♠♥♦♣ Planet Bridge

On January 19th, I posted a blog entitled “From the Sublime to the Ridiculous,” discussing many controversial issues concerning how I and many others thought our once illustrious Hall of Fame was now being defamed and denigrated.   Many chimed in with comments, totaling 49 in all.  Although three weeks have passed since it hit the blog site and some have moved on to newer issues, I happened to glance back and saw some very humorous comments which I ‘copied’ and am passing them on for your amusement.

Incidentally, Bobby has been having many (hopefully productive) emails back and forth about the hardcore issues involved with present Chairman of the Hall of Fame Committee, Steve Robinson (an inductee himself).   The subject itself is no laughing matter — but I wanted to share with you some of the messages that may have gotten lost in the shuffle from both my site and John Howard Gibson’s.

On January 30th, the following came from humorist, Danny Kleinman, who was (and always is) kidding on the level.  He is not only a terrific player, writer, author, teacher, theorist, etc.,  but one who cares so much for the the beauty and honor of the game:

We need many more Bridge Halls of Fame. How about a Clients’ Hall of Fame? We can start with some of the best: Charles Goren (a client, as noted by Bobby in THE LONE WOLFF), Barry Crane (an inference from the fact that a much better player, Grant Baze in his prime, deigned to play with him), and Sam Stayman (an inference from my personal observation of his bidding and play some fifty years ago). I might even make it if I ever scrape up enough money to hire a World Champion like Rose Meltzer. How about a Huddlers’ Hall of Fame? We’d better interview the former denizens of the Cavendish West Club for nominations. How about a Revoker’s Hall of Fame? Beside the most obvious candidates, Lewis Himmell and the late Harold Guiver, we can include the more obscure Steve Lake, who invented the Revoke Obligatory (a rare legal revoke) some forty years ago. The possibilities are endless.

Today, February 8th, John Howard Gibson (who pokes fun at himself by renaming himself John Bigot-Johnson) had the following to say: 

Dear Judy and Bobby,

Please read my latest blog ………aka HBJ….. my alter ego. I have volunteered my version of a what a World’s Best Bridge Players Hall of Fame should be about in terms of gaining recognition and entry. In amongst the tongue-in-cheek humour I’m sure I’ve stumbled upon some useful ideas on a fair and just process. Would love to hear your views…..even if they are all bad.

Yours,

John Howard Gibson

From Howard Bigot-Johnson’s Bizarre World of Bridge

HALLS OF FAME ?…….BIGOT-JOHNSON HAS HIS SAY:

As you know, or may not know, the Yanks have set up a Hall of Fame to honour those who really know how to play the game. At present it seems to be an American HOF, because only Americans were selected to enter it by the front door. Apparently, Canada felt that two of their best players were overlooked, and after voicing concerns, justice was eventually served, when they were later added to the list by decree…..or should I say ” allowed in by the back door” . However, some criticism has been made from various quarters (even from within the Hall itself) , that a few too many players have sneaked in at the expense of more deserving cases. These questionable selections apparently concern a small group of big money sponsors, who by regularly hiring professionals have achieved success on the big stage. Success which some observers believe results from being “carried ” on the shoulders of giants. Well, hopefully all that is about to change, because I’m going to set up Howard Bigot-Johnson’s World’s Best Players Hall of Fame. And I can assure you that there’s going to be (1) no secret bulging brown envelopes, (2) no mutual back-scratching societies , ( 3) no secret cabals, ( 4) no unhealthy conspiracies, ( 5) no nepotism, and (6) no despotism. In other words, players who get into this Hall will have to meet the following stringent conditions:

They have never ” hired” players to be their partners, or to play in their team. Successes by virtue of this practice are discounted against them ( but not their partners or team-mates).

Nominations by regular partners and/or team-mates are out of the question, in that mutual back-scratching societies are banned.

Nominations only count if made by highly placed OPPONENTS involved in the same big stage or world stage competition ….. who are not of the same nationality . Moreover with each nomination, evidence of hands must be provided where the player nominated really showed his/her genius at work.

Players with the most nominations over a given period can qualify for a ” player of the year award ” confined to their own particular country.

Players, who achieve several player of the year awards, can be put forward by their country to be considered for Howard Bigot-Johnson’s World’s Best Players HOF.

Those nominated to get into this great Hall will have to fit Howard Bigot-Johnson’s ” Lets see the final proof of how good you are ” examination. This will consist of a five 90 minute papers covering the following topics: (1) bidding on awkward hands, (2) opening leads and defence, (3) awkward contracts for declarer, (4) declarer squeeze play , and (5) reading the cards. Scores below 90% will be deemed ” a fail” … earning them the big “F” certificate and ” better luck next year” condolences. Those players who pass will be allowed to join Bigot ( who of course is an Honorary member ) in the Big Hall for a badge of merit and a slap-up meal. Now if any tosser can think up a better system than that, then either send me a post, or submit your views on some other blog ( and advise me where to look ). Or if it’s your wish, where to get off …..Yours full of cracking ideas Howard Bigot-Johnson.

Bobby couldn’t let that one slip by, so here was his reply:

Hi Howard,

You have an intriguing writing style and an impish personality. Those qualities plus a demanding subject (especially tuned to the high-level world bridge community) will get at least a measured response from me. Please understand that this particular subject is important (in my eyes) and far reaching — so be prepared for some agreement and some not so.

Possibly because of what seems to be a world-wide movement to objectivity (instead of that naughty word, subjectivity), we are all paying a price in performance. Objectivity, as defined, by many (mostly idiots) is 100% conformity to only written or proven facts with no deviation allowed, since, at least according to them, judgment can be manipulated to suit the writer or better spoken by the one who has an evil agenda.  The real “skinny” is that some of your above rules cannot be implemented.

1. Sometimes, and in the not so distant past, the best player on a team was the paying sponsor, who in order to get a team of his choice, at least paid the expenses of his chosen group, who otherwise could not afford to attend.

2. Sometimes it is a natural and positive happening for a regular partner/teammate to nominate a qualified nominee. It is then up to the various built-in protections to make sure that nominee is up to snuff.

3. This world has become smaller in that some of my current, closest and most respected (at least to me) friends live in all corners of the planet making it so (what in past times would have been a good idea) that being nominated by another nationality results in howling at the moon.

4. Almost 20 years ago I trained 2 USA Junior Teams to play in the Junior (25 years old or less)World Championship held in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1991. At that time no North American team had ever cracked the top 4 places in any previous Junior World Championship. I created Bridge Aptitude tests (which you are now suggesting) which possibly (with all due respect), even then were more sophisticated than what you might provide. They helped me greatly in choosing the two teams who went on to finish 1st and 4th and ever since then North America has been a major factor, so I am agreeing with you on your idea.
All of the above which worked, didn’t just encourage, but rather demanded subjectivity, in moving forward and eventually bearding the lion.
Without someone with hoped for superior judgment in control, we and thus the whole project, is born dead. Can it be done and the answer is not only Yes, but rather HELL YES, but purity of performance and honesty of effort is required rather than the sacred but impractical straight objectivity package.

Strong letter to follow.

Respectfully and with appreciation,

Bobby Wolff

       

To which HBJ immediately replied ….

Dear Bobby,

Many thanks for your reply. I stand in awe of someone who really knows what they are talking about. The article of mine was an invitation by Linda Lee to do a Bigot slant on this whole tricky issue. But underneath my amateurish attempt to show Bigot up for what he is, I had hoped to put across ideas on raising the selection bar towards one of objectivity, total lack of bias, and impartial judgement. I agree not all sponsors are the weak link in a team, but the fact remains that if they, then to be given the same masterpoint accreditation as the others does invoke an element of injustice. Anyway, many thanks for your comments again but always remember Bigot only sees the bizarre aspects of the world of bridge.

Yours,

John Howard Gibson

The matter is so grave, to my way of thinking, (perhaps because I feel personally involved because I have two husbands enshrined in what once was an elegant body thought of as The Best of the Best) — that I had to turn to the humorous side to assuage my anger and soothe my wounds.

With regard to bidding, everyone knows from experience artificial is best because it makes the transmission of information easier and more efficient. No one would willingly give up Stayman, Jacoby, and Blackwood. The only question is, how much is too much? Through the medium of its bulletin, the ACBL attempts to smooth ruffled feathers by providing a forum for disgruntled members. Therein we read letters about aged parents and grandparents, frozen in the past before all this artificiality took root, who can still play a mean game merely by exercising their common sense. Frank Stewart is their adopted champion. In his column he writes favorably of traditional rights and wrongs.

In the January 2010 Bulletin he writes, ‘discipline is having a reason to bid and being willing to pass when no bid is just right.’ The problem with that advice is that the nature of the bidding mechanism is such that one may not be confident at to what is the right bid, or even if there is a right bid. No system is capable of allowing one always to bid comfortably within strictly defined limits. Too many hands, not enough bids. So if you pass because no bid is just right, you’ll pass a lot more than you should. This advice caters to the conservative mindset that impedes action during our senior years.

Stewart’s predisposition is towards wait-and-see. He writes, ‘discipline is taking the action you know is best when a tiny voice in your head is urging you to take a flyer.’ This is a justification for passing when in doubt, but we all know that good advice is, ‘when in doubt bid one more.’ So, his advice might be reworded to the following, ‘discipline is taking the action you feel is best when a tiny voice in your head is urging you to underbid.’ Competent players should not imagine they will get doubled every time they overbid because their opponents can see through the cards. Incompetent players may not realize that what they are doing is highly dangerous. To underbid in competition planning to bid again if necessary is a perilous procedure that should be employed only when one wants to get doubled. Passing may not be safer than bidding but more hazardous.

The most dangerous actions are related to not bidding according to one’s prior agreements. Take for instance, a preemptive raise of partner’s suit defined as 0-6 HCP. The conservative player may decide to make a preemptive jump raise to 3♠ on 4 spades and some outside stuffing, for example, with ♠ QT76 ♥ K764 ♦ Q98 ♣ T9. This may seem safer than a bare 4 HCP, but it is not, because the opposition may pass and defeat 3♠. The red suit honors and the length in hearts make it less likely that the opponents will be tempted to indiscreet action, and it makes it less likely they can make a contract at the 3-level. A bad player will raise to 2♠, then bid 3♠ after the opponents compete to 3♣, even though the losing trick count is 9. So, another case of more is less.

The Human Factor

It is somewhat odd that the simple-is-best readers of the ACBL Bulletin have come to look at Stewart as their champion, as his methods are quite idiosyncratic. We’ll go back to the July 2007 issue of the ACBL Bulletin in which Stewart goes through the bidding of a successful slam hand giving us his thoughts along the way. His honesty is refreshing and much appreciated. In typical fashion Stewart passes a hand that others would open, then overbids to a slam that is made by astute declarer play. Strange as it may seem, his approach is based less on logic than on the tiny voice that tempts him into distorting his bidding practices to conform to his prejudices. It would be very difficult to deduce a general approach that his readers could adopt, although many bid in a similar fashion.

He admits his style requires having a bold partner, ‘as odd-couple partnerships work because the players exert a moderating influence on each other.’ Notice that the emphasis is again put on the suppression of natural impulses. This is objectionable to the logical mind, because the success of the bidding will depend on the character of the players rather than on the character of the cards dealt them. Exchange the hands and the auction would be entirely different, which Stewart admits. Yes, we know that in practice there are those who bid one way with Jane and another way with John. Adjusting to a partner’s personality is a practical approach down at the club, but there should be a general structure of constraints within which one can safely maneuver with any good player.

Convention Free Bidding

We shall study what Stewart’s tiny voice was whispering on the hand shown below from a regional pairs event. Looking at both hands one concludes that any reasonable method should allow the partnership to explore for a small slam in spades. We begin by considering bid by bid the natural auction on the right. Most players prefer to ask rather than tell, so to such players a natural system which promotes the free exchange of information between partners treated on an equal basis is an anathema. In theory a bidding sequence is an exercise in constrained optimization, the bidders revealing only what is necessary to reach the best contract. What the best destination may be depends on the route taken to get there. Some players obsessively hide their tracks.

With the hand shown below the HCP content is not a major factor, as the partners hold a mere 26 HCP between them. Distribution is the key. The losing trick count is the proper means by which to measure potential with shapely hands, and the bidding provides information with regard to the degree of fit. The losing trick counts and number of controls are given below the hands as a reminder that these are the critical factors.

If there is a fit, all should proceed smoothly, but if there isn’t, there must be means by which one can put on the brakes and bring the process to a grinding halt. The honor combination of ♣KQxx is a critical factor, so it is East who should have the final say on whether or not to bid slam. Now we shall examine each bid in turn to demonstrate that bidding this slam is quite easy when each player simply bids what he has.

West	North		Natural	Auction
♠ K8762	♠ AQ54		1 ♦	1 ♥
♥ 542	♥ AQ54		1 ♠	3 ♠
♦ AK1052	♦ 7		4 ♦	4 ♥
♣ —	♣ KQ53		4 ♠	5♣
6 losers	5+ losers		6 ♠	Pass
4 controls	5 controls

 
1 ♦ Often the most important call is the first one. The question is this: can one open the West hand without misleading partner as to its strength? That is a matter of agreement as to what constitute an opening bid. The high card content, 10 HCP, is dead average, but the hand satisfies the Rule of 20. (HCPs + the lengths of the 2 longest suit = 20). The hand has 4 controls (Ace=2, King=1), 1 more than normal, and they sit in the long suits. What power it possesses is offensive, and that power is considerable as expressed in the loser count of 6. By losing trick evaluation an opening bid in a minor should have 7 or fewer losers, so in that respect West’s hand is quite promising. How good it is will depend on the degree of fit with East’s hand.

There is an 84% chance that West will find at least one 8-card fit with partner’s hand. West should not worry about the opponents entering the auction as one doesn’t anticipate being outbid. If the opponents have a super heart fit, 4♠ may be a profitable sacrifice. The greatest worry is that the 8-card fit is in diamonds, and that partner with a flat 13 HCP hand will insist on playing in a contract of 3NT. During the auction West hopes to reveal that his opening bid was based on shape, not power. No trump bidding has to be different from good-fit bidding, and this difference must be recognized.

Trying to avert playing in 3NT on minimal HCP strength, some would prefer to open 1♠ to put the emphasis on a major suit game, perhaps in a good 5-2 fit with diamonds functioning as surrogate trumps. This prejudice towards the majors is often observed at the table. Some live by it, to the detriment of their slam bidding in the minor suits. There is no need to panic. The primary need is to identify the different hand types.

3♠ The auction has proceeded smoothly and the spade fit has been uncovered. Most Easts have available the Fourth Suit Forcing convention by which they can bid 2♣ to ask a partner to provide more information without revealing their own intent. In that way one can subjugate a partner and take charge of the auction. It is a popular and sometimes necessary treatment in NT bidding. A major virtue is that it saves bidding space.

Slam bidding proceeds more smoothly when a partner can show a fit with a game forcing raise. ‘Support with support’ is the means by which a partnership switches priorities from high card to loser count evaluation. This one promises 4 spades and 7 losers or less. To use 3♠ as merely invitational means there must be an artificial bid (such as 2♣) available by which East can force to game. This makes for confusion.

4♦ With a 9-card fit in a 6-loser hand, West sees that slam is a distinct possibility. He can hope that East has something good in hearts to keep the defenders at bay. Because the major value of his hand lies in its shape rather that his HCPs, West can’t make a descriptive jump to 5♣ to show his void in clubs. He is short the ♥K which would bring the loser count down to 5. The solution is simple enough: reveal the good diamond suit and await developments. That encourages slam, but doesn’t insist on it.

We have reached a point in the auction where conventions can be helpful to further describe the opening bid, especially when opening bids can be light on HCP. Modern bidders at willing to give up on playing in 3NT once a major suit fit has been established, so they employ 3NT to investigate slam below the level of 4 of their agreed major. Holding powerhouse 2-suited hands they can employ 5♣ as Exclusion Blackwood. Think of Goldilocks and the 3 Bears. Hands with shape try 3NT (Mamma Bear) and those with power try 5♣ (Papa Bear). Without strong slam interest they may complete a description by cuebidding where their values lie, here 4♦ (Baby Bear), which is ‘just right’.

4♥ East is encouraged even though he has no support for diamonds. The ♦Q would be sooo nice. As West hasn’t given up on slam, and as he holds such good support for spades, East marks time with a cue bid in his previously bid suit. Some play this as ‘Last Train’, a non-descriptive bid showing slam interest – ‘I’ve got my bids, have you?’

4♠ In the natural auction West is content that he has indicated some slam interest and has shown where his values lie. This is a situation where he can legitimately make a minimal ‘just right’ bid at the end of a sequence that has accurately disclosed his values.

5♣ East is not ready to give up. A reflexive 4NT Blackwood won’t provide the material necessary to build a case for a grand slam. If West holds the ♥K, East expects to see a bid of 5♥ next. He needn’t decide about the grand slam (!) until all the information is in.

6♠ West has no new information to add to the mix. He can see that East must have very good spades, because West has promised just 4 on the auction thus far. He expects partner has hearts well covered and he may well have the ♦Q. There is enough encouraging news here to take a well-reasoned flyer at slam.

Frank Stewart’s Tiny Voice

We can take Stewart’s subjective approach as reflective of many who play a 2/1 structure where the limits that define the bids are expressed largely in terms of HCP. One does not assume a fit at the start. Rather one assumes one may have to defend or support partner in his attempt to bid and make a NT contract. One plans to make adjustments for shape as the auction progresses and fits are established.

Within such a system it is often easier to pass initially and bid aggressively once a fit is established than it is to open the bidding, raising expectations, thereafter trying to apply the brakes. The modern trend is better: open light and make provision for that by adding conventions, like Last Train and 3NT Slam Try, to set limits on one’s ambitions. Coming soon to a table near you: Reverse Two-Way Drury by an unpassed hand.

West	East		Frank’s	Auction
♠ K8762	♠ AQ54		Pass	1 ♣
♥ 542	♥ AJ76		1 ♥	4 ♦
♦ AK1052	♦ 7		5 ♦	5 ♥
♣ —	♣ KQ53		6 ♠	Pass

 
Pass or 1♠? Stewart admits he might go along with the current trend and open 1♠ if the spade suit had more stuffing. His partner would open the given hand. He makes a revealing comment on why he would not: if responder bids 2 H as a game force, he would have to raise to 3♥ on ♥542. That might lead to a bad 6 H contract with responder holding just ♥AK963. Exactly! That is why the single raise should be avoided on such a weak holding. It could happen that partner bids 2♥, but is this is likely? It is much more likely that partner has a fit in one of the long suits, or that his long suit is clubs.

Returning to the past glories of American bridge, Goren required at least Qxx and Schenken, J10x for such a raise. So one shouldn’t engage in the sequence that Stewart fears. This is a red herring. A 2-suited hand should be bid as a 2-suited hand. After 1♠ – 2 ♥ opener would have to bid 3♦. This is a poorly defined, strong sequence that has got too high and covers too many possibilities. The case is strengthened for opening 1♦ where the HCP are, thus preparing for a sensible and descriptive rebid. The spade suit is not going to be lost on this hand. So if one decides to open, as one should, the proper plan is to open 1♦ and rebid twice in spades. As we saw in the natural auction, partners can learn a lot without reaching the exalted level of 1NT.

