gnasher, on Jul 5 2010, 02:43 AM, said:
inquiry, on Jul 5 2010, 05:08 AM, said:
gnasher, on Jul 4 2010, 05:58 PM, said:
This would be a genuine guard squeeze, wouldn't it?
Well, not exactly.
For me, the defining feature of a "guard squeeze" is that one of the defenders has to retain a high card to protect his partner from a finesse. If you prefer to use "guard squeeze" to mean something more specific, fine, but it seems to have left you tying yourself in knots trying to think of a sensible name for this squeeze.
Well, let's discuss this issue for a few minutes.
A guard threat is one in which if an opponent has to maintain his card(s) in a suit to prevent his partner from being finessed. If he is squeezed out of this card, one might call that a guard squeeze regardless of how it is arranged or executed. I think we can agree on that "general" description.
Folllowing that very general description, the first problem in this thread was a "guard squeeze" since EAST could be squeezed out of his guard in spades. However I doubt you will find many (any?) people to agree that hand is best described as a guard squeeze. This is for the simple reason that the hand easily reduced to a simple squeeze. The fact that poor EAST was squeeze in the three suits with only one loser left and one of the threats was a guard threat makes it initially appear like a normal guard squeeze. But that is just an illusion. The reason being that for a guard squeezed to be required, there can not be an entry to the hand opposite the squeeze threat in its own suit.
In fact this ending is essentially chapter 1 type material from any squeeze book (let's use Clyde Love's BLUE terminology because like it or hate it, everyone knows it). East alone guards both threat suits (hearts and clubs) so "B" (both) is satisfied. There is only one loser in the seven card ending so "L" is satisfied, at least one of the threats is under the guards (or in the upper hand) so "U" is satisfied, and the heart King provides the entry to established theat after the squeeze operates, so "E" is meet. So this is quickly identified as a positional simple squeeze against EAST. One might simply cash both spades first (remove any thought of a guard squeeze) and then the diamonds. Walla.
Someone studying squeezes looking at this double dummy ending should easily see that BLUE is fullfilled and not waste time with thoughts of the unnecessary guard threat.
If one accepts that the first hand, despite having a guard threat that could be squeezed out, is not a "guard squeeze" (or what I prefer to call a "simple guard squeeze"), we can them move on to discuss your ending. If not, well, we will not get very far.
You said in your reply with your revised hand, you said "the
only thing wrong with the originally posted layout is that West had no heart guard." (my added emphasis).
Well I could have taken several issues with that statement, but I assumed you meant that statement as covering a "double guard squeeze" as opposed to a "simple guard squeeze." Clearly the hand as originally given was meant to suggest it as a possible simple guard squeeze, which I rectified in my example of swithing the major suit kings (repeated below)
In the modified ending, the guard squeeze WAS NECESSARY, and notice, no heart quard was given to WEST. This puts your claim that the "only thing" wrong with the quard squeeze was a lack of heart quard with WEST to bed.
LET's review what a "simple" guard squeeze is...
- It is a squeeze against an opponent who is soley responsible for the protection against threats in two suits (hearts and clubs in my modified example).
- the simple squeeze has to be flawed in that their is no entry in either of those threat suits but the other requirements (loser, threat in the upper hand) are satisfied. (Here 7 cards, 6 winners, so L is right, and both threats are in the upper hand so "U" is right).
- The third suit has to be such that it is partially finesseable if the hand holding the two guarded suits gives up his cards in that suit, it exposes his parter to a finesse. (the spade jack in this case.. one could give EAST the JT9 and put the 8 in dummy and it still works).
- There is one, and only one, winner in the hand with the guard suit entry (in the modified hand, I moved the spade king, making this so, but sometimes you will have to cash one of the winners if you have something like AK in the same hand).
So now I think we get the complete answer to questions in the original post,
"is this normal for a guard squeeze or is it unusual? Or is there some other name that I don't know about?"
