Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Franco Baseggio
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, I'll think about how to do that. In the meantime, parts 1 and 2 may provide a simpler build up to this article.
April 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Murat: deeply sorry, when east has length I don't believe it's sure tricks. It can be made against any layout, but that's not the same thing.
April 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Discussion and answer now posted here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/post-heptagons-from-the-5th-dimension/
April 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Glad you like it. You have it right for that case. Basically, simple squeeze against west in clubs and another suit. If that's not available at the outset, the 2nd club triple squeezes east to set it up.

No cross cross element in the other variant. Extensive hints and the solution coming soon, in another post.
April 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have the basic idea. I wouldn't call it a double squeeze though: traditionally those include an entry in the pivot suit. It's a triple-single saturated squeeze.
April 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for sending that great position. I guess I'd call it a repeating saturated squeeze. But there are only six points, not eight.

Not that this position has more than 5.
April 5, 2017
Franco Baseggio edited this comment April 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's all right (except normally the polygon metaphor gets one point per suit,defender).

West also stops the non-ruffing promotion of DT in the final variant where diamonds becomes the pivot suit of a B2 double squeeze.
April 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, Moon called it a “ruffing guard”, and I agree it is very similar to an ordinary guard menace.

The unusual feature is that it can be recessed. A guard menace cannot, or it will create extra space in the hand with the guard stopper.
April 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, in the book there are 2 constructions by Tim Bourke along the lines you described.
April 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are compound strip squeeze possibilities here, though the card reading may be harder. To be clear, I suspect this is not practical (though not finessing in spades early may make obfuscating defense even harder).

Imagine you (after DA) run all trumps, pitching a spade and 2 (high) clubs. In the 6 card ending, LHO will need DJx and can only guard the 3rd round of one black suit, coming down to only 1 in the other. RHO will normally retain 3-3 in the blacks. (If RHO unguards clubs before the last trump, you have an established minor suit squeeze and enough control to try the Spade finesse.)

If, as is likely, the defenders are down to 2 diamonds, you can safely cash one to squeeze RHO. Presumably (3rd round) guards of the black suits are now split (you may have to guess that spades are 2=2 though and just go about establishing a long one).

If LHO no longer stops clubs, throw in RHO in that suit.

If LHO stops clubs and still has DJ, there's only room for one spade. If you have the shapes right but haven't seen the S2 (most likely RHO started with Kx2 tight and never pitched), you're home. Cash clubs, play S7. If LHO follows with the 2, this will throw in RHO. If LHO covers, cover and either SQ will win or RHO will be endplayed to lead away from something like 92 into your A5. If you've seen S2, you hope LHO has stiff SK, or RHO was 1-suit squeezed with a holding like KJT2. It'll go S7-S8-duck and RHO is still end played.

Finally, if on the first club you cash, RHO thinks and pitches CQ, you can pivot to SA, DT to throw in LHO.
April 1, 2017
Franco Baseggio edited this comment April 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice hand and nice write up.

I tend to try to analyze these by going back and forth.

The first hurdle is recognizing that the CT is a red-herring and is really just an idle card. Having cleared that, you have what starts out looking like a “Type-R” compound: a spade menace alone opposite 2 “ambiguous” (i.e. doubly protected) menaces in the opposite hand, the H4 and C7.

Expert squeeze defenders know, though, that a double squeeze requires an entry in the ambiguous suit, the C7 has no entry, therefore defense should seek to *not* isolate that suit and instead isolate hearts: i.e. West wants to discard hearts.

So, declarer needs something extra in the heart suit. A guard menace would do (give West KQ, North x, South AT for example). West can pitch one heart, but not two, so the last diamond still extracts a club. This looks more like a clash menace, e.g. if North had stiff HQ. Now West could safely pitch one heart, but the 2nd heart looks like a problem.

Or is it? Pitching 2 hearts on the last 2 trumps establishes HQ, but declarer can't untangle the tricks. In a type-R clash squeeze with one of the opposite & ambiguous menaces having a clash feature, there's an additional entry requirement to the South hand to give it full force.

So, the H6 is necessary. This sort of menace is pretty rare. But I have seen this position before. It's equivalent is on p.185 of Anthony Moon's _Compound Squeezes_. There's one companion with a slightly different arrangement, too. And he cites an example from Bridge with the Blue Team (p.166), though on first inspection it looked a bit different.

Note that my “CT is a red herring” statement is interesting to pursue. This does also superficially look like a type-L compound with H4 and CT as menaces, duly accompanied by entries. Normally if hearts are unguarded on the penultimate trump, declarer crosses to dummy to cash the SK (stripping RHO of an idle card) before coming back to hand with HA (stripping LHO of an idle heart) and plays the last trump to effect a type-R double. Or, if LHO unguards clubs, there are various type-B doubles that could result, but the entries are lacking for all. The last arrow in the quiver for declarer is the alternate menace in clubs: once LHO declines to make clubs the pivot suit, the shape-up-entry requirements are reduced, if, _as is the case here_, declarer has a club menace in the other hand (the C7). Indeed, there's nothing wrong with that ending, the only flaw is that LHO might keep clubs and discard hearts. The enhanced heart menace prevent that, of course.

So, perhaps this is more akin to a type-L alternate threat compound, where the threatened “unguard clubs” defense is fully countered, but the threatened “unguard hearts” defense is not countered in a normal way, only with the enhanced heart menace.

Generalizing: most “fancy” menaces come up in flawed compound squeezes. A normal compound has 2 paths to 2 different double squeezes. often, one of those paths thre's a flaw for declarer, bu the enhanced menace comes to the rescue by forcing the defense to select the other path (or lose instantly).

I may turn this into an article…
April 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When rho follows to 4th diamond, ruff with ht
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I lean towards this line as well. If dk covered, ruff and ruff and play diamonds. You'll be in very good shape if HJ is onside.

Trouble with this line is what to do when da offside.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice collection of hands. Here's one with a somewhat similar theme from a while ago: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/great-double-dummy-problem-courtesy-of-deep-finesse/
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, I say no to both (a trump substitute, or a finesse). I'd like to say that following suit, or attempting to win a trick by ruffing, is never a squeeze. And, a squeeze requires squeezer's play to diverge based on opponent's (or s') discard(s). But that's not precisely right. It does handle backwash squeezes (under-ruffing is not an attempt to win a trick), but a knock-out squeeze doesn't quite fit (but is a squeeze).

I'm comfortable treating one-suit squeezes as a special case.
Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have thought a lot about this topic. It may come up later in this series, though it may be too esoteric even for this very esoteric series.

Here's something I wrote 5 years ago that gives a flavor: http://fmbbridge.blogspot.com/2010/07/all-compound-squeezes.html

Some of my thinking has evolved since then.
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A future article will “project” a 5 suit squeeze into 4-suited bridge, hopefully in a way which actually simplifies. Stay tuned.

The full range of what is possible in 5 suit squeezes is staggering.
Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a bit behind on my other BW reading, though I've noted the articles and look forward to them.

The veering squeeze card seems definitely in the genre.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fixed, thanks.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for the many edits. The end position is fixed, and I've verified it in Deep Finesse. I also added a good stab at a full deal producing the end position courtesy of Tim Bourke. That did *not* stand up to analysis in Deep Finesse, but was interesting in its own right, so I left it in, with some discussion.
Oct. 16, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top