Pass – 1♦? After a pass, Stewart responds 1♠, not 1♦, on the grounds that one bids the higher-ranking of 5-card suits. This is not necessarily so. There is a box on the ACBL convention card for players to check if they frequently bypass a bid of 1♦ over 1♣ when holding 4+diamonds. At one time this was a controversial practice that required an alert. The conservatives argued voraciously against change. Nowadays players follow the Walsh procedure in which one responds 1♦ with a good hand and 1♠ with a lesser hand. The West hand is within the category of a super passed hand that requires at least 2 bids for proper description. The quality of the diamond suit is a prime consideration, as well.

Pass – 1♠? The traditional response of 1♦ is more descriptive, more efficient, and less judgmental than a bid of 1♠. The preference to spades over diamonds is based on the assumption that the contract should most likely be played in spades. This prejudice distorts the auction unnecessarily. Bidding the better suit, diamonds, does not preclude finding a spade fit, it saves bidding space, and it conforms more closely to the expected distribution of HCP between the suits. A one-over-one bid should be forcing, even when made by a passed hand, but not all agree with this simple solution. Again, there is too much allowance being made for rare occurrences. It shouldn’t be necessary to jump around to show a normal hand.

4♦! Well, there you go, East did come up with strong support for spades and almost any system can be used to explore for slam whether the West hand is opened or not. Stewart disagrees with his partner’s splinter bid of 4♦ – it should be much stronger, he maintains. The East hand fulfills the requirement for a splinter raise if West had opened 1♠, namely at least 13 support points. After a pass, the requirements for a splinter raise go from a minimum of 13 to a minimum of 18, a jump of 5 points. This jump may be caused by a difference of 1 HCP in the West hand. The effect on the bidding system is one of instability where a small difference leads to a huge change in methods.

The justification goes that an opening bid has a lower limit of 11 HCP, but the response to 1♣ has a lower limit of 6 HCP, a difference of 5 HCP, so this difference must be reflected in the response structure. This is against the probabilities, as it is more likely the initial pass is closer to the 10 HCP mark than to the miserable 6 HCP mark. The opponents have passed, the opening bidder has 16 HCP, so it is reasonable to assume partner holds 1/3 of the remainder, 8 HCP. This is in the middle of the range 6-10 HCP for a passed hand, not at the bottom. Seen in this light, East should be encouraged. A splinter raise is justified, especially so when the trump holding is this strong. One should bid on the basis of what is most probable, not on what is minimal and least likely.

3♦? East need not stretch to a game forcing splinter bid, because there is available an non-forcing splinter of 3♦ that invites game. The general rule for recognizing a splinter bid is that it is a jump in a suit a level above what would have been a forcing bid in that suit. As a bid of 2♦ would be a forcing reverse on the part of the opening bidder, even opposite a passed hand, bids of 3♦ and 4♦ can be defined as splinters of differing strengths, 3♦ being game invitational and 4♦ being slam invitational. This distinction is a necessary consequence of the wide-ranging 1♣ opening bid.

When in doubt about these matters I go to an authoritative prime source, in this case Max Hardy’s Two Over One Game Forcing, which is the major reference for players in my area who are happy to claim 2/1 as their system. Here is his invitational splinter: ♠KQ84 ♠7 ♦A82 ♣AK975. After opening 1♦ and receiving a 1♠ response, opener may jump to 3♥ intending to pass responder’s 3♠ rebid. This resembles closely East’s hand – good spades, 16 HCP, sufficient controls, 5 losers, shortage in a side suit. Personally, I would be ashamed of myself if I left partner in 3♠ on this hand.

3♠? For Stewart East’s proper reply to the 1♠ response is 3♠, a limit raise. He comments, ‘players often use splinter bids with high-card values that are too skimpy. They succumb to the lure of finding the perfect hand.’ This rather implies that the bidder has made a decision to go to slam regardless. What if the bidder in a cooperative manner is merely describing a hand capable of making game most of the time? What if the bidder is merely revealing a promising loser count? In this case it is controls, aces and kings, and trump quality that are the major factors. A sideboard of queens and jacks may represent nothing of value, like macaroni on a buffet table laden with turkey and smoked salmon.

5♦ – 5♥? Stewart expects his partner to bid outside of the normal range, but he is bidding mostly on what East should have, not so much on what he thinks East does have. The auction is getting high, but his status as a passed hand allows for a slam invitation at the 5-level. What happens, I wonder, if East now bids 5♠ thinking, ‘well, I only have 16 HCP, after all, and partner expects 18 at least. My hearts have gaps and the minors don’t appear to fit well. 5♠ most accurately describes my hand in the context of the bidding thus far.’ Will this sudden conversion to honest evaluation keep Stewart out of slam?

6♣? Recall this statement: discipline is taking the action you know is best when a tiny voice in your head is urging you to take a flyer. Can one say that the above auction demonstrates this principle in action? As he has bid against the grain by never showing length or strength in diamonds, Stewart feels he is justified in master-minding the final contract. If slam should fail, who do you call to chase away the gremlins? Slambusters.

Hold that call – slam makes! It is fortunate that a club is led rather than a heart. One of the benefits of bad bidding is that the opponents are in doubt as to the best lead. The ♣K is covered by the ♣A and declarer discards a heart instead of ruffing. A second heart goes on the established ♣Q, so Stewart avoids losing 2 hearts. But note that this slam makes because East holds the ♣KQxx opposite a void. Has the bidding revealed this situation? If not, is the slam justifiable? Well, one could argue that what East doesn’t have in clubs he must have in hearts. East’s bid of 5♥ is a strong indication he holds the ♥AKxx. That may not be so helpful, as declarer may have to ruff a diamond with the ♠ Q to make way for a triple squeeze. The luck in the slam resides in a happy ending to a disorderly bidding sequence rather than in the subsequent, careful play.

The Case For Side-Suit Quacks

We are left with an account how a conservative bidder thinking primarily in terms of points was able to reach a makeable slam on just 26 HCP. Granted, it was only a major suit slam. One might observe that the ♥J is a wasted value. The ♣KQxx could be reduced to the ♣KJ10x and the slam might still make in the same way after a lead to the ♣J and ♣A. We wouldn’t want to reduce the ♠ Q to the ♠ J as trump solidarity is always a key component in bidding slams. With this trimming down the losing trick count would still indicate bidding the slam, although the chances of making it are greatly reduced.

The losing trick count strips the hand down to the bare essentials. It caters to a ‘nothing wasted’ condition. The possession of the ♣Q removes the need for the ♣A to be well placed, provided the lead is a club. However, the chances of a club lead are reduced, if dummy doesn’t have the ♣Q because it would be dangerous to lead away from a holding of ♣Qxxx. Declarer is more likely to receive a trump lead. Dummy’s not holding the ♥J would increase the chances of receiving a threatening heart lead.

A great advantage of holding side-suit quacks is that the opponents don’t have them. That makes their defence more difficult; defenders may not have an obvious lead; they have to envision a particularly favorable distribution of unseen honors. They may lose a tempo by adopting an overly passive approach. Although slam might be made on a double dummy basis without the sideboard quacks, in practice it’s going to be helpful to declarer when he tries to manipulate the defence. Thus, the notion that one needs a considerable number of HCPs to make encouraging raises is a conservative one that provides for extra chances that may not be immediately obvious and that may not be necessary. The system is not geared towards finding the ‘perfect’ result.

The realization that ‘what I have, they don’t have’ is also important in competitive bidding, as noted at the beginning. When deciding whether or not to push on, one has to gauge the effect on the opponents’ bidding. They are less likely to take the push if they hold secondary honors in your suit and you have secondary honors in theirs. It becomes too easy for them to pass and let you play in a bad contract.

I had a lovely Sunday.  Colin, Luise, Jessica and Marcus slept over.  The kids love a sleepover.  We had pancakes for brunch.  I made some batter and the kids put strawberries, bananas and chocolate chips into custom pancakes.  After that we watched Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs.  I have to say that Jessica liked Walt Disney’s Snow White (which we watched the night before) a whole lot better.  Walt Disney had magic.

After the kids left the day was full of bridge.  I pondered systems over 2.  Do you like playing control showing responses?  I was thinking about inverting 2 to show more controls than 2 because it seems to me that when you have more controls you need more space not less.  Thoughts on this matter are welcome.

Later on I watched the finals of Women’s Canadian curling while I played some bridge.  Fortunately I have a TV mounted right beside my computer.  (Okay maybe my bridge playing was a touch distracted).  It was an exciting final and an interesting display of “fear of winning”.  Going into End 8 out of 10 the Prince Edward Island team had a formidable two point lead with the hammer.  They did badly in eight, nine and ten and eventually lost in an extra end.  It was as if knowing that they would be the first team ever to win a major curling championship from PEI, the pressure was just too much.

Back at my bridge game, this deal provided a bit of a bidding challenge for me.  I held: A94 Q54 A107 KQJ2

I opened 1NT in second chair and partner raised to 4NT.  Is slam worth a go?  I have 16 points right in the middle of the range and the spot in diamonds and spades might be helpful.  The J is a better card than than some jacks.  But I decided to pass.

It was the 4-3-3-3 shape that did me in.  I was happy I had passed when I saw my partner’s hand.  She had J32 AJ KQJ A9854

6NT is not a good spot.  It does have some play.  If the heart finesse works you might make via a squeeze of some sort.  If my LHO holds the top two spades along with the heart king there is a simple squeeze and it works with or without the count.  You can just run winners or you can lead a spade towards the jack earlier on.

Is 6 better?  It requires less card reading but it does need the same holdings in the east-west hand.  Best to play in game as we did.  Well done partner.  If she had transferred to clubs and then bid 4NT (as I might have done) we would have been in the poor slam.

Here was one more interesting decision.  Your hand is:

3 AK7532 Q54 KQ43

Your partner opens 1 at favorable vulnerable and RHO bid 1.  You bid 2 and partner bids 2NT.  Righty isn’t finished; vulnerable or no, he bids 3.  What do you do?

I think double here should just show a good hand.  You can’t have trump.  You are just setting up a force and letting partner decide.  You could bid 3NT or 4 but maybe you are better defending.  Let partner decide.  That was the decision of my expert partner and it was a very good one.

I held: QJ6 J6 KJ1062 A102

I wasn’t sure it was the right thing to do but with only one spade stopper I was going to have to run nine tricks in 3NT and I didn’t fancy the 5-2 in hearts (which broke 5-1 not too surprisingly).  3 doubled only went down one but this was a great result since we could make nothing.

Just after this I had a session with Colin.  Here is another deal in my series bidding slams without Blackwood.  With both side not vulnerable Colin held

875 AKQJ9 A2 K73

He opened 1 strong and I bid 2NT.  This shows 12-14 HCP, with no suit longer than five cards.  RHO bid 4, and Colin bid 4, showing his suit.  He knew that I had a good hand and it was important to get his suit in.   I wouldn’t give up on a suitable hand. I had

AQJ 10653 K943 A9

I suppose I could bid 4NT, keycard.  If I do Colin will bid 5 (3).  I could bid 5 which would get 6.  I could bid 6 and Colin would bid 6 which would end the auction.  There is nothing wrong with this auction. 

But once Colin shows a hand worth 16 points or more and hearts nothing is keeping me from slam.  The bigger issue is should we be in 7.  Would Colin go to the grand with the hand below over keycard?  I don’t think so.

87 AKQ932 AQ K73

What I actually did was bid 5 over 4. Colin bid 5 and I bid 5. Colin bid 6 which was doubled.  I bid 6.  Now would Colin have bid 7 on the hand above?  I pretty well have to have the diamond king, club ace, and the spade king at least.  Do I absolutely have to have the spade ace?  It seems likely.  We will never know the answer.

Colin had to play carefully because the hearts were 4-1 and the long hearts had four clubs (and fortunately also the K.  A dummy reversal looks attractive (ruffing diamonds in the long hand) but in fact I believe it needs the same things.

Do you like my bid on the next hand or not?

97 J42 K3 AQJ642

Red on white 1 was opened in front of me and I bid 2 which worked out well when we won the auction with 3.  I know I don’t have much but my bid takes up a lot of space and other excuses.  Here is a second slam hand (I wimped out and bid Blackwood.)  However I think the play is the thing on this board.

We arrived in 6 after Colin showed five clubs, heart support and stuff.

Colin

A4 975 KQ4 A9864

Me

K763 AKJ82 A K102

The opening lead was the J.  Maybe the best line is to draw trump.  Suppose I win the spade in dummy and hook the heart.  I can win the return, say a club in hand.  Draw another round of trump and play spades ruffing the third round in dummy.  I can get back to my hand with a diamond and draw the rest of the trump.  If trump behaves decently I can throw my losers on the diamonds, twelve tricks.  If the heart finesse wins I follow the same line but I have extra chances.

What does this line need?  Only one heart loser basically.  If hearts are 3-2 and the finesse loses then I can’t stand spade ruff of the second round or a spade ruff in the third round with the 10. I think any line involving setting up the clubs is just not as good (even though the club spots are nice).

What I actually did was win the spade in hand and start with a high trump from hand.  When the 10 came down on the first round I was much better position for a spade ruff so I stopped drawing trump, cashed the diamond, crossed on a spade, played diamonds pitching my losers, returned on the K, ruffed a spade and played the 9. LHO, who started with Qxxx, could only make one trump trick. I still don’t know what the mathematically best line is.  I just know mine worked.  I had the added disadvantage of a kibbitzer (who shall not be named) standing in my office and yelling at me to do the wrong things.  Here is the whole deal and if you have some comments I would be interested.

	A4 975 KQ4 A9864
Q1085 Q643 9872 5		J92 10 J10653 QJ73
	K763 AKJ82 A K102

I had one other hand that Colin announced was Linda proof but it really wasn’t. Here was the hand which I did make (but not without some sweat).

	1094 QJ98 K10864 9
	A5 AK102 AJ74 KQ5

After opening 2NT I arrived in 4.  I won the opening lead of the K and tried two rounds of trump with RHO showing out on the second round (won in dummy).  I tried a club from dummy.  RHO won the K with the A and played two rounds of spades.

	10 Q9 K10864 –
	– K10 AJ74 Q5

I ruffed high and drew the remaining trump in two rounds.  Now all I had to do was guess diamonds.  About this point I am thinking couldn’t I have played this hand on a safer line.  Well, if you are going to play like this you better be able to guess well. I don’t really have a count.  I know RHO has four hearts and three spades and some clubs.  I am missing nine clubs so if they split somewhat equally he has three or four of them at least.  I think he is odds on to be short in diamonds.

I played the K and both followed (rats).  Now I am thinking diamonds were never bid by our side.  With four trump and a spade sequence how likely is it that you would lead your stiff diamond?  I decided not that likely so I finessed and that was right.  So it was Linda proof and I made five in the end.  Given that I only had to make four maybe its safer to play diamonds earlier!  Perhaps I should duck the opening spade lead, win the continuation, play the two top hearts and then play diamonds finessing.  West can ruff but I still make it.

	1094 QJ98 K10864 9
KQJ3 7654 9 A864		8762 3 Q32 J10732
	A5 AK102 AJ74 KQ5

 

IV/28

♠ 2 ♥ AK763 ♦ 98 ♣ A10652 ♠ KD8 ♠ 7653 ♥ D4 ♥ 1052 ♦ AK107 ♦ DB63 ♣ D987 ♣ K3 ♠ AB1094 ♥ [...]

[...]

		♠	107
		♥	K75
		♦	AK86
		♣	KB97
♠	AK3			♠	B952
♥	DB83			♥	1092
♦	D3			♦	B75
♣	8532			♣	A64
		♠	D864
		♥	A64

In last night's 24 board team game, playing with Jenn, I was dealt a 9-card, 8-card, 7-card, 6-card and 5-card suit in the same session - all in diamonds!  (I also held suits containing 4,3,2 and 1 diamond; no voids.)  I think that the odds against that happening are so astonomical that it may never have happened before.  I will present them in descending order of the suit lengths. 


1.  First seat, neither vulnerable.


♠  x
♥  Qx
♦  AKQxxxxxx
l♣ K


How would you handle this freak?  Jenn and I play a gambling 3NT opening to show a long solid minor, but our agreement is that the hand may contain no outside ace or king.  So the only choices are 1 Diamond or 5 Diamonds.  I decided to bid 1 Diamond.  LHO overcalled 1 Spade, partner made a negative double, and RHO bid 2 Spades.  Now what? 


Since partner showed some values in hearts, I decided to simply bid Blackwood.  If she showed 2 aces, I would take a shot at 6 Diamonds.  She actually bid 5 Diamonds, showing one ace, so I passed.  LHO led the ace of spades, and I looked at:


♠  xx
♥  xxxxx
♦  JT
♣ AQxx


♠  x
♥  Qx
♦  AKQxxxxxx
♣ K


A disappointing dummy - neither the ace or king of hearts.  I should have been down one.  LHO knew that I was off 2 aces. Fortunately for us, he had a stiff king of hearts and didn't play it, going for a passive defense, so we made six.  (An interesting sidelight: if he had played his king, RHO would have had to decide whether or not to overtake.  Overtaking is right if the lead is a stiff king, breaks even if it is from KQ, but loses if it is from Kx.  In this case, RHO had AJTxx, so if partner had Kx, declarer would have a singleton and his play wouldn't matter, so he should overtake.) 


At the other table, our opponents had an accident.  The bidding went 1 Diamond, one Spade, Double, 2 Hearts, alerted as a good spade raise.  The person holding my cards now cue bid 2 Spades. LHO went on to 4 Spades, and her partner bid 5 Hearts (thinking that the cue bid showed a heart fit) which was doubled.  She passed and her partner went for -1700!  Had she correctly removed to 6 Diamonds (9-card suits should always be trumps), our teammates would have likely set it one (after partner doubles 5 hearts, leading the king at trick 2 would have been easy, but might not beat it 2 tricks.)  We won 19 IMPs.  It might have been 4 or 8 depending on whether they beat it one or two.


2.  In third seat, neither vulnerable,  I held:


♠  Jx
♥  void
♦  KJTxxxxx
♣  xxx


This was an easy one.  Jenn dealt and opened 1 Heart.  We play Bergen, so I couldn't bid 3 Diamonds.  I had to bid a forcing 1NT.  She bid 2 Clubs, I bid 2 Diamonds, she bid 3 Clubs, I bid 3 Diamonds and she passed.   The contract was the same at the other table.  We made 4 for a 1 IMP gain.


3.  In first seat, neither vulnerable, I held:


♠  x
♥  AK9xx
♦  JT9xxxx
♣  void


Do you open, and if so, what?  I didn't want to preempt in diamonds as this could bury the heart suit.  I considered opening it 1 Diamond, but instead chose to pass.   LHO opened 1 Club, Jenn overcalled 1 Spade, and RHO made a surprising bid of 2 Hearts.  Now I decided to get into the auction with 3 Diamonds.  Jenn surprised me with a raise to 4 Diamonds.  Since this was IMPs, I couldn't just leave it there, so I tried 5 Diamonds.  Everyone passed, Jenn produced:

 ♠ Axxxx
♥  void
♦  KQxxx
♣ Jxx

Nice trump support!  Jenn, considering that I had been a passed hand and hearing strong opposition bidding, made only a gentle raise.  We made six, losing only the ace of diamonds.  My counterpart at the other table chose to open my hand 2 Hearts, which I consider a serious breach of discipline in first position.  He got what he deserved.  Everyone passed, he went down 2 and we won 11 IMPs.

