Bridge Today - Jan 2007

January 2007

♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ Editor: Matthew Granovetter

The Magazine for People Who Love to Play Bridge

Hawaii Four-0 And other true tales of the Honolulu Nationals — page 10

Also:

2

Viewpoint Political Correctness in the world of bridge

23

Bridge Yesterday It’s a kind of magic by Pietro Campanile

4

The Red Pencil Time to stop ... bypassing 4-card majors

25

Building a Better Mousetrap The Support Reverse

28

The Wizards of Aus by Ron Klinger

30

Letters to the Editor Bridge vs. Chess

7

Bidding Coach: Useful Cards 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 • January 2007

page 2

Viewpoint

The contemporary use of the term “political correctness” is possibly derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the Party Line. In America, today, it’s used mainly to guard one’s language, so as not to offend someone with the wrong word. The following excerpt from an address entitled, “The Origins of Political Correctness,” by Bill Lind (www.academia.org) is quite critical of political correctness: “For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic. “We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Where does it come from? What is it? “We call it ‘Political Correctness.’ The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.”

What, you might ask, has this to do with bridge today? Well, political correctness has seeped into our beloved game as well. For example, for at least a decade or so, if you were not in favor of “zero tolerance” you were considered by many to be against the promotion of bridge to novices, who are offended by bad behavior at the table. On a more serious level, however, is the politically correct bidding of the tournament player. For example, if you are not a believer in the Law of Total Tricks, many would say that there is something wrong with your bridge game. If you do not open the bidding with a balanced 12 points, you are deemed oldfashioned and a poor bidder, someone who is not able to compete effectively in today’s active modern bidding. If you don’t use the support double, but instead double for penalty, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 3

These attitudes are real and they have ruined many average tournament players’ bidding, because if the convention is politically correct, and you don’t play it, you are labeled as old-fashioned or uneducated, or plain stupid. Many players simply fail to analyze the conventions and treatments they play — but instead adopt the “accepted” systems of the “experts,” because the experts must know. Unfortunately, there are very few real experts who will stand up to this political correctness. It has gotten so bad that teachers of bridge also adopt the methods of the politically correct and then teach them in their bridge classes. The strange thing is that many of the most successful tournament partnerships, at the highest levels, do not play the politically correct methods. For example, the Italian team, which has an unprecedented record over the last decade, use their own systems, which are all extremely different from the politically correct 2-over-1 style played in America. The winners of the Blue Ribbon Pairs at the Hawaii Fall Nationals this past November were Italians Fantoni and Nunes, who play … dare I say it … sound opening bids, not to mention two bids that range from 10-to-13 points! As readers know, Bridge Today has never been politically correct. For years, Alvin Roth conducted a bidding contest and wrote about his so-called out-dated methods. One of the main ideas he corrected was the idea that you had to match the bidding at the other tables in order to be successful in a pairs event. Alvin won more pairs events than anyone, perhaps, except Barry Crane, and he argued that it was better to play different methods than the field if you want to have a chance to win. Crane also played his own system, that almost nobody plays today, including opening four-card heart suits with one heart. When I won the World Mixed Pairs in Verona last June, I was playing a totally offbeat system, which has helped Karen McCallum win many championships, most recently the Women’s Board-a-Match in Hawaii. And over the course of the last year, my wife, Pamela (our anti-editor) won three national team championships playing sound opening bids, going completely against the politically correct field. The bottom line for 2007: Don’t be a puppet. Think for yourself. Read bridge books and study hands, and put together the styles and systems you enjoy. If some of your bidding toys are a bit far from the mainstream, so what. You may win when the right hands come up for your methods! But don’t be afraid when an “expert” looks at you strangely and sneers, “How could you bid that way?” Just smile all the way to the bank. — the editor

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 4

The Red Pencil by Matthew Granovetter Bypassing four-card major rebids

Ever since 1963 during a sectional Mixed Pairs game in New York, when a certain matchpoint maven bypassed his four-card major to grab the declaration in 1NT, it has become the practice of clever players to bypass four-card major-suit rebids. I’m speaking of these auctions: Opener 1♣ 1 NT

Responder 1♦

1♣ 1 NT

1♥

1♦ 1 NT

1♥

Even before 1963, brilliant bidders were doing this on their way to 2NT: 1♣ 2 NT

1♦

1♣ 2 NT

1♥

1♦ 2 NT

1♠

long now, that to even suggest to players that they might rebid one of the major with a four-card major and 18-19 points, is risking that they will look at you like you are a dinosaur. Let’s go back to 1NT rebids for the time being. A couple of decades ago, some players were rebidding 1NT so much with a fourcard major that they decided to make up a rule that had little merit except that it gave them a good excuse to grab the 1NT’s and that was: The rebid of a major by a 1♣ opener promises four cards in clubs. Opener Responder 1♣ 1♦ 1 ♥ = promises four clubs 1♣ 1♦ 1 ♠ = promises four clubs 1♣ 1♥ 1 ♠ = promises four clubs

Over 2NT, conventional checkbacks began to emerge on the scene, usually 3♣. Today, the politically correct system is to use 3♦ as checkback, saving 3♣ as a Wolff type of sign-off. This has been going on so

As you can see, this rule actually forces you to become a “grabber” of 1NT — since you now must rebid 1NT with three clubs and four in the major. This reminds me of the time Jimmy (Sparky) Rosenbloom rebid 2♥ with four spades and three hearts in a team match at the Mayfair Club:

Bridge Today • January 2007 Sparky ♠J432 ♥AKJ ♦A5 ♣ 10 9 7 2

Partner ♠96 ♥ 10 9 8 7 5 ♦87642 ♣A

1♣ 2♥

1♥ pass

Sparky’s partner made 110 while at the other table, the opening bidder rebid 1♠ and his partner let him play it there, fearful of another call. This was down three, for 9 imps. Now perhaps you are saying to yourself that 1NT would have worked better, since responder could then continue to the twolevel safely. Or can he? Remember, the politically correct system today is a combination 2♣/2♦ two-way checkback. Responder would bid 2♣, which forces 2♦ (yes, it absolutely forces 2♦, opener is not allowed to preference responder’s major or rebid the missing four-card major, because responder may have responded 1♥ with four small hearts and five or six diamonds!). So these two hands today would most likely be bid this way, by practically all of the top U.S. partnerships: Opener 1♣ 1 NT 2♦

Responder 1♥ 2♣ pass

OK, let’s not get too excited. Sparky’s rebid of 2♥ was based on old-fashioned judgment, something we don’t bother with

page 5 today, but something that used to be fun to use in the “old days.” One drawback to rebidding the major, some say, is that responder will preference to 2♣ and find opener with three of them: ♠Axxx ♥Kxx ♦Kxx ♣Axx

♠Kx ♥ 10 x x x x ♦xx ♣QJxx

1♣ 1♠

1♥ 2♣

True, it would be sad to play in 2♣, but perhaps opener should now scoot over to hearts, where he knows responder has at least a four-card suit. Let’s look at the politically correct rebid: 1♣ 1 NT

1♥ ?

Note that responder cannot bid 2♣ now, because he is playing two-way checkback. He must guess whether to pass 1NT or rebid 2♥ on an emaciated five-card suit. So which method really works better? Natural or “bypass”? “There’s no need to rebid 1♠ over 1♥,” is a commonly heard argument of the “bypassers.” “Responder can always check back.” “Always?” What if responder has an ordinary 4-4 or 4-5 in the majors with less than 10 points (I should say 11 points, since the “bypassers” always need 11 to bid over 1NT rebids and commonly pass 1NT with 10 HCP, but I’m being kind). For example, suppose you pick up one of these hands:

Bridge Today • January 2007 (a)

♠Axxx ♥ K 10 x x ♦xxxx ♣x

(b)

♠AQxx ♥ K 10 x x ♦xxxx ♣x

page 6 Facing the four example hands, in one notrump, declarer is (a) down two, (b) makes one, (c) makes one and (d) makes one; in a spade contract, declarer makes (a) two, (b) three, (c) three, and (d) four. Now these were 4-3-3-3 hands. What if we looked at hands that are 4-4-3-2 shaped, which are also being rebid 1NT?

