Very Interesting 5 Spades-dbled

[inquiry]

[hv=lin=md|1skqt963hkq6d9863,,saj874h84djcj8754,|sv|B|mb|1s2d4s5c5sdppp|pg||pc|CA|pc|c4|pc|c3|pc|s3|pg||pc|d2|pc|dQ|pc|DJ|pc|d5|pg||pc|s2|pc|s7|pc|c2|pc|S6|]400|300[/hv] Click the next button three times to see the first three tricks (no other tricks after that).

 

This is from segment 5, so it is easy to find the full hand. The play is the issue. It has characteristics of backwash squeeze but I don't think it is one of those, it is more what what Ottik and Kelsey referred to as a non-material or "elbow squeeze". Believe it or not, there is a squeeze on West on this hand, were he has several different ways to allow you to make 5♠x. If you haven't seen this hand yet, it is well worth the time to study in this position.

 

A simple line is to hope East has the heart Ace. You might want to keep that line in hand until you know that it is not possible for East to have the heart ace. Enjoy.

Edited June 12, 2013 by inquiry
to change from first four tricks to first three tricks as rhm pointed out.... alas, there are only three kinds of bridge players, those who can count and those who can not... :and like that old joke, I screwed up originally... :(

[bigbenvic]

Very interesting hand thanks for posting. Took me a while to realise the position, not sure if I've seen it before and not sure if I would have noticed it at the table, ever!

[rhm]

First I can only click 3 times and I can see only the first 3 tricks.

However, that is revealing enough.

From the bidding I am inclined to assume that West does not have 4 hearts, at least if East-West are playing ELC.

However, that means West preferred to bid 5♣ to 4NT holding a five card heart suit. His hearts must be weak, which means he does not hold the ♥A

Since West did not lead diamond I assume that East holds one top honor there. This marks West with the heart ace.

So I presume West has ♠52 ♥Axx ♦AQxxxx ♣Ax while East has ♠- ♥xxxxx ♦Kx ♣KQTxxx.

But it does not matter since the exact distribution will be known once one card in each minor has been ruffed.

 

If East has the ♥A it would be a triviality, but West will have that card and will shoot back his second trump and you are a trick short.

Start ruffing minors, beginning with clubs. I presume West follows to the first club ruff and East will follow with a top honor on the first diamond ruff confirming the layout.

 

West second discard will be crucial on North penultimate club. Obviously West can not underruff when he is out of clubs.

If a second diamond, you cross ruff the minors ending in hand and West will sit there with a spade and two hearts. Now you have no trumps in hand but can simply play the king of hearts.

If West second discard is a heart you have to interrupt your cross ruff and also play the heart king from hand.

West must return a trump. But you can cross ruff the minors ending in dummy. The last diamond ruff will now squeeze East between hearts and clubs.

 

If unexpectedly West or East shows out on the first ruff in either minor, the distribution of the unseen must be slightly different but the above plan still works.

For example if hearts happen to be 4-4, East has one heart more and one diamond less and can easily discard one heart instead of a diamond, but the second discard on North penultimate club will still kill East hand.

If East shows out on the first club ruff, he has one more red card, but he also needs to discard one more until the penultimate club from dummy is played.

 

Rainer herrmann

[gnasher]

It has characteristics of backwash squeeze but I don't think it is one of those, it is more what what Ottik and Kelsey referred to as a non-material or "elbow squeeze".

If the software would let me, I'd give you about five upvotes for spotting this deal. Are you going to send it to the Bridge World?

 

I wouldn't usually be so foolish as to disagree with you about squeeze terminology, but I think what happens to West is definitely a backwash squeeze. He's squeezed between two side-suit guards and a small trump that is preventing declarer keeping trump control. That's more-or-less a definition of a backwash squeeze. The really remarkable feature is the additional squeeze against East, so we have a double squeeze half of which is a backwash.

[inquiry]

If the software would let me, I'd give you about five upvotes for spotting this deal. Are you going to send it to the Bridge World?

 

I wouldn't usually be so foolish as to disagree with you about squeeze terminology, but I think what happens to West is definitely a backwash squeeze. He's squeezed between two side-suit guards and a small trump that is preventing declarer keeping trump control. That's more-or-less a definition of a backwash squeeze. The really remarkable feature is the additional squeeze against East, so we have a double squeeze half of which is a backwash.

 

It was that potential squeeze against east that made me think it wasn't a classical backwash squeeze. I know there are backwash squeezes with one loser and backwash squeeze with two losers, but I don't think I have seen one where it could result on a squeeze on the other partner. I loved this hand.

[MrAce]

If the software would let me, I'd give you about five upvotes for spotting this deal. Are you going to send it to the Bridge World?

 

 

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-strange-position-from-the-trials/

[Cyberyeti]

Adam Kaplan wrote this one up on Bridgewinners yesterday:

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-strange-position-from-the-trials/