Cmp_1996_jan

canadian

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) 781-9327 • Fax: (416) 781-1831 • www.masterpointpress.com

January 1996

Vol. V Number 1

From the mailbag 2 A scandal in Ruritania by David Silver 3 Wonderful Copenhagen by Fred Gitelman 11 16 A grand squeeze by Ray Lee Bridge anacrostic by “Griffin” 18 20 How to ruin a marriage by Roselyn Teukolsky Locating lower honours by Prakash J. Paranjape 23 Coach of the year by Linda Lee 26 28 Beijing scrapbook A fascinating hand by Ray Jotcham 31 When they double our 1NT by John Gowdy 33 The best-laid plans .... by Mike Cafferata 34 Win-win post-mortems by John Ross 36 Raptor 1NT overcalls by Eric Sutherland 37 Never give a declarer an even break by Barbara Seagram 40 Ask the Bridge Doctor by Karen Allison 43 Index to Canadian Master Point 1992-95 46 Reviews: Points Schmoints (Bergen) 53 Tales out of School (Silver) 53 Bridge Buff 3.0 (update), Bridge Baron, Perfect Partner Bridge 55 Canadian Master Point is published four times a year. It is available free of charge thorugh bridge clubs and bridge supply houses across Canada or by subscription ($16/yr, US $16 for US subs). Copyright ©1996 Master Point Press. 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 addresss with SAE for return or reply.

ED. BOARD: Ray & Linda Lee, Maureen Culp, John Gowdy, Ron Bishop

From the mailbag... The new look...... Congratulations on your new format. It’s very attractive and easy to read. My only quibble would be the suit symbols for the hands: I much prefer those in the Symbol font. I realize that the outline forms for the hearts and diamonds are intended to represent the red suits, but they suffer somewhat in the translation to the printed form. They are just too hard to read for us old fogies who need glasses. Otherwise, it is an impressive achievement, particularly since you are learning Quark at the same time. Thanks for the many hours of good reading you have provided our members. Bruce Glassford West End Duplicate Bridge Club Toronto Re “Bridge Player Live” I thought it might be helpful to clarify some of the points in your recent review of Internet On-Line Bridge and BRIDGE PLAYER LIVE (CMP October 1995)! Free play to students was offered almost from the outset subject to their being under 26 and in full-time attendance at an educational institution. Surprisingly few have registered and for the life of me I cannot understand why! When we charge they complain of poverty, and when we offer it free, they can’t be bothered to register — what more can we do to help the young bridge players (who will probably tend to be those who are more computer literate than the average)? Perhaps this letter will alert them to the fact that we can provide them the service — but if we don’t get more interest then we shall discontinue it. As they

2

say — you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink! Since you reviewed the system we have beefed up our server in its software reliability and the Internet lines seem to have been unclogged by the respective transatlantic providers — no doubt after much jumping from a great height! Our Chat facilities are more subtle than you may have understood, as certain rooms are designated “quiet” rooms — that is, once you are at a table, no-one but your table-mates can chat to you. This allows for fast concentrated bridge once you get down to it! The public room is at the moment an “open” room in this context so that people who come and go can establish an opportunity for a game with players at the table who may be leaving at the end of the hand and so on — and I agree with your reviewer that it does get “noisy” in there sometimes (no names, no pack drill!). Our plans in coming releases will address all your comments about player statistics and scoring but of course, “until software is there, there it isn’t” — and that applies to us too! We released an interim update at the Atlanta Nationals that allows preplayed duplicate boards to be played with the score for that hand appearing after play so you get an immediate comparison of your performance. We initially made 20 such boards available but the power of the system is such that we can open many rooms, each with a full session of preplayed boards, which we think is an attractive competitive opportunity without the burden of time to the player who only wants to play 5 or 10 boards at a sitting. Nick Justice Managing Director International On-Line Bridge Club

Canadian Master Point

A scandal in Ruritania D

avid

Professor Silver, Wright Cardinal, Bruce Gowdy, and Eric Murray are representing Canada in the Ruritanian Invitational Team Championships. In the first instalment, Silver was kidnapped and held prisoner in Castle Zelda, and it was only through a brilliant subterfuge that his team is able to stay in the competition until his release could be secured. Part II of “The Legend of Zelda” comes from the pen of Silver’s long-suffering chronicler, Wright Cardinal.

T

o Professor Silver, she was always the woman; I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt an emotion akin to love for Mercilla Fortuna — all emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise, but admirably balanced mind. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for kibitzers and amateurs, but for the serious bridge player to admit such intrusions into his own finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might disturb his concentration. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Mercilla Fortuna of dubious and questionable memory. One night — it was the evening before our playing the final match of the Ruritanian Invitational Team Championships — I looked up from my

January 1996

S

ilver

favourite television show, Baywatch, to see Professor Silver’s tall, spare, figure pass twice in a dark silhouette before the screen. He was pacing the room, swiftly, eagerly, his head sunk upon his chest and his hands clasped behind him. To me, who knew his every mood and habit, his attitude and manner told their own story: he was working out a bridge problem. “I’m sorry to disturb you, Cardinal,” he remarked, “I know how much you enjoy the intellectual repartee between the characters on that program.” “No matter, Professor,” I replied, somewhat taken aback by his uncharacteristic sarcasm. “Since the dialogue is dubbed into German, I wasn’t able to follow the story anyway.” “Quite so,” he answered throwing himself down into an armchair. “Permit me to switch this machine off; there is a serious matter I must raise with you. You may not have realized, Cardinal, the importance of our winning this match tomorrow, but without the cash prize that accompanies the championship, we can’t get home. The Canadian Bridge Federation only provided the two of us with one-way tickets, an oversight I’m sure, but they have not responded to my telegrams nor have they answered my phone calls. And I fear that neither Bruce nor Eric would lend us money even if they were speaking to us.” “But I don’t think we have any cause for concern, Professor; Bruce and Eric are playing extremely well. After all, they’ve carried us through to the finals. And while we’ve had our difficulties, I’m sure we’ll regain our form tomorrow. Besides, this isn’t exactly the final round

3

of the Spingold. The other finalists are locals, Princess Flavia and her cousin, er....?” “Mercilla.” “That’s right. And the other pair, Count Alucard and that weird Renfrew person, they’re not experts. We should blitz them easily! The only thing that concerns me is that the match begins at sundown and continues until daybreak! But you’re an old rubber bridge player so the schedule shouldn’t bother you.” “There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, Cardinal. You have obviously not considered the fact that they have beaten some very good teams on their path to potential humiliation at our hands. But you are correct in your assessment of their abilities. The situation is .......” “Peculiar?” “Peculiar — that is the very word. So peculiar that I have asked a member of the Egyptian team, who were beaten soundly by Princess Flavia’s team yesterday, to visit us tonight. Perhaps, with his help, we can gain some insight into our opponents’ success. By the way, if you should recognize him, please respect his privacy. Open the door, that must be him now.” I opened the door and a man entered who could hardly have gone unrecognized in even the remotest part of the civilized world. Millions of fans had thrilled to his performances for more than thirty years. I, of course, knew that he was a worldclass bridge player, but since he played only in Europe, I had never met him. “Professor Silver, it’s........” “Mr. Ross, Cardinal, Mr. Ross ...... bringing us hands from his semi-final match, I believe” Indeed he was, and after accepting Professor Silver’s assurances as to my discretion the man who preferred to be known as ‘Ross’ drew a sheaf of papers from his pocket and spread them on the table. As he gazed fixedly at the hand records, for such they were, our visitor

January 1996

acquired haunted look, and he said nothing until Professor Silver looked up impatiently. “You can understand, gentlemen,” began Ross, “that I am not accustomed to blaming losses on anything other than player error. Yet the circumstances of this last match are so bizarre that I cannot explain them! Our opponents seemed to have been gifted with second sight, bidding thin games when every finesse was on, and being always content with part scores when the cards were badly placed. Of course, there are sessions when opponents get what basketball players call “hot hands”, but I have never before seen a pair that exhibited perfect judgement on every hand they bid or played.” “Surely you exaggerate, my dear Ross,” said Professor Silver, languidly leaning back and closing his eyes. “The race is not always to the swift. Every bridge player in the world can provide anecdotal evidence for Silver’s Second Law of Bridge, ‘It’s better to be lucky than smart’ — right, Cardinal?” “It sounds as though you’ve just met a team that played over their heads. Professor Silver and I recently lost a Regional under similar circumstances. They just overbid their hands and made everything. It happens sometimes when a weaker team despairs of outplaying its opponents and bids wildly.” “No, you don’t understand. They don’t just count on being lucky, they’ve actually incorporated luck into their bidding system.” At this, Professor Silver reopened his eyes and leaned forward. “Please explain!” he demanded. “The ladies, Princess Flavia and Countess Fortuna, play their own bidding system which they call the LOL System. Upon inquiring, I was informed that the acronym stands for “Lots Of Luck”. That’s basically all they have on their card, with the exception of those few conventions that any duplicate player

5

might be familiar with. They even alert bids that are made on the presumption that the contract will be serendipitously makeable! “At first we smiled politely at their naivete, but as we played hand after hand, it became obvious that their system was 100 % accurate! We were blitzed, of course, but I could find no grounds for protest. What rational complaints could I present to an appeals committee? Permit me to cite an example. “Early in the match Mercilla held: 1072 A6 AK52 AJ52 The bidding proceeded: Khedive

Flavia

Ross

2 3NT1 pass pass

Mercilla

1NT pass2



1. “Fast” Lebensohl, no spade stopper



2. Alerted as an LOL pass

“Needless to say, the hand was unbeatable!”

Flavia  J5  K83  Q8764  KQ10 Khedive  A98642  QJ97  —  754

Ross  KQ  10542  J1093  962

“You see, gentlemen, not only is the spade suit hopelessly blocked, but there are three diamonds, two hearts and four clubs — nine tricks — to be cashed as soon as I shift at trick three! Our partners reached the eminently sensible contract of 5, which failed by a trick because of the 4-0 trump split. But there’s more: on the very next deal, Mercilla held..... A632 K54 KJ93 A6 “Flavia opened with 1 and the bidding proceeded: Khedive

Flavia

pass pass pass

1 2 2NT

Mercilla

1 21 pass2

1. Fourth suit, forcing to game 2. Alerted as an LOL pass

“A prescient pass! There are only eight tricks available.”

Flavia  85  A7  A6542  KQ75 Khedive  Q10974  QJ8  Q1087  3

Mercilla  1072  A6  AK52  AJ52

6

Ross

pass pass pass

Canadian Master Point

Ross  KJ  109632  —  J109842 Mercilla  A632  K54  KJ93  A6

“Our partners, with 27 high card points, all suits stopped and a known 5-4 diamond fit, rashly bid 3NT, one down! Don’t you agree, Professor, that there is something going on here?” “I’ve seen nothing so far that can’t be attributed to blind chance. Permit me, but I have often written that top-flight pairs are distinguished from the herd by the number of slams they bid and make. Any reasonable pair can purchase a copy of Bridge the Silver Way and quickly become expert at low-level bidding and play. Surely you are not suggesting that the ladies’ crystal ball also directs them to unbeatable slams?” “Yes!” replied Ross, wringing his hands. “Take Board 17; you are South, playing in 6 after opening the bidding 2. The opponents were silent and the opening lead is the Q; try and make it.”

