October 6th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
1 Comment 
Round 7 saw two of the heavyweights meeting – Germany and the Netherlands, both teams well stocked with former world champions. Just as in the match I reported yesterday, the fireworks began on Board 1.
North
S 42
H K986
D 10765
C 832
South
S AKJ98
H AJ1074
D AJ
C K
Do you open the South hand 1S, or something stronger? Bep Vriend went for 1S, and got to play there. In the other room, Daniela von Arnim’s forcing 1C opening was overcalled 1D. Two rounds later she got back in with a 3D cuebid, and Sabine Auken jumped to the cold 4H. A very fast 8 IMPs to Germany.
These days, it seems that anything looks like an opening bid, especially in third chair. Perhaps it was this knowledge that led both East-West pairs to miss a makeable game on the next board.
West East
S A1074 S J653
H 4 H QJ108
D KQ4 D A106
C A6532 C QJ
Both Wests opened 1C in third seat. In the Open Room Auken overcalled 1H and the Dutch East made a negative double. She then rebid a conservative 1NT over her partner’s 1S, and passed when West rebid 2S. In the Closed Room the auction was similar, except for Germany’s Gromann choosing a conservative 2S on the second round as East – perhaps discounting the soft heart values, perhaps allowing for a light opening. In any event, neither declarer came to more than 9 tricks – making more requires guessing North’s doubleton SQ.
West East
S AK765 S QJ2
H QJ107 H A842
D — D AK952
C Q754 C K
No swing there, but IMPs were flying again on Board 3. Gromann bid a simple Jacoby 2NT over Nehmert’s 1S opening, and drove to slam despite hearing her partner describe a diamond void. The HK was onside, and all was well. The Dutch unluckily bid the hand better, in that they located the 4-4 heart fit. Having agreed hearts, they discovered that two keycards were missing and stayed out of slam to lose 13 IMPs.
Board 4 saw the Dutch get on the scoreboard when Sabine Auken made the (for her) rare error of bidding the same cards twice (a sin warned against in Neil Kimelman’s recent book, Improve Your Bidding Judgment). Holding
S J109842 H 10 D AK6 C 842
she made a weak 2S overcall over a 1D opening on her right. LHO doubled, and partner bid 3C, presumably implying some kind of spade fit. When RHO ventured 3H, Auken was right there with 3S. In itself that wasn’t a tragedy, as she duly made 9 tricks for +140. However, in the other room Arnolds passed, and Pony Nehmert was left to languish in 3H, finishing a miserable four down vulnerable for a 6-IMP gain to the Netherlands.
Board 5: another 2 IMPs went to Germany when they played in spades, making 9 tricks, while the Dutch settled in 1NT for +90. Board 6 was a tricky 3NT, played virtually card for card the same way at each table, with neither declarer quite being able to bring it home. Board 7 underlined my earlier point about light openings. Both Wests opened in first chair vulnerable with
S KQ83 H — D 10763 C KQJ104
and partner drove to 3NT in each case, with a balanced 12-count. Having all the 10’s helped, and the very subtle defence to beat this game was not found at either table (Chip Martel in the commentator’s role on BBO did point it out, however). Proving yet again that it pays to bid aggressive games, since defence is so hard.
Boards 8 and 9 were routine games, bid and made at both tables, leaving Germany 16 ahead. On Board 10 both North players ended in 2H after a Multi 2D opening by South. The defense began the same way at both tables, but the Dutch declarer allowed her vital spade entry to hand to be knocked out at Trick1, while Auken didn’t. When Auken’s defenders slipped later in the play, she was able to use that entry to come to eight tricks and pick up 5 more IMPs.
The more aggressive Germans picked up another 5 IMPs on the next deal. The South hand was S K432 H AKQ54 DQ832 C — and the auction started the same way in both rooms: 1H-P-1NT-dbl. Bep Vriend for the Netherlands simply rebid 2D, and they ended in 3D making 9 tricks. Von Arnim, protected by her 1H opening being limited, redoubled. East-West found their 4-4 club fit, but North’s clubs were AKJ64, and 2C doubled went for 300.
Board 14 was interesting.
North
S 7
H 9754
D Q65
C K5432
West East
S 1083 S Q94
H KQ3 H AJ10
D 10 D AJ732
C QJ10987 C A6
South
S AKJ652
H 862
D K984
C —
Both Easts opened 1NT, and effectively both Souths overcalled spades, with the final contract being 3NT. Both Souths started with the ace and king of spades, and then their paths diverged. Bep Vriend continued a third spade, and declarer basically just knocked out the CK to bring home the contract. Von Arnim found the diamond shift at Trick 3, and that was 11 more to Germany, who led by 34 coming in to the last deal.
Board 16 was another partscore battle, and again it was won by Germany, this time in the bidding, East held S 84 H 762 D 987 CAQ974. At both tables West opened 1C and North overcalled 1S. Jet Pasman bid 2C, and von Arnim had no trouble introducing diamonds on S 103 H J95 D AK1063 C J102. North-South competed to 4D, making 10 tricks. Ingrid Gromman, by contrast, chose (or was able) to bid 3C first time round, and that was too rich for Vriend. West had no trouble making 3C, and that added 5 more to the German total, for a comfortable 39-IMP win.
October 5th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
No Comments
With the BBO archive now posted, I can bring you some deals and commentary on the Round 6 Wornen’s match between Canada and Russia. This turned out to be a wild one, and the swings began on Board 1.
