[fred]

---

North is on lead at notrump.

I don't see unfamiliar 4-card endings very often these days

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

Interesting, not quite sure what to call this two loser squeeze (yes, yes, everyone will say squeeze "without count"). West is squeezed in three suits, that happens with two losers remaining. So this is a kind of triple squeeze. i thought at first a triple guard squeeze, but of course this is not really a finesse position, so this is more of a triple clash squeeze, with the diamond Queen as a clash menance, but unlike the typical clash squeeze, the diamond queen does not become a winner, but it can be lead and overtaken as is part of the clash squeeze mechanism.

It is probably not right, but for now, i am going to think of this as triple clash squeeze, but I wait someone else's thought. Fred, you should write teh hand that lead to this up in Bridge World!!!

[Mbodell]

Is it clash squeeze? I think of it as some sort of stepping stone squeeze where the east hand is used as a stepping stone to get the last trick from the south hand (assuming west discards the diamond on the heart). Although surely if you were modifying the position slightly you could lower the diamond spots to allow the South hand the chance for the beer.

[Hanoi5]

triple-guard squeeze...

[rhm]

fred, on Dec 31 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

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

♠ x ♥ x ♦ Q ♣ x ♠ A ♥   ♦ Jx ♣ A ♠   ♥   ♦ A876 ♣   ♠   ♥   ♦ K109x ♣

North is on lead at notrump.

I don't see unfamiliar 4-card endings very often these days

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I think this is just a triple squeeze, no more, no less.
clash and guard squeezes are different animals.
Because it is a triple squeeze it works with 2 losers.
The ♦ threat is only mildly unusual because declarer's ♦ are blocked
Exchange the ♦queen and the ♦ jack in the diagram and the play would be the same as would be the outcome, but the triple squeeze, as far as triple squeezes go, would look ordinary.

Rainer Herrmann

[inquiry]

rhm, on Jan 1 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

I think this is just a triple squeeze, no more, no less.
clash and guard squeezes are different animals.
Because it is a triple squeeze it works with 2 losers.
The ♦ threat is only mildly unusual because declarer's ♦ are blocked
Exchange the ♦queen and the ♦ jack in the diagram and the play would be the same as would be the outcome, but the triple squeeze, as far as triple squeezes go, would look ordinary.

Rainer Herrmann

Well, I guess I am going to have to disagree with the statement that "as far as triple squeezes go, (this) would look ordinary", as well as "this is just a triple squeeze, no more, no less".

I can tell you what it is not.

1) It is not an ordinary triple squeeze
2) It is not a clash squeeze -- but has features of one
3) It is not a stepping stone squeeze (per se), but has features of
4) It is not a guard squeeze, but in fact there is an unusal guard element to it.

Let's handle each in order.

An "ordinary" triple squeeze operates with two losers. This hand has three, so the count is wrong. A triple squeeze needs an entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card -- this one lacks such an entry. So loser count is wrong, entry is wrong.

A clash squeeze operates where a clash menance can be "cashed" if the opponent discards in that suit. Here the Diamond Queen can never be "cashed" as the diamond ace is out. So the tought of a clash menace is wrong, but there is a flavor of clash menace. When West discards the diamond, the diamond queen can be overtaken (something that is one option in a clash squeeze).

A stepping stone squeeze -- as defined by Terrence Resse in "master play" is to correct for a blocked entry condition to win all the tricks you have coming to you. Consider the following ending a typical example.

NS have Two top spades, and a heart winner, that should be three tricks, the problem is the spade suit is blocked. When the HEART ACE is cashed, West has to decide. Does he keep both spades (if not, overtake the spade king) or does he throw his diamond. If he throws the diamond, cash spade king, then exit a club to WEST hand, using it as a "stepping stone" to get to the north hand to claim the last spade winner

---

A guard squeeze one player is squeezed in three suits, one he has to protect his parnter from a finesse. There is no finesse in the diamond suit, and the loser count and lack of entry is a problem as well.

However, feature of each of these squeezes come into play. Instead of guarding against a finesse in diamonds, WEST is protecting against the overtake of the overtake of the diamond Queen. That is many ways might be related to at least the concept of a guard squeeze.

The fact that the diamond discard allows the diamond queen to be "overtaken" by the king also makes this somewhat like a clash squeeze. The diamond discard also places in force the stepping stone nature that Mbodell referred to. By discarding a diamond, it allows the diamonds to be lead and whenever EAST takes his DA, he has to return a diamond.

