[lamford]

---

Lead J♥. Teams.

Like London buses, faulty analysis seems to come in pairs, and this Level 5 play problem is in Bridge Master. How would you play? The auction was odd, but presumably 4NT was Blackwood, of the simple variety. 2H was weak. You will discover that East has a singleton ten of clubs.

[lamford]

Surprised not to have a single reply to this one, as it is not that difficult! Bridge Master recommends discarding the ace of spades on the last club, and then playing the progressive squeeze with East having Kx KQxxxx JTxx T. Why is this line not best?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2020-April-07, 06:56, said:

Surprised not to have a single reply to this one, as it is not that difficult! Bridge Master recommends discarding the ace of spades on the last club, and then playing the progressive squeeze with East having Kx KQxxxx JTxx T. Why is this line not best?

Why can't W have ♦J10xx and ♠K in which case the simple squeeze works but you have to read it. W is more likely to have 4 diamonds than E with the hearts known 2-6

[DavidKok]

With four diamonds in west, east has exactly one. With an additional singleton 10 of clubs in east that means 11 cards in the majors in that hand. This is quite unlikely with an opening of 2♥ - it would imply either a seventh heart or failing to mention a five card spade suit.

[lamford]

DavidKok, on 2020-April-07, 10:42, said:

With four diamonds in west, east has exactly one. With an additional singleton 10 of clubs in east that means 11 cards in the majors in that hand. This is quite unlikely with an opening of 2♥ - it would imply either a seventh heart or failing to mention a five card spade suit.

You are right, that both are unlikely. However, there is no need to play for the progressive squeeze. If you come down to Ax none AKQx none in dummy, opposite Qxx T x x, then East, if he has the king of spades, the queen of hearts, and four diamonds will have already been squeezed. More importantly, there is another reason to believe that East could be xxxx KQxxxxx x T, assuming. as we are told, that the opponents are expert. What is that?

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sherlock Holmes

[mikeh]

lamford, on 2020-April-07, 11:21, said:

You are right, that both are unlikely. However, there is no need to play for the progressive squeeze. If you come down to Ax none AKQx none in dummy, opposite Qxx T x x, then East, if he has the king of spades, the queen of hearts, and four diamonds will have already been squeezed. More importantly, there is another reason to believe that East could be xxxx KQxxxxx x T, assuming. as we are told, that the opponents are expert. What is that?

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sherlock Holmes

There are very few, if any, experts who would open 2H nv with xxxx KQ987xx x x, at least in my experience.

Meanwhile, Kx KQxxxx Jxxx x (or 10xxx in diamonds) looks routine albeit a priori improbable.

In my book, Sherlock would without doubt eliminate the former hand as ‘impossible’, leaving the progressive squeeze as the better, indeed the only, line.

[msjennifer]

Sir.
Quite simply it boils down to what to discard from dummy on the last club fully expecting a 4/1 break in D.If one says that one has to decide from the trepidations ,if any, of either opponent it will not be far off.Perhaps only a mathematician will tell the percentages wherein East will hold SK AND ALSO FOUR cards in diamonds.(without which there can not be a progressive squeeze) .One has to consider the mentality of either of them.In a grand slam if W is an Expert indeed he will lead a small one from HJx well aware of the squeeze possibilities since there is no harm in doing so. If the opponents are genuine World class then I ,personally, shall take West to hold 4 Diamonds and the SK since that is the only hope.A novice will simply cash out to find diamomds breaking 3/2 and say TOO MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

[DavidKok]

With east having something like Kx KQxxxx Txxx T the progressive squeeze is necessary. East can simply discard a diamond on the seventh trick, coming down to Kx Q Txx none. If you cross to north to cash the diamonds there is no entry back to the hand, so it is safe to discard the queen of hearts on the last diamond.

[msjennifer]

lamford, on 2020-April-07, 06:56, said:

Surprised not to have a single reply to this one, as it is not that difficult! Bridge Master recommends discarding the ace of spades on the last club, and then playing the progressive squeeze with East having Kx KQxxxx JTxx T. Why is this line not best?

