Cmp_1993_nov

From the editors...... W

e have just watched one of the most fascinating federal elections in Canadian history, an election in which the party that had formed a majority government for the past nine years managed to elect only two members. As the results came in on election night, Conservative party strategist Hugh Segal commented that "the people had spoken, and the people were always right". The Canadian people had decided that it was time for a change, and even though his party was being obliterated before his eyes, Mr. Segal understood that in a democracy the will of the people is sacred. It is the basis for all we believe in. In an election for the position of Director of the ACBL, the process is not quite as directly democratic: the elected and/or various Units vote on behalf of the members to select our District representative on the ACBL Board of Directors. This summer the directors of the various Units in District 2 held such an election. There were two candidates: the incumbent, Doug Drew, who has held the position for many years, serving well and with great vigour, and Jonathan Steinberg, who has a long record in bridge administration, and is currently a member of the ACBL Board of Governors, a volunteer advisory body. We did not make any comments during the campaign process since we do not see it as the job of this magazine to endorse political candidates. However, when the votes were counted in late September, it was clear that here, too, the people had spoken and that again it was time for a change: Mr. Steinberg was elected with a significant majority (39 - 31). Shortly after this, Mr. Drew filed a protest with the ACBL based on alleged

technical irregularities; the ACBL Election Committee, consisting of three members of the ACBL Board, rejected this protest unanimously. We congratulate them on their good sense. The position of director is not a sinecure or a reward for service, it is a demanding and important position. The membership is entitled to get the director that they clearly selected, and the ACBL must act in good faith on behalf of its members and accept their choice. Like Kim Campbell on election night, the defeated candidate must accept the verdict "with disappointment, but without reservations". Now that the election is over, we do feel it is appropriate to make three points. First, on behalf of the membership of District 2, we want to thank Mr. Drew for his many years of distinguished service, which included a year as ACBL President; we are sure he will continue to contribute to bridge organization in some capacity. Second, we want to congratulate Mr. Steinberg on his victory and wish him well as he represents our District on the ACBL Board. Finally, we think that to ensure a continuing source of energy, new ideas, and freshness on the ACBL Board of Directors, and to keep possible suspicion of political favours or pork-barrelling from creeping in, it is important that the number of terms that a Board member may serve should be limited. Many members of the ACBL have been on the board for twenty years or more. Here, too, it is time for change. Mr. Steinberg, this should be one of the first messages you carry to Memphis.

c

a

n

a

d

i

a

n

Master Point a

m a g a z i n e

f o r

b r i d g e

p l a y e r s

331 Douglas Ave., Toronto, Ont., M5M 1H2 Tel: (416) 781-0351 • Fax: (416) 781-1831 • E-mail: [email protected]

November 1993 From the mailbag ... Doppelganger by David Silver Newtonian leads by Allan Falk Toronto 4 Montreal 0 by Ray Lee The significant-other dilemma by Roselyn Teukolsky Reading the hand.... Bridge anacrostic by "Griffin" Percy E. "Shorty" Sheardown Shorty Remembered by Bruce Gowdy A double-edged sword by Ray Lee Improving 2/1 auctions by Fred Gitelman Restricted choice - fact or fiction? by Eric Sutherland Suit lead by John Gowdy A framework for discussion (part 9) by Mary Paul For Future Experts Competitive bidding by Joe Seigel He who hesitates by Barbara Seagram Software review - Positronic Bridge Reading the hand - solutions

Vol. II Number 5 3 4 9 11 15 17 18 21 22 23 28 30 32 35 36 38 39

Canadian Master Point is published five times per year. It is available free of charge through a number of bridge clubs and bridge supply houses in Ontario and Quebec. Copyright © 1993 Canadian Master Point. All rights reserved; reprinting of contents without the express written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Correspondence and articles should be sent to the above address with SAE if return or reply required.

ED. BOARD: Ray Lee, Linda Lee, Maureen Culp, Diane Bryan, John Gowdy

From the mailbag ..... Congratulations!

Partnership Database?

The ACBL Bulletin and September Canadian Master Point arrived on the same day. I read Canadian Master Point first from cover to cover. A wonderful bridge magazine indeed. I hope you have kept all the photographs in your archives. They may be needed by the CBF magazine someday.

Congratulations on publishing Canadian Master Point magazine. I find the articles both interesting and thoughtprovoking and am always looking forward to the next issue. I have a suggestion to make, one that may benefit some of the many bridge players living in the greater Toronto area. I have been playing this wonderful game for over ten years, and have accumulated over a thousand masterpoints. I have no shortage of partners. However, I am looking for a partner who not only wishes to improve their game, but is willing to devote some time and effort to forming a solid partnership. By this I do not mean just playing two or three times a week. My ideal partner would be prepared to spend many hours discussing various aspects of the game with me, and would be willing to try new ideas and systems published in magazines such as yours. I have yet to find such a person. Why not print a form in your magazine that could be filled out by players who would send their bridge data to you? You could arrange for potential partners to get together. I for one would be willing to pay a fee for this service.

JOHN ARMSTRONG Editor, The Kibitzer Many thanks for the kind words, John. We appreciate all the support you have given us, since before our first issue. Ed.

The Silver-Tongued Devil Thank you for printing “A Reasonable Man”! I started reading it on the subway, and was laughing out loud by page 2. Couldn’t stop. Every word a delight. Portrait of Silver catches every arrogant self-righteous “expert” and descriptions of Gowdy’s attempts at selfcontrol just AMAZING! All the articles are interesting -- I hope, however, to see more of this sort from the talented David Silver. MARILYN WHITE Toronto, ON As you can see, we have so far managed to wring an article out of the busy Mr. Silver for every issue. We also hope to be publishing a Silver collection in book form next year sometime, if David can find time to finish it! Ed.



S. ROY-CHOWDHURY Mississauga, ON Actually, we know of just such a service, run for profit, in the UK. It actually wouldn’t be very hard to set up, if there were sufficient interest. What do our readers think? Are there enough people out there who would like to see it happen? Ed.

Canadian Master Point

Doppelganger D

a

v

M

i

d

ay I explain the process, Mrs. Silver?" asked Professor Igor. "After all, you can't make an intelligent decision unless you know exactly what we're going to do to your husband." She nodded assent and he continued. "Well, the idea is, in layman's terms, to clone your husband. Replicating him physically is the easy part, existing technology is quite sufficient for that, but giving him consciousness and memory, that until now has been impossible. "But now, with the new Mohican Neural-Sync transplant methodology, we can utilize your husband's lower neural pathways to propagate an audioencephalographic interferotric effect which can be used to transmit EEG mapping electrodes to the host. Unfortunately, as a result of the recent government cutbacks, we have limited capacity equipment and we can only transmit a very limited number of neural nodes. That's why your husband is such an ideal subject.... "Thank you, Professor Igor," interjected President Oldham, "But I must make certain that Mrs. Silver is fully aware of all the risks. You do understand, don’t you, that the process has never been tested? We wanted to try it out on a laboratory rat first, but we're currently under a restraining order obtained by the Rats' Rights Action Committee. However, no group or individual has raised any objection to our using your husband for this experiment, and David was only too happy to take part..” Indeed, given the alternatives that had been carefully explained to me, including my current pitiful pension entitle-



S

i

l

v

e

r

ment, he was right. I had one last hope -- my wife. I waited, in confident silence, for my beloved to withhold her permission. "Mrs. Silver," repeated President Oldham. "How do you feel about giving your consent to David's being the subject of this experiment? After all, there is the possibility of early widowhood if anything goes wrong. But there are, of course, obvious advantages, should we meet with the expected success. You see, our new cloning process, invented right here at Mohican College, will bring fame and fortune to all the participants, even David." "Even posthumously?" she asked as I wondered what that had to do with anything. "Of course," Oldham replied. "But we mustn't think negatively; after all, aside from the money and fame, there would be other benefits. Think of it, two Davids to help around the house, run errands, earn salaries, and.." he leaned forward and lowered his voice, "Perform other duties!" "Twice a year instead of once? Be still my beating heart!" she replied. Far from making any opposition to the proposal, my darling seemed distressingly eager to sign the release form which President Oldham was placing on his desk before her. She grabbed the pen from his hand, scrawled her signature on the document, rose from her seat and left quickly without wishing me good luck. I began to have misgivings as two burly graduate students strapped me on to the laboratory table. Professor Igor was injecting green fluid into my arm and as I began to lose consciousness, I said, "Igor, I've always wanted to know what your last name is, but you're not on the faculty list."

November 1993

"I don’t use one; but you’ve probably heard of the fellow I did my graduate work with... Dr. Fran..." I lost the rest of his reply as I drifted off. I awoke to find myself staring at me. Igor introduced me to “Silver 1/4”, explaining that the computer had calculated that (Silver ÷ 2 = 1/4). Everyone seemed to find that extremely funny for some reason and the name stuck. Aside from appearing much older than me, Silver 1/4 was a perfect replica. I assumed they had given him some extra wrinkles to avoid confusing the original with the clone. They were arguing about testing procedures. "Well," said Professor Igor. "We could give them intelligence tests and see if they score identically." "Great," said President Oldham, "But if we use the chimpanzees for a control group again, we'll be the laughing stock of academia. I have a better idea: send them off to a bridge tournament with some trained observers. David is a famous expert, and we can compare Silver 1/4's level of play to the original's." As an aside here, it is worth noting that I have often surmised that consistent success in bridge competitions is dependent upon having an established partnership. Many bidding situations are obscure unless there have been prior discussions and/or agreements as to what "treatments" apply in specific situations, and misunderstandings frequently occur. So impotant does this factor appear to be that I could name some extremely successful partnerships whose victories could be credited more to their empathy than to their individual ability. My own tournament record would more accurately reflect my bridge skills if I had only been able to find a partner who understood my advanced bidding methods. But bridge players of my intellectual abilities are extremely rare, and the few that I have met have been reluctant to play with me, for reasons presumably relating to professional jealousy. But at last I had a partner who was just as



good as I was, and who understood me perfectly. "Know thyself" the philosopher has advised, and I certainly did. The test conditions were quickly established, and Silver 1/4 and I found ourselves playing an intense IMP match against local experts Wright Cardinal and F.I.R. Baker. Things were going our way, and after a series of slight gains, three vulnerable game swings and an 800 penalty, I picked up the fourth hand. Wright passed and my partner opened with one (12-14) notrump; Baker doubled and I held:

