A triple squeeze is a squeeze against one player, in three suits; a more explicit definition is "three simple squeezes against the same player."
It is often equated with "progressive squeeze" (also termed a "repeating squeeze"), but progressive squeezes are a subset of triple squeezes. A progressive squeeze is a triple squeeze that, depending both on entries and on positional factors, may result in a subsequent, simple, two-suit squeeze that takes place against the opponent who has just been triple squeezed. Confusing the issue is that some triple squeezes can become progressive squeezes through misdefense.
The progressive squeeze is a contract bridge squeeze that gains two tricks by squeezing one and the same player twice, hence the name. A progressive squeezes is a subset of triple squeezes that, depending both on entries and on positional factors, may result in a subsequent, simple, two-suit squeeze that takes place against the opponent who has just been triple squeezed. Confusing the issue is that some triple squeezes can become progressive squeezes through misdefense.
Here is an example of a triple squeeze that should not become progressive:
| ♠ | A 5 2 | ||||
| ♥ | J 10 8 2 | ||||
| ♦ | 9 4 2 | ||||
| ♣ | A 6 4 | ||||
| ♠ | Q J 10 | N | ♠ | 8 7 6 4 | |
| ♥ | 6 3 | ♥ | 7 | ||
| ♦ | A K Q J 10 | ♦ | 8 7 5 3 | ||
| ♣ | Q J 10 | ♣ | 8 7 3 2 | ||
| ♠ | K 9 3 | ||||
| ♥ | A K Q 9 5 4 | ||||
| ♦ | 6 | ||||
| ♣ | K 9 5 | ||||
South, pushed to 5♥ by the nonvulnerable opponents, ruffs the second diamond lead and runs hearts to reach this position:
| ♠ | A 5 2 | ||||
| ♥ | — | ||||
| ♦ | 9 | ||||
| ♣ | A 6 4 | ||||
| ♠ | Q J 10 | N | ♠ | 8 7 6 | |
| ♥ | — | ♥ | — | ||
| ♦ | Q | ♦ | — | ||
| ♣ | Q J 10 | ♣ | 8 7 3 2 | ||
| ♠ | K 9 3 | ||||
| ♥ | 9 | ||||
| ♦ | — | ||||
| ♣ | K 9 5 | ||||
South cannot be prevented from winning six more tricks, and if West isn't careful South will win all seven. When South leads his last heart, West is triple-squeezed and must discard the ♦Q to stop the overtrick. Now South discards dummy's ♠2 and crosses to the ♠A. Dummy's ♦9 is cashed, South discards the ♣5, and West lets go the ♣10. South can now cash two clubs and a spade but must give up either a spade or a club at the end.
If West discarded from a black suit when South cashed the final heart, the position would progress to another squeeze, of the simple squeeze variety. The reason that this does not occur after the ♦Q is discarded on the ♥9 is that a squeezed position requires that at least one threat sit over the squeezed opponent. After West discards, say, the ♣10 on the ♥9, dummy discards a small club, keeping dummy's ♦9 as a threat sitting over West's ♦Q. Now South can cash the ♣A, the ♣K and the ♣9 to effect another squeeze, a simple two-suit squeeze in spades and diamonds, against West.
The simple squeeze is the most basic form of a squeeze in contract bridge. When declarer plays a winner in one suit, an opponent is forced to discard a stopper in one of declarer's two threat suits.
But if West discards the ♦Q on South's final heart, South cannot arrange for a threat to sit over West's black suit holdings, a progressive squeeze cannot mature, and South is held to the one additional trick he gets from the triple squeeze.
Clyde Love, in his classic book on squeeze play, [1] classifies triple squeezes according to the number of threats opposite the squeeze card. (This article assumes, for consistency, that it is always South who holds the squeeze card.) In the example given above, only one threat, the ♦9, was opposite the squeeze card, the ♥9, and West was squeezed. In that case, and if West defends correctly, this triple squeeze cannot become a progressive squeeze.