The East-West hands were as follows:
West S A 6 H A Q 10 9 4 D K 10 7 4 C 7 4
East S J 10 H 6 5 D Q 9 8 2 C A K Q 9 5
After Chubarova opened the East hand a Kokish-style 1D, and then rebid clubs several times, West probably began dreaming of a diamond slam. The pair quickly got past 3NT, and eventually subsided in 5D. After a spade lead, declarer played 3 rounds of clubs, throwing a spade from dummy. When they all lived, she needed to find the jack of diamonds or have the heart finesse work, and was successful on both counts. In the other room, after 1C-1H; 2C-2D; 3D-3S Fung chose to bid 3NT, which turned out to be the wrong decision. After the inevitable spade lead, even with clubs 3-3, she needed both heart honours onside, and that wasn’t to be. 11 IMPs to Russia. I suppose it depends on what their agreement is regarding 3S, but it seems to me to be unlikely to show more than West actually had. However, if West’s red suits had been H Q10xxx D A K x x, bidding 3NT would have been very right. C’est la vie.
Board 2 was a routine 3NT, where a Russian overtrick increased the lead to 12. Then came another minor-suit auction.
West S K Q 10 9 H Q D A K Q 7 3 C K J 2
East S 5 H A 7 4 D 10 8 6 C 9 8 6 5 4 3
Susan Culham opened the West hand 1D in second chair, red against white, and when it went 1H-pass-2H back to her, made the obvious double. After a pass from North, Fung bid 3C and South backed in again with 3H (I really don’t like this kind of bidding). Culham pushed on to 4C, and Fung. no doubt thinking how much worse her hand might be for the auction, bid on to game. With the trump queen doubleton onside, the play presented few problems.
The Russian West opened a forcing club on these cards, and again doubled after the heart overcall and raise. East bid 2NT over this (presumably some kind of Lebensohl-type negative), and West made her first natural call — 3D. East raised to 4D, but perhaps this showed little enthusiasm, for that’s where they played it, making 11 tricks and losing 10 IMPs. Curious that East-West failed to locate their nine-card fit here.
The gap was now only 2 IMPs, but that did not survive the next board. This time the North-South pairs were in the spotlight:
North S K 8 7 2 H K 5 D A K 7 2 C K 8 7
South S A H A Q 6 4 D J 10 3 C A 10 9 6 4
In the Open Room, the Canadian pair got to 6C from the North hand after a 1NT opening and a transfer auction, and Pascale Gaudreault received a diamond lead which went to the jack, queen and ace. The hand probably looked too simple now, and she played a club to the ace, getting a rude awakening when West showed out on this trick. In the Closed Room, Ponomareva played 6C from the South hand, also on a diamond lead. She won the ace and cashed the king of clubs, getting the bad news. However, the club spots are more than good enough for her to survive, and she did so. She ran the C7 (East not splitting), then played a third club to the queen and ace. Drawing trumps and playing off some top cards pressured West into releasing diamonds, and the queen popped up when declarer eventually led the jack from hand towards dummy. 16 big IMPs to Russia, and the lead was now 18.
The match now settled down to small exchanges of an IMP here and there, the only significant swing being on Board 27.
West held S A 9 8 6 5 2 H Q 5 3 D 3 C Q J 6
Neither vul., South opened 1H at both tables. In the Open Room, Culham for Canada chose to overcall 2S (not my cup of tea with poor spades and defense outside). Partner gave her a courtesy raise and eventually they defended 4D. This could and should have been defeated, but the Canadian pair fell from grace and let it through. At the other table, Vorobeychi made the (IMHO) superior call of 1S over 1H, and East-West were well on their way to a making 4S. However, Lacroix and Gaudreault bid on to 5D, and escaped for down two undoubled, and a loss of only 6 IMPs.
With two boards to play, Russia had what looked like a comfortable 24-IMP lead. However, on Board 31 Lacroix and Gaudreault bid a very pushy 3NT, which needed an incredibly fortuitous lie of the cards to make, and it was all there. That regained 10 IMPs when the Russians stopped in partscore, and the deficit was now only 14. And Board 32 was just the kind of bizarre layout Canada must have been hoping for:
North S K J 10 7 H A 9 D J 8 6 5 C K 10 9
West S — H K Q J 10 6 2 D A K 2 C Q J 7 2
East S 3 H 5 D Q 9 7 4 3 C A 8 6 5 4 3
South S A Q 9 8 6 5 4 2 H 8 7 4 3 D 10 C —
The bidding in both rooms was as bizarre as the deal itself. East-West were vulnerable, and Vorobeychi in the Open Room opened 1H on the West cards. North doubled, East passed, and Lacroix made the practical call of 4S on the South hand. Now West doubled again — surely intended for takeout, but I would have thought 4NT would have served that purpose better. East clearly thought it was for penalties, for nothing else explains her pass — if it’s card-showing, she has an easy pull to 4NT, or even 5NT. West led a heart (what ever happened to Barry Crane’s dictum that if you have an AK you don’t have a lead problem?). Declarer won this, drew the trump, and eventually when she led a club off dummy East popped ace, and Lacroix chalked up two overtricks.
The Closed Room auction was even more strange. After the same start (1H-dbl) Kizmet Fung bid 1NT as East. Perhaps she had several minor-suit cards mixed in with her majors — I can’t think of any other explanation for this call. South bid 4S, and Culham, possibly expecting some kind of balanced hand with scattered values opposite, bid on to 5H. I have no idea if the Russians thought they were in a forcing auction (although I can’t imagine why they would), but when this was passed around to South, Ponomareva doubled. There must be some rule about not defending when you hold an 8-card suit for which partner has promised support, but if there is, this pair weren’t aware of it. Partner failed to find the club lead that would at least have brought them a plus score, and saved 3-4 IMPs. One club and one heart trick later, the Canadians had made a doubled game in both rooms, scoring up 17 IMPs on this last deal to emerge ahead by 3.