♠AQxx ♥ K 10 x x x ♦xxx ♣x

(c)

OK, let’s include this one: (d)

♠AQxx ♥ K 10 x x x ♦Jxx ♣x

Every politically correct maven of 2006 would respond 1♥ and pass 1NT. A few will argue that they would rebid 2♥ on the latter two examples, an argument that doesn’t exactly make sense, does it? Have you never rebid 1NT over 1♥ with a singleton heart? ♠Kxx ♥x ♦Qxxx ♣AKJxx 1♣ ?

No! The politically correct don’t. They open 1♦ (!) or rebid 2♣. — anti-editor

Facing the four example hands, you make 140 twice and game on the last two hands, possibly 11 tricks on the last hand, where most of the modern day experts are languishing in 1NT or 2♥. Maybe you are somewhat convinced, and if so, I will dare to venture forth to the 1819 point hands, where we’ve been rebidding 2NT all our lives, happy in the comfortable notion that responder can always “check back.” ♠AQxx ♥Ax ♦AJx ♣KJxx

♠Kxxx ♥xxxxx ♦xx ♣Qx

1♣ 2 NT

1♥ ?

1♥

Now suppose that opener has an ordinary 13-point hand with four spades, that he has bypassed: ♠Kxxx ♥Axx ♦ A 10 x ♣Qxx

♠Kxxx ♥Ax ♦ A 10 x ♣Qxxx

Perhaps you always bid again with the responding hand: five points. But what if opener has one less spade. Getting to 3NT is surely stupid, no? Gulp. Does this mean that we have been bidding wrong for 30, err, 40 years?! See you next month.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 7

Bidding Coaching

Useful Cards by Pamela Granovetter Do you count your points, or judge where your points are?

The standard method of judging whether to bid or not to bid — not to mention what to bid! — is the point-count method. With so-many points you bid such-and-such. Point-counting, though, works well only for balanced hands facing balanced hands. Then, you generally need 26 points for game, 33 for slam, etc. (although you need a little luck — if the cards aren’t fitting, your 26-point, or even 27- or 28-point 3NT will fail). Much of the time, however, you are not dealing with one balanced hand facing another balanced hand, and in these cases point-counting isn’t going to get the job done accurately, and you need to evaluate your honors. It’s more accurate to evaluate your hand based on your “useful cards” holding rather than on your high-card points. Useful cards are aces, kings that aren’t facing shortness, plus length in partner’s suit. Let’s look at some hands from a bidding-practice session on BBO. The auctions shown are how they were bid by two experts.

Bd: 5 North dealer N-S vul

North ♠A6532 ♥3 ♦9 ♣ A Q J 10 7 2 South ♠987 ♥KQ864 ♦Q6 ♣K43

North 1♣ 1♠ 2♠ 4♠

South 1♥ 1 NT 3♠ pass

I think South should pass 2♠ despite holding 10 high-card points. South has only one fitting card in partner’s two suits, and the king-queen of hearts is useful only if North has two hearts (and South has no reason to think this is the case). If all North needs is three-card spade support and one key card, North should open 1♠ and not 1♣ in order to find out if partner has threecard support. For example, with: ♠ A K Q x x ♥ x ♦ x x ♣ A Q 10 x x, I think you should open 1♠, because all you care about in life is getting a spade raise).

Bridge Today • January 2007 Bd: 8 West dealer None vul

North ♠J75 ♥AK95 ♦A5 ♣9762 South ♠— ♥QJ7643 ♦ K J 10 8 2 ♣AJ North 1♣ 2♥ 4♥

Bd: 9 North dealer E-W vul

South 1♥ 3♠ pass

North ♠K963 ♥K ♦A8654 ♣AK4 South ♠ Q 10 4 ♥QJ ♦732 ♣QJ763

North 1♦ 2 NT pass

South 1 NT 3 NT

page 8 North opened with a poor suit and a minimum of highcards. Still, when South showed slam interest in hearts and a splinter in spades, it was time for North to focus on his useful cards and forget about “I’ve got only a 12-count.” I’d count four useful cards in the North hand: the ace-king fourth of trumps is huge so I count that as two-and-a-half useful cards (Think! Partner is making a slam try missing the ace-king of trumps, so partner must have a very strong playing hand); the ace of diamonds is also huge, and the ruffing value in diamonds counts for one-half of a useful card, too!

Despite holding 17 high-card points, North doesn’t know if his king of hearts is a useful card. Indeed, it would have been had South’s ♠4 been in with his hearts! As it is, why not go slowly and find out? I would rebid 2♣ with North’s hand to see what South can do. South doesn’t want to sign off but isn’t strong enough to raise to 3♣, so he temporizes with a false-preference to 2♦. Now North can rebid 2♠ and South signs off in 3♣, which North will correct to 3♦. There they will rest, playing in a partscore that rates to make, while the rest of the field is failing by two tricks in 3NT with their 25 high-card points!

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 9

Thin Game Bidding Thin-game bidding is lots of fun and lucrative vis-à-vis matchpoints or imps. These games often make when one partner has a six-card minor that will run and you have three outside quick tricks. You can reach these games if you use the following useful cards formula: Opener 1m 2m

Responder 1x ?

Example (1): Opener 1♣ 2♣

Responder 1♦ 3♣

3♣ = courtesy raise with two useful cards, any hand that might make game opposite a nice opening bid like: ♠ A x ♥ x x x ♦ K x ♣ A K 10 x x x Responder might hold any of these:

2x = weak hand, to play new suit = natural or stopper here and fourth suit not stopped

♠xxx ♥Qxx ♦Axxx ♣Qxx ♠Kxx ♥xxxx ♦Axxx ♣Jx ♠xx ♥AKx ♦Jxxx ♣xxxx

2NT = normal game-forcing hand, or if light, two-and-a-half useful cards 3m = two useful cards

Example (2):

In Competition:

Opener 1♣ 2♣

Without a strong holding in opener’s suit, the light 2NT rebid should include a double stopper in the opponent’s suit, because we know they are going to lead it and knock-out our one stopper, and we will have to run eight tricks in a row afterwards! Otherwise, everything is the same, but exercise caution if opener’s 2m rebid may have been made under duress (for example, after a negative double or after a third-seat opening bid).

Responder 1♦ 2 NT

2NT = if light in high-card points, then 2NT promises an honor in clubs, expecting to make game opposite most minimums with reasonable clubs, like: ♠Ax ♥xxx ♦Ax ♣AJ98xx Responder might hold: ♠ Q x x ♥ A x ♦ J x x x x ♣ K 10 x ♠xxx ♥Ax♦Jxxxx ♣KQx ♠Kx ♥xxxx ♦Qxxx ♣KQx ♠Kx ♥Ax ♦Kxxxx ♣xxxx

A final thought: The initials for “useful cards” are U. C., which appropriately come out verbally to: “you see?”

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 10

Hawaii Four-0 by Matthew Granovetter

Between wind-surfing and watching the whales, I was able to get in a few sessions of bridge in Honolulu. Here I present some of my own exploits and some that I witnessed while drying off.... Fourth Suit Forcing North ♠ A Q 10 4 ♥J9 ♦72 ♣AQ542 West ♠32 ♥765 ♦QJ9654 ♣K7

East ♠9875 ♥K43 ♦ 10 3 ♣J963 South ♠KJ6 ♥ A Q 10 8 2 ♦AK8 ♣ 10 8

West pass pass pass pass (all pass)

North 1 ♦ (1) 1♠ 2♥ 3♣

East pass pass pass pass

South 1♥ 2 ♦ (2) 2♠ 3 NT

(1) distributional hand without a five-card major, 11-14 (2) game forcing, artificial Opening lead:

♦Q

This hand was the first hand of the tournament for me. I was East. Marshall Miles, North, opened with a catch-all 1♦, playing a strong club system. I think South might have headed toward slam after hearing 2♥ over his game forcing 2♦ bid. This 2♦ bid comes from the 2♣/2♦ convention where 2♣ is always a game invitational bid, and 2♦ is always a game force, regardless of opener’s rebid. Many play these bids after a 1NT rebid, but not after a 1♥ or 1♠ rebid. Suppose the auction goes more traditionally: North 1♣ 1♠

South 1♥ ?

