[alphred]

Hi all,

How often does the ability to use the tecnique of the squize give you en extra trick?

Thx all, Alphred

[manudude03]

I read somewhere that there was a possible squeeze every 6 boards. In practice though, I find it's more like 1 in 25.

[ggwhiz]

I routinely play for the squeeze and it doesn't drop costing me 2 tricks when the finesse was onside all along.

[SteveMoe]

This question is deceptively simple but impossible to answer accurately. Whether to attempt a squeeze depends on reading the cards and on whether the plan for the hand can find the necessary tricks with standard play. On those few occasions when the normal plans leave us 1 trick short, a squeeze or end play might be the only viable chance.

Sometimes running long suits can induce a defensive error. Sometime the guards are split between both hands and the wrong hand discards the single guard, unaware partner had the other suit protected. Sometimes a squeeze works when a split or a finesse would have worked just as well.

Usually I look for a squeeze when I do not have sufficient tricks, or suspect an overpriced might be lurking. I also look for squeeze possibilities when I can afford to postpone my choice. Finally squeezes can be useful to mitigate risk inherent in finesse and suit breaks.

Keep in mind that squeezes by defenders are possible but very rare (managed to do it twice in over 12 years).

The long and short for me is they are another tool in my toolkit. Like any tool, they are best used for the specific purpose intended.

A good GLM says that average players would do better playing flawlessly on the 98% of hands and not worry much about the 2% that have squeezes and exotic plays in them. I am not sure where he got his statistics. I think the advice is sound.

[Lovera]

"Compared to the relative frequency of the different types of squeeze the American Edward C. Wolf has determined the following approximate percentage: single direct squeezes in 2 suits 48%, automatic squeezes in 2 suits 40%, double squeezes 6%, single squeezes in 3 suits and with Vienna coup 3%, ruffing squeezes and other 3%" (From "Il libro completo del bridge" by G. Barbone reported also in "Il gioco di compressione nel bridge" by Adolfo Giannuzzi). A my suggest : to improve initially what you have necessarly studyied about any good book on squeeze before sure yours contract and then and if condition are, prove to have the extra tricks that, if rules are rightly applied, exits. This type of plan, called also as "last hope", is not difficult to execute and is for intermediate players (almost in its and more common forms).

[fromageGB]

SteveMoe, on 2016-January-15, 18:08, said:

Usually I look for a squeeze when I do not have sufficient tricks, or suspect an overpriced might be lurking.

I've never thought of tricks being overpriced. Perhaps the mental cost of the strain of trying to remember the various positions is too much. Certainly some hands are overpriced ; when we get a passed-out hand at the club I feel like asking for a refund.

[VixTD]

manudude03, on 2016-January-15, 16:51, said:

I read somewhere that there was a possible squeeze every 6 boards. In practice though, I find it's more like 1 in 25.

I have a vague recollection of reading an estimate by Reece (I think) that a squeeze position occurs on roughly one in seven deals, so you can expect to get to play about one per session (ignoring defenders' squeezes). I assume he was including both working and failing squeezes, and I'm not sure he just meant useful rather than contrived squeezes, but this estimate doesn't seem too far out in my experience.

Lovera, on 2016-January-16, 07:38, said:

The American Edward C. Wolf has determined the following approximate percentage: single direct squeezes in 2 suits 48%, automatic squeezes in 2 suits 40%, double squeezes 6%, single squeezes in 3 suits and with Vienna coup 3%, ruffing squeezes and other 3%

These figures sound about right. It amuses me that nearly all books on squeeze play devote as much space to exotic squeezes as they do to humdrum simple squeezes, but my advice to beginners in the technique is to read up and practice simple squeezes for a year or two before progressing to double squeezes, and stop there. You lose more games expending valuable time and energy looking for positions that won't come up (or that you won't recognise when they do) than if you devoted those resources to more useful pursuits such as counting hands, distributions etc.

It also annoys me that the squeezes you find in books are always for the dramatic making trick in a game or slam, when the most useful arena for squeeze play is in the pairs game, where every trick counts.

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2016-January-16, 07:38, said:

"Compared to the relative frequency of the different types of squeeze the American Edward C. Wolf has determined the following approximate percentage: single direct squeezes in 2 suits 48%, automatic squeezes in 2 suits 40%, double squeezes 6%, single squeezes in 3 suits and with Vienna coup 3%, ruffing squeezes and other 3%"

How does he categorise hands with multiple suqeeze possibilities, in particular those where it is possible to play for a simple squeeze or a double squeeze but not both at the same time? My guess that these come under the double squeeze (as that is usually the better option) which only strengthens the point being made by Vix.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2016-January-19, 08:04, said:

It also annoys me that the squeezes you find in books are always for the dramatic making trick in a game or slam, when the most useful arena for squeeze play is in the pairs game, where every trick counts.

