Another interesting ending

[nickf]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=skhdjxc&w=shjxxdc&e=sqjhdqc&s=sathadc]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

From the Swiss qualifying of the recently completed Autumn National Open Teams in Adelaide.

 

The contract was 4Cx and south is on lead. He cashes the HA, north shedding a diamond and dummy, East, is squeezed.

 

If dummy throws a spade South plays Ace another. If he throws a diamond South underleads his Ace to North's hand, which is high.

 

Has this position a name?

 

nickf

sydney

[Guest Jlall]

stepping stone sqz?

 

edit: saw the hand wrong lol dont mind me...

[inquiry]

This is an entry-shifting squeeze. Usually these show up at trumps where on the last round of trumps you have the opportunity to win in either hand, and depending upon what the opponents throw away, you can setup a winner.

 

Here is a way, you don't need a squeeze, since you have 3 top winners. (AKA), but a blocked entry conditions exist such that you can not take them all. So you need the squeeze to manage to get them. These are rare because usually you can manage to cash your winners in the correct order. Would be great to see the full hand. :P

 

So this is an unbalanced no-trump entry shifting squeeze.

[fred]

I don't think this is considered an entry-shifting squeeze.

 

The way I understand it, in an entry-shifting squeeze the "entry-shifting" takes place in the same trick as when the squeeze card is played (typically by the 3rd hand to play to the trick, but I have seen hands in which a defender's lead results in his partner falling victim to an entry-shifting squeeze and in this case the entry-shift will occur when the 4th hand plays to the trick).

 

Nick's squeeze is closely related to a "jettison squeeze". For example:

 

[hv=n=sahdjxc&w=sqjhdqc&e=shjxxdc&s=sk10hdca]399|300|[/hv]

 

In both positions declarer has enough top tricks to win the rest, but the spade blockage prevents him from doing that. The squeeze allows declarer to overcome the blockage.

 

The jettison squeeze is positional while the ending the Nick describes is not.

 

As far as I know Nick's position does not have a name, but I have seen this before both at the table and in the literature.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

As far as I know Nick's position does not have a name, but I have seen this before both at the table and in the literature.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

In Master Play, Reese considers this a type of steppingstone squeeze. I learned this because I pulled it off once (!) and was telling a friend about it (Joon) and he pointed me to the passage. The book gives an example of this exact squeeze in the section on steppingstones.

[whereagles]

That chapter of Reese's book is something else. I find non-canonical squeezes pretty neat :)

 

I pulled off a winkle a few YEARS ago.. lol.

[fred]

As far as I know Nick's position does not have a name, but I have seen this before both at the table and in the literature.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

In Master Play, Reese considers this a type of steppingstone squeeze. I learned this because I pulled it off once (!) and was telling a friend about it (Joon) and he pointed me to the passage. The book gives an example of this exact squeeze in the section on steppingstones.

I think you are wrong about that.

 

A steppingstone squeeze is effectively a 2-loser squeeze in which declarer loses a trick after the squeeze card is played. For example:

 

[hv=n=sa10hxxdc&w=sqjhxdqc&e=shakqjdc&s=skhxdjca]399|300|[/hv]

 

I say "effectively" because really declarer has only 1 loser if you count top tricks, but as in the other positions the blockage in spades makes it impossible for declarer to cash his top tricks without the help of a squeeze.

 

Both Nick's squeeze and the jettison squeeze are effectively 1-loser squeezes.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I am quite right about what he wrote, though he may well be wrong. I know your point since I made the same argument with Joon (I didn't believe him that Reese called this a steppingstone) but I found my copy of the book and he certainly did. What you show is what people classically think of as a steppingstone squeeze of course.

[fred]

I am quite right about what he wrote, though he may well be wrong. I know your point since I made the same argument with Joon (I didn't believe him that Reese called this a steppingstone) but I found my copy of the book and he certainly did. What you show is what people classically think of as a steppingstone squeeze of course.

If you say so, I believe you, but it is hard for me to imagine that Reese could make a mistake like that.

 

I believe Reese was the one who originally wrote about the steppingstone and other related positions (quite possibly in "Master Play" but I am not sure about that and I don't seem to have a copy of that book anymore). He was really into colorful nomenclature and was one of the best analysts ever.

 

It just doesn't sound like a Reese-like thing to say.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

You sound like me having your side of this discussion a year ago, since I couldn't believe he would say that either :) When I am home from work tonight I will edit this post or add another with the passage from the book.