♠Axxx

❤---

◆xxxx

♣QJ9xx

I briefly considered toughing it out in one notrump doubled, but what's the point of having an elaborate rescue system if you don't use it? So I made the systemic bid of redouble, which would force a 2 ♣ response from partner. Cardinal ignored the alert and passed, and Silver 1/4 bid 2 ◆ . Baker came in with 2❤ and I raised partner to 5◆. Baker asked for an explanation of the bidding before slowly passing. The ❤A hit the table with a resounding whack as I proudly put down the dummy. The play was quick and the outcome predictable, plus 400 for us.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Baker Kxx AKQxxx xx AK

Canadian Master Point

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Silver Axxx --xxxx QJ9xx

Silver 1/4 ♠ Qxx ❤ xxx ◆ AKQJx ♣ 10x

Cardinal ♠ J109x ❤ J10xx ◆ xx ♣ xxxx

Partner ruffed the ❤A and led a club to the ten and ace. Baker shifted to a spade which was ducked to declarer's queen and another club was led. Baker won the ♣K and put another spade in play. However, with the trumps dividing, declarer was able to draw trumps, ruff a heart with dummy's last trump and cash three more club tricks. My doppelganger had all my famed analytical skills and I listened appreciatively to him admonishing Baker for trying beat a high-level contract by cashing quick tricks. "Surely you didn't expect Silver and me to bid to an eleven-trick game off three top tricks? The bidding screamed for a spade lead. And of course, with your hand, the expert bid was 4❤, perfectly describing your offensive potential. Then, when the opponents bid 5 ◆ , Cardinal would have an easy bid of 5❤. Because of the felicitous lie of the ♠Q, 5❤ is only one down. Of course an experienced partnership like us would never let you play 4❤, but another pair might not bid on and you could gain a double game swing. Bidding only 2 ❤ was a fatuous waste of time." It is, however, well-nigh impossible to transmit knowledge from one generation to the next. Our young opponents, instead of gratefully taking notes, were visibly annoyed, at what I had no idea. Well, that's why they will never become the bridge player we are; they're obviously not serious students of the game. I picked up the next hand, which presented a problem:

♠Axxxx

❤K1098 ◆Axx

♣x

The problem was that my partner had opened the bidding 1♠. This was one of those hard-to-categorize hands. Too strong for a limit raise, it was not good enough for Jacoby 2NT which would promise thirteen or more high card points as well as four trumps. I have always held the view that splinters give away too much defensive information, apart from allowing the opponents to get in lead-directing doubles, or even find cheap saves,



so 4♣ held no attraction for me. I felt 4♠ was a poor compromise, because I did have controls and my partner might pass up a slam opportunity thinking my bid was preemptive. But the solution came to me, as it always does: I responded with 2❤. This showed ten or more points and, if partner raised hearts, I could easily correct later to spades, the higher ranking suit. I began to appreciate the flexibility that a well-established partnership enjoys in describing offbeat hands! For us, there are no bidding problems, just intelligent solutions. The auction became even more interesting as he answered with a jump to 4❤. "What a fit," I thought as I corrected to 4 ♠ . His next call was 4NT and I showed my two aces. Now 5NT asked for my kings so I bid 6◆ to show one king. At this point the auction suddenly became very sophisticated. I have often watched, with a mixture of admiration and envy, the ease with which established partnerships exchange information about their hands. Now that Silver 1/4 and I had a similar rapport, I was able to initiate a complex bidding sequence at the six level to explore the possibilities of a grand slam in spades! My partner made a tentative grand slam try with 6❤, showing his control, so I identified my club control by bidding 7 ♣ . His response was 7 ◆ , a bid that completely mystified me until I carefully pondered the bidding and its implications. I worked it out! My partner was suggesting that 7NT might be a safer contract than 7♠ and was asking me to choose. But I really could not make a rational decision from what I knew, so I decided to tell him a little more about my hand and pass the decision back to him. I bid 7❤, showing my second round control, and prepared to put the dummy down after he chose the final contract. He passed, however, and with some surprise I became declarer in 7❤.

November 1993

Something had gone wrong, of course, but I wasn't upset. This time there would be no yelling and screaming from partner, no apportioning blame, no recriminations, only a calm discussion and analysis of the auction. We would grow as a partnership from this and I could envisage a time when we would have no bidding misunderstandings, ever. Meanwhile, Cardinal and Baker would get a lucky swing, and perhaps be overconfident as the match progressed. I examined the dummy and prepared to minimize our losses.

Cardinal ♠ Q ❤ xxx ◆ xxx ♣ AKQxxx

Silver 1/4 ♠ KJxxxx ❤ AQJ ◆ Kxxx ♣ ---

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Silver Axxxx K1098 Axxx x

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Dummy ♠ QJ109 ❤ KQJ10 ◆ AJ10 ♣ Qx

Baker x xxx QJx xxxxxx

The opening lead was the ♣ A, and I ruffed in dummy and paused. After about ten minutes' intense thought, I realized that I had thirteen tricks, barring a 5-1 trump split. I cashed dummy's ❤AQ, and when both opponents followed, I claimed the contract. Cardinal, as is his habit, insisted that I play the hand out so I came to my hand with the ◆ A, and cashed my king-ten of trumps, discarding dummy's two losing diamonds. Then, very slowly, I played out dummy's six spade tricks. "You're a genius, David," I said admiringly. "7❤ is the only makeable grand slam. In 7♠ you have to ruff the club in the long trump hand so you still get only



six trump tricks out of the spade suit. But with hearts as trumps, the club ruff gives us thirteen tricks: six spades, five hearts, and two diamonds." "It's our partnership discipline, David. Good order is the foundation of all good things, especially bridge partnerships. But we can't relax, there is an excellent pair at the other table and I’m sure they'll be in 7❤ too. It’ll be a push, but it would have been a big swing if we’d missed a cold grand slam." Our opponents sullenly insisted on resuming play and the match recommenced. I found myself defending against 4♠, confidently bid. My partner led the ❤7 and the dummy appeared.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Silver xx Axxx xxx xxxx

I won my ❤ A and returned the suit. Partner ruffed and cashed the ♣AK: one down. Undaunted, Baker and Cardinal picked up the next hand and quickly bid to 4❤. Silver 1/4 led the ♠7 after some thought, and the dummy appeared:

Canadian Master Point

Dummy ♠ KQJ10 ❤ QJ109 ◆ AJ10 ♣ Qx

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Silver Axxx xx xxx xxxx

Declarer rose with dummy's ♠K and I ducked smoothly. The ❤Q followed and Silver 1/4 won the king when Baker played low. The ♠3 was played to my ace and I played a third spade. My partner ruffed, and then cashed his ♣A for one down again. This time, all hell broke loose. Cardinal and Baker were certainly poor losers. Of course they hadn't the benefit of my experience, but really, to accuse your opponents of cheating just because they defend accurately.... Ordinarily, I would "excuse the brisk intemperance of youth" but they were upsetting my other self as well as attracting attention from the other tables. "What do you mean by inconsistent?" I bellowed. "We needed a ruff to beat the first hand so I returned my partner's obvious singleton. I held up my ace on the second hand because it was the only way to defeat the contract. "I can't explain table presence to whippersnappers. Play bridge at an expert level for thirty more years and perhaps then you will approach my level of proficiency. Your poor sportsmanship is upsetting my partner: look at him, he's going to pieces." And he was, literally, falling apart. Mohican College technicians appeared from nowhere, quickly picked up the body parts littering the floor, stuffed them into plastic bags and made off. As much as I regretted abandoning my first winning match since the 1956 Spring Nationals I had no choice but to withdraw my team and return to the college for debriefing. "David, surely you understood that it was only to be a temporary clone!" President Oldham exclaimed soothingly. "Think of the legal ramifications if one of you had been in an accident, or wandered from custody, or even cheated at cards? Of course the experiment was automatically terminated. It was actually designed to last a few days longer, but all that excitement must have overloaded the neural circuits prematurely. Nevertheless, we



learned a lot and got a great deal of publicity.” "But don’t you see, Bill, I can never play bridge again?” I was distraught. “He was the best partner I ever had. How can I go back to a life of misunderstandings, quarrels, and humiliations after today? I'm going to have to give up bridge and devote all my energies to Mohican College. Perhaps I'll go into administration; I've always wanted to, but I could never spare the time." The President was not a well man, and suddenly now his eyes glazed over and he turned a deep purple. I was frantically reaching for the phone to summon assistance when his affliction alleviated slightly and he was able to speak. "David... David.... put the phone down and listen carefully. You mustn’t give the game up! Your college wants you to play bridge, lots of bridge. Your exploits generate a lot of publicity and we need all we can get. I am ordering you to take a leave of absence next semester and go to the Nationals. Play a few other tournaments on the trip down and back .. I’ll set up an expense budget for you. My admin. assistant will be at your disposal to help you with the travel arrangements... just call him any time." I had never thought of my bridge career as being of any benefit to the college, but he seemed quite sincere. Perhaps I was being too hasty in contemplating retirement; after all, it's not whether you win or lose, but whether you get to play the game that's important. Maybe I could even teach Bruce Gowdy how to bid properly in time for the Spingold?

November 1993

Newtonian Leads

A corollary to the Law of Total Tricks A

l

l

a

n

Let’s start by treating this as a quiz. What do you lead, and just as important, why do you lead it in each case? 1. This was the first hand out of the box in our Grand National Teams District Final. Sitting West, I held

♠Q6

❤K9742 ◆1043

♣KQ10

This was the bidding: No-one Vulnerable

West 3❤ Dbl. 1.