4.  In third seat, both sides vulnerable, I held:

♠ x
♥ Jxxxxx
♦ Kxxxxx
♣ void

Partner passed, and RHO opened 2 Clubs.  I decided to get into the auction with 2 Diamonds.  I knew it was their hand, but a sacrifice bid was possible.  LHO passed (showing some values), and Jenn raised to 3 Diamonds.  RHO bid 4 Clubs, so I took an advance save with 5 Diamonds.  LHO doubled, RHO bid 5 Spades and LHO raised to 6 Spades.  Rats!  Our bidding may have pushed them into a making slam.  If this had been pairs, I might have saved with 7 Diamonds, but in a team game, this is losing strategy.  You certainly are going for 500 or more, so you might as well hope the slam can be set.  I tried my best shot, my lowest diamond, hoping RHO had one so partner could win the ace and give me a club ruff.  Alas, he was 5=1=0=7 and the slam was cold.  Our teammates couldn't find their way to the slam, so we lost 11 IMPs.  Preempts are good tactics but sometimes they backfire. 

5.  I actually held 2 hands with 5 diamonds.  Here is the more interesting one.  I was dealer, both vulnerable, and held:

♠ KJxx
♥ J
♦ JT9xx
♣ AKx

I opened 1 Diamond, LHO passed, Jenn bid 1 Spade, RHO bid 2 Hearts, I bid 2 Spades (promising 4-card support since we play support doubles), LHO bid 3 Hearts, and Jenn bid 4 Spades.  RHO led the queen of diamonds, and Jenn, looking at:

♠ Axxxx
♥ xx
♦ AKx
♣ xxx

had no trouble making 6 (spades were 2-2). This board was a push.



Good luck!

Memphis Mojo often scans the front cover of a poker magazine and then provides the essence, aka poker pearl, from the lead story. Glen, over at BridgeMatters, has done something similar during a series of articles on Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell.

Hi all

I’m counting down on my days of freedom & slacking. On Monday I’ll start my QA job at Newfield Wireless, a service provider for large telecom companies. A bonus for me is that it’s really, really just around the corner. I’m happy. And I can confess that again bridge has proven to be the vital key in me finding a job. Seriously, one day scientists will discover bridge cures diseases too, I’m positive.

Here’s a small deal from a Piedmont Monday night game.



All vulnerable l opened the South hand with a 12-14 NT and got to play there. Of course the opponents found a lead and damage control was priority one, as I could only count two solid tricks. My RHO won the King of and returned a small one. I had nothing to think about and threw my Queen which won the trick to my surprise.

Processing the information at the table. RHO has both honors, honors are probably split, so West is the favourite candidate for holding the Ace. I proceeded accordingly and played my Ten to the Queen. She survived, and when I finessed against the Jack on the way back West won it with the Ace. So far so good, I can count five tricks now: two , two and a . The opponents take their and I discard to this position:



West now annoyingly switched to a . I don’t want to chuck up the sponge for -200. So after I’ve cashed the King of I go after the . I play my small to dummy’s 9 and East wins with the King. I take the continuation and sacrifice my Queen of to West who grinds his teeth and surrenders his Ten to dummy’s Jack. Well, who would have thought that anemic dummy was actually going to take two tricks?

South Dealer

All Vul

North

J962

3

8653

Q765

West

AT8

JT864

Q7

A42

East

K54

AK92

JT2

J83

South

Q73

Q75

AK94

KT9

 

The defense was correct up to the point where I played my small towards dummy. If West had risen with the Ace to continue setting up a winner, then his partner would still have the King as an entry. I was happy with -100, as a lot of pairs made eight or nine tricks in .

This is Part VIII of the Bread N' Butter series: a look at Meckwell bidding in the last world championship when one of them had 10 to 17 balanced, either in opening position, or directly over an opponent's opening. We will consider balanced as any 4-3-3-3/4-4-3-2/5-3-3-2, plus any hand that Meckwell treated as balanced.One of the nice features of the Just Sayin' blog (see Memphis Mojo link to the

I went to the club last night and played with Brent. Playing against two good players, I held:
♠--- ♥J 10 ♦Q 10 9 4 3 ♣A K J 10 4 3.

At favorable vulnerability, I was first to act and opened 2♣. We are playing precision and this showed 11 -- 15 high-card points and (usually) six or more clubs (I could have five if they were headed by the ♣A K Q). My left-hand opponent bid 2♥ partner bid 3♣ and RHO bid 4♥.

You're up to bat.

I decided that there was too much of a chance that opponents could make their vulnerable game (I was right), and that 5♣ would go set less than their game (I was right).

But what if the opponents bid to 5♥? I don't really have much defense against that, either. I decided to get cute and bid 4♠. My thinking was that with a spade lead, I could ruff and increase our chances of defeating them if they bid on over 5♣.

The operation was a success! Over 4♠, the bidding passed out! I'll take minus 50 a trick versus their vulnerable game.

Here are all four hands:

                ♠ Q 8 7 6 3
                ♥ Q 9 2
                ♦ 8 2
                ♣ 9 7 2
♠ A 10 2                        ♠ K J 9 5 4
♥ K 7 6 5 4                     ♥ A 8 3
♦ A 5                           ♦ K J 7 6
♣ 8 6 5                         ♣ Q
                ♠ ---
                ♥ J 10
                ♦ Q 10 9 4 3
                ♣ A K J 10 4 3

In 4♠, I took one club and two spades for down seven and minus 350.

Even though they can make 4♥ (or 4♠ for that matter), and we go set 500 in 5♣ (according to Deep Finesse), this was a stone-cold zero. The score sheet showed two minus 300s our way, and some assorted 50s, 100s, etc.

Below is a shot of the results (with the names blanked out):

I think there is some luck in bidding and also some judgment.  It seems like you have a lot of choices to make and some times the decisions turn out awfully well.  It is hard to distinguish whether that is luck or skill except over many deals, I suppose.

Here is a few decisions from my session yesterday with Karen.

What do you open this hand white on red in first at imps

KJ76432
void
Q65
A86

pass, 1, 2,3,4 or 4 (if you play Namyats)

I personally like 1.  You do have some defense and it is possible that playing high numbers of spades is not best.  But I can see 4 as a choice I suppose.  Maybe the opponents can make lots of hearts and you are certainly making it harder for them to find their spot.  I don’t like 2 or 3.  What is your poison?

Anyway, Karen bid 1 and we had no trouble finding slam.  Actually I probably would have tried for and gotten to slam opposite any number of spades.  My hand was

AQ8
A53
AJ42
KJ10

3 would have been the hardest to deal with.  I wonder if without discussion 4 is some sort of slam try in spades?  It probably should be.  My opinion is that anyone who opens 3 on this hand is not unlucky to miss slam, they deserve to miss slam.

Here is another choice.  First what do you bid on Karen’s hand with

A8
KJ97
AJ10982
K

You are vulnerable against not and it goes 2 pass 4 to you?  Do you like double?  If partner passes you are okay with that and if partner pulls to clubs you plan to convert to diamonds.  This is the bid Karen made.  I prefer bidding to passes and I think double is fine.  5 seems reasonable to me too.  Anyway this was my decision now

5
A864
K6532
543

I figured that on this auction Karen can’t have a spade stack.  She is doubling on high cards or shape.  We figure to be able to play a red suit contract.  I picked 5.  I figured that if she was really short in diamonds she could pull to hearts.  Maybe we were lucky, maybe we had good judgment But 5 was a great contract.  I was able to element the black suits and have a 100% contract with a chance for an uptrick by hooking the J.  6 isn’t a terrible contract but it doesn’t make on the lie of the cards.

Some times it seems like you just have a series of these decisions.  They are close decisions and you have to make a choice.  I suppose the really good players based on their experience and talent get them right a lot more than we lesser mortals.

Ken Eichenbaum described to me a cue concept that makes some sense. I recently saw a post on the BBF that illustrates where this would make a lot of sense. The idea of a WAC is that an "impossibly negative cue" is actually an "absolutely positive cue," showing stuff everywhere with uncertainty about passing the game level.

Here's an example.

2C-P-2D(waiting GF)-P-
2H-P-3H-P-
4D?!?!?

How on earth can Opener have a 4D cue? No black suit controls at all means at best (in HCP) QJ-QJ. To even have a 2C opening, Opener would almost need solid diamonds and solid hearts. Sure -- possible. Kind of a picture jump without the jump. But, really? Why not simply bid 4H with that four-loser hand? Or, bid 3NT and then 4D if partner bids 4C?

Well, maybe this call (one under game), when impossible (or practically impossible) should rather than DENY any club or spade control actually PROMISE control in every suit (with slam interest) but express uncertainty about the five-level. In other words, if a cue denies "too much," then it instead promises "all."

The problem presented was after a 3S cue, a 4D cue from Responder, and a 4H "signoff" by Opener, could Opener have a club control but not enough cause to enter the five-level. If so, then Opener can never check on a club control and yet assuredly stay at game if this is denied. If not, then Opener is in a pickle with controls everywhere but not enough general strength to justify entry to the five-level.

The WAC grabs all and solves this problem (or possible/perceived problem at least).

Funny thing is that this concept first was presented to me as a result of a humorous analysis of a bizarre cuebidding decision. Someone (who shall remain nameless) made a cue in a specific sequence that seemed impossible. A technical hand was possible, even if that seemed really unlikely. So, as we are prone to do, we decided that this might make sense if the person thought up and launched without discussion (as we sometimes do ourselves, admittedly) a "new concept" that "just had to be obvious." In reality, it was just a bizarre call, a decision to cue for the first call and then jump into an undiscussed pattern bid for who knows what reason. But, every once in a while an absurd call out of the blue can serve as a discussion point for some actually relevant idea.

Of course, a good idea is to discuss (if you like the WAC idea) when this should apply. For, a call that is "impossible" is rare. More often, the call would be "highly improbable" or for obscure reasons actually redundant. This specific sequence of a one-under-game-initial-cue after a 2C opening and a 2-3 raise of a major seems fairly "impossible." But, whipping this out mid-stream, unless you are into that sort of thing, would be somewhat unwise, I suppose.

Some of the decisions faced in Iceland. All problems are IMPs.

1. A high-level decision



Bidding is a recipe for -800, but the opponents may run to 5♠ which you'll double for -650!

2. How long do you go on competing?



Double gets you +300 (pass) or +600 (3NT) or -100 (4♥) or +130 (4♦) depending on what partner does with KJx 9xxx 9xxx xx.

3. Game or penalty?



Passing gets you +300 with no game making. We each got +300 when this hand bid 4♠ at the other table.

4. Transferring the problem to you.



I feel 5♥ either shows good controls and weak hearts, or strong hearts and poor controls. Clearly the latter here, so bidding 6♥ looks right. Partner has ♥AKQxx and you make twelve or thirteen tricks.

5. Feeling suicidal?



Par is 5♦ doubled making 10 tricks. Doubling or bidding will get you to 5♦, they will then bid 5♥ so the problem will be that partner may try for slam expecting you to have more.

I had a chance to have a game with Karen Cumpstone today. We played a session on BBO with very little discussion. I have found that those are the sessions were you don’t have misunderstandings. You are both being quite careful. Still there were a few auctions to think about. Before any of that I thought this was an interesting position.  Here is the whole hand

 

	Karen
	QJ1098
	98
	752
West	A92	East
AK		76542
AKQ74		10
AJ3		Q1086
K73	Linda	Q106
	3
	J6532
	K94
	J854

The opponents arrived in 3NT after West showed a strong balanced hand with hearts.  Karen led a spade of course.  Declarer tried the J which was ducked.  He conceded a diamond to me and I got out a small heart which declarer won in hand. 

At this point he had to play the club suit.  Our declarer led a club to the 10.  This seems superficially attractive because if he can make two club tricks he doesn’t actually need to reach dummy.  But actually it is still 50-50.  If both are onside all works and if both are offside nothing works.  If the J is onside then the 10 works but if the A is onside then he has to rise with the Q since if he guesses wrong he not only will only have one club trick but he won’t be able to get to dummy.

If either of us has the A doubleton and he puts in the 10  he can still get to dummy true.  But he gets the same result if either of us has the J of clubs and he puts in the Q,

The presence of a ninth trick in dummy changed the odds in the club suit.  Cool.  Of course he might have led the K from his hand first.  We might make a mistake but in addition if Karen had a doubleton club honor even if she ducked he would see it and know what to do.  That is certainly the best play.

Here was a hand where no discussion played a role.  How do you bid this crazy hand:

 

AKQ73 J A AKQJ52

 

Red on white Karen opened 2.  I wanted to bid 3 but people play that as all sorts of things.  Would see take it as natural and forcing?  I thought about 6 which would probably work most days.  Anyway I bid 2.  This bid makes me wince when I look at it again.  Karen bid 3 and RHO decided to come in with 3 no doubt influenced by the vulnerability.  I bid  6.  Now that bid doesn’t make me wince.  Anyway Karen did not have a perfect hand for me and it turned out that both slams needed pretty much the same thing.  Here was her hand:

85
K9
Q1087652
43

Playing in clubs is better because you can try for the remote chance that if spades don’t break that the four spades are with the stiff club.  In any case neither slam was making today.  Thinking about it again I should just have bid 6 right off.  Then I wouldn’t have had to wince and I would have played in the right contract.

It was a lot of fun and Karen was awesome.

Phillip Alder has a bridge column, NEA Bridge, that appears in syndication in many local newspapers. (He also has another that appears two or three days a week in the NY Times.) The quality is usually quite good. This is from his Jan. 28, 2010 article.

You are on defense as West on this layout:

                ♠ J 7
                ♥ K J 10 2
                ♦ K 10 8 5 2
                ♣ 9 6
♠ K Q 6 2
♥ 9 7 5 4
♦ ---
♣ J 8 5 3 2

Right-hand opponent opened 1♦, you passed and LHO bid 1♥. Partner overcalled 1♠ and RHO rebid 2♦. You jumped to 4♠ and North bid 5♦. Partner doubled and all passed.

You lead the ♠K and partner plays the 3 (standard or right-side up signals). Is that discouraging, count or suit preference.

The article made a big point that it must be suit preference and West should trust his partner and shift to a club. Indeed, a club shift would set the contract. Here are all four hands:

                ♠ J 7
                ♥ K J 10 2
                ♦ K 10 8 5 2
                ♣ 9 6
♠ K Q 6 2                      ♠ A 10 9 5 4 3
♥ 9 7 5 4                      ♥ 8 3
♦ ---                          ♦ A
♣ J 8 5 3 2                    ♣ K Q 7 4
                ♠ 8
                ♥ A Q 6
                ♦ Q J 9 7 6 4 3
                ♣ A 10

What's wrong with this picture? Why can't partner overtake the ♠K himself instead of taking a chance that partner can't read the ♠3?

You can read the column if you click here.

Just thinking out loud...

MANY years ago, I remember using mental "flash cards" to learn hand patterns at bridge. This is a common learning tool for getting used to the numbers at bridge. 4432, 5431, 6322. Stuff like that.

The next time this ever entered my mind was in learning parity signals.

Recently, however, I started thinking as to whether there are other ways to categorize patterns. Whether this would add any benefit or not is unclear. But, just getting a grasp on pattern type thinking might lead itself somewhere.

Here's an example of what I mean.

What do hands like 4432, 4441, 5440, and even 4333 have in common with some hand patterns like 6421, 6430, 5422, and 5431?

Well, nothing obvious. However, let's assume that the first group has a common theme, namely that the shortest suit is in one of the majors. Then, let's assume that the second group has a common theme, namely that the shortest suit is the same major as in the first group, the longest suit is diamonds, and the second-longest suit the other major. Now any similarities?

I'll pick one short major, the short spades example:

Group One: 2443, 2434, 2344, 1444, 0445, 0454, 0544, 3433
Group Two: 1462, 2461, 3460, 0463, 2452, 3451, 1453

Now, do you see any pattern similarities?

There is nothing numerically similar, at least not that I can see, other than the similarities forced into the example. However, from a bridge perspective, these two pattern groups are "related" in that all are appropriate for a takeout double, if an equal-level-conversion call is systemically allowed.

This is no great observation, in its own right. However, thinking about these groupings in a sort of brainstorming effort leads to some thoughts. (Might work better with pot.) Like, I notice that hands with primary clubs and secondary other-major do not fit into this grouping, which means that they are "left out," possibly needing a "solution." I think out loud about the "physical" qualities of this situation, where "weight" seems easily spread out or grouped at the top BUT with primary weight just below the top. It seems that the interests of bidding goals, coupled with practicalities and safeties, force certain "weight" tendencies to patterns suitable for certain approaches.

One might, then, plausibly devise a methodology where a certain call handles "convenient pattern holdings" but an alternative handles "inconvenient pattern groupings."

Imagine, for simple example, an overcalling structure over 1NT where immediate calls show "convenient grouping holdings," such as with, say, Cappelletti, whereas a double might simply show "inconvenient pattern holdings." After a 2C relay from Advancer, the Doubler might indicate some core feature of some "inconvenient pattern group." For instance, 2D after the relay might show some hand with diamonds plus a shorter major. Or, 2D might also cover some other diamond-focused "inconvenient pattern group" as well, if there is a way to describe the inconvenient pattern group because we know all of the diamond-focused entries into that pattern group. Of course, I don't know that group right now -- hence the thought experiment.

I mean, we all have these hands that pop up where we look at the hand and gasp at the complete lack of options. If we could somehow find that these "ugh!!!" hands have some "mechanics" causing the difficulties, we might somehow figure out a cure along the lines of some artificial capture technique.

Consider an example. Maybe a 2NT response to a major opening might actually serve better (than other ideas typically used) as a "flag" of a trouble pattern hand, with 3C asking to explain, and Responder identifying the difficult pattern.

Just a thought, perhaps.

Our good friend Bill Milgram sent me a squeeze to look at (and classify) that allowed him to make 6C in a high quality game at the bridge club.  Ray commented that his opponents were unlucky that Bill had been the declarer since he was one of few players (maybe the only one) who would have made the contract.  However the defense did err at the beginning of the hand.  So this is a challenge for you.  Would you have made 6?

Here is the hand

Leah (patient wife)

AK872

632

J10943

void

 

Bill

6

AJ10

7

AKQJ6532

The spot cards are approximate and I don’t have an auction.  But assume there is no helpful information from the opponents.  The opening lead is the 6.  West wins the K and returns a small diamond which you ruff.  Can you make it from here?

While you are thinking about the hand, the Clyde E. Love practice deals are now available as a free download at www.ebooksbridge.com.  So if you like squeezes enjoy the twenty practice hands which cover a wide range of different types of squeezes and be sure to let me know if you find any mistakes.  People who provide useful input will be acknowledged in updates to the practice deals so this is your chance to be famous.

Back to the Bill’s deal.  It looks to me like both hands guard diamonds.  You have no entries to dummy to ruff anything out.  One possibility is that one hand guards spades and hearts.  Then when you run all the clubs you reach this ending and the victim cannot hold three spades and the KQ of hearts.

Leah (patient wife)

AK8

void

J

void

 

Bill

6

AJ10

void

void

 

Is there anything else?  The problem is the entries (non-existent).  If West holds spades and East hold hearts when you run clubs you end up in a similar ending:

	Leah (patient wife)
	AK8
	6
	J
	void

 

West
QJ10
9
Q
	Bill
	6
	AJ10
	void
	3

 

On the last club West still has an idle card and can throw a heart.  Dummy has no useful discard.  The double squeeze does not work.