 

FWIW I don't think he was making a 'mistake' since of course he understood the difference between the squeezes. I think it was just a sort of classification decision based on the similarities (blockage, ability to overtake in the blocked suit [Ax K not A Kx]) at the expense of the differences (1 loser vs 2 losers, squeeze card played from the K side vs the Ax side). After all, the literal word 'steppingstone' makes sense to refer to either type of squeeze, simply referring in one case to an opponent's card and in another case to the singleton K in the hand opposite the squeeze card.

 

Here is an article I once wrote for Jeff Goldsmith's website, showing my complete mastery of missing steppingstone squeezes when they occur. http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/html/josh1.html

As I was adding that link to my post I saw your next post. I have never seen that one before, cool!

[fred]

On a related note, did you know there is such a thing as a "double steppingstone"?

 

[hv=n=saxhxdxc&w=sqjhadxc&e=s109hxdac&s=skhkdkck]399|300|[/hv]

 

I actually did this once (and wrote about it in "The Deal of the Week"). I have never seen this position since and to the best of my knowledge not even Reese wrote about this position.

 

I am sure he would have approved of the name I gave it :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

On a related note, did you know there is such a thing as a "double steppingstone"?

 

[hv=n=saxhxdxc&w=sqjhadxc&e=s109hxdac&s=skhkdkck]399|300|[/hv]

 

I actually did this once (and wrote about it in "The Deal of the Week"). I have never seen this position since and to the best of my knowledge not even Reese wrote about this position.

 

I am sure he would have approved of the name I gave it :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

wow this is insane...

[inquiry]

In the last chapter of MAster Play, entitled vise, winkle, steppingstone, Reese talked about those three plays, the jettison squeeze, and an entry squeeze where declarer could afford no losers. The ending is identical to the one given in the first post here... [hv=n=shqd4ck&w=sht8dca&e=shdjct4&s=stha7dc]399|300|[/hv]

 

SOUTH cashes the spade Ten and west crumbles. It seems as if reese refers to this an an entry-squeeze (well it is) and perhaps as a version of the steppingstone where you can not afford a loser. I had always thought of a steppingstone as a squeeze where you lose a trick to one fellow and use his hand as a steppingstone to the hand on the other side.

 

BTW, awesome ending fred.

[Foxx]

That double steppingstone popped up in the latest batch of deals in Bridge Master, I'm almost sure of it....

[fred]

That double steppingstone popped up in the latest batch of deals in Bridge Master, I'm almost sure of it....

You are correct. It is Bridge Master Level 5 hand B-29.

 

I am not sure if this was the actual hand in which I played a double steppingstone at the table or if I constructed the Bridge Master hand in question.

 

The original double steppingstone that I played was way back in the 1980s when I was young and good like Jlall and Jdonn (actually I was only good at card play - I am sure they bid a lot better than I did when I was their age and the bidding in hand B-29 is certainly consistent with this).

 

As a result of my largely mispent youth I am afraid I can't remember the original hand. I do remember that the hand in question did appear in my very first computer bridge program. That was something called Base II that was released in 1990 or so. If I even have a copy of that program anymore it would be on a 5 1/4 inch floppy disk. Even if I could find a drive to read such a disk, I have no idea if the program would run on a modern PC with Windows.

 

I thought I wrote about this hand in "The Deal of the Week", but I can't seem to find it now in any of the 390 or so editions of that feature (not that I looked very carefully).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Inquiry did it for me, two consecutive endings of this sort are shown in that chapter in the section called "The Steppingstone (Squeeze Entry)", and at the end he refers to it as "an entry squeeze of the steppingstone variety."

 

I bet Fred from my age could play circles around me now. I just talk a big game :)

[EricK]

I seem to recall the ending in the OP being described in a book I read once as a "Nosittej" squeeze. If that became the standard name then bridge would have two examples of this phenomenon - a word/name being coined because it was the reverse of another (Stamyan/Namyats being the other). The only example I can think of from outside bridge is Ohm/Mho for the units of electrical resistance and conductance.

[bid_em_up]

This is an entry-shifting squeeze. Usually these show up at trumps where on the last round of trumps you have the opportunity to win in either hand, and depending upon what the opponents throw away, you can setup a winner.