North  K3  65  10953  Q8532

low heart with the K and draw trumps. Subsequently your carefully preserved K will provide you with trick twelve.” “Nicely played Professor. Lose 13 IMP’s.” said Ross sardonically. “My teammate also made the safety play, which was just as well since RHO held all four spades and a singleton heart. But Mercilla made all thirteen tricks and what’s more, she and Flavia bid the grand slam! Now what do you think?” When Professor Silver regained consciousness, Ross resumed his narrative. “The opening lead was the Q which Mercilla won with her ace. Any normal player would now cash the K and attempt to ruff two hearts in dummy, a line that obviously fails here. But not this declarer! She played the A and K, felling my partner’s doubleton QJ ! Then she crossed to the K, my partner showing out, and played out the 10 and 9 discarding her two heart losers as I helplessly followed suit. A small spade to her hand enabled her to draw my trumps and claim the contract.”

Flavia  K3  65  10953  Q8532

South  AQJ10962  AK72  AK  — “Elementary, my dear Ross. You see the obvious trap, of course, Cardinal? An ordinary player would win the opening lead and play the K preparatory to ruffing a heart in the dummy. Matchpoint players might even anticipate ruffing both heart losers for an overtrick. But what happens if the K gets ruffed and a trump is returned? You are going down in a cold contract. The expert line is to win the A and return a low heart immediately. You win the return, ruff a

January 1996

Khedive  —  QJ10983  QJ  AKJ104

Ross  8754  4  87642  976

Mercilla  AQJ10962  AK72  AK  — “How did they ever bid a grand slam on those cards?” croaked Professor Silver hoarsely.

7

“They employ a convention called the Eastwood Asking Bid — an unusual jump in the trump suit which asks partner how lucky she feels. Here is how the auction went...” Khedive

Flavia

Ross

pass 2  pass pass 51 pass pass 73 all pass

Mercilla

2 2 62

1. Eastwood (Well, partner, do you feel lucky?) 2. Eastwood Corollary (No, but do you?) 3. Yes! Professor Silver was not amused. He motioned Ross to continue. “All my doubts vanished when late in the match I made a lead-directing double. The bidding had gone: Khedive

Flavia

Ross

Mercilla

pass pass all pass

1 2 42

pass pass dbl

1 41 7

1. Eastwood (Well, partner, do you feel lucky?) 2. Positive response

“I held : AKJ J109876 52 52

Ross was unable to continue and after a few minutes rest, took his leave of us. “These are much deeper waters than I had thought, Cardinal,” muttered Silver, in a voice so low I could hardly make out his words. In all the years that I have been playing bridge, I have heard of only one similar instance, the infamous Voodoo Dummy Case that occurred at the 1934 Haitian Championships. I was on the appeals committee, but the matter was left unresolved after hand-carved dolls resembling each of the committee members were found on the beach. We must prepare ourselves for tomorrow night. There is but one step from the grotesque to the horrible. Tomorrow morning, go to the local market and buy a sack of garlic, three dozen stalks of wolfbane, and four crucifixes. Speak to no-one of this matter, especially neither Bruce nor Eric.” “Surely, Professor, you who will not even condescend to watch The X-files, don’t believe that there is anything other than blind luck involved here, do you?” “Cardinal, how often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? Well, there’s nothing to be done until tomorrow morning. You get some sleep while I think. This is definitely a three-pipe problem. And by the way...” “Yes, Professor?” “When you go out tomorrow, do not consort with any friendly young women you might chance to encounter. The term “necking” has a different connotation in Ruritania than it does in Canada!”

to be continued.....

“My poor partner found himself on lead, with a spade void! Without a spade lead, Mercilla was able to draw trumps, and discard her spades on dummy’s clubs. Seven diamonds bid and made!”

8

Canadian Master Point

Wonderful Copenhagen fred

C

gitelman

ould this happen in North America? A major newspaper sponsors an invitational pairs event; the newspaper provides several pages of daily coverage including photographs, standings, reports of interesting hands, and biographies of all participants. Twelve of the best pairs in the world are invited to participate, and the field is rounded out by four local pairs who have earned the right to play through their performance over the last year. Each of the sixteen pairs is sponsored by a major corporation that covers all of their expenses. Tens of thousands of dollars in prize money is given to the top seven finishers. The tournament is held at one of our finest hotels. Everything is first class — the participants play in tuxedos. The event is opened by the Minister of Culture. Hundreds of local players come out to kibitz and watch VuGraph.

Television reporters and cameramen are everywhere throughout the five-day tournament. A closing banquet is held at the fabulous home of a local bridge-playing couple: hundreds of people enjoy a wonderful multi-course meal, unlimited wine and champagne, and a jazz band that plays late into the night. Before you answer “No, this could not happen in North America”, you should know that this just happened somewhere else. The place was Copenhagen, Denmark. The newspaper was The Politiken, Copenhagen’s biggest daily. The hotel was the Phoenix Copenhagen, the best in the city. The field consisted of sixteen very strong tuxedo-wearing pairs (actually only fifteen wore tuxedos — Auken and von Armin, the recently crowned Women’s World Champions from Germany, were allowed to wear dresses). Omar Sharif played with Jose Damiani, the WBF President. Not only did Omar more than hold his own in this star-studded event, his impact on the media, his magnetic

A scene from Denmark: Omar Sharif (left) in play against George Mittelman (facing camera) and the author (back to camera).

January 1996

11

personality, his great sense of humour, and his obvious love of the game all enhanced the experience for everyone involved. George Mittelman and I were very fortunate to be invited to the inaugural Politiken World Pairs which was held from November 3rd to the 7th, 1995. When I was first shown the list of competitors (in September) my immediate reaction was “I hope we don’t come in last!” Our success in the Bermuda Bowl (in October) improved my confidence to the point that I knew we could play well enough to finish in the money. Whether we would actually play that well was another question. Each pair would play a ten-board match against every other pair. In every match there were eight tables in play, all playing the same boards. For each board the best and the worst scores were thrown out and the remaining six results were averaged into a datum. Then each pair’s results were IMPed against this datum. George and I found a nice defence on the hand at the top of the next column. Our opponents were Peter and Dorthe Schaltz of Denmark, one of the best mixed pairs in the world. As was typical of our Danish hosts, the Schaltzes played very well against us. All of the Danes were a pleasure to play against and to get to know; the friendliness and hospitality of the local competitors really made the foreign pairs feel welcome. George’s 2NT showed both minors and Peter’s 3 showed at least a limit raise of spades. George led the K. I overtook and cashed a second round. George now made the key play of discarding the 3 (upside-down attitude asking for a club switch). Notice first of all that an obvious-looking diamond shift allows the contract to make easily (the J will eventually provide a discard for declarer’s club loser). George told me which suit to play but I still had to figure out which card. I returned the 9 (as

12

Dorthe  K975432  J2  AQ  62

Fred  J  AQ1098654  104  Q9

George  10  K  K98732  KJ1053

Peter  AQ86  73  J65  A874 Fred 4

Dorthe George Peter 1 2NT 3 4 all pass

opposed to the Q). Can you see why this is the right play? Imagine that I return the Q. Declarer can win the A and run the trumps. George must come down to three cards including two diamonds to the K. His third card is a club. Declarer can now exit a club endplaying George into leading a diamond. It is true that on the actual lie of the cards George can throw all of his high clubs away and allow me to win the club exit with my nine. However, if declarer had held the same hand with the J or 10 instead of a small one, my defence would be necessary. Once I played the 9 it looked to Dorthe as though the strip-squeeze would not work, so she decided to give me another chance to make a mistake by allowing me to hold this trick. Dorthe had effectively rectified the count for a possible simple squeeze against George. In order to break this up it was now necessary to continue clubs, but the whole

Canadian Master Point

hand was pretty obvious at this point, and I had little trouble finding the defence. Dorthe’s only hope now was the diamond finesse, and when that lost, as expected, 4 was down one. Before the event was half over it became pretty clear that Zia MahmoodPeter Weichsel (USA) were going to win. Despite the fact that this was a first-time partnership Zia and Peter were winning just about every match by a large margin. The only other pair who really asserted themselves was Andrea Buratti and Massimo Lanzarotti (Italy). BurattiLanzarotti are reigning European Teams Champions, and represented their country in the Beijing Bermuda Bowl. Going into the last day this pair pretty much had second place locked up. The battle would be for third place. Three pairs, HelgemoHelness (Norway), Muller-de Boer (Holland), and George and myself had traded third, fourth, and fifth places for much of the tournament. The bad news was that George and I were in fifth place going into the last match. The good news was that we were about to play Helgemo and Helness who were sitting third. George and I pride ourselves on our ability to come from behind in the last match or segment (we are not so proud of our ability to blow large leads in similar circumstances). For whatever reason, we could do no wrong in this match while the Norwegians misjudged on several deals. On one hand George was dealt:

if our position in the standings caused George to take a “swinging action” on this hand. If so, it is an instructional way to swing. Most players when trying for a swing become more aggressive in the bidding and hope lots of tricks are available. It is a less well-known tactic to underbid and hope that few tricks are available. Full marks to George for finding the right way to swing on this hand. This deal (from the same match) was also interesting from a tactical bidding point of view:

J 1053 AKJ108632 J

Helgemo’s 3 was a “short suit game try” showing a singleton or void in diamonds and asking partner to evaluate for game purposes. Helness, with almost half his hand opposite partner’s shortness, signed off. This revealing auction made it pretty easy for me to lead a low diamond away from my A. Helgemo made the normal play of the J from dummy. George won his Q and accurately switched to a heart (there was some

He was in second position at favourable vulnerability. What would you open? Most of the field opened 5. This is the bid that I think George would normally make (though he might open 1 on occasion). George picked the right time to be pessimistic and opened 3, which was passed out. 3 was the limit of the hand and we were one of the only pairs in our direction to get a plus score. I don’t know

January 1996

Helness  974  K104  KJ86  Q82

Fred  J6  QJ952  A1053  107

George  Q2  63  Q974  AJ943 Helgemo  AK10853  A87  2  K65



Helgemo Helness 1 2 3 3

13

danger that I would eventually be squeezed in hearts and diamonds). When he later won his A, George played another heart. Helgemo could still have made an overtrick by cashing his club trick and throwing me in with a heart. I would have to lead another diamond or concede a ruff and discard, either of which would eliminate Helgemo’s second club loser. Helgemo reasonably tried to endplay George instead by exiting with his third club. He was right in that George was out of hearts. He was wrong about the position of the A, however, as George had a safe diamond exit. Our nice defence was not enough to defeat 3 but almost everyone else played in 4 making five on the normal lead of the Q. What does this have to do with tactics? Well, I think that Helgemo’s 3 bid was a poor tactical choice. I have a lot of respect for Helgemo; he is only 25 years old and one of the finest bridge players in the world. Moreover, I can understand his reservations on this hand — it is far from clear that you want to be in 4 on the actual North-South cards. Despite this, I strongly believe that Helgemo should just bid 4 over 2. Obviously 4 might have no play and it is also possible that 3NT is a much better contract than 4. I believe, however, that scientific game tries are very overrated. For one thing, it is absurd to think that even super fancy game tries are accurate enough to allow your partnership to judge consistently whether nine or ten tricks are available. Even if your methods and judgement are that accurate the information you give away in the process is often worth at least one trick to the defence. George and I have adopted the philosophy of almost never making game tries — if you think game should be a reasonably good proposition most of the time, just bid it. We have found this approach to be very successful, mostly through keeping the defence in the dark about what declarer’s hand looks like.

