CMP_1995_Jul

From the editors...... W

e are pleased to announce the addition of a new member to the CMP team, advertising manager Patti Lee. Patti is well known to most bridge players in Ontario as a cheerful and talented player, player, director, and teacher; it is a pleasure to welcome welcome her to our staff. staff. They say that the busiest people have the most time! If you wish to discuss advertising advertising in the magazine - be sure to give Patti a call. At this time, too, we want you, our readers, to think about advertising in CMP. CMP. Why should you advertise? advertise ? Well, first there is the important reason that through advertising you support the production of CMP. Almost Almost our only only reve revenue nue comes from our advertisers and it is through their support that we can bring this magazine to all of you. We know that some of our advertisers participate at least in part for this purpose, and we thank them. But advertising in CMP is also a good way to get your message across to bridge players across Canada. This issue issue we will print 3200 copies (it seems to grow each issue) and we know that this represents many more actual readers, since each copy is often shared among several people. There is, of course, a concentration of readers in Ontario but in fact, CMP goes all across the country so you can reach people from East to West. Also, unlike most other bridge publications, CMP goes to many players who are not members of the ACBL: new players, rubber bridge players, and so on. So when you advertise in this magazine you are reaching a new audience, too. So, do you run a tournament, or have products or services that would interest our readership? readership ? We know that many of our advertisers have seen concrete results, and at the relatively low

CMP rates, it's a bargain. This is an opportunity, opportunity, too, to thank and congratulate a very special contributor, Fred Gitelman who was a member of the team that just won the CNTC for the second year running. Fred has been a contributor from the inception of CMP, never having missed an issue; his articles are always well-written, interesting, and informative. And despite the fact that he makes his living from bridge, Fred gets paid the same as everyo everyone ne else else associated associated with CMP -- he gets our thanks. Finally, we want to announce the third book from Master Point Press, which will be available this fall: David Silver's Tales out of School. Those of you who have enjoyed David's articles through the years will be pleased with this collection of stories set at Mohican College. Some of the stories have been previously previ ously published publis hed but the book also includes a number of new pieces specially written for for it. David tells us that he already has to live with some celebrity -- people play very carefully when he sits down to kibitz, hoping not to to provide him with material! CANADIAN MASTER POINT

Advertising Rates

2 pages 1 page 1/2 page 1/4 page Business Card

$230 + GST $130 + GST $ 75 + GST $ 50 + GST $ 25 + GST

Simple layout services included October issue deadline Sept. 10th, 1995

Call Patti Lee at (416) 555-3714

C

A

N

A

D

I

A

N

MASTER POINT A

M A G A Z I N E

F O R

B R I D G E

P L A Y E R S

331 Douglas Ave., Toronto, Toronto, Ont., M5M 1H2 Tel Te l : ( 4 1 6 ) 7 8 1 - 0 3 5 1 • F a x : ( 4 1 6 ) 7 8 1 - 1 8 3 1 • E - mai ma i l : [email protected]

July 1995

Vol. IV Number 3

An occurrence at the Spingold by David Silver Active ethics -- his rules or hers? by Marilyn White Gadgets, gizmos, and magic bullets by Roselyn Teukolsky Sniffwood by Mark Dunsiger Playing by the book by Dr. Andrew Diosy Déjà vu again... and again... by Fred Gitelman Sharples/Marx over 1NT (part 1) by Ken Braithwaite Colbert's rules -- a corollary by Mike Cafferata The Toy Toy Shoppe -- Drury by John Gowdy The Guru lucks out by Mike Dorn Wiss In the zone by Ray Jotcham A history of conventions (part 1) by Thomas M. Gordanier Baby keycard by Paul Redvers Conventional wisdom by Barbara Seagram Book Reviews by Linda Lee

3 8 10 12 13 15 18 21 22 23 25 27 28 30 32

Canadian Master Point is published four times per year. year. It is available free of charge charge through a number of bridge clubs and bridge supply houses across Canada or by subscription ($15/yr, ($15/yr, US$15 for US subs). Copyright © 1995 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 address with SAE if return or reply required.

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

An occurr occur rence at the Spingold D

A

V

I

D

T

he match was slipping away from us. Not an unusual occurrence in my long bridge brid ge career, caree r, but b ut because of the circircumstances, the pressure pressure was was unreunrelenting. I was playing with Wright Cardinal in the final of the Spingold; our part pa rtne ners rs were we re Eric Er ic Mu Murr rray ay and an d Bruc Br ucee Gowdy. We had enjoyed unprecedented success in the preceding rounds but our opposition in the final round was exceptionally formidable. Three of North America's top professionals, Stephen, Vincent and Benny, playing with an unusually capable client, were putting up a tough fight. The first half had been a standoff, but in this set we had suffered several swings against us. Now there was only one board left and I estimated that we were 20 IMP’s down. Wright was nervous. He examined his scorecard, glanced at our partners at the other table, and looked around for the closest exit. I, too, too, was was apprehensive. apprehensive. From Bruce's demeanor, it was obvious that things had been going well at their table; I did not anticipate a tranquil com pariso par ison n of score sco res. s. But, But , as Yogi Berra Ber ra once observed under similar circumstances, “It ain't over till it’s over”. I picked up the last hand. ♠Kxx

❤xxx

◆Kxx

♣Qxxx

I was considerably relieved to hear Wright open the bidding with 2♣! We commenced an involved and scientific auction:

S

I

L

V

Step Stephe henn Card Cardin inal al 2♣ Rdbl. 3♣ Dbl. 4♣ Dbl. Pass 1)

E

R

Vinc Vincen entt 2♠ Dbl. Dbl. Pass

Silv Silver er Dbl.1 3N T 6♣ ?

8+ points

Stephen and Vincent were interfering with our auction by putting up a barrage of interference, but to no avail. I was just about to redoub redouble le when, when, unchar uncharacter acter-istically, I asked for a review. “Certainly,” “Certainly,” said Stephen, “I opened the bidding with one spade and your partner overcalled two clubs. Then.....” I didn't listen listen to the rest. I wondered whether I would be permitted a cigarette and blindfold before I had to face Bruce and Eric. Wright Wright looked across the table at me, concer concerned ned.. “Are “Ar e you all right, righ t, David?” he enquired, in a worried tone. I felt dizzy and light-headed, but the game had to go on. I recovered my com posu po sure re,, pass pa ssed ed the th e do doub uble le of 6 ♣ and Vincent led the ❤Q. Suddenly Stephen sat up, a look of horror on his face. “Wait “Wait a minute,” he said, “I've only got twelve cards!” cards !” Vincent Vincent was discovered to have fourteen, and the director was called. called. The directors directors conconsulted briefly and ruled that the board would be thrown out. “So the match is over,” I remarked morosely to Cardinal. “No, three more to go,” he replied, holding aloft the requisite number of boards. Saved! And three chances remaining! A rush of adrenaline cleared my head

Canadian Master Point

and I replied “I'm terrific! I feel again a spark of that ancient flame. Let's stop talking and start playing bridge.” I picked up the next hand.

The opening lead was the ◆Q; Wright put the dummy down and I had to take ten tricks against expert defenders.

these boys have thousands of master points" I muttered to myself as I cashed the ❤A noting the fall of East's eight. The ❤K came next, East following with the ten as I discarded my losing diamond. Dummy's ❤6 was now high and I called for it to be played. LHO discarded a diamond and I threw away my ♣Q, ensuring two dummy entries. Warming to the task, I returned to my hand via the ◆A and finessed dummy's ♣J, and when it held I ruffed dummy's diamond as RHO threw a club. A club to the ace and a club back forced RHO to ruff in with his ♠A or ♠8 as I sat over him with my 9-7. Making four spades. The full hand was:

Cardinal

Cardinal

♠97432

❤J9

◆AK9

♣Q83

The bidding proceeded:

Cardinal 2♣ 3♠2 4NT4 6❤

Silver 3♣1 4❤3 5◆5

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Q10 AK64 753 AJ42

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Q10 AK64 753 AJ42

West Silver ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

97432 J9 AK9 Q83

I could see several routes to ten tricks tri cks but since every one depended on either an extraordinarily fortuitous lie of the cards and/or a misdefence, I abandoned each in turn. West wasn't going to hold a doubleton ♣K today! If trumps did not lie favourably I was doomed (literally and figuratively speaking) so I presumed only two trump losers. At last, the winning line appeared to me like the angel at the Battle of Mons. I won the ◆Q and led my ❤J. LHO covered with the queen and I let him hold the trick as East followed with the ❤7! After a few moments LHO played a low spade to dummy's ten and East’s king. Back came a low spade and dummy's queen won West's jack. "No wonder

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

East

J5 Q532 QJ108 K105

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AK86 1087 642 976

Silver ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

97432 J9 AK9 Q83

“I should have cashed the ♠A and returned the ❤10,” said Vincent. “It wouldn't have changed anything,” I said, consolingly. consolingly. “I would sim ply cash the two top hearts. hearts. If you you ruff ruff the ❤6, I overruff and play spades, squeezing Stephen in diamonds and clubs. If you don't ruff, the play is essentially the same. The hand can't be beaten as long as I throw the ♣Q so Stephen can't jump in with his king and block one of my dummy entries.”

