nige1, on Jun 22 2008, 12:05 AM, said:
OK
- Ruff 2nd ♣
- ♥ to ♥Q.
- ♦ to ♦Q.
- ♥ to RHO's ♥A LHO follows
- Ruff RHO's ♣ exit.
- Now you can reduce to
- Dummy. ♠ AK ♦ Kxx
- Declarer ♠ J9x ♥ x ♦ x
- In your dreams, your trump squeeze without the count succeeds when RHO was dealt say
♠ Qxx ♥ Ax ♦ Axxx ♣ Axxx 
- Pretty but maybe a better practical chance is play for ♦A tripleton with RHO.
- Although, double dummy, RHO can thwart all these efforts by winning the 1st ♦ and returning a ♦.
- So perhaps you should play for ♦A with LHO or ♠Q dropping.
Ah!!! You now see why this hand fascinated me. In defending this hand, I realized that a lot was going on in diamonds and spades.
An alternative line, similar to this, is to simply force the diamond end position to the 12th diamond on dummy and Ax of spades, for a squeeze against the diamond pip spot to the left, had rightie won the diamond Ace from Ace-third. Or, a "get a feel" squeeze. Smother possible, etc.
On defense, I decided to feign Ace-fourth OR not the Ace by ducking. When Declarer leads up to the remaining diamond honor (King) a second time, I then won and played yet another club. This allows an entry to dummy through one of the top spades to eliminate all but one top diamond to reach an end position of
♥x
♠J9 opposite
♦x
♠Ax (three spades out:Q/10/x, one higher diamond out, and two clubs).
On the last heart, both RHO and LHO toss a club. So, the question is whether LHO tossed a club from
♣x
♦x
♠Q (and RHO thus
♣x
♠10x) or whether LHO tossed a club from
♣x
♠Qx (and RHO thus
♣x
♠10
♦x), or possibly LHO
♣x
♠10x (and RHO this
♣x
♦x
♠Q).
In addition to the psychologicals going on here, I think there is an unusual restricted choice issue. If RHO had
♣x
♦x
♠(stiff 10 or Queen), then his club and diamond cards are both 13th cards in that suit, hence equally useless. So, if he pitches one, he could have pitched the other. Whereas, with two spades and either one more club or one more diamond, RHO would be forced to play that one more minor card.
So, it seems that Declarer should play RHO for a doubleton. However, only half of the doubletons work anyway, as Qx is unplayable. So, does this force-of-necessity cancel out the restricted choice problem?
In the end, I think the end position comes down to understanding your opponent. But, it also got me thinking. If a necessary assumptions concern can negate the gain from a restricted choice analysis (can it?), then can a necessary assumptions concern create a restricted choice analysis that would not otherwise be present without the necessary assumptions?
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
Help
Looking forward to improvements
1♣-2♥-3♣-4♥-all pass
Lead is club King, follwed by another club.