Squeezes, part II

[inquiry]

This will be the start of a long thread on squeezes where there is just a flaw in the "BOTH" requirement of the simple squeeze (that is, you have a threat in the upper hand, you have a primary entry, and your loser count is one).

 

In this thread we will explore some physical means to correct the problem with BOTH to convert the hand back to a simple squeeze, and then cover a family of squeezes where you can not isolate guards in two suits to only one hand. There will be a lot of ground to cover, and many squeezes to see. There will also be a companion thread with example hands were these kinds of flaws show up.

 

Introduction to Defects in the "Both" Requirement in the Basic Simple Squeeze Position

 

Defects that can be corrected to result in a simple squeeze

 

In the previous thread we examined possible ways to compensate for entry-related irregularities with the basic squeeze position. We now turn our attention to the situation where the only lacking BLUE requirement is "both." Actually, "both" is a double requirement: you must have two threat suits and only one opponent must guard against both threats. Either of these "both" requirements can be violated.

 

When each opponent guards against one of the potential threat suit, the simple squeeze is flawed. There are two common ways to force the end position into one of the four standard simple squeezes. These plays are referred to as "transfer of a menace" and "isolation of a menace." In the first case, the opponents each guard against one threat. In the second case, both opponents guard against one threat, while only one guard against the other. The next three endings will demonstrate these two types of plays.

[hv=n=saj6hkdc&w=st82hadc&e=sq53hjdc&s=sk94hdca]399|300|3.1 Transfer a menace, Lead: North

 

B - defective

L = one

U = heart king

E = spade ACE

 

B is defective becasuse West guards against the heart king, but currently east quards against the spade JACK.

[/hv]

 

Hand 3.1 looks similar to the positional squeeze ending you are familiar with if West held the ♠Q. Of course if West held the ♠Q you could simply finesse against it using the ♠A-J combination. We will assume that in this ending you received bidding clues that make you aware that that the ♠-finesse will fail. The basic squeeze position is therefore flawed since "B" is violated: East guards the ♠-threat, West the ♥-threat. However, the position is flexible enough to overcome this defect. North leads the ♠J, forcing East to cover with the Q, South winning the King. Now, West has to keep the ♠10-8 to keep South from winning the ♠9.

 

Notice by forcing East to cover the ♠J with the Q, the menace (guard) was transferred from East to West, which how this play earned it's name. With this transfer of menace, you have transformed this ending into a positional simple squeeze similar to ending we labelled 1.6 positional squeeze in the introductory squeeze thread ( link to post = positional simple squeeze) ). Now when you cash the ♣A you execute this automatic positional squeeze.

 

There are other ways can transfer a menace from one hand to the other. In ending 3.2 ♣'s are trumps and it is North's lead. If the ♠A was with West, south could ruff a ♠ and play the last trump to execute the positional simple squeeze on West. However, let's assume that you can tell from bidding clues that East holds the ♠A and you hope that only West stops ♥'s.

[hv=n=skjhatkdc&w=sqtha\qjdc&e=sa53h9dc&s=sh32dcak]399|300|3.2 Transfer a menace, Lead: North

 

B - defective

L = one

U = heart ten

E = heart ACE

 

B is defective becasuse West guards against the heart threat, but currently east quards against the spade threat.

[/hv]

 

In this ending, BLUE is again violated because neither opponent holds the single guard in both threat suits. However, you can once again remedy this situation by transferring the menace from East to West by forcing East to cover the ♠K. After you ruff the ♠A, you play your last trump and West has to give up either his ♥ or ♠ guard. The use of trumps to transfer the menace in endings like this one is sometimes mistakenly referred to as a variety of a ruffing or trump squeeze, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is play is nothing more than using the ruffing power of trumps to transfer a menace similar to that shown in the related ending shown in 3.1.

 

The second common play to solve the problem with "B" before playing the squeeze card is played is referred to as "isolating the menace." In 3.3 ♣'s are again trumps. To reach the basic squeeze ending you might win the ♠A and then play three rounds of trumps. However, the resulting ending would be "flawed" in that both opponents will hold a ♠ stopper violating the "B" requirement. The solution is easy: pull the outstanding trump with the ♣A, play ♠A, ruff a ♠, and then playing the remaining ♣. Note that ruffing a ♠ removes the guard from East, thus "isolating" West as the sole opponent guarding against the ♠ menace.

 

[hv=n=sa32hajdc3&w=skjthkq9dc&e=sq9ht3d2ck&s=sk4h32dca54]399|300|3.3 Isolating a menace, Lead: North

 

B - defective (both spades)

L = one

U = heart jack

E = spade ACE

 

B is defective because West guards against the heart, but currently both quard against the spade three.

[/hv]

 

Again, use of trumps in this manner is also occasionally mistakenly referred to as a trump squeeze. However, as we saw earlier, a trump squeeze is when the trump suit plays a role after the squeeze card has been played. The use of trumps to remove the guard from one opponent's hand is known as "isolating-the-menace." Later, we will examine how to isolate a menace simultaneously with the loss of a trick. Such manoeuvres simultaneously overcome defects in both B and L. Obviously, plays involving the loss of a trick require the loser count to be more than one (or else you should have the remaining tricks after losing the trick), and will be covered in a later thread dealing with squeezes where the defect is "L" greater than one.

 

 

What have we learned? That when everything is ripe for a simple squeeze except that one threat is guarded by both opponents, it is sometimes possible to correct this flaw by one of two simple manuevers.

• 1. Isolate a menance by ruffing out the guard from one hand (isolate a menace), (see 3.3) or
• 2. Transfer the menance (guard) in the key suit from one hand to the other by forcing a cover (see 3.1 and 3.2)

Next time, defects in "B" where you can not transfer or isolate the menace: an introduction to double squeezes.

[inquiry]

B,) When one opponent can not be isolated to guard both suits.

 

When you can not isolate both menaces into one hand, a simple squeeze will fail because your two singly guarded threat suits are divided between the two opponents (flawed “B” requirement). As noted above, you should first consider ways to force one opponent to be the sole guard of both suits. Many times, however, you will be unable to transfer or isolate the menace. The next possible remedy for this defect in the basic “B” requirement is a family of endings known as “double squeezes.” In a double squeeze, each opponent has exclusive responsibilities to guard against a single threat suit and there must be a third threat suit in which both opponents maintain a guard. This third threat suit is often called the “both-threat” since both opponents hold guards in it. However, this use of the word “both” when talking about double squeezes leads to confusion since we also refer to “both” as one of the four basic requirements for a simple squeeze. So I will use the term “shared-threat” for this third suit since the opponents share responsibility for guarding against it equally.

 

Before we begin to examine double squeezes, it is important to note the existence of a lot jargon that is specific for double squeezes. Not the least of which are the names for the different types of double squeezes. Clyde Love, in his timeless classic “Bridge Squeeze Complete” described three families of double squeezes, some with subfamilies, while Fook Eng’s “Bridge Squeeze Illustrated,” named and derived the specific requirements for eight different double squeezes. The differences between Eng’s eight specific double squeezes, and Love’s three classes of double squeezes are based upon how they oriented their readers to the double squeeze.

 

This jargon and subclassification is way overkill and shrouds double squeeze in an aurea of complexiity that really doesn't exist. While there are three threat suits and one squeeze suit (we will see one exception in which there is no squeeze suit!), it should be intuitively obvious that not all three threat suits can be in the same hand (or else lack of U against one opponent). Love described the squeezes primarily by whether the suit “shared” by the opponents was in the same hand with another threat suit or not. Eng classified his depending upon which hand held the squeeze card. To help our discussion of the double squeezes, we shall identify the three threats as the “shared threat” in which both opponents hold a guard. The “L” threat, which is the threat suit guarded by the opponent behind (to the left) of the shared threat; and the “R” threat, which is the threat suit guarded by the opponent who sits to the right of the shared suit.

 

While we will cover the essences of all of the double squeezes covered by other authors, we will do so without the emphasis on naming each possible ending and suggesting extensive memorization of the specific requirements for each. Instead we will continue with our model of “defects” in the basic squeeze position, and rely on these minimal instructions to work our way through the otherwise confusing morass of possible double squeeze endings.

 

Before we discuss the general requirements for a double squeeze, and the general rule we will use for double squeezes, llet’s examine one such ending using our “defect” in the basic squeeze approach.

[hv=n=sa2hkdc&w=skjhadc&e=sqthdac&s=s3hdkca]399|300|3.4 The “Basic” Double Squeeze

For simple squeeze,

Both - defective as both east and west guard spade.

