[han]

Scoring: Rubber

1D-(1S)-2H-(p)
4H-(p)-4NT-(p)
5H-(p)-6H-all pass.

---

Can you see how to make 7?

[Trpltrbl]

Yes, but no lead, so I imagine trumplead ?

GBB

[jillybean]

whats the lead? or doesnt it matter

[Trpltrbl]

Any which way, on trumplead a blacksuitsqueeze against West.

GBB

[Trpltrbl]

Looks like a blacksuitsqueeze on all leads.

GBB

[han]

Indeed, lead does not matter.

[Walddk]

We have had this discussion a few times before. I seem to belong to the minority when I say: no, I don't think squeezes belong in a forum for beginners and intermediates.

As I have also pointed out on several occasions, I would be much happier if a beginner/improver could tell me what opener has shown on this auction:

1♥ - 1♠
2♦

Shape, point range, inferences, etc. I usually only get half the truth or something completely wrong.

Roland

[han]

You may very well be right Roland. The reason I posted this hand here was that it was played by an intermediate player. She didn't see the squeeze, but when I pointed it out later she liked it very much.

East lead a diamond, won with south's king. Declarer played two rounds of hearts and cashed the spade king. Came to hand with the diamond ace, ruffed a spade, came to hand with the club king, ruffed another spade, ruffed a diamond to hand (west showing out) and pulled the last trump. The position was:

Scoring: rubber

---

When north plays the last trump, west is squeezed and must either throw the spade king or a club (then dummy's 2nd club is good).

My partner insisted that she could not have made this squeeze because she didn't know the club count. Of course, west had shown up with exactly 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 5 spades so the club count could have been known, but you don't need the count to make 7. Suppose the position was:

Scoring: rubber

---

Now there is a double squeeze!

When the last heart is played, east has to throw a club, otherwise the diamond 10 is good. Now south throws the diamond, and east is again squeezed in the black suit.

OK, sorry Roland, this is a play one could never expect from an intermediate player. But not so long ago, when I considered myself an intermediate player, I loved to read about these plays.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Oct 18 2005, 02:13 AM, said:

Hannie, on Oct 17 2005, 07:10 PM, said:

But not so long ago, when I considered myself an intermediate player, I loved to read about these plays.

If you were an intermediate, your time would probably have been better spent working on fundamentals or things that come up all the time. I think that is Roland's point.

Well, if an intermediate enjoys reading about squeezes more than reading about not losing trump control, then maybe his time is better spent on reading about squeezes, because he will enjoy bridge more?

Also, playing for squeezes coincides nicely with using good general technique: losing tricks early, counting your winners and losers, combining several chances, keeping communication, counting and visualizing opponents' hands. All of this is certainly worthwile to learn for B/I's (and to improve for more advanced players ).

[han]

Jlall, on Oct 17 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

but I see where Roland is coming from.

I do too.

[Walddk]

Hannie, on Oct 18 2005, 04:59 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 17 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

but I see where Roland is coming from.

I do too.

As far as I'm concerned you may show all the squeezes you like. My point is just that it's too early for beginners and intermediates to focus on squeezes that occur once in a blue moon and that are more than difficult to handle when they come up.

Opener's and responder's rebids, however, come up all the time, so they are obviously much more important to master. I have been teaching bridge virtually every day for 35 years, so I know what's easy and difficult for various levels. Let me make a simple conclusion in this context:

Nothing is too simple, but much is too difficult!

Roland

[ack_hh]

What am I missing? I see 12 tricks: 2 clubs, 2 diamonds, 5 hearts, 2 spades, 1 spade ruff.

[Walddk]

ack_hh, on Oct 18 2005, 11:46 AM, said:

What am I missing? I see 12 tricks: 2 clubs, 2 diamonds, 5 hearts, 2 spades, 1 spade ruff.

The question was how to make all 13 tricks, Andreas.

Roland

[42]

ack_hh, on Oct 18 2005, 11:46 AM, said:

What am I missing? I see 12 tricks: 2 clubs, 2 diamonds, 5 hearts, 2 spades, 1 spade ruff.

Look at the endposition which Hannie posted after 10 tricks (♠A, 3 ♥s, 2 ♠-ruffs, 2 ♦s, ♦-ruff and ♣ K): when the last trump is played, W must discard, either ♠K or a ♣, he cannot any longer control both black suits (he is squeezed). You have the entries that are necessary: if a ♠ is discarded, you score the ♠Q, if a ♣ is discarded, you play to ♣A and the last ♣ is good.

[FrancesHinden]

I saw the title of the post, then then saw the hand and the auction, and my first thought was that was not at all suitable for a BI forum.

i) 1D opening. The South hand is a long way from a standard opening bid. 4441 with a singleton honour is a horrible hand.

ii) 2H by responder. Impeccable.

iii) 4H by opener. Why? In standard bidding, the 2H bid was a one round force only. Why are you worth more than a raise to 3H? You have a minimum opening bid (admittedly no longer sub-minimum).

iv) How was responder planning to tell the difference between xx Jxxx KQxxx AQ and x Jxxx KQxxx AQx ?

Also, as responder I'd be looking for 7. Give partner something resembling an opening bid with extra values (as indicated by the 4H call) and 7 is likely to be cold. For example, Ax Jxxx KQJxx Ax and you have 13 top tricks. Just at the DQ to the actual hand and 7 is extremely good.

[mycroft]

I know nothing about what is "appropriate" for an intermediate, but it is very important for people to know that squeezes exist and what it's like to be squeezed.

The number of (permanent) intermediates who go after their partner for keeping the wrong card, when in fact partner has been squeezed, and doesn't know enough to be able to say so, is significant.

How to execute a squeeze may or may not be important (I agree with Justin, *knowing* and being able to describe things like weak 2 styles is much more important and common) but everybody should be squeezed in a teaching hand where they know or learn what's happening, so they can recognize the feeling at the table. Perhaps they should be pseudoed as well, so they know that at least sometimes, they can get out of it.

Michael.

[barmar]

mycroft, on Oct 18 2005, 02:50 PM, said:

I know nothing about what is "appropriate" for an intermediate, but it is very important for people to know that squeezes exist and what it's like to be squeezed.

The number of (permanent) intermediates who go after their partner for keeping the wrong card, when in fact partner has been squeezed, and doesn't know enough to be able to say so, is significant.

How to execute a squeeze may or may not be important (I agree with Justin, *knowing* and being able to describe things like weak 2 styles is much more important and common) but everybody should be squeezed in a teaching hand where they know or learn what's happening, so they can recognize the feeling at the table. Perhaps they should be pseudoed as well, so they know that at least sometimes, they can get out of it.

Michael.

I agree, it's definitely important for intermediates to learn how to recognize being squeezed, and defend against it. You can start with basic rules about keeping parity with dummy or declarer. Then when they realize that they can't always protect all the suits, you can discuss the importance of count signals, so that you can figure out which defender has enough to guard particular suits, as well as determining declarer's length so you know how to keep parity with it.