Is there any other lie of the cards that works?  We need to make West’s life a bit tougher?  You can make the hand if the heart honors are split so long as West holds spades.  This is a double guard squeeze.  Let’s look at the ending since it was the squeeze that existed at the table.

	Leah (patient wife)
	AK8
	6
	J
	void

 

West		East
J109		Q
Q		K98
Q		A
	Bill	void
	6
	AJ10
	void
	3

When Bill led his second last club West was squeezed in three suits.  He had to give up his diamond guard.  Anything else would leave immediate defeat.  Bill throws a spade from dummy and East can discard a spade.  Now Bill cashes spades and arriving at a two card ending.  East is squeezed in hearts and diamonds. 

The nice thing about the hand from declarer’s point of view is that the hand sort of plays itself.  You really don’t have any other choices but to run clubs and when you do both the triple squeeze and double guard squeeze will operates.

The defense did err though.  At trick two when in on the top diamond, East has to damage declarer’s fragile entries.  Either a spade lead or a heart lead will do the trick.  Here is the whole deal:

	Leah (patient wife)
	AK872
	632
	J10943
	void

 

West		East
J109543		Q
Q7		K9854
Q86		AK52
87	Bill	1094
	6
	AJ10
	7
	AKQJ6532

The most frustrating match in the Reykjavik Teams was the ninth round. We'd won our first two matches of the day and were looking to continue the run.

Board 1
A boring partscore. We make 1NT for average on the cross imping (aka butler).

Board 2
Opponents bid the normal vulnerable game. Lose 1 IMP on the butler as some fail to bid it and some overbid to a non-making slam.

Board 3
We are one of only four pairs who bid to the excellent 6♦. It is a 4-4 fit and the slam needs a 3-2 trump break, but we avoided the 6-3 club fit and can establish this suit if it does not break 4-0. Unfortunately it does, so we lose 8 IMPs on the butler rather than gaining 11. The slam is excellent as 5♦ does not make either when the clubs break this way, but the 3NTers are safe.

Board 4
Lose 9 IMPs on the butler when the opponents bid a 22 point game that is missed by over 60 tables. No surprise as it's a lot less than 25%.

Board 5
We defend a partscore sensibly for a flat board.

Board 6
We bid an excellent 22-point club game that needs a heart honour onside (76%) or a 3-3 diamond break with the ace onside. Down one, but only lose 1 IMP on the butler as it is a good (red against green) save against the spade game. But it could have been worth so much more!

Board 7
Lose 10 IMPs when the opponents bid to an aggressive game and I do not find the killing lead. My lead looks normal but their auction may be different at other tables. Even then game needed two finesses.

Board 8
Gain 4 IMPs when the opponents cannot double our 14-16 1NT for penalty and miss their partscore. Even worse for them when 1NT makes.

Board 9
Flat board when our opponents do not bid their 26 point diamond game that needs one of two finesses. A lucky break although some of the field is going down in 3NT.

Board 10
Another flat board when the opponents disturb our 1NT to play in 2S making, with 1NT looking like it will only make four or five tricks.

We lost the match comfortably (-28 IMPs) and were -24 IMPs on the butler, despite playing really quite well (team mates were -3 IMPs). On another day we could have won by over 30 IMPs on these results.

There is much debate in Scotland as to whether team trials or pairs trials (using cross imping) are the fairest. This is an example of how little difference it would make when there are a lot of teams (over 70).

Eventually I stopped kicking the furniture, and I got lots of time to do this due to an appeal preventing last round assignments, and we played the final match of the tournament. Alex and I made an excellent slam on the first board and we powered to a maximum victory, perhaps helped more by our team mates punishing their opponents ruthlessly every time they stepped out of line (which was a lot of times).

I've spent the last four days playing at the Reykjavik Bridge Festival. Well playing might be too strong a word, perhaps sitting at the table tossing cards into the middle would be a more precise description.

But aside from the results at the table it's all been good fun. The tournament is well run, timings are good and everyone is extremely friendly. Teaming up with Csaba (gwnn on BBO) was good and we've laughed about the good boards and dismissed the bad ones to oblivion. For some reason Alex and I have played inconsistently and without our normal solidity, so the results have been all over the place.

I've been to Iceland before and done many of the tourist sites, so what little we've had away from the table I've been exploring Reykjavik a little more. It's a small capital, but all the more accessible for that. A good place to hold a tournament, an excellent venue that is currently reasonably priced.

Naturally, being so far north means that the days are short. It is a little disconcerting to have breakfast in the morning knowing that sunrise is more than an hour away (typically just after 10), and with bridge starting at 11 the last embers of dawn are still streaking away*.

Hopefully we'll be back and show how we can really play at the table.

*Add your own literary phrase here

Most think it’s the beginning of a new decade, but they’re wrong. The year 2011 is the beginning of a new decade, in the same way January 1, 2001 was the beginning of a new millennium. The decades run from 1 to 10. As Ibsen said, ‘the majority is always wrong.’ Take bridge as an example: the vast majority prefers 2/1 to Precision, but they’re wrong, dead wrong. Nevertheless, in deference to my partners my primary New Year’s Resolution is to ‘go with the field’. The big question is, ‘where is the field going?’ The answer: downhill. Before we expound on that, I’ll give you my predictions for 2010.

Barack Obama will forecast a budget surplus for the year 2020.
George W. Bush’s as-told-to memoirs will top the hardcover fiction list.
Vancouver will make money on the Winter Olympics.
Investment bankers will agree to cut back on huge, unwarranted bonuses.
The Chinese economic bubble will burst.
Toyota will return to making all its cars in Japan.
Martha Stewart will teach Hillary Clinton how to bake cookies.
Sarah Palin will star in the hit show Desperate Hockey Moms on Fox.
Tiger Woods will appear on the David Letterman Show.
Silvio Berlusconi will go to prison, but only to visit old friends.
Rihanna will crash and burn.
In the Iraqi elections the Peace and Prosperity Party will come in last.
Karzai will be accused of intercepting bribes intended for the Taliban.
The Pope will visit Mecca.

I Pass the First Test My first game of the year was with Dorothy who long ago gave up Precision in favor of SAYC. Behaving myself and going with the field I scored 48%. I caused one bad board because I mistakenly believed with 2NT the field played Puppet Stayman. I had asked Dorothy if she would add it to our card, and she agreed, either because she’s a good sport, or she thought it would never come up. Sorry, Dorothy. Late in the game I♣ was dealt a hand with 20 HCP and a 5-card spade suit ♠ AQT96, 5-3-3-2 shape, a perfect setup for Puppet. Wrong! Partner held 3 spades and zero points. I played too fast – my euphemism for screwing up – when I led out the ♠ A, ending up down 3. I imagined I might have some company, but, no. Everyone with my hand opened 1♠, making 80 or 110, so a well deserved bottom for me. I was buoyed by the hope that the field I was going to emulate was not as dumb as I feared.

On seeing the scores on the travelers the nice old granny on my right cackled, ‘That’s the kind of top I like.’ It was on the tip of my tongue to reply, ‘I prefer the tops I earn myself’, but I didn’t say it. My new rule of life was not, ‘do unto others’, but ‘turn the other cheek’. I had found it doesn’t hurt to thank partner for a totally inappropriate dummy, or to congratulate the opponents on their lucky result. This was the New Me. Being virtuous feels so good it’s a wonder more don’t practice it. I wish there was a pill for men to promote a surge in friendly feelings towards those of female persuasion that lasts up to 3 hours without affecting performance.

The Old Me Returns A week later I thought to pick up more ideas on which direction the field is currently leaning, so I went early to the club to sit in on a lecture given by our local 2/1 expert. There are always attempts to explain why 2/1 should work, but doesn’t. He often speaks of ‘lying about your hand’. It’s nonsense, of course. Don’t make a liar of everyone; if the demands of the system require that you bid that way, it can’t be a lie. Today’s topic was opening 1NT on a 5-card major within a 5-4-2-2 shape. When at the end of his lecture, he asked, ‘any questions?’ I kept mum. I have lots of questions, but they always come out as declarations about the superiority of a Big Club approach.

My last surviving Precision partner, Harry, and I began play against a pair of old dears. We announced happily that we play Precision, upon which the one on the right, festively bedecked with decorations that wouldn’t look out of place on the municipal Christmas tree, turned to me and declared severely, ‘Bridge is a game, and I come here to have fun.’ To which I replied, ‘Good for you; I am sure there are others here who think the same way.’ Harry laughed. So there went my first New Year’s Resolution which had been, ‘Be 100% tolerant of any asinine comment directed your way.’ It might have been one of those I’ll-hate-myself-in-the–morning moments, but it turned out that it wasn’t. Frankly, I was already tired of the New Me. The Old Me returned to score 67%.

I want things to be done the proper way. Does that make me an elitist? Yes. When I look in the mirror I see what could easily be mistaken for a mean, old geezer. So what? At my age no one looks like Howdy Doody. Don’t I have a right to have fun, too?

After 10 straight pluses Harry and I faced the lecturer. He let Harry play in 2♠, plus number 11, after which this hand came up.

		Harry	Bob	Expert Advice
♠ AJ	♠ KQ105	1NT (14-16)	2♣	1NT         4♣
♥AK76	♥54	2♥	3♣	4NT         6♣
♦ 1083	♦ 5	4♣	5♣	Pass
♣ A984	♣ KQJ1072	Pass

 
When Harry bypassed 3NT I had a fair indication that we had little wastage in diamonds. The loser count led me to conclude that 6♣ would be a good contract, and a tiny voice whispered in my ear, ‘bid it.’ Then I remembered my primary New Year’s Resolution, ‘go with the field’. So I counted up my 11 HCPs, added 19 and bid 5♣ praying something might go wrong to hold me to 11 tricks. My prayers went unanswered. I had missed the mark by a long shot as the field was in 3NT going down. Missing a cold minor suit slam was worth 8 out of 11 matchpoints. I blame Harry for not opening 1♣ with his 7 controls. I note once more that the field commonly bids 3NT with a singleton in the suit about to be led. Is that an unforeseen consequence of 2/1?

My First 2/1 Session Despite my studious preparation, or perhaps because of it, my first 2/1 outing with Carl was disappointing. Our local expert was lecturing as usual, and last week’s hand was discussed as our fortunate result against him apparently still rankled. After a roundabout analysis he suggested that I should have bid 4♣ Gerber, then 6♣ when the required 3 aces were revealed. Well, that works on that hand, but what about a possible 4-4 spade fit? Isn’t 2/1 all about reaching spade contracts? My reading suggests they even seek out the juicy 4-3 fits. I kept my peace then, but here are my thoughts now.

The Proliferation of Conventional Bidding has at its source the need for precise information, however, no one wants to give out information, as we have been told repeatedly that giving away too much information is detrimental. So the field goes by guesses. The Losing Trick Count is a superior way of guessing, however, there is this fundamental need that can’t be denied. The 1NT bid has limited partner’s hand. Responder must make a decision. How can he find out about controls? At the table I could have lied about my hand and bid 4♦, but where does the lying stop?

Another convention made to order: the bid of 4♦ should be defined as RKCB-for-Bob. Problem solved. We’d all love to have a convention named after us, but I am probably not in the first thousand Canadians to suggest this. It doesn’t come up very often, so we can double the frequency by extending its application to the diamond suit as follows: 1NT – 2♣; 2♥ or 2♠ – 3♦; 4♣ – 4♦, where 4♣ agrees diamonds and 4♦ is RKCB-for-Bob in diamonds. It’s easy to remember as a natural 4♣ bid is highly unusual.

The Weak Hand Decides I resolved never to comment to Carl after a bidding failure that it would have been easier playing Precision as we used to do, but, like my other New Year’s resolutions, this one didn’t survive the month of January. Most don’t subscribe to the idea that the stronger hand decides. Imagine you are driving carefully through town and the person in the passenger seat is constantly grabbing at the wheel. That’s how I felt all day. One of the features that attracts the masses to 2/1 is that either partner can decide at any time what the final contract should be. Indeed, they may slant the early bidding towards reaching what appears at first glance to be the best spot. If that’s how they behave, how can they imagine they’re playing a system? My resolve to button my lip was sorely tested on the 3rd board:

		Bob	Carl
♠ AQ3	♠ J104	2♣	2NT (4+controls)
♥AKQJ9	♥10764	3♥	4NT (RKCB)
♦ —	♦ AK85	5 ♦	7 NT!
♣KQ875	♣A2	Pass

 
I have read that one shouldn’t open 2♣ with a 2-suited hand. My excuse was that as we were playing control responses, I would immediately obtain useful information that could allow me to place the contract in the best spot. My heart leapt with joy when partner showed a big hand. A tiny voice whispered in my ear, ‘seven clubs’. As Frank Stewart tells us in the ACBL Bulletins, we shouldn’t listen to the tiny voice which tempts us into indiscretions, but here I was again, shamelessly out to beat the field. My 3♥ bid was a firm step forward, and I felt on the brink of a great success. Then I became exposed to one of the most attractive features of 2/1, the take-charge jump to 4NT. This shook me momentarily and I thought of bidding 6♦ to show the void, but we certainly had no agreement, so I kept it simple, declared my key cards, and held my breath.

Void or no void, 7NT, if it had made, it would have been a top, no argument there, but then so would 7♥, a contract that has the great advantage of actually producing 13 tricks. My unrepentant partner argued that he didn’t expect my hearts to be so good. Of course, how could he know? He missed the point entirely. How the field managed to avoid a cold grand slam, I am not sure. I’ll have to study the 2/1 system more carefully before I can state it authoritatively, but I think most began with 1♥ followed by a Jacoby 2NT raise putting the weaker hand in control. Opener showed shortness in diamonds and responder happily bid 4♥, which he was always going to do, regardless. Opener stopped in 6♥ thinking he needed the spade finesse. This is really stupid. Can it be true?

My First 2/1 Top Our first zero came early, so I was only marginally peeved. The chill turned to thrill a few hands later when against my expectations 2/1 produced a good minor suit slam. I initiated a dreaded reverse, opening on shorter clubs planning to bid longer diamonds later to show a strong hand while keeping my shape open to question. One must keep the weaker hand informed about the HCPs, just in case he wants to spring to 4NT. I was surprised when partner responded 1♦, as my diamonds were not only strong but plentiful. This bidding a minor over a minor is very significant in 2/1 as it suggests no interest at all in spades.

		Bob	Carl
♠ AQ4	♠ K653	1♣	1♦
♥ 3	♥A874	3♥*	3NT
♦AK1087	♦Q962	6♦	Pass
♣KQ98	♣4	*splinter

 
The old granny cum witch on my right admonished us for not alerting that we no longer played Precision where 1♣-1♦ means something entirely different. Fair enough, but I wonder if such an alert is required under the ACBL rules. After 6♦ was seen to have scored a clear top, partner politely commended me for my successful bid.
‘Pretty standard’ I replied, ‘you had to have a good hand to reply 1♦ like that.’
‘Well, actually, I had only 9 HCP, and was hoping you would bid a major.’
‘That’s the kind of top I like,’ I commented cheerily. I have a long memory.

So here was my introduction to yet another attractive feature of the 2/1 system as played by the field: you don’t have to follow it if you don’t feel like it. Once again a player opted to bid 3NT with a singleton, but this occasion was extraordinary, I think, in that he knew his partner held a singleton, too. I suppose at the other tables the auction went 1♣ – 1♥; 2♦ – 2♠; 2NT – 3NT, illustrating the method by which the weaker hand takes charge through the application of the nebulous Fourth Suit Forcing. Neither partner would know the other held a singleton, but then neither would the defenders. The consensus is that either you get very lucky, or you have lots of company.

Although it was very much in my mind, throughout the game the word ‘Precision’ had not audibly escaped my lips, but a lip reader might have caught it slipping through the cracks once or twice. That changed on the very last hand. I held a very attractive 2♣ bid with 22 HCP. Eight controls represent a very potent holding, so a rebid of 2NT can be a slam killer, but just how to avoid it I wasn’t sure. My concerns were alleviated when partner bid 2NT first, announcing 4+ controls. I could immediately place him with the ♠AK and ♣K. Ah, Science! The time was ripe for the strong hand to take control.

Bob	Carl
♠Q63	♠AK98754	2♣	2NT (4+controls)
♥AKJ7	♥8	3♣	3 ♠
♦AK	♦9652	4♣	4 ♠
♣AJ87	♣K	6 NT	Pass

 
Prospects for a grand slam were good, to say the least. I tried to get more information from Carl, but it is like pulling teeth. When all he could contribute were 2 minimal bids showing spades, I cautiously jumped to 6NT feeling that told the story. The doubleton ♦AK detracted somewhat from the hand. If Carl held the ♣Q along with the ♣K he might have supported my phantom clubs. There was no tiny voice urging me to bid 7NT.

Declaring in 6NT holding 2 singletons might upset some, but not Carl. He was upset because I hadn’t supported his spades. Consequently he adopted an unusual line of play under a delusion of wish fulfillment. Winning the diamond lead in dummy, he cashed the second diamond, played to the ♣K and attempted to ruff a diamond, carefully choosing the ♠Q to guard against an over-ruff. Not an optimum line even if spades were trumps. He had played too quickly. It was then I said a bad word followed by what I had resolved never to say, and more. I refused to take responsibility.

Taking 13 tricks off the top 6NT would have scored a shared top with the field stopping in 6♠. I have so much to learn that the thought of bidding 6♠ had never crossed my mind. I suppose others bid 2♣ – 2♦ (waiting); 2NT (22-23 HCP) – 3 (transfer); 3♠ – 6♠. The weak hand would be happy to be in a slam with just 32 HCP.

Competitive Bidding In competition 2 over 1 is out and 3 against 1 is in. Not only do you compete against the opponents, you also compete against your partner. When the hands are approximately of equal strength, and sometimes even when they’re not, the auction becomes a game of musical chairs for sedentary folk, where the trick is not to be left standing when the bidding stops. As everyone bids on nothing there is little danger of being doubled in the early stages, but partner is always a danger. An over-zealous partner may raise twice so you end up in a really bad contract. The principle skill in declarer play lies in keeping the opponents from spotting the killing defense during the first 3 rounds of play, thereby escaping from an adequate penalty. Usually I hope for a lead in an unbid suit and usually I get it.

Surprisingly, if Carl had got those 2 slams right, 2 tops instead of 2 bottoms, we would have won the game by a big margin. It doesn’t make sense that we scored so well when we bid so badly. Studying the results is like reading an Agatha Christie mystery: the characters are familiar, their actions are suspect, their motivations are questionable, and the ending is unbelievable – but it’s highly entertaining while it lasts. Maybe dear, bridge-playing Agatha was more of a social realist than critics have given her credit for.

In our previous blog we discussed a virtual experiment involving 360 school children playing a 4-door Monty Hall game. We extended of the application of the underlying principles to the selection from a club suit consisting of 3 of the 4 cards ♣Q-8-6-2.

