Bridge Today - Dec 2006

December 2006

♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ Editor: Matthew Granovetter

The Magazine for People Who Love to Play Bridge

In This Issue:

2

4

10

The Red Pencil Say good-bye to ... maximal overcall doubles

15

Junior Snapshots by Barry Rigal

28

Bridge Yesterday Mind Games by Pietro Campanile

32

Hand of the Year

Kantar’s Korner by Eddie Kantar Teeth and Hooves 2006 Spingold Fourth Quarter by Pamela Granovetter

NOTICE: Please share this issue of Bridge Today eMagazine with your partner. Better still, give him a subscription of his own. You’ll be glad you did. He will thank you each month and he will become a better player. Subscriptions are $33 per year for 12 monthly issues or packaged with a Bridgetoday.com $59.95 club membership. Thank you! — Matthew and Pamela Granovetter

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 2

The Red Pencil by Matthew Granovetter Maximal Overcall Doubles

It’s time to get rid of some of those conventional doubles that destroy our ability to make a penalty double and allow the opponents to run all over us in the auction. This month, I’ll red pencil the maximal overcall double, a convention that has been in use for nearly half a century, but rarely comes up at the table. West 1♠ double

North 2♥

East 2♠

South 3♥

The maximal overcall double applies when you and partner have bid and raised a major suit. A bid is now made directly under your suit at the three level. In this case, the bid is 3♥ by South. West is denied the opportunity to make a game try in spades, because he and partner play that a 3♠ bid is merely competitive and not game invitational. So double is used as the game try. The double has nothing whatsoever to do with penalizing 3♥ (heaven forbid we should try to penalize them), but has this meaning: Partner, bid 3♠ or 4♠. Notice that North’s 2♥ bid is irrelevant. The auction might go: West 1♠ double

North pass

East 2♠

South 3♥

Again, double is the maximal overcall double, inviting game in spades. Here are some other examples:

West 1♥ double

North 2♦

East 2♠

South 3♦

West 1♣ 2♠

North pass 3♥

East 1♠ double

South 2♥

By now it’s clear that the maximal overcall double applies only over 3♦ (when we have bid and raised hearts) and over 3♥ (when we have bid and raised spades). That’s it. That may be why it doesn’t come up often. Better we should drop it altogether and here’s why. The advantage of the maximal overcall double is that you can now make a competitive bid of 3♥ or 3♠. Pundits will give this hand as an example: ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣KJx West 1♠ 3♠

North 2♥

East 2♠

South 3♥

You don’t want to invite game but you do want to compete to 3♠ for the partscore. Without the maximal overcall double, you’d have only one call available in spades. The obvious disadvantage of the maximal overcall double is that you lose the penalty double.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 3

♠AKxxx ♥ Q J 10 x ♦Ax ♣xx West 1♠ double

North 2♥

East 2♠

South 3♥

On this one, you can pass 3♥ or bid 3♠ or make the maximal overcall double, but you can’t penalize them. The less obvious disadvantage of the maximal overcall double is that when partner competes to 3 of the major, you cannot raise to game, because he is merely competiing. Yet sometimes the opponents’ bidding can help you reevaluate to a game: ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦Axxx ♣KJx

♠Axx ♥xx ♦Kxxx ♣ Q 10 x x

West 1♠ 3♠

East 2♠ pass

North 2♥ pass

the major. This bid, however, can be used as invitational, since you don’t really want to compete unless you can invite. Perhaps this is where the problem lies. Some players think you can compete and not invite — but is there really such a hand? ♠AKxxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣Jx West 1♠ 3♠

North 2♥

East 2♠

South 3♥

The law of total tricks says West can bid 3♠. Fine. But East must pass? Suppose East holds: ♠ Q x x ♥ K x ♦ x x x x ♣ A 10 x x Three notrump is a great spot. Why must East pass 3♠?

South 3♥ pass

This is the hand given on the previous page, where West wants to compete to 3♠ but doesn’t want to invite game. Here game is terrific, but East makes a disciplined pass of 3♠, since his partner had the maximal game try available. Maybe, you are thinking, West should be inviting game with such a nice 13 HCP and a singleton heart. Perhaps he should be. But perhaps he can merely by bidding 3♠!

The corrollary to this is that opener may sometimes hold a hand that is a “real invite” to game. What does he do if he is not playing the maximal overcall double? The answer is that he bids game himself and doesn’t worry about it. ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦ A Q 10 x ♣KJx

♠Jxx ♥xx ♦Kxxx ♣ Q 10 x x

West 1♠ 4♠

East 2♠

North 2♥ (all pass)

South 3♥

Is it so bad to bid game? Sure, responder might hold wasted cards in hearts, but reRed Pencil to the Rescue Let’s red pencil the maximal overcall dou- sponder should consider this before he raises to 2♠. Responder must cautiously pass 2♥ ble and see where that leaves us. It leaves with too much strength in hearts. See you us with only one bid to compete: three of next month.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 4

Kantar’s Korner by Eddie Kantar

Covering Doubletons

Now here’s a case where covering an 8spot has the same effect!

When there are two equal honors in dummy, covering the second (like they tell you in the books) is usually wrong when the honors are doubleton. Cover the first. That rule applies in the following examples. Dummy J 10 West xxx

East Q9x South AKxxx

Dummy J 10 West xxx

East K9x South AQxxx

Assume the contract is notrump and the jack is led from dummy. East covers the jack to block the suit. If declarer, South, has no other hand entry, he is forced to duck the trick to salvage the suit. If East covers the second honor, North has an easy five tricks.

North ♠QJxxx ♥xx ♦K87 ♣xxx West ♠A9xx ♥Jx ♦Q ♣AKQxxx

East ♠ 10 x x ♥Qxx ♦ 10 6 4 3 ♣ J 10 8 South ♠K ♥ A K 10 9 x x ♦AJ952 ♣x

South avoids the cold heart game to play 5♦. South ruffs the second club and plays the ♥A-K and a heart, ruffed by West with the ♦Q and overruffed with the king. When the ♦8 is led from dummy at trick six, East must cover to block the trump suit. South can no longer draw trump without shortening his trump holding, which leads to disaster. Lesson: Don’t believe everything you read. * * * * *

The late Jeremy Flint of London, England, was one of the world’s best players.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 5

In 1966 he came to the U.S. to play in multiple tournaments with Peter Pender, one of our leading players. They did so well that Flint became a Life Master (300 master points) in 11 weeks, a record that stood until 1989. Some people spend their whole lives trying to become a Life Master. Here is an example of Flint’s play from an important British Team Championship, the Spring Foursomes. Our hero is South playing with Jonathan Cansino, who was one of England’s (and the world’s) best players. (This I can confirm from playing both with and against Jonathan.) West dealer E-W vul

North (Cansino) ♠ A Q 10 9 5 ♥95 ♦4 ♣ 10 8 6 5 3

West ♠K4 ♥ A Q 10 6 2 ♦K73 ♣QJ9

East ♠J73 ♥J84 ♦ Q 10 9 8 5 2 ♣2 South (Flint) ♠862 ♥K73 ♦AJ6 ♣AK74

West 1♥ (all pass)

North 2♥

Opening lead:

East pass

South 4 ♠!

♣Q

No, as Bridge Today readers know, Flint did not lose his marbles. Cansino’s 2♥ cuebid showed spades and a minor, typically 5-5, in theory weaker than an opening bid. (Cansino was much weaker!) Looking at all four hands see if you can

make 4♠ against best defense. Flint played it to perfection trick by trick without looking. He won the opening lead and led a spade to the queen followed by the ♠A. This was followed by the ♦A, a diamond ruff and a club from dummy. It does East no good to “ruff air” (ruffing a loser with a winner), and East correctly discarded a diamond. Flint won the club, ruffed his last diamond and exited dummy with a club to West’s jack. (Again it would do East no good to ruff West’s winning club.) West, remaining with only hearts, cashed his ace, and Flint wound up losing one club, one heart and one spade to make this contract. No wonder Jeremy made Life Master in 11 weeks. What took him so long?! I would like to add a note here about my good friends Jonathan Cansino and Robert Sheehan (also a great player and quite a writer), who eons ago decided to visit Los Angeles. They took up residence near my apartment but for the first few days I didn’t see them at all, so I walked over to their apartment to see what was happening. What was happening was they were playing backgammon up to 100 points to see who would pay the rent! They never left the house until they finished the match. You couldn’t count the empty beer bottles. Sheehan won. They also played as teammates with Marshall Miles and myself in several important team events. One year we lost in the final of the Vanderbilt when Cansino forgot his own convention and went for 1400 on one hand. One time he and Sheehan had a disastrous game and neither was speaking to the other. Finally, Sheehan presented Cansino with a tiny, tiny, piece of blank paper and asked Jonathan to write all he knew about

Bridge Today • December 2006 bridge on the paper. Jonathan replied: “Well, it’s a bigger piece of paper than I would have given you.” * * * * *

Roman Key Card Blackwood Korner Recently two of my opponents were dealt these hands: Opener ♠AJ32 ♥A4 ♦ A 10 9 5 3 ♣AQ

Responder ♠4 ♥Q76 ♦KJ874 ♣KJ32

They bid to 6♦, but should they have arrived at a grand? Clearly there are a zillion ways to bid this hand. They started like this: Opener 1♦ 4 ♦ (2) ?

