Squeeze with 3 loosers?

[kgr]

After reading Ben's Squeeze VERY (in this case capitals are appropriate) interesting articles about squeezes I try to pay more attention to them. And I try to collect some squeeze plays. Not sure if then one counts and what is the name?

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sxhat9dakxxxcj97x&w=sxxxhxxdjt9xxcqxx&e=sqjxxxhqjxxdqxckx&s=sakxxhkxxxdxcatxx]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♦-(DBL)-RDBL-(P)

P-(2♠)-DBL-(P)

3♣-(P)-3NT[/hv]

 

West does lead ♦J. I take ♦A, play ♣J covered by K and A and drive out the Q.

West does return a Spade taken with the A.

I play last Club to North and the ♦ K from North in following situation:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sxhat9dakxxxcj97x&w=sxxxhxxdjt9xxcqxx&e=sqjxxxhqjxxdqxckx&s=sakxxhkxxxdxcatxx]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♦-(DBL)-RDBL-(P)

P-(2♠)-DBL-(P)

3♣-(P)-3NT[/hv]

 

If East lets go a ♥ then you play ♥Ace and give away a ♥. East returns a ♠ and you set up you 4th ♥.

If East lets go a ♠ then you play ♥T covered by J and K. You then play ♠K and small ♠. East will have to return ♥ to AT in North.

 

- Is this a squeeze with 3 loosers. (or am I missing something?)

- Does it have a name?

[Free]

I think this is a form of stepping stone squeeze.

[inquiry]

It most definetly counts, and it is most definately not a steppingstone squeeze (although steppingstone is a type of squeeze with more than one loser, as we will see in the weeks ahead if we contine our march through how to use pattern recongnition to identify squeezes at the table).

 

In that march, we have to first wade though squeezes with problems with "B" (for logical identification purposes) before we can cover in a systematically way the many type of squeezes where you have more than one loser. This is one of those bad boys. Clyde Love called this a delayed duck squeeze, and I believe used termonology CLE (compainion, lead, entry), where you have to have a companion to the threat (the card you use to duck a trick or more to the opponent) a lead, a card to lead to them, and of course an entry (I will have to look up this CLE thing sometime to see exactly how he defined those terms. Eng, in Bridge Squeeze illustrated referred to this as a developmental squeeze, and the threats (the majors in this case) and developmental threats.

 

Clyde's book deal primarily with this type of squeeze where losers count was 2 for this to work. Eng showed that it could work up to 4, and in a fantasy hand with suits longer than 13 cards, even bigger numbers than 4. I never encountered one with 4 losers at the table, but have run across the occassional 3 loser hand like you showed here.

 

Technically, of course, you could have converted this to a two loser variety by ducking a diamond in here, but with sufficient controls and entries, this squeeze works with multiple number of losers.

 

If you want to read ahead just a bit (I bet you already read this one), you can read some about how to play when loser count is 2 or more, including another example of this development threat in the thread on squeeze play in the advanced/expert thread. The specific post dealing with it was...

http://forums.bridgebase.com/ind...indpost&p=44125

 

Ben

[Fluffy]

You don´t need to cash ♦K in order to make 5 trticks on teh ending position, just play ♥10 covered and endplay East in ♠ without cashing ♦K.

 

My perspective of what a squeeze is isn´t probably standard, to me when you lead from KQJ1098 against 3NT and the contract makes it means I have been squeezed at some point since I have been forced to get rid of at least 1 winner, so I cannot say if this is a squeeze or not.

[inquiry]

You don´t need to cash ♦K in order to make 5 trticks on teh ending position, just play ♥10 covered and endplay East in ♠ without cashing ♦K.

 

My perspective of what a squeeze is isn´t probably standard, to me when you lead from KQJ1098 against 3NT and the contract makes it means I have been squeezed at some point since I have been forced to get rid of at least 1 winner, so I cannot say if this is a squeeze or not.

Well, this may not be a squeeze, as you may not have an entry.Or declearer has 9 top tricks elsewhere. Sure you will throw away winner(s), but they might never have been in play per se. So just because you throw a high card doensn't mean you were squeezed.

 

ben

[Guest Jlall]

yes it is a squeeze, does the name really matter?

[flytoox]

This is positional stripe squeeze. See Kelsey's sqz complete vol. 2.

[inquiry]

This is positional stripe squeeze. See Kelsey's sqz complete vol. 2.

Well, in some ways I agree with justin that the name makes no difference, the idea is can you see how to do it. Sometimes naming the squeeze will help you remember how to look for it and to classify it.

 

But this is not a strip squeeze. A strip squeeze "strips" cards of exit out by squeezing them out. Here EAST runs out of diamonds by the simple device of playing the diamond king. Thus no strip squeeze involved. However, give EAST one more diamond, and one less spade, it would be a strip squeeze. The last club will strip a diamond out of EAST's hand, or you can go about setting up which ever major he shortens.. the ending on last club would be... A strip squeeze per se would be...

