What does "Rectify The Count" mean?

[SimonFa]

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!

 

My original post really was to understand the meaning in a language sense as much as a bridge one, but it turns out that I really did have the wrong end of the stick and your points explain how I have stumbled in to the odd squeeze that has succeeded. I will now be looking out for these opportunities whilst keeping in mind Dave's advice.

[Lovera]

This is another way for "correcting the count". Let's say you have to execute a squeeze against East having ♠ J controlled by Queen and ♣ AK7/Q843 with 4th club controlled by J1092. It being 5 cards in East you can apply "rule of 14". So 14-5=9 but if you have only 8 winner in your hands but may lose a trick for opp you simply increase your count so getting to 9=8 winners more 1 loser ..making sure that no return lead can hurt you..9) Correcting the count...Then, you must "rectify the count" by losing as many tricks as may be necessary : with two losers in hand, duck (that is, purposely lose) one trick; with three losers duck twice; etc.(From "Bridge squeeze complete or winning hand play strategy" pag. 24 and example hand from Exercise 7)[The rule of 14 is a my ultherior suggest].

[whereagles]

There are way too many types of squeezes. Simple, double, triple, ruffing, clash, knockout, criss-cross, entry, entry-shifting, backwash, cascading, pentagon/hexagon/heptagon/octogon, strip, throw-in, aaaargh.

[Lovera]

There are way too many types of squeezes. Simple, double, triple, ruffing, clash, knockout, criss-cross, entry, entry-shifting, backwash, cascading, pentagon/hexagon/heptagon/octogon, strip, throw-in, aaaargh.

No. This is not just way to start an argoument that may be deep but not irrisolveable. How have already said in " Double squeeze tecnique .."(see in "Find my content" the approach of C. E. Love is on my advice correct fourthemore the lonely that i have seen because all the other authors starting with schemes (Chien Wa Wang) and also Romanet that has same pattern of Love (menace orientation) that get what you have said (man type of squeeze) without no gain. The solution is on another side,bye.

[OBSugar]

"A Bridge to Simple Squeezes," by Julian Laderman. Somehow technical and common sense at the same time.

[biggerclub]

When I hold all the tricks but 1, I think squeeze. Even if there is a finesse position, I put it off until trick 12 if at all possible.

 

I run my winners to come down to Q, Ax opposite A (in a different suit), x (any suit), x (in Ax suit). I cash the A in a different suit and if the Q in no good I throw it. Then I hope Ax is good for 2 tricks. If not, I have lost nothing generally.

 

As Lovera notes in the treatise linked, things are even better if the squeeze card (A in a different suit) and 1 card threat or menace (Q in the above example) are in the same hand. (That is the position is an automatic squeeze -- a name which I think is somewhat misleading.)