What does "Rectify The Count" mean?
#1
Posted 2012-March-10, 01:59
I understand the phrase "the count", trying to work out what each op holds so that we can end play or play for a drop, its the "rectify" bit that perplexes me:
1. To set right; correct.
2. To correct by calculation or adjustment
What are we correcting? Most of the time it just seems that we are trying to find out some information but we certainly aren't correcting anything.
While I'm on the subject, could anyone recommend a good book on squeezes and rectifying the count?
As always, thanks in advance,
Simon
#2
Posted 2012-March-10, 02:24
Imagine you are South in this position here:
When South cashes the A of clubs, West is squeezed in the majors, and must concede a trick. Notice that South has precisely 1 loser in this position.
Compare with this position:
Now when South cashes the A of clubs, West simply pitches his low spade, and there is no squeeze. This is because South has 2 losers.
To rectify the count means to lose a trick you must lose, in order to produce the squeeze position. If South had been able to safely duck a round of spades earlier, that would be an example of rectifying the count.
#3
Posted 2012-March-10, 03:06
Why not: "prepare a squeeze" or something ?
![:)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
#4
Posted 2012-March-10, 03:24
(still learning)
#5
Posted 2012-March-10, 03:30
jillybean, on 2012-March-10, 03:24, said:
It does.
Most experts will have read Clyde Love's "Bridge Squeezes Complete" (MPP ebook). It starts slowly and is well laid out ... then it gets more exotic. This site also has a free download of practice hands (and solutions using Love's nomenclature).
Searching for squeezes on the forums will find lots of good stuff from inquiry.
#6
Posted 2012-March-10, 08:34
paulg, on 2012-March-10, 03:30, said:
One of the all-time great bridge books. Also good is "Kelsey on Squeeze Play", which is a four-part volume from Hugh Kelsey.
Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
#7
Posted 2012-March-10, 09:40
jillybean, on 2012-March-10, 03:24, said:
Not quite, some squeezes operate with more than one loser.
A triple squeeze can operate with two, a strip squeeze operates with 2.
It's giving up a trick to leave the right number of losers for the type of squeeze you're about to execute. There are also some squeezes usually requiring blocked entries and extra cards in one of the menaces that operate "without the count" ie with more losers than they should have.
#8
Posted 2012-March-10, 10:42
Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-10, 09:40, said:
A triple squeeze can operate with two, a strip squeeze operates with 2.
It's giving up a trick to leave the right number of losers for the type of squeeze you're about to execute. There are also some squeezes usually requiring blocked entries and extra cards in one of the menaces that operate "without the count" ie with more losers than they should have.
And that's why Love or Kelsey gave me a migraine by chapter 3.
To be able to name the large number of different squeezes, recognize and execute them at tournament speed even once in a while is sooo tough.
My prefered method is to collect entertaining samples and re-read them regularly. Bridge with the Blue Team is full of outstanding examples that were performed at the table. Pattern recognition in real time and technique gradually sink in.
What is baby oil made of?
#9
Posted 2012-March-10, 11:03
#10
Posted 2012-March-10, 11:48
SimonFa, on 2012-March-10, 01:59, said:
I understand the phrase "the count", trying to work out what each op holds so that we can end play or play for a drop, its the "rectify" bit that perplexes me:
It's not the same 'count' that you are thinking of. The 'count' referred to here is the count of the number of winners and losers you have in the remaining tricks. While there are indeed various unusual or more complicated squeezes where things are different, the basic squeeze position only works if you have 1 loser and all the rest of your cards are winners. If you have 2 losers, you have to duck a trick before playing your squeeze, in order to 'rectify' the 'count' of remaining losers to one.
#11
Posted 2012-March-10, 13:14
This definition may be accurate but it is not helpful for understanding what "rectify the count" really means imo. To understand that, I think you have to create and work through your own examples like the ones above by mr1303. I believe this approach of learning and teaching by constructing examples was the motivating idea behind Love's book.
#12
Posted 2012-March-10, 14:48
As noted earlier in this thread, I have posted material in these forrum on squeeze, including a series on 2004 in the beginner/intermediate forum. Perhaps in highsight, my approach to the material for this forum was wrong, but I still like the general concept of how I presented the material.
I FIRST made it easy (i hope) to undertand the terms of clyde love's blue using a simple finesse position (and changes to it). Then in the introduction to squeezes i discussed the automatic squeeze (which I called the basic squeeze ending) and then how changing entry conditions gave rise to a host of other simple squeeze, trump squeeze, guard squeeze, clash squeeze, trump guard squeeze, and entry shifting squeeze --- all int he introductory thread squeeze.
i know a lot of books never even go into such things as clash squeeze or guard squeeze, or entry shifting squeeze, but I did in the introductory material. The reason for this was I deal identifying different squeezes based upon what is wrong wtih the basic "blue" conditions for the automatic squeeze. The first thing to deal with being wrong (in my mind) is changes in the entry conditions. So all the squeezed in the family above have some problem (usually no entry to the hand oposite the squeeze card in either threat suit). Then in other threads, I discussed what to do when there are flaws in loser (dealing with the count problem -- where I discuss, correcting the count, along with other ways to deal with more than one loser in squeeze), and both (where you get to double squeezes, etc). I would give you a llink the thread with problem with loser (dealing with correct the count), but really, the style I wrote those threads in would requie you delve through the much longer introductory materail first.. If you are intersted, the introductory thread can be read here: introduction to squeezes
#13
Posted 2012-March-10, 17:54
ggwhiz, on 2012-March-10, 10:42, said:
To be able to name the large number of different squeezes, recognize and execute them at tournament speed even once in a while is sooo tough.
