Talk:Pseudo-squeeze

Those new examples are seriously nice (particularly the 2nd one). Is it ok to use hands from books btw? I've always either made them up or used ones that occured to me in real life. (I don't think I'd have found the play to make the 2nd one...:-) ) Cambion 14:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm new here and didn't realize that usages such as "ingenuine" are acceptable. 4.241.218.91 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's up to the writer's style: while formal style is generally preferred, my own preference (on wikipedia as well in general) is to resort to jargon if it gets straight to the point. Your formulation "a play by declarer that takes advantage of a layout of the cards" meant nothing, as pretty much every technique in bridge is exactly that. Duja► 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I assumed it was ok to use hands from books. I noticed that the hand used to illustrate a backwash squeeze is taken, pip for pip, from Ottlik and Kelsey's Adventures in Card Play. But shouldn't the article have credited the source of the hand directly? 4.241.217.35 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No hard and fast rules; but yes, if an example is taken from a book, it should be credited. I don't think the bridge hands and examples can be copyrighted, as they represent ideas rather than original artwork, and the ideas are not copyrightable (but do deserve due credit).
Oh, and thank you for your contributions. I assume you're the same person as User:FutharkRed? You're certainly welcome to continue to edit not logged-in (as an "anon"), but it's generally better to stick to a user account for both you (more anonymity, your contributions centralized under the account name) and other wikipedians (easier to talk with a "real name" than with a dynamic IP address). Duja► 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the bridge articles dummy is always assumed to be North unless explicitly stated. I think that is standard in every bridge book I've seen too. Cambion 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Point would be people new to bridge might not know, those that haven't read bridge books. Obscurans 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Cambion says, "someone who does not recognise the "squeeze" will usually discard the wrong thingfor the 'wrong' reason (not thinking) rather then for the 'right' reason." But in that case, the deceptive aspect (Duja's comment notwithstanding; see below) is irrelevant. In Cambion's construction, the play succeeds not because of the problem it sets the opponents, not because of its inherent merit, but because the opponent is naive or inattentive. Bridge is full of such successes and they're so quotidian that they don't deserve mention, apart from the cliche that "Bridge is a game of mistakes." In the context of the description of a pseudo-squeeze, the reason that it can work and declarer's intent should be noted. I don't disagree with Cambion's returning the deleted text (although I think it superfluous) just with the resultant blunting of the point: the rationale behind declarer's maneuver.

Duja says, "I like the old lead better, as "deception" implies the intent -- it need not be the case." Ridiculous. Of course it's deceptive, unless declarer is just playing random cards, and what's the point of writing about kitchen bridge? (The use of the non-word "ingenuine" is pointless, BTW, and the quote marks don't excuse it.)

I'm not reverting anything, though. It's bad manners. TurnerHodges 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought your phrasing gave the impression it was more likely to work on experienced players than on experienced ones - hoping that the opp is good enough to recognise the situation and then get it wrong. I was trying to phrase it as 'even good players can be fooled'. Obviously this hasn't come across. :-(. However - I think the opening two sentences are better than Duja's version - I think they are slightly clearer and succinct. I also mildly agree about the 'ingenuine' comment - I think that making it clear that it isn't a proper squeeze is important and 'ingenuine' achieves that but I also think there is probably a better way of saying so using real words... I also agree with TurnerHodges' comment over the intent being needed - people can do any play by accident (except a Grosvenor Gambit). Well these are my opinions - obviously Duja will have slightly different ones (and I'm sure they'll appear... Such is the curse/blessing of more than one person writing the article. We're normally reasonable and just want a good article :-) (well almost always - shame about the Suit combinations articles :-( ) There's still a small amount of work to do on this one but as a whole it is still pretty good...Cambion 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I generally obey WP:BRD; let me explain: the previous version of the lead did not link or prominently mention squeeze play (bridge), leaving the definition of said "deceptive play" fairly vague. The deceptive play is mentioned right in the next sentence, leaving an ugly duplication: "Pseudo-squeeze is a deceptive play... It can be regarded as deceptive play". I certainly don't think that my wordsmithing is perfect. How about something like:

Pseudo-squeeze is a deceptive play in contract bridge, where the declarer goes through the motions of a squeeze ... and therefore misdefends. (end of lead)(?)

. I can agree with Turner's reasoning that the intent is generally present (unless it's Rueful Rabbit), thus my edit summary was misleading. However, at least judging from the examples, it doesn't require a good player in East's seat to misdefend, thus "one that may succeed against a defender sophisticated enough to recognize a possible squeeze position" is IMO wrong. All it takes is to select a wrong card to discard, and without good signalling (if it's feasible at all), the correct defense may be anybody's guess. Duja► 06:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Memory squeeze?

I suppose that "memory squeeze" belongs here, if anywhere, and I have found it on other sites, unfortunately used as described. So, given Wiki's culture, the term should remain in place. But since this is a discussion page, I think I can safely point out that it's a misnomer.

If the term "squeeze" is applied to a defender's failure to remember whether a card is of winning rank, then "squeeze" loses its meaning. A squeeze against a winner or a guard, fine; a squeeze against the opponents' strategy, fair enough; even a squeeze against an opponent's ability to follow suit, that's apt. But in the position used to exemplify "memory squeeze," there's nothing resembling a squeeze as the term is normally used. My guess is that it was coined facetiously, like CHO. I wish it hadn't gained currency. TurnerHodges (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all whatever our views on technical validity I think it has to stay here for the reasons you state. I personally think 'Memory Squeeze' is a pretty good description; while your points are valid I like to think of the concept of 'squeezing' as putting more and more pressure on them until they have to make a critical choice - in a genuine squeeze there is no good option but in a pseudo-squeeze there is correct one, even if it may be hard to know which one it is. By that more vague description a 'memory squeeze' seems quite a good term. (Mind you I quite like 'CHO' and 'pratner'...) Cambion (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be worth doing a more complicated example. (Imaging having K, -, -, AK257 opposite -, K, -, QJ368 in the dummy. When cashing the long suit (starting with the Q, winning the 4th trick in dummy with the J,) playing the 3&8 from dummy and the 5/7 & 2 from hand. Then lead the 6 from dummy toward your hand. If RHO has both aces he might have a tough time remembering whether you played the 5 or the 7 on the first trick. Cambion (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And, "by that more vague description," I can agree, albeit reluctantly. (My hackles still rise at "the reason is because . . ." although linguistic evolution seems to be making it acceptable.)

Regarding CHO and "pratner" (which I had not before seen but which is priceless) Orval Swander wrote a humorous article for the Bridge World in 1976 titled I Was a Winner in a Loser's Game. He describes a tiff with his wife after finishing out of the money in a qualifying match, and therefore playing in the consolation with a pickup partner who knew very little of the game. Of course they stumbled into top after top. As I recall (my old copies of BW are in my attic), Swander included a footnote that said "As I was reviewing the galleys of this article, I saw that 'cold top' had been rendered as 'clod top.' I leave it to the reader to decide which was the more appropriate." TurnerHodges (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)