Talk:Clash squeeze

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)

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)

Look, this is getting silly. I'm going to leave your edit as is because, although I think it distracts the reader from the main point of the intentionally incomplete example, it's not demonstrably wrong. (My 1976 copy of the Encyclopedia has it on page 65, and yes, I see that Monroe included East's holding in the clash suit.) And I agree that in the context of the full hand, East's holding is relevant. If East has a void or singleton, South has two tricks in the suit regardless of whether a squeezed position is present; if East has two or more -- any two or more, given the rank of the cards in the other three hands -- then a squeeze of some sort is required.

That squeeze, if one is required, might be something as simple as a split menace two suit squeeze against either opponent, or a complex three-suit clash squeeze against West. But looking at one suit only, as in that accursed introductory example, and with the proviso that we're looking at a clash squeeze -- ignoring other possibilities ranging from a simple squeeze to a progressive three suit squeeze -- then East's holding is indeed irrelevant. That a squeeze is under discussion at all makes a void or singleton irrelevant; that it's a clash squeeze under discussion renders a longer holding irrelevant.

I emphasize once again that I included the example, an action I now bitterly regret, not to illustrate the various requirements for a clash squeeze -- that purpose is served by the subsequent examples. That first example was meant solely to illustrate how the presence/absence of the spade king hinders/enables the cashing of the queen and ace on separate tricks. There is a very large number of examples of plays in both the printed and electronic literature that omit information that would be important at the table, or to the choice of play, but for pedagogical purposes are, well, irrelevant.

Finally, although I wrote the original contribution using a different name, I have not been involved in the subsequent edits until today. I didn't originally use the word "Irrelevant" for East's holding. I just left it unspecified. And from now on I hope to stay out of this sort of thing. I have a deadline tomorrow and I've squandered an hour on this. TurnerHodges (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)