SIR
Agreed. An expert West will lead a small heart from HJx fully aware of E with Kx- KQxxxx-xxxx-x possibility.(so that E can discard all hearts and has no problem of what to discard on the last club.)
possibility in .a grand slam contract.The problem has occurred as he led the J and not the small one.

[msjennifer]

DavidKok, on 2020-April-08, 05:04, said:

With east having something like Kx KQxxxx Txxx T the progressive squeeze is necessary. East can simply discard a diamond on the seventh trick, coming down to Kx Q Txx none. If you cross to north to cash the diamonds there is no entry back to the hand, so it is safe to discard the queen of hearts on the last diamond.

Sir,it is the Eightth trick which hurts him.So a progressive is necessary.

[DavidKok]

I agree Jennifer, I was replying to lamford above claiming that there is no need to play for the progressive squeeze.

[mikeh]

msjennifer, on 2020-April-08, 05:01, said:

Sir.
Quite simply it boils down to what to discard from dummy on the last club fully expecting a 4/1 break in D.If one says that one has to decide from the trepidations ,if any, of either opponent it will not be far off.Perhaps only a mathematician will tell the percentages wherein East will hold SK AND ALSO FOUR cards in diamonds.(without which there can not be a progressive squeeze) .One has to consider the mentality of either of them.In a grand slam if W is an Expert indeed he will lead a small one from HJx well aware of the squeeze possibilities since there is no harm in doing so. If the opponents are genuine World class then I ,personally, shall take West to hold 4 Diamonds and the SK since that is the only hope.A novice will simply cash out to find diamomds breaking 3/2 and say TOO MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

The argument that an expert west would lead low from Jx because he wants to preserve the heart guard may have some theoretical plausibility but I don’t believe that your average (or even above-average) expert would ever find it. For one thing, why on earth would partner play you to have done this? How can east ever work this out! It’s not as if the bidding paints south as holding A10 rather than AJ10.

Note that east, with the spade King, will ALWAYS play west to hold the spade Queen rather than the heart Jack.

IOW, the argument that west can not only lead the low heart from Jx but that east will read it is, IMO, extremely unlikely. Lead the low heart and east will play south to be Jx AJ10 x AKQJxxx

[lamford]

mikeh, on 2020-April-08, 02:30, said:

In my book, Sherlock would without doubt eliminate the former hand as ‘impossible’, leaving the progressive squeeze as the better, indeed the only, line.

I don't see any gain playing the progressive squeeze, as you can just come down to Ax none AKQx none in dummy. If East began with Kx KQxxxx JTxx x, he has already been squeezed on the previous trick. Meanwhile, you keep the chance of East being 4-7-1-1 or 5-6-1-1 (maybe he misread his hand or decided to warp the bidding) at no cost.

And I agree that most would not consider leading low from Jx. Although perhaps they should, as it should be easy enough (for an expert) to distinguish between possession of the queen of spades and the jack of hearts when following to five rounds of clubs, with 120 different ways to play them!

[mikeh]

lamford, on 2020-April-09, 18:29, said:

I don't see any gain playing the progressive squeeze, as you can just come down to Ax none AKQx none in dummy. If East began with Kx KQxxxx JTxx x, he has already been squeezed on the previous trick. Meanwhile, you keep the chance of East being 4-7-1-1 or 5-6-1-1 (maybe he misread his hand or decided to warp the bidding) at no cost.

And I agree that most would not consider leading low from Jx. Although perhaps they should, as it should be easy enough (for an expert) to distinguish between possession of the queen of spades and the jack of hearts when following to five rounds of clubs, with 120 different ways to play them!

You come down to Ax void AKQx void in dummy and Qxx 10 x x in hand. Rho has been squeezed, you say. He pitches down to a stiff spade K.