The box on the left below indicates the possible combinations when the LHO holds 3 card and the RHO, 1. The first column represents the card held by the RHO. Each line represents 90 samples, 360 in all, so the initial probability that the ♣Q is held by the LHO is ¼ . The samples are presented to 360 bridge players who are asked to imagine themselves defending a 3NT contract and to choose a card other than the ♣Q. Thus, from line 1 the 90 players have a choice of 3 cards, whereas for the other lines the other 270 children can choose from 2 cards only. In an ideal experiment the players would choose the spot cards equally at random, so as to minimize the information transmitted to a declarer. The expected numbers of ballots are in the middle box and the resultant conditional probabilities are shown in the box on the right. All very nice and regular.

Initial Conditions

Trial Results

Probabilities P (X | Y)

Q	8	6	2		—	30	30	30		—	1/4	1/4	1/4
8	Q	6	2		—	0	45	45		—	0	3/8	3/8
6	8	Q	2		—	45	0	45		—	3/8	0	3/8
2	8	6	Q		—	45	45	0		—	3/8	3/8	0

Totals

120

120

120

Chosen

♣8

♣6

♣2

 
With regard to human behavior it is inappropriate expect perfection. Inevitably one encounters natural variability. There is always an oddball in the crowd (maybe it’s me!) To the extent that a statistical study can be thought of as being perfect, it is with regard to the conditions under which the study was conducted rather than to the results obtained. Even the conditions of an experiment may be questioned. Why 3NT? one may ask. What does the rest of the hand look like? Let’s not get sidetracked. The relevant question here is: why assume equally probable choices?

The Maximum Entropy Principle

In the 19th century applications of statistics were condemned by those who prefer to think in terms of causes and effects. Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) caused a stir when he stated publicly to Napoleon that he had no need for divine intervention in his explanation of celestial mechanics. This amused Bonaparte but subsequently angered theologians and Newtonian scientists who maintained that some unseen hand was required to keep everything eternally rotating. With regard to statistical inference, Laplace maintained that as the sun had risen regularly for 500 years, he was willing to give odds of 1,826,214 to 1 that it would do so on the following morning as well. Some have taken this jest seriously, and have continued to argue about causality and such.

More relevant to bridge (where the hidden hand is an integral part of the game) is the Laplacian concept that all possible unknown conditions are equally probable. Metaphysicians have argued that if nothing is known about conditions, they could just as easily be assumed to possess any probability distribution one might wish to assign. Modern information theory has given us this explanation. Maximum ignorance concerning a set of conditions is a state of maximum entropy in which all probabilities are equal. If some knowledge is made available concerning these conditions, their probabilities must reflect this new knowledge, and so are equal no longer.

So we come to the play of the cards at bridge. By the time the opening lead is made, much information has been conveyed through the bidding that will affect the various probabilities. A declarer should adjust the probabilities in accordance with the information he has received on this particular hand as well as with his general knowledge of how the game is played. Returning to our survey concerning cards led from ♣8-6-2, the results may indicate that the choices are equally probable, but this is true only in a statistical sense. Some players will lead the ♣2 (low from odd), others the ♣8 (top of nothing) or ♣6 (MUD). Each lead is informative as there is a deterministic rule behind it, if declarer takes the time to look at the back of the convention card. The information is degraded to the extent to which players will deviate from the stated rules. The choices would be maximally uninformative if the opening lead were chosen at random every time. In summary, one does not play against everyone at once, but against one pair at a time.

The situation is different when a defender is required to follow to a lead by a declarer. The defender may choose to play low cards at random in order to reduce the information conveyed. The statistics of these plays are relevant in the analysis of card play in a way that a survey of opening leads is not. For opening leads, the statistics of opening leads tell us how many prefer to play MUD, the least informative of the 3 possibilities. As for following to a declarer’s lead, the statistics show us how random are the choices from insignificant cards. There is an essential difference.

The Testing of a Hypothesis

When one wishes to devise a statistical test, one must first have in mind what one is attempting to discover. The conditions of a test should be tailored with a particular question in mind. Assume we have devised a scenario discussed above where the LHO holds 3 of the 4 club cards and it doesn’t matter in any practical sense which insignificant card he chooses. Does the probability that the ♣Q is held by the RHO remain unchanged regardless of which low card appears on the first round from the LHO? In other words, in this situation do players choose from their low cards equally at random (our null hypothesis) or is there a bias? We collect the results from the 360 bridge players in the manner indicated previously and perform a test of the results to see to what degree the null hypothesis can be said to be confirmed. Here is a set of results we might obtain.

Initial Conditions

Trial Results

Probabilities P (X | Y)

Q	8	6	2		—	20	34	36		—	.19	.27	.28
8	Q	6	2		—	0	41	49		—	0	.33	.39
6	8	Q	2		—	48	0	42		—	.45	0	.33
2	8	6	Q		—	39	51	0		—	.36	.40	0

Totals

107

126

127

Chosen

♣8

♣6

♣2

 
There are methods one can use to discover to what degree one may say the results are obtainable when taken from a uniform distribution of choices. In total we have 360 choices represented of which 107 were of the ♣8, 126 of the ♣6, and 127 of the ♣2. The expected number was 120 for each. The null hypothesis that each card is equally likely to be played can be accepted at the 25% level, meaning that such variation from the norm would be generated by a random sampling of 360 trials more than 25% of the time.

Of course, the numbers represent not just one experiment but 4. The results in the first line give rise to suspicions that the ♣8 is less likely to be played from a combination of ♣8-6-2 than either the ♣6 or the ♣2. The variation evident in this mix would occur from a random sampling of equal distributions less than 10% of the time. One might conclude that more experiments are required for this combination in particular.

Alternatively, one might change the assumptions for this line. The hypothesis one is testing should not be formulated from the data themselves, for in that case one would always get a good fit, but must be proposed before the experiment is performed. Let’s assume the expected numbers are 15, 30, and 45, respectively, our guess expressed in the previous blog. The goodness-of-fit for this hypothesis is very good as variations greater than this would occur in more than 50% of samples of the same size. The biased choice model is more acceptable than the unbiased choice model.

Our Bridge Experiences Our encounters at the bridge table, successful or otherwise, represent but a very small sample of experiences from the great experiment which is Life. If it is difficult to draw conclusions from a controlled experiment, how much harder it is to do so from the chaotic conditions we encounter at the local bridge club. Our results, good or bad, are subject to a natural, random variability. Some impatiently attempt to ‘time the market’ by taking huge risks, thus increasing the variability, while others, akin to bond holders, ride out the storms with stable, but uninspired, adherence to standard textbook advice. Most tend to ‘go with the field’, which involves guessing the actions of the majority of the surrounding players. This acts to widen the statistical base, and has the advantage of minimizing variability at the cost of not attempting to maximize gain. Rarely does an expert play for averages; the late Paul Soloway said he never did so. Ideally one should prefer to employ methods based on the sound principles of probability theory, tempered by experience, without the egotistical expectation of always being right.

In between swimming, reading and relaxing in Fort Myers, Florida, I found time for a session at the local club with my friend Mila.  Here is my favorite hand:

♠ J94
♥ KQ9863
♦ 2
♣ J98

First seat, white vs. red, I opened 2H.  Pard jumped to 4H and I got a diamond lead.

♠ KQ3
♥ A
♦ 10854
♣ AK1065

♠ J94
♥ KQ9863
♦ 2
♣ J98

This looked like a satisfactory contract and I ruffed the second diamond.  I led a heart to the ace and played the spade king, trying for an entry to my hand to draw trumps.  LHO won the ace and returned a diamond which I ruffed.  I cashed the KQ of hearts and RHO showed out on the third heart. 

OK--I had lost a diamond and a spade and had a heart loser.  I eyed the clubs for a possible finesse.  I led a club to the ace to see whether anything interesting happened.  It didn't, although RHO seemed very alert.  I cashed the spade queen and returned to my hand with the spade jack (all following) to ponder the ending.

I couldn't get a full count on the hand, except for the following:

LHO
xxx?
J10xx
xxx?
xx?

When I led another club preparatory to the moment of truth, an interesting thing happened.  LHO played the deuce, apparently completing an echo from the 4-2.  Checking the convention card, I saw that they were playing standard carding.  All I knew about the players was that their defense on the previous board was only average.  All clues led me to believe that the club finesse would lose.  Did I have any other options?

♠
♥
♦ 10
♣ K10

♠
♥ 9
♦
♣ J9

*Ponder for a moment........

Then I saw it.  How about trying to ruff my last diamond with my last heart?  I didn't know whether LHO had another diamond or not, but it had to be better than banking on what I felt sure would be a losing finesse.  Accordingly, I went up with the club king and called for the diamond 10. I ruffed this with my last heart and was more than pleased when it held! My two losers, the heart and the club, fell together at trick 13.  Plus 420 was worth all the matchpoints.

LHO's hand:

♠ A105
♥ J1054
♦ KJ73
♣ 42

**********************
Don't give up.
Don't give count when your partner doesn't need it.
Get some sunshine.

See you at the table!

This may appear to be a strange title from someone like myself, who has made it abundantly clear my views on guns for hire — especially buying your way onto a winning championship team and being surrounded by five king kongs.   Don’t misunderstand, it is an incredibly sensational way of learning, understanding and changing one’s formerly inferior methods of play, defense and perhaps hap-hazard, innocuous treatment of a very difficult game.   However, I still believe it is irrational to consider achievements in such a manner as qualifying one as an expert to be honored among the Best of the Best.   Allow me to tell you about the upheaval in my bridge mind set in the last six wonderful years.

I have played the game for about fifty-five years (although some may not consider it playing — and for the earlier part of my exposure, it may have been viewed by some as just tossing the pasteboards).   From the time I met my late husband, Norman Kay, in the early Sixties (and was married to him from 1963 until his death in 2002), I rubbed shoulders with what I would consider the elite of the bridge world, both stateside and abroad.  I witnessed bridge at its ultimate — both by and against Norman and his partner.  I have written blogs on my early life in the company of the Big Boys.  The heroes at that time, whom I got to meet and socialize with often were Johnny Crawford, Oswald Jacoby, Eddie Kantar, Sami Kehela, Lew Mathe, Eric Murray, George Rapee, Bill Root, Alvin Roth, Howard Schenken, Helen Sobel, Tobias Stone, Alan Truscott, et al.  Goren even took the train from New York to Philly to attend our wedding.   Though he had made a fortune through the game, he was never big on luxuries such as limousines or picking up checks for guests   In fact, I remember Norman arranging to have someone meet him as he alit from the train at 30th Street Station and chauffeur him directly to the ceremony.   And, yes, he was a ’sponsor,’ of sorts, always surrounding himself with the elite of the bridge world to keep a high profile.  Bridge was his business and keeping his name before the public was part of ’selling’ the game (for which we are all grateful as I often wonder what I might be doing today if bridge had not availed itself to me).   Somewhere I have a reel of film of my wedding, long before the VHS, DVD or VCRs appeared on the scene.   Charlie was a handsome man, a quite imposing figure and thrilled my mother’s bridge ladies no end.  The bride and groom took second billing on the occasion of their wedding nuptials — with Mr. Bridge himself as the star attraction — but it was a day to remember and the thrill of a lifetime to a starry-eyed fledgling to the game.

My present husband, Bobby Wolff, and Norman (though they were good friends and always sought each other out at the Nationals to discuss their shared love of sports) had quite different views of bridge.   Norman, who worked 24/7 as an Account Executive for ML was one of the miniscule number of top players who actually worked for a living and never played professionally (except with an occasional brokerage client when he got trapped and had a tough time saying ‘no’).   Yes, he had a real job and I don’t believe he ever accepted or got paid one red cent for playing!   Bridge was strictly a beloved sideline and hobby and he played only on Friday evenings, Saturday and Sunday (except for the three NABCs each year and some world championships).   He was a natural player, having been recognized by the ACBL as Player of the Double Decade (1957-1977) and had the pleasure of having only two regular partners during his nearly-fifty year career — Edgar Kaplan (starting in the fifties with a brief break from him when Sidney Silodor asked him to play on the “big team” in 1960 till Sidney’s death in 1963 — two weeks before our wedding).   Norman was distraught over his dear friend and partner’s death eventually from brain cancer — and took a year off — concentrating more on his Merrill Lynch real-life responsibilities, until his best friend, Bobby Jordan, reunited him with Edgar about a year and a half following Sidney’s death.   Kaplan/Kay enjoyed one of the most successful and respected partnerships the world has ever witnessed — playing together (except for the three year hiatus for about forty-three years), with countless scalps on their walls.  When reminded of his great record with Edgar, Norman always modestly countered with, “Yes, you might be right, but we probably have lost more pair events together than any other twosome in the history of the game.”

Bear in mind, Norman rarely played with ANYONE but Edgar.   He was not a ’social’ bridge butterfly and played his heart out every moment of every event — all in the hopes of winning the right to represent our country with the eventual goal of seizing one world championship — but that was not destined to happen.   He was extremely successful on the home front, but because of the obvious stumbling blocks (which the top players worldwide shared), he never had a real shot at a world championship.   By the time Bobby came along, the problems had been eliminated (thanks to the hardcore position taken by WBF luminary Jimmy Ortiz-Patino), and he was able to find his place in the sun which Norman sadly never got to enjoy.  Norman preferred playing only with Edgar (rarely with other superstars), but I had my regular woman’s partners — Betty Kaplan, Helen Smith (the Philadelphia version — not Helen Sobel Smith), the great Barbara Brier, and my present dear friend and partner, Jane Segal.   I never tried to convince Norman to give up watching his sporting events (his second love) to play with me.   However, we did have an equitable pact.   Any time, for any reason (a mixed pair or charity game or something else important to me), he was always at my disposal.   However, I was happy with my regular partners, so It worked out marvelously.   If I had to venture a guess, in forty years, I may have played with Norman about 150 times –  to our mutual satisfaction.   Maybe that was the reason we were happily married for almost forty years — but I had the lifelong privilege to pick his brain at will and often discussed theory and the whys and wherefores for hours on end.   Believe me, I had no complaints and was content to bask in the shadows of two great players — being the ‘little wife’ (though not so little now)!  I did enjoy some novel triumphs on my own — winning a Mixed Pair with Edgar in Montreal in 1967 (as an absolute know-nothing relative novice) and another weird happening, winning the National Thursday Night Charity Pairs — once with Norman in Hawaii and another with Bobby in Atlanta a few years ago, in addition to quite a few women’s events in earlier years.

Now to Bobby Wolff, who needs no introduction to the world of bridge.   Bobby, to my way of thinking, (contrary to Norman) never had what most would call a ‘real job’   As a young man, he served in the Intelligence Branch of the Army and when he returned to San Antonio resumed the fancy he had taken to the game (which he had learned by his twelfth birthday, watching his parents and their friends on a round trip train excursion to Chicago).   At an early age, he was in demand as a professional player at the local duplicates for $5 a session (eventually graduated to ten bucks — and so on up the line), accumulated many happy customers and became accustomed to playing with (what in many cases were) mostly ‘weak players.’   He was going to law school at the time, running a bridge club (of which he was part owner with Joe Musumeci), playing pro primarily with the LOLs and their male counterparts (known as LOM) — so his involvement in bridge at the teaching level became his chief means of earning a livelihood.   Later, he became an instrumental part of forming the Aces (Ira Corn’s brainchild and money) and after they demoted Ira from a team player to NPC, the Dallas Aces became the first truly all-expert-professional bridge team in the world.   Madame Lavazza, of Italy, recently followed suit.   She does not contaminate the team — but is content to merely root from the sidelines for the team bearing her famous name (as the Lavazza Coffee Queen).  Bobby’s long list of successes followed at the table and in administration with both the ACBL and WBF — but that is all in the record books, so why elaborate?

I married Bobby on Pearl Harbor Day in 2003 (getting engaged after a three day cartridge courtship by exchanging emails on the computer).   Believe me, I harbored no great expectations of playing with him on a regular basis — if at all.    However, when he came to Philadelphia (before our marriage), he humored me as a polite groom-to-be and asked me to play at some silly sectional in Reading, Pa and we came in second in the Open Pair followed by a Sunday Swiss Team Win.   Since he was reviled by my Kaplan/Sheinwold style of bidding (as opposed to his”right where it’s at” Bobby Wolff methods), my game underwent a total overhauling.   You must understand, when I met Norman my bridge game was what was termed “kitchen bridge.”   I did play in duplicates, sectionals, regionals and a national or two — but not being a ‘natural’ bridge player, it was a struggle although I held my own playing with good female partners in the late fifties and early sixties.   When I met Edgar, he became my mentor.   Being a great theorist, he afforded me crutches and a cane — and a system I eventually learned and knew (almost as well as Norman — judgment excluded, of course).    It gave me a firmer ground from which to operate and I had most of my partners accommodating and adopting this new system I had latched onto.   K/S provided me a security blanket — and oops, along comes Bobby Wolff who  turns my bridge style upside down and causes me to trash my convention card!

The only K/S gadget to which Bobby has been converted is playing Weak No Trumps (but insists ONLY NON-VULNERABLE — which is the only way I ever played them).   While on the subject,  let me digress a moment and tell you what led to the mild revision of that segment of KS. It stems from a widely publicized hand from the annals of Kaplan/Kay.   Playing WNT (vulnerable), not only did Norman get doubled and when left in, went for 1400 (against a part score), but he made the January 1st Headlines of the New York Bridge Column.   I think it was Florence Osborne’s column in the now defunct NY Herald Tribune, but wouldn’t swear to it.   It so happened we were attending a New Year’s Day party of a bridge playing friend and Norman never stopped hearing about the hand.   Norman smiled, adhering to the grin and bear it concept, but that evening, he returned home, headed for the phone, called New York and unlike his usual warm, sweet salutation, spouted out, “EDGAR, either we play WNT NON VULNERABLE ONLY, or you should start looking for a new partner.”    No more minus fourteen hundreds for Norman Kay!   Thus, the change in system of the traditional handling of the Kaplan-Sheinwold NT variations depending upon vulnerability.

If I wanted to enjoy a happy marriage as Mrs. Wolff, which included keeping company at the bridge table as one of its components, I realized I would have to alter my style to jive with Bobby’s — which at 69 was no easy turnabout.  But, how do you argue with an eleven-time world champion?   I learned early on — the answer is:   You don’t!   So, I went along tongue in cheek and although occasionally I get a systemic senior moment, all in all, we consistently fare pretty well (through little credit to me).    Bobby’s theory zeroes in on no bidding misunderstandings, coupled with his belief that it’s a bidders game.  He advocates jumping into the fray early and leaping to would-be final contracts rather than attempting to scientifically explore other contracts which, without fail, always allows the opponents opportunities to direct unfavorable opening leads — not overlooking the possibility, if given time, to communicate and take profitable sacrifices.  Like they say — different strokes for different folks — and it sure has worked well for him during a long career.   It was a difficult adjustment from my rigid, stilted KS guidelines and theories, but I have eventually succumbed to his wining style — even converting one local partner and my regular Philadelphia soul mate of twenty-five years to change most of our existing ancient 1960s style to the ones now employed by The Wolves.

Bobby and I are fortunate that we are able to have such a beckoning and successful bridge club to play in (usually twice a week on Tuesday and Friday) while loving our general lifestyle in Las Vegas. The local games have risen in attendance to average over 20 tables and we have each noticed that the caliber of competition seems to be one step up from both of our previous experiences and is getting better and better.  The duplicates are directed fairly — without pandering to rulings which are customer-friendly, but rather toward satisfying bridge equity and treating new and old customers alike.  Possibly because of that fact, coupled with the proliferation of very good players indeed (and many visiting celebrities either on vacation or here for other bridge events), that causes an uplifting feeling which permeates the atmosphere.  Neither of us are suggesting that all bridge to-dos are eliminated.  Far from it.  But, we both agree that the one word which looms large is RESPECT which seems to trump the highly competitive nature of all bridge contests.

I’ve often been quoted, saying my bridge dates with Bobby are like dying and going to heaven, but I kid you not!  Sometimes watching his play and defense is surreal as it appears he is performing magic by the use of invisible mirrors.   This six-year experience has been the thrill of a lifetime and I have learned so much about theory and tactics which were foreign subjects that were light years from me before Bobby came upon the scene.

Playing with a Pro is quite an enhancing lifestyle, though it does nothing toward bolstering one’s ego.   However,  I don’t mind the ‘comedown’ as it is an unprecedented learning experience and …  what’s more … the price is right!

There are a lot of reasons why people like to play bridge. Its a terrific social activity and you belong to a very special group of people. Most of the time its not really about winning, at least for me. There is usually nothing of real importance to win. The best thing is the enjoyment of each deal. Some of them are magic, some even funny or ironic. A few make me sad or angry. (And then there are the times where it is about the winning … )

Anyway here is an example of a tiny special moment or two from a session with a favorite partner last night.  Your hand with everybody vulnerable is:

South – You

QJ764

6

Q1085

K52

Partner opens 1 which could be three and you bid 1.  West with a great BBO name (Red Baron) doubles, partner passes and East bids 2.  I have three choices:

• pass, prudent or mouselike?
• 2 I have five but partner has at most two (no support double)
• 3.  (at this point she has to have at least four diamonds).

Well I am no mouse so I bid 3.  West bid 4 and partner doubled.  One of these doubled games had already made (See later).  But I really had no choice but to pass.

I led a small diamond and a ferocious dummy appeared:

RB’s Ferocious Dummy

AK982

AJ97

2

AJ10

Partner won the K and switched to the 10.   Were we beating this? 

The question was answered in a second.  Declarer led a small heart from dummy and partner won the 10.  That was quite soothing.  Some errors by declarer led to +800.  Declarer held 4-4-4-1 with a stiff spade and the Q as his only high card.  A 3 bid would have been more circumspect by RB but after the 3 bid perhaps it sounded too competitive for RB.  Some times Snoopy has his day.

I think this hand was satisfying because of the roundness of +800, because some opponents are so very aggressive (that’s what you like to do) and because you survived your own overbidding.

Now here is a hand that was very satisfying for someone (not for me).  You hold

Soon To Be Satisfied Opponent

432

AKQ873

K97

10

You are in third chair with nobody vulnerable.  Two passes to you.  What do you do?  What do you do if I am in fourth chair and you want to irritate me?

1. Pass – the most friendly bid, giving opponents a nice free ride (nobody is this wimpy)
2. 1.  You have a full opening bid with a good suit.  Partner will know what to do and your bridge teacher will be happy
3. 2  That will put it to the opponents.  You might some day miss a game but not many days
4. 1  I only know a few people who would venture into this territory and most of them aren’t of drinking age

At my table the bid was 3, sock it to you.  Do you like that one?    So here I am with

Yours Truly

KQ985

4

65

AKJ64

I have played a system at times where I could bid 4 here to show clubs and spades but that was not on the system card with this partner.  I suppose I could pass but (see earlier comment about not being a mouse) I bid 3.  LHO bid 4 and partner doubled.  Should I pull?  Partner probably doesn’t have a heart stack on this auction.  She probably doesn’t have a lot of spades.  She therefore has minors.  5?  Well if you figured that out you would have been right.  5 is likely down one and 4 doubled was gin.  Curse you RB.

Red Baron Victorious

AJ76

9652

Q4

Q83

Don’t read on unless you are into rather dull analysis but here goes…

I came on to watch the last board or two of an Icelandic match on BBO.  This rather interesting hand came up.  I have rotated the deal.

North

KQ107

J87632

AK8

-

South

J8642

A

J

AQJ1053

 

Both tables reached 6 and I can tell you right now it is not a “Bob Hamman” slam.  On the lie of the cards it doesn’t make.  So as declarer struggled we had an abstract discussion about whether it was or was not a 50% slam.  My argument was that it makes almost all the time the K is onside and some times if it is offside.  Having played with the hand in Deep Finesse I can tell you that if I put the K onside it makes every time double dummy.    That doesn’t mean you will make it all the time.  The trouble with that sort of analysis is that declarer gets to pick one line and he may not always find the one that works.  If declarer had the 9 he would be better off but if he plays to basically draw trump and take a ruffing finesse in clubs as he line of choice lets see how that works out.

So let’s pick a line and then see how it works on the various breaks.

You win a diamond lead in dummy and you play a high spade.  East wins and returns a heart.  You try the ruffing finesse twice (you can’t stand a 6-1 break most of the time), nobody covers but it works.  You lead a small club and ruff high.  If East follows the K is coming down so you can just draw trump and claim.  If East shows out then you do have a guess.  You cross to hand on a red suit ruff and ruff the last club high.  Now you lead a spade from dummy and have to decide whether to play for spades 2-2 or for East to have the 9.  You have a reasonable amount of information about the hand by this time having played quite a few cards.  Generally the finesse is probably right.

This line requires the K onside and works when the clubs are 4-3 and the spades are 3-1 or 2-2 with almost no exceptions.  It works if clubs are 5-2 and spades are 3-1 or 2-2 and the ruffing finesse works except if the 9 is doubleton or tripleton with the clubs.

This line is obviously less than 50% but it does exclude the chance that the defenders will help out a bit.  A trump lead would help (and a club but that seems very unlikely to impossible).  A heart lead might be a bit helpful as it does allow some play in the heart suit which might work on some distributions.

Can we improve this line?  It might be better to try for some cases where the club king is short offside even if that gives up on some of the hands where the trump break 3-1 in the offside hand.  Is it wise to bring hearts into the mix?  I don’t think so after the diamond lead.

If we change the line so we start with a trump and play a small club when in hand with a heart and then cash a high trump in dummy we have some decent changes when the trump are 2-2 and the K is offside doubleton or even in some cases where trumps are 3-1.  Does this bring it back to 50%?  I don’t think so.

With due consideration this contract is less than 50% but close enough that considering the choice of opening lead and possibly less than accurate defense its within spitting distance of that number.

I admit this type of analysis is tricky but it was sort of fun to do.  If anybody wants to take it the next step.  Enjoy!

Commentary on matches on BBO takes some skill to do right.  At least I think it does.  There are different approaches.  One approach is what I would call the macho man .  This person is invariably male and he is there so everyone can appreciate how very well he can see the hand.  Before a bid is made he is calling the result.  His focus is on dummy play and he expects to dominate the chat.  He speaks with disdain at almost anything anyone else has and never admits an error.

Macho man can be a good analyst or a poor one.  He is often talking double dummy.  Poor declarer doesn’t always know how the cards lie.  Macho man always has a reason why declarer should drop the stiff king offside or take an unusual finesse.

Then there is chatty Cathy.  Chatty may be male of female and just is in there to say something anything.  She will repeat exactly how you can find the scores for the match or what the weather is like or just about anything else, occasionally even talking about the game.

Then there is the lawyer.  He will argue with anybody about anything.  Some times he has favorite “opponents”, sorry I mean fellow commentators.  David Bird has one who apparently never ever agrees with anything he says.

In general I am much happier commenting when there are no more than 2 others.  Its hard to have any sort of intelligent discussion otherwise. 

All this being said, I commented on two matches today.  One just for a few deals was very pleasant and interesting.  The second was more of a struggle with just too many people.  I probably wasn’t at my best.  I do have an unfortunate habit of sometimes saying the opposite of what I mean.  He should lead a spade, no I mean heart.  I usually have a chance to correct my error, no harm done.  But not always. I made a pretty serious analytical error on one hand but was helpfully pounced on by one of the other commentators.  Fortunately the bridge was pretty interesting at times in the ten short boards. 

I thought the East-West pair in my room (the OR) clearly had the best of it and the score certainly reflected this.  Even when they made contracts I didn’t always like their approach.  Here is an example.

North had limited his hand to 7 points after his partner opened a strong club.  South showed a strong notrump 15-17.  What would you bid on this hand:

KJ76

10872

Q93

J6

Pass comes to my mind.  Even if I was playing Garbage Stayman where partner is forced to bid his better major I would pass.  Our North bid Stayman and they played in 2NT (as opposed to 1NT at the other table).  Declarer made it by guessing how to play diamonds with A10432 opposite dummy’s J6.  As it was all was very friendly.  So this one got by.

This is an opening lead problem

AKJ109

10742

10752

-

You overcall 1 with 1.  Your LHO shows a game force with clubs and checks for a spade stopper.  Your RHO bids 3NT.  RHO has Qxx of spades almost certainly.  Maybe Qxxx.  Do you lay down an honor or do you lead a small one or how about a clever red suit lead?

Actually anything but a small spade works.  The spade gives declarer nine tricks without a club finesse.  On any other lead declarer must take a club finesse to partner and the spade return picks up declarer’s Qxx. 

I would have lead the A myself and I would not have lead the J as did our South.  J is really only right if declarer has QXXX and partner has XX and partner doesn’t have two side winners.  Partner could easily have a stiff spade so I see an argument for a red card. 

This is quite a sad hand.  South was the perpetrator of a bridge crime.  I think if you wanted to pick one of the seven deadly sins it would be SLOTH.  Here is the hand.

QJ43

K

AK1085

AK8

A1087

8632

94

Q42

North opens 1 and East overcalls 1.  You double and West bids 2.  Partner doubles, you bid 2 and partner raises to 4.  The opening lead is the J.

How do you play this hand? 

You can see that you have three clubs, two diamonds, three spades in hand (at least).  If you can make a heart ruff or two in dummy there is no problem at all.  An alternative approach is to set up diamonds.  Hearts seems a bit safer.  You win the opening club lead and play a heart.  If you do this you have very little risk.  Our declarer started with trump   Winning the club in dummy to play clubs, he ran the Q and J.  This won but West showed out on the second round.  He played one round of diamonds both following love and now he changed course and belatedly played the heart.  East won and returned a trump won in hand. 

At this point South has some guessing to do.  One approach is to ruff a heart, cross back on a club, draw the last trump and take five minor suit tricks, four spades, and a heart ruff.  But East is known to be 4-5-?-? with at least one club.  This line will fail if West has only one club.  Is there any line that works on more minor suit distributions?

Let’s say you play the Q now.  If East shows out he cannot ruff.  Diamonds are 3-3 and you can’t be stopped from setting up diamonds with your clubs as an entry (or a heart ruff).  So let’s say he discards a heart.  Now you play ruff out the diamonds.  Cross to dummy on a club and let East make his trump whenever he wants.  If East shows in I would probably finesse the diamond.  If East wins and returns a trump I win and repeat the finesse.  If East plays hearts now you have to ruff in dummy and decide the distribution.

Anyway, the real mistake on the hand was at trick two.

I am tired and sleepy, time for a nap.

This is Part VII of the Bread N' Butter series: a look at Meckwell bidding in the last world championship when one of them had 10 to 17 balanced, either in opening position, or directly over an opponent's opening. We will consider balanced as any 4-3-3-3/4-4-3-2/5-3-3-2, plus any hand that Meckwell treated as balanced.The big match of day 5 for USA2 was against Italy. There was a balanced hand on

After a double of a weak two-bid and a pass by LHO, in Lebensohl if responder has a weak hand he bids 2NT (transfer to clubs) and then bids his suit or passes with clubs. This has a big disadvantage in that doubler doesn’t know responder’s real suit. So, doubler is stuck if he has a hand too big to play 3♣ or if after he bids 3♣ the two-bidder’s partner now raises (since he won’t know whether to pass, double, or bid a suit at his next turn). These problems are easily solved with the following modification (which my partners have dubbed Rommensohl to distinguish it from modified Lebensohl, which is different). Note: it is assumed that doubler has at least three-card support for any unbid major. Responses to the double:

1. 2NT guarantees clubs.
2. 4♥ or 4♠ is natural with a five-card or longer suit and a holding in opener’s suit that calls for responder to play the hand (see note below).
3. With a weak hand bid your suit (if not clubs) at the cheapest level (with one exception, see example g below).
4. With an invitational or better hand bid the suit below your real suit at the 3-level.
a. To reject the invitation doubler merely accepts the transfer at the 3-level.
b. To accept the invitation with a stopper in opener’s suit doubler bids 4 of responder’s suit.
c. To accept the invitation without a stopper in opener’s suit doubler Q-bids opener’s suit after which responder with a four-card suit and a stopper can elect to bid 3NT (if possible, else he bids game in his suit).
5. 3♠ is an opening bid with no four-card major and no stopper in opener’s suit.
6. 3NT is to play.

Note: with better than an invitational hand, responder can choose which side plays the contract by using either 2 or 4 above. Responder should use 2 with, say, Qx (in case doubler has Ax) or Kx in opener’s suit. With, say, AQx in opener’s suit responder should use 2 with a 5-card suit and use 4 with a four-card suit if there is room to bid 3NT after doubler Q-bids opener’s suit. I should point out one advantage that Lebensohl has over Rommensohl: whenever responder has a mere invitational hand and doubler has no extras the hand will play from doubler’s side in Rommensohl (but not in Lebensohl), which will be disadvantageous if responder’s holding in opener’s suit is, say, Kx (and doubler doesn’t have the Ace or Q) or Qx (and doubler has the Ace). But these occurrences are rare and, I believe, insufficient to offset Rommensohl’s advantages.

Examples:
a. 2♦ – X – P – 3♣ shows both majors.
b. 2♦ – X – P – 3♦ is invitational or better with hearts.
c. 2♦ – X – P – 3♥ is invitational or better with spades.
d. 2♥ – X – P – 3♣ is invitational or better with diamonds.
e. 2♥ – X – P – 3♦ is weak with diamonds.
f. 2♥ – X – P – 3♥ is invitational or better with spades.
g. 2♠ – X – P – 3♣ shows diamonds (could be weak or invitational or better).
h. 2♠ – X – P – 3♦ is invitational or better with hearts.
i. 2♠ – X – P – 3♥ is weak with hearts.

Ray and I just got back from Vancouver where for once the whole family was together.  He was sick while we were out there and now it is my turn.  So my brain is not only jet lagged but also diseased. 

Ratbert finished going through the Love problems and if my brain cooperates I am going to try to work through the corrections now so the problems should be online in a few days.  The new books came into today and I love my Love.  Its really got a great cover.  If you want a look at it here is the link on Amazon

Love Revised And Beautiful

I have my own author copy to admire.

I was thinking that my next project along with fund raising for Canadian teams, ABTA teacher of the year, ebooks and marketing ,.. would be more software from our current books.  When Luise gets back I will get her to show me how to work with the LIN files.

I have been thinking about the Hall of Fame and I really believe that players should be chosen based on ability as well as results.  I know its hard to evaluate ability but that is why you have selectors.  If it was only on results you could do it with a computer and a spreadsheet.

But, the Hall of Fame I want to see would have players from all over the world.  And I like the idea of having a player category along with say a builder category for people who contributed as great writers, (Terence Reese perhaps, he may be too tainted as a player but he wrote some great books) or administrators.

I did try to play mini-bridge with my older grandsons and they really like playing cards.  I downloaded the BBO client and I am hoping that Cassidy will join me online soon.  He is 10 very bright and really eager.   His seven year old brother Malcolm loves cards too.

So if you see Cassidy99 on BBO say hi to him.

I am taking my cloudy brain to bed now.

Hi all

Back in the US of A. My trip to The Netherlands was great but exhausting. Sleeping in different beds several nights in a row, cram visits to friends, family and old colleagues into small windows of time, oh, and did I mention “De Zaak” had Pauwel Kwak on draught. I fear that I’ve gained some difficult to lose weight.

Here’s a deal from a clubnight in Rotterdam. Rekindling my partnership with René (North) for a couple of hours. He didn’t let me down, for there was enough spectacle.

South Dealer

All Vul

North

-

KQJ94

AJ62

KT72

West

J976532

T8

K953

-

East

AKT84

752

Q8

Q54

South

Q

A63

T74

AJ9863

 

West

North

East

South

 

 

 

1 1

pass

1

1

2

3 2

6 3

pass

pass

… 6

DBL

a.p.

 

 

1. Natural 4+ , or 15-19 balanced
2. Explained as invitational with trump support
3. Blast!

West sure took a timid approach valueing his hand, just 3 with seven trumps and a void? After René heard the explanation of 3 he announced a skip bid that felt well-acquainted. I have a couple of fond memories of René ruthlessly blasting to slam without enquiries. West took a few deep breaths before taking the plunge, he sacrificed in 6 . We extracted a +500 penalty from that.

The score sheet was … colourful. Pairs making 7 , down in 7 , 6 doubled with an overtrick or just making, down in 6 , 6 doubled down two and one happy-go-lucky EW pair that got to declare 4 doubled.

In our previous blog we maintained that the easiest way to understand how probabilities work at bridge is to imagine a simpler game of chance where choices are presented to a great number of participants. In this segment we return to our scenario where schoolchildren are used as contestants in a 4-four Monty Hall game. We assume they adhere strictly to our probabilistic model concerning how choices are made, although in practice we can never expect such perfection. The aim is to demonstrate simply the concepts behind Bayes’ Theorem and indicate how they apply to card play.

The box on the left below indicates the four doors behind one of which sits the prize. The bold letter denotes the door which hides the prize. Each line represents 90 samples, 360 in all, so the initial probability that the prize is hidden behind a given door equals ¼ for each door. The samples are presented to 360 school children who are asked to choose a door from B, C and D that does not hide the prize. Thus, from line 1 the 90 children have a choice of 3 doors, whereas for the other lines the other 270 children can choose from 2 doors only. In an ideal experiment the children choose exactly in accordance with a rule which makes one choice no more likely than another.

Initial Conditions

Trial Results

Probabilities P (X | Y)

A	B	C	D		—	30	30	30		—	1/4	1/4	1/4
A	B	C	D		—	0	45	45		—	0	3/8	3/8
A	B	C	D		—	45	0	45		—	3/8	0	3/8
A	B	C	D		—	45	45	0		—	3/8	3/8	0

Totals

120

120

120

Chosen

B

C

D

 
The symbol P(X | Y) represents the probability that the prize lies behind Door X after Door Y has been opened to reveal the prize is not behind that door. The probability of the prize being behind Door A is ¼ regardless of which door is chosen by the participants. Presumably is what commentators have in mind when they say, ‘the probabilities don’t change’. The message is that P(A), the a priori odds of the prize being behind Door A, equals P(A | Y) regardless of which of the 3 is Door Y. The validity of this statement depends on the way the choice of doors is made. If we introduce a bias in the choice, the probabilities P(A | Y) vary as indicated in the example from our previous blog where the doors are painted in different colors to induce various degrees of preference from unsuspecting juveniles, as is shown below.

Initial Conditions

Trial Results

Probabilities P (X | Y)

A	B	C	D		—	60	30	0		—	2/7	2/7	0
A	B	C	D		—	0	45	45		—	0	3/7	1
A	B	C	D		—	90	0	0		—	3/7	0	0
A	B	C	D		—	60	30	0		—	3/8	3/8	0

Totals

210

105

45

Chosen

B

C

D

 
Under the stated rules of preference, P(A | B) and P(A | C) are equal even though they represent vastly different numbers of choices, and they are not equal to P(A).