Loser = 1

Upper ♠ or ♥ against WEST, ♦ against East

Entry:

     1’ entry: ♠A

     2’ entry: none

     Shared entry: ♠A[/hv]

In ending 3.4, with South is on lead, if East had a singleton ♠, this would be a straight forward positional simple squeeze. The primary entry would be the ♠A, the ♥K and ♠2 would be the threats, and West would be the victim. Likewise if West had a singleton ♠, this would be a ♠-♦ simple squeeze against East where you simply cash the ♣A discarding the ♥K. East will have to allow the ♠2 or your ♦K win the last trick. However, both of this basic endings are flawed in that both opponents stop ♠’s.

 

Since both opponents share a ♠ stopper and the ♠ threat can not be isolated to either opponent, the “simple squeeze” has a fatal flaw. However, a double squeeze comes to your rescue like a knight in shining armour. When you cash the ♣A, West has to decide what to discard. Clearly if he throws the ♥ACE small ♠is discarded and North wins the last two tricks. Thus, West will undoubtedly discard a ♠. But examine what happens to the ending after West’s ♠ discard. It is as if West had a singleton ♠ after all, North simply discards his now useless ♥K and East, who had already been busy guarding against the ♦K, is now exclusively guarding against the ♠2. Thus, West ♠ discard converted this hand which was from a flawed positional squeeze against himself into the actual basic squeeze position against East. In fact, once West throws the ♠J, “B” has become repaired against East and the automatic simple squeeze works easily. Note that just as entry defects in a simple squeeze caused an increase in the strength “requirements” to compensate, problems with “B” require similar increases, in the form of a third threat suit.

 

This is how double squeezes works: each opponent exclusively guards against one threat suit, and they share protecting against a threat in a third suit. On the squeeze card one opponent will be forced to either establish a trick for declarer immediately (i.e. if West throws away the ♥A in 3.4) or to give up his guard in the suit in which he shares responsibility with his partner (♠’s in 3.4). If all the other conditions are correct, the abandonment of the “shared-threat” will result in a simple squeeze against his partner.

 

What have we learned?

• If you can not correct both defect by isolating both guards in one hand, a double squeeze becomes an option if all ohter BLUE requirements are met
  
• Double squeeze involves three threat suits, which have to be split with two threats in one hand and one in the other
  
• We are going to use the terms S for Shared suit (one guarded by both opponents) and L and R for threats guarded to the right or left of the "Shared suit"
  

Next time, the basic requirements necessary for double squeezes, and the simple one step rule for the sequence of plays that work for nearly all double squeezes (and how to identify when not follow this one step rule).

[inquiry]

Requirements for a double squeeze

 

There are many ways the requirements for a double squeeze could be stated, and these requirements change to some small degree with each of the eight endings described by Eng. However, I will provide a much simpler view of a double squeeze. The requirements are:

• 1) There must be three threat suits
• 2) Each opponent must solely guard agasint one of the threats
• 3)The "shared-threat suit must contain a winner/entry which ideally is the only ENTRY to the hand with the shared threat
• 4) Entry and upper requirements for a simple squeeze must be satisfied agaisnt each oppoenent when the other discards his guard in the "shared-threat" suit

The requirement that "upper" exist against each opponent requires that each one single threat be directed against one opponent and one against the other. Don't let the "S", "R", and "L" threats confuse you with regard to the upper requirement. In ending 3.4 the ♠2 was the S-threat, ♦K the L threat (behind or to the left of the double threat) and ♥K the R threat (in front of the double threat). If you exchange the ♥K for the ♦K in that ending, the ♦K would still be the L threat, but with both the ♠2 and ♦K both in front of East, no upper threat against him and the double squeeze will fail.

[hv=n=sa2hkdc&w=skjhadc&e=sqthdac&s=s3hdkca]399|300|3.4 The "Basic" Double Squeeze (repeated in post for ease of review)

For simple squeeze,

Both - defective as both east and west guard spade.

Loser = 1

Upper ♠ or ♥ against WEST, ♦ against East

Entry:

1' entry: ♠A

2' entry: none

Shared entry: ♠A[/hv]

 

Let's re-examine 3.4 by these basic requirements. The ♣A was the squeeze card, so the primary entry (remember, primary entry is the entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card) would be the ♠A, which also is in the required winner/entry in the "Shared-threat" suit (see above) and there are no other winner or entries to the hand containing the "shared-threat." Therefore, the squeeze works. Let's examine another defective simple squeeze ending that can be salvaged by recognizing it as a double squeeze ending.

 

Hand 3.4 is very much like the "basic simple" squeeze we showed first for the simple squeeze. It is the easiest double squeeze to work. Like I said, Eng give eight different double squeezes, each with their own unique flavor and sequence of plays. Here I will give the secret RULE to playing double squeezes without worrying about all these eight different kinds (with an exception to be discussed later)... If possible, always cash your RIGHT winners first (Remember, "right" are those winners against the player sitting to the right of the shared threat), then any winners in the hand with the shared threat outside the Shared threat, then the squeeze card. The exception to this rule, of course, is when the RIGHT THREAT suit winners are the only entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card (the primary entry), where you obviously need to not cash those winners (entries are just important to double squeezes as they were to simple squeezes).

 

Let's examine another defective simple squeeze ending that can be salvaged by recognizing it as a double squeeze ending

[hv=n=s2hajdkc&w=skjhkqdc&e=sqthdAcx&s=sa3h2dca]399|300|3.5 Non-simultaneous Double Squeeze

 

 

Both - defective as both east and west guard spade.

Loser = 1

UppeR L THREAT = ♥J, RIGHT = ♦K, SHARED = ♠3

 

Entry:

1' entry: ♥A

2' entry: ♠a

Shared entry: ♠A

 

SC: ♣a *THIS is defective as it relates to simple squeeze alone. This arrangement actually satisfys blue as it relates to a nomal double squeeze[/hv]

Going back to the basic squeeze ending, if either opponent had small heart substituted for a ♠, then a simple squeeze would exist against his partner. As it is, both share the responsibility for guarding ♠'s (Defective B for simple squeeze), and each is solely responsible for one red suit. The squeeze card is the ♣A, so the ♠A will be the secondary entry. There are no other entries in the hand with this secondary entry and no other side suit winners with it. The primary entry is ♥A. The ♠A squeezes West who must not discard a ♥ for obvious reasons, so he will play a ♠. This discard leaves East as the sole guardian against the ♠3. Once West discards a ♠, the ♥J can be discarded on the ♣A. South only has to play a ♥ to the dummy. Strangely, the ♥A which was initial thought of as the primary entry to North's hand is no longer serving as an entry so much as a squeeze card in its own right. On the ♥A East must decide whether to throw the ♦A, setting up the ♦K or discarding a ♠ allowing South's lowly ♠3 to win the last trick.

 

While it is interesting to note that in the "basic double squeeze" position given in 3.4 was "simultaneous" since both opponents were squeezed on the same card, and that in 3.5 the squeeze was non-simultaneous in that West was squeezed on one trick and a trick later EAST was squeezed, it is of little material consequences. The neat thing to note here was that there were no winners in the RIGHT threat suit (♦) before playing the other winners and there where no winners other winners outside the shared threat suit in the hand with the shared threat.. if there had been, you should have cashed them (See secret rule above).

 

When we first examined simple squeezes, we said the best type of entry of condition to have was when the primary entry was in the threat suit opposite the squeeze card. A similar statement can be made concerning double squeeze: the easiest double squeezes are those to play with two winners in the "shared -threat" suit. In fact, some ending double squeezes absolutely require two winners in the "shared-threat," the next one for example. This is the first of two generalized warnings associated with double squeeze endings.

[hv=n=sa2hkdkc&w=sj97hadc&e=st86thdac&s=sk43hdca]399|300|3.6 Entries to both hands in the "S" Threat

For simple squeeze,

Both - defective as both east and west guard spade.

Loser = 1

♥-W, ♦-E, ♠=shared

Entry:

1' entry: ♠A

2' entry: ♠K

Shared entry: ♠

 

SC ♣A ** this is defective as it relates to a simple squeeze alone. This arrangement actually satisfies the "B" requirements for BLUE as it relates to normal double squeezes.

 

[/hv]

On this hand BLUE would be satisfied for a simple squeeze if either opponent had a doubleton ♠. The hand with the squeeze card contains the "shared-threat" (♠'s) and the hand opposite squeeze card has no entry outside of the "shared-threat" suit. Since the "shared-threat" must contain an entry within its own suit (to the shared-threat, in this case the ♠3) this forces the requirement that there be two "shared-threat" winners: one in each hand.

