Jump to content

Talk:Clash squeeze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dpiranha (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 23 August 2009 (→‎East's holding is irrelevant: Disagree, with references to be cited.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconContract bridge Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

East's holding is irrelevant

We have two Talks in this article's history, which is inconvenient. Get a handle, for heaven's sake.

The "Talk" who keeps insisting that East's holding is relevant misses the point of the clash squeeze.

North's deuce is not a threat to take a trick in the suit, not when the diagrammed suit contains the clash menace. The layout is not intended to represent an entry (the A) combined with a menace (the 2), as it might if a standard simple squeeze were being discussed. In that case, "Talk" would be correct, East's holding would not only be relevant, it would be the point -- it would be East who had to be squeezed, not West.

However, the 2 is there not as a menace but as a companion that allows the Q and A to be cashed on separate tricks. The 2, or some other small companion, is necessary so that if West is squeezed out of the K, the Q can be cashed, and later the A. Because the 2 is not a threat to take a trick, a "guard" in East's hand is pointless, and East's holding is therefore truly irrelevant.

Before Talk changes the diagram back to give East a pointless and distracting "guard" in the suit, perhaps he or she will first think the issue through. TurnerHodges (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change last night, and I simply forgot to login. I was not the person/people who made the original changes, but he/she/they were as correct as I am, and with all due respect, you are as mistaken as before. If East has a singleton or void, there is no clash menace or any other menace for that matter; North's deuce is a trick, plain and simple. East needs a holding to guard the second round of spades. Trump vs. notrump is irrelevant, a guard squeeze works for both.
For a reference, please consult the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, which ought to be the most authoritative source on the subject (p.78 in my ancient edition; probably different in the latest versions.) In their example layout, North, West, and South have the identical holdings in your diagram, but East has two cards in the suit - in fact, they are the jack-ten, not the four-three. Two other of my books on squeezes - one by Klinger, one by Anderson - also state that East must hold a second-round guard in the suit. I've updated the article to reflect the layout that the Encyclopedia gives. Please do not revert it until you can cite a source more authoritative than the ones I've given. Dpiranha (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]