[SimonFa]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-11, 10:30, said:

I wonder if anyone has ever published (or blogged) a simple "accidental squeezes for dummies".

Such treatise would start with the idea that, whether we know the name of what we are doing or not, if we need an extra trick which doesn't seem to be there ---we should nevertheless start cashing winners and hope something good happens. It would include simple discarding principles, such as reducing KXX AXXX in a side suit to KXX AX ---etc.

It probably has been written..maybe even in the links provided with this thread, but I have not read up on these things. They just happen from time to time.

My favorite, and the only one I know by name, is the Pop Squeeze where we can nab a stiff honor offside because the 0n-side guy had to pop that honor if he had it.

There must be lots of stories to tell as one of the first things we learn is that if you are stuck for ideas run off your long suit and see what happens. At this point we learn about the accidental squeeze when we go to throw away our useless 2 away at the end and are surprised to learn that it is a master and we make our contract. I suspect even goodish players sometimes do that when they've had a loss of concentration and they will provide even more entertaining stories, if only they would admit to them I'll bet Justin has a few to tell as he worked his way through the ranks to stardom.

Its at this point I realised the need to keep count of important suits and now I relise that on some deals I really need to keep a track of the honours and pips which, having just read Ben's posts, is a fundamental requirement for a squeeze.

[BunnyGo]

SimonFa, on 2012-March-11, 11:41, said:

There must be lots of stories to tell as one of the first things we learn is that if you are stuck for ideas run off your long suit and see what happens. At this point we learn about the accidental squeeze when we go to throw away our useless 2 away at the end and are surprised to learn that it is a master and we make our contract. I suspect even goodish players sometimes do that when they've had a loss of concentration and they will provide even more entertaining stories, if only they would admit to them I'll bet Justin has a few to tell as he worked his way through the ranks to stardom.

Its at this point I realised the need to keep count of important suits and now I relise that on some deals I really need to keep a track of the honours and pips which, having just read Ben's posts, is a fundamental requirement for a squeeze.

I remember my first squeeze (or maybe I blew it..I dont remember) where daveharty was kibbing me and complemented me on it and my response was, "what's a squeeze?"

[mycroft]

The nice part about understanding "rectifying the count", and that (apart from the esoteric), the number of extra losers to have is "One", is that that is all you need to start planning for accidental squeezes. Even if you don't know what you're doing, if you "lose a trick because it may work out later" and then "run off all your tricks", some hands will fall into your lap that couldn't if you didn't give up the trick. Plus, of course, all the other reasons you might want to duck the trick (and all the reasons you can't afford to duck the trick! - you learn that quickly, too!).

So, even if you never learn anything about squeezes but "rectify the count" - or even if you never learn anything about squeezes beyond Love's BLUE and the single/simple squeeze - you're already miles ahead.

DaveHarty is quite correct about "looking for squeezes in every hand" - but "losing the safe trick now, because I might have a squeeze in the end" is good *anyway*, even if you decide later that the finesse is a better play - because if you decide that the squeeze is the better play, you might no longer have a safe trick to lose!

[inquiry]

mycroft, on 2012-March-12, 11:28, said:

The nice part about understanding "rectifying the count", and that (apart from the esoteric), the number of extra losers to have is "One",

Not all multiple loser squeezes are esoteric. I actually have far more "vulnerable stopper squeezes" in my hand record than trump squeezes (a type of simple squeeze that is essentially a criss-cross squeeze). I will eventually get to vulnerable stopper squeezes in the thread I started today on "squeezes" where loser number is flawed. Right now that thread is just dealing with the mundane rectify the count things. The rest of the post (snipped out) is very true.

I know I still spend far too much time looking for squeezes, and often end up picking a slightly inferior line just to maybe make a squeeze of sometype.

[P_Marlowe]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-11, 10:30, said:

I wonder if anyone has ever published (or blogged) a simple "accidental squeezes for dummies".

<snip>

David Birds book is quite good and should come close to "... for dummies".

[SimonFa]

mycroft, on 2012-March-12, 11:28, said:

The nice part about understanding "rectifying the count", and that (apart from the esoteric), the number of extra losers to have is "One", is that that is all you need to start planning for accidental squeezes. Even if you don't know what you're doing, if you "lose a trick because it may work out later" and then "run off all your tricks", some hands will fall into your lap that couldn't if you didn't give up the trick. Plus, of course, all the other reasons you might want to duck the trick (and all the reasons you can't afford to duck the trick! - you learn that quickly, too!).

So, even if you never learn anything about squeezes but "rectify the count" - or even if you never learn anything about squeezes beyond Love's BLUE and the single/simple squeeze - you're already miles ahead.

DaveHarty is quite correct about "looking for squeezes in every hand" - but "losing the safe trick now, because I might have a squeeze in the end" is good *anyway*, even if you decide later that the finesse is a better play - because if you decide that the squeeze is the better play, you might no longer have a safe trick to lose!

My original post really was to understand the meaning in a language sense as much as a bridge one, but it turns out that I really did have the wrong end of the stick and your points explain how I have stumbled in to the odd squeeze that has succeeded. I will now be looking out for these opportunities whilst keeping in mind Dave's advice.

[Lovera]

This is another way for "correcting the count". Let's say you have to execute a squeeze against East having ♠ J controlled by Queen and ♣ AK7/Q843 with 4th club controlled by J1092. It being 5 cards in East you can apply "rule of 14". So 14-5=9 but if you have only 8 winner in your hands but may lose a trick for opp you simply increase your count so getting to 9=8 winners more 1 loser ..making sure that no return lead can hurt you..9) Correcting the count...Then, you must "rectify the count" by losing as many tricks as may be necessary : with two losers in hand, duck (that is, purposely lose) one trick; with three losers duck twice; etc.(From "Bridge squeeze complete or winning hand play strategy" pag. 24 and example hand from Exercise 7)[The rule of 14 is a my ultherior suggest].

[whereagles]

There are way too many types of squeezes. Simple, double, triple, ruffing, clash, knockout, criss-cross, entry, entry-shifting, backwash, cascading, pentagon/hexagon/heptagon/octogon, strip, throw-in, aaaargh.

[Lovera]

whereagles, on 2015-January-04, 17:13, said:

There are way too many types of squeezes. Simple, double, triple, ruffing, clash, knockout, criss-cross, entry, entry-shifting, backwash, cascading, pentagon/hexagon/heptagon/octogon, strip, throw-in, aaaargh.

No. This is not just way to start an argoument that may be deep but not irrisolveable. How have already said in " Double squeeze tecnique .."(see in "Find my content" the approach of C. E. Love is on my advice correct fourthemore the lonely that i have seen because all the other authors starting with schemes (Chien Wa Wang) and also Romanet that has same pattern of Love (menace orientation) that get what you have said (man type of squeeze) without no gain. The solution is on another side,bye.

[OBSugar]

"A Bridge to Simple Squeezes," by Julian Laderman. Somehow technical and common sense at the same time.

[biggerclub]

When I hold all the tricks but 1, I think squeeze. Even if there is a finesse position, I put it off until trick 12 if at all possible.

I run my winners to come down to Q, Ax opposite A (in a different suit), x (any suit), x (in Ax suit). I cash the A in a different suit and if the Q in no good I throw it. Then I hope Ax is good for 2 tricks. If not, I have lost nothing generally.

As Lovera notes in the treatise linked, things are even better if the squeeze card (A in a different suit) and 1 card threat or menace (Q in the above example) are in the same hand. (That is the position is an automatic squeeze -- a name which I think is somewhat misleading.)