Now responder might bid 2♦, fourth-suit forcing. Does opener bid 2♥ with honordoubleton, as Miles did? Or does this promise three-card support? I think the former is a better way to play, because it comes up much more than three-card support (which you can jump with anyway). Knowledge of a doubleton honor should help South envision a slam in hearts. To discuss with your partner: After fourth-suit forcing, does opener’s rebid of responder’s major show honor doubleton or three-card support?

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 11

Why me, Lord? South dealer None vul

♠— ♥J ♦J ♣A9

North ♠QJ ♥J ♦ J 10 8 7 ♣AK9652

West (Herman) ♠ 10 ♥ 10 8 7 5 4 ♦KQ642 ♣ 10 4

East ♠754 ♥K632 ♦953 ♣Q83 South (Robson) ♠AK98632 ♥AQ9 ♦A ♣J7

South 1♠ 3♠ 4 NT 5♦ 7 NT

West pass pass pass pass (all pass)

Opening lead:

North 2♣ 4♠ 5 ♣ (one) 6 ♣ (♠Q/♣K)

East pass pass pass pass

♦K

Ira Herman, an occasional “unlucky expert” from New York, came running up to me to tell me that he was fixed yet again! His complaint was that he was dealt too strong a diamond holding on this hand from the Open Pairs. He led the ♦K against Andrew Robson’s grand slam. Robson led a club to the king and ran seven rounds of spades, coming down to: Kantar: In the auction shown, North has denied the ♥K (bypassing 5♥). The 5♥ bid could also be made with the singleton heart, if North felt he had enough trump for the singleton to be worthwhile (remember, players do lead trumps against grand slams). After 6♣, opener bids where he

♠— ♥ 10 8 7 ♦Q ♣—

W

N S

E

♠— ♥K6 ♦— ♣Q8

♠— ♥AQ9 ♦— ♣J On the last spade, East had to throw a heart, to keep the clubs guarded. Next Robson led a club to the ace and Herman had to throw a heart to keep the diamonds guarded! Finally, the ♥J to the queen produced tricks 11, 12 and 13. It was a beautiful “non-simultaneous” double squeeze, executed by Robson, with a finesse sprinkled in along the way. “Why oh why did I have to be dealt both the king and queen of diamonds?!” complained Herman. “If I had only held one of the diamond honors, I’d have led a heart and broken up the squeeze!” A note about the bidding: South could have asked for the ♥K by bidding 6♦ or 6♥. Do you know which in your partnership? And would North show the ♥K with a singleton jack, figuring it’s worth a trick or two in ruffs? Answers in box below are provided by Eddie Kantar.

needs a king. So 6♦ would ask for the ♦K and 6♥ would ask for the ♥K if the ♥K had not already been denied (so here it asks for third round control of hearts). To discuss with your partner: Follow-ups to keycard blackwood

Bridge Today • January 2007 North ♠QJ ♥J ♦ J 10 8 7 ♣AK9652 West ♠ 10 ♥ 10 8 7 5 4 ♦KQ642 ♣ 10 4

East ♠754 ♥K632 ♦953 ♣Q83 South (Rimstedt) ♠AK98632 ♥AQ9 ♦A ♣J7

At the winners table in the Women’s Life Master Pairs, two Swedish girls, Cecilia Rimstedt and Sara Siveland, ages 17 and 24, bid to 7NT as well.* There, however, declarer made it in a different way. She won the diamond lead, went to dummy in spades and ran the ♥J. Later she had a simple squeeze (played as a double) against East, who regretted not covering the ♥J with the king!

page 12 Nine card suits are never easy to describe. This one, from the Board-a-Match Teams was the talk of the tournament: West dealer Both vul

North ♠KQJ32 ♥KJ8 ♦8 ♣9643

West ♠— ♥75 ♦ A K Q J 10 9 7 5 3 ♣75 South ♠ 10 8 6 5 4 ♥ Q 10 9 4 ♦— ♣ K Q J 10

East ♠A97 ♥A632 ♦642 ♣A82

Here are a few interesting auctions. West 3 NT

North pass

East pass

South pass

Perhaps East is supposed to bid 4NT to say there are 10 tricks! East has three aces and knows partner has at least seven tricks. How do you play 3NT-4NT? At two tables I know about, East-West were successful.

Sara Siveland and Cecilia Rimstedt *This pair is one of several Swedish women’s pairs being trained by Jill Mellstrom (wife of Swedish veteran P. O. Sunderlin). They won the World Junior Pairs in Slovakia, earlier this year. In November they flew to Honolulu (half way around the world) from Eilat, Israel, where they had placed second in the Eilat Open Pairs.

West 1♦ 5♦ 6♦ (all pass)

North 1♠ pass pass

East double pass pass

South 4♠ 5♠ double

This pair got a top score for six diamonds doubled, but I can’t say they deserved it, can you? West seems to have bid her head off and caught the perfect dummy!

Bridge Today • January 2007 West dealer Both vul

North ♠KQJ32 ♥KJ8 ♦8 ♣9643

West (Bell) ♠— ♥75 ♦ A K Q J 10 9 7 5 3 ♣75 South ♠ 10 8 6 5 4 ♥ Q 10 9 4 ♦— ♣ K Q J 10 West pass 6 NT

page 13

North pass (all pass)

East (Miles) ♠A97 ♥A632 ♦642 ♣A82

East 1 NT

South pass

Winners at the Fall Nationals Nail Open Life Master Pairs Howard Weinstein - Steve Garner Smith Life Master Women’s Pairs Sara Sivelind - Cecilia Rimstedt Victor Mitchell Open BAM Teams George Jacobs - Ralph Katz; Michael Rosenberg - Zia; Steve Weinstein - Robert Levin

At this table Leo Bell was West and Marshall Miles East. Bell passed with his nine diamonds, figuring he could not describe this hand and might learn something in the auction by passing. He probably was hoping to get doubled later, too. Well, imagine Miles’ surprise to see partner bid 6NT over his 12-14 one notrump! I can’t give this auction a gold star either, can you? Perhaps Sam Stayman’s old convention would have worked here. He liked to play 4NT openings as preemptive in one minor, while the 5♣ or 5♦ opening showed a strong five-of-a-minor bid. The auction would then go 5♦, pass, 6♦ (or perhaps 6NT at matchpoints). Readers, if you have any better ideas, please send them to matt@bridgetoday. com. In the meantime, try this declarer play hand: South dealer E-W vul

♠5 South (you) ♠A62 ♥ A Q 10 7 6 2 ♦Q ♣K52

Women’s BAM Teams Lynn Baker - Karen McCallum; Kerri Sanborn - Irina Levitina; Lynn Deas - Beth Palmer Edgar Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes Reisinger BAM Teams Jacek Pszczola - Curtis Cheek; Joe Grue - Gary Cohler Bill Keohane North American Swiss Tony Kasday - Hjordis Eythorsdottir; Thorlakur Jonsson - Sigurbjorn Haraldsson; Bjarni Einarsson - Jon Baldursson

North

♠J ♥K93 ♦ A K J 10 8 5 ♣ J 10 3

South 1♥ 2♥ 4 NT 6♥

West pass pass pass (all pass)

Opening lead:

North 2♦ 3♠ 5♥

East pass pass pass

♠5

East plays the ♠Q on the jack. What is your plan?

