|
|
Simple guard squeeze:
In the simple guard squeeze, the squeeze operator has two single threats in addition to the guard threat, all against the same opponent.
If both single threats lie in the same hand, the squeeze card must then lie with the guard threat, and there must be an entry to the two-threat hand. If that entry were in one of the single threats, the position would reduce to a simple squeeze, so the entry must lie in the guard threat (but the other possibility will be significant in the double and compound positions).
|
|
If the additional threats are in opposite hands, the lone threat must be recessed, and there is an adjoint family (one position with the squeeze card lying opposite the guard threat, and three further positions with the squeeze card lying in the same hand as the guard threat while entry to the opposite hand is provided by the guard threat itself, or by a blocked or ruffing entry in the suit of the threat in the same hand as the squeeze card).
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
As in the previous case, one potential member of this adjoint family (in which there is an entry to the hand opposite the squeeze card in the suit of the lone threat) reduces to an ordinary simple squeeze. Again, that position will become significant when we consider double and compound guard squeezes.
One of the remarkable features of the guard squeeze is that it can often be equally effective if one or even both of the single menaces is replaced by a double menace. If the threats include a guard threat, a double threat, and a single threat, then the position is a double guard squeeze. Once again, we distinguish cases according to whether the double and single threats are in the same hand.
First, the double guard squeeze positions in which the single threat and the double threat both lie opposite the guard threat:
|
|
|
Note here again that an entry in the double threat would reduce the position to an ordinary double squeeze.
Next, the positions with the side threats in opposite hands:
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
As always, it seems that one position is missing here, but if the double threat is a recessed entry threat, then the position reduces to an ordinary double squeeze.
In the compound guard squeeze, declarer has one guard threat and two double threats; both opponents are squeezed in the same three suits. The matrices above do not include enough room for the player with the long guard in the guard suit to hold stoppers in both of the other suits as well; the compound guard squeeze begins on the second last free winner, when the player with three full stoppers is forced to discard one of them, leading to a subsequent double guard squeeze. In the basic positions, both free winners will lie in the same hand. As usual, we give first the positions in which the two side menaces lie in the same hand (but this time we consolidate all positions in one table):
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
If the free suit is initially blocked (eg in any of the six holdings above, replace one of North's idle cards with the club A), then the South hand will require an extra entry in one of the threat suits - the play will proceed by cashing the blocked winner in the free suit (squeezing the hand with three full stops), returning to hand with the extra winner, and continuing with the last free-suit winner to effect the culminating double guard squeeze.
In the positions listed above, only one defender had a full stopper in the suit of the guard menace. In practice, guard menaces are often developed in suits which are originally fully stopped on both sides. For instance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here East and West both start out with a third-round spade stopper; but if West can be forced to discard two spades by preliminary pressure, then the suit assumes the form of a guard menace (note that in the play leading up to a guard squeeze with this holding, North will probably need to discard a spade, and must be careful to unblock by discarding the nine rather than the three).
There is a simple rule to determine whether one of the above endings can support a progressive guard squeeze of this sort: the position is viable if and only if it includes a well-placed single threat. In the positions diagrammed here, this means:
K 2
K
K
--