14

We ended up beating Helgemo and Helness by 26 IMP’s and easily passing them in the standings. Muller and de Boer (who really impressed us both with their bridge and their deportment) lost in the last match to the Schaltzes (who were the only local pair to win prize money, finishing 7th). As a result we also passed our Dutch friends to finish third. Shivdasani and Ghose of India finished the event by blitzing their last three matches (including one against us) to come from nowhere into fourth place. 1. Mahmood-Weichsel (USA) 944 2. Buratti-Lanzarotti (Italy) 901 3. Mittelman-Gitelman (Canada) 804 4. Shivdasani-Ghose (India) 788 5. Muller-de Boer (Holland) 777 6. Helgemo-Helness (Norway) 777 7. Schaltz-Schaltz (Denmark) 768 8. Auken-von Armin (Germany) 713 9. Sharif-Damiani (Egypt/France) 708 10. Koch-Palmund-Auken (Denmark) 704 11. Graversen-Stetkaer(Denmark) 699 12. Aagaard-Jepsen (Denmark) 693 13. Sowter-Kendrick (England) 690 14. Berkowitz-Cohen (USA) 681 15. Baldursson-Thorbjornsson (Iceland) 674 16. Fallenius-Nilsland (Sweden) 667

All of the hard-working organizers and officials from Denmark should be congratulated as the Politiken World Pairs was a huge success. Two similar events, the Cap-Volmac in The Hague and the Sunday Times in London, have enjoyed similar success over the years. George and I have been invited to these tournaments in January — watch this space for details. With luck the Politiken, too, will become an annual affair. If so, it is certain to become known as one of the high points on the international bridge calendar. At the closing ceremonies WBF President Damiani reflected on how wonderful these events are for promoting bridge and offered full WBF support for the establishment and recognition of a circuit of similar tournaments. Could we run such a tournament in Toronto? I don’t see why not.

Canadian Master Point

A grand squeeze ray

T

he semi-final of the Blue Ribbon Pairs at the Atlanta Fall Nationals was just over, but David Lindop didn’t seem very interested in the scores (although he should have been — he was the only resident Canadian to make the final cut, since John Duquette and Eiji Kujirai missed by a heart-breaking 0.9 matchpoints). No, David was much more interested in showing me this hand from the session, which he, along with many others, had played in 7.

North  AK7  A86  Q2  KJ543

West  J94  KJ54  10  Q10982

played the ace and king of clubs, intending to ruff out the suit for trick thirteen, and got the bad news about the 5-1 break. There was a fallback, however: cash the top spades, ruff a club back to hand, and run all the diamonds, hoping to execute a double squeeze. The end position as he played the last diamond would be:

North  —  A8  —  J

West  —  KJ  —  Q

David got a trump lead. He won in dummy with the Q and continued with the A and K, pitching dummy’s small spade while West shed two hearts. Declarer has twelve top tricks, so if clubs are 4-2 or better the hand is easy. He duly

East  Q  109  —  — South  8  Q  3  —

East  Q1063  109732  J85  7 South  852  Q  AK97643  A6

16

lee

On the last diamond, West must throw a heart to keep the Q, and dummy pitches the now superfluous J. East, who now has to guard both spades and hearts, is toast. This squeeze will always work when East starts with any five spades (or exactly QJ109, since South has the 8, which West cannot beat). Unfortunately, as we can see, neither of these distributions occurred in the actual layout. West, defending well, threw away his hearts on the run of the trumps to hold on to the J, and East was able to keep hearts therefore.

Canadian Master Point

North  AK  A86  —  J5

The actual ending thus arrived at was:

North  —  A8  —  J

West  J  K  —  Q

East  —  1097  —  —

South  8  Q  3  — On the last diamond, West could safely let go the K, while East came under no pressure at all. So is 7 unmakeable (if we ignore the mundane, 50%, club finesse)? Not at all, as David’s partner Haig Tchamitch was quick to point out when the hand was over. It is, in fact, an example of an unusual compound squeeze called a “clash squeeze”. The key to this is not to cash the AK, but to run the diamonds first, when West comes under impossible pressure in three suits. The critical moment is the following: (see top of next column) On the next diamond, West cannot throw a club, as there are still lots of entries to cross to dummy, ruff a club, and return to cash the established J. A spade discard, however, sets up the double squeeze position shown earlier: South cashes the top spades, ruffs a club back to hand, and plays off the last diamond to execute it. So West must perforce stiff his K while dummy still can afford a heart pitch. However on the next diamond, West is out of options. A black suit discard still

January 1996

West  J94  KJ  —  Q10

East  Q106  10973  —  — South  852  Q  643  —

has the same dire consequences as before, but his last heart is the king. If West lets that go, declarer ditches a club from dummy, cashes the Q, and crosses on a spade to enjoy the A and collect thirteen tricks. A beautiful ending, and one that will work any time West has the K, however many spades East started with — a 50% line, therefore, just like the mundane club finesse! A priori, the double squeeze is about 38% (a little more once you know West has two more minor-suit cards than East). So is it right to play for the clash squeeze to have worked? It will certainly get you a write-up in the daily bulletin! Perhaps the best practical line (especially if your auction did not reveal declarer’s singleton heart) is to run the first five rounds of diamonds, and see whether West has the intestinal fortitude to pitch down to his hypothetical singleton K in order to hold his J94. Then play off the AK, and play for the double squeeze either to have worked, or to be working now after a slight misdefence. After all, if West’s that good, he deserves all the matchpoints he’s going to get on this board.

17

Bridge Anacrostic by “Griffin” 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 taken in order will give you the source of the quote followed by its author. Word list page 50; Quotation page 31. 1

A

2

15

E

I

4

3

N

16

E 17

U 18

28

U

29

S 30

F

42

C

43

L

X

56

X 57

G 6

M

31

P

7

V

R

9

D 10

J 11

I

22

A 23

H 24

Y 25

M 36

F 37

T 38 AA

50

M 51

A 52

19

T 20

X 21

W

C 32

B 33

D 34

N 35

12

L

13 AA 14

V

26

Z 27

K

A 40

L 41

R

54

B 55

O

69

V

83

A

O

39

N

47

P 48

J 49

E

B 58

B 59

D 60

K 61

O 62

R 63

Z 64

T 65

G 66

A

72

B 73

H 74

R 75

O

76

D 77

S 78

F 79

Y 80

T

81

W 82

F

87

D 88

Y

90

S

W 92

N

C 94

I

95

V 96

F

G

84

D 85

P 86

J

97

A

A

J

44

100 N 101 T 102 D

89

K

103 C 104 M 105 B

125 M 126 X 127 S 128 B 129 Z 130 N 131 V

93

106 D

67

D

I 68

A

107 Q 108 D

132 O 133 N

109 V 110 F

157 E

172 X

183 U 184 X 185 F

186 T 187 H 188 K

213 D 214 J

225 V 226 P 227 Q 228 X

215 M 216 A

229 Q

165 G 166 D 167 E

189 Z 190 O 191 Q 192 A

217 I

205

193 O 194 O 195 U

I 206 P 207

L 208 P 209 K 210 R

218 D 219 E 220 C 221 C 222 O 223 D

230 E 231 W 232 O 233 J 234 G 235 N 236

239 D 240 J 241 B 242 L 243 P 244 U 245 A

246 N 247 AA

I

248 H 249 D 250 O 251

224 W

237 G 238 H

I 252 E

253 S 254 A 255 M 256 C 257 T 258 W 259 M 260 U

A. Non-standard _ _ _ _ _   _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _

leads (4 wds.)

1 192 83 254 216 45 66 245

B. First after-

18

thought? (2 wds.)

I

173 N 174 N 175 E 176 H 177 K 178 X 179 M 180 F 181 O 182 D

199 K 200 R 201 J 202 N 203 R 204 AA

196 G 197 K 198 R

150 H 151 C 152 A 153 U 154

158 F 159 N 160 M 161 J 162 D 163 Y 164 X

168 AA 169 Y 170 Z 171 A

124 C

134 Y 135 P 136 N 137 P 138 Y 139 N

143 U 144 B 145 X 146 S 147 V 148 T 149 Z

140 Z 141 Y 142 U

155 D 156 S

91

Y 53

114 Y 115 E 116 X 117 Z 118 AA 119 V 120 A 121 P 122 T 123 AA

111 K 112 G 113 H

211 O 212 N

8

A 46

W 71

99

5

45

70

98

Q

68 51 98 120 171

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _   _

54 58 72 241 32 128 144 57 105

Canadian Master Point

22 97 152 39

C. Monkees con-

_ _   _   _     _ _ _ _ _



5 196 165 112 65 237 234 71

vention maybe? (2 wds) 221 124 256 103 42 220 151 31 93 D. Promote this _  _   _ _ _  _   _ _ _  _ _  _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ card (3 wds.) 108 33 102 249 76 59 162 213 182 106 218 87 223 9 166 84 155 53 239 E. Sounds like _ _ _  _ _  _   _  _  _ _ 3-3-3-3! (2 wds) 49 230 16 157 175 252 2 219 115 167 F. Not singing from the _   _   _    _ _   _ _ _ _ same songsheet? (3 wds.) 110 180 36 82 158 185 78 96 30 G. Jettison plays _  _  _ _ _  _   _ _

H. All the matchpoints (2 wds.)

I.

J.

_ _ _

248 187 150

Where bridge will _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ soon be played 67 251 236 15 205 154 217 11 Expose one of your assets (3 wds.) _ _ _ _



K. Highest strain in Quebec (2 wds.)

99 201 233 48

L. Unforeseen snag

M. Made by those

in the overall (2 wds.)

_

_  _  _ _

10

161 214 240 86

_  _ _  _ _   _ _ _  _





_ _  _ _  _

176 238 73 23 113

_  _  _ _ _

89 209 27 199

60 188 177 111 197

43 207 12 242 40

_ _  _ _    _   _   _   _   _   _

18 215 50 104

35 259 179 160 255 125

47 226 137 85

6 121 208 243 206 135

N. A second-round _ _ _  _  _ _ _  _  _  _   _ _  _ _  _ _ _ duck 136 202 235 34 94 174 246 159 46 173 133 92 130 100 139 212 3 O. Roman, Tartan, _  _  _ _  _ _  _ _   _   _ _ _ _ _ Benjamin, etc. 132 193 222 55 190 61 181 211 224 194 250 232 25 75 P. Gold-card holder _ _ _  _   _ _  _  _ _  _

Q. Discard, or where to throw it?

R. Forensic bridge experts?

_  _  _ _  _ 4 229 191 227 107

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

41 210 62 203 8 74 200 198

S. Where to see the Spingold final, e.g.

_ _  _ _ _ _ _

146 127 156 77 90 253 29

T. A probable conclusion

_  _ _  _ _  _   _  _  _

U. Gives an account of

_  _ _  _ _  _   _  _  _



64 186 19 37 148 257 122 101 80 28 244 143 17 142 195 183 260 153

V. Signal heard after the “Anvil Chorus”?

_ _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _

(2 wds.) 119 7 95 131 69 W. Damage caused by infraction _ _  _ _  _  _



X. The way to handle strength,

according to Hoyle (2 wds.)