 

[hv=n=saxhaxxdck&w=shdaqjt98c&e=skxhqjtdkc&s=sqxhkxxdxc]399|300|Needing five tricks... you lead the club king.

 

If East throws a spade, you win 1♣, 2♠, 2♥.

If east throws a heart, you win 1♣, 1♠, 3♥

If east trows his diamond exit, you pitch a diamond, and play three rounds of heart to EAST, who wins third heart, and then has to lead a spade from Kx into your AQ.

 

Notice if EAST's diamond was a third spade, yo could just play three rounds of hearts for the same result.

[/hv]

 

But squeeze termenology differs, like I said Professor Eng called this a developmental squeeze. Clyde love called it a delayed duck. If you have old enough books, George S. Coffin called it Squeeze Suitout. A variety of other authors called these squeezes (all of them) something like "squeeze witout count" which seemed to drive Eng wild as he things loser is ok with one, two, three, etc, as long as other parts of the hand are ok.

 

I have to admit I stopped spending money on squeeze books a long time before kelsey's came out. This is because I figured them out, and most books have little or no extra value for me. So I can't say what kelsey called them (anyone want to loan me kelsey's books?). But in my mind, a strip squeeze involves stripping the exit card out..... in what I generally like to call a vulnerable stopper squeeze (like the one shown above, where the spade king is the vulnerable stopper).

 

Maybe justin was more right than I thought when he said he said, what does the name matter.

 

Ben

[flytoox]

This is positional stripe squeeze. See Kelsey's sqz complete vol. 2.

Well, in some ways I agree with justin that the name makes no difference, the idea is can you see how to do it. Sometimes naming the squeeze will help you remember how to look for it and to classify it.

 

But this is not a strip squeeze. A strip squeeze "strips" cards of exit out by squeezing them out. Here EAST runs out of diamonds by the simple device of playing the diamond king. Thus no strip squeeze involved. However, give EAST one more diamond, and one less spade, it would be a strip squeeze. The last club will strip a diamond out of EAST's hand, or you can go about setting up which ever major he shortens.. the ending on last club would be... A strip squeeze per se would be...

 

[hv=n=saxhaxxdck&w=shdaqjt98c&e=skxhqjtdkc&s=sqxhkxxdxc]399|300|Needing five tricks... you lead the club king.

 

If East throws a spade, you win 1♣, 2♠, 2♥.

If east throws a heart, you win 1♣, 1♠, 3♥

If east trows his diamond exit, you pitch a diamond, and play three rounds of heart to EAST, who wins third heart, and then has to lead a spade from Kx into your AQ.

 

Notice if EAST's diamond was a third spade, yo could just play three rounds of hearts for the same result.

[/hv]

 

But squeeze termenology differs, like I said Professor Eng called this a developmental squeeze. Clyde love called it a delayed duck. If you have old enough books, George S. Coffin called it Squeeze Suitout. A variety of other authors called these squeezes (all of them) something like "squeeze witout count" which seemed to drive Eng wild as he things loser is ok with one, two, three, etc, as long as other parts of the hand are ok.

 

I have to admit I stopped spending money on squeeze books a long time before kelsey's came out. This is because I figured them out, and most books have little or no extra value for me. So I can't say what kelsey called them (anyone want to loan me kelsey's books?). But in my mind, a strip squeeze involves stripping the exit card out..... in what I generally like to call a vulnerable stopper squeeze (like the one shown above, where the spade king is the vulnerable stopper).

 

Maybe justin was more right than I thought when he said he said, what does the name matter.

 

Ben

Ben, I just check the book. Strip sqz includes not only sqz out the exit card, but also sqz out surplus winners, which is the case here.

 

Loosely speaking, any secondary sqz, i.e., you still concede a trick after sqz has taken effect, is strip sqz.

 

Hongjun

[inquiry]

Ben, I just check the book. Strip sqz includes not only sqz out the exit card, but also sqz out surplus winners, which is the case here.

 

Loosely speaking, any secondary sqz, i.e., you still concede a trick after sqz has taken effect, is strip sqz.

 

Hongjun

Well, Kelsey is much, much more knowledgable than I. Having said that, let me explain why this hand is not a strip squeeze, and the requirements for a strip squeeze.

 

First a strip squeeze can work to remove excess winnners (stripping excess winners as you say)... here is one such ending

 

[hv=n=saqhxxxxdca&w=sxxhdkqjtxc&e=skjhakqjtdc&s=sxxhxdxxxcx]399|300|Two winners, Five losers. Cash the club ace, east is squeeze out of an "excess" heart winner. Now heart to east and you win a third trick.

