In the previous chapter, 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.
TRANSFER A MENACE
| §3.1 | ♠ A J 6 | Both Defects in BLUE B: Defective E->♠, W->♥ | |
♠ T 8 7 |  | ♠ Q 7 2 ♥ J ♦ ♣ | |
♠ K 9 5 | |||
Squeeze Card: ♣A. Both defect: West guards against ♥ K, East guards against ♠J.
* once the threats are both isolated against West
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 ♠K. Now, West has to keep the ♠10-8 to keep South from winning the ♠9. 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 1.4. Cashing the ♣A now executes 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.
Using Trumps to Transfer a Menace
| §3.2 ♣'s trumps | ♠ K J | Both Defects in BLUE B: Defective E->♠, W->♥ | |
♠ Q T | | ♠ A 3 2 ♥ 9 ♦ ♣ | |
♠ | |||
Squeeze Card: ♣A.
Both defect: West guards against ♥ 10, East guards against ♠K.
* once the threats are both isolated against West
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 (1.1), 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.
Isolating a Menace
| §3.3 | ♠ A 3 2 | Both Defects in BLUE B: Defective | |
♠ K J T | | ♠ Q 9 ♥ T 3 ♦ 2 ♣ K | |
♠ 4 | |||
Squeeze Card: ♣A. Both defect: West alone guards against ♥ J, but both guard against the ♠3.
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 (chapter 2) 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 the chapter dealing with defects in “L.”
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 squeeze. So I will use the term “shared-threat” for this third suit since the opponents share responsibility for guarding against it.
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. Since 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 (lack of U against one opponent). Thus, 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 on the other hand, notes all of his eight endings 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 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 these double squeezes, 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 confusing morass of possible double squeeze endings. For completeness, however, I have included a description of Love’s double squeeze requirements in Appendix 2 for readers who want more of the technical feel.
Before we discuss the general requirements for a double squeeze, let’s examine one such ending using our “defect” in the basic squeeze approach. 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.
The “Basic” Double Squeeze
| §3.4 | ♠ A 2 | Both Defects in BLUE B: Defective W->♠, E->♦ | |
♠ K J | | ♠ Q J ♥ ♦ A ♣ | |
♠ 3 | |||
Squeeze Card: ♣A Lead: South Both defect: West alone guards against ♥ K, but both guard against the ♠2 menace. Alternatively, East alone guards against ♦K, but both guard against ♠2.
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 ♥ A a 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.
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:
- there must be three threat suits,
- each opponent must solely guard against one of the threats,
- the “shared-threat” suit must contain a winner/entry, which is the only entry to that hand with the “shared threat”, and
- entry and upper requirements for simple squeeze must be satisfied when one opponent discarded the guard in the “shared-threat” suit.
Let’s re-examine 3.4 by these basic requirements. The ♣A was the squeeze card, so the primary entry would be the ♠A, which also is in the required entry in the “shared-threat” suit 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.
Non-simultaneous Double Squeeze
| §3.5 | ♠ 2 | Both Defects in BLUE B: Defective E | |
♠ K J | | ♠ Q T ♥ ♦ A ♣ 3 | |
♠ A 3 | |||
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.
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), 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.
Note, that in the “basic double squeeze” position given in 3.4 was “simultaneous” in that both opponents were squeezed on the same card. In 3.5 the squeeze was non-simultaneous in that West was squeezed on one trick and a trick later EAST was squeezed.
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 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.
Entries To Both Hand In “S” Threat Suit
| §3.6 | ♠ A 2 | Both Defects in BLUE B: Defective S->♠, | |
♠ J 9 7 | | ♠ T 8 6 ♥ ♦ A ♣ | |
♠ K 3 2 | |||
Squeeze Card: ♣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.
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.
Double Winners in “S” Suit Required
| §3.7 | ♠ A K 2 | Both Defects in BLUE B*: Defective EW->♠, | |
♠ Q T 6 | | ♠ J 9 8 ♥ ♦ A ♣ | |
♠ 3 | |||
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.
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.
To further illustrate the point about “S-suit” winners, let’s examine two ways of playing the following ending.
Only one Winners in “S” Suit
| §3.8.1 | ♠ A T 3 | Both Defects in BLUE B: *Defective EW->♠, | |
♠ K Q | | ♠ Q 7 2 ♥ K J ♦ K Q ♣ 2 | |
♠ 2 | |||
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.
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 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.
Reciprocal Double Squeeze
| §3.9 | ♠ | Both Defects in BLUE B: *Defective EW->♣, | |
♠ | | ♠ ♥ ♦ K Q ♣ Q J | |
♠ | |||
Lead: South SC: No separate squeeze suit… ♥ A and
♦A serve as the squeeze cards against first West, then east.
* 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.
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 ♣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.
Earlier we mentioned that there were 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. 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. This book is designed to provide an overview of how to identify and execute squeezes in the heat of battle without the rote memorization. Thus, we don’t want to spend a lot of 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. 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?
| §3.10.2 | ♠ 3 | ||
♠ K J | | ♠ Q 10 ♥ K Q ♦ 7 6 ♣ | |
♠ A 2 | |||
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 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 really 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.
Another obvious point 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.
| §3.10 | ♠ | Both Defects in BLUE B: *Defective EW->♣, | |
♠ | | ♠ ♥ ♦ K Q ♣ Q J | |
♠ | |||
| §3.10.2 | ♠ 3 | ||
♠ K J | | ♠ Q 10 ♥ K ♦ 7 ♣ | |
♠ A 2 | |||
In panel §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.
But look what a difference cashing the ♥ A first makes in the second panel (§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.
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 on double squeezes to find out what these letters mean. As complicated as the correct sequence of plays are in double squeeze ending, the following simple rules will see you through most of these endings without the heavy memorization. First, “Shared-threat” must always contain a winner and entry in its own suit (two “B-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 . 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 second panel above. So the new ending must simplify to the standard basic squeeze position.
To meet these very general requirements in ending like §3.9.1 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. For instance, as you consider which red ACE to cash in §3.9.1 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.
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.
Simple squeeze played as a double
| §3.12 | ♠ 3 | ||
♠ K T | | ♠ Q J ♥ (J)T97 ♦ 7 6 (5) ♣ | |
♠ A 9 | |||
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.
Problem 3.2
♠ 6 5 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
♠ J983 | | ♠ QT74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead | ♠ A K 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Examine Blue. You have 11 sure tricks in the form of 6♣’s, 1♦, 2♥’s and 2♠’s. So L=2. Assuming East holds at least 6♦’s for his jump overcall, then only East can stop the third round of ♦’s. From the double of 4♥, you think that West might hold 5 or more hearts. In this case, both East and West will share the guard against the ♠2. Thus, ♠2 is the “S-guard”, the ♦2 and ♥7 must be the suits the opponents guard. Note, the ♥9 can not be a threat, because the all three threats can not be in the same hand. The ♥7 is in the upper hand to WEST, and the other two are in upper hand to EAST.
You play the ♦Q with virtually no hope it will win. East overtakes with the ♦K and you duck. What you need to do is rectify the count ducking the first diamond. When you duck the first trick, EAST will continued with a ♦, which you win. Happy he didn’t lead a ♠ since you like to have two winners in endings where spades become a shared threat.
We will revisit this hand in the next chapter where both opponents hold at least three cards in each major to show how to compensate for a flaw in the double squeeze ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment