards the ♣ King you can a spade having another entry to repeat the ♠ finesse. If he discards a ♠ discard the jack of ♣ and run the ♠ 9. Rainer Herrmann

The context of the auction involves us showing the weakest possible 2NT opening with 3 hearts and partner making a further slam try. Given that, how bad is our hand? In my opinion, it is still terrible. I suppose you could make similar, worse hands, QJx QJx KJ AKQJx, but basically we have the least HCP possible in partner's three suits, including two jacks, and no aces. That is really bad. Mark seems to be the only one, who can sensibly evaluate a Bridge hand in context. Rainer Herrmann

Yeah, but how was partner supposed to work out that AQJxx, xx, xxx, xxx is enough for a slam, not even close to an invite (doesn't actually even need the 5th spade). I'd have opened 1♣ because this is a hand which will play very well opposite the right high cards and can make a slam opposite some pretty minimal hands, but play badly opposite some hands with much higher point counts (QJxxx, xx, Qxx, KQJ there's no guarantee you can make any game on a heart lead). I'd prefer to have the space to investigate. The hand is probably worth 1♣. But strong ♦ hands are a problem in Polish ♣. because a 2♦ rebid is generally played conventional. That is why Polish ♣ bidders are reluctant to upgrade hands with a strong ♦ suit. So the bidding would likely go 1♣ -- 1♠ 3♦ where 3♦ usually also denies 3 cards in ♠. Partner would porobably still bid 5♦ with your example hand AQJxx, xx, xxx, xxx, being dead mnimum for bidding 1♠ over 1♣ Rainer Herrmann

I find these questions hard to answer with so little information about your agreements. Later sequences in Polish ♣ are not well standardized to my knowledge. After 1♦ - 1♠ 3♦* what options did partner have, e.g what would 4 ♦ have meant? Did he have an game invitational raise available? Did he have a slam invitational raise available? For example if 4♦ would have been slam invitational and there was no further game invitation available, he might have had a very close decision between pass and bidding game, in which case bidding on is optimistic. But partner could have AQJxx in ♠ and three little ♦, with which he might bid that way. If he had no clear slam invitation, for example a good hand without club control denying him the possibility of cue-bidding 4♣ and 4 ♦ would have been non-forcing than the case for bidding 6♦ is strong. All in all my tendency is to bid 6♦ Rainer Herrmann

My opinion is that this ought to win the award for best self-referential quote of the new year. Trouble is that most people think their opinion is fact, rather less that it might be dogmatic :angry: Rainer Herrmann

"The vice describes the pressure upon a defender who holds two cards of equal rank that are needed to protect his partner's holding." Terence Reese Master Play in Contract Bridge No defender holds two cards of equal rank in Fred's ending Rainer Herrmann

Well, I guess I am going to have to disagree with the statement that "as far as triple squeezes go, (this) would look ordinary", as well as "this is just a triple squeeze, no more, no less". I can tell you what it is not. 1) It is not an ordinary triple squeeze 2) It is not a clash squeeze -- but has features of one 3) It is not a stepping stone squeeze (per se), but has features of 4) It is not a guard squeeze, but in fact there is an unusal guard element to it. Let's handle each in order. An "ordinary" triple squeeze operates with two losers. This hand has three, so the count is wrong. A triple squeeze needs an entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card -- this one lacks such an entry. So loser count is wrong, entry is wrong. A clash squeeze operates where a clash menance can be "cashed" if the opponent discards in that suit. Here the Diamond Queen can never be "cashed" as the diamond ace is out. So the tought of a clash menace is wrong, but there is a flavor of clash menace. When West discards the diamond, the diamond queen can be overtaken (something that is one option in a clash squeeze). A stepping stone squeeze -- as defined by Terrence Resse in "master play" is to correct for a blocked entry condition to win all the tricks you have coming to you. Consider the following ending a typical example. [hv=n=sathxdcx&w=sqjhdxca&e=s2hdkqjc&s=skhadxck]399|300|NS have Two top spades, and a heart winner, that should be three tricks, the problem is the spade suit is blocked. When the HEART ACE is cashed, West has to decide. Does he keep both spades (if not, overtake the spade king) or does he throw his diamond. If he throws the diamond, cash spade king, then exit a club to WEST hand, using it as a "stepping stone" to get to the north hand to claim the last spade winner[/hv] A guard squeeze one player is squeezed in three suits, one he has to protect his parnter from a finesse. There is no finesse in the diamond suit, and the loser count and lack of entry is a problem as well. However, feature of each of these squeezes come into play. Instead of guarding against a finesse in diamonds, WEST is protecting against the overtake of the overtake of the diamond Queen. That is many ways might be related to at least the concept of a guard squeeze. The fact that the diamond discard allows the diamond queen to be "overtaken" by the king also makes this somewhat like a clash squeeze. The diamond discard also places in force the stepping stone nature that Mbodell referred to. By discarding a diamond, it allows the diamonds to be lead and whenever EAST takes his DA, he has to return a diamond. Really, a very interesting ending that might be hard to classify. I do not object at all if you claim this to be a triple squeeze combined with a stepping stone and I do not claim this rare combination to be ordinary. I agree with you it is not a stepping stone squeeze since East is not squeezed out of an exit card. The loser count is harder. In your first entry you called this yourself a two loser squeeze. I happen to agree with your first statement :) . Even though declarer is missing 3 aces in a notrump setting, the 3 losers in the original 4 card ending are an illusion, because the defenders can never cash them if declarer plays on ♦. Even though a ♦ instead of a heart would squeeze nobody declarer would still get 2 tricks out of 4. So it is probably right to speak about a 2 loser triple squeeze and the squeeze gains just one trick. If East, in the original 4 card ending had a black card instead of a small ♦, there would be 3 loser, neither would there be a squeeze. The two loser requirement is essential for the squeeze to operate. Rainer Herrmann

