biggerclub Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 http://tinyurl.com/kbpsvc7 So when I get down toward the end, it's fairly obvious that W is guarding both ♠s and ♦s but the ♠s guard is somewhat subtle. If W throws a ♠ at trick 11, I cash the remaining two top ♠s in dummy. As he actually threw the Q♦, I played the 8♠ to the 10♠ in my hand and cashed the J♦. [hv=pc=n&s=sjthaq853dkjt8ca5&w=sq9742hjtdq7652c7&n=sak863h74dckjt842&e=s5hk962da943cq963&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp1sp3nppp&p=d5s3dad8h2hqhjh4cac7c2c6c5s2ctcqh6hahth7dkd7s6d3sjsqsas5ckc9h3s7cjc3h5d2c8d9dt]399|300[/hv] I thought this was what Reese calls a winkle, but after a bit of resesarch, I see that's not it (the winkle involves a throw in, not just pressuring an opponent). So I'm not sure what it is called, but it sure was fun to see it coming at trick 4 or so and then run it out. It is also odd in that the squeeze card is in the hand with the two trick threat. Anyway, I can do it, I just don't know how to name it when I brag about it! Any suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=sahdca2&w=shakqdc&n=shd32ck&e=shdacqj]280|210| Well done, biggerclub! A pretty and unusual squeeze!An automatic squeeze in a blocked position.A kind of one-suit criss-cross squeeze.I think George Coffin published a similar ending in one of his early books. Simplified ending on left.South to lead at notrumps.[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=sahdca32&w=shQJT9dc&n=shKd32ck&e=shadacqj]280|210| Here is a variation Without the count.At notrumps, South to lead and make 3/4. [/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I think this is what Chien-Hwa Wang calls a nosittej squeeze in 'The Squeeze at Bridge', but I don't have my copy to hand. The name, if you are wondering, is the reverse of Jettison. The point being that the situation is similar to that of a jettison squeeze, but there's no actual need to jettison the singleton honour. I have two points to make: I don't recall seeing the name elsewhere so this probably isn't standard; and I am doing this from memory so might be completely wrong about what a Nosittej Squeeze is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggerclub Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=sahdca2&w=shakqdc&n=shd32ck&e=shdacqj]280|210| Well done, biggerclub! A pretty and unusual squeeze!An automatic squeeze in a blocked position.A kind of one-suit criss-cross squeeze.I think George Coffin published a similar ending in one of his early books. Simplified ending on left.South to lead at notrumps.[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=sahdca32&w=shQJT9dc&n=shKd32ck&e=shadacqj]280|210| Here is a variation Without the count.At notrumps, South to lead and make 3/4. [/hv] I get the first example, although my case was "funner" because of the dual entry situation in ♠s. I am not sure that the second one illustrates the same principal. On the A♠, E is forced to dump the A♥, else declarer scores 3 tricks in the minors. Once that happens, the A♦ becomes a stepping stone back to the A♣. I do like your description of "Criss-Cross in a Single Suit." I think that is most apt and describes exactly what is going on. Although not in a typical, two-suited, criss-cross sort of way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 I get the first example, although my case was "funner" because of the dual entry situation in ♠s. I am not sure that the second one illustrates the same principal. On the A♠, E is forced to dump the A♥, else declarer scores 3 tricks in the minors. Once that happens, the A♦ becomes a stepping stone back to the A♣. I do like your description of "Criss-Cross in a Single Suit." I think that is most apt and describes exactly what is going on. Although not in a typical, two-suited, criss-cross sort of way. [hv=pc=n&s=sahdca32&w=shQJT9dc&n=shK2d2ck&e=shadacqj]280|210| Another good candidate nameis Erick's "Nossitej". In the triple-squeeze variation, there's no "stepping-stone".The modified version on the leftmakes this clear. At notrumps, South to lead and make at least 3/4. [/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovera Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 I think this is what Chien-Hwa Wang calls a nosittej squeeze in 'The Squeeze at Bridge', but I don't have my copy to hand. The name, if you are wondering, is the reverse of Jettison. The point being that the situation is similar to that of a jettison squeeze, but there's no actual need to jettison the singleton honour. I have two points to make: I don't recall seeing the name elsewhere so this probably isn't standard; and I am doing this from memory so might be completely wrong about what a Nosittej Squeeze is!(13) North ♠ A ♥ J ♦ - ♣ - East not infl. South ♠ KJ ♥ - ♦ - ♣ 9 West ♠ Q10 ♥ A ♦ - ♣ - South leads the nine of clubs and West is squeezed. If West discards the ace of hearts , North lets go of nine of diamonds, and North's ace of spades and jack of hearts win the last two tricks. If West discards a spade, North jettison the ace of spades, and South king-jack of spade makes two tricks. This positional simple squeeze is called a jettison squeeze. Now, let us swap North's ace and South's king of spade [..with the same diagram].. This squeeze is the natural reverse of the jettison squeeze. We may call it a "nosittej squeeze". Moreover, this nosittej squeeze is automatic: If the East and West hands are interchanged, East will be squeezed. (From "The SQUEEZE at Bridge by Chien-Hwa Wang pagg. 38 and 39) (Note: The situation in diagrams (13) and (14) were first published in "The British Bridge World, December 1956).(Lovera) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovera Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 The nosittej is also known as entry squeeze : it serves to solve comucation problems. Terence Reese analyzed these endings togheter winkle and steppingstone : W ♠ - ♥ Qx ♦ - ♣ AQ in N ♠ x ♥ AJ ♦ - ♣ x in E ♠ - ♥ - ♦ xx ♣ xx in S ♠ A ♥ K ♦ - ♣ Kx (stepp. sq.), bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggerclub Posted January 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Entry squeeze is terminology that I have heard (I learned squeeze technique mostly from Reese, although I have read Love's treatise at least once). But I am not sure it applies here. I thought it applied when the defender was squeezed out of the Master Card in a suit, allowing declarer to enter the opposite hand and take a stranded winner. I like Nige1's "one suited criss-cross" although I am not sure that even my friend Danny Kleinman would understand what I was talking about if I tried to describe this to the gang at Barrington Bridge Club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovera Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 The nosittej (and/or also entry) squeeze should came from twin entry squeeze (Axx/Kx) minus a card in suit that is to say Ax/K and is a 0-loser squeeze acting at 11th trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts