[Laocoon166]

I have a question about one of the deals in the double squeeze chapter of Love's book (Deal 19). Hopefully it is not out of line to post it on here.

This is the deal:

---

First three tricks (included in the diagram):

♦J ♦2 ♦A ♦5;
♠T ♠J ♠Q ♠A
♦Q ♥3 ♦6 ♦4

You have 11 top tricks and will need a squeeze if clubs don't break.

The author remarks that East has made a strong return by killing one of the spade A/K and that now you have to cash your tricks in the correct order to perform the double squeeze with clubs not breaking. See the author's suggested line by clicking on in the diagram above. You can see that you upon cashing three hearts you have to throw a club from dummy and when you run AKQJ♣ West will be squeezed in spades and diamonds.

However it seems to me that this line gives up on some layouts where clubs break 4-2. For example:

---

Now when you play the last heart winner you can't afford to pitch a club because they are breaking. So am I missing something here or is the author?

So should you make the contract when clubs break 5-1 like in the first diagram or should you actually go down when East returns the ♠T? Is there any way to combine your chances?

[inquiry]

I don't want to put words into Mr. Love's mouth, but the point of the hand was that on a non-spade return, South could test the clubs and when find them poorly split, the two winners in the spade suit make the double squeeze "run on rails" and it would be a piece of cake. The best advice going for double squeezes is to keep your double guarded threat with two winners.

Here on the spade return, the hand becomes much more complicated (meaning you can go down if you guess wrong). Clyde's nomenclature for this is a RFL (or RFD - rural free delivery -- make that "liveryLI think he uses)... the idea is you have to cash your last "right winner" before you last "free winner" then your "Left winners" With threats in diamonds, clubs, and spades, your squeeze card will be the heart. The last "right winner" will be the diamonds, your free winners (squeeze) will be hearts, and your Left winners will be clubs....

So the sequence for the squeeze is Diamonds- hearts- clubs. Which is the play that works. This does involve you discarding your club two and giving up on the possible (likely?) 4-2 club split. The real take home message here is about defense... look how good the spade return is ... it give declarer a losing option, he has to choose between two lines, one will win, one will not. In Rodwell's book (Rodwell files), I think this play is similar to what would fall into his "Days of Thunder" play. Forcing declarer to guess which line wins

The advantage to the double squeeze is the hand may actually be a simple squeeze. West has 4S and 5D, so you squeeze him in directly in those two suits, east's hand is immaterial.

So the winning RFL squeeze line works when the hands are (lined out ones work either line):
WEST
4351
3451
4450 <-- simple spade/diamond squeeze works as part of RFL
5350 <-- simple spade/diamond squeeze works as part of RFL
5250 <-- simple spade/diamond squeeze works as part of RFL
4251 <-- simple spade/diamond squeeze works as part of RFL
4153
4054

The play for 42 or 33 clubs works when West is
2353
2254
2452
1354
1453
1552
3154
4153
4054

I may have missed a distribution or two which favors one line over the other, and you have to factor in the heart discard instead of a spade (from five or two) or a club (from two or six). I didn't go find Clyde's book but this hand is more about defense making it hard on declarer than on offense, or else he might have mentioned playing a (potential) simple squeeze (west in diamonds and spades -- give west four spades) as a double squeeze.

[kenberg]

It appears that you are right. And I think if I were declarer I would probably go down even fi the squeeze centered on spades actually worked for just the reasons that you say. I see no way to combine chances here.

[winkle]

I think you're right. If you drop Barry Rigal a note maybe he'll fix it for the third edition.

As a side note, as much as I like Clyde Love's squeeze book, the RFL acronym never worked for me. I understand the "Right, Free, Left", but which way is left?? Left of the single threat hand, ok, but that's just not intuitive to me. The way I would work it out nowadays is that the last free winner will squeeze the hand opposite. To avoid that I need to squeeze the hand over the free winner first, which means I need to cash his partner's winners. Whatever, I'm sure this only makes sense to myself and no one else.

[winkle]

Hmm... I guess I have the editor wrong. It's not Barry Rigal it's Linda Lee and Julian Pottage.

[kenberg]

winkle, on 2014-April-16, 15:55, said:

I think you're right. If you drop Barry Rigal a note maybe he'll fix it for the third edition.

As a side note, as much as I like Clyde Love's squeeze book, the RFL acronym never worked for me. I understand the "Right, Free, Left", but which way is left?? Left of the single threat hand, ok, but that's just not intuitive to me. The way I would work it out nowadays is that the last free winner will squeeze the hand opposite. To avoid that I need to squeeze the hand over the free winner first, which means I need to cash his partner's winners. Whatever, I'm sure this only makes sense to myself and no one else.

I'm with you on this. The positions were interesting and very useful to see, but I organized them in my own way in my head. RFL never seemed all that useful to me.

[gszes]

just to make certain---the reason the spade lead is making it tough
on you is that the normal compound squeeze is a breeze when you still
have 2 spades in your hand since you can afford to pitch your 2nd spade
on the run of the free suit (hearts) and still maintain that vital entry
to the spades. The absence of the 2nd spade makes you choose between
assuming clubs run or going for the squeeze instead of combining both
chances like you could if you still had 2 spades (or go after some
form of simple squeeze). This kind of inferential defense is available
quite often if one pays attention to the bidding:)

[Laocoon166]

Thanks inquiry and others. I agree that the point of this deal was a defensive one: East's excellent return, especially as it is not close to being immediately obvious even double dummy how the return should give declarer a losing option. As gszes says with two small spades in hand you can play for the squeeze and chuck one when combining your options.

However Love doesn't mention that the return is so good that you may now g down! He also doesn't mention the possible spade/diamond squeeze against West, so it appears there is more to the deal than he invisaged. If I knew Julian Pottage I would inform him.

As for how useful I've found the rules in the Love book, I'd say that as I improve as a player I am looking more to what end position I want to achieve that the theory he lays out. However sometimes this is not always possible. I do get a sense of naturally which order to cash my tricks but it will be reassuring the one time in my life an RFL squeeze turns up at the table that I can check if my own intuitions match with the book theory.

[rmnka447]

If a ♠ is not returned, you come down to this end position,

Dummy:

♠ AK5
♥ -
♦ -
♣ -

Declarer:

♠ 7
♥ -
♦ 7
♣ 2

So long as each opponent stops only one minor, neither can hold their minor stop and 3 ♠s. In getting to this end position, you can find if 4-2 ♣ exist.

Once the spade is returned, the defenders have converted a type B2/C2 double squeeze into the more restrictive type B1/C1 double squeeze. The order of play necessary to execute that double squeeze, as you saw, forces declarer to chose between lines of play. In some cases on other hands, declarer may not be able to execute the B1/C1 squeeze because of entry problems or may not be sure which suits are guarded by each defender.

The theme of Defenders forcing Declarer into a B1/C1 double squeeze is one which resonates throughout Love's book and is important to remember.

[Lovera]

The deal is "Exercise 40" Bidding : South 1 c North 1 s South 2 NT North 6 NT West leads Diamond J. (Pagg. 77 and 78).
.. Also (see the Rule ) the RFL squeeze will fail unless the L threat is "accompained by an entry in its own suit ", to serve as final squeeze card. (Pag. 69 of Love text Bridge squeeze complete .. Dover publication ).

[rhm]

winkle, on 2014-April-16, 15:55, said:

I think you're right. If you drop Barry Rigal a note maybe he'll fix it for the third edition.

As a side note, as much as I like Clyde Love's squeeze book, the RFL acronym never worked for me. I understand the "Right, Free, Left", but which way is left?? Left of the single threat hand, ok, but that's just not intuitive to me. The way I would work it out nowadays is that the last free winner will squeeze the hand opposite. To avoid that I need to squeeze the hand over the free winner first, which means I need to cash his partner's winners. Whatever, I'm sure this only makes sense to myself and no one else.

Right and Left is always from the position of the hand, which holds the B threat, that is the threat held by both defenders, sometimes also called the common threat.
The common threat here is spades and therefor our perspective must be the one from North position. So the right threat is diamonds and the left threat is clubs.
THe RFL terminology is very useful, because once you identify the common threat if you can follow the RFL order, the squeeze will work.
Sometimes a simple squeeze is played as a double squeeze.
This usually occurs if you do not know, which defender controls a threat. but you have a single threat against each opponent and one threat which might be controlled by either opponent.
You do not care who controls the common threat if you can play a double squeeze instead.

With regard to the original position:
In the above position you do not know whether clubs break and only if the clubs do not break does a double squeeze position exist.
But this is not something, which requires a correction in the book. This is rather typical for many squeeze positions:
You have to make assumptions about the actual layout of the defenders hands.
If you misguess you go down.

Assume

---

Now East discards a club and if declarer assumes East has given up clubs he will go down.
So a slight improvement is to cash exactly one top club before playing the hearts. This will still preserve the RFL order.

Rainer Herrmann

[Laocoon166]

rhm, on 2014-April-22, 16:20, said:

With regard to the original position:
In the above position you do not know whether clubs break and only if the clubs do not break does a double squeeze position exist.
But this is not something, which requires a correction in the book.

Perhaps not, but it sure confused me. The author doesn't mention anything about 'guessing' the layout and seems to imply that the correct line is to play for clubs not to break. I was just doubting if that was the case.

Assume

Quote

So a slight improvement is to cash exactly one top club before playing the hearts. This will still preserve the RFL order.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

[winkle]

rhm, on 2014-April-22, 16:20, said:

Right and Left is always from the position of the hand, which holds the B threat, that is the threat held by both defenders, sometimes also called the common threat.

IMO that would be a better way of describing it, but that's not how Love does it. His orientation is all relative to the single threat hand. For B squeezes they are equivalent but for R squeezes they would become opposite.

Now of course the R squeezes are easy and you don't need to remember anything to execute that. So if the RFL was explained to me that way I'd have a better chance of remembering it. At this point I've moved on to some other way.

[Lovera]

About the "Classification of double squeezes" the author wrote:All double squeeze belong to one or the other of two general types, called Type R and Type B.
Type R: "The R threat is alone, opposite the L and B threats "
Type B: "The B threat is alone, opposite the L and R threats
On refering the squeeze card we have the R threat or L threat.

[Lovera]

I want say anything too about this argoument : the duoble squeeze is more important of the simple squeeze but the readers that study this subject stopping their knowling on first 7 schemes (5 from simple squeeze + 2 from double all schemes with thread communicant) probably ' cause them are satoured from the study about the tecnique that various author make ( orientation, Vienna coup , Vienna coup for excellance ) then when they are learned five schemes of simple squeeze return to memorize again 7 positions..But in very books ( perhaps all ) we can find this statesment. Now Love try to avoid this compatting their (entry 1,2,3 in BLUEntry such as). Also : the duoble squeeze is a base for guard squeeze, Mole squeeze, (form i call equivalent to double comprendentig direct impass ) , compound squeeze, simple as double (Romanet call this alternative).. then the followers ought to learn also the complete positions to understand better the argoument considering that this positions are the risultant of all possible variant among communications , thread, free winners. The text of Love is important also because the author was the first to study and analyze triple squeeze in form of double (the so called compuond squeeze ).

[Lovera]

Exercise 31 (pag. 67) North S Q 9 5 2 H K 8 D 10 6 C A K Q 5 3 Bidding : N E S W
1 c p 1 h p
South S 10 6 H A Q 6 2 D A J 3 2 C 9 7 6 2 c p 2 d p
2 s p 2 N T p
3 N T West leads 7 spade
T 1 : East King wins, T 2: s 4 returned . West's Ace wins. T 3: d 9 led. East plays Queen; Ace wins. T4-5: Clubs . Both follow .
T 6: s Q led. East discard d 5.
Analysis 31 : West S A J 8 7 3 H 9 7 5 D 9 8 4 C 4 2 East S K 4 H J 10 4 3 D K Q 7 5 C J 10 8
With West holding d K there world be no spade-diamond simple squeeze ,for lack of (E). But it is unthinkable that West world lead away form the King into South's bid :undoubtedly East ha that card. If so,Type B2 simile-played -as -double with threats R,d 10;L, s 9;B,h6.
Just finish the Clubs .This hand (was played by Mr.John W. Norwood Jr.) illustrates the possibility menzione in paragraph 22. Due to the presence of a competent diamond threat "in each hand " (While the dual -threat , dual type possibility seems obvious enough,it hand escaped your author 's notice until was pointed out to him by Mr.Norwood in this very hand.),the squeeze may equally well be considered as Type R with threats R,s 9;L, d J;B,h 6.
But also i say with threats R 9 plus Queen, B h2 L, d J squeeze card c 3 idle card h 3 ( usually this end position has squeeze card in South and idle card in North But it is the same

[inquiry]

CLICK NEXT MULTIPLE TIME TO FOLLOW PLAY

Lovera, on 2014-May-29, 08:14, said:

Exercise 31 (pag. 67)
With West holding ♦K there world be no spade-diamond simple squeeze ,for lack of entry (E). But it is unthinkable that West would lead away form the ♦King into South's bid :undoubtedly East has that card. If so this is a Type B2 simple-played as double squeeze with threats R: ♦-10; L:♠9; B:♥6. Just finish the Clubs.