 

Cashing the ♣A will effectively squeeze West out of a ♠ after which the ♥K can be discarded and East can decide whether to set up an extra trick for you in ♦'s or ♠'s. Should you worry about counting the ♠'s to decide if the ♠2 will be good after you cash your ♠A-K? No. If after winning the ♣A neither of your red kings are winners just play your ♠'s. This is sort-of the standard rule for double squeezes: don't waste energy counting discards in the "shared-threat," just determine if your individual threats are established. If they are not, then cash your "shared-threat" winners.

 

 

[hv=n=sak2hdc2&w=sj97hadc&e=st86thdac&s=s3hkdkca]399|300|3.7 Double winners in the shared suit required.

B - defective (for simple squeeze)

L = 1

U - ♦ AGAINST WEST, ♠ AGAINST EAST

 

 

ENTRIES:

PRIMARY - ♠A

SECONDARY - NONE

SHARED - ♠A

[/hv]

 

The general requiements for a double squeeze, the most important are, three threat suits, entry/winner in the shared threat,

 

This ending is very similar to that of 3.6. Once again BLUE for a simple squeeze would be satisfied if either opponent held only two ♠'s. Note that in this ending the hand with the squeeze card also has the two singly stopped threat suits and requires a card to lead as an entry in the "shared-threat" suit. Because of all of these cards in the squeeze hand, there simply has to be two "shared-threat" winners in the hand opposite for the ending to work.

• That two winners in the shared threat is better than one, and sometimes necessary
• The secret rule of cashing the RIGHT winners first, then all other winners outside the shared threat held by the hand with the shared threat

Next time, we will examine why cashing the right winner early is so important, and look into cases where a double squeeze works WITHOUT A SQUEEZE SUIT (!!!!, the so called reciprocal double squeeze).

[inquiry]

[hv=lin=pn|inquiry,west,North,east|qx|o1,BOARD 1|rh||ah|Board 1|md|2,S53HJT76D9876C943,S98HAK85DQ42CQT62,SQJ764H432DKJT3C8

|sv|0|sa|0|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|mb|2N|mb|p|mb|3C|mb|p|mb|3S|mb|p|mb|4N|mb|p|mb|6C|mb|p|mb|6N|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|d9|pc|d2|pc|d3|pc|d5|pc|d8|pc|d4|pc|dJ|pc|dA|pc|hq|pc|h6|pc|h5|pc|h2|pc|c5|pc|c3|pc|cq|pc|c8|pc|ct|pc|s4|pc|ca|pc|c4|pc|ck|pc|c9|pc|c6|pc|s6|pc|cj|pc|s3|pc|c2|pc|dt|pf||]400|300|[/hv]

 

Here is double squeeze I botched from today, silly me. As you will see (click next to follow the play), this is really just a simple squeeze, since only EAST guards against the spade threat, and in fact, I can double hook east in spades and make 13 tricks. Ah well....

 

Ok. The opening lead was the diamond nine, and not being able to see all four hands, I ducked. Why? I have 11 tricks (5]cl], 1♦, 2♠, and 3♥. I have a diamond threat (the queen), a heart threat (only one opponent can have 4♥, and a spade threat.. Trick one placed the diamond kng in EAST hand and the diamond queen as a threat against EAST. Easy enough. I won the diamond continuation.

 

With the diamond Queen as a threat against EAST, there can be no ♥-♦ simple squeeze on EAST, why? Because then there would be no threat in the upper hand. What are the odds EAST has both spade QJ? not very good. Less than 25% with the diamond king with EAST (but not much less).

 

But if WEST guards hearts, and east guards diamonds, then both can be busy guarding spade (the shared threat). Remember the rules from above. First cash all RIGHT winners. The shared threat here is spades, so the right suit is diamonds. So their two leds handled that. Then cash all side winners in the hand with the shared threat (here the heart queen). Then play the squeeze card.

 

So here we have hypthetical right guard diamond King, left quard the 4th heart with WEST, shared threat the spade TEN. Remember it is better to have excess winners in the shared suit. So... cash heart Queen, and run clubs. The ending will be what you get too if you click next until the end. Now when you play the last club (discard spade from dummy) and run hearts, east is crushed. ...

 

There is an importnat point on this hand. This was "really a simple squeeze" since EAST had both spade honors. But you can play some simple squeezes as double squeezes if you can identify or hypothesze that two of the suit guards are split....

 

As for how did I play it? After ducking the first diamond (absolutely correct) and winning the diamond continuation, I had a brain freeze.... so it is best not discussed... sufficient it to say I went down in a blaze of stupidity.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

In an earlier post I mentioned that two generalized warnings associated with double squeezes. The first was that it is desirable, and often necessary, to have two winners in the "Shared-threat" suit. This is easy enough, just try to preserve both suit winners as long as you can. The second warning deals with a second problem that we have not yet discussed with double squeezes. In double squeezes it is sometimes critical that you cash your winners in precisely the correct order. Most books on double squeezes go to great lengths to clarify when and why cashing the winners in precisely the correct order is required for the squeeze to work. In this (very extended) overview of how to identify and execute squeezes in the heat of battle, my goal (believe it or not) is to highlight how to do this without the need for rote memorization. Thus, I will not spend any time enumerating the rules for these type squeezes. Instead, we hope that the same identification of the basic positions will make it possible to get the majority of these right without extensive memorization. Especially if you follow the advice about preserving winners in the shared threat suit, and the special rule concerning cashing "RIGHT winners" before wrong ones (left ones). The following ending is the most restricted of the double squeeze endings with respect to the order in which winners have to be taken. Can you see the proper sequence?

[hv=n=s3hajdajc2&w=skjh76dkqc&e=sqthkqd76c&s=sa2h2d2cak]399|300|3.9 Ending, most restricted double squeeze

 

B*: Defective ♥W, ♦East, ♠shared

Loser: one

Upper: W =♠2, E=♦K

Entry: primary and both ♠A, secondary, none

SC: §A

* Both is defective as it relates to a simple squeeze alone. This arrangement actually satisfies the "B" requirements for BLUE as it relates to normal double squeezes

[/hv]

 

There are five winners off the top, so only one loser. Each opponent alone guards one red suit jack threat, and both guard against the "Shared-threat": the ♠2. In this ending, ♣'s is the squeeze suit. At this point, with N/S on the lead, they can cash their winners in any order they want. However, easy this ending looks, it is treacherous.

 

Let us just examine possible sequences of plays to see what would be obviously wrong. If South wins even one of his ♣'s now, the squeeze will not work. For instance, have South take both ♣'s, what is north to discard on the second ♣? If it is a spade, there will be no re-entry to south, and if it is either red jack, the opponent with the KQ in that suit will be able to pitch from that suit and keep two ♠'s. Likewise, if South takes one club now, the only entry to the squeeze card will be in ♠'s.but we know that double squeezes require an entry (or re-entry) in the "Shared-threat" suit after the squeeze card has been played, so taking even one club is clearly wrong. (lay these cards out and try it)....

 

So, I will tell you that before you take even one club, you must take at least one red ace. There is another obvious point here, and that is that both red suit Aces must not be cashed prior to playing on ♣'s since then there will be no "primary entry" to the hand opposite the squeeze card after ♣'s are cashed.

 

So even without rigorous study the obvious solution is that the first step will be to win one and only one of the red suit Aces. But as symmetrical as this position appears, those two A-J's are not at all equal! The following two endings illustrate what happens if you cash first the ♦A then run ♣'s, versus cashing ♥A first then running ♣'s.