Really, a very interesting ending that might be hard to classify.

[fred]

---

Perhaps those who are trying to classify this animal will gain some clarity by considering this 2-loser variation.

Or perhaps this will make them more confused

Note also that the King of diamonds is somewhat of an illusion here. A squeeze still operates if you exchange that card for West's x of diamonds.

As Rainer pointed out, the same could be said of the Queen of diamonds in the original position.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

What's wrong with just saying "triple squeeze without the count" if nothing else fits? Nifty position though.

[quote name='fred' date='Jan 1 2010, 02:12 PM']

---

[TimG]

Isn't the ♦Q an illusion?

---

Works the same way, doesn't it?

[inquiry]

TimG, on Jan 1 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

Isn't the ♦Q an illusion?

---

Works the same way, doesn't it?

Yes, but move the diamond queen to East and it is not illusion....

---

[fred]

I think it is fair to say that the stiff diamond honors are basically smokescreens.

To me what make these positions seem unusual is the nature of the diamond threat, specifically the role that the 10 and 9 of diamonds play.

I find it useful to consider various different types of squeeze threats and their properties. When a defender abandons a squeeze threat of a given type, declarer utilizes a "basic bridge technique" to win an extra trick. In each type the "basic bridge technique" in question would not have worked without the squeeze. For example:

1. Normal threat - you see these all the time. For example, you have the King and a defender discards the Ace. The basic bridge technique you then use is "cashing a winner".

2. Guard threat - you see these in guard squeezes. For example, you have AJ opposite x and the offside hand discards his singleton honor. The basic bridge technique you then use is "taking a finesse".

3. Duck threat - you see these in what are commonly referred to as "squeezes without the count" (which Love called "delayed duck squeezes"). For example, you have xx and an opponent has to discard down to a singleton. The basic bridge technique you then use is "setting up low cards in a long suit".

4. Endplay threat - you see these in strip-squeezes. For example, an opponent is forced to discard a winner or an exit card that was preventing him from being endplayed. The basic bridge technique you then use is "an endplay".

5. Ruffing threat - you see these in trump squeezes. For example, an opponent's discard allows you to establish a winner by ruffing. The basic bridge technique you then use is "establishing low cards in a long suit by ruffing".

6. Promotion threat - seen in the positions I posted. For example, you have QJ in a suit and an opponent discards the Ace or the King. The basic bridge technique you then use is "promotion of high cards".

IMO the concept of coming up with intelligent and usable names for all squeezes is rather absurd. Maybe it is like chemistry seems to me where the nomanclature for complex molecules seems to be powerful and consistent, but where the names themselves convey limited useful knowledge (unless you use them to draw a picture).

Please note that I know very little about chemistry - sorry to the chemists out there if my example is completely wrong

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rhm]

inquiry, on Jan 1 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

rhm, on Jan 1 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

I think this is just a triple squeeze, no more, no less.
clash and guard squeezes are different animals.
Because it is a triple squeeze it works with 2 losers.
The ♦ threat is only mildly unusual because declarer's ♦ are blocked
Exchange the ♦queen and the ♦ jack in the diagram and the play would be the same as would be the outcome, but the triple squeeze, as far as triple squeezes go, would look ordinary. 

Rainer Herrmann

Well, I guess I am going to have to disagree with the statement that "as far as triple squeezes go, (this) would look ordinary", as well as "this is just a triple squeeze, no more, no less".

I can tell you what it is not.

1) It is not an ordinary triple squeeze
2) It is not a clash squeeze -- but has features of one
3) It is not a stepping stone squeeze (per se), but has features of
4) It is not a guard squeeze, but in fact there is an unusal guard element to it.

Let's handle each in order.

An "ordinary" triple squeeze operates with two losers. This hand has three, so the count is wrong. A triple squeeze needs an entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card -- this one lacks such an entry. So loser count is wrong, entry is wrong.

A clash squeeze operates where a clash menance can be "cashed" if the opponent discards in that suit. Here the Diamond Queen can never be "cashed" as the diamond ace is out. So the tought of a clash menace is wrong, but there is a flavor of clash menace. When West discards the diamond, the diamond queen can be overtaken (something that is one option in a clash squeeze).

A stepping stone squeeze -- as defined by Terrence Resse in "master play" is to correct for a blocked entry condition to win all the tricks you have coming to you. Consider the following ending a typical example.

