Is a "memory squeeze" a legitimate line?

[Antrax]

Matchpoints, vul. N/S

[hv=pc=n&s=sajhakqj6532dakck&n=s832h984dt432c852&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p2cp2dp2hp4hppp]266|200[/hv]

On a ♦ lead, I was looking at 11 top tricks. Since this is matchpoints and it's not exactly difficult to reach 4♥ on these cards, I was trying to get a 12th. After cashing the ♥A and seeing both outstanding trumps fall, I crossed to dummy in trumps and led a club. E rose with her ace and returned a diamond. Now I could choose one of two lines: either cross to dummy in trumps again and take a finesse against E holding ♠KQ, or just cash trumps from the top and hope both defenders discard down to bare K and Q of spades (or lose them altogether). Both are very slim chances, but I was wondering if the second line is legitimate at all, or is it completely worthless against intermediate opponents?

[mr1303]

The second line is more likely to succeed than a spade finesse, since East should split her honours in the unlikely event she has both. However, given the play in clubs, working out that you have the singleton king shouldn't be difficult, it surely isn't too hard to work out that you have no menace and to hold on to at least Kx or Qx of spades.

[the_dude]

My answer is not specific to this hand .. but general philosophy:

 

- If your goal is to improve as a bridge player, you should always prefer legitimate lines over "lines that work because opponents may make a newbie mistake". This includes things like "hoping my opponent will forget to cover an honor with an honor" etc.

 

- If your goal is to win THIS MATCH RIGHT NOW then go for the mistake if you think it is likely .. but I believe in the long run it impedes your advancement as a player. You will get better faster if you spend your concentration on finding the legitimate line.

 

That being said, since there is no legitimate line on this hand (aside from sneaking the K of clubs, which failed) I think trying to sneak by the KQ of spades on RHO is the best chance. The odds of both opponents pitching down to a singleton spade honor seem pretty remote.

[Cyberyeti]

This one is not likely to work, but a memory squeeze I've successfully executed on not the worst opps in the world is:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt5hkdc&w=s873h8d9c&n=skj94hdkc&e=s62hadaqc]399|300[/hv]

 

No trumps, you proceed to crash all the high spades and lead the 4 off the table, is your remaining spade higher or lower than the 4 ? defenders tend to remember whether partner played high-low or not, but did partner play the 5 or the 3 on the first round ?

[karlson]

Of course it's a legitimate line, and I completely disagree with the poster above who thinks that playing for opponents' mistakes impedes your development as a bridge player. All good players think about how they can induce their opponents to make a mistake. It's just the type/difficulty of mistake that changes.

 

As to this hand, I don't think anything is going to work against all but the weakest opponents, but I think running the trumps is better than playing a spade to the jack. You can still have stiff spade and three diamonds, so the opponents will have to at least pay attention to the discards to be sure of what to do. Unfortunately even if they pay no attention at all they will probably get it right.

 

I don't know which diamond was led, but it sure looks like the best legitimate chance to begin with was finding ♦QJx by ruffing a diamond. You can still lead up to either black suit afterwards if you want.

[inquiry]

This one is not likely to work, but a memory squeeze I've successfully executed on not the worst opps in the world

 

I don't remember playing that against you. :)

[han]

My answer is not specific to this hand .. but general philosophy:

 

- If your goal is to improve as a bridge player, you should always prefer legitimate lines over "lines that work because opponents may make a newbie mistake". This includes things like "hoping my opponent will forget to cover an honor with an honor" etc.

 

- If your goal is to win THIS MATCH RIGHT NOW then go for the mistake if you think it is likely .. but I believe in the long run it impedes your advancement as a player. You will get better faster if you spend your concentration on finding the legitimate line.

 

I disagree with your philosophy, trying to win the match is the best way to learn. If you aren't going to try to win now, when are you?

[han]

And as others have said, the spade finesse isn't there.

[blackshoe]

Most people, having taken a line which depends on opps mistake, will remember the times that was successful, and forget the times it was not. Then they will be more inclined to try that kind of line again later.

 

The point, when learning, to trying to remember the "correct" line is that only when you know what that is does the "tactic of mistake" above make sense. If you don't know the correct line, then you can't evaluate the relative merits.

[han]

So now you are assuming that those who go for a line of play that depends on an error by the opponents are not able to find the best "correct" line? Or are unable to judge the succes of such a strategy because of their selective memory?