 

Here is a way, you don't need a squeeze, since you have 3 top winners. (AKA), but a blocked entry conditions exist such that you can not take them all. So you need the squeeze to manage to get them. These are rare because usually you can manage to cash your winners in the correct order. Would be great to see the full hand. ;)

 

So this is an unbalanced no-trump entry shifting squeeze.

I think if you just called this an Entry squeeze (as Reese did, in your later post), you would be correct. It is not an entry-shifting squeeze.

[Halo]

Geza Ottlik/Hugh Kelsey refer to 'rescue' squeezes where there is entry shifting of a sort but no material sacrifice - just getting to the tricks you have.

[Fluffy]

there is a spannish book about squeezes, and he calls this kind of squeezes 'fair' squeezes, more or less for the same reasons Halo said.

[fred]

I would use the term "entry squeeze" to describe a position like this:

 

[hv=n=sk2hdacaqj&w=sqjhadck65&e=shdkqj1098c&s=sa3hkdc432]399|300|[/hv]

 

North is on lead and NS need all the rest of the tricks.

 

In a sense NS have the rest of the tricks already, but it is impossible to take these tricks (because 2 club finesses are needed and the South hand has only 1 entry).

 

The Ace of diamonds catches West in an "entry squeeze" because, although a spade discard by him does not give up a trick (you already have 2 spade tricks!) it gives up an entry.

 

It is the extra entry that results in the extra trick.

 

After West discards a spade, South can overtake the K of spades with the A, finesse clubs, and then lead the 2 of spades to the 3 for a 2nd club finesse.

 

Geza Ottlik wrote extensively about various entry squeeze positions (among other amazing things) in a series of articles in The Bridge World called "The Way it Is" in the 1970s. The material from these articles made up the core material for "Adventures in Card Play" which is definitely the hardest (and arguably the best) bridge book ever written.

 

For whatever its worth, I don't think Ottlik would have considered Nick's position an "entry squeeze".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

QUOTE ( @ --)

On a related note, did you know there is such a thing as a "double steppingstone"?   [hv=n=saxhxdxc&w=sqjhadxc&e=s109hxdac&s=skhkdkck]399|300|[/hv]   I actually did this once (and wrote about it in "The Deal of the Week"). I have never seen this position since and to the best of my knowledge not even Reese wrote about this position. Funny how when something gets mentioned you notice it come up right after.   I bought a bunch of old bridge books from a used book store a few months back and I'm currently reading through Reese and Bird's "Bridge- Tricks of the Trade". In Chapter 8, it has the following hand:   [hv=n=saxhxdxc&w=sqjhadxc&e=s109hxdac&s=skhkdkck]399|300|[/hv]   Part of his commentary reads "It is a sort of double stepping-stone squeeze, in which both defenders are involved."

[skjaeran]

I am quite right about what he wrote, though he may well be wrong. I know your point since I made the same argument with Joon (I didn't believe him that Reese called this a steppingstone) but I found my copy of the book and he certainly did. What you show is what people classically think of as a steppingstone squeeze of course.

If you say so, I believe you, but it is hard for me to imagine that Reese could make a mistake like that.

 

I believe Reese was the one who originally wrote about the steppingstone and other related positions (quite possibly in "Master Play" but I am not sure about that and I don't seem to have a copy of that book anymore). He was really into colorful nomenclature and was one of the best analysts ever.

 

It just doesn't sound like a Reese-like thing to say.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Josh i(and Ben) s right about what Terence Reese wrote. It was in "The expert game" (that't the original title, it was called "Master Play" in the US edition - an edition Reese himself strongly disliked).

 

The introduction to the Stepping-Stone says:

"The stepping-stone is a name of another type of squeeze in which declarer has sufficient triccks in top cards but cannot go conveniently from hand to hand...... Like most forms of direct squeeze, the stepping-stone operates at two levels when declarer has to make all the tricks and when he can afford to lose one trick. The secind situation arises more often."

 

I believe stepping-stone is used on both since the squeeze mechanism is the same and because you face the same problem - your tricks are there, but you can't reach them right away. Even in the win all tricks situation you use an opponent as a virtual stepping-stone.

[nickf]

On a related note, did you know there is such a thing as a "double steppingstone"?

 

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ Ax ♥ x ♦ x ♣ [space] ♠ QJ ♥ A ♦ x ♣ [space] ♠ 109 ♥ x ♦ A ♣ [space] ♠ K ♥ K ♦ K ♣ K

 

 

wow - that's a four-king good hand.

 

nickf

sydney