Making a difficult contract is worth 8-10 IMPs in teams, and probably at least 75% of a board in pairs. Making an overtrick is worth 1 IMP and 25-50% in pairs.

Maybe the squeeze for the game isn't as valuable in a strong field, where most of the other players will find it as well, so it's just getting you up to average+, and you need to get overtricks on other boards for the extra edge. But in a typical club game, just making games that others go down in (or don't bid in the first place) will get you a good result.

[Lovera]

Infact all books start, in different or consequent way accordling by author process, with simple squeeze and, because on argoument, correlated "manouvres" (such as the Vienna coup, orientament of menaces, etc.) presenting the schemes to familiarize with its the reader/student. Although at this point of knowlodgeness, this (interesting) subject can be receveid as exaustive to learn and this is not a good thing for prosecution toward the "double squeeze" part that is more important than "single squeeze", it being base for many other types of squeezes. This one can be an obsatcle for continuing on study/analysis of book and, at my advice, the rapprenting on "schemes(=endings)" that are the ending developing of cards situations, has maked a "bad trick/joke" about it (requiring an mind effort to remember).

[nige1]

I reckon that a squeeze is the play with the best trick-expectation on a lot of hands, perhaps more than half. Hugh Kelsey, Geza Ottlik and recent Bridge World articles hint at the wide variety of possible squeezes, with and without the count. Guard squeezes, Clash squeezes, Entry squeezes, Count squeezes, and so on can all help you make tricks that you might not otherwise make. At single-dummy, just running a long suit often achieves a successful pseudo-squeeze, even when there's no legitimate double-dummy chance.

[VixTD]

The last sentence of David Bird's "Bridge Squeezes for Everyone" states that opportunities for squeeze play occur roughly once every five boards.

[Winstonm]

There is no question that to be a great player one must have an intimate knowledge of squeeze technique. But the question is rather vague as there are many semi-squeeze situations and secondary squeezes that comprise squeeze knowledge. Squeeze strip endplays are fairly common. Vice, winkle, and stepping stone quite rare.

The question is not how often it occurs but what quality of player do I want to be? Answering that should tell you how deeply into squeeze techniques you should dig.

[rhm]

Squeeze play in itself is not terrible important.
The reality is that often people rather stumble into a squeeze by accident.
To plan a squeeze usually requires foresight and an analysis of the layout, which is the backbone of almost any good card play.
You learn to play with four hands at the table, rather than with two. A good though rare example is the stepping stone squeeze.
Exactly the same technique (playing four hands) is required for deceptive play. People who only play their cards have not mastered this skill.

Understanding what makes squeeze work and what does not gives a deeper understanding about how play of the cards in bridge works in general and the importance of communication between opposite hands.
For example it is amazing how many tricks you can win when playing the cards in the right order and defenders will often discard wrongly even though no squeeze would have operated double dummy.

Rainer Herrmann

[Lovera]

I think, seeing how is going to develop the topic argoument, that we are expanding it. The "fashinating" squeeze tecnique can take to think that only need to run own winners to get at the "extra trick" but is not so. It should be too easy doesn't requiring all that study to understand/know better what to do. For instance we know that it is one among the vary plannings (i call these as "chronoplay" it being that the factor time has an basilar rule). Another thing is that are many ways to recognize if there is a squeeze situation and its "schemes" and, for avoiding memory effort, is sufficent to consider that i.e. the guard squeeze endings are the same of double squeeze ones (with an exchange of orientation in menaces) and that vice squeeze and clash endings are stricly correated with the "exotic (but is not so:this becomes having firstly Love used to say it) trump/ruffing squeeze, nowadays much better knowled also in its more complex part as guard trump. At this aim of knowledge i had tried to start a second way to study this subject starting the "Ghelli notation" based on menaces oriented vs the right-left method used by Love. In the Romanet book that uses the same Love method there is, for a more clear analisys of endings, the differentness in endings with united menaces and endings with unilateral ones divided (the author termed its calling with an analogic way i.e. the double squeeze ending with 3 cards is termed "balanced(=equilibrated)" to better memoryze).