What does "Rectify The Count" mean?

[SimonFa]

In articles that involve squeezes we often see the phrase "rectify the count" but it is never explained what that means. I've had a good look around and can't find a definitive description. The closest I came to is something that says losing a trick early to a hand that is known to be long ie after a weak two so that you can work out the count prior to a squeeze.

 

I understand the phrase "the count", trying to work out what each op holds so that we can end play or play for a drop, its the "rectify" bit that perplexes me:

 

1. To set right; correct.

2. To correct by calculation or adjustment

 

What are we correcting? Most of the time it just seems that we are trying to find out some information but we certainly aren't correcting anything.

 

While I'm on the subject, could anyone recommend a good book on squeezes and rectifying the count?

 

As always, thanks in advance,

 

Simon

[mr1303]

The best way to illustrate this is with an example

 

Imagine you are South in this position here:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s2h2dca&w=skqhadc&n=sajhkdc&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

 

When South cashes the A of clubs, West is squeezed in the majors, and must concede a trick. Notice that South has precisely 1 loser in this position.

 

Compare with this position:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s32h2dca&w=skq6hadc&n=saj5hkdc&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

 

Now when South cashes the A of clubs, West simply pitches his low spade, and there is no squeeze. This is because South has 2 losers.

 

To rectify the count means to lose a trick you must lose, in order to produce the squeeze position. If South had been able to safely duck a round of spades earlier, that would be an example of rectifying the count.

[bluecalm]

As this forum is always great when it comes to lingo issues I hope someone chimes in and gives us some history of the term. It seems impossible to understand for someone who didn't hear it before.

Why not: "prepare a squeeze" or something ? :)

[jillybean]

Doesnt 'Rectify The Count' simply mean loose 1 or more tricks to leave exactly 1 remaining loser before being able to execute a squeeze?

[paulg]

Doesnt 'Rectify The Count' simply mean loose 1 or more tricks to leave exactly 1 remaining loser before being able to execute a squeeze?

It does.

 

Most experts will have read Clyde Love's "Bridge Squeezes Complete" (MPP ebook). It starts slowly and is well laid out ... then it gets more exotic. This site also has a free download of practice hands (and solutions using Love's nomenclature).

 

Searching for squeezes on the forums will find lots of good stuff from inquiry.

 

[daveharty]

Most experts will have read Clyde Love's "Bridge Squeezes Complete"

One of the all-time great bridge books. Also good is "Kelsey on Squeeze Play", which is a four-part volume from Hugh Kelsey.

[Cyberyeti]

Doesnt 'Rectify The Count' simply mean loose 1 or more tricks to leave exactly 1 remaining loser before being able to execute a squeeze?

Not quite, some squeezes operate with more than one loser.

 

A triple squeeze can operate with two, a strip squeeze operates with 2.

 

It's giving up a trick to leave the right number of losers for the type of squeeze you're about to execute. There are also some squeezes usually requiring blocked entries and extra cards in one of the menaces that operate "without the count" ie with more losers than they should have.

[ggwhiz]

Not quite, some squeezes operate with more than one loser.

 

A triple squeeze can operate with two, a strip squeeze operates with 2.

 

It's giving up a trick to leave the right number of losers for the type of squeeze you're about to execute. There are also some squeezes usually requiring blocked entries and extra cards in one of the menaces that operate "without the count" ie with more losers than they should have.

 

And that's why Love or Kelsey gave me a migraine by chapter 3.

 

To be able to name the large number of different squeezes, recognize and execute them at tournament speed even once in a while is sooo tough.

 

My prefered method is to collect entertaining samples and re-read them regularly. Bridge with the Blue Team is full of outstanding examples that were performed at the table. Pattern recognition in real time and technique gradually sink in.

[aguahombre]

In any case, "rectify the count" means the current winner count is presently wrong for the squeeze to operate...and we need to first lose a trick (or more), then stick it to em.

[Finch]

In articles that involve squeezes we often see the phrase "rectify the count" but it is never explained what that means. I've had a good look around and can't find a definitive description. The closest I came to is something that says losing a trick early to a hand that is known to be long ie after a weak two so that you can work out the count prior to a squeeze.

