Introduction

At one time squeeze technique was a weapon found only in the arsenal of world-class bridge experts. Fortunately, a few brilliant players took the time to share their in-depth knowledge of squeeze plays with the rest of us. By studying Clyde Love’s classic “Bridge Squeeze Complete,” (1959), and early books on squeeze like Fook Eng’s “Bridge Squeeze Illustrated,” (1973) or Terrence Reese and Patrick Jourdian’s “Squeeze Play Made Easy” (1980) bridge students can quickly gain a high level of competence in this advanced play techniques. I have not read any of the more recently squeeze books, since the basic material on them will never change.

There are many different types of squeezes, each with its own name, such as simple squeeze, double squeeze, crisscross squeeze, hedgehog squeeze, backwash squeeze, entry-shifting squeeze, delayed-duck squeeze, and many, many more (see “SQUEEZE PLAY” in the glossary for a listing of such plays).

The sheer number of different squeeze endings that has been described overwhelms many players, who might otherwise seriously study squeeze play. Even more overwhelming is the exhaustive information on the strict requirements for each of these types of squeezes. The daunting task of memorizing these requirements force many people to forgo serious study of squeeze techniques. However, while the rare, extremely-serious bridge student should purchase each of the books listed above and use them as textbooks to memorize every nuance of each squeeze ending, the vast majority of students would benefit from a less-memorization intense illustration of squeeze technique. This free-online book is designed primarily for this latter group of players, but its logical approach to identifying squeeze ending should be useful to all students.

What one normally finds is that introductory material on squeeze play inevitably covers only a few types of squeezes, most notably the simple squeeze and the double squeeze. The logic behind this approach is to avoid the complexity associated with discussions of the depth and breath of squeeze play. Thus the task I have undertaken to provide an overview of a vast number of squeeze plays and helpful ways to recognizing the more exotic squeezes at the table when they occur is not something previously undertaken at the level I hope the "bridge blog" reaches. And with feedback from global readers, the methods presented here might easily be expanded upon.

As a further note, the same truly serious bridge students who purchase, study and fully comprehend the material covered in the books listed above should then rush out and purchase a copy of “Adventures in Card Play” by Geza Ottlik and Hugh Kelsey. This book, originally published in 1979, and reissued in 1990 and again in 1996 contains squeeze plays (and other advanced carding techniques) of such breathtaking beauty and astounding complexity as to astound even world-class bridge players. It is truly a timeless classic, but it is not meant for the casual bridge player.

The Squeeze Format Used:
Since there is more than enough specific jargon referring to squeeze techniques in the literature, I will try not to add to the confusion by creating a lot of new terms. However, I have ventured away from the usual approach in organizing squeeze material. Essentially, my description of squeeze plays will start with just one of a family of the most basic squeeze positions known as simple squeezes. I will then show how to identify one or more irregularities in that simple position that give rise to the other types of squeezes. I refer to these as "defects" in the "basic ending" and then describe the possible plays available to compensate for each type of defect. These maneuvers typically lead to other, increasingly more complex squeeze endings

While several authors have coined pneumonic to help remember the basic squeeze requirements, none seem so practical as Clyde Love’s B.L.U.E. Where the letters in BLUE stand for:

• B: all the cards in the victim of the squeeze play is busy (against “both” threats)
• L: the loser count is correct (generally one loser, but not necessarily)
• U: at least one threat is in the upper hand
• E: the hand threat in the hand opposite the squeeze card has an entry to it.

When all four BLUE requirements are “right”, the squeeze moves forward more or less naturally in one of just a few routine squeeze endings. Its when something goes wrong with one or more of these BLUE requirements, that gives rise to all the variations on the squeeze theme that makes studying squeeze play initially appear to be so overwhelming. I hope to show that by identifying the defects in one or more of these four basic requirements, you will often be able to find the right play that compensate for these defects.

It is the identification of defects in the basic ending that will be the theme that moves us forward from the study of elementary to advanced squeeze techniques throughout our studies.