Responder 2 ♦ (1) 4 ♥ (3)

(1) Inverted, five diamonds presumably not a game force. (2) RKB. After two-level minor-suit agreement, a convenient agreement is to play that a jump to four of the agreed minor is RKB, 1430, when the opener does the asking. (3) 1 or 4, surely 1.

This is where the trouble set in. What do the bids mean from here on in? Four spades, the next step, is the queenask. However, opener assumes five diamonds for the inverted raise and knows responder has the ♦K, so there is no compelling need to ask for the queen. Four notrump, when not the next step, is

page 6 the specific king-ask. (If it is the next step it is the queen-ask; however, if the response to RKB is 0, 4NT is to play.) And yes, there are simpler versions of this convention, but... Since opener is going to play 6♦ regardless, it can’t hurt to ask for specific kings. So now we have: Opener ♠AJ32 ♥A4 ♦ A 10 9 5 3 ♣AQ

Responder ♠4 ♥Q76 ♦KJ874 ♣KJ32

1♦ 4♦ 4 NT ?

2♦ 4♥ 5♣

Once opener discovers that responder has the ♣K, he has a place to put his losing heart. But what does responder have in spades, the key to the hand? After a specific king-ask response, a new suit by the asker is a grand-slam try, asking for the king (or a singleton, if a singleton is possible) in the bid suit for a grand. Responses to a second king-ask are by steps. Note: A return to the trump suit, which denies the king or a singleton of the ask-suit, does not count as a step: Opener 1♦ 4♦ 4 NT 5♠

Responder 2♦ 4♥ 5♣ ?

Once again, I am troubled. Should I present here what I think is the best set of responses or the easiest set of responses to a second king-ask?

Bridge Today • December 2006 I don’t want Bridge Today readers to throw up their hands in despair. On the other hand, I want readers who aspire to be expert bidders, particularly matchpoint expert bidders, to have the best possible chance to reach a small or a grand slam in notrump as opposed to a small slam or a grand slam in the agreed suit. So here are two sets of responses.

page 7 The Creation of a Monster Exhibit #1 I’m telling Yvonne I have a tennis tape and I ask her if she wants to watch. She says: “O.K, I’ll watch a few hands.” My latest brilliancy: Exhibit #2 North ♠AKJ5 ♥J2 ♦ K 10 5 4 3 ♣54

Easy set of responses to a second king-ask: 1. Return to the trump suit lacking the king or singleton of the ask-suit. 2. Jump in the trump suit with the king or a singleton.

W

Best set of responses to a second king ask: 1. Return to the trump suit lacking the king or singleton of the ask suit. 2. A first step response shows K-x-x-(x). (This may still allow you to get out at 6NT if the response bypasses six of the agreed minor.) 3. A second step response shows K-x. 4. A jump in the trump suit shows a singleton. This jump presumes enough trump to ruff declarer’s losers. (If partner can have four cards in the second ask-suit, you need four trump to leap to a grand. If partner can have at most three cards in the second ask suit, you need at least three trump.) Once the opponents know of a singleton in dummy, a trump is apt to be led. 5. A raise of the ask-suit shows K-Q-(x), frequently allowing the asker to bid 7NT. I can’t believe anybody is still reading this, but if you are, this hand is over! Responder jumps to 7♦ (turn back and see). And remember, if you can’t find anybody to play this stuff, there’s always me — providing I can remember it!

West — pass (all pass)

North 1♦ 1♠

N S

E

East pass pass

East (moi) ♠Q ♥Q973 ♦J92 ♣ A 10 9 7 3 South 1♥ 1NT

Yvonne led a low spade and I made my queen when dummy played low. Now I had to decide which club card to lead. Fearing declarer might hold something like K-J-8-x or Q-J-8-x of clubs, I decided to lead the 3 rather than spend the 9 or 10. Besides, I had mentioned to Yvonne that if we lead low, we want it back. Yvonne won the queen (declarer following with the 6) and continued with the king. Fearing Yvonne had a doubleton and thinking I might have a diamond entry if declarer had the queen and Yvonne the ace, I overtook. As it happened, declarer had J-8-6 and Yvonne K-Q-2. This was not considered the play of the evening, especially when Yvonne told me that if she had held K-Q doubleton, she would take the king and then play the queen! What have I done?

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 8

Reverse Bids The simple reverse, the jump reverse, the double jump reverse and the triple jump reverse after a major-suit response at the one level. What does it all mean?

bid suit, but asks for keycards outside of diamonds starting with 0. Responses do not include the trump queen, and the ace of the jump suit is not counted. Maybe opener is looking at: ♠KQxxx ♥KQ ♦— ♣AKQxxx

1♣ 1♠ 2 ♦ = Simple Reverse

If partner shows zero aces outside of diamonds (5♥), you sign off at 5♠. If partner shows one ace (5♠), you bid a slam. If partner has both major-suit aces and responds 5NT, you bid the grand. Bridge is such an easy game when partner responds in your five-card suit.

The simple reverse starts at about 17 HCP and shows at least five clubs with presumably four diamonds. It is a one-round force. There is no need to jump to 3♦ to show extra strength. For example, with ♠ A x x ♥ x ♦ A K x x ♣ A K J x x, rebid 2♦, not 3♦. In fact, a jump to 3♦ shows something else!

1♣ 3♦

1♠

3♦, a jump reverse, is a game forcing splinter. It describes a hand with a singleton in the jump suit, four pieces in partner’s suit with 15/16+ HCP. For example: ♠ A J x x ♥ K Q x ♦ x ♣ A Q J x x.

1♣ 4♦

1♠

4♦ is a double jump reverse. It is gameforcing (what else?), void-showing, with four-card trump support. The strength is typically 15-17 HCP. A good example would be: ♠ A 10 x x ♥ A K x x ♦ — ♣ A 10 x x x.

1♣ 5 ♦!

1♠

5♦, a triple jump reverse, is Exclusion Blackwood. It not only shows a void in the

Incidentally, following an Exclusion Response, the next step, excluding the trump suit, which is a sign off, is the queen-ask, If responder has the queen, he jumps in the trump suit; if he doesn’t he signs off in the trump suit at the cheapest level. Opener 1♦ 4 ♠ (1) 5 ♦ (3)

Responder 1♥ 5 ♣ (2) ?

(1) Exclusion Blackwood. (Any first round jump over game after a major-suit response is Exclusion Blackwood. You can’t show a spade void. A jump to 3♠ shows a singleton in theory.) (2) 1 keycard (2nd step) (3) Queen-ask (5♥ denies ♥Q, 6♥ affirms ♥Q) * * * * *

I get letters, and some of them pose really good problems. Try this: How would you play 4NT in this sequence? West 3♣ pass pass

North pass 3 NT 4 NT ?

East pass pass

South 3♦ 4♠

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 9

And what about this one? South dealer All vul

North ♠KQx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx ♣KJx

W

South 3♥ pass

South dealer All vul

West double double

N S

E

North 4♥ (all pass)

East (you) ♠Jxxx ♥x ♦ 10 8 7 2 ♣ Q 10 x x

Partner leads the ♦A. Which diamond do you play? In other words, count or attitude? Here are my answers. West 3♣ pass pass

North pass 3 NT 4 NT ?