Your play

Of course, one could just cash the spade A and cross back to the Queen but that would look more than a trifle silly when east held xx KQxxxx Jxxx x, a hand where he’d quite likely play card for card the same as with Kx KQxxxx Jxxx x.

Or one could cash the club....presumably the rational play. But what to pitch from dummy? Oh, obviously the diamond. I mean what’s more likely? A 3-2 diamond break or a 5-2 spade break with east holding Kx? Clearly, based on your argument, you’d somehow know that east had been dealt Kx in spades😊

I’m not smart enough....i’d pitch a spade. But, and this is the point of the problem: if you pitch a small spade, you’re dependent on the diamonds breaking: east just ditches his presumed last spade, no matter what it is.

Most of the time you will be dependent on diamonds but once in a while east has had to stiff his spade king already, and when you cash the last club, pitching the spade Ace, east is done.

note that the only role for the spade Ace was to prevent them cashing it at trick 1. You don5 need it to take a trick if diamonds run

I remember playing this problem and being pumped when I got it right. I thought then and think now that it’s a very pretty hand

[lamford]

mikeh, on 2020-April-09, 20:08, said:

You come down to Ax void AKQx void in dummy and Qxx 10 x x in hand. Rho has been squeezed, you say. He pitches down to a stiff spade K.

Your play

Of course, one could just cash the spade A and cross back to the Queen but that would look more than a trifle silly when east held xx KQxxxx Jxxx x, a hand where he’d quite likely play card for card the same as with Kx KQxxxx Jxxx x.

Or one could cash the club....presumably the rational play. But what to pitch from dummy? Oh, obviously the diamond. I mean what’s more likely? A 3-2 diamond break or a 5-2 spade break with east holding Kx? Clearly, based on your argument, you’d somehow know that east had been dealt Kx in spades��

I’m not smart enough....i’d pitch a spade. But, and this is the point of the problem: if you pitch a small spade, you’re dependent on the diamonds breaking: east just ditches his presumed last spade, no matter what it is.

Most of the time you will be dependent on diamonds but once in a while east has had to stiff his spade king already, and when you cash the last club, pitching the spade Ace, east is done.

note that the only role for the spade Ace was to prevent them cashing it at trick 1. You don5 need it to take a trick if diamonds run

I remember playing this problem and being pumped when I got it right. I thought then and think now that it’s a very pretty hand

You are right. While I think West should lead a heart from Jx to prevent the progressive squeeze, I agree that you will not pick the position if you come down to Ax none AKQx none. I was also pleased when I played the progressive squeeze, but then tried again reaching my ending. Usually the software punishes you for an error by changing the hand so that the diamonds are 3-2 and the king of spades does not drop, but here it did not. Also you are not going to pick the position where West has the king of spades and four diamonds either, so there is no gain from that line.

A slight improvement to the setting would be for West to have Tx of hearts ad declarer AJ doubleton. I guess that somebody will complain then that a diamond lead would have broken up the progressive squeez. Yes, a very pretty hand.

[nige1]

Lamford writes "Lead J♥. Teams. Like London buses, faulty analysis seems to come in pairs, and this Level 5 play problem is in Bridge Master. How would you play? The auction was odd, but presumably 4NT was Blackwood, of the simple variety. 2H was weak. You will discover that East has a singleton ten of clubs."

---

You wouldn't want go down when ♦ are 3-2.
In the 2 unlikely cases, shown on the left, suppose LHO discards a ♠ and a ♥. What do you discard from dummy?

- Only at double-dummy, would you play for case 2.
- Hence, discarding ♠A costs nothing, but, in case 1, subjects RHO to a repeating triple-squeeze.
Thus, the Bridge-Master analysis seems correct, at single-dummy.

---

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-April-07, 07:05, said:

Why can't W have ♦J10xx and ♠K in which case the simple squeeze works but you have to read it. W is more likely to have 4 diamonds than E with the hearts known 2-6

As I realised later you are not going to pick this position either.