June 1993

I could feel the momentum of the match swinging towards us, and eagerly, eagerly, I picked up the penultimate hand: ♠KJ7

❤A73

◆104

♣KQJ98

The bidding proceeded:

Step Stephe henn Card Cardin inal al Vinc Vincen entt Silv Silver er 1◆ 1N T Pass 3♣1 Pass 3◆ Pass 6♣2 1) 2)

Natural slam try Has a better chance that 6NT, 6NT, for obvious reasons

West led the ◆K and Wright laid down an adequate, if somewhat disappointing dummy. Cardinal ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

A42 K104 A97 A1043 Silver

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

KJ7 A73 104 KQJ98

I paused, considered my strategy, and claimed twelve tricks. “A straightforward progressive squeeze without the count,” I announced. “Haven't seen one since Percy Sheardown played play ed seven seve n diamonds diam onds doubled doub led in the 1958 Olympiad. Throw your cards in, boys, there's no defence.” defence.” Stephen looked puzzled. “Do you mind stating a line of play, please?” he asked. “If you insist,” I replied, “but I should have thought it was fairly obvious. “Your “Your modern-style aggressive light opening has marked you with all the remaining high cards -- a meagre eleven points. Knowing that, I simply win the ◆A and run five rounds of clubs, throwing a spade from the dummy, and watching your discards for queens and jacks. “Let’s suppose you keep all your major suit honours and throw the ◆ J: I’ll lead out the ◆10, establishing my ◆9 as trick eleven, and endplaying you in the majors for trick twelve. Either you’ll lead a spade into me, or you’ll lead a heart honour and set up a finessing position in the dummy. “If I don’t see you throw any honours, however, I know that your last seven cards are ♠Q ❤QJ ◆QJ and two spot cards, so either spades or hearts are


now unguarded. I lay down the ❤A, and if the ❤J falls, I can finesse the ❤10 - just jus t in case cas e you are false-c fal se-card arding ing with three of them. Now I cash the ❤K, and you’ll have to unguard the ♠Q or throw the ◆J, allowing me to concede a diamond to establish trick twelve once again. “If you follow small on the ❤A, of course, I know the ♠Q must be falling, so I cash three spades and once again you are forced to give up either the ◆J or the heart suit.” “I'm sorry to have questioned you, Professor,” said Stephen respectfully. “Oh, that’s all right,” I replied magnanimously. “Of course, when I was your age, Sami Kehela would claim and everyone would throw their cards in. Then we'd stay up all night trying to work out how he would have played the hand. Tedious, but that’s what made me the player I am today.” today.” I moved confidently to the last hand: ♠KJ87

❤A96

◆KQ5

♣1087

The bidding proceeded briskly:

Wright 4NT2 1) 2)

Silver 1NT1 6NT

Weak (12 - 14) This is a maximum, as nonvulnerable I could hold as little as 12 HCP; besides I'm play ing it.

The opening lead was ❤3 and I was not displeased with the dummy. Cardinal ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

A54 KJ AJ104 AK92 Silver

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

KJ87 A96 KQ5 1087

I played the ❤J which was covered by the queen and won by my ace. A low spade to the ace revealed nothing, but when I returned the suit and finessed the jack, LHO played played the nine. nine. I then played played the ♣10 losing to the jack on my right. Back came the ❤7: I won my ace as West followed with the ❤2, and I claimed the balance of the tricks. “Meaning no disrespect, disrespect, professor, professor, I just don't see it," said Stephen, confused. "Well, my boy, keep playing and studying and someday you will. But we're all tired, so I'll explain. Cardinal ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

5 --AJ104 AK9 Silver

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

K8 9 KQ5 87

June 1993

“At this point, I shall cash four diamonds, throwing a club from my my hand.. If spades are 3-3, I have the rest; if not, East who is known to have the ♠Q, must guard that suit, and can therefore hold on to only two clubs. West can temporarily guard clubs, but when I lead a spade to the king, he is squeezed in hearts and clubs: a sim ple non non-si -simul multan taneou eouss dou double ble squ squeez eeze. e. The exact position of the club suit is com pletely irrelevant.” The pros left dejectedly, and we were soon joined by Bruce and Eric. They had not had a good round, but it didn't matter: we had won handily, handily, as a result of picking up 40 IMP’s on those last three boards. Cardinal whooped and pumped my hand. Eric and Bruce looked sheepish and congratulated me on my performance. "Just playing my usual game" I said as I turned to accept the congratulations of the kibitzers. The news news spread like wildfire. Strangers were shaking my hand and clasping my elbow. A nubile sixty-year-old whispered something in my ear and pressed her room key in my palm. The din was deafening, the room suddenly extremely hot and crowded, and I felt faint and dizzy, grasping at Wright's arm to keep from falling.

“Are you all right, David?” he enquired, in a worried tone. “Yes, thank you, I just felt faint for a moment.” “In that case, would you mind putting the dummy down? We'd like to finish the last hand so we can all go home.” I looked up at Wright, waiting impatiently tientl y. Vincent looked at me quizzically, quizzi cally, the ❤ Q on the table in front of him. Standing out in the corridor I could see a smiling Bruce and Eric waiting impatiently to compare scores. “What's the contract?” “Six clubs doubled. Now, Now, can we see your hand?” Wright Wright took his five club tricks and that was that, seven down doubled, vulnerable. Our opponents opponents left left quickly and silently and we were joined by our partners. “Don't look so worried, guys, we’ll be fine as long as you didn’t go for any numbers,” said Bruce jovially as he sat down. There is no armour against fate. I fumbled with my convention card and quietly moved my chair back a few inches. Wright began calling out our scores, and I slowly rose to my feet and ran like hell.


Active ethics -- his rules or hers? M

A

R

A

I

L

Y

rather nasty episode occurred at the recent Ottawa Regional. It was the first round of a Flighted Swiss, and North was about to make a bid, using using bidding boxes. She fingered a bid, studied her hand again, fingered another bid, went back to her hand, and so on. The gentleman sitting East was getting increasingly uneasy, and finally informed the lady that such behaviour was against the rules. The woman, offended, persisted. The man continued to object. Tempers flared, and soon players for some distance around heard angry “Director!” calls, as the disturbance escalated at what (unfortunately) turned out to be my teammates’ table. The director arrived promptly, and had to deal with a man who was incensed, and by now behaving very badly, and a woman who was indignant over both the bad behaviour behaviour and what she perceived as “psychological bullying”. Each believed themself “right”, and was morally outraged. On the surface, the director had an easy task, because there are rules dealing with bad behaviour. On a deeper level, what the director was seeing (although he probably didn’t realize it) was the clash between two differing systems of moral conduct, and he was really being asked to adjudicate which was correct -- the man’s man’s or the woman’s. This is not an easy task. Morality is the conscious adoption of standards related to right and wrong. Early in childhood, we learn that our parents consider some behaviours “good”

N

W

H

I

T

E

and others “bad”. We learn, too, from teachers, religious leaders, grandparents, in fact anyone bigger than us who is im portant to us. We learn from television, movies, books, and newspapers. Everything we learn, we internalize, and eventually these values become our own standards. Ethics is a philosophical term, which involves codes of conduct. Law, Law, business, medicine (and bridge!) all have ethical standards to which we are ex pected pected to adhere, adhere, or face sanction sanctions. s. These These standards take the form of rules, that can be pointed pointed to as explicit explicit guides guides to behavbehaviour. So far, so good. The problem is, men and women seem to have different attitudes towards rules and different conceptualizations of morality. Therefore, Therefore , questions of morals and ethics are not as simple to resolve as one might think. Most rules and laws are written by men; violations are mostly interpreted by men, and men have made the rules of most games. Women live in the same world, and play the same games, but there is an attitudinal difference that people (including women) are not aware of. This difference has been brilliantly described by a female theorist, Carol Carol Gilligan. Gilligan maintains that females use different reasoning than males when confronted with moral moral issues. Where men are concerned with rights and rules, women deal in the realm of relationships and responsibilities. Men use a logical approach based on concepts of law and justice, whereas females practise practise an ethic of care. Women, she says, tend to pay attention to the connections between people. They worry about the well-being of oth-