East pass pass

West ♠ A 10 9 x x ♥x ♦AQJx ♣Axx

South 3♦ 4♠

I thought 4NT was to play. It turned out North had a spade fit and wanted to ask for keycards. Assuming 4NT is natural, North has to cuebid or raise spades to show slam interest. South had: ♠ K x x x x ♥ A ♦ A K x x x x ♣ x. The second one is also very interesting:

East (you) ♠Jxxx ♥x ♦ 10 8 7 2 ♣ Q 10 x x South ♠x ♥AQJxxxx ♦xx ♣xxx

East pass

Right or wrong (it looks right when you see the dummy) you decide to pass 4♥ doubled.

North ♠KQx ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx ♣KJx

South 3♥ pass

West double double

North 4♥ (all pass)

East pass

From East’s point of view, assuming declarer has seven hearts and two spades, the missing aces marked with West, the critical distribution in the minors is three diamonds and one club, in which case a diamond (partner figures to have the A-Q-J for the lead) must be continued, so count is best. However, if West has five spades, declarer has five cards in the minors. If declarer is 1-7-2-3, a club must be led at trick two, but if declarer is 1-7-3-2, a diamond must be continued. All roads lead to Rome. Give partner count. Ciao.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 10

Teeth and Hooves by Pamela Granovetter The Bulldogs meet the Stallions in the fourth quarter of the Spingold Team Final

Chicago, Summer Nationals, Spingold Teams Final — The Cayne Italian Stallions took a slim 6-imp lead into the final 16board quarter, where the first eight boards produced five pushes and three one-imp swings! Two of those swings went to Nickell’s Bulldogs, so with eight boards to go, it was Cayne by 5. What would you bid vul vs. not with:

North ♠ A 10 9 8 ♥KJ97 ♦ K 10 6 5 ♣A

West ♠QJ ♥ 10 8 5 4 ♦742 ♣QJ62

East ♠K643 ♥A ♦AJ ♣ K 10 9 8 5 4 South ♠752 ♥Q632 ♦Q983 ♣73

West ♠QJ ♥ 10 8 5 4 ♦742 ♣QJ62 West — 3♣ ?

North dealer E-W vul

North 1♦ pass

East 2♣ 3♠

South 2♦ pass

Does it matter if opener doubles your 3♣ bid for takeout? In the auction shown, Paul Soloway settled for 4♣ and hoped to make it. In the other room, after opener doubled 3♣ and partner tried with 3♠ anyway, Versace jumped to 5♣. Who was right? Soloway was right and his side racked up +130, 6 imps, and the lead. The whole hand was (Board 57):

Open Room: West North Soloway Fantoni — 1♦ 3♣ pass 4♣ (all pass)

East Hamman 2♣ 3♠

South Nunes 2♦ pass

Closed Room: West North Versace Rodwell — 1♦ 3♣ double 5♣ (all pass)

East Lauria 2♣ 3♠

South Meckstroth pass pass

Note on names: In bridge terminology, Meckstroth and Rodwell are often referred to as Meckwell. In this article, Soloway and Hamman are Soloman.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 11

After a 2♦ contract was bid and made on the nose by East-West at both tables, “Soloman” won 2 imps when they played slam in a 4-4 major-suit fit rather than the 5-4 minor-suit fit reached by the Italians. This increased the Bulldog lead to 3 imps. The next board (60) provided a great deal of drama for the VuGraph audience: West dealer N-S vul

North ♠ 10 ♥873 ♦AKJ96 ♣ Q 10 9 5

West

East

♠A932 ♥K92 ♦ 10 4 3 ♣J86

♠J65 ♥ Q 10 5 ♦Q85 ♣K743 South ♠KQ874 ♥AJ64 ♦72 ♣A2

Open Room: West North Soloway Fantoni pass 2♦ pass 3♣ (all pass)

East Hamman pass pass

cashed his heart trick, then took a diamond finesse. Hamman won the queen and returned a spade through the queen for two more tricks. At the other table, however, it was North, Rodwell, who declared 3NT. He also received a low heart lead, but this time it was through the A-J-6-4 rather than “through” the 8-7-3. Here’s what it looked like rotated to make North declarer: Meckstroth ♠KQ874 ♥AJ64 ♦72 ♣A2 Lauria ♠J65 ♥ Q 10 5 ♦Q85 ♣K743

Versace ♠A932 ♥K92 ♦ 10 4 3 ♣J86 Rodwell ♠ 10 ♥873 ♦AKJ96 ♣ Q 10 9 5

South Nunes 2♠ 3 NT

Opening lead: ♥2

When Nunes declared 3NT from the South seat, he received a low heart lead and the contract eventually drifted down two. Hammon put up his ♥Q, forcing the ace. Nunes led a club to the 9 and king, and Hamman returned the ♥10, jack, king. Soloway now followed up his nice lead with a spade shift to the 10, jack and king. Nunes led a heart to Soloway’s 9, but Soloway exited with a club to the ace. Nunes

Closed Room: Lauria Meckstroth — — pass 1♠ pass 2♥ pass 3 NT

Versace pass pass pass (all pass)

Rodwell 1♦ 2♣ 2 NT

Opening lead: ♥5

Rodwell called low from dummy. Versace thought it over for about ten minutes (no exaggeration) and finally played ... the king! He then shifted to the ♦3. The 9 forced the queen and the ♠J was returned. Rodwell put up the king, which Versace allowed to hold. Rodwell then ran his diamonds and finessed to the ♥J for his contract. Plus 600.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 12

Versace’s decision not to put in the ♥9 at trick one swung 13 big imps to the Bulldogs. With only four boards to go, the Bulldogs were ahead by 16 imps in a match that been teetering-tottering on a single-digit lead from the very beginning. The drama continued on the very next board (61): North dealer All vul

North ♠J982 ♥Q8 ♦KJ96 ♣K87

West ♠AQ754 ♥75 ♦A3 ♣A965

after the club lead if hearts broke 3-2 (they did) and spades 3-3 (they didn’t). Would Versace-Lauria stop in game to swing back 13 imps? They had been overbidding throughout the evening. Could they put the brakes on when it really counted? Does a leopard change its spots?

East ♠K3 ♥ A K 10 9 4 3 ♦Q8742 ♣— South ♠ 10 6 ♥J62 ♦ 10 5 ♣ Q J 10 4 3 2

Closed Room: West North Versace Rodwell — pass 1♠ pass 3♣ pass 4♣ double 4♦ pass 5♥ pass

East Lauria 1♥ 2 NT* 3♦ redouble 4♥ 6♥

South Meckstroth pass pass pass pass pass (all pass)

*two suiter Opening lead: ♣Q

Open Room: West North Soloway Fantoni — pass 1♠ pass 3 NT pass 5♥ pass

East Hamman 1♥ 2♦ 4♥ 6♥

South Nunes pass pass pass (all pass)

Opening lead: ♣Q

After Hamman showed six hearts and four or five diamonds, Soloway invited slam, hoping Hamman had nothing wasted in his two black-suit cards (e.g., ♥ A K 10 9 x x ♦ K Q x x x with a small doubleton or two small singletons on the side). Hamman went on to six hearts, perhaps expecting Soloway to hold something like ♠ A x x x x ♥ x x ♦ A K x ♣ Q J x. Despite the players holding disappointing cards for each other, the slam had a play

Not only did the Italians duplicate the poor slam bidding, but Lauria gave up an extra undertrick, and the Bulldogs actually won another 3 imps to increase the lead to 19. Lauria chose to win the club lead in dummy and play for the double-heart finesse, leading a trump to the 8, 9, and jack. Meckstroth returned a trump. Lauria drew the last trump, cashed one more round of trump and led a diamond to the ace. Next came a club ruff in hand and then the last trump led, before trying to bring in the spade suit. Lauria’s trump play certainly gave him an extra chance over Hamman’s play, but later he should have given up on making six if the spades were not 3-3 and ensured 11 tricks when the spades were 4-2. No one was going to throw a spade from four of them.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 13

There were only three boards to play, but not one person in the VuGraph audience was leaving his seat. The Italian Stallians never seem to lose heart even when disaster follows disaster, so nobody expected Versace-Lauria to cave in. With nobody vulnerable, what would you do after RHO opens 2♥ in first seat (showing six hearts and about 10-14 HCP) with: ♠ K Q J 8 ♥ A K 8 5 ♦ K 10 7 3 ♣ 4 South 2♥

West ?

North

East

Made up your mind? Then try it after this auction: South 1♥ 2♥

West pass ?