I imagine captain John Rayner must have needed an extra glass of wine or two at dinner after watching that one!
October 5th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
No Comments
I had planned to post daily blogs on the Women’s event, but there seem to be computer problems in Beijing. Swan Games, usually the best place to watch or look up match archives, has no feed whatsoever. BBO carries only 4 matches or so in each round, and the archives from last night have only Round 4 recorded. That leaves us the WBF site as the only real source of news There is much promise there — in theory we can get at results board by board and match by match. In theory. In fact, we can access hand records, match scores, and standings. The detailed play by play is also promised, but not yet available. This was a feature that was implemented last year in Shanghai, about half way through the event, and was a wonderful bonus to team captains. It’s disappointing that we’re not seeing it from Beijing yet.
So while I was hoping to be able to comment on some of the actual bridge, I am reduced to pontificating on the results so far, and the standings. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
In Group E, the Q spots are currently occupied by England, USA, Italy, Hong Kong and Lithuania. The first three are no surprise, and I suspect Hong Kong may soon start slipping down the table, as they have yet to encounter any really serious opposition. I called the first three to be there in the KO phase, along with Brazil and Egypt. These latter two are mid-table, well within striking distance. So no real upsets here yet.
Similarly, it will raise no eyebrows to see Spain, China, Russia and Finland occupying 4 of the top 5 spots in Group F. To see Venezuela in third is unexpected, but they are not there cheaply — they have played Spain and two mid-table opponents. Canada had a tough draw in the first two days, but even allowing for that one win and two ties out of six matches is probably a worse start than they hoped for. Being 30 VPs away from a Q spot playing a VP scale that makes it difficult to pick up points really fast may already have left them too much to do. However, as last year’s performance in Shanghai showed, it is possible to come back from this kind of start. It’s going to be up captain John Rayner to field the right lineups and to keep morale up — perhaps the most critical factor. Tomorrow will tell the tale — all three opponents are in the bottom half of the field, and nothing less than three decent wins will be needed to launch any kind of comeback. Indeed, given that Spain and Venezuela await them on Day 4, I’d say tomorrow has to be a 70-VP day.
Group F is less even than most, but that may change soon. The top 5 here have established about a half match separation from the rest of the group. However, leaders Hungary have yet to encounter any opponent more than barely in the top half of the field, so may come down to earth shortly. Meanwhile, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, as expected, are cruising comfortably. Singapore knocked off Sweden in the first round, and are 6-0, so look well deserving of their current third spot. Maybe they are the surprise team this year (there is always at least one!).
If any bridge actually appears on the Internet, I’ll post again later today. If not, expect another round-up tomorrow, as results become available.
September 23rd, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
3 Comments
Stacy Jacobs (otherwise quite an interesting blogger) really can’t resist taking a swing at me, can she? OKay, I admit I screwed up — another whoops, I’ve now edited the previous blog so that it properly refers to this year’s world bridge competitions as Olympiads (although with the WMSG happening, I’m not sure that’s their correct title). They certainly are not the BB and VC, which take place in odd years only. My bad.
Stacy took exception, however, to my remark about the fortuitously comfortable number of entries — not sure why, but she seems to feel I’m getting at somebody, and taking it very personally. All I meant was that it’s very convenient for the WBF to have nice even numbers of teams, and I wondered whether they had ‘encouraged’ some of the smaller countries to send a team to make up the numbers.
I haven’t responded before, but this sniping at me by Ms. Jacobs has been going on since I wrote a blog a year ago from Shanghai about playing sponsors, and mentioned her husband George. She describes that as ‘ignorant’. Well, if it’s rude (that sense of ignorant, which I assume is what she means) to speak your mind, I plead guilty. Along with many others, I find the ‘playing sponsor’ system in bridge distasteful, while recognizing its probable necessity. I’m not saying these nice folks are bad players — indeed some of them are quite good — just that they’re in almost all cases not world-class. How would those who watched the Ryder Cup last week feel if the first foursome had included some 4-handicapper who was funding the US team? That’s almost always the situation in bridge, and I think it’s a pity that world events aren’t contested among teams of the very best players. That’s all. Sorry, Stacy, I’m unrepentant, and if the truth hurts, too bad.
Let me once again point out the shining example of the right kind of sponsorship — Mrs. Lavazza, the non-playing sponsor of a series of very successful Italian teams. These guys have won a lot, partly because they are all world-class players, and partly because they have a huge advantage over any US team they face: they’re not carrying a client.
September 20th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
3 Comments
There is a curiously even number of teams contesting this year’s Bridge Olympiad Competitions. The 72 Open teams divided neatly into 4 sections of 18, while there are 54 women’s teams in three sections of 18. I can’t help feeling that the organizers somehow influenced the entries here — that’s just too convenient a set of numbers to have happened by chance!
Anyway, the net is that since both fields are being reduced in the round robin stages to 16 for the KO phase, it’s easier to get through in the Venice Cup than in the Bermuda Bowl. Linda’s been forecasting the Bermuda Bowl qualifiers, and my self-appointed task here is to apply the same crystal ball to the Venice Cup.
Actually, it’s not that easy a chore, partly because there are fewer standout women’s teams, and partly because more qualify. However, if you look at the teams with experience, and factor in the results from the last few world events as well as the recent European Championships, certain things do begin to emerge.