June 1993

ers. Morality for women involves an obligation to exercise care and avoid hurt: people peopl e who care for each other othe r are the most responsible, and people who hurt someone else are selfish and immoral. For a woman, therefore, a central moral dilemma is conflict between herself and others. But what has this to do with bridge? Once one is aware of this underlying gender difference, the reasons behind some of the anomalies of the bridge world may become clearer. clearer. At the Ottawa Regional, the man’s innermost moral values were being threatened -- and the woman’s woman’s were too! She was breaking breaking the rules, and he was creating creating a conflict. conflict. And both bot h went wen t away awa y mad, ma d, becau be cause se neith ne ither er understood the other’s issue. However, However, if the theorists are correct, and if men and women do in fact operate according to different fundamental moral codes, then we have a problem. In the September 1992 Canadian Master Point, the late Paul Heitner is quoted as saying “A game is defined by its rules.... If you break break the the rules rules on purpose, purpose, you are cheatcheating; if you break the rules by accident, you pay the appropriate penalty. ... the rules dictate the penalties.” Active ethics,

in this view, is judged by the laws, and means acting in accordance with both their letter and their spirit. My point is that such a view leaves women out of the equation. Women accept the vital imporimportance of the laws, but are only perceived to be acting “ethically” when they behave like men! It would perhaps be interesting to establish a new Active Ethics category, evidenced not simply by following the rules of the game, but by acts of kindness, goodwill, and an absolute refusal to violate trust or tread unnecessarily on the feelings of others. Active ethics would thus also reflect the female morality of inclusion which allows everyone to take joy in the game. We are talking generalizations g eneralizations here, of course. (Readers who disagree with that statement are referred to Roselyn Teukolsky’s article in our April 1995 issue.) What do our readers think? Is there some deep-seated world view that is gender-dependent, that makes males fiercely competitiv compe titive, e, and leads females femal es (in general) to be more concerned with conflict-avoidance? conflict-avo idance? It’s It’s an interesting theory, but at the moment, a theory is what it remains. Ed.


Gadgets, gizmos, and magic bullets R

O

S

E

L

A

Y

N

n ex-partner of mine once told me that he wouldn't play with anyone who refused to play oddeven discards. “I simply refuse to play inferior methods,” he stated. Another ex-partner once said that he felt "rejuvenated" since adding CRASH to his card. "This is it !" !" he told me. Which is your favorite gizmo? During the past several years new gadgets have proliferated like zebra mussels in the Great Lakes: Rosenkranz redou bles, coded nines and tens, Kantar honour splits, Foster Echo, Reverse Drury, CRASH, DONT, Suction, Roman Keycard Kickback -- I could fill the page. In the eternal quest for the magic bullet, those of us in midlife mi dlife bridge crisis have made it a crusade to add these snappy little zingers to our arsenal. Thus it was that my favourite partner and I, armed with an unquenchable desire to elevate our game beyond the mediocre, headed for a week's vacation at the beach. In the beachbag was “New Ideas In Defensive Play in Bridge” by Helge Vinje. We found this book to be a treasure trove of new weaponry, and we spent a delightful week contemplating the various little Molotov cocktails that we could hurl at our soon-to-be-dead opponents. One idea in particular intrigued us. From AK in a suit, the opening lead of the ace shows an even number of cards in the suit, the lead of the king an odd

T

E

U

K

O

L

S

K

Y

number. number. Usually, from the context of the hand and the bidding, partner can work out exactly how many cards the opening leader has in that suit. The partner of the opening leader must indicate to his partner how many tricks their side can cash in that suit. Partner's lowest card indicates that they can take one or three tricks (this includes an ability to overruff dummy). Partner's third lowest card shows that they can only cash two tricks. If the queen of the suit is on the board, then partner gives straight count. This is a very useful gadget, because, very often, it takes the guesswork out of that particular suit. When you know for sure how many tricks your side can cash, you can maintain the tempo in a hand where timing is everything. When your opponents are playing in high level contracts like five of a minor, it can be absolutely crucial to know how many of a given side suit you can cash. We added this lovely toy to our bag of tricks, and we're waiting to see if this is what turns us into World World Champions. It is now several weeks after the vacation. We We are playing in a team game against tough opponents and I pick up ♠AJ943

❤54

◆97

♣10542

At favourable vulnerability, in fourth seat, I hear this auction:

South

West

North

1❤

3◆

4❤

East (Me) All Pass

My partner leads the →K, and a fairly promising dummy (for our side) appears:

June 1993

North ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

North

K5 K97 Q86 K9763

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

East ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AJ943 54 97 10542

On the lead of the ◆ K declarer drops the five and I the nine (count). My part pa rtne nerr sw swit itch ches es to the th e ♠ Q on which South plays the king and I win my ace. I cash the ♠J, and, with three tricks in the bag, feel quite uplifted. What would you play next? Well? Did you try to cash another diamond? Declarer surely has the ♣AQ for his opening bid, and quite possibly the ♣J. If there is another diamond to cash then you had better do it now or else the diamond loser may go away on the fifth club. On the other hand, if declarer is now void in diamonds, playing another diamond will allow him to ruff, draw trumps (which are breaking nicely, nicely, worse luck) and claim the rest of the tricks. Now No w supp su ppos osee yo you u kn know ow for fo r sure su re that partner started with an odd number of diamonds because he led the king from AK. What would you play? Remember partner's three diamond bid? This should tell you that he started with exactly seven diamonds, and that declarer started life with a singleton. Therefore you can forget about cashing another diamond. Getting back to me at the table. I decide to trust my partner's carding and our new gadget. I see that the only hope of another trick is a long shot---that partner started with a void and can ruff a club! Accordingly, Accordingly, I return a club, and, for once, my partner comes through for me. Here are the hands:

K5 K97 Q86 K9763

West ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

East

Q76 1032 AKJ10432 ---

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AJ943 54 97 10542

South ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

1082 AQJ86 5 AQJ8

From my partner's point of view, when he led the ◆K my drop of the ◆9 showed a doubleton (remember, when the queen is on the board, give count). This told him that there were no more diamonds to cash, and he switched to the ♠Q. Nifty little gadget, huh? I'm sure you're dying to know if we won the event. Unfortunately there was a little bit of overbidding here and a couple of wrong views there. But let me assure you that we're still collecting for our arsenal, and one of these days.....


Sniffwood M

A

R

K

D

Re R e a d e r s w h o d o n ’t k n o w M a r k w i l l quickly figure out why his nickname is “the Gunslinger”. Ed.

S

cientific auctions bore me. They tend to be long, slow, and exciting only to the two clowns doing the bidding. How boring to find out in the auction all about partner’s high cards and distribution! You will never get to steal a slam off two aces or a cashing aceking; you will have a paucity of exciting stories to tell during the post-game gatherings. And, most significantly, scientific auctions take valuable time from the exciting part of the game -- the play of the cards. To quote Israeli-born interinternationalist Sam Lev, an obviously likeminded player, who was chastised by team-mates for bidding a grand slam in hearts with a void opposite his partner’s “solid” heart suit missing the queen: “I am here not to win a bidding contest but to win the board”. The heart queen queen was doubleton, of course, and he scored 2210. I concur; the Lord knows who are the chosen people. In this vein, I was playing re¬cently with my favourite scientific partner, John Sabino, the late night host at the Regal Bridge Club, against the proprietor of the same institution. I held a shapely 17 or so and opened 1 ❤. My partner, partner, John, bid 2NT 2NT and I leaped mermerrily to 6❤. A trump was led and I was able to pitch two losers on a long suit in dummy and claim. The opening leader, leader, Irving Litvack, holding two cashing aces, was beside himself. himself. He asked me whether I had in my arsenal some gadget to check for aces; I said I did, but it would take up valuable time to find out and besides, why risk the disappointment of finding out that you do not have the controls needed for slam?

U

N

S

I

G

E

R

More recent examples occurred at a team game in the Invitational League at the Regal. Partner and I bid to four slams, not all odds-on favourites, but all making as the cards lay; only one was bid at the other table, table , we picked picke d up 40 IMPs, and as a result we won the match by 36. The curiosity curiosity was that that on none of these hands did we employ an ace-asking convention. We did try to be be quasiscientific on three of them, cue-bidding after we found a fit, but basically we used our noses to find these slams: Sniffwood, if you will. The auction on the fourth slam was a mite repulsive, but allow me to present my case. ♠AK10xx ❤xxx

◆AJxxx

♣---

Partner opened 1◆ and I bid 1♠. Partner rebid 2♣ and I ended the auction with a call of 6◆. To be honest, I considered conside red bidd bi ddin ing g 2 ❤ , starting a scientific ap proach. But the slam does look a good g ood prop pr opos osit itio ion n if they th ey do don’t n’t find fi nd a hear he artt lead, and possibly partner will have a heart control anyway. anyway. A heart was led and continued but I felt vindicated when partner ruffed ruffed the second heart and made the slam. Who needs needs science? Perhaps you might enjoy trying this approach and using your nose a little more and science a little less.

June 1993

Playing by the book D

R.