My prefered method is to collect entertaining samples and re-read them regularly. Bridge with the Blue Team is full of outstanding examples that were performed at the table. Pattern recognition in real time and technique gradually sink in.
Right Through the Pack is my favourite bridge book. It also has lots of entertaining examples of squeezes.
#14
Posted 2012-March-11, 01:54
FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-10, 11:48, said:
That really helps, perhaps you should write the Bridge World Glossary below
![:)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Regards,
Simon
PS Congratulations on Camrose result. I was away and missed it all but had a look at the vugraph archive and you all did really well.
#15
Posted 2012-March-11, 01:58
inquiry, on 2012-March-10, 14:48, said:
As noted earlier in this thread, I have posted material in these forrum .. If you are intersted, the introductory thread can be read here: introduction to squeezes
As always with your stuff I look forward to getting stuck in to it this morning.
From what I've seen of you other stuff you should get in to the bridge author business as you have a style that makes complicated stuff easy to follow, well for me at least.
Regards,
Simon
#16
Posted 2012-March-11, 02:06
I found this from David Bird on Google books just after I made the OP and chapter 3, "Rectifying the Count" is really good on the subject.
Regards,
Simon
#17
Posted 2012-March-11, 06:48
SimonFa, on 2012-March-11, 01:58, said:
From what I've seen of you other stuff you should get in to the bridge author business as you have a style that makes complicated stuff easy to follow, well for me at least.
Regards,
Simon
I agree. I'm somewhat familiar with squeezes, and found Ben's approach unique and intuition building. I couldn't find the A/E posts of his on the subject but enjoyed the one B/I thread a lot (am looking at the B/I problem hands now).
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#18
Posted 2012-March-11, 08:49
SimonFa, on 2012-March-11, 02:06, said:
Very true, but I would caution you not to seek squeezes in every hand; that's a trap that many bright up-and-comers fall into, and some never seem to recover! It may be immensely gratifying to identify a 25% layout where a squeeze operates at the table, but it probably isn't all that good for your results if there is a routine 50% finesse available.
In my opinion, the major advantage most intermediate players would gain from a study of squeezes (and Love's book in particular) is in learning how to routinely go about "shaping up the hand" (to use Love's term) in preparation of a squeeze or other type of endplay. It might take a long time (or even a lifetime) to absorb some of the more esoteric squeeze concepts, but grinding through numerous examples of stripping side suits, being careful with entries, etc. will reap countless rewards.
I haven't read Ben's stuff on squeezes, but judging from the quality of his other instructional posts, I'm guessing it is must-read. I will definitely go back and check it out.
Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
#19
Posted 2012-March-11, 10:11
daveharty, on 2012-March-11, 08:49, said:
In my opinion, the major advantage most intermediate players would gain from a study of squeezes (and Love's book in particular) is in learning how to routinely go about "shaping up the hand" (to use Love's term) in preparation of a squeeze or other type of endplays. It might take a long time (or even a lifetime) to absorb some of the more esoteric squeeze concepts, but grinding through numerous examples of stripping side suits, being careful with entries, etc. will reap countless rewards.
I haven't read Ben's stuff on squeezes, but judging from the quality of his other instructional posts, I'm guessing it is must-read. I will definitely go back and check it out.
i also have blog that I built off the forum post... called identifying squeeze where I try to explain my approach to them. It can be found identifying squeeze. IT is often word for word the same (but with more example hands if I remember correctly) with the forum post. The forum post also have comments from forum members. I do now that when conversion to new hand format, second and third hands in same post got screwed up,. I have gone back and fixed some of them in the different squeeze threads, but not all of them.
i never published the last few chapters of my notes, which among other things deal with when L is wrong (funny, I leave rectifying count to almost the last section in my notes after problems with entries and "both"... everyone else starts with rectifying count). I do have complete notes on dealing with problems with blue when "losers" is not right (rectifying count, triple squeeze, strip squeeze, delayed duck, etc) so I guess in response to this thread I should post them too. And now that handviewer can be used, I could post a bunch of different kind of squeeze problem hands with a working "next" button for practice, which is what all the past post I have made lacked (I have an extensive hand collection).
#20
Posted 2012-March-11, 10:30
Such treatise would start with the idea that, whether we know the name of what we are doing or not, if we need an extra trick which doesn't seem to be there ---we should nevertheless start cashing winners and hope something good happens. It would include simple discarding principles, such as reducing KXX AXXX in a side suit to KXX AX ---etc.
It probably has been written..maybe even in the links provided with this thread, but I have not read up on these things. They just happen from time to time.
My favorite, and the only one I know by name, is the Pop Squeeze where we can nab a stiff honor offside because the 0n-side guy had to pop that honor if he had it.