A Simple Beginning: The Finesse Ending

Although this book is on squeeze technique, we will begin with a brief study of endings featuring the “lowly” finesse. I find the following finesseable positions are very useful in illustrating three of the four BLUE squeeze requirements. In addition, a few of these finesseable positions are perfect examples of how the identification of a defect in the basic position can lead to the adoption of alternative lines of play to compensate for the “defect.”

We will examine BLUE on every hand in which a squeeze might be possible. Thus, you will quickly become very familiar with BLUE. But here, to aid you in understanding the meaning of BLUE, three of the four BLUE concepts are illustrated in the following non-squeeze endings.

§ o.1	A Q -- -- --
K T -- -- --		2 A -- --
	6 5 -- -- --

This common two-card ending is familiar to all bridge players. South has all but one of the remaining tricks of the top (since the Spade-A is a winner). Thus, the LOSER count (“L”-requirement) is one: if you think the loser count is not “one,” imagine that it was North’s lead in this ending.

However, consider this position with South on lead. When South plays a spade West is obligated to play before North. West’s obligation to play first assures both tricks for North: if West plays low, North play the Queen then Ace of spades. If West plays the Spade King, then North wins the Ace then Queen. Thus, North-South will win the remaining tricks because the hand with the threat (Spade - Q) has the advantage of playing after West has chosen which card to play.

This obligation on West, and North’s freedom to see West card before he plays is exactly what is meant by the “U”-requirement in BLUE: The Spade Queen lies in the Upper hand. The upper hand play after the opponent has been forced to choose a card to play.

Finally, as we noted earlier, South must have the lead in this ending to win the last two tricks. The lead with South is necessary for the ENTRY (“E”) requirement to get from the south to the north hand. Thus, this simple ending illustrates the concept of LOSER count, UPPER hand, and ENTRY.

Let us agree that §0.1 is a generalized form of the basic finesse ending. The next few endings will illustrate minor changes in this ending. With each change, we will discuss ways you might play the hand to “correct” for the alterations from this basic ending.

§ 0.2	A 6 -- -- --
K T -- -- --		2 A -- --
	Q J -- -- --

This ending is very similar to §0.1 but with one minor alteration that is not truly a defect, but rather a slightly more advanced form of the same ending. “L” is still one, and the “E” requirement is met in that it is south’s lead. However, at first glance there might appear to be no threat card in North over WEST’s K in §0.2. However, all bridge players recognize a lead of either honor from South and the play of either the ace or deuce depending upon West’s plays will win both tricks. So in fact, the ♠2 combined with the ♠QJ with South serve the same “U” function that the ♠Q alone served in ending § 0.1.

While it can be argued that § 0.1 and § 0.2 are identical “basic” finesse positions, not having the ♠Q and ♠A in the same hand has raised the minimum “strength requirements” for the ending. That is, in this ending in addition to the ♠Q, N/S must also possess the ♠J. In our examination of squeeze positions, we will discover that minor hand pattern modifications also cause similar increases in the strength requirements.

To continue our investigations of the ending, lets examine a minor change in this ending see by removing the ♠J from the NS holding (§0.3). With this change we obtain the first real “defect” in the basic finesse position. This ending lacks an obvious threat card in the upper hand and the “extra values” found in §0.2 (i.e. the ♠J).

§ o.3	A 3 -- -- --
K T -- -- --		2 A -- --
	Q 5 -- -- --

A quick look at §0.3 might lead you to conclude that N/S must lose a trick in spades, which is true if it is either North’s or South’s lead. However, if West has the lead, he is endplayed. If he leads a low ♠ South wins the ♠Q then north the ♠A, and if West leads the ♠K, North wins the ♠A followed by South’s ♠Q.