147 109 225 14

70 258 81 231 21 91

_  _ _  _    _  _  _ _ _   _  _

145 56 172 116 126 44 178 20 184 164 228

Y. Used to prepare for a squeeze (2 wds.) _ _  _ _  _  _ _ _ _  _

52 169 138 88 163 24

79 141 114 134

Z. These players get more exercise (2 wds.) _  _  _ _  - _   _   _   _ 117 26 140 170 189 129 149 63 AA. Do Californians use this to check for aces? _   _   _   _   _   _   _

January 1996

118 204 123 168 13 247 38

19

How to ruin a marriage roselyn

P

laying bridge with your husband will not necessarily ruin your marriage. It may tarnish it a bit here and there, but marriage is a resilient institution that survives worse traumas than the occasional misdefence. Unless the misdefence occurs on the last board of an event. An event that you might have won with a good last round. Imagine a full-blown disaster on the last board. Before the smoke has cleared, you have to drive home in the same car as the perpetrator of the disaster. This is more lethal than faulty brakes. Then you have to enter the same house, a place full of blunt instruments. Then a consoling snack in the kitchen, with its sharp pointed objects. Then up to the same bedroom with its pillows and lamps and lethal decor. You get the idea. Everything in the conjugal nest becomes a potential murder weapon if the disaster occurred on the last hand. The disaster that brought these murderous thoughts to mind occurred last week in an Open Pairs event. I held

teukolsky

hardly begun to contemplate my limited options when my right hand opponent surprised everyone and bid three diamonds. Thank you very much. I’m not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, not even a Trojan horse. I was playing to win the event, wasn’t I? I doubled confidently and placed the Q on the table. The bidding:

West pass pass

20

East 2 3 pass

South pass dbl

When dummy appeared, I thought that our prospects looked reasonable.



West  AQ64  10932  10  Q983 South  1097  Q5  Q964  K1052

 1097  Q5  Q964  K1052 At unfavourable vulnerability, my partner opened 1 in first seat. My right hand opponent overcalled 2, and I passed smoothly. My heart started beating faster. What if my partner made a reopening double, which was very likely since he rated to be short in diamonds? Should I sit for it? Am I strong enough? Sure enough, my left hand opponent passed and my partner doubled. I had

North 1 dbl pass

We play upside down attitude and partner encouraged the  Q lead with the 6, while East followed with the 4. Dutifully, I continued with a heart, declarer called for dummy’s nine, partner covered with the jack and East ruffed. Now came a low diamond towards dummy’s ten. How should I plan to defend?

Canadian Master Point

It seemed to me to be quite attractive to have East stuck on the board, so I ducked the diamond. The 10 won the trick, as partner followed with the 3. The rest of the hand happened very fast. Declarer returned to his hand with the K, drew two more rounds of diamonds, cashed the J, and went to dummy with the Q. Everyone followed suit to three rounds of spades, my partner banging his on the table just in case I wasn’t aware of his unhappiness. On the fourth round of spades declarer pitched a club and that was the end of the hand. Making four. Doubled. Here were the hands:

North  532  AKJ876  3  AJ6

West  AQ64  10932  10  Q983

East  KJ8  4  AKJ8752  74 South  1097  Q5  Q964  K1052

“Some double!” was his opening salvo in the war that followed. As usual, he was yelling at me for the wrong reason. My instant-analysis man. The double was fine, the defence was poor (okay, my defence). In fact, when I looked at all the hands I realized that the defence had to be perfect, or else declarer could always scramble home. My first mistake was the duck of the diamond. In order to have a prayer of setting this contract I had to guarantee two trump tricks, and therefore had to be more aggressive in assuring them. So I

January 1996

should have hopped up with the Q and made some attempt to reach partner’s hand for him to play a heart through. This would have promoted my 9. But what should I have played, a spade or a club? Oh sure, looking at all four hands it’s easy to see that a club is called for. But how should I have known this at the table? After all, if partner has the KJ and declarer the Ax, a club play hands him the contract. It turns out that I should have known. Remember partner’s J, which declarer ruffed? Well, my partner had a choice of playing the jack, king, or ace, so the jack had to be a suit-preference signal! It’s as simple as that. A club to North’s ace would have set the contract, because on partner’s high heart, if declarer had pitched a losing club, another heart would have come through, promoting my nine of trumps. One down, doubled, and another evening of conjugal peace. It never fails to amaze me how easy this game seems in the cold hard light of hindsight. Surely it should have been easy to grab my Q and play a club to my partner’s A? Well, it wasn’t. At the time I remember agonizing before ducking the trump. And, had I won the queen, I know that it would have been excruciatingly unattractive to lead away from my K. I may well have played a spade. Of course, I see now that partner’s J had to be a suit-preference signal. (He did let the entire room know afterwards.) Yet, at the time he played that jack, it seemed like the normal card for him to play from his holding of AKJ. The key to the hand was recognizing it as a message. But that’s beside the point. The key to maintaining a successful relationship with my bridge partner was something completely different. Simply stated, perhaps I should not have made such a skinny double on the last hand of the event!

21

Locating lower honours prakash D avid j .

L

ocating aces and kings is relatively easy, especially in a competitive auction. The missing jacks and the tens, however, present more problems for the declarer when there is a choice of plays. You need something akin to a microscope for better resolution. Statistics can be useful if one prepares properly. Take for example the following hand adapted from the final elimination round of the Tolani Grand Prix Pairs tournament recently held in Bombay.

North  AKQ32  83  K542  KJ

S paranjape ilver

You are rich in trumps yet poor in overall strength — a diet full of fats lacking in vitamins, so to speak. A guess in each minor suit is needed to bring home the contract. Let us think about clubs first. West made an invitational bid well aware that he was sitting behind a strong hand. He must have quick tricks — ace values — for that. You therefore begin with a small club to the king which holds, and play back a club: West wins with the ace and exits with a trump. Winning in hand with the J while everyone follows, you ruff a club with the A (East follows) and play a small spade to ten. Another club ruff eliminates the suit, leaving you in dummy. At this point, you are at the crossroads!

North  Q  —  K542  —

South  J10976  5  Q108  10843 Playing Precision, North opens 1 promising 16+. East overcalls 2, South passes and West bids 3 inviting a game (!) in hearts. North passes and East declines the invitation, bidding 3. South now bids 3, raised rather optimistically to game by North. West leads the Q and continues a heart. How would you continue?

January 1996

South  97  —  Q108  — Who has the J? If East holds it, you can simply finesse against it. If West holds the J, your only chance to nail him is a diamond to the queen, hoping East started with 9x. Which option do you choose?

23

Well, the bidding can hardly provide any clue in this situation. The play might provide some sort of clue, but a weak one at that. (Without the J, East could have overtaken Q and returned a diamond at trick two. You might give weight to that, for example). Elementary statistics might be more useful here. Who followed to the fourth club and the second spade? I didn’t tell you that. West certainly had one of them else East would have claimed his diamond ruff by now. Suppose West followed to two trumps and East had four clubs. West must have started with a 2-4-4-3 distribution then. Odds are two to one that West has the J and the correct play is a small diamond to the queen. If West followed to the fourth club, he probably started with a 2-4-3-4 distribution and the J is equally likely to be in either of the concealed hands. A simple finesse is the better option. This was the full hand.

North  AKQ32  83  K542  KJ

West  54  QJ96  AJ73  A92

East  8  AK10742  96  Q765 South  J10976  5  Q108  10843

played back the 2 to declarer’s jack. East’s 2 clearly indicated a 4-4 spade split. With eight certain tricks and four top losers (three spades and the A), declarer’s problem was locating the J.

North  K74  KQJ7  1053  Q109

West  10965  932  Q8  AJ82 South  J8  A4  AK92  K7654

If the declarer cashes his four heart winners, West would follow to only three hearts whereas East would follow to all four. West would thus have six unknown cards as against five for East. At this point, the chance that West has the J would be about 54.5% based on the vacant spaces in defenders’ hands. That is a good deal better than an even chance. If the hearts broke 5-2 or worse, you would get still better chances for the club guess although you won’t be able to cash all the hearts before working on clubs. In the actual deal, West did have the J and good technique would have been rewarded.

Another example is the hand at the top of the next column. After a Stayman sequence North-South reached 3NT. West led the 10; East won with Q and

24

East  AQ32  10865  J764  3

Canadian Master Point

Coach of the year linda

O

ne could make a very good case that Canada’s greatest bridge asset is not our Bermuda Bowl silver medallist Open Team, nor our fine set of junior players. No, our secret weapon is Eric Kokish of Montreal, surely the world’s best bridge coach. Eric, who is also a top player, bridge writer, and theorist, coached five of the teams that made it to the 1995 Bermuda Bowl or Venice Cup playoffs. In fact, virtually all of the teams that he has ever coached have done exceptionally well in world competition. Eric’s coaching career began in the middle 80’s. He had always been interested in bridge theory, and as a result had collected a lot of training material including questionnaires and hands. As a longtime international player, he had also met and played against most of the world’s top players. So perhaps it was inevitable that in 1985, when Brazil was hosting the Bermuda Bowl, Eric should be invited to coach the Brazilian national team. The request surprised him, since at the time Brazil had some of the world’s best players including Chagas and Branco. But Chagas was ineligible to play, and the team was apparently having “communication problems”. Eric took on the challenge; his efforts resulted in a surprise round robin win by the Brazilians, followed by a 9-IMP loss in the semi-finals to the eventual winners, USA. Kokish’s coaching career had begun. Can a coach make that much difference? And what exactly does a coach do?

