Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Franco Baseggio
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Page 3 asserts CA _denies_ CK. I don’t think you meant that.

I’m a sitter in 4S-X.

I wouldn’t say unsupported CA is impossible.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you'll definitely get more engagement on this if you get the diagram into the post. I found the comments in this thread useful for figuring out how to do it: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/diagrams-and-url-question/

I just manually type in the pviewer strings, though it's kind of a pain.

Regarding your deal: At trick 7 (where you played to SK), I was willing to take the HQ as given, but not the HT or heart shape. So I thought there was vig to exiting HJ there (pitching a club). The main way to gain is you might pin HT. And while you can no longer play LHO for QT in both majors, you had little reason to do that anyway and can still pick up the SQ onside. In fact, you'll have a show up squeeze on the off chance LHO started Qx/QTxx/Axxxx/J8. (It was weird that revealed the D2 making this seem less live).

And, if for some reason you had a vibe about the SQ late in the play, you could find yourself squeezing RHO down to STx and then pick up the suit with a pin.
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed this is only the 2nd entry in the series posted here (the first was https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/which-squeeze-xxvii/).

There are several more on my dormant blog, e.g. https://fmbbridge.blogspot.com/2009/11/which-squeeze.html, and likely some others in private emails, but I agree it's << 1010.

So for now I make up the number. In this case it wasn't completely random: I wrote the first draft on October 11.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have said 100% North, except South must have had some role in agreeing to the method with inadequate discussion.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was my solution, too, though I think RT’s might be more forgiving against a wrong assumption.

I know you ruled out 0067 East, but I don’t think it can be made there. But if you know West has 3 spades, I think you’re back in the game.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I sort of swept that under the rug.

Thanks!
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just hit “next” a few times in the diagram. Sorry, that was definitely unclear.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll seek that out, thanks.

I have worked a couple of his constructions available on Darwen's site, and found them excellent examples of the genre.

How much time will you sink into the hardest of these?
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once punished someone for a sleepy 2nd hand low, with a blah-7-4-2 holding, even.

JT8
KJ
AT95
J642


A
AQT8732
K63
A8

East opened a weak 2D and I found myself in 6H with no further competition and received a trump lead, both following to the K and J.

In practice I let HJ win and played D5 and let it hold when East played low.

Of course the diamond position was much more of a lock than trumps on GN's deal. And the play was unnecessary as there's a sweet technical line available.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm too busy working on Paul's excellent double dummy constructions to look it up (e.g. this one is very fun: http://www.doubledummy.net/Problem0317.html).

Ultimately, whether or not this is an example of a strip squeeze as that term is most commonly understood is not that interesting compared to either the position itself, or even the topic of what would be the most _useful_ squeeze taxonomy. The distinction Paul and Frances are making is certainly important regardless of what we call it, and I think we are in complete agreement about the technical similarities and differences among these various squeezes.

Does this have important things in common with positions where a major tenace is important? I think so, but perhaps I've overlooked similarities with other everyone-agrees-not-strip-without-the-count squeezes because of my personal terminology choices.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the whole, squeeze nomenclature is sort of a mess and could certainly be rationalized and improved (an endeavor I'm unusually interested in, thus the over-engagement on this topic). Which also means there may be more than one way today to name them which are equally coherent.

In the meantime, I'm not sure where we'd look for a definitive definition of “strip squeeze” that's better than Kelsey's book with that title (though I would welcome one). That book certainly includes delayed-duck squeezes, of which this is an example (side technical note: you can switch DK and D5 and it still works because D9 beats West, though a heart lead would be unlikely, of course).

In any event, West is certainly “stripped” of a club exit here. Though I'd still call it a strip squeeze even if he'd been dealt a singleton club, as stripping DQ is also important.

Consider this position:

K
-
AJ
2

-
K
32
A

An opponent with A/A/KQ/- is squeezed without the count on CA here. It shares with the present squeeze that a trick is lost after the squeeze matures, but doesn't share that the lost trick is part of how we gain a trick (here it's just trick 13). That latter is, to me, the essential characteristic of a strip squeeze: squeeze someone, then lose a trick to gain.

Some might say that only when a defender is forced to lead to her disadvantage is it a strip squeeze, and lump delayed-duck with one-trick-two-loser triple squeezes, or distinguish them some other way. Fair enough. I'd certainly agree that “strip squeezes” as I understand it is an unwieldy beast of a phylum with wildly diverse positions.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On a heart lead, if you win HK and run trumps before cashing CA you reach something like:


xx
x
Kx
xx
….. -
….. J9x
….. AQ
….. xx
-
AQx
xx
Ax

On the next 2 trumps, West isn't squeezed, but dummy is. Once you pitch a diamond, the “duck a diamond” threat loses force.

On a trump lead, you still have a HK link and so only need one diamond in dummy. Run trumps and squeeze West with CA.

@Kopera: the trump does need to be rectified for this squeeze. It's a 2 loser squeeze. In this ending you need to duck CK lead:

Axx
Kx
Kx
xxx
….. -
….. J98x
….. AQJ
….. KQx
x
AQxx
xx
Axx

Then on a heart shift, win HK, cash CA, and run spades. (verified with deep finesse).

Oct. 21
Franco Baseggio edited this comment Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This would have fit right in Kelsey’s book on strip squeezes.

On a trump, CA doesn’t need to be cashed before trumps, though unclear there’s any advantage to keeping it.

I think DA is more than 5:3 to be with the opening lead. The auction is a bit suggestive, and there are restricted choice overtones to a heart lead.
Oct. 21
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
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top