The sum of the columns must equal 1. That is represents the fact that after Door Y is opened the prize must sit behind one of the other 3 doors. The sum of the rows is not equal to 1. We note that the sum of the choices along a row must equal 90 as a consequence of our choice of presenting 90 prizes for each door. (We could have biased that as well.) In order to recover the a priori probability of the prize being behind Door A, one must factor in the probabilities of each door being chosen. Thus,

P(A) = P(A | B) · Q(B) + P(A | C) · Q(C) + P(A | D) · Q(D) ,

where Q(X) represents the probability overall that Door X would be chosen. For an unbiased choice of doors, Q(X) is the same 1/3 for all doors. For a biased choice, the Q(X) vary in such a way that the a priori odds, P(A) through P(D), are recovered.

The above arguments are intended merely to present a reasonable scenario as to how the various probabilities apply in a Platonic experiment. Mathematicians would prefer a more rigorous (and obscure) argument. A statistical approach will be considered later, but for now, we shall pass quietly on to the consideration of how these ideas apply to bridge.

Application to Card Play

We can translate the door matrix into a configuration in which a suit played by declarer has 4 missing cards, ♣Q-8-6-2. It is assumed the LHO holds 3 of the 4 cards. For this trial the participants play the role of the LHO and are asked to choose any card they wish excepting the queen. We aim to estimate the probability that the RHO holds the ♣Q. First, we assume the spot cards are chosen at random. We isolate the ballots that have chosen the ♣8.

LHO has these cards

RHO must have

Plausible Plays

Number of ballots

♣8	♣6	♣2	♣Q	3	30
♣Q	♣6	♣2	♣8	0	0
♣8	♣Q	♣2	♣6	2	45
♣8	♣6	♣Q	♣2	2	45

 
Given that the LHO cannot choose the ♣Q, we arrive at the result that the ♣Q sits on the right in 30 cases, and on the left in 90 cases, so the odds of the ♣Q being on the left is unchanged from the probability associated with the initial distribution (the deal). Of course, the chance of the ♣8 being on the right is now zero. If we use the same ballots to calculate the odds that the ♣2 is on the left, we find the probability has changed from 3:1 to 5:2. As a bridge player one is more interested in the location of the ♣Q than that of a spot card.

Suppose we next impose upon the participants the severe restriction of always playing the highest spot card (giving false count.) The numbers of ballots on which the ♣8 has been chosen are as follows:

LHO has these cards

RHO must have

Plausible Plays

Number of ballots

♣8	♣6	♣2	♣Q	1	90
♣Q	♣6	♣2	♣8	0	0
♣8	♣Q	♣2	♣6	1	90
♣8	♣6	♣Q	♣2	1	90

 
The odds of the ♣Q (or the ♣2) being on the left are now 2:1, so the odds on the location of the ♣Q have been altered by the rules which have greatly restricted the number of plausible plays. At the other extreme in the scale of permissibility, each card can be chosen without restriction as with the dealing of the cards, which rule leads to the following configuration.

LHO has these cards

RHO must have

Plausible Plays

Number of ballots

♣8	♣6	♣2	♣Q	3	30
♣Q	♣6	♣2	♣8	0	0
♣8	♣Q	♣2	♣6	3	30
♣8	♣6	♣Q	♣2	3	30

 
The number of plausible plays is the same for all remaining conditions. This is reflected in the number of vacant places. The process began with 3 vacant places on the left and 1 on the right. After a card is played by the LHO, the vacant places are reduced to 2 on the left and 1 on the right. Thus, when the plausible plays have reached a status of equality between the remaining conditions, the vacant place ratio under the assumption of a given split equals the probability of the location of a particular missing card. Note that this same property is possessed as well by the results obtained under the previous rule, because, there too, the plausible plays attained equality.

Distinguishable Spot Cards

Spots cards cannot be said to be indistinguishable. Fans of Right Through the Pack have happily recognized this for a long time. Given a choice of cards from ♣8-6-2, most bridge players initially would play the ♣2 without giving the matter much thought. Some seeking to deceive would try the ♣8. Those with an innate love of obscurity are drawn inexorably to the ♣6. Taken together this unequal treatment of the spot cards alters the probabilities. Let’s suppose the ♣8 appears with a frequency of 1 in 6, the ♣6, 1 in 3 and the ♣2, 1 in 2 times. Here is the matrix for the play of the ♣8.

LHO has these cards

RHO must have

Plausible Plays

Number of ballots

♣8	♣6	♣2	♣Q	6	15
♣Q	♣6	♣2	♣8	0	0
♣8	♣Q	♣2	♣6	2	45
♣8	♣6	♣Q	♣2	2	45

 
Under the assumption that the spot cards are indistinguishable in the 3 combinations of Q-x-x, when the ♣8 appears the odds become 6:1 that the ♣Q is on the left. When the ♣6 appears the odds are unchanged from the a priori odds of 3:1. When the ♣2 appears, the odds are 2:1. So, when the ♣2 appears we are less confident than initially that the ♣Q is on the left, whereas when the ♣8 appears we are more confident in that regard. When the ♣6 appears we are left to puzzle its significance. Here are full results in matrix form with the first column representing the cards held by the RHO.

Initial Conditions

Trial Results

Probabilities P (X | Y)

Q	8	6	2		—	15	30	45		—	1/7	1/4	1/3
8	Q	6	2		—	0	45	45		—	0	3/8	1/3
6	8	Q	2		—	45	0	45		—	3/7	0	1/3
2	8	6	Q		—	45	45	0		—	3/7	3/8	0

Totals

105

120

135

Chosen

C8

C6

C2

 
Plausible Plays In situations where the card choices are of equal probability, the number of plausible plays equal to the number of choices. Therein lies the origin of the terminology. In the combination of ♣Q-8-2, it is assumed the ♣8 and the ♣2 would be chosen equally. There are 2 real and immediate alternatives, and the probability of either being chosen is the reciprocal of the actual number of apparent choices. However, the probability of appearance of the ♣8 from ♣8-6-2 is 1 in 6. In this case there are not 6 immediate alternatives, there are only 3, and the various choices have differing probabilities of being chosen. However, in a virtual experiment choices are made repeatedly as many times as we specify. The expected number of ballots expressing the choice of the ♣8 is one-sixth of the total number cast, in the above case 15 out of 90. The expected number of ballots expressing a particular choice is the total number cast divided by the number of ‘plausible plays’, where fractional plays are allowed. If the ♣2 was expected over a long sequence of choices to be chosen at a frequency of 2 out of 3 times, say, the effective number of plausible plays would be 1.5, which is the reciprocal of 2/3. The ♣2 is chosen on average once out of every 1.5 opportunities.

The new ACBL headquarters has a sign!

ACBL is on schedule to move from 2990 Airways Boulevard in Memphis to the new building six or seven miles south in Horn Lake MS. The plans are to move during the middle of March, a time when many of us will be in Reno NV for the Spring North American Bridge championships (called NABC for short).

When I went by the new building today on my way to work, I noticed the new sign. It had an electrical connection, so apparently it will be lit. Click on the image above to enlarge if you're interested.

Notice it says "Promoting the game of bridge since 1937"? I heard some Board of Director members complained about that. Do you spell the word micromanage or micro-manage?

This is Part VI of the Bread N' Butter series: a look at Meckwell bidding in the last world championship when one of them had 10 to 17 balanced, either in opening position, or directly over an opponent's opening. We will consider balanced as any 4-3-3-3/4-4-3-2/5-3-3-2, plus any hand that Meckwell treated as balanced.Meckwell had no rest on day 4 as the last match of the day was against China,

Here are my favorite hands from 2009.  Well-bid hands are fine and dandy, but well-played hands are our raison d'etre!

http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2009/09/tres-elegant.html

http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2009/12/winning-and-losing-in-san-diego.html

http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2009/08/avoidance-plays.html

http://jennbridge.blogspot.com/2009/01/pretty-play.html

See you at the table!

How would you define an expert at bridge? I think I'm a good player, but I know I still make too many mistakes. Are experts the top 2%? The top 1% or even less?

On Bridge Base Online, players rate themselves. There are tons of experts in the world, according to what I see there.

Playing last Saturday night in a 12-board speedball Swiss IMP Pairs, we played the last round (three deals) against one of these so-called experts. Let's watch him in action.

Deal #10 is this exhibit:

                 ♠ Q 7
                 ♥ 8 7
                 ♦ Q 10 7 5
                 ♣ A Q J 7 5
♠ K J 8 5                     ♠ 9 6 4 3 2
♥ A 9 2                       ♥ Q J 10 6
♦ K 3                         ♦ 9 8
♣ 8 5 3 2                     ♣ 10 9
                 ♠ A 10
                 ♥ K 5 4 3
                 ♦ A J 6 4 2
                 ♣ K 6

South opened a 13 to 15 point 1NT, the expert doubled. His partner passed, as he is supposed to do. The expert led a spade won by North's queen. The diamond finesse lost and the expert shifted to a low heart. South took the king and ran the rest of the tricks. Making six was plus 1180 and good for 11.41 IMPs for our side. Nice double, sir.

After this dazzling performance, I couldn't wait to see what he would do next. I was not disappointed:

                 ♠ K 4
                 ♥ J 5
                 ♦ K Q 10 9 8 7 6
                 ♣ A 4
♠ Q 5 2                      ♠ J 9 8 3
♥ A Q 10 7 4 3               ♥ K 9 5 2
♦ J 4                        ♦ A 2
♣ 10 8                       ♣ K J 6
                 ♠ A 10 7 6
                 ♥ 8
                 ♦ 5 3
                 ♣ Q 9 7 5 3 2

The expert opened 2♥ and North overcalled 3♦. East bid 4♥. It passed back to North who bid 5♦. Then East and South passed.

What is one of the cardinal rules of bridge? Don't tell the same story twice. The expert had not heard about that and unilaterally bid 5♥. Guess what? That was down two, and, in fact, was a phantom save -- North-South can't make 5♦.

The expert was lucky. This was only 2.89 IMPs to North-South. It could have been worse if they had doubled.

Had the expert done enough? Oh, no, not even close. This was the third board of the round:

                 ♠ K 2
                 ♥ 9 6
                 ♦ K 10 7 4
                 ♣ A J 7 6 2
♠ 9 8 7 6                    ♠ A 4 3
♥ Q 10 8 4 3                 ♥ K J 5
♦ A 6                        ♦ Q J 9 8 2
♣ 10 4                       ♣ 8 5
                 ♠ Q J 10 5
                 ♥ A 7 2
                 ♦ 5 3
                 ♣ K Q 9 3

After two passes, East opened 1♦ and South passed. The expert bid 1♥, so far, so good.

North bid 2♣ and East made a support double. South raised to 3♣ and the expert doubled! His partner ran to 3♦ and the expert bid 3♠. He's bidding like he has two extra aces -- maybe he needs new glasses?

That passed out and was down three, losing 1.05 IMPs. Again, it could have been worse, but by now North-South were feeling sorry for the poor expert and gave him a break by not doubling.

If this is an expert, I don't wanna be one.

If you think I made these deals up, I wouldn't blame you, but here's a link: Click here, or here or here.

Molly Hatchet – Dreams I’ll Never See

(Click on the above link for musical accompaniment)

Larry Cohen wrote (TBW 12/99) “By this point in the match, there were perhaps 100 IMPs in swings to ######## that could have just as easily swung the other way with small modifications to history having nothing to do with the quality of the bridge.; it’s a shame that important matches are sometimes decided by factors other than skill.“

I can’t quarrel with Larry’s assessment of the random factors that determined the result of said match.  But I do quarrel with this: “it’s a shame that important matches are sometimes decided by factors other than skill.”

That is the perspective of a world-class expert; a rank and sentiment I for one – do not share.

I think it is wonderful that luck (if it is not skill – what would you call it?) plays a role. And when you think about it, the calibre of players who are Spingold finalists don’t want luck to be part of the equation. Why would they? Hamman. Zia, Martel, Meckwell, Rosenberg, Gitelman, Weinstein, Soloway (and the list goes on – forgive the numerous omissions) play at a superior level than 99% of the rest of us. Lady Luck they don’t need, but most of us do.

Bridge, like every other sport or competitive endeavour is a pyramid. At the top – there are precious few. The rest are not scattered but ranked in descending order. There are certainly many times more novices and modest players than there are world-class experts. And I don’t mean the ones that call themselves World Class online. I mean those with the pedigree, like Larry, TBW staff, and the elite of our game.

The Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers need the Royals, Pirates, Reds and Nationals to have a little cannon fodder on their way to the podium. They can’t play themselves. And so it is with our game. I tell my non-bridge friends that in bridge the equivalent of Tiger, Vijay and Phil have to play through me before they can advance to play each other in the final pairing on Sunday. It is the only game in the world where amateurs and professionals compete head to head. And over the last twenty five or so years a new dynamic evolved, hiring bridge professionals to carry the mantle of the playing or non-playing sponsor. So the elite and the rest of the flock are forced, by the nature of the game to compete and intermingle. I don’t have an issue with that – I think it is one of the many things that make this game so great.

Larry – I have a confession.

In order for me to beat you and your formidable team of Berkowitz/Garner/Weinstein or Fred and Brad, or Bob and Zia, or Chip and Lew, I will be counting upon Brigidda the card Goddess to help me. I am not going to beat the superstar players because of my skill. Their skill is vastly superior. I need to be a wildcard, to insert the random factor into the match because head to head – mine will be handed to me on a silver platter.

Now you know and I know that weaker players by definition step out, take foolish chances, daring balances, and risky doubles and will not bid, declare nor defend as well as you and your peers. I know that too. You will often (and so would I were the ranks reversed) simply wait for our mistakes, capitalize, play down the middle and expect us to beat ourselves. Like golf (taking that up in your retirement?) it is not a matter of scoring a hole-in-one on the par threes. It is about staying out of the hazards, hitting the greens in regulation and no three-putts. In short – make mistakes and the golf course or the expert bridge player will exploit them.

So when you sit down facing me or my peers at round one (and only round one) of the Spingold, we both understand that I am but a rung in the ladder. That said – you need me. You don’t want a ladder with a couple rungs; you want a full extension fireman’s ladder where the talent level, drama, risks and rewards grow with every step. That is the nature of the ascension to success.

The trouble with this statement “By this point in the match, there were perhaps 100 IMPs in swings to Nickell that could have just as easily swung the other way with small modifications to history having nothing to do with the quality of the bridge…” is that Nickell (at that point in time) only happens to be the most successful team in the world. As Larry notes “Nickell had captured the Spingold trophy for the sixth time in seven years. Over that span, Dick Freeman, Bob Hamman, Jeff Meckstroth, Eric Rodwell, with either Paul Soloway of Bobby Wolff have won approximately 40 Spingold matches and lost just once, an amazing Spingold record. In addition to their immense talent, they’ve needed some good luck as well and that was clearly present in this year’s final.”

I submit, (and I know you would agree) that with the talent level of Nickell, they don’t “need” good luck and like all top players, sometimes make their own. If the companion team (Beatty, Onstott, Eisenberg, Hayden) had enjoyed the lion’s share of “factors other than skill“; then perhaps some might be celebrating versus bemoaning the fact. I know most of us need Lady Luck dancing at our side in order to have any hope against the game’s top performers.

My only personal claim to beating champions came 30 years ago at Cobo Hall in Detroit. We faced Barry Crane and Mike Smolen paired with Tom and Carol Saunders (see Barry & Me: http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=7 for details) in the final match for a shot at the overalls. I was young, green and not even an ACBL member. It was not our superior skill that prevailed; it was a paucity of skill and an abundance of luck. Perhaps that is why I can only claim one such David – Goliath such moment. Expertise typically prevails.

We all perceive life through our own shade of lens. The expert enjoys a lofty and well-earned status, but too often forgets from whence he came. We were all novices once. Our ascent and its pace varied, often according to how much talented help we received. Hell, I earned mine at the old school of hard knocks, as did most of my peers. I tell the novice students that bridge is like a library. You can walk and browse the first floor, and once satiated you might advance to the second. There, a whole new dynamic is revealed, and with experience, performance and sometimes luck, you rise again in rank and perspective. And so it goes. If I recall Paul Soloway helped some pre-teen to Life Master rank in less than a year. Heck – maybe a few of us might have matched that with such a mentor.

So should you perceive Brigidda at my side, acknowledge her and submit to her will. After all, she gives me hope and you get to travel back in time, and remember, once upon a time – she was your best hope too. You may not need nor want her, but I need her very much when I play my only Spingold match. How about you?

C

I did send this to Jeff Rubens at TBW but he dismissed my thesis noting even I didn’t want luck determining “important” matches. That is true I suppose. But my first round Spingold match or the last match of a Sunday Swiss with a shot at the overall is important – to me.

Larry was more empathetic.

Interesting — I understand your point.

Larry

This is Part V of the Bread N' Butter series: a look at Meckwell bidding in the last world championship when one of them had 10 to 17 balanced, either in opening position, or directly over an opponent's opening. We will consider balanced as any 4-3-3-3/4-4-3-2/5-3-3-2, plus any hand that Meckwell treated as balanced.Part IV of this series was posted on September 21st, and since then we've looked

Our Spring titles are complete and ready for your enjoyment!   Linda has been blogging about them for days (or in the case of Clyde Love, months!) and they are now ready for immediate ebook purchase on www.ebooksbridge.com, or in hard copy in a few weeks (most sites are taking pre-orders now).  Here are the details, feel free to post comments on our beautiful covers.  Also, keep reading for information on free materials from all three books!

Bridge Squeezes Complete by Clyde Love

In the original foreword to the 1959 edition of Bridge Squeezes Complete,  Woodson and Norwood wrote, “We confidently predict that this work will become an all-time classic.”  The book has lived up to this claim, unlocking the mysteries of squeeze play for players of all levels, and appearing on most published lists of “the top ten bridge books ever written.”  Love’s system of classifying squeezes has been used by most writers who have succeeded him.

However, a classic, like a Renaissance painting, may eventually need restoration.  The game of bridge has changed a great deal in the past fifty years, and bridge theorists have built on Professor Love’s foundation to advance our knowledge and understanding of squeeze play.  With respect and appreciation for Love’s original accomplishment, Linda Lee and Julian Pottage have revised the book, making it more accessible for today’s reader.  Little is now “left as an exercise for the reader.”  A substantial number of new examples have been added, bringing to light the areas of trump squeezes, entry squeezes and non-material squeezes.

In this new edition, Bridge Squeezes Complete will be as valuable to the modern player as the original was to its readers half a century ago.

Clyde E. Love (1882-1960) was a professor of mathematics at Ann Arbor, Michigan.  He was (obviously) an expert on squeeze play, and wrote books on both bridge and mathematics.

Linda Lee (Canada) is a WBF World Master who is equally at home teaching beginners and analyzing complex squeezes.  In addition to several books, Linda is the author of the popular bridge blog, http://linda.bridgeblogging.com.

Julian Pottage (Wales) is one of the world’s best constructors of bridge problems.  He is a two-time winner of the IBPA Book of the Year Award.  Julian’s most recent book for Master Point Press is Bridge Behind Bars with Nick Smith.