Let’s start with Group E, where USA will be the overwhelming favorites. The same six Italian women just came off a silver-medal performance in Pau, so it’s not hard to pick them as a qualifier. The England team disappointed in Pau, but this is a stronger squad with Nicola Smith and Sally Brock back in the lineup, and they should have more than enough class to make the top five. Hong Kong is something of an unknown quantity, and could certainly turn out to be tough. Other than that, I would expect the other two qualifiers to come from Brazil (usually solid if unspectacular), Japan (who have struggled for consistency in the last few world events), Egypt (whose anchor pair is enormously experienced, and that counts for a lot), Poland and India (two more countries who have performed well on occasion, but rarely two years in a row). If you force me to pick two, I’ll go for Brazil and Egypt.
Canada is in tough in Group F, especially since this is one of most inexperienced teams we’ve sent to a world event in some time. If we concede first place to France, and second to China, I have to give Spain and Denmark the nod for the next two — Spain took the bronze medals in Pau, while Denmark was a creditable 6th in the same tough field. So if Canada’s going to make it out of this group, it will have to be ahead of Russia (the reigning Olympiad champions from Istanbul, but fallen on hard times since), Argentina (another unspectacular but hard-to-beat team), Finland (not likely, but hard to write off completely) and Australia (not as experienced as some of their recent sides, but always dangerous). And I’m ignoring Indonesia, who are also not necessarily a pushover. So I’m sorry, ladies, but I think this one is just going to be a learning experience. Put me down as picking Russia to grab that fifth qualifying spot.
In the last group, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden look pretty good bets. That leaves two spots to be decided among New Zealand (which started very fast in Shanghai, then faded down the stretch — one more year under their belts could help them overcome that), South Africa, Turkey and Greece. I’ll go for New Zealand and Turkey — surely a country with that many BBO experts must be able to field a decent team 🙂
I think the 16th qualifier (the 6th place team with the best VP ratio) will come from Group E, which seems to me to have more teams against which one can score a blitz. That being the case, I’ll go for Hong Kong, just to hedge my bets as this team may well turn out in reality to be a sneaky way of sending a China 2 to the event.
There are so many permutations after that, I’m not going to go there in detail. But for the winners at this stage, it’s hard to look beyond the usual suspects — USA, China, France, Netherlands, Germany. If someone else is to edge into the medals, for me it would have to be Italy or England.
September 7th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
No Comments
So finally, I come to the book I know you haven’t read, because it hasn’t been published yet — although if you’re as old as I am, you may have come across some of the material in it before.
Frank Vine of Hamilton Ontario, who passed away in 1987 at the early age of 50, was a regular contributor to a number of magazines, including The Bridge World. I remember Frank well as an opponent from those days — he was a tough competitor, and his rather caustic wit probably made him as many enemies as friends. He won the NABC Men’s Pairs in 1969 — until it fell victim to political correctness, this was the strongest event in the annual tournament circuit. But it is Frank Vine the writer who, in my opinion, should not be forgotten.
I am not alone in this view, clearly, since The Bridge World published a short collection of Frank’s work shortly after his death. A proverbial slim volume, it did not achieve wide circulation, and has been out of print for many years. It has, however, been in my mind for some time to publish a more complete collection, and I’m happy to say that North of the Master Solvers’ Club will see the light of day at the end of the month.
It actually wasn’t easy to gather the material. Jeff Rubens was enormously helpful, as always, and sent us an index of TBW issues from which we could begin to track down each article. Tom Dawson lent us the relevant issues for scanning (how nice it is to have someone nearby who owns one of the world’s few complete collections of TBW!). John Carruthers painstakingly culled the pages of the Kibitzer for Frank’s work, and brought a huge pile of magazines over to the office for scanning. And Ron and Ira Vine, Frank’s sons, graciously not only gave permission for the book to go ahead, but wrote us a foreword.
It was a joy to read and reread all this material, to select the best from it, and edit it into the final book. What a good writer Frank Vine was. One of our proofreaders told us he had to go through the pages twice — he was enjoying himself so much, he forgot to do any actual proofreading the first time!
The book falls naturally into three parts. First, the Coldbottom Chronicles, a series of a dozen or so stories featuring Cornelius Coldbottom, a character highly reminiscent of David Silver’s Professor Silver. Using humor as his weapon, Vine skewers the bridge scene, taking aim at issues like committee rulings and cheating, and making his points so subtly and smoothly that the cuts almost don’t hurt. The third part consists of parodies with bridge settings — even The Bridge World is not exempt, and is targeted in articles such as ‘How I challenged the Champs’ and the title piece itself, ‘North of the Master Solvers’ Club’. Perhaps I should explain the latter – the reader (or solver) is always South in the MSC problems. Partner, North, is described as an expert player with whom you have had no system discussion other than ‘Bridge World Standard’. In Frank’s article, he meets the actual person who is North, and listens to him complain bitterly about some of the idiotic bids that the expert panel comes up with…
The middle section of the book we have entitled ‘Comment’. It is a pot-pourri of bridge thoughts and ideas, ranging from technical to current issues (current then and current today, in many instances). Much of the material included in it appeared in local publications, often as a letter to the Editor. It is no less pointed and funny for that. Here’s one short example from this section, including my introduction.
Letter to the Editor
Committees are a curious phenomenon that I believe are unique to bridge. After all, this isn’t a video replay to determine whether a ball or a puck crossed a line – this is a post-mortem examination of suggestions, inferences and motivations, often in situations where the most ethical player in the world has no idea what his rights or responsibilities are. Small wonder that bridge committees have come up with some spectacularly bad decisions. But just because they don’t rule your way doesn’t mean automatically that you got hosed. Here Frank Vine puts on his lawyer’s persona and lets one litigant have it with both barrels. [Ed.]