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 14

Hawaii Four-0 This was the most fascinating hand of the tournament, and all because West had four trump. South dealer E-W vul

North ♠J ♥K93 ♦ A K J 10 8 5 ♣ J 10 3

West ♠ K 10 5 ♥J854 ♦763 ♣Q74

East ♠Q98743 ♥— ♦942 ♣A986 South ♠A62 ♥ A Q 10 7 6 2 ♦Q ♣K52

South 1♥ 2♥ 4NT 6♥

West pass pass pass (all pass)

Opening lead:

North 2♦ 3♠ 5♥

East pass pass pass

the ♥A at trick two. Suddenly declarer was down — she could no longer recover! After finessing the ♥9 and cashing the king, declarer cannot return to hand except in the one suit she doesn’t want to: diamonds! The best declarer could do was play four rounds of diamonds, pitching her clubs. West ruffed and led a spade for down one (a club or heart return would give the contract but a spade was easy). The right line of play after a spade lead can be found if you ask yourself the key question: What can go wrong? The answer is: West has four trump. To guard against this, strange as it seems, you ruff a spade at trick two and then cash the ♥K at trick three. When East shows out, you are happy about your “safety” play. You now lead a diamond to the queen, ruff your last spade and cash three diamonds, pitching your clubs. West ruffs the fourth round and you claim. At my table (I was West as well), I led a club, a more prosaic lead, yet the one to beat the contract if my partner could find the winning defense. Do you see it?

♠5

The hand, from the Board-a-Match teams, was like a par contest hand for South players who landed in 6♥ and received the aggressive, but excellent, spade lead from West. The spade lead was excellent because West is looking at the four hearts to the jack and wants to attack dummy’s short suit to prevent a finesse through the ♥J. At my wife’s table (she was West), declarer won the ♠A at trick one and cashed

East can defeat the slam by returning a diamond at trick two. This allows declarer only three diamond tricks, and he needs four to make the slam. After a club return at trick two, declarer simply cashed the ♥A, finessed through me, and returned to hand in spades to draw trump before leading the ♦Q to dummy. Tip for declarer: When dummy comes down and things seem easy, think about what could go wrong.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 15

The Blue Ribbon Pairs This event lasts three days with two days of qualifying. I played in the Blues in Honolulu for two days, missing qualification for the final by less than a matchpoint. I guess my partner and I could have picked up a point somewhere along the line.... The winners of the event were the newest Italian champs, Claude Nunes and Fulvio Fantoni. They won by a full board over Drew Casen and Jim Krekorian, with Meckwell coming up the rear in third. Here are a few of the winners’ success stories with a common matchpoint theme: 3NT. From the fifth session, this board showed how easily a preempt can backfire. West dealer N-S vul

In the final session, this board appeared: South dealer N-S vul

South (Fantoni) ♠J ♥AJ542 ♦AQ65 ♣KJ5 East pass

East ♠7 ♥974 ♦ K Q 10 8 6 4 ♣K87 South (Fantoni) ♠Q985 ♥K53 ♦AJ5 ♣ 10 6 4

East ♠98763 ♥K ♦ K J 10 9 7 4 ♣ 10

North pass

North (Nunes) ♠ K J 10 4 3 2 ♥ A J 10 ♦3 ♣A53

West ♠A6 ♥Q862 ♦972 ♣QJ92

North (Nunes) ♠KQ52 ♥ 10 9 8 7 3 ♦32 ♣A8

West ♠ A 10 4 ♥Q6 ♦8 ♣Q976432

West 3♣ (all pass)

switch the North and East hands, Fantoni might score up his contract (West leads a club to his partner’s ace and now a low spade must be returned to defeat 3NT.) As it was, after the club lead, Fantoni scored 660 for a top. He took two spades, four hearts, two diamonds and three clubs.

South 3 NT

Left to their own devises, North-South would roll into their 10-card heart fit, scoring 650. But after the preempt by West, Fantoni balanced with 3NT. Granted, he caught a nice dummy, but even if you

South pass 3 NT

West pass (all pass)

North 1♠

East 3♦

Fantoni once again closed his eyes and bid 3NT, and when he opened them he saw good news. West had led a diamond and dummy had a lot of goodies to work with. He won the queen with the ace and knocked out the ♠A. West, not sure which king his partner might hold on the side (the ♥K or ♣K), decided to continue diamonds in the hope it was the ♥K for an entry. This set up declarer’s tenth trick and he eventually guessed hearts for 11 tricks when a slew of spades tempted his opps into making some revealing discards (i.e., East pitched hearts). Even 630 would have been a good score, but the result was 660.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 16

On the very next round, this hand appeared: South dealer Both vul

Matchpoints is a tough game — this hand would be thrown in at 4♠, making four, five or six, in any rubber bridge or IMP game.

North (Nunes) ♠642 ♥ J 10 3 2 ♦A62 ♣AJ9

West ♠A73 ♥865 ♦K7543 ♣Q6

East ♠5 ♥974 ♦J98 ♣ K 10 8 5 3 2 South (Fantoni) ♠ K Q J 10 9 8

♥AKQ ♦ Q 10 ♣74 South 1♠ 2 NT (2)

West pass pass

North 2 ♣ (1) 3 NT

after winning the first club lead.

East pass (all pass)

(1) 10+ natural or any balanced hand (2) 17+ usually 5332

Nunes (North), upon hearing about his partner’s balanced shape, went with the flow, bidding 3NT over 2NT (as who would not!). Well, West started a low diamond, of course. Fantoni drove out the ♠A and took 12 tricks for plus 690. This was their best score of the three 3NT’s, scoring 36.5 out of 38 matchpoints. The field played mostly in 4♠, and who could blame them? The South hand had no stopper in clubs and a half stopper in diamonds. Most auctions went: 1♠-2♠-4♠. Though, perhaps a better Standard American auction at matchpoints would be 1♠-1NT (forcing), 3♠-3NT. In that case, however, East would lead a club. Declarer could still make 11 tricks if he ducked the first trick, won the second and led spades. He might choose to play East for the ♠A, however, and he’d be down two

I thought it would be interesting for readers to get a peek at these Italians’ convention card. Check out their opening bids: 1NT = 12-14 (any balanced) 1♥ and 1♠ show sound opening bids (14+ or a good 12-13) with a five-card suit. 1♦ shows the same but could be 4441 shape. 1♣ is the same but could also be a balanced 15+ type of hand. All strong balanced hands, except the 20-21 range, start with 1♣. When it says 12-13 it means 12-13 with some good spot cards and shape. These onebids are all forcing! (In general, one-level responses are 0-9 and two-level 10+ gameforcing.) Opening two bids (in first and second seats) in any suit show 10-13 points (sometimes a good 9) with 5+ cards in the suit bid and an unbalanced hand. Bridge Today readers might label these “McCallum/ Trents”! In any case, these guys are very nice fellows and play a system all their own. They do not care what anyone has to say about their system either. (See the editorial on page 2 to see what I mean.)

Fantoni and Nunes

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 17

The Big Team Game The Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams was the premier event of the week. A topnotch field was reduced to 20 teams for the semifinals and 10 teams for the finals. Here are some of the most exciting hands from the last session. First try this quiz and then continue with the article. Mark down your answers and you’ll get your scores in the text that follows. The Stansby Collection We start off with three opening lead problems. See if you can do as well as Lew Stansby. Remember, this is board-a-match scoring so every trick may count!

South dealer • None vul West (you) ♠J2 ♥9842 ♦ 10 8 ♣K8754 South 2 NT 3♠ 4 NT 5♦ 6♠

West pass pass pass pass (all pass)

North East 3 ♥ (transfer) pass 4 ♠* pass 5♣ pass 5 NT pass

*slam try

Five clubs showed one keycard, and five diamonds asked for the queen of trump. North showed it with 5NT but denied a side king.

1, East dealer • Both vul West (you) ♠86 ♥ Q 10 9 8 6 5 2 ♦62 ♣J8

What is your lead and why? 3. West dealer • N-S vul

West — pass pass pass pass (all pass)

North — 3 ♥ (1) 4♦ 4 NT 6♠

East pass pass pass pass pass

South 2 NT 3♠ 4 ♥ (2) 5 ♣ (3 keycards) 6 NT

(1) transfer (2) artificial slam try for spades

What is your opening lead and why? Be specific. 2. OK, here is your second chance for an opening lead. Once again you are West, this time against 6♠:

West (you) ♠953 ♥2 ♦ K J 10 9 8 7 ♣KQ8 West pass 3 ♣ (3) redble (5) pass

North pass double (4) 3 ♦ (6) pass

East 1 NT (1) pass double double

South 2 ♦ (2) pass 3♥ (all pass)

(1) 11+-14 (2) Multi, one long major (3) transfer to diamonds (4) asks partner to show his major (5) retransfer to diamonds (6) insists that partner bid his major already!