A

N

D

R

F

our college students, none of whom had been playing bridge for very long, decided to try their luck at a Regional Swiss. To their great surprise, they squeaked out some narrow victories, and the last round found them playing against the local champions for all the marbles. marbles. Although they did not know it, they were 16 IMP’s behind when the last hand came up. North ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

K102 K954 KQ10975 ---

West ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

East

653 Q83 642 J1092

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

A4 J762 J3 A7654

South ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

QJ987 A10 A8 KQ83

At the first table, where the cham pion pi onss were we re Nort No rthh-So Sout uth, h, the th e bidd bi ddin ing g was:

North 1◆ 2♠ 4♠

South 1♠ 3NT 6♠

Perhaps some explanation is required. After South’s South’s somewhat careless matchpoint 3NT call had been removed to 4♠, he belatedly realized that, opposite a distributional hand, he might well be in the slam zone. zon e. With no unambiguous way to explore, he decided just to

E

W

D

I

O

S

Y

bid it, sure that their thei r aggressi aggr essive ve young youn g opponents would also be there. The opening lead was the ♣J, and Nort No rth h tabl ta bled ed a disa di sapp ppoi oint ntin ing g du dumm mmy. y. Reluctant to ruff the opening lead, South pondered ponde red the likelihood likel ihood of West’s having underled the ♣A. A man famous famou s for his table presence, he stared suspiciously at West, but the student’s bored expression provided little assistance. The ruff at trick one seemed forced, but bu t then th en,, what wh at shou sh ould ld Sout So uth h do next? nex t? No prob pr oble lem m if he coul co uld d draw dr aw trum tr umps ps,, since he had enough diamond winners to make the contract. However, However, what if if the ♠A were not singleton, and one of the defenders were good enough to hold up? Not likely, thought t hought declarer. He ruffed the ♣J, and led the ♠K to trick two. East was about to play the ♠A, but at the last moment he pulled it back. He suddenly remembered a book on advanced play he had read recently, which had suggested that when declarer leads a king from dummy, he wants the defence to take their ace. The book had been reviewed very favourably. Without Without further thought, East played low. That was a blow to South. If he continued trumps, East would win and cash the ♣A for down one, so the only hope was to play some diamonds. diamonds. The ◆A and ◆K were followed by the ◆Q, but East didn’t want wan t to waste wast e his ♠A on a ruff, so he discarded a club, and so did South. Now No w Sout So uth h was wa s at the th e end of his hi s rope, as West could ruff the next diamond if he continued to play the suit. There was no escaping a club loser in addition to the ♠ A. They scored up down one, and waited to compare. At the other table, this was the auction:


North 1◆ 2♠ 5♣ 6♠

South 1♠ 4NT 5♠

North wasn’t sure whether w hether his club clu b void should count as an ace over Blackwood, and, when his partner signed off smoothly in 5 ♠ , gave the matter some thought. Finally, Finally, deciding that he would never forgive himself if they lost the event through cowardice (and not knowing his partner had already bid too much), he bid the slam. Here, too, the opening lead was the ♣J, and again it was obvious to South that he had to ruff. But from here on, the play went differently differentl y. South had read the same book as his teammate, and he remembered that, in a difficult suit contract, you were supposed to play on a side-suit before touching trumps. South considered this hand difficult, so at tricks 2 and 3 he cashed the high dia-

monds, and continued with the ◆Q at trick 4. What could East do? If he ruffed low, South would simply over-ruff, and could draw trumps with impunity, impunity, since the ♠ A would have to take the first round of the suit. Equally obviously, ruffing with the ♠A would not be helpful so East discarded a club as declarer did the same. Now, No w, ho howe weve ver, r, Sout So uth h aban ab ando done ned d the diamond suit. He led a heart to the ace, and ruffed a club in dummy. Next came the ❤K, a heart ruff to hand, and another club ruff with dummy’s last trump. Except for the ♠A, South’s hand was now high. “Nicely played,” said North. “Oh, it was always cold,” said a modest South. The 17-IMP swing was just enough to win the match by a single IMP. “Do you think we’re ready for the Nation Nat ionals als yet?” yet ?” som someon eonee asked ask ed in the car going home.

Master Point Press on the Internet www.masterpointpress.com

Our main site, with information about our books and software, reviews and more. www.masteringbridge.com

Our site for bridge teachers and students – free downloadable support material for our books, helpful articles, forums and more. www.ebooksbridge.com

Purchase downloadable electronic versions of Master Point Press books. www.bridgeblogging.com

Read and comment on regular articles from Master Point Press authors and other bridge notables.

June 1993

Déjà vu again... and again... F

R

E

D

G

T

he 1995 Canadian Na N a t i o n a l Tea Te a m s Championships was held June 6-11 a t the Sheraton Parkway in Toronto. Twenty teams from across the country competed for the right to represent Canada in the 1996 Athens Olympiad. As a member of the defending champions (Irving Litvack NPC, George Mittelman, Fred Gitelman, Eric Kokish, Joey Silver, Mark Molson, Boris Baran) I had high hopes. But things did not start as expected: our team lost the first four matches of the round-robin (this was quite a contrast to last year when we didn't lose for something like the first eighteen matches!). Our losses were relatively small, however, and after two good wins we were right back in thethick of things. On the third and last day of the round-robin I picked up: ♠KQJ

❤KJ2

◆AJ6

♣KJ98

I wrote a note to kibitzer Ben Zeidenberg, “I held this hand yesterday but I had the ten of clubs instead of the nine”. He looked at me as if I was crazy. crazy. The dummy in 3NT: ♠863

❤A973

◆Q2

♣7532

was not only disappointing (the contract made on a lucky lie of the cards) but also very familiar. At the end of the session, Ben looked up the hand records from the day before and found that I had been right. A deal from the previous day was: ♠KQJ

❤KJ2

◆AJ6

♣KJ108

I

T

E

L

M

A

N

opposite ♠A862

❤A973

◆Q2

♣753

In addition, the defenders' hands were very similar in both deals and the diamond suits were identical around the table. At first I thought this was just an extreme statistical curiosity. curiosity. However, However, after the session there was the usual discussion of hands and several players started to notice other pairs of deals containing similar layouts (particularly in the diamond suit). By the start of the next session we had come up with five pairs of deals with striking similarities (though none were as obvious as the first exam ple). There was was clearly something wrong with the computer program that was creating these "randomly dealt" hands. I brought the matter to the attention of the directors Henry Cukoff and Karen Cooper and tournament chairman Steve Cooper. Cooper. After carefully reviewing the hand records of the event, they discovered that the problem was quite widespread. In fact, every deal that was played in the round-robin had at least one counterpart -- another deal with around forty of the cards (and usually all of the diamonds) being dealt to the same players! You are probably wondering why it took three days for a group of a hundred or so of Canada's best bridge players to notice this problem. There are a few reasons: 1. The deals were not exactly the same. In most cases enough differences existed so that the likely bidding and final contract would be completely different. 2. The first deals to "re-appear" did not do so until the third day. 3. Some players do not always sit the same direction. It is much easier to


notice this sort of thing if the same person gets a similar hand twice. 4. Most of the teams had more than four players, so very few people played in every session. In any case, the discovery was disturbing (to put it mildly), but the organizers handled the problem quickly and professionally. professionally. The boards boards were shuffled shuffled in the quarter-finals. New hand records were ordered for the semi-finals and finals (from a different source) and all of these boards were re-duplicated. This situation and other recent embarrassments lead me to believe that the ACBL must review its procedures for the production, approval, and distribution of computerdealt hands. It is a shame when the integrity of an event as important as the CNTC final is compromised by incompetent programming and administration. administration. In past CNTC finals, only four teams emerged from the round-robin for semi-finals and finals. This year eight teams qualified and a quarter-final quarter-final round was added. I got the impression that everybody liked this new format. The top teams were under less pressure to perform well in the round-robin, while the lesser teams had a much better chance to qualify for the playoffs. The top eight were: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Litvack NPC (Montreal-T (Montreal -Toronto) oronto) Lesage (Ottawa) Balcombe (Toronto (Toronto area) Gartaganis (Calgary + Toronto junior junior Darren Wolpert filling in because of an emergency) Fraser (Montreal-Toronto) (Montrea l-Toronto) Presse (Halifax) Altay (Toronto) (Toronto) Thorpe NPC (Toronto) (Toronto)