North 1◆1 3♠ All Pass

East Dbl. Pass

South 1♠ 4♠

8 - 12 hcp

Partner is a sound bidder with RothStone tendencies. 2. This deal is from thre round robin of the Open team competition of the 1993 European Championships, featuring eventual champions Poland against Denmark. You, West, hold

♠KJ10

❤J762

◆AJ983 ♣3

The auction is: Both vulnerable

West Pass 1◆ 3♠ All Pass

North Pass 1❤ 5♣

East Pass 2♠1 Pass

F

a

l

k

On Problem 1, I doubled assuming that the opponents had simply got carried away with themselves, or alternatively that partner would have something distributionally unusual that would prompt him to pull to 5❤. So I led the ♣K, expecting down one on a bad day. Had I bothered to give the matter the thought that it deserved, I should have reasoned as follows: they have only an eight-card spade fit, and not more than twenty high-card points. They must not only have distributional justification for this game venture, but if, as experts, they are applying the Law of Total Tricks, they must have two singletons between them plus a two-suited fit. Hence, they must have a diamond fit and, since partner’s takeout double is known to be flawed (with only three spades), and without compensating high-card strength, he must have a singleton diamond. A minimal takeout double of 1◆ with ♠xxx would be pretty flippant, so East must hold ♠Axx or ♠Kxx. As long as he also holds a round ace, we can always beat 4♠ if I lead a diamond.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

10987 5 A962 AJ73

Q6 K9742 1043 KQ10

South 1♣ 3◆ 6♣ Canadian Master Point

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AJ53 J108 KJ875 5

K42 AQ63 Q 98642

As you can see, after a club lead we never recovered. Now, on past performance, I never expected East to hold so little in the way of high cards, but anything extra would have been a real bonus for the defence. Had East passed 1◆, we would never have entered the auction, and there would have been no clue to the killing diamond lead. Notice a significant feature about the hand, namely that the defence had some semblance of trump control. It would be too dangerous, without at least inferential trump control, to lead their secondary suit, as they might win, draw trumps, run their side suit discarding losers, and claim, when you had enough fast tricks in your suits to set them off the top (or when you needed the tempo to set up your own tricks). On the second problem, you are aware that your side has a two-suited fit, and so the opponents probably have the equivalent. Surely each opponent has a singleton or void to be in a slam with not much more than half the high cards and missing at least one ace. As your heart holding will probably reveal itself eventually (partner will be known to have nine cards in the pointed suits, plus your side’s trump length), and is easily finessable, picture the play: declarer needs ruffs in dummy, and hand entries. If you lead a pointed suit, declarer can use hearts once for transportation purposes, and can even give up the lead before drawing trumps and running hearts. However, if you lead a heart, declarer is going to have to draw trumps before giving up the lead, or else your partner will get a ruff.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

9 KQ94 1062 KQ742

Q6 J762 AJ983 3

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Q7543 5 KQ75 J65

A862 A1083 4 A1098

Ron Anderson, writing this hand up in a report to the ACBL Bulletin, was not critical of the defenders’ failure to find the defence: “A heart lead would probably defeat the slam, but West had no reason to lead anything but a spade.” Declarer won the ♠A, conceded a diamond, cross-ruffed for a while, drew trumps, and then, with an accurate count, took the winning view in hearts to land his contract. But not against you! Yes, it’s true that if declarer works out what is going on, he can make 6♣ regardless. However, my guess is that, if you led a deceptive ❤7, 99.99% of declarers would play for a 2-2 club break rather than taking a first-round trump play of low to the ♣10. And now to explain the title of this article. Back in the seventeenth century, Newton’s Third Law of Motion stated that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. In bridge, too, for every advance in bidding science, there is a corresponding opportunity for defenders to learn and profit. As the Law of Total Tricks gains currency in helping us all to bid our cards to the hilt, alert defenders will have opportunities to draw inferences that can illuminate their path and guide them to the killing defence. Allan Falk is a Michigan expert whose books include “Team Trial”, “Spingold Challenge”, and (our own favourite) “Bridge Toolkit”.



November 1993

Toronto 4 Montreal 0 R

T

a

y

he twentys i x t h I n t e rCity match between Toronto and Montreal, an annual contest for the Maurice “Moose” Paul Trophy between winning teams from the Toronto IMP League and the Montreal Bridge League, took place this year at the Linton Club in Montreal, early in October. The result was a resounding victory for the visiting team. There were four separate 88-board matches played, two between teams representing Flight A, and one each in Flights B and C, with total IMP’s to be the deciding factor. In the event, the scoring system was irrelevant, as Toronto won all four matches. In the top bracket, Andy Altay, Ian McKinnon, David Lindop, and Ed

L

e

e

Bridson established an early 35-IMP lead over Bert and Rhoda Habert, George Retek, Brian Fraser, Murray Goldenblatt, Mark Stein, and Joe Silver, a lead that was never challenged. The final difference was 44 IMP’s. The second Flight A match was much closer, and the Toronto squad (Ray and Linda Lee, Bill and Leah Milgram) trailed by 5 with 14 boards left to play; they were able to squeeze out a narrow 8-IMP win over Eric and Beverly Kokish, Sharyn Reus, Michel L o r b e r, N i c k K r n j e v i c a n d J o h n Robinson. The Flight B match was also very close, with Toronto’s Vinay Sarin, Ian Findlay, Nirmal Parmal, Dev Chopra, Dave White, and Brian Ranson also coming from behind in the last set for a slim 12-IMP edge over Andre Trudelle, C. Lahaie, Normand Guilbault, and Claude Rouleau.

Andy Altay accepts the trophy from “Red” MacDougall, watched by (l. to r.) Vinay Sarin, Ian Findlay, Ed Bridson, David Lindop, and Bill Moore



Canadian Master Point

The overall result was not in doubt from the earliest comparisons, however, since the Flight C Toronto team quickly established a huge lead and increased it every session. The final margin for Bill and Honey Moore, Jim Fitzgerald, Don Wilson, and Mimi and Henry Fliess was 172 IMP’s over Montreal’s Alain Boucher, Ginette Plamondon, Pierre Ste. Marie, and Raymond Richelieu. The home teams were both gracious losers and excellent hosts, however, with the high point of the weekend being the Saturday night party catered by Marie Retek: kibitzers attending included Boris Baran, Doug and Sandra Fraser, Tony “the Tuna” Reus, and newly-elected ACBL District 2 Director Jonathan Steinberg. With 350 deals played over the two days, there were many interesting hands.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

xxx KQxxx xx KJx

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Kx AJ9xx AK10xxx ---

West

North Altay

East

Pass Dbl. Pass

1❤ Pass2 5♣4

2♠ 4♠ Pass

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

K109xx --KJ10xx Axx

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AQJ7 Kxxxx Ax xx

South McKinnon 2◆1 3♠3 4◆4

South McKinnon 1◆ 4♣1 4NT3 6❤5

1. Splinter 2. Showing slam interest 3. RKC Exclusion Kickback (!) 4. 1 or 4 keycards outside clubs 5. Who cares about the ❤Q?



Altay and McKinnon have been accused of playing essentially a rubber bridge system, but Ian’s recent conversion to many of the ideas in Larry Cohen’s To Bid or Not To Bid is changing all that. As they often seem to find when they change their system, opportunities quickly arose to use the new gadgets. The above auction was a case in point, while the next hand was one of their first-ever Flannery auctions:

North Altay 2NT2 4♣4 6♠

1. Flannery -- 5❤ and 4♠ 2. Relay for more information 3. 4522 hand, maximum points 4. Cue-bid A trump was led, and Ian played the ◆A and the ◆K, intending to run the ◆J and throw a club away if East failed to cover. However, East’s ◆Q dropped doubleton, and the result was a fairly easy thirteen tricks for a 13-IMP gain. (continued on next page)

November 1993

At both tables on the following hand in the second Flight A match, South became declarer in an aggressive 4♠ contract after West had opened with a weak 2◆. Linda Lee gave it a good play, but in the end could only assemble nine tricks after a club lead and spade return. At the other table, Bill and Leah Milgram constructed a pretty defence to beat it three and win some IMP’s.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Jx Axxx KJxxxx K

973 Jx AQ10xxx xx

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

xx K10xx --AQJ109xx

AKQ10xx Qxx 9 xxx

After the same start (club to the ace and a spade return), declarer ruffed a club in dummy, and played a heart towards the closed hand. Bill hopped with the king, and cashed a high club, on which Leah discarded the ❤J. Bill led a heart for her to ruff, and now she played the ◆ A. Alertly, Bill ruffed this, since his partner’s high-low in trumps had told him she started with three, and gave her another heart ruff for the third undertrick.



♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

42 Q42 72 KQJ952

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AKQJ63 AJ53 A8 10

This hand is an instructive declarer play exercise. South plays 4♠ after an uncontested auction, and gets a diamond lead. Assuming best defence, how do you give yourself the best chance for ten tricks? After you win the diamond and draw trumps (East has four; West pitches three clubs), you play the ♣10. West thinks for a while, takes his ♣ A, and plays two more rounds of diamonds. After ruffing the second of these, you have come to the moment of truth: the heart suit. Both declarers (Eric Kokish and myself) took the normal-looking line of ace and one heart, which wins if West has the ❤ K or the hearts are 3-3. Bill Milgram later pointed out the superior line of leading out the ❤J. This gives you the extra chance that RHO will have a doubleton king and will feel obliged to take it. Of course, looking at all four hands, it would be easy to see the need to duck the ❤K in this position. However, tt will surely take an East with nerves of steel to duck the doubleton ❤K smoothly, and if he stops to think about it, you’ll have no problem on the next trick! The full hand was:

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

42 Q42 72 KQJ952

8 10975 K54 A8763

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

10974 K8 QJ10963 4

AKQJ63 AJ53 A8 10

(continued on next page)



Canadian Master Point

Perhaps the most bizarre hand of the weekend was the following, from the Flight C match.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

32 4 965 AKQ10643

K1098654 Q K2 J95

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AQ AKJ1086532 A8 10



J7 97 QJ10874 872

At one table Bill Moore opened the North hand 3 ♣ , after which South (Honey Moore) launched into Blackwood and more Blackwood. Correctly concluding that the ♣AK were not of much use to her, she subsided in a safe-looking 6❤. Now consider West’s lead problem. Can you blame him for leading a black card? He chose the ♣5, and South scored up an overtrick. At the other table, South opened a conservative 1❤ after two passes, West overcalled 1♠ and North jumped to 3♣. Now again came Blackwood, and more Blackwood, and South elected to shoot for 7❤. North, obviously not enamoured with his heart void, converted to 7NT, and West was again on lead. Again, the ♣5 hit the track, and thirteen tricks were made! Apparently, the club lead is mandatory against any slam!