 

I understand the phrase "the count", trying to work out what each op holds so that we can end play or play for a drop, its the "rectify" bit that perplexes me:

 

It's not the same 'count' that you are thinking of. The 'count' referred to here is the count of the number of winners and losers you have in the remaining tricks. While there are indeed various unusual or more complicated squeezes where things are different, the basic squeeze position only works if you have 1 loser and all the rest of your cards are winners. If you have 2 losers, you have to duck a trick before playing your squeeze, in order to 'rectify' the 'count' of remaining losers to one.

[y66]

Here's a definition from the Bridge World Glossary

 

Rectify the count - lose one or more tricks to adjust the difference between the number of tricks to be played and the number of winners available to the appropriate quantity (most often one) for a planned squeeze.

This definition may be accurate but it is not helpful for understanding what "rectify the count" really means imo. To understand that, I think you have to create and work through your own examples like the ones above by mr1303. I believe this approach of learning and teaching by constructing examples was the motivating idea behind Love's book.

[inquiry]

i also recommend clyde love's book on squeezes. I've read most books on the subject, and still feel his is the best.

 

As noted earlier in this thread, I have posted material in these forrum on squeeze, including a series on 2004 in the beginner/intermediate forum. Perhaps in highsight, my approach to the material for this forum was wrong, but I still like the general concept of how I presented the material.

 

I FIRST made it easy (i hope) to undertand the terms of clyde love's blue using a simple finesse position (and changes to it). Then in the introduction to squeezes i discussed the automatic squeeze (which I called the basic squeeze ending) and then how changing entry conditions gave rise to a host of other simple squeeze, trump squeeze, guard squeeze, clash squeeze, trump guard squeeze, and entry shifting squeeze --- all int he introductory thread squeeze.

 

i know a lot of books never even go into such things as clash squeeze or guard squeeze, or entry shifting squeeze, but I did in the introductory material. The reason for this was I deal identifying different squeezes based upon what is wrong wtih the basic "blue" conditions for the automatic squeeze. The first thing to deal with being wrong (in my mind) is changes in the entry conditions. So all the squeezed in the family above have some problem (usually no entry to the hand oposite the squeeze card in either threat suit). Then in other threads, I discussed what to do when there are flaws in loser (dealing with the count problem -- where I discuss, correcting the count, along with other ways to deal with more than one loser in squeeze), and both (where you get to double squeezes, etc). I would give you a llink the thread with problem with loser (dealing with correct the count), but really, the style I wrote those threads in would requie you delve through the much longer introductory materail first.. If you are intersted, the introductory thread can be read here: introduction to squeezes

[Vampyr]

And that's why Love or Kelsey gave me a migraine by chapter 3.

 

To be able to name the large number of different squeezes, recognize and execute them at tournament speed even once in a while is sooo tough.

 

My prefered method is to collect entertaining samples and re-read them regularly. Bridge with the Blue Team is full of outstanding examples that were performed at the table. Pattern recognition in real time and technique gradually sink in.

 

Right Through the Pack is my favourite bridge book. It also has lots of entertaining examples of squeezes.

[SimonFa]

It's not the same 'count' that you are thinking of. The 'count' referred to here is the count of the number of winners and losers you have in the remaining tricks. While there are indeed various unusual or more complicated squeezes where things are different, the basic squeeze position only works if you have 1 loser and all the rest of your cards are winners. If you have 2 losers, you have to duck a trick before playing your squeeze, in order to 'rectify' the 'count' of remaining losers to one.

 

That really helps, perhaps you should write the Bridge World Glossary below :)

 

Regards,

 

Simon

 

PS Congratulations on Camrose result. I was away and missed it all but had a look at the vugraph archive and you all did really well.

[SimonFa]

i also recommend clyde love's book on squeezes. I've read most books on the subject, and still feel his is the best.

 

As noted earlier in this thread, I have posted material in these forrum .. If you are intersted, the introductory thread can be read here: introduction to squeezes

 

As always with your stuff I look forward to getting stuck in to it this morning.