In your last issue there was a letter from James Hardy which deserves comment. He tells a harrowing story. Holding 23 high card points and cold for game in two suits, he has his opponents misinform him (and each other) about the meaning of one of their systemic bids, and he and his partner languish in a partial.
The case went to a committee of “name” players who ruled against Mr. Hardy and he argues that such committees should not be composed merely of top players (who don’t understand the problems of the little man) but should also contain a sprinkling of average players. He cites as a precedent the jury system which as we all know bars all legal experts from service.
Well Mr. Hardy, I have been in the law business a long time and have yet to meet anyone in the trade who has the slightest belief that the jury system leads to justice. Don’t get me wrong. Lawyers love juries. Give yourself an absolutely stinking case, with the law and facts dead against you, and you still stand a good chance of finding at least one baboon out of twelve jurors who is ready to swallow any drivel. The same principle applies to bridge committees. The questions involved are generally complex. It takes people with a wide knowledge of all aspects of the game to arrive at an equitable decision. In one way you are quite right. Had there been people of lesser experience judging your case you might indeed have been given another decision, but that is only because you were wrong, Mr. Hardy, dead wrong.
You see, it is not a rule that you get something for nothing every time your opponents break a bridge law. Most times you must still show that you were damaged by the infraction. In your particular case the bad result did not come from bad behavior. It came from bad bridge.
In the first place, you were hurt by your chosen system. The strong club may have its virtues, but it is the easiest of the strong openings for the opponents to jam, as they did here. Secondly, at your first opportunity to describe your hand you underbid by a full ace. Despite all this, you were given another chance and wound up in three notrump, which was going to make, no doubt about it, on the marked spade lead. Unhappily, your partner pulled to four of a minor, and this without being doubled, thus ignoring the first rule of winning bridge: Don’t run until the shooting starts. All this made the final result the fault of your partnership and there is no question that the committee ruled correctly.
While I am on the subject of committees, let me say this. Your average player would not be happy serving on one. You give up a good part of your dinner hour, you miss most of the festivities following the game, you work energetically to come to a fair, impartial and just decision, giving full weight, Mr. Hardy, to the level of experience of the players involved in each instance, and in return you get no pay, little thanks, and make a lot of enemies. Not to mention the abuse you receive from certain poor losers who spend the next few weeks taking carefully laundered versions of the facts to anyone who will listen and scream about the rooking they got from the committee. As you can see, I think it is about time someone talked back.
Well, if you haven’t read Frank Vine before, that should give you a pretty good flavor. Read more in North of the Master Solvers’ Club, coming from Master Point Press to your local bridge book supplier in early October.
August 28th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
No Comments
Canadian Master Point magazine was born in 1991 and was laid to rest in 1997, with much regret, to make way for Master Point Press and a new focus on book publishing. It was a labour of love — which meant that no-one associated with it ever got paid. And while it was based on the idea of providing a forum for Canadian writers, it soon had a stable of international contributors too, from India, the UK, the USA, and elsewhere. Everyone involved with the magazine was volunteer — even writers who made their living out of bridge made their work available to us gratis.
Some of our writers were instantly recognizable — Eric Kokish, Allan Falk, Danny Roth to name but three. Others, like Fred Gitelman, were to become recognizable, but were at that time still labouring in obscurity. During the six years the magazine existed, we published several hundred pages of original material. It varied from technical to humorous, from comment on bridge issues to bridge-oriented puzzles and diversions. And far too much of it was too good to be just forgotten.
So eventually Linda and I picked out our favourite pieces, and put together an anthology entitled Northern Lights, which is the subject of this blog. The fact that it didn’t sell very well didn’t bother us — like CMP, this was a labour of love. It was a book we felt should be out there, and available. It’s just a little sad that more people haven’t got to enjoy it. But we liked putting it together, and rereading all our favourite articles once again. Those would, for me, include the following:
Michael Schoenborn’s Three Minutes to Winning Bridge. The true and hilarious story of how the author needed a replacement partner for the last 2 rounds of the Yacht Club duplicate, picked up someone at the bar who had never played the game, gave him a set of rigid rules to follow, and scored 92% over the four boards they played together.
Mike Cafferata’s Colbert’s Rules. This article was referred to in a previous blog – everyone should know and obey them.
Truly Explosive versus Merely Unpleasant by Roselyn Teukolsky — surely the ranking expert on surviving spousal bridge.
Fred Gitelman’s Close but no Cigar. An emotional and very personal account of losing the World Junior Championship.
Why do we do it? by Marilyn White. A psychology professor’s wry take on why we all keep coming back to such an aggravating pastime…
It was gratifying to see a number of CMP articles being reprinted in other magazines. Eric Sutherland’s erudite explanation of Restricted Choice and the Monty Hall problem was cited in a a Ph.D thesis at Dartmouth College, for example. Fred Gitelman’s A Suitable Study appeared in BRIDGE magazine, as did a number of David Silver’s parodies prior to their appearance in book form. The following short article ran as an editorial, and was picked up by Australian Bridge. I guess they empathized with the issue. Sometimes I classify the piece as humorous, but then I think about it some more…
Special Alert
by Linda Lee
‘Everyone move over one place,’ said the March Hare.
‘Hurry up and and sit down dear, the round has started,’ the Mad Hatter called over to Alice.