26

lee

According to Eric, the psychological factors are very important. First and foremost the players must start communicating — you must get people calmed down and establish the right atmosphere; only then can you start working to improve. An outside person is very important to this process, since they have no preconceived ideas and can often see the things that are going on much faster than the players. With the outsider around to defuse things, the players also tend to be less defensive in discussions. Coaching the Canadian Open team this year was a different kind of challenge, because Eric was himself a team member. The system work was relatively easy, though, partly because the players had already done a lot of preparation on their own. Eric attempted to point out gaps in their systems by using examples which brought out what he perceived as the deficiencies. The players could then make their own decisions about system changes. Eric uses a variety of techniques to help improve a partnership. The goal, he says, is to make the players feel comfortable with each other and with their system. He uses partnership questionnaires and practice matches where they “completely” analyze all the hands. Part of his process is to ask probing questions about the bidding. For example, he might ask the partner of the opening weak two-bidder if he agrees with his partner’s weak two-bid, or ask a player how he would have bid the hand if it had been slightly different. He reviews the system notes, he spends at least one session with each pair going over their system and making suggestions, and he gets each pair to bid

Canadian Master Point

a lot of practice hands. All of this is designed to get the players thinking about their methods. He also has three sets of wicked defensive hands which probe the effectiveness of the pair’s signalling and defensive methods. The training process typically goes on over a period of time, with regular sessions led by Eric, and much practice in between. The method has worked best in countries where there was a strong local individual to take charge and keep the process going when Eric wasn’t there. This occurred both in Holland and in Indonesia. In Holland the players all had full-time jobs, so Eric would fly in for long weekends over a period of several months. Eric would cover a set of topics, leave the material, and then someone else would make sure that it was followed up and that the players were ready for Eric’s next visit. Coaching in China this past year was a very different experience for Eric. As host country for the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, China wanted to do well in the competition, so they hired Eric to work with both their Open and Women’s teams. The players were released from their jobs during the training period, so Eric was able to provide three consecutive intensive weeks of coaching. But he had to do all of it through an interpreter! Are there obvious differences between coaching men and women? Eric says there are, but he does think the differences are cultural rather then inbred: it is much harder to get the women focused than the men. This was not as big a problem in China where all outside responsibilities were removed from the players during the training period. Eric helps a team prepare for the specific event they are targeting. For example, for the 1995 World Championships he profiled each opposing team — each player and partnership; he reviewed their systems and provided defences. He documented all the quirky

January 1996

Eric Kokish little things about each opponent, such as when they would bid too much, or when they would hold back. In addition, he prepares his teams psychologically for the event. Some of his advice includes to stop studying, working, and making system changes for two weeks before the event (bidding practice hands, however, is great). During the event, you should get lots of rest and not watch VuGraph or do other things that waste your bridge energy when you’re not playing. According to Eric, you don’t have to be a great player to benefit from coaching — if you are prepared to work at it there are lots of things that you can do to help yourself. Of course, if you can afford it Eric will provide private coaching: for a $4500 US price tag you get five days of intensive work, well worth the price for your bridge group if you want to move up into top class competition. For the rest of us, Eric offers this advice: find yourself a partner, try not to play with too many players, adopt an analytical approach, and discuss both your good boards and bad ones. And always play against the best players possible: forget master points — play up, and avoid rookie and Flight B events.

27

The Open Team joins enthusiastically in singing “O Canada!” at the medal ceremony. Left to right: Irving Litvack (npc), George Mittelman, Eric Kokish, Joey Silver, Mark Molson, Boris Baran, Fred Gitelman.

Beijing Snapshots

Mark Molson (above) and George Mittelman (left) enjoy the closing banquet and medal ceremony

28

Canadian Master Point

Sheri Winestock congratulates Fred Gitelman after the medal ceremony (above). Gloria Silverman, Mike Roche, and Mary Paul found time for some sightseeing (right).

The Canadian Women’s team. (Left to right) Mike Roche (npc), Barbara Clinton, Mary Paul, Joan Eaton, Gloria Silverman, Katie Thorpe, Roisin O’Hara. Pictures courtesy of Joan Eaton, Paul O’Hara, and Sheri Winestock

January 1996

29

A fascinating hand ray

jotcham

I

as West:

t had been a mundane kind of evening at the club the other night, but all that was about to change. All unsuspecting, I picked up the following hand

75 J93 83 KQ9765 What would you lead after partner’s opening 1 bid is overcalled with 4? Please do not read on until you have made your decision. On a diamond lead, the defence can cash

North  4  AQ10642  J7  A1082

West  75  J93  83  KQ9765

East  J32  K85  AKQ105  J3 South  AKQ10986  7  9642  4

two diamonds and score a ruff for three tricks. Now what? If West plays the K, declarer can win the A, ruff a club, and then run all his trumps. On the last trump East is squeezed into either unguarding

January 1996

the K or throwing the master diamond. Obviously, the K is no good. What about leading a heart through at trick five? Declarer can counter this by winning the ace and returning the Q. East covers, South ruffs, but now West is guarding hearts — the menace has been transferred. So now on the run of the trumps there is a double squeeze, with West holding hearts, East holding diamonds, and nether being able to retain two clubs. No, a heart switch won’t work. Maybe the problem is that we rectified the count for a squeeze; let’s try leading the K at trick one. Declarer can win the ace, ruff a club, and then run his trumps. East has to come down to five cards, Kx and AKQ. South simply now exits with a diamond, and East has to lead a heart away from the king. Aha! The answer is now clear! The only lead that will set the contract is a low heart — now partner can’t be endplayed or squeezed. Did you find the heart lead? Really? Bridge Anacrostic (page 18) Solution The dummy was too much for Brad, and he insisted that Charles give an explanation of his pass. Bruce joined in, saying in effect that he could understand a student of Professor Silver’s passing a forcing bid with a Yarborough, but not with points. “Stable peasants,” said Charles, which I quickly corrected to “table presence”. Tales out of School, David Silver.

31

The Toy Shoppe john

When they double our 1NT

S

uppose the auction starts out with a weak notrump opened by our side, and they double for penalties. Some sort of rescue system is a must. For years Toronto “standard” was Guoba rescues, named after its inventor, Toronto expert John Guoba. The method goes as follows:

West 1NT

North dbl

East ?

South

and now 2 =  +  2 =  +  2 =  +  PASS by responder forces opener to redouble; responder can then pass to play there, or bid 2 =  +  2 =  +  With a one-suited hand, responder redoubles immediately, which forces opener to bid 2. Responder passes or bids his suit naturally. This system allows your side to

January 1996

G

owdy

show all the two-suiters, although clubs and spades is an awkward combination. It also puts pressure back on the doubler, as with a skinny double he may run rather than risk defending a redoubled contract. It’s monster downside, however, is that you are committed to run; oftentimes your best spot is one notrump doubled, which playing Guoba is not a possible landing place. After all, not vulnerable at matchpoints, -100 may be a reasonable score. You can be sure that down one redoubled, for -200, will not be. The kinder, gentler runout is “DONT”, the same system you can use over their notrump. That is, pass is to play. Redouble asks opener to bid 2 and shows a one-suiter (responder will pass with a club suit or bid his own suit for play). A direct 2 by responder shows clubs and a higher suit, 2 shows diamonds plus a major, and 2 shows both majors. Admittedly, your ability to get to your suits is not as precise asit is when playing Guoba, but you now have the possibility of playing one notrump doubled, which I believe is a marked improvement. If your notrump is strong, then often LHO’s double is not “penalty”, but shows a one-suiter. redouble, then, should express a desire to punish them, showing at least 8 hcp, and being forcing to at least your own partscore. I like to play that all suits at the two level are transfers, but that if 2 is followed by 2, it was Stayman. The key here is that your opponents are going to after you, and your partnership must be prepared.

33

The best-laid plans.... mike

cafferata

U

nsuspecting of the excitement about to unfold, I am playing IMP’s with no-one vulnerable when I pick up this beauty:

 Jx A10 AKx AKQJxx After I open 2, should I rebid 2NT or 3? This the first thought that is running through my head when partner unexpectedly opens 1. Wow! Should I just bid 7NT now to impress everyone or try to be more scientific? If only I could set spades as trumps I could use Key Card Blackwood and find out about the K and Q as well as the A. While many would bid a pedestrian 2 or 3 ( if you happen still to play the latter as a strong jump shift ), I shall therefore try an “expert” bid of Jacoby 2NT (a forcing raise in spades). I patiently wait for my partner to select the best response to describe his hand, as we can show a singleton, a void, a 6-card suit, and so on. What is taking so long? Come on, just bid something so I can bid 4NT and continue with my master plan. Whoops — partner bids 4NT! Wow! Should I just bid 7NT now to impress everyone or try to be more scientific? For the sake of partnership harmony I just bid 5 (0 or 3 key cards) and wait for the courtesy 5NT bid to confirm that we have all the key cards. Whoops, partner bids 6! Wow! Should I just bid 7NT now to impress everyone or try to be more scientific? Let’s stop and analyse. You, the

34

reader, should be able to guess partner’s hand. 1) We are missing a key card (partner did not bid 5NT). 2) Partner bid Blackwood, so he must have at least second-round control of every suit (an old Blackwood rule). 3) I have AK in both minors so he must have two singletons (not a void as he couldn’t use Blackwood at all). 4) He’s probably 7-41-1 because he could have bid 4 over 2NT with a good five-card suit. Oh well, I guess I’ll bid 6NT in case spades are 4 - 0. Partner’s hand was KQxxxxx KQxx x  x and with spades not 4 - 0 and clubs not 5 - 1 we have about 17 tricks after losing the A. See — the “expert” bid works again.

Canadian Master Point

Win-win post-mortems john

O

ur management consulting firm defines a “True Team” as follows: a number of individuals: • with individual strengths and complementary skills • with a common vision and common goals • dedicated to each other’s success • who hold each other’s opinions as valuable How closely do your bridge teams approximate this description? Let’s start by defining what most people want from a bridge team experience. Two things are common goals. First, people want to play well and they want their partners and team-mates to play well; this gives the team its best chance of winning or at least of placing high in the standings. Second, people want to enjoy themselves — they want to have fun in the process. These two goals are true for all of us, from the expert to the occasional player. The most frequent and important bridge team activity is the score comparison. It takes place at the end of each competitive session and sets the tone for the team. Frequently, score comparisons are a prelude to team post-mortems. Let’s look at these, and put some True Team expectations round them. Are they always consistent with the True Team definition and with the goals of playing well and having fun? Everyone is curious, and many a post-mortem has been fuelled by questions based on curiosity. Are all ques-

36

ross

tions acceptable? Do all questions contribute to becoming a True Team? My rule of thumb is that any question asked with the object of learning is acceptable, while questions that have the intent of teaching are not. Learning is directed inward (me); teaching is directed outward (you). Some acceptable questions are, therefore, “does game always make?” or “how did they reach the slam?”. The questioner is curious, and believes they may learn something useful. On the other hand, if your team-mates have bid to a poor slam and gone down, then “how did your bidding go?” is inappropriate, since the intent can only be to revisit mistakes and teach them to be better players. Teaching team-mates who have not asked for your opinion is a win/lose activity and is hardly likely to result in success. Few bridge mistakes are team mistakes. Some are partnership mistakes and most are individual mistakes. Postmortems dealing with mistakes should include only those involved with the mistake. Where a mistake involves partnership learning, the post-mortem should be limited to the partnership. Where the mistake involves individual learning, the post-mortem should be limited to the individual. Good team-mates have faith that these processes will occur without their participation, and they allow space for them to occur. In summary, win/win post-mortems support True Team principles. They are dedicated to the future success of all team members and most of all, they hold the opinion of each person on the team to be valuable.

Canadian Master Point

Raptor 1NT overcalls eric

H

sutherland

ow often have you found yourself looking at something like:

 J  K1052  K43  AQ1042 when your right hand opponent opens 1? You want to do something, but nothing seems ideal. Making a takeout double with only one spade and no extra values is right out; overcalling 2 will likely lose your heart suit altogether; passing may allow the opponents to steal the contract. What can you do? The concept with Raptor is to use a 1NT overcall to show this hand type: one unbid four-card major, with a longer unbid minor, and enough values to enter the auction, but not enough to make a double and rebid. It deals specifically with hands where it would be inappropriate to double, i.e. with shortness in the third suit. When the 1NT bid is made, note that one of your suits is always known while one suit is unknown. In response to a Raptor 1NT bid, the priority is, of course, to find a fit. The structure is split, depending on whether the opening bid is a major or a minor (and hence whether the the unknown suit is a minor or a major).

