Play 7NT

[Lovera]

OK, I did not understand that properly and now realise that it corrected the wrong assertion you made in post 20. It is irrelevant whether West's nine of clubs is a true card as well. I think this is indeed one of the squeezes in The Squeeze at Bridge by Wang, which I originally commissioned and edited for Maxwell Macmillan 20 odd years ago, with Glyn Liggins doing the technical editing. I shall try and find my copy.

 

Assuming East is 5-1-1-6 with a singleton heart honour, you can actually claim at trick one. And, as gnasher correctly points out, you cannot make it with best defence if both sides are guarding hearts, so maybe you should make a suggestion that play be curtailed.

Well, in the book indicated i have not to find but this hands remind me anything but i don't remember where i have seen it or it is another one, however i'll try to find in my other books or if i remember better.. Although let see to complete successly, bye.

[lamford]

Well, in the book indicated i have not to find but this hands remind me anything but i don't remember where i have seen it or it is another one, however i'll try to find in my other books or if i remember better.. Although let see to complete successly, bye.

Thanks; it did seem familiar but I have not been able to find that book either. But there is a similar hand in Practical Bridge Endings also by Chien-Hwa Wang, but looking at that closely it is not the same theme. Interestingly, when East has a singleton heart honour, the heart lead does not beat it by breaking up the guard squeeze, as then there is club communication. So, on the probable layout with East having 5-1-1-6 with a stiff heart honour, West is Morton-forked on the opening lead in that he needs to lead a heart and club simultaneously!

 

Declarer reaches some ending like this:

[hv=pc=n&s=sak6h4d6dc5&w=sJ75hkcT9&n=s84hJdcAK8&e=sQT9hcqj6]300|300[/hv]

Declarer must not cash a top spade at any point, and now leads the last diamond pitching a spade and the defence cannot hold the ending. Just a non-simultaneous double squeeze.

[Lovera]

Thanks; it did seem familiar but I have not been able to find that book either. But there is a similar hand in Practical Bridge Endings also by Chien-Hwa Wang. Interestingly, when East has a singleton heart honour, the heart lead does not beat it by breaking up the guard squeeze, as then there is club communication. So, on the probable layout with East having 5-1-1-6 with a stiff heart honour, West is Morton-forked on the opening lead in that he needs to lead a heart and club simultaneously!

 

Declarer reaches some ending like this:

[hv=pc=n&s=sak6h4d6dc5&w=sJ75hkcT9&n=s84hJdcAK8&e=sQT9hcqj6]300|300[/hv]

Declarer must not cash a top spade at any point, and now leads the last diamond pitching a spade and the defence cannot hold the ending. Just a non-simultaneous double squeeze.

In the book your mentioned and that i have (Cardigan Books in London is indicated a phone number and a fax [at that time]) there is anything neither in clash nor in guard and the author don't talk about compound. I have seen in Romanet (there is an hand for defense to compound with a lovely description to had to do (descarting yes and des. not that probably i think to refer). I am now in Giulianova Lido, Abruzzo in Italy for a fortnight holiday guest Grand Hotel Don Juan and i have not disponible books, bye.

[lamford]

In the book your mentioned and that i have (Cardigan Books in London is indicated a phone number and a fax [at that time]) there is anything neither in clash nor in guard and the author don't talk about compound. I have seen in Romanet (there is an hand for defense to compound with a lovely description to had to do (descarting yes and des. not that probably i think to refer). I am now in Giulianova Lido, Abruzzo in Italy for a fortnight holiday guest Grand Hotel Don Juan and i have not disponible books, bye.

OK, then I misremembered. The theme does seem familiar however. Maybe some squeeze aficionados can help as to where it was first published. It was Cadogan Books, by the way. Enjoy your holiday.