This hand (was played by Mr.John W. Norwood Jr.) illustrates the possibility menzione in paragraph 22. Due to the presence of a competent diamond threat "in each hand " (While the dual threat, dual type possibility seems obvious enough, it hand escaped your author 's notice until was pointed out to him by Mr.Norwood in this very hand.),the squeeze may equally well be considered as Type R with threats R:♠9; L:♦J; B:♥6. But also I say with threats R: ♠9 plus Queen, B:♥2; L:♦J squeeze card ♣3 idle card ♥3 (usually this end position has squeeze card in South and idle card in North But it is the same

I made a playable graphic out of the hand to make it easier to follow the play. I am not sure what your comment at the end means. The squeeze card in all the positioned mentioned was a club in north, and the squeeze card isn't usually in south, it is where ever it might be. The two heart winners in South makes any double squeeze work easily (B2 type). Here is what you quote the author as saying and what you changed it to.. (which really seems no change)

Author:: Type R with threats R:♠9; L:♦J; B:♥6.
You: R: ♠9 plus Queen, B:♥2; L:♦J squeeze card ♣3 idle card ♥3

So you haven't cashed spade queen (why? it is ok), you threw the ♥6 under the king so you had ♥2 not ♥6, you announced the last club as the squeeze card, nothing new there, and somehow someone's heart 3 became idle (I didn't look at EW hands, so not sure has it and don't care). So I am not sure what question you are asking or what point you are making. What did I miss?

---

[Lovera]

Cashed is o.k. (how Love have said ) . But i stop my play at trick 5 (then don't cashing spade Queen).I have mentioned another squeeze ending position with idle card diamond 3 (not heart 3 wrong indication ).

[Lovera]

Indipendently from the Exercise 31 let's study this position: Q 9 in North against J 10 in West in spade, K 8 and A 6 2 in North South against Q x x and J x x in West East in heart, diamond J in South against Q in East, Ace in South in club and 2 in North. When you play club Ace West pitch heart otherwise you have the extra trick, then little heart to King but when you play spade Queen East must discard heart or diamond and you 'll have the extra trick.

[Lovera]

Lovera, on 2014-May-18, 06:41, said:

I want say anything too about this argoument : the duoble squeeze is more important of the simple squeeze but the readers that study this subject stopping their knowling on first 7 schemes (5 from simple squeeze + 2 from double all schemes with thread communicant) probably ' cause them are satoured from the study about the tecnique that various author make ( orientation, Vienna coup , Vienna coup for excellance ) then when they are learned five schemes of simple squeeze return to memorize again 7 positions..But in very books ( perhaps all ) we can find this statesment. Now Love try to avoid this compatting their (entry 1,2,3 in BLUEntry such as). Also : the duoble squeeze is a base for guard squeeze, Mole squeeze, (form i call equivalent to double comprendentig direct impass ) , compound squeeze, simple as double (Romanet call this alternative).. then the followers ought to learn also the complete positions to understand better the argoument considering that this positions are the risultant of all possible variant among communications , thread, free winners. The text of Love is important also because the author was the first to study and analyze triple squeeze in form of double (the so called compuond squeeze ).

I want, although, suggest another original way to approach it: on 1973 edit Industrie Grafiche Cino del Duca was published "Lo Squeeze (Studio sul gioco di compressione nel Bridge)" by Mario Cicchelli with Preface by Giorgio Belladonna that wrotes :".. The second principle is that of having been able to bring[by the author] the squeeze endings with any symbols; whereby in place of the cards will have the conventional schemes consisting 1sf (threat of a card in an unfavorable[=sfavorevole] position), 2f (threat of two cards in a favorable position), C (=comprimente-squeeze card) T (transfer card) and so on . It will therefore be sufficient that the student remember the location of these elements without having to bring the papers that compose them." If you wants improve or to have more information insert on Google search this one : Nancy Texas Le squeeze facile. (N@NCY TEX@S is on French probably the same magazine as Bridge World). It hoping usefull also this new way to consider squeeze play, bye.