As the winner of the round-robin we were given the right to choose our quarter-final quarter-final opponent from the 5th through 8th place finishers. This was not an enviable choice as these were all good teams. We eventually chose to play Thorpe and almost came to regret this decision. The Thorpe

team led at the half and lost by just 7 IMPs. Michael Roche and Jim Green (of the Thorpe team) deserve special credit for their excellent play during this close match. Other winners in the quarter-finals were Lesage (over Presse), Balcombe (over Altay), and Fraser (over Gartaganis). Déjà vu extended beyond the com puter hand problem at this tournament. tourna ment. Our semi-final match against the Fraser team (Doug Fraser, Nader Hanna, Peter Schwartz, Martin Caley) was a replay of last year's final. That match had been a relatively low scoring affair with our team pulling away at the end to win by 50 or so. The first two quarters of our semifinal against Fraser this year were also close. Fraser led by 6 after 16 boards and trailed by 3 after 32. The match was effectively decided in the third quarter as Litvack won most of the swings in a wild set of boards, finally winning by 104 IMPs. The Lesage-Balcombe semi-final was close all the way, but Lesage (Richard Lesage, Denis Lesage, John Valliant, Dave Willis, Jurek Czyzowicz, Waldemar Frukacz) won and would face Litvack in the 1995 CNTC final. Once again there was a sense of déjà vu, as these two teams had met in the semi-finals last year. The first quarter of the final saw the Litvack team take a commanding 49-IMP lead, but to the credit of the Lesage team, they made it a contest until the last board. The second quarter resulted in a huge number of swings to both teams. These swings completely balanced out, however, and the margin remained 49. The third quarter saw Lesage cut the lead to 34 after a strong performance by the Lesage brothers. Litvack added another 14 IMPs in the fourth quarter to win the match by 48 IMPs. From my point of view, the fourth quarter was a personal nightmare. Each hand seemed to contain the potential for disaster and when the match was over, I thought it was quite likely our team had

June 1993

blown our large lead. Molson and Baran were close to perfect at the other table, however, however, and the match was never really in doubt. Team Litvack won the CNTC for the second year in a row (to the best of my knowledge, this has happened only once before: Kehela-Murray, Kokish Nagy, Nag y, and an d Mitt Mi ttelm elman an-Gr -Grav aves es won the th e CNTC for two years running in the early 1980's). There were several interesting hands throughout the tournament. Here is one of my favourites (from our quarter-final match vs. Thorpe): North ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Q8754 J3 64 QJ53

West ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

East

A1063 9 108732 742

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

J92 Q86 AQ95 AK6

South ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

K AK107542 KJ 1098

1NT was 15-17. 2 ♣ showed any one-suited hand. 2 ◆ asked and 3 ❤ showed a good hand with hearts. George led the ◆2 (third and fifth) to my queen and declarer's king. South cashed a top heart and played the ♠K to George's ace. George got out the ♣2 (still third and fifth). Declarer played small from the dummy. How do you defend? (Yes, I know you can see all of the hands). My problem came too late on this hand. I won the ♣K and then thought about what to do. I quickly realized that it was too late - there was nothing I could do. No matter how I played, declarer could get to dummy to pick up my ❤Q and make the contract.

Look what happens if I duck(!) the club trick. Declarer wins and must exit in a minor. I cash my three minor suit winners and play a spade (a diamond also works). Declarer is now down to all trumps and must ruff his own entry. Declarer has no way to avoid losing a trick to my ❤Q, thus going down one. Notice that that declarer declarer could have made made the hand against any defence by playing a club honour from dummy on the critical trick. Also notice that George's defence of a club return was needed to give declarer a chance to go wrong. I really like this hand because it shows how such an obvious-looking play like winning the ♣K can be completely wrong (the same can be said of declarer's obvious-looking low club play, an error, from dummy). I did not give one second's thought to this this trick. If I had, I am certain I would have come up with the right answer. I wonder how many plays like this duck of the ♣K are missed every day because bridge players think some plays are so obvious as not to warrant thinking about? Despite the fiasco with the computer hands, there were many positive things about the 1995 CNTC final. Our team will now have the chance to play in two World Championships (1995 in Beijing and 1996 in Athens). I am hoping hoping that we are able to take advantage of these great opportunities and represent our country with distinction in these events. I also hope that the only element of déjà vu in the 1996 CNTC final is the winning team.


Sharples-Marx over 1NT (part 1) K

E

N

B

R

A

F

our-suit transfers are becoming increasingly popular over 1NT, 1NT, but few pairs have detailed deta iled agreements agree ments beyond beyon d the first round. This article presents a system based on the ideas of a group of British experts, headed by the Sharples brothers and Jack Marx. Marx. The basis of the approach is to use natural bidding for all strong shapely hands, and to use Stayman and Baron for the rest. I shall outline both a basic scheme and a more elaborate version (for those with better memories). The system varies in places from the standard ap proach in North America, but it can usually be changed back without loss. First the outline: Stayman, promises a major, major, but may be weak seeking seeking a fit Transfer, but may not have 2◆ hearts; a subsequent 2S bid cancels the transfer, asks opener to bid 2NT with a minimum Jacoby transfer 2❤ Gap transfer to clubs, accep2♠ tance is strong 2NT Gap transfer to diamonds, acceptance is strong 3-suit Natural, 6+ 6+ ca cards, si single suiter, slam try 4♣, 4◆ South African Texas (transfers to H, S), mild slam try 4❤, 4♠ To play 4NT Quantitative, 43 4333 2♣

Crawling Stayman

Since all strong two-suiters start with a transfer, there are only a few strong hands

I

T

H

W

A

I

T

E

that start with 2 ♣. A form of Crawling Stayman is used to escape 1NT on shapely weak hands with a four-card major, major, as well as on those hands seeking a 4-4 major-suit game. The idea is this: over a response to Stayman, minimum suit bids are weak, and looking for a fit. When crawling the responder either has both majors, or a major with one or two minor suits. If responder bids 2❤ over 2◆ he is asking for a major preference; with only two hearts opener bids a three-card spade suit or 2NT, and with three hearts he pa s ses. se s. Af ter te r 1N T - 2 ♣ - 2 ◆ - 2 ♠ , opener must cater to responder being 4135, 4153, and 4144, so 2NT denies a club preference and 3◆ shows at least a five-card suit. If responder is 4126 or 4216, he must bid 3♣ not 2♠ over a 2◆ response, since he cannot afford afford to hear 3◆. Over a 2◆ response responder can pass with diamonds, so then a 3◆ bid is artificial (showing 5-5 in the majors) and is invitational. In North America this is called Weissberger. No balanced slam tries use Stayman, but strong 4441 hands do. Over a 2❤ or 2♠ response responder can splinter, and over 2◆ he can use the Sharples convention (explained below). Stayman 2♣ (promises 4-card major) a)

2◆

(no 4-card major)

Responder's rebids rebids

2❤ 2♠

Asks for major preference Four spades and both minors -- take cautious preference; 3◆ now is a suit; 2NT is no

June 1993

preference; 3♣ is a club preference 2NT Natural, invitational (has a major) Weak (remember that it 3♣ shows a major) 5-5 majors, invitational: bid 3◆ 3 or 4 of your preferred major 5+ hearts, 4 spades, invit. 3❤ 5+ hearts, 4 spades, game3♠ forcing 4❤, 4♠ Slam try, weak suit 4♣, 4◆ Sharples (see below) b)

2❤

4-card heart suit; may also have four spades

If responder holds four spades he has no need of 3◆ as an escape; it can therefore be a 4-6 4- 6 invi in vita tati tion onal al hand ha nd or used us ed as Sharples. However, a 2♠ rebid by responder can also be played as "semiforcing" to allow game tries with spades and either minor. Opener's rebids over this (optional) semiforcing 2♠ are:

Pass 2NT 3♣ 3◆ 3❤ 3♠


Crawling -- take cautious preference; 3◆ now is a suit; 2NT is no preference; 3♣ is a club preference 2NT Natural, invitational (with four spades) Weak (with four spades) 3♣ Four spades, six diamonds, 3◆ invitational 3♠, 4♣, Splinter 4◆ To play 4❤ Slam try with weak suit 4♠ 4NT RKC Blackwood 2♠

c)

2♠

Four spades, denies four hearts

This also frees up 1NT - 2♣ - 2❤ - 3◆ for Sharples (strong 4144; exact pattern). Sharples

Strong 4441 hands either splinter or use Sharples after starting with Stayman: 1NT

2♣

and now:

2◆


2NT

Three or four spades, weak Crawling, weak Crawling, maximum Four spades, two clubs, maximum Four spades, two diamonds, maximum Four spades, accepting game try but weaker than 3 ◆ or 3H

4♣ 4◆

Invitational; (w (with fo four hearts) Weak (has hearts) 3♣ Weak (has hearts) 3◆ Sharples (see below) 3❤ Slam try, weak suit 4❤ 4♣, 4◆ Splinter For play 4♠ 4NT RKC Blackwood

2♠ 2❤

3❤ ?

1444, 4144, 4414 (3-suited including clubs) 4441 (3-suited without clubs) 1444 See the discussion above; 3◆ can show 4144

A slight improvement is, over 2❤ or 2♠, to play that three of the other major shows a splinter in any suit. This frees 4♣ to show the other three suits and 4 ◆


to be RKC Blackwood. Fancier Sharples

1NT 2❤ 3♠ 4♣ 4◆

2♣ ? Any splinter; 3NT relays to ask which suit 4144 RKC Blackwood

and similarly similarly after 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠. Notice there is no way to invite to slam giving a choice between six of the major or 6NT, when holding a balanced hand. This is because all balanced slam slam tries use Baron. (To be continued...)