NS have Two top spades, and a heart winner, that should be three tricks, the problem is the spade suit is blocked. When the HEART ACE is cashed, West has to decide. Does he keep both spades (if not, overtake the spade king) or does he throw his diamond. If he throws the diamond, cash spade king, then exit a club to WEST hand, using it as a "stepping stone" to get to the north hand to claim the last spade winner

---

A guard squeeze one player is squeezed in three suits, one he has to protect his parnter from a finesse. There is no finesse in the diamond suit, and the loser count and lack of entry is a problem as well.

However, feature of each of these squeezes come into play. Instead of guarding against a finesse in diamonds, WEST is protecting against the overtake of the overtake of the diamond Queen. That is many ways might be related to at least the concept of a guard squeeze.

The fact that the diamond discard allows the diamond queen to be "overtaken" by the king also makes this somewhat like a clash squeeze. The diamond discard also places in force the stepping stone nature that Mbodell referred to. By discarding a diamond, it allows the diamonds to be lead and whenever EAST takes his DA, he has to return a diamond.

Really, a very interesting ending that might be hard to classify.

I do not object at all if you claim this to be a triple squeeze combined with a stepping stone and I do not claim this rare combination to be ordinary.
I agree with you it is not a stepping stone squeeze since East is not squeezed out of an exit card.
The loser count is harder.
In your first entry you called this yourself a two loser squeeze.
I happen to agree with your first statement .
Even though declarer is missing 3 aces in a notrump setting, the 3 losers in the original 4 card ending are an illusion, because the defenders can never cash them if declarer plays on ♦.
Even though a ♦ instead of a heart would squeeze nobody declarer would still get 2 tricks out of 4.
So it is probably right to speak about a 2 loser triple squeeze and the squeeze gains just one trick.
If East, in the original 4 card ending had a black card instead of a small ♦, there would be 3 loser, neither would there be a squeeze. The two loser requirement is essential for the squeeze to operate.

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

As Inquiry and rhm illustrate, these are repeating variants of Terence Reese's Vice squeeze. The endings are interesting because they still work when you swap defenders' hands.

Notrump. West to lead.and make 2/4
Essentially Inquiry's example. I recognised a similar repeating vice squeeze at the table and it was published in a newspaper column by Eric Crowhurst.

---

Notrump. West to lead.and make 2/4
Essentially Inquiry's example. I recognised a similar repeating vice squeeze at the table and it was published in a newspaper column by Eric Crowhurst.

---

Notrump. West to lead.and make 2/4
Essentially Inquiry's example. I recognised a similar repeating vice squeeze at the table and it was published in a newspaper column by Eric Crowhurst.

---

[rhm]

nige1, on Jan 1 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

I think they are repeating versions of Terence Reese's Vice squeeze.

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

♠   ♥   ♦   ♣ A987 ♠ A ♥ 2 ♦ 2 ♣ K ♠ 2 ♥   ♦   ♣ T32 ♠   ♥ A ♦ A ♣ QJ

Notrump. West to lead.and make 2/4 I recognised a  similar repeating vice squeeze at the table and it was published in a newspaper column by Eric Crowhurst.

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

♠   ♥   ♦   ♣ A876 ♠ A ♥ 2 ♦ 2 ♣ 2 ♠ 2 ♥   ♦   ♣ KT9 ♠   ♥ A ♦ A ♣ QJ

Notrump West to lead and make 3/4. This is a simplified version of Fred's winkle ending.

"The vice describes the pressure upon a defender who holds two cards of equal rank that are needed to protect his partner's holding."
Terence Reese Master Play in Contract Bridge

No defender holds two cards of equal rank in Fred's ending

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

fred, on Jan 1 2010, 03:07 PM, said:

IMO the concept of coming up with intelligent and usable names for all squeezes is rather absurd. Maybe it is like chemistry seems to me where the nomanclature for complex molecules seems to be powerful and consistent, but where the names themselves convey limited useful knowledge (unless you use them to draw a picture).

I take RHM's point about "2 cards of equal rank" but to me most of these are vice squeezes (not winkles - that was a typo). Recently, on the net, somebody else pointed out that they are all of the vice family. I would have attributed him but I couldn't find his analysis with google

I also quibble slightly with Fred about names. I find that having a squeeze taxonomy with mnemonic names helps to seek out and recognize them in slightly different guises.