The answer is it wasn't technically a guard squeeze at all, it was a positional simple squeeze against EAST that happened to have an extra feature if that the third suit provided an unnecessary guard threat. I could see that if if the hand wasn't double dummy (you didn't in fact know who had what), the guard threat would be a very nice benefit, but for classication purposes, this ending hasn't been reduced to its simpliest terms.
Now back to your (gnasher's) statement and your "guard squeeze" ending. I think both my exampe above and nige1's example quoted below (with my addeded comments in BOLD) demonstrate the principles of what he called the "basic guard squeeze" and I call a "simple quard squeeze". I use the term "simple" guard squeeze BECAUSE IT OVERCOMES the entry flaw in a SIMPLE SQUEEZE.
[quote]
For me the modified ending above is a "double guard squeeze." I refer this to a double guard squeeze because it comes to the rescue when a double squeeze exist EXCEPT for the flaw that the shared threat (clubs in the above case) has no entry in its own suit (see the similarity, simple quard squeeze when there is no entry opposite the squeeze card in either normal threat suit, double quard squeeze when there is a double squeeze except for the flaw that there is no entry in the shared threat (double threat).
If you think of these as the (now i will use the term) basic guard squeezes as ones that solve entry flaws in simple squeeze and double squeezes, you will be able to quickly spot guard squeezes at the table. The reason being, you can quickly spot the flaw of a lack of entry... even a beginner can see if an entry exist or not.
There are other ending besides the basic ones in which other flaws exist in a normal squeeze endings hinted at by nige1 in his last example. There are some guard squeeze that work with two losers remaining in the hand (first one I remember seeing was in the new york post).
It is where the example you gave comes into play. This is not a classical "double" squeeze ending. Note in nige1's example and my modifcation of it above, one opponent soley guards hearts, one diamonds, and both clubs. It turns out that the in his case both soley guarded suits were partly finessable, i make it only diamonds in mine. The guard threat was sufficient to overcome the lack of entry in the doubly protected suit. The example you gave was not a double squeeze ending, it was a "compound" squeeze ending, as both opponents held guards in two suits, plus there was a single guarded suit.
I know some authors still refer to this as a double guard squeeze, but being a puriest at heart, I like to keep my definitions clear. The initial thought would be call it a "compound guard squeeze". However, what in the literature goes by that name? The existing name for "compound double squeeze" has been applied to hands in which neither of the single threats in a compound double squeeze has entries in its own suit. Here is an example....
So now we have a third "basic" guard squeeze ending, the "compound double squeeze" where there is the underlying flaw that neither of the potential "both suits" have an entry. To this, I am certain we could add compound endings where the opponents could choose to force the shared suit after the next to last free winner be one without an entry, although an entry still exist in the other suit. That too should be a compound double squeeze.
The question becomes, should your ending, where the "singly guarded" suit lacks an entry be called a compound double squeeze? As I pointed out in my post earlier, if the club QUEEN had been cashed earlier, the compound squeeze would have worked just find, no need for the guard nature. That is, if the club queen had been cashed the ending would have been simply a guard squeeze. The failure to cash the club queen (ok, perhaps it couldn't have been chshed) led to a flaw in the ending that without the guard threat would have been fatal. Here one might think the guard squeeze is not compensating for the lack of an entry, but I view it is doing just that. It is compensating for a lack of an entry to cash the club QUEEN. So while it might not be a typical "compound guard squeeze", I think it still best fits under that name.
So maybe I am being too dogmatic in my use of terms. But to me "guard squeeze" means "simple guard squeeze". Double guard squeeze does not include compound nature, etc. It is my belief, and it works for me, if one keeps the nomenclature consistent so you view these in the terms I use, you are more apt to be able to discover them at the table when you need them. That is, when you start looking for a simple, or double, or compound squeeze and find them lacking due to an entry problem, one thing you could then start looking for is the appropriate potential guard threats.
Help
