Claim it on a single squeeze

[RMB1]

I won't try too much of the Mollo-esque dressing up - perhaps enough to disguise the hand's origin.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s52ha653dkj632ca6&w=s97643hqjt4d85ck2&n=sakt8hk97daq4cqj7&e=sqjh82dt97ct98543&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1sp1np6nppp&p=hqhkh8h3cqc5c6ckhjh7h2hacac2c7]399|300[/hv]

 

West leads a top heart, declarer takes the club finesse, and wins the next heart, cashes ♣A and claims without statement, having miscounted his winners. (Rueful Rabbit?)

 

The defenders object but declarer says with ♠QJ coming down he will make the rest. West says declarer might try the double spade finesse instead of playing for the drop. (Secretary Bird?)

 

Dummy explains that you do not need to finesse, obviously you cash ♣J and then the diamonds, squeezing West in the majors - making whenever East is 2-2 in majors, whoever has the spade honours. (Hideous Hog?)

 

Do you allow the claim when East has ♠QJ - drop but not finesse?

when East has ♠xx - finesse but not drop?

or whenever East has neither third-round control of spades or hearts?

[lamford]

I disallow the claim whenever a normal line fails. In this example, in the two card ending (you cash a top spade early) you have ♠A10 opposite a spade and a heart. When you lead the spade, West plays the nine. You do not know whether West had ♠J9 of spades left with east having the ten of hearts and a club or West had 9 of spades and ten of hearts left with East having ♠J and a club. Restricted choice tells you that the former is more likely, but not following that is careless but still normal. So, declarer fails whenever it is possible to go off. The double spade finesse would also be a normal line.

 

Nice post by the way.

[pran]

I agree with lamford, but cannot resist quoting from (I believe it was) Jannersten's "Book on squeeze: When you have the choice between a squeeze and a simple finessee, either of which will succeed depending on the location of a single key card which you cannot safely locate before you choose you should always choose the squeeze.

 

WHY?????

 

If the squeeze was the right medicine but you chose the failing finessee you can be sure that partner will point out to you that you failed to notice the squeeze. But no player in the world will critizise partner for a squeeze that failed just because the key card in the squeeze was positioned unfortunately.

[aguahombre]

I disallow the claim whenever a normal line fails. In this example, in the two card ending (you cash a top spade early) you have ♠A10 opposite a spade and a heart. When you lead the spade, West plays the nine. You do not know whether West had ♠J9 of spades left with east having the ten of hearts and a club or West had 9 of spades and ten of hearts left with East having ♠J and a club. Restricted choice tells you that the former is more likely, but not following that is careless but still normal. So, declarer fails whenever it is possible to go off. The double spade finesse would also be a normal line.

 

Nice post by the way.

Which heart was continued at trick three? If West led the normal ten, not thinking about the squeeze/finesse situation, the ending is a Pop-up claimer.

 

What we would rule upon would be whether a double-hook of the spades early is even remotely possible by this player. That would give West every card in the deck, and still be break-even when West has the spade length.

[mgoetze]

If you think you have enough winners, you may even cash ♠AK and ♣J, hardly even noticing ♠QJ dropping, and then run off your diamonds, ending up in hand with only a heart left and thus no way of reaching the good ♠T...

[mgoetze]

Which heart was continued at trick three?

If you click on "next" a few times you will see the ♥J being lead to trick 3.

[aguahombre]

If you click on "next" a few times you will see the ♥J being lead to trick 3.

Thanks. I think that would be enough to rule with Lamford against the claim. Your idea about declarer cashing two spades and not noticing the quacks falling was worth a smiley face, though.

[campboy]

Any line to make the contract relies on declarer realising that he can't afford to throw two spades on the diamonds, but if he thinks he has the rest already why wouldn't he do that?

[mgoetze]

Your idea about declarer cashing two spades and not noticing the quacks falling was worth a smiley face, though.

I also think it demonstrates a problem with the current laws - they encourage the directors to think up creative lines that no person in their right mind would actually play and then classify these lines as "normal", necessitating that declarer be ruled against. I would be happier if the definition of "normal" in the laws were changed to give directors more room for judgement as to what sort of line is actually, well, normal.

[RMB1]

I also think it demonstrates a problem with the current laws - they encourage the directors to think up creative lines that no person in their right mind would actually play and then classify these lines as "normal", necessitating that declarer be ruled against. ...