Master Point Press on the Internet www.masterpointpress.com Our main site, with information about our books and software, reviews and more. www.masteringbridge.com Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support material for our books, helpful articles, forums and more. www.ebooksbridge.com Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books. www.bridgeblogging.com Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and other bridge notables.



November 1993

The significant-other dilemma r

o

s

e

l

I

y

n

t was never part of my Life Plan to have a bridge partnership with my husband. What happened was this: he was a bridge player, I was a bridge player, we got married, and there we were. Suddenly there were all these advantages. For one thing, I had a built-in partner. No more foraging for three bodies --- all I needed for a social game was another couple. How wonderful it seemed to have automatic company on the long rides to bridge tournaments, plus the added bonus of a built-in escort in the parking garage after the game. You get the idea. This was not a partnership made in heaven; it was forged on the anvil of convenience. What then is my dilemma? Well, believe me, the convenient set-up costs me plenty. For one thing, I receive enough bridge lessons to educate an army. For another, I endure endless hostility because my husband believes that the errors I make are deliberate attempts to upset him. “You don't really believe that was the right play?” he says, incredulous. I have to live in terror of making independent bridge decisions. If I overbid, it's to spite him. If I don't lead his suit I'm a feminist. If I take a phantom save, or do something imaginative that doesn't work, the entire Women's Movement gets reviled. And heaven forbid I should commit the ultimate sin of allowing him to be endplayed. The marriage rocks on its foundation. Hell hath no fury like a man who gets endplayed by his wife. So why do I put up with this? Because he often --- but not as often as he



t

e

u

k

o

l

s

k

y

would like to think --- plays well. Take this hand from a recent Regional Open Pairs. Both sides were vulnerable. He was West, and held

♠K92

❤8532

◆A7653 ♣2

The bidding:

West 1❤ 3♣ 4♣ 4♣

North Pass Pass Pass Pass

East 2◆1 3◆ 3◆ 6♣

South Pass Pass Pass All Pass

1. Game force My partner led the ♠2 and a reasonable dummy appeared:

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

A863 --KQJ1084 A74

K92 8532 A7653 2

South cogitated for a good three minutes before playing the ♠A. I played the ♠4 (encouraging) and declarer followed with the ♠5. Now South called for the ◆K from dummy, I followed with the ◆9, South pitched the ♠10, and West was in with the ◆A. Take a minute to consider what you would play at this juncture. No, my intrepid husband did not play the "obvious" ♠K. He shot back the ❤2, right into the teeth of South's heart suit!

Canadian Master Point

Here were the hands:

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

A863 --KQJ1084 A74

K92 8532 A7653 2

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

QJ74 Q74 92 Q965

105 AKJ1096 --KJ1083

Now go back and look at what happens if West returns a spade instead of a heart. He, in effect, forces South to make his contract! South must ruff the spade in his hand (thereby shortening his trumps to East's length), and when he gets the bad news about the 4-1 trump break, he can ruff a heart back to dummy and trump-coup East! Here is the situation, with the lead in dummy, after South ruffs a heart with dummy's last trump:

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

86 --QJ1084 ---

9 85 7653 ---

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

QJ Q7 2 Q9

--AKJ109 --KJ

On the run of the diamonds, whenever East ruffs in, South can overruff, draw the last trump and the hearts will be good. If East refuses to ruff, South can pick up East's trumps at trick 12. After this hand, while North was



As you can see, the heart play set up South's heart suit for him, and probably gave him a moment of hope as he entered dummy with the ♣A and took a club finesse. When clubs didn't break, the contract was doomed. There was no entry back to dummy for a second finesse. Nor was there any possibility of ruffing a heart to dummy and trying for a trump coup, because at the time West returned a heart, South had not yet shortened his trumps to East's length. Try it. It won't work.

berating his partner for not ruffing the heart and playing for a trump coup, I took a minute to let the effect of my partner's breathtaking play sink in. "How in the world did you know to return a heart?" I asked him. “Well, the bidding and play suggested that declarer's shape was 2-6-0-5,” he replied, “And I knew something that South didn't --- namely, that the trumps weren't breaking. I was also pretty sure that South's trumps weren't solid, because if they were, there wouldn't be much to the play of the hand. Yet South tanked for ages on the first trick. “I decided that the best hope for us was that you held Qxxx of trumps, in which case I'd better not help set up a trump coup situation for South. I knew that he was out of spades by now so a spade play could only help him shorten his trumps. A diamond would have given him the extra entry to ruff a spade himself. Which left a heart. Hey, look, it's an easy game if you just think about it!” So I ask you: Would you play with him? Roselyn Teukolsky is the author of “How to Play Bridge with your Spouse - and Survive”. She is a regular contributor to the ACBL Bulletin and to “Bridge Today”.

November 1993

Reading the hand.... The following problem positions are each taken from a well-known bridge book. They are graded in difficulty as follows: ◆ Rookie ◆◆ Intermediate ◆◆◆ Expert. Solutions are on page 39. 1.

Flawless technique (◆)

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AK6 A8543 K3 A83

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Q85432 K6 A 10654

73 A103 A82 AJ1092

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AQJ96 --KQJ75 Q75

West

North

2❤ Pass Pass All Pass

3❤ 4♣ 5◆



East 2◆ Pass Pass Pass

Early concession (◆ ◆ ◆)

K 75 AKJ10654 643 ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Enter with care (◆ ◆)

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

3.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

South plays in 6♠ against the lead of a small trump, East following. How should South plan the play? 2.

East’s opening bid shows 11-15 hcp, and a three-suited hand with a singleton or void diamond and no 5-card major. Thus, when West leads the ♣3, you can confidently place East with 4414. How do you play?

West

North

1❤ 3NT

Pass All Pass

East 1◆ 2◆

864 1093 Q73 K1075 South Pass Pass

West’s lead of the ♠5 is won by dummy’s king. You contribute the 4, declarer the 10. At trick two, declarer makes a slightly unexpected play -- the ◆10 from dummy. You win the ◆Q, all following. And then?

South Dbl. 3♠ 4◆ 6◆

Canadian Master Point

Bridge Anacrostic “

G

r

i

f

f

i

n

”

Place the answers to the clues on the dashes beside them. Transfer each letter to its correspondingly numbered and lettered box in the grid. The grid will reveal a quotation; the initial letters of the answers will give you the author of the quotation and its source. Word list page 35; Quotation page 31. T1

H2

F3

O 17

K 18

D 19

K 31

P 32

I 33

Z 34

I 47

J 48

N 49

B 62

O 63

C 64

Y 76

S 77

Q 78

P 90

AA 91

N 92

R 93

Z 104

R 105

D 106

AA 107 P 108

I 119

L 120

V 121

F 122

P 135

S 136

Q 137

AA 138

A 149

W 150

R 151

O 152

Y 153

D 164

C 165

I 166

K 167

W 178

V 179

H 180

B 191

BB 192

T4

A5

Q6

R7

E 20

K 21

N 22

U 35

O 36

V 65

T 194

M 206

G 207

F9

H 10

L 11

B 12

J 25

N 26

K 27

O 13

Q 14

J 15

S 28

Y 29

C 30

G 23

F 24

A 37

O 38

F 39

T 40

A 41

V 42

T 52

A 53

T 54

Z 55

P 56

Q 57

T 68

U 69

I 70

A 71

D 81

K 82

T 83

J 84

U 85

BB 95

Y 96

K 97

R 109

E 110

T 111

C 123

B 124

K 125

V 126

BB 127 G 128

L 129

BB 130 AA 131 H 132

E 139

L 140

O 141

F 142

H 143

D 144

G 145

V 156

Z 157

A 158

X 159

T 171

S 172

D 173

H 174

H 186

AA 187 O 188

F 50

S 51

L 66

H 67

M 79

K 193

K8

E 80 B 94

E 154 X 168

P 155 AA 169 T 170

A 98

S 43

K 72

Q 44

X 61

F 74

K 86

W 87

AA 88

C 75

CC 99

C 100

R 101

O 102

BB 103

BB 112 X 113

Y 114

M 115

E 116

O 117

W 160

S 183

D 184

Z 185

Y 195

CC 196

CC 197 M 198

AA 199 H 200

C 201

K 202

A 210

D 212

K 215

I 216

P 211

T 60

M 73

J 182

D 209

K 46

D 59

R 181

J 208

I 45

AA 58

F 146

AA 213 T 214

U 148

Z 161

D 162

M 163

C 175

P 176

E 177

U 189

F 190

R 204

R 205

S 203

C.

Attorney's action

D.

Duck to do this! (3 wds) __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Get too high

E.



62 __ 64 __ 81

CC 118

Z 147

B.

12 __ 30 __ 59

A 89

CC 133 K 134

Coup: choice of __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ __ 89 5 16 41 71 98 149 53 158 210 37 evils (2 wds) __ __ __ ___ ___ Starts auction

A.

A 16

94 124 191 __ ___ ___ ___ ___ 75 100 123 165 201 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ 106 209 144 162 173 164 184 212 19

20 80 110 116 139 154 177 November 1993

F.

Pointless hand

G.

Sworn statement

H.

Mean pitch?

I.

Convention: 4♣ or 4◆ Code of behaviour Duck to do this! (3 wds)

J. K.

___ __ __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ __ __ 122 9 24 39 142 3 146 190 50 74 ___ __ ___ ___ 207 23 128 145 __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2 10 67 132 143 174 186 200 180 __ __ ___ ___ ___ __ __ 33 45 166 216 119 47 70 __ __ __ __ ___ ___ 15 25 48 84 208 182 __ __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ 18 21 46 97 125 134 167 193 202 215 8

L.

Holdup

M.

Indigenous

N.

Score

O.

Bridge innovator

P.

