Monday, June 21, 2004 5:44 AM

Love on Squeezes

PITBULLS:

Re-read Love on Squeezes today after 35 years of collecting dust. The price on the book was $2.50 which gives you an idea of its era. Anyway the book is a classic but its written in a mathematical way ( author was a math professor ) . Love assumes the reader is a Math major with a finely tuned deductive reasoning brain . Here is an attempt by me ( below ) to simplify his work on double squeezes and some other general comments.

All Squeezes work due to the nature of the game of Bridge. The rules of Bridge allow declarer to have two hands (his and the dummy) with two or more threats which allow him to gang up on a poor defender(s) one hand. The fact that Bridge is played in a clockwise direction is essential in identifying and executing squeezes. Double squeezes by definition involve two defenders & three suits with their threats. The double squeeze will not work if all three threats are in the same hand. Therefore the dummy & declarers hand share the three threats . This means that one hand ( declarer or dummy ) must hold a single threat. Love uses this single threat hand as a reference point to define the suits in a double squeeze by using letters:

• B: The suit held by both opponents
• L: The suit held by LHO of the hand containing one threat
• R: The suit held by RHO of the hand containing one threat
• F: The free suit held by neither opponent

Thus we have potentially three types of double squeezes based on which threat is alone. However, Love proves that Type L squeeze always fails due to the fact that Bridge is played in a clockwise direction. He also splits the Type B squeezes depending on how many winners in the B suit. So eventually he finished with three types of double squeezes, Type R, Type B1 and Type B2. Type B: if the B threat was accompanied by one winner only [no winners is impossible: remember that it must be accompanied by an entry] then it is a Type B1 squeeze: if it is accompanied by two or more, then it is a Type B2 squeeze. The fact that there are two or more winners in the B suit drastically changes the execution of this squeeze.

Love shows that there is a drastic difference between the play of a simple squeeze and a double squeeze. In a simple squeeze you can still have winners in your threat suits after the squeeze takes place. In every double squeeze , all your winners are cashed except for the B suit. He also mentions that the squeeze card must always be in the hand opposite the B suit if there are no split entries in the B suit.

So what? You see a double squeeze, you work out which is the one threat hand, the B/R/L/F suits: you decide on its classification based on the single threat hand eventhe B squeezes:The meaning of R & L is based on the one threat hand: How do you play it? Remember to leave the B entry alone. You do the following:

• Type R: There must be an R/F winner in the one threat hand. L winners are cashed early. You lead the last R/F winner from the one threat hand. The free winners quite often are with the R winners but not a necessary condition. As long as the last winner is led from the one threat hand.
• Type B2: You cash all the R/F/L winners in any order: if there is no B winner in the two threat hand then the last R/F/L winner must be opposite the B threat i.e. with the two threats.
• Type B1: The last R winner must precede the last F winner, which must be led from the one threat hand. After this, there must be a B/L entry to the two threat hand.

Which is the squeeze card? Don't know, don't care. Which of these squeezes are simultaneous, which non-simultaneous? Don't know, don't care. Do I really mean any order for Type B2? Yes, try it. If you get the right Type B2, it can be simultaneous, or LHO can be squeezed first, or RHO, at the whim of the squeezer: how does that fit into other writers' classifications ? Love makes it irrelevant but they write about it at great lengths.

Love does a good job of explaining the relationship between how “busy” a defender is in protecting suits and the count being rectified. If a defender has to guard three suits then there could be a progressive squeeze or a strip squeeze with the count rectified at two. The victim in a strip squeeze is busy because he may have surplus winners , a tenace position to guard or exit cards to be squeezed out. Essentially in a two suited strip squeeze , a defender is busy in 3 suits so the count is rectified at two ! If a defender is busy in four suits , the count could be rectified at three tricks ! In some squeezes like compound squeezes , when the count is rectified at one and the defender has to guard 3 suits , the squeeze matures on the 2^Nd last free winner. Trump squeezes mature at the 2^nd last free winner because the defender is busy protecting against a ruff to set up a suit. Squeezes can occur with the squeeze card being a loser. This rectifies the count and squeezes the opponent at the same time! He does not delve into suicide squeezes as a theme though.

Love scoffs at the terms “criss-cross” squeeze or “Vienna coup” as they are rightly just entry conditions for the simple squeeze. The Squeeze literature makes much ado about nothing with these fancy labels. Guard squeezes are just simple squeezes when there is no entry to either of the two threats. The fact that a defender is busy in a third suit ( protecting partner against a finesse ) , Love calls them a “two and ½ suit squeeze”.

Love uses many slam hands for his squeeze examples. After reading the book , one gets the impression that all slams should be made somehow. Love gives a hand in his chapter on compound squeezes where the contract is 7NT with only 12 top tricks. Love says “prove that this hand is cold on any distribution of the opponents cards” after the opening lead gives one clue which he ( of course ) labels the basic threat ! He goes on to list the simple squeeze possibilities and then saying failing that if the defender is busy in 3 suits you can force a discard out of him that causes the standard double squeezes to come into play. In other words this hand is cold on a double squeeze or a simple squeeze!

Love spends some time on squeeze defense . Not letting the declarer rectify the count , killing entries, not allowing squeezes to repeat by allowing the suit without an entry to be established , making a discard very early so that its not obvious the King is singleton , deception etc . Love encourages running your free suit early to induce pseudo squeezes as concealment is certainly better then revealment in squeeze defense.

Love fails to mention the main purpose of learning Squeeze theory. Squeeze play is necessary as a defense against the bidding of BJ & Tom which lands you in some dicey contracts. These contracts usually need all the help then can get J .