What is your lead?

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 18

Win a Few Lew Stansby, whose team placed second, losing by a half-a-board, told me a few of his personal favorites. Stansby was playing with his regular partner, Chip Martel. On boards 7, 8 and 9, the third round of the evening, these opening lead problems were dealt. The boards were played against Italian champions, Lorenzo Lauria and Alfredo Versace. The Dangerous 10 East dealer Both vul

North (Lauria) ♠ A Q 10 9 2 ♥4 ♦ K 10 8 4 ♣Q95

West (Stansby) ♠86 ♥ Q 10 9 8 6 5 2 ♦62 ♣J8

East (Martel) ♠753 ♥AJ7 ♦753 ♣ 10 7 6 2 South (Versace) ♠KJ4 ♥K3 ♦AQJ9 ♣AK43

West — pass pass pass pass (all pass)

North — 3♥ 4♦ 4 NT 6♠

East pass pass pass pass pass

Lew’s choice of a heart was based on his length there. The opponents were missing an ace if their bidding was accurate, and South had corrected the 6♠ bid to 6NT, no doubt with K-x in hearts or clubs. It was more likely, from Lew’s long hearts, to be in hearts. But here is a more interesting thought: Lew did not want to lead the 10 because he did not want his partner to duck the trick if dummy had a singleton and his partner held the king! To guard against this, he led a low one, which would force partner to put up any honor he held. The heart lead held the contract to six for a tie board. After a different suit lead, declarer would make seven by running his spades and diamonds, squeezing East in hearts and clubs. Having said this, I would be omiss if I didn’t point out the opening lead to defeat 6NT: the ♣J. If you led this card, you luck out when declarer wins and probably finesses you for the 10 of clubs! Scores: If you led a heart, halve the board. If you led the ♣J, take a win! Anything else is a zero.

South 2 NT 3♠ 4 ♥* 5♣ 6 NT

The story of board 8 was at Stansby’s teammates’ table. Stansby and Martel had defended 4♠ at their table, but their teammates reached 6♠....

*The Italians play this bid as a slam try for spades, allowing them to stop in 4♠ if North is light. Opening lead: ♥5

Boards are sometimes rotated to make South declarer

Lew Stansby

Bridge Today • January 2007 South dealer None vul

page 19 The third board of this set was yet another opening lead problem, but was solved for Stansby in the auction:

North ♠KQ9543 ♥Q753 ♦5 ♣Q2

West ♠J2 ♥9842 ♦ 10 8 ♣K8754

East ♠ 10 8 6 ♥KJ ♦A762 ♣ J 10 9 3 South ♠A7 ♥ A 10 6 ♦KQJ943 ♣A6

South Moss 2 NT 3♠ 4 NT 5♦ 6♠

West Fantoni pass pass pass pass (all pass)

North Gitelman 3♥ 4♠ 5♣ 5 NT

Board 9 West dealer N-S vul

North (Lauria) ♠AJ72 ♥QJ3 ♦642 ♣ J 10 3

West (Stansby) ♠953 ♥2 ♦ K J 10 9 8 7 ♣KQ8 East Nunes pass pass pass pass

Opening lead: ♠J

Fantoni (West) decided to lead what he thought was a safe ♠J against 6♠. It was safe but didn’t do much. Declarer, Brad Moss, drew trump and led diamonds, to make 12 tricks. A heart lead defeats the slam, but a club lead doesn’t. I would lead a club, I admit. But then my partner might make the “slam spade” double for the highest ranking unbid suit: hearts. Even not playing this special lead-directing double, East might have doubled for the first suit bid in dummy, hearts, taking a chance that the queen is in dummy. (Perhaps this is more of an imp double than a matchpoint double, but with nine HCP, East might figure that his teammates at the other table are probably not in slam.) Had East doubled or West led a heart, the Italians would have won the board. Score one point for a heart lead, otherwise zero.

East (Martel) ♠KQ86 ♥A54 ♦A53 ♣742 South (Versace) ♠ 10 4 ♥ K 10 9 8 7 6 ♦Q ♣A965

West pass 3♣ redouble pass

North pass double 3♦ pass

East 1 NT pass double double

South 2♦ pass 3♥ (all pass)

Playing Flannery, Stansby passed in first seat with the West hand. Martel opened with a weak notrump in third seat and Versace overcalled 2♦, multi, showing a one-suited hand in either major. Stansby bid 3♣, a transfer to diamonds, showing some values as well, and Lauria doubled to ask partner to bid his major. The 2♦ multi convention had backfired when Martel got to pass the double and later double 3♦. Versace passed the double of 3♣, perhaps not in sync with partner. He would have done better by bidding 3♥, perhaps. Well, he couldn’t have done worse. Stansby, who preferred his partner to declare diamonds, redoubled and Lauria now bid 3♦ to insist that partner bid his major. This allowed

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 20

Martel to double, as it happened, for the lead! West dealer N-S vul

North (Lauria) ♠AJ72 ♥QJ3 ♦642 ♣ J 10 3

West (Stansby) ♠953 ♥2 ♦ K J 10 9 8 7 ♣KQ8

East (Martel) ♠KQ86 ♥A54 ♦A53 ♣742 South (Versace) ♠ 10 4 ♥ K 10 9 8 7 6 ♦Q ♣A965

West pass 3♣ redouble pass

North pass double 3♦ pass

East 1 NT pass double double

North Gitelman pass pass pass pass

East Nunes 1 NT 3♣ pass 4♦

Lose a Few Here are the fatal three boards for Stansby, which his team lost to the winners. They are boards 13, 14 and 15. But first try them yourself and see how you would do. These are competitive bidding problems, and again, keep in mind that the game is board-a-match teams: Board 13. North dealer • Both vul

South 2♦ pass 3♥ (all pass)

Versace finally bid his hearts, but it was too late. When Martel doubled this (to protect his 3♦ partscore, not wanting to collect only 100 points if it was set), Stansby led a diamond instead of the more natural club lead. The Italians’ delay in reaching 3♥ backfired and the contract was set one trick. West Fantoni pass 2 NT 3♦ double

3♦ by West. Moss balanced with 3♥. West doubled (but what was he going to lead?) and his partner pulled to 4♦, making five, when the two black aces were onside. Score one point for any lead but a club, but score zero if you led the ♣K.

South Moss pass pass 3♥ (all pass)

At the other table, Fantoni and Nunes also could not open 2♦ (they play it shows 10-13) and his partner also opened 1NT. Moss, South, passed. Now it went 2NT by West, showing diamonds, 3♣ by East and

South (you) ♠ A 10 5 ♥A53 ♦QJ84 ♣KJ6 South — ?

West —

North 1♠

East 2♦

Board 14. Your second bidding problem: East dealer • None vul West (you) ♠J9 ♥AKJ95 ♦A ♣ A K 10 9 7 West — 2 ♠ (1) 3♠ ?

North — pass pass

East pass 3 ♣ (2) 4♣

South 1♠ 3♦ pass

(1) hearts and a minor (2) pass or correct to 3♦ with diamonds

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 21

Board 15. Last chance to win a board. South dealer • N-S vul East (you) ♠J64 ♥J64 ♦9 ♣KJ7654 South 1♥ 2 NT

West pass pass

North 1 NT 4 ♣*

East pass ?

*delayed splinter for hearts

Do you or don’t you double? Two for the Price of One When the top teams meet at boarda-match, there are actually two boards “swung” with every board played. This can be understood better if you list the possible results of a board: Team A 0 half 1

Team B 1 half 0

These are the three possible results. Notice that the two extreme results are: Team A wins one point and Team B wins one point. If Team A wins the point, Team A is one point ahead. But if Team B wins, Team B is one point ahead. The difference between –1 and plus 1 is 2. You will see this even more clearly at the conclusion of the article.

