A tempo squeeze?
Who said that only grand champions could write bridge articles? A few months ago, Funbridge launched a brand-new format of articles that allow talented players to share their expertise on the deals that inspire them the most. We have the pleasure of presenting you with a captivating article below that was written by one of the members of our community.
Zoom in on the author
Yoram Aviram is an experienced bridge player and a former member of the Israeli Junior and Open teams with several achievements on the national and international scenes.
Yoram left the game many years ago to focus on family and work (in the field of computerised trading of financial instruments) and switching hobbies from the mind sport of bridge to the physical sport of competitive road cycling.
He is now returning to his old passion and has adopted Funbridge as the platform on which to refresh his old skills.
He is happy to share deals of particular interest with the Funbridge community on the blog.
A tempo squeeze?
Pressure or “squeeze” plays are often considered to be among the most complex techniques of play. There are many different types of squeeze play. The basic ones usually involve one opponent having to part with a guard in one or two suits, thus providing declarer with a missing trick. More complex types may involve 3 suits, both opponents, different kinds of guards and repeatability elements.
A squeeze play usually requires the “count”, i.e. declarer needs to win all the remaining tricks. Less often, a squeeze can operate without the count, i.e. declarer still has a loser after executing the squeeze.
The other day, while playing a 3-deal MP tournament, I encountered an interesting situation in which a squeeze has operated with 2 losers still out. As dealer, holding the following cards, I opened 1♠.
With opponents silent, Partner responded 2♣. I like to rebid 2NT with those balanced 12-14 hands, but that would show 15-17 in our system, so I rebid the “default” 2♠. Partner rebid 3♦ and although not very happy with my “empty” heart stopper, I concluded in 3NT.
West led the ♥4 and the dummy came down:
As I suspected, it would have been better to play from Partner’s side (although it is unclear how to get there since he himself has no real heart stopper).
Hopeful, I tried dummy’s 10 and to my relief, it held as East played the 2. I assumed that East’s card showed count, so West had likely led from a five-card suit headed by AJ. I could count 3 top spades, 2 top diamonds and two heart tricks. That is 7. Spades could provide 1 or 2 more tricks. Clubs and Diamonds might each provide 1 more trick.
It seemed natural to first try the Spades. I played the K and followed with another one to my Q. Opponents followed, West dropping the J on the second round. That was nice. The contract was assured, but as this was a MP tournament, overtricks were important.
I saw no reason not to continue cashing my spade winners and I might gain some information from opponent’s discards. On the next spade, West discarded the ♥3 (confirming his original 5-card holding). I discarded a club from dummy. On the next spade, West discarded the ♦2. I discarded another of dummy’s clubs. On my last spade, West discarded the ♦8. That might be a clue. I didn’t think West, with a possible safe heart discard, would let go a diamond guard, so I believed that the diamond Q was with East. I discarded one more dummy’s clubs (a diamond may be later needed for communication) and East’s first discard was the ♦5.
That was now the position and it was time to reflect:
I had already taken 6 tricks. I believed that the diamond finesse was on, so I could take 3 more diamond tricks. I could safely develop one more heart trick. That made 10 tricks.
What about Clubs? I couldn’t tell who had the A. If it was with West, I could develop a club trick for a total of 11. But there was a problem of tempo. West still had 3 Hearts. If I then played the ♥Q, he would win it and continue with a heart, developing a heart trick that he could take later if he entered with the ♣A. That would be the defense’s 3rd trick, leaving me with just 10. Similarly, if I entered my hand in Diamonds and tried a club towards dummy’s K, that would develop a second club trick for the defense, even if West held the A (and two others). So, it seemed that I might have 11 tricks, but the defense had the tempo to take 3 first.
Here came the squeeze… What was West going to discard if I played Diamonds? Let’s watch. I played the ♦9 to dummy’s A, both opponents following, then a diamond to my J. West was on the spot. That was the position with cards revealed:
After South’s ♦J, West had to part with his third card in either Clubs or Hearts. Whichever suit he picked, it would have left him with just 2 cards in that suit, thus no threat of a second trick there for the defense.
West actually discarded the ♥8. As a result, I played a heart. West took his A and continued with his last heart. A club towards dummy gave me my 11th trick.
I managed to lose 2 aces only. 11 tricks were a top score as even 10 were worth 72%.
Although involving a “special” squeeze play with 2 late tricks to lose, the deal has an “ordinary feel” to it, making one wonder whether those positions are quite common.
What is the concept behind community articles?
Would you also like to write an article? At Funbridge, we like giving our players a voice. In this format of articles, it is you who write the content. If you notice a deal that you find particularly interesting and that you would like to share with the Funbridge community, tell us in a comment below! We will get back to you quickly.
Content Manager
What did you think of this article?
Share your opinion in the Comments section below.
