re: the hand discussed at 13:00 you talk about Spades and Diamonds as having "some length", even though they are your shortest suits. I think that you are refering to the fact that those suits will have a remaining threat card after running the top honors in the suit. Another difficulty many players have in setting up a squeeze play is maintaining communication between the hands as you play your winners. Easy to see when seeing all 4 hands, but not so when at the table.
Can the defenders use the same tactic in reverse, losing tricks in order to prevent declarer rectifying the count, eventually squeezing declarer for a setting trick? It would seem to be very difficult for the defenders to coordinate executing such a plan, even if the cards were distributed in a way to make such a defense possible.
Does playing for the squeeze give you better odds than simply taking the finesse (50%)? To be successful, the squeeze requires one defender having all the critical defensive cards. That would seem to be less likely than 50%, especially with no bidding by either defender.
I think you raise a good point. Yes, the odds of the finesse are better than the odds that the J will drop when you play AKQ (about 36%). Your chance of success is 36% + the chance of a squeeze. A better example would have been if you had AKQ2, for example - where there is no hope to make a 4th trick unless someone is squeezed.
Superb lesson !! Thank you
re: the hand discussed at 13:00 you talk about Spades and Diamonds as having "some length", even though they are your shortest suits. I think that you are refering to the fact that those suits will have a remaining threat card after running the top honors in the suit. Another difficulty many players have in setting up a squeeze play is maintaining communication between the hands as you play your winners. Easy to see when seeing all 4 hands, but not so when at the table.
Can the defenders use the same tactic in reverse, losing tricks in order to prevent declarer rectifying the count, eventually squeezing declarer for a setting trick? It would seem to be very difficult for the defenders to coordinate executing such a plan, even if the cards were distributed in a way to make such a defense possible.
Does playing for the squeeze give you better odds than simply taking the finesse (50%)? To be successful, the squeeze requires one defender having all the critical defensive cards. That would seem to be less likely than 50%, especially with no bidding by either defender.
I think you raise a good point. Yes, the odds of the finesse are better than the odds that the J will drop when you play AKQ (about 36%). Your chance of success is 36% + the chance of a squeeze. A better example would have been if you had AKQ2, for example - where there is no hope to make a 4th trick unless someone is squeezed.