[ahydra]

Are these actual squeezes? In both cases the defender is not really squeezed, but they are forced to reveal the position so declarer can't get it wrong.

1)

---

North is declarer in notrump, and on lead. We assume that the count of each suit is known but not who has the DQ. North leads his heart throwing a diamond from dummy, and West must either set up the CJ or reveal the position of the DQ (after DA, CK, Dx led). In this case West is legitimately squeezed, but if the D8 and DQ are swapped, the position still works.

2) This hand from today was probably the most insane hand I have ever held:

---

Not having a 4NT specific ace ask opening available, nor Exclusion, I had to improvise a bit and decided over 2NT that ace asking wasn't the worst idea; if partner had two I could bid 7NT with confidence, and with one I just had to settle for 6D and hope it was the HA (which was more likely).

The play was a rollercoaster of emotions - first I was annoyed to have missed the grand when partner showed up with the correct ace, but then it was quite a surprise when the spades broke 6-0... and in the end, if one assumes from the lead that East has the HA, there was this weird "information double squeeze" which I found really cool (click through to see the 3-card ending). I lead the last diamond and if West throws the HQ then East must throw a club, but then it's known that West has both remaining clubs so the finesse is a lock. Else, West keeps the heart guard and East throws the HA, but now the remaining clubs are known to be 1-1, and the king will fall no matter who has it.

ahydra

[smerriman]

ahydra, on 2020-July-05, 01:29, said:

.. West must either set up the CJ or reveal the position of the DQ (after DA, CK, Dx led). In this case West is legitimately squeezed, but if the D8 and DQ are swapped, the position still works.

It would equally well if the opponents also held the diamond Jack. So it's not really about revealing the position at all; West is legitimately squeezed regardless of the position, given the threat is the third diamond, rather than which diamond it is.

[johnu]

ahydra, on 2020-July-05, 01:29, said:

The play was a rollercoaster of emotions - first I was annoyed to have missed the grand when partner showed up with the correct ace, but then it was quite a surprise when the spades broke 6-0... and in the end, if one assumes from the lead that East has the HA, there was this weird "information double squeeze" which I found really cool (click through to see the 3-card ending). I lead the last diamond and if West throws the HQ then East must throw a club, but then it's known that West has both remaining clubs so the finesse is a lock. Else, West keeps the heart guard and East throws the HA, but now the remaining clubs are known to be 1-1, and the king will fall no matter who has it.

If West throws ♥Q, why does East have to throw a club? You presumably pitched your heart threat from dummy to keep ♣AQ so East can throw ♥A. You do have a count on clubs so it is 5-3 that West has ♣K

East could make the deceptive discard of ♣J and keep the useless ♥A (do opps play A from AK?) to make you wonder if West made a tricky opening lead and really has ♥A left. In 6 you might just play to ♣A to make the contract.

[dokoko]

smerriman, on 2020-July-05, 02:11, said:

It would equally well if the opponents also held the diamond Jack. So it's not really about revealing the position at all; West is legitimately squeezed regardless of the position, given the threat is the third diamond, rather than which diamond it is.

The term is "Show-up Squeeze". You can make your contract by either finessing or playing for the drop, but playing it as a squeeze eliminates the guess.

[DavidKok]

If I'm not mistaken Clyde Love mentions in a similar situation that even holding three small diamonds West's diamond holding is 'busy concealing that partner holds the ♦Q'. He therefore calls this a legitimate squeeze, since West is forced to discard a card at a moment when they cannot afford to.