I think this is just a triple squeeze, no more, no less. clash and guard squeezes are different animals. Because it is a triple squeeze it works with 2 losers. The ♦ threat is only mildly unusual because declarer's ♦ are blocked Exchange the ♦queen and the ♦ jack in the diagram and the play would be the same as would be the outcome, but the triple squeeze, as far as triple squeezes go, would look ordinary. Rainer Herrmann

What option is there now, other than going to dummy with the king of ♠ and taking the ♣ finesse. If it works you make, maybe with an overtrick if you can return in clubs and take the ♠ finesse. However, if the ♣ finesse looses, you will be one down since you will get forced in ♥. Of course LHO could theoretically have 0=8=4=1 with a singleton king of ♣, but this looks a bit remote and I doubt he would have played ♦ 9 at trick 2. Rainer Herrmann

What do you pick up, except a single ♦ trick ? The best you can do now is going down at least one (probably more). You need ♦ 3-2 and a successful finesse among others. Rainer Herrmann

hmm, I would rather have the second suit. I agree with your general point but a hand with the same shape and 2 points less being better than the other hand with 2 points more is impossible to me (maybe not if you give one hand much better spots, but that defeats the point). The Rubens Kaplan evaluator values the first hand 13.7 and the second 11.7. I would not go as far as that, though this evaluator is good for suit contracts, but I would certainly prefer to hold the first hand and consider it stronger. Rainer Herrmann

Is this not a bit overblown? Some people stay in bed because they otherwise fear getting overrun by a bus. You are white against red and you are telling us a six card suit with two of the top three honors is not good enough, while many nowadays like to preempt with 5 card suits at these colors? But you deem it wise to open the bidding with 1♥ holding no first round control and just one second round control. Is there not a much bigger risk that partner will overbid, game when you should play a partial or slam when you should be in game? Rainer Herrmann

Shows only how far this nonsense about 2C requirements has gone. Rainer Herrmann

For some Christmas arrives on every board, at least until dummy comes down. Others take a far more realistic view to this game and go plus instead of minus. Rainer Herrmann

I am such a criminal, who does not believe that it is winning Bridge in the long run to respond with sub minimum values on a misfit, particularly when partner opens a 5 card major. I also do not understand why people set up such extreme requirements for a 2♣ opening, at least when holding a major one-suiter. Could it be that you respond on nothing because you set up such extreme requirements for opening 2♣? With a long major there is little wrong by agreeing that a simple suit rebid after a second negative is not forcing Rainer Herrmann

Win the ♠ in dummy and take a diamond finesse. Whatever is returned win in hand and cash your ♣ tops. Assuming ♣ do not break cash the king of ♥ Finally run spades discarding your low ♥ Cash the ♥ ace discarding your ♣ if not good Assuming that ♥ are not good: If LHO has shown out on the ♣ or ♥, play ♦ from the top. If RHO has the remaining ♦ honor it will drop. If LHO followed to both hearts and clubs take a second finesse in ♦. This wins whenever any one of the following conditions are present: The double finesse in ♦ wins ♣ are 3-3 RHO is at least 4-4 in the minors RHO has at least 5♥ and 4♦ Chances are around 90% for this play to succeed Rainer Herrmann

So what are you going to discard from hand on the 4th♠ if you cash them first? Rainer Herrmann

I think your real mistake was playing the ♣ king at trick one. ♣ is your only sure entry to the table and West is unlikely to continue ♣ if you duck and if West does continue it may cost him a trick in ♣ and you can play ♣ back to West if the ♣ break no worse than 4-2 . Meanwhile any switch by West would be beneficial. Having won the ♣ king I would also have continued with a ♣ to the nine. Rainer Herrmann