Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tim Bourke
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nomenclature issues aside, is this is an article that is a valuable exposition of a little known area of the game? My answer is yes and I find it odd that people deplore my description of a particular squeeze type - which I believe more accurately describes what is going on - than say “Wow! Thank you for increasing my knowledge if the game”.
July 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Traffic lights are “robots” in Johnannesburg at least.

“Squeeze without the count” is so general that it could be any type of 2+ loser squeeze whereas the term “Development Squeeze” is more descriptive.

Anyway, I think such objections are little more than nit picking by everyone - including me.

BTW I have been convinced by Don Kersey to refer to what is commonly called a “Trump Squeeze” to a “Ruffing Squeeze” because the former should involve someone being squeezed in the trump suit - as in a Backwash Squeeze - and the latter perfectly describes what happens: a ruff is involved after the squeeze takes place.
July 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't recall where the term “Development Squeeze” came from but I have used it in my writings for over 30 years. I do so because I think it describes the ending well: declarer has the potential to develop an extra trick through a length threat (see the hearts in ending that follows the first use of the the term in the article) as opposed to the tenace element in a strip squeeze.
July 16, 2014
Tim Bourke edited this comment July 16, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top