On the way by (2 wds) Hurries

Q. R. S. T. U.



Board 26? (2 wds) Need a top? Finesse the --(2 wds) Legal call (2 wds) Take pleasure in

__ __ __ __ __ 27 31 72 82 86 __ __ ___ ___ ___ 11 66 120 129 140 ___ __ __ ___ ___ ___ 206 79 73 115 198 163 __ __ __ __ 49 92 22 26 __ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ __ 17 102 141 152 188 36 13 __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ 32 56 90 108 155 205 135 __ __ __ 44 6 14 ___ ___ 101 151

__ 78 __ 7

__ __ ___ 38 63 117 ___ ___ 176 211

___ __ 137 57 ___ __ ___ ___ ___ 204 93 181 105 109

__ __ ___ __ __ ___ ___ ___ 28 77 172 43 51 183 203 136 ___ __ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ ___ ___ __ __ __ 111 60 54 170 4 1 40 194 214 171 68 52 83 ___ __ ___ __ __ 148 85 189 35 69 Canadian Master Point

W.

Subject to scrutiny ----- pass

X.

Pointless hand

Y.

Recap the auction Discourage

V.

Z.

AA. Disappearing trump trick BB. Deliberate sacrifice CC. Finish (2 wds)



___ ___ ___ ___ __ __ ___ 156 179 175 121 65 42 126 ___ __ 160 87 __ ___ 61 159 __ ___ 96 153

___ 178 ___ 113 ___ 114

___ 150 ___ 168 __ ___ __ 76 195 29

__ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ 34 147 185 55 157 104 161 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ __ ___ __ ___ 138 199 187 213 131 91 58 169 88 107 __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 95 127 103 130 112 192 ___ ___ __ ___ ___ 197 196 99 118 133

November 1993

Shorty remembered B

O

r

u

c

e

n September 13th, 1993, in his 82nd year, Percy E. “Shorty” Sheardown moved peacefully for the last round. “Canada’s Mr. Bridge”, as he was undisputedly and affectionately known to all bridge players of his time, became the Dominion’s first Life Master soon after his return from overseas service in World War II. A one-time Classics student who could read Greek and Latin or sing German folk songs for pleasure, Shorty played bridge professionally and operated the original St. Clair Bridge Club almost continuously after leaving the University of Toronto. He always had time for a game with anyone: expert, novice, or one of his adoring LOL’s. These latter loved him so much that he could freely sacrifice, undoubled, at any time! It was quite common to look at the travelling slip at the old Toronto Whist Club and see twelve scores of +650 N-S and one of -300 E-W -- Shorty down six, undoubled (usually versus Mrs. Doolittle, a dear 90-year-old with at least four cigarettes going at once, who had an unbelievable passion for Shorty). Shorty was a great teacher, and many of the top players in the 40’s and 50’s (Murray, Drury, Elliott, Kehela, Gowdy, and Da Costa, among others) can attribute their world-class skill levels in major part to Shorty’s tutelage. He had amazing feel for the table , never thinking just of his own thirteen cards, but always mentally placing, usually correctly, the whole fifty-two around the table. The accuracy of his declarer play and defence was eerie, and often left opponents wishing there had been a skip in the movement!



G

o

w

d

y

His philosophy was simple: “good players strive to analyze all the factors, and then play for the best result possible, not the best possible result”. I recall one hand from a 1949 tournament in Detroit where Shorty was on lead holding

♠xxx

❤AQx

◆xxxx

♣xxx

against the auction 1NT -- 3NT. What else would he finger but the ❤A? Maybe you’ll hit partner’s suit, and, if not, it may not cost a trick; also, it gives you a chance to look at dummy. On this particular occasion, dummy had ❤J10x, declarer ❤xx, and your truly ❤K98xx. Declarer did not think - 50 was a good result (since they held the remaining 31 points) and he summoned the director, claiming that we must have had inside knowledge. After all, how could anyone make such a lead? The late Russell Baldwin gave one of his classic rulings: if declarer and his partner wished to kibitz us for the remaining rounds, he would be glad to find a substitute pair! Peter Czowski, in an interview published in Maclean’s magazine 35 years ago, asked Shorty “What is the fascination of this game-that-is-a-passion that drives people in pitting brains against brains?” Shorty’s reply was that it was the competition: “It’s like a beauty contest; if you lose at poker or gin rummy, you can shrug it off on bad hands, but not in duplicate bridge. If you lose, you lose.” In 1987 Shorty was amongst the group given the special ACBL 50th Anniversary Honorees Award, a fitting tribute to one of the greatest players the game has known. He will be missed, but never forgotten.

Canadian Master Point

A double-edged sword R

a

y

L

e

e

I

well remember starting to play bridge in Toronto in the late 60’s, and getting to know Shorty Sheardown. I quickjly noticed, watching the regulars at the St.Clair Club, that this quiet man was accorded a respect by the rest of the players that matched or even bettered that given to the legendary Kehela. I soon found out why. One of the great bridge aphorisms then current was “never double Shorty”, and I saw a graphic example of the accuracy of this from the kibitzer’s seat one day in 1971. Playing in an early round of the CBF Team Trials that year in Toronto, Shorty sat South on the following layout against George Sereny (West) and Al Lando (East), with Dr. Ron Forbes as his partner.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Q42 983 107532 104

--AKQ7654 864 Q83

"Shorty" Sheardown

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

109765 J2 AK9 J92

AKJ83 10 QJ AK765

With North-South vulnerable, West opened 4❤, and after two passes, Shorty ventured 4♠. After two more passes, East doubled. The opening lead was the ❤A, and Shorty ruffed the heart continuation. He laid down the ♠ A, found out the bad news in trumps, and played the ◆Q, East winning the ace.



A trump shift at this point would defeat the hand, but this is not easy to see, and Lando actually returned a club, which was won by the ace. The ◆J went to the ace, and another club came back to the king. Shorty now ruffed a club low in dummy, and cashed the ◆10, pitching a club from his hand. The play to this point had consumed at most thirty seconds, and the hand was over in another fifteen or so. Another high diamond was led, East perforce ruffing with the nine, and South over-ruffing. The last club was ruffed with the ♠Q, East ignominiously under-ruffing, and now the lead from the dummy completed the trump coup for ten tricks. Lando turned me for sympathy: “I really thought I had enough to double,” he remarked, ruefully. You did, I thought, but not enough to double Shorty.

November 1993

Improving 2/1 auctions F

r

e

d

G

A

great many club and tournament players these days write "Two Over One Game Force" in the General Approach area of their convention cards. The main advantage of playing 2/1 is that the early establishment of a game force allows for extra bidding space to explore for slam or choose the right game contract. There are two main weaknesses inherent in the 2/1 system: 1) You cannot play in 1NT if your partner opens the bidding with one of a major. The 1NT response is forcing. 2) Responder often has a rebid problem after his forcing 1NT when opener rebids 2 of a minor (possibly a 3-card suit) due to the wide high card ranges and many possible distributions of both hands. If you are going to play 2/1 you’d better get used to these particular problems since there isn't much you can do about them. However, the way that most partnerships play 2/1 creates other problems that are not inherent to the system. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of these and to suggest some solutions. Problem 1: Lack of definition of the 2/1 suit Since a 2/1 response to a major suit opening is a game force, many pairs use a 2/1 simply to establish a force without regard to the fact that they may be misdescribing



i

t

e

l

m

a

n

their hands. They as¬sume that all of the room that they save will allow them to "catch up later". They are wrong. Imagine, for example, that you hold:

♠AQxxxx ❤x

◆Axx

♣Qxx

You open 1♠ and your partner bids 2⇓, forcing to game. You rebid 2♠ and partner raises to 3♠. Do you like your hand? You should. Despite your minimum point count you have good trumps, good controls and a good fit for partner's suit. Unfortunately, partner's "suit" may not really be a suit. Partner could have:

♠KJx

❤AKxx

◆Kx

♣Jxxx

where even the five level is not safe. On the other hand, if you reverse partner's hearts and clubs slam is laydown. If you reverse your hearts and clubs, slam is also laydown. Would you like your hand as much if you had a singleton in your partner's suit? You shouldn't, but when a 2/1 can show just about any balanced hand it is difficult to make sensible decisions. There are several popular solutions to this sort of problem, most of which involve making some bid other than a 2/1 when responder has a balanced game force with 3-card support for opener's major. Some players bid 1NT forcing followed by a jump to four of opener's major to show a balanced 13-15 with 3-card support; others use a 3NT response or a variant of Swiss (4♣ or 4◆) to show variations of this type of hand. All of these methods have the problem that they take up too much room and make it very difficult to find out how well the hands fit without getting past a safe level. The solution that I suggest is to use a 2NT response to a major suit opening just like Goren did - as a game-forcing balanced hand with 13-15 HCP (you can

Canadian Master Point

play that it could also show 19+ with a 3NT response showing 16-18). The 2NT response can (and frequently does) contain 3-card support for opener's major, but usually should not contain a side 5-card suit (make a 2/1 with that), although if you have a really bad five card suit (like Qxxxx) in an otherwise suitable hand, it may be best to bid 2NT rather than make a 2/1. Opener's rebids after the 2NT bid are natural: bid another 4-card or longer suit if he has one, giving responder a chance to take preference with three cards in opener's major; rebid his major when he has six or more, or bid 3NT or 4NT (quantitative) with 5332. Over opener's 3NT rebid, responder can elect to pass with 3-card support for opener's major, especially if he is 4333. As a consequence, a 2/1 response will almost always show a good 5-card or longer suit -- a source of tricks. Having this information will frequently help opener decide how well the hands fit and if a slam try is warranted. It will also allow opener to feel more comfortable with raising the 2/1 suit with 3-card support. If you currently play Jacoby 2NT, you will have to find another way to make a forcing raise of opener's major. I suggest using the cheapest jump shift (1❤-2♠ and 1♠-3♣) as a forcing raise. Hands for strong jump shifts are very uncommon and modern methods like 2/1 and fourth-suit-forcing are usually effective for dealing with them. If you play Bergen raises, the 3 ♣ response to 1 ♠ may already have a use. In this case, I suggest that you make 3◆ and 3❤ your Bergen raises over 1♠. I will not get into my suggested responses to the 2♠ and 3♣ forcing raises here - perhaps in another article.