Over a minor opening You have more room over a minor opening bid to explore at the two-level. This allows a little more flexibility. Here m=minor that was opened, om = the other minor suit, and M= major. 1m-1NT-pass-? pass = to play

January 1996

2m = 8-12 points: “bid your major”. This promises another bid. 2om = to play 2 = pass with hearts, bid 2 with spades. A weak hand for hearts. 2 = pass with spades, bid 2NT with a maximum, or 3om with a minimum 2NT = forcing to game, “ bid ‘your major”. Responses are: 3 = max. with hearts 3 = max. with spades 3 = min. with hearts 3 = min. with spades 3om = limit raise in your minor 3m = forcing raise in your minor 3M = pre-emptive jump

Over a major opening Here it is a little more tricky, as you are running out of room. Here, the symbols are M= major, oM = other major, m = minor. 1M-1NT-pass-? pass = to play. 2 = pass with clubs, bid 2 with diamonds 2 = pass with diamonds, bid 2oM with clubs 2M = “bid your minor”, at least invitational 2oM = to play 2NT = forcing to game, “bid your minor”. (Likely

37

to be followed by cue bid-ding) 3m = pre-emptive jump 3M = forcing raise in your major 3oM = limit raise in your major Note that Raptor should only be on as a direct overcall, as the balancing 1NT is a useful bid, and should be maintained. This convention is allowable on the ACBL General Convention Chart, so you can play it in any event where the masterpoint limit is more than 20 MPs. However, it is a good idea to have a suggested defence, as not many opponents will have run across it before. Specifically, a suggested defence is to play a double of 1NT as showing the equivalent of a redouble (10+), while cuebidding the known suit is a limit raise. All other bids are natural. If the opponents do interfere, then you can play that a double by the responder to Raptor is asking partner to show the unknown suit, and all other bids are as above, where possible. Jumping to game in any suit is always to play. The system of responses described here is by no means optimal, as it doesn’t make use of some of the in-between steps that are available. But it does provide a simple framework within which the system will be effective.

Evaluation Why even use Raptor? Is it really that much better than a natural 1NT overcall? And how do you bid when you have a natural notrump overcall if you are playing Raptor? The reason why Raptor was developed was a tendency in my partnerships towards stronger and stronger ranges for the 1NT overcall. We found that overcalling with  Kxxx  Qxx  KQxx  AJ after a 1 opening was just sick, and yet

38

you see people do it all the time. We wanted an alternative that came up more frequently than these notrump hands, and that would be an asset to the system. Raptor allows you to discover those elusive major suit fits when the opponents open the bidding. You lose little (the 1NT overcall), and you gain much. Check out this hand:  J  A1092  3  AK76532 After your opponent opens with 1, it’s up to you to find a bid with this hand. Playing Raptor, you can overcall 1NT, and see how the hand develops. When partner bids 2, you bid 2 (knowing partner will bid again). When partner raises you to 3, you have no trouble proceeding to game. Partner’s hand is:  Q652  K543  J1065  2 Four hearts is a good contract that would be missed at many tables after a 2 overcall. If you have a natural 1NT overcall, then you can do one of two things. One option is to pass with the minimum end of the range. This can be very effective in the play of the hand when you surprise declarer by emerging with a disproportionate amount of the outstanding points. The other option is to double, and rebid notrumps, just as you would with a 19point hand now. Part of the goal of Raptor when my dad and I dreamed it up was to have a little more fun with bridge. I know that this resembles some other conventions out there; heck, it might even be the same, but I’m not going to read the Encyclopedia of Bridge from cover to cover to find out. Raptor has already caught on in some bridge communities in Canada, and may be spreading. It’s a nifty little gadget that’s fun to use.

Canadian Master Point

f o r

f u t u r e

e x p e r t s

Never give a Declarer an Even Break barbara

M

ost players start by learning the fundamentals of the offensive game: memorizing point count, a structure for bidding, and some techniques for play of the hand. Defence typically comes along much later in a player’s evolution. Why? Because, simply put, defence is hard. Being a good defender requires learning a new set of techniques plus shifting mental gears. You must be logical and imaginative at the same time. You must remain constantly alert, watching for signals and nuances, even while holding the world’s worst cards. You need to adopt a new philosophy: optimistic realism. The optimistic realist thinks something like this: “Gee, what awful cards. But if partner has the Q and the A, we can set them. Besides, all the other South’s will have to defend the best they can with these same @#$ cards.” And above all else, a good defender must trust their partner — for nowhere is the partnership aspect of the game more apparent than on defence, where the defenders do not see each other’s cards, have fewer assets to work with than declarer, and yet are expected to defeat the contract every time out. Evolving from “follower-of-suit” to defender involves mastering fundamental techniques such as knowing when and how to signal, what suit to lead and what card from that suit, understanding (“reading”) the auction, deciding what declarer is up to, playing as second and third

40

seagram hand, and bidding defensively. And of course, you need to have some knowledge of strategy — such as when to attack (take your tricks as quickly as possible) and when to be passive (wait for your tricks). The killing opening lead A good defence begins with finding the killing opening lead. Once you have decided what suit to lead, the card will usually be the same against either notrumps or a suit contract. Here are three exceptions, however: AK765 Lead the A vs. a suit, the 6 against NT KQ763 Lead the K vs. a suit, the 6 vs. NT A763 If you have to lead this suit against a suit contract, lead the A, but lead the 3 against NT No suit exists in a vacuum. This is not because most vacuums are messy and dusty, but because we often need to recall that each suit is part of the entire hand. Likewise, each hand should be considered in relationship to the other three. This is hard when you are declarer, but even harder when you are defending. It is harder still as opening leader, when you have not yet seen the dummy. All you have to go on is your thirteen cards, the bidding (including what partner had bid), and what your partner hasn’t bid. Ask yourself these questions when selecting an opening lead: 1) Has partner bid? If so, leading that suit is probably a good idea!

Canadian Master Point

2) Does it sound from the auction as though dummy has a long, strong suit on which declarer can pitch losers? Then you must get active — find the suit in which you and partner are most likely to have tricks. 3) Do either you or your partner hold four trumps? Then try always to lead the longest suit in the combined hands. The idea is not to go after ruffs, but to make declarer lose control of the hand by making them ruff. 4) Should you be leading trumps? Don’t lead trumps “when in doubt” but when you know exactly why you are doing so. If it sounds as though declarer is going to play the hand on a cross-ruff, then a trump lead is called for. If declarer has bid two suits and you are strong in the one that did not become trumps, then lead trumps to protect your winners against being ruffed in dummy. 5) Do you hold a trump control — either the ace or king with two small

trumps? The little known theory of “extra greed” says ‘I want every trick I can get’. So look carefully at holdings such as Axx or Kxx in trumps, which suggest a singleton or doubleton lead. Remember, though: • The better your hand, the less chance there is of hurting declarer with a singleton lead. Try to think of an alternative. • The worse your hand, the rosier the prospect of a ruff. Warning: • Do not look for ruffs with a natural trump trick (one that cannot be taken away, like QJ10). If you ruff in with this type of holding, you merely break even. With Axx or Kxx, your ruff with a small trump is a real extra trick. Next time we’ll look at another key defensive technique — the art of signalling. Until then, remember, never give a declarer an even break.

Master Point Press on the Internet www.masterpontpress.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.

January 1996

41

f o r

f u t u re

e x per t s

Ask the Bridge Doctor karen

T

his is an edited version of an online teaching session conducted on the Compuserve Bridge Forum. Jeff and Ken are students in attendance. Bridge Dr. Continuing our discussions on overcalls, here are some examples; your opponent has opened the bidding 1, what do you do with each hand in turn?  xxx  AKJxx  xx  xxx Jeff 1 Bridge Dr. Right. You have a good suit you want partner to lead but not enough of them to make a pre-emptive jump overcall. Ken Does it make a difference if it is rho or lho that makes the opening bid? Bridge Dr. Yes; here it was your rho who opened the bidding. Balancing (which means bidding after the last bid is followed by two passes as in 1 - p - p - ?) is a very important topic and one that I will cover in a separate lesson. Let’s look at another hand after 1:  AJxx  Kxx  AQxx  xx What do you do? Ken Double Bridge Dr. Right again! You don’t need four cards in both majors; it’s enough to have support for each unbid

January 1996

allison suit and about an opening bid. about this hand after 1:

How

 xx  AJxx  Kxx  AQxx Jeff Pass Bridge Dr. Excellent! I recommend ‘pass’ with not enough for a 1NT overcall and no support for spades. Here’s another, also after 1:  Axx  AKJxx  AKQ  xx Ken Double Bridge Dr. Right: too much simply to overcall 1. You plan to double, then cue-bid or jump in hearts to show an excellent hand too good for an overcall. And this one after a 1 opening:  Axx  AKJx  xx  AQxx Jeff 1NT Bridge Dr. You’re ready for the big time, guys, you’ve got the idea. Here’s yet another:  xx  AKJxxx  xxxx  x Jeff 1 Ken 2 Bridge Dr. Here’s the first disparity. Jeff, this is kind of like a weak two bid. You’ve got a six-card suit with no values outside of it. I recommend the preemptive jump overcall even with this good a suit. Your partner will be better able to judge whether to compete and how high, knowing that you’ve got that six-card suit.

43

Jeff They call these ‘weak jump overcalls’? Bridge Dr. Yes, it’s a weak jump overcall or a pre-emptive jump overcall. And it puts a lot of pressure on your opponents. They have to figure out how high to bid and which suit to make trumps. And if your partner has a fit with you and raises the bidding even further, it becomes even tougher for the opponents. When your side has a good suit fit of nine cards, you’re generally safe bidding to the three level. That doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to make your contract, but if you can’t, then your opponents are likely to have some contract they can make. When your partner jump overcalls and you’ve got three cards in his suit, I recommend you raise the level of the auction to three. Similarly with four, I recommend a bid of four of his suit. It’s the sixth card of your suit Jeff that dictates the jump overcall? Bridge Dr. Precisely: the sixth card of your suit in a weak hand. With a normal opening bid, you simply overcall at the lowest level. And with seven cards, you can jump to three of your suit, showing a weak hand and that extra length in your trump suit. With only a five-card suit, you simply overcall to show the good suit; jump only with the extra length. Jeff Does your vulnerability have any bearing on this? Bridge Dr. Some, Jeff, I don’t expect you to lose your minds! However, with this hand:  AKJxxx  xxx  xxx  x I would (and, believe me I do) bid 2 over 1 at any vulnerability. With QJ10xxx  xxx  xx  xx I would bid 2 over 1 when non-vulnerable only. So in bridge as in life, discretion is still the better part of valour! In a recent match (in the Vanderbilt Open

44

Teams in Phoenix) I jumped to 2 vulnerable against not with this hand:  K10xxxx  x  xx  K10xx after a 1 opening bid. (No guts no glory!) And this time, the result was wonderful: I made 2 doubled. However, I certainly knew that my bid could lead to a bad result. Anytime you pre-empt, you’re rolling the dice to some degree. You can experiment with these bids, but you’ll definitely find that if you’ve got distribution, good suits, and an understanding partner, you can get fine results by making these pre-emptive jumps. However, there are no pre-emptive jumps once an opponent has opened with a pre-empt himself! This is an important principle: don’t pre-empt the preempter. You need a good hand to enter the auction directly over a pre-empt. A jump overcall after a pre-empt shows a good hand and a good suit. A notrump overcall shows a strong (16-19) notrump or better. And even a simple overcall shows at least a good opening bid; with only a good suit, you don’t overcall your opponent’s pre-empt, as that could trick your partner into thinking you’ve got a good hand as well. Jeff If you have a hand which you would open 3, would you be reluctant to overcall 3 over a 3 preempt? Bridge Dr. Definitely! I would wait and see what partner did, or what the partner of the pre-empter did. If the partner of the preempter raised, then I would later bid 4, to show a good suit, but not a good hand. And if the partner of the pre-empter passed and my partner did something, I could now bid spades at the appropriate level. Bidding directly guarantees a good hand as well as a good suit. Discipline is hard — I really hate passing 3 with  AQJxxxx  xxx  xx  x but in the long run it works out best.