North 1 NT

East pass

Soloway overcalled 2♠ in the first auction, and Versace did the same at his second turn in the second auction. Both players heard their partners jump to 4♠ and were gratified to see partner put down six-card trump support:

Closed Room Jeff Meckstroth

W

N S

E

Lorenzo Lauria

Alfredo Versace

Eric Rodwell

East dealer None vul

North ♠94 ♥62 ♦A962 ♣ K 10 9 5 3

West ♠KQJ8 ♥AK85 ♦ K 10 7 3 ♣4

East ♠ A 10 7 5 3 2 ♥3 ♦854 ♣J87 South ♠6 ♥ Q J 10 9 7 4 ♦QJ ♣AQ62

Open Room: West North Soloway Fantoni — — 2♠ pass

East Hamman pass 4♠

Opening lead: ♥ 6

Ten tricks claimed +420.

South Nunes 2♥ (all pass)

So the two-level overcall on a four-card suit was good for just a push, and time was running out for the Stallion fans. Board 63 was exactly what Cayne didn’t want — a 28-point 3NT game, easy to bid and make. Both teams scored +460, and the match was virtually over. The final board would have been worth some excitement had it occurred one board sooner....

Bridge Today • December 2006 West dealer E-W vul

page 14

North ♠3 ♥KJ9765 ♦ 10 9 ♣J865

West ♠AK642 ♥ 10 8 3 ♦J65 ♣42

East ♠ J 10 9 7 ♥2 ♦AKQ43 ♣ A K 10 South ♠Q85 ♥AQ4 ♦872 ♣Q973

Open Room: West North Soloway Fantoni pass pass 1 ♥ (2) 2♥ 3♠ pass

East Hamman 1 ♣ (1) pass 4♠

(1) strong (2) 8-10 artificial

South Nunes pass 3♥ (all pass)

Closed Room: West North Versace Rodwell pass 2♥ 4♠ pass 6♠ (all pass)

East Lauria double 5♥

South Meckstroth 3♥ pass

Opening lead: ♥6

Versace-Lauria got to slam off the queenfourth of trump and a cashing ace. Because there had been some preemptive bidding, the queen of trump rated to be picked up via a finesse rather than a drop. And so it was. South won the ♥A and continued with the ♥Q. Declarer ruffed in dummy, led a trump to the ace, a club back to the king and then took a spade finesse. 12 Tricks Claimed +1430. The slam wasn’t bid by Soloman, so that was 13 imps to the Italians. But it was too little too late, and the Nickell Bulldogs were the winners by 6 imps in one the tightest Spingold matches in history.

12 Tricks Claimed +680.

Open Room

Fulvio Fantoni

W

Paul Soloway

Claude Nunes

N S

The Bulldogs Nick Nickell Dick Freeman Paul Soloway Bob Hamman Eric Rodwell - Jeff Meckstroth

E

Bob Hamman

The Stallions Jimmy Cayne - Michael Seamon Fulvio Fantoni - Claude Nunes Alfredo Versace - Lorenzo Lauria

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 15

Junior Snapshots by Barry Rigal

Last year the World Junior Championships were held in Australia, this year in Thailand. I do not know if the players really appreciate how lucky they are to get free passage to such exciting venues – I know I do. I was there to work on the VuGraph, and to contribute to the Bulletin. I was supposed to do the commentary job on my own – I was lucky enough that John Carruthers (editor of the International Bridge Press and part of the Canadian delegation) was there to help me out.

Board 20 West dealer All vul

The tournament was perfectly run, in the tallest hotel in Bangkok, with a beautiful playing area and VuGraph room. I got to sample some of the best cuisine I’ve ever had in my life at the Thai seafood restaurants, and to do a little of the tourist activities…. I can recommend Thailand as a place to go for any prospective tourist.

Going into the final deal, the Round One Schools match between Sweden and Poland, two of the ante-post favorites, was heading for a draw. However, on Board 20 both North-South pairs bid to the very poor spade slam (note that 6♦ is much better in theory and cold on the actual layout) so there was clearly going to be the chance of a swing to decide the match.

There were two events going on simultaneously; the Junior under-25 event, and the Schools under-20 championships. Both played a full round-robin, then a one-day semi-finals and two-day finals. The deals that follow are an eclectic sampling of the hands that appealed to me at the time – a snapshot rather than a detailed account of the action.

♠ 10 9 5 ♥Q93 ♦732 ♣J832

♠842 ♥J7 ♦AKQ964 ♣AK W

N S

E

♠AJ ♥ K 10 5 4 2 ♦ 10 8 ♣ 10 9 5 4

♠KQ763 ♥A86 ♦J5 ♣Q76

It didn’t appear so when both declarers received a heart lead, which should doom the slam. Where Poland was declaring 6♠, declarer was defeated but in the other room Cecilia Rimstedt, partnering her sister, Sandra, made it. She won the heart lead and cashed the ♣A-K, crossed to the ♦J and pitched dummy’s heart loser on the ♣Q. Then she ruffed a heart and led a spade to the jack and king. At this point she had one heart loser in her hand and four trump to the queen facing a singleton trump in dummy.

Bridge Today • December 2006 Board 20 West dealer All vul

♠ 10 9 5 ♥Q93 ♦732 ♣J832

♠842 ♥J7 ♦AKQ964 ♣AK W

N S

♠AJ ♥ K 10 5 4 2 ♦ 10 8 ♣ 10 9 5 4

E

♠KQ763 ♥A86 ♦J5 ♣Q76 Cecilia was almost certain that the hearts were 5-3 and that her RHO was 2-5-2-4 with the ♠A, in which case there was no legitimate play for the contract. But she was not prepared to give up without at least trying to make her slam. She led to the ♦A and continued with the ♦9 (instead of the king or queen). Of course, East should have spotted that this was a winner, but he failed to do so and discarded, rather than ruff with his ace. So Cecilia threw her last heart away, led a spade up, and claimed 12 tricks for +1430 and 17 imps for Sweden and a win. The ante-post favorites in the Juniors were clearly going to be USA, Poland and Italy. The last of these three started badly – but when EBL President Gianarrigo Rona turned up, they went on a tear, qualifying comfortably.

Cecilia Rimstedt, of Sweden

page 16 This was an interesting play hand in a match between two of these contending teams. A few pairs reached the contract of 6♣ on this deal, but not all were successful. Rather to my surprise Fabio Lo Presti of Italy (among the most talented declarers in the field) missed the winning line. East dealer All vul

♠ K 10 6 4 2 ♥J3 ♦Q973 ♣98

♠AQ97 ♥A964 ♦K6 ♣K64 W

N S

E

♠53 ♥ K 10 8 7 5 ♦542 ♣732

♠J8 ♥Q2 ♦ A J 10 8 ♣ A Q J 10 5 On a club lead, declarer should win the ten and play the ♠J, which will be covered by the king and ace. Lo Presti did this, then in essence drew trumps and relied on finding the ♦Q. Given West’s passive trump lead there was a reason to get it right – but he did not. After the ♠J is covered, even playing a heart at once would have succeeded without the need for a guess. But at this point, the contract is a sure thing on the assumption that two rounds of diamonds stand up. Declarer simply plays three rounds of diamonds, ruffing with the king, draws trumps, then plays the ♠8 to the queen and continues with the ♠9, pitching his diamond loser. It does not matter whether the spade wins or loses, as the heart loser will go away on the ♠7. This was an especially painful result for Italy since it was against Poland, who were leading at the time, and had played the deal in game.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 17

These days journalists have got spoilt by having the invaluable tool of Deep Finesse available, as a double-dummy analyst. Sometimes, though, without the aid of Deep Finesse, you need to do things the old-fashioned way and work out for yourself the fate of a contract. Such was the case on this deal from the Round Six VuGraph encounter between Norway and Chile in the Junior Series. North dealer None vul

♠9863 ♥KQ52 ♦K7 ♣654

♠ A 10 ♥J984 ♦ 10 6 4 3 2 ♣ K 10 W

N S

E

♠QJ2 ♥7 ♦AJ85 ♣QJ987

♠K754 ♥ A 10 6 3 ♦Q9 ♣A32 West Robles — pass pass 2♠

North Ringseth pass 2 ♦* pass 3♥

East Pacareu pass pass double (all pass)

South Berg 1♥ 2♥ pass

After the club switch declarer could have made 3♥ by winning the ♣K in dummy, playing a club to the ace and ruffing a club. Then a spade to the king is followed by a spade ruff with the jack. A diamond exit puts West on lead with the good spade and three hearts to the king. He can play a spade for dummy to ruff or exit in hearts for declarer to win in hand with the ten. If the latter, then when declarer exits with a spade to West’s nine, West must lead from the ♥K-5 into declarer’s A-6. The question now is, can 3♥ be made on perfect play and defense? Before consulting Deep Finesse I thought that the answer was no but, if D.F. tells you otherwise, and when he does, then it’s time to revisit the hand. This is the solution: You must win the ♠A at trick one, then play a spade to the king and ruff a spade with the ♥8. Next you play three rounds of clubs, ruffing low. When you now lead a diamond and East hops up to play a heart through, you must also hop up with your ace, ruff the remaining spade with dummy’s last trump, and exit with a diamond. West wins the diamond but, in the three-card ending, he has ♥K-Q-5 and declarer has ♥10-6-3, which is worth a trick – declarer’s ninth.

