[chasetb]

---

Both sides were VUL, I just put in the final contract. North knew that South had 14-16 HCP, 3252 shape, both Aces and a great Diamond suit during the relay; North's hand was never disclosed. Opening lead is ♥J by East, and West shows out.

Without knowing Hearts are 5-0, the slightly better play is that Diamonds break 4-3 (63% versus 50%). After finding that out, is it still better than the finesse?

[wank]

you're almost 100%. the j of spades is an illusion. just cash dummy's stuff discarding a spade then run south's winners. they're double squeezed unless west is 55 in the reds.

edit: oh you can ignore that. i just assumed south was declarer. no communications for a double squeeze when east has the hearts.

as it is, you absolutely must play for the diamond break in one manner or other. it's just a question of which [large] extra chances you go for.

option 1) you leave the hearts in dummy as communication so you get the benefit of the q of s dropping in 2, which is no small chance, and east being squeezed in spades (vienna coup) and hearts or even hearts and diamonds.

option 2) the alternative of throwing a spade on your hearts early and then trying to squeeze west out of 4 spades (or qt9 stiff) and a diamond guard seems crap in comparison, though i make no claim to bridge mathematical ability. west is favourite to hold the spade length (not such a huge favourite once you assume he has long diamonds), but this line loses the benefit of dropping his qx, which i would guess tips the balance.

[rhm]

chasetb, on 2013-June-09, 22:20, said:

---

Without knowing Hearts are 5-0, the slightly better play is that Diamonds break 4-3 (63% versus 50%). After finding that out, is it still better than the finesse?

Obviously playing on diamonds is better than 63%. Among others you might drop the spade queen doubleton.
Nevertheless your question is an interesting one with a fairly simple answer.
Not only the diamond break is affected by the heart break but also the location of the spade queen.
If I calculated correctly a diamond 4-3 break drops to 51.66% while playing East for the spade queen is no better than 38% now.
If you analyze these numbers you can conclude that if anything playing on diamonds is now even more indicated compared to taking the spade finesse than before seeing the heart break.
That is because you have to play East for the spade queen.
If you would have to play West for the spade queen the situation would be different, because a finesse working against West would go up.
Probably best is to forget about the spade queen and combine the diamond chances with a spade diamond squeeze against West, if he holds more than 4 diamonds.
Cash hearts (discarding the spade jack) and clubs than go to the ace of spades and cash the minors.
Chances to succeed by this line are slightly above 70%

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

wank, on 2013-June-09, 22:48, said:

option 1) you leave the hearts in dummy as communication so you get the benefit of the q of s dropping in 2, which is no small chance, and east being squeezed in spades (vienna coup) and hearts or even hearts and diamonds.

option 2) the alternative of throwing a spade on your hearts early and then trying to squeeze west out of 4 spades (or qt9 stiff) and a diamond guard seems crap in comparison, though i make no claim to bridge mathematical ability. west is favourite to hold the spade length (not such a huge favourite once you assume he has long diamonds), but this line loses the benefit of dropping his qx, which i would guess tips the balance.

The difference isn't just a Qx chance - Option 1 also gives you half of the 3-3s.

Option 1 (cash spades, keeping heart communication) works against
All the 2=4, 1=5 and 0=6 breaks
Half of the 3=3 breaks
1/3 of the 4=2 breaks
1/5 of the 5=1 breaks

Option 2 (cash hearts, keeping ♠K) works against
1/20 of the 3=3 breaks
All of the 4=2, 5=1 and 6=0 breaks

[wank]

gnasher, on 2013-June-10, 02:51, said:

The difference isn't just a Qx chance - Option 1 also gives you half of the 3-3s.

Option 1 (cash spades, keeping heart communication) works against
All the 2=4, 1=5 and 0=6 breaks
Half of the 3=3 breaks
1/3 of the 4=2 breaks
1/5 of the 5=1 breaks

Option 2 (cash hearts, keeping ♠K) works against
1/20 of the 3=3 breaks
All of the 4=2, 5=1 and 6=0 breaks

but west is somewhat more likely to have 4+ and therefore more likely to have the queen - 2 extra vacant spaces if diamonds are 5-2 which is the most likely relevant break. of course diamonds might break more extremely than 5-2 in which east is the one with more vacant spaces.

[rhm]

wank, on 2013-June-10, 03:45, said:

but west is somewhat more likely to have 4+ and therefore more likely to have the queen - 2 extra vacant spaces if diamonds are 5-2 which is the most likely relevant break. of course diamonds might break more extremely than 5-2 in which east is the one with more vacant spaces.

I agree with Andy. Trying to squeeze East is slightly better.

You win whenever

a) diamonds break
b) East has the spade queen
c) East has length in spades or diamonds without the spade queen.

The sum of these chances are better than trying to squeeze West.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2013-June-10, 04:13, said:

I agree with Andy.

I think we're both agreeing with wank's first post, in fact. Though he now seems to need persuading to agree with himself.

