[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

So We No E
1C-X-XX-1D
1N-P-3N-all pass

---

The contract was 3NT... the commentors speculated that it would be nice to make 11 tricks on an squeeze ♠ endplay on WEST. A comment was made that the problem with that is declarer can not cash his diamonds without disrupting the communication... but this is not true (well, not at trick one).... But given EW vul, given DBL showed hearts (a suit headed by at best the T9), the hand is vitual double dummy. South can see the spade KQ and club ACE in WEST hand as easily as we can.... and EAST bidding diamonds, and not passing, probably has 5 if not 6 or 7 diamonds.... so here is the line to make 11 tricks on the squeeze endplay (delayed duck squeeze.. trick is to retain a heart winner).

T1. H6-H3-HQ-HA
T2. DA-DJ-Dx-Dx
T3. DK-Hx-Dx-Dx
T4. Cx-Cx-CJ-Cx
T5. DQ-Dx-Sx-Hx
T6. Cx-Cx-XQ-CA
T7. Hx-hx-Dx-HJ
T8. CQ-Cx-Cx-Cx
T9. C8 <<-------this is the position

Scoring: IMP

So We No E
1C-X-XX-1D
1N-P-3N-all pass

---

Would anyone choose this line? well. at matchpoint maybe. And it would have been, as one of the commentors said, pretty impressive... but has to happen very early on the hand... trick two, as every card serves a purpose. Spade ACE as entry, heart winner as control in their suit and ENTRY to dummy for low spade to the 9 on one line, all the cards are busy.

I see now reading and 7 the commentor did mention that the squeeze could have worked by cashing diamonds early.. and that it was a very unlikely line. he is right on both accounts.

Ben

[EricK]

That is very impressive.

But is it clear that West has the ♠KQ and ♣A? I am guessing that this was a strong ♣ opening, and EW were using X to show ♥ one suiter and 1♦ to show ♠ one-suiter. How much strength do they require, I wonder?

[inquiry]

EricK, on Oct 17 2004, 04:55 AM, said:

That is very impressive.

But is it clear that West has the ♠KQ and ♣A? I am guessing that this was a strong ♣ opening, and EW were using X to show ♥ one suiter and 1♦ to show ♠ one-suiter. How much strength do they require, I wonder?

Oh, i agree... no one will play this way at imps... because while I think from the bidding WEST has those honor cards, i am not willing to risk losing a lot of diamonds if I am wrong. At matchpoints, if I think of it, i would try it, however, which explains my "at matchpoints, maybe" comment.

But stregnthwise, it should be good.. here is why.
1) they are vul (1Dx is down 500)
2) Dbl of 1C gives the precision pair MORE BIDDING room and actually helps them. To bid this weak makes no sense.

Ben

[EricK]

inquiry, on Oct 17 2004, 10:30 AM, said:

EricK, on Oct 17 2004, 04:55 AM, said:

That is very impressive.

But is it clear that West has the ♠KQ and ♣A? I am guessing that this was a strong ♣ opening, and EW were using X to show ♥ one suiter and 1♦ to show ♠ one-suiter. How much strength do they require, I wonder?

Oh, i agree... no one will play this way at imps... because while I think from the bidding WEST has those honor cards, i am not willing to risk losing a lot of diamonds if I am wrong. At matchpoints, if I think of it, i would try it, however, which explains my "at matchpoints, maybe" comment.

But stregnthwise, it should be good.. here is why.
1) they are vul (1Dx is down 500)
2) Dbl of 1C gives the precision pair MORE BIDDING room and actually helps them. To bid this weak makes no sense.

Ben

I agree with you that this is how (1♣) X ought to be played. But The West hand isn't strong enough for it at this vulnerability IMO, so I figured they might be playing some other agreement.

I would have passed the West hand at this vulnerability (but bid 2♥ if NV).

Eric

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Oct 17 2004, 08:45 AM, said:

I see now reading and 7 the commentor did mention that the squeeze could have worked by cashing diamonds early.. and that it was a very unlikely line. he is right on both accounts.

He->she, IIRC jcmax made those comments, which is Sabine Auken. One of the best commentators in my opininon, she finds quite a lot of bridge to talk about.