Problem 2: The (misguided) principle of fast arrival You hold this hand:

♠xxx

❤AQJxx ◆Ax

♣KJx

You open 1❤ , partner forces to game with 2♣. You raise to 3♣ (isn't it nice to know partner has a good five card suit?) and partner jumps to 4❤. What should you do now? If you play 2/1 the way that most pairs do, partner's unnecessary jump in a forcing auction shows a minimum hand (the “principle of fast arrival”). That information is not very useful here. Opposite this minimum:

♠Ax

❤Kxx

◆xx

♣AQxxxx

you have a laydown grand slam. Opposite this minimum:

♠Qxx

❤Kxx

◆Kx

♣AQxxx

the five level is not safe. The problem here is the jump to 4❤. This bid prevents your finding out at a safe level whether or not a spade control exists. The theory, of course, is that without “fast arrival”, neither partner ever gets to express whether or not they have extra values. Standard 2/1 places such a large emphasis on bidding out your pattern and finding out how well the hands fit that the bidding is often at a high level before either partner has been able to limit his hand. Using fast arrival gives responder a chance to say that he has a minimum 2/1. Unfortunately, the price that must be paid for limiting responder's hand is too high. There are simply too many times that you need the four level for cue-bidding, especially when opener's hand is virtually unlimited (as is usually the case in 2/1 auctions). Even if both opener and

Canadian Master Point Subscriptions Canadian Master Point is available free of charge through bridge clubs and bridge supply houses in Ontario and Quebec. As a service to those for whom this not a convenient way of receiving their magazine, or who wish to be certain of receiving one, we also offer subscriptions. To be¬come a subscriber, simply send us your name and mailing address with $15.00 (1 year) -- US subscribers please send US$15.00.



November 1993

responder are minimum, twelve tricks can easily exist if the hands fit well. Here is the solution that I propose: In the above auction (1❤-2♣-3♣) and in all similar 2/1 auctions in which responder can raise opener's major for the first time at the three level: - A jump to four of opener's major, instead of a raise at the three level, is a picture jump. A picture jump shows good trump support, a good suit of your own (promised by the 2/1) and no first or second round control in any unbid suit. Opener usually has such a good picture of responder's hand that he can place the contract (sometimes after using Keycard Blackwood). Here is an example of a hand for a jump to 4❤ by responder in the auction we have been discussing:

♠Qx

❤Kxxx

◆xx

♣AQJxx

- A jump in a new suit is a splinter (a singleton in the suit bid) but it is very well defined. Like the picture jump it shows good trumps and a good 5-card 2/1 suit. The splinter bid denies first or second round control in the unbid suit. Also, do not splinter with a singleton ace or with a void. Here is an example of a splinter bid of 4◆ in the above auction:

♠xxx

❤Kxxx

◆x

♣AQJxx

Once again, responder's hand is so welldefined that opener will frequently be able to place the contract. In the above example, opener will know that:

♠xxx

❤Kxxx

◆x

♣AQJxx

produces slam while the same hand with the ◆A instead of the ♠A belongs at the four level. Notice that in the auction that we have been discussing, responder never mentions the word "hearts": the raise is implicit. It is certainly not obvious that the splinter should be in support of hearts (as opposed to clubs) and you should have an explicit partnership understanding before making this kind of bid.



- With all other hands with 3-card or more support for opener's major, raise at the 3-level (auctions in which you can raise at the two level are different - perhaps I shall discuss those in another article). Since both opener's and responder's hands are virtually unlimited at this point, it is necessary to have a way for either partner to show genuine slam interest. The answer is a convention called "Serious 3NT" (John Gowdy discussed this in the September 1993 Canadian Master Point). This is the definition of Serious 3NT: When an 8 card or longer major suit fit is agreed at the 3-level and the bidding is forced to game, a bid of 3NT by either partner is completely artificial. It says: "Partner, I have serious slam interest, please cue-bid for me." If you fail to bid Serious 3NT when you have the opportunity and cue bid instead, that carries the following message: "Partner, I do not have serious slam interest, but I am cue-bidding in case you do." What should you cue-bid? In my partnerships with Geoff Hampson and Sheri Winestock we have found the following approach very successful: a cuebid in partner's 2/1 suit shows one of the top three honours; a cue-bid of your own 2/1 suit shows two of the top three honours; a cue bid in an unbid suit shows any first or second round control (A, K, singleton, or void). Cue-bidding is always up the line: by skipping a suit, you deny a control in that suit. 4NT by either partner is always Roman Keycard Blackwood. Some consequences of this approach to slam bidding: - It is impossible to get to the five level off two quick tricks in any suit.

Canadian Master Point

- It is almost never necessary to cue-bid at the five level. In case you haven't noticed, cue-bidding at the five level is usually a sign of desperation - you don't know what to do so you cue-bid at the five level to transfer the decision to your partner. - You will never get too high when neither partner has the extra values or knowledge of a good fit needed for a serious slam try. - You can never play in 3NT when you have an eight-card major suit fit after a 2/1 auction. Some players would find this a serious problem and would not consider playing this method. In my view, playing in 3NT in these sorts of auctions is the least of your problems. This is especially true when responder is known to have at least a five card 2/1 suit and the odds are high that at least one person has an unbalanced hand and/or has extra values.

Here are some examples of using Serious 3NT and the cue-bidding style that I recommend in 2/1 auctions:

Example 2

Example 3

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ 1♠ 3◆ 4❤ 5◆

AQJxx Ax Kxxx Qx

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Kxxx KQ AQJxx Jx

2◆ 3♠ 4NT 6♠

Opener's 3NT shows serious slam interest. Responder's 4◆ shows good diamonds but denies a club control. Opener's 4♠ is an absolute sign-off - a statement that no club control exists. Responder, despite holding extra values, must pass.



Example 1

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

KJxxx Axx Qx Qxx

1♠ 2♠ 4◆ 5❤

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AQx x AKJ10xx Axx

2◆ 3♠ 4NT 7NT

Opener's 4◆ denies serious slam interest (else 3NT) and denies first or second round club control (else 4♣), but shows one of the top three honours in diamonds. Responder can count thirteen tricks.

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ 1♠ 2♠ 4❤ 5◆

AJ10xx KJx x Qxxx

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

KQx xxx AKQJxx A

2◆ 3♠ 4NT 6♠

4❤ denies serious slam interest, a club control, and a top honour in diamonds (do not cue-bid shortness in partner's suit). A heart control is all responder needs to know about. What would happen if you exchanged opener's honours in hearts and clubs?

November 1993

Example 4

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AJ10xx Qxx x KJxx

1♠ 2♠ 4♣ 5♠

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

KQx xxx AKQJxx A

2◆ 3♠ 4◆ Pass

When responder bids 4◆, he announces serious slam interest. Since opener has denied serious slam interest by not bidding 3NT, responder would sign off over 4♣ if he did not have serious slam interest of his own. Opener is now obligated to show a heart control, so when opener bids 4♠ responder knows that the defence can take at least the first two heart tricks. Example 5

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ 1❤ 2❤ 3♠ 4♣ 4❤

Kxx AJxxxx xx Kx

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Qx Kxx AQxxxx AQ

2◆ 3❤ 3NT 4◆ Pass

When hearts is agreed at the 3-level, opener must bid 3♠ if he has a spade control; any other bid would deny spade control (3NT would be Serious with no spade control). Responder has extra values and shows this by bidding 3NT; 4♣ shows a control and 4◆ shows two of the top three honours. When opener does not take charge (by bidding Blackwood) despite the fact that all suits are known to be controlled, responder knows that



opener must be minimum. Responder has bid out his hand and should pass 4❤. Example 6

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Axx AKJxxx AJ xx

1❤ 2❤ 3♠ 4NT 6♠

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Qx Qxx KQxxx KQx

2◆ 3❤ 4♣ 5♣

Responder, despite having a terrible hand, must bid 4♣ because opener is still unlimited (remember, Serious 3NT by opener would deny a spade control). Responder can take some comfort in the fact that his 4♣ cue-bid denies serious slam interest. In this example, opener can take over once he learns that responder can stop clubs. As you can see, the approach to cuebidding that I recommend is quite a bit different from the fast arrival methods that most 2/1ers play. If you decide to adopt this approach, you and your partner should discuss it thoroughly first. Serious 3NT is a convention for serious players; It is not something that you can casually adopt. You might ask me about a convention called Last Train to Clarksville, which fills some of the holes in the cuebidding style that I recommend (holes that my carefully constructed examples avoid!). If there is one lesson to be learned from this article it is that good partnership agreements are much more important than which system you play. If you and your partner decide to play a complex non-standard system, put in the time to do it right. When you truly understand your system, you will start to see the benefits in your results.

Canadian Master Point

Restricted choice -- fact or fiction? E

r

i

c

S

u

Over recent months, we became involved in a correspondence between two of our readers regarding the Principle of Restricted Choice. Briefly, we can state the “con” argument as “the cards have no memory”; in other words, if the a priori odds favour playing for a 2-2 split, then the fact that East has dropped one of the missing honours doesn’t change anything. The mathematics of all this can get pretty complex, so we appealed to the Faculty of Mathematics at the University of Waterloo for some help. After further correspondence, we received the following submission from Eric Sutherland, a UW undergraduate as well as a member of the Canadian Junior bridge team.

W

e have all come across the situation where we have to play the following suit for no losers: A1054 K9872 Barging ahead, we lead the two to the ace, and the queen drops on our left. We then lead the ten from the dummy, RHO follows with the six (after playing the three on the first round), and we are at the crossroads: do we finesse or play for the drop, and how do we know? The principle involved in this type of situation is called the Law of Restricted Choice. There is a lot of dissent about this Law, because it seems to defy logic. After all, what happened to “eight ever, nine never”? Why would the probabilities suddenly change in the middle of the hand?



t

h

e

r

l

a

n

d

The reason why Restricted Choice works is this: if LHO had the doubleton queen, jack to begin with, then he had a choice of cards to play on the first round, because the queen and the jack are equals. If he had the singleton queen or jack, then his choice of what to play is “restricted” to that queen or jack. Let’s look at some percentages. First, assume that with QJ doubleton, LHO will play each card 50% of the time at random. Since the probability of his holding QJ doubleton is 6.78% (2-2 break is 40.7%, with 6 combinations), LHO will play an honour from QJ doubleton about 3.39% of the time. The probability that LHO has a singleton honour is about 6.22% (3-1 break is 49.74% with 8 combinations). As a result, the finesse on the second round rates to win about twice as often as it loses (6.22 to 3.39). Sounds simple? Well, let’s throw a little kink into the works. Let’s suppose that you are playing against opponents whom you know from experience would never play the queen from QJ doubleton, or even people who play the jack from this holding by agreement (I’ve seen it!). Now let’s examine the odds. If LHO plays the queen, he must have a singleton, so it is definitely right to finesse, but if he plays the jack, he could have either a singleton jack (6.22% of the time) or a QJ doubleton (6.78% of the time, since they would never play the queen); in this case it is right, albeit by a very small margin, to play for the drop. Similarly, if you are playing against someone whom you know always falsecards, and would never play the jack from QJ doubleton, the same holds: finesse if you see the jack, and go up if the queen is played.