[gszes]

I wonder if the probable distributions needed to make for a
successful squeeze might be more important than normal
here.

to squeeze East in the majors requires west to hold
11 12 or 13 cards in the minors

to squeeze West in spades and diamonds merely
requires east to hold 6 or more cards in the minors
with a max of 2 dia. The disparity between these
two hand type probabilities is so huge as to make
playing east for the majors seem totally wrong even
if we are including (the not immaterial) possibility of
dropping Qx of spades in west.

I am firmly in the camp of playing the top clubs and the dia
Q and (unless those 3 cards reveal some evidence to the
contrary i am going to finish the top hearts pitching a small
spade come to hand with a spade play my top club and top
diamonds. I make anytime diamonds run or whenever lho has
5+ dia and 4+ spades.

[PhilKing]

FWIW, I don't don't think West is allowed to just say "having none" and turn over his card at trick one. He doesn't know we don't have four clubs, so I feel I am entitled to see his discard and continue appropriately.

[SimonFa]

PhilKing, on 2013-June-15, 14:23, said:

FWIW, I don't don't think West is allowed to just say "having none" and turn over his card at trick one. He doesn't know we don't have four clubs, so I feel I am entitled to see his discard and continue appropriately.

O/T but would you expect ops to signal against 7NT or are you just looking for help with the count? It seems to me that you would throw randomly against 7NT especially at IMPS.

Simon

[SimonFa]

PhilKing, on 2013-June-15, 14:23, said:

FWIW, I don't don't think West is allowed to just say "having none" and turn over his card at trick one. He doesn't know we don't have four clubs, so I feel I am entitled to see his discard and continue appropriately.

O/T but would you expect ops to signal against 7NT or are you just looking for help with the count? It seems to me that you would throw randomly against 7NT especially at IMPS.

Simon

[PhilKing]

SimonFa, on 2013-June-16, 04:13, said:

O/T but would you expect ops to signal against 7NT or are you just looking for help with the count? It seems to me that you would throw randomly against 7NT especially at IMPS.

Simon

Critical situation is when he is 3055 and the squeeze line does not work. At trick one he discards a club painlessly and at trick two, he tanks, because he doesn't know a club is safe.

Discarding against 7NT is not easy, but it helps if declarer does not even care what you discard or how easily you discard it. Sadly that seems to be the case here (not you - everyone). We've had analysis of how to play it if they have to follow anticlockwise, and a fair amount of maths, but none on what has actually happened. Now we may well fall back on the maths, but we should be better than that.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-June-16, 04:34, said:

Critical situation is when he is 3055 and the squeeze line does not work. At trick one he discards a club painlessly and at trick two, he tanks, because he doesn't know a club is safe.

Discarding against 7NT is not easy, but it helps if declarer does not even care what you discard or how easily you discard it. Sadly that seems to be the case here (not you - everyone). We've had analysis of how to play it if they have to follow anticlockwise, and a fair amount of maths, but none on what has actually happened. Now we may well fall back on the maths, but we should be better than that.

I agree that we should pay attention to West's discard and his tempo when discarding, but I don't see how you expect to choose a line of play after seeing a second discard. If you cash a second heart, you're committed to Wank's Option 2, aren't you?

Also, I don't understand the comment about the squeeze not working when West is 3055. If West is 3055 without ♠Q, one of the two squeeze lines will work and the other won't. If West is 3055 with ♠Q (and not 109), no line works legitimately, although this may well work by persuading him to throw a diamond winner.

[PhilKing]

.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-June-16, 09:29, said:

I agree that we should pay attention to West's discard and his tempo when discarding, but I don't see how you expect to choose a line of play after seeing a second discard. If you cash a second heart, you're committed to Wank's Option 2, aren't you?

Also, I don't understand the comment about the squeeze not working when West is 3055. If West is 3055 without ♠Q, one of the two squeeze lines will work and the other won't. If West is 3055 with ♠Q (and not 109), no line works legitimately, although this may well work by persuading him to throw a diamond winner.

Details, details. Let's say the above is all correct, is that any excuse for the terrible analysis in this thread? OK, it's not terrible in that any of it is wrong, but you know what I mean.

West may give his hand away. Let's say he pitches a club in tempo and then tanks and pitches a spade. I am just flat out playing him for a 3055 WITHOUT the spade queen now (obviously this is complete fiction - I would never have the guts). But that's not the point - we MIGHT sniff out the lie of the cards(and we might not), and that has been completely ignored.

[awm]

Taking a slightly different tack, suppose I cash a club at trick two. It seems fairly likely that I'll get a true count signal out of my opponents; the reason is that a squeeze or pseudo-squeeze on this hand is quite likely, and opponents really want to avoid the latter. They know very little about North's shape from the relay auction (presumably) and the squeeze could be in any of several suit combinations (it's not necessary clear to either opponent who is getting squeezed at trick two).