Again with North holding one threat, the triple squeeze will become a progressive squeeze against East if the necessary entry conditions are present: both North and South have entries in their own threat suits. In the following example, North holds one threat card (the ♠9), and East is to be triple-squeezed. Given those conditions, and with the ♥J as an entry to South's ♥4 and the ♠Q as an entry to the ♠9, the triple squeeze must always work as a progressive squeeze against East:
| ♠ | Q 9 | ||||
| ♥ | 2 | ||||
| ♦ | 6 4 | ||||
| ♣ | — | ||||
| ♠ | 8 7 6 5 | N | ♠ | J 10 | |
| ♥ | — | ♥ | 10 9 | ||
| ♦ | 7 | ♦ | J | ||
| ♣ | — | ♣ | — | ||
| ♠ | 4 | ||||
| ♥ | J 4 | ||||
| ♦ | 9 | ||||
| ♣ | 3 | ||||
At notrump, South plays the ♣3 and dummy discards the ♦4. East is triple squeezed, and regardless of his discard South can squeeze him in his two remaining suits, to win all five tricks.
The situation is different if North has not one but two threats, accompanied by at least one entry. Then, the triple squeeze succeeds against an opponent, either one, who guards all three suits, with one exception. The exception occurs when North's entry is in South's threat suit, and South has no entry in any threat suit: then, East cannot be triple-squeezed.
For example, West is squeezed on the lead of the ♣2:
| ♠ | 9 | ||||
| ♥ | J 5 | ||||
| ♦ | J 7 | ||||
| ♣ | — | ||||
| ♠ | Q | N | ♠ | 10 8 7 | |
| ♥ | 9 6 | ♥ | — | ||
| ♦ | 10 9 | ♦ | 6 5 | ||
| ♣ | — | ♣ | — | ||
| ♠ | J | ||||
| ♥ | 3 | ||||
| ♦ | 3 2 | ||||
| ♣ | 2 | ||||
and the squeeze also succeeds against East:
| ♠ | 9 | ||||
| ♥ | J 5 | ||||
| ♦ | J 7 | ||||
| ♣ | — | ||||
| ♠ | 10 8 7 | N | ♠ | Q | |
| ♥ | — | ♥ | 9 6 | ||
| ♦ | 6 5 | ♦ | 10 9 | ||
| ♣ | — | ♣ | — | ||
| ♠ | J | ||||
| ♥ | 3 | ||||
| ♦ | 3 2 | ||||
| ♣ | 2 | ||||
Although with North holding two threats the triple squeeze always succeeds against East, it can never mature as a progressive squeeze. It will always become a progressive squeeze against West, however, if South and North each has an entry in their own threat suit(s). For example:
| ♠ | A 9 | ||||
| ♥ | 6 2 | ||||
| ♦ | — | ||||
| ♣ | Q 10 | ||||
| ♠ | J 10 | N | ♠ | 8 6 | |
| ♥ | K Q | ♥ | 5 4 | ||
| ♦ | — | ♦ | — | ||
| ♣ | K 7 | ♣ | 9 5 | ||
| ♠ | 7 2 | ||||
| ♥ | A J | ||||
| ♦ | 5 | ||||
| ♣ | A | ||||
Notice that the triple squeeze succeeds and is progressive against West. But if East's and West's holdings are swapped, the triple squeeze succeeds, but does not become progressive if East defends correctly.
In contract bridge and similar games, a finesse is a card play technique which will enable a player to win an additional trick or tricks should there be a favorable position of one or more cards in the hands of the opponents.
A squeeze play is a tactic, often occurring late in the hand, used in contract bridge and other trick-taking games in which the play of a card forces an opponent to discard a winner or the guard of a potential winner. Although numerous types of squeezes have been analyzed and catalogued in contract bridge, they were first discovered and described in whist.
The double squeeze is a type of squeeze play in the card game of Bridge.
In contract bridge, a simultaneous double squeeze is a double squeeze in which both opponents are squeezed by the same card, as opposed to non-simultaneous double squeeze where the two opponents are squeezed in different tricks.