November 1993

A word of warning, though: be very sure of your opponents. If you do choose to play for the drop in these situations, then you are going against the field, and single-handedly creating a potential swing that your partner or team-mates may have to pay for later. The moral of the story? Make yourself familiar with the usefulness of Restricted Choice, as it crops up in different situations. On defence, play your queens and jacks randomly; when on play, know your opponents; but above all, play for the 2-1 odds. You don’t get those odds in real life..... or do you? Remember “Let’s Make a Deal”? Monty Hall tells you that there is a fabulous prize behind one of Doors 1, 2, and 3, but there are “zonks” behind the other two. You choose Door 1, and Monty

opens Door 3 to show you a giant rocking horse. He then asks you if you want to switch your choice to Door 2. Do you switch? This problem has caused more heated arguments than you can imagine. Bridge players should have no difficulty recognizing another Restricted Choice situation here! Switch to Door 2, and your odds of winning are 2-1, not 50-50. Let’s say that Door 1 was the right door -- then Monty could have chosen to show you Door 2 or Door 3, with equal probability. However, if Door 2 was wrong, Monty was forced to choose Door 3, since Door 2 has the prize behind it. Because he is forced to pick Door 3 when Door 2 has the prize, and only picks Door 3 half the time when Door 1 has the prize, Door 2 has a better shot at making you a winner.

Master Point Press on the Internet www.masterpointpress.com Our main site, with information about our books and software, reviews and more. www.masteringbridge.com Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support material for our books, helpful articles, forums and more. www.ebooksbridge.com Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books. www.bridgeblogging.com Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and other bridge notables.



Canadian Master Point

J o h n

G o w d y ' s S h o p p e

T o y

Suit lead J

o

h

n

I

n today's active game, we need methods that allow us to compete effectively while maintaining our own aggressive posture. SUIT LEAD, a Meckwell innovation, covers a lot of ground and I think it will be played by most top-flight pairs within the next couple of years and will be come a mainstay of all tournament players in the next ten. It's that good! SUIT LEAD applies when you bid one of major (either an opening bid or an overcall) and LHO doubles (takeout or negative). Example: 1♠ - dbl - ? Now anything below 2NT by your partner is SUIT LEAD. SUIT LEAD responses fall into three categories:

1NT = 2♣ = 2◆ =

transfer to clubs transfer to diamonds transfer to hearts

2.

2❤ =

transfer to spades

3.

2♠

"poker raise"



1.

=

G

o

w

d

y

1. The transfers in this group take place under the following conditions: a) you are weak with a long suit, and plan to pass partner’s response b) you have invitational values, and a 1-suiter; you intend to raise partner’s response c) you have a game-going 1-suited hand with little or no fit; you will cuebid over partner’s response d) when you have weak support for partner's suit such as three small but good lead values in the suit being transferred to, such as A or KJ (minimum); you will return to partner’s major at a minimum level over his response. In the event your side doesn't declare the hand, the opening leader has good idea of what to lead. e) you have invitational values with a good fit and a side suit; you will jump in partner’s major over his response. 2. Transferring to partner’s major shows a 3-card constructive raise in partner's suit allowing partner to make a good decision in either raising, doubling or bidding, and more importantly, the player transferring has with one bid shown his hand and does not feel the pressure to act later in the auction. 3. The direct raise, in line with "fast arrival", is preemptive and it comes with a message. Your partner knows that you have no good lead value, therefore the high cards in your hand are likely in the suit raised.

November 1993

We also play this structure with Bergen Raises so that after:

1♠ 2NT = 3♣ = 3◆ = 3❤ = 3♠

=

dbl

?

3-card limit raise 4-card limit raise 4-card constructive raise whatever you agree fit, invitational or preemptive preemptive

When we overcall (e.g. 1◆ - 1♠ - dbl) the same structure applies. The only difference would be that 2♣ would be a transfer cuebid. It allows the overcaller to show a dead minimum by bidding 2♠ and to show some interest in game by simply accepting the transfer (2◆). The one final problem occurs when the opponents bid a lot in front of the overcaller, or more rarely the opening

Anacrostic Solution (see p. 18)

Mollo. You Need Never Lose At Bridge. ‘Curious hand,’ observed Oscar the Owl, Senior Kibitzer at the Griffins Club. ‘Played by South with a void in trumps, the grand slam in spades is virtually unbeatable. Played by North one spade is about the limit of the hand, and as we have just seen, even that’s no certainty.’



bidder. Example:

1◆ 4❤

1♠ 1.

1NT1

Dbl.

Transfer to 2♣

and you hold:

♠AQJxx

❤x

◆xxx

♣Kxxx

You would like to bid either 4♠ or 5♣ depending on partner's hand, so you should play double as an inquiry - saying that partner must bid either 4♠ or 5♣ depending on which of the hand types he held. Therefore, when you bid 4♠ you are on your own and don't care. This is a complicated structure and if you are planning to play it you should understand that it requires full and complete discussion on your understanding of all possible sequences by you and your opposition. The rewards are easily worth the effort.

The hand referred to is worth repeating:

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AKQJ9 8765 --A432

10432 --A765432 76

Canadian Master Point

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

--9432 KQJ1098 KJ5

8765 AKQJ10 ---Q1098

A framework for discussion (part 9) M

a

r

y

P

a

u

l

W

e have concluded our survey of major suit openings, and are now ready to deal with auctions that begin with an opening bid of one of a minor. Remember that the assumed system structure involves weak two’s, strong notrumps, and 5-card majors with a forcing 1 Notrump response. This month’s article starts the discussion of sequences after an opening bid of one of a minor when the opponents do not enter the auction.

OPENING BIDS -- ONE OF A MINOR (NO DIRECT INTERFERENCE BY OPPONENTS) General Opener holds 3-3 in the minors

Does he bid clubs first? Does he bid his better minor?

Y N Y N

Opener holds 4-4 in the minors

Does he bid clubs first? Does he bid his better minor?

Y N Y N

Opener holds 4-5 in the minors

Which suit is bid first? Is it a matter of texture?

Y N Y N

Opener bids 1♣

Could it be shorter than 3? Is it forcing?

Y N Y N

Opener bids 1◆

Does it promise four diamonds?

Y N

Can it be shorter than a 4-card suit? Does it deny four diamonds? Can it be a 4-card suit? 8-10 hcp? Does it deny a 4-card suit (ex. clubs)?

Y N

Responses to 1C opening bid 1♣ - ?

1◆ 1maj 1NT



Y Y Y Y

N N N N

November 1993

1♣ - ?

2♣

2 suit

2 NT 3♣ 3 suit 3 NT 4♣ or 4◆ 4❤ or 4S 4 NT

Is this weak? Is it inverted? If so, what is min. hcp? What is min. suit length? Strong jump shift? Hcp promised? Suit texture promised? Can it be a 2-suiter? Does it promise a club fit? Weak jump shift? Maximum hcp if so? Point range? Does it deny a 4-card major? Weak? Maximum hcp if so? Weak with a long suit? Splinter for clubs? Point range? Distribution expected? Weak hand? Is this to play? Ace-asking?

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Opener's first rebid after 1C opening 1♣ - 1◆ - ?

1♣ - 1maj - ?

1♣ - 2♣ (inverted) - ?

1♣ - 2 suit - ?

1♣ - 2NT - ? 1♣ - 3♣ - ? 1♣ - 3NT - ?



Do you bid suits up the line? What is the possible distribution of a 1NT rebid? Does a raise to 2◆ promise 4-card support? Does it show extra values? Does opener raise with 3-card support? Does opener rebid 1NT on balanced hands? Over 1❤, does opener bid 1♠ or 2❤ holding four spades and three hearts? What is 2◆? What is 2maj? What is 2NT? What is 3♣? What is 3 suit? If this is strong, what does opener show first? Is this a new suit natural or a cuebid? Does a rebid in a higher-ranking suit promise reversing values? Does a raise promise an honour? Is 3♣ Stayman or for play? Is this a limit raise, is a new suit bid simply a NT stopper? What does a new suit bid mean? Is 4♣ Gerber? What is 4NT?

Canadian Master Point

Y N Y Y Y Y

N N N N

Y N Y N Y N Y N

Variations 1♣ - 1◆ - 1❤ - ?

1♠

1♣ - 1◆ - 1❤ - ?

2♠

1♣ - 1◆ - 1NT - ?

2♣ 2◆ 2❤ 2♠ 3♣ 3◆ 2♣ 2◆ 3♣ 3◆

1♣ - 1maj - 1NT - ?

3maj 1♣ - 1maj - 1NT - 2♣ (checkback) 2◆ - ? 3♣ 3◆ 2NT 2maj - ? 1♣ - 1 suit - 2NT - ? 3♣ 3◆ 3maj 1♣ - 1 maj - 2NT - ?

Is this forcing to game? Does it promise a 4-card suit? Is this forcing to game? Does it promise a 4-card suit? Is this Stayman? Is this Stayman? Natural with 5◆ and 4❤? Natural with 5❤ and 4♠? Limit hand? Limit hand? Is this Stayman? Is this Stayman? Forcing or limited? Weak or strong? Looking for preference? What distribution? Limit hand?

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

To play? Forcing? Forcing? Is this Stayman? Is this Stayman? Is this forcing? Does it promise a 6-card suit?

