Help
Hi all.
This hand took place on vugraph during the Danish Juniors Team Championship.
Note that declarer could have made all the tricks by guessing that the K♣ was doubleton and not played the club Queen.
However, West becomes badly squeezed on all the diamonds anyways. If he pitches a club, it sets up all the extra clubs in dummy which is all declarer needs. Likewise if he pitches away his hearts, he'll be giving up 2 heart tricks as the Jack drops. So he has to pitch 2 spades. West does well to recognize the problem and pitch the spade Ace, just in case his partner has the Queen (so that his partner knows what's going on). Sadly for the defender, this also clues the declarer into the fact that the squeeze is working, and he's able to claim.
Page 1 of 1
Triple Squeeze (progressive) Two extended menaces
#1
- Lamentable Bunny
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,505
- Joined: 2008-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, ME
Posted 2012-March-18, 08:09
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,866
- Joined: 2008-July-13
Posted 2012-March-18, 08:24
it's a progressive squeeze, not a compound.
#3
- Lamentable Bunny
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,505
- Joined: 2008-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, ME
Posted 2012-March-18, 08:33
wank, on 2012-March-18, 08:24, said:
it's a progressive squeeze, not a compound.
Gah! Thank you, and I'd just been reading Inquiry's posts...so much for retaining the names
If a mod can fix the title, that'd be great.
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#4
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2012-March-18, 10:13
Changed the title for you.
It is worth nothing that both extended threats are absolutely needed for this squeeze to be progressive. The reason being, there is no re-entry (what I call a secondary entry) to the hand with the squeeze card. If one of the threats in north had not been extended. west could have allowed that threat to become established. Declarer could then cash the established (non-extended threat) in North to squeeze west again, but this time west could discard the spade ace, but there would be no way back to it.
As always, when there is flaw in the basic squeeze requirements, you can look to see if there are compensating extra values. In the normal triple squeeze, which requires that each threat has to have an entry in its own suit and two threats have to be in the "upper hand". IF only one threat is in the upper hand, then the threat in the lower hand has to be extended. Here we see that if the threat with the squeeze card lacks a re-entry, the threats opposite have to both be extended threats.
It is worth nothing that both extended threats are absolutely needed for this squeeze to be progressive. The reason being, there is no re-entry (what I call a secondary entry) to the hand with the squeeze card. If one of the threats in north had not been extended. west could have allowed that threat to become established. Declarer could then cash the established (non-extended threat) in North to squeeze west again, but this time west could discard the spade ace, but there would be no way back to it.
As always, when there is flaw in the basic squeeze requirements, you can look to see if there are compensating extra values. In the normal triple squeeze, which requires that each threat has to have an entry in its own suit and two threats have to be in the "upper hand". IF only one threat is in the upper hand, then the threat in the lower hand has to be extended. Here we see that if the threat with the squeeze card lacks a re-entry, the threats opposite have to both be extended threats.
--Ben--
#5
- Lamentable Bunny
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,505
- Joined: 2008-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, ME
Posted 2012-March-18, 10:19
inquiry, on 2012-March-18, 10:13, said:
Changed the title for you.
It is worth nothing that both extended threats are absolutely needed for this squeeze to be progressive. The reason being, there is no re-entry (what I call a secondary entry) to the hand with the squeeze card. If one of the threats in north had not been extended. west could have allowed that threat to become established. Declarer could then cash the established (non-extended threat) in North to squeeze west again, but this time west could discard the spade ace, but there would be no way back to it.
As always, when there is flaw in the basic squeeze requirements, you can look to see if there are compensating extra values. In the normal triple squeeze, which requires that each threat has to have an entry in its own suit and two threats have to be in the "upper hand". IF only one threat is in the upper hand, then the threat in the lower hand has to be extended. Here we see that if the threat with the squeeze card lacks a re-entry, the threats opposite have to both be extended threats.