[Lovera]

A consideration about compound squeeze: there are of two type. First - type R - can be represented in this form : N/S (s) unilateral A x/ K x x A x / K x x 1.st sq. c 2.nd sq. c. / idle card © The unilateral is correctly oriented on the opp sitting at the right of squeeze card and is common element of two balanced double squeeze ending of three cards: when you play 1.st squeeze card West discarting select one of this two ending. If the unilateral was oriented instead on left however discarting East can be we don't get any valid ending (inverted orientation). Second- type L - can be represented in this form: N /S (s) T. / A K x A x / T. A x(=unilateral) / T. idle c. idle c. / 1.st sq. c. 2.nd sq. c. © [T.= transfert card]. Now the squeeze card is in South and the controll of the unilaeral is in West. But let's suppose that the unilateral was oriented on East : its just discart is in spade (="s") because If not so - discarting in heart - we have in this case two menace differently oriented and then declarear leads the 2.nd squeeze card (= last free winner) and go in North and now each winner squeeze both the opp. each time (before the first winner squeeze one opp then the second squeeze the other) reciprocally : this infact is the reciprocal squeeze. For refer at our problem we have double thread spade and heart and unilateral club.

[lamford]

A consideration about compound squeeze: there are of two type. First - type R - can be represented in this form : N/S (s) unilateral A x/ K x x A x / K x x 1.st sq. c 2.nd sq. c. / idle card © The unilateral is correctly oriented on the opp sitting at the right of squeeze card and is common element of two balanced double squeeze ending of three cards: when you play 1.st squeeze card West discarting select one of this two ending. If the unilateral was oriented instead on left however discarting East can be we don't get any valid ending (inverted orientation). Second- type L - can be represented in this form: N /S (s) T. / A K x A x / T. A x(=unilateral) / T. idle c. idle c. / 1.st sq. c. 2.nd sq. c. © [T.= transfert card]. Now the squeeze card is in South and the controll of the unilaeral is in West. But let's suppose that the unilateral was oriented on East : its just discart is in spade (="s") because If not so - discarting in heart - we have in this case two menace differently oriented and then declarear leads the 2.nd squeeze card (= last free winner) and go in North and now each winner squeeze both the opp. each time (before the first winner squeeze one opp then the second squeeze the other) reciprocally : this infact is the reciprocal squeeze. For refer at our problem we have double thread spade and heart and unilateral club.

I couldn't have explained it better.

[Lovera]

I think that i' d have found the solution: initially i have considered club 9 as doubleton having rescontred problems in heart and not work on heart as double thread. But it seems to me there is a second possibility: club 9 4th and then play for (s) Q J 9 x x (h) Q 10 (d) 6 © 7 5 4 3 2 in East and then 3 - 4 - 2 - 4 in West. In this case we'd have a compound squeeze with in heart an alternate menace considering discarting of West.

[rhm]

There is no compound squeeze.

East controls clubs behind dummy.

So the basic threat would have to be hearts, which West must have under sole control.

Still no compound squeeze since you have no communication in clubs. Both opponents would keep clubs and the compound squeeze would fail.

 

I think that of those four statements, only the second is likely to be true; at least I assume that the 2NT bidder has a club guard! But I agree that the squeeze is not compound.

I explained in my four statements, why the necessary conditions for a compound are not present.

 

You wrote that "only the second (statement) is likely to be true"

Then you write: "But I agree that the squeeze is not compound"

How does this differ from my first statement "There is no compound squeeze." , which you claimed likely not to be true.

If there is no material difference you are contradicting yourself.

 

Any compound squeeze require a basic threat, which must be guarded by only one defender sitting under the threat. (e.g. Clyde E Love, Bridge Squeezes Complete)

The only basic threat I could see was in hearts against West.

East club guard is not a basic threat in compound squeeze terminology, because East is sitting behind (not under the) dummy and this violates the definition of a basic threat.

 

That's why I wrote

"So the basic threat would have to be hearts, which West must have under sole control." (statement 3)

What is wrong with that?

 

Then I explained that even if the basic threat in the heart suit would be present, still another necessary condition for a compound squeeze is violated: .

"Still no compound squeeze since you have no communication in clubs. Both opponents would keep clubs and the compound squeeze would fail." (statement 4)

 

What is wrong with this? .