June 1993

Colbert's Colbert's Rules - a corollar cor ollary y M

I

K

E

C

A

I

n an earlier edition of Canadian M a s t e r P o i n t I outlined Dave Colbert's five Rules. My favourite of the rules is “stretch to bid when partner opens 1♣ or 1◆ no matter how weak weak your hand”. I have found success lately in applying this rule even when my RHO overcalls, as long as I have extra length.

F

F

E

R

A

T

A

Hand 2 ♠Kxxxx

❤xx

◆xx

♣xxxx

On this hand I was actually playing with Dave Colbert so I could hardly fail to take action. Both vulnerable vul nerable

Partner RHO 1♣ 1◆ 3♣1 4❤ All Pass

You 1♠ 5♣

LHO 2❤ 5◆

Hand 1 ♠J109xxx ❤xxx

Partner 1♣ 4NT 5❤

RHO 1❤ Pass Pass

◆xx

You 1♠ 5◆ ??

♣10x

LHO 3❤ Pass

Partner’s hand was: ❤x

◆AJx

The opponents believed our bidding and missed a pretty good slam. Hand 3 (Mike falls from grace) ♠xxx

Well, you have shown no keycards and partne par tnerr is still sti ll asking ask ing for the queen que en of trumps. Do you have the guts to count jack-sixth jack-si xth as a s the th e same sam e as the queen and bid the very good go od slam? slam ?

♠AKxx

1. We play 3♣ as only competitive in these auctions

♣AKJ9x

❤xxx

◆xxx

♣xxxx

Surely with this hand I can pass a 1 ♣ opening bid as I don't have a major and 1♣ on even a 4-3 rates to be our best spot? Wrong again! The opponents kept bidding until they got to a bad but cold vulnerable 4❤. Maybe a 1◆ response with a jump shift to 2♠ by partner would have stopped them. To make matters worse I was again playing with Dave Colbert.


J o h n

G o w d y ' s

T o y

s h o p p e

Drury J

O

H

N

D

ouglas A. Drury ranks among the all-time best Canadian players, but it is for the convention named after him that he is best remembered today. Legend has it that the Drury convention grew out of his partnership with a young lawyer, Eric Murray, whose imaginative third-chair openings seemed too frequently to result in their going for 800 at the three-level. The Drury convention allowed them to end the auction at the two-level, and he found the consequent 500 numbers much more palatable. At any rate, it is clear that Drury is a Canadian invention, and if for no other reason than that, we should all be playing it. Drury, Drury, 90’s 90’s style

Over partner’s third or fourth chair major suit opening, your 2♣ response is artificial. It says “I fit your major (which is not the way Drury originally played it) and I have a good passed hand. What do you think?” If opener rebids his suit, he denies game interest. Any other bid is either neutral or a move towards game or slam.

1♠ ? 2◆ 2❤

Pass 2♣

Not a bad hand -- game game or slam is possible. Natural, game-forcing. game-forcing.

G

O

W

D

Y

The worst; carry on at your own risk, and only with an excellent hand. 2NT Artificial; asks responder to show a singleton. Natural, game-forcing. 3♣ 3◆/3❤ 5-5, good hand; slam is a real possibility. Solid (missing at most, one 3♠ top honour) 6-card suit, no shortness -- 6322, offering notrumps as a possible spot. 3NT 5332, 15-17 points; responder may pass. One of the keys here is that a 2NT bid by either partner partner asks for for shortness. This bid allows either partner to look for the perfect fit, and stay low if it is not there. More advanced proponents of Drury play that 2♣ shows three-card trump sup port, while while 2◆ promises four. Rebids by opener and further responses are the same, but opener has the option of shooting game opposite a four-card raise without telling the defence anything. 2♠

A few last thoughts thoughts

As the natural 2♣ response is now lost, I play that 2NT by a passed passed hand over partpartner’s major shows 9-11 points with six clubs: this hand would normally bid 2♣ and then 3♣ if Drury had not removed that option. If you play against Drury, you should treat the 2 ♣ bid as a spade raise, and play a direct double of Drury as takeout of spades:

Pass 2♣

Pass Dbl.

1♠

Pass

This gets you in with a three-suiter; most people people play play this this double double as showing showing clubs, clubs, which is not nearly so effective.

June 1993

The Guru lucks out M

I

K

E ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

D

O

AKJ65 A4 AK1064 K

Y

ou hold the above hand in a Jackpot ($700+) pairs game, with neither side vulnerable, and after two passes you open 1 ♠ . With the opponents opponents silent, silent, partner part ner bids 1NT (semi-f (sem i-forci orcing ng after aft er a third-chair opener). You rebid 3 ◆ , game-forcing, and partner bids 3 ♠ , which you play as a better hand than 4 ♠ would imply. Over Blackwood, partner shows you the missing bullet, the ♠Q, and the ❤K. The only problem now is whether his diamonds are better than Jxx. Maybe you have a way of discerning this; then again, maybe you don’t. don’t. And depending on whether you play 1430 or 0314 responses to Keycard, you may still have room to find out or you may already be at 6 ❤. If you could have bid Serious 3NT over partner's 3 ♠ bid, you might have been able to find f ind out about the ♣A and the ❤K early, and still have room to explore the diamond situation. Like most of us, however, you are probably now at the six-level having to guess whether partner has a suitable diamond holding. So -- do you go or do you not? Seven hundred bucks rests on your decision. This was the problem that faced the Guru -- Michael Neagu, the young Romanian star now living in Vancouver. Vancouver. He was playing with Felipe Hernandez, another fast-rising bridge luminary, luminary, and their strong-club auction clearly defined everything by the four-level. Then the wheels came off after an ambiguous 4NT. 4NT. Left with a guess (and probably

R

N

W

I

S

S

with an eye on the Wiss-Neagu non power grand gr and slam track record, re cord, zero z ero for infinity) Michael decided to settle for six, reasoning that if accurate card play produced an overtrick, overtri ck, the score would be good enough. How right he was. Sort of. The ❤2 was led, and this dummy was tabled: North ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

Q92 K98653 3 A104 Silver

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AKJ65 A4 AK1064 K

(We (We don’t don’t think a non-forcing non-f orcing 1NT would woul d be everyone’s everyone’s choice over 1♠ on North’ North ’s hand. Ed.) When Felipe gave me this hand, he asked me how I would play it on a club lead. It seemed seemed fairly simple: win the king, play the ◆A, ruff a diamond, ❤A, another diamond ruff, ♠Q, pitch a diamond on the ♣A, ruff a club to hand, pull trumps tr umps and claim. OK, says Felipe, how about on a heart lead? Same thing, I say, say, only now the ♣K replaces the ❤A as an entry. As long as neither major breaks 5-0, I’m home. Right, says Felipe, but the Guru sees little artistry in such pedestrian play. After playing pla ying low from fr om dummy at trick one and winning the East's ❤J, Michael was sure that hearts were 4-1. He played the ace and queen of trumps, and the ♠10 fell on his right. A heart to the king brought a minor suit


pitch, pitch , and confirmed confi rmed that East was 2-1 in the majors. The Guru had now end playe pl ayed d himse hi mself lf into int o squee sq ueezin zing g his op ponents. ponents . A heart ruff high was followed by a trump to the nine. Another heart was ruffed with the last trump, the ♣K was overtaken with the ace, and the dummy’s last two hearts were played off. Righty, with five diamonds and five clubs to the queen, jack, was history. history. Of course, Michael was lucky West didn’t hold one of the club honours, but it’s best to be good and lucky! Plus 1010 was worth, surprisingly, 7 out of 8 matchpoints. It seems only one pair had bid the grand, and had scored all 8 matchpoints -- no doubt on a similar line of play to mine. mine. The entire remainder of the field opened the North hand with a weak 2 ❤! They received their just desserts for a sloppy and un-

disciplined first seat “modern” preempt when they reached 6 ❤, which could only make twelve tricks. Did I say something about the Guru being lucky? Well, he and and Felipe Felipe stroked a 135-1/2 on a 108 average, but the winning score was 136! Had they bid the grand, the extra one-half matchpoint would have gained them about $740! Well, for fifteen hundred bucks a matchpoint, yours truly will give up IMP’s forever!