*four-card Drury

In 3♥, Berg won the spade lead with the ace and led a diamond, the natural play. East, Joaquin Pacareu, defended well by winning the ♦A and shifting to a trump. West, Benjamin Robles, won the queen and should have played back a low heart, but instead returned a club. However, when he next got in with the ♦K, he did play a low heart. Declarer now had eight tricks but had to lose two hearts, two diamonds and a spade, as he could only ruff twice in dummy.

Joaquin Pacareu, of Chile

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 18

On our next deal, from the Schools event, will be forced to give a ruff and discard, North-South had an unlikely accident. while North will have the alternative open to him of cashing the ♠A and establishing West dealer ♠AQJ75 the king. And that would have been the All vul ♥AQ4 even more rare score of +1640. ♦Q973 ♣Q Incidentally, only one declarer attempted ♠K62 ♠ 10 9 8 4 5♣, and he went down on the lead of the N ♥— ♥ 10 7 6 5 ♥A. He did not have the benefit of the W E S ♦KJ5 ♦ A 10 third diamond winner but he could surely ♣ A K 10 9 6 4 2 ♣J87 have finessed as his best practical chance. ♠3 Notice that on the best lead for the defense ♥KJ9832 of the ♣Q North does have the opportunity ♦8642 to put in the ♦Q on the first round of the ♣53 suit as an entry blocking play, but declarer can still make because North only has three West North East South hearts. (The play is sufficiently complex so, 1♣ 1♠ pass pass as Terence Reese would say, I leave it for 3♣ double redouble (all pass) the reader to work out.) West, Matt Meckstroth (son of Jeff), opened 1♣ and balanced with 3♣ when 1♠ came back to him. North doubled and East redoubled. South asked West (behind the screens) what the redouble was. He was told there was no agreement, but it would be for rescue if the double was penalties. South now passed to await developments, as did West. Now North thought that the pass by South was to play! Three clubs redoubled made 10 tricks for +1240 – an unusual number and not a bad one for East-West. Of course, if Meckstroth had really wanted to turn the knife in the wound, he would have tried for 11 tricks. The winning line is safe enough on a diamond lead: You take the ♦10 and ruff a heart, cash the ♣A and cross to the ♦A. Now ruff a second heart, cross to the ♣J, ruff a third heart, and pitch the last heart on the ♦K. Declarer knows from the auction that the spades are 5-1, so he can exit with a low spade, not caring which defender wins the jack or queen. If it is South, he

There was an interesting 3NT contract in Round 7 of the qualifying stage in the Junior Championship. The action comes from the match between USA1 and USA2.

Matt Meckstroth, of the USA Schools team

Bridge Today • December 2006 North dealer None vul

page 19

♠ K 10 9 3 ♥9852 ♦ 10 7 ♣Q98

♠8765 ♥ K Q 10 ♦A9653 ♣7

W

N S

E

♠Q4 ♥J64 ♦42 ♣ K J 10 5 4 3

♠AJ2 ♥A73 ♦KQJ8 ♣A62 West Greenberg —

North Gill pass

East Lall 3♣

South Shore

tion himself, Shore preferred to enlist the help of his opponents, so he now cashed the ♥A, knowing that West could not possibly have ♥K-Q-J-10 for his defense to date. When Greenberg retained the ♥Q, Shore cashed his remaining diamond winner, then exited with a heart and, after taking the fifth diamond, West had to lead a spade, giving four tricks in that suit and the contract. Had West unblocked the ♥Q, declarer could have played the same way but endplayed East instead to open up a black suit to declarer’s advantage.

3 NT

(all pass)

In the other room, N-S for USA1 had a bidding mix-up and played 4♠, which was not a success, so there was an opportunity for Noble Shore to earn a game swing for USA2 if he could bring home his notrump game. Ari Greenberg (West) led his club to the 8, ten and ace, and Shore set about the diamonds, Greenberg winning the second round. He switched to the ♥K, but Shore was able to blur East’s signal so that Greenberg did not know to continue the suit.* Instead, he switched back to diamonds, Shore pitching a heart from dummy and East (Justin Lall, son of Hemant) a club.

Noble Shore, of the USAII Junior Team

Rather than have to guess the spade posi-

*If playing standard signals, East plays the 6 to en-

courage and South plays the 3. Now West thinks the 6 might be low. Playing upside-down East plays the 4 to encourage, but South plays the 7 and West thinks the 4 might be high. In essence, declarer plays the same method as the defense in order to confuse the defense. — editor

Dana Tal, of the Israeli Schools team, distinguished herself on the next deal....

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 20

♠ J 10 4 ♥ K 10 8 2 ♦ 10 5 4 ♣A92

East dealer All vul

♠3 ♥AQ4 ♦Q762 ♣Q7654

W

N S

E

♠52 ♥J7653 ♦98 ♣ K J 10 8

♠AKQ9876 ♥9 ♦AKJ3 ♣3

West — pass pass pass pass (all pass)

Segev North — 2 ♦ (1) 4♣ 4♥ 5♦

East pass pass double pass pass

Tal South 2♣ 3 ♠ (2) 4♦ 4 NT 6♠

(1) positive (2) Sets suit and asks for cuebid of ace Opening lead: ♣4

The only information that Dana had was that East had doubled for a club lead. She won the ♣A at trick one and took a long time to try to improve on her basic chance of the diamond finesse. Eventually she ruffed a club, crossed to the ♠J, then ruffed the last club. Now she led her heart without drawing the last trump, only playing a partial elimination. West went in with the ace and, not holding the last trump, was endplayed. He exited with the ♥4 to the 8, jack, ruffed. Now Dana played a spade to dummy, and cashed two hearts for diamond discards. The point of only playing the partial elimination is that if she plays the full elimination (cashing a second trump), then finds the ♥A offside, she will have to use dummy’s last trump as the entry to take the diamond finesse. But then she will have no trump left to ruff, should East have begun with four diamonds to the queen. Her actual line preserves the third trump in case a ruff is required. The next deal exemplifies the importance of counting:

Dana Tal, of Israel Schools Team

Joshua Donn, of USAI Juniors Team

Bridge Today • December 2006 South dealer All vul

page 21

♠943 ♥J ♦ J 10 5 3 ♣AKJ43

♠ A Q J 10 7 6 ♥74 ♦K87 ♣Q7

W

N S

E

♠K85 ♥A9 ♦A9642 ♣985

♠2 ♥ K Q 10 8 6 5 3 2 ♦Q ♣ 10 6 2 South West Kotorowicz T. Bessis

North Kalita

East Gaviard

4♥

double

(all pass)

4♠

Opening lead: ♣A

Jacek Kalita (North) cashed two clubs then switched to the ♥J to dummy’s ace. Bessis carefully ruffed dummy’s last club, then drew two rounds of trumps with the queen and jack. Now Bessis cashed the ♦K and was pleased to see an honor fall on his right. He continued with the ♦7 and Kalita took his only chance when he played low, hoping that declarer would play for South to hold the queen-jack doubleton. But Bessis knew too much already: That club ruff had told him that South had three cards in the suit. Was he more likely to be 1-7-2-3 or 1-8-1-3 for a vulnerable 4♥ opening? Clearly the eight-card suit was more likely, given his shortage of highcards, so Bessis ran the diamond and could now establish the fifth diamond and come to an overtrick; plus 990 and 14 imps to France, as declarer misguessed the play in four spades at the other table and went one down. Note that eliminating the clubs could also have paid off in a very different way,

had the trumps divided evenly. Give North a 2-1-4-6 distribution and declarer can afford to misguess the diamonds, avoiding the risk of letting South in to cash a heart winner. Why? Because if declarer goes up with the ace on the second round, he can then play a third round to North, who will be end-played, forced to either establish the diamond for declarer or give a ruff and discard. Semifinals The Junior event saw the three favorites make it through, and an exceptional performance by Singapore, a team that came in relatively unheralded — despite a good Far East tournament — and then held off France to squeak into fourth place. In our semifinals, the United States enjoyed a lead of 56 imps with 16 boards to go. The non-playing captain then sat out his lead pair, Grue and Kranyak, and watched as Singapore won the final session by 51 imps to 10 to lose to the USA by only 15.