 

I prefer term "vulnerable stopper squeeze" as the spade king is vunerable. Notice on this hand, Upper is violated, entry in violated, loser is violated and yet the squeeze still works (multiple defect lesson)[/hv]

 

Ok, you might refer to this squeeze as a "strip squeeze" as it strips out a winner. Let's look at another ending...

 

[hv=n=saqhxxxxdca&w=sxxhdkqjtxc&e=skjhakqjtdc&s=sxxhxdxxxcx]399|300|Two winners, Five losers. Cash the club ace, east is squeeze out of an "excess" heart winner. Now heart to east and you win a third trick.

 

I prefer term "vulnerable stopper squeeze" as the spade king is vunerable. Notice on this hand, Upper is violated, entry in violated, loser is violated and yet the squeeze still works (multiple defect lesson)[/hv]

 

Now let's make a minor change in the last hand. [hv=n=saqhxxxxdca&w=sxxhdkqjtxc&e=skjhakqjtdc&s=sxxhxdxxxcx]399|300|Two winners, Five losers. Cash the club ace, east is squeeze out of an "excess" heart winner. Now heart to east and you win a third trick.

 

I prefer term "vulnerable stopper squeeze" as the spade king is vunerable. Notice on this hand, Upper is violated, entry in violated, loser is violated and yet the squeeze still works (multiple defect lesson)[/hv]

 

The answer lies in the type of threats and hte number of losers. Let's consider the four endings so far, the one by kgr and the three above. The first one above you did remove an excess winner that they could cash the second they got in. I guess if you wanted to call that a strip squeeze you could, but removing excess winner before the endplay (for the vulnerable stopper squeeze).. as long as there is no card of exit, the vulnerable stopper squueze does it work. The last one above shows what happens if there is an exit card that can not be removed in a pure multi-loser vulnerable stopper squueze, the squeeze doesn't work. While the middle one shows that when the LOSER COUNT is exactly two, the strip squueze works everytime. To convert the last one to a strip squeeze, remove one small heart from each hand, and then play the club ace, and you will see it works again. So comparing the last two endings above, points out the sailent points of a strip squeeze, and comparing the last one with the first one, shows the difference between ane excessive winner vulnerable stopper squeeze. In fact, you could change one of EAST top hearst to a small diamond in example one, and the whole ending collapses.... EVEN THOUGH EAST TRHOWS A WINNER ON THE CLUB ACE.

 

Thus, what I consider a "strip squeeze" works only when the loser count is exactly two. What we have above in the first example and what kgr had in his example are something quite different. Above, you squeezed out an excessive winner for a normal endplay. It was a squeeze for sure, just not a strip squeeze.. call it an excessive winner squeeze if you like. In kgr's ending, the opponent had no winner at all (at least off the top). What he had was two develomental threats, plus a vulnerable stopper threat (in hearts).

 

Now kelsey may not agree with this description but Eng (and maybe Love, I can check if it is really important as my books are in a box somewhere) defined a strip squeeze as a multi-loser squeeze where loser = 2. This works for me.

 

If I continue my classification and identification post on squeeze plays, these endings show up in the section on multiple defects. For instance look as the first hand above. "L" is wrong (five losers), U is wrong (all threats in north hand none in the upper hand), "e" is wrong (there is no entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card), and yet a squeeze works. We have to cover flaws in "b" and flaws in "L" before we cover hands with multiple flaws however. Still, I find hands like this most interesting.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

I think this is a form of stepping stone squeeze.

For the record, a stepping stone squeeze is one with EXACTLY two losers. The first time I saw a write up on steppingstone squeeze was in Terrence Reeces "master play" book.

 

Basically, a steppingstone squeeze you squeeze one opponent to choose between establishing the squeeze threat, or suffering a throwin. Basically the stepping stone is a recovery for a blocked entry condition, where you are not only gaining a trick that (if not for the blocked condition) was rightfully yours... below are two such endings....

 

[hv=n=sajhdxxc&w=skxhaqdc&e=shdkqjtc&s=sqhkxdca]399|300|When you cash the club ACE, West is squeezed in an odd way. If he throws a spade, you over take the queen of spades and get your jack of spades (the finessee was working but the suit was blocked... so you sort of had three tricks all the time, just no way to cash them. If West throws a heart. You lead the spade queen and then a heart to west, and use him as "a steppingstone" to reach the dummy as he has to return his spade[/hv]

 

To see fully that you have three tricks and the steppingstone is just a way to unravel them, swap the spade King and Queen on the last example...

 

[hv=n=sajhdxxc&w=skxhaqdc&e=shdkqjtc&s=sqhkxdca]399|300|When you cash the club ACE, West is squeezed in an odd way. If he throws a spade, you over take the queen of spades and get your jack of spades (the finessee was working but the suit was blocked... so you sort of had three tricks all the time, just no way to cash them. If West throws a heart. You lead the spade queen and then a heart to west, and use him as "a steppingstone" to reach the dummy as he has to return his spade[/hv]