Suppose that I'm willing to assume clubs are not 6-2 (especially since I'm trying to guard against diamonds 5-2, so this would mean someone has a 6-5 hand which is possible but not really that likely). The club count then tells me whether to expect a 5-3 break (either way) or a 4-4 break.

If clubs are 4-4: Cash two hearts pitching a spade, cash the diamond king and the other club, go to dummy with spade ace and cash the club and top diamonds. If diamonds are 4-3 we're home. Otherwise, West started with 4054 shape and has had to come down to doubleton spade in order to keep his long diamond. Spade to the king should drop the remaining spades (regardless of who had the queen) and the last spade wins the thirteenth trick. This is 100% (assuming clubs really 4-4).

If clubs are 5-3: I'm going to play for West 3055 (this is more likely than 5053 or 6025 since the latter give East much more extreme hands). What did West pitch at trick one? If he pitched a club I will play as above. If he pitched a spade: cash the second club, the diamond king, and two spades ending in dummy. Cash the last club and diamonds from the top pitching spades from the North. If West started 3055 he has already unguarded spades, so East will be squeezed in the majors.

In order to set me opponents need to either: 1. Have 5053-1525 distribution or someone with 6-5 hand or 2. West has 3055 without the spade queen and discards a club in reasonable tempo at trick one (even though that could easily give the making trick) or 3. West has 4054 with the spade queen and pitches a spade at trick one (normal pitch), but both opponents gave me false count on the club at trick two.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-June-16, 17:48, said:

Details, details. Let's say the above is all correct, is that any excuse for the terrible analysis in this thread? OK, it's not terrible in that any of it is wrong, but you know what I mean.

West may give his hand away. Let's say he pitches a club in tempo and then tanks and pitches a spade. I am just flat out playing him for a 3055 WITHOUT the spade queen now (obviously this is complete fiction - I would never have the guts). But that's not the point - we MIGHT sniff out the lie of the cards(and we might not), and that has been completely ignored.

Equally I could say that it's poor analysis to blithely say that West's second discard may tell you what to do, without considering the cost of seeing that discard. If diamonds don't break there are three possible routes to a 13th trick:
(1) Squeeze East in hearts and spades
(2) Squeeze West in diamonds and spades (which is a bit worse than (1))
(3) Spade finesse before testing diamonds.

Suppose that West pitches a club in the normal tempo for a trick-one discard against a grand slam. What card are you going to play at trick two? If you play a second heart, you commit to either (2) or (3). So, if you're going to do that, it has to be with the intention of playing (3), and being right, often enough to justify the loss of equity in swapping (1) for (2).

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-June-17, 00:50

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-June-17, 00:17, said:

Equally I could say that it's poor analysis to blithely say that West's second discard may tell you what to do, without considering the cost of seeing that discard. If diamonds don't break there are three possible routes to a 13th trick:
(1) Squeeze East in hearts and spades
(2) Squeeze West in diamonds and spades (which is a bit worse than (1))
(3) Spade finesse before testing diamonds.

Suppose that West pitches a club in the normal tempo for a trick-one discard against a grand slam. What card are you going to play at trick two? If you play a second heart, you commit to either (2) or (3). So, if you're going to do that, it has to be with the intention of playing (3), and being right, often enough to justify the loss of equity in swapping (1) for (2).

My point was hypothetical - I was just highlighting a position where one might use actual bridge inference to depart from the maths. It's irrelevant whether my analysis is correct or not, since I have not played to trick two since there is no trick one.

Maybe they discard:

1) A quick ♣J.
2) A quick low ♠.
3) A lightning ♦.

We are going to have qute a few possible scenarios to suggest in a case where West has no idea of our shape, and my view is that the discard will almost always be honest. Now it maybe that in all these cases you still go for line one, but I would rather see trick one first.

I think you are in danger of defending the indefensible. Your argument appears to be "I am going to do x regardless of the discard", which would be fine if every scenario had been explored, but then I feel some workings would have been included in the original answers.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-June-17, 03:19, said:

I think you are in danger of defending the indefensible. Your argument appears to be "I am going to do x regardless of the discard", which would be fine if every scenario had been explored, but then I feel some workings would have been included in the original answers.

No, I've already agreed that we should pay attention to West's discard before choosing a line. It's in the post that you seem to have dismissed as "Details, details" without first reading it. All I disagreed with was your apparent belief that we could choose from the possible lines after seeing two discards, especially since you also said that you'd never act on the inference anyway.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-June-17, 05:05, said:

No, I've already agreed that we should pay attention to West's discard before choosing a line. It's in the post that you seem to have dismissed as "Details, details" without first reading it. All I disagreed with was your apparent belief that we could choose from the possible lines after seeing two discards, especially since you also said that you'd never act on the inference anyway.

I don't really know how many times I have to say my point is hypothetical.

My point about "details details" was simply saying I think it's irrelevant to discuss whether x is better than y by 2% without seeing the first card.