Alice sat down opposite the Dormouse, who was looking very nervous, and picked up her cards.
Her hand seemed to fit the definition of a balanced 15-17, so she took a sip of tea and opened 1NT.
The Mad Hatter passed and then had to shake the Dormouse, whose head had fallen on the table while he rested between bids.
‘Two diamonds,’ burped the sleepy creature.
Oh dear, oh dear, thought Alice, I’m pretty sure that’s no longer an alert, but I do think it’s one of those new ‘announced bids’.
‘That,’ said Alice out loud, ‘is a transfer.’
‘I didn’t want to know that!’ exclaimed the Hatter.
‘Is not, is not,’ said the Dormouse, who was busy cleaning the duplicate board by dipping it the teapot, but, as usual, he was completely ignored.
‘Well, well,’ said the March Hare, ‘tell me more.’
‘It’s a Jacoby transfer, showing at least five hearts and asking me to bid two hearts.’
‘So he’s bidding diamonds when he really has hearts,’ said the March Hare. ‘Well, you better mean what you say, since your partner doesn’t say what he means.’
‘Double!’ he continued,
‘Alert!’ said the Hatter.
‘Please explain, ‘ asked the Dormouse.
‘It’s not your turn,’ Alice pointed out. ‘Please explain,’ she said, turning to the Hatter.
‘It’s for penalties, shows diamonds, and is probably lead-directing.’
‘That’s not an alert,’ said Alice indignantly.
‘Yes, it is,’ said the Hatter.
‘No, it’s not,’ said the Hare.
‘Whose side are you on anyway?’ the Hatter demanded, accusingly.
‘The side of the law,’ said the Hare, with great firmness.
‘Oh, let’s get on with it,’ said Alice. ‘I pass.’
‘Special alert, special alert!’ cried the Dormouse, who was now busy buttering his cards.
‘How can that be a special alert? In fact, I don’t think it’s an alert at all. Let’s call the director, ‘ suggested the Hare.
‘Pass,’ said the Hatter, with a glare at his partner, who knew he had better not complain again.
‘Pass,’ said the Dormouse without looking at his cards.
‘We play upside-down signals of course, reverse suit preference, inverted remainder count and upside-down-even-odd discards,’ announced the Hatter, as the Hare made the opening lead.
‘No, no, you’re supposed to pre-alert carding before the auction,’ said the Hare.
‘You don’t have to alert carding at all any more,’ said Alice, but what are upside-down-even-odd discards?’
‘None of your business, you’re the dummy!’
‘Pre-alert, pre-alert,’ said the Dormouse, absent-mindedly dropping his hand on the table. It seemed to consist mostly of diamonds…
‘Surely, we’re entitled to protection here,’ snarled the Hatter. ‘Director!’
‘Oh, this is ridiculous. I don’t think I’ll ever play this silly game again,’ cried Alice, and tossed her cards in the general direction of the ACBL Board of Directors, whose members were too preoccupied to notice.
August 20th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
No Comments
A pretentious title, you may think. ‘How does he know I haven’t read them?’ Well, two them didn’t sell very many copies, and the third won’t be published until October — so while I can only be absolutely certain about that one, I’m pretty confident regarding the other two as well.
The first is Samurai Bridge, by Robert (Bob) MacKinnon, which MPP published seven years ago. Cast your mind back to those wonderful old movies like The Seven Samurai and Rashomon — now imagine that all the major characters are bridge players… So you get a sort of Oriental Wild West tale where the swordplay alternates with the cut and thrust of bridge play. Throw in a love story, a desperately unhappy ghost, haikus, woodcut illustrations, a fascinating account of bridge and politics at the Emperor’s court… There is a large cast of intriguing characters: a heroic ronin (of course), an evil town magistrate (of course), a seductive ghost with her own plans for the ronin, a monk who has some difficulty renouncing earthly pleasures, a humble bath-house girl whose outward appearance masks something much more deadly, a notary whose father was a bridge professional at the court of the Emperor until he fell out of favor, an out-of-work actor who has unwillingly become involved in a complex masquerade, and many more — surely it adds up to the most unusual bridge book ever written. Here’s the Prologue, which was Bob’s original submission to us — we read it, and signed the book, before ever seeing the rest of the manuscript.
Prologue
Our story takes place in Japan in the month of August, 1837. It was a time of civil unrest brought about by several consecutive years of poor rice crops. Ineptitude of government officials in the face of the growing crisis was merely a surface manifestation of a system that professed commitment to the general welfare but that tolerated decreasing living standards for the common man and increasing corruption in high places — which, not coincidentally, promoted the interests of a few merchants who grew rich through speculations in the rice market. For these wealthy few, their way of business made hunger a necessity and greed a virtue.
It was a time in Japan when many young, adventuresome, unemployed samurai, ronin, took to the roads in search of unknown adventure.
A half century before the turbulent year in which the violent events recorded in this story took place, a former bridge master in the court of the Emperor Sakuramachi (1720-1750) retired to a remote town lying halfway between Morioka and Sendai along the spine of northern Honshu. There he took up his brush and put down on paper the knowledge he had garnered over a lifetime at the bridge table as follows.
Making the Cuckoo Sing
Dummy
S 9 7
H A Q 9 5
D A 9 3 2
C Q 6 4
Declarer
S K 8 2
H 7 6 2
D K Q 10
C A K 10 9
The student should consider how this hand is to be played in the contract of 3NT after the lead of the S3 to the 7, Q, and K. The form of scoring is matchpoints, neither side vulnerable. Before deciding on a line of play, the student should recall the story of ‘Making the Cuckoo Sing’. Legend has it that the three great warriors, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu, were asked, ‘What would you do if a cuckoo refused to sing for you?’ Each replied according to his character. Nobunaga stated, ‘I would kill it.’ Hideyoshi replied, ‘I would persuade it to sing.’ Ieyosu answered, ‘I would wait for it to sing.’