Bridge, Probability and Information by Bob MacKinnon

Bridge, unlike chess, is a game of incomplete information.  We bid with thirteen cards in view and play each deal seeing only twenty-six.  We must deduce the positions of the rest from the auction and from the cards played.  Some knowledge of the laws of probability is a critical weapon for any successful player.

Using a semi-fictional narrative approach, Bridge, Probability and Information develops the ideas of probability and information theory, applying them to bridge in a way no previous author has done.  Concepts discussed include Vacant Spaces, Restricted Choice and how the split in one suit affects the probabilities in the others.  Readers emerge with some very practical advice that will make them more successful players.

Robert F. MacKinnon lives in Victoria, Canada.  His bridge writings include a blog on mathematical issues in bridge, various magazine articles, and two books of bridge fiction, including the remarkable Samurai Bridge.

The Mysterious Multi by Mark Horton and Jan van Cleeff

The principle of the “Multi” – the idea that one bid can encompass a variety of different meanings – has a well-established history.  In the modern game, the Multi Two Diamonds is one of its most popular applications.  If you adopt the Multi, you have now opened up interesting alternative uses for as many as three other two-level openings.  This book is a first comprehensive look at Multi ideas as they are used today, also covering the Multi Landy (Woolsey) defense to 1NT and defenses against the Multi, making this a valuable book even for those who don’t wish to play the convention themselves.  The final chapter, entitled “The Multi in Action,” consists of a wealth of examples from top-level play.

Mark Horton (England) is an internationally-known player and writer, and is Editor of BRIDGE magazine in the U.K.  His most recent book was Misplay These Hands With Me.

Jan van Cleeff (Netherlands) publishes and edits IMP magazine.  He is a frequent contributor to the Daily Bulletins at World and European Championships.

Now on to more fun stuff, the free stuff!  Visit www.ebooksbridge.com and click on the “free downloads” link.  You will find supplementary materials for all three books.  For The Mysterious Multi we have posted the ACBL defenses to the Multi for your playing pleasure.  Bob MacKinnon has written three new stories, not included in Bridge, Probability and Information, upon his further consideration of all things probability.  And still to come (just ironing out the squeeze kinks) is a set of practice exercises for squeeze play.  Not for the weak-of-heart (only perhaps the weak-of-hand?), these exercises will hone your squeeze skills even further.  You do not need to have read the book to try them, but you may find that it helps!  Stay tuned for more Love!

The mainstay of bridge bidding system design has been the mapping of certain sets of balanced and unbalanced hand types on to the 1C and 1D openings. Aside from variations of standard approaches, popular methods have included:KS - 1m: natural unbalanced or 15-19 balanced with minorPrecision - 1C: unbalanced or balanced 16+, 1D: natural unbalanced 11-15Modified Precision - 1C: unbalanced 16+ or

Playing with the robots on Bridgebase Online, I held this hand:
♠Q 9 4 ♥A K Q 6 ♦A Q 8 ♣A 9 3.
I was surprised to see my robot partner open 1NT. What would you do? I suppose the proper bid is 5NT, forcing to 6NT and inviting 7NT. Being a little leery about doing that, I bid Gerber, heard partner had the missing ace and bid 7NT.

                ♠ Q 9 4
                ♥ A K Q 6
                ♦ A Q 8
                ♣ A 9 3
==
                ♠ A J 10 2
                ♥ J 8
                ♦ K J 2
                ♣ K Q 10 6

West led the ♠3. South played the 9 and East contributed the 5. If the spade finesse is on, it's easy to make seven, but you have 13 tricks without repeating it if clubs behave (two spades, four hearts, three diamonds and four clubs).

Robot South lead a heart to his jack, another to the ace, then played a diamond to his king and a club to the ace. That's all four suits in his first five cards played. What will he do next? I could barely wait to see.

South continued with the ♣3 to his king. He led the 2♦ to the queen in dummy, and the ♠4 to his ace! What the . . . ???

Next he led the ♦K to the ace and cashed dummy's two good hearts, discarding the ♠J 10 from his hand. On the last heart East discarded a club, so the jack had to drop now, claiming seven. Here are all four hands (rotated):

                ♠ Q 9 4
                ♥ A K Q 6
                ♦ A Q 8
                ♣ A 9 3
♠ K 7 6 3                      ♠ 8 5
♥ 10 7 5 4                     ♥ 9 3 2
♦ 10 7 5                       ♦ 9 6 4 3
♣ 8 2                          ♣ J 7 5 4
                ♠ A J 10 2
                ♥ J 8
                ♦ K J 2
                ♣ K Q 10 6

Some comments:
1. Why would you lead from a king against 7NT. That's ridiculous. They surely can be programmed better than that.
2. Wouldn't you play the ♠Q at trick one and tempt East to cover? It costs nothing.
3. On the last heart, East had the 13th diamond which he could have discarded instead of a club.

I checked and found that only one other person bid and made 7NT and he dupliated my auction. I also saw, however, that 10 players went set. Why? They bid 1NT 7NT without going through Gerber. In all 10 cases, the West robot lead a heart! I'm not sure why the different auction "tells" him in his simulations to make a different lead. Do you?

In 11 cases, players bid only 6NT, certainly reasonable. Six made all 13 tricks. They had a Gerber auction, found out they were off a king and stopped. They got a spade lead. Five players bid 1NT 6NT and did not get a spade lead (??) and made only six.

One player raised 1NT to 3NT. (Yes, his robot partner made it, lol.) He scored an undeserved 43.48%! If you play online enough, you will see everything.

You can see all the results if you click here.

Having won the first match of the season, we have fallen into a losing habit. To be fair, most of these losses have been to the top teams and we seem to be, generally, a mid-table outfit and I'm sure we'll win most of the remaining games. But it is frustrating especially as we struggle to get our best pairs out.

One of the things I love best about blogging is watching a conversation take off. Last week’s Hall of Fame ballot got the prolific ladies blogging their views about who should (and shouldn’t) be associated with the selection process, on the ballot or inducted into the Hall of Fame. Last week I [...]

There is just one more SBU trial this season. The team for the European Team Championships (Seniors Series) will be selected at the end of February and then we are done. Well, aside from all the NPCs that we need for the Europeans, and the training weekends, and the preparation for next year.

Judy Wolff has been discussing the issues with what I think of as the American Bridge Hall of Fame.  I say this because the only players in it are Americans.  A few Canadian players are included in different categories but not nominated as players.   As a result the Canadian Bridge Federation will be establishing a Canadian Bridge Hall of Fame and it will be interesting to see how they set up the process.

After reading Judy’s blogs and some emails and some comments I thought I might look at the Baseball Hall of Fame.  To me it is the pinnacle of such ventures.  I have been to Cooperstown more than once and it is well worth the visit.  It goes far beyond honoring the best of baseball.  I love it.

Players can be elected by the Baseball Writer’s Association or by the Veteran’s Committee.  The Veteran’s Committee considers non-players such as managers, umpires or executives as well as players back further in time.  While the writers are focused on players who have retired more recently.

Any writers association members ( for bridge IBPA members) for at least ten years can nominate players.  The players they select must have played in the major leagues 5-20 years before the date of the election.  (For bridge players above 60 and perhaps no more than 90, alive or dead).

The next step is for nominees to go through a screening committee.  The committee consist of 6 writers appointed by the BBWAA (like the IBPA).  There screening committee votes and basically the player must get at least 2 votes.  From zero to 10 candidates are put on the ballet and their are no write-in.  The player must receive 75% of the vote of the writers association membership.

Now here are the criteria used by the screening committee: record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contribution to the teams he played on.

The veteran’s committee is comprised of members who are Hall of Famers.  Candidates must have been retired 21 years but otherwise the process is identical (for bridge players alive or dead above 90 perhaps). 

It is a lengthy process but players who make it to the HoF deserve it. 

So what should bridge do?  Some thing along the same lines.  By broaden t

Would this work for bridge?  I think so.  Although perhaps there are not enough reliable members of the IBPA to make it work and others might be added.  Maybe the IBPA isn’t the right body.  What do you think?

I think the idea of having a player category and a builder and administrator category is pretty good.  And hey if you don’t want to include Canadians its okay with me but maybe you should change the name.  But please add the criteria skill to the decision making and don’t make it solely on record.  It is important in baseball where you can be a good player on a bad team and vice versa.  It is important in bridge too. 

Without that criteria you might as well call it the American Bridge Hall of people who won a lot of things.   If you are going that route you don’t really need selectors.  Just get a printout of the players from the US who have won the most events and aren’t currently in the ABHPWWLT.  Its kind of a master point scheme really.  You will need to think about how to fit women and seniors into the ABHPWWLT since they can win a lot of things too in their own events. 

Hier der 3. DG, der von unserer Seite nicht ganz so konzentriert gespielt wurde. Verpasste Gelegenheiten und individuelle Fehler prägen diesen Boardsatz.

III/1

Dr. Bley Marsal Wüst Nehmert

N O S W

1p p 2t p

2c [...]

If you were teaching someone modern (five card majors) natural methods, what do you tell them to open this hand with?S AQ54H AQ3D J76C 432How do you explain opening the worst suit playing natural methods? Do you explain it as the process of elimination?- You don't have a five card major- You're not strong enough for 1NT- You don't have four diamonds- Voila! You have a "natural" one club

Richard and I came 2nd in our section, 5th overall with 58% at the club the other day, nice game, more lessons for me;

1H (P) to you... Qxx,Jxxx,xx,Qxxx - your bid?

I passed , I should have bid 2H via 1nt, both Peter and Richard said they would have bid 2H, we have some work to do on these. I am used to playing “constructive raises” so;

1M:2M 7(8)-10 3 or 4 card support
1M:1N* 2x:2M weak 6-10 3(2) card support or 2-5 4 card support
1M:1N* 2x:3M 10-11 exactly 3 card support
1M:3M 10-11 4 card support

Once again, ‘everyone’ plays this differently, Im surprised it hasn’t come up before.

Update: apparently I need to add 'Bergen' raises! Another one to get wrong or forget, Im still working on lebensohl.

Anyway, I wrote back during my blogging at the regional about an epiphany I had regarding 2/1 auctions. I’m not sure it was an epiphany in the true sense of the word as Wayne pointed it out to me, but it has had a large impact on my bidding!

1S:1N 2H:3m
1M:1N 2D:3C


3m here is to play, its not an invitation, its not game forcing, its not even mildly tempting – 1N has limited partners hand and 3m says I have zero tolerance for your suits, lets play in my long suit. I think this is an old habit remaining from sayc where a new suit by responder at the 3level is 100% gf, that and, again, not thinking it through before I bid.

2nd team game tonight, the first wasnt great maybe we will do better tonight.

I have joined an imp league team at the VBC and matched up with a new partner, Richard. We had a “warm up” game last night – and won 67.86%, how nice is that!!

One of our top boards was where I opened 1st seat, vulnerable with a 6403 9 count and Richard made 4 hearts, while the other tables did not reach game. I tend to open these distributional hands, regardless of point count as they have so much trick taking ability but I’m not sure where to draw the line.
The other side to this is the opps generally are not happy with my opening, should we announce that we open distributional hands on 10

edit: I wonder how my openings will change now that I have discovered I need some discipline :) Jan 19 2010

Tomorrow Bill, Jennifer and I head off to Sun Peaks for our first ski race/holiday of the year. It has been a great start to the season with a lot of snow dumped on all the mountains, it has turned to rain here on the local mountains but Im hoping at Sun Peaks it is still snowing. 2 days skiing, 1 day visiting Cody and Vikki in Kamloops and our 10th Wedding Anniversary! Bill, my bridge widow did not see the funny side of it when I suggested we head to San Diego for our anniversary. :)

Next game will be the first team match on Tuesday.

The problem of what to open with 17-19 balanced was solved by Ron Klinger in The Power System: Five Bids To Winning Bridge. However the price of his 17-20 1NT opening was the loss of using 1NT to open the far more frequent 15-17, 14-16, or 12-14 balanced hands, and that has proven too high a cost for everybody.Aside from that and some not-allowed-everywhere ideas, like the strong one heart

Just about every sport imaginable has established their own Hall of Fame, celebrating the Best of the Best. Isn’t that really what a Hall of Fame is all about?   The individuals earmarked for this unequaled, prestigious honor should stand head and shoulders above the rest.  Let’s just look at some of the fields and call to mind what these individuals have accomplished.   Off the top of my head, but with input from others, the following (who are either dead or inactive) immediately flashed before me:   (Baseball:  Hank Aaron, Sandy Koufax, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams); (Basketball:   Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell); (Football:  Jim Brown, Dick Butkus Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas); (Golf:  Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Sammy Snead); (Hockey:  Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr);  (Soccer:  Pele, Ronaldo); (Tennis:  Bjorn Borg, Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras).   Many others, very close in accomplishments and the miniscule number of female greats (such as Babe Zaharias, Steffi Graff, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova who excelled in the field of golf or tennis) were deliberately excluded for the sake of simplicity and space saving.  Those cited were absolutely at the zenith of their sport, whose successes survived the test of time.  No flashes in the pan or Johnny Come Latelys!  They were well deserved to be mentioned above the other standouts who may be right behind them.   But, no doubt their performances were as close to perfection as possible in their chosen field.

Now let us turn to our common pastime … the game of Bridge.    For those not familiar with the Bridge Hall of Fame, it was designed to commemorate the achievements of outstanding living bridge personalities for their long range sensational feats with the pasteboards.   It was the brainchild of Lee Hazen and inaugurated in 1964 by Sonny Moyse, then owner, editor and publisher of The Bridge World.  The first three elected were Ely Culbertson, Charles Goren and Harold Vanderbilt;  In 1965, Oswald Jacoby, Sidney Lenz and Milton Work were named; and in 1966, the honorees were Howard Schenken, Sidney Silodor and Waldemar von Zedtwitz.   The inductions came to a screeching halt and the process was not resumed until 1995 when the acting CEO, Roy Green, came upon the scene and resuscitated the dormant Hall of Fame.

Naturally, almost thirty years had elapsed and many worthy candidates were deservedly waiting in the wings so there was much catching up to do.   In addition to the primary Hall of Fame (decided by ballot), two other divisions were added and the recipients were selected by a Committee.   The Blackwood Award (named after Easley Blackwood) was established to honor bridge players, living or deceased, who contributed to the game in areas outside of bridge-playing expertise (writing, devising conventions, teaching, promoting bridge, acting as good will ambassadors, directing, administrating, etc.) and the second was the Von Zedtwitz Award (named after Waldemar von Zedwitz), established to honor a deceased person who contributed to bridge as a player.

In 1995, the primary electees to the reactivated Hall of Fame were Edgar Kaplan, Alvin Roth and Bobby Wolff; in 1996 — Eddie Kantar, Norman Kay and Alfie Sheinwold;  and in 1997 were Edith Freilich (a/k/a Seligman/Kemp), George Rapee and Bill Root.   Bear in mind at the same ceremony as the HOF presentation, The Blackwood and von Zedtwitz honorees were inducted as well.   Whereas the original inductees in the Sixties were the only honorees to join the HOF, by the time it was resurrected in 1995, the other two categories were in focus and as many as eight individuals were honored at one time.  The original HOF’s intention was not to salute that year’s Best Personality, Most Endowed Sponsor, Most Entertaining Bridge Player, Most Popular Bridge Player, the Winningest Master Point Achiever, etc.   The primary design of the Hall of Fame was to recognize SUPERIOR BRIDGE TALENT of living members — period!

At one point in the early 2000s, it became apparent there were some obviously egregious oversights of top players not achieving Hall of Fame Status.   In 2001 Sami Kehela and Eric Murray (from Canada. which is part of Zone 2) and in 2002 Tommy Sanders were inducted.  These were honors long, long overdue but I am trying to justify the classification into which they fit.   The Von Zedtwitz honored top DECEASED players (so that rules out the Von Zedtwitz) and the Blackwood recognizes players (living or deceased) who contributed to the game in areas OUTSIDE BRIDGE PLAYING EXPERTISE (so how did these bridge icons fly under the radar)?   Thank God they did and all lived to see the day (and are still with us in 2010) but can someone tell me how the electors could veer so far off course???   When I asked Bobby about the inconsistencies, he volunteered:   “I doubt if there is a player alive who wouldn’t take those three as a partner or teammate and play any honest team in the world a long match.”   And, if you know Bobby, he is not one to toss compliments frivolously.

As I look at the ACBL site on the computer, I note a list of Hall of Fame Members inducted from 1964-2009, but there is no distinction made (except between 1964-1966) as to those actually voted in and those selected.   However, there is a significant difference in accomplishments and talent and, like many other phases of bridge these days, most things zoom out of control or get lost in the shuffle (no pun intended).    There is no public differentiation between the three presentations — all of which have vastly different criteria (the latter two often spoken of in hushed tones).  On the ACBL site each year’s electees are listed in alphabetical order — indicative of the Age of Misinformation.   It appears as one big melting pot, separating the recipients by year of induction only — not delineating the category.

Admittedly, it took some time to officially recognize those not in the original group (’64-’66) because of the twenty-nine year hiatus, but after the “automatics” were inducted, it seemed like a free for all.   I am not necessarily alluding to this year’s list of candidates as there are indeed some worthy names listed, but in the last ten years or so, it seems like the flood gates have opened up.    There are tremendous gradations in performances of players.   I feel strongly there is an unparalleled distinction between an exceptional expert/world class player and a good sponsor.  Also, there are so few top women players who hold a candle to Helen Sobel, Sally Young and Edith Freilich (and perhaps one or two others) who set the standard for female superiority, holding their own against the best of the opposite sex.  The Hall of Fame might reconsider branching out and having separate categories for the female sex (which suggestion I know was voted down before as it thought of as very chauvinistic) as well as one for successful sponsors who have achieved impressive records playing with professional partners.  But, let’s not pull any punches and call a spade a spade.  The Hall of Fame Shrine (as distinguished from other recognized award categories) should strictly  house the most BRILLIANT, HONEST, SUPERIOR, DISTINGUISHED PERFORMERS (who also, not surprisingly, have countless scalps on the wall) — not merely those who have won ‘x’ number of championships (nationally or internationally) with or without the help of paid professionals.

Incidentally, those responsible for placing the nominations on the ballot are the Hall of Fame Committee and with all the close ties in bridge, it is virtually impossible not to have favorites and/or conflicts of interest regarding some of the proposed nominees.   At one time (in 2002) I was appointed to the HOF committee (which I considered a great honor) but, in retrospect, I really question why I was selected other than as a tribute to my late husband, Norman (who also served on the Committee immediately before his death). At that time, I  did not feel qualified to judge who were worthy candidates.   However, it is amazing what one can learn in eight years.   I ended up resigning about a year after I came on board  (though I really enjoyed the company of some of my constituents), but I did not like the way friendships blatantly played their part in the proposed nominations.   Besides, we were overruled on a few issues by the BOD who meddled in areas where they had little expertise.  Finally, our current President, Rich DeMartino, then on the BOD, acted as a liaison between the HOF Committee and the Board (actually running interference) and resolved several controversial issues, thereby allowing the HOFC to function more smoothly and effectively — and, above all, became scrupulously independent.

I believe the time has arrived to put a halt to the absurd defamation of the ACBL Hall of Fame and honor it by the induction of only OUR VERY, VERY BEST — emulating the superb judgment exercised in the sports field to revere their legendary all-time greats mentioned in my introduction.  To do otherwise and elect even one player with credentials substandard to those of our top bridge heroes and heroines would undermine the lofty ideals of its founders!