 

[hv=n=s3hajdjc&w=skjh7dkc&e=sqthkqdc&s=sa2h2dca]399|300|3.10 CASH DIAMOND ACE FIRST, THEN CLUBS

In 3.10 the ♦A was taken, followed by the ♣K. Now, on the ♣A West must keep the ♦K, but he can safely afford the ♥7, but the question becomes what can North discard. North must keep the ♠ as a re-entry to South, but if he throws away a ♥ at this point, so can East. On the other hand, if north discards the ♦J, then when a ♥ is lead to the ♥A on the next trick, West can discard his ♦J and ♦K and hold onto his ♠K-J. Either way, the squeeze fails. [/hv]

 

[hv=n=s3hjdajc&w=skjhdkqc&e=sqthkd7c&s=sa2hd2ca]399|300|3.11 CASH HEART ACE FIRST, THEN CLUBS

 

 

But look what a difference cashing the ♥A first makes in the second version of the endingl (3.11). When the last ♣ is played West must keep both of his ♦'s, so he is forced to discard his guard in ♠'s. Now, the ♦J having served it's purpose, can readily be discarded. Although East can discard his ♦7 on this club, West's spade discard has converted this to the familiar basic squeeze ending with East the victim, the ♦A as the squeeze card, the ♠A as the primary entry. [/hv]

 

According to Clyde Love's classification, this would be a special type of double squeeze he refers to as the RFL type B1. To remember this squeeze in his classification, you would have to know what "R, F, and L" referred to, as well as the difference in his classification between a B1 and a B2 double squeeze. Readers with excellent memorization skills are once again encouraged to purchase and read Love's book to find out what these letters mean. As complicated as the correct sequence of plays are in double squeeze ending, you would have seen your way through it if you remembered the secret rule... cash "R" winners first. The shared threat here was spades in the south hand, so the R winners are the ones guarded by EAST (in this case hearts). So remembering the secret rule, you would naturally play the heart ACE first.

 

To summarize, first, "Shared-threat" must always contain a winner and entry in its own suit (two "S-suit winners, together or split between the two hands is especially desirable). Second, there should be only one primary entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card (so you have to cash one of the aces in ending 3.9, try it withtout doing so). Finally, after the first squeeze card is played, it is often necessary for the "primary entry" to serve in the role as an entry to a side threat, but also as the "new squeeze card" in the endings like in the 3.11 above. So the new ending must simplify to the standard basic squeeze position. And finally, when ever possible (if it is not to be used as an entry card), cash the "right winners" early.

 

To meet these very general requirements in ending like 3.9 with two entries in the hand opposite the squeeze card, we need to cash one before the squeeze card. A moment of thought about the effect of cashing which honor will have on the eventual basic squeeze position will often then see you home, but even better, cash the one that is guarded by the fellow on the right. For instance, as you consider which red ACE to cash in §3.9 before entering South with a club and leading the last club you should be able to visualize WEST having to give up his spade guard on the second club. Why west? Because North will need to keep a spade entry card, so you will have to throw away one of the two potential threats from north on the second club. Since East gets to play after North, it must be the threat against WEST. With that simple piece of logic and without any extensive memorization you should be able to work out the need to cash the winner in the threat suit against WEST before playing clubs.

 

What have we learned?

• By example, we learned why cashing the winners in the right hand threat early is a good idea
• We re-inforced the rules of what is a double squeeze

Next time (this time for sure), what is a reciprocal double squeeze.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

Double squeeze without a "squeeze suit": the reciprocal squeeze

 

There is one double squeeze that is unusual enough to deserve special mention, and to provide the name by which it is referred. It is called the reciprocal double squeeze. While this double squeeze has the same general requirements as other squeezes, it has one highly unusual characteristic: it lacks a separate squeeze suit. In the reciprocal double squeeze, the "shared-threat" must have a winner in its own suit, and you cash first one, then the other of last winners in the other two threat suits. The last winner in one threat suit must squeeze one opponent in the other two suits, then the winner in the suit he gives up must then squeeze his partner in the remaining two suits.

 

[hv=n=shajdac2&w=shkqdckt&e=shdkqcqj&s=shd32ca3]399|300|Reciprocal Double Squeeze

 

Lead in South

 

B*: defective

   ♥-W , ♦-E

   ♣-shared

Loser: one

Upper: West-♥. East ♦ (or ♣)

Entry:

   Primary = ♦A

   Secondary = ♣A

   Shared = ♣A

 

* this is defective as it relates to a simple squeeze alone. This arrangement actually satisfies the "B" requirements for BLUE as it relates to normal double squeezes.

[/hv]

 

Squeeze Card: : No separate squeeze suit… ♦A and ♥A serve as the squeeze cards against first West, then east.

 

In this ending, ♥'s is the threat suit against West, ♦'s is the threat suit against East, and they both stop ♣'s. There is no free suit winner. Amazingly, N/S win the remaining tricks regardless of if the lead is in North or south. North merely wins the ♦A. West has to let go a ♣ to avoid setting up the ♥J. Now North wins the ♥A, and East must decide which minor to throw. All South need do is discard the three of the minor suit East keeps, then the [dl]A and other minor suit three win the last two tricks. If it was North's lead and he happened to lead the ♥A, East will have to throw a club, and south can discard a ♦. Now the ending is a typical simple squeeze against West with the ♦A as the squeeze card, and with a club and a heart threat.

 

These endings are fairly easy to play as long as you are alive to the fact that you don't NEED a squeeze suit to work them.

 

Simple squeeze played as a Double Squeeze

 

Sometimes, you will know you have a simple squeeze against one or the other of the opponents, but you will not know which one. The typical situation is when each opponent exclusively guards against one threat suit, and in a third suit you hold a threat one or the other opponent can guard against but not both. This extra threat gives you some tremendous leeway in that you can often play the hand as if it is a double squeeze. The following ending is a simple illustration of this point (as was the hand I misplayed two post above).

[hv=n=s3hakq3dajc2&w=skth865?dkq?c&e=sqjh?t97d76?c&s=sa9h42d32cak]399|300| The heart jack and a small diamond still remains to be place in the EAST-WEST hands. EITHER HAND can get the heart jack, the other hand gets the small diamond.

[/hv]

In this ending, East is known to guard exclusively against the ♠-threat, while West guards the ♦-threat. With 6 ♥'s in the N/S hands, only one opponent can guard against ♥s because there is a limited number of ♥'s in the deck (with seven outstanding hearts, only one opponent can have as many as four). In this example, either opponent can have the fourth heart (indicated by the ♥J in parentheses), while the other opponent has the small diamond (indicated in the parentheses). All N/S need do is cash the ♦A (only one entry opposite the squeeze card) then take the clubs. If west keeps the ♦K or ♦Q, then the ♦J is discarded on the last ♣. After taking the last ♣, if the ♣9 is still not good, North wins all of his hearts from the top.

 

What have we learned?

• It is possible to execute a double squeeze without a unique squeeze suit
• It is still necessary to have a winner and entry/winnerr in the shared tthreat suit.
• It is often desirable to play a hand that is in reality a simple squeeze as a double squeeze

Next time, when problem exist with "B", but the requirements for a double squeeze are lacking, which will include such things as compound squeeze, double quard squeeze, etc. (also see thread in beginner section I will call "squeezes: problems with B" for example hands.

[inquiry]

Additional remedies when "B-requirement" is lacking.

 

In this thread so far we have examined three types of remedies when the "B-requirement" for a simple squeeze is lacking:

• transferring a menace
• isolating a menance
• and the double squeeze

The double squeeze will come to your rescue quite often when you can not isolate the menace in just one opponent's hand. The remainder of ths thread will cover a series of other recovery plays which, as a group, occur only rarely and as such would be difficult to remember by anyone who has not filed them away as methods for dealing with defects in the double squeeze positions discussed above. But it is recognition of problems in the hand pattern that typical give rise to the double squeeze that allows you to recognize the corrective action needed.

 

COMPOUND SQUEEZE

 

We now turn our attention to the situation where one opponent has guards in all three suits, and his partner has guards in only two of these suits. The first corrective action, and perhaps the most common of these additional squeezes (at least in my experience) is the compound squeeze. As you recall from above, a double squeeze occurs when each opponent guards against one suit alone, and a third suit is guarded by both opponents (what we called a "shared threat"). Clyde Love called the suit singlularly guarded the "basic threat". I don't like this term, but it is essential for compound squeeze you do have one suit solely guarded. If I had to name it, I would call it the lone threat. To illustrate the Let's examine one such hand played recently (MAY 9th 2004) on the BBO.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqt642hak3dt72ct8&w=sj95ht964d43cj643&e=s3hq8752dj986cq72&s=sak87hjdakq5cak95]399|300|Scoring: IMP

 

 

West North East South

 

 -     Pass  Pass  2♣

 Pass  2♠    Pass  3♦

 Pass  3♥    Pass  4♣

 Pass  4♦    Pass  4NT

 Pass  5♦    Pass  5NT

 Pass  6♦    Pass  7NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

(actual bidding)[/hv]

 

Opening lead ♦4 to T-J-A

Trick 2,3 ♦KQ, on third diamond north discards a club. Let's examine BLUE. We have 12 winners 5♠ (hopefully), 2♥, 3♦, 2♣. East alone guards against the diamond threat. If either opponent holds five clubs originally a squeeze is sure. If West holds five clubs, he is busy in clubs, EAST is busy in diamonds, and hearts is the shared threat and it has two winners. The double squeeze would work. If East holds five clubs, then you have a diamond-club simple squeeze on him. From the club discard, it looks like if anyone has five clubs it is West. The heart threat (small heart in dummy), cleary both opponents will protect against. But what if diamonds are split 4-3 (as here)? Now both opponents protect against hearts and clubs.