It is worth nothing that both extended threats are absolutely needed for this squeeze to be progressive. The reason being, there is no re-entry (what I call a secondary entry) to the hand with the squeeze card. If one of the threats in north had not been extended. west could have allowed that threat to become established. Declarer could then cash the established (non-extended threat) in North to squeeze west again, but this time west could discard the spade ace, but there would be no way back to it.
As always, when there is flaw in the basic squeeze requirements, you can look to see if there are compensating extra values. In the normal triple squeeze, which requires that each threat has to have an entry in its own suit and two threats have to be in the "upper hand". IF only one threat is in the upper hand, then the threat in the lower hand has to be extended. Here we see that if the threat with the squeeze card lacks a re-entry, the threats opposite have to both be extended threats.
Thanks for correcting the title and making clear the essentialness of the extended menaces.
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#6
- Lamentable Bunny
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,505
- Joined: 2008-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, ME
Posted 2012-March-19, 14:58
A follow up comment was posted online:
GMarco24 said:
Truth is there are 12 tricks already, so simple !h/!c squeeze is working for 13 tricks. That means there are still 13 tricks when K!s and 2!s change places(but with !s lead as it was). After !s ruff, A!c and Q!c ruffed in hand and caching all trumps except the last one will leave position like AQ10!h Jx!c in dummy, and Kxx!h, 9x!c with West. Cashing the last trump now will squeeze West for 13, with obligatory !h finesse.
What would lead to triple squeeze here is trump lead, which is leaving declarer now with 11 tricks (ofc, with A!c,Q!c, because A!c, x!c leads to easy 13, GIB found that line immediately
). After clearing trumps, A!c and Q!c ruffed, followed by all trumps except the last one. Dummy is now with AQ10!h and Jxx!c, West with A!s, Kxx!h and 9x!c, South with Qxxx!s, x!h and the last trump. Playing the last trump forces West to release one suit:
- spade release - leads to 13 tricks, cashing Q!s now will make progressive squeeze (which i believe was a theme here)
- club release - leads to 13 tricks, discarding 10!h from dummy, with !h finesse, all clubs are high now
- !h release - leads to big victory for West as now !c discard from dummy and !h finesse will still leave dummy with one small !c which must be conceded at the end. West WILL BE squeezed again after cashing 3 hearts now, but lack of communication back for Q!s will lead to only 12 tricks.
These is a common theme in defending triple squeezes, cutting off communication to one of the hands.
GMarco24 said:
Truth is there are 12 tricks already, so simple !h/!c squeeze is working for 13 tricks. That means there are still 13 tricks when K!s and 2!s change places(but with !s lead as it was). After !s ruff, A!c and Q!c ruffed in hand and caching all trumps except the last one will leave position like AQ10!h Jx!c in dummy, and Kxx!h, 9x!c with West. Cashing the last trump now will squeeze West for 13, with obligatory !h finesse.
What would lead to triple squeeze here is trump lead, which is leaving declarer now with 11 tricks (ofc, with A!c,Q!c, because A!c, x!c leads to easy 13, GIB found that line immediately
). After clearing trumps, A!c and Q!c ruffed, followed by all trumps except the last one. Dummy is now with AQ10!h and Jxx!c, West with A!s, Kxx!h and 9x!c, South with Qxxx!s, x!h and the last trump. Playing the last trump forces West to release one suit: - spade release - leads to 13 tricks, cashing Q!s now will make progressive squeeze (which i believe was a theme here)
- club release - leads to 13 tricks, discarding 10!h from dummy, with !h finesse, all clubs are high now
- !h release - leads to big victory for West as now !c discard from dummy and !h finesse will still leave dummy with one small !c which must be conceded at the end. West WILL BE squeezed again after cashing 3 hearts now, but lack of communication back for Q!s will lead to only 12 tricks.
These is a common theme in defending triple squeezes, cutting off communication to one of the hands.
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
Page 1 of 1