The form of scoring being matchpoints, the goal in a normal contract is to maximize the number of tricks taken within judicious limits. Nobunaga would try to take eleven tricks. His method was: Attack! Attack! Attack! Since the maximum possible number of tricks will be taken only if the heart finesse is working, he would take that finesse immediately. Even if the finesse loses, the opponent on his right may misjudge this bold action as indicating that continuation of spades is hopeless; he may even hold up his king, hoping to lay a trap for the unwary declarer. Having won that finesse, Nobunaga would lead the CQ from dummy, expecting his right-hand opponent to give true count on this card. he would play accordingly, and might, indeed, take eleven tricks for a top score. His imp0etuous nature gave little value to measures of safety.
Hideyoshi would be more prudent. His method was to try first one way then, if that failed, to try another. First he would play off the club suit hoping to drop the jack in two rounds or find the suit split 3-3 against him. Failing this, he would play off the top diamonds, with the same hope. Only if both actions proved unfruitful would he resort to the heart finesse. If the minor suits yielded eight tricks, he would avoid the heart finesse and be content with ten tricks since the opening lead had been favorable. He knew the Nobunagas of the world might take more tricks in any given contract, but also that the seeds of their eventual destruction lie in their risky methods.
Ieyasu would note that he had only eight tricks in hand. Only after assuring nine tricks and his contract would he venture to play for an overtrick. Since the lead indicates that spades are split 4-4 in the defenders’ hands, Ieyasu would return a spade and let the opponents take their three tricks in the suit. It may happen that they will make a mistake and give him his ninth trick. One possibility for a mistake is to take the spade tricks in such a manner that the right-hand opponent remains on lead after the fourth round; now any card that opponent leads gives away a free finesse. There are other possibilities for defensive errors; Ieyasu’s method was to avoid unnecessary risk and to give the opponents every chance to make a mistake and bring about their own destruction.
There are those who liken bridge to warfare. How sweet victory can be! There are those who pursue victory to the ends of the earth regardless of cost. Oda Nobunaga was such a moan, ‘Hooray to the victor!’ shout the crowds. Yet sweeter still are the rewards of inner peace, which one enjoys in silence and solitude in the knowledge that one has acted properly. In the end Nobunaga and his heir were murdered by a retainer who had been insulted in public. Let this be a lesson: never criticize your partner at the table for he wil surely later seek revenge.
Hidetada of Gifu (1787)
Intrigued? I hope so… By the way, Bob MacKinnon is a retired mathematician who has recently completed a manuscript on probability and information theory as applied to bridge. It’s fascinating stuff, surprisingly approachable, and we hope to publish it in the next year or so. Stay tuned.
July 19th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
3 Comments
Here we are at the Summer Nationals, which is probably going to set another attendance record, and I have to start by confessing that LV isn’t one of my favorite places to spend a week. I don’t gamble, and the constant in-your-face slot machines and pseudo glitz really get to me, not mention external temperatures in three figures and humidity not far off. But tonight was a lot of fun, I admit.
We’d been looking forward to the evening, because we’d splurged seriously on tickets to see Bette Midler’s show at Caesar’s Palace (my all-too-wise daughter once asked me, ‘Dad, do you want to spend your money on things or experiences?’, and we both agreed we preferred the latter). Eddie and Yvonne Kantar had Midler tickets too, so we decided to make up a foursome for dinner before the show.
Dinner was at the nearby Hofbrauhaus (Eddie’s choice), a Munich biergarten somehow transported to LV. We were offered seats in the main hall (with the oom-pah band and the big tables of serious drinkers) and or the garden, which we were told was quieter. We went for the garden, which was just as big as the hall, but empty other than ourselves. However, we’d allowed a lot of time for dinner, to be safe, and after the main course was done, we realized we had at least an hour to kill before we needed to head for the show. Now Eddie can usually be relied on to be carrying a deck of cards, but not today. So despite the fact that Linda and I had a dozen decks in our room, and the ACBL doubtless thousands back at the Hilton, he had to nip across the road to the pharmacy to purchase cards.
He returned with a handsome deck with a back design of $100 bills — somehow appropriate here, we thought. And suddenly, here we were in the middle of an impromptu version of Eddie’s famous Home Game. Yvonne shuffled and dealt, and then dessert and coffee arrived. There was a ten-minute pause while the strudel was consumed, after which Linda and Eddie bid their hands quickly and confidently to 7 hearts, Linda somewhat relieved to have negotiated the keycard sequence correctly. Yvonne led something, and Eddie deposited a 4441 26-count on the table as dummy. The play lasted only one trick. Eddie confessed he had been in agonies during the dessert course — he knew he had this hand and had been terrified that something would happen to prevent its being played out! Perhaps the waitress would clear away somebody’s hand, or spill coffee on it. But all was well.
The next hand Eddie dealt, and the (unopposed) bidding was interesting: I diamond – 1heart – 2 clubs – 2 spades – 3 diamonds – 4 diamonds – 4 spades. Linda thought for a while, then for the second hand in a row launched into 4NT. But this was a friendly game, and I felt I had to say something before this sequence got more convoluted — I was pretty sure that both of them were trying to use Keycard in the same auction!