 

You test clubs, by cashing the ACE (and dicarding club Ten, just in case (Ten and eight are equals, a later squeeze type will show why such unblocking discards can be important, on the current hand, it makes no difference). Then you cash three spades ending in dummy in this position, EAST pitching two hearts.

 

Let's examine this ending closely.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=st6hak3dtc8&w=sjht964dcj6&e=shq87d9cq7&s=s7hjd5ck95]399|300|[/hv]

 

However, watch what happens to EAST when you cash the ♠Ten. His three options are:

• Discard diamond nine, which gives you your 13th trick immediately, so he will not do that
• Discard a club, which makes his partner soley responsible for the club guard, turning this into a double squeeze, with hearts the shared-suit, the R-suit is clubs, the L-suit is diamonds. North now must give up hearts but it doesn't matter. You play next spade (east and south throws club), but this squeezes the heart protection from west. Now the ♣ACE is the squeeze card on EAST, he can't keep three hearts and the diamond nine.
• Or East can throw a heart. Now West alone is left guarding ♥, east diamonds, and the shared-suit is clubs. A simpler squeeze could not be imagined. Cash spade, cash hearts. On last heart, East has to keep diamond, so he comes to one club, south can then pitch his diamond. North has to keep the 13th heart, so he comes to one club. The club king-nine win the last two tricks.

So what happened? If you have been following the sequence of thoughts for a squeeze ending, when you find loser = 1, and you have an upper theat (this case diamonds), you looks to see if EAST alone can guard against a threat in another suit (for a simple squeeze, if entries are right). But it is easy to determine that East probably does not guard hearts alone, and probably not clubs either (west with 3S and 2D would not discard a club from a doubleton with six hearts). So the simple squeeze "B" requirement is defective. When "B" is defectve, you turn next to see if there is only one "Shared-threat", such that one opponent alone guards against threats in one suit, and both share only one suit. Here you see instead of one 'shared-threat", there is likely two shared-suits (♣ and ♥).

 

This dual "shared-threat" along with one isolated threat (which lies in the UPPER hand), however, provides you with an opportunity for a new type of squeeze: a compound squeeze. This example nicely shows how this squeeze works. On the next to last free winner, the hand protecting against the lone threat is squeezed in three suits. If he gives up the lone guard there is your extra trick. If he gives up his guard in either of the two suits in which he shares responsibility, he converts the hand to a potential double squeeze, as in this example.

 

What are the general requirements for a compound squeeze?

• Loser must equal one,
• The lone threat must lie in the upper hand,
• Each of the dual shared-threat suits must have a winner/entry in its own suit

This hand makes compound squeeze look easy, and sometimes they are. But some hands that meet these general requirements fail. The problem deals with after the hand with three suits stopped gives up a suit, you have to have a double squeeze that works, and remember some double squeezes failed if you didn;t have two winners in the "B" suit, or if you cashed your free winners in the wrong order.

 

What have we learned?

• If you can isolate only one guard to one hand, then a compound squeeze might work
• The lone threat must be in the upper hand for compound squeeze, and
• Each of the dual shared threat suits must have a winner/entry.

[inquiry]

Types of Compound Squeezes

 

In the last post, I gave the general requirements for a compound squeeze. These requirements are necessary, but not always sufficient for a successful compound squeeze. Let's see an illustrative example, then explain why this example fails.

 

[hv=n=s3ha9dqc2&w=sjthkqdkc&e=skqhjtdc3&s=sa2h3dcak]399|300|Compound Squeeze: Failing Case

 

B: *Defective

L: one

U: ♦Q, ♠2

Entries, ♥A, ♠A

Lone threat: ♦Q

[/hv]

 

On the surface, this ending looks very much like the compound squeeze in the last post. One opponent (west) has the lone guard against the diamond threat, which lies in the upper hand. There is only one loser, and both "shared-threats" have a winner/entry. All the rule given so far are satisfied, and yet the compound squeeze will fail with best defense (this doesn't mean give up, sometimes you don't get best defense). Let's try it out. When you cash the last club, West has to discard something. If the diamond, you are home, so he will discard a major. First, what if he discards a club? Then you will make. You will cash the spade ACE, then lead the last club, executing a very standard double squeeze. WEST will have to keep the diamond, so can't keep two hearts. Once he discards his heart, dummy lets go the ♦, and then the pressure turns to east. He can't keep two hearts and the spade to stop your two. Success... However, what if WEST, discards the ♥Queen? Now, no matter which way you go, you will not gain an extra trick. If you cash the ♥ACE then come to your hand to lead the last club, there is no entry to the diamond threat or heart threats in dummy. If you cash the spade ace, there will be no re-entry to your hand and no winner in the "shared-threat suit", which fails. And if you cash the last club, West throws another heart, and dummy is squeezed.. if you throw a heart or a diamond you lose a threat in dummy prematurely and if you thow a spade, you will have no entry back to south's hand.

 

Exactly why this ending goes wrong is beyond the scope of this "introductory" sequence of post as it requires explaining all the different types of double squeezes (something I intentionally have avoided doing). Instead, I will just remind you of the two rules I gave for double squeezes. One is that is better to have two winners in shared-threat suits rather than one. The second is that it is best to cash your "R winners" before your last squeeze card (last free winner). Some compound squeezes will fail because the defense will set up a double squeeze for you (by abandoning the approriate suit) where you need two Shared suit winners when you have only one. Others will fail because the defense will set up a the double squeeze for you where you have to cash your last "R -WINNER" before the last squeeze card, but there is no way for you to do so and keep your entry conditions satisfied. This latter case is what happened above when WEST discards a heart. On a heart discard, the shared threat becomes spades in south, so the last R winner is the heart ACE. But if you cash that, the squeeze fails because it mucks up your entry conditions.

 

So this example shows that compound squeezes can have some strick requirements. What types are there and are they all this complicated? There are two general types of compound squeezes, and each one has an easy layout and a difficult one. In all compound squeezes, at least one shared threat must be in a hand opposite the lone threat (or else no threat would be in the upper hand relative to one opponent). So the two endings are: Both shared threats in the same hand, and One shared threat in the same hand as the lone threat.

 

When both shared threats are in the same hand (paired-shared threat), the ending is very easy if the lone threat has a winner in its own suit and an entry in any of the three suits (including the lone threat). You can run all the free suit winners, then enter (if not there) the hand with the lone threat and play the lone threat winner. These ending play themselves. For instance...

 

[hv=n=s3ha9dqc2&w=sjthkqdkc&e=skqhjtdc3&s=sa2h3dcak]399|300|Compound Squeeze: Failing Case

 

B: *Defective

L: one

U: ♦Q, ♠2

Entries, ♥A, ♠A

Lone threat: ♦Q

[/hv]

 

When you have a paired shared threat hand without a winner in the lone theat suit, or with no winner in either of the two shared threat suits, the compound squeeze will only work if the squeeze card (last free winner) is in the same hand as the lone threat. And here, after the hand with the lone guard abandones one of the shared threats, you must cash all the winner outside the shared threat suit in the hand with the double threat, then re-enter the hand with the sole threat and cash the last free winner. You need adequate entries for this and the LAST FREE winner has to be n the hand with the sole threat. This one is difficult to manage.

 

The other type of compound squeeze has the shared suit threats split between the two hands. The best kind of these to have is where the shared suit opposite teh squeeze card has TWO WINNERS. These play themselfves, and this was the type of compound squeeze shown in the last post because it seems so utterly easy to see and excecute. (REMEMBER THE RULE, TWO WINNERS ARE BETTER THAN ONE FOR DOUBLE SQUEEZES AND FOR COMPOUND SQUEEZES.). Look at the ending in the last post for an example.

 

When the hand with just one shared threat lacks two winners, the compound squeeze becomes very difficult to execute and easy for the defense to mess it up. This is what happened in the failing case at teh top of this post. Let's revist it but give each hand an extra card, this time giving south two spade winners instead of one...

