[kgr]

---

(1C)-1NT-2C
2D-3NT
 
The above hand comes from http://www.bridgeclues.com/
(I hope it is no problem to mention it here. If it is a problme then moderator may remove link and/or hand above if required. The real question below.).
 
Opps lead ♣ and RHO plays ♣Q, ♣A and a ♣.
You now have 8 winners and 3 losers.
RHO will later be squeezed and you will get 9 tricks.
 
I thought that if RHO plays ♣T 1st trick and let you win the first trick with ♣J then maybe the squeeze/throw-in would not work. But it seems that it does not matter. With 5 losers it still works.
 
I'm trying to better understand these squeezes and try to understand how this works with 3 and also with 5 losers. Could anybody explain this?

[OleBerg]

I will try to provide a simple part of the explanation.

Simple endplay-squeezes, such as this, works this way:

A defender is put under such pressure, that he cannot both maintain one or more crucial guards and enough winners to defeat the contract.

So if East takes the first two tricks, he needs to maintain three winners and the heart-guard.

If East ducks the first club, he has to maintain five winners and the heart guard. But now two tricks less have been played, so it all adds up to the same.

Hopes this makes some sense.

[Free]

~snip~ OleBerg's explanation is better

[kgr]

OleBerg, on Jan 12 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

I will try to provide a simple part of the explanation.

Simple endplay-squeezes, such as this, works this way:

A defender is put under such pressure, that he cannot both maintain one or more crucial guards and enough winners to defeat the contract.

So if East takes the first two tricks, he needs to maintain three winners and the heart-guard.

If East ducks the first club, he has to maintain five winners and the heart guard. But now two tricks less have been played, so it all adds up to the same.

Hopes this makes some sense.

Thanks!
So opps can potentially be squeezed and throw-in if you have one less winner then the contract and that opponent has the number of winners to defeat the contract by one tick + a guard in another suit. (He will be squeezed out of a winner and be throw in OR if will have to let go his guard).
In 3NT: Opponent has 5 winners after we take our stop in the suit (or 2 suits) and a guard in another suit.

[OleBerg]

Sounds right.

You can simplify the diagram by exchanging the ♠A with the ♠7, and make the aim 11 tricks.

If you want to study squeeze play, I will strongly recommend this book.

http://www.flipkart.com/kelsey-squeeze-pla...492x-7sw3frgfye


Trivia: "Squeeze" is spelled "skvis" in danish.

[kgr]

OleBerg, on Jan 12 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

Sounds right.

You can simplify the diagram by exchanging the ♠A with the ♠7, and make the aim 11 tricks.

If you want to study squeeze play, I will strongly recommend this book.

http://www.flipkart.com/kelsey-squeeze-pla...492x-7sw3frgfye


Trivia: "Squeeze" is spelled "skvis" in danish.

I have that book (I will give it another read ...3rd or 4th ).
This is one of the 2 best sources I have about squeeze...the other one were Inquiries posts about squeezes on this forum.

[inquiry]

If you are really interested in the "how" or "why" this ending works with any number of losers, I would recommend looking into Fook Eng's "Bridge Squeezes Illustrated" (book from the early 70's) if you can find it. Understanind this book requires that you are mathematically incliced, as Eng is a mathematican and uses a equations and proof's to demonstrate how different squeezes work.

Disclaimer: Only one in five people I have recommended this book too liked it, and he is an electical engineer. The other four disliked it, a few with great passion. I happened to also like Eng's approach, but I can understand that the majority of people who read it will not like it.

I will try to post the equation that Eng uses to demonstrate why a vulnerable stopper squeeze works with Multiple losers. To do so, I will first have to find my copy: I have the book boxed up somewhere (I moved two years ago and most of my books are still boxed up.... I guess looking for it will help get some of them unboxed). ENG spent a good deal proving that Love's "L" can be satisfied when number of losers is greatly higher than one, as long by number of winners needed to promote is only one. When I find the book, I will share his equations with you.

[JavaBean]

Love doesn't call this a vulnerable-stopper squeeze (though it does require a vulnerable stopper): he called it a surplus-winner squeeze, saving the term vulnerable-stopper for the sorts of hands that only work when you have just two losers.

But I find that a helpful way to understand why this sort of squeeze works is to consider how each of the cards in East's hand contributes to the throwin/squeeze position:

• ♠A: Throw-in winner
  
• ♠8: Idle card
  
• ♠4: Exit card
  
• ♥Q64: heart guard (which is vulnerable, hence the need for ♠4 exit card)
  
• ♦2: Idle card
  
• ♣964: Love calls these "surplus winners". From East's point of view these are winners necessary to defeat the contract; from South's they are extra winners beyond the ♠A which declarer is planning to use for the throw-in.

So East has ten cards left in his hand, eight of which are busy. You have five diamond winners to run off, on which he must necessarily discard three of his busy cards. If he attempts to counter by ducking at trick one, he has saved room in his hand for two more cards...but now he needs to keep two more clubs, since he hasn't won any yet!

[ceeb]

Regardless of the way clubs are played to the first few tricks, collect 7 tricks (♣, ♥A, ♦'s) and dummy will have ♥KJ and some losing cards. The ♥KJ will both score, so that's 9 tricks.

Sure, technically it's undeniably a squeeze in that East has to discard cards he'd rather keep. But unlike a fancy squeeze, the only thing that counts is your winners. The moral is that a "surplus winner squeeze" is some kind of junior version of the species, hardly worthy of the name.