Canadian Master Point

Index to CMP 1992-1995 I, 1 (January 1992) to IV, 4 (October 1995) Notes to the Index: Canadian Master Point consisted of 5 issues per volume in its first two years of publication, but went to a quarterly schedule beginning in 1994 (Volume III). In the January 1995 issue (Vol IV no.1), the magazine tested a dual format (Eastern and Western Canada editions); both editions contained the same editorial copy, but advertising content varied. Bidding

Book and Magazine Reviews

II, 2 Bergen, Marty Bergen Raises Double trouble IV, 2 Bishop, Ron Jump Shifts after a forcing NT I, 2 Braithwaite, Ken Sharples-Marx over 1NT (part 1) IV, 3 (part 2) IV, 4 Burgan, Ed Competing over 1NT II, 3 Competing over strong 1 Club openings III, 1 The San Francisco con vention revisited III, 4 Chan, Lapt H. Transfers over a 2NT rebid III, 4 Cunningham, John Musings.... III, 2 Slam Judgment I, 3 Falk, Allan Directing the Lead IV, 1 Gitelman, Fred Expert Errors II, 1 Improving 2/1 Auctions II, 5 Improving 2/1 Auction — the sequel III, 1 Improving 2/1 Auctions — part 3 III, 3 Gowdy, John Asking for aces III, 1 Competing over 1NT IV, 4 Drury IV, 3 Serious 3NT II, 4 Suit lead II, 5 Transfer Lebensohl II, 2 When Partner Preempts II, 3 Jotcham, Ray Swiss Jacoby 2NT I, 2 Messinger, Chuck 2-way Stayman — strengths and weaknesses III, 2 Hand evaluation II, 1 Refining the Law of Total Tricks III, 4 Paul, Mary Framework for Disc ussion, A (series) I,2/IV,2 Redvers, Paul Baby keycard IV, 3 Reus, Tony Who was that fish? II, 4 Teukolsky, R. Gadgets, gizmos, and magic bullets IV, 3

At the Table — My Life and Times Hamman, Bob IV, 1 Better Bridge magazine Grant, Audrey II, 2 Bridge My Way Mahmood, Zia I, 3 Bridge Team Murders, The Granovetter, Matthew II, 1 Bridge with the Blue Team Forquet, Pietro II, 1 Daily Bridge Calendar, The 1994 Ashlar House III, 1 Daily Bridge Calendar, The 1995 Ashlar House III, 4 Daily Bridge Calendar, The 1996 Ashlar House IV, 4 Death Takes a Hand Moody, Susan III, 3 Diamond Major, The Oakley, Peter III, 3 Editors’ Choice — favourite books Lee, Linda (editor/selector) I, 5 Famous Hands from Famous Matches Reese, Terence and Bird, David I, 2 Following the LAW Cohen, Larry IV, 1 Hand Reading in Bridge Roth, Danny II, 3 How to play card combinations Lawrence, Mike IV, 3 Kosher Bridge 2 Bird, David III, 3 Official Encyclopedia of Bridge(5th ed.) ACBL III, 4 Partnership Bidding Paul, Mary IV, 1 Shadow in the Bridge World Wiss, Mike Dorn II, 4 Squeeze at Bridge,The Wang, Chien-Hwa II, 3 Team Trial Falk, Allan I, 4

46

Canadian Master Point

Test Your Bridge Judgement Rigal, Barry III, 1 There must be a way Diosy, Dr. Andrew IV, 2 Thinking about IMP’s Boeder, John IV, 3 Tiger Bridge Revisited Flint, Jeremy and North, Freddie I, 2 To Bid or Not to Bid Cohen, Larry II, 1 Topics in Bridge Lawrence, Michael II, 3 Computer Bridge & Software Reviews Bridge Buff I, 3 Bridge Buff 2.0 III, 3 Bridge Buff 3.0 IV, 4 Bridge Master I, 5 BridgeMate 2.0 IV, 4 Bridge Olympiad III, 4 Bridge Tutor III, 4 Deal386: a computer program IV, 2 Grand Slam Bridge II II, 2 Meadowlark Bridge III, 1 Meadowlark Bridge 1.09 IV, 4 Micro Bridge Companion I, 1 Positronic Bridge II, 5 Flak, Carmen Bridge on Compuserve IV, 2 Gitelman, Fred Computers and bridge I, 1 Ludwig, Rodney Computer bridge III, 1 Lever, David Computer bridge — a new approach II, 4 General Interest Bishop, Ron Dr Gordon Shorting IV, 4 Bryan, Diane Help, no negative doubles I, 3 Cafferata, Mike Colbert’s Rules I, 2 Colbert’s Rules (part 2) II, 1 Colbert’s rules — a corollary IV, 3 Never give up! IV, 2 The Case of the Vanishing Trick II, 3 Carruthers, John Sponsorship — a new era? I, 2 CMP staff Bridge his way....a con versation with Zia I, 5 Cliff’s Notes — a tale from the tournament trail III, 3 Committee Action I, 4 Colker, R. & Lee, R. The hesitation dilemma III, 2 Cunningham, J. And the meek shall inherit.... II, 4 Epson without tears III, 4 Hug a Novice? I, 1 Is this being recorded? III, 1 Musings.... III, 2 More musings IV, 1 Slam Judgment I, 3

January 1996

Cunningham, J. Tangled Web, A II, 3 Goold, John The Whale I, 4 Gitelman, Fred Star is born, A I, 3 Gordanier, T. M. Full disclosure IV, 1 Gowdy, B. & Lee, R.“Shorty” remembered II, 5 Lee, Linda You have the right to remain silent.... I, 4 Lee, Ray Catch a rising star II, 1 What’s the point? II, 4 Willie Wonderful I, 1 Mackay, Steve New partnership in action, A.... II, 4 Milgram, Bill & Leah Bridge in the Holy Land I, 3 Ong, Gim C. Is this a record? IV, 2 Schoenborn, M. Don’t lower the bridge.. II, 3 Seagram, Barbara Finesse: a new definition IV, 2 Hug a novice! I, 1 Steinberg, J. Psyches in club games I, 2 Tench, Stan Look back from the edge I, 5 White, Marilyn Active ethics — his rules or hers? IV, 3 Why do we do it? Bridge and the principle of var iable-ratio reinforce ment IV, 2 Wiss, Mike Dorn Ethical musings IV, 1 Guru lucks out, The IV, 3 Warren, Ken Swiss Team tactics II, 3 History of Bridge Dawson, Tom Gordanier, T. M. Jotcham, Ray Lee, Ray Sabino, John Humour Bishop, Ron Cafferata, Mike CMP staff Cooper, Stephen Diosy, Dr. A. Dunsiger, Mark

Five-suit bridge revisited III, 1 Glimpse into history, A II, 2 The Canadian Nationals — 100 years IV, 2 The Impact of bridge & whist on playing cards (Part 1) I, 1 (Part 2) I, 2 The World Bridge Championships III, 4 World Bridge Olympic I, 3 History of conventions, A (part 1) IV, 3 (part 2) IV, 4 Hand from the past, A I, 3 20 Years Ago (5/71) I, 1 20 Years Ago (5/72) I, 2 20 Years Ago (10/75) I, 3 20 Years Ago (11/72) I, 4 20Years Ago (1970) I, 5

Guessing the trumps He went thataway.... Anecdotes Harmonizing Following the map Playing by the book Sniffwood

II, 4 IV, 1 I, 2 II, 2 IV, 1 IV, 3 IV, 3

47

Gitelman, Fred Bridge in the Village I, 5 Gowdy, John Guess for the pro, A I, 2 No beer for me I, 3 Lee, Ray Bridge in Wonderland II, 2 Livingston, Brian Excerpts from the Rutherford Files III, 3 McIntyre, Bruce Bridge on the bridge IV,1 Schoenborn, M. 3 minutes to winning bridge III, 2 Encounters with the 7 II, 1 Mexican hat trick I, 2 Rabbit bridge I, 5 Shoe vs. Montreal, 1967 I, 1 Silver, David Board for the board, A I, 1 Bridge 101 II, 4 Bridge canticle, A IV, 2 Broom at the top I, 3 Doppelganger II, 5 Grey-headed league, The III, 2 Hearts of darkness IV, 1 Hunting the Great White Whale III, 4 Managing change II, 3 Nights of old I, 5 Occurrence at the Spingold, An IV, 3 Paradise lost II, 1 Post-mortems of the 3rd kind I, 4 Prisoner of Zelda, The IV, 4 Reasonable man, A II, 2 Silver for the defence III, 3 Study in silver, A III, 1 “The Cleric” The Club has a visitor.... II, 1 “Trent Valley” Dear Editor.... III, 4 Deeds of shame IV, 2 Hold the anchovies I, 4 Mood swings IV, 4 Slam decision I, 5 There is no justice! III, 3 Teukolsky, R. All the world’s a bridge article IV, 4 Bridge in a Chin ese restaurant IV, 1 Ethical, misguided, or just plain stupid? IV, 2 Join the club III, 3 The significant-other dilemma II, 5 The truly explosive vs. the merely unpleasant III, 2 Which opponent should you squeeze? III, 4 Novice (including “For Future Experts”) Allison, Karen Ask the Bridge Doctor IV, 4 Cafferata, Mike Always have a plan II, 4 Linden, Jay 99er’s view, A II, 3 Livingston, Brian Life in thefast lane II, 2 Timing is everything II, 3