June 1993

In the zone... R

A

Y

J

A

O

fter not having played a card in earnest for eleven years, I was most surprised when last fall I received a call from Irving Litvack to come out, remove the accumulated rust, and participate in the 1995 CNTC with partners to be named later. I accepted the invitation with alacrity and misgivings, and we soon formed a team with John Gowdy, Marty Kirr, and Roy Dalton. Arriving in the Zone Final, I knew things were going to be interesting when, on the first board of the event, Irving psyched. psyched. Although the the opponents got to the right spot for a push, the tone had been set. This hand from the same match was fun to defend: North ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

A85 A10653 AQ5 62

❤ ◆ ♣

East

Q1092 Q9842 --AK85

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

KJ KJ7 KJ10742 Q9

South ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

North

East

Irving

1❤ Pass

7643 --9863 J10743

South

West

Ray

2◆ 3NT

C

Pass All Pass

2NT

A

M

❤---

◆10743

♣KJ6532

and heard Irving open 1 ❤. Since we play a forcing club system I knew it was likely to be the opponents’ hand, hand, so I bid 2 ♣ to advertise my strength to the world. The world ignored me, as usual, and the opponents casually bid to 6 ❤, making all thirteen tricks! Irving had psyched his best bes t suit -- - four to the nine; n ine; our partners had a much easier time, and bid the grand. Two losses followed, as well as two small wins, so Round 7 was a match we had to win. Win it we did, principally on one hand. I picked up ♠KQ986432

❤KJ8

◆82

♣---

and opened 4♠ as dealer. dealer. Irving raised to 6 ♠ holding ♠AJ

Irving led a low spade, declarer played low from dummy -- and he was now

H

dead! Watch what followed. Declarer won the ♠Q in his hand, and led a low heart, finessing when Irving played low. He now played in turn the ❤K, the ❤J, and the ♠K, all in turn ducked by Irving, while I played low spades at every op portunity. Now came the ◆K, on which he discarded a club from hand. Irving won the ◆A, and exited a club to declarer’s hand. The ♠ 10 was won by Irving, who got out a club again, this time to dummy. The ◆J went to Irving now, who cashed his ❤ A, and put dummy in with a diamond, allowing me to take the setting trick with the ◆9. Thanks, pard! Our next match was fairly quiet, but Round 3 provided provi ded some fireworks firew orks.. Again on the first board, white against red, I held ♠863

West ♠

T

❤743

◆AQJ964 ♣A4

On a heart lead, with spades 2-1 and diamonds 3-2, the hand was easy.


Our next match was also a mustwin, and another slam made up most of our margin of victory. I held ♠AK105

❤A64

◆QJ96

♣Q10

Irving opened 1◆, to which I responded 1 ♠ . Irving rebid 2 ♣, denying 3-card spade support. I bid 2❤, fourth-suit and game-forcing, and Irving’s 2♠ showed some kind of fit. I set the suit with 3◆, Irving bid 3❤, and I was now in a quandary. dary. The only things I knew for sure were that Irving had two spades, four plus plu s diamon dia monds, ds, and four-pl fou r-plus us clubs; clu bs; I had no idea idea how strong strong his hand was. I tried him out by bidding 3 ♠, giving him a last chance at 3NT, but when he bid 4♣ I couldn’t restrain myself from bidding the diamond slam. He groaned a little when I put the dummy down, but set about his business.

He won the diamond lead in dummy, and crossed back to his hand with another trump, both opponents following. A club towards dummy was won by the king on his left. Now he won the spade switch with the ace, cashed the ♣Q and the ♠A, and ruffed a spade in hand as RHO showed out. The ♣J failed to fall under the ♣A, so a club was ruffed in dummy and Irving proceeded to run off his remaining diamonds, squeezing LHO between the ❤K and the high spades. We played a tough final day against four of the top six teams in the standings, but won a number of close ones to finish the event in third place, and qualify for the national final. My impressions? It was fun to participate as a playe pl ayerr again aga in after af ter direc di recti ting ng this th is event eve nt five of the last eight years. In fact, I may even do it again!

North ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

AK105 A64 QJ96 Q10

West ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

East

QJ762 K975 82 K2

♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

83 J1083 105 J8753

South ♠ ❤ ◆ ♣

94 Q2 AK743 A964

June 1993

A history history of conventions (part 1) T

H

O

M

A

S

T

M.

he game of whist existed for 175 or more years without serious competition from similar card games. For the most part, a trump suit was determined by the last card dealt to the dealer, and it was up to him and his partner to make the best of it even though the defenders often held more high cards and longer trumps. Since bidding was non-existent, the first convention employed was a highlow signal used while following to the suit partner led, asking for a trump switch. This was known as as a “peter” (after the “Blue Peter” naval signal flag), and is still of course in use today, although for different purposes. British player pla yerss still sti ll use the term ter m “peter “pe ter”” for a defensive high-low, while North Americans call it an “echo”. The invention of this signal is attributed to Henry Bentinck (1801-1870). Although not really conventions, a number of special plays were discovered during this early period of whist. One was the Bath Coup, named after the English resort town; Guillau me Deschapelles, a master of chess and billiards as well as whist, discovered the defensive coup that bears his name. The next innovation was the codification of opening leads, which soon led to the adoption of “fourth best” from a long suit. Robert Fredrick Foster is reputed to have deduced the “Rule of Eleven” in 1880-81, and an account of it was first published in his “Whist Manual” of 1890. It was during the 1890’s in England that the first elements of bidding were introduced, although the exact origin is

G

O

R

D

A

I

N

E

R

unknown. A 1908 book (“Bridge and how to play it”) stated that the auction princi pri nciple ple had been bee n kno known wn in the USA for fifteen years, and familiar to Eastern Europe and Asia Minor for fifty. The exposed dummy, options for determining trumps, bonuses for game and slam, and the introduction of doubles and redoubles were all innovations made about this period. It was soon discovered that doubles could have uses other than the obvious. The 1908 book described a “Heart Convention”, whereby a double of a notrump contract asked for a heart lead. Players soon realized that doubling a low-level contract would seldom result in a good score, so over an opponent's opening bid a double was used conventionally to ask partner to bid his best suit -- the “takeout” double as we still know it today. A 1918 British book, “Royal Auction Bridge”, lists a number of play conventions in use at that time. These included the lead of the king from aceking (and the ace from ace-king doubleton). There were also a number of uses for the echo: typically to ask for a ruff, or to ask for a switch if the first card were unnecessarily unnecessarily high. An echo on opening lead at notrumps showed four or more of that suit, and when declarer ran trumps, an echo in a suit allowed partner to discard dis card all of that suit. A number of radicals were experimenting with their own bidding systems, too. Among them was Harold S. Vanderbilt, the man who changed auction to contract by inventing vulnerability, and who first used a 1♣ opening to show a hand with 16 or more points regardless of the club holding. holding. He never promoted the system, however, and the idea was soon forgotten.


Baby keycard P

B

A

U

L

R

aby Blackwood (3NT instead of 4NT) is an old convention that isn’t used very often any more. How ever, ev er, playing playin g a forcing forcin g 1NT, you can always reach 3NT with a balanced hand after a major suit opening bid (bid 1NT and then 3NT over opener’s rebid), so there is little point in using a direct 3NT to show this type of hand. Some partnerships use 3NT as a part of their major suit raise structure; in my view, view, a better use is as Keycard Blackwood (opener’s suit is the key suit). When is this useful? More importantly, tantly, when is it not useful? First, you can’t use it with a void. I repeat, you can’t use it with a void. And you shouldn’t use it with a balanced opener, or with a rock-crusher opposite partner’ partner ’s sound opening bid (doesn’t your partner always have sound opening bids?): there are better ways to bid these hands in 2/1. Ideally, you’ll have at most 15 points, with three-card thr ee-card trump support supp ort or your own solid suit, and it will be im portant to you to know about the king of partner ’s suit. There are ar e times when all you want to know is how good a suit opener has, either for trump control or as a source of tricks at notrumps. Keycard obviously allows you to elicit this information, including enquiring about the queen of partner’s partner’s suit. suit. There are many 11-15 point distributional hands that can make slam if opener has the perfect cards, but where the fivelevel will be dangerous if he does not. Baby Blackwood lets you explore these possibilities possibi lities at the four-level. four-level . In more standard methods, there are also cases where a complex auction can lead to ambiguity as to the key suit;

E

D

V

E

R

S

for example, do you have an agreement about the key suit in sequence such as

1♠ 3◆ 4♣ 4NT

2◆ 3❤ 4♠

There would be no such problem if the auction had gone 1� - 3NT. Notice that the use of this t his convention does not necessarily mean that the final contract will be in opener’s suit. Responder will set the final contract, which could easily be notrumps, or even his own suit. Responses to 3NT will be familiar to anyone who has played standard Keycard: 0 or 3 keycards 4♣ 1 keycard (if you need 4◆ opener to have 4, you are probably too high already) already) 2 keycards, no trump queen 4❤ 2 keycards with the trump 4♠ queen With a void, opener bids the void suit at the five level (or bids 5 ❤ with a spade void if hearts is the key suit). With no further slam interest, responder can sign off at the four-level in opener’s suit. Over the ambiguous 4♣, responder cue-bids his cheapest ace below game if he has one, or signs off in opener’s suit if no lower cue-bid is available to him. Opener can then, with three three keycards, cue-bid his cheapest ace even if that goes past game (don’t bid 3NT if three keycards aren’t enough for you!). Other second bids by responder can start a more complex, co-operative auction.