An endplay, in bridge and similar games, is a tactical play where a defender is put on lead at a strategic moment, and then has to make a play that loses one or more tricks. Most commonly the losing play either constitutes a free finesse, or else it gives declarer a ruff and discard. In a case where declarer has no entries to dummy, the defender may also be endplayed into leading a suit which can be won in that hand.
The stepping-stone squeeze is an advanced type of squeeze in contract bridge. It is used when the declarer has enough high cards to take all but one of the remaining tricks, but does not have enough communication between the hands to cash them. It was analyzed and named by Terence Reese in the book "The Expert Game", also titled "Master Play in Contract Bridge".
A strip squeeze is a declarer technique at contract bridge combining elements of squeeze and endplay.
In contract bridge, the trump squeeze is a variant of the simple squeeze. In a trump squeeze, declarer has a suit that can be established by ruffing, but the defender being squeezed is guarding that suit. However, if he happens to also guard another suit, the squeeze card will force him to unguard one.
Pseudo-squeeze is a type of deceptive play in contract bridge. The declarer goes through the motions of executing a genuine squeeze where none exists, in the hope that a defender misreads the actual position and misdefends. The pseudo-squeeze simply gives the defender able to recognize the possibility of a squeezed position a chance to go wrong.
Morton's Fork is a coup in contract bridge that forces an opponent to choose between:
A compound squeeze is a type of play in the game of contract bridge. In this squeeze one opponent is squeezed such that some form of other squeeze emerges involving either or both players. Usually this term is used to reference a pentagonal squeeze. In this form of squeeze both players guard two suits, and one player guards a third suit. On the play of a card the player guarding three suits must give up one of the shared guards . Now each opponent singly guards one suit, and there is a third suit that is jointly guarded. This means that a double squeeze matrix exists. Note that there are pseudo compound squeezes, where the triply squeezed opponent can select the 'correct' shared suit, such that the entry situation precludes the proper functioning of the double squeeze.
The trump coup is a contract bridge coup used when the hand on lead has no trumps remaining, while the next hand in rotation has only trumps, including a high one that would have been onside for a direct finesse if a trump could have been led. The play involves forcing that hand to ruff, only to be overruffed. A similar motive is met in coup en passant, where indirect finesse is used instead of direct.
A guard squeeze is a type of squeeze in contract bridge where a player is squeezed out of a card which prevents his partner from being finessed. The squeeze operates in three suits, where the squeezed player protects the menaces in two suits, but cannot help his partner anymore in the third suit after the squeeze is executed.
Backwash squeeze is a rare squeeze which involves squeezing an opponent which lies behind declarer's menace. A variation of this, known as the "Sydney Squeeze" or "Seres Squeeze", was discovered in play at a rubber bridge game in Sydney, Australia in 1965, by the Australian great Tim Seres; it was later attested by famous bridge theorist Géza Ottlik in an article in The Bridge World in 1974, as well as in his famous book Adventures in Card Play, co-authored with Hugh Kelsey.
A clash squeeze is a three suit bridge squeeze with a special kind of menace, referred to as clash menace. The clash menace is one that might fall under a winner in the opposite hand, because it can be covered by another card in an opponent's hand. If the clash squeeze can force the opponent to discard his guard, then the clash menace can be cashed separately from the winner opposite. For example, consider this layout of the spade suit:
An entry squeeze exerts pressure by threatening the length of a defender's holding in a side suit. In many familiar squeezed positions, such as a simple or double squeeze, the rank of a defender's holding prevents declarer from cashing a threat until the squeeze has matured. This situation is also present in entry squeezes, but in addition a defensive holding interferes with declarer's entries, preventing declarer from effectively going back and forth between his hand and dummy.
A knockout squeeze is a squeeze in three suits, one of which is the trump suit. The defender's trump holding is needed to prevent declarer from making a successful play involving trumps, including one as prosaic as ruffing a loser. Because the knockout squeeze does not threaten to promote declarer's trumps to winners it is termed a non-material squeeze. Other non-material squeezes include entry squeezes, single-suit squeezes and winkles.
The saturated squeeze is a type of squeeze play in the card game of Bridge.