 

I am not sure I understand. For some class of player, coming down to ♠Hx ♥x opposite ♠x ♥x ♦x is the only (normal) line. The squeeze is not a creative line thought up by directors.

[gnasher]

I am not sure I understand. For some class of player, coming down to ♠Hx ♥x opposite ♠x ♥x ♦x is the only (normal) line. The squeeze is not a creative line thought up by directors.

Regardless of the class of player, that's not the only normal line for someone who thinks he already has the rest of the tricks. For a player under this misapprehension, it's a normal line to start cashing the diamonds, planning to throw dummy's major-suit losers.

 

For us to allow him to make by playing the squeeze, we'd have to accept that he would recount his tricks before playing the third diamond, and then correctly guess that LHO doesn't have Hxxxxx QJx xx Kx. He's not entitled to the benefit of either of these assumptions, let alone both.

 

There are three lines that lead to going down:

- Cash all five diamonds, without noticing his mistake, throwing dummy's spade losers. Since he plans to throw all of dummy's major-suit losers, it's a normal line to start by throwing the spades.

- Realise his mistake early, and decide to take two spade finesses rather than play the squeeze. That is judging that a hand like QJxx QJx xx Kxxx is more likely than a hand like ?xxxx QJ10x xx Kx.

- Realise his mistake early, start playing the squeeze line, and then change his mind when a spade honour drops offside.

 

I think that all three of these are normal. It's hard to argue that none of them are.

 

The third line above leads to two down. Should we rule that he'd do that?

[mgoetze]

I am not sure I understand. For some class of player, coming down to ♠Hx ♥x opposite ♠x ♥x ♦x is the only (normal) line. The squeeze is not a creative line thought up by directors.

Indeed I think you didn't understand. If you had followed the string of quotes and references you would have ended up at ...

If you think you have enough winners, you may even cash ♠AK and ♣J, hardly even noticing ♠QJ dropping, and then run off your diamonds, ending up in hand with only a heart left and thus no way of reaching the good ♠T...

... this line rather than any squeeze. ;)

[Lanor Fow]

If you think you have enough winners, you may even cash ♠AK and ♣J, hardly even noticing ♠QJ dropping, and then run off your diamonds, ending up in hand with only a heart left and thus no way of reaching the good ♠T...

 

Im' not sure that just because he can't count, we also have to assume he's blind.

[mgoetze]

Im' not sure that just because he can't count, we also have to assume he's blind.

That's not the point, the point is that if he had already planned out a order in which to cash his tricks he won't necessarily deviate from that order just because what he thinks of as a 14th trick is now available.

[lamford]

There are three lines that lead to going down:

- Cash all five diamonds, without noticing his mistake, throwing dummy's spade losers. Since he plans to throw all of dummy's major-suit losers, it's a normal line to start by throwing the spades.

- Realise his mistake early, and decide to take two spade finesses rather than play the squeeze. That is judging that a hand like QJxx QJx xx Kxxx is more likely than a hand like ?xxxx QJ10x xx Kx.

- Realise his mistake early, start playing the squeeze line, and then change his mind when a spade honour drops offside.

 

I think that all three of these are normal. It's hard to argue that none of them are.

 

The third line above leads to two down. Should we rule that he'd do that?

I think two down is the correct ruling, and I am not sure what "best" play actually is. The squeeze is quite poor, as it needs West to have the ten of hearts, which is quite likely, but also both spades, or five to an honour. I think the 25% chance of the double spade finesse might be best. The gain on playing the squeeze is only when East has a stiff honour, the gain on playing the double spade finesse is when East has the ten of hearts (where there is a difference in success). And an expert defender will continue with the ten of hearts when the squeeze does not work, and the jack or switch when it does.

[phil_20686]

In a friendly game I would have claimed without statement as soon as I discovered west was 22 in the minors.

 

Claimers must be double dummy bad to go off as often as you guys seem to think :)

 

Any plausible line for a good player after winning the heart K, taking the club hook, involves cashing the third club as a discovery play, once you find out lho has two clubs the squeeze is obvious.