Jacek Kalita, of Poland

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 22

If that last set was a surprise, the result of Italy-Poland was also a small upset, when the Italians defeated Poland. The Italians took a small lead into the last set of 16 deals, then held Poland to just 7 imps in a very quiet set to win by what appeared to be a far more comfortable margin than it really was. This deal helped them along the way.... North dealer All vul

♠AJ982 ♥AQJ7 ♦6 ♣AQ5

♠K4 ♥ K 10 6 ♦ J 10 8 4 2 ♣872 W

N S

E

♠ Q 10 7 5 3 ♥92 ♦AKQ95 ♣9

♠6 ♥8543 ♦73 ♣ K J 10 6 4 3 West Di Bello — 2♣ 2♥ 2 NT 3♠ 4♥ redouble 5♣ 6♠

North Kalita pass pass pass pass pass double pass pass (all pass)

East Lo Presti 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♥ 4♦ pass 4♠ 5♦

South Kotorowicz pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass

Two clubs set up a game force, after which Fabio Lo Presti (East) described his hand in response to a series of questions, showing precisely his hand-pattern with the 3♥ call. Then the cuebidding began, and it looked entirely reasonable for Kalita to double 4♥ for the lead, but it was to cost his side dearly. Krzysztof Kotorowicz (South) led a heart

against 6♠ and, having been warned that the king should be offside, Lo Presti went up with the ace, cashed the ♠A and, after checking that ♦J-10-x would not fall, finessed the queen of clubs. His heart loser went away on the ♣A and that meant 12 tricks and the end of Poland’s hopes of saving the match. Six spades went down at the other table so Italy gained 17 imps, more imps than were swung on all the other 15 deals put together as Italy won the set by 20–7 and took the match by 154–116. Singapore also gained 17 imps when the USA1 North also doubled a heart bid and the Singapore declarer duly relied on the club rather than the heart finesse for his contract, while the slam went down at the fourth table. Schools Event In the Schools event Israel outclassed Australia, but Poland and Latvia went down to the wire. To an unbiased eye it seemed that the Poles ran into a series of swing deals where they did the right or normal thing and not only did not gain, they lost heavily, to finish up losing a desperately close match. All credit to Latvia though, who were playing as four against the pretournament favorites, and never appeared overawed by the task.

Fabio Lo Presti, of Italy

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 23

This was a deal where Israel gained against Australia, when West confused the a priori percentages (the man who overcalls has the ace of his suit) with what he had been told from the play.... North dealer E-W vul

♠ A 10 4 ♥9832 ♦K6532 ♣3

♠Q8 ♥ A J 10 5 4 ♦QJ84 ♣ 10 6

W

N S

E

♠K62 ♥K76 ♦— ♣AKJ9742

♠J9753 ♥Q ♦ A 10 9 7 ♣Q85 West — 2♥

North pass 2♠

East 1♣ 4♥

South 1♠ (all pass)

an unchallenging defense. The Schools title was won by Israel, who overwhelmed Latvia in the final by 233 imps to 117, the losers conceding with 16 boards to be played. Junior Final For most of the match the Junior Final appeared to be heading in the same direction. North dealer None vul

♠84 ♥Q93 ♦J64 ♣Q9852

If instead, declarer had played a top club at trick three, and had then drawn trumps hoping for a club split or ♠A with North, he would have made his contract. This board represented a swing of 14 imps to Israel, who made 4♥ in the other room on

W

N S

E

♠A532 ♥ K 10 7 6 ♦ 10 7 ♣K74

♠ K Q J 10 9 ♥— ♦AK8532 ♣63

Opening lead: ♥2

For the Australians De Livera (North) received the ♥2 lead to the 6, queen and ace. Declarer now played the ♥4, North played the 3, dummy won with the king and South threw the ♠7 – upside-down. This ♠7 should have given declarer lots of clues. Given that North did not lead a spade, and that South was not enthusiastic for a spade play, there was a strong clue that South did not have the ace, reinforcing the winning line to declarer. But declarer now played the ♠2 to the queen, losing to North’s ace, and a diamond shift doomed West.

♠76 ♥AJ8542 ♦Q9 ♣ A J 10

West Kranyak — pass pass

North Di Bello 1♥ 3♥ 5♦

East Grue pass pass (all pass)

South Lo Presti 2 ♠* 4♠

*diamonds, GF

System caused problems for the Italians on this deal from the second set of the Junior final. They play a complex set of transfer responses to the 1♥ opening bid and this required a 2♠ bid to show diamonds on this particular South hand, cramping the auction uncomfortably. Lo Presti (South) showed the nature of his hand with the 4♠ rebid, but it left Di Bello with a guess and, with no spade honor, it was very hard for him to consider slam.

Bridge Today • December 2006 North dealer None vul

page 24

♠76 ♥AJ8542 ♦Q9 ♣ A J 10

♠84 ♥Q93 ♦J64 ♣Q9852

W

N S

E

If the Italians did too little there, they certainly did too much here:

♠A532 ♥ K 10 7 6 ♦ 10 7 ♣K74

♠ K Q J 10 9 ♥— ♦AK8532 ♣63 West Boldrini — pass pass pass pass (all pass)

North Donn 1♥ 2♥ 2 NT 4♦ 6♣

East Sbarigia pass pass pass pass pass

South Feldman 2♦ 2♠ 3♠ 5♠ 6♦

The Americans were able to develop the hand slowly and benefited from the extra space available to them. When South, Jason Feldman (son of Lynne and Mark), showed his 6-5 shape, Josh Donn showed good appreciation of his two aces and ♦Q by choosing 4♦ rather than the easy 3NT with his double club stopper. Now Feldman offered spades as an alternative trump suit – the 5♠ bid getting his good suits across very clearly, and Donn cuebid the ♣A before Feldman signed off in 6♦. Very well judged by both players. Both declarers made 12 tricks; +420 for Di Bello but +920 for Feldman and 11 imps to USA1.

Jason Feldman, of USAI Juniors Team

South dealer N-S vul

♠J98 ♥A73 ♦973 ♣ 10 9 5 2

♠75 ♥KQ98 ♦QJ65 ♣AQJ

W

N S

E

♠A64 ♥J4 ♦AK8 ♣K8643

♠ K Q 10 3 2 ♥ 10 6 5 2 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣7

South 2 ♣ (1) 2♠ (all pass)

Feldman West

North

Donn East

double pass

2 ♦ (2) pass

double double

(1) majors (2) equal length in majors

In the other room the Italians had bid to 6♣ by West. This would have made without a spade start, but Grue (South) had doubled a 4♠ cuebid by East, making it easy for John Kranyak (son of Laurie and Ken) to find the killing opening lead. Here the Italian South’s 2♣ bid showed a weak hand with at least 4-4 in the majors. There’s something to be said for gearing one’s methods toward extracting a penalty from the opponents, and this is exactly what Feldman and Donn did. West doubled the opening bid to promise values, and then, after North responded 2♦ to show equal length in the majors, East produced his own card-showing double. This permitted West to make a forcing pass over South’s 2♠ rebid, and East completed a good auction with a well-timed penalty double.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 25

Feldman found the sensible trump lead. East won with his ♠A and returned the suit. In the fullness of time, declarer lost one spade, three hearts, three diamonds and one club to go down three. Plus 50 and plus 800 gave the U.S. champions 14 imps.

[Editors: Attitude! Low means switch to a heart.]

Defensive signalling has always, in theory at least, been straightforward. At first you signal attitude: whether you like partner’s lead or not. If attitude is known or irrelevant, you give count, telling partner how many cards you have left in the suit. If attitude and count are known or irrelevant, you may send a suit-preference signal.

