[rfp]

An offbeat puzzle idea:

In a 5-card ending at notrump, the defenders hold:

---

1. North-South have all the missing twos and threes,
and South has more twos than threes.

2. North-South can win all five tricks against any
defense. (Player on lead is your choice.)

What are the North-South hands?

--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: www.rpbridge.net

[TylerE]

3
32
32
-

AQJT2
-
-
-

Or am I missing something?

[ArtK78]

TylerE, on Feb 25 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

3
32
32
-

AQJT2
-
-
-

Or am I missing something?

Yes. The club 2.

[Fluffy]

took me like 20 minutes, but I think I got it

Spoiler

GJ
L
J
GK

L
JK
GHK
L

where G=A,H=J, J=3,K=2,H->D, D->H

[ArtK78]

Looks good to me.

EDIT: At least it did until it was edited. I am not going to spend the time it would take to decode it in its present version.

[blackshoe]

Where is the lead?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Feb 25 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Where is the lead?

North in Fluffy's example.

[Fluffy]

you could pick who is on lead, but you can quickly discard east or west on lead since it cannot be neccesary.

I am gonna codify my answer, don't wanna ruin the problem for some

[blackshoe]

If we can pick where the lead is, then okay. If we can't, then Tyler's solution may not work — he needs the lead in North. I agree that the lead can't be in a defender's hand — well, at least it can't be in East's, since he has the ♦A.

[Simplicity]

How about

---

North to lead a spade and make on a double squeeze

[rfp]

Thanks to all who responded, which helped me determine
the problem was cooked (multiple solutions).

Simplicity provided a valid solution, and some Fluffy cat
who writes with white crayons may have too (LOL, maybe
I'm dense, but I couldn't figure out how to read it).

My intended solution (North leads ♣A):

---

The curious 5-card ending was new to me, and I'm not even
sure what to call it. The squeeze is saturated (threats in 4 suits),
progressive (gains 2 tricks) and double (both opponents), so
"saturated progressive double squeeze" would be my guess.

I'll try to reword my conditions to yield only the above unique
solution. (Note that Simplicity's solution could not be unique as
his "finessing" cards could be any suitable spades.)

--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: www.rpbridge.net

[jdonn]

Semantics digression. Isn't any saturated squeeze automatically a type of (non-simultaneous) double squeeze? So maybe "saturated progressive squeeze" is more efficient.

[rfp]

jdonn, on Feb 26 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

Semantics digression. Isn't any saturated squeeze automatically a type of (non-simultaneous) double squeeze? So maybe "saturated progressive squeeze" is more efficient.

Good point. "Saturated" should mean _essential_ threats in all
four suits (which must involve both opponents) as opposed to a
fourth threat that is immaterial.

Consider the SPS hereby christened.

--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: www.rpbridge.net

[nige1]

Norman Bonney found this squeeze in 1933, according to George Coffin in Endplays (p120 in my 1957 UK edition). South leads his kings for what Coffin calls a triple-double repeating squeeze.

---

Norman Bonney found this squeeze in 1933, according to George Coffin in Endplays (p120 in my 1957 UK edition). South leads his kings for what Coffin calls a triple-double repeating squeeze.

---

[rfp]

Nigel,

I'm familiar with Bonney's squeeze, and a similar construction
by Don Kersey, but these are not the same. The key distinction
of my 5-card ending is the extended diamond threat (♦32), which
is essential despite the lack of a diamond entry. This is extremely
rare; in fact it has been postulated in the past that an extended
menace is useless without an entry in its suit.

--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: www.rpbridge.net

[nige1]

rfp, on Feb 26 2010, 11:28 PM, said:

I'm familiar with Bonney's squeeze, and a similar construction by Don Kersey, but these are not the same. The key distinction of my 5-card ending is the extended diamond threat (♦32), which is essential despite the lack of a diamond entry. This is extremely rare; in fact it has been postulated in the past that an extended menace is useless without an entry in its suit.

Richard's squeeze is great and I haven't met it before. But Coffin's nomenclature is worth consideration

[Fluffy]

rfp, on Feb 26 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

Thanks to all who responded, which helped me determine
the problem was cooked (multiple solutions).

Simplicity provided a valid solution, and some Fluffy cat
who writes with white crayons may have too (LOL, maybe
I'm dense, but I couldn't figure out how to read it).

My intended solution (North leads ♣A):

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> A3 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 3 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> A2 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> T98 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> K3 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> K2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> KQ </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> A </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AJ2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 32 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->
The curious 5-card ending was new to me, and I'm not even
sure what to call it. The squeeze is saturated (threats in 4 suits),
progressive (gains 2 tricks) and double (both opponents), so
"saturated progressive double squeeze" would be my guess.

I'll try to reword my conditions to yield only the above unique
solution. (Note that Simplicity's solution could not be unique as
his "finessing" cards could be any suitable spades.)

--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: www.rpbridge.net

That was my solution, wich I guessed thanks to knowing you and how ♥J had to be vital since you don't put any pips carelessly .

However my junior friend Pedro Gonçalves provided a much easier solution (only a double squeeze instead of 3 squeezes) wich involves a 4 instead of a Jack, so somehow better

♠3
♥A3
♦-
♣A2

♠A4
♥2
♦32
♣-


EDIT: Now I see simplicity's line is even better, and I tried the separated diamonds for quite a few minutes so I hate that I missed it :/.