Reisinger champs: Cohler, Grue, Cheek and “Pepsi”

Trap Pass backfires The first board is the story of a trap pass that backfired when partner did not reopen. Stansby’s opponents were Gary Cohler (West) and Jacek Pszczola, otherwise nicknamed “Pepsi.” Board 13 North dealer Both vul

North (Stansby) ♠KJ7642 ♥Q4 ♦A65 ♣Q7

West (Cohler) ♠983 ♥ 10 9 8 6 2 ♦— ♣ 10 8 5 4 3

East (Pepsi) ♠Q ♥KJ7 ♦ K 10 9 7 3 2 ♣A92 South (Martel) ♠ A 10 5 ♥A53 ♦QJ84 ♣KJ6

West — pass

North 1♠ pass

East 2♦

South pass

Martel (South) passed 2♦, hoping to hear a reopening double. But West (Cohler) was void in diamonds and North (Stansby) had three of them — one too many. If he had held a doubleton diamond, he would have reopened, he said after the event, but with three of them it didn’t look like his partner was sitting there with a stack in diamonds. The contract drifted down four, for +400 to N-S. But at the other table South bid over 2♦ and reached 4♠ to win the board. Cohler was lucky he was void in partner’s suit, since he avoided the double. Or was he? Perhaps he would have rescued his partner to 2♥ if North had produced a reopening double on a different layout. Score zero if you passed, otherwise one half.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 22

Partscore Restraint Board 14 East dealer None vul

South dealer N-S vul

North ♠82 ♥Q8743 ♦QJ2 ♣Q42

West ♠J9 ♥AKJ95 ♦A ♣ A K 10 9 7

East ♠7543 ♥6 ♦8543 ♣J853 South ♠ A K Q 10 6 ♥ 10 2 ♦ K 10 9 7 6 ♣6

West Cohler — 2♠ 3♠

North Stansby — pass pass

East Pepsi pass 3♣ 4♣

South Martel 1♠ 3♦ (all pass)

I think Cohler used remarkable restraint here when he let the contract go in 4♣. Notice that if the clubs had divided, declarer would still be one down in 5♣ when North held the ♣Q, because the defense began with three rounds of spades. At the other table Moss-Gitelman played in 3♥ by West, down one. Score a win if you passed 4♣, but a half if you bid. Double Restraint! On the last of the fatal three boards for Stansby, board 15, his side rested in game when the other team bid slam: Husband/Wife Win Double While husband Curtis Cheek was winning the Reisinger, Disa was winning the North American Swiss with friends from Iceland.

North ♠ A Q 10 3 ♥ 10 7 2 ♦K8642 ♣8

West ♠K987 ♥Q9 ♦J753 ♣ 10 9 2

East ♠J64 ♥J64 ♦9 ♣KJ7654 South ♠52 ♥AK853 ♦ A Q 10 ♣AQ3

South Martel 1♥ 2 NT 4♦

West Cohler pass pass pass

North Stansby 1 NT 4♣ 4♥

East Pepsi pass pass (all pass)

As East, you win the board if you pass 4♣ but lose it if you double. Here’s why. Stansby responded a forcing 1NT, planning to jump in hearts. The 2NT raise showed 18-19, and the 4♣ bid was a delayed splinter. At this point Pepsi, East, might have doubled. But he demonstrated fine judgment by passing. Had he doubled, it would have made life easy for Martel both in the auction and the play. After the pass, Martel cuebid 4♦ and Stansby, with weak trumps, bid 4♥. At the other table, South opened 1♣, strong, and North responded 2♦. NorthSouth reached six diamonds, making. If Pepsi had doubled 4♣, I think Martel would have redoubled, Stansby would have bid 4♦ on the way to 4♥ and slam would have been reached in hearts for a two-board swing to Stansby’s team. In other words, instead of Cohler’s team winning by a half a board, Stansby’s team would have won by one-and-a-half boards!

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 23

Bridge Yesterday by Pietro Campanile It’s a kind of magic...

Belladonna

Chemla

A couple of weeks ago while playing in a local club I was approached by a distinguished gentleman who mentioned that he enjoyed very much my articles (he was obviously a man of exquisite taste!) but… “isn’t it time to dedicate a column to the truly greatest hands ever played?” A timely suggestion which I am happy to accept. So here is the first installment of a new series aptly called “It’s a kind of magic..” , borrow-

ing the title of one of Queens’ most famous hits, because the protagonists of this column often take up a magician’s cloak and, like Harry Houdini, manage to escape certain defeat thanks to some astonishing coups.

South dealer E-W vul

suit. At this point a quick assessment of declarer’s chances will show a loser in spades, two trump losers, and a loser in each of the minors for an apparently inevitable two down.

North ♠942 ♥KQ ♦AK83 ♣A986

West ♠ Q 10 ♥ J 10 7 4 3 ♦94 ♣KQ32

East ♠KJ8753 ♥— ♦ Q 10 7 2 ♣J74 South ♠A6 ♥A98652 ♦J65 ♣ 10 5

Against 4♥x, West led the ♣K to dummy’s ace. The ♥K was played next which revealed the unlucky 5-0 split in the trump

The first hand I shall present to you was played in the 1975 Bermuda Bowl by one of the most famous players of all time, the Italian Giorgio Belladonna.

Let the Italian magic show begin! Belladonna continued with a small club from dummy, won by East with the ♣J (had he ducked, the Italian would then have ruffed out the ♣J, setting up a club winner in dummy). East played back a spade and declarer rose with the ♠A, went to dummy with the ♥Q and played a third club, discarding the losing spade from hand. This is the position we have reached:

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 24

♠94 ♥— ♦AK83 ♣6 ♠Q ♥ J 10 7 ♦94 ♣3

W

N S

E

♠KJ8 ♥— ♦ Q 10 7 2 ♣—

in each hand, Belladonna played the ♠9 from dummy and ruffed it with the ♥9. West overruffed with the ♥10 — underruffing would obviously serve no purpose — and was forced to return a heart into declarer’s ♥A-8. Four hearts doubled, bid and made…Bravo, Maestro!

For our second hand of the month we travel across the Alps to witness an early effort of Paul Chemla. In his first outing as an Internationalist, representing France in the 1972 European Open Championship East-West have so far taken only two in Athens, he already showed some of that tricks in clubs and when West played back wizardry which was soon to turn him into the ♠Q, declarer ruffed, cashed ♦A-K and one of the most accomplished declarers of discarded his last diamond on the ♣6. Com- his time. Here we see him in action against pleting his masterpiece, with three cards left the Italian Blue Team. ♠— ♥A986 ♦J65 ♣—

South declarer None vul

♠ K 10 8 6 ♥KQ53 ♦64 ♣854

third heart ruff). Then he cashed his three top clubs reaching this position:

♠J5 ♥9742 ♦K9732 ♣Q2 W

N S

E

♠32 ♥ A J 10 8 ♦ A J 10 8 ♣J96

♠AQ974 ♥6 ♦Q5 ♣ A K 10 7 3 Chemla’s youthful exuberance got his side to overstretch to a seemingly unmakeable 4♠ contract. Declarer rates to lose a heart, a diamond and two spades just to start off; after D’Alelio’s ♥K lead and heart continuation there is also the danger of losing control, given the unfriendly trump layout. The “enfant terrible” of French bridge soon showed the way. He ruffed the second heart, played the ♦Q to East’s ace, ruffed the heart return, got to dummy with the ♦K and ruffed dummy’s last heart (his

♠J5 ♥— ♦97 ♣— ♠ K 10 8 6 ♥— ♦— ♣—

W

N S

E

♠32 ♥— ♦ J 10 ♣—

♠AQ ♥— ♦— ♣ 10 7 Having already gathered seven tricks, Chemla played the ♣10. West was forced to ruff low and was overruffed by dummy. The French champion now played a diamond, pitching the last club, and D’Alelio was forced to ruff and return trumps from his ♠K-10 into declarer’s A-Q, letting declarer score his unlikely contract. Isn’t it a kind of magic?