 

[hv=n=s3ha9dqc2&w=sjthkqdkc&e=skqhjtdc3&s=sa2h3dcak]399|300|Compound Squeeze: Failing Case

 

B: *Defective

L: one

U: ♦Q, ♠2

Entries, ♥A, ♠A

Lone threat: ♦Q

[/hv]

 

Can the compound squeeze ever work where the lone shared suit has only one winner? The answer is yes, if the following strict requirements are met. First, the hand with only the one shared-threat must hold the last free winner. On the next to last free winner, you must have entry conditions necessary to cash the last R-winner, reenter the hand with the sole threat threat and cash the last free winner. The sequence of plays can trip up the best of us, and perhaps an expert thread on this ending would be useful. But for now, here is an example.

 

[hv=n=s3ha9dqc2&w=sjthkqdkc&e=skqhjtdc3&s=sa2h3dcak]399|300|Compound Squeeze: Failing Case

 

B: *Defective

L: one

U: ♦Q, ♠2

Entries, ♥A, ♠A

Lone threat: ♦Q

[/hv]

 

What have we learned

• The general requirements for compound squeeze are necessary for the squeeze to work, but are not allways sufficient
  
• Having two winners in the shared-threats are very useful again
  
• Cashing all the Right winners is often necesary before the last squeeze card on hands where there is not two winner the shared threat
  

Next time, some example compound squeeze hands (yes despite the promise to put these type hands in a separate thread). The remedies a look at a method to remedy a compuond squeeze when the entry stuff we talked about (unalbe to cash R winners) is defective.

[inquiry]

Now to a hand. This is one from user lenze posted here on the BBF a long time ago, and one that the players butchered at the table.

[hv=w=st65hqjtda85caq43&e=sakq7hak9865dk4c5]266|100|[/hv]

 

He stated about this problem:

A few were in 7NT, with the Spade 9 lead covered by dummy’s Ten and East’s Jack. Declarer wins and cashes two more spades, When west shows out on the third round (the 8 did not fall), it appears the contract depends on a club finesse. But does it??

 

Now that you have been studying squeezes, and know all about simple and double squeezes, you know the answer to this is no. Let's run through the analsysis you might be able to make now.

 

Norht stops spades, so ♠ threat is in the upper hand. If north also has the ♣K he is in the grips of a black suit simple squeeze. But south might have the club king as well (when a hook wins). We want to make in both cases, as if there is two club kings? What about diamonds, is that a threat? Yes, you ahve come to learn that even a small card can be a threat. But we gave the club king to both opponents, and surely both can stop diamonds. So "B" is violated. But we have exactly one loser, we have entries in both "shared threats" (minors), and the lone threat is in the upper hand. This is the minimum reauirements for a compound squeeze. Add to that, one of the shared threats has two winners and provides an entry to both hands (that is a great joy). Run all your hearts but two, and you will come to this ending.....

 

 

 

 

[hv=n=s9hdqjtckx&w=shda85caq5&e=s7hakdkxcx&s=shdqjtckxx]399|300|Note I gave them both the king of clubs (no big deal), both top diamonds. But what whne you cash the heart ACE, south and west discard clubs, but what of north? If he discards spade, you are home, So let't examine the play if he discards a diamond or a club....[/hv]

 

If south discards a diamond, you cash diamond ACE, then reenter hand with diamond king and then lead the last heart. Since norht is fresh out of diamonds, South must keep a diamond, so he will come to his singleton club king, dummy throws a diamond. North, has to keep his spade 9, so he comes to a singelton club king as wel.. The club ACE-picks up both club kings, and you are home free....

 

What if north discards not a diamond, but rather a club on the next to last heart in the ending above? Now you cash the club ACE, and reenter your hand with the diamond KING, to lead the last heart. Here, south must keep his club King, so he will discard his next to last diamond. Dummy can discard the club now, and what of north? He has to discard his next to last diamond as well, to keep his ♠. Now you win the last two tricks in dummy with the big and little diamond.

 

Hey, lenze's problem that stumped experts turns out not to be such a tricky one after all (link to his post http://forums.bridgebase.com/ind...findpost&p=9309 BTW, it is best not to cash all the spade winners early. The reason being, as we saw earlier, it is easier to play ending where the two "shared-threats" are in the same hand if the lone threat still has a winner. If spades are splitting, you can wait to find that out. But we played it here as given in the origiinal problem.

[inquiry]

Now for a very hard one, that stumped an "expert" and the right answer amazed another expert that anyone could find it. Let's see how our intermediate players do with the backgound provided. The hand and all the discussion of it is given here.... but you can get it right without going over there...

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/ind...=findpost&p=726

[hv=n=sqjxxxhk9xdkjxcxx&s=sakhatxxdaxxcakjt]133|200|- Auction is irrelevant, but the contract is 6N by south.

 

LHO leads the 10 of spade to your King. When you cash second high spade RHO shows out. [/hv]

 

Count winners. 4♠. 2♥, 2♦, 2♣. Two short of your goal. So right now BLUE is really violated. Only sure of one stopper (spade with west), so B is defective, and we have three losers (only 10 tricks) right now. You can correct the loser count by setting up a club trick by simply giving a club, that brings your total to 11 winners with one lost trick, and needing 12. Once at 11 winners, WEST has the sole spade guard, and the spade threat is in the upper hand. The two other suits will have entries to them even on a red suit return so there will be two shared-threats. There is some reason to consider a red card to dummy for a club hook, but if that loses a second red card will break up the compound squeeze. And since you want to retain communication, can you find the correct play?

 

The correct play, obviously, is to duck a club. IF West is 5-2-2-4, there is a simple red suit squeeze on EAST. If WEst is 5332, both red suits are stopped by both opponents, but not for long. Lets assume WEst wins the club queen, and returns a spade, we win in dummy and then run two club tricks to reach...

 

[hv=n=sqxhk9xdkjxc&w=st9hqjxdqtxc&e=shqjxdqtxcxx&s=shatxdaxxcak]399|300|Notice once again, I made the red suits where you can't get lucky, but it hardly matters. You can cash both clubs, and west feels the full furry of the plays, he has to pitch two red cards. If he pitches on in each suit, his partner is daad man walking.... simple squeeze will toast him. If he pitches both in diamonds, simply cash two diamond ending in dummy and lead the top spade. If he pitches two hearts, simply cash two hearts ending in dummy, and then cash the last spade[/hv]

 

As you can see. EW can not hold the day what so ever. Would duck a club occur to you at the table? Maybe not, but as a problem, when you have time to sit and ponder it would. Would duck a club at trick three occur to me at the table? If it was a serious game, without a double. I saw this ending immediately once I looked. In a friendly game, perhaps I would play too fast. The evil defense is when you cross to dummy to return the red suit you lead to dummy when the club queen wins (or maybe better yet, to duck the club queen, to have you weaken you hand even more). But all in all, when you start looking for ways to avoid finessees, you will often find endings like these, especially now that you know the hand patterns to look for.

 

Next time: Compound Guard squeezes.. how to recover from an apparent compound squeeze except that one of the both suits is lacking an entry in its own suit.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

The requirements for a compound squeeze are quite ridgid, in that you must have an entry/winner in both "shared-threats", and sometime two winners in a shared thread (see above). So it would seem the following entry is doubly fatally flawed, in that neither "shared thread" had either a winner nor an entry, and yet south can make all the remaining tricks.

 

[hv=n=sh32d2ca8&w=sxhadkcjt&e=shkdacq64&s=sakhdck95]399|300|B:*defective

L: one

U: Clubs on EAST, ♥/♦ on WEST

E: ♣A primary, ♣King secondary

[/hv]

 

When shoudl cashes the two spades, EAST has to let go both his red cards to keep three clubs. What is west to play on the second spade? If he throws a red card, it sets up a winner in north, but if he throws a club? He exposes his partner to a club finessee. This should look familar. As you recall from the thread on simple squeezes and problems with "entry", when there is no entry in either threat suit, you could sometime compensate for this lack of entry if the third suit was "partially finesseable". The same holds true for compound squeeze. The partially finesseable threat is a powerful weapon to overcome defects in squeeze endings.

 

While we are examining how clever this ending is, it also worth nothing what happens after EAST throws a heart on the first ♠, let's rexamine that ending.