January 1996

Roy-Chowdhury, S. Who’s the boss? III, 3 Seagram, B. Alert! III, 1 Balancing II, 2 Bid them up the line! I, 4 Bidding over preempts III, 2 Conventional wisdom IV, 3 Cue bids for beginners III, 4 Cue bids for beginners IV, 1 Defence wins champ ionships I, 2 Get the boys off the street I, 3 He who hesitates II, 5 Negative doubles for novices (part 1) I, 5 (part 2) II, 1 Passed hand bidding (part 1) II, 3 (part 2) II, 4 The strip and throw-in III, 3 Seigel, Joe Be a better bidder I, 1 Be a better bidder I, 2 Be a better bidder III, 1 Competitive bidding (part 1) II, 1 (part 2) II, 2 (part 3) II, 4 (part 4) II, 5 Be a better competitor I, 3 Be a better declarer (part 1) I, 4 (part 2) I, 5 Be a better partner III, 4 Be an ethical player III, 2 Be an ethical player III, 3 Matchpoint tactics II, 3 Smith, Forrest The elementary squeeze IV, 4 Play and Defence Armstrong, J. A simple hand? I, 2 Bishop, Ron Spot the clue I, 4 Spot the defence I, 3 Chan, Richard Grand larceny I, 3 CMP staff Declarer 5, Trumps 0 II, 4 Cunningham, J. The road not taken II, 2 Diosy, Dr. A. Playing with the odds IV, 2 Falk, Allan Newtonian leads; a corollary to the Law of Total Tricks II, 5 Galloway, C. On “Playing the Odds” II, 2 Restricted choice — pshaw! not again! III, 3 Gitelman, Fred Hands from here and there IV, 4 Making bridge masters II, 3 My left hand(ed) opponent II, 2 Problem of avoidance, A IV, 1 Would you rather be lucky or good? II, 4 Gordanier, T. M. The Greek gift III, 3 Gyimesi, Miklos Find the lady I, 3

49

Jotcham, Ray Play along with me II, 2 Ray’s random thoughts IV, 2 Lee, Linda Try this on your spouse....II, 4 Lee, Ray Playing the odds I, 5 Lindop, David The intra-finesse I, 1 McIntyre, Bruce Conditions of contest IV, 2 Paranjape, P. J. Defending in the dark IV, 2 The source of good deals IV, 4 Shaw, George Restricted choice — fact or fiction? (the case against) III, 2 Silverman, Gloria Reading the cards I, 3 Sutherland, Eric More restricted choices III, 4 Restricted choice — fact or fiction? II, 5 Szerementa, J. Third hand high III, 2 Puzzles and Quizzes CMP staff Bridge Bats I, 4 Hearts....a logic puzzle I, 5 Reading the hand II, 5 Goold, John Bridge crossword I, 3 Bridge crossword I, 4 Bridge crossword II, 1 Bridge crossword II, 3 “Griffin” Bridge anacrostic I, 5 Bridge anacrostic II, 5 “Pipeg” Bridge puzzle III, 4 Tournament Reports Bridson, Ed Carruthers, John CMP staff Colbert, David Gitelman, Fred

50

The silence of the slams (part 1) I, 1 (part 2) I, 2 (part 3) I, 3 Yokohama 1991 I, 1 Bali quiz IV, 4 Capital Nationals, A II, 4 Charity auction at Kate’s III, 2 Charlotte Ingram Memorial Swiss I, 1 Duck soup in the Magic Kingdom! II, 1 European idea comes to Whitby II, 3 Expert charity auction at Kate’s II, 2 Kate’s auctions the experts I, 2 Nationals pot-pourri I, 4 Pole-axed again! III, 2 Revenge is sweet I, 5 Snapshots from Pasadena I, 3 First class in Albuquerque IV, 1 Close but no cigar ... I, 2 Close again .... I, 4 CNTC 94 III, 4 Deja vu again...and again... IV, 3

Gitelman, Fred Jotcham, Ray Kenny, M. et al. Kokish, Eric Lee, Linda Lee, Ray MacNeal, Dawn

Icelandair Open 1995 IV, 2 Wild and crazy hands.... III, 2 In the zone.... IV, 3 CNTC 93 II, 4 CNTC Finals, Ottawa 92 I, 4 Tale of two tables I, 5 Close, but we’ll take it I, 3 Calcutta 92 I, 2 Bourbon St. bridge IV, 4 Cincinnati Quiz, The III, 3 Haig’s Blue Ribbon II, 1 Kansas City roundup II, 3 Sleepless in Seattle III, 1 Toronto 4; Montreal 0 II, 5 World bridge camp 1 IV, 4 Canadian Calcutta II, 3

Paul, Mary Paulsson, S.

Fun in the sun Thank you to my shareholders

I, 5 I, 1

Sutherland, Eric Bali high IV, 4 Turner, David 1994 World Open Pairs IV, 2 Winestock, Sheri Giving something back IV, 4

Bridge Anacrostic (page 18) Word list A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. X. Y. Z. AA.

Third and fifth best Appendix A Last Train (to Clarksville) Establish this winner Square hand Out of tune Unblocks Top board Olympics Face a card Sans atout Catch High scores Obligatory finesse Opening two bids Life master Ditch Analysts VuGraph Inference Describes Smith echo Injury Lead through Vienna Coup East-West Redwood

Canadian Master Point

Reviews P o i n t s Schmoints (Marty Bergen). Magnus Books. 210 pp. $29.95 (HC). Reviewed by Ron Bishop. The first new title we’ve seen from Marty Bergen in quite some time is a collection of bridge pointers and humorous anecdotes (many gleaned from years of successful teaching) that should be well-received by intermediate and developing players. Marty’s previous efforts (a two-volume set on competitive bidding) were more technical and highlighted the bidding ideas that helped make him one of the most successful tournament players throughout the 70’s and 80’s. While keeping to his light-hearted writing style, Marty has changed the focus in this title towards the developing player, with many short and to-the-point tips ranging from pre-empts and competitive bidding all the way to play and defence. My only substantive complaint would be the price; at $29.95 (Can.) I find it a mite steep (as will some of its intended audience). For that outlay, we could receive both of Marty’s earlier technical volumes. Generally, the overall information and format is a good one for students, especially those who are not complete beginners. The instructional chapters of the book each deal with an individual topic on bidding, play, or defence. Many of Marty’s personal favourites come to the fore (showing a weak two bid on five to the eight with an ace, king on the side to developing players may not seem a good idea to many teachers, but it is done in a humorous spotlight). As we would have expected, the section on Competitive Bidding is very good, including a useful

January 1996

overview on Balancing. Marty’s keying on the distributional, textural, and positional aspects of bidding, as opposed to the traditional point-count approach, is applauded. Many of the KEY points and important concepts are offset from the text, in boldface type or in box-outs, making them easy to follow and find again for review. An old university professor of mine taught that building engineers often designed structures with multiple purposes in mind, but that the final creation usually could accomplish only one (or perhaps two) of them very well. A book that attempts to be an intermediate text, a humorous anthology, a system critique, and a collection of bridge and sports maxims, as well as a short history of the author’s play/teaching record is surely biting off more than a single small volume can handle. At times this one accomplishes each of its goals well; but at other times something seems to be lacking. Some of the anecdotal hands could have been dispensed with since these (together with the interjection of an occasional tale that we might have expected to see in a humour anthology) just seem to interfere with the flow of the material and may sidetrack readers who are attempting to improve the overall level of their bridge knowledge. Nevertheless, an instructive and good effort worth exploring. Tales out of School (David Silver). Master Point Press. 128 pp. $12.95. Reviewed by Joe Varnell. Regular readers of Canadian Master Point will already be familiar with the bridge-playing exploits of “Professor” David Silver, but the uninitiated have a

53

wonderful treat in store for them in Tales out of School. This book is a collection of stories chronicling the bridge antics of Professor Silver and his colleagues at the fictional “Mohican College”. The scenarios range from mere bridge problems to the fate of Silver’s soul: political correctness takes its lumps, Satan wins the bridge game (and then wishes he hadn’t), while the smartest of computers proves to be as human as the next guy when it comes to bridge partners. But every situation, serious or not, is tackled with tongue firmly planted in cheek. No-one is safe from the author’s jibes, least of all himself. And while the hands and analyses are always technically interesting, this is first and foremost a book of humour, not of bridge. Silver shows a delicate touch for the sardonic, and his villainously gentle humour is displayed in flowing, lucid prose. He could easily be nominated “Wicked Wit of the North”. Each story in Tales out of School goes down like a fine gulp of well-aged wine. You hold and savour each taste while quickly reaching for your glass again. This book would make a delightful addition to any bridge player’s library; after all, where else can you buy eleven ounces of Silver that are worth their weight in gold? Bridge Baron (Great Game Products). DOS, Windows, Mac. US$59.95. Perfect Partner Bridge (Positronic S o f t w a r e ) . W i n d o w s . US$59.95. Bridge B u f f 3 . 0 (BridgeWare). Windows or DOS. C$129.95 Reviewed by Ray Lee. Let’s start by recognizing that every bridge software package today still

January 1996

makes errors in bidding and play that no average club player would dream of perpetrating on his or her worst night. Bridge software now has reached about the stage chess programs were at in the mid eighties — they are showing signs of intelligence, and there are enough of them around that competitive pressures and sheer numbers are going to allow them to develop rapidly. The top microcomputer chess programs today can challenge master-class players. Since bridge is not a complete information game, it is (I am told) a tougher programming problem. But I suspect that we aren’t more than about five years away from bridge software that plays pretty well. But back to the present day and real life. An earlier incarnation of Bridge Baron (which was marketed for a while as “Micro Bridge Companion”) was one of the first software packages we reviewed in CMP, and it is still one of the best. Bridge Baron claims to have improved its play and bidding, and probably has, but the differences are subtle. It still (like all its competitors) has trouble in balancing sequences, and competitive doubles give it fits. The most noticeable improvement is, of course, the now de rigeur Windows interface (and Bridge Baron is still one of the very few packages available for the Macintosh, although the Mac version has slightly less functionality). The number of conventions and treatments available to the user has been expanded to include different NT ranges, limit raises, 2-over-1, and a number of other standard and necessary options; earlier versions were limited to a very simple convention card. The Deal Generator has also been substantially upgraded; it allows you to specify suit lengths and point count, and also to produce sets of hands that satisfy specific bidding sequences or conventions. Promised very soon, but not seen by us, is the capacity to play sets of hands from

55

ACBL tournaments, and matchpoint them against a field, as well as remote modem play. The feature which Bridge Baron still implements the best, in my view, is its ability to let you play short matches, score them against the computer (IMP’s, BAM, or total points), and save them for replay by others. Perfect Partner Bridge is the direct descendant of Positronic Bridge, reviewed in CMP in November, 1993. The good news is that the new package is much cheaper, has a much better interface, and has dispensed with the aggravating “disklock” copy protection mechanism. The bad news is that it still doesn’t play very well. The engine here is a sophisticated AI, which the user can toggle between a standard rules-based mode and a neural net, which (at least in theory) will learn as it plays against you. This (again, in theory) will allow you to “teach” it your bidding methods, and have it become the “perfect partner”. We don’t actually know whether this is eventually possible; we do know that our staff

was unable to devote the hundreds of hours that were clearly necessary to get it to this stage. The built-in rules-based bidding engine is an average performer at best. Much time and effort has been spent on trying to improve the play and defence algorithms (an area where a “learning” mode is not offered), and British expert Tony Forrester has been involved here. Again, unfortunately, Perfect Partner finds itself at best in the middle of the pack in terms of playing strength. Just to show that some authors take our reviews seriously, Doug Bennion let us know that he has addressed our major criticism of his excellent Bridge Buff 3.0 software: it is no longer necessary to click the mouse each time you want a computer player to play a card. We should be able to complete our survey of new and updated bridge software in the April 1996 issue, with the promised new version of EK bridge; at this stage, we would rate Bridge Baron and Bridge Buff 3.0 as the current market leaders.

Master Point Press on the Internet www.masterpontpress.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.

56

Canadian Master Point