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 25

Building a Better Mousetrap by Matthew Granovetter

The “Support Reverse” One of the most important building blocks for a bidding system, or in this case, a new convention, argued the late inventor of Precision, C. C. Wei, is the frequency of the bid. Precision works well for so many types of players, from relative beginners to experts, because of this factor. In Standard American, there are many sequences that cater to a small percentage of hands. These sequences could be used for something covering more hands (in some cases, many more hands). I’d like to propose such an idea that I first mentioned in Bridge Today a few years ago, but am finally playing myself: the support reverse. To understand this convention, first let’s disencumber ourselves of the old meaning of a reverse: natural and 16+ points. The new meaning of a reverse will be: 3card support for partner and 16+ values. We’ll start with the “touching reverse.” This is a reverse one suit up from the suit you opened.

Opener 1♣ 2♦

Responder 1 ♥ or 1 ♠

Here 2♦ is a touching reverse, one suit up from clubs. It shows 3-card support for partner and 16+ values. Opener 1♦ 2♥

Responder 1♠

Here 2♥ is a touching reverse, one suit up from diamonds. It shows 3-card support for spades and 16+ values. Opener 1♦ 2♠

Responder 1♥

Here 2♠ is a jump shift. Because there is no suit in between diamonds and hearts, we use this jump shift for the same meaning. It shows 3-card support for hearts and 16+ values. So we are dealing here with four sequences. All begin with one of a minor and

Bridge Today • January 2007 a major-suit response. Then the lowest possible reverse shows 3-card support and 16+ values. What does responder do next? 1) He signs off in his suit or your suit with a weak hand. 2) He bids 2NT or a new suit at the two level to hear more about your hand. 3) He jumps to three of his major to force to game in the major. 4) He bids a natural new suit at the three level to describe his hand. 5) He jumps to a game as a quantitative bid. 6) He jumps in a suit to show a splinter. Let’s look at some examples. But before we do, you probably have this question on your mind: What does opener do with the old reverse? The answer is that opener finds another bid. Opener may decide to rebid 2NT on many of these hands as a natural 18-19 point hand. One of the merits of this new convention is that strong rebids other than the Support Reverse usually deny 3card support. This will help all your other bidding enormously. Opener ♠AKx ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQxxxx

Responder

1♣ 2♦

1♥ ?

Suppose responder has one of these: ♠Jxx ♥Kxxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx

♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦Axx ♣Axx

♠xxx ♥ K Q 10 x x ♦xxx ♣Ax

2♥

2♠

3♥

page 26 ♠xx ♥Kxxxx ♦AKxxx ♣x

♠QJx ♥Kxxx ♦AQJ ♣ 10 x x

♠x ♥Kxxxx ♦Kxxx ♣Axx

3♦

3 NT

3♠

Let’s match them up and see.... Opener ♠AKx ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQxxxx

Responder ♠Jxx ♥Kxxx ♦Qxxx ♣xx

1♣ 2♦ pass

1♥ 2♥

Responder rebids 2♥ and plays a cozy 2♥ contract, not getting too high.

Opener ♠AKx ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQxxxx

Responder ♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦Axx ♣Axx

1♣ 2♦ 3♣

1♥ 2♠

On this hand, responder bids 2♠, a forcing bid to hear more about opener’s hand; responder chooses 2♠, rather than 2NT, to hear more, because he has no spade stopper and does not want to grab the notrump declaration from his side. Opener now rebids his club suit and responder can picture a slam in clubs. He might bid 3♦ followed by 4♣ or he might raise clubs directly or he might jump to 4♦ as KCB in clubs. All roads will lead to a slam.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 27

Opener Responder ♠AKx ♠xxx ♥Axx ♥ K Q 10 x x ♦x ♦xxx ♣KQxxxx ♣Ax

Opener Responder ♠AKx ♠QJx ♥Axx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♦AQJ ♣ K Q x x x x ♣ 10 x x

1♣ 2♦ 3♠ 4 NT

1♣ 2♦ ?

1♥ 3♥ 4♣ etc.

1♥ 3 NT

Here responder jumps to 3♥ to agree on hearts and opener cuebids 3♠. Responder cuebids 4♣ and opener is off to the races with Keycard Blackwood.

Opener has a close decision over the 3NT quantitative bid (showing only four hearts but good stoppers in spades and diamonds and 12-13 points). Opener knows he is facing diamond wastage, so he might give up.

Opener Responder ♠AKx ♠xx ♥Axx ♥Kxxxx ♦x ♦AKxxx ♣KQxxxx ♣x

Opener Responder ♠AKx ♠x ♥Axx ♥Kxxxx ♦x ♦Kxxx ♣KQxxxx ♣Axx

1♣ 2♦ 3♠ 4♥

1♣ 2♦

1♥ 3♦ 4♦ pass

Responder’s 3♦ was descriptive. Opener cuebids 3♠ and responder cuebids 4♦. Opener knows the ♣A is missing and if responder holds ♥K-Q and ♦A-K, he will move on himself over 4♥. With only A-x-x of trumps, he bids 4♥.

1♥ 3♠

Finally, responder makes a splinter jump bid. Opener has both good and bad news facing the splinter: a nice hand with controls, but the wasted ♠K. Opener would probably bid 4♣, since he can still stop in 4♥. Whether the partnership reaches slam or not is a tough call. Six clubs is 50%, needing the ♦A onside. The main point here is that the partnership is in the ballpark, with the tools to investigate the best possible game or slam. Using the 2♦ rebid to show three-card heart support has made lightyears headway in the realm of scientific bidding, allowing each partner to express his values and distribution below game level. Obviously, I could write a book on this convention. There are probably lots of areas of follow-up bidding to develop and the world is yours….

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 28

The Wizards of Aus by Ron Klinger

Alan Taylor of New Zealand was the editor of NOT NEWS, the Daily Bulletin for the Summer Festival of Bridge. At the New Zealand National Congress an “Even Homer Nods” award is presented to the expert who does the dumbest thing and Taylor instituted the same idea for our Summer Nationals. Here are two Homer nominees, and remember these are perpetrated by players who have won national championships or played for Australia. This arose in the Australian Swiss Pairs: South dealer Both vul

West ♠— ♥ Q 10 5 3 ♦ 10 7 6 4 ♣AQJ74

South 2NT*

North ♠AKQJ942 ♥— ♦AK85 ♣K5 East ♠7 ♥J42 ♦QJ932 ♣ 10 9 6 2 South ♠ 10 8 6 5 3 ♥AK9876 ♦— ♣83

West pass

North 3♠

East (all pass)

*Majors or minors, weak

Because of his seven-card spade suit,

expert North thought South must have the minors. He therefore bid a non-forcing 3♠, pass-or-correct. The plan was that when South bid 4♣, North would bid 4NT and if South showed one keycard, that figured to be the ♣A and North would then bid 7♠. North eagerly awaited South’s correction to clubs. He is still waiting. This comes from Round 2 of the SouthWest Pacific Teams: West dealer N-S vul

North ♠AK4 ♥AK ♦AQ65 ♣KQ76

West ♠9 ♥QJ8 ♦KJ2 ♣ A J 10 5 3 2

East ♠J862 ♥ 10 9 7 5 ♦ 10 8 4 3 ♣4 South ♠ Q 10 7 5 3 ♥6432 ♦97 ♣98

West 1♣

North pass

East pass

South pass

Expert North (“It was only 25 points, partner”) decided South figured to have next to nothing and so unlikely to have an entry. He therefore opted to defend. As it happens, North-South have an easy time in 4♠ or 3NT.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 29

The first two hands were errors of enormous proportions. Usually the errors of topclass players are more subtle. On this deal from Round 5 of the 2005 World Championships, the Australian West was a wee bit timid in the Open match against Italy, who won the match 23-7. East dealer E-W vul

North ♠96 ♥Q95 ♦ K 10 9 6 2 ♣Q64

West ♠ A J 10 7 2 ♥AJ ♦4 ♣98532

East ♠Q83 ♥ K 10 8 7 4 2 ♦AJ73 ♣—

North Bocchi — 3♣

East Marston 1 ♦* (all pass)

Four spades was bid and made 16 times in the Open, 10 in the Women’s and 14 in the Seniors. East dealer Both vul

South ♠K54 ♥63 ♦Q85 ♣ A K J 10 7 West Thomson — pass ?

support. The heart holding might be useful and you have only seven losers. That is too much for a pass when vulnerable at teams. If not prepared to do that, you need to double 3♣ when that comes back to you.