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N N N N N N N N

Y N Y N N N N N N N N

Auctions after 1D opening bid Sequences can be inferred from the above, with the exception of: 1◆ - 2♣ - ?

Is this forcing to game? What is the medium hcp strength? Does a raise to 3♣ show extra values? Does it promise 4-card suppoty? Does a rebid of 2◆ guarantee a 5-card suit? Does a rebid of 2maj show reversing values?

Strong or weak? Stayman? Transfer to 3◆? 1◆ - 1maj - 1NT - 2♣ (new minor forcing) Weak, strong, or limit? 2maj - ? 3♣ Weak, strong, or limit? 3◆ 1◆ - 1maj - 1NT - ? 1◆ - 1maj - 2NT - ?



3♣ 3♣

Y N Y Y Y Y

N N N N

Y N Y N

November 1993

f o r

f u t u r e

e x p e r t s

Competitive bidding J

A

o

e

S

common situation at matchpoints in a competitive auction is one in which a decision has to be made whether or not to bid on, to double the opponents, or to pass. Although anything can be right on one specific hand, you must take into account the long-term probabilities. If you consistently take the correct action, then in the long run your decisions will pay dividends. Basically, the more confident we were of making our contract, the more we must protect our score by doubling the opponents should they bid on. It follows that the more high cards we have, the more likely we are to defeat them. Of course, vulnerability is also a major factor. We are more likely to consider doubling if they are vulnerable, while at unfavourable vulnerability, the penalty may not be enough to offset our

Anacrostic Word List (see p. 18) A. Morton’s Fork B. Opens C. Lawsuit D. Lose the Lead E. Overbid F. Yarborough G. Oath H. Underhand



e

i

g

e

l

game or slam. When the points are about even, or on very distributional hands, we must be very careful about doubling. The more distributional our hands are, the more we should be inclined to bid on, as high cards in our long suits will not take many tricks on defence. However, if we have already pushed them up a level, be content to leave them there -- it’s probably not necessary to double, and we may be turning a plus into a minus by bidding on. Factors that will help you make the decision when you are considering doubling are vulnerability, and whether your side or the opponents or both have found a good fit. Queens and jacks in their suits are not likely to be useful offensively, but will only be good defensively if you have some length: Qx or Jxx are “death holdings” that tell you the hand is going to play well for them. You have to be aggressive to win at matchpoints, but don’t confuse this with lunacy. There are times to be aggressive, and times just to sit there.

I. Namyats J. Ethics K. Establish the Suit L. Delay M. Native N. Etch O. Vanderbilt P. En Passant Q. Rushes R. Last Hand S. Other Way

Canadian Master Point

T. Sufficient Bid U. Enjoy V. Analyze W. Trap X. Bust Y. Review Z. Inhibit AA. Devil’s Coup BB. Gambit CC. End up

f o r

f u t u r e

e x p e r t s

He who hesitates.....

b

a

r

b

a

r

a

A

t one time or another, everyone finds themselves in a situation where a little extra time is needed during a bidding sequence. There is nothing wrong with this -you are always within your rights to take whatever time you need. However, whenever this occurs, it is the partner of the player who has hesitated whose actions are now going to be placed under scrutiny. In other words, any action taken by the partner of the "hesitater" must be based solely on his own cards. Any bid which is now made that is even slightly dubious and not 100% clear-cut may be overturned by the director and the score may be adjusted. There is a widespread mistaken belief that partner's hesitation bars you from any further bidding on the hand. This is not so. If you have a clear-cut bid, you must still make it, not drawing any inference from partner's hesitation. West's hand:

♠xx

❤AQ10xx ◆Axx

♣Qxx

West 1❤ 4❤ 5❤

North 1♠ 4♠

South 3♠ Pass

1. *



East 1❤1 Pass*

Limit raise (10-12 hcp) After long hesitation

se

a

g

r

a

m

West has no right to bid 5❤ on a bare minimum hand when partner has only made a limit raise. If East had not hesitated, then West could bid whatever he wished, however undisciplined, taking his chances on the result. If a player wishes to commit suicide, there is no law against this. But the hesitation bars him from making such a dubious call, since it is suggestive of extra values in partner’s hand. North's hand:

♠5432

❤KJ1065 ◆K6

♣93

West 1◆ Pass

North 1❤ 2❤

South Pass* Pass



*

East 2◆ Pass*

After long hesitation

North has the simple overcall at the one level which he made at his first turn. However, he does not have a 2♥ rebid. Again, if partner had not hesi¬tated, his bid would be allowed to stand; there is no law against stupidity. Given the hesitation, however, the score or contract may be adjusted.

West

North

East

2♣ Pass

Dbl.1 4❤

3♣ All Pass



1. *

South 1◆ 3NT*

Negative After long hesitation

November 1993

In Summary

North's hand:

♠J1098

❤KJ432 ◆752

♣Q

If no hesitation had occurred, this player would most likely not have bid again. It would appear strongly as if he drew an inference from partner's hesitation which suggested that partner had doubts about 3NT as the final contract. This hand will be monitored carefully by the director and the score or contract probably adjusted.

Less experienced players often get very upset when opponents call the director after a hesitation, and may even feel that they are being accused of cheating. (Incidentally, the word "cheating" is not allowed by ACBL to be used at the bridge table, under any circumstances.) However, any time that a break in tempo in the bidding occurs, the director must be summoned in order to protect the rights of everyone at the table. It is essential always to call the director whenever there is a problem, however minor it may be. No player is allowed to "police" a situation at the table or to give a lecture to their opponents.

Master Point Press on the Internet www.masterpointpress.com Our main site, with information about our books and software, reviews and more. www.masteringbridge.com Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support material for our books, helpful articles, forums and more. www.ebooksbridge.com Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books. www.bridgeblogging.com Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and other bridge notables.



Canadian Master Point

Software Review Positronic Bridge. (Positronic Software Inc.) IBM PC or compatibles. Reviewed by Ray Lee.

T

his is the bridge program that is billed as being capable of playing “as well as you do” -- a feature that many of us may feel is of dubious merit! PB comes in two flavours: Competitor, and Expert, retailing for $100 and $200 respectively. The first is much like any other bridge software package; the Expert version is the one that al¬lows you to “teach” the software to bid the way you want it to. As a bridge-playing package, PB has its good and bad points, and on balance is probably about the same standard as any of its competitors. It boasts an easy and attractive user interface, especially for mouse users, and, while not a speed demon on my 386, was playable. Its worst feature is the long-outmoded “disklock” copy protection technique -for me this would be enough to decide against purchasing it. After all, if my original disk dies and these guys aren’t around any more, I’m now out $200 (and a lot of time, as will be seen!). As a bridge partner or opponent, it is no worse than the competition (which isn’t saying much) -- in other words it plays at an intelligent novice level. It defends mechanically, and does not play the hand very well, although according to the manual, the learning routines should enable it to improve in both these areas over a period of time. Since it does this by watching the human player, though, that’s not going to help less-than-expert players very much. In the Expert version, you can enter



“teaching” mode, and begin to bid hands. In this mode, you can see all four hands, and either approve or change each player’s bid. If you have “corrected” any bid, at the end of the auction you can update the memory traces and then go on to bid another hand. Ian McKinnon volunteered to do some of the testing, and decided to concentrate on teaching it 1NT opening bids. He set up the program to deal 15-17 point flat hands to South, and corrected every misstep to 1NT without worrying about subsequent auctions too much. After four or five hours of work, PB was opening 1NT most of the time, but still not on every hand. I used a more broadly-based approach, trying to teach it a general system, recognizing that this would be slower to produce results. After seven or eight hours, the program was opening the bidding correctly at the 1-level about 75% of the time and usually finding the right first response. Thereafter the auction was still mostly unknown. Time did not permit much further testing. Suffice it to say that PB does learn, but it does it painfully slowly, and if you’re going to invest $200 in this package with the idea of creating the perfect partner, you better be prepared to invest a lot of time, too. I don’t want to end this review on a negative note, because in many ways PB is a remarkable achievement, and there are those who will want to spend time seeing what it can do. I am looking forward to version 2 however: I see that as including several skeleton systems, in order to short-circuit the first several dozen painful hours. It goes without saying that the disklock security has to go, the level of play and defence has to improve, and some improvements should be made to the scoring methods available.

November 1993

Reading the hand.... (from page 17)

1.

Flawless technique

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AK6 A8543 K3 A83

J97 102 Q97654 Q2

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

concede a spade for the contract. A rare form of Morton’s Fork

10 QJ97 J1082 KJ97

Q85432 K6 A 10654

West has to establish the fifth heart for a club discard. If hearts are 5-1 there is no play; the danger is that hearts are 4-2 and that West can overruff the third round. The winning line is to win the ♠Q, cash the ◆A and the ❤K, and cross to the ♠A. Now South pitches a heart on the ◆K, ruffs a heart, draws the last trump with the ♠K, and cashes the ❤A. If necessary he can ruff one more heart and return to the ♣A for the long heart. Improve Your Dummy Play (Eric Milnes and Paul Lukacs) 2.

Enter with care

Obviously both black finesses work, but there could be entry problems. You have to win the ♣A to avoid a ruff; if you now hook a spade and draw trumps, East will let your ♣Q hold, and you are an entry short. If you play a low club towards dummy, East will win and return one, blocking the suit. To avert this, unblock the ♣ Q at trick one, take two rounds of trumps ending in dummy, and finesse a spade. Draw trumps, and play a club to the nine. If East wins, you are home; if he ducks, you pitch a club on the ❤A and eventually



♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

73 A103 A82 AJ1092

42 J97542 10963 3

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

K1085 KQ86 4 K864

AQJ96 --KQJ75 Q75

Hand Reading in Bridge (Danny Roth) 3.

Early concession

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

K 75 AKJ10654 643

J9752 AJ84 2 A82

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣ ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

864 1093 Q73 K1075

AQ103 KQ62 98 QJ9

It is fairly clear what is happening. South has ample guards in all the suits, and feels he can give up a diamond for safety while the other suits are under control. The best defence on such occasions is to cut declarer adrift by returning the long suit. The discards from the South hand will become increasingly embarrassing. Posie Defence (Terence Reese and Julian Pottage)

Canadian Master Point