Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:10 AM

Double Squeezes Revisted

PITBULLS:

Double Squeezes are not difficult . Here are some generalizations that cover all double squeezes and squeezes in general. Bridge is played in a clockwise direction . This simple fact has a profound influence on squeezes. You must have a threat behind one of the threats for a squeeze to operate . O.K. what is “behind” and can we use right or left to describe this position. Yes , but we need a reference point. All doubles squeezes need a B suit ( threat common to both opponents) accompanied by an entry(s) in the B suit. Use the hand that contains the B threat as a reference point so now you can use “right & left” for the directions. Right is the threat to the right of the B suit and Left is the threat to the left of the B suit. This is how Pavlicek & other authors define the letter terminology This is not how Clyde Love does it.

You must be able to speak the “lingo” of squeezes. Clyde Love defines R & L relative to the single threat hand . Pavlicek defines R & L relative to the hand that contains the B threat . Confusing yes but essential to learn.

With our reference point defined , we can make a generalization that is applicable to all Double Squeezes. The left threat must be in the hand opposite the B threat. Why ? This is due to the clockwise nature of the game of Bridge . We want to play after the victim does so we can execute a positional squeeze. The R threat can be in either hand.

Traditional Double Squeeze theory has many cases defined and rules to execute double squeezes for all these different cases. Richard Pavlicek in his article on double squeezes says he has “one rule which fits all “ .

First cash the right winners*, then cash all the winners in the hand with the common threat except those in the common suit.

*Unless this suit provides the only entry to the hand opposite the common threat.

Pavlicek has many examples in his article http://www.rpbridge.net/6d81.htm I have not found an example yet where his “one rule fits all” does not work so this might be a better way to perceive Double Squeezes. Pavliceks methods work but you do not know why they work . Clyde Loves teachings tell you why double squeezes work which I need to understand & recognize squeezes.

Actually Pavliceks notation is similar to Clyde Loves since the B1 , B2 squeezes are the single threat hand in Loves book as well . The type R squeeze is actually a type L squeeze in Pavliceks notation. So cash the R winners first instead of the L winners as in Loves book. So the L victim is in front of the L threat card. Same thing but I like to understand what I am doing as opposed to blindly following “one rule fits all”.