 

From what I've seen of you other stuff you should get in to the bridge author business as you have a style that makes complicated stuff easy to follow, well for me at least.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[SimonFa]

Thanks to everyone else for the explanations and book recommendations, too many to answer individually but they are appreciated. I'll be trawling through them in more detail and ordering a couple of books later today as this appears to be one of those subjects which can give an edge at the club level if you can spot the opportunity.

 

I found this from David Bird on Google books just after I made the OP and chapter 3, "Rectifying the Count" is really good on the subject.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[BunnyGo]

As always with your stuff I look forward to getting stuck in to it this morning.

 

From what I've seen of you other stuff you should get in to the bridge author business as you have a style that makes complicated stuff easy to follow, well for me at least.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

 

I agree. I'm somewhat familiar with squeezes, and found Ben's approach unique and intuition building. I couldn't find the A/E posts of his on the subject but enjoyed the one B/I thread a lot (am looking at the B/I problem hands now).

[daveharty]

...this appears to be one of those subjects which can give an edge at the club level if you can spot the opportunity.

 

Very true, but I would caution you not to seek squeezes in every hand; that's a trap that many bright up-and-comers fall into, and some never seem to recover! It may be immensely gratifying to identify a 25% layout where a squeeze operates at the table, but it probably isn't all that good for your results if there is a routine 50% finesse available.

 

In my opinion, the major advantage most intermediate players would gain from a study of squeezes (and Love's book in particular) is in learning how to routinely go about "shaping up the hand" (to use Love's term) in preparation of a squeeze or other type of endplay. It might take a long time (or even a lifetime) to absorb some of the more esoteric squeeze concepts, but grinding through numerous examples of stripping side suits, being careful with entries, etc. will reap countless rewards.

 

I haven't read Ben's stuff on squeezes, but judging from the quality of his other instructional posts, I'm guessing it is must-read. I will definitely go back and check it out.

[inquiry]

Very true, but I would caution you not to seek squeezes in every hand; that's a trap that many bright up-and-comers fall into, and some never seem to recover! It may be immensely gratifying to identify a 25% layout where a squeeze operates at the table, but it probably isn't all that good for your results if there is a routine 50% finesse available.

 

In my opinion, the major advantage most intermediate players would gain from a study of squeezes (and Love's book in particular) is in learning how to routinely go about "shaping up the hand" (to use Love's term) in preparation of a squeeze or other type of endplays. It might take a long time (or even a lifetime) to absorb some of the more esoteric squeeze concepts, but grinding through numerous examples of stripping side suits, being careful with entries, etc. will reap countless rewards.

 

I haven't read Ben's stuff on squeezes, but judging from the quality of his other instructional posts, I'm guessing it is must-read. I will definitely go back and check it out.

 

i also have blog that I built off the forum post... called identifying squeeze where I try to explain my approach to them. It can be found identifying squeeze. IT is often word for word the same (but with more example hands if I remember correctly) with the forum post. The forum post also have comments from forum members. I do now that when conversion to new hand format, second and third hands in same post got screwed up,. I have gone back and fixed some of them in the different squeeze threads, but not all of them.

 

i never published the last few chapters of my notes, which among other things deal with when L is wrong (funny, I leave rectifying count to almost the last section in my notes after problems with entries and "both"... everyone else starts with rectifying count). I do have complete notes on dealing with problems with blue when "losers" is not right (rectifying count, triple squeeze, strip squeeze, delayed duck, etc) so I guess in response to this thread I should post them too. And now that handviewer can be used, I could post a bunch of different kind of squeeze problem hands with a working "next" button for practice, which is what all the past post I have made lacked (I have an extensive hand collection).

[aguahombre]

I wonder if anyone has ever published (or blogged) a simple "accidental squeezes for dummies".

 

Such treatise would start with the idea that, whether we know the name of what we are doing or not, if we need an extra trick which doesn't seem to be there ---we should nevertheless start cashing winners and hope something good happens. It would include simple discarding principles, such as reducing KXX AXXX in a side suit to KXX AX ---etc.