[hv=n=sh32d2ca8&w=sxhadkcjt&e=shkdacq64&s=sakhdck95]399|300|B:*defective

L: one

U: Clubs on EAST, ♥/♦ on WEST

E: ♣A primary, ♣King secondary

[/hv]

 

Wow, after all discussion that for a compound squeeze to work, you have to have entries and winnners in both suits, you see that a partially finesseable lone suit can overcome the lack of entries and winners in either shared-suit. Is there other ways to overcome thre draconian entry requirements of compound squeeze? The answer, thankfully, is yes. Just as a guard squeeze compensates for blocked entry requirements in simple squeeze (see ) and in double squeeze (see second example above), the trump squeeze and the clash squeeze can be used to compensate for entry failures in compound (and double) squeezes. Let's take a look at examples of both of these type of endings:

 

[hv=n=sh32d2ca8&w=sxhadkcjt&e=shkdacq64&s=sakhdck95]399|300|B:*defective

L: one

U: Clubs on EAST, ♥/♦ on WEST

E: ♣A primary, ♣King secondary

[/hv]

 

At this point, both shared threats have a winner, but the requirement is for a winner/entry. Neither shared threat has an entry in its own suit (the threats are in south's hand, not north's). When neither threat suit has an entry when you are lookng for a simple squeeze, you should recall one recovery method is a trump squeeze. This works here as well. On the first trump from south, WEST must discard a red card, or else you can ruff out the club stopper. You discard the same red card from dummy, cross north in that red suit, cash the club ace, discarding the other red suit from your hand, and ruff a club. To visuallize this, let's assume WEST discards a heart. A heart is thrown from the dummy, the heart ACE is taken, the club ace is taken and south throws a diamond, and a club is ruffed. This is the position as south lead his last trump...

 

[hv=n=sh32d2ca8&w=sxhadkcjt&e=shkdacq64&s=sakhdck95]399|300|B:*defective

L: one

U: Clubs on EAST, ♥/♦ on WEST

E: ♣A primary, ♣King secondary

[/hv]

 

Just as there was a simpler version of the compound guard squeeze (the plain double guard squeeze), there is a simple version of the compound trump squeeze (the double trump squeeze). This simpler version is what happens once west discards his red suited stopper above. Of course, if he never had a ♥stopper all along, this would have been a vanilla "double trump squeeze".

 

The third method for dealing with entry problems in a simple squeeze was a clash squeeze if you had a clash menace. There is a double clash squeeze, and I guess if you wanted to call it that, there is an ending that looks like compound clash squeeze, but the compound clash squeeze is really only the double clash squeeze with an extra free winner. Here is the ending...

 

[hv=n=sh32d2ca8&w=sxhadkcjt&e=shkdacq64&s=sakhdck95]399|300|B:*defective

L: one

U: Clubs on EAST, ♥/♦ on WEST

E: ♣A primary, ♣King secondary

[/hv]

 

When you cash the ♠ACE, if west throws a ♣, that gives you your trick. If West throws a ♦, this becomes a normal double squeeze with ♥ as teh double threat (cash both clubs ending in south, then lead last spade). So West will throw his small ♥. But now this is the double clash squeeze. South cashes his last ♥ and west must fold his cards. A club is instant death. So is a ♥ discard. But if he discards a ♦, he exposes his partner to a red suit simple squeeze (win club in dummy, and a club back to south squeezes south).

 

You can even combine a guard squeeze with a trump squeeze, where the threat of a ruffing finessee does in an opponent. Let's looks at one of these endings.

[hv=n=sh32d2ca8&w=sxhadkcjt&e=shkdacq64&s=sakhdck95]399|300|B:*defective

L: one

U: Clubs on EAST, ♥/♦ on WEST

E: ♣A primary, ♣King secondary

[/hv]

[hv=n=sh32d2ca8&w=sxhadkcjt&e=shkdacq64&s=sakhdck95]399|300|B:*defective

L: one

U: Clubs on EAST, ♥/♦ on WEST

E: ♣A primary, ♣King secondary

[/hv]

 

We covered a lot of ground (about 45 pages!!! from my squeeze notes) in very short space in this one post. While this post threw a half of dozen squeezes at you in a short space (1. Compound trump squeeze, 2. double trump squeeze, 3. compound guard squeeze, 4. double guard squeeze, 5. compound/double clash squeeze, and 6. compound trump guard squeeze), they all dealt with overcoming a combined problem with "b" where the entry conditions "failed" for a compound squeeze. Hopefully, if you fully understood the trump, guard, and clash squeeze from the first thread on introduction to squeeze play and when you use them, this thread will simply re-inforce that with problems with primary entry, you look for these same corrective manuvers (guard. trump, clash).

 

What we learned: that blocked entry conditions in compound squeezes can be overcome using the same tricks we learned for dealing with blocked entry conditions in simple squeezes, namely

• a trump squeeze can be combined with the compound squeeze to get a compound trump squeeze
  
• A partially finesseable position in the lone threat suit can be used to establish a trump guard squeeze
  
• A clash menace can be used to establish a compound clash squeeze which really resolves to a normal double clash squeeze
  
• We also learned that there are "easy to identify "double guard squeeze" and "double trump squeezes" which are just simplier version of the compound cousins.
  

Next time, when "B" is defective and there is no lone thread (that is, all three threat suits are stopped by both opponents).

 

Ben

[inquiry]

The last post in this thread covered a lot of ground in a very tight space. Maybe some example hands in the accompaining (yet to be added) will help make those ending clearer. In my experience, the double squeezes occurs fairly commonly, and the compound squeeze complexes (including the trump, guard, and trump-guard squeezes) occur often enough to be sure you understand them.

 

Now for some, in my experience, rare versions of squeezes which fall into the same category of hands with one loser, but problems with "both". These squeezes fall into two general categories: hexagonal squeezes and "hedgehog" squeezes. Both of these squeezes fall into the same general category of "B" being defective with just one loser.

 

Hexagonal squeezes

 

[hv=n=sh2dajc2&w=shqdktck&e=shktdqca&s=sahajd4c]399|300|Hexagonal squeeze:

 

A hexagonal squeeze is very similar in form and function to a double guard squeeze, except for a little twist on the squeeze card. Due to a blocked ending (compare with double guard squeeze in previous post where there was a primary entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card and a secondary reentry in the same suit along with the "potentialy finessable" ending.. which works in the case of the double guard squeeze because of the redundant entries, and because of the threat has two winners (remember, two winners in double and compound squeezes are ofter VERY USEFUL and sometimes absolutely required. Here the lack of blocked entry requires not one, but TWO potentially finesseble guard threats." [/hv]

 

Let's examine this ending. East guards ♥ alone, West ♦ alone, both guard clubs (the shared threat). The shared threat lacks a winner or entry, and you have not been able to cash the last right winner (heart) before leading the last squeeze card (entry problems)... if you did anyway. However, when you lead the ♠Ace, West can not throw a ♦ or you got all the tricks. West can't throw a ♥ or you can finessee his partner. So he will throw a ♣. Dummy now lets the ♦ go (if dummy throws club, so can east, if dummy throws heart, east can throw diamond too). East can't throw heart, or you cash two hearts. Can't throw diamond, else you hook his partner, and can't throw a club, else the club is good (cash heart first to throw away the ♦JACK.

 

Now, this ending is also relatively easy to identify, as it involves a remedy when a double squeeze is flawed, requiring two guard squeeze threats.

 

There is a HEXAGONAL TRUMP SQUEEZE version of this squeeze as well, where ruffing finessee plays a major role. Here is an example ending.

 

[hv=n=sh2dajc2&w=shqdktck&e=shktdqca&s=sahajd4c]399|300|Hexagonal squeeze:

 

A hexagonal squeeze is very similar in form and function to a double guard squeeze, except for a little twist on the squeeze card. Due to a blocked ending (compare with double guard squeeze in previous post where there was a primary entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card and a secondary reentry in the same suit along with the "potentialy finessable" ending.. which works in the case of the double guard squeeze because of the redundant entries, and because of the threat has two winners (remember, two winners in double and compound squeezes are ofter VERY USEFUL and sometimes absolutely required. Here the lack of blocked entry requires not one, but TWO potentially finesseble guard threats." [/hv]

 

Things to look for in cases of hexagonal squeezes: 1) One loser, 2) shared threat with no entry or insufficient entries (see hexagonal trump squeeze), and 3) dual guard threats, one against each opponent.