 

Note, I never said there is no squeeze.

I only explained why there is no compound squeeze, with which you seem in agreement and disagreement at the same time.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

I explained in my four statements, why the necessary conditions for a compound are not present.

 

You wrote that "only the second (statement) is likely to be true"

Then you write: "But I agree that the squeeze is not compound"

How does this differ from my first statement "There is no compound squeeze." , which you claimed likely not to be true.

If there is no material difference you are contradicting yourself.

 

Any compound squeeze require a basic threat, which must be guarded by only one defender sitting under the threat. (e.g. Clyde E Love, Bridge Squeezes Complete)

The only basic threat I could see was in hearts against West.

East club guard is not a basic threat in compound squeeze terminology, because East is sitting behind (not under the) dummy and this violates the definition of a basic threat.

 

That's why I wrote

"So the basic threat would have to be hearts, which West must have under sole control." (statement 3)

What is wrong with that?

 

Then I explained that even if the basic threat in the heart suit would be present, still another necessary condition for a compound squeeze is violated: .

"Still no compound squeeze since you have no communication in clubs. Both opponents would keep clubs and the compound squeeze would fail." (statement 4)

 

What is wrong with this? .

 

Note, I never said there is no squeeze.

I only explained why there is no compound squeeze, with which you seem in agreement and disagreement at the same time.

 

Rainer Herrmann

You went on to say: "So this hand looks like an ordinary double squeeze." Which it is not either. I think it is a simple guard squeeze but I am not an expert and if some variations can be a compound guard squeeze I will bow to lovera's superior knowledge of the subject. It is a double squeeze only if West leads a heart. If you had written "the likely squeeze is not compound", I would have agreed with you. But you wrote "there is no compound squeeze", wording that, followed by the statement in the first line above, strongly implied that you thought that one needed an ordinary double squeeze, and I pointed out the contract is quite likely to be cold, and the squeeze is not compound. What is wrong with that?

 

You also wrote: "So the basic threat would have to be hearts, which West must have under sole control." I wrongly interpreted that to mean "For South to succeed, the basic threat would have to be hearts, which West must have under sole control." I was unaware that you intended it to mean "For the squeeze to meet the requirement to be compound, the basic threat would have to be hearts, which West must have under sole control", but I covered myself by agreeing that the squeeze was not compound.

[Lovera]

Ha that's the deal (similar) we had bid and made to 7♦ :lol:

I have found another (i don't think be the same of yours) with similar statement (ending bidding diamond 7 West leads club Queen). Why don't tell us ?

[Lovera]

On reponse to post 34 by lamford: thank you for compliment, i will suggest for knowledge about guard squeeze ( - post ) the internet adress http://post.queensu.ca/~kerseyd/bridge/squeeze/catalogue/material/indirect/unbalanced/primary/guard.html and you can have all the informations about it. I want to say that i don't see any ending of this type until now (i realize first time one in post of Minorkid "Is there a squeeze ?"), bye.

[Lovera]

I think that i' d have found the solution: initially i have considered club 9 as doubleton having rescontred problems in heart and not work on heart as double thread. But it seems to me there is a second possibility: club 9 4th and then play for (s) Q J 9 x x (h) Q 10 (d) 6 © 7 5 4 3 2 in East and then 3 - 4 - 2 - 4 in West. In this case we'd have a compound squeeze with in heart an alternate menace considering discarting of West.

Although this solution is not "against any defence" because if W and E retains hearts, the King in dummy is leaving an idle card in E and double squeeze (type R simultaneous) doesn't work. Than, until in dummy needs to cash King of club (pitching an heart), running diamonds minus one(=next-to-last free winner or 1.st squeeze card) and cashing the two top spades (to polite ending) and now last diamond makes starting a balanced double squeeze. But if W descarts hearts on 1.st squeeze card of diamond (E must descarts spades) rescouting last diamond and leading a little to Ace in hearts suit in dummy W is squeezed in spade/club for 13th trick.