 

It probably has been written..maybe even in the links provided with this thread, but I have not read up on these things. They just happen from time to time.

 

My favorite, and the only one I know by name, is the Pop Squeeze where we can nab a stiff honor offside because the 0n-side guy had to pop that honor if he had it.

[SimonFa]

I wonder if anyone has ever published (or blogged) a simple "accidental squeezes for dummies".

 

Such treatise would start with the idea that, whether we know the name of what we are doing or not, if we need an extra trick which doesn't seem to be there ---we should nevertheless start cashing winners and hope something good happens. It would include simple discarding principles, such as reducing KXX AXXX in a side suit to KXX AX ---etc.

 

It probably has been written..maybe even in the links provided with this thread, but I have not read up on these things. They just happen from time to time.

 

My favorite, and the only one I know by name, is the Pop Squeeze where we can nab a stiff honor offside because the 0n-side guy had to pop that honor if he had it.

 

There must be lots of stories to tell as one of the first things we learn is that if you are stuck for ideas run off your long suit and see what happens. At this point we learn about the accidental squeeze when we go to throw away our useless 2 away at the end and are surprised to learn that it is a master and we make our contract. I suspect even goodish players sometimes do that when they've had a loss of concentration and they will provide even more entertaining stories, if only they would admit to them ;) I'll bet Justin has a few to tell as he worked his way through the ranks to stardom.

 

Its at this point I realised the need to keep count of important suits and now I relise that on some deals I really need to keep a track of the honours and pips which, having just read Ben's posts, is a fundamental requirement for a squeeze.

[BunnyGo]

There must be lots of stories to tell as one of the first things we learn is that if you are stuck for ideas run off your long suit and see what happens. At this point we learn about the accidental squeeze when we go to throw away our useless 2 away at the end and are surprised to learn that it is a master and we make our contract. I suspect even goodish players sometimes do that when they've had a loss of concentration and they will provide even more entertaining stories, if only they would admit to them ;) I'll bet Justin has a few to tell as he worked his way through the ranks to stardom.

 

Its at this point I realised the need to keep count of important suits and now I relise that on some deals I really need to keep a track of the honours and pips which, having just read Ben's posts, is a fundamental requirement for a squeeze.

 

I remember my first squeeze (or maybe I blew it..I dont remember) where daveharty was kibbing me and complemented me on it and my response was, "what's a squeeze?"

[mycroft]

The nice part about understanding "rectifying the count", and that (apart from the esoteric), the number of extra losers to have is "One", is that that is all you need to start planning for accidental squeezes. Even if you don't know what you're doing, if you "lose a trick because it may work out later" and then "run off all your tricks", some hands will fall into your lap that couldn't if you didn't give up the trick. Plus, of course, all the other reasons you might want to duck the trick (and all the reasons you can't afford to duck the trick! - you learn that quickly, too!).

 

So, even if you never learn anything about squeezes but "rectify the count" - or even if you never learn anything about squeezes beyond Love's BLUE and the single/simple squeeze - you're already miles ahead.

 

DaveHarty is quite correct about "looking for squeezes in every hand" - but "losing the safe trick now, because I might have a squeeze in the end" is good *anyway*, even if you decide later that the finesse is a better play - because if you decide that the squeeze is the better play, you might no longer have a safe trick to lose!

[inquiry]

The nice part about understanding "rectifying the count", and that (apart from the esoteric), the number of extra losers to have is "One",

 

Not all multiple loser squeezes are esoteric. I actually have far more "vulnerable stopper squeezes" in my hand record than trump squeezes (a type of simple squeeze that is essentially a criss-cross squeeze). I will eventually get to vulnerable stopper squeezes in the thread I started today on "squeezes" where loser number is flawed. Right now that thread is just dealing with the mundane rectify the count things. The rest of the post (snipped out) is very true.

 

I know I still spend far too much time looking for squeezes, and often end up picking a slightly inferior line just to maybe make a squeeze of sometype.

 

 

[P_Marlowe]

I wonder if anyone has ever published (or blogged) a simple "accidental squeezes for dummies".

 

<snip>

David Birds book is quite good and should come close to "... for dummies".