 

I disagree with that. I would even dare to say that when Meckstroth decides to go for a swindle, he often is aware that his line is not the "correct" line of play, but that he thinks it is the best line of play. I also think that Meckstroth may go for such a line even against opponents who better than most posters here. And if Meckstroth thinks that a "correct" line of play may be inferior, perhaps we shouldn't be calling those inferior lines "correct"?

[Free]

Since East already played her ♣A, she'll definitely play ♠K/Q if she has both ♠ honors. Your second line has a lot more chance of success mainly because you don't even need a specific split of honors. To be honest, both lines shouldn't work against decent defenders, but everyone has weak moments or makes mistakes. That's the only chance you have.

[han]

To go back to the hand, your play was quite reasonable. The low club towards the king is more likely to work against poor opponents than against good opponents. Good opponents would notice that you hold 8 hearts, and would be less likely to duck.

 

After the club to the king failed and the opponents played another diamond, you have very little chance to make it. There certainly isn't a legitimate line that I see. Running the hearts and hope that the opponents make a mistake is the only chance to make a second overtrick, so you should go for it.

 

Playing 8 hearts from the start might make it harder for the opponents to get it right.

[the_dude]

 

I disagree with that. I would even dare to say that when Meckstroth decides to go for a swindle, he often is aware that his line is not the "correct" line of play, but that he thinks it is the best line of play. I also think that Meckstroth may go for such a line even against opponents who better than most posters here. And if Meckstroth thinks that a "correct" line of play may be inferior, perhaps we shouldn't be calling those inferior lines "correct"?

 

Sorry to confuse, you I think you are way over analyzing my comment.

 

I teach many beginners .. and I fight this battle all the time. Holding Qxx opposite Axx I have to work like hell to teach my students not to run the Q .. they don't know bridge but they know LHO will usually forget to cover and don't seem to understand my exhortations since "their line" works so often.

 

Given that this is the B/I forum, and the topic of the OP, I thought discouraging the "memory squeeze" (a play with which my students demonstrate considerable proficiency) and encouraging a search for a legitimate line of play was appropriate.

[mycroft]

I think the 'fake line' is confusing the issue.

 

As far as I can see, there is no legitimate line for 12 tricks, on any line of the cards. So it's only a question of which swindle should be tried - because it is perfectly right to try for 12. I don't see anything wrong with hoping that the CA might get ducked - although it isn't likely, when the opponents see the 8 hearts and the DA. Okay, try it and it didn't work.

 

Now you have two lines, as you said - the count squeeze (i.e. "can they pitch properly?") or the double finesse. Now the double finesse - the one the OP thinks has a chance - is a zero-percentage play, for the reason that several posters have mentioned - the same East that put up the CA will, 100%, split her honours with SKQ. So it's a question of what is the best way to count-squeeze the opponents.

 

If you "take the finesse", you're playing for E-W (who have seen 12 of your cards already) to think you're swindling them with [hv=pc=n&s=sahakqj6432dakjck]133|100[/hv] or [hv=pc=n&s=sahakqj6532dakckj]133|100[/hv] - and the person with the remaining spade honour (presumably East) to have the appropriate card. My belief is that only the very experienced will think of *that* swindle, from the defensive side; there is no way you are going to convince intermediate opponents that you went to the trouble of using your last entry to the board to lead to your stiff spade A.

 

So, play off all your trumps. They've only seen 11 cards, now; and they don't know what the other two are, and they have to keep ♠honour-x, a good diamond and a good club between the two hands. You know they don't have to - they just need the spade position - but that's what a count squeeze does - forces them to tell each other the distribution while you're happily running off trump.

 

Now this play *shouldn't* work - but unless you're over time in the round, there's no reason not to try it. It's not automatic they'll get it right - especially as your last card could be the ♣5 and they pitched all of those so that they *both* could keep honour-x in spades...

 

So I'm guessing what I'm saying is that that line will work more often than East playing low from ♠KQx+, rather than the other way around.

[Antrax]

Thanks mycroft, that's exactly what I was asking. I realize that against competent opponents I have my 11 tricks and that's that (though I admit I didn't consider ruffing a diamond, thanks for noticing that, karlson), but I saw no harm in trying to get a 12th. Sometimes things happen - I usually keep track of count on defense, and yet gave to that pair an undeserved trick earlier (on a memory squeeze) that evening because partner gave me false count on trick 1 :)