June 1993

4 or 5 of a new suit

1. 0 or 3 keycards 2. No red ace 3. 3 keycards, ♠A, and continued slam interest despite partner’s lack of red suit controls. 4. ♣A and renewed interest. 5. ❤A, no ◆A. 6. The missing keycard is the ◆A, so slam is good bet.

Cue-bid of cheapest ace, showing slam interest, and asking opener to cue-bid his own cheapest ace. You can include the trump ace in this system: opener’s rebid of his own suit denies any by passed ace and also the trump ace, while the cheapest notrump rebid shows the trump ace.

This is not the only method that can reach 6♠ on these cards, of course, but it has the virtue of being fairly simple, and, in my view, of making use of a bid (3NT) that is not needed for anything else. It is especially valuable in that it allows you to make mild slam explorations without having to go past game and endanger your plus.

For example: 4NT (over any response)

To play: opener must pass. Responder had his own source of tricks, and never intended to play in opener’ opener ’s suit.

6 or 7 of a new suit

This (directly over opener’ opener ’s response to 3NT) is for for play. play. Opener has some some conversion rights (to notrump with a solid suit and undisclosed features, for example) but he’d better be right!

West ♠ AKJxxx ❤ Axxx ◆ x ♣ xx

East ♠ Qxx ❤ x ◆ Qxx ♣ AKQJxx

1♠ 4♣1 4NT3 5❤5

3NT 4♠2 5♣4 6♠6


f o r

f u T u r e

e x p e r T s

Conventional wisdom B

A

R

B

M

A

R

A

any milestones mark the path of bridge players emerging from the “nervous novice” stage. One of the more interesting turning points comes when the realization dawns that “conventions” are not just gatherings of large numbers of like-minded people wearing funny hats, but that in the world of bridge, they have a meaning meaning all their own! And while adopting the latest trendy convention seems harmless and easy enough, learning all the nuances and deciding which conventions to play are among the most perplexing issues with which a bridge player ever has to deal. To help you develop some “conventional wisdom”, this article will set out some questions which, as you answer them, will help you and your partner decide which conventions are right for your game. Let’s start by defining what a convention is (when you’re not attending one!). Simply put, a convention is any bid that, by agreement and not by inference, gives or asks for information that has nothing to do with the denomination you are are actually actually bidding. bidding. Stayman, that old friend to players of all levels, is an excellent example example of a convention: when we bid 2♣, we do it for the purpose of asking our notrump-bidding partner whether they have a four-card major. The 2♣ bid has nothing to do with the club suit at all! In fact, many of the familiar familiar weapons in our bridge arsenal are conventions, among them the takeout double, the Unusual Notrump, Blackwood, and Gerber.

S

E

A

G

R

A

M

So how do you go about expanding that arsenal? A good starting point point is to take a long hard look at what you know already. Are there particular types of hands or bidding situations that consistently give you and your partner problems? Sometimes, this problem can be solved by gaining a better understanding of your basic system; sometimes, the problem problem is better solved by adding adding a conconvention. Say, Say, for example, that you are missing a lot of slams that other pairs in your level of game are reaching. Is it be b e c a u s e y o u d o n ’ t p l a y E x c l u s i o n Blackwood, or is it that you don’t know a cue-bid from a cue ball? Get the answer to these questions first and you will find yourself adopting conventions because they add clarity and understanding to your game, not just because “everyone” is playing them. When you do add conventions, add one or two at a time, and give each of them a reasonable trial period. Remember, Remember, the right circumstances for a given convention may not come up every session. And remember too that disasters are part of the learning curve. Don’t throw out the convention with the convention card just because you landed in an inferior contract the first time you used it. Who among us has not suffered suffered the agonies of being passed in a splinter bid, for example? example? Remember, Remember, too, that addadding a lot of new dimensions to your game may do a very nice job of filling in spaces on your card, but may add to partnership confusion en route! Using only a small group of conventions that you both understand thoroughly and have mas¬tered will serve you better in the long run than overkill.

June 1993

Last, but certainly not least, do your homework before adding a convention to your card. Among the worst worst crimes comcommitted in the name of progress is agreeing to play a convention after getting a oneor two-sentence two-sentence explanation. explanation. Almost as bad is agree agreeing ing to play somethin something g witho without ut really understanding it, because you think you’ll look unsophisticated if you don’t! Before you and your partner add a convention, make sure you understand what natural bids you are giving up. And do some research. Read a book that explains not only how your prospective new weapon works, but gives examples of its use. And don’t forget those invaluable sources of information closer to home -ask a player who is better than you, and whose bridge bridge you respect, what convenconventions they commonly play. play. Ask your favourite director or bridge teacher for advice. Read the articles in Canadian Master Point or the ACBL Bulletin. Bulletin. Follow this simple plan as you ex pand your your knowledge, knowledge, and and you’ll you’ll be well well on the way to “conventional wisdom”!







Book Reviews Thinking About IMP's by John Boeder. Devyn Press. Press. $18.95. 269 pages, paperback. Reviewed by Linda Lee. Lee.

T

his is a book designed for what has recently been called the “advancing player” -- someone who has learned the basics of the game and is starting starting to play more competitive bridge. More advanced players play ers who want to do a thorough thor ough review of the basics would also benefit. The true expert player, however, however, will find less of interest in this book since very few "brand new concepts" are introduced. What the book does well is to provide a very well-organized well-organized and thorough review of the strategy, strategy, tactics, and special considerations of playing IMP’s, with a special focus focus on bidding. bidding. In each section, section, the author looks at the mathematics of the situation and divides the problem into all its components. He provides analysis, suggestions and examples of each, discusses some of the things that you and your partner should work out in advance to make life easier, and then finally provides counter-measures that the opposition can use. Let’s Let’s take the chapter on slams as an example. First Boeder considers the thought-provoking question -- what should we be doing in a slam auction? He then looks at the nature of slams that are hard to reach (but you wish you had) and those that are easy to reach (but you wish you hadn't) and so on. One interesting part of this chapter for me is grand slams -- a subject about which I have a strong opinion. He looks at the mathematics and points out that a pair that bids a grand when opponents stop in game is risking twenty-nine IMP’s to gain three; however despite this “truly chilling mathematics”, he also suggests that bidding a

grand can sometimes be right even when you can't count thirteen tricks. ( Caveat lector. Ed.) What are some of your other favourite IMP’s IMP’s topics? They are bound bound to be here. If you have a question about about IMP strategy, it’s probably answered in this book. There is an entire chapter chapter on dou bling, including a discussion on when it is right to double a part-score, when should you double a game, when are doubles for penalties, etc. etc. There is even an entire chapter on opening leads against slams! As you read, you should remember what the author says in the introduction -- nobody is going to agree with all the ideas in this book. book. That’s That’s part of the fun of IMP’s. IMP’s. John Boeder has done a good job of listing list ing the issues, issu es, and over time you will want to make up your own mind as to what is right. How to Play Card Combinations by Press. $17.95. Mike Lawrence. Devyn Press. 227 pages, paperback. Reviewed by Linda Lee. Lee.

M

ike Lawrence is an author who can usually be relied on to give his readers their money’s money’s worth. This book was originally published a few years ago, but I recent rec ently ly had the goo good d fortun for tunee to receive a copy and thought that it was worth reviewing for those who hadn't yet had a chance to read it. The book starts with a rule that both declarers and defenders should take to heart -- it is better for you if opponents break br eak a suit sui t than th an if you have ha ve to do so yourself. Lawrence then takes seven different card combinations and through a series of example hands thoroughly dissects the different ways that each one can come into play. play. This may involve its acting as a guard in a notrump contract, your

June 1993

using it to engineer an end-play in a suit contract, or your attacking the suit for the most tricks based on the play of the hand to that point. Consider the combination J103 op posite A42. In the first example, this is the stopper in your weak suit in a 3NT; the opening lead is the king through dummy’s A42. Your natural instinct would be to win the ace in dummy, but Lawrence now demonstrates the value of ducking to guard against a 5-2 break break in this suit. In the second example, you must play the suit yourself for two winners. He walks through all the possible card layouts which allow you to play the suit for two winners and then in the hand shows you how he selects the winning line. In the particular particular example, example, he plays for Qx or or Kx over the A42. He therefore leads the two to the jack, losing to an honour, honour, and then plays low to the ace dropping the other honour.

The best thing about the book is its entertaining style: this is learning made painles pai nless. s. You bid and play pla y a series ser ies of hands while Lawrence guides you through, explaining his reasoning as the hand demonstrates the play point he is trying to make. This book is geared at the intermediate player who is trying to improve his play, but would be useful and enjoyable for more advanced players too.


CMP_1995_Jul

Recommend Documents