♠AKJ984 ♥A874 ♦2 ♣ Q 10

That’s relatively simple and very sensible. But nowadays many use a different approach: You are supposed to give the signal that partner wishes to receive. Fair enough, but how will you always know what partner wants to learn? If you take the bidding and dummy into account, you will often “guess” correctly, but there is potential for a misunderstanding. Consider this situation:

Ferrari West —

Donn North pass

Sangiorgio Feldman East South pass 1♦

1♠ 4♠ double

pass 5♣ (all pass)

2♠ pass

♠ 10 5 2 ♥Q63 ♦ 10 4 3 ♣KJ83 ♠AKJ984 ♥A874 ♦2 ♣ Q 10 West — 1♠ 4♠ double

W

North pass pass 5♣ (all pass)

N S

E

East pass 2♠ pass

South 1♦ 3♣ pass

Opening lead: ♠K

The ♠K wins. What does partner’s signal mean? Count? Attitude? Or suit-preference?

♠ 10 5 2 ♥Q63 ♦ 10 4 3 ♣KJ83 W

N S

E

♠Q63 ♥ K J 10 2 ♦J975 ♣76

♠7 ♥95 ♦AKQ86 ♣A9542

3♣ pass

At both tables, South reached five clubs after identical sequences. In the other room, neither Grue (East) nor Kranyak doubled, and Kranyak led the ♠K. At the given table, Francesco Ferrari (West) did double, then led the ♠A. What should East play, and how should his card be interpreted by West? The Italian East, Alberto Sangiorgio, dropped the ♠3. Treating this as a suit-preference signal, West shifted to his singleton diamond. The declarer, Feldman, took East’s ♦9 with his ace, cashed the ♣A and played a club to the queen and king. Now South carefully overtook dummy’s ♦10 with his king. When West discarded, declarer played a club to the jack on the board and led a diamond to his 8. Two hearts disappeared from the board on the long diamonds, and South lost only one trick in each major to make his doubled contract.

Bridge Today • December 2006 ♠ 10 5 2 ♥Q63 ♦ 10 4 3 ♣KJ83 ♠AKJ984 ♥A874 ♦2 ♣ Q 10

W

N S

page 26 Board 3 South dealer E-W vul

♠Q63 ♥ K J 10 2 ♦J975 ♣76

E

♠AJ32 ♥J642 ♦A65 ♣A5

♠7 ♥95 ♦AKQ86 ♣A9542 At the other table, Grue (East) played the ♠6 at trick one. Reading this as a suitpreference signal, West cashed his ♥A and played a second heart. Declarer ruffed the third heart and immediately led a low club from his hand, to the ten and king. Deciding that the ♣10 was a singleton, South now ran dummy’s ♣J, losing to West’s queen, going down two. Even if the ♠6 is not suit-preference here, West should probably cash the ♥A before playing a diamond — just in case. Trailing by 96 imps with only 16 boards to go, the Italian Juniors were dead and buried, right? If so, somebody forgot to tell them, as they made a tremendous fight of it and brought the dead match back to life again. These two consecutive boards, early in the set, took care of one-third of the deficit and gave Italy some much-needed momentum.

Matteo Sbarigia, of Italy

♠K765 ♥8753 ♦ K 10 3 ♣J2 W

N S

E

♠ Q 10 8 ♥ A K Q 10 9 ♦J2 ♣K87

♠94 ♥— ♦Q9874 ♣ Q 10 9 6 4 3 South Kranyak

West Lo Presti

North Grue

East Di Bello

3♣ pass (all pass)

double 4♥

pass pass

4♣ 6♥

South Sbarigia 3♣ (all pass)

West Greenberg double

North Boldrini 4♣

East Lall 6♥

Stelio Di Bello responded to the take-out double with a cuebid then raised the 4♥ response to slam. Justin Lall simply jumped to 6♥ at his first turn. That had the effect of putting different defenders on lead against the final contract. Against Fabio Lo Presti (West), Joe Grue (North) led his partner’s suit, the ♣J. Lo Presti could ruff a club in hand despite the 4-0 heart break as clubs were not seven-one, as he might have feared. Then he drew trumps and took the spade finesse but, though that lost, he now had a spade winner on which to discard the losing diamond from dummy; +1430. At the other table, Matteo Sbarigia, South, saw little future in the club suit so tried a diamond lead instead. That established a diamond winner for Andrea Boldrini to cash when he got in with the ♠K; one down for -100 and 17 big imps to Italy.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 27

♠864 ♥KQJ62 ♦ 10 6 5 ♣AK

Board 4 West dealer All vul

♠AKQJ3 ♥84 ♦KJ987 ♣6

W

N S

E

♠ 10 9 7 2 ♥ 10 ♦Q43 ♣98743

♠5 ♥A9753 ♦A2 ♣ Q J 10 5 2 West Lo Presti

North Grue

East Di Bello

South Kranyak

1♠ 4♠

pass (all pass)

3♠

pass

Grue (North) felt he needed something a bit better than his 5-3-3-2 shape for a vulnerable two-level overcall. When he passed, Di Bello’s preemptive raise shut the Americans out of the auction. Lo Presti (West) just lost three aces and scored +620. Junior Standings

1. USA 1 2. ITALY 3. SINGAPORE 4. POLAND 5. FRANCE 6. ISRAEL 7. NORWAY 8. EGYPT 9. USA 2

10. HONG KONG 11. BRAZIL 12. HUNGARY 13. CANADA 14. HILE 15. AUSTRALIA 16. JAPAN 17. THAILAND 18. JORDAN

USAI - World Junior Champions

West Greenberg 1♠ 5♦ pass (all pass)

North Boldrini 2♥ pass pass

East Lall 3♠ 5♠ 6♠

South Sbarigia 4♠ 6♥ double

At this table, Boldrini did overcall, and Sbarigia made a strong slam try over the 3♠ preempt on his right. At his next turn he took the push to the six level — and right he was, as 6♥ is cold, losing only a spade trick. But East, Justin Lall, saved in 6♠, promptly doubled by Sbarigia. Again, there were just the three aces to lose, but this time that meant -500 and 15 imps to Italy. The procession of imps to Italy continued, but the boards ran out — just in time for USA — holding on to win by 15 imps. There’s no doubt that they had shown themselves to be worthy winners.

Schools Standings

1. ISRAEL 2. LATVIA 3. POLAND 4. AUSTRALIA 5. NORWAY 6. USA RED 7. SWEDEN 8. USA BLUE

9. CHINESE TAIPEI 10. PAKISTAN 11. HONG KONG 12. ITALY 13. CANADA 14. CHINA 15. INDONESIA 16. THAILAND

Israel - World Schools Champions

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 28

Bridge Yesterday by Pietro Campanile Mind games Chess and Bridge have often been hailed as the two best examples of that category aptly named “sports of the mind” and lately both the WBF and FIDE (the international bodies overseeing them) have strived to pool together their efforts in order to achieve recognition and representation as “Olympic Sport” by the International Olympics Committee. But are these two disciplines really so similar? The answer is no. The hugely important characteristic which sets them apart is the amount of game information available for the player to process. Chess is a game of “complete information” — the player can always see the entire board and calculate a wealth of possible moves and subsequent positions. The result of a chess game is usually determined by the range and quality of the calculations, which is what enables computers to perform so spectacularly well. A bridge player, instead, has 75% of the information hidden from view during the bidding (i.e., the 39 cards held by the other three players) and he needs to communicate to his partner the values he holds using a generic and often inadequate code (the bidding system) and to decipher an equally complex set of clues from his partner and the opponents on each deal. Moreover, during the auction but especially during the play, the lack of “complete information” about each side’s assets means that bridge is a fertile ground for all sorts of quite legitimate deceptive tactics (false-carding and

more), which make the task of each player all the more daunting. An expert can often take advantage of a slightly incorrect play by an opponent (like a wrongly timed duck, or an inferior discard) to create the impression of a completely different layout of the cards and induce fatal mistakes leading to an impossible contract being made. Essentially one could state that in bridge the outcome is usually determined by the ability to guess and make use of each side’s assets by getting the best possible score on any given hand and conversely stopping the opponents from doing so. In such a foggy battleground, the ability to “read” one’s opponents and to correctly guess what is going on at the table, in short the so-called “table presence,” become formidable weapons in the armory of a firstclass player. That is a skill which is almost superfluous in chess, where a player’s efforts are focused almost solely on analyzing the position and reconciling it with the vast amount of information stored from experience and previous study (opening theory, end-games and more). Such prior knowledge assumes a relevance that has a much wider impact on the outcome of the struggle at the chessboard than outsiders can imagine, translating sometimes into “book-wins,” games won simply by using home analysis of a pre-memorized series of moves. Naturally, despite the many differences, there are still important qualities common