South Duboin 2♣

*4+ hearts, 10-14 points, can be canapé

Declarer was three down for –150, but that was still worth 11 imps, as 4♠ made 11 tricks for +650 at the other table. In the Seniors Australia vs Denmark both sides reached 4♠. At both tables East opened 1♥, South overcalled 2♣, West bid 2♠ and after 3♣ by North, East raised spades. It is not hard to bid 2♠ if it is not forcing, but even 2♠ forcing is acceptable. As partner is likely to be short in clubs, there is a good chance partner will have spade

North ♠5 ♥QJ753 ♦4 ♣ K J 10 8 3 2

West ♠AKQ6 ♥ K 10 ♦J98732 ♣9

East ♠ 10 4 3 2 ♥8642 ♦AQ ♣765 South ♠J987 ♥A9 ♦ K 10 6 5 ♣AQ4

West Thomson — 1♦ pass pass

North Bocchi — double* 2♣ 3♣

East Marston pass pass pass (all pass)

South Duboin 1♣ 1♠ 2 NT

*hearts

Declarer made ten tricks for +130. At the other table:

Bridge Today • January 2007 East dealer Both vul

page 30

North ♠5 ♥QJ753 ♦4 ♣ K J 10 8 3 2

West ♠AKQ6 ♥ K 10 ♦J98732 ♣9

Seniors: The Danish North-South had a serious misunderstanding here (I was East):

East ♠ 10 4 3 2 ♥8642 ♦AQ ♣765 South ♠J987 ♥A9 ♦ K 10 6 5 ♣AQ4

West Versace — 2 NT (1) double (3) pass

North Markey — 3♥ pass 5♥

East Lauria pass double (2) 4♠ double

South Horton 1 NT 4♥ double (all pass)

(1) four spades and a long minor (2) asking partner to bid his minor (3) diamonds

If the double of 4♠ was for penalties, North had no business removing it. If the double suggested competing further, South should be passing. Four spades doubled is a likely –500, while 5♥ doubled went –500. [Editor’s note: Perhaps all the blame should not be placed on North. I think the 4♥ bid led North astray, deceiving him about South’s heart length.]

Neill West — double* pass

North — 2♦

Klinger East pass pass

South 1 NT pass

*Some 4-major, 5+ minor hand

Clearly North intended 2♦ as a transfer, South took it as natural. All partnerships need to have this position clarified when the double is not for penalties. A sensible agreement is to play “system on” here. Declarer went three down for –300.

West — 1♠ pass (all pass)

Smolanko North — double 4♣

East pass 3♠ pass

Lilley South 1♦ pass 5♣

Opening lead: ♠3

West won and switched to a diamond. East took the ace and returned the ♦Q. Had the ♥K been onside, declarer might have come home. As it was, he went one down for –100, but 5 imps to Australia, who won the match 16-14.

Bridge Today • January 2007

page 31

Letters to the Editor From Hervé Guilbert, Puteaux, France Dear Pam and Matt,

put some pressure on his opponents by his behavior, so-called “table presence.”

I just wanted to fuel the discussion after the article of Mr. Campanile in the last issue of Bridge Today (December 06). I have been playing Chess for 20 years now and have had an international rating for 10 years. Although I’m not an active chess player any more, I wanted to react to some parts of Mr. Campanile’s article.

On this aspect, it’s very interesting that Mr. Campanile uses for his example a characteristic chess player, Lasker. Lasker is noted for his “psychological” method of play in which he considered the subjective qualities of his opponent in addition to the objective requirements of his position on the board. Richard Réti (another Grand Master) even speculated that Lasker would sometimes knowingly choose inferior moves if he knew they would make his opponent uncomfortable, although Lasker himself denied this. But, for example, in one famous game against Capablanca (St. Petersburg 1914), which he needed to win at all costs, Lasker chose an opening that is considered to be relatively harmless — but only if the opponent is prepared to mix things up in his own turn. Capablanca, inclined by the tournament situation to play it safe, failed to take active measures and so justified Lasker’s strategy. Lasker won the game.

Mr. Campanile explains that the result of a chess game mainly depends of the ability of calculation. According to my experience, this assumption is too basic and hides completely the strategic part of Chess. To win a Chess game, you need first to define a global strategic plan (creating weaknesses, building a direct attack, isolating a piece on one wing) and calculation is only a tool to achieve your targets. If you have the opportunity to have a closer look at Chess topplayer games, you can see that the fight is more around imposing their strategic plans than just a question of who will be able to calculate more deeply and accurately the tactic variations. I completely disagree with Mr. Campanile when he says that there is no “table presence” dimension in Chess. I had the great chance to play against Mr. Kasparov (not face to face but in simultaneous play) and I can only say that his body language was very clear about who is going to win the game). I kibitzed numerous top tournaments and it’s clear that “table presence” is an essential part of the top player skill (like in Bridge). You can easily find a lot of anecdotes concerning Tal (World Champion 1960-1961) which describes the way he

The game was a microcosm of Lasker’s style; he invested little study in the opening, was tremendously resourceful in the middlegame and he played the endgame at the highest level. Indeed, even when Lasker was in his late 60’s, Capablanca considered him the most dangerous player around in any single game. I’m not quite sure that Lasker was the link between the two generations of players mentioned. Lasker was defeated by Capablanca (Cuban) in 1921 and Botvinnik (Russia then France) became World Champion only in 1948. During this period, Capablanca and Alekhine were the two top

Bridge Today • January 2007 players. Most of the commentators consider that Capablanca was the last hero of the “old” School and Alekhine, the first of the so called Hypermodern School. It’s interesting to mention that Anatoly Karpov (World Champion 1975-1985) still thinks that Capablanca was the greatest player of all time whereas Kasparov considers Alekhine as the greatest! I really want to thank Mr. Campanile for the deal he gave from London, 1932. I simply didn’t know that Lasker was such a strong bridge player. To conclude this letter, I’m finally very surprised that Mr. Campanile didn’t mention what is, according to my experience, the most important difference between these two games: Chess is basically an individual game whereas at Bridge, you have to deal with your partner! As a former Chess player and a “new” bridge player, I consider this as the trickiest point to master.... Best regards, Hervé Guilbert Reply from Pietro Campanile First of all I would like to thank Mr. Guilbert for his kind words and for taking the time to reply in such detail to my article. I quite agree with most of his points but so, perhaps, does he with mine, albeit unknowingly perhaps. Strategic chess planning, developing weaknesses and so on, are IMHO all part of “calculation.” Such an allencompassing term was meant as the act of extracting the most from any given position, whether towards a slow positional build-up or a lightning fast attack. The “table presence” factor in chess is a misnomer. In bridge, it is used to describe an extraordinary ability to guess layouts and plays well outside what can be inferred

page 32 by simple deductive work. In chess, there is no need and therefore no equivalent for such ability, since the same total information on the position is available to both players. However, because of the “mano a mano” character of the game, one extraordinary personality can sometime inhibit or in some way curtail the analytical potential of his opponent, but such an event can hardly be defined with the same term. In bridge, table presence is essentially a “positive” factor, in chess, what Mr. Guilbert would like to define as such would anyway be completely the opposite. As for historical perspective on who is the best link between the romantic and the hypermodern schools, one could argue till kingdom come. It is a fact that, apart from being World Champion exactly in the “bridging” period, Lasker’s playing style was a exemplary blend of the old, with his relatively narrow opening knowledge and ensuing heavy reliance on the middlegame to gain the upper hand, and the new, with his characteristic “fighting” and “psychological” approach to chess (condensed in the title of his one major chess text book: “The struggle”), which would mark the style of the coming decades. Finally, I would like to share how much I enjoyed delving in the subject and that actually I would have very much liked to analyze it more extensively, including the partnership side, which I, perhaps too reductively, mentioned only as the “social skills” required in bridge.

Happy 2007 to everyone! May all your finesses win, unless you are playing for a drop or a squeeze.