 

Hedgehog squeeze

 

Hedgehog squeezes are just another example of a three suit squeezes against one opponent and a squeeze against another. Often one of the threats in the hand being squeezed in three suit is a a guard squeeze threat (the "partially finessable threat is a great weapon in squeeze endings as I think you are beginning to see if you followed along not only in this thread, but also in the introduction to squeeze thread). As a reminder, a normal guard squeeze squeezes just one oooonent in three suit, two he alone is responsible for, and one in which he guards against a finessee of his partner. The hedgehog guard squeeze, like the hexagonal ones above, squeeze both opponents. It squeezes one opponent in two or three suits, and the other in three suits, one of which is to protect his partner from a finessee. Here is a typical hedgehog guard squeeze ending

[hv=n=sh2dajc2&w=shqdktck&e=shktdqca&s=sahajd4c]399|300|Hexagonal squeeze:

 

A hexagonal squeeze is very similar in form and function to a double guard squeeze, except for a little twist on the squeeze card. Due to a blocked ending (compare with double guard squeeze in previous post where there was a primary entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card and a secondary reentry in the same suit along with the "potentialy finessable" ending.. which works in the case of the double guard squeeze because of the redundant entries, and because of the threat has two winners (remember, two winners in double and compound squeezes are ofter VERY USEFUL and sometimes absolutely required. Here the lack of blocked entry requires not one, but TWO potentially finesseble guard threats." [/hv]

 

Next time, more hedgehog endings, including a hedgehog clash squeeze. (BTW, the hexagonal squeeze is often called a double hedgehog guard squeeze).

 

ben

[inquiry]

The last post introduced two very related types of squeezes where one opponent is squeezed in three suits, one of which they held a guard that protected their partner from a finessee, while there partner was also squeezed in two or three suits. And in the later case, the partner was also threatened in a suit where he held a guard to protect his partner from a finessee.

 

The ending shown in that last post are relatively rare, but thanks to the nature of the ending, not that difficult to remember. The following hedgehog squeeze ending is much more common, and more easily identified and to exectue. Let's look at it first, and then talk about its features.

 

[hv=n=shqdqck7&w=shadacqt&e=shkdcj64&s=sahdca83]399|300|The easiest hedgehog.

 

This one plays itself, and in practice is not that rare.

 

When you lead ♠A, West can't throw a ♦ or give you your 4th trick. And he can't throw a ♥, or you have an automatic ♥-♣ squeeze on EAST. So he throws a ♣, but this exposes his partner to the ♣ hook.

[/hv]

 

This hand differs from the normal "guard squeeze" in that EAST has a heart guard. Change his ♥K to a small ♣ and it would be a normal guard squeeze, which means you can often play normal guard squeezes like they were hedgehog squeezes. Notice the useful feature of two winners in the guard threat suit, with entry to both hands in that suit. Such dual entry to two hands in the same threat suit was a nice feature for simple squeezes, and we have seen that this is a powerful combination when playing double squeezes, this was a powerful combination when playing compound squeezes, and now you see this is a powerful combination for this hedgehog squeeze. This is a useful "pattern" (feature) to have in virtually any squeeze ending.

 

Just as the dual entry threat is a feature you can learn to look for, the clash threat is an feature that jumps out at you when you have one. Is there a clash - hedgehog combination that can gain an extra trick? You betcha. Here is a typical ending.

[hv=n=shqdqck7&w=shadacqt&e=shkdcj64&s=sahdca83]399|300|The easiest hedgehog.

 

This one plays itself, and in practice is not that rare.

 

When you lead ♠A, West can't throw a ♦ or give you your 4th trick. And he can't throw a ♥, or you have an automatic ♥-♣ squeeze on EAST. So he throws a ♣, but this exposes his partner to the ♣ hook.

[/hv]

 

A similar clash hedgehog ending requires a secondary entry, looks like this...

[hv=n=shqdqck7&w=shadacqt&e=shkdcj64&s=sahdca83]399|300|The easiest hedgehog.

 

This one plays itself, and in practice is not that rare.

 

When you lead ♠A, West can't throw a ♦ or give you your 4th trick. And he can't throw a ♥, or you have an automatic ♥-♣ squeeze on EAST. So he throws a ♣, but this exposes his partner to the ♣ hook.

[/hv]

 

And just as with defectes in compound squeezes to overcome entry problems, you can combine threats here, such that you can have a clash threat AND a guard thrat on the same hand. A typical ending would be.

 

 

[hv=n=shqdqck7&w=shadacqt&e=shkdcj64&s=sahdca83]399|300|The easiest hedgehog.

 

This one plays itself, and in practice is not that rare.

 

When you lead ♠A, West can't throw a ♦ or give you your 4th trick. And he can't throw a ♥, or you have an automatic ♥-♣ squeeze on EAST. So he throws a ♣, but this exposes his partner to the ♣ hook.

[/hv]

 

What have we learned?[

• There are a wide variety of type of hedgehog squeezes with three suit squeeze against one hand, and two or three suit squeeze against the other
  
• In these hedgehog squeeze, the same guard threats and clash menaces we saw in other problem with "b" hands are useful
  
• IT is very useful to have a threat suit that allows you entry to each hand (As always)
  
• These hedgehog squeezes make up for problem with B and if you add guard and/or clash threats you can overcome problems with suitable entries as well.
  

Next time, a summary to tie up all these squeeze we have covered in this thread.

[inquiry]

This thread has dealt with squeezes where you know from early on that there is a problem with the "BOTH" requirement of BLUE for a simple squeeze. The remedies went from the very simple (transfer a menace and isolate a menace), to the routine double squeeze, to more exotic three suit squeezes on one opponent and two to three suit squeezes on the other. It covered topics that need maybe 100 pages to cover all the various options and logic, but ones that few simple rules can see us through the vast majority of hands without a lot of memorization.

 

Let's summmarize the throught process you go through. First you try to identify two threats isolated in one person;s hand (all else being ok, that is one loser, primary entry, threat in upper hand). If so, simple squeeze. If only one threat is isolated in his hand, you try to see if you can by force isolate a second threat to his hand (transfer menance, isolate a menace). If the answer is no, you go to the next option, a double squeeze.

 

For a double squeeze, you try to determine if a single threat is isolated to each opponents hand, and there exist a shared threat with a winner/entry in its own suit. If the answer to that is yes (and especially if the shared threat has two winners).

 

The double squeeze may be flawed for a two reasons. The first of which is that instead of one shared threat, there are two. If the entry conditions are suitable, and if there is an upper threat against each opponent, then you play for a compound squeeze. The second flaw type of flaw with the double squeeze, which is often also a flaw with the compound squeeze, is that the shared suit will lack an entry/winner in its own suit. You can overcome this if you have a GUARD THREAT (the potentially finessable position) or a clash threat (a high card --like a singleton Q--- that will be good if one hand does not keep a singleton higher that that threat).

 

Then we moved into squeeze where both opponents hold guards in all three suits. These squeeze invariably involve a guard theat or a clash threat, and once again it is often useful to have a threat suit with entries to both hands.

 

OF these squeeze, the double squeeze and the compound squeeze are most common. IF you know those two you will be ahead of the game. But in any ending when things start looking totally despirate, and your double or compound squeeze looks hopeless because of lack of winner/entries in one or more of the shared threats, or because no suit can be isolated to one hand or the other... then you owe it to yourself to look for at least a partially finessable suit. Sometimes a suit as poor as A8x opposite Kx might turn golden as a guard threat.

 

This thread has covered the following squeezes...

• simple squeeze involving transfer a menance
  
• simple squeeze involving isolate a menace
  
• double squeezes
  
• simple squeezes played as double squeeze
  
• compound squeeze
  
• compound guard squeeze
  
• compound clash squeeze (sort of)
  
• double guard squeeze
  
• double clash squeeze
  
• hexagonal squeeze (often called double guard hedgehog)
  
• hexagonal trump squeeze (often called trump guard hedgehog squeeze)
  
• hedgehog guard squeeze
  
• hedgehog clash squeeze
  
• and mixed hedgehog-guard-clash squeeze
  

All these squeezes are, at least in my mind, related by the same simple common flaw and as you discover that "B" is missing, you could (if you are like me) sort of walk your way through this list to see if any of these correction methods are available. It turns out that list is almost in the order of releative importance and frequency. If you can just learn the ones in bold/blue you will manage extremely well. Then the ones in bold is the second group you should focus on when you have mastered the blue ones. The final group, should they show up, you will still have a chance to get right if you recongnize what is wrong with the earlier versions.

 

This is the last planned post in this thread. Look for Squeezes part III, problems with "L" coming soon. That thread will cover how to characterize, identify and execute strip squeeze, entry-shifting squeezes, three suit repeating squeezing, repeating hedgehog squeezes, steppingstone squeeze, vise (or vice) squeeze, winkle squeeze, and a host of others.

 

Ben