 

Still, misclaims as bad as miscounting your winners deserve to punished, but it doesn't feel right to me on this hand that you are allowed to assume he goes off when pretty much every remotely plausible line wins at least some of the time. Even cashing the AK of spades if you thought you had winners picks up QJ tight. Perhaps directors should have to have a poll to determine the worst reasonable line that they would choose before the see the EW cards.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lanor Fow]

IT's not a question of picking the worst reaonsable line single dummy, that's not what the laws require us to do. If there is a normal line leading to a less favourable result then we adjust to that.

 

If you don't like that, the solution is easy. Give a statement when you claim.

[gnasher]

In a friendly game I would have claimed without statement as soon as I discovered west was 22 in the minors.

You and your friends can do what you like in a private game, but I hope you would have agreed to -1 with good grace if LHO turned out to be 6=3=2=2 without ♥10.

 

Claimers must be double dummy bad to go off as often as you guys seem to think http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

Any plausible line for a good player after winning the heart K, taking the club hook, involves cashing the third club as a discovery play, once you find out lho has two clubs the squeeze is obvious.

Why would a good player who thinks he has the rest of the tricks have any need for a discovery play or for a squeeze?

 

Still, misclaims as bad as miscounting your winners deserve to punished, but it doesn't feel right to me on this hand that you are allowed to assume he goes off when pretty much every remotely plausible line wins at least some of the time. Even cashing the AK of spades if you thought you had winners picks up QJ tight. Perhaps directors should have to have a poll to determine the worst reasonable line that they would choose before the see the EW cards.

The rules about claims don't allow weighted scores. Even if we think that there are nine normal lines that work and one normal line that doesn't, we still have to rule that he goes down.

 

If you were conducting a poll, it would be correct to create a complete set of "normal" lines, then see if any of them would fail.

Edited November 20, 2012 by gnasher

[pran]

IT's not a question of picking the worst reaonsable line single dummy, that's not what the laws require us to do. If there is a normal line leading to a less favourable result then we adjust to that.

 

If you don't like that, the solution is easy. Give a statement when you claim.

Or just play it out. That is usually the fastest when the claim isn't obvious to everybody.

[aguahombre]

Or just play it out. That is usually the fastest when the claim isn't obvious to everybody.

Huh? Doesn't play stop at the claim point? Or did you mean Declarer just putting cards down in succession to illustrate his claim?

[Lanor Fow]

I think Pran means, when it's unclear, don't claim (play it out)

[barmar]

I think he meant to play the hand normally INSTEAD of claiming. There's a law saying you shouldn't prolong play to disconcert an opponent. But if the reason you're playing out is because the claim would be difficult to explain, that's not a violation.

 

However, none of this applies on this hand. Declarer claimed because he thought he had the rest in top tricks -- he simply miscounted. That's why he didn't think a detailed claim statement was needed -- he thought he could play them in almost any order (blocking the diamond suit would presumably be considered irrational for this class of player).

 

Which points the way to resolving the disputed claim. His implicit claim statement was that he's going to just play off all his winners, in some order that allows proper transportation. Since he didn't claim that he would try for the squeeze, we don't restrict "normal" to just the plays and discards that would have this result. He also never said anything about trying to drop the ♠QJ -- he didn't think he needed to, so he wouldn't be careful to hold on to dummy's 10.

 

Basically, if you thought you had the rest, the normal lines include many where you don't discover your mistake until it's too late to do anything about it.

[blackshoe]

I think he's saying "if the line isn't obvious to everybody, don't claim". The problem with that, of course, is that you can't know if it's obvious to everybody until you claim. And then there's "if it's obvious to everybody, I don't need to state a line of play".

[barmar]

In practice, it's not usually a problem. Unless you're playing in the late rounds of a national/international championship, a squeeze is too complicated to claim on. In a club game, I wouldn't try to claim on anything fancier than a high cross-ruff or a marked end-play.

 

If the claim statement includes more than one "if", it's probably not worth claiming.

[aguahombre]

Or just play it out. That is usually the fastest when the claim isn't obvious to everybody.

I think he's saying "if the line isn't obvious to everybody, don't claim". The problem with that, of course, is that you can't know if it's obvious to everybody until you claim. And then there's "if it's obvious to everybody, I don't need to state a line of play".

I thought it might be good to find out what Pran meant from him, since he referred to "the claim" ---which doesn't exist if he meant "don't claim".

 

The part I made bold in your post is so clearly the case that I have a hard time believing Pran would have said what he said if he meant what you say he meant.