You say that if W leads a trump at trick one, the defense prevails. S would win the trick in dummy and lead the S8. If E plays the Q, he would surely play another trump and declarer would go down two. If E fails to play the SQ, however, W wins the 10 and returns….what? If he makes what looks like the totally safe play of the SK, it’s double squeeze time all over again. So, do you think a) W should have led a D at trick 1, b) if he did, should E have risen with the SQ at trick 2, and c) after leading a trump and winning the S10, should W have figured out to lead a H or a C at trick 3?

Hi Bobby,

On BWTA, are you a supporter of the Smolen relays?

David –

Does one play for a defensive mistake, or take the small probability technical line (here, of a squeeze w/o the count)? Experts have debated that from time-to-time over the decades.

For example, I think these West holdings work:

AKQxx
KQx
x
9xxx

Or:

AKQ10x
KQxx
xx
xx

Now, when South ruffs the one club and runs trump, what three cards can West come down to safely?

Hi David & Jim2,

In some ways and what some could call a very old style self teaching method, home style, a bright beginner could learn all the rudiments of what constitutes a squeeze.

To do so, yes some rather simple talent of at least some numeracy, together with the natural order of bridge playing should see a relatively bright learner through.

While I would never go so far as saying fie on Clyde Love for his brilliant overall treatise on the anatomy of squeezes complete with formulas to simplify the learning, this hand, if studied for some days, will enable anyone who fits the above mold to forever put in the past, what is to some, the terror of confrontation.

Also your proposed defenses, though unrealistic to some extent, add to the learning process, especially so when, because of the bidding, especially the ace asking Blackwood bid (theoretically denying a void) could/should inform these worthy opponents what type of hand the declarer must have.

No one, especially I, will say this process is easy (heaven forbid), but nevertheless represents superior bridge acumen, taking into consideration the evaluation of one’s worthy opponents (not always present) to understand that every move by them is evidence to be both considered and then acted upon to best advantage.

Such is the nothing less but thrilling confrontations which arrive from time to time (many fold more often at the highest level) which sets our unbelievable game apart from any other. The above sensation, of course, is very present when two chess masters square off against one another and I would say, although definitely I am not qualified to speak, probably the calling card to which very high level chess adheres.

Although most bridge players are likely not ready yet for such challenges, still I can assure everyone interested that the thinking involved can be achieved, merely because the evidence, at least for an experienced player, is much easier to comprehend, and with fewer possibilities to consider than would face chess combatants.

Nothing more to say other than, if interested, please file this hand and then later let all of us know how the important elements of learning eventually came together resulting in an all knowing and understanding epiphany, concerning the anatomy of a squeeze.

Good luck and unlike Ponce de Leon’s Fountain of Youth, this learning is real, not fictional and waiting for others to pounce.

Hi Mircea,

No I am not, simply because I have always thought and continue to think that Smolen tends to help the opening leader and both defenders how to defend, more than they help the bidders determine what the best final contract should be.

Beautiful to the ear, but a loser at the table. However, bridge scientists, for whatever reason, love such elegant descriptions and prefer the art involved, discounting what I consider sometimes deadly original leads, sometimes only being able to avoid a very poor choice.

I apologize for possibly offending Smolen lovers but the above is only my opinion. He, incidentally, was a true bridge lover, and was a significant loss to the bridge world in the early 1990’s at much too young an age.

About the BWTA item:
From your ANSWER, it seems clear that with the 4-5 Majors, passing Partner’s 1NT should be off the table and completely out of the question. Presumably this mean that over the long run, making 8 tricks at a Major has a (much?) better chance than making 7 tricks at NT. Is that interpretation correct?
Also, when you allow that (with 9-card fit) raising two hearts to three hearts might be acceptable, is that primarily to help prevent LHO from coming in with Two Spades, or is it allowing that there may possibly be a Heart game? Or both?
Thanks

Hi Clarksburg,

Yes, my comment is entirely involved with only the possibility of bidding and making a heart game. I would never expect the opponents to later come in the bidding after both had passed, although it is always possible (though unlikely in spades since I hold four)

The caveat to remember is to always try to buy a hand as cheaply as possible (two level rather than three) since hands with less than optimal breaks likely will produce fewer tricks and two making two or three is much better than down one. Ergo, raising to the three level (when holding the preponderance of the high cards) should always be made with the intention of seeking the game bonus.

Hi again,

Yes, an eight card fit usually plays at least one trick better rather than does no trump and often plays two tricks better.

Of course, a nine card fit only adds to that probability. However, while playing matchpoints, and especially in part score bidding, beware of the minor suits since both NT and major suit trick scores tend to dwarf the measly minor suits.