It so happens that the last thing I did before leaving for LV was finish editing Eddie’s final draft of the 5th edition of his book on Keycard (coming this Fall from your favorite bridge publisher). Perhaps half the book is dedicated to discussing minor-suit agreement auctions, which are the toughest. The reason for this is that 4NT is desperately uneconomical as a keycard ask in minor-suit auctions, since there’s rarely any chance to do much before committing to slam. For this reason, Eddie recommends using other asks, but what the ask is exactly depends on the suit you have agreed, what level you’ve agreed it at, and what the prior auction has been. (I did say half of the book is dedicated to this!)
The worst auctions, according to Eddie, are the ones involving diamond agreement at the four-level. And in those auctions, he recommends using the lowest unbid major (i.e. not a first-bid suit) as the keycard ask. Now, if you go back to our auction, you’ll see that since hearts was a first-bid suit, then 4 spades was the keycard ask — and since Linda had forgotten that, having not read this stuff quite as recently as I had, her 4NT was also intended as Keycard.
As I said, it was nothing if not a friendly game, so we rolled back the auction to 4 spades, Linda made the correct response, Eddie bid 7 diamonds, and again the play lasted exactly one trick. Two deals, two grands bid and made. Lucky we weren’t playing for money.
Two deals later, Yvonne and I had our own slam auction, in which I got tangled up, but this time Eddie and Linda rescued me. Yvonne opened 2NT, and I wanted to transfer to spades (my 5-bagger) and then ask her to choose between 6 spades and 6 notrump. I knew that 2NT-3H-3S-4NT was invitational. However 2NT-5NT is forcing to 6 and invitational to 7, so it seemed to me (I don’t play transfers a lot as you can tell) that 2NT-3H-3S-5NT would also be forcing to 6 and invite to a grand. So I didn’t know how to do what I wanted to do.
After some discussion, the table decided that this sequence actually asks partner to pick a slam, so I used it. Yvonne duly bid 6NT, and she too claimed at Trick 1. Which leaves me wondering, how do you force to a slam, and invite to a grand, while offering partner a choice between spades and notrump? Anyone know?
We played half a dozen more hands, but the newness of the deck had worn off, and there were no more blockbuster deals. But knowing that Eddie writes about his Home Game a lot, I decided I had better get a version out there before he could, so here I am back at the Hilton blogging away.
And the show? Miss M. was divine. Nuff said.
May 14th, 2008 ~ Ray Lee ~
5 Comments
Since my readers have anticipated the mathematics that were going to be Part 2 of this piece, I’m going to redirect the discussion a little. As Bob and Colin pointed out to me, in Frank’s scenario it is actually correct to play for the drop. Had he seen the jack, he would have been 100% to finesse.
So overall, the opponents’ agreement to do something non-random has actually hurt them, and in the long run Frank will have better than 1.84:1 odds when he has to play this combination against them.
But now we get into murkier waters. What if they don’t quite always play the queen from the doubleton queen-jack? Now we’re almost into Game Theory, and the analysis is certainly beyond me…
And as Ulrich asks, can they have this agreement — that they will play the queen 100% of the time except occasionally they won’t? Let me digress for a moment, since I’m reminded of two situations from my bridge past. In the first, we were told by the opponents that their carding was random — no signals or discards meant anything. The director, when summoned, informed them that this was an illegal agreement (obviously it’s very easy to cheat!) but it’s not clear to me how that ruling can be enforced.
The second case was closer to the Frank Vine story. Linda and I were playing in the World Mixed Teams in Rhodes a few years ago, and we sat down against an Irish pair with very complex pre-announced carding and opening lead methods. It took several minutes explanation before we felt we understood their agreements. Then on the first board, they made an opening lead that didn’t follow those agreements!
We all have some familiarity with the rules about psychic bidding. The danger is that partnerships become aware of their own tendencies, and are more prepared for psyches than their opponents. The same psyches repeated too often become partnership agreements, and are frowned upon (at least in the ACBL), since now the pair is basically playing ‘controlled psyches’. Some years ago, playing against a pair known to psyche frequently, I sat down and was presented by them with a list of ‘things we have tended to do in the past’. ‘Ah,’ I said, ‘ so I can assume that you won’t do any of those in this set.’ But of course they did, and we ended up in a committee, and things went down a rathole from there.
However, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen much discussion of psychic carding. Certainly, books on defense talk about falsecarding as a perfectly legitimate tactic, especially in situations where it doesn’t matter whether you deceive partner. I remember years ago as declarer trying to get a count on a hand to find a queen, and watching Fred Gitelman on my left carefully signal to show three cards in a suit. Was he giving his partner true count, or playing head games with me? I went for the latter, and I was right :-) Fair enough, and definitely part of the game as far as I’m concerned. But to me, having a specific unusual carding agreement and then deliberately violating it crosses a line. It’s analogous to psyching a conventional bid, which is illegal.
Linda’s comment is interesting here — in these days of voluminous play records, it should be easy to gather stats on what card people play from QJ doubleton, but I would guess with her that the queen is played significantly more than 50% of the time. And because of that, I confess that I myself tend to play the jack from that holding (don’t know whether she’s ever noticed that…).
Finally, a piece of advice from a very wise lady, Mary Paul, who has won both the Open and Women’s Canadian team titles, and played in many world championships. Mary once told us that if you’re in a slam and someone leads the jack of trumps, they always have the queen-jack doubleton. No-one ever leads the stiff trump jack against a slam, and they never lead the queen from the doubleton either. That’s one we’ve watched out for, and trust me, Mary’s absolutely right.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related