Bridge Today • December 2006 to people excelling in each of the two games, like superior analytical skills, an above average eidetic memory and a highly competitive character. This common ground explains the frequent process that sees a player successful in one discipline venturing over to the other. “If a chess master is taught to play bridge, and a bridge expert learns chess, which one will do better at the other’s game?” This is the intriguing question recently asked by Philip Alder in his regular column in the New York Times. The experiment will be a difficult one to carry out, because the amount of information and coaching needed in both sports is vastly different. The problem is twofold: Chess on one side requires a lot of talent to excel and on the other a lot of study. Bridge requires a variety of qualities but very little formal theory compared to chess. The learning curve of bridge is longer since true talent has a smaller part in the success than it has in chess, which is why you come across many pre-adolescent chess geniuses but no similar bridge genius, since however technically proficient they may become they have yet to master the social skills which are such an important part of the game.

page 29 Top bridge players usually thrive in the “short bursts” type of game that bridge offers: some peaks of activity interspersed among a long series of “routine” decisions, while chess at an equivalent level is like a long 15 round boxing match; it may finish early but usually it goes the length and at the end both players are exhausted: The winner may be elated but the loser is physically and morally crushed. This type of punishment is much more difficult to get used to. So while for the chess player a game of bridge at a decent level is a pleasant alternative to the slugging on the chess board, the bridge player is usually unable to transfer his skills across and adapt to the much bloodier “mano a mano” extended clash on the chessboard. It is a fact: In the last century there have been many instances of chess grand masters becoming interested in bridge and developing into some useful players and not vice versa. The paramount example is that of Emanuel Lasker, world chess champion from 1894 to 1921. Lasker passionately embraced the game of bridge in his late years. He was foreign correspondent in the early 1930s for the “Bridge World” and was featured as a regular presence in the European bridge scene till his move to Moscow in 1934.

Bridge Today • December 2006 Lasker’s incredibly long tenure as World Chess Champion spanned across three decades and served as a connection between vastly different worlds: from the mythical giants of the 19th century like Steinitz, Tarrasch, Tchigorin, and the dawn of the soon all-conquering Soviet School, personified by geniuses like Botwinnik, Keres and Smyslow. His resilience and fighting approach to chess enabled him to hang on to his crown for longer than anyone might have expected.

page 30 they played a second game, this time with Lasker playing without the Queen. Despite the huge handicap, he won easily to the astonishment of his opponent. After a third game and another easy victory, Lasker quietly got up, offered his thanks for the games and left his bewildered opponent to wonder what had just befallen him. Lasker’s interest in card games dates from his early years, that and his deep involvement in Mathematics brought him later to make some innovative contributions to the early stages of Game Theory. In 1899 he used his chess notoriety to publish one of the few texts on the subject in German “Card Strategy” and a few years later he authored “The Encyclopedia of Card Games.” His frequent chess commitments when he was world champion meant that Lasker had to wait until the late 1920s to concentrate on bridge. When he did so, he soon achieved notoriety and the status of one of the best players in Germany, thanks to the analytical skills and the fighting spirit which had served him so well at the chessboard.

Lasker was a pretty down-to-earth guy with an unassuming character, which was worlds apart from the flamboyant antics of modern chess talents like Fischer and Kasparov. An interesting anecdote shows off his jocular character: While returning by ship to Germany after a lengthy stay in New York, Lasker noticed a man seated alone in front of a chess board and could not help himself from stopping to take a look at the position. His momentary pause must have alerted the stranger who asked him if he knew how to play, adding needlessly that even a game with a patzer (novice) was better than nothing at all. Taking the comment in his stride, Lasker quietly sat down Here we see him at the helm of an ambiand the stranger continued to make things tious grand slam during an international worse by grandly stating that “to make the event held in London in 1932: game interesting” he would concede the advantage of a Queen to his “novice” opponent. Lasker bit his tongue and proceeded to quickly lose his first game. Then, while reassembling the pieces, with a genial smile he turned to his opponent and said: “I can see that playing without a Queen has some advantages. Perhaps because the King has some freedom of movement when the space next to him is not occupied. Let me give you the advantage of the Queen and I am sure I will do better in our next game.” The other naturally laughed at the silly request but a modern Winnie-the-Pooh chess set Lasker’s stubborn attitude won the day and

Bridge Today • December 2006 East dealer Both vul

West ♠K87654 ♥4 ♦Q98 ♣ Q J 10

page 31

North ♠2 ♥ A K Q J 10 9 8 ♦32 ♣A72 East ♠J93 ♥— ♦ J 10 7 6 5 4 ♣9853 South ♠ A Q 10 ♥76532 ♦AK ♣K64

According to the records and however hard it is to believe, the bidding went simply: West — 1♠

North — 7♥

East pass (all pass)

South 1♥

It must be remembered that the hand was played in 1932, when Easley Blackwood’s wonderful tool was still six years away from being divulged in the “Bridge World.” Even so, North’s 7♥ bid is quite reckless given the lack of a first-round spade control. Luckily for him Lasker had the suit covered and the contract could survive at least the first trick. West’s lead was the ♣Q and Lasker could see that his chances were not brilliant, since the spade finesse was definitely not working given the auction. The only possible way to make the hand was a squeeze and the

singleton spade in dummy offered declarer the additional threat to set up a spade with a ruff if too many were discarded on the run of the hearts. Keeping that in mind Lasker took the lead in dummy, cashed six trumps and the ♦A to reach this position: ♠2 ♥8 ♦2 ♣72 ♠K87 ♥— ♦— ♣ J 10

W

N S

E

♠J93 ♥— ♦— ♣98

♠ A Q 10 ♥— ♦K ♣K Declarer now played the ♦K from hand and West was forced to throw a club, since a spade pitch would allow declarer to play ♠A and spade ruff, setting up the ♠Q. East discarded a spade (a club discard would allow declarer to set up the second club in dummy by simply cashing the ♣K). There was only one chance left for Lasker: to hope that East had started with the ♠J and that he was now left with ♠J-x. The wizened champion cashed the ♠A and played the ♠Q, covered with the king by West and ruffed in dummy. When East had to follow perforce with the jack, the ♠10 became the thirteenth trick and the contract was home. “Not bad for an old man, eh?” One might have heard him say with a wink and a smile.

Bridge Today • December 2006

page 32

Hand of the Year by Matthew Granovetter

Our report on the Fall Nationals in Honolulu will appear in the January issue, but on the last day of the tournament, at the Hilton Hawaiian Village’s Tapa Bar, Roger Bates showed me a hand from the USA Team Trials, played earlier this year. North (dummy) ♠7xx ♥xxxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx

♣2 South (you) ♠AJ98xx ♥AKx ♦AQJ ♣x West — 2♣ pass pass

North — pass 2♥ 4♠

East 1 NT pass 3♣ (all pass)

South double double 3♠

Opening lead: ♣ 2

Over East’s 15-17 notrump, you double and LHO bids 2♣. You double again, for takeout. Partner bids 2♥ and RHO bids 3♣. You bid 3♠ and partner raises. West leads the ♣2, showing five clubs. East wins the king and shifts to a diamond. West follows with the ♦2, showing an even number of diamonds. (West always tells the truth.) How do you play the hand?

Roger was declarer and analyzed the hand as follows. East probably has the ♠K-Q or ♠K-Q-x, West has five clubs and four diamonds (he can’t have two diamonds because that would give him six major-suit cards, too many for East to hold at least two cards in each major). Therefore, West is 1-3-4-5 or 2-2-4-5. If the latter, it doesn’t matter. If a singleton spade, he can make the hand if it is a singleton 10 by leading a spade from dummy toward the jack. But what if West has a small singleton? It can still be done! (Solution below.)

Solution Roger cashed his two heart tricks, then led the ♦A and a diamond to the king. Next came a spade from dummy. East played the queen and Roger ducked! If East now cashed a heart, the spades are breaking 2-2. If East had no more hearts, he would lead a club. Roger would ruff and lead a heart to West. West would be forced to lead a club. Roger would ruff in dummy and finesse East’s remaining K-10 of spades. The actual layout was East holding K-Q doubleton and three hearts, and West was 2-2-4-5. But it is definitely a candidate for the best played hand of the year. Wishing you a great holiday, and a happy and healthy and successful 2007!