This spade holding is so clearly easily identified that somewhere early in the play of the hand represented by the declarer should have been able to identifying the defect in the basic finesse position. This defect can be viewed as either the Queen being in the wrong hand, or not having a strong enough holding (missing the Jack). If he did, perhaps he was able to carry out a standard “throw-in” maneuver against West one trick earlier. Such a throw-in compensates for this “defective” basic finesse position by endplaying WEST on the trick immediately preceding the given ending. One such example is shown in §0.4.

§ o.4	A 3 3 -- --
K T A -- --		J T 9 -- --
	Q 5 2 -- --

Notice that in this ending it doesn’t matter whether North or South has the lead. Either N/S hand will play a ♥, which forces the lead into West’s hand giving rise to the two card ending seen in §0.3.

Even without knowing the terminology for this endplay, most players can find and execute it because they can readily identify the “defect” in the basic positions (represented by §0.1 and §0.2) and find the obvious compensating response. It is hoped that by the time you finish studying this electronic book, you will be able to just as easily find defects from the basic squeeze endings and compensate for them just as readily and execute "advanced" squeezes.

You should also note the extra flexibility in the ending §0.4 that was unavailable in the basic endings (§0.1 and §0.2). In the first two endings, South had to lead to win two ♠ tricks. However, in §0.3 the lead could be in either hand! This is because the exit card in ♥’s solves both the entry problem (“E”) and upper hand problem (“U”) for N/S. A similar exit card could overcome the ENTRY problem in the §0.1 if the lead was in the North hand, as shown in §0.5. In this ending when West wins the ♥A, he is forced to lead a ♠. This solves the problem of the leading being in the wrong hand for basic sqeze ending. This shows that an exit card can be used to overcome entry problems in the basic finesseable ending.

§ o.5 North to lead	A Q 3 -- --
K T A -- --		T 2 A -- --
	6 5 4 -- -- --

Thus, in §0.4, the exit card overcame both the lack of E and U, while in §0.5 the exit card compensated for the lack of E. You will see later how having an extra loser can be used to your advantage in overcoming defects in “BLUE” in many squeeze positions.

Now, let’s imagine a finesse position which is fatally flawed in that the key card (♠K) is offside (that is, the UPPER requirement is not met).

§ o.6	A Q 3 -- --
J T 5 -- --		K 2 A -- --
	6 5 4 -- -- --

Perhaps you were able to diagnose the fact that the ªK is offside may from clues from the bidding. This defect (no Upper threat) however can be overcome once again by the flexibility provided by the ♥ exit card in both N/S hands. Since East will be forced to win with the ♥A, N/S will win the ♠Q after all. Even if you were not able to diagnose the position of the ♠K in §0.6 (or in §0.5), with only one ♥ outstanding, you should exit with a ♥. If East has the last ♥, N/S are sure to win the last two tricks; regardless of the ♠K’s location. If West wins the ♥, North can still try the ♠ hook on the forced ♠ return.

There are other ways to compensate for defective finesse conditions, but these few examples are sufficient for our purpose of illustrating the general approach that will use to study squeeze techniques. First we will examine the most basic of all squeeze endings and establish the need for each of the BLUE components. Then we will introduce “defects” in one or more of the BLUE components and show the endgame techniques available to try to compensate for each defect.

This approach is referred to as “defect-identification”. As such, I will not put nearly the emphasis on the exact requirements for all the squeeze variants found in the literature, but rather emphasize identifying a logical sequence of options to consider depending upon the type of defects you discover in the basic squeeze positions. Thus, instead of grouping squeeze material into organized chapters starting with the simple squeeze, then the double squeeze, then more advanced squeezes; I group material by the nature of the defects in the BLUE requirements for the basic squeeze position.

Using this approach, we will get right into the more advanced endings, such as guard, trump, entry-shifting, and clash squeezes as corrective technique for minor defects in the simple squeeze ending well before discussions of such elementary plays as double squeezes. However, learning to identify and compensate for flaws in the basic squeeze position is a better approach than a memory intensive approach of studying each class of squeezes individually.